I know you were being funny, but I actually did want to know your thoughts behind your statement. I don’t agree with your statement that:

Anyone who knows anything about basic economics, or for that matter human history, knows that these assumptions are non-viable; and in my estimation always will be.

However, I don’t think it would serve us to debate it. I do appreciate your additional discourse on your original statement.

It does work on an individual basis, but it assumes a society entirely comprised of informed rational actors enlightened self interest, and a perfect market without induced transactional costs.

Anyone who knows anything about basic economics, or for that matter human history, knows that these assumptions are non-viable; and in my estimation always will be.

As I said, there are interesting ideas in the individual anarchist school (spooner and rothbard notably), the problem is when these interesting philsophical premises are attempted in a practical absolute that they fail.

Actually ideological purists in general are difficult to deal with, it is simply those ideologies listed that tend to be the most difficult for a minarchist like myself to tolerate.

Though funny to many, I’m sure, I’m really reaching for the real answer to your question “Why?” Why is it pointless? Because you are unchanged by their arguments and they are unchanged by yours? Or something else?

1. Pure anarchists
2. Spoonerists
3. Dedicated socialists and/or other form of collectivists
4. Purist non-agression libertarians
5. Purist pacifists
6. Purist market/contract libertarians

Why? Well I dont enjoy hitting myself in the face repeatedly with a hammer, and discussing politics with any of those folks is somewhat more painful , and far more pointless than that..

They did arise from the thinking of the time, and the 2 most obvious sources are Locke’s ‘Treatises on Governemnt’, and Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’

I’ll borrow from a piece I wrote some years ago;

“…Between 1765 and 1769, Sir William Blackstone published his epic work ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’. This was the dominant law book in Britain, and the colonies (including for some time, North America) for the next century or so. In a very real sense he defined the common law, and the Constitution of Britain of the time. Part one of that work provides a background to English history. Blackstone was greatly impressed by the legacies of English history, including such defining milestones as the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights of 1689, which at that time, in contrast to our times, were accorded the respect of basic law. This, to a great extent, defines the foundation of Australian law (in fact, that of most of the English-speaking world), and greatly influenced the course of western legal and governmental practices, then and since.
Blackstone distilled the law and constitution into what he called “…the principal absolute rights ……the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property…”.
He went further, in declaring, “…But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment…”. He asserted that the Constitution established “…certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights…”, these being;
The constitution, powers and privileges of parliament;
The limitation of the kings prerogative (the limiting of arbitrary executive power, in modern times and terms ministerial or bureaucratic power);
The right of the individual to apply to the courts for redress of injuries;
The right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances;
The fifth, and last auxiliary right , is that “…of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law..”. This is taken from the Bill of Rights of 1689, and is deemed necessary “..under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression…”.

These days, many Englishmen and Australians wish that we had those concepts written in stone like our American cousins have done.

Consider that you and I may decide that there is a binding agreement between us even though we have never met, never directly agreed to anything, never signed a piece of papers, etc. It might even occur without direct communication between the two of us. A contract is valid only so long as all parties agree that it is valid. Since the vast majority of Americans agree that the Constitution is binding and valid, it is. Which is why Spooner could never gain any traction.

Oh, and by the way, I did, individually, agree to the authority of the Constitution. I did so by joining the Army and swearing the oath of enlistment.

I agree with Eric in that the constitution only has authority because society says it does. In reading these comments, I am reminded of the movie “V for Vendetta.” In the movie, Evey asks “V” whether he plans to change the world by blowing up a building, interpreted as a rather meaningless action at the time. “V” then responds “The building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by their people. By itself, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world.” Case in point, I believe this principle can be soundly applied to our constitution.

Great article by the way.

Or, thinking about it another way, if we all decided to start ignoring traffic laws (common in many third world countries), it would become impossible for the government to enforce those laws. When the various Eastern European peoples decided that their communist governments had no authority over them, the authority went away in about 10 seconds flat. Social fabric and institutions are what determines whether governmental institutions and laws have any authority over us, or not.

That is a solid write up, but I think John was making more of a rhetorical statement as I’m fairly certain he’s already conclude on the answer to this question. The answer is based on a document written by Lysander Spooner called No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority. Here is JTK’s post at no-treason.com.

From a contractual standpoint, the Constitution has no authority over any of us. Some interesting thoughts.