Against Woman Suffrage by Lysander Spooner

[Truth Warrior]

Against Woman Suffrage
by Lysander Spooner
New Age, February 24, 1877

Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.

The only law that any human being can rightfully be compelled to obey is simply the law of justice. And justice is not a thing that is made, or that can be unmade, or altered, by any human authority. It is a natural principle, inhering in the very nature of man and of things. It is that natural principle which determines what is mine and what is thine, what is one man's right or property and what is another man's right or property. It is, so to speak, the line that Nature has drawn between one man's rights of person and property and another man's rights of person and property.

This natural principle, which we will call justice, and which assigns to each and every human being, is, I repeat, not a thing that has made, but is a matter of science to be learned, like mathematics, or chemistry, or geology. And all the laws, so called, that men have ever made, either to create, define, or control the rights of individuals, were intrinsically just as absurd and ridiculous as would be laws to create, define, or control mathematics, or chemistry, or geology.

Substantially all the tyranny and robbery and crime that governments have ever committed - and they have either themselves committed, or licensed others to commit, nearly all that have ever been committed in the world by anybody - have been committed by them under the pretence of making laws. Some man, or some body of men, have claimed the right, or usurped the power, of making laws, and compelling other men to obey; thus setting up their own will, and enforcing it, in place of that natural law, or natural principle, which says that no man or body of men can rightfully exercise any arbitrary power whatever over the persons or property of other men.

There are a large class of men who are so rapacious that they desire to appropriate to their own uses the persons and properties of other men. They combined for the purpose, call themselves governments, make what they call laws, and then employ courts, and governors, and constables, and, in the last resort, bayonets, to enforce obedience.

There is another class of men, who are devoured by ambition, by the love of power, and the love of fame.

They think it a very glorious thing to rule over men; to make laws to govern them. But as they have no power of their own to compel obedience, they unite with the rapacious class before mentioned, and become their tools. They promise to make such laws as the rapacious class desire, if this latter class will but authorize them to act in their name, and furnish the money and the soldiers necessary for carrying their laws, so called, into execution.

Still another class of men, with a sublime conceit of their own wisdom, or virtue, or religion, think they have a right, and a sort of divine authority, for making laws to govern those who, they think are less wise, or less virtuous, or less religious than themselves. They assume to know what is best for all other men to do and not to do, to be and not to be, to have and not to have. And they conspire to make laws to compel all those other men to conform to their will, or, as they would say, to their superior discretion. They seem to have no perception of the truth that each and every human being has had given to him a mind and body of his own, separate and distinct from the minds and bodies of all other men; and that each man's mind and body have, by nature, rights that are utterly separate and distinct from the rights of any and all other men; that these individual rights are really the only human rights there are in the world; that each man's rights are simply the right to control his own soul, and body, and property, according to his own will, pleasure, and discretion, so long as he does not interfere with the equal right of any other man to the free exercise and control of his own soul, body, and property. They seem to have no conception of the truth that, so long as he lets all other men's souls, bodies, and properties alone, he is under no obligation whatever to believe in such wisdom, or virtue, or religion as they do, or as they think best for him.

This body of self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious people, not being sufficiently powerful of themselves to make laws and enforce them upon the rest of mankind, combined with the rapacious and ambitious classes before mentioned to carry out such purposes as they can all agree upon. And the farce, and jargon, and Babel they all make of what they call government would be supremely ludicrous and ridiculous, if it were not the cause of nearly all the poverty, ignorance, vice, crime, and misery there are in the world.

Of this latter class - that is, the self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious class - are those woman suffrage persons who are so anxious that women should participate in all the falsehood, absurdity, usurpation, and crime of making laws, and enforcing them upon other persons. It is astonishing what an amount of wisdom, virtue, and knowledge they propose to inflict upon, or force into, the rest of mankind, if they can but be permitted to participate with the men in making laws. According to their own promises and predictions, there will not be a single natural human being left upon the globe, if the women can but get hold of us, and add their power to that of the men in making such laws as nobody has any right to make, and such as nobody will be under the least obligation to obey. According to their programme, we are to be put into their legislative mill, and be run through, ground up, worked over, and made into some shape in which we shall be scarcely recognized as human beings. Assuming to be gods, they propose to make us over into their own image. But there are so many different images among them, that we can have, at most, but one feature after one model, and another after another. What the whole conglomerate human animal will be like, it is impossible to conjecture.

In all conscience, it is not for us even to bear the nearly unbearable ills inflicted upon us by the laws already made, at any rate it is not better for us to be (if we can but be permitted to be) such simple human beings as Nature made us, - than suffer ourselves to be made over into such grotesque and horrible shapes as a new set of lawmakers would make us into, if we suffer them to try their powers upon us?

The excuse which the women offer for all the laws which they propose to inflict upon us is that they themselves are oppressed by the laws that now exist. Of course they are oppressed; and so are all men - except the oppressors themselves - oppressed by the laws that are made. As a general rule, oppression was the only motive for which laws were ever made. If men wanted justice, and only justice, no laws would ever need to be made; since justice itself is not a thing that can be made. If men or women, or men and women, want justice, and only justice, their true course is not to make any more laws, but to abolish the laws - all the laws - that have already been made. When they shall have abolished all the laws that have already been made, let them give themselves to the study and observance, and, if need be, the enforcement, of that one universal law - the law of Nature - which is "the same at Rome and Athens" in China and in England - and which man did not make. Women and men alike will then have their rights; all their rights; all the rights that Nature gave them. But until then, neither men nor women will have anything that they can call their rights. They will at most have only such liberties or privileges as the laws that are made shall see fit to allow them.

If the women, instead of petitioning to be admitted to a participation in the power of making more laws, will but give notice to the present lawmakers that they (the women) are going up to the State House, and are going to throw all the existing statute books in the fire, they will do a very sensible thing, - one of the most sensible things it is in their power to do. And they will have a crowd of men - at least all the sensible and honest men in the country to go with them.

But this subject requires a treatise, and is not to be judged of by the few words here written. Nor is any special odium designed to be cast on the woman suffragists; many of whom are undoubtedly among the best and most honest of all those foolish people who believe that laws should be made.

Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) was a lawyer, writer, entrepreneur, and libertarian activist.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/spooner/againstwomansuffrage.php

[HollyforRP]

and do you agree with this?

[Truth Warrior]

and do you agree with this? Yep! I probably would not have posted it otherwise. ;)

[HollyforRP]

Why do you agree with it?

[Truth Warrior]

Why do you agree with it? Because it has a very high correspondence and correlation with my world view and perspective. :)

[HollyforRP]

Truth Warrior, you could be opposed to all people voting and that is why I asked. (shrugs)

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior, you could be opposed to all people voting and that is why I asked. (shrugs) I am. Did you read the entire article or even the first paragraph, or did you just stop at the title? :)

[HollyforRP]

I am. Did you read the entire article or even the first paragraph, or did you just stop at the title? :)

I did read it and found the title didn't fit the entire story however it wouldn't be the first time that someone had claimed they were against something for everyone knowing that it wouldn't really matter to mask their true prejudism.

Are you also going to even respond correctly and go into an in-depth analysis or are you going to keep saying one sentence?

It's nice that you can copy and paste articles but it's much more of a bonus to actually read what comes from your mind that something that is copy and paste.

Also, I do have a brain, no need to question my ability to read ;)

[Truth Warrior]

I did read it and found the title didn't fit the entire story however it wouldn't be the first time that someone had claimed they were against something for everyone knowing that it wouldn't really matter to mask their true prejudism.

Yeah, that often happens too, sad to say.

Are you also going to even respond correctly and go into an in-depth analysis or are you going to keep saying one sentence?

Respond correctly acccording to whom? Whatever I choose. In depth analysis is not really my preferred posting style. I think that the article speaks clearly for itself.<IMHO> Take it or leave it. Agree or not.

I was merely responding to your one sentence questions. :)

It's nice that you can copy and paste articles but it's much more of a bonus to actually read what comes from your mind that something that is copy and paste.

Sometimes I'm just the messenger. ;)

Also, I do have a brain, no need to question my ability to read ;)

Where did I do that? Specific quote of my EXACT accusations are much preferred. ;)


Thanks! :)


"I don't know the secret to success, but the secret to failure is ... try to please everybody."

[FrankRep]

The title doesn't match the story.

[Truth Warrior]

The title doesn't match the story. Sorry to have wasted your reading and posting time. ;)

Was Spooner NOT against women voting?

[Truth Warrior]

bump

[NMCB3]

Thanks for posting, that was a good read, I really like Spooner. His "No Treason, The Constitution Of No Authority" is one of my all time favorites and impossible to successfully argue against. :)

[Truth Warrior]

Thanks for posting, that was a good read, I really like Spooner. His "No Treason, The Constitution Of No Authority" is one of my all time favorites and impossible to successfully argue against. :) You're welcome. :) I like Lysander too, truly a man ahead of his time.<IMHO>


'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "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." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for 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." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[brandon]

THanks TW. A good read, Spooner is the man.

And the title does match the article if you consider the time period it was written in.

The logic is very simple. People who vote are oppressors. Women want the right to vote. Spooner wants less oppressors, not more. So he is against women's suffrage.

