9 ms·

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870)

48 points by tux 10y ago

brightball 10y ago
That's basically a writ of anarchy. By his reasoning virtually every government structure in existence does not apply to the people who were born after its formation because they simply didn't agree with it.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  And, what's so wrong with governments always needing the current and ongoing consent of the governed?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. I'm not expressing a judgement on whether or not that's the best arrangement, but that is exactly how it works today. What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? What would the upsides to your plan be exactly? What would be the downsides (including negative unintended consequences), and how would you address them? Would the upsides outweigh the downsides? If not, you've answered your own question. But if so, PLEASE tell humanity about it because we've been trying to figure this stuff out for millennia!
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      There's a wide variety of anarchist literature to choose from. I'm not the best person to ask, though I definitely lean anarchist. Noam Chomsky is among the most famous anarchists that is currently writing on the subject, so his writing is likely a good introduction. David Graeber is another. Both of those folks are coming at it from the left; others come to anarchism or minarchism from the right, which is sometimes called libertarian (with some caveats, as the word "libertarian" has been overloaded to the point of being almost meaningless; I know people who call themselves "libertarian" that support Trump's border wall, or gods' sake!) or voluntarist. Though, left/right, in general, gets a little sketchy as a way to describe a political belief system as the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens.
      - cbd1984 10y ago
        > the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens. Pure majoritarianism doesn't work, you know. It leads to grossly immoral systems which destroy the rights of minorities. There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with.
        SwellJoe 10y ago
        It's wonderful how many straw men reside in discussions of anarchism. I have, nowhere, suggested "majoritarianism" (that was a bear to spell on my phone, which wanted to correct it to "authoritarianism").
        cbd1984 10y ago
        Except without a higher authority to prevent it, majoritarianism is exactly what ends up happening. It isn't a strawman if it's inevitable.
        programmarchy 10y ago
        To you have any evidence to back up that claim, or just a blind assertion? From Majoritarianism [1], quoting anarchist anthropologist David Graeber: > "Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide: 1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and 2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions." Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet: "Where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion. Where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with. Changing the size of government doesn't fix any problem created by majoritarianism. A larger government only makes it so that when the majority gets it wrong, they get it wrong everywhere at once and there is nowhere left to run.
    - jrcii 10y ago
      >You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation To play devil's advocate on this particular point, it could be argued that the place of your birth is by definition your home to which you're entitled a natural right.
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        And this is where I step in and point out that the idea of "natural rights" existing prior to constituted/codified societies cannot be supported by rational argument. The entire concept dates back to 17th- and 18th-century "state of nature" thought experiments that can be demolished by a moment's reflection. The underlying assumption of "natural rights" is, after all, that if some humans were somehow born and grew up in a context where no society -- and especially no modern Western society -- was inculcating them from birth with its code of ethics or enforcing it on them, those humans would somehow spontaneously derive the core values of the modern Western code of ethics from self-evident first principles and then automatically enforce that code on themselves without any external incentive to do so. And that is pure fantasy, and is the point in these HN threads where I often start quoting Thomas Hobbes.
        sverige 10y ago
        Actually, "natural rights" or at least "rights of citizens" is an ancient idea that goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece and further developed in Republican Rome. It was revived greatly with the writings of Machiavelli (who, when you read not only The Prince or The Art of War, but also his Discourses on Livy, was arguably the most ardent republican of the Renaissance). These ideas were picked up by Locke and others and greatly influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers (please don't downvote me just for calling them that; I'm old). The U.S. Constitution was the culmination of centuries of thinking about political power and is remarkable for its distrust of absolute power. Unfortunately, that distrust has been slowly eroded over the last nearly two-and-a-half centuries, beginning with Marbury v. Madison and currently at such a state that presidents enter into war without an act of Congress, judges make law from the bench, and Congress dictates to the executive which cabinet positions must be filled. It was a great experiment, but actually already a failed one in the sense of the original debate back in the 1770s and '80s.
    - dpatru 10y ago
