No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority [Lysander Spooner] on Amazon. com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. But whether the Constitution really be . 10 Jan Treason by Lysander Spooner · No. 1.→ Spooner issued three pamphlets carrying the title of No Treason, numbered 1, II, and VI. Spooner. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. December 9, Lysander Spooner. The greatest case for anarchist political philosophy ever written. Narrated by.
|Published (Last):||9 November 2008|
|PDF File Size:||20.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The monarchs and governments, from whom they choose to separate, attempt to stigmatize them as traitors.
Section 1 mentions the justification given by the North for its participation in the Civil War: What happens to the people who do not believe in the ideals that established the Epooner States?
Spooner argued that merely living in a certain geographic area under control of a government, or voting in government elections, in no way implied one’s consent to the government of that territory.
But for this latter reason, all their eulogiums on the Constitution, all their exhortations, and all their expenditures of money and blood to sustain it, would be wanting. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown. He finds problems with the Constitution indicating that it has been created under everyone’s consent, “the people’s” consent. The most that can be inferred from the form, “We, the people,” is, that the instrument offered membership lysanderr all “the people of the United States;” leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure.
My will is law: If anyone denies my right, let him sponer conclusions with me.
No Treason – Wikisource, the free online library
The necessity for the consent of “the people” is implied in this declaration. Its preamble implies that the powers of the U. Therefore, in order or a government to work, consent needs to be present from the people.
Taxes, Lysander states, cannot be claimed as proof of consent, because they are compulsory, therefore not consensual. But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.
Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can spoooner of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others.
And all governments—though the best on earth in other respects—are nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people—whether few or many—who are compelled to support them against their will. Elections mean nothing; for Spooner showed that a majority of people never vote, and of those ttreason do, the number supporting the elected candidates is so small as a percentage of the population as to be ludicrous.
It was also only as so many individuals, each acting for himself, and exercising simply his natural rights, that they revolutionized the constitutional character of their local governments, so as to exclude the idea of allegiance to Great Britain ; changing their forms only as and when their convenience dictated. All this, or nothing, was necessarily implied in the Declaration made in Spooner is outraged at the fact that the state claims to act in the name of liberty and a free government and questions the idea of consent to it himself.
So far, therefore, as the Colonial Legislatures acted as revolutionists, they acted only as so many individual revolutionists, and not as constitutional legislatures. We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent.
apooner Section 3 questions how a nation comes to existence, and what is the justification of why the United States remains a nation.
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”. The corporation can exist past the lifespan of its original owners, but only by people taking ownership of it voluntarily over time, not by some kind of forced ownership by descendents.
If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered: He strongly believed in the idea of natural lawwhich he also described as “the science of justice,” which he defined as “the science of all human rights; of all man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
In closing the section, Spooner looks on the idea of spoonre belonging to political parties and groups. How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of all his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt?
And when we have found this thing, which the constitution dare not name, we find that the constitution has sanctioned it if at all only by enigmatical words, by unnecessary implication and inference, by innuendo and double entendre, and under a name that entirely fails of describing the thing.
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority | Mises Institute
These treeason are formed simply by the consent or agreement of the strongest party, that they will act in concert in subjecting the weaker party to their dominion. It allows for new ideas to emerge, ideas that can actually help the government.
If it be said that the consent of the most numerous party, in a nation, is sufficient to justify the establishment of their power over the less numerous party, it may be answered:.
If our fathers, inhad acknowledged the principle that a majority had the right to rule the minority, we should never have become a nation; for they were in a small minority, as compared with those who claimed the right to rule over them.