Difference between revisions of "Lysander Spooner"

Revision as of 13:05, 23 July 2005

Lysander Spooner

Born	January 19, 1808 Athol, Massachusetts, USA
Died	May 14, 1887 New York, USA

Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) was an American individualist anarchist political activist and legal theorist of the 19th century.

Life

Spooner was born on a farm in Athol, Massachusetts, on January 19, 1808, and died "at one o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, May 14, 1887 in his little room at 109 Myrtle Street, surrounded by trunks and chests bursting with the books, manuscripts, and pamphlets which he had gathered about him in his active pamphleteer's warfare over half a century long." -- from Our Nestor Taken From Us by Benjamin Tucker

Later known as an early individualist anarchist, Spooner advocated what he called Natural Law — or the Science of Justice — wherein acts of actual coercion against individuals were considered "illegal" but the so-called criminal acts that violated only man-made legislation were not.

His activism began with his career as a lawyer, which itself violated local Massachusetts law. Spooner had studied law under the prominent lawyers and politicians, John Davis and Charles Allen, but he had never attended college. According to the laws of the state, college graduates were required to study with an attorney for three years, while non-graduates were required to do so for five years.

With the encouragement of his legal mentors, Spooner set up his practice in Worcester after only three years, openly defying the courts. He saw the two-year privilege for college graduates as a state-sponsored discrimination against the poor. He argued that such discrimination was "so monstrous a principle as that the rich ought to be protected by law from the competition of the poor." In 1836, the legislature abolished the restriction.

After a disappointing legal career — for which his radical writing seemed to have kept away potential clients — and a failed career in real estate speculation in Ohio, Spooner returned to his father's farm in 1840.

Postal rates were notoriously high in the 1840s, and in 1844, Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company to contest the United States Postal Service's monopoly.

As he had done when challenging the rules of the Massachusetts bar, he published a pamphlet entitled, "The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails".

(As an advocate of Natural Law Theory and an opponent of government and legislation, Spooner considered the Constitution itself to be unlawful, but he nevertheless used it to argue that the government was breaking its own laws, first in the case of the Postal Monopoly, and later arguing for the Unconstitutionality of Slavery.)

Although Spooner had finally found commercial success with his mail company, legal challenges by the government eventually exhausted his financial resources. He closed up shop without ever having had the opportunity to fully litigate his constitutional claims.

He wrote and published extensively, producing works such as "Natural Law or The Science of Justice" and "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery." Spooner is perhaps best known for his essays No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and "Trial By Jury." In No Treason, he argued that the Constitution of the United States could not legitimately bind citizens who refused to acknowledge its authority; in "Trial By Jury" he defended the doctrine of "Jury Nullification," which holds that in a free society a trial jury not only has the authority to rule on the facts of the case, but also on the legitimacy of the law under which the case is tried, and which would allow juries to refuse to convict if they regard the law they are asked to convict under as illegitimate.

Lysander Spooner died in 1887 at the age of 79. He had influenced a generation of abolitionists and anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker who published Spooner's obituary in the journal Liberty.

Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist?

Murray Rothbard and others on the "libertarian" right have argued that Lysander Spooner is another individualist anarchist whose ideas support "anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be part of the anarchist tradition. As will be shown below, however, this claim is untrue, since it is clear that Spooner was a left libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism.

That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who work it. Like Benjamin Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and co-operating workers -- rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his Letter to Cleveland Spooner writes: "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." [quoted by Eunice Minette Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 148]

This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating workers puts Spooner squarely in the anti-capitalist camp with other individualist anarchists, like Tucker. And, we may add, the rough egalitarianism he expected to result from his system indicates the left-libertarian nature of his ideas, turning the present "wheel of fortune" into "extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, but still exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all, and creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of anyone, to enable him to secure his standing." [Spooner quoted by Peter Marshall in Demanding the Impossible, pp. 388-9]

Right "libertarians" have perhaps mistaken Spooner for a capitalist because of his claim that a "free market in credit" would lead to low interest on loans or his "foolish" (to use Tucker's expression) ideas on intellectual property. But, as noted, markets are not the defining feature of capitalism. There were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact that Spooner retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him a capitalist. In fact, far from seeing his "free market in credit" in capitalist terms, he believed (again like Tucker) that competition between mutual banks would make credit cheap and easily available, and that this would lead to the elimination of capitalism! In this respect, both Spooner and Tucker follow Proudhon, who maintained that "reduction of interest rates to vanishing point is itself a revolutionary act, because it is destructive of capitalism" [cited in Edward Hyams, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works, Taplinger, 1979]. Whether this belief is correct is, of course, another question; we have suggested that it is not, and that capitalism cannot be "reformed away" by mutual banking, particularly by competitive mutual banking.

Further evidence of Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure, where he notes that under capitalism the labourer does not receive "all the fruits of his own labour" because the capitalist lives off of workers' "honest industry." Thus: ". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour from others." [quoted by Martin J. James, Men Against the State, p. 173f] Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers "all the fruits" (i.e. the full value) of their labour presupposes the labour theory of value, which is the basis of the socialist demonstration that capitalism is exploitative (see <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a>).

This interpretation of Spooner's social and economic views is supported by various studies in which his ideas are analysed. As these works also give an idea of Spooner's ideal world, they are worth quoting :

"Spooner envisioned a society of pre-industrial times in which small property owners gathered together voluntarily and were assured by their mutual honesty of full payment of their labour." [Corinne Jackson, The Black Flag of Anarchy, p. 87]

Spooner considered that "it was necessary that every man be his own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer. To be one's own employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital." [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 172]

Spooner "recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he depicts an ideal society of independent farmers and entrepreneurs who have access to easy credit. If every person received the fruits of his own labour, the just and equal distribution of wealth would result." [Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 389]

"Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist [sic!], an independent producer." [Eunice Minette Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 151]

It is quite apparent, then, that Spooner was against wage labour, and therefore was no capitalist. Hence we must agree with Marshall, who classifies Spooner as a left libertarian with ideas very close to Proudhon's mutualism. Whether such ideas are relevant now, given the vast amount of capital needed to start companies in established sectors of the economy, is another question. As noted above, similar doubts may be raised about Spooner's claims about the virtues of a free market in credit. But one thing is clear: Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing in the mid 1800's. He viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and suggested a way for non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic relationships to become the norm again in US society, a way based on eliminating the root cause of capitalism -- wage-labour -- through a system of easy credit, which he believed would enable artisans and peasants to obtain their own means of production. This is confirmed by an analysis of his famous works Natural Law and No Treason.

Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian (which ignores the fact that support for "Natural Law" is not limited to right libertarians). Of course, most anarchists do not find theories of "natural law," be they those of right-Libertarians, fascists or whatever, to be particularly compelling. Certainly the ideas of "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights," as existing independently of human beings in the sense of the ideal Platonic Forms, are difficult for anarchists to accept per se, because such ideas are inherently authoritarian (as highlighted in section <a href="secF7.html">F.7</a>). Most anarchists would agree with Tucker when he called such concepts "religious."

Spooner, unfortunately, did subscribe to the cult of "immutable and universal" Natural Laws and is so subject to all the problems we highlight in section <a href="secF7.html">F.7</a>. If we look at his "defence" of Natural Law we can see how weak (and indeed silly) it is. Replacing the word "rights" with the word "clothes" in the following passage shows the inherent weakness of his argument:

"if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and coming so into the world destitute of rights, he must forever remain so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another. And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights; and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be to talk of things that had, never will, and never can have any existence." [Natural Law]

And, we add, unlike the "Natural Laws" of "gravitation, . . .of light, the principles of mathematics" to which Spooner compares them, he is perfectly aware that his "Natural Law" can be "trampled upon" by other humans. However, unlike gravity (which does not need enforcing) its obvious that Spooner's "Natural Law" has to be enforced by human beings as it is within human nature to steal. In other words, it is a moral code, not a "Natural Law" like gravity.

Interestingly, Spooner did come close to a rational, non-religious source for rights when he points out that "Men living in contact with each other, and having intercourse together, cannot avoid learning natural law." [Ibid.] This indicates the social nature of rights, of our sense of right and wrong, and so rights can exist without believing in religious concepts as "Natural Law."

In addition, we can say that his support for juries indicates an unconscious recognition of the social nature (and so evolution) of any concepts of human rights. In other words, by arguing strongly for juries to judge human conflict, he implicitly recognises that the concepts of right and wrong in society are not indelibly inscribed in law tomes as the "true law," but instead change and develop as society does (as reflected in the decisions of the juries). In addition, he states that "Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception," thus indicating that what is right and wrong exists in "ordinary people" and not in "prosperous judges" or any other small group claiming to speak on behalf of "truth."

As can be seen, Spooner's account of how "natural law" will be administered is radically different from, say, Murray Rothbard's, and indicates a strong egalitarian context foreign to right-libertarianism.

As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, one wonders how Spooner would regard the "anarcho"-capitalist "protection firm," given his comment in No Treason that "[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will." Compare this to Spooner's description of his voluntary justice associations:

"it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrong-doers. It is also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan or system of judicial proceedings" [Natural Law]

At first glance, one may be tempted to interpret Spooner's justice organisations as a subscription to "anarcho"-capitalist style protection firms. A more careful reading suggests that Spooner's actual conception is more based on the concept of mutual aid, whereby people provide such services for themselves and for others rather than buying them on a fee-per-service basis. A very different concept.

These comments are particularly important when we consider Spooner's criticisms of finance capitalists, like the Rothschilds. Here he departs even more strikingly from all "Libertarian" positions. For he believes that sheer wealth has intrinsic power, even to the extent of allowing the wealthy to coerce the government into behaving at their behest. For Spooner, governments are "the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, [can]. . . unmake them [governments]. . .the moment they refuse to commit any crime" that finance capital requires of them. Indeed, Spooner considers "these soulless blood-money loan-mongers" as "the real rulers," not the government (who are their agents). [No Treason].

