
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870) - tux
https://readtext.org/misc/no-treason-constitution/
======
mindcrime
I love Lysander Spooner, and I'm a little surprised to see his works show up
here on HN. I'm not sure how "on topic" this really is, but still kinda glad
to see this. I think everybody would be well served to read Spooner, even if
you don't agree with all of his positions. At the very least, his way of
thinking may challenge some of our pre-existing notions about the nature of
government and authority.

And, of course, I can't say enough about Bastiat's _The Law_ either.
Definitely worth reading if you haven't read it yet.

------
f3llowtraveler
Spooner's essays on the Jury representing the whole people (not merely the
majority), and the criminal intent, are among the most important political
writings. Comparable to Bastiat's "The Law." I recommend "The Lysander Spooner
Reader" \-- and make sure you read it all.

Frankly I don't really believe anyone is educated enough to even have an
informed discussion on politics if they aren't familiar with the arguments
presented in those two books.

------
objectivistbrit
I didn't read the whole thing ('tis long) but I think I got the gist from
skimming it.

One main point is that the US government was meant to be a purely voluntary
contract between men:

"The Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It
never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a
manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon
him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds
no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that
even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,”
before he is bound by a written contract."

The second main point is that government debt is the factor which has shifted
the government from "servant of the people" to the more typical "ruler of the
people":

"On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or
justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of
interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war
were accomplished.

And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so
called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort
it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It
is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation.
Not only the nominal debt and interest—enormous as the latter was—are to be
paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further—and
perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid—by such tariffs on imports as will
enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their
commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep
control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great
body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and
commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and
white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist
upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war."

I'm in favour of a minarchist state, and, not being American, I find the US
from its founding to roughly WWI something close to my ideal of a government
which acts more as a mutual protection agency, rather than as an entity with
an eternal claim on its citizens labour. Some of the Greek city-states also
came close to this ideal.

I don't have time to give a detailed opinion on the argument in this article,
but there's merit to the idea of every citizen having to formally recognise
their constitution. E.g., at age 21, to become an official citizen you
voluntarily sign a contract agreeing to uphold the constitution. (Obviously
this wouldn't work in any current society, I'm talking a capitalist utopia
with voluntary ~5% tax rates to pay for the police and army).

~~~
snowwrestler
The Constitution is not binding, in that people can leave its jurisdiction at
any time--by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. If a person doesn't like the
contract, they can terminate it.

It is a contract, though. That means that terminating it will also terminate
the many benefits of U.S. citizenship. This is a point that, IME, is often
lost on people who want to talk about how the Constitution doesn't bind
anyone. They want to live in the U.S. with all the rights and privileges of a
U.S. citizen, but opt out of taxes, rules, regulations, fees, etc. at their
discretion. That's not how contracts work!

So how do people enter into this contract? They are entered into it by their
parents when they are minors. Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be
subjected to contracts by their parents.

If one wants to look at U.S. citizenship as a contract, then here is the
answer. Just like swim class, summer camp, or private school, your parents get
to tell you what to do, and that includes being a U.S. citizen. Once a U.S.
citizen is 18, they are free to terminate the contract as described above.

~~~
jack9
> It is a contract, though.

I didn't sign it.

> Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be subjected to contracts by their
> parents.

They didn't sign it either. Not one of my ancestors did.

> That's not how contracts work!

That's the point?

~~~
snowwrestler
A person does not have to sign anything to accept a contract and be subject to
its terms.

Anyway, I don't believe that U.S. citizenship is literally the same as a
business contract. My point is that people who _do_ try to make that
equivalence, usually don't understand contracts well enough to make any sort
of logical point.

