Talk:Involuntary servitude

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there a definition for 'voluntary servitude'?
What separates voluntary from involuntary servitude?
Is a stop loss objector in voluntary military service an example of involuntary servitude?
Is compulsory jury duty involuntary servitude?

Could we delete the irrelevant reference to the Libertarian party? 74.251.36.141 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition insufficient

This definition is insufficient, as, from the Marxist point of view, for one example, it does not differentiate between servitude and capitalist free labor. Let's see: Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion applies also to all capitalist free work. Most people in the free world labores against that person's will (i.e., they would not be working in that field if they were millonaires); every worker in the world benefits other people (i.e., the owner of the bussiness); and most people work for economic coercion (i.e., they are forced because they need money).--Againme (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

miltary service of men-only is violation

If military service is duty to the country by its citizens, then it must apply equally to both men and women. By contrapositive, if only men are required to serve, then it is *not* a duty of citizenship per se, rather it's a specific involuntary servitude of specific classes of people in violation of the 13th amendment. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)[reply]

Some argue that on sociological grounds (see e.g., this). Ithas also been argued on legal grounds (see e.g. this). This also discusses gender and conscription. Other relevant sources no doubt exist. Perhaps this article and/or the article on conscription should contain some info on that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I reverted the recent restructuring of the article. It gave an WP:UNDUE voice for Libertarians, blanked an article section, and contained WP:ORIGINAL research from the editor --80.193.191.143 (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, its me. i've been wondering if after all these years you'd like to meet, and go over everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.84.32.50 (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Involuntary servitude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107054234/http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf to http://www.massalimonyreform.org/PDFs/alimony-servitude-peonage.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roe v. Ramption and SCOTUS

This edit saying, " In 1975 and 1993, the Supreme Court rejected such an argument.", caught my eye. It seems only to cite this 1975 decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in support. I am unable to find a SCOTUS decision in either 1975 or 1993 which would provide support. I am not a lawyer, and it is entirely possible that such decisions exist and I just don't know where to look for them. Please clarify and/or correct this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]