More IP debate from the pages of Tucker’s Liberty (1890-1891): Simpson vs. Tucker, third round. “Mr. Simpson’s Final Shot” (April 18, 1891). http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/04/18/mr-simpsons-final-shot

Mark Nottingham on Aarzon Swartz http://www.mnot.net/blog/2013/01/20/aaron

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 del­e­gate, or give to an­oth­er, any right of ar­bi­trary do­min­ion over him­self; for that would be giv­ing him­self away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any con­tract to do so is nec­es­sar­i­ly an ab­surd one, and has no va­lid­i­ty. To call such a con­tract a ‘Con­sti­tu­tion,’ or by any other high-sound­ing name, does not alter its char­ac­ter as an ab­surd and void con­tract. 2. No man can del­e­gate, or give to an­oth­er, any right of ar­bi­trary do­min­ion over a third per­son; for that would imply a right in the first per­son, not only to make the third per­son his slave, but also a right to dis­pose of him as a slave to still other per­sons. Any con­tract to do this is nec­es­sar­i­ly a crim­i­nal one and there­fore in­valid. To call such a con­tract a ‘Con­sti­tu­tion’ does not at all lessen its crim­i­nal­i­ty, or add to its va­lid­i­ty. These facts, that no man can del­e­gate, or give away, his own nat­ur­al right to lib­er­ty, nor any other man’s nat­ur­al right to lib­er­ty, prove that he can del­e­gate no right of ar­bi­trary do­min­ion what­ev­er—or, what is the same thing, no leg­isla­tive power what­ev­er—over him­self or any­body else, to any man, or body of men. . . . All this pre­tend­ed del­e­ga­tion of leg­isla­tive power—that is, of a power, on the part of the leg­is­la­tors, so-called, to make any laws of their own de­vice, dis­tinct from the law of na­ture—is there­fore an en­tire false­hood; a false­hood whose only pur­pose is to cover and hide a pure usurpa­tion, by one body of men, of ar­bi­trary do­min­ion over other men. . . . For all the rea­sons now given, and for still oth­ers that might be given, the leg­isla­tive power now ex­er­cised by Con­gress is, in both law and rea­son, pure­ly per­son­al, ar­bi­trary, ir­re­spon­si­ble, usurped do­min­ion on the part of the leg­is­la­tors them­selves, and not a power del­e­gat­ed to them by any­body. Yet under the pre­tense that this in­stru­ment gives them the right of an ar­bi­trary and ir­re­spon­si­ble do­min­ion over the whole peo­ple of the Unit­ed States, Con­gress has gone on, for nine­ty years and more, fill­ing great vol­umes with laws of their own de­vice, which the peo­ple at large have never read, nor even seen nor ever will read or see; and of whose legal mean­ings it is moral­ly im­pos­si­ble that they should ever know any­thing. Con­gress has never dared to re­quire the peo­ple even to read these laws. Had it done so, the op­pres­sion would have been an in­tol­er­a­ble one; and the peo­ple, rather than en­dure it, would have ei­ther re­belled, and over­thrown the gov­ern­ment, or would have fled the coun­try. Yet these laws, which Con­gress has not dared to re­quire the peo­ple even to read, it has com­pelled them, at the point of the bay­o­net, to obey. And this moral, and legal, and po­lit­i­cal mon­stros­i­ty is the kind of gov­ern­ment which Con­gress claims that the Con­sti­tu­tion au­tho­rizes it to im­pose upon the peo­ple. Sir, can you say that such an ar­bi­trary and ir­re­spon­si­ble do­min­ion as this, over the prop­er­ties, lib­er­ties, and lives of fifty mil­lions of peo­ple—or even over the prop­er­ty, lib­er­ty, or life of any one of those fifty mil­lions—can be jus­ti­fied on any rea­son what­ev­er? If not, with what color of truth can you say that you your­self, or any­body else, can act as a leg­is­la­tor, under the Con­sti­tu­tion of the Unit­ed States, and yet be an hon­est man? . . . I trust I need not sus­pect you, as a leg­is­la­tor under the Con­sti­tu­tion, and claim­ing to be an hon­est man, of any de­sire to evade the issue pre­sent­ed in this pam­phlet. If you shall see fit to meet it, I hope you will ex­cuse me for sug­gest­ing that — to avoid ver­biage, and every­thing in­def­i­nite — you give at least a sin­gle spec­i­men of a law that ei­ther hereto­fore has been made, or that you con­ceive it pos­si­ble for leg­is­la­tors to make—that is, some law of their own de­vice—that ei­ther has been, or shall be, re­al­ly and truly oblig­a­to­ry upon other per­sons, and which such other per­sons have been, or may be, right­ful­ly com­pelled to obey. If you can ei­ther find or de­vise any such law, I trust you will make it known, that it may be ex­am­ined, and the ques­tion of its oblig­a­tion be fair­ly set­tled in the pop­u­lar mind. But if it should hap­pen that you can nei­ther find such a law in the ex­ist­ing statute books of the Unit­ed States, nor, in your own mind, con­ceive of such a law as pos­si­ble under the Con­sti­tu­tion, I give you leave to find it, if that be pos­si­ble, in the con­sti­tu­tion or statute book of any other peo­ple that now exist, or ever have ex­ist­ed, on the earth. If, fi­nal­ly, you shall find no such law, any­where, nor be able to con­ceive of any such law your­self, I take the lib­er­ty to sug­gest that it is your im­per­a­tive duty to sub­mit the ques­tion to your as­so­ci­ate leg­is­la­tors; and, if they can give no light on the sub­ject, that you call upon them to burn all the ex­ist­ing statute books of the Unit­ed States, and then to go home and con­tent them­selves with the ex­er­cise of only such rights and pow­ers as na­ture has given to them in com­mon with the rest of mankind. —Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard (Boston, May 22, 1882)

