So once again you are back to attacking the person rather than the argument itself. For the record, I will simply note that Spooner's argument was no more "lunatic" than the famous Somersett case upon which much of it was based. Considering that the Somersett case was one of about three landmark blows to slavery on the British Isles (it is sometimes called the anti-Dred Scott case as it did the opposite), to call it lunatic is in itself, well, lunacy.
We will give you credit for a devil's advocacy, but such a contention is utter tripe.
Once again, calling the argument names does not alter its content. And again I need only note that it was no more "tripe" than Frederick Douglass, who embraced it and centered his famed abolitionist message around it.
Other than that, Spooner has a rather whimisical twist, but you neglect the full implications of his argument.
Not really. I'm fully content to take the implications as they stand. I do however doubt that you would either understand or faithfully represent those implications.
I rather doubt anyone in the ante bellum south would have bought Spooner's argument, as he voiced it as an argument against the crime of slavery.
Actually you are wrong there. As previously noted, it caused such a stir that in 1856 it was the subject of a debate on the floor of the senate. That debate is particularly interesting as it was the northerners (Henry Wilson, to be specific) who backed away from accepting the merits of Spooner's argument, not the southerners. Even more noteworthy is that Wilson did so on wholly political grounds. He made no effort to discredit the argument itself and simply started repeating that he didn't believe in it (a 19th century version of Clinton, in a way). As I noted, Senator Brown of Mississippi stated that he found the argument to be nothing short of brilliant. He also called it dangerous (and to him it was just that) but he understood and openly admitted that it was brilliant. According to Brown, "the book is ingeniously written. No mere simpleton could ever have drawn such an argument. If his premises were admitted, I should say at once that it would take a Herculean task to overthrow his argument." Naturally, Brown stated that he disputed the premises though he never specified what he believed was wrong with them.
Here is where the boats slip out from under you and you have to swim home looking, soaked to the bone.
Another amusing little allegory, but no less irrelevant than the first one. Seeing as you have yet to provide any substantial dispute of either the facts I have stated or the arguments of Spooner I have laid out for you, in part at your own request, I consider it safe to note that your boat hasn't even left the dock yet.