      > What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? I can think of two basic reasons for the existence of government: 1) The idealistic (naive?) view of government is that it exists because some problems in society are best solved by coercion rather than cooperation. Businesses and charities, when they solve problems, lessen the need for government. 2) Bastiat's more cynical view of government was that it "is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Moral instruction and wealth, evenly distributed, would seem to lessen the need for this type of government.
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      Your first sentence is similar to saying that if the Mafia moves into your neighborhood and starts demanding protection money, then you consent to their abuses because you continue to live in your home. That's intimidation, not consent. There are plenty of alternatives to living under a monopoly of violence (a state). Anarchy means "no ruler". Thus, by definition it doesn't tell people how to live. There is no central "plan", dictated from on high, though that doesn't mean there are no rules. The premise is that individuals should be permitted to organize themselves, to experiment and make room for diverse forms of society. Another term for this is polycentric law. How to implement? A great start would be to make taxation voluntary by cutting them from the top down. Allow people to not pay for the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, government compulsory education, corporate welfare, or the numerous other unethical, irrational failed policies forced upon the population. The state is not needed for society to function -- in fact, I'd argue it's a parasitic hindrance that's convinced its host of its legitimacy and necessity. Since anarchist philosophy can't exactly be boiled down into a single HN comment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson, David Graeber, Stefan Molyneaux, Noam Chomsky, Proudhon, Bakunin, and other well known anarchists if you're serious about learning more.
    - floydnoel 10y ago
      >>> You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. >>> What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? Great question. Some here have already mentioned anarchism, which would be great if we could get there- but how could that even happen in the current regime? Most people are not philosophers, and have a hard time imagining things which don't exist here on our little ball of dirt. There is, however, a simple solution which should please anarchists and statists alike: virtual citizenship. Virtual citizenships are the future. As you said yourself, in the current system one must change geographical location to change states, but why should this be so? We are already seeing the beginnings of this with things like Bulgaria's e-citizenship. Don't like the local religious-influenced government? Switch to another. Governments can work out treaties between themselves to establish a baseline of necessities and cost sharing. Changing your government could be simple and easy, which would force governments to compete for citizens. I think most of us realize the benefits of competition vs monopoly. It could become the case that competition between governments becomes so fierce that governments start offering large incentives to join them- such as bonuses or minimum income guarantees. Anyway, that would be my modest proposal for the way forward. This post is the result of thoughtful reflection and is not intended to be trolling in any way. I would appreciate criticisms and responses to my argument. Thank you for reading.
  - diggernet 10y ago
    In the specific case of the U.S. Constitution, it defines the structure of, and limits the power of, the Federal Government. So it governs the Feds, not the people. The governed (bureaucrats and politicians) give their consent by the act of applying for the job. Doubly so, those who must give an oath to the Constitution upon taking the job. Where consent of the governed is lacking is when the government contorts the Constitution to expand their power. Which is why any politician who speaks of "interpreting" the Constitution as a "living document" is not to be trusted.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      Did you read the article linked? It specifically dismisses the idea that the Constitution can be a governing document of people who are generations removed from its ratification. Falling back on a constitutional argument (at least, one that simply says "everyone should follow the Constitution!") is somewhat lazy in response to a specific refutation of the Constitution.
      - diggernet 10y ago
        And I specifically dismiss the idea that the Constitution governs the people. It is the document by which the people (attempted to) govern the Feds. And it provides a mechanism by which the people (including those who are generations removed) can change those laws under which the Feds operate, as well as a way to impose the changes without needing Federal cooperation. Whether the people have adequately enforced their authority, or made appropriate updates to that law, are entirely separate questions, and certainly subject to vigorous debate.
        declan 10y ago
        At the very least I presume you'd acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution lists crimes including treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. I can't think of a more canonical way to "govern the people" than a state actor specifying criminal sanctions that can include the punishment of death...
  - diggernet 10y ago
    You know, it occurs to me that I actually agree with you here, in a round-about way. Since the Constitution provides mechanisms to change it and the government it defines (including complete replacement of the entire document, given popular support to do so), I would argue that the absence of growing support for an amendment indicates majority consent.
