What do you think?
Rate this book
No Treason
The fiery polemic against the State, and the Constitution, from the individualist anarchist, together with an introduction, annotations and new afterword by James J Martin.
80 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1870
134 people are currently reading
1792 people want to read
About the author
Lysander Spooner
137 books167 followersLysander Spooner was an American individualist anarchist, entrepreneur, political philosopher, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, and legal theorist of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government. He has been identified by some contemporary writers as an anarcho-capitalist,while at least one writer is convinced that his advocacy of self-employment over working for an employer for wages qualifies him as an anti-capitalist or a socialist, notwithstanding his support for private ownership of the means of production and a free-market economy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews
August 14, 2009
I once saw Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” described as the most subversive thing ever written in the United States. Whoever thought this obviously missed the point that Spooner was trying to make when he wrote “No Treason”. The word subversive means that one is advocating the overthrow of a legally constituted government. The whole premise of “No Treason” is that the United State is not a legally constituted government because people can only be governed by consent and no one consented to the “social contract” we call the Constitution. Spooner writes, “The constitution not only binds nobody now, but 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.” If the United States is not legally constituted, as Spooner argues, than his treatise can hardly be described as being subversive.
Spooner spends little time defending the idea that people can only be governed by consent. (He states it as a matter of fact.) Instead, he goes about providing evidence that no single person consented to the Constitution. He does this rather convincingly, but I will not go into the details of that here. I would rather discuss a couple of the other ideas he presents.
Spooner was a staunch abolitionist, but he was also staunchly opposed to Lincoln’s war to prevent Southern independence. He states in “No Treason”:
“If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle---but only in degree---between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”
I think this brilliantly sums up why many libertarians think Lincoln was a tyrant and that the Civil War was unjustified. With slavery, you can not quit your master. The master can govern over you as long as he sees fit without your consent. If you can not quit your government, how is that not slavery? Why can so many Americans see the evils of a master owning a slave but can not see the evil in a territorial monopoly of the law without the consent of those who live within those boundaries? Would we accept a slave owner who said that a majority of his slaves consent to work for him, so he does not need the consent of all of them? Of course not! But is this not what we accept from our government?
Spooner, of course, was also an anarchist. I think he sums up non-anarchists (those who support the idea of government as being necessary) well when he says they come in three groups:
“1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes---a large class, no doubt---each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.”
It is amazing that it has been more than 100 years since this was written, and we pretty much have the same three groups in this country today.
My favorite point made in “No Treason” is made almost in passing. He spends little time on it, but it is none the less thought provoking. He wrote,
“If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace?...Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but of the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others.”
If the system you advocate or believe in is so great why must you use coercion to force it upon me? Why don’t you just institute it for yourself and any others that consent? As long as I do not aggress against you, leave me and my property in peace. By what natural law can you justify using a document I did not sign to claim a territorial monopoly over me and my property. If you look at the Constitution this way, it is not the great protector of liberty but instead little more than a power grab.
This book (actually it is better described as a pamphlet) is at times difficult to read because you really have to stop and think about every line. For this reason I would not suggest it for light reading, but instead suggest you read it with pen in hand so you can make notes. Statist will most likely find it absurd, but minarchist may find themselves flirting with the ideas of anarchy when they are done.
Spooner spends little time defending the idea that people can only be governed by consent. (He states it as a matter of fact.) Instead, he goes about providing evidence that no single person consented to the Constitution. He does this rather convincingly, but I will not go into the details of that here. I would rather discuss a couple of the other ideas he presents.
Spooner was a staunch abolitionist, but he was also staunchly opposed to Lincoln’s war to prevent Southern independence. He states in “No Treason”:
“If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle---but only in degree---between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”
I think this brilliantly sums up why many libertarians think Lincoln was a tyrant and that the Civil War was unjustified. With slavery, you can not quit your master. The master can govern over you as long as he sees fit without your consent. If you can not quit your government, how is that not slavery? Why can so many Americans see the evils of a master owning a slave but can not see the evil in a territorial monopoly of the law without the consent of those who live within those boundaries? Would we accept a slave owner who said that a majority of his slaves consent to work for him, so he does not need the consent of all of them? Of course not! But is this not what we accept from our government?
Spooner, of course, was also an anarchist. I think he sums up non-anarchists (those who support the idea of government as being necessary) well when he says they come in three groups:
“1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes---a large class, no doubt---each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth” and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.”
It is amazing that it has been more than 100 years since this was written, and we pretty much have the same three groups in this country today.
My favorite point made in “No Treason” is made almost in passing. He spends little time on it, but it is none the less thought provoking. He wrote,
“If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace?...Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but of the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others.”
If the system you advocate or believe in is so great why must you use coercion to force it upon me? Why don’t you just institute it for yourself and any others that consent? As long as I do not aggress against you, leave me and my property in peace. By what natural law can you justify using a document I did not sign to claim a territorial monopoly over me and my property. If you look at the Constitution this way, it is not the great protector of liberty but instead little more than a power grab.
This book (actually it is better described as a pamphlet) is at times difficult to read because you really have to stop and think about every line. For this reason I would not suggest it for light reading, but instead suggest you read it with pen in hand so you can make notes. Statist will most likely find it absurd, but minarchist may find themselves flirting with the ideas of anarchy when they are done.
April 29, 2009
Long before the the Civil War started, Lysander Spooner was a strong abolitionist and was extremely active in supporting efforts to free the slaves. Despite this, when war broke out, he strongly opposed it. Spooner contended that the Civil War was less about freeing the slaves than it was about maintaining the union. For him, keeping the South in the union meant violently forcing a large group of people (the Southerners) to be subjected by a government to which they no longer consented.
