No treason: The constitution of no authority!!!!

[Citizen]

It is not signed anywhere on the document itself... And Spooner goes into great detail about consent. And if anyone did consent to it they are all dead now!

'sOK, Wolf.

CenTex would rather attack me instead of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Lysander Spooner. I'm easier prey. Its much easier to attack me and my paraphrase than the words of the great men themselves. Especially if he hasn't read:

• Locke's Second Treatise on Government
• Jefferson's letter to Madison quoted and linked right here in this thread
• Spooner's No Treason

Its much easier for him to paste up the names of the people who did consent, while omitting the names of people who did not.

He just proved an underlying point: whether you consent or not, others are going to claim it is binding on you, just because they say so. And, some of them will point a gun in your face to make you comply or tender money. Just because they say it is binding, you are bound. It has nothing to do with whether you consent or agree.

"Brother, our government is binding on you whether you agreed to it or not. And, we are going to make sure you get a lot of it!" All that's missing is a Sicilian, "Capice?"

He doesn't particularly realize we're not even really talking about the same thing. He's talking about "the way things are!" and we're talking about exposing the lies upon which government is founded.

 

[wolfeinstein]

Was a good debate tho. I just want to know one thing, If people don't agree with Spooner's essay No Treason or any part of it, I like to know what part they disagree with?

I used to be a Constitutionalist, but once i started reading opposing views about it, it made more sense why we don't want a Constitution. When we could have a voluntary society with people voluntarily interacting with each other without the threat of violence.

That is why this is the best quote you can ask any one who fiercely supports the Constitution...

"The rules are the Constitution. And, it has either given us the government we have, or was powerless to prevent it."

 

[marshaul]

Was a good debate tho. I just want to know one thing, If people don't agree with Spooner's essay No Treason or any part of it, I like to know what part they disagree with?

I used to be a Constitutionalist, but once i started reading opposing views about it, it made more sense why we don't want a Constitution. When we could have a voluntary society with people voluntarily interacting with each other without the threat of violence.

I don't think the existence of the Constitution prevents a voluntary society. As I argued on the first page, the Constitution is fine to the extent in binds government (although we may debate how much actual "binding" occurs in practice). We can have the Constitution to bind our current government, while accepting the possibility that neither the Constitution nor the government may prevent us from replacing them outright.

The problem is so much not the Constitution, as it is the argument that the Constitution's existence binds me and all my countrymen and our children for all eternity.

 

[HandyHamlet]

When we could have a voluntary society with people voluntarily interacting with each other without the threat of violence.

Dude. Pass the bong. Dude. Pass the bong. DUDE. PASS THE BONG. D-U-D-E! PASS Th... THANK YOU!

 

[wolfeinstein]

The problem is so much not the Constitution, as it is the argument that the Constitution's existence binds me and all my countrymen and our children for all eternity.[/QUOTE]

True!

We know that there is no consent toward the Constitution or toward the Government by anyone because taxation is compulsory.

 

[wolfeinstein]

Dude. Pass the bong. Dude. Pass the bong. DUDE. PASS THE BONG. D-U-D-E! PASS Th... THANK YOU!

So, what part of Spooner's essay do you disagree with?

 

[marshaul]

Dude. Pass the bong. Dude. Pass the bong. DUDE. PASS THE BONG. D-U-D-E! PASS Th... THANK YOU!

So you reject the notion of a government that requires the consent of the people? You find the notion of a voluntary society to be one worthy of ridicule?

 

[HandyHamlet]

So you reject the notion of a government that requires the consent of the people? You find the notion of a voluntary society to be one worthy of ridicule?

No. I find this worthy of ridicule.

"people voluntarily interacting with each other without the threat of violence."

While an admirable fantasy after about four hits and side one of John Lennon's Imagine, that's all it is. A Fantasy. Not to mention how comical that is in a forum who's only purpose is guns. Almost as funny as arguing that the Founding Fathers were such hacks they forgot to mention the Constitution had an expiration date. Funny if it wasn't so disrespectful.

So all you little boys and girls who BELIEVE in fairies clap your hands!

 

[marshaul]

Almost as funny as arguing that the Founding Fathers were such hacks they forgot to mention the Constitution had an expiration date. Funny if it wasn't so disrespectful.

Are you quite sure you understand the argument you are rejecting? What you've said comes across as quite the non sequitur in the context of this discussion.

Nobody has argued that the Constitution has an expiration date. What we have said is that, from its inception, it was binding to the governed with their consent. This has been true since the beginning. There is ample support for this contention in the text of the document and throughout the surrounding debates, and other relevant texts.