[John of Des Moines]

When I read the thread title I thought of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmKWp4OPoUMhttp://goldismoney.info/forums/images/smilies/36_1_30.gif

[Truth Warrior]

THanks TW. A good read, Spooner is the man.

And the title does match the article if you consider the time period it was written in.

The logic is very simple. People who vote are oppressors. Women want the right to vote. Spooner wants less oppressors, not more. So he is against women's suffrage. You're welcome! By George, I think you've got it. ;) :)

How about ZERO oppressors AKA barbarians? :rolleyes:

[HollyforRP]

John of Des Moines, that is what I thought as well. Not that anyone would admit their intent.

[Truth Warrior]

I admit that MY intent is to END TYRANNY. ;) "Voting your way to freedom is like drinking your way to sober." -- TW

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson

[HollyforRP]

I admit that MY intent is to END TYRANNY. ;) "Voting your way to freedom is like drinking your way to sober." -- TW

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson

Uh huh. Then don't vote. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Uh huh. Then don't vote. ;) I don't. Not ANY since 1972. :)

[HollyforRP]

I don't. Not ANY since 1972. :)


You're making me giggle. This is also starting to remind me of
http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm#vhemt


http://www.vhemt.org/colorvisualize.jpg

[Truth Warrior]

You're making me giggle. This is also starting to remind me of
http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm#vhemt


http://www.vhemt.org/colorvisualize.jpg

I visualize our eventual species extinction, at our own hands ( STATE ), THROUGH the barbaric sociopathic cult. < no giggles, DEAD serious >

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."


"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

[undergroundrr]

Spooner's great. I guess people don't tend to understand irony any better now than they did then. Or liberty.

[Truth Warrior]

Spooner's great. I guess people don't tend to understand irony any better now than they did then. Or liberty. I agree, but DON'T see it as irony. I wonder what events may have prompted his essay though. ;)

[RonPaulNewbee]

This explains a lot but it does't SOLVE anything. If people didn't vote we would never have heard of Ron Paul. So no maky any sense!

Burning statute books sounds FANTASTIC! But in reality, how would women get enough support to go do that, even if symbolic?

See I want real solutions, not DON'T VOTE. That's a cop out. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Nice post Truth Warrior.

[Truth Warrior]

This explains a lot but it does't SOLVE anything. If people didn't vote we would never have heard of Ron Paul. So no maky any sense!

Burning statute books sounds FANTASTIC! But in reality, how would women get enough support to go do that, even if symbolic?

See I want real solutions, not DON'T VOTE. That's a cop out. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Nice post Truth Warrior. If people didn't vote we wouldn't NEED Ron Paul. DUH!!! BTW, Ron has neither passed nor stopped ANY bill from becoming law ( so called ).

YOU are part of the problem. :rolleyes:

[Mesogen]

I don't. Not ANY since 1972. :)

I have only voted once in my life. For you know who.

That'll be about it for a long while, I'm sure.

I really wish I could un-register.

[Danke]

You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.



Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist.

I think it is clear to all now where TW stands! :eek::p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwh8H1huyx8

[Truth Warrior]

I have only voted once in my life. For you know who.

That'll be about it for a long while, I'm sure.

I really wish I could un-register. I voted 3 times 68, 70, 72. I'd take them all back in a heatbeat, if I could. ;)

[RonPaulNewbee]

If people didn't vote we wouldn't NEED Ron Paul. DUH!!! BTW, Ron has neither passed nor stopped ANY bill from becoming law ( so called ).

YOU are part of the problem. :rolleyes:

By implication you are being incorrect. Ron Paul is a lawmaker. That is his job. Prove otherwise, TW!

Has he been successful in shepherding bills? That's another story! But he has tried! I don't get the logic about people voting and therefore we need Ron. He doesn't just vote against things. He has a specific agenda. The Constitution is not about anarchy. Feel free to vote or not vote but please don't be an idiot. I like your posts too much when you are on your medication.

[Truth Warrior]

By implication you are being incorrect. Ron Paul is a lawmaker. That is his job. Prove otherwise, TW!

Has he been successful in shepherding bills? That's another story! But he has tried! I don't get the logic about people voting and therefore we need Ron. He doesn't just vote against things. He has a specific agenda. The Constitution is not about anarchy. Feel free to vote or not vote but please don't be an idiot. I like your posts too much when you are on your medication.

That's his job. It's just a frickin law factory, for Pete's sake. Find the laws he's made. They call Ron, Dr. NO for some reason.

There is NO logic about voting, it's ALL just "brainwashing", hype, PR, "spin" and BS. Voters are a MINORITY in this country. Get a clue.

