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):||5 June 2005|
|PDF File Size:||10.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. Section 1 mentions the justification given by the North for its participation in the Civil War: If it be said that the consent of the strongest party, in a nation, is all that is necessary to justify the establishment of a government that shall have authority over the weaker party, it Edition: 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: They are simply men, who, for reasons of their own—whether good or bad, wise or unwise, is immaterial—choose to exercise their natural right of dissolving their connexion with the governments under which they have lived.
No Treason Quotes
And there is no difference, in principle—but only in degree—between political and chattel slavery. They are usually, if not always, established by the less numerous party; their superior strength consisting in their superior wealth, intelligence, and ability to act in concert. 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.
In either case it is unfit to exist. If the successors of Roger Williams, within a hundred years after their State had been founded upon the principle of free religious toleration, and when the Baptists had become strong on the credit of that principle, had taken to lgsander heretics with a fury never before seen among men; and had they finally gloried lyssander having thus suppressed all question of the truth of the State religion; and had they further claimed to have done all this in behalf of freedom of conscience, the inconsistency between profession and conduct would scarcely have been greater than that of the North, in carrying on such a war as she has done, to compel men to live under and support a government that they did not want; and in then claiming that she did it in behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent.
S government come from “the People”. Previous to the war, trfason were some grounds for saying that—in theory, at least, if not in practice—our government was a free one; that it rested on consent.
I have evidence satisfactory to myself, that there exists, scattered throughout the country, a band of men, having a tacit understanding with each other, and calling themselves “the people of the United States,” whose general purposes are to control and plunder each other, and all other persons in the country, and, so far as they can, even in neighboring countries; and to kill every man who shall attempt to defend his person and property against their schemes of plunder and dominion.
We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent.
No Treason – Wikipedia
Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. However, when the men and women lived under the rule of the British Crown decided to express their thoughts and act as individuals, their consent was present by not allowing for the rule of Britain to take over their lives, and proceeding to revolt against the British Empire.
On what ground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men’s property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men’s properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?
How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?
And the despotism, and tyranny, and injustice of these governments consist in that very fact. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money.
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
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. The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called “peace.
Spooner argued that merely living treaon 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. While not going under physical slavery, these men had to abide by the rules of the land which denied them “ownership of themselves and the products of their labor”.
Section 4 then restates the question “What is implied in a government resting on consent? A tacit understanding between Treasln, B, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D as their agent, to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so.
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority | Mises Institute
But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably treazon. Perhaps this last explanation is the true one. He then compares the Constitution’s authority to a corporation: He begins this work with a brief introductory section about the relationship between slavery and the Civil War as viewed by the North.
Open despotism is better than this. On the contrary, those governments, as governments, were organized under charters from, and acknowledged allegiance to, the British Crown.