No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (Complete Series)

---

Por que pagamos impostos?

Navigation menu

Every now and then you read one of those books that you know will stick with you for years to come. It will shape and form your thoughts. There will be a lasting impression that will aid in your future decision-making and perceptions. Unexpectedly, for me, that is "No Treason". If you love Rousseau's "Social Contract" you will hate this book; for they are emphatically opposed. Spooner, a rabid abolitionist, affixes his argument on the crux that not allowing the South to uncouple itself peacefully from the Union, defies all that a voluntary government and Constitution ought to be and have been.

For if one cannot leave the union, it is no union at all, but slavery in and of itself. The remainder of the book is not focused on Civil War issues. It is an interesting assessment that the Constitution is not a legitimate contract, for no populous has "signed" it or agreed to its terms. The People are offered two choices, the ballot which is highly rigged or the bullet. It makes men vote for themselves and against others. One man votes to take things from his neighbors. The other man votes in defense of his property.

Ultimately, money is power. The first thing governments do when their authority is denied is hire soldiers to subdue those who refuse to pay. He argues that "governments" don't really exist. At least not in the that we believe because real governments are only made up of a few people.

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Of course, I had plenty of questions throughout. If he believes direct authorization from citizens is better than representatives, then I'm not sure how a nation would proceed with urgent decisions in a timely manner. He speaks against secret ballots, but at the same time Unions have proven that with open ballots, voters face intimidation and physical threat. How would a Constitution become legitimate? Chapter 8 is by far the most thought-provoking in the book. Spooner details the dark secrets of bankers controlling governments.

He specifically calls out the Rothschilds; this is years ago and there is still talk of the Rothschilds owning the world. He explains the mechanics of money-lending to nations. Rulers are ultimately held accountable to the bankers. Rulers can ascend or be deposed at the behest of the bankers. If a ruler loses credit and the investment does not bring forth the interest guaranteed; the ruler is handed over to his own people as a beggar is dismissed. In return of good investments, certain industries are allowed monopolies and unequal taxation.

The burden falls to the poor and the unconnected. Representatives are merely tools.

There is no true justice. Only if the investment proves to pay off is justice then used as propaganda. Spooner explains that the North had no intentions in freeing the slaves. Since the South wouldn't bend to their market manipulations, the North in turn used the slaves against them. At the end of the day, "there was no difference of principle- but only of degree- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

Disclaimer- if anyone can possibly pervert Spooner's views on the Civil War into being "racist" and in support of slavery; there is no word for them but dense. Before you go off to law school, or if you've already had a long career in the legal system, this is a book you need to read.

Ever notice that a lot of people are so ignorant that they attribute words from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution? Or they believe that the Preamble to the Constitution is part of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court found not to be so? Spooner's first pamphlet starts by questioning the reasons for the Civil War, as it was justified under the idea of unity among the citizens of the United States.

However, he believed slavery was more important, and found it outrageous that the North allowed for the institution of slavery by not finding ways of ending it in the South. He makes commentary on the funding of the Civil War by the North, and questions the idea of consent directly stated under the United States Constitution.

Austrian School

He finds problems with the Constitution indicating that it has been created under everyone's consent, "the people's" consent. Spooner acknowledges the fact that total consent is not possible in a democratic government and mentions the separation of majorities and minorities. Additionally, Spooner questions how majority influence may have had more impact on the creation of the nation, instead of everyone, questioning once more the idea of consent and what makes a nation under consent.

Written in , as the shortest of the three essays, No Treason No. He begins this work with a brief introductory section about the relationship between slavery and the Civil War as viewed by the North. First, Spooner argues that the North was involved with slavery by simply allowing for its institution to take place in the South in order for the Southern states to remain part of the Union.

He then quickly moves to discuss the actual war and how many Americans were not in agreement with the decisions of the government of the United States or its ideals, which triggered a desire for secession. Spooner mentioned that those who were non-accepting of the government of the United States faced a type of slavery.

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". The fact that many Americans did not agree with the government of the United States questions the idea of unanimous consent. 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. Section 1 mentions the justification given by the North for its participation in the Civil War: Because consent was given by the people to separate from the power of England, and the same concept is part of the foundations for the Constitution, the North was able to participate in the Civil War, while affecting the lives of thousands as well as spending millions of dollars.

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. Section 2 then poses the question: 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".

This poses as a problem, as the Constitution states that its creation was based under everyone's consent; therefore, everyone should have a say in what goes on with the state. 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:. Section 3 questions how a nation comes to existence, and what is the justification of why the United States remains a nation. Spooner mentions how consent resides within each person, and that numbers should not dictate who starts entities such as political groups.

Therefore, in order or a government to work, consent needs to be present from the people. Section 4 then restates the question "What is implied in a government resting on consent? The problem with equating consent with any type of participation for the state, Spooner argues, cannot be fully achieved, because not everyone necessarily agrees with the ways of showing consent or even with the ideas provided by the government.

What happens to the people who do not believe in the ideals that established the United States? According to the law, it means treason, and Spooner explains: 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". His greatest example is that of the American Revolution against Britain. Just like many Americans were not fond of the British Crown, many newly established Americans did not agree with the doctrine of the newly formed American government.

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. It allows for new ideas to emerge, ideas that can actually help the government.

Clientes que visualizaram este item também visualizaram

The problem with individualism, however, is that it can also isolate membership from the government, which is not desired by the United States. Still, Spooner does not believe it treason should be alleged when one is open about their opinion. In closing the section, Spooner looks on the idea of voluntary belonging to political parties and groups. He argues that it is a natural right to belong where one desires, and that allows for direct, indirect, or no involvement of one's government. As long as there is no imminent danger present because of one's beliefs against the government, everyone's voice should be respected.

Spooner, a lawyer, starts "No Authority" by examining its potential validity as a binding contract, pointing out that the US Constitution could have no inherent, lasting authority, except as a contract between men, and that it only claims to be one between the people existing when it was written. Quoting the famous preamble of the Constitution, Spooner then goes on to say that though it cites "posterity", it doesn't claim to have any power to bind that posterity. He then compares the Constitution's authority to a corporation: 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.

Additionally, he points out that even if voting counts as voluntarily taking ownership, only about one sixth of Americans at that time, when slavery had just ended and women could not vote had historically been allowed to vote. 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. 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.

And those whose supported candidate loses can't really be considered to have bindingly supported the Constitution, as they lost, and anyway some may vote specifically with the intent of undermining the Constitution.

• Sonata Bb Major K249 - Keyboard
• MARLA
• Allocating Scholarships for Army ROTC
• Ackerlandschaften: Nachhaltigkeit und Naturschutz auf ertragsschwachen Standorten (German Edition)
• The Cocktailian Chronicles: Life with The Professor
• Seventh Heaven
• Ratgeber Rechenstörungen; Informationen für Betroffene, Eltern, Lehrer und Erzieher (Ratgeber Kinder