Hey, you're the politics junkie and voting addict. Take the cure. :p :rolleyes:

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." -- H.L. Mencken

[RonPaulNewbee]

That's his job. Find the laws he's made. There is NO logic about voting, it's ALL just "brainwashing", hype, PR and BS. Voters are a MINORITY in this country. Get a clue.

Hey, you're the politics junkie and voting addict. Take the cure. :p :rolleyes:

[/B]

True I've become a politics junkie but I waited a Loooooooong Time and the first time I voted was in 2000, against Bush. I saw that POS coming a mile away. I vote against Bush again in 2004. And I would have voted for RP last week if he had stayed on the ballot.

RON PAUL 2012!

[Truth Warrior]

True I've become a politics junkie but I waited a Loooooooong Time and the first time I voted was in 2000, against Bush. I saw that POS coming a mile away. I vote against Bush again in 2004. And I would have voted for RP last week if he had stayed on the ballot.

RON PAUL 2012!

Gee, maybe Ron might get to 2.4 million votes in 2012. :rolleyes: I think Ron is too smart to run again. He's earned, and probably wants his retirement soon.<IMHO> IF he runs, I'll be surprised.

[Danke]

True I've become a politics junkie but I waited a Loooooooong Time and the first time I voted was in 2000, against Bush. I saw that POS coming a mile away. I vote against Bush again in 2004. And I would have voted for RP last week if he had stayed on the ballot.

RON PAUL 2012!

What if RP was for ending federal spending on research?

[Working Poor]

I think the 10 commandments would keep almost everyone in line. Especially if the penalty for breaking them was death.

All the other laws are just BS in my opinion.

[Truth Warrior]

I think the 10 commandments would keep almost everyone in line. Especially if the penalty for breaking them was death.

All the other laws are just BS in my opinion. I'd add in the Golden Rule too. ;)

[RonPaulNewbee]

What if RP was for ending federal spending on research?

I know RP was for ending it! But I still voted for him in the primary!

The question would then be: What would I do? I'd try to get some appointment to see how I could help, though I'm sure I'm not qualified for a cabinet level position. I do know that Ron said he'd take it very slow. The ship is huge and you don't just slam on the brakes and hang a "U-ie". It's 140 years of undoing that's needed. But I do believe there is a place for govt. research and other programs that ideologues never take into consideration. That's why I'm here from the government ... I'm here to help!

Hahaha! Bet you just blew milk out of your nose!

[Truth Warrior]

I know RP was for ending it! But I still voted for him in the primary!

The question would then be: What would I do? I'd try to get some appointment to see how I could help, though I'm sure I'm not qualified for a cabinet level position. I do know that Ron said he'd take it very slow. The ship is huge and you don't just slam on the brakes and hang a "U-ie". It's 140 years of undoing that's needed. But I do believe there is a place for govt. research and other programs that ideologues never take into consideration. That's why I'm here from the government ... I'm here to help!

Hahaha! Bet you just blew milk out of your nose! Make that 220 years of undoing. :rolleyes:

[Xenophage]

You're making me giggle. This is also starting to remind me of
http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm#vhemt


http://www.vhemt.org/colorvisualize.jpg

I just read a bunch of that website and it made me ill.

[Xenophage]

Truth Warrior, would this accurately summarize your beliefs about voting?

Voting is an initiation of force. It is, in fact, the ultimate expression of violence in a society. We live in a society that practices institutionalized violence against its citizens. On election day, some tens of millions of people commit an act of violence against you and against each other. What do you do about it? It would seem to make sense that you just stop voting. End the cycle. Become the change you want to see, as Ghandi says.

But this assumes that violence, or the initiation of force against another individual, is immoral. If that's true, consider this scenario: You're walking along the street, and a piano is about to fall on some hapless stranger's head. In a rush, you slam your body against the stranger, knocking him out of the way of the piano just in time to save his life. This was clearly an initiation of force against this individual - he did not consent to having his body assaulted by you. But was it immoral? Obviously not! You saved his life!

So there are SOME types of initiated force that are perfectly moral, as I've illustrated. What types then, are not? Coercive force might be one type. If you had told this same stranger, "I will throw a piano at your face unless you move," you would be committing an act of coercion. Likewise, brutalizing someone merely for the sake of brutalizing them, or for deriving sadistic pleasure out of the act, is just as deplorable and wrong.

What if you had been wrong about the piano? Maybe it would have only landed harmlessly five feet to his left, and your initiation of force against this individual served no purpose whatsoever except to leave him with some bruises and a bloody nose. Would THAT have been immoral? No! You had exercised reason in your decision, and hardly anyone could fault you, unless your reason was completely out of touch with reality (e.g. the piano fell somewhere five blocks down the street, or didn't exist at all, and you must be insane). Even considering the case of insanity you could be said to have had right intentions and exercised a correct use of force based on what you believed to be reality.

