Why aren't Lysander Spooner's views on the Constitution debated more on this site?
Posted June 13th, 2008 by atrickpay
output
Back in 1867, Spooner wrote the a scathing attack on the Constitution entitled No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority.
One reviewer called it "the most subversive document ever penned in this nation."
Why is this work almost never mentioned? And why doesn't Ron talk about it? He has name-dropped Spooner a few times in interviews but he has never mentioned this book.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Ron Paul has dropped
Ron Paul has dropped Spooner's name only in reference to Lincoln as far as I know. Perhaps Dr.Paul doesn't endorse Spooner's take on the Constitution itself. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with someone on one point and disagreeing on another. Just look at the 9/11 stuff. I agree that we need another independent investigation but i don't agree it was aliens with holograms and laser beams and stuff.
No Time
We're too busy debating the assassination of Tim Russert, the brilliantly complex neocon plot to bring down the Twin Towers and blame it on the evil ter'rists, and promoting Barack Obama, Jesse Ventura, and Dennis Kucinich as Paulian surrogates.
Imperium Delenda Est!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
Impolite and impatient pedantic putz.
Spooner Kicks Butt
I first read Spooner in college.
There are three freedom thinkers that really stretched my thinking to the limits: Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand and David Friedman.
If we were to fight for the extremes that Spooner proposes, we'd probably end up with a constitutional government that the founders intended.
If we "merely" fight for the constitutional government that the founders intended then we'll end up with something less.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Paul agreed with Spooner there
I think Dr. Paul is probably an anarchist at heart but thinks it too impractical to talk about or advocate. It's just an ideal. One of Paul's colleagues the late Murray Rothbard was an anarchist, who Dr. Paul has a picture of on his wall in his office. Dr. Paul was very influenced by him and it's obviously reflected in his views, especially on war and corporativism. Enough so, that I would call Dr. Paul a Rothbardian. (Rothbard liked Spooner very much too).
Yeah, I always wondering about that
The Austrian school of economic thought is filled with scholars who are anarcho-capitalists. Hoppe, Rothbard, Block, Rockwell, Salerno, Long, Tucker, Murphy, Hülsmann, Gordon, etc.
And we all know that Ron has a deep respect for them.
But if he is a zero-government libertarian, why doesn't he at least give some stronger hints?
We simply want the original contract to be enforced.
If that happens, there would be pockets of the country that would in fact seem like neo anarchy. (Private contract law only).
I have not read this book by Spooner. I think I will give it a whirl.
We all have our roles.
Haha, well that's sort of the crux of the book
Spooner points out that there initial contract was never properly signed--which is a basic law requirement.
It is true Spooner's critique is based on contract theory, but
not all contracts require a signature to be valid. Most contracts are not signed. They are implied, as when we exchange our cash for a nearly infinite array of products. Having said that, Spooner is absolutely correct that there is no legitimate way under contract theory that a handful of white males could bind US posterity to submit to the Constitution by their simply creating it. Further, it it interesting to note Rothbard's history of the Constitution's creation reveals it to have been foisted on America by force and fraud. Who would be proud to uphold the Constitution - America's controlling document - knowing it came into force by criminal means?
As to Ron Paul, as others here have suggested, he probably does agree with free market anarchism but recognizes any efforts to promote it as an ideal in today's utterly politically ignorant America would be doomed to failure (I'll bet 99% of Americans equate anachists with chaos obsessed bomb throwers), whereas there is a near religious (though not intellectual) attachment to the Constitution throughout the populace. And, by pushing a Constitutional interpretation that strictly limits the federal government to only doing what is specifically authorized, Ron Paul, if his policy positions were followed, could come close to achieving what the anachists want.
marlow
Is it a technicality?
What is the basis of his arguement?
We all have our roles.
Read the article...
...here: http://lysanderspooner.or... - and anything else by Spooner, that you can get your hands on. It's a very enlightening experience, to put it mildly....
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
I have skimmed it and at a later date I will read in detail.
What would spooner say of this arguement?
The constitution is a contract between the state governments and the federal government and that the states should force the federal government to uphold its end of the bargain.
The citizens are free, or at least should be, to do as they please unless there is a state constitution that is ratified by its residents. At which point there is an ethical obligation to abide by the state constitution.
It is really the burden of the individual states to enforce the contract of the constitution, not the citizens.
The citizens should be focused on its relationship with the individual states and furthermore, its county, community, and neighborhood.
We all have our roles.
I believe Spooner would have attacked the individual state...
constitutions on the exact same grounds as he attacked the federal one.
Spooner's argument is flawed...
...In that he doesn't recognize the darkness of human nature. In an anarchistic society, those with the greatest might would always win. That would be why I feel no need to debate his position further. The Constitution is the clear winner in my book, and we simply need to have the resolve to be our government as intended by our founding fathers in order to ensure that our Constitution is obeyed by the government.
They only way it could be flawed
is if people don't have a natural or moral right to make contracts.