No Treason was written in 1867, shortly after the Civil War. It is in that context that Spooner uses such strong language when he refers to the government as "robbers and murders" (he uses the phrase, or some variation on it, 38 times in the pamphlet). From his perspective, the government of the United States had just killed hundreds of thousands of men who were defending their right to be governed by consent. The result of this bloodshed was that while the slaves were freed, the surviving Southerners were no longer free to withdraw from the bonds of a government that no longer acted as their agent. Again, Spooner was anti-slavery and at times even advocated using violence to end slavery, but he felt the motivation for the war was not freeing the slaves, but the preservation of the union (and consequential suppression of the South) and that the principal reason for conserving the union was greed.
Not content to simply denounce the government's use of violence to force the Southerners to stay in the United States, Spooner also attacks the authority of the constitution. How can a document that nobody has signed or voted for maintain authority over anyone? He argues that a social contract like the Constitution, one that is not explicitly agreed to like every other contract which must be signed, cannot be binding. One way to think of it is to ask yourself--if you were born into a country with an extremely repressive constitution would you accept its authority to oppress you solely by virtue of your being born into the geographical area over which the constitution claimed to exert authority? Essentially that is what happens with the US constitution, only because it is not considered repressive by most, its authority is generally accepted on these nebulous grounds.
Spooner addresses the position that the constitution (and government) is authoritative because the votes of the majority support it by questioning how elections held by secret ballot can pretend to have any power over a person's life and property. He poses it as a group of men (at this time only men could vote) that gather, and by secret ballot vote to rob and plunder (through taxation and the threat of violence for resisting taxation) their fellow man for their own benefit.
Spooner's logic is complex and deals with many of the nuances of voting for a document and agents (congressmen etc.) to exercise the authority of the document. No Treason is tough reading, not because the it is hard to follow, but because for most people, myself included, the content is jarring, hard to refute, and goes against a lifetime of beliefs. Whether or not he is right is a decision that the reader will have to make, but either way, his arguments should not be ignored. They are just as relevant today as they were more than 140 years ago when he made them.
No Treason was written in 1867, shortly after the Civil War. It is in that context that Spooner uses such strong language when he refers to the government as "robbers and murders" (he uses the phrase, or some variation on it, 38 times in the pamphlet). From his perspective, the government of the United States had just killed hundreds of thousands of men who were defending their right to be governed by consent. The result of this bloodshed was that while the slaves were freed, the surviving Southerners were no longer free to withdraw from the bonds of a government that no longer acted as their agent. Again, Spooner was anti-slavery and at times even advocated using violence to end slavery, but he felt the motivation for the war was not freeing the slaves, but the preservation of the union (and consequential suppression of the South) and that the principal reason for conserving the union was greed.
Not content to simply denounce the government's use of violence to force the Southerners to stay in the United States, Spooner also attacks the authority of the constitution. How can a document that nobody has signed or voted for maintain authority over anyone? He argues that a social contract like the Constitution, one that is not explicitly agreed to like every other contract which must be signed, cannot be binding. One way to think of it is to ask yourself--if you were born into a country with an extremely repressive constitution would you accept its authority to oppress you solely by virtue of your being born into the geographical area over which the constitution claimed to exert authority? Essentially that is what happens with the US constitution, only because it is not considered repressive by most, its authority is generally accepted on these nebulous grounds.
Spooner addresses the position that the constitution (and government) is authoritative because the votes of the majority support it by questioning how elections held by secret ballot can pretend to have any power over a person's life and property. He poses it as a group of men (at this time only men could vote) that gather, and by secret ballot vote to rob and plunder (through taxation and the threat of violence for resisting taxation) their fellow man for their own benefit.
Spooner's logic is complex and deals with many of the nuances of voting for a document and agents (congressmen etc.) to exercise the authority of the document. No Treason is tough reading, not because the it is hard to follow, but because for most people, myself included, the content is jarring, hard to refute, and goes against a lifetime of beliefs. Whether or not he is right is a decision that the reader will have to make, but either way, his arguments should not be ignored. They are just as relevant today as they were more than 140 years ago when he made them.
June 28, 2012
As much as I'd love this to be a sound critique of the state, I cannot overlook the weaknesses of this lengthy self-absorbed rant.
First of all, much if not most of Spooner's argument rests on the belief that every contract needs to be physically signed in full form by publicly disclosed parties in order to be valid. This extremely legalist approach is simply not applicable to the real world. Think of a restaurant - I do not sign anything when I dine in one and I usually do not even disclose my name or other personal information but I would nevertheless never argue that I therefore have a right to leave without paying.
Second, his claim that no one has ever 'signed' the US constitution or had it signed by his duly appointed attorneys is only partially true and to say it is partially true is already quite charitable. There are at least two cases in which one can reasonably be considered to accede to the social contract. One is when parents, acting as legal guardians, register their baby as a citizen. The other is when a naturalized citizen recites his pledge of allegiance.
Third, Spooner's style is severely lacking, as demonstrated by his obsessive use of the phrase "secret band of murderers and thieves" in about every third sentence of this pamphlet.
Only one of Spooner's major arguments holds true in my opinion: that "the people of the United States" is an imaginary entity and thus not a valid party of any contract. It is obviously debatable but a valid point as far as I am concerned.
Spooner was seemingly too obsessed with legal peculiarities of social contract to strike at the real root of the problem - the state's initial claim of monopoly on governance over its territory. As long as this sovereignty is recognized, Spooner's arguments are weak at best and hopelessly moot at worst. But as soon as we question it the arguments of Spooner become unnecessary for their purpose is already served.
First of all, much if not most of Spooner's argument rests on the belief that every contract needs to be physically signed in full form by publicly disclosed parties in order to be valid. This extremely legalist approach is simply not applicable to the real world. Think of a restaurant - I do not sign anything when I dine in one and I usually do not even disclose my name or other personal information but I would nevertheless never argue that I therefore have a right to leave without paying.
Second, his claim that no one has ever 'signed' the US constitution or had it signed by his duly appointed attorneys is only partially true and to say it is partially true is already quite charitable. There are at least two cases in which one can reasonably be considered to accede to the social contract. One is when parents, acting as legal guardians, register their baby as a citizen. The other is when a naturalized citizen recites his pledge of allegiance.
