It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Treason!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Here is a fascinating essay on government by the consent of the governed. This stands in stark contrast to our present, conflicting and abusive paradigm of "Majority Rule" versus "Minority Rights". It is well worth reading in its entirety.

Read "No Treason" at RCN

Here is the introduction and summary of the argument:



NO TREASON No. 1.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER
BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, No. 14 Bromfield Street. 1867.

Entered according to Act of congress, in the year 1867, By LYSANDER SPOONER, in the Clerk’s office of the District Court of the United States, for the District of Massachusetts.

[*iii] INTRODUCTORY.
The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded. On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union. 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. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. 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 [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure. Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that — in theory, at least, if not in practice — our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established. If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.




new topics
 
2

log in

join