Replies

central_va supporting Sloth's special theory of Constitution: "The above commentary was written by a devout radical ABOLITIONIST Lysander Spooner."

Quoting on Lysander Spooner:

"The Union government's actions during the war caused Spooner to radicalize his views to an anarchistic view.
In response, Spooner published a series of political tracts, No Treason.
The most famous of these is No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.
In this lengthy essay, Spooner argued that the Constitution was a contract of government (see social contract theory) which could not logically apply to anyone other than the individuals who signed it, and was thus void.
Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it had been demonstrated that that document could not adequately stop many abuses against liberty or prevent tyranny from taking hold...

"Spooner became a member of the socialist First International."

Thanks, central_va, for telling us where Sloth got the "special" idea of an unlawful US Constitution -- Lysander Spooner!

So in post-war 1868, Spooner was an anti-war, anti-Constitution, anti-big-business, radical abolitionist socialist/communist anarchist!
That means he was far from Conservative nor even Libertarian as we understand those today.

It also means this: when you begin making arguments against the Constitution as it was intended, then you do not support the Free Republic, but some other vision that is neither historical, workable or even seriously definable.

"ANARCHIST" or "COMMUNIST" best describe such ideas.

This is not a Spooner thread but he was no Communist:

Spooner believed that it is beneficial if people are self-employed so that they could enjoy the full fruits of their labor rather than having to share them with an employer. He argued that various forms of government intervention in the free market made it difficult for people to start their own businesses. For one, he believed that laws against high interest rates, or "usury" prevented those with capital from extending credit because they could not be compensated for high risks of not being repaid: "If a man have not capital of his own, upon which to bestow his labor, it is necessary that he be allowed to obtain it on credit. And in order that he may be able to obtain it on credit, it is necessary that he be allowed to contract for such a rate of interest as will induce a man, having surplus capital, to loan it to him; for the capitalist cannot, consistently with natural law, be compelled to loan his capital against his will. All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore, nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man’s natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor....The effect of usury laws, then, is to give a monopoly of the right of borrowing money, to those few, who can offer the most approved security." [25]