THE LATEST IN THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA: OUR CURRENT FEATURE ARTICLE
Table of Contents
FROM BEHIND ENEMY LINES:A Conservative Libertarian Inside Academia
SOUTHERN HERITAGE: Dedicated to the truth about the War of Yankee Aggression
Constitutional Law
NEW WORLD ORDER, UNITED NATIONS, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN SOVERIGNTY
Why is the government persecuting Ernst Zündel? Click here to visit the Zundelsite
How to Lobby Congress
What is Digg? Click to Find Out
Compiled and Summarized by
Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume
A summary of No Treason No. VI. The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 1870. The first and second numbers of this series were published in 1867. For reasons not necessary to be explained, the sixth was published in advance of the third, fourth, and fifth. The complete text is available at http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm
Part I
No one, by voting, can pledge himself for any longer period of time than that for which he votes. Even then, it cannot be said that a man pledges himself to support the Constitution by voting. Voting is not proof of even temporary consent.
A man is subjected to government without so much as being asked for his consent. That government takes his money by force and coerces him into rendering his services. It takes away so many of his natural rights that he can not resist for fear of severe punishment.
Furthermore, he sees that other men acquire this position of lord over him through the ballot. He also realizes that he might be able to gain relief from this tyranny (and even subject others to his own) by using the ballot himself.
In short, he is, without his consent, placed in a situation where he only has two choices: 1) If he uses the ballot, he has a chance of becoming a master; or 2) If he does not, he will become a slave. Since there is no real option, he rationally resorts to the ballot in self-defense.
Since the ballot is his only chance of self- preservation, it can not be concluded that his voting is “voluntary.” Since he is forced into the situation and provided no other means with which to defend himself, he uses the only option he has. To repeat, because a man votes under the Constitution is not evidence that he freely assents to it, “ even for the time being.”
Taxation, by definition, takes a man's property without his consent—he has no other rational choice but to pay. So, he votes in an attempt to keep that property from being used to his own harm. This is simply not sufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution.
There are three classes of government supporters: knaves, dupes, and a third class.
The third class recognizes the evils of government but do not choose to do anything about them either because they do not see how or they do not want to jeopardize their private interests by working for change.
Knaves see government as a means through which they can aggrandize and/or enrich themselves.
Dupes are the ones stupid enough to buy the propaganda. They believe they are "free men," "sovereigns" and that this is a "free” government of “equal rights,” the “best on earth," and other such absurdities. They have arrived at these beliefs because they are allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what they can do with their own person and property. They are satisfied to have the same voice in “robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering” them.
Paying compulsory taxes is not evidence of voluntary support of the Constitution. The theory (emphasis in the original) of the constitution is that all taxes are voluntary and that government is like a mutual insurance company. Each man freely enters into a voluntary contract with all other men to pay so much money for so much protection. It follows that each man is equally free to not pay tax and, therefore, not be protected under the contract.
But, in this case, theory is completely different from reality. The government is just like an armed robber who says, “Give me your money or I will take your life." Taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
Indeed, government is far more “dastardly and shameful” than the common thief or armed robber. The highwaymen takes upon himself the responsibility and danger associated with his criminal act. He offers no pretense of a rightful claim to your money. Nor does he pretend his intentions to use it for your benefit.
Moreover, after he takes your money, he leaves you alone. He does not follow you against your will and assume himself to be your rightful "sovereign" because of the "protection" he provides you. He does not command you to bow down and serve him. He does not require you to do this or forbid you to do that. He does not rob you of more money as often as he pleases. He does not brand you a rebel or traitor and an enemy to your country. He does not shoot you down without mercy if you dispute his authority or resist his demands. In short, he does not try to make you his dupe or his slave. He is too much of a gentleman.
The thieves and murderers who call themselves "government" are the direct opposite. They do not make themselves individually known or take personal responsibility for their crimes.
As Sponner said himself:
“On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:
Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.”
Part II
All political power arises from money. Any group of “scoundrels” can declare themselves a "government" if they have enough money. They can hire soldiers with money and subsequently, with soldiers, extort more money and compel obedience. These criminals understand that their power rests upon money. Any time their authority is denied, the first thing they do is hire soldiers to kill or subdue everyone who refuses to give them more money.
Anyone who will take a man's money without his consent in the first place, will have no qualms about robbing and enslaving him further. Thus, the only security men have for their political liberty is keeping their money in their own pocket. No (so-called) government can be trusted or assumed to have honest purposes at the point where it ceases to depend completely upon voluntary support.
Until an instrument is put into writing, its precise legal meaning can not be known. In addition, neither law nor reason requires a man to agree to an instrument until it is written. Furthermore, a general principle of law and reason is that a written instrument binds no one until he signs it. In addition, in law and reason dictate that a written instrument must also be delivered to the party (or his agent) in whose favor it is made before it can bind the party making it.
Notice the contradiction between these general principles of law and reason and the actions of the judges who profess to derive their authority from the Constitution—an instrument that nobody ever signed. Said judges would spurn any other instrument brought before them if it were not signed. Further, not only was the Constitution never signed by anybody, it was never delivered by or to anybody. Therefore, it is of no more validity as a contract than any other instrument that was never signed or delivered. This conclusion is consistent with the general sense of mankind that all important contracts should be both written and signed.
Out of common prudence, individuals take precautions to put their contracts in writing, and have them signed in order to guard against uncertainties with regard to their validity. But, as Spooner states it:
“And yet we have what purports…to be a contract --- the Constitution --- made …by men who …never had any power to bind us , but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of …many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions …to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons…that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means.
“Moreover, this supposed contract, which would not be received in any court of justice sitting under its authority, if offered to prove a debt of five dollars…is one by which …all men, women and children throughout the country, and through all time, surrender not only all their property, but also their liberties, and even lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed contract, are expressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which, inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general principles of law and reason …the merest waste of paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind.”
Under the Constitution, as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it, the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people are unreservedly surrendered into the hands of men who will never be "questioned." Senators and representatives act by a two-thirds vote which protects them from the responsibility for all the laws that they make. The whole absolute power of government is in their hands and they are irresponsible for its use. (Editor's Note: It should be kept in mind that Spooner was writing in the 1860s at the beginning of the [Lincoln] usurpation of power by the Executive Branch.)
But the men who hold this absolute and irresponsible power over us dare not be truthful and claim to be our masters or own us as property. Instead, they claim to only be our “servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives.” But this is an absurd contradiction. “No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts.”
Another reason they are not our “servants, agents, attorneys, or representatives” is that we are not responsible for their acts. I am responsible for the acts of any “servant, agent, or attorney” within the limits of the power I have delegated to him. So, if nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, then its members are agents for nobody and are, therefore, individually responsible for their own acts.
On the general principles of law and reason that we all act upon in courts of justice and in common life, the Constitution is not a contract. It binds nobody and never did and all those who pretend to act by its authority are really acting without any legitimate authority. Based on general principles of law and reason, they are “usurpers and everybody not only has the right, but is morally bound, to treat them as such.”
If the people wish to have such a government, let them sign the instrument and thereby make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner and “make themselves…individually responsible for the acts of the government.” But the people have never been asked to sign and the reason is that they never would. “(I)t is not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligations as the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enter into with each other, but never sign.”
If a number of the people believe the Constitution is good, they should sign it. Then they could make laws for and administer them upon each other while leaving the rest of us alone. Why don't they? The reason is because they do not want the Constitution for any honest or legitimate purpose. They want it “for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others.”
So, the Constitution being of no authority, upon what authority does government rest? The most that can possibly be said is that some “majority” of male adults have a tacit understanding that they will maintain a government and select its administrators by ballot and that those administrators will act as their representatives and administer the Constitution in their name, and by their authority.
But this tacit understanding is not justified by its logical conclusion. A tacit understanding between A, B, and C, that they will select D as their agent for the purpose of depriving me of my property, liberty, or life, does not authorize D to do so. Just because he claims to act as their agent, D is no less a robber, tyrant, and murderer.
I am not bound to recognize him as their agent nor can he legitimately claim to be their agent for he brings no written authority from them. Since he has no credentials, I can say he has no authority and am under no obligation to accept his word as to who his principals are.
The ballots by which they select their agents avail no more than their tacit understanding because they are cast in secret. Thus, they avoid any personal responsibility for the acts of their agents. Open despotism is better than the secret ballot for the secret ballot makes a secret government which is nothing but a secret band of robbers and murderers—only a little less than a government of assassins.
This is the only kind of government we are likely to have until men are ready to say: We will consent to no Constitution except one we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign and “we will authorize no government to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.”
