[119046] in Cypherpunks
Re: Prison & Liberty (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Duncan Frissell)
Wed Oct 13 15:08:00 1999
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991013144200.02668da0@popserver.panix.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:47:52 -0400
To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>, cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
In-Reply-To: <199910131812.NAA25572@einstein.ssz.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_98552700==_.ALT"
Reply-To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
--=====================_98552700==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 01:12 PM 10/13/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>----- Forwarded message from Sten Drescher -----
>
> Right. One question I have though is whether you have the
>right to choose to accept or reject the basic contract of the society
>you happen to be born into? In practice, the answer is no, but is
>that proper?
>
>[ Absolutely, you can give up your citizenship and/or live elsewhere. Of
> course this assumes the person isn't motivated to change the society
> through civil disobedience. ]
>
>If you should, how should a society deal with someone who does not accept
>it's societal contract? Is it appropriate for it to restrict the rights of
>someone who did not agree to have their rights restricted if they violated
>the societal contract?
But there is no social contract. Governments claim persons and entities
based on their abilities to control same. Naked force. Once technology
allows persons/entities to block such force, governments lose their powers.
http://soli.com/reading/spooner.htm
NO TREASON:
The Constitution of No Authority
by Lysander Spooner
1869
I.
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 expressly or impliedly,
assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but
themselves.
DCF
----
"I wake up every morning worrying about your children" -- Bill Clinton (1992).
I sincerely hope not because if he does worry about my children he might
feel compelled to do something about them and the resulting fire fight
would cause significant collateral damage in the neighborhood.
--=====================_98552700==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
At 01:12 PM 10/13/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>----- Forwarded message from Sten Drescher
-----<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Right.
One question I have though is whether you have the<br>
right to choose to accept or reject the basic contract of the
society<br>
you happen to be born into? In practice, the answer is no, but
is<br>
that proper?<br>
<br>
[ Absolutely, you can give up your citizenship and/or live elsewhere.
Of<br>
course this assumes the person isn't motivated to change the
society<br>
through civil disobedience. ]<br>
<br>
If you should, how should a society deal with someone who does not
accept<br>
it's societal contract? Is it appropriate for it to restrict the
rights of <br>
someone who did not agree to have their rights restricted if they
violated <br>
the societal contract?<br>
</blockquote><br>
But there is no social contract. Governments claim persons and entities
based on their abilities to control same. Naked force. Once
technology allows persons/entities to block such force, governments lose
their powers.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://soli.com/reading/spooner.htm" eudora="autourl">http://soli.com/reading/spooner.htm</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
NO TREASON:<br>
The Constitution of No Authority <br>
<br>
by Lysander Spooner <br>
1869 <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I.<br>
<br>
The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has
no<br>
authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and
man.<br>
And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between
persons<br>
now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between
persons<br>
living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a
contract<br>
then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion,
so<br>
as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.<br>
Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of
the<br>
people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or
permitted<br>
to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.
Those<br>
persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead
now.<br>
Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.
And the<br>
Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They
had no<br>
natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.
It is<br>
not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could
bind<br>
their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That
is to<br>
say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any
body<br>
but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly
or impliedly,<br>
assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody
but<br>
themselves.<br>
<br>
DCF<br>
<div>----</div>
<div>"I wake up every morning worrying about your children" --
Bill Clinton (1992).</div>
I sincerely hope not because if he does worry about my children he might
feel compelled to do something about them and the resulting fire fight
would cause significant collateral damage in the neighborhood.
</html>
--=====================_98552700==_.ALT--
