Lysander Spooner (1808–1887)

Not an interesting or compelling argument even if I agree with the result

Spooner is a libertarian anarchist, but unfortunately he makes a really dull argument throughout this book, essentially that the constitution is invalid unless 100% of people physically sign their names to it in every generation. This is the kind of formal and legalistic argument that gets Sovereign Citizens and others laughed out of court or tased on the street. While there is some reasonable philosophical argument about the legitimacy of states, territorial monopolies, etc,, the way he makes this argument is less than useless — it generally lowers the stature of libertarianism overall.

He wrote the book/pamphlets in the immediate aftermath of the civil war, so the arguments about treason with respect to the South do make sense, but there are far better ways to make this case.

Probably still worth skimming as a historical document but overrated.… (meer)

This edition of "Let's Abolish Government" is a reprint of an edition published in 1972 by Arno Press. It contains a selection of three works most directly expressive of Lysander Spooner's version of individualist anarchism. In "An Essay on the Trial by Jury," Spooner argues on theoretical and historical grounds for jury nullification, the position that juries may rightfully judge not only the facts in legal cases but also the justice of the laws being employed in such cases. Spooner conceives of juries as a means by which the people may resist unjust government laws on the basis of their knowledge of principles of natural law (i.e. the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property). "A Letter to Grover Cleveland" is a vigorous condemnation of the United States government, and by extension all governments, as intrinsically the enemy of the people and their natural rights. And in "No Treason," Spooner argues that the United States Constitution, insofar as it is a contract among freely consenting individuals, is legally and morally binding only on those persons who actually agreed to the contract 220 years ago, and is neither legally nor morally binding upon anyone else, including everyone alive today. Spooner's arguments are both rigorously argued and energetically expressed, a pleasing combination not often found in the anarchist literature. I recommend "Let's Abolish Government" for those interested in arguments for anarchism (and in particular the anarchocapitalist version of that doctrine), as well as those interested in legal history and constitutional law.… (meer)

Spooner was an American anarchist, and in this essay he pursues one element or anchor of liberty in all its features. He presents a thousand years of history to demonstrate his conclusions regarding the rights of men against government and how those rights are protected by jury trials. He examines history and legal publications, quoted in massive footnotes, to back up his conclusions about juries. From those sources he inspects the oaths of judges, jurors, and English kings. He has some comments and notes to show how the rights and protections provided by juries are being eroded in his time (1852).

His conclusions are that juries can serve as a bulwark of liberty, but must have the authority to judge the law itself, the proceeding, and the case before it. Further, he holds that without all those powers, the U.S. constitutional guarantee of ‘trial by jury’ is meaningless. This is not light reading due to the depth and extent of his demonstrations, but that very detail makes this work a major source for students of jurisprudence, liberty, and their interaction.… (meer)

"No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" is one of the few unassailable classics of anarchism. It very effectively makes a legalistic case against the state, and is one of the most interesting statements of political philosophy, not to mention a touchstone (and challenge to) modern libertarianism.

On the other hand, the letter to Thomas Bayard (published alongside in this edition to the "No Treason" pamphlet) puts Spooner's argument in a slightly less persuasive light, to say the least.… (meer)