A happy birthday to militant abolitionist, philosopher, and individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner (b. January 19, 1808, Althol, Massachusetts)! http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/01/19/happy_lysander/ “The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution. … [T]his theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. “The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; AND IT IS FAR MORE DASTARDLY AND SHAMEFUL. “The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.” – No Treason, no. 6: The Constitution of No Authority

More IP debate from Tucker’s Liberty: Yarros vs. Tucker, fifth round. Yarros replies to Tucker and Tak Kak in “Property and Equal Liberty” (April 18, 1891) and Tucker’s rejoinder in “The Knot-Hole in the Fence” (April 18, 1891). http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/04/18/property-and-equal-liberty http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/04/18/the-knot-hole-in-the-fence

Doing some quick background research on Michael Zametkin (a radical editor, associated with Forverts and the Arbeter Ring), I found a book on Daniel DeLeon in which he appears, once, in the index under the heading of: “Zametkin, evil influence of, II. 54.” http://books.google.com/books?id=bWwZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15&q=Zametkin&f=false#v=snippet&q=Zametkin&f=false One of my life ambitions is now to make it into a book with an index heading of “evil influence of”

From ACIJ: ‘The Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice denounced today the State of Alabama’s request to the Supreme Court for review of the “harboring provision” of HB56, the harshest anti-immigrant law in the nation. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down this part of the law last year along with several other provisions. ‘“This is like rubbing salt in the wounds of the immigrant community,” said Evelyn Servin, an immigrant community leader in Russellville, Alabama. “This part of the law would make it a crime for someone to give an undocumented person a ride or a place to stay, putting not only immigrants in danger but also church and community members who work to help everyone in Alabama.”’ More at their website, ACIJ.net

More of the IP debate from the pages of Tucker’s LIBERTY: Jo. Labadie weighs in, in “Cranky Notions” (April 18, 1891). http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/04/18/cranky-notions

The Intellectual Property debate in Tucker’s Liberty, cont’d (1890-1891): Tak Kak’s serialized “The Question of Copyright” (Feb. – March 1891): Pt. I: http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/02/21/the-question-of-copyright Pt. II: http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/03/07/copyright Pt. III: http://fair-use.org/liberty/1891/03/21/copyright