 |
literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org
Literature, Poetry, Essays, Dialogues, Philosophy, Theology
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SFG75
Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 133
Location: Nebraska
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject: Lysander Spooner |
 |
|
Of all of the 19th century political theorists, perhaps the most interesting and in my mind, most intriguing, is Lysander Spooner. I have never heard of this man before my college years. I purchased a book a few years ago by Dan Boaz of the CATO Institute. In his book, The Libertarian Reader, the Spooner work The Constitution of No Authority was included. Here was a radical notion that a document that governed our lives was not legitimate. Never before have I noticed radical notions couched in such eloquent and solid rhetorical argument outside of a court room. Spooner's assertion is a good read and is one that a lot of people should consider.
To visit a site dedicated to him:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org
Constitution of No Authority:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
A brief section of the article
| Quote: | The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either ex- [*4] pressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:
"We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.
Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:
We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel, their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.
When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he [*5] is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.
So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them. |
With this being said, Spooner does a good job of showing that individuals give up rights, but what he fails to show, is that individuals give up some rights, to enjoy greater rights. For instance, if Spooner were out in the middle of the forest by himself, he is truly free. However, he is more free if in association with others, he is able to work with others to protect himself, his property, and his health. His life can be taken if he is alone, his property can be seized if he is alone, and he dies alone if without others, he is unable to take out his own appendix. It is from our association with others that everything we have grows. Bountiful food supply, shelter, and protection did not occur when individuals roamed carelessly from cave to cave hunting and gathering. It is when people worked cooperatively in bands that the food supply increased and that farming becanme possible. You are truly free, but not greatly free as when you are with others.
Any thoughts?
Are the "posterity" honor bound to keep a document that they didn't agree to?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Intriguing question |
|
|
I have so little time and energy left tonight, but I simply must respond to this one.
Jewish mysticism holds that all the unborn souls of future Jews were present at Sinai to consent to the Covenant with Moses.
Of course, there is a promise or covenant much earlier with Abraham.
This teaching touchs upon the same question of a binding contractual agreement with unborn future generations.
If a woman from mainland China is on a plan which is forced to land in the USA, and she gives birth in the airport, then that child has the right to claim American citizenship, and all these issues of the constitution come into play, should that child accept that citizenship.
I am also reminded of how the godparents answer for the infant at baptism, an example of a committment made on behalf of someone not yet capable of entering into commitments and contractual agreements.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
