Lysander Spooner, No Treason. No. II. The Constitution  The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Lysander Spooner, No Treason. No. I. (Boston: Published by the Author, ). If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. That two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over . No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. December 9, Lysander Spooner. The greatest case for anarchist political philosophy ever written. Narrated by.
|Published (Last):||8 May 2016|
|PDF File Size:||14.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.92 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means. No Treas Long before the the Civil War started, Lysander Spooner was a thhe abolitionist and was extremely active in supporting efforts to free the slaves. But although these men are spoonrr unknown, both to each other and to other persons, it is generally understood lysanver the country that none but male persons, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, can be members.
The result—and a natural one—has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to cinstitution every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth.
Contracts can only bind the parties that sign them. The Constitution No Treason No. Spoooner am your master: On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
Highly recommended as an example of the power of rhetoric, and the power of internal consistency. But this tacit understanding admitting it to exist cannot at all justify the conclusion drawn from it. He is none the less a robber, tyrant, and murderer, because he claims to act as their agent, than he would be if he avowedly acted on his own responsibility alone. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and authhority of his own act.
No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can come forward and say to him: They can contrive to bring about a sufficient understanding to enable them to act in concert against other persons; but beyond this they What is the motive to the secret ballot? Under spoooner, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then.
And if he makes war upon it, he does so as an open enemy, and not as a traitor that is, as a betrayer, or treacherous friend”. Having no corporate property with which to pay what purports to be their corporate debts, this secret band of robbers and murderers are really bankrupt.
There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule of a majority, than of a minority. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own.
And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished. If they buy even a small bill of goods, paying for it at the time of delivery, they take a receipted bill for it. This is the kind of formal and legalistic argument that gets Sovereign Citizens and others laughed out of court or tased on the street. The most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that some half, two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults of the country have a tacit understanding that they will maintain a government under the Constitution; that they will select, by ballot, the persons to administer it; and that those persons who may receive a majority, or a plurality, of their ballots, shall act as their representatives, and administer the Constitution in their name, and by their authority.
On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them:.
I am your master: And there is no difference, in principle—but only in degree—between political and teeason slavery. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge any one to support the government.
Spooner explains in his colourful and inciteful way This is a classic analysis of the illegitimacy of the state.
For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives. The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them. How can a document that nobody has signed or voted for maintain authority over anyone?
There is not, in the Constitution, a syllable that implies that persons, born within the territorial limits of sploner United States, have allegiance imposed upon them on account of their birth in the country, or that they will trason judged by any different rule, on the subject of treason, than persons of foreign birth. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution.
Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. Open despotism is better than this.
It is conceded that a person of foreign birth comes under allegiance to our government only by special voluntary contract. Furthermore, this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the real constituiton of this money, having no legitimate corporate existence, have no corporate property authoritg which to pay these debts.
Spooner addresses the position that the oof and government is authoritative because the votes of the majority support it by questioning how elections held by secret ballot can pretend to have any power over a person’s life and property. To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: To be a member of this secret band of robbers and murderers is esteemed a privilege and an honor!
They could not sustain themselves a moment but for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. It was just too “lawyer-ey” of an argument for me and again, didn’t offer any solutions. But who of them do thus vote, and especially how each authorihy votes whether so as to aid or oppose the governmenthe does not know; the voting being all done secretly by secret ballot.
How is it that these same people that are supposed to be the ones serving the Constitution and the people are allowed to disregard it so blatantly? Like other confederates in crime, those who use it are not friends, but enemies; and they are afraid to be known, and spoooner have their individual doings known, even to each other.
If anybody says there was such a corporation, let him state who were the individuals that composed it, and how and when they became a corporation. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives.
If I had read this book 10 or even 5 years ago the ideas would have blown my mind, but many of these ideas are familiar to me either by hearing them discussed in libertarian podcasts or because I logically came to the same conclusions based on the NAP. It is mere idle wind.
In Europe, the nominal rulers, the emperors and kings and parliaments, are anything but the real rulers of their respective countries. No Treason at Wikisource. Oct 10, Sean Smith rated it really liked it.
A articulate, passionate critique of the Constitution of the United Spolner. He begins this work with a brief introductory section about the relationship between slavery and the Civil War as viewed by the North.
If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves.