Talk:Lysander Spooner/Archive 1

Libertarian v. Socialist
Today, Spooner is paradoxically a hero to libertarians (in the American sense), anarchists and socialists. This seems contradictory but is it really? American libertarianism has a lot in common with anarchism and one tendency of it even calls itself "anarcho-capitalism." Further, in the 19th Centuray, the divide between socialism and we today call libertarianism was not as great and there was a great deal of overlap.

I consider myself a libertarian and have a cousin who is essentially a Marxist. She was surprised when I mentioned Lysander Spooner in conversation on day because she thinks of him as a socialist. I think of him as a libertarian. We are both right. --Amcalabrese 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that's speculation. If he called himself a socialist then there should be a reference out there that says so. Socialism as we normally understand it calls for common ownership of the means of production. So it's a strange claim that needs a reference if it's true. Operation Spooner 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will track down a cite tonight if you wish. But the point is that what we undertsand as "socialism" today is not quite the same as what socialism was in 19th Century.  Spooner was against the concentration of power, be it in government or large corporations.  Hence, he looks like an anarchical socialist.  Yet, he also started a company to compete against a government monopoly -- not the actions of a 21st Century socialist.  In reality he was an anarchist and someone who opposed enforced collectivism.  So to our modern sensibilities he is properly termed a libertarian.  But to 19th Century sensibilities, he also was a socialist.--Amcalabrese 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By what logic is a man who calls taxation armed robbery a socialist? Josh (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We had a short discussion about Spooner in the Swedish wikipedia, and sv:User:Enfore pointed out that Spooner was a member of the First international, according to (the Swedish translation of) George Woodcock's Anarchism. This also sounds somewhat strange in modern ears... but I guess Amcalabrese has a point.
 * It would be nice to have this matter confirmed (or not) from some further source; does anybody know whether there e.g. are any published lists of the menbers of the International? JoergenB (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt LS was involved (though it seems remotely possible considering his abolitionist sympathies, shared by Marxists - no Americans were involved in the IWA until after the Civil War), especially in light of the fact that most of the socialist labor movement in the US was Lasallean or Marxist, foreign-born (German French or Czech, I think) and the IWA wasn't established in the US until 1867 in NY and there weren't delegates until 1870. Most of the people at the 1st from the states (though at the beginning, there weren't any) were likely German Marxists a la Weydemeyer, the most notable American socialist at the time, but I still figure if LS was vaguely involved with the AWL or the 1st he's show up in W.Z. Foster's "History of the Communist Party in America". Looking through it for a list as we speak. Also looking through the first minutes. Coraz then Fox were sent to America as corresponding secretary. No Americans present until at least 1870. Sorge, Hubert, Jandus were the delegates (Bernstein, The First International in America, pg. 54). Looks like bunk. You can comb through the minutes if you want to, they have them at Marxists.org but I can't find any reference to Spooner. It's hard to believe a fellow that wrote hatemail to Cleveland could sit quietly at such an event. I'd imagine he'd have been involved in the Bakunin fiasco. I really would need to know more about his life though, so if anyone can list references that'd be helpful. Where he lived would be helpful - and I have virtually no info on that.


 * Otherwise in terms of primary sources, the Daily St.Louis Press editorial by Weydemer after the 1st would be helpful, or the Worker's Advocate or Arbeiter Union paper would be the best primary source (those were the major socialist papers in the USA). You'd have to check the microfiche if you have uni access. I don't have access to a microfiche collection with either paper. In terms of secondary sources, there's the Postgate, the Stekloff and the Commons and a few other labor histories. Checked the first two and found no reference, don't have the third. A brief word of caution - to say Commons is boring is understatement unparalleled. It wouldn't surprise me if a list is in there, though.


 * What's Woodcock's reference? Maybe it's been mistranslated. I don't have a copy of his book. It's possible it was the NLU or the AWL's congresses and not the IWA or something. Acronyms often translate poorly. Guinness4life (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed (Citation Needed)
I'm wondering if somebody (citation needed) could add in a few more (citation needed) tags as some parts (citation needed) of this article are quite sparse and are thus almost readable(citation needed). Some argue that Wikipedians like adding (citation needed) tags to articles (citation needed) but it makes the reading experience extremely disjointed (citation needed) as every few words the sentence is (citation needed) interrupted by (citation needed).

Additionally, many of the points where somebody seems to think a (citation) is (needed) seem unduly trivial (citation needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.30.178 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs
I don't personally know enough about Spooner to write the section, but I know he was a prominent Deist and wrote strongly about Christianity's foolish miracle claims. Many of the anti-slavery leaders of the time had radical (un)religious beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.200.140 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No Treason
I'm reading No Treason now (I haven't finished it yet, so I may be wrong), but so far it seems that Spooner is arguing that the constitution never was valid, but Wikipedia says this:

Reacting to the war, Spooner published one of his most famous political tracts, No Treason. In this lengthy essay, Spooner argued that the Constitution was a contract of government (see social contract theory) which had been irreparably violated during the war and was thus void.

However, Spooner says this:

The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him. [Can be found at the head of Section IV here] -- Balden2 (talk)


 * I just finished the essay, and this quote at the very end seems to justify Wikipedia's interpretation:

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument 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. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. Balden2 (talk)

Compensated Emancipation
"As a means to end slavery without bloodshed, Spooner offered compensated emancipation, a method tested and proven in those nations that had orchestrated the peaceful abolition of slavery.[19]"

This is totally wrong. If you read the essay referenced in the footnote, Spooner says nothing about compensating slaveowners for the loss of their "property" (as was done in Britain, see under "Slavery Abolition Act 1833"). He argues for the compensating SLAVES for the abuses they have endured. Nor does he promise that ending slavery will be without bloodshed, though at one point he expresses hope that bloodshed will be minimized by a show of force and unity. Does someone want to fix this, or should I? Davidz07 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, he only talks of compensating the slaves and the possibility of slaves (having taken over the plantations on which they work) of compensating those who help them to do so. I'll delete the reference to compensated emancipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.37.102 (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External links content to be put into article prose?