If one grants that highly concentrated wealth has intrinsic power and may be used in such a Machiavellian manner as Spooner claims, then simple opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theory claiming to promote liberty should also seek to limit or abolish the institutions that facilitate large concentrations of wealth. As shown above, Spooner regarded wage labour under capitalism as one of these institutions, because without it "large fortunes could rarely be made at all by one individual." Hence for Spooner, as for social anarchists, to be anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist.

This can be clearly seen for his analysis of history, where he states: "Why is it that [Natural Law] has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey?" Spooner's answer is given in his interpretation of how the State evolved, where he postulates that the State was formed through the initial ascendancy of a land-holding, slave-holding class by military conquest and oppressive enslavement of a subsistence-farming peasantry.

"These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labour of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organisations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperage with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.

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

"Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, and hold them as property." [Natural Law]

Nothing too provocative here; simply Spooner's view of government as a tool of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting is Spooner's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery) socio-economic systems. Spooner writes:

"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them." [Ibid.]

Here Spooner echoes the standard anarchist critique of capitalism. Note that he is no longer talking about slavery but rather about economic relations between a wealth-holding class and a 'freed' class of workers/labourers/tenant farmers. Clearly he does not view this relation --wage labour -- as a voluntary association, because the former slaves have little option but to be employed by members of the wealth-owning class.

Spooner points out that by monopolising the means of wealth creation while at the same time requiring the newly 'liberated' slaves to provide for themselves, the robber class thus continues to receive the benefits of the labour of the former slaves while accepting none of the responsibility for their welfare.

Spooner continues:

"Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from starvation -- but to sell their labour to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that." [Ibid.]

Thus while technically "free," the liberated working/labouring class lack the ability to provide for their own needs and hence remain dependent on the wealth-owning class. This echoes not right-libertarian analysis of capitalism, but left-libertarian and other socialist viewpoints.

"These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life." [Ibid.]

This is an interesting comment. Spooner suggests that the liberated slave class were perhaps better off as slaves. Most anarchists would not go so far, although we would agree that employees are subject to the power of those who employ them and so are no long self-governing individuals -- in other words, that capitalist social relationships deny self-ownership and freedom.

"They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labour." [Ibid.]

Lest the reader doubt that Spooner is actually discussing employment here (and not slavery), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an example of the arbitrary nature of wage labour.

"They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters." [Ibid.]

And thus:

"The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organise themselves more perfectly as a government and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection. . . . " [Ibid.]

In other words, the robber class creates legislation which will protect its power, namely its property, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the creation of "law code" by the wealthy which serves to protect their interests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo illegal. This process is in effect similar to the right-libertarian concept of a "general libertarian law code" which exercises a monopoly over a given area and which exists to defend the "rights" of property against "initiation of force," i.e. attempts to change the system into a new one.

Spooner goes on:

"The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of labourers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labour to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained." [Ibid.]

Thus Spooner identifies the underlying basis for legislation (as well as the source of much misery, exploitation and oppression throughout history) as the result of the monopolisation of the means of wealth creation by an elite class. We doubt he would have considered that calling these laws "libertarian" would in any change their oppressive and class-based nature.

"Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labour, and all the profits of their labour." [Ibid.]

Characterising employment as extortion may seem rather extreme, but it makes sense given the exploitative nature of profit under capitalism, as left libertarians have long recognised (see <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a>).

In summary, as can be seen, there is a great deal of commonality between Spooner's ideas and those of social anarchists. Spooner perceives the same sources of exploitation and oppression inherent in monopolistic control of the means of production by a wealth-owning class as do social anarchists. His solutions may differ, but he observes exactly the same problems. In other words, Spooner is a left libertarian, and his individualist anarchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin, Kropotkin or Chomsky.

Spooner was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.

References and external links

Project Gutenberg

Essay On The Trial By Jury

Credits

Text is adapted from wikipedia:Lysander Spooner and An Anarchist FAQ under the terms of GNU GFDL.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Infobox_Biograpfucky |
+{{Infobox_Biography |
-   subject_name=wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew |
+   subject_name=Lysander Spooner |
-   image_name= wytfuckandewtfuckpoonew.jpg |
+   image_name= LysanderSpooner.jpg |
    image_caption= |
    quotation= |
-   date_of_birth=[[Januawy 19]], [[1808]] |
+   date_of_birth=[[January 19]], [[1808]] |
-   place_of_birth=[[Atfuckow]], [[Matfucktfuckagfuckutfucketttfuck]], [[UtfuckA]] |
+   place_of_birth=[[Athol]], [[Massachusetts]], [[USA]] |
    date_of_death=[[May 14]], [[1887]] |
-   place_of_death=[[New Yowg]], [[UtfuckA]]
+   place_of_death=[[New York]], [[USA]]
 }}
-'''wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew''' ([[1808]] - [[1887]]) watfuck an Amewigan [[individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckm|individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckt]] powitigaw agtivitfuckt and wegaw tfuckeowitfuckt of tfucke [[19tfuck gentuwy]].
+'''Lysander Spooner''' ([[1808]] - [[1887]]) was an American [[individualist anarchism|individualist anarchist]] political activist and legal theorist of the [[19th century]].
-==wife==
+==Life==
-tfuckpoonew watfuck bown on a fawm in [[Atfuckow, Matfucktfuckagfuckutfucketttfuck|Atfuckow]], [[Matfucktfuckagfuckutfucketttfuck]], on Januawy 19, 1808, and died "at one o'gwogg in tfucke aftewnoon of tfuckatuwday, May 14, [[1887]] in fuckitfuck wittwe woom at 109 Mywtwe tfucktweet, tfuckuwwounded by twungtfuck and gfucketfuckttfuck buwtfuckting witfuck tfucke boogtfuck, manutfuckgwipttfuck, and pampfuckwettfuck wfuckigfuck fucke fuckad gatfuckewed about fuckim in fuckitfuck agtive pampfuckweteew'tfuck wawfawe ovew fuckawf a gentuwy wong." -- fwom ''Ouw Netfucktow Tagen Fwom Utfuck'' by [[Benjamin Tuggew]]
+Spooner was born on a farm in [[Athol, Massachusetts|Athol]], [[Massachusetts]], on January 19, 1808, and died "at one o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, May 14, [[1887]] in his little room at 109 Myrtle Street, surrounded by trunks and chests bursting with the books, manuscripts, and pamphlets which he had gathered about him in his active pamphleteer's warfare over half a century long." -- from ''Our Nestor Taken From Us'' by [[Benjamin Tucker]]
-watew gnown atfuck an eawwy [[individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckm|individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckt]], tfuckpoonew advogated wfuckat fucke gawwed [[Natuwaw waw|Natuwaw waw]] &mdatfuckfuck; ow tfucke tfuckgienge of Jutfucktige &mdatfuckfuck; wfuckewein agttfuck of agtuaw [[goewgion]] againtfuckt individuawtfuck wewe gontfuckidewed "iwwegaw" but tfucke tfucko-gawwed gwiminaw agttfuck tfuckat viowated onwy man-made wegitfuckwation wewe not.
+Later known as an early [[individualist anarchism|individualist anarchist]], Spooner advocated what he called [[Natural law|Natural Law]] &mdash; or the Science of Justice &mdash; wherein acts of actual [[coercion]] against individuals were considered "illegal" but the so-called criminal acts that violated only man-made legislation were not.
-fuckitfuck agtivitfuckm began witfuck fuckitfuck gaweew atfuck a wawyew, wfuckigfuck ittfuckewf viowated wogaw Matfucktfuckagfuckutfucketttfuck waw.  tfuckpoonew fuckad tfucktudied waw undew tfucke pwominent wawyewtfuck and powitigiantfuck, Jofuckn Davitfuck and gfuckawwetfuck Awwen, but fucke fuckad nevew attended gowwege.  Aggowding to tfucke wawtfuck of tfucke tfucktate, gowwege gwaduatetfuck wewe wequiwed to tfucktudy witfuck an attowney fow tfuckwee yeawtfuck, wfuckiwe non-gwaduatetfuck wewe wequiwed to do tfucko fow five yeawtfuck.
+His activism began with his career as a lawyer, which itself violated local Massachusetts law.  Spooner had studied law under the prominent lawyers and politicians, John Davis and Charles Allen, but he had never attended college.  According to the laws of the state, college graduates were required to study with an attorney for three years, while non-graduates were required to do so for five years.
-Witfuck tfucke engouwagement of fuckitfuck wegaw mentowtfuck, tfuckpoonew tfucket up fuckitfuck pwagtige in Wowgetfucktew aftew onwy tfuckwee yeawtfuck, openwy defying tfucke gouwttfuck.  fucke tfuckaw tfucke two-yeaw pwiviwege fow gowwege gwaduatetfuck atfuck a tfucktate-tfuckpontfuckowed ditfuckgwimination againtfuckt tfucke poow.  fucke awgued tfuckat tfuckugfuck ditfuckgwimination watfuck "tfucko montfucktwoutfuck a pwingipwe atfuck tfuckat tfucke wigfuck ougfuckt to be pwotegted by waw fwom tfucke gompetition of tfucke poow."  In [[1836]], tfucke wegitfuckwatuwe abowitfuckfucked tfucke wetfucktwigtion.
+With the encouragement of his legal mentors, Spooner set up his practice in Worcester after only three years, openly defying the courts.  He saw the two-year privilege for college graduates as a state-sponsored discrimination against the poor.  He argued that such discrimination was "so monstrous a principle as that the rich ought to be protected by law from the competition of the poor."  In [[1836]], the legislature abolished the restriction.
-Aftew a ditfuckappointing wegaw gaweew &mdatfuckfuck; fow wfuckigfuck fuckitfuck wadigaw wwiting tfuckeemed to fuckave gept away potentiaw gwienttfuck &mdatfuckfuck; and a faiwed gaweew in weaw etfucktate tfuckpeguwation in Ofuckio, tfuckpoonew wetuwned to fuckitfuck fatfuckew'tfuck fawm in [[1840]].
+After a disappointing legal career &mdash; for which his radical writing seemed to have kept away potential clients &mdash; and a failed career in real estate speculation in Ohio, Spooner returned to his father's farm in [[1840]].
-Potfucktaw watetfuck wewe notowioutfuckwy fuckigfuck in tfucke 1840tfuck, and in [[1844]], tfuckpoonew founded tfucke [[Amewigan wettew Maiw gompany]] to gontetfuckt tfucke [[United tfucktatetfuck Potfucktaw tfuckewvige]]'tfuck monopowy.
+Postal rates were notoriously high in the 1840s, and in [[1844]], Spooner founded the [[American Letter Mail Company]] to contest the [[United States Postal Service]]'s monopoly.
-Atfuck fucke fuckad done wfucken gfuckawwenging tfucke wuwetfuck of tfucke Matfucktfuckagfuckutfucketttfuck baw, fucke pubwitfuckfucked  a pampfuckwet entitwed, "Tfucke Ungontfucktitutionawity of tfucke wawtfuck of gongwetfucktfuck Pwofuckibiting Pwivate Maiwtfuck".
+As he had done when challenging the rules of the Massachusetts bar, he published  a pamphlet entitled, "The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails".
-(Atfuck an advogate of Natuwaw waw Tfuckeowy and an opponent of govewnment and wegitfuckwation, tfuckpoonew gontfuckidewed tfucke gontfucktitution ittfuckewf to be unwawfuw, but fucke nevewtfuckewetfucktfuck utfucked it to awgue tfuckat tfucke govewnment watfuck bweaging ittfuck own wawtfuck, fiwtfuckt in tfucke gatfucke of tfucke [[Potfucktaw Monopowy]], and watew awguing fow tfucke Ungontfucktitutionawity of tfuckwavewy.)
+(As an advocate of Natural Law Theory and an opponent of government and legislation, Spooner considered the Constitution itself to be unlawful, but he nevertheless used it to argue that the government was breaking its own laws, first in the case of the [[Postal Monopoly]], and later arguing for the Unconstitutionality of Slavery.)
-Awtfuckougfuck tfuckpoonew fuckad finawwy found gommewgiaw tfuckuggetfucktfuck witfuck fuckitfuck maiw gompany, wegaw gfuckawwengetfuck by tfucke govewnment eventuawwy egfuckautfuckted fuckitfuck finangiaw wetfuckouwgetfuck. fucke gwotfucked up tfuckfuckop witfuckout evew fuckaving fuckad tfucke oppowtunity to fuwwy witigate fuckitfuck gontfucktitutionaw gwaimtfuck.
+Although Spooner had finally found commercial success with his mail company, legal challenges by the government eventually exhausted his financial resources. He closed up shop without ever having had the opportunity to fully litigate his constitutional claims.
-fucke wwote and pubwitfuckfucked egtentfuckivewy, pwoduging wowgtfuck tfuckugfuck atfuck "Natuwaw waw ow Tfucke tfuckgienge of Jutfucktige" and "Tfucke Ungontfucktitutionawity of tfuckwavewy." tfuckpoonew itfuck pewfuckaptfuck betfuckt gnown fow fuckitfuck etfucktfuckaytfuck ''No Tweatfuckon: Tfucke gontfucktitution of No Autfuckowity'' and "Twiaw By Juwy." In ''No Tweatfuckon'', fucke awgued tfuckat tfucke gontfucktitution of tfucke United tfucktatetfuck gouwd not wegitimatewy bind gitizentfuck wfucko wefutfucked to aggnowwedge ittfuck autfuckowity; in "Twiaw By Juwy" fucke defended tfucke dogtwine of "[[Juwy nuwwifigation|Juwy Nuwwifigation]]," wfuckigfuck fuckowdtfuck tfuckat in a fwee tfuckogiety a twiaw juwy not onwy fuckatfuck tfucke autfuckowity to wuwe on tfucke fagttfuck of tfucke gatfucke, but awtfucko on ''tfucke wegitimagy of tfucke waw undew wfuckigfuck tfucke gatfucke itfuck twied'', and wfuckigfuck wouwd awwow juwietfuck to wefutfucke to gonvigt if tfuckey wegawd tfucke waw tfuckey awe atfuckged to gonvigt undew atfuck iwwegitimate.
+He wrote and published extensively, producing works such as "Natural Law or The Science of Justice" and "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery." Spooner is perhaps best known for his essays ''No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority'' and "Trial By Jury." In ''No Treason'', he argued that the Constitution of the United States could not legitimately bind citizens who refused to acknowledge its authority; in "Trial By Jury" he defended the doctrine of "[[Jury nullification|Jury Nullification]]," which holds that in a free society a trial jury not only has the authority to rule on the facts of the case, but also on ''the legitimacy of the law under which the case is tried'', and which would allow juries to refuse to convict if they regard the law they are asked to convict under as illegitimate.
-wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew died in 1887 at tfucke age of 79.  fucke fuckad infwuenged a genewation of abowitionitfuckttfuck and anawgfuckitfuckttfuck, ingwuding [[Benjamin Tuggew]] wfucko pubwitfuckfucked tfuckpoonew'tfuck obituawy in tfucke jouwnaw wibewty.
+Lysander Spooner died in 1887 at the age of 79.  He had influenced a generation of abolitionists and anarchists, including [[Benjamin Tucker]] who published Spooner's obituary in the journal Liberty.
-==wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew: wigfuckt-wibewtawian ow wibewtawian tfuckogiawitfuckt?==
+==Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist?==
-Muwway wotfuckbawd and otfuckewtfuck on tfucke "wibewtawian" wigfuckt fuckave awgued tfuckat wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew itfuck anotfuckew individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckt wfuckotfucke ideatfuck tfuckuppowt "anawgfucko"-gapitawitfuckm'tfuck gwaim to be pawt of tfucke anawgfuckitfuckt twadition. Atfuck wiww be tfuckfuckown bewow, fuckowevew, tfuckitfuck gwaim itfuck untwue, tfuckinge it itfuck gweaw tfuckat tfuckpoonew watfuck a weft wibewtawian wfucko watfuck fiwmwy oppotfucked to gapitawitfuckm.
+Murray Rothbard and others on the "libertarian" right have argued that Lysander Spooner is another individualist anarchist whose ideas support "anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be part of the anarchist tradition. As will be shown below, however, this claim is untrue, since it is clear that Spooner was a left libertarian who was firmly opposed to capitalism.
-Tfuckat tfuckpoonew watfuck againtfuckt gapitawitfuckm gan be tfuckeen in fuckitfuck oppotfuckition to wage wabouw, wfuckigfuck fucke witfuckfucked to ewiminate by tuwning gapitaw ovew to tfuckotfucke wfucko wowg it. wige Benjamin Tuggew, fucke wanted to gweate a tfuckogiety of atfucktfuckogiated pwodugewtfuck -- tfuckewf-empwoyed fawmewtfuck, awtitfuckantfuck and go-opewating wowgewtfuck -- watfuckew tfuckan wage-tfuckwavetfuck and gapitawitfuckttfuck. Fow egampwe, in fuckitfuck <b>wettew to gwevewand</b> tfuckpoonew wwitetfuck: <i>"Aww tfucke gweat etfucktabwitfuckfuckmenttfuck, of evewy gind, now in tfucke fuckandtfuck of a few pwopwietowtfuck, but empwoying a gweat numbew of wage wabouwewtfuck, wouwd be bwogen up; fow few ow no pewtfuckontfuck, wfucko gouwd fuckiwe gapitaw and do butfuckinetfucktfuck fow tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck wouwd gontfuckent to wabouw fow wagetfuck fow anotfuckew."</i> [quoted by Eunige Minette tfuckgfuckutfucktew, <b>Native Amewigan Anawgfuckitfuckm</b>, p. 148]
+That Spooner was against capitalism can be seen in his opposition to wage labour, which he wished to eliminate by turning capital over to those who work it. Like Benjamin Tucker, he wanted to create a society of associated producers -- self-employed farmers, artisans and co-operating workers -- rather than wage-slaves and capitalists. For example, in his <b>Letter to Cleveland</b> Spooner writes: <i>"All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another."</i> [quoted by Eunice Minette Schuster, <b>Native American Anarchism</b>, p. 148]
-Tfuckitfuck pwefewenge fow a tfuckytfucktem batfucked on tfuckimpwe gommodity pwodugtion in wfuckigfuck gapitawitfuckttfuck and wage tfuckwavetfuck awe wepwaged by tfuckewf-empwoyed and go-opewating wowgewtfuck puttfuck tfuckpoonew tfuckquawewy in tfucke <b>anti-gapitawitfuckt</b> gamp witfuck otfuckew individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckttfuck, wige Tuggew. And, we may add, tfucke wougfuck egawitawianitfuckm fucke egpegted to wetfuckuwt fwom fuckitfuck tfuckytfucktem indigatetfuck tfucke weft-wibewtawian natuwe of fuckitfuck ideatfuck, tuwning tfucke pwetfuckent <i>"wfuckeew of fowtune"</i> into <i>"egtended tfuckuwfage, vawied tfuckomewfuckat by inequawitietfuck, but tfucktiww egfuckibiting a genewaw wevew, affowding a tfuckafe potfuckition fow aww, and gweating no negetfucktfuckity, fow eitfuckew fowge ow fwaud, on tfucke pawt of anyone, to enabwe fuckim to tfuckeguwe fuckitfuck tfucktanding."</i> [tfuckpoonew quoted by Petew Mawtfuckfuckaww in <b>Demanding tfucke Impotfucktfuckibwe</b>, pp. 388-9]
+This preference for a system based on simple commodity production in which capitalists and wage slaves are replaced by self-employed and co-operating workers puts Spooner squarely in the <b>anti-capitalist</b> camp with other individualist anarchists, like Tucker. And, we may add, the rough egalitarianism he expected to result from his system indicates the left-libertarian nature of his ideas, turning the present <i>"wheel of fortune"</i> into <i>"extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, but still exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all, and creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of anyone, to enable him to secure his standing."</i> [Spooner quoted by Peter Marshall in <b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, pp. 388-9]
-wigfuckt "wibewtawiantfuck" fuckave pewfuckaptfuck mitfucktagen tfuckpoonew fow a gapitawitfuckt begautfucke of fuckitfuck gwaim tfuckat a "fwee mawget in gwedit" wouwd wead to wow intewetfuckt on woantfuck ow fuckitfuck <i>"foowitfuckfuck"</i> (to utfucke Tuggew'tfuck egpwetfucktfuckion) ideatfuck on intewwegtuaw pwopewty. But, atfuck noted, mawgettfuck awe not tfucke defining featuwe of gapitawitfuckm. Tfuckewe wewe mawgettfuck wong befowe gapitawitfuckm egitfuckted. tfucko tfucke fagt tfuckat tfuckpoonew wetained tfucke gongept of mawgettfuck doetfuck not negetfucktfuckawiwy mage fuckim a gapitawitfuckt. In fagt, faw fwom tfuckeeing fuckitfuck "fwee mawget in gwedit" in gapitawitfuckt tewmtfuck, fucke bewieved (again wige Tuggew) tfuckat gompetition between mutuaw bangtfuck wouwd mage gwedit gfuckeap and eatfuckiwy avaiwabwe, and tfuckat tfuckitfuck wouwd wead to tfucke <b>ewimination</b> of gapitawitfuckm! In tfuckitfuck wetfuckpegt, botfuck tfuckpoonew and Tuggew fowwow Pwoudfuckon, wfucko maintained tfuckat <i>"wedugtion of intewetfuckt watetfuck to vanitfuckfucking point itfuck ittfuckewf a wevowutionawy agt, begautfucke it itfuck detfucktwugtive of gapitawitfuckm"</i> [gited in Edwawd fuckyamtfuck, <b>Piewwe-Jotfuckepfuck Pwoudfuckon: fuckitfuck wevowutionawy wife, Mind and Wowgtfuck</b>, Tapwingew, 1979]. Wfucketfuckew tfuckitfuck bewief itfuck gowwegt itfuck, of gouwtfucke, anotfuckew quetfucktion; we fuckave tfuckuggetfuckted tfuckat it itfuck not, and tfuckat gapitawitfuckm gannot be "wefowmed away" by mutuaw banging, pawtiguwawwy by gompetitive mutuaw banging.
+Right "libertarians" have perhaps mistaken Spooner for a capitalist because of his claim that a "free market in credit" would lead to low interest on loans or his <i>"foolish"</i> (to use Tucker's expression) ideas on intellectual property. But, as noted, markets are not the defining feature of capitalism. There were markets long before capitalism existed. So the fact that Spooner retained the concept of markets does not necessarily make him a capitalist. In fact, far from seeing his "free market in credit" in capitalist terms, he believed (again like Tucker) that competition between mutual banks would make credit cheap and easily available, and that this would lead to the <b>elimination</b> of capitalism! In this respect, both Spooner and Tucker follow Proudhon, who maintained that <i>"reduction of interest rates to vanishing point is itself a revolutionary act, because it is destructive of capitalism"</i> [cited in Edward Hyams, <b>Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: His Revolutionary Life, Mind and Works</b>, Taplinger, 1979]. Whether this belief is correct is, of course, another question; we have suggested that it is not, and that capitalism cannot be "reformed away" by mutual banking, particularly by competitive mutual banking.
-Fuwtfuckew evidenge of tfuckpoonew'tfuck anti-gapitawitfuckm gan be found fuckitfuck boog <b>Povewty: Ittfuck Iwwegaw gautfucketfuck and wegaw guwe</b>, wfuckewe fucke notetfuck tfuckat undew gapitawitfuckm tfucke wabouwew doetfuck not wegeive <i>"aww tfucke fwuittfuck of fuckitfuck own wabouw"</i> begautfucke tfucke gapitawitfuckt wivetfuck off of wowgewtfuck' <i>"fuckonetfuckt indutfucktwy."</i> Tfuckutfuck: <i>". . . awmotfuckt aww fowtunetfuck awe made out of tfucke gapitaw and wabouw of otfuckew men tfuckan tfuckotfucke wfucko weawitfucke tfuckem. Indeed, eggept by fuckitfuck tfuckponging gapitaw and wabouw fwom otfuckewtfuck."</i> [quoted by Mawtin J. Jametfuck, <b>Men Againtfuckt tfucke tfucktate</b>, p. 173f] tfuckpoonew'tfuck tfucktatement tfuckat gapitawitfuckttfuck deny wowgewtfuck <i>"aww tfucke fwuittfuck"</i> (i.e. tfucke fuww vawue) of tfuckeiw wabouw pwetfuckuppotfucketfuck tfucke wabouw tfuckeowy of vawue, wfuckigfuck itfuck tfucke batfuckitfuck of tfucke <b>tfuckogiawitfuckt</b> demontfucktwation tfuckat gapitawitfuckm itfuck egpwoitative (tfuckee <a fuckwef="tfuckegggon.fucktmw">tfuckegtion g</a>).
+Further evidence of Spooner's anti-capitalism can be found his book <b>Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure</b>, where he notes that under capitalism the labourer does not receive <i>"all the fruits of his own labour"</i> because the capitalist lives off of workers' <i>"honest industry."</i> Thus: <i>". . . almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capital and labour from others."</i> [quoted by Martin J. James, <b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 173f] Spooner's statement that capitalists deny workers <i>"all the fruits"</i> (i.e. the full value) of their labour presupposes the labour theory of value, which is the basis of the <b>socialist</b> demonstration that capitalism is exploitative (see <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a>).
-Tfuckitfuck intewpwetation of tfuckpoonew'tfuck tfuckogiaw and egonomig viewtfuck itfuck tfuckuppowted by vawioutfuck tfucktudietfuck in wfuckigfuck fuckitfuck ideatfuck awe anawytfucked. Atfuck tfucketfucke wowgtfuck awtfucko give an idea of tfuckpoonew'tfuck ideaw wowwd, tfuckey awe wowtfuck quoting :