Disagree on two counts
a) Not true--the book doesn't necessarily propose a stateless society. It just makes the point that a government needs to follow the stupidly simple thing called a contract!
b) An your assertion about the "greatest might always winning" in a stateless society is a myth. Libertarian theorists overcame that one long ago.
For example, here's Roy Halliday dismantling it :
I could have fun debating you on those points.
a) The Constitution should be the contract between the people and the government (or the state)
b) Your quote 'dismantles' nothing I've said. Please elaborate on your opinion that my assertation is a myth.
Reply
a) Yes, that would be fine if the Constitution became a contract between the people and the State.
But, for that to happen there would need to to be a contract created that fulfilled the basics of law--that is signed by both parties (each citizen who wants to partake + the State).
b) Sorry, I intended my quote there to be a rebuttal to your point that Spooner "doesn't recognize the darkness of human nature."
So, now onto your claim that the "greatest might would always win" in a stateless society.
I think it is vacuous.
There would be competing police and judicial service firms that would deal with criminals, including "groups of great might" that might try to re-establish a State.
This I like
Thanks for the reply.
a) Agreed. The Constitution SHOULD be the contract between the people and it's government. Which is precisely why when it is treated as a 'living' document subject to change at the whim of the sitting administration and justices of the Supreme Court things go afoul of the original intent of our founding fathers.
b) Without the framework of an agreed upon set of laws such as the US Constitution, who would get to define what would be criminal? Anarchy as a form of self determination (one can't call anarchy a system of governance) would only be peaceful and just if ALL parties...every single one, were guided and adhered to the same moral code. You have to admit that that is not within the realm of possibility.
1. People would need to abide by the same moral code? Not true.
That would require that everyone follow the same religion. I can't think of any evidence that affirms that statement.
2. Regarding there needing to be a monopoly on the agreed upon set of laws...libertarian theorists have done a lot of work in this area over the years.
Here's David D. Friedman from his book The Machinery of Freedom:
bc
people like the idea of america and some form of national identity more than they like the idea of true individualism.
thus, the constitution is a compromise. while it may be technically illegitimate, it is practically legitimate, because people have knowledge of it, and act on its behalf for certain things they cherish. for example, liberals will ignore art I sect VIII, but defend the 1st amendment. it is more of a rallying cry than a contract. because it has such diverse protections of liberty, it is often used in various manners or inconsistently. but even within the different interpretations, it serves as a means to create political confidence and unity.
spooner makes good points, and should be used to make a case for anarchy, but such a battle is far, far away. at least if the goal is to win.
RP uses the constitution as a rallying cry for limited government. If he were instead to try to rally behind the idea that the constitution is null and void, he'd probably have less supporters.
and rather than try to work from a basic framework of rugged individualism that many don't even bother to consider, we are probably better off unifying public sentiment behind a mostly cherished document. the only difference is that we emphasize the whole thing, as literally written, considering the intentions as historically noted by the framers.
and even if our goal were anarchy, we could establish such through the legally defined methods in the constitution. we could amend the constitution to disband the government. of course, if we were to have the poltical power to do such, we probably wouldn't need to worry about methods.
Not a fan of Spooner
So I don't care.
Oh, it gets mentioned.....
I know I've tossed it out there, more than a few times. But it seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about (or even think about). Most likely because it IS "the most subversive document ever penned in this nation."
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
Yeah, talk about a white elephant...
It's pretty much the exact same thing over at LewRockwell.com
I can't recall reading even one article over that discussed Ron Paul's campaign to restore the republic in terms of Spooner's insights on the Constitution.
Weird.
No really too weird.......
If we were to "restore the republic in terms of Spooner's insights on the Constitution", it would basically turn everyone's world completely upside-down. Can't really blame people for being leery of something so drastic. Even attempting to "restore the Republic" in terms of Ron Paul's insights on the Constitution is more than most people can handle. Spooner is WAY beyond that...
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
That's true
But, I expected an least a mention of this from the well educated LRC crowd...
They've actually written about Spooner several times...
See - http://tinyurl.com/4pek5g
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
I browsed through those articles
Most were written before his campaign. And not one was directly related to discussing Ron Paul's advocacy of the Constitution in terms of No Treason.
True.
However, Ron Paul's campaign was never about "advocacy of the Constitution in terms of No Treason." It was always about advocacy of the Constitution in terms of Ron Paul's interpretation. And since LRC was a huge supporter of RP, they probably figured it was in his best interest (and the best interest of his campaign), if they didn't distract people with Spooner's interpretation. Like I mentioned earlier, most people are nowhere near ready for Spooner, and can barely understand Ron Paul. One step at a time........
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...
If the Constitution is to be a fair "contract" with citizens...
Then Lysander's argument with it could be resolved by having a coming of age ceremony for everyone who is a citizen in which each reads and signs the Constitution itself!
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged p731
And who would sign on behalf of government?
And be liable, in case of default? A legal contract must have at least two responsible parties as signatories...
http://groups.yahoo.com/g...