- pithic 10y ago
  Not necessarily anarchy. When you join twitter, you agree to be bound by its terms. To envision competing twitters providing arbitration and security services does not take a heroic imagination. If you are not jarred from exposure by this essay to the bone-chilling injustice of our current arrangements, you likely did not read it.
  - cbd1984 10y ago
    I've read it and I think it's juvenile. If you want to opt out of a society, wonderful. Leave it. Most governments will allow you to leave, and I certainly agree that those which do not are tyrannical. However, if you try to opt out and refuse to leave, you're a free rider, getting the benefit from the society without agreeing to the rules which helps make it work. It is immoral to benefit from clean air if you refuse to abide by the laws limiting air pollution. It is immoral to benefit from a functional banking system if you refuse to abide by the laws regulating that banking system. Yes, there are a lot of immoral people in the world. However, waving your immorality around like a flag by saying you don't agree to the system you benefit from is a level to which most of the immoral will not stoop. If you are going to do wrong, at least have the decency to admit you're doing wrong, and attempt to change the system in a constructive way, instead of trying to paint free riding as a moral alternative.
    - colejohnson66 10y ago
      You can't renounce your US citizenship for quite a while after you leave. During that time you have to pay US taxes.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        Or without paying a fee. Which is currently $2,350. (Ironically, you have to pay more to renounce US citizenship, then you have to pay in all the various filing fees etc when acquiring citizenship through naturalization.)
      - cbd1984 10y ago
        As a practical matter, you can evade US taxes if you have no financial contact with the US; the IRS can deem you liable for any amount of taxes and it won't have any effect on you if they're unable to collect them.
- exratione 10y ago
  Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
- int_19h 10y ago
  In this particular case, it is, but it's not necessarily the case. For example, here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say on a similar subject: "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. ... On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." (see http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.h... for the full text of the letter, which includes his reasoning for that 19 years figure) Now, Jefferson was certainly extremely liberal (in the original meaning of the word), but hardly an anarchist. Also of interest is that he thought that the same logic applies to establishing a meaningful duration of copyright and patents.
dchest 10y ago
Audio version: https://mises.org/library/no-treason-constitution-no-authority-0 https://mises.org/library/no-treason-constitution-no-authori...
reptation 10y ago
Yeah, because the founding document of the U.S. is not the Constitution but the Articles of Confederation: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/09/the-constitution-conspiracy/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/09/the-c...
- JoBrad 10y ago
  But the Constitution, once ratified, superceded and contravened most of the Articles of Confederation.
Animats 10y ago
Oh, that. Lysander Spooner, 1867. See [1]. It's a reaction to the Civil War. The philosophy of the U.S. Constitution is discussed better in the Federalist Papers. It's a design document (unlike the Declaration of Independence), put together by people who wanted a system that would work. They didn't want a king (well, Hamilton did); they'd just gotten rid of one. They didn't want a loose association requiring unanimous consent like the Articles of Confederation (or, later, the United Nations); they'd tried that. They didn't want anarchy or dictatorship of the majority; the French Revolution wasn't going well. They didn't want it to be too weak, allowing Britain to come back in and reconquer. (Britain tried in 1812. The British Army got far enough to capture and burn the Capitol before they were pushed back.) Given those design constraints, the authors of the Constitution came up with something rather good. As for anarchy: see "Failed State". You don't want to live there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason
- programmarchy 10y ago
  To clarify, Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist. There's a delightful twist to his argumentation, so don't write him off as merely a racist confederate by the parent's selective regurgitation of eight grade public education history. And the Federalist Papers are a rather dry rehash of the Divine Right of Kings, dressed up in the language of protecting individual rights in order to dupe a newly freed people into accepting a new, better-disguised oligarchy. In my opinion, the philosophy of the U.S. Constitution is much better discussed in Spooner's "No Treason". As for "Failed State", see every government in the history of mankind. Further note the parent's blatant misunderstanding of anarchy by labeling it a state. Anarchy is alive and well today, and always will be so long as free people organize themselves.
Brandanna 10y ago
I opted out of the constitution (a document memorializing the passing of a debt from one party to another) when I expatriated. Best decision I ever made. Some of you should go read a first-year law student's book on contracts, then come back to read this link. You'll have a drastic shift in mindset and understanding.
X86BSD 10y ago
My favorite Lysander quote, which has proven quite true: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." QFT.

