Have you ever read No Treason?

[National Socialist]

If so what did you think of it?

For those that haven't here is the short of it

Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

I think its a fascinating piece of work and absolutely correct.

 

[National Socialist]

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner

 

[National Socialist]

No Treason The Constitution of No Authority

I am relistening to it right now...absolutely love it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's an extremely important essay.

 

[National Socialist]

Guess me and you were the only ones.

 

[deltex1]

Lots of us don't read cursive....

 

[National Socialist]

Ok?

 

[deltex1]

Just being a wise ass...sorry

 

[National Socialist]

Ah....lol...That's what that idiot at the Zimmerman trial said isn't it? LoL that made me laugh.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If so what did you think of it?

For those that haven't here is the short of it

Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

I think its a fascinating piece of work and absolutely correct.

I had not read it.. In fact this is the first I heard of it.

However, what you say about his basic premise leads me to say that he is full of shit and doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he wants to go down the contract path, which is nonsensical, all I can say is that anyone who is a citizen and has partaken of the benefits of that citizenship has "signed the contract" with the Federal Government.

If they hold a U.S. passport.. they have "signed the contract".

If they have not renounced their citizenship, they have "signed the contract".

If they have ever declared themself to be a U.S. Citizen, they have "signed the contract".

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm going to read it now.

 

[National Socialist]

If so what did you think of it?

For those that haven't here is the short of it

Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

I think its a fascinating piece of work and absolutely correct.

I had not read it.. In fact this is the first I heard of it.

However, what you say about his basic premise leads me to say that he is full of shit and doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he wants to go down the contract path, which is nonsensical, all I can say is that anyone who is a citizen and has partaken of the benefits of that citizenship has "signed the contract" with the Federal Government.

If they hold a U.S. passport.. they have "signed the contract".

If they have not renounced their citizenship, they have "signed the contract".

If they have ever declared themself to be a U.S. Citizen, they have "signed the contract".

The contract was forced on them at birth...they had no choice in it so...given the chance I guarantee I could get millions to not sign it.

 

[bripat9643]

If so what did you think of it?

For those that haven't here is the short of it

Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

I think its a fascinating piece of work and absolutely correct.

I had not read it.. In fact this is the first I heard of it.

However, what you say about his basic premise leads me to say that he is full of shit and doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he wants to go down the contract path, which is nonsensical, all I can say is that anyone who is a citizen and has partaken of the benefits of that citizenship has "signed the contract" with the Federal Government.

Horseshit. What legal principle is that based on? I say it's based on nothing more than the boot lickers code of omnipotent government.

If they hold a U.S. passport.. they have "signed the contract".

Based on what logic?

If they have not renounced their citizenship, they have "signed the contract".

Based on what logic?

If they have ever declared themself to be a U.S. Citizen, they have "signed the contract".

Based on what logic?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If so what did you think of it?

For those that haven't here is the short of it

Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

I think its a fascinating piece of work and absolutely correct.

I had not read it.. In fact this is the first I heard of it.

However, what you say about his basic premise leads me to say that he is full of shit and doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he wants to go down the contract path, which is nonsensical, all I can say is that anyone who is a citizen and has partaken of the benefits of that citizenship has "signed the contract" with the Federal Government.

If they hold a U.S. passport.. they have "signed the contract".

If they have not renounced their citizenship, they have "signed the contract".

If they have ever declared themself to be a U.S. Citizen, they have "signed the contract".

The contract was forced on them at birth...they had no choice in it so...given the chance I guarantee I could get millions to not sign it.

[you're a lunatic]. Anyone who accepts the benefits of citizenship tacitly agrees to the "Contract", i.e., the COTUS and the laws promulgated by legislatures nationwide.

 

[bripat9643]

I had not read it.. In fact this is the first I heard of it.

However, what you say about his basic premise leads me to say that he is full of shit and doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he wants to go down the contract path, which is nonsensical, all I can say is that anyone who is a citizen and has partaken of the benefits of that citizenship has "signed the contract" with the Federal Government.

If they hold a U.S. passport.. they have "signed the contract".

If they have not renounced their citizenship, they have "signed the contract".

If they have ever declared themself to be a U.S. Citizen, they have "signed the contract".

The contract was forced on them at birth...they had no choice in it so...given the chance I guarantee I could get millions to not sign it.

[you're a lunatic]. Anyone who accepts the benefits of citizenship tacitly agrees to the "Contract", i.e., the COTUS and the laws promulgated by legislatures nationwide.

Wrong. There's no such legal principle. In fact, if services are forced upon you, it's considered to be a form of assault. Everything the government does it forces on you.

 

[National Socialist]

I had not read it.. In fact this is the first I heard of it.

However, what you say about his basic premise leads me to say that he is full of shit and doesn't know what he is talking about.

If he wants to go down the contract path, which is nonsensical, all I can say is that anyone who is a citizen and has partaken of the benefits of that citizenship has "signed the contract" with the Federal Government.

If they hold a U.S. passport.. they have "signed the contract".

If they have not renounced their citizenship, they have "signed the contract".

If they have ever declared themself to be a U.S. Citizen, they have "signed the contract".

The contract was forced on them at birth...they had no choice in it so...given the chance I guarantee I could get millions to not sign it.

[you're a lunatic]. Anyone who accepts the benefits of citizenship tacitly agrees to the "Contract", i.e., the COTUS and the laws promulgated by legislatures nationwide.

The contract was forced on us we had no choice...that's like raping someone then saying OK well you pay me! **** that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The contract was forced on them at birth...they had no choice in it so...given the chance I guarantee I could get millions to not sign it.

[you're a lunatic]. Anyone who accepts the benefits of citizenship tacitly agrees to the "Contract", i.e., the COTUS and the laws promulgated by legislatures nationwide.

Wrong. There's no such legal principle. In fact, if services are forced upon you, it's considered to be a form of assault. Everything the government does it forces on you.

[you're not only a lunatic, you're dumber than a box of rocks and more dense]

If you hate government so much, leave. Get the **** out of my country and go live somewhere where you will be happy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.​

You can read the rest of it here. It's not long. You'll find it interesting

No Treason, No. 1 | LysanderSpooner.org

 

[bripat9643]

[you're a lunatic]. Anyone who accepts the benefits of citizenship tacitly agrees to the "Contract", i.e., the COTUS and the laws promulgated by legislatures nationwide.

Wrong. There's no such legal principle. In fact, if services are forced upon you, it's considered to be a form of assault. Everything the government does it forces on you.

[you're not only a lunatic, you're dumber than a box of rocks and more dense]

If you hate government so much, leave. Get the **** out of my country and go live somewhere where you will be happy.

Actually, your wrong. I stated an irrefutable principle of the law. Are you saying the federal government isn't based on legal principles?

Why should I leave? What gives the federal government the authority to tell me what to do?

Why don't you leave and establish your people's republic where a bunch of groveling serfs will be happy to serve under it?

 

[bripat9643]

The contract was forced on them at birth...they had no choice in it so...given the chance I guarantee I could get millions to not sign it.

[you're a lunatic]. Anyone who accepts the benefits of citizenship tacitly agrees to the "Contract", i.e., the COTUS and the laws promulgated by legislatures nationwide.

The contract was forced on us we had no choice...that's like raping someone then saying OK well you pay me! **** that.

You're about to see some incredibly dumb "logic" justifying the authority of the federal government to control us.