Yes. Slavery, indentures, and other conditions of involuntary servitude have been outlawed by constitutional amendment for a long time, now.
In the particular instance where a parent is obligated to labor for the benefit of a child (possibly even one that is a true genetic descendant) for a term of 18 years, however, the government has seen fit to ignore the legal niceties in order to reduce its own welfare burden for supporting single parents.
In other words, the state ignores its own rule because following it would be expensive, the victims are too poor to fight it, and no one likes deadbeat parents enough to fight it for them. Expedience!
Child support is a political beehive, vigorously defended by partisans on either side of the issue. Approach it with any intent, or even none at all, and you could get swarmed and stung just for being nearby. So I say, with a megaphone from a long way away, that whether it is right or wrong, child support laws do appear to be inconsistent with foundation law.
I consider it unlikely that is why Leo does not want his own bank account. It may be a contributing factor, but I think it far more likely that he does not believe banks to be any more trustworthy than the street thugs that steal anything even remotely of value from him and his cohort. Banking may have been a significant contributing factor in his exit from home-having society. In some ways, the bank simply allows different people to take your money.
As long as it is not attached to him directly, perhaps he feels like it is harder for anyone to steal the idea of him having $10000? If he takes possession, it will get spent or stolen, and then it would be gone, along with the idea of having it. But who could really know for sure from an article that features precious little commentary from its main subject? It may be worth more to him as a floor on his self-worth ("Well, I'm worth at least $10000.") than as cash in hand.
In the particular instance where a parent is obligated to labor for the benefit of a child (possibly even one that is a true genetic descendant) for a term of 18 years, however, the government has seen fit to ignore the legal niceties in order to reduce its own welfare burden for supporting single parents.
In other words, the state ignores its own rule because following it would be expensive, the victims are too poor to fight it, and no one likes deadbeat parents enough to fight it for them. Expedience!
Child support is a political beehive, vigorously defended by partisans on either side of the issue. Approach it with any intent, or even none at all, and you could get swarmed and stung just for being nearby. So I say, with a megaphone from a long way away, that whether it is right or wrong, child support laws do appear to be inconsistent with foundation law.
I consider it unlikely that is why Leo does not want his own bank account. It may be a contributing factor, but I think it far more likely that he does not believe banks to be any more trustworthy than the street thugs that steal anything even remotely of value from him and his cohort. Banking may have been a significant contributing factor in his exit from home-having society. In some ways, the bank simply allows different people to take your money.
As long as it is not attached to him directly, perhaps he feels like it is harder for anyone to steal the idea of him having $10000? If he takes possession, it will get spent or stolen, and then it would be gone, along with the idea of having it. But who could really know for sure from an article that features precious little commentary from its main subject? It may be worth more to him as a floor on his self-worth ("Well, I'm worth at least $10000.") than as cash in hand.