48 points by tux 10y ago

That's basically a writ of anarchy. By his reasoning virtually every government structure in existence does not apply to the people who were born after its formation because they simply didn't agree with it.

SwellJoe 10y ago
And, what's so wrong with governments always needing the current and ongoing consent of the governed?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mwfunk 10y ago
  You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. I'm not expressing a judgement on whether or not that's the best arrangement, but that is exactly how it works today. What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? What would the upsides to your plan be exactly? What would be the downsides (including negative unintended consequences), and how would you address them? Would the upsides outweigh the downsides? If not, you've answered your own question. But if so, PLEASE tell humanity about it because we've been trying to figure this stuff out for millennia!
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    There's a wide variety of anarchist literature to choose from. I'm not the best person to ask, though I definitely lean anarchist. Noam Chomsky is among the most famous anarchists that is currently writing on the subject, so his writing is likely a good introduction. David Graeber is another. Both of those folks are coming at it from the left; others come to anarchism or minarchism from the right, which is sometimes called libertarian (with some caveats, as the word "libertarian" has been overloaded to the point of being almost meaningless; I know people who call themselves "libertarian" that support Trump's border wall, or gods' sake!) or voluntarist. Though, left/right, in general, gets a little sketchy as a way to describe a political belief system as the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens.
    - cbd1984 10y ago
      > the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens. Pure majoritarianism doesn't work, you know. It leads to grossly immoral systems which destroy the rights of minorities. There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with.
      - SwellJoe 10y ago
        It's wonderful how many straw men reside in discussions of anarchism. I have, nowhere, suggested "majoritarianism" (that was a bear to spell on my phone, which wanted to correct it to "authoritarianism").
        cbd1984 10y ago
        Except without a higher authority to prevent it, majoritarianism is exactly what ends up happening. It isn't a strawman if it's inevitable.
        programmarchy 10y ago
        To you have any evidence to back up that claim, or just a blind assertion? From Majoritarianism [1], quoting anarchist anthropologist David Graeber: > "Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide: 1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and 2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions." Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet: "Where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion. Where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with. Changing the size of government doesn't fix any problem created by majoritarianism. A larger government only makes it so that when the majority gets it wrong, they get it wrong everywhere at once and there is nowhere left to run.
  - jrcii 10y ago
    >You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation To play devil's advocate on this particular point, it could be argued that the place of your birth is by definition your home to which you're entitled a natural right.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      And this is where I step in and point out that the idea of "natural rights" existing prior to constituted/codified societies cannot be supported by rational argument. The entire concept dates back to 17th- and 18th-century "state of nature" thought experiments that can be demolished by a moment's reflection. The underlying assumption of "natural rights" is, after all, that if some humans were somehow born and grew up in a context where no society -- and especially no modern Western society -- was inculcating them from birth with its code of ethics or enforcing it on them, those humans would somehow spontaneously derive the core values of the modern Western code of ethics from self-evident first principles and then automatically enforce that code on themselves without any external incentive to do so. And that is pure fantasy, and is the point in these HN threads where I often start quoting Thomas Hobbes.
      - sverige 10y ago
        Actually, "natural rights" or at least "rights of citizens" is an ancient idea that goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece and further developed in Republican Rome. It was revived greatly with the writings of Machiavelli (who, when you read not only The Prince or The Art of War, but also his Discourses on Livy, was arguably the most ardent republican of the Renaissance). These ideas were picked up by Locke and others and greatly influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers (please don't downvote me just for calling them that; I'm old). The U.S. Constitution was the culmination of centuries of thinking about political power and is remarkable for its distrust of absolute power. Unfortunately, that distrust has been slowly eroded over the last nearly two-and-a-half centuries, beginning with Marbury v. Madison and currently at such a state that presidents enter into war without an act of Congress, judges make law from the bench, and Congress dictates to the executive which cabinet positions must be filled. It was a great experiment, but actually already a failed one in the sense of the original debate back in the 1770s and '80s.
  - dpatru 10y ago
    > What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? I can think of two basic reasons for the existence of government: 1) The idealistic (naive?) view of government is that it exists because some problems in society are best solved by coercion rather than cooperation. Businesses and charities, when they solve problems, lessen the need for government. 2) Bastiat's more cynical view of government was that it "is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Moral instruction and wealth, evenly distributed, would seem to lessen the need for this type of government.
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    Your first sentence is similar to saying that if the Mafia moves into your neighborhood and starts demanding protection money, then you consent to their abuses because you continue to live in your home. That's intimidation, not consent. There are plenty of alternatives to living under a monopoly of violence (a state). Anarchy means "no ruler". Thus, by definition it doesn't tell people how to live. There is no central "plan", dictated from on high, though that doesn't mean there are no rules. The premise is that individuals should be permitted to organize themselves, to experiment and make room for diverse forms of society. Another term for this is polycentric law. How to implement? A great start would be to make taxation voluntary by cutting them from the top down. Allow people to not pay for the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, government compulsory education, corporate welfare, or the numerous other unethical, irrational failed policies forced upon the population. The state is not needed for society to function -- in fact, I'd argue it's a parasitic hindrance that's convinced its host of its legitimacy and necessity. Since anarchist philosophy can't exactly be boiled down into a single HN comment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson, David Graeber, Stefan Molyneaux, Noam Chomsky, Proudhon, Bakunin, and other well known anarchists if you're serious about learning more.
