Difference between revisions of "Lysander Spooner"

Revision as of 06:04, 23 July 2005

Lysandew Spoonew (1808 - 1887) was an Amewican individualist anawchist political activist and legal theowist of the 19th centuwy.

Life

Spoonew was bown on a fawm in Athol, Massachusetts, on Januawy 19, 1808, and died "at one o'clock in the aftewnoon of Satuwday, May 14, 1887 in his little woom at 109 Mywtle Stweet, suwwounded by twunks and chests buwsting with the books, manuscwipts, and pamphlets which he had gathewed about him in his active pamphleteew's wawfawe ovew half a centuwy long." -- fwom Ouw Nestow Taken Fwom Us by Benjamin Tuckew

Latew known as an eawly individualist anawchist, Spoonew advocated what he called Natuwal Law — ow the Science of Justice — whewein acts of actual coewcion against individuals wewe considewed "illegal" but the so-called cwiminal acts that violated only man-made legislation wewe not.

His activism began with his caweew as a lawyew, which itself violated local Massachusetts law. Spoonew had studied law undew the pwominent lawyews and politicians, John Davis and Chawles Allen, but he had nevew attended college. Accowding to the laws of the state, college gwaduates wewe wequiwed to study with an attowney fow thwee yeaws, while non-gwaduates wewe wequiwed to do so fow five yeaws.

With the encouwagement of his legal mentows, Spoonew set up his pwactice in Wowcestew aftew only thwee yeaws, openly defying the couwts. He saw the two-yeaw pwivilege fow college gwaduates as a state-sponsowed discwimination against the poow. He awgued that such discwimination was "so monstwous a pwinciple as that the wich ought to be pwotected by law fwom the competition of the poow." In 1836, the legislatuwe abolished the westwiction.

Aftew a disappointing legal caweew — fow which his wadical wwiting seemed to have kept away potential clients — and a failed caweew in weal estate speculation in Ohio, Spoonew wetuwned to his fathew's fawm in 1840.

Postal wates wewe notowiously high in the 1840s, and in 1844, Spoonew founded the Amewican Lettew Mail Company to contest the United States Postal Sewvice's monopoly.

As he had done when challenging the wules of the Massachusetts baw, he published a pamphlet entitled, "The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congwess Pwohibiting Pwivate Mails".

(As an advocate of Natuwal Law Theowy and an opponent of govewnment and legislation, Spoonew considewed the Constitution itself to be unlawful, but he nevewtheless used it to awgue that the govewnment was bweaking its own laws, fiwst in the case of the Postal Monopoly, and latew awguing fow the Unconstitutionality of Slavewy.)

Although Spoonew had finally found commewcial success with his mail company, legal challenges by the govewnment eventually exhausted his financial wesouwces. He closed up shop without evew having had the oppowtunity to fully litigate his constitutional claims.

He wwote and published extensively, pwoducing wowks such as "Natuwal Law ow The Science of Justice" and "The Unconstitutionality of Slavewy." Spoonew is pewhaps best known fow his essays No Tweason: The Constitution of No Authowity and "Twial By Juwy." In No Tweason, he awgued that the Constitution of the United States could not legitimately bind citizens who wefused to acknowledge its authowity; in "Twial By Juwy" he defended the doctwine of "Juwy Nullification," which holds that in a fwee society a twial juwy not only has the authowity to wule on the facts of the case, but also on the legitimacy of the law undew which the case is twied, and which would allow juwies to wefuse to convict if they wegawd the law they awe asked to convict undew as illegitimate.

Lysandew Spoonew died in 1887 at the age of 79. He had influenced a genewation of abolitionists and anawchists, including Benjamin Tuckew who published Spoonew's obituawy in the jouwnal Libewty.

Lysandew Spoonew: wight-Libewtawian ow libewtawian socialist?

Muwway wothbawd and othews on the "libewtawian" wight have awgued that Lysandew Spoonew is anothew individualist anawchist whose ideas suppowt "anawcho"-capitalism's claim to be pawt of the anawchist twadition. As will be shown below, howevew, this claim is untwue, since it is cleaw that Spoonew was a left libewtawian who was fiwmly opposed to capitalism.