Third, Spooner's style is severely lacking, as demonstrated by his obsessive use of the phrase "secret band of murderers and thieves" in about every third sentence of this pamphlet.
Only one of Spooner's major arguments holds true in my opinion: that "the people of the United States" is an imaginary entity and thus not a valid party of any contract. It is obviously debatable but a valid point as far as I am concerned.
Spooner was seemingly too obsessed with legal peculiarities of social contract to strike at the real root of the problem - the state's initial claim of monopoly on governance over its territory. As long as this sovereignty is recognized, Spooner's arguments are weak at best and hopelessly moot at worst. But as soon as we question it the arguments of Spooner become unnecessary for their purpose is already served.
July 29, 2010
Spooner cuts through the religion of constitution-worship like no other. He holds no punches, even to the point where he openly advocates defensive violence against agents of the State.
He is perhaps the first Libertarian to use the "against me" argument. (What do you advocate being done to me if I don't want to participate in your organization?)
Great essay. Must read of any Libertarian, or anyone who has an iota of faith in the US Constitution.
He is perhaps the first Libertarian to use the "against me" argument. (What do you advocate being done to me if I don't want to participate in your organization?)
Great essay. Must read of any Libertarian, or anyone who has an iota of faith in the US Constitution.
March 11, 2016
Refutes the common fallacy of accepting constitutional government, which has no basis in any sound legal tradition.
February 11, 2023
Lysander Spooner postulates that the Constitution of the United States of America has no legal standing, not to anyone who hasn't personally signed it, and certainly not to their descendants.
In the end, I just can't agree with Spooner. There were certainly points I agreed with (for instance, one cannot be accused of treason to a country they've never declared loyalty to, and being born in a place does not automatically give your loyalty, that government should be run by consent instead of by robber barons, etc.), but Spooner preaches for individual freedoms without a single thought spared to community responsibility, and not once attempts to make it clear how a society could possibly function if people could opt out of taxes however they want (are they to go off to live alone in the middle of the woods so they're not burdened by basic infrastructure?).
His argument largely rests on the belief that the Constitution, and therefore the nationhood of the United States of America is invalid and not legally binding (while never once explaining how he considers them illegal if there is no governing body that has the authority to set laws), and he repeats the same handful of arguments over and over throughout his essays, making it 100 pages of a largely repetitive document.
Furthermore, for all I read that he was an abolitionist beforehand, I found it more than a little distasteful how he decided that paying taxes is, more or less, the same as chattel slavery, especially while living in a time where he doubtlessly witnessed chattel slavery himself.
In the end, I just can't agree with Spooner. There were certainly points I agreed with (for instance, one cannot be accused of treason to a country they've never declared loyalty to, and being born in a place does not automatically give your loyalty, that government should be run by consent instead of by robber barons, etc.), but Spooner preaches for individual freedoms without a single thought spared to community responsibility, and not once attempts to make it clear how a society could possibly function if people could opt out of taxes however they want (are they to go off to live alone in the middle of the woods so they're not burdened by basic infrastructure?).
His argument largely rests on the belief that the Constitution, and therefore the nationhood of the United States of America is invalid and not legally binding (while never once explaining how he considers them illegal if there is no governing body that has the authority to set laws), and he repeats the same handful of arguments over and over throughout his essays, making it 100 pages of a largely repetitive document.
Furthermore, for all I read that he was an abolitionist beforehand, I found it more than a little distasteful how he decided that paying taxes is, more or less, the same as chattel slavery, especially while living in a time where he doubtlessly witnessed chattel slavery himself.
April 29, 2022
Aside from the interesting political philosophy that I still need to think about, this was a pretty fun because it read like a barely contained pressure cooker whose top subsequently blew off and turned into a steaming, eighty-page rant
April 28, 2018
Not an interesting or compelling argument even if I agree with the result
Spooner is a libertarian anarchist, but unfortunately he makes a really dull argument throughout this book, essentially that the constitution is invalid unless 100% of people physically sign their names to it in every generation. This is the kind of formal and legalistic argument that gets Sovereign Citizens and others laughed out of court or tased on the street. While there is some reasonable philosophical argument about the legitimacy of states, territorial monopolies, etc,, the way he makes this argument is less than useless — it generally lowers the stature of libertarianism overall.
He wrote the book/pamphlets in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, so the arguments about treason with respect to the South do make sense, but there are far better ways to make this case.
Probably still worth skimming as a historical document but overrated.
Spooner is a libertarian anarchist, but unfortunately he makes a really dull argument throughout this book, essentially that the constitution is invalid unless 100% of people physically sign their names to it in every generation. This is the kind of formal and legalistic argument that gets Sovereign Citizens and others laughed out of court or tased on the street. While there is some reasonable philosophical argument about the legitimacy of states, territorial monopolies, etc,, the way he makes this argument is less than useless — it generally lowers the stature of libertarianism overall.
He wrote the book/pamphlets in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, so the arguments about treason with respect to the South do make sense, but there are far better ways to make this case.
Probably still worth skimming as a historical document but overrated.
August 20, 2010
Spooner, writing in 1867, heavily criticizes the constitution. While we would hope today that our government would try to live within the restrictions of the constitution, the government of his day had used that document as a justification for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people.
It is especially an interesting read for Mormons. For he logically proves that our government is a secret combination of murderers and thieves.
It is a short read, available as a free mp3, and very provocative.
It is especially an interesting read for Mormons. For he logically proves that our government is a secret combination of murderers and thieves.
It is a short read, available as a free mp3, and very provocative.
July 8, 2015
A short thought provoking work which will definitely get your brain thinking.
Even though this was written during the civil war era, Spooner lays out a clear argument in this work of literature that will definitely have you questioning authority. It's very entertaining and easy to read; and it will certainly be something that I will read multiple times. Highly recommended.
Even though this was written during the civil war era, Spooner lays out a clear argument in this work of literature that will definitely have you questioning authority. It's very entertaining and easy to read; and it will certainly be something that I will read multiple times. Highly recommended.
