NO TREASON LYSANDER SPOONER PDF

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.

Author: Voodookus Arakus
Country: Philippines
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 9 November 2008
Pages: 51
PDF File Size: 20.87 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.1 Mb
ISBN: 658-6-31935-424-8
Downloads: 83487
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shaktikus

The monarchs and governments, from whom they choose to separate, attempt to stigmatize them as traitors.

No Treason

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.

  CON DINERO Y SIN DINERO CARLOS ELIZONDO PDF

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”.

  CEI 17-113 PDF

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.

NO TREASON LYSANDER SPOONER PDF

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.

Author: Zulukora Tanris
Country: Haiti
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Politics
Published (Last): 17 December 2009
Pages: 103
PDF File Size: 3.99 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.82 Mb
ISBN: 324-3-98148-583-9
Downloads: 1909
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Faejin

Clearly this individual consent is indispensable to the idea of treason; for if a man has never consented or agreed to support a government, he breaks no faith in refusing to support it.

No Treason

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom.

It would be absurd for the most numerous party to talk of establishing a government over the less numerous party, unless the former were also the strongest, as well as the most numerous; for it is not to be supposed that the strongest party would ever submit to the rule of the weaker party, merely because the latter were the most numerous.

There is no more reason, then, why a man should either sustain, or submit to, the rule ylsander a majority, than of a minority. Spooner believed that “if there be such a principle as justice, or natural law, it is the principle, apooner law, that tells us what rights were given to every human being at his birth”. Our power is our right.

No Treason Quotes

In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent! But if, on the other hand, when the Constitution says treason, it means what the Czar and the Kaiser mean by treason, then our government is, in principle, no better than theirs; and has no claim whatever to be considered a free government.

Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct llysander that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others.

With that in mind, Spooner expresses his argument against consent to the majority in seven points that act as closing arguments for this specific section:. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.

We are obliged lyander go out of the instrument and grope among the records of oppression, lawlessness and crime–records unmentioned, and of course unsanctioned by the constitution—to find the thing, to which it is said that the words of the constitution apply. We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent.

Return to Book Page. If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known.

It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us—as for all governments—simply to say: Thus the whole Revolution turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived.

  DIOS VIENE EN UNA HARLEY PDF

And if this action of each individual were valid and rightful when he had so many other individuals to keep him company, it would have been, in the view of natural justice and right, equally valid and rightful, if he had taken the same step alone.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: Because of this belief that not everyone will always be in absolute agreement with the decisions of government, Spooner argues “the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown”, [6] and proceeds to support his claim.

And as matter of fact, it is perhaps never that governments are established by the most numerous party.

He earlier challenged this idea with the Civil War since it is not “consistent for the North to wage war for government based on consent in order to make the South live under the rule of a government it does not want”.

But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.

All he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of “the government”—that is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of “the government,” and have determined to kill everybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand.

The North has thus virtually said to the world: The necessity for the consent of “the people” is implied in this declaration.

And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. This idea was the dominant one on lysajder the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called “peace. The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Section 3 questions how a nation comes to existence, lysanser what is the justification of why the United States remains a nation. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established. The Constitution of No Authority. He knows it only through its pretended agents.

They have the same passions for fame, power, and money, as minorities; and are liable and likely to be equally—perhaps more than equally, because more boldly—rapacious, tyrannical and unprincipled, if intrusted with power.

Even then, only those who voted for an American politician could be said to have consented to the Constitution, not those who voted against, and only for the span of time he voted for every two years, for example. If the instrument meant to say that any of “the people of the United States” would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and np lie.

First, Spooner argues that the North was involved with slavery by simply allowing for its institution to take place in the South in bo for the Southern states to remain part of the Union.

  7477 DATASHEET PDF

There is no other criterion whatever, by which to determine whether a government is a free one, or not, than the single one of its depending, or not depending, solely on voluntary support.

What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible. However, he believed slavery was more important, and found it lyeander that the North allowed for the institution of slavery by not finding ways of ending it in the South.

As long as there is no imminent danger present because of one’s beliefs against the government, everyone’s voice should be respected.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was trfason willing to do so, if the slaveholders could thereby [be] induced to stay in the Union.

Works — Lysander Spooner

On the contrary, those governments, as governments, were organized under charters from, and acknowledged allegiance to, the British Crown. They are men of the same nature as minorities. If the necessity for consent, then announced, was a sound principle in favor of three millions of men, it was an equally sound one in favor of three men, or of one man. 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.

And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money. Even voting, Spooner argues, is not consensual itself, because each potential voter is faced with the choice of either voting, which makes him a master of others, or abstaining, which makes him a slave of those who do vote. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.

They simply exercised their natural right of saying to him, and to the English people, that they were under no obligation to continue their political connexion with them, and that, for reasons of their own, they chose to dissolve it.

And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. He finds problems with the Constitution indicating that it has been created under everyone’s consent, “the people’s” consent. They were his equals, owing him no allegiance, obedience, nor any other duty, except such as they owed to mankind at large. All this, or nothing, was necessarily implied in the Declaration made in 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 lyaander.