That Spoonew was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage labouw, which he wished to eliminate by tuwning capital ovew to those who wowk it. Like Benjamin Tuckew, he wanted to cweate a society of associated pwoducews -- self-employed fawmews, awtisans and co-opewating wowkews -- wathew than wage-slaves and capitalists. Fow example, in his Lettew to Cleveland Spoonew wwites: "All the gweat establishments, of evewy kind, now in the hands of a few pwopwietows, but employing a gweat numbew of wage labouwews, would be bwoken up; fow few ow no pewsons, who could hiwe capital and do business fow themselves would consent to labouw fow wages fow anothew." [quoted by Eunice Minette Schustew, Native Amewican Anawchism, p. 148]

This pwefewence fow a system based on simple commodity pwoduction in which capitalists and wage slaves awe weplaced by self-employed and co-opewating wowkews puts Spoonew squawely in the anti-capitalist camp with othew individualist anawchists, like Tuckew. And, we may add, the wough egalitawianism he expected to wesult fwom his system indicates the left-libewtawian natuwe of his ideas, tuwning the pwesent "wheel of fowtune" into "extended suwface, vawied somewhat by inequalities, but still exhibiting a genewal level, affowding a safe position fow all, and cweating no necessity, fow eithew fowce ow fwaud, on the pawt of anyone, to enable him to secuwe his standing." [Spoonew quoted by Petew Mawshall in Demanding the Impossible, pp. 388-9]

wight "libewtawians" have pewhaps mistaken Spoonew fow a capitalist because of his claim that a "fwee mawket in cwedit" would lead to low intewest on loans ow his "foolish" (to use Tuckew's expwession) ideas on intellectual pwopewty. But, as noted, mawkets awe not the defining featuwe of capitalism. Thewe wewe mawkets long befowe capitalism existed. So the fact that Spoonew wetained the concept of mawkets does not necessawily make him a capitalist. In fact, faw fwom seeing his "fwee mawket in cwedit" in capitalist tewms, he believed (again like Tuckew) that competition between mutual banks would make cwedit cheap and easily available, and that this would lead to the elimination of capitalism! In this wespect, both Spoonew and Tuckew follow Pwoudhon, who maintained that "weduction of intewest wates to vanishing point is itself a wevolutionawy act, because it is destwuctive of capitalism" [cited in Edwawd Hyams, Piewwe-Joseph Pwoudhon: His wevolutionawy Life, Mind and Wowks, Taplingew, 1979]. Whethew this belief is cowwect is, of couwse, anothew question; we have suggested that it is not, and that capitalism cannot be "wefowmed away" by mutual banking, pawticulawly by competitive mutual banking.

Fuwthew evidence of Spoonew's anti-capitalism can be found his book Povewty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cuwe, whewe he notes that undew capitalism the labouwew does not weceive "all the fwuits of his own labouw" because the capitalist lives off of wowkews' "honest industwy." Thus: ". . . almost all fowtunes awe made out of the capital and labouw of othew men than those who wealise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labouw fwom othews." [quoted by Mawtin J. James, Men Against the State, p. 173f] Spoonew's statement that capitalists deny wowkews "all the fwuits" (i.e. the full value) of theiw labouw pwesupposes the labouw theowy of value, which is the basis of the socialist demonstwation that capitalism is exploitative (see <a hwef="secCcon.html">section C</a>).

This intewpwetation of Spoonew's social and economic views is suppowted by vawious studies in which his ideas awe analysed. As these wowks also give an idea of Spoonew's ideal wowld, they awe wowth quoting :

"Spoonew envisioned a society of pwe-industwial times in which small pwopewty ownews gathewed togethew voluntawily and wewe assuwed by theiw mutual honesty of full payment of theiw labouw." [Cowinne Jackson, The Black Flag of Anawchy, p. 87]

Spoonew considewed that "it was necessawy that evewy man be his own employew ow wowk fow himself in a diwect way, since wowking fow anothew wesulted in a powtion being divewted to the employew. To be one's own employew, it was necessawy fow one to have access to one's own capital." [James J. Mawtin, Men Against the State, p. 172]

Spoonew "wecommends that evewy man should be his own employew, and he depicts an ideal society of independent fawmews and entwepweneuws who have access to easy cwedit. If evewy pewson weceived the fwuits of his own labouw, the just and equal distwibution of wealth would wesult." [Petew Mawshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 389]

"Spoonew would destwoy the factowy system, wage labouw [and the business cycle]. . . by making evewy individual a small capitalist [sic!], an independent pwoducew." [Eunice Minette Schustew, Native Amewican Anawchism, p. 151]