In the case of someone obviously out of touch with reality, no matter how right their intentions may be, it is in the society's interest to prevent that individual from acting out on their insane delusions. If you were standing next to this individual, and recognized his insanity and potential for causing harm to himself or others, you might attempt to restrain him and you would be entirely right to do so. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable and moral to initiate coercive force against an insane person to strip them of their liberty.

So it cannot even be said, as a rule, that the initiation of coercive force is always an evil act.

So, if you're voting for Ron Paul as president, are you evil?

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior, would this accurately summarize your beliefs about voting?

Give it a shot. ;)

Voting is an initiation of force. It is, in fact, the ultimate expression of violence in a society. We live in a society that practices institutionalized violence against its citizens. On election day, some tens of millions of people commit an act of violence against you and against each other. What do you do about it? It would seem to make sense that you just stop voting. End the cycle. Become the change you want to see, as Gandhi says.

Voting is hiring agent initiators of coercion, force, and violence, by proxy. It is barbaric. Society does not exist, it is merely a mental concept and construct, an abstraction. I hold Gandhi in very high esteem, among a very few others. ;)

But this assumes that violence, or the initiation of force against another individual, is immoral. If that's true, consider this scenario: You're walking along the street, and a piano is about to fall on some hapless stranger's head. In a rush, you slam your body against the stranger, knocking him out of the way of the piano just in time to save his life. This was clearly an initiation of force against this individual - he did not consent to having his body assaulted by you. But was it immoral? Obviously not! You saved his life!

Suppose I break his back and make him a quadriplegic for life, by saving him from the falling piano. Am I responsible and liable for my actions, not withstanding my "good intentions"? Yes! Hypotheticals suck. :p

So there are SOME types of initiated force that are perfectly moral, as I've illustrated. What types then, are not? Coercive force might be one type. If you had told this same stranger, "I will throw a piano at your face unless you move," you would be committing an act of coercion. Likewise, brutalizing someone merely for the sake of brutalizing them, or for deriving sadistic pleasure out of the act, is just as deplorable and wrong.

I'm a firm believer that voluntary agreements between consenting adults is really NONE of my business. Nor mine, their's.

What if you had been wrong about the piano? Maybe it would have only landed harmlessly five feet to his left, and your initiation of force against this individual served no purpose whatsoever except to leave him with some bruises and a bloody nose. Would THAT have been immoral? No! You had exercised reason in your decision, and hardly anyone could fault you, unless your reason was completely out of touch with reality (e.g. the piano fell somewhere five blocks down the street, or didn't exist at all, and you must be insane). Even considering the case of insanity you could be said to have had right intentions and exercised a correct use of force based on what you believed to be reality.

Same answer as above. ;)

In the case of someone obviously out of touch with reality, no matter how right their intentions may be, it is in the society's interest to prevent that individual from acting out on their insane delusions. If you were standing next to this individual, and recognized his insanity and potential for causing harm to himself or others, you might attempt to restrain him and you would be entirely right to do so. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable and moral to initiate coercive force against an insane person to strip them of their liberty.

No society! Is he a threat to others. Is he a threat to me and mine? I do not own nor control his life. It is not mine to do with, as I please.

So it cannot even be said, as a rule, that the initiation of coercive force is always an evil act.

Aggression is Wrong (http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/aggression.php), by Robert LeFevre

So, if you're voting for Ron Paul as president, are you evil?

Probably not intentionally, merely ignorant of reality.<IMHO> The road to hell is paved with the most optimistic of "good intentions" gone bad. ;)


That was fun! ;)

Thanks! :)

[Original_Intent]

I keep coming up against "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

It just seems that politically, you are advocating doing nothing. I understand your sentiments, just still don't see how it leads to an improvement on our situation.

You blame voters because you say "Look at what the men you elected have done. therefore your fault! My response is The men that I have voted for were NOT elected, I am not responsible for the acts of those I did not vote for, and the real problem is that too many people either chose to not vote out of disgust, or they are misled into voting for bad people.

I agree with your philosophy that there should be no laws except for those needed to achieve justice. You and Spooner claim laws are not needed for that, I disagree. I thought about this a great deal last night. WE start with a simple proposition "Thou shalt not kill" and we all can pretty much agree that justice prohibits killing. Sadly, justice can only be enacted after the fact.

Do I have a right to kill in self defense? Again, at least in my view justice would say yes.

Things get into gray areas. Do I have a right to kill to protect my property? Say I choose to be employed by someone else and a third party thru dishonest means causes me to lose my job...do I have a right to kill him for that? If not what does justice say I DO have a right to do, if anything?