May 3, 2019
Helps to proves what a scam the government is.
November 28, 2023
Spooner advances a simple yet powerful voluntaristic argument against the political authority of the US constitution. First, he assumes that the only kind of morally justified relations between individuals is that in which they are voluntary, as they respect each individual's natural right to freedom and search for happiness. Spooner then argues that, contrary to its image, the constitution is not a voluntary agreement, contract or oath but an essentially coercive relation between a dominating class and a subjected one. The crucial point is that either consent between the population and those governing it has never in fact occured, or the conditions necessary for consent to happen don't or are impossible to occur under coercive rule. For example, while the "original" contract was a voluntary agreement at the time it was made, the growing population since then has never in fact consented to being treated as the government's subjects; in fact, if this contract is to be legitimate, it must be written, openly presented and signed by all parties -- and even then, it only binds those people at the time the contract was made and signed (i.e. it does not bind next generations, which must renew the contract if it is in their interest to do so). Therefore, the constitution has no authority over the population, and every kind of state imposition upon the population (such as taxation) is at the very least morally wrong.
This is not the only kind of argument Spooner brings to the table; he also tries to analyse the actual intentions behind those governing the US, and he also dabbles a little bit in ideal theory when he argues that ideal (non-coerced) agents would never in principle forfeit their rights and give all power and authority to other individuals. Yet the voluntarist argument is to my knowledge the most important and popular argument in favor of a posteriori anarchism, since it postulates a criterion for political legitimacy that, while in principle achievable by any government, has never in fact been satisfied by any government whatsoever. Moreover, it's also a case for political anarchism, since government must be abolished or at least resisted if we want to guarantee our natural rights. Although coming from an individualist tradition, there's much overlap between Spooner and other european contemporary anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin.
Naturally, some objections are quick to follow. As some have pointed out, Spooner's criterion seems very legalistic in character and because of this might be excessively restrictive. Others might criticize the natural law doctrine that underlies his moral arguments. With regard to at least the first objection, I think it's fair to look at the argument as an attempt at pointing out a kind of moral hipocrisy coming from the government. Because the government insists that legitmate contracts must fulfill certain strict criteria in order for genuine consent between parties to be validated, and because the constitution regarded as a contract does not -- and most likely cannot -- fulfill those very conditions that would make population consent genuine, it is not morally justified by its own standards. I think the more promising way of looking at Spooner's arguments is exactly that: a conceptual coherency challenge that shows that the statist's own criteria for political legitimacy are not satisfied by government rule, therefore defeating his defense of the state.
Theory aside, a problem I have with this text is that from the second half onwards the language starts to get really repetitive and Spooner starts to go for the same ad hominems against the ruling class. While I admire his passion and clarity, it gets unusually emotional at times and ends up losing some focus; also, some arguments are repeated a little too much at times and I felt like I already had gotten the point by the time he presented them for the first time.
Overall this is definitely a great book in the anarchist tradition and I highly recommend it! Though if you really liked this, I'd recommend you read Vices are not crimes; there you will find Spooner at his best...
This is not the only kind of argument Spooner brings to the table; he also tries to analyse the actual intentions behind those governing the US, and he also dabbles a little bit in ideal theory when he argues that ideal (non-coerced) agents would never in principle forfeit their rights and give all power and authority to other individuals. Yet the voluntarist argument is to my knowledge the most important and popular argument in favor of a posteriori anarchism, since it postulates a criterion for political legitimacy that, while in principle achievable by any government, has never in fact been satisfied by any government whatsoever. Moreover, it's also a case for political anarchism, since government must be abolished or at least resisted if we want to guarantee our natural rights. Although coming from an individualist tradition, there's much overlap between Spooner and other european contemporary anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin.
Naturally, some objections are quick to follow. As some have pointed out, Spooner's criterion seems very legalistic in character and because of this might be excessively restrictive. Others might criticize the natural law doctrine that underlies his moral arguments. With regard to at least the first objection, I think it's fair to look at the argument as an attempt at pointing out a kind of moral hipocrisy coming from the government. Because the government insists that legitmate contracts must fulfill certain strict criteria in order for genuine consent between parties to be validated, and because the constitution regarded as a contract does not -- and most likely cannot -- fulfill those very conditions that would make population consent genuine, it is not morally justified by its own standards. I think the more promising way of looking at Spooner's arguments is exactly that: a conceptual coherency challenge that shows that the statist's own criteria for political legitimacy are not satisfied by government rule, therefore defeating his defense of the state.
Theory aside, a problem I have with this text is that from the second half onwards the language starts to get really repetitive and Spooner starts to go for the same ad hominems against the ruling class. While I admire his passion and clarity, it gets unusually emotional at times and ends up losing some focus; also, some arguments are repeated a little too much at times and I felt like I already had gotten the point by the time he presented them for the first time.
Overall this is definitely a great book in the anarchist tradition and I highly recommend it! Though if you really liked this, I'd recommend you read Vices are not crimes; there you will find Spooner at his best...
November 3, 2018
Holy hell. Spooner was a beast.
Shortly after the American Civil War concluded Spooner penned this scathing repudiation of the social contract and the contractarian view of the state in general. He didn’t hold back in the slightest. He referred to the amorphous federal government as “robbers and murderers” about 40 times throughout.
The numbering of the essays can be tricky. No Treason 3-5 were never published so all we have to read are I, II, and VI. I believe he’s mostly known for the last piece which was finished in 1870, the others earlier in 1867. Spooner is rabid and lucid here. I would hate to have been on the receiving end of any of his writings.
Highly recommended to see a different point of view within the framework of the Civil War era. He was an intense abolitionist because he was a very principled individualist/anarchist. Once the Civil War took hold he defended the South as being victim of Northern aggression and for being forced to comply to a government they wished to split with. This is still in line with his principles as he also advocated for using violence to free slaves from Southern oppressors. He was a radical even within radical abolitionist circles. He had a very unpopular opinion that the secessionist South derived its rights from the natural rights of slaves to be free. Neither the Union or the Confederacy agreed with this sentiment.
