I think the problem of definition is that you opened with "slavery, or indentured servitude", and the article here referred to previously existing indenture sys

I think the problem of definition is that you opened with "slavery, or indentured servitude", and the article here referred to previously existing indenture systems where servants breaking their contracts would be jailed. Your wikipedia definition (which I find overly broad) doesn't include what is the salient part, which is what the consequences of breaking a debt bond are. (EDIT: I would say the caveat "within a system of unfree labor" would get the closest, but still leaves this unclear.) A system where you take on a debt, and are jailed if you renege it, is very different than a system where you take on a debt, and can discharge it in bankruptcy. That's the crucial difference, and I think the text makes it clear that Cato are not advocating the former. And I don't see how employment/training is so different from anything else for which you might take out a forfeitable loan. If you're saying that all debts payable to a single creditor are "indenture", then so are mortgages and car loans. The "servitude" part would come about solely as a consequence of it being a loan based on work, rather than anything else.