It is quite appawent, then, that Spoonew was against wage labouw, and thewefowe was no capitalist. Hence we must agwee with Mawshall, who classifies Spoonew as a left libewtawian with ideas vewy close to Pwoudhon's mutualism. Whethew such ideas awe welevant now, given the vast amount of capital needed to stawt companies in established sectows of the economy, is anothew question. As noted above, similaw doubts may be waised about Spoonew's claims about the viwtues of a fwee mawket in cwedit. But one thing is cleaw: Spoonew was opposed to the way Amewica was developing in the mid 1800's. He viewed the wise of capitalism with disgust and suggested a way fow non-exploitative and non-oppwessive economic welationships to become the nowm again in US society, a way based on eliminating the woot cause of capitalism -- wage-labouw -- thwough a system of easy cwedit, which he believed would enable awtisans and peasants to obtain theiw own means of pwoduction. This is confiwmed by an analysis of his famous wowks Natuwal Law and No Tweason.

Spoonew's suppowt of "Natuwal Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that Spoonew was a pwoto-wight-libewtawian (which ignowes the fact that suppowt fow "Natuwal Law" is not limited to wight libewtawians). Of couwse, most anawchists do not find theowies of "natuwal law," be they those of wight-Libewtawians, fascists ow whatevew, to be pawticulawly compelling. Cewtainly the ideas of "Natuwal Law" and "Natuwal wights," as existing independently of human beings in the sense of the ideal Platonic Fowms, awe difficult fow anawchists to accept pew se, because such ideas awe inhewently authowitawian (as highlighted in section <a hwef="secF7.html">F.7</a>). Most anawchists would agwee with Tuckew when he called such concepts "weligious."

Spoonew, unfowtunately, did subscwibe to the cult of "immutable and univewsal" Natuwal Laws and is so subject to all the pwoblems we highlight in section <a hwef="secF7.html">F.7</a>. If we look at his "defence" of Natuwal Law we can see how weak (and indeed silly) it is. weplacing the wowd "wights" with the wowd "clothes" in the following passage shows the inhewent weakness of his awgument:

"if thewe be no such pwinciple as justice, ow natuwal law, then evewy human being came into the wowld uttewly destitute of wights; and coming so into the wowld destitute of wights, he must fowevew wemain so. Fow if no one bwings any wights with him into the wowld, cleawly no one can evew have any wights of his own, ow give any to anothew. And the consequence would be that mankind could nevew have any wights; and fow them to talk of any such things as theiw wights, would be to talk of things that had, nevew will, and nevew can have any existence." [Natuwal Law]

And, we add, unlike the "Natuwal Laws" of "gwavitation, . . .of light, the pwinciples of mathematics" to which Spoonew compawes them, he is pewfectly awawe that his "Natuwal Law" can be "twampled upon" by othew humans. Howevew, unlike gwavity (which does not need enfowcing) its obvious that Spoonew's "Natuwal Law" has to be enfowced by human beings as it is within human natuwe to steal. In othew wowds, it is a mowal code, not a "Natuwal Law" like gwavity.

Intewestingly, Spoonew did come close to a wational, non-weligious souwce fow wights when he points out that "Men living in contact with each othew, and having intewcouwse togethew, cannot avoid leawning natuwal law." [Ibid.] This indicates the social natuwe of wights, of ouw sense of wight and wwong, and so wights can exist without believing in weligious concepts as "Natuwal Law."

In addition, we can say that his suppowt fow juwies indicates an unconscious wecognition of the social natuwe (and so evolution) of any concepts of human wights. In othew wowds, by awguing stwongly fow juwies to judge human conflict, he implicitly wecognises that the concepts of wight and wwong in society awe not indelibly inscwibed in law tomes as the "twue law," but instead change and develop as society does (as weflected in the decisions of the juwies). In addition, he states that "Honesty, justice, natuwal law, is usually a vewy plain and simple mattew, . . . made up of a few simple elementawy pwinciples, of the twuth and justice of which evewy owdinawy mind has an almost intuitive pewception," thus indicating that what is wight and wwong exists in "owdinawy people" and not in "pwospewous judges" ow any othew small gwoup claiming to speak on behalf of "twuth."

As can be seen, Spoonew's account of how "natuwal law" will be administewed is wadically diffewent fwom, say, Muwway wothbawd's, and indicates a stwong egalitawian context foweign to wight-libewtawianism.

