from Wikis page about it:
"Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it was demonstrated that the document was unable to adequately stop many abuses against liberty or to prevent tyranny from taking hold. Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it – this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom."
You really want this argument spoon(er)-fed to you, huh?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are no