Those who use the secret ballot are not friends but enemies of each other. They act in concert against other persons but have no friendship between them. They plunder each other and it is understood among them that the strongest party will, under certain circumstances, murder the others by the hundreds of thousands in order to accomplish their purpose. As a result, they do not dare to be known even to each other. This is the sole reason for a secret government and we are ignorant enough to call it liberty. In fact, it is considered a privilege to be a member of this secret band of robbers and murders. With membership, a man is considered a free man because he has the same power to secretly rob, enslave, and murder other men and this is what they call “equal rights.”
If any man claims the right to govern, let him make and sign an open compact so as to make himself individually known and can legitimately be held responsibility for his acts. Of those who currently support the Constitution, there is not a single one that will ever do this.
No consent, compact, or agreement of or between "the people of the United States" exists. The only consent is between a few individuals who act in concert and call themselves “senators, representatives, presidents, judges, marshals, treasurers, collectors, generals, colonels, captains, etc., etc.” These few individuals can show no credentials from “the people” and do not know their “principals” (as they call them) individually. So consequently, they cannot have any principals at all.
Even if the alleged “principals” did appoint these pretended agents, it was done secretly in order to avoid personal responsibility for their crimes. The only authority for this plunder is a tacit understanding between them that they will “imprison, shoot, or hang every man who resists.”
Thus, the only visible government we have is composed of professed agents of a secret band of robbers and murderers who have assumed the title of "the people of the United States" and assert their dominion over all property and persons. Part III
Furthermore, the oaths that these pretended agents take "to support the Constitution" are not valid because they are given to nobody. There is no is no mutual recognition or agreement between those who take them and any other person. If a man takes an oath in front of a hundred thousand people to enforce “the laws of Moses,” it is of no obligation—not only because it is intrinsically criminal, but also because it was not given to anybody in particular. So, the oaths taken by members of Congress "to support the Constitution" are invalid not only because they are criminal but also because they are given to nobody.
It would not alter the argument to say that, among the hundred thousand persons present when the oath was taken, a few thousand male adults had secretly designated the man to rule, control, plunder, and murder. The fact that they designated the man secretly makes it impossible that there can be any contract because it is impossible, in a legal sense, for a man to pledge his faith to someone he does not know .
Since they are unknown to him, his oath is of no validity to them or anybody else. At most, it is a pledge of faith to an unknown band of robbers and murderers—a confession of being an instrument for plunder and murder.
These oaths are not legitimately or legally given to "the people” because the whole people designated these men as their agents. The great majority of “the people” are never asked or permitted to voice their choice.
The most that can be said is that a band of men tacitly agree to call themselves "the people.” Their purpose is to control and plunder each other and to kill every man who tries to defend his person and property. They sign no papers. There is no open evidence of membership and they are not individually known, even to each other. They vote secretly for agents. Furthermore, there is no way to know whether these secret votes are accurate or not but it is generally accepted that great frauds are committed. Then, all persons so selected take an oath to support the Constitution—a paper drawn up many years ago, never signed by anybody, and is not, and never was, a legally binding contract. “In fact, few persons ever read it.”
No member of Congress has any sort of open, written, or other authentic evidence that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. Based on general principles of law and reason, the oath he takes "to support the Constitution" is an oath given to nobody. It pledges his faith to nobody and so, if he fails to fulfill it, there is not a single person who can say that he has betrayed or broken faith with them. No individual or open body of men can say, I (We) appointed you my (our) attorney to act for me (us) because such an association or body of men does not exist.
For the same reasons, the oaths of all the pretended agents of this secret band criminals are not binding. If any tax-gatherer or treasurer put the money he receives into his own pocket the band could not say, “You collected that money as our agent, for our use and swore to give it to us. You have betrayed us.”
He could say “I never knew you. You have no proof that you belong to the band that commissioned me to rob others on your behalf. You thought I was fool enough to allow you to remain concealed and use me as your tool for robbing others. I took all the personal risk so I propose to take all the profits. I gave my oath to nobody. If I am obligated in any way it would be to return the money to those from whom I took it. It would not be ‘to pay it over to villains such as you.'”
In the same way, the oaths taken by foreigners on becoming "naturalized" citizens are of no validity. They are given to nobody because there is no open association to whom they can pledge their faith. There is no such organization. No man or body of men can produce any proof that the oaths were given to them.
All the oaths given by Southern men are invalid because they were extorted by military power and threats of confiscation. They are in contravention of men's natural right to do as they please about supporting the government, but also because they were given to nobody. On general principles of law and reason, there was no " United States." If anybody claims there was such a corporation let him identify the individuals that formed it and where, when and how it became a corporation.
