The only security men can have for their political liberty

The only security men can have for their political liberty

22/09/2025
22/09/2025

The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.

The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty
The only security men can have for their political liberty

Lysander Spooner, fiery abolitionist and relentless critic of authority, once declared with unshakable conviction: “The only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.” In these words he strikes at the heart of freedom, proclaiming that liberty does not rest upon parchment constitutions or the benevolence of rulers, but upon the power of the people to guard their own wealth. For whoever commands a man’s purse commands his life, and without economic independence, political rights become empty shadows.

The origin of this truth lies in Spooner’s lifelong battle against oppression—whether in the chains of slavery or in the creeping power of the state. He saw taxation, when severed from consent, as a form of coercion no less vile than tyranny. To him, the ballot was fragile protection, but control over one’s earnings was tangible, the foundation of real autonomy. If men surrendered their money too easily, they surrendered the means to resist injustice, and liberty itself became hostage to power.

History resounds with examples. In the days of the American Revolution, the cry “No taxation without representation” was not mere rhetoric, but a demand for dignity. The colonists understood that if the Crown could seize their wealth at will, their supposed freedoms were a hollow mockery. They took up arms not only for abstract ideals but to protect the fruits of their own labor. Spooner’s words echo that spirit: political liberty dies when wealth is no longer secure in the hands of its earners.

So too in later ages, nations have risen and fallen on this truth. When oppressive regimes drained the people’s wealth through corruption and forced levies, liberty perished. Yet where citizens kept their resources in their own pockets—free to trade, to build, to speak without financial shackles—society flourished in strength. Spooner, ever the radical, saw this not as mere theory but as the bedrock of freedom itself: without economic independence, democracy becomes illusion.

Therefore, O seekers of justice, remember this law of liberty: political freedom cannot live without economic freedom. To keep one’s money is to keep one’s power, to preserve the means of resistance against tyranny. Constitutions may be twisted, rulers may betray their promises, but as long as the people guard their own wealth, they possess the strength to rise again. For the true treasury of liberty lies not in government coffers, but in the pockets of the free.

Lysander Spooner
Lysander Spooner

American - Philosopher January 19, 1808 - May 14, 1887

With the author

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 5 Comment The only security men can have for their political liberty

QHNguyen Quang Hai

Spooner’s view feels quite radical but relevant in today’s world, where the concentration of wealth often influences political decisions. If political liberty really depends on financial independence, does that mean ordinary citizens are at a disadvantage? Could this quote be a call for a more just system where people can participate in politics regardless of their financial standing?

Reply.
Information sender

TMThai Tran Thao My

This quote challenges the concept of political liberty by highlighting financial independence as the key to securing one’s freedom. It seems a bit elitist to assume that the ability to keep money in one's pocket directly leads to political power. What about individuals who might be politically active but have limited financial means? Are they less politically free?

Reply.
Information sender

VLVo Lam

Spooner’s point seems to imply that financial autonomy is key to ensuring political liberty, which feels somewhat valid. However, it also suggests that those without wealth are more susceptible to political control. But in a society with tax systems and government regulations, is it realistic to say that individuals can fully secure their political liberty just by keeping their money to themselves?

Reply.
Information sender

UGUser Google

The notion that political liberty depends on holding onto one's money makes me think about how wealth influences power dynamics. It raises the question: does having financial independence truly equate to more political freedom, or does it create a society where only the rich hold the reins of power? Can people without financial resources still maintain their political freedom?

Reply.
Information sender

HTHoang Trinh

Lysander Spooner’s quote suggests that financial control is directly linked to political freedom. It’s an interesting perspective, but does this mean that those with wealth are inherently more free? How does this viewpoint align with the idea of equality in democratic systems, where everyone is supposed to have an equal voice, regardless of their financial situation?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender