An Essay On The Trial By Jury - Lysander Spooner (little red riding hood read aloud .TXT) 📗

It,  For The Protection

Of Their Rights Against Wrong-Doers. In its Voluntary Character

It Is Precisely Similar To An Association For Mutual Protection

Against Fire Or Shipwreck. Before A Man Will Join An Association

For These Latter Purposes,  And Pay The Premium For Being insured,

He Will,  If He Be A Man Of Sense,  Look At The Articles Of The

Association; See What The Company Promises To Do; What It Is

Likely To Do; And What Are The Rates Of Insurance. If He Be

Satisfied on All These Points,  He Will Become A Member,  Pay His

Premium For A Year,  And Then Hold The Company To Its Contract. If

The Conduct Of The Company Prove Unsatisfactory,  He Will Let His

Policy Expire At The End Of The Year For Which He Has Paid; Will

Decline To Pay Any Further Premiums,  And Either Seek Insurance

Elsewhere,  Or Take His Own Risk Without Any Insurance. And As Men

Act In the Insurance Of Their Ships And Dwellings,  They Would Act

In The Insurance Of Their Properties,  Liberties And Lives,  In the

Political Association,  Or Government.

 

The Political Insurance Company,  Or Government,  Have No More

Right,  In nature Or Reason,  To Assume A Man'S Consent To Be

Protected by Them,  And To Be Taxed for That Protection,  When He

Has Given No Actual Consent,  Than A Fire Or Marine Insurance

Company Have To Assume A Man'S Consent To Be Protected by Them,

And To Pay The Premium,  When His Actual Consent Has Never Been

Given. To Take A Man'S Property Without His Consent Is Robbery;

And To Assume His Consent,  Where No Actual Consent Is Given,

Makes The Taking none The Less Robbery. If It Did,  The Highwayman

Has The Same Right To Assume A Man'S Consent To Part With His

Purse,  That Any Other Man,  Or Body Of Men,  Can Have. And His

Assumption Would Afford As Much Moral Justification For His

Robbery As Does A Like Assumption,  On The Part Of The Government,

For Taking a Man'S Property Without His Consent. The Government'S

Pretence Of Protecting him,  As An Equivalent For The Taxation,

Affords No Justification. It Is For Himself To Decide Whether He

Desires Such Protection As The Government Offers Him. If He Do

Not Desire It,  Or Do Not Bargain For It,  The Government Has No

More Right Than Any Other Insurance Company To Impose It Upon

Him,  Or Make Him Pay For It. Trial By The Country,  And No

Taxation Without Consent,  Were The Two Pillars Of English

Liberty,  (When England Had Any Liberty,) And The First Principles

Of The Common Law. They Mutually Sustain Each Other; And

Neither Can Stand Without The Other. Without Both,  No People Have Any

Guaranty For Their Freedom; With Both,  No People Can Be Otherwise

Than Free. [1]

 

[1] Trial By The Country,  And No Taxation Without Consent,

Mutually Sustain Each Other,  And Can Be Sustained only By Each

Other,  For These Reasons: 1. Juries Would Refuse To Enforce A Tax

Against A Man Who Had Never Agreed to Pay It. They Would Also

Protect Men In forcibly Resisting the Collection Of Taxes To

Which They Had Never Consented. Otherwise The Jurors Would

Appendix (Taxation) Pg 214

Authorize The Government To Tax Themselves Without Their Consent, 

A Thing which No Jury Would Be Likely To Do. In these Two Ways,

Then,  Trial By The Country Would Sustain The Principle Of No

Taxation Without Consent. 2. On The Other Hand,  The Principle Of

No Taxation Without Consent Would Sustain The Trial By The

Country,  Because Men In general Would Not Consent To Be Taxed for

The Support Of A Government Under Which Trial By The Country Was

Not Secured. Thus These Two Principles Mutually Sustain Each

Other.

 

But,  If Either Of These Principles Were Broken Down,  The Other

Would Fall With It,  And For These Reasons:If Trial By The Country

Were Broken Down,  The Principle Of No Taxation Without Consent

Would Fall With It,  Because The Government Would Then Be Able

Totax The People Without Their Consent,  Inasmuch As The Legal

Tribunals Would Be Mere Tools Of The Government,  And Would

Enforce Such Taxation,  And Punish Men For Resisting such

Taxation,  As The Government Ordered.

 

On The Other Hand,  If The Principle Of No Taxation Without

Consent Were Broken Down,  Trial By The Country Would Fall With

It,  Because The Government,  If It Could Tax People Without Their

Consent,  Would,  Of Course,  Take Enough Of Their Money To Enable

It To Employ All The Force Necessary For Sustaining its Own

Tribunals,  (In The Place Of Juries,) And Carrying their Decrees

Into Execution.

 

By What Force,  Fraud,  And Conspiracy,  On The Part Of Kings,

Nobles,  And "A Few Wealthy Freeholders," These Pillars Have Been

Prostrated in england,  It Is Desired to Show More Fully In the

Next Volume,  If It Should Be Necessary.

 

 

 

Imprint

Publication Date: 05-12-2014

All Rights Reserved