Lysander Spooner

Thread starter #1

Israel

Senior Member
 

VTRman

Senior Member
Does beg the question of exactly how one can be a party to a contract that was enacted before one's birth.
 
Does beg the question of exactly how one can be a party to a contract that was enacted before one's birth.
Nothing in this world is permanent. The only constant is change.
 
Thread starter #5

Israel

Senior Member
It becomes plain that if there were any binding authority, and any intended (even if such premise is shown false in its presumption), the ministration of oaths would not only be unnecessary, but by implication a demonstration of its original lack of authority.

To use his example, were men to sign a contract with one another to sell a piece of property (or enter any other contractual agreement) for a set and listed price and then be asked (or told) to: "Now make a promise that you will execute your terms of the agreement" in order that you may be seen as faithful in willing discharge of such agreement; it is a demonstration of more than a redundancy, but rather the tacit implication that the signature is/was not enough.

It becomes inescapably plain then, in the exercise of such mindedness, that adding to such signature (if seen as necessary) now by word not only endorses (even if not meant as such demonstration) that word is superior in weight to signature (as signature is then placed in requirement of its endorsement).

And so the whole of the false structure is revealed as untenable; that is, undertaking to provide or acknowledge such instrument as signature, still rests upon the more superior word of agreement. It was not without cause Jesus warned of neither swearing oaths or seek to add to ones words by doing so, for that undercuts the authority of the man's word by his own seeking to make it more reliable.

There is no benefit to asking a man to swear to tell the truth or even affirm in certain scenario he will do so, for if the man be a liar, any and all he might swear to means less than nothing. And one imposing of such reveals only his own inability to recognize truth if by such means he believes it can be established (truth).

Not only to say (as such should not be neglected) that the presumption in such a system is not only that men are more normally inclined to lying unless something of extreme be allowed for in certain scenario, but also that by very provision that lying (except in this scenario) is not only normal...but an estate free of enforce-ability to adjudication of penalty.

We do not say "you perjured yourself when you promised to be here at 1 pm, but showed up at 1:05", yet it becomes plain that man's promise to "tell the truth" or perform according to promise is not only so laughably inadequate to ensure such promise, but that the man finds the moment he enters into such...he is met with all sorts of opposition to its fulfilling. (Unless I am speaking to children). The more one seeks to bind himself to his word...by adding to it, the more opposition is experienced if believing he can be held, and should be held, rightly to it.

Letting ones yes be yes and no be no is by no means a restriction but a liberation, and of such nature that the man who would seek to faithfully practice and limit himself to it (being persuaded by many many failures of execution of his own promise) will find himself very opposed in one place (the world) "your word is not good enough...sign here"...but of such regard in another (where integrity is the only consideration of any value)...that even the presentation of such opposition by the world...is seen as far less, and experienced far less grievously than all he had known when seeking to "keep" his own promises.

Some may think I have posted the above OP to refute or make plain a disdain of government. Or even governments. But seeing natures as they are and for what they are is a simple propelling. No man can live long bearing the envy of simplicity, he will either seek to have it removed from mind by clever action, or submit to it in repentance. Realizing his natural bent to be clever is his own undoing yet hoping for the better which he knows his cleverness cannot deliver him to.

There is a government that actually...is a help.
 
Last edited:

madsam

Senior Member
or maybe a torn rotater cuff ..............my ADD only allows me to read every
6 or 7 words.......Can you summarize this ???????
 
Thread starter #8

Israel

Senior Member
Does beg the question of exactly how one can be a party to a contract that was enacted before one's birth.

The trick of binding men to a course of action, an ideology, a program, a form of any intent is to elicit their complicity in participation; make them a party to it by deeds, words or signature.

All of man's governing is dependent upon this, whether it be nations (constitutions), businesses (mission statements), religious institutions (statements of "faith" which, peculiarly by their seeking to bind, show themselves the precise opposite of faith) to bring all relationship under a legal banner for the making of property. To thereby own.

The plainest of contradictions abound here as should be able to be seen by any man, but the trick is therefore, by subtlety, to elicit complicity that such legal mindedness infuse the consciousness by clever introduction to that binding. All contracts imply obligation of performance, so if an agent can convince another he has entered "a contract" such agent can (with less effort) elicit compliance and performance.