  - floydnoel 10y ago
    >>> You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. >>> What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? Great question. Some here have already mentioned anarchism, which would be great if we could get there- but how could that even happen in the current regime? Most people are not philosophers, and have a hard time imagining things which don't exist here on our little ball of dirt. There is, however, a simple solution which should please anarchists and statists alike: virtual citizenship. Virtual citizenships are the future. As you said yourself, in the current system one must change geographical location to change states, but why should this be so? We are already seeing the beginnings of this with things like Bulgaria's e-citizenship. Don't like the local religious-influenced government? Switch to another. Governments can work out treaties between themselves to establish a baseline of necessities and cost sharing. Changing your government could be simple and easy, which would force governments to compete for citizens. I think most of us realize the benefits of competition vs monopoly. It could become the case that competition between governments becomes so fierce that governments start offering large incentives to join them- such as bonuses or minimum income guarantees. Anyway, that would be my modest proposal for the way forward. This post is the result of thoughtful reflection and is not intended to be trolling in any way. I would appreciate criticisms and responses to my argument. Thank you for reading.
- diggernet 10y ago
  In the specific case of the U.S. Constitution, it defines the structure of, and limits the power of, the Federal Government. So it governs the Feds, not the people. The governed (bureaucrats and politicians) give their consent by the act of applying for the job. Doubly so, those who must give an oath to the Constitution upon taking the job. Where consent of the governed is lacking is when the government contorts the Constitution to expand their power. Which is why any politician who speaks of "interpreting" the Constitution as a "living document" is not to be trusted.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Did you read the article linked? It specifically dismisses the idea that the Constitution can be a governing document of people who are generations removed from its ratification. Falling back on a constitutional argument (at least, one that simply says "everyone should follow the Constitution!") is somewhat lazy in response to a specific refutation of the Constitution.
    - diggernet 10y ago
      And I specifically dismiss the idea that the Constitution governs the people. It is the document by which the people (attempted to) govern the Feds. And it provides a mechanism by which the people (including those who are generations removed) can change those laws under which the Feds operate, as well as a way to impose the changes without needing Federal cooperation. Whether the people have adequately enforced their authority, or made appropriate updates to that law, are entirely separate questions, and certainly subject to vigorous debate.
      - declan 10y ago
        At the very least I presume you'd acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution lists crimes including treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. I can't think of a more canonical way to "govern the people" than a state actor specifying criminal sanctions that can include the punishment of death...
- diggernet 10y ago
  You know, it occurs to me that I actually agree with you here, in a round-about way. Since the Constitution provides mechanisms to change it and the government it defines (including complete replacement of the entire document, given popular support to do so), I would argue that the absence of growing support for an amendment indicates majority consent.
pithic 10y ago
Not necessarily anarchy. When you join twitter, you agree to be bound by its terms. To envision competing twitters providing arbitration and security services does not take a heroic imagination. If you are not jarred from exposure by this essay to the bone-chilling injustice of our current arrangements, you likely did not read it.
- cbd1984 10y ago
  I've read it and I think it's juvenile. If you want to opt out of a society, wonderful. Leave it. Most governments will allow you to leave, and I certainly agree that those which do not are tyrannical. However, if you try to opt out and refuse to leave, you're a free rider, getting the benefit from the society without agreeing to the rules which helps make it work. It is immoral to benefit from clean air if you refuse to abide by the laws limiting air pollution. It is immoral to benefit from a functional banking system if you refuse to abide by the laws regulating that banking system. Yes, there are a lot of immoral people in the world. However, waving your immorality around like a flag by saying you don't agree to the system you benefit from is a level to which most of the immoral will not stoop. If you are going to do wrong, at least have the decency to admit you're doing wrong, and attempt to change the system in a constructive way, instead of trying to paint free riding as a moral alternative.
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    You can't renounce your US citizenship for quite a while after you leave. During that time you have to pay US taxes.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      Or without paying a fee. Which is currently $2,350. (Ironically, you have to pay more to renounce US citizenship, then you have to pay in all the various filing fees etc when acquiring citizenship through naturalization.)
    - cbd1984 10y ago
      As a practical matter, you can evade US taxes if you have no financial contact with the US; the IRS can deem you liable for any amount of taxes and it won't have any effect on you if they're unable to collect them.
exratione 10y ago
Well, yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner
int_19h 10y ago
In this particular case, it is, but it's not necessarily the case. For example, here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say on a similar subject: "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. ... On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." (see http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.h... for the full text of the letter, which includes his reasoning for that 19 years figure) Now, Jefferson was certainly extremely liberal (in the original meaning of the word), but hardly an anarchist. Also of interest is that he thought that the same logic applies to establishing a meaningful duration of copyright and patents.

dchest 10y ago

Audio version: https://mises.org/library/no-treason-constitution-no-authority-0 https://mises.org/library/no-treason-constitution-no-authori...

reptation 10y ago

Yeah, because the founding document of the U.S. is not the Constitution but the Articles of Confederation: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/09/the-constitution-conspiracy/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2013/09/the-c...

JoBrad 10y ago
But the Constitution, once ratified, superceded and contravened most of the Articles of Confederation.

Animats 10y ago

Oh, that. Lysander Spooner, 1867. See [1]. It's a reaction to the Civil War. The philosophy of the U.S. Constitution is discussed better in the Federalist Papers. It's a design document (unlike the Declaration of Independence), put together by people who wanted a system that would work. They didn't want a king (well, Hamilton did); they'd just gotten rid of one. They didn't want a loose association requiring unanimous consent like the Articles of Confederation (or, later, the United Nations); they'd tried that. They didn't want anarchy or dictatorship of the majority; the French Revolution wasn't going well. They didn't want it to be too weak, allowing Britain to come back in and reconquer. (Britain tried in 1812. The British Army got far enough to capture and burn the Capitol before they were pushed back.) Given those design constraints, the authors of the Constitution came up with something rather good. As for anarchy: see "Failed State". You don't want to live there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

programmarchy 10y ago
To clarify, Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist. There's a delightful twist to his argumentation, so don't write him off as merely a racist confederate by the parent's selective regurgitation of eight grade public education history. And the Federalist Papers are a rather dry rehash of the Divine Right of Kings, dressed up in the language of protecting individual rights in order to dupe a newly freed people into accepting a new, better-disguised oligarchy. In my opinion, the philosophy of the U.S. Constitution is much better discussed in Spooner's "No Treason". As for "Failed State", see every government in the history of mankind. Further note the parent's blatant misunderstanding of anarchy by labeling it a state. Anarchy is alive and well today, and always will be so long as free people organize themselves.

Brandanna 10y ago

I opted out of the constitution (a document memorializing the passing of a debt from one party to another) when I expatriated. Best decision I ever made. Some of you should go read a first-year law student's book on contracts, then come back to read this link. You'll have a drastic shift in mindset and understanding.

X86BSD 10y ago

My favorite Lysander quote, which has proven quite true: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." QFT.