Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by shanehawk
No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner
5.0
Holy hell. Spooner was a beast.
Shortly after the American Civil War concluded Spooner penned this scathing repudiation of the social contract and the contractarian view of the state in general. He didn’t hold back in the slightest. He referred to the amorphous federal government as “robbers and murderers” about 40 times throughout.
The numbering of the essays can be tricky. No Treason 3-5 were never published so all we have to read are I, II, and VI. I believe he’s mostly known for the last piece which was finished in 1870, the others earlier in 1867. Spooner is rabid and lucid here. I would hate to have been on the receiving end of any of his writings.
Highly recommended to see a different point of view within the framework of the Civil War era. He was an intense abolitionist because he was a very principled individualist/anarchist. Once the Civil War took hold he defended the South as being victim of Northern aggression and for being forced to comply to a government they wished to split with. This is still in line with his principles as he also advocated for using violence to free slaves from Southern oppressors. He was a radical even within radical abolitionist circles. He had a very unpopular opinion that the secessionist South derived its rights from the natural rights of slaves to be free. Neither the Union or the Confederacy agreed with this sentiment.
I’ll add some quotes below:
“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.”
“In short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.”
“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that—however bloody—can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”
“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”
Shortly after the American Civil War concluded Spooner penned this scathing repudiation of the social contract and the contractarian view of the state in general. He didn’t hold back in the slightest. He referred to the amorphous federal government as “robbers and murderers” about 40 times throughout.
The numbering of the essays can be tricky. No Treason 3-5 were never published so all we have to read are I, II, and VI. I believe he’s mostly known for the last piece which was finished in 1870, the others earlier in 1867. Spooner is rabid and lucid here. I would hate to have been on the receiving end of any of his writings.
Highly recommended to see a different point of view within the framework of the Civil War era. He was an intense abolitionist because he was a very principled individualist/anarchist. Once the Civil War took hold he defended the South as being victim of Northern aggression and for being forced to comply to a government they wished to split with. This is still in line with his principles as he also advocated for using violence to free slaves from Southern oppressors. He was a radical even within radical abolitionist circles. He had a very unpopular opinion that the secessionist South derived its rights from the natural rights of slaves to be free. Neither the Union or the Confederacy agreed with this sentiment.
I’ll add some quotes below:
“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.”
“In short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.”
“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that—however bloody—can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”
“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”