I’ll add some quotes below:
“The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: 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 short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.”
“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that—however bloody—can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”
“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”
Shortly after the American Civil War concluded Spooner penned this scathing repudiation of the social contract and the contractarian view of the state in general. He didn’t hold back in the slightest. He referred to the amorphous federal government as “robbers and murderers” about 40 times throughout.
The numbering of the essays can be tricky. No Treason 3-5 were never published so all we have to read are I, II, and VI. I believe he’s mostly known for the last piece which was finished in 1870, the others earlier in 1867. Spooner is rabid and lucid here. I would hate to have been on the receiving end of any of his writings.
Highly recommended to see a different point of view within the framework of the Civil War era. He was an intense abolitionist because he was a very principled individualist/anarchist. Once the Civil War took hold he defended the South as being victim of Northern aggression and for being forced to comply to a government they wished to split with. This is still in line with his principles as he also advocated for using violence to free slaves from Southern oppressors. He was a radical even within radical abolitionist circles. He had a very unpopular opinion that the secessionist South derived its rights from the natural rights of slaves to be free. Neither the Union or the Confederacy agreed with this sentiment.
I’ll add some quotes below:
“The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: 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 short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.”
“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that—however bloody—can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”
“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”
May 31, 2020
With the possible exception of the works of Murray Rothbard, this is arguably the most rhetorically brilliant attack against the state. Spooner's fundamental claim is a rather simple one: The federal government of the United States of America is illegitimate because the constitution on which it is based is also illegitimate.
Spooner uses some simple arguments to point out that no reasonable person would ever consider a document like the US constitution as binding on anybody except the people who actually signed it. He forsees a lot of rebuttals to his basic claim and responds to them. Almost all the popular justifications for the authority of the state are addressed.
What is brilliant about this short book is that the arguments apply almost to ALL kinds of governments, at least those that exist today. Despite being written over a century ago, the force of the arguments is still very relevant today.
This book should be read by anyone who is interested in political theory. Although it can be repetitive, it is short enough to be read in one sitting.
Spooner uses some simple arguments to point out that no reasonable person would ever consider a document like the US constitution as binding on anybody except the people who actually signed it. He forsees a lot of rebuttals to his basic claim and responds to them. Almost all the popular justifications for the authority of the state are addressed.
What is brilliant about this short book is that the arguments apply almost to ALL kinds of governments, at least those that exist today. Despite being written over a century ago, the force of the arguments is still very relevant today.
This book should be read by anyone who is interested in political theory. Although it can be repetitive, it is short enough to be read in one sitting.
December 2, 2023
I found this engaging and persuasive as a critique of the social contract that exists within our political system, but while Spooner is excoriating in his description of the (perceived) problem, he does not offer any corrections to the flaws of the system. Thus, unless you are an anarchist—as Spooner is—it is difficult to differentiate between the astute critiques and flawed/unhelpful assumptions which form part of his basis for them.
April 15, 2020
I'm not sensing gratitute...
September 24, 2019
In his very rational and at times humorous paper, Spooner clearly demonstrates the notion of constitutional authority to be absurd. The Founders didn't claim to, nor did they have the authority to legally bind their posterity to a set of unnatural demands. Law is natural, and the decrees of mere mortals masquerading as "laws" are nothing more than the preferences of the powerful enforced by threat of, and if necessary, actual violence.
July 9, 2017
The beginning of this starts out as a warning. "This essay may contradict some of your basic ideas about the world - even if you are a most advanced Thinker, Libertarian, or Anarchist." It didn't and fuck you don't tell me how to feel! REEEE
I thought some of these conclusions were valid and well thought out. Part 17 about fraudulent debts is 100% accurate but even then I was thinking this doesn't go far enough but then again this was written in the mid 1800's so how much could he really know about it? I think to really understand debt and banking you should check out Ken O'Keefe for a modern take on it.
Even though I like what he said about taxes and debt I still am left with the same questions you get from most of these people who rail against it...namely, how do you fix it? When he writes this: "As long as mankind continues to pay "national debts," pretended - that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered - so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers, and blood-money loan-mongers for masters." There's no solution offered. You can't just move out to the woods (or I guess you can but that's not a solution for everyone) so what is it?
The part of this that is dumb is the part that not every single person signed the constitution so therefore it is an invalid document is so dumb though. It was just too "lawyer-ey" of an argument for me and again, didn't offer any solutions. Imagine having to sign a document every time you entered into an agreement with anyone. We have enough bullshit lawyers running around ruining things for normal people. This is not a solution. And also, I love America and its superior culture and people so if you're proposing to tear it all down you sure as shit better have something a hell of a lot better to replace it with.
I thought some of these conclusions were valid and well thought out. Part 17 about fraudulent debts is 100% accurate but even then I was thinking this doesn't go far enough but then again this was written in the mid 1800's so how much could he really know about it? I think to really understand debt and banking you should check out Ken O'Keefe for a modern take on it.
Even though I like what he said about taxes and debt I still am left with the same questions you get from most of these people who rail against it...namely, how do you fix it? When he writes this: "As long as mankind continues to pay "national debts," pretended - that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered - so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers, and blood-money loan-mongers for masters." There's no solution offered. You can't just move out to the woods (or I guess you can but that's not a solution for everyone) so what is it?
The part of this that is dumb is the part that not every single person signed the constitution so therefore it is an invalid document is so dumb though. It was just too "lawyer-ey" of an argument for me and again, didn't offer any solutions. Imagine having to sign a document every time you entered into an agreement with anyone. We have enough bullshit lawyers running around ruining things for normal people. This is not a solution. And also, I love America and its superior culture and people so if you're proposing to tear it all down you sure as shit better have something a hell of a lot better to replace it with.