As I've said, the Constitution binds our current government as long as that government shall exist. But the Constitution itself ought to only bind the people so long as it bears their consent.

 

[HandyHamlet]

Are you quite sure you understand the argument you are rejecting? What you've said comes across as quite the non sequitur in the context of this discussion.

Maybe you should read the first three sentences of that essay. Actually don't. It's not worth it.

But the Constitution itself ought to only bind the people so long as it bears their consent.

Exactly. So send us a postcard when you get to where ever it is you are going.

 

[marshaul]

Maybe you should read the first three sentences of that essay. Actually don't. It's not worth it.

I've read the entire essay ("No. 6"), and the quote of yours to which I referred is very much a non sequitur in the context of the first three sentences of that essay, or indeed the entire thing, or any portion of it.

You haven't presented an actual argument, however. It seems that "snark", much decried by eye95, is also the substance of your contribution to this thread.

In short, you still haven't joined the discussion. You've merely directed disparaging but irrelevant remarks at those participating in it.

 

[wolfeinstein]

And he would not answer the question on what part he disagrees in Spooner's essay No Treason!

 

[HandyHamlet]

And he would not answer the question on what part he disagrees in Spooner's essay No Treason!

I threw you a bone. I did answer you with one example. It is not my fault one you can't follow along. And the other pretends to not see it. (shrugs)

So by all means continue educating us on how dissolving the Constitution will result in a world filled with love, unicorns, and double rainbows.

 

[MountainMike]

So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it.

Agreed. But this is not a failure on the authors of The Constitutions part. The fact that it can be changed points to their acknowledgement that each generation can choose to rewrite it.

In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters.

Invalid argument. Abstaining from voting is an act of compliance with the status quo.

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being.

Again, invalid argument. Voting is a contract between the individual and government. Elections are very much so agreements between individuals and the elected representative. By voting the individual agrees to be governed and abide by whatever the government decrees.

On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.

We are very lucky that the first congress recognized the individual rights outlined in The Bill of Rights. This situation is precisely the reason the second amendment was written.

Neither in contests with the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet --- because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers.

Thats why we have an electoral college for presidential elections.

As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government.

This is indeed a problem. Currently over 50% of those who vote do not pay taxes.

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.

This is a false argument. The Constitution is not a contract between the people. It is the supreme law of the land to which all interior governments must abide. If anything it is a contract between the state governments and the federal government. The purpose of this "contract" was to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Each amendment in the Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that the individuals rights are given not by the government but rather by God. The intent was to give individuals sovereignty over their own lives.

It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution --- not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those [*23] who pretend to administer it --- the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them.

Checks and Balances, first amendment. Ever heard of them?

Of course his oath, professedly given to them, "to support the Constitution," is, on general principles of law and reason, an oath given to nobody. It pledges his faith to nobody. If he fails to fulfil his oath, not a single person can come forward, and say to him, you have betrayed me, or broken faith with me.

When someone swears an oath either to support and defend The Constitution or to tell the truth in a court of law their right hand is on The Bible. The oath is to God, not to the people. And you can be sure He will hold them accountable.

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is.

After spending the better part of an hour skimming through the essay and dissecting what I believe to be false conclusions this last statement reminded me of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Sounds like an agreement to me.
I do understand where the author is coming from. Much of what he says about an oppressive government is happening as we speak. This is happening in spite of The Constitution, not in accordance.

 

[marshaul]

So, one is giving his consent to be government by voting, and yet would also giving his consent to the status quo, i.e. to be governed, by not voting?

You've taken the only two possible options, and declared that both indicate my willful consent. This simply cannot be so. If it is possible for me to withdraw my consent, there must be a possible action available to me which indicates such withdrawal.

The ramification of your argument is that real consent is irrelevant, and is declared, by the government, on the part of the governed. While you may not, in fact, see any value in consent, consent declared by another on my behalf is no consent at all.

The only means, in your imagining, by which I might demonstrate my lack of consent is armed rebellion, or by leaving the country in which I was born, and to which I am equally, if not more entitled, than is my government.



Oh, and, by the way, I have never said the Pledge of Allegiance while its words meant enough to me for their utterance to have any binding weight or value. From the very first point at which I was capable of considering the nature and object of the pledge, I have refused to make it. Surely what I utter as a child, under compulsion and before having attained the facilities to decide on my own, cannot be held to bind me as an adult.

I've never sworn -- in court or otherwise -- an oath to the Constitution, as I have never held public office nor been engaged in public servitude.

Is there any other means by which you might fallaciously attempt to prove my consent, even in the face of my own assertion that I do not give it?