The purpose of laws should be to "define justice" I know that isn't what they do in reality. But Spooner's proposition that their should be no law at all doesn't ring at all tru to me either. Yes if we lived in a perfect world and all men were angels with no bad intentions it would work, but I just don't see how it can be applied and work in the real world.

You do continue to bring up interesting thoughts TW.

[Truth Warrior]

I keep coming up against "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

It's just part of the "brainwash" programming that you are coming up against, that you received as a child, and has been consistently reinforced, both consciously and subconsciously for the rest of your entire life.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for enough good people, to do enough of the wrong things, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong ways, enough of the time.

It just seems that politically, you are advocating doing nothing. I understand your sentiments, just still don't see how it leads to an improvement on our situation.

How much government shrinkage do you account for? ;) Many things are OUTSIDE of my control. I'm just a guy.

You blame voters because you say "Look at what the men you elected have done. therefore your fault! My response is The men that I have voted for were NOT elected, I am not responsible for the acts of those I did not vote for, and the real problem is that too many people either chose to not vote out of disgust, or they are misled into voting for bad people.

The system ( STATE ) is responsible and accountable, you willingly support the system ( STATE ).

Ergo ......

I agree with your philosophy that there should be no laws except for those needed to achieve justice. You and Spooner claim laws are not needed for that, I disagree. I thought about this a great deal last night. WE start with a simple proposition "Thou shalt not kill" and we all can pretty much agree that justice prohibits killing. Sadly, justice can only be enacted after the fact.

Screw justice, prevention and protection is the key.<IMHO>

Do I have a right to kill in self defense?

No! But sometime, it may be necessary. :(

Again, at least in my view justice would say yes.

Repeat: screw justice. Stay out of trouble, that is your responsible choice and action. ;)

Things get into gray areas. Do I have a right to kill to protect my property? Say I choose to be employed by someone else and a third party thru dishonest means causes me to lose my job...do I have a right to kill him for that? If not what does justice say I DO have a right to do, if anything?

PASS on the hypotheticals. :p Keep it simple! Get REAL. If you take care of the means, the ends tend to take care of themselves. ;)

The purpose of laws should be to "define justice" I know that isn't what they do in reality. But Spooner's proposition that their should be no law at all doesn't ring at all tru to me either. Yes if we lived in a perfect world and all men were angels with no bad intentions it would work, but I just don't see how it can be applied and work in the real world.

You are correct, if enough of us still choose to remain barbarians and savages. I choose to not join nor associate with them.

You do continue to bring up interesting thoughts TW.

Thank you, Sir. ;) Good questions. Keep thinking. :)



That was fun too. :)

Thanks!

NEXT? ;) :D

[Conservative Christian]

"Of this latter class - that is, the self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious class - are those woman suffrage persons who are so anxious that women should participate in all the falsehood, absurdity, usurpation, and crime of making laws, and enforcing them upon other persons."--Lysander Spooner

If you listen to the rantings of the average feminist, you'll find that most of them blame religious people for having OPPOSED women's suffrage/equal rights.

However, the grand idiot Lysander Spooner claims that religious people were SUPPORTERS of women's suffrage/equal rights. :p

It can't be both ways. Which is it? Were we "fer it", or "agin it"? :D

It clearly appears that everybody with an axe to grind wants to blame religious people for everything.

[constituent]

good thread.

[Truth Warrior]

"Of this latter class - that is, the self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious class - are those woman suffrage persons who are so anxious that women should participate in all the falsehood, absurdity, usurpation, and crime of making laws, and enforcing them upon other persons."--Lysander Spooner

If you listen to the rantings of the average feminist, you'll find that most of them blame religious people for having OPPOSED women's suffrage/equal rights.

However, the grand idiot Lysander Spooner claims that religious people were SUPPORTERS of women's suffrage/equal rights. :p

It can't be both ways. Which is it? Were we "fer it", or "agin it"? :D

It clearly appears that everybody with an axe to grind wants to blame religious people for everything.

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

[Truth Warrior]

good thread. Thanks! :) I like it too. ;)

[Conservative Christian]

Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be.

The ends do NOT justify the means.

Ron Paul disagrees with your bogus claim.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."

--Dr. Ron Paul

[Truth Warrior]

Ron Paul disagrees with your bogus claim.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage."

--Dr. Ron Paul And I disagree with your idiotic distortions. I stand by my statements.

Ron Paul in NOT my shepherd, and he's NOT your's, being a "Christian" ( so called ), either. BTW, Jesus was NOT a STATIST, nor even a "Christian", for that matter.

Get a frickin' clue. :rolleyes:



"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

[Truth Warrior]

Now returning to your previous post. :p


"Of this latter class - that is, the self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious class - are those woman suffrage persons who are so anxious that women should participate in all the falsehood, absurdity, usurpation, and crime of making laws, and enforcing them upon other persons."--Lysander Spooner

If you listen to the rantings of the average feminist, you'll find that most of them blame religious people for having OPPOSED women's suffrage/equal rights.

The AVERAGE feminist, of today, is a socialist AKA "liberal" ( so called ). As such they too, are merely idiots, with a statist agenda.

However, the grand idiot Lysander Spooner claims that religious people were SUPPORTERS of women's suffrage/equal rights. :p

Most probably Lysander was accurately referring to some religious people supporting women's suffrage, in HIS TIME ( mid to late 1800's).

Reread the above ( out of context, BTW ) quote for comprehension this time. ;)

It can't be both ways. Which is it? Were we "fer it", or "agin it"? :D

Sure it can, I categorically REJECT your bogus and false dichotomy. :p

It clearly appears that everybody with an axe to grind wants to blame religious people for everything.

Being just a bit "OVER THE TOP" there, in your "persecution complex", aren't you? Considering that it's ALL YOUR folks that are running the whole show. :p



Have a good day! :)

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, Conservative Christian, how dare you? Didn't you know it was better to sit on your ass and submit, than to try to remedy the situation? :p


Originally Posted by Truth Warrior
I walk my talk and also submit to the annual extortion by the armed statist thugs, your agents.

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

;)

[Truth Warrior]

Yeah, Conservative Christian, how dare you? Didn't you know it was better to sit on your ass and submit, than to try to remedy the situation? :p


Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition
Main Entry: submit
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: comply, endure
Synonyms: abide, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, agree, appease, bend, be submissive, bow, buckle, capitulate, cave, cede, concede, defer, eat crow*, fold, give away, give ground, give in, give way, go with the flow, grin and bear it, humor, indulge, knuckle, knuckle under*, kowtow*, lay down arms, obey, put up with, quit, relent, relinquish, resign oneself, say uncle, stoop, succumb, surrender, throw in the towel, toe the line*, tolerate, truckle, withstand, yield
Antonyms: disobey, fight, resist
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/submit&

;)

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Sure TW. Just following up on your "typical less than worthless post contribution" above, which I will repeat below. :p


Being just a bit "OVER THE TOP" there, in your "persecution complex", aren't you? Considering that it's ALL YOUR folks that are running the whole show.

;)

[Truth Warrior]

Sure TW. Just following up on your "typical less than worthless post contribution" above, which I will repeat below. :p

;)

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

No, thank you.

:D

I realize you always want to have the last word. Let's see how long you keep this up.

[Truth Warrior]

No, thank you.

:D

I realize you always want to have the last word. Let's see how long you keep this up.

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

No, thank you.

[Ozwest]

Truth Warrior,

I read your diatribe.

Lighten up mate!

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior,

I read your diatribe.

Lighten up mate!

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Truth Warrior]

No, thank you.
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

I find it curious that you repeatedly demand the last word in threads on an internet forum, but you KOWTOW, bend over, and submit to the government which you hate, while not lifting a finger to change it. Perhaps it is because the former can be done in complete anonymity.

[Ozwest]

Once again you flounder Truth Warrior.

Take a deep breath, and try and appreciate the beautiful things in life.

It re-focuses your thoughts...

[Truth Warrior]

I find it curious that you repeatedly demand the last word in threads on an internet forum, but you KOWTOW, bend over, and submit to the government which you hate, while not lifting a finger to change it. Perhaps it is because the former can be done in complete anonymity.

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Truth Warrior]

Once again you flounder Truth Warrior.

Take a deep breath, and try and appreciate the beautiful things in life.

It re-focuses your thoughts...

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Lol. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Lol. :D

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

You seriously cannot take not getting the last word every single time. Can you, TW?

[Truth Warrior]

You seriously cannot take not getting the last word every single time. Can you, TW?

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Perhaps you should remember your motto. ;)


Originally Posted by Truth Warrior
If at first you don't succeed, it's often smart and wise to just give up and walk away, there's really no constructive use in continuing making a damned fool of yourself.

Or, is your persistence in resistance limited to demanding the last word on an internet forum? Hey, that rhymes.

http://209.85.48.9/2349/52/emo/smiley-7-bouncin-aqua.gif

[Truth Warrior]

Perhaps you should remember your motto. ;)

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

But...

Then again, Truth Warrior, you may just be another self-righteous snob fixated on every tired detail of anus whilst searching for bretheren who are similarly infatuated.

Slim pickings.

[Truth Warrior]

But...