February 23, 2015
"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
May 21, 2017
This little book is an essay broken up into 3 parts which are legitimacy of the constitution, voting and whether that offers consent to living under the constitution and the final part is taxation and expounds upon the idea of "taxation is theft". I found the first part to be the most interesting and most compelling. The idea of the legitimacy and common unquestioned belief in it is torn apart meticulously and simply opening up a whole new way of viewing the situation many of us live under. It gave me an alternative view of an idea that I never questioned. The second part I enjoyed the least but I think that's due impart to my lack of interest in the subject. The idea of voting is brought up in this part where he defends his belief that voting does not necessarily give consent to living under the constitution. The third part is sure to interest any libertarian and be a very thought provoking idea to anyone unfamiliar with the idea "taxation is theft". He gives a classic and convincing defense for his belief that taxation is indeed theft.
November 28, 2022
very sexy roasting of the legitimacy of USA's constitution. I always love a good roast on usas government. it was very cool of him to live at the time of the civil war and also see that it wasn't just about the abolition, it was about the north defending America and what America stood for but without realising that they were fighting for a different sort of "enslavement", one to the economy itself, while the south were fighting for slavery and also free labour. It also feels like he downplayed what the actual slavery conditions were, considerably worse than the enslavement to the economy as such.
But also if I had to take a shot for every time this man wrote "secret band of robbers and murderers" or "secret voting (by secret ballot)" I would be very very dead
But also if I had to take a shot for every time this man wrote "secret band of robbers and murderers" or "secret voting (by secret ballot)" I would be very very dead
November 19, 2021
Absurdly stupid. A complete waste of time. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, I hated hated hated hated hated this book.
In just 55 gloriously moronic pages, Spooner writes "secret band of robbers and murderers" (or something very similar) 20 times. He also uses the term "pretended" 24 times, mostly followed by "agents", sometimes by "treaty" or "ambassador", just to shake things up a bit. This is like the 19th century version of using names like Obummer or Drumpf for politicians you don't like. If you have to name call the people you're criticising, perhaps it indicates a lack of faith in your actual arguments?
Spooner clearly dislikes gov't forcing people to do things. I'm with him there. But the Consitution is perhaps the greatest achievement in world history in terms of setting up a society where people are free. Millions of people. For centuries now. But since every American didn't personally sign the Constitution, Spooner thinks it is invalid. Okay, fine. Now you have anarchy and you have no solid way to protect people's rights.
It's like publishing a book proclaiming that Magnus Carlsen is a bad chess player and showing all his mistakes, ignoring the fact that he makes less mistakes than any other player. For dogmatists, it's either perfection or nothing.
Spooner offers exactly ZERO analysis of the actual contents of the Constitution. He doesn't offer any economic or philosophic insights. Taxes bad. Government bad. Constitution bad. End of story. Repeated ad infinitum. Never mind what the taxes go to. Never mind what the Founding Fathers said or the context in which they wrote and signed the Constitution.
He doesn't offer a better alternative... or even a worse one! I hate to say it, but I think I'd probably learn more from The Communist Manifesto than this book. Marx might be misguided, but at least he offers criticisms of human nature and capitalism. He might give us some idea of the philosophy behind wanting to help others, even if his conclusions lead to evil and destructive systems.
One of the problems with anarchy is that it leaves you defenceless to coercion, war and tyranny. Nature abhors a vacuum and anarchy creates a massive power vacuum. People will try to fill that vacuum. Since you have no gov't with no authority, revolutionary groups will have no difficulty in seizing power. Then you just have to cross your fingers that these people will implement a system based on freedom.
At best, anarchy rolls the dice as to what system you'll end up with. A constitution guarantees that you'll keep the least bad system for as long as possible. In both theory and practice, it hasn't been beaten.
Spooner, like all anarchists, conflates all aspects of gov't together. Protecting freedom is a completely valid and necessary role of gov't, IMO, based on strict, universal laws, the same for everyone and above even the president/king/whatever. Gov't taking from some to give to others or exercising arbitrary power is completely different. By ignoring the difference, you let flaws in some types of system justify having no system at all! From one extreme to another.
Spooner even compares literal robbers favorably with gov't. I get his point. At least some people are open about the fact that they're hurting you. But not all gov't is like that. And robbers are hardly nice. They may well kill you even if you don't resist. They're despicable.
What would you even do after being robbed without a gov't? If you're poor, what CAN you do? At least with a gov't you can report the incident and they might catch the robber, run a trial and put them in prison. Is that really a bad thing? Is that really coercion if they're punishing coercers?
When it comes to something like murder, is it really necessary to get people to sign a document agreeing that murder is bad and that they won't do it? Respecting the freedom of others should not be a choice, but rather a compulsory requirement for anyone who wants to live in a civilised society. Yes, certain laws should be forced on everyone - the very laws which prevent people from forcing things on other people!
Spooner makes the inane point that the Constitution isn't legally bonding because people didn't agree to it. But without a Constitution, what does "legally bonding" even mean? Without laws, there's no such thing as "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate". People can form agreements and break them at any time. They can murder, steal, rape, etc., without consequence. We see that in black markets all the time - organised crime, gangs, etc. They betray each-other all the time. That's human nature without laws.
He also ignores millions of people who fled socialism to come to capitalist America. By making that choice, are they not agreeing to the Constitution, at least compared to other available systems?
Spooner even seems to criticise the US for ending slavery. Again, I get his point. If people are still forced to pay taxes, in some sense, they're still slaves. But compared to what? The US did abolish slavery while the practice continued in Africa, Asia, South America, etc. But Spooner saves his harshest criticism for one of the few countries which ended the millennia-old institution. Leftists do this as well. The US is sexist, racist and homophobic, even though women, blacks and LGBT people are freer and safer in the US than 90% of the rest of the world.
This book is dripping with Spooner's hatred for the state, regardless of what it does or whether it works compared to anything else in theory or in practice. In other words, he's irrational, emotional and repetitive. But for anarchists, he's a prophet in their religion. For those who care about reality, he's a fraction of the man Lincoln, Grant, Washington and other great leaders were. People who valued freedom and recognised the necessity of law and order as a practical means to protect that freedom.
