Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Monday, May 11, 2015

The Spooner Fail

How many times have we heard: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Of course, Spooner was an Anarchist with an agenda.  His followers like to condemn the Constitution for failing to 'self-execute' - though not one document in History has ever done so.

Here's an intelligent piece refuting the notion of the Spooner approach.



  1. First, Spooner's statement is just true, that's all. This is without regard to the reasons or causes, which can be rationalized till the cows come home. It doesn't offer any answers; it just states a fact.

    The entire contract analogy fails, even aside from the fact that none of us were party to the contract. With a contract, it's the free will and consent--the sovereignty--of the parties which gives the contract whatever enforcement power is intended.

    With a government charter, it's the opposite. That theory there says it's the sovereignty contained in the document--or in practice the oligarchs that speak for the government--that gives the enforcement power to ITS agents.

    Those are two opposite positions and can't both be true. You can say your sovereignty can be "passed on" to the State as your agent, and that's correct. That's why Floridia swampland can and should be ruled by a Constitution, if that's what the people there would like.

    Problem is, you've still got a ton of individuals elsewhere who aren't willing to do that, and you are claiming that the sovereignty of the document (the government founded on the document) trumps their individual sovereignty.

    Bzzztt---Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will. The sovereignty is in the individual and should be recognized as such.

    The Founders of course did recognize it, saying that it was self-evident that a government can only acquire its just powers from the consent of the governed. Simple fact is, their position was wholly consistent with mine ("Consensualist") and not yours ("Restorationist"). "I do not add within the limits of the law..."

    So Spooner's statement is true regardless of the reasons, and the contract analogy in the article fails. And the Hip Brothers continue to try and justify their opposition to the Founders, and their opposition to an unambiguous sentence ("self-evident") in the DofI. Much like Spooner's statement, the reasons for that don't matter either.

    Not a bad try, though; there's always tomorrow. Until there isn't.

    1. 1) I never used the word "Contract" - so your premise is based upon a straw-man of your own creation.

      Flawed premise = no need to go further.


    2. "So Spooner's statement is true regardless of the reasons, and the contract analogy in the article fails."

  2. There isn't anything inherently anti liberty with anarchy. The only problem is that it won't work because a country with a govt and army will roll in and take over.

    1. Well, I won't argue with ya. The point is, and it is the only point, anarchy has a life expectancy of about one tenth of a second under any situation. Moronic jibber jabber to the contrary aside.

    2. Sure, that's a challenge in all scenarios. Without physical defense, all the yapping in the world isn't worth a thing. So then the question becomes, "Which provides a stronger defense, individuals working together defending their own values or individuals working together for some Greater Cause? So far the score is 1-1 on this continent, at least if we only count the American perspective. The coming events figure to be the tiebreaker.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.