Matt Polzkill defends Ron Paul by comparing him to Lysander Spooner:

What IS wrong with you guys?!? Who do you support for president? Who that ran, was light years closer to Spooner?

Meanwhile, Lysander Spooner joins the Smearbund:

SIR, — Your inaugural address is probably as honest, sensible, and consistent a one as that of any president within the last fifty years, or, perhaps, as any since the foundation of the government. If, therefore, it is false, absurd, self-contradictory, and ridiculous, it is not (as I think) because you are personally less honest, sensible, or consistent than your predecessors, but because the government itself — according to your own description of it, and according to the practical administration of it for nearly a hundred years — is an utterly and palpably false, absurd, and criminal one. Such praises as you bestow upon it are, therefore, necessarily false, absurd, and ridiculous.

… You have not so much as the honest signature of a single human being, granting to you or your lawmakers any right of dominion whatever over him or his property.

You hold your place only by a title, which, on no just principle of law or reason, is worth a straw. And all who are associated with you in the government — whether they be called senators, representatives, judges, executive officers, or what not — all hold their places, directly or indirectly, only by the same worthless title. That title is nothing more nor less than votes given in secret (by secret ballot), by not more than one-fifth of the whole population. These votes were given in secret solely because those who gave them did not dare to make themselves personally responsible, either for their own acts, or the acts of their agents, the lawmakers, judges, etc.

These voters, having given their votes in secret (by secret ballot), have put it out of your power — and out of the power of all others associated with you in the government — to designate your principals individually. That is to say, you have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you, or who voted against you. And being unable to designate your principals individually, you have no right to say that you have any principals. And having no right to say that you have any principals, you are bound, on every just principle of law or reason, to confess that you are mere usurpers, making laws, and enforcing them, upon your own authority alone.

… But the falsehood and absurdity of your whole system of government do not result solely from the fact that it rests wholly upon votes given in secret, or by men who take care to avoid all personal responsibility for their own acts, or the acts of their agents. On the contrary, if every man, woman, and child in the United States had openly signed, sealed, and delivered to you and your associates, a written document, purporting to invest you with all the legislative, judicial, and executive powers that you now exercise, they would not thereby have given you the slightest legitimate authority. Such a contract, purporting to surrender into your hands all their natural rights of person and property, to be disposed of at your pleasure or discretion, would have been simply an absurd and void contract, giving you no real authority whatever.

… Every man has, by nature, the right to maintain justice for himself, and for all other persons, by the use of so much force as may be reasonably necessary for that purpose. But he can use the force only in accordance with his own judgment and conscience, and on his own personal responsibility, if, through ignorance or design, he commits any wrong to another.

But inasmuch as he cannot delegate, or impart, his own judgment or conscience to another, he cannot delegate his executive power or right to another.

The result is, that, in all judicial and executive proceedings, for the maintenance of justice, every man must act only in accordance with his own judgment and conscience, and on his own personal responsibility for any wrong he may commit; whether such wrong be committed through either ignorance or design.

No one could justify, or excuse, his wrong act, by saying that a power, or authority, to do it had been delegated to him, by any other men, however numerous.

For the reasons that have now been given, neither any legislative, judicial, nor executive powers ever were, or ever could have been, delegated to the United States by the constitution; no matter how honestly or innocently the people of that day may have believed, or attempted, the contrary.

… Such, Mr. Cleveland, is the real character of the government, of which you are the nominal head. Such are, and have been, its lawmakers. Such are, and have been, its judges. Such have been its executives. Such is its present executive. Have you anything to say for any of them?

Yours Frankly, LYSANDER SPOONER. BOSTON, MAY 15, 1886.

The original “Goodbye to All That” is one of my favorite short essays in the world. So it’s a bit disappointing to see someone who once wrote this:

Goodbye to those simple-minded optimistic dreams of socialist equality all our good socialist brothers want us to believe. How merely liberal a politics that is! How much further we will have to go to create those profound changes that would give birth to a genderless society. Profound, Sister. Beyond what is male or female. Beyond standards we all adhere to now without daring to examine them as male-created, male-dominated, male-fucked-up, and in male self-interest. Beyond all known standards, especially those easily articulated revolutionary ones we all rhetorically invoke. Beyond—to a species with a new name, that would not dare define itself as Man.

… We are rising, powerful in our unclean bodies; bright glowing mad in our inferior brains; wild hair flying, wild eyes staring, wild voices keening; undaunted by blood we who hemorrhage every twenty-eight days; laughing at our own beauty we who have lost our sense of humor; mourning for all each precious one of us might have been in this one living time-place had she not been born a woman; stuffing fingers into our mouths to stop the screams of fear and hate and pity for men we have loved and love still; tears in our eyes and bitterness in our mouths for children we couldn’t have, or couldn’t not have, or didn’t want, or didn’t want yet, or wanted and had in this place and this time of horror. We are rising with a fury older and potentially greater than any force in history, and this time we will be free or no one will survive. Power to all the people or to none. All the way down, this time.

… is now drawing on her legacy and turning her talents to churn out endorsements for a triangulating pro-war corporate liberal candidate for President of the United States. I fear that the bottom of “all the way down” has become rather more shallow than it once was.

I dunno. I think people who use the word “anarchy” use it as a package-deal: it’s not that it means chaos instead of freedom from rulers; it’s used to mean both chaos and freedom from rulers, because people who use the word that way think that the two are the same thing, or at least inevitably connected with each other.

So when people are package-dealing, there’s two ways you could respond. You could reject the term and come up with a new one. But what would you come up with? “Peace?” “Freedom?” That’s what anarchy means, but obviously the common uses of those terms are just as knotty as the common uses of “Anarchy.” “Lawlessness?” “Ungoverned?” Both of these imply chaos in common usage just as much as “anarchy.” “A spontaneous, polycentric, or non-hierarchical social order?” Gag.