Nothing of this kind can be proven with respect to the men, who call themselves "the United States." Not a one of them can prove (by legitimate evidence as is required to prove membership in other legal corporations) that there is any such corporation or that he is a member.
The oaths of soldiers are of no obligation. “Without even considering the criminality of the oath (for a given number of years, to kill all whom he is commanded to kill, without exercising his own judgment or conscience as to the justice or necessity of such killing), there is another reason … it is given to nobody .” In no legitimate sense is there any such corporation as "the United States." Therefore, such an oath or contract can not be an obligation.
For the same reasons, treaties entered into with other nations by persons “calling themselves ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators of the United States, in the name, and in behalf, of "the people of the United States," are of no validity.”
Likewise with the debts contracted in the name of “the people of the United States." There is not a particle of legitimate evidence that any of these people agreed to pay one cent. Only a few persons created these debts. These were persons who pretended to represent "the people” but really represented a secret band of criminals who needed money to carry out their robberies and murders with the intention of extorting from the future people by robbery and threats of murder.
The identity of the real members of this band of robbers and murderers is secret. Money was borrowed and loaned by men who could not (and cannot still) identify each other. Furthermore, what appears to be two classes (borrowers and lenders) is really only one and the same—each borrowing and lending to and from the other. As a result they can furnish no proof of contract with each other.
In addition, this money was used for criminal purposes (robbery and murder). Therefore, even if there had been a contract it would have been null and void.
This secret band has no legitimate corporate existence nor does it have any corporate property with which to pay these debts. Although, they pretend to own large tracts of wild lands, under general principles of law and reason, they might as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Thus, the implication that the money can only be repaid from future robberies and murders is essentially a part of these contracts. This alone is reason enough to render the contracts null and void from the beginning.
If these debts were made in an open manner and for honest purposes by the real parties to the contracts, the parties could not have bound anybody but themselves and no property but their own. This, of course, includes persons who came after them and property subsequently created.
In spite of knowing all of this, how can we know who, exactly, composes the real governing power. Who, precisely, are the men who rob us, restrain our liberty and shoot us down? How do we know which persons are responsible so that “we may kill them, and rid the world and ourselves of such tyrants and monsters?”
The answer is that the real rulers are only men who have the will and power to shoot their fellow men down. That is because, by no other means, will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved.
Part IV
Among savages and barbarians it only takes mere physical strength and very little money to rob, enslave, or kill other groups of men. But with so-called “civilized” peoples the instruments of war can be had for money. Consequently, the question of war is a question of power which, in turn, is a simple question of money. The nominal rulers are anything but the real rulers. They are nothing but mere tools of the wealthy to rob, enslave, and murder those with less. Those who furnish the money are the real rulers.
That class of lender would never think of lending money to a neighbor for the purpose of honest industry. Yet they are always ready to lend unlimited amounts to the robbers and murderers who call themselves governments, while knowing full well that these funds are “to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.” They also know full well that the money will only be repaid through extortion by the threat of murder—i.e. the same purpose for which it was originally loaned.
Any ruler who, in his judgment, can keep his people in subjugation (so he can continue to extort money from them) by murdering a “reasonable” number of them will be eager to borrow from these lenders. But why are these lenders so eager to lend money for the purpose of murdering their fellow men? The direct answer is that such loans pay higher interest rates and are less trouble to manage. Therefore, they are considered better investments than loans for the purpose of honest industry.
But for the fact that he is a better customer, these lenders of blood-money care no more for a king than they do for a beggar. They quickly sell the bonds in smaller amounts, get back their money with large profits, and soon become ready to lend again to any other robber and murderer that they judge likely to be successful in his robberies and murders. This is one of the most “sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal“ businesses ever conducted by human beings. The men who conduct it are the worst villains the world has ever seen. They deserve to be hunted and killed as “common slave traders, robbers, or pirates.”
Emperors and kings hire great numbers of professional murderers (they call them “soldiers”) to shoot any who resist their demands for money. And, the enslaved people are forced to support, pay and submit to all the other extortions of these murderers.
So-called governments are totally dependent upon the lenders of blood-money. They could not survive an instant without the loans. As a result, they scrupulously apply the first proceeds of their extortions to the interest. In addition they grant the holders of their bonds great monopolies in banking. Also, through tariffs on competing imports, they give monopolies to specific industries in which lenders of blood-money hold interests. Even further, through unequal taxation, they exempt the property of the loan-mongers and simultaneously increase the burden upon those too poor and weak to resist.