In just 55 gloriously moronic pages, Spooner writes "secret band of robbers and murderers" (or something very similar) 20 times. He also uses the term "pretended" 24 times, mostly followed by "agents", sometimes by "treaty" or "ambassador", just to shake things up a bit. This is like the 19th century version of using names like Obummer or Drumpf for politicians you don't like. If you have to name call the people you're criticising, perhaps it indicates a lack of faith in your actual arguments?
Spooner clearly dislikes gov't forcing people to do things. I'm with him there. But the Consitution is perhaps the greatest achievement in world history in terms of setting up a society where people are free. Millions of people. For centuries now. But since every American didn't personally sign the Constitution, Spooner thinks it is invalid. Okay, fine. Now you have anarchy and you have no solid way to protect people's rights.
It's like publishing a book proclaiming that Magnus Carlsen is a bad chess player and showing all his mistakes, ignoring the fact that he makes less mistakes than any other player. For dogmatists, it's either perfection or nothing.
Spooner offers exactly ZERO analysis of the actual contents of the Constitution. He doesn't offer any economic or philosophic insights. Taxes bad. Government bad. Constitution bad. End of story. Repeated ad infinitum. Never mind what the taxes go to. Never mind what the Founding Fathers said or the context in which they wrote and signed the Constitution.
He doesn't offer a better alternative... or even a worse one! I hate to say it, but I think I'd probably learn more from The Communist Manifesto than this book. Marx might be misguided, but at least he offers criticisms of human nature and capitalism. He might give us some idea of the philosophy behind wanting to help others, even if his conclusions lead to evil and destructive systems.
One of the problems with anarchy is that it leaves you defenceless to coercion, war and tyranny. Nature abhors a vacuum and anarchy creates a massive power vacuum. People will try to fill that vacuum. Since you have no gov't with no authority, revolutionary groups will have no difficulty in seizing power. Then you just have to cross your fingers that these people will implement a system based on freedom.
At best, anarchy rolls the dice as to what system you'll end up with. A constitution guarantees that you'll keep the least bad system for as long as possible. In both theory and practice, it hasn't been beaten.
Spooner, like all anarchists, conflates all aspects of gov't together. Protecting freedom is a completely valid and necessary role of gov't, IMO, based on strict, universal laws, the same for everyone and above even the president/king/whatever. Gov't taking from some to give to others or exercising arbitrary power is completely different. By ignoring the difference, you let flaws in some types of system justify having no system at all! From one extreme to another.
Spooner even compares literal robbers favorably with gov't. I get his point. At least some people are open about the fact that they're hurting you. But not all gov't is like that. And robbers are hardly nice. They may well kill you even if you don't resist. They're despicable.
What would you even do after being robbed without a gov't? If you're poor, what CAN you do? At least with a gov't you can report the incident and they might catch the robber, run a trial and put them in prison. Is that really a bad thing? Is that really coercion if they're punishing coercers?
When it comes to something like murder, is it really necessary to get people to sign a document agreeing that murder is bad and that they won't do it? Respecting the freedom of others should not be a choice, but rather a compulsory requirement for anyone who wants to live in a civilised society. Yes, certain laws should be forced on everyone - the very laws which prevent people from forcing things on other people!
Spooner makes the inane point that the Constitution isn't legally bonding because people didn't agree to it. But without a Constitution, what does "legally bonding" even mean? Without laws, there's no such thing as "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate". People can form agreements and break them at any time. They can murder, steal, rape, etc., without consequence. We see that in black markets all the time - organised crime, gangs, etc. They betray each-other all the time. That's human nature without laws.
He also ignores millions of people who fled socialism to come to capitalist America. By making that choice, are they not agreeing to the Constitution, at least compared to other available systems?
Spooner even seems to criticise the US for ending slavery. Again, I get his point. If people are still forced to pay taxes, in some sense, they're still slaves. But compared to what? The US did abolish slavery while the practice continued in Africa, Asia, South America, etc. But Spooner saves his harshest criticism for one of the few countries which ended the millennia-old institution. Leftists do this as well. The US is sexist, racist and homophobic, even though women, blacks and LGBT people are freer and safer in the US than 90% of the rest of the world.
This book is dripping with Spooner's hatred for the state, regardless of what it does or whether it works compared to anything else in theory or in practice. In other words, he's irrational, emotional and repetitive. But for anarchists, he's a prophet in their religion. For those who care about reality, he's a fraction of the man Lincoln, Grant, Washington and other great leaders were. People who valued freedom and recognised the necessity of law and order as a practical means to protect that freedom.
April 22, 2021
Someone grab the fire extinguisher because this thing was fire 🔥
August 17, 2022
‘Law and reason’ and ‘robbers and murderers’ be damned. While Spooner’s pints are quite good - especially for the time and want he was writing against - the form absolutely cripples this book. Not to mention a reliance upon natural rights which to my contemporary ears simply doesn’t follow
January 4, 2019
2nd time reading... even better!!! GOV IS A SECRET BAND OF ROBBERS AND MURDERERS
May 6, 2020
The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
Read
May 16, 2021Ingenuo. La incapacidad de concebir complejidad nos hace iniciar todas las empresas de cero, siempre por corazón. Es honrado, porque siempre al emprender algo, en algún momento la complejidad se mostrará y ahí nuestro carácter será exigido: seguir obrando por voluntad (ensimismarse y consecuentemente agotarse) o dar entrada a lo que no soy yo y mis juicios, dejar la razón de lado para tomar parte de la lógica. Eso que en principio me niega para dar paso a las llanas descripciones, lo real. Aquello que no necesita de mí para ser.
Los principio anárquicos que planea Lysander son ingenuos como toda anarquía, ya que no concibe las consecuencias de una sociedad, el estado y consecuentemente su administración: el gobierno. La eficacia del gobierno depende de la competencia que genere el mercado y empiece a tasar servicios fuera de los estatales. En principio todo valor es tasado por aquella banda de "asesinos", el gobierno, ya que se encargan de mantener junta a la sociedad y no se desvirtúe por cada ciclo económico, ósea cada crecimiento empresarial. Ya que esto no dejaría de generar nuevas administraciones una y otra vez.