Then again, Truth Warrior, you may just be another self-righteous snob fixated on every tired detail of anus whilst searching for bretheren who are similarly infatuated.

Slim pickings.
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

Umm.... TW, I hate to tell ya, but you broke your own little rule about "contextwhateverthehellitis". You did not quote my entire post.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1823768&postcount=71

Just like John McCain. Can't follow yer own rules. :p

[Truth Warrior]

Umm.... TW, I hate to tell ya, but you broke your own little rule about "contextwhateverthehellitis". You did not quote my entire post.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1823768&postcount=71

Just like John McCain. Can't follow yer own rules. :p

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

Umm.... TW, I hate to tell ya, but you broke your own little rule about "contextwhateverthehellitis". You did not quote my entire post.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1823768&postcount=71

Just like John McCain. Can't follow yer own rules. :p

I reckon Truth Warrior should be pay a 25.00 surcharge for that mis-demeanor, and a extra 50.00 to squeeze my balls.

And...

An extra 200.00, if I'm dissapointed.

[LibertyEagle]

TW,

Now, if you'd only only turn all that fire in your belly that you use to have the last word in almost all of your threads, towards remedying the problems in government that you hate so much and submit to, you'd really be a force to reckon with. :)

[Truth Warrior]

TW,

Now, if you'd only only turn all that fire in your belly that you use to have the last word in almost all of your threads, towards remedying the problems in government that you hate so much and submit to, you'd really be a force to reckon with. :)

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

I reckon Truth Warrior should be pay a 25.00 surcharge for that mis-demeanor, and a extra 50.00 to squeeze my balls.

And...

An extra 200.00, if I'm dissapointed.

:D

[Danke]

LibertyEagle, you could just make the final post and then lock the thread. :D

[LibertyEagle]

And I disagree with your idiotic distortions. I stand by my statements.

Ron Paul in NOT my shepherd, and he's NOT your's, being a "Christian" ( so called ), either. BTW, Jesus was NOT a STATIST, nor even a "Christian", for that matter.

Get a frickin' clue. :rolleyes:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

And you ain't Gandhi, big boy. :p:D

[LibertyEagle]

LibertyEagle, you could just make the final post and then lock the thread. :D

Nah, that wouldn't be fair. :p

I'm not moderating in this thread, or couldn't you tell. :D

[Truth Warrior]

And you ain't Gandhi, big boy. :p:D

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

Anytime, TW. :)

[Truth Warrior]

Anytime, TW. :)
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[LibertyEagle]

lol

:D

[Truth Warrior]

lol

:D
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

" You fall out of your mothers womb, you crawl across open country under fire, and drop into your grave."

Quentin Crisp ---

[LibertyEagle]

Having the last word, does not mean you won the argument, TW. Perhaps you should think about that.

[Truth Warrior]

Having the last word, does not mean you won the argument, TW. Perhaps you should think about that.

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

Truth Warrior, your avatar and converging swamp of degradation meant to distract others, highlights your un-happiness.

Rather than creating distinctions, why not encourage intercourse?

[Truth Warrior]

" You fall out of your mothers womb, you crawl across open country under fire, and drop into your grave."

Quentin Crisp ---

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Truth Warrior]

Truth Warrior, your avatar and converging swamp of degradation meant to distract others, highlights your un-happiness.

Rather than creating distinctions, why not encourage intercourse?

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

Why don't you "bump?"

You say diddly.

[Truth Warrior]

Why don't you "bump?"

You say diddly.
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Ozwest]

Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --- George Orwell

You are a exaggerated bunny.

[Truth Warrior]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." --- George Orwell

You are a exaggerated bunny.
Thanks for your typical less than worthless post contribution and new additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[INforRP]

If anyone is still reading this thread and is interested in more Lysander Spooner...

One of my favorite articles by him is his article "vices are not crimes"

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

[Truth Warrior]

If anyone is still reading this thread and is interested in more Lysander Spooner...

One of my favorite articles by him is his article "vices are not crimes"

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

Yep, that's a good one too.<IMHO> I may just post it here on the RPF one of these days, unless you want to. ;)

Thanks! :)

[RonPaulNewbee]

good thread.

Not anymore.

[Feenix566]

The only reason Truth Warrior is posting these mysoganistic threads is to get attention. Stop rewarding him! Just ignore him. Thanks.

[Truth Warrior]

Not anymore. Yep, the children came in and made a mess of it again. It's happens. <SHRUG> :(

[Truth Warrior]

The only reason Truth Warrior is posting these mysoganistic threads is to get attention. Stop rewarding him! Just ignore him. Thanks. Maybe after your learn how to read they might even consider teaching you how to spell. :rolleyes:

Thanks for your less than worthless post contribution and additional OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Truth Warrior]

bump