"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Legal Obedience
"What laws are we morally obligated to obey? Help with the answer can be found in “Economic Liberty and the Constitution,” a 66-page pamphlet by Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
"Lysander S. Spooner, one of America's great 19th-century thinkers, said no person or group of people can "authorize government to destroy or take away from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government -- which is but an association of individuals -- than to a single individual"."
I seldom disagree with Lysander, but I must make an exception here.
Our natural rights, "rights antecedent to all earthly governments", are in-alien-able, (not in-a-lien-able). In-alien-able means, as 2nd President of the U.S., John Adams, so succinctly put it, they are "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws", rights may not be alienated from the individual by human laws.
On the other hand they do belong to the individual, to dispose of as he likes, and he can, therefor, "without committing a crime", choose to "surrender" them to either a corporation [government], or a single individual. What he cannot lawfully do, is surrender anyone else's natural rights without their consent; they are not his to "surrender", just as Lysander stated in the forepart of that quote.
I'm gonna go with LS here. Rights are inalienable because you always have first claim on them. You can "loan" them, "rent" them, or not realize they're yours, but the moment you know what they are you can rescind the delegation of them at any time. This power means that they are always yours and are inalienable, and cannot be contracted away even if you decide you do not want them, because you can always change your mind, and the other contracting party would have no choice but to return them. This pretty much make voluntary slavery contracts invalid from the get-go.
This is why it is valuable for governments to make sure that people do not even understand that they possess such inalienable power, because sovereign populations do not get duped into believing that coercive governments are just organizations.
G'day tzo,
First question, who can one "loan" or "rent" his right to life, liberty and property to, if "all men" already have them?
"All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property...", though it should be noted, and is self-evident, that some do not realize they possess them, just as you stated above.
That said, I certainly do agree that one may "delegate" his "natural, essential, and inherent rights of defending life and liberty...and protecting...property".
The only difference you and I may have, on this particular subject, is that I say that if these rights are "yours", you do have the authority to delegate them away, completely and permanently, if that is your desire.
Yes, I agree that one may delegate away rights completely and permanently if one desires. But it seems to me they remain his rights because if he ever changes his mind, it is his natural right to reclaim them.
Do you believe that a lifetime contract of servitude should be enforceable? Even if voluntarily entered into, if the delegator of rights changed his mind it would become involuntary servitude. Can a contract justifiably enforce involuntary servitude?
Per Rothbard, any contract that is based on a promise of future labor or goods is unenforceable, as a broken promise disappoints expectations but does not take anything from the "promisee." Frustrated expectations are not property trespasses.
Of course if the "promisor (sp?)" accepted something up front in exchange for the promise, then he would owe the other what he accepted based on that promise. If I contract to give someone $1,000 in one year if he gives me $10 now, and I fail to deliver, I owe him $10 (plus interest, perhaps?).
"Yes, I agree that one may delegate away rights completely and permanently if one desires. But it seems to me they remain his rights because if he ever changes his mind, it is his natural right to reclaim them."
Huh? Isn't that a contradiction, tzo? Either you completely and permanently delegated them away, or you didn't; you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Not take anything from the "promisee"?
I just had to delete everything I wrote. My EDITOR (wife) said it was too harsh. :)
Hmmm. So your position is that inalienables are alienable.
Huh? right back atcha. :>
Back on my side of the court already? LOL
Comin' back to you, my friend, with a "back-spin". :>
In-alien-able does not mean that you cannot lose them through consent or forfeiture.
You, perhaps, didn't see this on my August 31st post above ("back-spin"): "Our natural rights, "rights antecedent to all earthly governments", are in-alien-able, (not in-a-lien-able). In-alien-able means, as 2nd President of the U.S., John Adams, so succinctly put it, they are "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws"...
The above got posted twice, because STR was evidently down. And, rather than waste this space...(there's no "delete" option)...
power (n.) c.1300, from Anglo-Fr. pouair, O.Fr. povoir, noun use of the infinitive, "to be able" ~ Online Etymology Dictionary
Authority, literally means, the "condition or quality of being author"; and, what one creates, one has the right to control, which explains the STATE created personae[1].
Thus, one may simultaneously have the "authority", i.e. "the right to control", but not have the "power" to do so, i.e. not "...be able" to control.
As Ron "Tater Salad" White so eloquently put it, "I Had the Right to Remain Silent...But I Didn't Have the Ability".
And, the STATE can have the "power" to control you, without having "authority" to do so. As the so-called Declaration of Independence put it, "deriving their just powers [proper authority] from the consent of the governed".
Now the question is, have you somehow given the STATE reason to presume that you have consented to be governed by it, perhaps by utilizing the persona[1] created, by the STATE, just for you?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of...government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113