Political labels: Using terms like treason and sedition to describe political opposition can lead to harsher penalties and undermine individual liberty and equality.
The use of terms like treason and sedition to describe political opposition is harmful to a free society. These terms imply that individuals can betray the regime and that certain people, such as government agents, deserve special legal protections. However, in a free society, no one owes the government allegiance or loyalty, and all individuals are equal before the law. The use of these terms can lead to harsher penalties for political opponents and undermine the principles of individual liberty and equality. Despite their long-standing presence in federal law, it is important to recognize the dangers of using treason and sedition as labels for political opposition.
Abolish treason and sedition: The concepts of treason and sedition in American law are not necessary or justifiable as they perpetuate the myth of a social contract between citizens and the government, when in reality, the relationship is coercive and one-sided. The government's failure to uphold its end of the bargain should nullify the notion of treason.
The concepts of treason and sedition, as they are currently defined and enforced in American law, are not necessary or justifiable. They perpetuate the myth that individuals owe a debt or contract to the government, when in reality, the relationship between citizens and the regime is coercive and one-sided. The government's failure to uphold its end of the bargained "social contract" should nullify the notion of treason. The government's actions, such as allowing 9/11 to happen or failing to protect citizens from harm, should not be met with increased loyalty or obedience, but rather with scrutiny and demand for accountability. The idea of betraying or committing treason against such a flawed and fraudulent contract is an absurdity. It's time to abolish treason and sedition from American law and constitutional framework.
Individual consent and treason: Lysander Spooner argued that there's no moral obligation for individuals to abide by the US Constitution or its agents if they haven't given explicit consent, and treason laws unfairly treat government officials and property as a special protected class
The concept of treason and its connection to government authority is based on the idea of individual consent. According to Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century American libertarian, there is no moral obligation for Americans to abide by the US Constitution or its agents if they have not given explicit consent. The government and its employees are not inherently special, and crimes against them should be judged based on the nature of the act, not the status of the victim. Opponents of hate crime laws make similar arguments, but they overlook the fact that the same principle applies to treason and sedition laws. These laws treat crimes against government officials and property more harshly because the victims are considered a special protected class. However, all crimes, including those against government entities, are already illegal. Therefore, the concept of treason and its associated harsher penalties are based on a flawed premise of special status for government and its agents.
Power and Crime: During times of political change, the definition of crime can shift based on who holds power, as demonstrated by the Continental Congress's declaration of American secessionists as traitors during the American Revolution
Laws like treason and sedition can be used to send a message of prioritizing the regime's people and property over those of the productive private sector. This was evident during the American Revolution when the Continental Congress declared American secessionists as traitors, despite their previous actions not being considered treasonous under British law. This shift in labeling was based on the new regime declaring themselves as the rightful state monopolists. The irony lies in the fact that a group of traders, who were not traitors the previous year, could now label their opponents as such. The Continental Congress even recommended passing laws to punish these "traitors" as they saw fit. This historical example illustrates the moral incoherence of modern states, where the legal nature of crime can change based on who holds power.
Treason and sedition laws: Historically, treason and sedition laws have been used by regimes to assert power and punish challenges more harshly. Eliminating these laws may not be enough, as governments may interpret legal silence as consent for new and abusive laws. Protective language, like the First Amendment, can serve as a reminder that these laws exist to protect regimes, not citizens.
Treason and sedition laws have been historically used by regimes to assert and enhance their power. These laws establish that the regime has obtained a monopoly on power and will punish challenges to that monopoly more harshly than ordinary crimes. The language of citizen and treason is important propagandistically for regimes. To eliminate treason and sedition laws, simply erasing them from constitutions may not be sufficient as governments may interpret legal silence as consent for new and abusive laws. Instead, language similar to the First Amendment, which prohibits the creation or punishment of treason or sedition, would serve as a reminder that these concepts exist to protect regimes, not the people. However, written constitutions alone are not enough to prevent despotism.
Abolish all Treason and Sedition Laws
Recent Episodes from Audio Mises Wire
The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate”
Yet another discouraging trend in law in the UK, Europe, and the US has been the criminalization of what authorities call “hate speech.” However, much of what passes for such “speech” is innocuous at worst and historically has been protected.
Original article: The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate”
Governments Had a Major Role in Sustaining Slavery
Despite claims from progressive historians that US slavery was a natural outgrowth of a free market economy, the reality is that slavery would have been much costlier without governments—federal and state—subsidizing it. It is time to set the record straight.
Original article: Governments Had a Major Role in Sustaining Slavery
Conceptual Clarity in Dismantling Economic Jargon
Keynesians are known for using obscure and jumbled jargon to explain their fallacious ideas. The hope being that, the more confusing the language, the greater the perceived scholarship. Good economics can and should be clearly logically explained.
Original article: Conceptual Clarity in Dismantling Economic Jargon
Is GDP an Accurate Measure of Reality?
Mainstream economists speak of GDP as though it is the economy itself, however, GDP is not a good measure of economic reality. Instead, it presents a distorted picture of genuine economic activity and leads to mistaken conclusions about the economy.
Original article: Is GDP an Accurate Measure of Reality?
Diego Garcia and Cocos Islands: Another Example of US Imperialism
The US Armed Forces expand their footprints in the Indian Ocean, not to defend this country, but to expand military power. The Diego Garcia base has left a trail of ruined lives for those forced off their land to make room for yet another military base.
Original article: Diego Garcia and Cocos Islands: Another Example of US Imperialism
Debunking Alarmism over Artificial Intelligence
As AI continues to develop, so does the hysteria that AI will soon take over and relegate us to a dystopian future. We need to realize that, like so many other tools, AI can have good and bad uses, but it cannot control itself.
Original article: Debunking Alarmism over Artificial Intelligence
How to Contradict Yourself about Rights
What is the source of our rights, natural Law or the state? Unfortunately, too many people who should know better choose the latter. David Gordon makes short work of their internal contradictions.
Original article: How to Contradict Yourself about Rights
Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Easy-Money Bust?
While the world is abuzz over artificial intelligence (AI), present technologies are limited more than most people want to believe. The situation is ripe for malinvestments.
Original article: Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Easy-Money Bust?
The Regime’s War on Cash Could Destroy the Economy
Progressive and even many mainstream economists believe that cash is a relic from the past and should be replaced with digital money. There are many good reasons why not to follow this course, and no good reasons to replace cash.
Original article: The Regime’s War on Cash Could Destroy the Economy
Education: Labeling vs. Tailoring
Despite opposition from government at every turn, homeschooling has developed into an industry with astounding resources and high-quality results. Contrast the individual educational tailoring of homeschooling versus the government's version of individual care: the IEP label.
Original article: Education: Labeling vs. Tailoring