I know this first video is rather lengthy but (I believe) is worth being heard, at the very least, to where the plainest description of a populace being reduced to nothing more than property is made. It is compelling. As are also such plainly stated matters of self interest (though coated with a thin film of legality) in which men contest periodically in hopes of persuading to their own ascendancy of interests.

Does no one else...even now, or perhaps especially now (at this seeming late date, and with particular note of date, July 3rd) see what at first seems a subtle disconnect till plain; as all subtle things remain, till seen? How that such bristling against a perceived and rampant (quite present) lawlessness, which is met with the oft heard plea that "we are a nation of law(s)" traces for its foundation (such nation) to a date...and even celebration of rebellion, such as is found in July 4th.

The finest of reason and reasons presented in the Declaration of Independence can nevertheless be reduced to nothing more than providing (what seems) legal basis (or more attractive reason/reasons) for casting off the legal claims of an Empire over them in favor of their own claims to themselves.

And though reason and reasons and reasonings may appear most sublime to consideration of their endorsements the game has never changed from the beginning...all is only achieved by force of arms. And that is what remains unchanged.

How starkly in contrast might (some) men seek to present the "hero" Lincoln against the murderous villainy of someone like Mao, (or even Stalin) yet Mao was too plain and unsubtle in stating what has been all too plainly known and practiced...(even by such "peace lovers" as Lincoln) that: "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun". And so no matter how primitive one may care to be in their thinking it is no less traceable to what Org the Brute knew: "all is dependent upon who can throw a rock the farthest with accuracy". Or a spear. Or wield a sword.

And all the fine legalese that makes its appeal to intellect and is frequently adopted by such vanity is solely for the purpose of use by those seeking power to direct such rock throwing against what is inhibiting the exercise of their own (power). Of course promises abound, inducements, enticements to power (such as is always reduced to property acquisition..."booty")...so that only the naive would imagine such words as liberty in that employ is a far more craven appeal in deception than most other.

As a child taken camping by a friend's family I once mused to the "dad" how odd it seemed to need a license to fish. He (my friend's dad) simply replied..."yes, or pour a beer".

I, myself, am no anarchist. But neither am I naive of men's motives in seeking to govern others. And though our general agreement may include the necessity, by common recognition of such cravenness not uncommon to man, (that indicates such necessity of being governed), we might ask could any ever be fit to it?

Can there be a way, is there a way, has a way been provided to reconcile such need...of such necessity of governing that can deliver a man from the oppression of those who, no less craven than ones self who seek to govern, into a place where the man might happly be governed without resort to rebellion in which he may likewise be delivered from the righteously earned grief of watching his own chickens come home to roost?

A man said this in his liberty.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying,

What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

To come to the place as being free to submit for the sole sake of offering no offense is also where fish are discovered with coins in their mouths.

I am finding the compelling to such a place is most plain.
 

drhunter1

Senior Member
Does beg the question of exactly how one can be a party to a contract that was enacted before one's birth.
I swore an oath to that contract as an adult. I am very comfortable with the arrangement.
What I am not comfortable with is the unrelenting efforts to tear up that contract without my consent.
 
Thread starter #11

Israel

Senior Member
I swore an oath to that contract as an adult. I am very comfortable with the arrangement.
What I am not comfortable with is the unrelenting efforts to tear up that contract without my consent.
That's an interesting stance. With whom do you believe you entered that contract?

And (perhaps) more to the point to whom did you give authority to hold you to it (by whatever means) if you ever chose to renege upon it?
 
Last edited:
Old Lysander tried to conflate two different things and Spoon that drivel out to folks who have no better understanding. The Constitution is not a Contract between individuals. It is a founding document for a Nation. It was agreed to by the representatives of the people of those Colonies and territories. It is a spurious argument to claim that each individual in the Nation must agree to the Constitution to be bound by it.

Each individual binds himself to it by consent. Other options are to leave or to change the Constitution to something more agreeable to that individual.
 

VTRman

Senior Member
Old Lysander tried to conflate two different things and Spoon that drivel out to folks who have no better understanding. The Constitution is not a Contract between individuals. It is a founding document for a Nation. It was agreed to by the representatives of the people of those Colonies and territories. It is a spurious argument to claim that each individual in the Nation must agree to the Constitution to be bound by it.