La competencia del mercado en algún momento (azaroso sin duda) incrementará la tasa de confianza y esto apartará al gobierno de toda hegemonía económica. Pero en un principio es imposible, una sociedad compleja sin un estado y su consecuente gobierno.
Los procesos constituyentes se aplican sobre el mismo sistema, se empieza con una especulación que unos cuantos aceptan para imponérselas a los demás, en busca de una administración para bien o para mal. Pero no hay otra forma, porque cada generación generaría sus propios principios y esto daría una imposibilidad de organización, consecuencias de vivir en sociedad y no en una cabaña apartada de todo.
Los principio anárquicos que planea Lysander son ingenuos como toda anarquía, ya que no concibe las consecuencias de una sociedad, el estado y consecuentemente su administración: el gobierno. La eficacia del gobierno depende de la competencia que genere el mercado y empiece a tasar servicios fuera de los estatales. En principio todo valor es tasado por aquella banda de "asesinos", el gobierno, ya que se encargan de mantener junta a la sociedad y no se desvirtúe por cada ciclo económico, ósea cada crecimiento empresarial. Ya que esto no dejaría de generar nuevas administraciones una y otra vez.
La competencia del mercado en algún momento (azaroso sin duda) incrementará la tasa de confianza y esto apartará al gobierno de toda hegemonía económica. Pero en un principio es imposible, una sociedad compleja sin un estado y su consecuente gobierno.
Los procesos constituyentes se aplican sobre el mismo sistema, se empieza con una especulación que unos cuantos aceptan para imponérselas a los demás, en busca de una administración para bien o para mal. Pero no hay otra forma, porque cada generación generaría sus propios principios y esto daría una imposibilidad de organización, consecuencias de vivir en sociedad y no en una cabaña apartada de todo.
May 8, 2025
No Treason is an interesting series of essays from an anarchist in 1867 arguing that there are serious flaws in the Constitution of the United States. Namely, he takes issue of the Constitution's opt-out approach to citizenship and doesn't think that a document ratified at the founding of the Union should apply now. The title, No Treason, is applied to the defeated states of the Confederacy with the logic that if no one is bound by the Constitution, there is no treason.
By what right, then, did we become “a nation?” By what right do we continue to be “a nation?” And by what right do either the strongest, or the most numerous, party, now existing within the territorial limits, called “The United States,” claim that there really is such “a nation” as the United States? Certainly they are bound to show the rightful existence of “a nation,” before they can claim, on that ground, that they themselves have a right to control it; to seize, for their purposes, so much of every man’s property within it, as they may choose; and, at their discretion, to compel any man to risk his own life, or take the lives of other men, for the maintenance of their power.
To speak of either their numbers, or their strength, is not to the purpose. The question is by what right does the nation exist? And by what right are so many atrocities committed by its authority? or for its preservation?
The answer to this question must certainly be, that at least such a nation exists by no right whatever.
We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent.
May 25, 2021
Really interesting book. I found myself surprised by a lot of what he was saying but ended up agreeing with almost all of it. The only downfall is that it was a little too repetitive, hence 4 stars instead of 5. Spooner has one thing to say and he will make sure you understand it.
The premise is that the US federal government claims to gain its legitimacy from the consent of US citizens (according to the constitution) but that it has veered off course and now claims legitimacy on its own terms, and does not care at all whether you consent or not. His main example is the Civil War, in which a large portion of the nation decided they wouldn’t put up with the federal government any more — you would think that that might be a viable option, if consent really were the basis on which government tested! But it obviously was not, and many thousands of people were killed in the name of forcing two sides to stay in a union that one didn’t want to be a part of. Makes me interested to learn more about the civil war.
Overall a very insightful book (pamphlet, really) and it’s nice to hear differing viewpoints from the stuff you get in school and on the news.
The premise is that the US federal government claims to gain its legitimacy from the consent of US citizens (according to the constitution) but that it has veered off course and now claims legitimacy on its own terms, and does not care at all whether you consent or not. His main example is the Civil War, in which a large portion of the nation decided they wouldn’t put up with the federal government any more — you would think that that might be a viable option, if consent really were the basis on which government tested! But it obviously was not, and many thousands of people were killed in the name of forcing two sides to stay in a union that one didn’t want to be a part of. Makes me interested to learn more about the civil war.
Overall a very insightful book (pamphlet, really) and it’s nice to hear differing viewpoints from the stuff you get in school and on the news.
April 29, 2023
Lysander Spooner was a prominent abolitionist, but foremost, he was an anarchist. After the Civil War, he wrote this series of essays arguing that Confederates hadn't committed treason because the Constitution had no binding force on anyone who hadn't individually agreed to it, or anyone who wanted to rescind their prior agreement.
His case seems beside the point, though. I basically summarized the argument right here, but he belabors it for over a hundred pages. He cites details of normal contract law to show this isn't a valid contract by those standards, and he looks at various government activities (such as taxes) to observe they're all illegitimate without the Constitution having binding force. But, all of this ignores the central question: Are there ways to give a government legitimacy without individual consent? Locke, Hobbes, and others have argued "yes", and I agree with them. Spooner doesn't even interact with those arguments; he simply assumes "no."
So, I admire Spooner's intellectual integrity, but not his reasoning here.
His case seems beside the point, though. I basically summarized the argument right here, but he belabors it for over a hundred pages. He cites details of normal contract law to show this isn't a valid contract by those standards, and he looks at various government activities (such as taxes) to observe they're all illegitimate without the Constitution having binding force. But, all of this ignores the central question: Are there ways to give a government legitimacy without individual consent? Locke, Hobbes, and others have argued "yes", and I agree with them. Spooner doesn't even interact with those arguments; he simply assumes "no."
So, I admire Spooner's intellectual integrity, but not his reasoning here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews