"Man, no doubt, owes many other moral duties to his fellow men; such as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, protect the defenceless, assist the weak, and enlighten the ignorant. But these are simply moral duties, of which each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them." - Lysander Spooner, 1882 (emphasis added)
Yeah. He believed that charity was a wholly voluntary act of the individual. Sounds like a real left winger to me. (end sarcasm)
who believed the Constitution was unlawful
"[T]he writer (Spooner) thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument (of tyranny) as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth." - Lysander Spooner, 1870
Seems to me he thought the Constitution as originally intended was an instrument of liberty and only became corrupted by later abuses of it through the government.
As an advocate of Natural Law Theory and an opponent of government and legislation, Spooner considered the Constitution itself to be unlawful.
That's an oversimplification of a very complex argument he made. Spooner considered the Constitution unlawful in its application after circa 1860 due to the way the government was using it. He believed strongly in the document itself though so long as it was absent of Lincolnian big government abuses. He made this very clear in No Treason, his book on the very subject of the constitution's legitimacy:
"Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established. If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown."
In other words, so long as the constitution operates a government of consent and liberty it is legitimate. But the second it used to thwart consent and liberty that use becomes illegitimate. See the distinction? Interestingly, I did not say that any of those three men were unamerican.
You certainly implied it by ascribing the characteristic of being "un-american" to persons who you also identified as followers of Jefferson et al.
LOL. Whatsa matter? Can't spell anarchist?
Spooner was only a dialectical anarchist (as in he disproved the government's legitimacy rather than proving an absence of government). As he made perfectly clear in No Treason and his other works, he had absolutely no problem whatsoever with a government so long as it rested on the legitimacy of obtained consent from the governed. He even extended this characteristic to have been theoretically true of pre-war American government and accordingly concluded the Constitution to have been originally a doctrine of liberty and legitimacy.
How about libertarian socialist?
Libertarian yes, but you would be hard pressed to demonstrate socialism. As the quote found earlier in this post demonstrates, he stood fundamentally opposed to the compulsory acts of charity that define socialist practice. Spooner writings elsewhere demonstrate an extreme free-market inclination, such as the following excerpt from his argument that the legal bar rating system be eliminated and replaced by market determination of who the good lawyers were:
"What then is the remedy? It is this. If the profession were thrown open to all, this combination of lawyers would doubtless be broken up – they, like any other men, would hold themselves severely responsible for their own character alone – they would have no inducement to wink at or attempt to hide the mal-practices of others – individuals , who should suppose themselves injured by the practice of an attorney, instead of laying his complaints before the Bar, would lay them before the grand jury, or some other tribunal – and it is no uncharitableness, it is only supposing lawyers to be like other men, to say, that it is probable the community would sometimes fare the better for it."
Wrong again. I implied nothing. I very clearly stated that neo-reb types and anarcho-lib types share common hatreds and common heroes. Among those common heroes are Jefferson, Calhoun, and Henry. That those three are heroes of neo-rebs and anarcho-libs is undeniable. It's an observable fact.
I never said neo rebs and anarcho libs were unamerican. Most of them, so far as I know, are American. They just hate our nation and our laws. They, like some of their heroes, aren't happy with the way things turned out. They, like some of their heroes, advocate violent overthrow.
It's a historical fact that Henry railed against the Constitution. He hated it and said so. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution, spending that whole period in France. He kept in touch with Madison, but that was the extent of it. Jefferson is of course also known for his flippant pen. He was as reckless with his words as he was with his money. It is his words, rather than his deeds, that neorebs and libs love. Calhoun championed a theory--nullification--that has been totally discredited, and one that Madison himself denounced.
So it's no surprise at all that neo-rebs and anarcholibs admire the trio. That doesn't make them unamerican. They were all Americans. It just means they are far from being supporters of our system of government, our laws, and our nation. I will say this of Jefferson. He was a successful President, even if his greatest act--the Louisiana Purchase--was unconstitutional. And he knew it was. He said so. Oh well, I guess Constitutional fidelity comes down to a matter of taste with some folks, eh?
Hope this helps clear up your continued and multifaceted confusion.
Wrong again. I implied nothing. I very clearly stated that neo-reb types and anarcho-lib types share common hatreds and common heroes. Among those common heroes are Jefferson, Calhoun, and Henry. That those three are heroes of neo-rebs and anarcho-libs is undeniable. It's an observable fact.
I never said neo rebs and anarcho libs were unamerican. Most of them, so far as I know, are American. They just hate our nation and our laws. They, like some of their heroes, aren't happy with the way things turned out. They, like some of their heroes, advocate violent overthrow.
It's a historical fact that Henry railed against the Constitution. He hated it and said so. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution, spending that whole period in France. He kept in touch with Madison, but that was the extent of it. Jefferson is of course also known for his flippant pen. He was as reckless with his words as he was with his money. It is his words, rather than his deeds, that neorebs and libs love. Calhoun championed a theory--nullification--that has been totally discredited, and one that Madison himself denounced.
So it's no surprise at all that neo-rebs and anarcholibs admire the trio. That doesn't make them unamerican. They were all Americans. It just means they are far from being supporters of our system of government, our laws, and our nation. I will say this of Jefferson. He was a successful President, even if his greatest act--the Louisiana Purchase--was unconstitutional. And he knew it was. He said so. Oh well, I guess Constitutional fidelity comes down to a matter of taste with some folks, eh?
Hope this helps clear up your continued and multifaceted confusion.
Yes, that's what I said.
As I said, spooner was an anarchist.