Each individual binds himself to it by consent. Other options are to leave or to change the Constitution to something more agreeable to that individual.
Sure.
 
Thread starter #14
If a man is bound by consent then he is as equally unbound by not rendering it. He needn't even "dissent" as such, simply not give his consent.

If a man chooses silence in any matter it is only a knave who will manipulate to have this construed to mean (for the knave's purposes) either dissent or consent.

Taken further the curious notion that it is incumbent upon a man to defend himself against any charge, which, if not entered into "vigorously"...well, any fool can see that the nostrum of "innocent till proven guilty" is actually a baseless but Oh so fondly contrived device to deceive the simple and win them to a manipulated form of very uninformed consent.

For any man can then see that the exigencies of circumstance are the all and only controlling factors. And truth, such as it is, (no less as is concept of justice) is entirely malleable in any instance. Is it not a clever sleight of hand to maneuver men into believing true allegiance, or true adherence to what (as it seems some believe) a founding document of "law" in regards to the governing of a people is left to the interpretation to a very branch...of that government?

I will gladly submit perfectly (or say I do), as I trust would any man to so saying...if I am left to interpret the thing I say I am submitted to in governance. How many naive say "the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government!" when, if challenged, appeal can only be made to such as is branch of that Federal government for relief? To interpret of itself, and to itself, such limit? Talk about foxes and hen houses being guarded.

And only the more naive will then say "then it behooves us to choose the most exemplary of men, free of all self interest in power acquisition (or maintenance) from among the men whom all have already agreed are subject to such concupiscence as requires governing and makes it of necessity.

"We need governors"

"Why?" comes the response.

"Because men, if left to themselves, will maneuver all of creation (if able) into serving their own selfish interests with total disregard of the resulting chaos."

"Oh, I see. That is very bad. From where shall we choose governors, then?"

"Oh, from among men."

"You mean we'll give men power beyond what they might even ordinarily be able to acquire of themselves?"

"We have to. And besides it's very hard work to rule over men, so we'll have to make sure we choose the very best and most selfless."

"Yes, for sure, and who might those be, if all men are incurably selfish?"

"Well, even though the work will be hard and thankless...I suppose for the good of all, I'll volunteer" and "To make sure everyone knows plainly of my intents in all of this, that I am clear of all contaminations to craven acquisition of power over others, I shall make sure I wear and publicize myself in, and with, the label of 'public servant' "

All one has to do to see how the game is really played, and always has been...is to rightly substitute a "They" for a "We" in the very first statement.

Really, is that too difficult to see as principle?

"Yes", we may say, "till such and such time it appears to have worked fairly well, and perhaps even better than most" but the nagging entropy designed in, cannot be denied.

Evil man cannot but form evil government.

And yet, man is allowed. Allowed to believe he consents, or that his consent can thereby enforce, support, or in any way make more agreeable that form of governance to which he consents.

Spooner, such as he was, was plain witness of how very disagreeable such force may be employed and rendered against what dares dissent to "how agreeable" such government is.

As a naive child growing up in New York I was taught what a great hero Abraham Lincoln was in both "freeing the slaves" and preserving the Union. ("When I was a child I thought as a child")

As seeming benefactor of such effort, able to live in a strong and prosperous nation, why would I not consent to the necessities I was taught his office rightly thrust upon him for righteous discharge? Can I now judge him personally? God forbid. But a man can judge principles. I will leave it to others and to themselves whether such judgment "should" be entered into. That is theirs to decide or not, what is drivel.

But a principle that shows itself effectually to be no less (nor more) than a man appealing, or offering to a proposed bride the promise of protection, perhaps prosperity, and a sure trust in his strength as support if she but be joined to him (which he declines to make clear such strength is supplemented to himself by her joining to him) likewise, with such proffer does not make equally clear that "I reserve to myself the right to kill you should you ever attempt to leave this agreement".

"But don't worry" he may say "I have laws governing me to prevent any capricious exercise of that right which I interpret to myself for your benefit".

Talk about naive. And drivel dispensers.
 