 

[marshaul]

This is a false argument. The Constitution is not a contract between the people. It is the supreme law of the land to which all interior governments must abide. If anything it is a contract between the state governments and the federal government. The purpose of this "contract" was to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Each amendment in the Bill of Rights recognizes the fact that the individuals rights are given not by the government but rather by God. The intent was to give individuals sovereignty over their own lives.

This is little more than a restating of arguments I made on the first and, again, on the second page of this thread.

This is, in fact, the whole point of what we're arguing. That the Constitution is not a contract between people, which fact leaves us free, as the people, to reject in in favor of a new one, should we ever see fit.

This is the whole point of this thread: that as long as the current government exists it is bound by the Constitution -- at all levels it must be limited by the text of the document -- but that the people might elect to form a new government bound by a new Constitution, something which the Constitution itself expressly authorizes.

This argument is made in the context of Federal assertions that there is no such right, that the people are bound to eternity to our current Constitutional government, as though the Constitution is itself some sort of eternal pact. See: the attempted secession of the Souther states, and the arguments by which said secession was said to be illegal.

It is a separate argument that any given action indicated implied consent. While I may, and Spooner does, take issue with most of those arguments (such as by voting or not voting), they are not the same as the argument that the Constitution does not, itself, indicate our consent.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I think an interesting point to make to all of those that unfalteringly support the constitution and believe that somehow the document itself and its authors are beyond fault is this:

That in my opinion, the ideals and ideas of the some of the founders; mainly Jefferson in my case, were about as good as you can get. The document itself; however well intentioned, leaves much to be desired in that it didn’t prevent the usurpation of our rights. In many ways I don’t believe that ANY document can do that as long as the people, through indifference or malice, don’t remain vigilant or can't keep their fingers out of the cookie jar.

A document that limited the government severely enough to deny all usurpations may make the government ineffectual and impotent to the point as not being helpful to the people that created it whatsoever. We’ve all seen what happens when the opposite is true. What if we use the minarcist libertarian view of what government should be? It would be an interesting experiment but I believe it would fail in time as well to usurpation.

This is where I get on topic:

If we agree with Spooner that the government is operating and infringing without our consent and look at what Marshaul said; that there should be a way to not give consent to be governed, it may be possible to come up with a theoretical “happy medium” between what we have today and what we want. Something that would allow for much more consent than the current situation but still allow some form of government. As an example, let’s say that any individual law is only good for 4 years, at which point it must be brought up for vote again in the legislature or automatically be repealed; therefore not forcing our governance and contract on another generation. This would have other good side effects, greatest among them IMO, that the legislature wouldn’t have enough time to make a lot of new unneeded laws. Also, it would allow for more trial and error without a long period of ill effects. Some would say that this would cause too much economic instability but I would argue that if we started with a government along the lines of the minarcist libertarian view and added the short term law, we wouldn’t have ceded power to regulate the economy in the first place.

What I’ve always thought would be interesting is to get like minded folks such as Citizen, Marshaul, and myself (and don’t think I’m putting myself in the same league as far as historical knowledge!) together in a miniature constitutional convention to come up with a new form of government that we believe would work. If anyone’s up for it; it would be fun to create a thread along those lines.

 

[marshaul]

...it may be possible to come up with a theoretical “happy medium” between what we have today and what we want. Something that would allow for much more consent than the current situation but still allow some form of government. As an example, let’s say that any individual law is only good for 4 years, at which point it must be brought up for vote again in the legislature or automatically be repealed; therefore not forcing our governance and contract on another generation. This would have other good side effects, greatest among them IMO, that the legislature wouldn’t have enough time to make a lot of new unneeded laws. Also, it would allow for more trial and error without a long period of ill effects. Some would say that this would cause too much economic instability but I would argue that if we started with a government along the lines of the minarcist libertarian view and added the short term law, we wouldn’t have ceded power to regulate the economy in the first place.

I think this would be a good start. The default state being no laws (as opposed to all laws never yet repealed), only altered when the people see the need to enact laws (that power defined and limited by the rights of individuals it affects), coupled with universal enfranchisement, might make voting practicable, incentivized, and simultaneously legitimate enough to begin to be argued as implying a government of consent. (This is predicate upon the existence of voting rights for felons, however -- even while serving their sentences.)

I think consideration still needs to be made as to the ability of those who wish to live under no governance to be free from it, absent provable aggression on their part. It is not a simple issue, for as Jefferson noted, the majority will always have, whether right or wrong, the power to pass whatever law they like on the minority.

What I am saying is, while I have no issue with any body taking thieves and murderers and sentencing them to justice -- a justice which may and likely ought to be textually defined and limited -- with no opportunity for those criminals to "opt-out" of the enforcement of said punishment, there also ought to be a way for those who are not aggressors to opt-out of payment for and receipt of services such as, for example, police to do the arresting of the criminals.