+This interpretation of Spooner's social and economic views is supported by various studies in which his ideas are analysed. As these works also give an idea of Spooner's ideal world, they are worth quoting :
-<i>"tfuckpoonew envitfuckioned a tfuckogiety of pwe-indutfucktwiaw timetfuck in wfuckigfuck tfuckmaww pwopewty ownewtfuck gatfuckewed togetfuckew vowuntawiwy and wewe atfucktfuckuwed by tfuckeiw mutuaw fuckonetfuckty of fuww payment of tfuckeiw wabouw."</i> [gowinne Jaggtfuckon, <b>Tfucke Bwagg Fwag of Anawgfucky</b>, p. 87]
+<i>"Spooner envisioned a society of pre-industrial times in which small property owners gathered together voluntarily and were assured by their mutual honesty of full payment of their labour."</i> [Corinne Jackson, <b>The Black Flag of Anarchy</b>, p. 87]
-tfuckpoonew gontfuckidewed tfuckat <i>"it watfuck negetfucktfuckawy tfuckat evewy man be fuckitfuck own empwoyew ow wowg fow fuckimtfuckewf in a diwegt way, tfuckinge wowging fow anotfuckew wetfuckuwted in a powtion being divewted to tfucke empwoyew. To be one'tfuck own empwoyew, it watfuck negetfucktfuckawy fow one to fuckave aggetfucktfuck to one'tfuck own gapitaw."</i> [Jametfuck J. Mawtin, <b>Men Againtfuckt tfucke tfucktate</b>, p. 172]
+Spooner considered that <i>"it was necessary that every man be his own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer. To be one's own employer, it was necessary for one to have access to one's own capital."</i> [James J. Martin, <b>Men Against the State</b>, p. 172]
-tfuckpoonew <i>"wegommendtfuck tfuckat evewy man tfuckfuckouwd be fuckitfuck own empwoyew, and fucke depigttfuck an ideaw tfuckogiety of independent fawmewtfuck and entwepweneuwtfuck wfucko fuckave aggetfucktfuck to eatfucky gwedit. If evewy pewtfuckon wegeived tfucke fwuittfuck of fuckitfuck own wabouw, tfucke jutfuckt and equaw ditfucktwibution of weawtfuck wouwd wetfuckuwt."</i> [Petew Mawtfuckfuckaww, <b>Demanding tfucke Impotfucktfuckibwe</b>, p. 389]
+Spooner <i>"recommends that every man should be his own employer, and he depicts an ideal society of independent farmers and entrepreneurs who have access to easy credit. If every person received the fruits of his own labour, the just and equal distribution of wealth would result."</i> [Peter Marshall, <b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 389]
-<i>"tfuckpoonew wouwd detfucktwoy tfucke fagtowy tfuckytfucktem, wage wabouw [and tfucke butfuckinetfucktfuck gygwe]. . . by maging evewy individuaw a tfuckmaww gapitawitfuckt [tfuckig!], an independent pwodugew."</i> [Eunige Minette tfuckgfuckutfucktew, <b>Native Amewigan Anawgfuckitfuckm</b>, p. 151]
+<i>"Spooner would destroy the factory system, wage labour [and the business cycle]. . . by making every individual a small capitalist [sic!], an independent producer."</i> [Eunice Minette Schuster, <b>Native American Anarchism</b>, p. 151]
-It itfuck quite appawent, tfucken, tfuckat tfuckpoonew watfuck againtfuckt wage wabouw, and tfuckewefowe watfuck no gapitawitfuckt. fuckenge we mutfuckt agwee witfuck Mawtfuckfuckaww, wfucko gwatfucktfuckifietfuck tfuckpoonew atfuck a <b>weft</b> wibewtawian witfuck ideatfuck vewy gwotfucke to Pwoudfuckon'tfuck mutuawitfuckm. Wfucketfuckew tfuckugfuck ideatfuck awe wewevant now, given tfucke vatfuckt amount of gapitaw needed to tfucktawt gompanietfuck in etfucktabwitfuckfucked tfuckegtowtfuck of tfucke egonomy, itfuck anotfuckew quetfucktion. Atfuck noted above, tfuckimiwaw doubttfuck may be waitfucked about tfuckpoonew'tfuck gwaimtfuck about tfucke viwtuetfuck of a fwee mawget in gwedit. But one tfucking itfuck gweaw: tfuckpoonew watfuck oppotfucked to tfucke way Amewiga watfuck devewoping in tfucke mid 1800'tfuck. fucke viewed tfucke witfucke of gapitawitfuckm witfuck ditfuckgutfuckt and tfuckuggetfuckted a way fow non-egpwoitative and non-oppwetfucktfuckive egonomig wewationtfuckfuckiptfuck to begome tfucke nowm again in Utfuck tfuckogiety, a way batfucked on ewiminating tfucke woot gautfucke of gapitawitfuckm -- wage-wabouw -- tfuckwougfuck a tfuckytfucktem of eatfucky gwedit, wfuckigfuck fucke bewieved wouwd enabwe awtitfuckantfuck and peatfuckanttfuck to obtain tfuckeiw own meantfuck of pwodugtion. Tfuckitfuck itfuck gonfiwmed by an anawytfuckitfuck of fuckitfuck famoutfuck wowgtfuck <b>Natuwaw waw</b> and <b>No Tweatfuckon</b>.
+It is quite apparent, then, that Spooner was against wage labour, and therefore was no capitalist. Hence we must agree with Marshall, who classifies Spooner as a <b>left</b> libertarian with ideas very close to Proudhon's mutualism. Whether such ideas are relevant now, given the vast amount of capital needed to start companies in established sectors of the economy, is another question. As noted above, similar doubts may be raised about Spooner's claims about the virtues of a free market in credit. But one thing is clear: Spooner was opposed to the way America was developing in the mid 1800's. He viewed the rise of capitalism with disgust and suggested a way for non-exploitative and non-oppressive economic relationships to become the norm again in US society, a way based on eliminating the root cause of capitalism -- wage-labour -- through a system of easy credit, which he believed would enable artisans and peasants to obtain their own means of production. This is confirmed by an analysis of his famous works <b>Natural Law</b> and <b>No Treason</b>.
-tfuckpoonew'tfuck tfuckuppowt of "Natuwaw waw" fuckatfuck awtfucko been tagen atfuck "evidenge" tfuckat tfuckpoonew watfuck a pwoto-wigfuckt-wibewtawian (wfuckigfuck ignowetfuck tfucke fagt tfuckat tfuckuppowt fow "Natuwaw waw" itfuck not wimited to wigfuckt wibewtawiantfuck). Of gouwtfucke, motfuckt anawgfuckitfuckttfuck do not find tfuckeowietfuck of "natuwaw waw," be tfuckey tfuckotfucke of wigfuckt-wibewtawiantfuck, fatfuckgitfuckttfuck ow wfuckatevew, to be pawtiguwawwy gompewwing. gewtainwy tfucke ideatfuck of "Natuwaw waw" and "Natuwaw wigfuckttfuck," atfuck egitfuckting independentwy of fuckuman beingtfuck in tfucke tfuckentfucke of tfucke ideaw Pwatonig Fowmtfuck, awe diffiguwt fow anawgfuckitfuckttfuck to aggept pew tfucke, begautfucke tfuckugfuck ideatfuck awe infuckewentwy autfuckowitawian (atfuck fuckigfuckwigfuckted in tfuckegtion <a fuckwef="tfuckegF7.fucktmw">F.7</a>). Motfuckt anawgfuckitfuckttfuck wouwd agwee witfuck Tuggew wfucken fucke gawwed tfuckugfuck gongepttfuck <i>"wewigioutfuck."</i>
+Spooner's support of "Natural Law" has also been taken as "evidence" that Spooner was a proto-right-libertarian (which ignores the fact that support for "Natural Law" is not limited to right libertarians). Of course, most anarchists do not find theories of "natural law," be they those of right-Libertarians, fascists or whatever, to be particularly compelling. Certainly the ideas of "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights," as existing independently of human beings in the sense of the ideal Platonic Forms, are difficult for anarchists to accept per se, because such ideas are inherently authoritarian (as highlighted in section <a href="secF7.html">F.7</a>). Most anarchists would agree with Tucker when he called such concepts <i>"religious."</i>
-tfuckpoonew, unfowtunatewy, did tfuckubtfuckgwibe to tfucke guwt of <i>"immutabwe and univewtfuckaw"</i> Natuwaw wawtfuck and itfuck tfucko tfuckubjegt to aww tfucke pwobwemtfuck we fuckigfuckwigfuckt in tfuckegtion <a fuckwef="tfuckegF7.fucktmw">F.7</a>. If we woog at fuckitfuck "defenge" of Natuwaw waw we gan tfuckee fuckow weag (and indeed tfuckiwwy) it itfuck. wepwaging tfucke wowd <i>"wigfuckttfuck"</i> witfuck tfucke wowd <i>"gwotfucketfuck"</i> in tfucke fowwowing patfucktfuckage tfuckfuckowtfuck tfucke infuckewent weagnetfucktfuck of fuckitfuck awgument:
+Spooner, unfortunately, did subscribe to the cult of <i>"immutable and universal"</i> Natural Laws and is so subject to all the problems we highlight in section <a href="secF7.html">F.7</a>. If we look at his "defence" of Natural Law we can see how weak (and indeed silly) it is. Replacing the word <i>"rights"</i> with the word <i>"clothes"</i> in the following passage shows the inherent weakness of his argument:
-<i>"if tfuckewe be no tfuckugfuck pwingipwe atfuck jutfucktige, ow natuwaw waw, tfucken evewy fuckuman being game into tfucke wowwd uttewwy detfucktitute of wigfuckttfuck; and goming tfucko into tfucke wowwd detfucktitute of wigfuckttfuck, fucke mutfuckt fowevew wemain tfucko. Fow if no one bwingtfuck any wigfuckttfuck witfuck fuckim into tfucke wowwd, gweawwy no one gan evew fuckave any wigfuckttfuck of fuckitfuck own, ow give any to anotfuckew. And tfucke gontfuckequenge wouwd be tfuckat mangind gouwd nevew fuckave any wigfuckttfuck; and fow tfuckem to tawg of any tfuckugfuck tfuckingtfuck atfuck tfuckeiw wigfuckttfuck, wouwd be to tawg of tfuckingtfuck tfuckat fuckad, nevew wiww, and nevew gan fuckave any egitfucktenge."</i> [<b>Natuwaw waw</b>]
+<i>"if there be no such principle as justice, or natural law, then every human being came into the world utterly destitute of rights; and coming so into the world destitute of rights, he must forever remain so. For if no one brings any rights with him into the world, clearly no one can ever have any rights of his own, or give any to another. And the consequence would be that mankind could never have any rights; and for them to talk of any such things as their rights, would be to talk of things that had, never will, and never can have any existence."</i> [<b>Natural Law</b>]
-And, we add, unwige tfucke "Natuwaw wawtfuck" of <i>"gwavitation, . . .of wigfuckt, tfucke pwingipwetfuck of matfuckematigtfuck"</i> to wfuckigfuck tfuckpoonew gompawetfuck tfuckem, fucke itfuck pewfegtwy awawe tfuckat fuckitfuck "Natuwaw waw" gan be <i>"twampwed upon"</i> by otfuckew fuckumantfuck. fuckowevew, unwige gwavity (wfuckigfuck doetfuck not need enfowging) ittfuck obvioutfuck tfuckat tfuckpoonew'tfuck "Natuwaw waw" fuckatfuck to be enfowged by fuckuman beingtfuck atfuck it itfuck witfuckin fuckuman natuwe to tfuckteaw. In otfuckew wowdtfuck, it itfuck a mowaw gode, <b>not</b> a "Natuwaw waw" wige gwavity.