Last edited:
If a man is bound by consent then he is as equally unbound by not rendering it. He needn't even "dissent" as such, simply not give his consent.

If a man chooses silence in any matter it is only a knave who will manipulate to have this construed to mean (for the knave's purposes) either dissent or consent.
Have you actively consented to be bound by the laws of the State of Georgia? Do you agree that a person who has not actively consented to be bound by those laws is still subject to being arrested, tried, and if convicted possibly put to death for violating some of them?

Have you actively consented to be bound by the rules of this Forum? Do you agree that you are still bound by them even though you did not actively consent?
 
Thread starter #16
I have never denied nor implied...nor will, that the imposition of any action toward an inhibition of the actions of another cannot be accomplished. Regardless of consent nor of being adequately informed. Or claim of being inadequately informed.
Such exercise may even be "legal".

A seasoned mind will be required to distinguish between "legal" and legitimate.

The man who is later exonerated by DNA evidence may have been entirely and legally found guilty by a jury and sentenced. (Even though sometimes a malicious intent toward inculpation is uncovered)

But, be that as it may, whether with best or ill intent the one found guilty and sentenced would be silly to add to his proclamation: "I am not guilty" that also then "I am therefore not in jail".

No, he recognizes a power that may illegitimately be exercised upon him...even according to what men consider legality. I do, no less. And am no less convinced I am not alone.

All was done "legally" to determine the penalty imposed for not purchasing a commodity (health insurance) was no penalty at all...but a legally imposed tax. There was therefore no odious coercion to force a purchase as some inferred...it was all to easily a concern dispensed with by one word, one entirely and legally applied word.

How do I know this? Because the adjudicator of what is legal for the federal government to impose (even though a branch of that federal government) has said it is legal by presentation of a view (perspective) that makes it so. And a wording.

I find a familiar line of questioning presented to Jesus Christ by one seemingly assured of the endurance of his power "Do you not know I have the power to kill you or let you go?"

Jesus does not challenge him to "try it and see what happens" nor even deny the claim of such by "I am not guilty of those charges, therefore you cannot legally do anything to me". Nor..."Rome has no power". He doesn't resist at all having anything laid to him as men might care to. Blasphemer, ungodly, traitor, deceiver, charlatan, demon possessed, covenant breaker, lawless. Dangerous rebel to Rome.

In truth, all boasting over Him, that is, against Him and His person He says will be forgiven (not might or can) so that being free of all self concern He would not answer Pilate according to the grounds Pilate sought to place Him upon. (Fear or concern for His own well being...this had already been duly worked through, and plainly in Gethsemane)

He made no attempt to refute Pilate's authority to do anything to Him. Pilate the ignorant had not the slightest insight as his inferior in rank (according to that form of government) the Centurion had, who was commended for his great faith. Which is, of course, the source of all boasting against the Christ of God; ignorance and blindness.
Instead Jesus Christ spoke to Him of authority's nature and source. Even there Jesus does not abandon Pilate to all his own ignorance. Such mercy. Telling another the "how things are" even knowing this would only provoke the blindly ignorant to a tighter grasp and exercise of their own presumed authority, but all spoken in hope.

Christ the hardener, and Christ the softener. I don't know whether Pilate ever saw how is own questioned was sufficiently answered "Are you a King?" not by what Jesus said "of Himself" but by the testimony of the Spirit of truth. In which Jesus abode and spoke to him.

When I was a child in the faith I marveled at Christ's submission. Knowing full well, (and perhaps in a far greater knowing than those even purposed to it) what was intended for Him upon that cross on the top of that hill.

Nevertheless, being given it Him to bear, He bore its weight and burden to carry. I used to wonder before God of a difference I might try to assert or make allowance for. If I myself knew, with all knowing as I believed Christ had of intention...I could see it reasonable for a man to say "Look, I know what you are going to do to me "up there", I know what is going to happen to me and so what worse will you do if I just refuse to carry that heavy thing?...I ain't going...just do what you gotta do now, and here...and we might as well just get it over with."

"I'm tired, I'm beat, I'm bloody and I really don't feel like trudging up that hill with that thing to boot."

Yeah, I once thought I knew Jesus Christ..."well enough".