All these men call themselves by the high-sounding names such as president, king, your honor, etc. But, in reality they are “miscreants and wretches engaged in plundering, enslaving, and murdering.” Also they are hangers on—dependents and tools of blood-money loan-mongers who laugh behind their backs and say, “…we will …send them out into the world as beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved, the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require …or …pay …such share of the …robberies as we see fit to demand.”
In this country there is no visible head of these robbers and murderers who call themselves "the government." No single man calls himself emperor, king, or sovereign. But the men who call themselves high sounding names claim to be agents “ for certain short periods, of all ‘the people.'" However, they can not show any credentials or authentic evidence of such agency. In reality they are only the agents of a secret band of robbers and murderers.
Then, the instant their extortions are resisted by "the people," they rush “to the lenders of blood money for the means to maintain their power.” Then, if they use the proceeds to shoot down a few thousand of “the people” (and thereby terrorize the rest), they will be able to repay the loans with the proceeds of future robberies.
It is evident that these “soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers. Look at the facts. Nearly a hundred years ago (remember, Sponner was writing in the 1860s) we claimed to have rid ourselves of the religious superstition that rulers derived their authority directly from Heaven. We supposedly concluded that governments could rightfully exist only by the free will and with the voluntary support of those who might choose to lend it. We also claimed that the only legitimate purpose of government was to provide equal justice and liberty for all.
The lenders of blood money had been accomplices of the slave-holders “ for a purely pecuniary” reason—to control the markets in the South. The effect was to hold the slave-holders themselves in subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North. In turn, the Northern industrialists lent some of the profits for the war for the purpose of securing the same (or even greater) monopolies in the future. Essentially, the North said, if you will not pay our price (control of your markets), we will secure that price regardless of whether our tools be black or white and regardless of the cost in blood and money.
This was the motive for which the money was lent. It was not from a love of liberty or justice but to see to it that the objects of the war were accomplished.
Then, when the lenders demand their pay, the government becomes their tool for extorting it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. This is done by every form of unequal taxation. Furthermore, it is not only the nominal debt and interest that are to be paid. Instead, payment will be doubled, tripled or quadrupled by monopolies in banking and through tariffs which will allow manufacturers exorbitant prices. “In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand…”
These lenders of blood money put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war who says, " Let us have peace." Translation: Submit quietly to the robbery and slavery and we will give you "peace." These are the only terms on which government ever gives "peace" to its people.
The whole affair has been a deliberate scheme to gain a monopoly over the markets and currency of the South and to control industry and trade and thereby enslave the laborers of both the North and the South. Congress and the president are their tools. They (Congress and the president) realize that their power will end the instant they loose their credit with the loan-mongers. They hide their servility and crimes by diverting public attention. For example: They claim to have "Abolished Slavery” and “Preserved the Union” and that they are "Maintaining the National Honor" by paying the “National Debt." (Calling it the "National Debt" makes it sound as if the people who are being taxed had incurred it voluntarily.)
To pretend that the "abolition of slavery" was justification for the war is fraud. Who else but robbers and murderers established slavery? What government except one resting upon the sword could maintain slavery? No, they abolished slavery simply as a war measure. They abolished slavery simply to “conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate.” All restraints upon men's natural liberty that are not for the maintenance of justice are slavery. There is no difference in principle, only in degree.
“If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice … they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace.”
Another lie was that the war was intended to establish, "a government of consent." The reality is that everybody must consent or be shot. They subjugated an unwilling people and called it "Saving the Country" as if an enslaved people kept in subjection by the sword could have a country.
Only when mankind learns to refuse to pay for being “cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered” will he no longer have “cheats, usurpers, robbers, murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
Spooner summarizes in the appendix:
Since the Constitution was never agreed to by anybody, it never bound anybody and does not bind anybody now. It is not the instrument that it is generally assumed to be.
Through “false interpretations, and naked usurpations,” the government has been made into a totally different thing from what the Constitution authorizes. Be that as it may, the Constitution either authorizes “the government we have or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
Copyright ©2004, FlyoverPress.com
Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.
Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.
“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”
He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.
Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author's name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.
FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com
*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.
To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.
OUR SPONSORS
Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Professional Firearms Training at its finest.
Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership
AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.
They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.
Visit their site.
Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses
Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals
Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare
We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books