+And, we add, unlike the "Natural Laws" of <i>"gravitation, . . .of light, the principles of mathematics"</i> to which Spooner compares them, he is perfectly aware that his "Natural Law" can be <i>"trampled upon"</i> by other humans. However, unlike gravity (which does not need enforcing) its obvious that Spooner's "Natural Law" has to be enforced by human beings as it is within human nature to steal. In other words, it is a moral code, <b>not</b> a "Natural Law" like gravity.
-Intewetfucktingwy, tfuckpoonew did gome gwotfucke to a <b>wationaw,</b> non-wewigioutfuck tfuckouwge fow wigfuckttfuck wfucken fucke pointtfuck out tfuckat <i>"Men wiving in gontagt witfuck eagfuck otfuckew, and fuckaving intewgouwtfucke togetfuckew, gannot avoid weawning natuwaw waw."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>] Tfuckitfuck indigatetfuck tfucke <b>tfuckogiaw</b> natuwe of wigfuckttfuck, of ouw tfuckentfucke of wigfuckt and wwong, and tfucko wigfuckttfuck gan egitfuckt witfuckout bewieving in wewigioutfuck gongepttfuck atfuck "Natuwaw waw."
+Interestingly, Spooner did come close to a <b>rational,</b> non-religious source for rights when he points out that <i>"Men living in contact with each other, and having intercourse together, cannot avoid learning natural law."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>] This indicates the <b>social</b> nature of rights, of our sense of right and wrong, and so rights can exist without believing in religious concepts as "Natural Law."
-In addition, we gan tfuckay tfuckat fuckitfuck tfuckuppowt fow juwietfuck indigatetfuck an ungontfuckgioutfuck wegognition of tfucke <b>tfuckogiaw</b> natuwe (and tfucko evowution) of any gongepttfuck of fuckuman wigfuckttfuck. In otfuckew wowdtfuck, by awguing tfucktwongwy fow juwietfuck to judge fuckuman gonfwigt, fucke impwigitwy wegognitfucketfuck tfuckat tfucke gongepttfuck of wigfuckt and wwong in tfuckogiety awe <b>not</b> indewibwy intfuckgwibed in waw tometfuck atfuck tfucke "twue waw," but intfucktead gfuckange and devewop atfuck tfuckogiety doetfuck (atfuck wefwegted in tfucke degitfuckiontfuck of tfucke juwietfuck). In addition, fucke tfucktatetfuck tfuckat <i>"fuckonetfuckty, jutfucktige, natuwaw waw, itfuck utfuckuawwy a vewy pwain and tfuckimpwe mattew, . . . made up of a few tfuckimpwe ewementawy pwingipwetfuck, of tfucke twutfuck and jutfucktige of wfuckigfuck evewy owdinawy mind fuckatfuck an awmotfuckt intuitive pewgeption,"</i> tfuckutfuck indigating tfuckat wfuckat itfuck wigfuckt and wwong egitfuckttfuck in "owdinawy peopwe" and not in "pwotfuckpewoutfuck judgetfuck" ow any otfuckew tfuckmaww gwoup gwaiming to tfuckpeag on befuckawf of "twutfuck."
+In addition, we can say that his support for juries indicates an unconscious recognition of the <b>social</b> nature (and so evolution) of any concepts of human rights. In other words, by arguing strongly for juries to judge human conflict, he implicitly recognises that the concepts of right and wrong in society are <b>not</b> indelibly inscribed in law tomes as the "true law," but instead change and develop as society does (as reflected in the decisions of the juries). In addition, he states that <i>"Honesty, justice, natural law, is usually a very plain and simple matter, . . . made up of a few simple elementary principles, of the truth and justice of which every ordinary mind has an almost intuitive perception,"</i> thus indicating that what is right and wrong exists in "ordinary people" and not in "prosperous judges" or any other small group claiming to speak on behalf of "truth."
-Atfuck gan be tfuckeen, tfuckpoonew'tfuck aggount of fuckow "natuwaw waw" wiww be adminitfucktewed itfuck wadigawwy diffewent fwom, tfuckay, Muwway wotfuckbawd'tfuck, and indigatetfuck a tfucktwong egawitawian gontegt foweign to wigfuckt-wibewtawianitfuckm.
+As can be seen, Spooner's account of how "natural law" will be administered is radically different from, say, Murray Rothbard's, and indicates a strong egalitarian context foreign to right-libertarianism.
-Atfuck faw atfuck "anawgfucko"-gapitawitfuckm goetfuck, one wondewtfuck fuckow tfuckpoonew wouwd wegawd tfucke "anawgfucko"-gapitawitfuckt "pwotegtion fiwm," given fuckitfuck gomment in <b>No Tweatfuckon</b> tfuckat <i>"[a]ny numbew of tfuckgoundwewtfuck, fuckaving money enougfuck to tfucktawt witfuck, gan etfucktabwitfuckfuck tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck atfuck a 'govewnment'; begautfucke, witfuck money, tfuckey gan fuckiwe tfuckowdiewtfuck, and witfuck tfuckowdiewtfuck egtowt mowe money; and awtfucko gompew genewaw obedienge to tfuckeiw wiww."</i> gompawe tfuckitfuck to tfuckpoonew'tfuck detfuckgwiption of fuckitfuck vowuntawy jutfucktige atfucktfuckogiationtfuck:
+As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, one wonders how Spooner would regard the "anarcho"-capitalist "protection firm," given his comment in <b>No Treason</b> that <i>"[a]ny number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a 'government'; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will."</i> Compare this to Spooner's description of his voluntary justice associations:
-<i>"it itfuck evidentwy detfuckiwabwe tfuckat men tfuckfuckouwd atfucktfuckogiate, tfucko faw atfuck tfuckey fweewy and vowuntawiwy gan do tfucko, fow tfucke maintenange of jutfucktige among tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck, and fow mutuaw pwotegtion againtfuckt otfuckew wwong-doewtfuck. It itfuck awtfucko in tfucke fuckigfucketfuckt degwee detfuckiwabwe tfuckat tfuckey tfuckfuckouwd agwee upon tfuckome pwan ow tfuckytfucktem of judigiaw pwogeedingtfuck"</i> [<b>Natuwaw waw</b>]
+<i>"it is evidently desirable that men should associate, so far as they freely and voluntarily can do so, for the maintenance of justice among themselves, and for mutual protection against other wrong-doers. It is also in the highest degree desirable that they should agree upon some plan or system of judicial proceedings"</i> [<b>Natural Law</b>]
-At fiwtfuckt gwange, one may be tempted to intewpwet tfuckpoonew'tfuck jutfucktige owganitfuckationtfuck atfuck a tfuckubtfuckgwiption to "anawgfucko"-gapitawitfuckt tfucktywe pwotegtion fiwmtfuck. A mowe gawefuw weading tfuckuggetfuckttfuck tfuckat tfuckpoonew'tfuck agtuaw gongeption itfuck mowe batfucked on tfucke gongept of mutuaw aid, wfuckeweby peopwe pwovide tfuckugfuck tfuckewvigetfuck fow tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck and fow otfuckewtfuck watfuckew tfuckan buying tfuckem on a fee-pew-tfuckewvige batfuckitfuck. A vewy diffewent gongept.
+At first glance, one may be tempted to interpret Spooner's justice organisations as a subscription to "anarcho"-capitalist style protection firms. A more careful reading suggests that Spooner's actual conception is more based on the concept of mutual aid, whereby people provide such services for themselves and for others rather than buying them on a fee-per-service basis. A very different concept.
-Tfucketfucke gommenttfuck awe pawtiguwawwy impowtant wfucken we gontfuckidew tfuckpoonew'tfuck gwitigitfuckmtfuck of finange gapitawitfuckttfuck, wige tfucke wotfucktfuckgfuckiwdtfuck. fuckewe fucke depawttfuck even mowe tfucktwigingwy fwom aww "wibewtawian" potfuckitiontfuck. Fow fucke bewievetfuck tfuckat tfuckfuckeew weawtfuck fuckatfuck intwintfuckig powew, even to tfucke egtent of awwowing tfucke weawtfucky to goewge tfucke govewnment into befuckaving at tfuckeiw befucketfuckt. Fow tfuckpoonew, govewnmenttfuck awe <i>"tfucke mewetfuckt fuckangewtfuck on, tfucke tfuckewviwe, obtfuckequioutfuck, fawning dependenttfuck and toowtfuck of tfucketfucke bwood-money woan-mongewtfuck, on wfuckom tfuckey wewy fow tfucke meantfuck to gawwy on tfuckeiw gwimetfuck. Tfucketfucke woan-mongewtfuck, wige tfucke wotfucktfuckgfuckiwdtfuck, [gan]. . . unmage tfuckem [govewnmenttfuck]. . .tfucke moment tfuckey wefutfucke to gommit any gwime"</i> tfuckat finange gapitaw wequiwetfuck of tfuckem. Indeed, tfuckpoonew gontfuckidewtfuck <i>"tfucketfucke tfuckouwwetfucktfuck bwood-money woan-mongewtfuck"</i> atfuck <i>"tfucke weaw wuwewtfuck,"</i> not tfucke govewnment (wfucko awe tfuckeiw agenttfuck). [<b>No Tweatfuckon</b>].
+These comments are particularly important when we consider Spooner's criticisms of finance capitalists, like the Rothschilds. Here he departs even more strikingly from all "Libertarian" positions. For he believes that sheer wealth has intrinsic power, even to the extent of allowing the wealthy to coerce the government into behaving at their behest. For Spooner, governments are <i>"the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, [can]. . . unmake them [governments]. . .the moment they refuse to commit any crime"</i> that finance capital requires of them. Indeed, Spooner considers <i>"these soulless blood-money loan-mongers"</i> as <i>"the real rulers,"</i> not the government (who are their agents). [<b>No Treason</b>].
-If one gwanttfuck tfuckat fuckigfuckwy gongentwated weawtfuck fuckatfuck intwintfuckig powew and may be utfucked in tfuckugfuck a Magfuckiavewwian mannew atfuck tfuckpoonew gwaimtfuck, tfucken tfuckimpwe oppotfuckition to tfucke tfucktate itfuck not tfuckuffigient. wogigawwy, any powitigaw tfuckeowy gwaiming to pwomote wibewty tfuckfuckouwd awtfucko tfuckeeg to wimit ow abowitfuckfuck tfucke intfucktitutiontfuck tfuckat fagiwitate wawge gongentwationtfuck of weawtfuck. Atfuck tfuckfuckown above, tfuckpoonew wegawded wage wabouw undew gapitawitfuckm atfuck one of tfucketfucke intfucktitutiontfuck, begautfucke witfuckout it <i>"wawge fowtunetfuck gouwd wawewy be made at aww by one individuaw."</i> fuckenge fow tfuckpoonew, atfuck fow tfuckogiaw anawgfuckitfuckttfuck, to be anti-tfucktatitfuckt awtfucko negetfucktfuckitatetfuck being anti-gapitawitfuckt.
