Holiday proclamation by the Ministry of Culture of a secessionist republic of one: http://radgeek.com/gt/2013/01/19/happy-lysander-spooner-day/
1. No man can delÂeÂgate, or give to anÂothÂer, any right of arÂbiÂtrary doÂminÂion over himÂself; for that would be givÂing himÂself away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any conÂtract to do so is necÂesÂsarÂiÂly an abÂsurd one, and has no vaÂlidÂiÂty. To call such a conÂtract a ‘ConÂstiÂtuÂtion,’ or by any other high-soundÂing name, does not alter its charÂacÂter as an abÂsurd and void conÂtract.
2. No man can delÂeÂgate, or give to anÂothÂer, any right of arÂbiÂtrary doÂminÂion over a third perÂson; for that would imply a right in the first perÂson, not only to make the third perÂson his slave, but also a right to disÂpose of him as a slave to still other perÂsons. Any conÂtract to do this is necÂesÂsarÂiÂly a crimÂiÂnal one and thereÂfore inÂvalid. To call such a conÂtract a ‘ConÂstiÂtuÂtion’ does not at all lessen its crimÂiÂnalÂiÂty, or add to its vaÂlidÂiÂty.
These facts, that no man can delÂeÂgate, or give away, his own natÂurÂal right to libÂerÂty, nor any other man’s natÂurÂal right to libÂerÂty, prove that he can delÂeÂgate no right of arÂbiÂtrary doÂminÂion whatÂevÂer—or, what is the same thing, no legÂislaÂtive power whatÂevÂer—over himÂself or anyÂbody else, to any man, or body of men.
. . . All this preÂtendÂed delÂeÂgaÂtion of legÂislaÂtive power—that is, of a power, on the part of the legÂisÂlaÂtors, so-called, to make any laws of their own deÂvice, disÂtinct from the law of naÂture—is thereÂfore an enÂtire falseÂhood; a falseÂhood whose only purÂpose is to cover and hide a pure usurpaÂtion, by one body of men, of arÂbiÂtrary doÂminÂion over other men.
. . . For all the reaÂsons now given, and for still othÂers that might be given, the legÂislaÂtive power now exÂerÂcised by ConÂgress is, in both law and reaÂson, pureÂly perÂsonÂal, arÂbiÂtrary, irÂreÂsponÂsiÂble, usurped doÂminÂion on the part of the legÂisÂlaÂtors themÂselves, and not a power delÂeÂgatÂed to them by anyÂbody.
Yet under the preÂtense that this inÂstruÂment gives them the right of an arÂbiÂtrary and irÂreÂsponÂsiÂble doÂminÂion over the whole peoÂple of the UnitÂed States, ConÂgress has gone on, for nineÂty years and more, fillÂing great volÂumes with laws of their own deÂvice, which the peoÂple at large have never read, nor even seen nor ever will read or see; and of whose legal meanÂings it is moralÂly imÂposÂsiÂble that they should ever know anyÂthing. ConÂgress has never dared to reÂquire the peoÂple even to read these laws. Had it done so, the opÂpresÂsion would have been an inÂtolÂerÂaÂble one; and the peoÂple, rather than enÂdure it, would have eiÂther reÂbelled, and overÂthrown the govÂernÂment, or would have fled the counÂtry. Yet these laws, which ConÂgress has not dared to reÂquire the peoÂple even to read, it has comÂpelled them, at the point of the bayÂoÂnet, to obey.
And this moral, and legal, and poÂlitÂiÂcal monÂstrosÂiÂty is the kind of govÂernÂment which ConÂgress claims that the ConÂstiÂtuÂtion auÂthoÂrizes it to imÂpose upon the peoÂple.
Sir, can you say that such an arÂbiÂtrary and irÂreÂsponÂsiÂble doÂminÂion as this, over the propÂerÂties, libÂerÂties, and lives of fifty milÂlions of peoÂple—or even over the propÂerÂty, libÂerÂty, or life of any one of those fifty milÂlions—can be jusÂtiÂfied on any reaÂson whatÂevÂer? If not, with what color of truth can you say that you yourÂself, or anyÂbody else, can act as a legÂisÂlaÂtor, under the ConÂstiÂtuÂtion of the UnitÂed States, and yet be an honÂest man?
. . . I trust I need not susÂpect you, as a legÂisÂlaÂtor under the ConÂstiÂtuÂtion, and claimÂing to be an honÂest man, of any deÂsire to evade the issue preÂsentÂed in this pamÂphlet. If you shall see fit to meet it, I hope you will exÂcuse me for sugÂgestÂing that — to avoid verÂbiage, and everyÂthing inÂdefÂiÂnite — you give at least a sinÂgle specÂiÂmen of a law that eiÂther heretoÂfore has been made, or that you conÂceive it posÂsiÂble for legÂisÂlaÂtors to make—that is, some law of their own deÂvice—that eiÂther has been, or shall be, reÂalÂly and truly obligÂaÂtoÂry upon other perÂsons, and which such other perÂsons have been, or may be, rightÂfulÂly comÂpelled to obey.
If you can eiÂther find or deÂvise any such law, I trust you will make it known, that it may be exÂamÂined, and the quesÂtion of its obligÂaÂtion be fairÂly setÂtled in the popÂuÂlar mind.
But if it should hapÂpen that you can neiÂther find such a law in the exÂistÂing statute books of the UnitÂed States, nor, in your own mind, conÂceive of such a law as posÂsiÂble under the ConÂstiÂtuÂtion, I give you leave to find it, if that be posÂsiÂble, in the conÂstiÂtuÂtion or statute book of any other peoÂple that now exist, or ever have exÂistÂed, on the earth.
If, fiÂnalÂly, you shall find no such law, anyÂwhere, nor be able to conÂceive of any such law yourÂself, I take the libÂerÂty to sugÂgest that it is your imÂperÂaÂtive duty to subÂmit the quesÂtion to your asÂsoÂciÂate legÂisÂlaÂtors; and, if they can give no light on the subÂject, that you call upon them to burn all the exÂistÂing statute books of the UnitÂed States, and then to go home and conÂtent themÂselves with the exÂerÂcise of only such rights and powÂers as naÂture has given to them in comÂmon with the rest of mankind.
—Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard (Boston, May 22, 1882)
Anticopyright.