"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
"Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.
"Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others."
The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called – that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered – so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters.
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Interesting writings this guy did, I'm going over a lot of what this guy has written.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The Anti-Govt proponents are in love with an anarchist... Of course they are!!!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If any sane person on the board ever encounters an actual 'anarchist goldfish', or an anarchist bacteria... please notify me. I'd love to know how you found out if this goldfish or this bacteria are actually anarchists or just your typical non political species.
Anyone??? Anyone??? Bueller??? Anyone???
God this board is a hoot!!! Ya can't make this stuff up...
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
If any sane person on the board ever encounters an actual 'anarchist goldfish', or an anarchist bacteria... please notify me. I'd love to know how you found out if this goldfish or this bacteria are actually anarchists or just your typical non political species.
Are you aware what anarchy means? It is absence of government. Unless goldfish have a governing structure that I am unaware of, I would have to assume they live under what humans consider anarchy, or absence of government.
There is no anarchist goldfish because that would mean they actively oppose a government and support total freedom, but since the goldfish never lived under a government and already live in anarchy, they are not anarchists.
Are you aware what anarchy means? It is absence of government. Unless goldfish have a governing structure that I am unaware of, I would have to assume they live under what humans consider anarchy, or absence of government.
There is no anarchist goldfish because that would mean they actively oppose a government and support total freedom, but since the goldfish never lived under a government and already live in anarchy, they are not anarchists.
Even Cicero knows that Goldfish live and move inSCHOOLS! Hence their semi autonomous form of government where all conform.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Even Cicero knows that Goldfish live and move inSCHOOLS! Hence their semi autonomous form of government where all conform.
It's voluntary, no goldfish government forces them with threats of violence. They don't have to give a percentage of their fish food to pay for their school.
The natural voluntary order in nature must really baffle you.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Logged
