I didn't read the whole thing ('tis long) but I think I got the gist from skimming it.
One main point is that the US government was meant to be a purely voluntary contract between men:
"The Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.
It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract."
The second main point is that government debt is the factor which has shifted the government from "servant of the people" to the more typical "ruler of the people":
"On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.
And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest—enormous as the latter was—are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further—and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid—by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war."
I'm in favour of a minarchist state, and, not being American, I find the US from its founding to roughly WWI something close to my ideal of a government which acts more as a mutual protection agency, rather than as an entity with an eternal claim on its citizens labour. Some of the Greek city-states also came close to this ideal.
I don't have time to give a detailed opinion on the argument in this article, but there's merit to the idea of every citizen having to formally recognise their constitution. E.g., at age 21, to become an official citizen you voluntarily sign a contract agreeing to uphold the constitution. (Obviously this wouldn't work in any current society, I'm talking a capitalist utopia with voluntary ~5% tax rates to pay for the police and army).
The Constitution is not binding, in that people can leave its jurisdiction at any time--by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. If a person doesn't like the contract, they can terminate it.
It is a contract, though. That means that terminating it will also terminate the many benefits of U.S. citizenship. This is a point that, IME, is often lost on people who want to talk about how the Constitution doesn't bind anyone. They want to live in the U.S. with all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen, but opt out of taxes, rules, regulations, fees, etc. at their discretion. That's not how contracts work!
So how do people enter into this contract? They are entered into it by their parents when they are minors. Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be subjected to contracts by their parents.
If one wants to look at U.S. citizenship as a contract, then here is the answer. Just like swim class, summer camp, or private school, your parents get to tell you what to do, and that includes being a U.S. citizen. Once a U.S. citizen is 18, they are free to terminate the contract as described above.
A person does not have to sign anything to accept a contract and be subject to its terms.
Anyway, I don't believe that U.S. citizenship is literally the same as a business contract. My point is that people who do try to make that equivalence, usually don't understand contracts well enough to make any sort of logical point.
Spooner's essays on the Jury representing the whole people (not merely the majority), and the criminal intent, are among the most important political writings. Comparable to Bastiat's "The Law." I recommend "The Lysander Spooner Reader" -- and make sure you read it all.
Frankly I don't really believe anyone is educated enough to even have an informed discussion on politics if they aren't familiar with the arguments presented in those two books.
I love Lysander Spooner, and I'm a little surprised to see his works show up here on HN. I'm not sure how "on topic" this really is, but still kinda glad to see this. I think everybody would be well served to read Spooner, even if you don't agree with all of his positions. At the very least, his way of thinking may challenge some of our pre-existing notions about the nature of government and authority.
And, of course, I can't say enough about Bastiat's The Law either. Definitely worth reading if you haven't read it yet.
7 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 18.8 ms ] threadOne main point is that the US government was meant to be a purely voluntary contract between men:
"The Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.
It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract."
The second main point is that government debt is the factor which has shifted the government from "servant of the people" to the more typical "ruler of the people":
"On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.
And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest—enormous as the latter was—are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further—and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid—by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war."
I'm in favour of a minarchist state, and, not being American, I find the US from its founding to roughly WWI something close to my ideal of a government which acts more as a mutual protection agency, rather than as an entity with an eternal claim on its citizens labour. Some of the Greek city-states also came close to this ideal.
I don't have time to give a detailed opinion on the argument in this article, but there's merit to the idea of every citizen having to formally recognise their constitution. E.g., at age 21, to become an official citizen you voluntarily sign a contract agreeing to uphold the constitution. (Obviously this wouldn't work in any current society, I'm talking a capitalist utopia with voluntary ~5% tax rates to pay for the police and army).
Singapore is pretty close to that tax rate. (I had ~5% tax on average for a six figure income a while ago, there.)
It is a contract, though. That means that terminating it will also terminate the many benefits of U.S. citizenship. This is a point that, IME, is often lost on people who want to talk about how the Constitution doesn't bind anyone. They want to live in the U.S. with all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen, but opt out of taxes, rules, regulations, fees, etc. at their discretion. That's not how contracts work!
So how do people enter into this contract? They are entered into it by their parents when they are minors. Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be subjected to contracts by their parents.
If one wants to look at U.S. citizenship as a contract, then here is the answer. Just like swim class, summer camp, or private school, your parents get to tell you what to do, and that includes being a U.S. citizen. Once a U.S. citizen is 18, they are free to terminate the contract as described above.
I didn't sign it.
> Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be subjected to contracts by their parents.
They didn't sign it either. Not one of my ancestors did.
> That's not how contracts work!
That's the point?
Anyway, I don't believe that U.S. citizenship is literally the same as a business contract. My point is that people who do try to make that equivalence, usually don't understand contracts well enough to make any sort of logical point.
Frankly I don't really believe anyone is educated enough to even have an informed discussion on politics if they aren't familiar with the arguments presented in those two books.
And, of course, I can't say enough about Bastiat's The Law either. Definitely worth reading if you haven't read it yet.