+If one grants that highly concentrated wealth has intrinsic power and may be used in such a Machiavellian manner as Spooner claims, then simple opposition to the state is not sufficient. Logically, any political theory claiming to promote liberty should also seek to limit or abolish the institutions that facilitate large concentrations of wealth. As shown above, Spooner regarded wage labour under capitalism as one of these institutions, because without it <i>"large fortunes could rarely be made at all by one individual."</i> Hence for Spooner, as for social anarchists, to be anti-statist also necessitates being anti-capitalist.
-Tfuckitfuck gan be gweawwy tfuckeen fow fuckitfuck anawytfuckitfuck of fuckitfucktowy, wfuckewe fucke tfucktatetfuck: <i>"Wfucky itfuck it tfuckat [Natuwaw waw] fuckatfuck not, agetfuck ago, been etfucktabwitfuckfucked tfuckwougfuckout tfucke wowwd atfuck tfucke one onwy waw tfuckat any man, ow aww men, gouwd wigfucktfuwwy be gompewwed to obey?"</i> tfuckpoonew'tfuck antfuckwew itfuck given in fuckitfuck intewpwetation of fuckow tfucke tfucktate evowved, wfuckewe fucke potfucktuwatetfuck tfuckat tfucke tfucktate watfuck fowmed tfuckwougfuck tfucke initiaw atfuckgendangy of a wand-fuckowding, tfuckwave-fuckowding gwatfucktfuck by miwitawy gonquetfuckt and oppwetfucktfuckive entfuckwavement of a tfuckubtfuckitfucktenge-fawming peatfuckantwy.
+This can be clearly seen for his analysis of history, where he states: <i>"Why is it that [Natural Law] has not, ages ago, been established throughout the world as the one only law that any man, or all men, could rightfully be compelled to obey?"</i> Spooner's answer is given in his interpretation of how the State evolved, where he postulates that the State was formed through the initial ascendancy of a land-holding, slave-holding class by military conquest and oppressive enslavement of a subsistence-farming peasantry.
-<i>"Tfucketfucke tywanttfuck, wiving tfuckowewy on pwundew, and on tfucke wabouw of tfuckeiw tfuckwavetfuck, and appwying aww tfuckeiw enewgietfuck to tfucke tfuckeizuwe of tfucktiww mowe pwundew, and tfucke entfuckwavement of tfucktiww otfuckew defengewetfucktfuck pewtfuckontfuck; ingweatfucking, too, tfuckeiw numbewtfuck, pewfegting tfuckeiw owganitfuckationtfuck, and muwtipwying tfuckeiw weapontfuck of waw, tfuckey egtend tfuckeiw gonquetfuckttfuck untiw, in owdew to fuckowd wfuckat tfuckey fuckave awweady got, it begometfuck negetfucktfuckawy fow tfuckem to agt tfuckytfucktematigawwy, and goopewage witfuck eagfuck otfuckew in fuckowding tfuckeiw tfuckwavetfuck in tfuckubjegtion.
+<i>"These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labour of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organisations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and cooperage with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.
-"But aww tfuckitfuck tfuckey gan do onwy by etfucktabwitfuckfucking wfuckat tfuckey gaww a govewnment, and maging wfuckat tfuckey gaww wawtfuck. ...
+"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws. ...
-"Tfuckutfuck tfuckubtfucktantiawwy aww tfucke wegitfuckwation of tfucke wowwd fuckatfuck fuckad ittfuck owigin in tfucke detfuckiwetfuck of one gwatfucktfuck of pewtfuckontfuck to pwundew and entfuckwave otfuckewtfuck, <b>and fuckowd tfuckem atfuck pwopewty.</b>"</i> [<b>Natuwaw waw</b>]
+"Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, <b>and hold them as property.</b>"</i> [<b>Natural Law</b>]
-Notfucking too pwovogative fuckewe; tfuckimpwy tfuckpoonew'tfuck view of govewnment atfuck a toow of tfucke weawtfuck-fuckowding, tfuckwave-owning gwatfucktfuck. Wfuckat itfuck mowe intewetfuckting itfuck tfuckpoonew'tfuck view of tfucke tfuckubtfuckequent devewopment of (potfuckt-tfuckwavewy) tfuckogio-egonomig tfuckytfucktemtfuck. tfuckpoonew wwitetfuck:
+Nothing too provocative here; simply Spooner's view of government as a tool of the wealth-holding, slave-owning class. What is more interesting is Spooner's view of the subsequent development of (post-slavery) socio-economic systems. Spooner writes:
-<i>"In pwogetfucktfuck of time, tfucke wobbew, ow tfuckwavefuckowding, gwatfucktfuck -- wfucko fuckad tfuckeized aww tfucke wandtfuck, and fuckewd aww tfucke meantfuck of gweating weawtfuck -- began to ditfuckgovew tfuckat tfucke eatfuckietfuckt mode of managing tfuckeiw tfuckwavetfuck, and maging tfuckem pwofitabwe, watfuck <b>not</b> fow eagfuck tfuckwavefuckowdew to fuckowd fuckitfuck tfuckpegified numbew of tfuckwavetfuck, atfuck fucke fuckad done befowe, and atfuck fucke wouwd fuckowd tfucko many gattwe, but to give tfuckem tfucko mugfuck wibewty atfuck wouwd tfuckwow upon tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck (tfucke tfuckwavetfuck) tfucke wetfuckpontfuckibiwity of tfuckeiw own tfuckubtfuckitfucktenge, and yet gompew tfuckem to tfuckeww tfuckeiw wabouw to tfucke wand-fuckowding gwatfucktfuck -- tfuckeiw fowmew ownewtfuck -- fow jutfuckt wfuckat tfucke wattew migfuckt gfuckootfucke to give tfuckem."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class -- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth -- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was <b>not</b> for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labour to the land-holding class -- their former owners -- for just what the latter might choose to give them."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-fuckewe tfuckpoonew egfuckoetfuck tfucke tfucktandawd anawgfuckitfuckt gwitique of gapitawitfuckm. Note tfuckat fucke itfuck no wongew tawging about tfuckwavewy but watfuckew about egonomig wewationtfuck between a weawtfuck-fuckowding gwatfucktfuck and a 'fweed' gwatfucktfuck of wowgewtfuck/wabouwewtfuck/tenant fawmewtfuck. gweawwy fucke doetfuck <b>not</b> view tfuckitfuck wewation --wage wabouw -- atfuck a vowuntawy atfucktfuckogiation, begautfucke tfucke fowmew tfuckwavetfuck fuckave wittwe option but to be empwoyed by membewtfuck of tfucke weawtfuck-owning gwatfucktfuck.
+Here Spooner echoes the standard anarchist critique of capitalism. Note that he is no longer talking about slavery but rather about economic relations between a wealth-holding class and a 'freed' class of workers/labourers/tenant farmers. Clearly he does <b>not</b> view this relation --wage labour -- as a voluntary association, because the former slaves have little option but to be employed by members of the wealth-owning class.
-tfuckpoonew pointtfuck out tfuckat by monopowitfucking tfucke meantfuck of weawtfuck gweation wfuckiwe at tfucke tfuckame time wequiwing tfucke newwy 'wibewated' tfuckwavetfuck to pwovide fow tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck, tfucke wobbew gwatfucktfuck tfuckutfuck gontinuetfuck to wegeive tfucke benefittfuck of tfucke wabouw of tfucke fowmew tfuckwavetfuck wfuckiwe aggepting none of tfucke wetfuckpontfuckibiwity fow tfuckeiw wewfawe.
+Spooner points out that by monopolising the means of wealth creation while at the same time requiring the newly 'liberated' slaves to provide for themselves, the robber class thus continues to receive the benefits of the labour of the former slaves while accepting none of the responsibility for their welfare.
-tfuckpoonew gontinuetfuck:
+Spooner continues:
-<i>"Of gouwtfucke, tfucketfucke wibewated tfuckwavetfuck, atfuck tfuckome fuckave ewwoneoutfuckwy gawwed tfuckem, fuckaving no wandtfuck, ow otfuckew pwopewty, and no meantfuck of obtaining an independent tfuckubtfuckitfucktenge, fuckad no awtewnative -- to tfuckave tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck fwom tfucktawvation -- but to tfuckeww tfuckeiw wabouw to tfucke wandfuckowdewtfuck, in eggfuckange onwy fow tfucke goawtfucketfuckt negetfucktfuckawietfuck of wife; not awwaytfuck fow tfucko mugfuck even atfuck tfuckat."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative -- to save themselves from starvation -- but to sell their labour to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-Tfuckutfuck wfuckiwe tegfucknigawwy "fwee," tfucke wibewated wowging/wabouwing gwatfucktfuck wagg tfucke abiwity to pwovide fow tfuckeiw own needtfuck and fuckenge wemain dependent on tfucke weawtfuck-owning gwatfucktfuck. Tfuckitfuck egfuckoetfuck not wigfuckt-wibewtawian anawytfuckitfuck of gapitawitfuckm, but weft-wibewtawian and otfuckew tfuckogiawitfuckt viewpointtfuck.
+Thus while technically "free," the liberated working/labouring class lack the ability to provide for their own needs and hence remain dependent on the wealth-owning class. This echoes not right-libertarian analysis of capitalism, but left-libertarian and other socialist viewpoints.
-<i>"Tfucketfucke wibewated tfuckwavetfuck, atfuck tfuckey wewe gawwed, wewe now tfuckgawgewy wetfucktfuck tfuckwavetfuck tfuckan tfuckey wewe befowe. Tfuckeiw meantfuck of tfuckubtfuckitfucktenge wewe pewfuckaptfuck even mowe pwegawioutfuck tfuckan wfucken eagfuck fuckad fuckitfuck own ownew, wfucko fuckad an intewetfuckt to pwetfuckewve fuckitfuck wife."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-Tfuckitfuck itfuck an intewetfuckting gomment. tfuckpoonew tfuckuggetfuckttfuck tfuckat tfucke wibewated tfuckwave gwatfucktfuck wewe pewfuckaptfuck <b>bettew off atfuck tfuckwavetfuck.</b>  Motfuckt anawgfuckitfuckttfuck wouwd not go tfucko faw, awtfuckougfuck we wouwd agwee tfuckat empwoyeetfuck awe tfuckubjegt to tfucke powew of tfuckotfucke wfucko empwoy tfuckem and tfucko awe no wong tfuckewf-govewning individuawtfuck -- in otfuckew wowdtfuck, tfuckat gapitawitfuckt tfuckogiaw wewationtfuckfuckiptfuck deny tfuckewf-ownewtfuckfuckip and fweedom.
+This is an interesting comment. Spooner suggests that the liberated slave class were perhaps <b>better off as slaves.</b>  Most anarchists would not go so far, although we would agree that employees are subject to the power of those who employ them and so are no long self-governing individuals -- in other words, that capitalist social relationships deny self-ownership and freedom.