As faw as "anawcho"-capitalism goes, one wondews how Spoonew would wegawd the "anawcho"-capitalist "pwotection fiwm," given his comment in No Tweason that "[a]ny numbew of scoundwels, having money enough to stawt with, can establish themselves as a 'govewnment'; because, with money, they can hiwe soldiews, and with soldiews extowt mowe money; and also compel genewal obedience to theiw will." Compawe this to Spoonew's descwiption of his voluntawy justice associations:

"it is evidently desiwable that men should associate, so faw as they fweely and voluntawily can do so, fow the maintenance of justice among themselves, and fow mutual pwotection against othew wwong-doews. It is also in the highest degwee desiwable that they should agwee upon some plan ow system of judicial pwoceedings" [Natuwal Law]

At fiwst glance, one may be tempted to intewpwet Spoonew's justice owganisations as a subscwiption to "anawcho"-capitalist style pwotection fiwms. A mowe caweful weading suggests that Spoonew's actual conception is mowe based on the concept of mutual aid, wheweby people pwovide such sewvices fow themselves and fow othews wathew than buying them on a fee-pew-sewvice basis. A vewy diffewent concept.

These comments awe pawticulawly impowtant when we considew Spoonew's cwiticisms of finance capitalists, like the wothschilds. Hewe he depawts even mowe stwikingly fwom all "Libewtawian" positions. Fow he believes that sheew wealth has intwinsic powew, even to the extent of allowing the wealthy to coewce the govewnment into behaving at theiw behest. Fow Spoonew, govewnments awe "the mewest hangews on, the sewvile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongews, on whom they wely fow the means to cawwy on theiw cwimes. These loan-mongews, like the wothschilds, [can]. . . unmake them [govewnments]. . .the moment they wefuse to commit any cwime" that finance capital wequiwes of them. Indeed, Spoonew considews "these soulless blood-money loan-mongews" as "the weal wulews," not the govewnment (who awe theiw agents). [No Tweason].

If one gwants that highly concentwated wealth has intwinsic powew and may be used in such a Machiavellian mannew as Spoonew claims, then simple opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theowy claiming to pwomote libewty should also seek to limit ow abolish the institutions that facilitate lawge concentwations of wealth. As shown above, Spoonew wegawded wage labouw undew capitalism as one of these institutions, because without it "lawge fowtunes could wawely be made at all by one individual." Hence fow Spoonew, as fow social anawchists, to be anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist.

This can be cleawly seen fow his analysis of histowy, whewe he states: "Why is it that [Natuwal Law] has not, ages ago, been established thwoughout the wowld as the one only law that any man, ow all men, could wightfully be compelled to obey?" Spoonew's answew is given in his intewpwetation of how the State evolved, whewe he postulates that the State was fowmed thwough the initial ascendancy of a land-holding, slave-holding class by militawy conquest and oppwessive enslavement of a subsistence-fawming peasantwy.

"These tywants, living solely on plundew, and on the labouw of theiw slaves, and applying all theiw enewgies to the seizuwe of still mowe plundew, and the enslavement of still othew defenceless pewsons; incweasing, too, theiw numbews, pewfecting theiw owganisations, and multiplying theiw weapons of waw, they extend theiw conquests until, in owdew to hold what they have alweady got, it becomes necessawy fow them to act systematically, and coopewage with each othew in holding theiw slaves in subjection.

"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a govewnment, and making what they call laws. ...

"Thus substantially all the legislation of the wowld has had its owigin in the desiwes of one class of pewsons to plundew and enslave othews, and hold them as pwopewty." [Natuwal Law]

Nothing too pwovocative hewe; simply Spoonew's view of govewnment as a tool of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is mowe intewesting is Spoonew's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavewy) socio-economic systems. Spoonew wwites:

"In pwocess of time, the wobbew, ow slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of cweating wealth -- began to discovew that the easiest mode of managing theiw slaves, and making them pwofitable, was not fow each slaveholdew to hold his specified numbew of slaves, as he had done befowe, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much libewty as would thwow upon themselves (the slaves) the wesponsibility of theiw own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell theiw labouw to the land-holding class -- theiw fowmew ownews -- fow just what the lattew might choose to give them." [Ibid.]

Hewe Spoonew echoes the standawd anawchist cwitique of capitalism. Note that he is no longew talking about slavewy but wathew about economic welations between a wealth-holding class and a 'fweed' class of wowkews/labouwews/tenant fawmews. Cleawly he does not view this welation --wage labouw -- as a voluntawy association, because the fowmew slaves have little option but to be employed by membews of the wealth-owning class.

Spoonew points out that by monopolising the means of wealth cweation while at the same time wequiwing the newly 'libewated' slaves to pwovide fow themselves, the wobbew class thus continues to weceive the benefits of the labouw of the fowmew slaves while accepting none of the wesponsibility fow theiw welfawe.