 * All Works in Chronological Order
 * "To the Non-Slaveholders of the South: A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery" (1858)
 * Vices Are Not Crimes: A vindication of Moral Liberty (1875)
 * No Treason (1867–1870 text)
 * Natural Law, or the Science of Justice (1882)
 * "A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard: Challenging His Right – And that of All the Other So-Called Senators and Representative in Congress – To Exercise Any Legislative Power Whatever Over the People of the United States" (1882)
 * The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1860)
 * The Law of Intellectual Property: or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas (1855)
 * Let's Abolish Government (1972); three collected essays
 * Address of the Free Constitutionalists to the People of the United States (1860).

Audio books

 * 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority' read by Marc Stevens
 * 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority' read by Marc Stevens

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lysander Spooner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630071436/http://lysanderspooner.org/node/5 to http://lysanderspooner.org/node/5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510175038/http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019155313/http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP3.htm to http://www.lysanderspooner.org/STAMP3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728111559/http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm to http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630074426/http://lysanderspooner.org/node/7 to http://lysanderspooner.org/node/7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718051644/http://www.lysanderspooner.org/OBIT.htm to http://www.lysanderspooner.org/OBIT.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

destructive of what?

 * Spooner also argued that the war ... proved that the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence no longer held true - the people could not "dissolve the political bands" that tie them to a government that "becomes destructive" of the consent of the governed ....

A relevant phrase in the Declaration is "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends", i.e. the purposes (ends) for which governments are instituted, namely "to secure these Rights". Was it really Spooner's understanding that "these Ends" meant "the Consent of the Governed"? —Tamfang (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A Mistake in the article
The article states that "the Liberty Party, ... adopted [Spooner's The Unconstitutionality of Slavery] as an official text in its 1848 platform." However, the Liberty Party only mentions Spooner in their 1849 platform, and does not endorse the text as "official" but merely mentions it. http://alexpeak.com/twr/libertyparty/1849/#22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.237.93 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Spooner was not a socialist
He was obviously not a socialist. Don't change history to fit your world views. CrypticIndividual1000 (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Says who? You? As I have stated elsewhere, Spooner was a socialist. Obviously, if you think socialism as state ownership, of course he would not be a socialist. Individualist anarchism in the United States was a form of artisanal socialism due the United States' material conditions at the time. Indeed, individualist anarchism was what today is called libertarian socialism, albeit there are some differences due to the vastly different material conditions from the 19th century to the 20th and 21st centuries. The fact that he started a mail company to compete with a government monopoly does not make him a capitalist. Competition does not equal capitalism. Indeed, it was the socialist individualist anarchists' value of competition against capitalism which they claimed was in fact anti-competitive and based on state privileges. Ironically, just like today socialism usually means state socialism and all socialism must inevitabily results in totalitarianism, yesterday capitalism meant state capitalism and state capitalism was indeed seen as the inevitable end results of capitalism itself. We should describe someone's political views as it was at the time he lived rather than do it it by modern standards and Spooner was an individualist anarchist and a socialist, or by today's standard an anti-capitalist left-libertarian. Just like many other individualist anarchists, he was part of the labor/socialist movement, even being part of the First International. His economic views are clearly libertarian socialist, albeit outdated. However, that is my opinion from all the reasearch I have done. I did not add anywhere in the text that he was clearly socialist, not in the led nor anywhere else. However, he wanted to end the employer-employee relationship by having everyone being self-employed and end wage labor and thought a true free market, without any capital's privileges, would have done so, thus the libertarian socialism sidebar is warranted. Besides, it is not like I removed the libertarianism sidebar or his influence on libertarianism as a whole, both left and right, to push a POV.--79.36.167.52 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(Not the original poster of the question above) No one is implying that he is a capitalist simply for owning a business. Capitalists, specifically anarcho-capitalists, can be critical of wage labor. Also Individualist anarchist was not socialism, and never was. Socialism is inherently collectivist, however I wouldn't deny that it could possibly exist in an Anarcho-Individualist society. What is certain, however, is that Lysander Spooner was not a socialist simply because he supported smaller, more individual-oriented businesses and self-employment. At best he was a free-market anarchist. On a side-note, I appreciate you remaining neutral on the libertarianism section, as well as other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.43.68.202 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, for discussing this and not engaging in edit warring. However, your comment that Socialism is inherently collectivist clearly shows either your bias or a lack of knowledge of its history, for socialism has a long tradition of anti-capitalist free-market. I know of no capitalist who's actually critical of wage labour; how could they be, after all? Capitalism is based on wage labour, among other things. Classical liberals? Yes, some of them were; and anarcho-capitalism is misleading, for it's not clear if they simply want actually existing capitalism without any regulation or welfare state; or if they truly want free markets in the anarchist sense. Indeed, if it's the latter, they're basically much closer to the mutualists and anarcho-capitalism is misleading and an oxymoron; and in that way, they can actually be considered anti-capitalists in the sense of opposing state capitalism which is in line with the anarchist definition of capitalism and its use in the anarchist movement, but I digress. The point is that 19th-century individualist anarchists can be considered libertarian socialists, that's the same thing Benjamin Tucker thought; and the 19th-century American individualist anarchist were mutualists. Even Rothbard argued that they were socialists and diverged by their socialist doctrine by removing their normative claims. Either way, we should describe his political views as they were at the time he lived rather than do it it by modern standards which conflate capitalism and free markets.--Davide King (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)