Fortunately, there’s another thing you can do when dealing with a conceptual package deal: you can pick out the part of the concept you want to preserve and defend, and then explicitly challenge the presupposition behind the attempt to package-deal it with the part of the concept you don’t want to defend. For example, this is what gay men and lesbians did when they reclaimed the words “homosexual” and “bisexual” from the psychiatrists; the words used to be used so as to imply both (1) having particular types of sexuality, and also (2) suffering from mental illness. The gay liberation movement embraced (1) but chucked (2) out the door, and it didn’t take too long for much of the rest of the world to catch up.

It might seem like taking the reclamation route is somehow a drain on time, since it gets you tangled up in other people’s confused terminology. But I’m not at all sure that’s right. Identifying and challenging the confusion that’s implicit in the ordinary use of the word — e.g. the confusion between lawlessness and riot, or the presupposition that only government force can produce social harmony — is part and parcel of the strategy of reclaiming the term. In some important ways, it involves you much more in meeting people where they are, whereas minting new language can lead you into inadvertently sidestepping the real issue, by not confronting the confusion that’s at the core of the dispute over the meaning of e.g. “anarchy.”

Kevin,

You’re right about the origins of St. Thomas’s Third Way. In On the Power of God, a work dated after the Summa contra Gentiles but before the Summa Theologica, he explicitly attributes the argument to Ibn Sina, with developments added by Ibn Rushd. (In fact, all of the arguments used in the Five Ways are explicitly attributed to other philosophers at some point or another in St. Thomas’s work.)

You wrote: What is “Thomistic”?

Of or pertaining to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church and the leading figure of the revival of Aristotelian philosophy during the High Middle Ages.

St. Thomas famously believed that, although many of the mysteries of Christian faith could not be discovered by natural reason, and had to be revealed by the grace of God, there were at least some doctrines of natural theology, and in particular, the existence of an uncaused, necessary, and perfect Creator of the visible world), which could be proven through rational demonstration, and set out his Five Ways to prove the existence of God. The third of the Five Ways, the argument from possibility and necessity, is intended to demonstrate that there must be a single necessary being — i.e. a being which could not possibly fail to exist — to explain the existence of contingent beings — i.e. beings which do exist, but could fail to exist.

Kevin’s right about the origins of the argument; in an earlier book, Aquinas explicitly attributes the development of the argument to two Muslim commentators on Aristotle — the Persian philosopher-physician Ibn Sina (known in Europe as “Avicenna”) and the Spanish-Arab philosopher Ibn Rushd (known in Europe as “Averroës”). Generally speaking, a lot of the revival of Aristotelian philosophy in Christian Europe during the High Middle Ages was deeply influenced by the work of Muslim scholars a century or two before; indeed, without the texts that Arab scholars preserved and copied, the renewed interest in classical Greek learning in Christian Europe would hardly have been possible: most of the work of Plato and Aristotle, among others, had been completely lost in Western Europe for hundreds of years, until Muslim scholars re-introduced it.

Hope this helps.

“But in terms of the Constitution, the CSA was perhaps less evil than the North, wouldn’t you agree.”

I can’t answer for Anthony. But I certainly wouldn’t agree. Why in the world would anybody agree? The Confederate Constitution was deliberately modeled on the U.S. Constitution, and replicates nearly all of its defects. To these it adds new defects, in particular explicit new protections for “the right of property [sic] in negro slaves,” in particular explicitly forbidding any “impairment” of this so-called right by the confederate Congress (Art. I Sect. 9), explicitly protecting Confederate slaveholders’ ability to pass through or stay in other Confederate states with their slaves (Art. IV, Sect. 2), thus preventing any effective emancipation at the state level, and explicitly requiring that “the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government” in all newly-acquired territories (Art. IV, Sect. 3). Alexander Stephens, famously, described the changes (which he regarded as an improvement) as putting “to rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.”

I can find no particular at all in which the Confederate Constitution is preferable, from a libertarian standpoint, to the existing United States constitution, with the possible exception of its ban on protective tariffs (Art. I, Sect. 8). But the Confederate constitution does allow for revenue tariffs and other taxes, and the Confederates at the time happily implemented every sort of tax, cartelizaton, and nationalization during the few years of their independence. In any case, compared to the massive and obvious evil of perpetuating chattel slavery, swapping on set of taxes for another set of taxes seems like pretty small potatoes.

So what exactly is a libertaran supposed to find “perhaps less evil” in the Confederate constitution?

“And in fact the CSA Constitution banned the slave trade”

Obviously it did not; they went on trading slaves. It did forbid the transnational slave trade (except with the slaveholding states that remained in the Union), which is something different.

Nor is it something especially noble. The prohibition on the transnational slave trade in 1808 was pushed through originally by the Virginian slavers. Not out of any moral scruple about trading slaves, which they continued to do with gusto, but rather because certain powerful slavers profited greatly from the internal slave trade, even while plantation agriculture became increasingly unprofitable for the longer-settled parts of the South. The basic impetus behind both the 1808 ban and the Confederate ban was not emancipatory; it was just another damn protectionist scheme.

At the end of the article, Franks does express some “regret” that “we really couldn’t honestly find enough reasonable doubt to acquit Mr. Rhett.” Not because he feels bad about abducting harmless people and locking them in a cage for 10 years, of course, but rather because he would have rather reserved that treatment for some other innocent person higher up in the import-export business. But Rhett didn’t snitch, and “he was the one that got caught,” so ten years of his one-and-only life is close enough for government work.