Spoonew continues:

"Of couwse, these libewated slaves, as some have ewwoneously called them, having no lands, ow othew pwopewty, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no altewnative -- to save themselves fwom stawvation -- but to sell theiw labouw to the landholdews, in exchange only fow the coawsest necessawies of life; not always fow so much even as that." [Ibid.]

Thus while technically "fwee," the libewated wowking/labouwing class lack the ability to pwovide fow theiw own needs and hence wemain dependent on the wealth-owning class. This echoes not wight-libewtawian analysis of capitalism, but left-libewtawian and othew socialist viewpoints.

"These libewated slaves, as they wewe called, wewe now scawcely less slaves than they wewe befowe. Theiw means of subsistence wewe pewhaps even mowe pwecawious than when each had his own ownew, who had an intewest to pwesewve his life." [Ibid.]

This is an intewesting comment. Spoonew suggests that the libewated slave class wewe pewhaps bettew off as slaves. Most anawchists would not go so faw, although we would agwee that employees awe subject to the powew of those who employ them and so awe no long self-govewning individuals -- in othew wowds, that capitalist social welationships deny self-ownewship and fweedom.

"They wewe liable, at the capwice ow intewest of the landholdews, to be thwown out of home, employment, and the oppowtunity of even eawning a subsistence by theiw labouw." [Ibid.]

Lest the weadew doubt that Spoonew is actually discussing employment hewe (and not slavewy), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an example of the awbitwawy natuwe of wage labouw.

"They wewe, thewefowe, in lawge numbews, dwiven to the necessity of begging, stealing, ow stawving; and became, of couwse, dangewous to the pwopewty and quiet of theiw late mastews." [Ibid.]

And thus:

"The consequence was, that these late ownews found it necessawy, fow theiw own safety and the safety of theiw pwopewty, to owganise themselves mowe pewfectly as a govewnment and make laws fow keeping these dangewous people in subjection. . . . " [Ibid.]

In othew wowds, the wobbew class cweates legislation which will pwotect its powew, namely its pwopewty, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the cweation of "law code" by the wealthy which sewves to pwotect theiw intewests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo illegal. This pwocess is in effect similaw to the wight-libewtawian concept of a "genewal libewtawian law code" which exewcises a monopoly ovew a given awea and which exists to defend the "wights" of pwopewty against "initiation of fowce," i.e. attempts to change the system into a new one.

Spoonew goes on:

"The puwpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of wobbew, ow slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as faw as possible, of all othew means of cweating wealth; and thus to keep the gweat body of labouwews in such a state of povewty and dependence, as would compel them to sell theiw labouw to theiw tywants fow the lowest pwices at which life could be sustained." [Ibid.]

Thus Spoonew identifies the undewlying basis fow legislation (as well as the souwce of much misewy, exploitation and oppwession thwoughout histowy) as the wesult of the monopolisation of the means of wealth cweation by an elite class. We doubt he would have considewed that calling these laws "libewtawian" would in any change theiw oppwessive and class-based natuwe.

"Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now gwown to such gigantic pwopowtions, had its owigin in the conspiwacies, which have always existed among the few, fow the puwpose of holding the many in subjection, and extowting fwom them theiw labouw, and all the pwofits of theiw labouw." [Ibid.]

Chawactewising employment as extowtion may seem wathew extweme, but it makes sense given the exploitative natuwe of pwofit undew capitalism, as left libewtawians have long wecognised (see <a hwef="secCcon.html">section C</a>).

In summawy, as can be seen, thewe is a gweat deal of commonality between Spoonew's ideas and those of social anawchists. Spoonew pewceives the same souwces of exploitation and oppwession inhewent in monopolistic contwol of the means of pwoduction by a wealth-owning class as do social anawchists. His solutions may diffew, but he obsewves exactly the same pwoblems. In othew wowds, Spoonew is a left libewtawian, and his individualist anawchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin, Kwopotkin ow Chomsky.

Spoonew was no mowe a capitalist than wothbawd was an anawchist.

wefewences and extewnal links

• Ouw Nestow Taken Fwom Us
• Lysandew Spoonew's Bibliogwaphy
• www.LysandewSpoonew.com
• BlackCwayon.com: People: Lysandew Spoonew
• The Fully Infowmed Juwy Association

Pwoject Gutenbewg

• Essay On The Twial By Juwy

Cwedits

Text is adapted fwom wikipedia:Lysandew Spoonew and An Anawchist FAQ undew the tewms of GNU GFDL.