Section 8 The Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our
government practically rest?
On what ground can those who pretend to administer it claim the right to seize men's property,
to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill
all who deny their authority to dispose of men's property, liberties, and lives at their
pleasure or discretion?
The most they can say in answer to this question is that some half, two-thirds, or three-fourths
of the male adults of the country have a tacit understanding that they will maintain a government
under the Constitution, that they will select by ballot the persons to administer it, and
that those persons who may receive a majority or a plurality of their ballots shall act
as their representatives and administer the Constitution in their name and by their authority.
But this tacit understanding, admitting it to exist, cannot at all justify the conclusion
drawn from it.
A tacit understanding between A, B, and C, that they will by ballot depute D as their
agent to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so.
He is nonetheless a robber, tyrant, and murderer because he claims to act as their agent than
And he would be if he avowedly acted on his own responsibility alone.
Neither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can he legitimately claim to be
their agent when he brings no written authority from them accrediting him as such.
I am under no obligation to take his word as to who his principles may be, or whether
he has any.
Bringing no credentials, I have a right to say he has no such authority even as he claims
The Theory of Money and Credit
They cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principles, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principles.
The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principles, they have none.
But even these pretended agents do not themselves know who their pretended principles are.
These latter act in secret, for acting by secret ballot is acting in secret as much
as if they were to meet in secret conclave in the darkness of night, and they are personally
as much unknown to the agents they select as they are to others.
No pretended agent, therefore, can ever know by whose ballots he is selected, or consequently
who his real principles are.
Not knowing who his principles are, he has no right to say that he has any.
He can, at most, say only that he is the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers,
who are bound by that faith which prevails among confederates in crime, to stand by him,
if his acts done in their name shall be resisted.
Men honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in the world have no occasion thus
to act in secret, or to appoint agents to do acts for which they, the principals, are
not willing to be responsible.
The secret ballot makes a secret government, and a secret government is a secret band of
robbers and murderers.
Open despotism is better than this.
The single despot stands in the face of all men and says, I am the state.
My will is law.
I am your master.
I take the responsibility of my acts.
The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword.
If anyone denies my right, let him try conclusions with me.
But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins.
Under it a man knows not who his tyrants are until they have struck, and perhaps not then.
He may guess beforehand as to some of his immediate neighbors, but he really knows nothing.
The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection may prove an enemy when the
time of trial comes.
This is the kind of government we have, and it is the only one we are likely to have until
Until men are ready to say, We will consent to no constitution, except such a one as we
are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign, and we will authorize no government to do anything
in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.