A system of voluntary public insurance ought to be operated for the provision of protective services. Also, I think that those services should be purchasable up-front for what they actually cost on a one-time basis. This way so as to provide the freedom to, for example, pay a small regular monthly fee for fire protection, on an insurance model, as well as the freedom to -- having opted not to pay such a fee regularly -- pay for the actual cost of the service should it need to be rendered, as well as the freedom to call a private company on the day your house is set ablaze. (The details of the issue of debt which would inevitably occur from the occasional inability to pay for one-time-basis public services are not relevant to the point at hand.)

Such non-coercive services, coupled with a legislature operating on the premise you've suggested, would go a long way, I think, towards a voluntary society.

One, yes, where we could all take bong hits and hold hands and sing Kumbaya, or whatever it was that it was suggested earlier.

 

[Brass Magnet]

I think this would be a good start. The default state being no laws (as opposed to all laws never yet repealed), only altered when the people see the need to enact laws (that power defined and limited by the rights of individuals it affects), coupled with universal enfranchisement, might make voting practicable, incentivized, and simultaneously legitimate enough to begin to be argued as implying a government of consent. (This is predicate upon the existence of voting rights for felons, however -- even while serving their sentences.)

Hmmm... I'd go along with voting rights for felons that have already served their sentences (along with all other rights) but I think I'd feel better going with voting rights for felons currently serving with one caveat; that it be possible to disable the right through specific due process of some sort. A good example would be someone who isn't mentally capable of being culpable. This goes for other rights of felons as well.

I think consideration still needs to be made as to the ability of those who wish to live under no governance to be free from it, absent provable aggression on their part. It is not a simple issue, for as Jefferson noted, the majority will always have, whether right or wrong, the power to pass whatever law they like on the minority.

You're right, this is exceedingly tough, especially if they innately take advantage of the boons that go along with living under a good government. For example; I’d say that one of the few purposes of a limited government is to protect its citizens from aggression, particularly from foreign aggressors. The government needs some sort of money to do this and if you don’t pay a share of that money, you are getting the benefit for nothing. Whether it’s some sort of militia or a volunteer standing army, some money must be there to keep it regular. It may be also that the person may need to take advantage of the arbitration of the courts for a default on a personal contract with another. IMHO, the money for the government would come from a flat percentage sales tax which would be quite low if the government is limited to the point I’d like it. They key to the government; IMHO, is that it only performs functions that benefit all of its citizens equally; at least on it’s face, and these functions are very few indeed.

What I am saying is, while I have no issue with any body taking thieves and murderers and sentencing them to justice -- a justice which may and likely ought to be textually defined and limited -- with no opportunity for those criminals to "opt-out" of the enforcement of said punishment, there also ought to be a way for those who are not aggressors to opt-out of payment for and receipt of services such as, for example, police to do the arresting of the criminals.

A system of voluntary public insurance ought to be operated for the provision of protective services. Also, I think that those services should be purchasable up-front for what they actually cost on a one-time basis. This way so as to provide the freedom to, for example, pay a small regular monthly fee for fire protection, on an insurance model, as well as the freedom to -- having opted not to pay such a fee regularly -- pay for the actual cost of the service should it need to be rendered, as well as the freedom to call a private company on the day your house is set ablaze. (The details of the issue of debt which would inevitably occur from the occasional inability to pay for one-time-basis public services are not relevant to the point at hand.)

What you outline as far as payment for services is agreeable to me. As long as everything is voluntary, it's about as close as you can get to a consensual government. When you take into account my flat sales tax idea which get's voted on every 4 years even the person who would not like to be governed can mitigate his "loss" by buying more things privately instead of purchasing from retail establishments.

 

[nonameisgood]

What you suggest is what we have: we elect people to generate and repeal laws on our behalf. We started with none and the body of law has grown over time. The solution is to simply to elect different representation.

As to the premise that we consent, it is exactly what we do, everyday, by participating in the society enabled and protected by the words of the founders. Obviously there is an underlying assumption that by being here you agree, and I see the point that since I didn't sign it, I'm not a party to it, but how else do you perpetuate society. People born into utopia agree to live by certain rules or the anarchy will demand sanction against them. Government by another name.

The problem with starting over is that we would never arrive at a replacement document that protects The People, unless it was written by The People. But it would be written by politicians and lobbyists, or dictated by some foreign power (look at all of the recent nation-building attempts.)

For example, do you think we would get a 2nd amendment in Constitution 2.0? They would write in a permit, since it is overwhelmingly supported by the masses, and it would mention hunting instead of alluding to overthrow of government.