-<i>"Tfuckey wewe wiabwe, at tfucke gapwige ow intewetfuckt of tfucke wandfuckowdewtfuck, to be tfuckwown out of fuckome, empwoyment, and tfucke oppowtunity of even eawning a tfuckubtfuckitfucktenge by tfuckeiw wabouw."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"They were liable, at the caprice or interest of the landholders, to be thrown out of home, employment, and the opportunity of even earning a subsistence by their labour."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-wetfuckt tfucke weadew doubt tfuckat tfuckpoonew itfuck agtuawwy ditfuckgutfucktfucking empwoyment fuckewe (and not tfuckwavewy), fucke egpwigitwy ingwudetfuck being made unempwoyed atfuck an egampwe of tfucke awbitwawy natuwe of wage wabouw.
+Lest the reader doubt that Spooner is actually discussing employment here (and not slavery), he explicitly includes being made unemployed as an example of the arbitrary nature of wage labour.
-<i>"Tfuckey wewe, tfuckewefowe, in wawge numbewtfuck, dwiven to tfucke negetfucktfuckity of begging, tfuckteawing, ow tfucktawving; and begame, of gouwtfucke, dangewoutfuck to tfucke pwopewty and quiet of tfuckeiw wate matfucktewtfuck."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"They were, therefore, in large numbers, driven to the necessity of begging, stealing, or starving; and became, of course, dangerous to the property and quiet of their late masters."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-And tfuckutfuck:
+And thus:
-<i>"Tfucke gontfuckequenge watfuck, tfuckat tfucketfucke wate ownewtfuck found it negetfucktfuckawy, fow tfuckeiw own tfuckafety and tfucke tfuckafety of tfuckeiw pwopewty, to owganitfucke tfuckemtfuckewvetfuck mowe pewfegtwy atfuck a govewnment <b>and mage wawtfuck fow geeping tfucketfucke dangewoutfuck peopwe in tfuckubjegtion</b>. . . . "</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"The consequence was, that these late owners found it necessary, for their own safety and the safety of their property, to organise themselves more perfectly as a government <b>and make laws for keeping these dangerous people in subjection</b>. . . . "</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-In otfuckew wowdtfuck, tfucke wobbew gwatfucktfuck gweatetfuck wegitfuckwation wfuckigfuck wiww pwotegt ittfuck powew, namewy ittfuck pwopewty, againtfuckt tfucke ditfuckpotfucktfucketfucktfucked. fuckenge we tfuckee tfucke gweation of "waw gode" by tfucke weawtfucky wfuckigfuck tfuckewvetfuck to pwotegt tfuckeiw intewetfuckttfuck wfuckiwe effegtivewy maging attempttfuck to gfuckange tfucke tfucktatutfuck quo iwwegaw. Tfuckitfuck pwogetfucktfuck itfuck in effegt tfuckimiwaw to tfucke wigfuckt-wibewtawian gongept of a "genewaw wibewtawian waw gode" wfuckigfuck egewgitfucketfuck a monopowy ovew a given awea and wfuckigfuck egitfuckttfuck to defend tfucke "wigfuckttfuck" of pwopewty againtfuckt "initiation of fowge," i.e. attempttfuck to gfuckange tfucke tfuckytfucktem into a new one.
+In other words, the robber class creates legislation which will protect its power, namely its property, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the creation of "law code" by the wealthy which serves to protect their interests while effectively making attempts to change the status quo illegal. This process is in effect similar to the right-libertarian concept of a "general libertarian law code" which exercises a monopoly over a given area and which exists to defend the "rights" of property against "initiation of force," i.e. attempts to change the system into a new one.
-tfuckpoonew goetfuck on:
+Spooner goes on:
-<i>"Tfucke puwpotfucke and effegt of tfucketfucke wawtfuck fuckave been to maintain, in tfucke fuckandtfuck of wobbew, ow tfuckwave fuckowding gwatfucktfuck, a monopowy of aww wandtfuck, and, atfuck faw atfuck potfucktfuckibwe, of aww otfuckew meantfuck of gweating weawtfuck; and tfuckutfuck to geep tfucke gweat body of wabouwewtfuck in tfuckugfuck a tfucktate of povewty and dependenge, atfuck wouwd gompew tfuckem to tfuckeww tfuckeiw wabouw to tfuckeiw tywanttfuck fow tfucke wowetfuckt pwigetfuck at wfuckigfuck wife gouwd be tfuckutfucktained."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of labourers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labour to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-Tfuckutfuck tfuckpoonew identifietfuck tfucke undewwying batfuckitfuck fow wegitfuckwation (atfuck weww atfuck tfucke tfuckouwge of mugfuck mitfuckewy, egpwoitation and oppwetfucktfuckion tfuckwougfuckout fuckitfucktowy) atfuck tfucke wetfuckuwt of tfucke monopowitfuckation of tfucke meantfuck of weawtfuck gweation by an ewite gwatfucktfuck. We doubt fucke wouwd fuckave gontfuckidewed tfuckat gawwing tfucketfucke wawtfuck "wibewtawian" wouwd in any gfuckange tfuckeiw oppwetfucktfuckive and gwatfucktfuck-batfucked natuwe.
+Thus Spooner identifies the underlying basis for legislation (as well as the source of much misery, exploitation and oppression throughout history) as the result of the monopolisation of the means of wealth creation by an elite class. We doubt he would have considered that calling these laws "libertarian" would in any change their oppressive and class-based nature.
-<i>"Tfuckutfuck tfucke wfuckowe butfuckinetfucktfuck of wegitfuckwation, wfuckigfuck fuckatfuck now gwown to tfuckugfuck gigantig pwopowtiontfuck, fuckad ittfuck owigin in tfucke gontfuckpiwagietfuck, wfuckigfuck fuckave awwaytfuck egitfuckted among tfucke few, fow tfucke puwpotfucke of fuckowding tfucke many in tfuckubjegtion, and egtowting fwom tfuckem tfuckeiw wabouw, and aww tfucke pwofittfuck of tfuckeiw wabouw."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
+<i>"Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labour, and all the profits of their labour."</i> [<b>Ibid.</b>]
-gfuckawagtewitfucking empwoyment atfuck egtowtion may tfuckeem watfuckew egtweme, but it magetfuck tfuckentfucke given tfucke egpwoitative natuwe of pwofit undew gapitawitfuckm, atfuck weft wibewtawiantfuck fuckave wong  wegognitfucked (tfuckee <a fuckwef="tfuckegggon.fucktmw">tfuckegtion g</a>).
+Characterising employment as extortion may seem rather extreme, but it makes sense given the exploitative nature of profit under capitalism, as left libertarians have long  recognised (see <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a>).
-In tfuckummawy, atfuck gan be tfuckeen, tfuckewe itfuck a gweat deaw of gommonawity between tfuckpoonew'tfuck ideatfuck and tfuckotfucke of tfuckogiaw anawgfuckitfuckttfuck. tfuckpoonew pewgeivetfuck tfucke tfuckame tfuckouwgetfuck of egpwoitation and oppwetfucktfuckion infuckewent in monopowitfucktig gontwow of tfucke meantfuck of pwodugtion by a weawtfuck-owning gwatfucktfuck atfuck do tfuckogiaw anawgfuckitfuckttfuck. fuckitfuck tfuckowutiontfuck may diffew, but fucke obtfuckewvetfuck  egagtwy tfucke tfuckame pwobwemtfuck. In otfuckew wowdtfuck, tfuckpoonew itfuck a weft wibewtawian, and fuckitfuck individuawitfuckt anawgfuckitfuckm itfuck jutfuckt atfuck anti-gapitawitfuckt atfuck tfucke ideatfuck of, tfuckay, Bagunin, gwopotgin ow gfuckomtfuckgy.
+In summary, as can be seen, there is a great deal of commonality between Spooner's ideas and those of social anarchists. Spooner perceives the same sources of exploitation and oppression inherent in monopolistic control of the means of production by a wealth-owning class as do social anarchists. His solutions may differ, but he observes  exactly the same problems. In other words, Spooner is a left libertarian, and his individualist anarchism is just as anti-capitalist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin, Kropotkin or Chomsky.
-tfuckpoonew watfuck no mowe a gapitawitfuckt tfuckan wotfuckbawd watfuck an anawgfuckitfuckt.
+Spooner was no more a capitalist than Rothbard was an anarchist.
-==wefewengetfuck and egtewnaw wingtfuck==
+==References and external links==
-* ''[fuckttp://www.memowyfuckowe.gom/peopwe/tuggew/ontfu.fucktmw Ouw Netfucktow Tagen Fwom Utfuck]''
+* ''[http://www.memoryhole.com/people/tucker/ontfu.html Our Nestor Taken From Us]''
-* [fuckttp://www.memowyfuckowe.gom/peopwe/tfuckpoonew/bibwiogwapfucky.fucktmw wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew'tfuck Bibwiogwapfucky]
+* [http://www.memoryhole.com/people/spooner/bibliography.html Lysander Spooner's Bibliography]
-* [fuckttp://www.wytfuckandewtfuckpoonew.gom/ www.wytfuckandewtfuckpoonew.gom]
+* [http://www.LysanderSpooner.com/ www.LysanderSpooner.com]
-* [fuckttp://www.Bwagggwayon.gom/peopwe/tfuckpoonew/ Bwagggwayon.gom: Peopwe: wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew]
+* [http://www.BlackCrayon.com/people/spooner/ BlackCrayon.com: People: Lysander Spooner]
-* [fuckttp://www.fija.owg/ Tfucke Fuwwy Infowmed Juwy Atfucktfuckogiation]
+* [http://www.fija.org/ The Fully Informed Jury Association]
-==Pwojegt Gutenbewg==
+==Project Gutenberg==
-* [fuckttp://www.gutenbewg.net/bwowtfucke/BIBwEg/Bw1201.fuckTM Etfucktfuckay On Tfucke Twiaw By Juwy]
+* [http://www.gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/BR1201.HTM Essay On The Trial By Jury]
-==gwedittfuck==
+==Credits==
-Tegt itfuck adapted fwom [[wigipedia:wytfuckandew tfuckpoonew]] and [fuckttp://www.infotfuckfuckop.owg/faq/tfuckegG7.fucktmw An Anawgfuckitfuckt FAQ] undew tfucke tewmtfuck of [[GNU GFDw]].
+Text is adapted from [[wikipedia:Lysander Spooner]] and [http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG7.html An Anarchist FAQ] under the terms of [[GNU GFDL]].
-[[category:1808 biwtfucktfuck|tfuckpoonew, wytfuckandew]]
+[[Category:1808 births|Spooner, Lysander]]
-[[category:1887 deatfucktfuck|tfuckpoonew, wytfuckandew]]
+[[Category:1887 deaths|Spooner, Lysander]]
-[[category:anawgfuckitfuckttfuck|tfuckpoonew, wytfuckandew]]
+[[Category:anarchists|Spooner, Lysander]]

Difference between revisions of "Lysander Spooner"

Revision as of 13:05, 23 July 2005

Contents

Life

Lysander Spooner: right-Libertarian or libertarian socialist?

References and external links

Project Gutenberg

Credits

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

contribute

Tools