Now, I marvel at Jesus Christ's submission. To put to death the thing that might think it has grounds to say "but I have finally had enough".

How silly would it be for an observer to think, or say "He must really be fearful of Rome's authority to submit so to all he is allowing done Him...and even cooperating with".

There remain some silly observers. But God is patient.

Some would have a man marvel at the state's power. Seek to present it as such as final, conclusive of all; and men have learned well how to coat such with the veneer of promising liberty in it. By clever use of words like those that glisten when carved into shrines. (Who promising liberty are themselves slaves..)

Other are too engaged in another consideration of power.

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
 
Last edited:
Have you actively consented to be bound by the laws of the State of Georgia? Do you agree that a person who has not actively consented to be bound by those laws is still subject to being arrested, tried, and if convicted possibly put to death for violating some of them?

Have you actively consented to be bound by the rules of this Forum? Do you agree that you are still bound by them even though you did not actively consent?

I have never denied nor implied...nor will, that the imposition of any action toward an inhibition of the actions of another cannot be accomplished. Regardless of consent nor of being adequately informed. Or claim of being inadequately informed.
Such exercise may even be "legal".

A seasoned mind will be required to distinguish between "legal" and legitimate.
You have answered a question that I did not ask. You have answered the question, "Can one be forced to comply?" That was not my question. My original questions are repeated below followed by two more which was suggested by your last post.

Have you actively consented to be bound by the laws of the State of Georgia? Do you agree that a person who has not actively consented to be bound by those laws is still subject to being arrested, tried, and if convicted possibly put to death for violating some of them?

Do you consider the Constitution to be both legal and legitimate?
Do you consider the rules on this forum to be both legal and legitimate?

Have you actively consented to be bound by the rules of this Forum? Do you agree that you are still bound by them even though you did not actively consent?
 
Thread starter #18
Have you actively consented to be bound by the laws of the State of Georgia?
Not to my knowledge. No pledge, no oath, nothing signed that I recall that was either submitted to me, nor that I voluntarily assented to.

Do you agree that a person who has not actively consented to be bound by those laws is still subject to being arrested, tried, and if convicted possibly put to death for violating some of them?
That is evident and does not compel my agreement. Do I see those things taking place? Yes. Anywhere along that continuum of "arrested, tried, and (if) convicted" that is met with sufficient resistance against the agents of the state may be (and often has been) met by greater force to his subduing and has often included death. The question is essentially...is a man subject to what has resource to greater power than himself? Is it not?

In that case any armed man issuing any order to an unarmed man is of no difference unless the unarmed man can disarm, escape, or by some means bring the armed man into the presence of a greater power acting on behalf of the unarmed man. In the natural...think ambush. And God only knows if a man sees beyond the natural. (Yet even there...ambush is not a useless analogy..."Which none of the princes of this world knew...")

Do you consider the Constitution to be both legal and legitimate?
Since, as a document it has no power of itself to act illegally I find it no more nor less legal than any other document. It is as legal as the Russian Constitution, Canadian, etc. And it is only as legitimate as anything else that contains within itself its own claim of right to changeability or amendment by men. The unchanging changeable thing is no longer much to my assent having had too much intercourse (and very personal knowledge of my own proclivity) among what claims consistency but is subject to all manner of caprice. And deceit. My experience of my own (caprice) surely included. (Which brings us back to the above...of being brought by a man into the presence of a greater power acting upon behalf of the man submitted to the bringing of men to that power very presently)



Do you consider the rules on this forum to be both legal and legitimate?
Again...rules are rules and actions are what are judged as being either lawful and legitimate in accord with them and their stated intents. And can be, and only are as binding upon a man, any man, to the extent or point at which he finds himself prohibited to the extreme of their exercise.

The supreme rule of all creation is that what is born of the world will soon be made silent and any man may at any time be found he is granted to say one true thing before he is silenced...and to neglect that or opt in favor of saying something else completely idle (idle as in without power) for his own continuance is very foolish indeed.

I appreciate the opportunity to type/write/say this:

Jesus Christ is Lord.
 
We agree and I stick by post 12. Each individual binds himself to the rules here or the Constitution and laws of the State by consent. Other options are to leave or to change the Ruses or the Constitution and laws to something more agreeable to that individual.
 
Top