Talk:Lysander Spooner

Labels

I consider that calling Lysander Spooner a Socialist thinker is alright from the sense that it exposes that view, but I don't think it should be part of the Socialist category. First off, there is no actual source of Lysander Spooner ever calling himself a "Socialist" or a "Mutualist", and the claim of him being part of the First International is dubious at most, the only source being a book written in the 60s by George Woodbook with no citations; and second off, calling Lysander Spooner a Socialist contradicts the very definition of Socialism exposed in its respective page, the only thing that could make Lysander Spooner a Socialist is his criticism of wage labor, which he didn't oppose from a legal standpoint. Unless Lysander Spooner is the first ever Socialist to be pro-usury, pro-market, pro-interest, & pro-rent, then either the the category of Libertarian Socialism should be removed, or the meaning of Socialism should be changed to the point of no resemblance to the conventional meaning. -- Coindorni (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The very claim that he was an individualist anarchist is controversial (so much so that it has been disputed by some sources). In my opinion both positions whether "anarcho-capitalist" or "socialist" should be removed from the lead.

The most neutral term to describe Lysander Spooner is "natural rights theorist". 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Coindorni Spooner's only use of the term "anarchy" is derogatory (see the notes in the original "Two Treatises on Competitive Currency and Banking" p. 29)... Everything but anarchism is mentioned in his works. It seems that as with Stephen Pearl Andrews (theorist of the pantarchy) all labels are the inventions of some pseudo-historians.

Much of these baseless claims should be removed from the lead and rewritten with attributions (WP:WIKIVOICE). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Coindorni: I've removed the more dubious ideological labels from the lead; I've only provisionally kept "individualist anarchism" because it seems a number of the sources agree on this term, but it may need further clarification. I also removed George Woodcock's claim that he was a member of the IWMA, as no other historian seems to back up this claim, so I think including it at all (especially in the lead) is just giving it undue weight. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

False history

«The works of the 'individual anarchists' or 'anarcho-capitalists' (Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Lysander Spooner, William Batchelder Greene, Henry David Thoreau) are of relevance...»

König, Mathias Hagen (September 17, 2014). The Sovereign Outsider: 19th Century American Literature, (Non-)Discursive Formation and Postanarchist Politics. Tectum Wissenschaftsverlag. p. 26. ISBN 978-3-8288-6101-5.

This information is blatantly incorrect and in strong contradiction with most sources. Henry David Thoreau? Josiah Warren? William Batchelder Green? Stephen Pearl Andrews? None of these authors is in fact an "anarcho-capitalist".

93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, Josiah Warren was more of an anarcho-socialist than anything. 184.22.159.236 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Tag

Can someone explain the factual accuracy tag added to the top of the article? The tag should contain claims about inaccurate information or sources, or there should be an open talk page discussion about the alleged inaccuracies. DenverCoder19 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is full of controversial statements. Affiliation with socialism and anarchism is highly questionable.

I think as on Stephen Pearl Andrews article the sources used are not reliable and it is a case of false history.

It is evident from reading No Treason that these are radicalizations of classical liberalism, voluntaryism and constitutional originalism:

"This principle was a true one in 1776. It is a true one now. It is the only one on which any rightful government can rest. It is the one on which the Constitution itself professes to rest. If it does not really rest on that basis, it has no right to exist; and it is the duty of every man to raise his hand against it. If the men of the Revolution designed to incorporate in the Constitution the absurd ideas of allegiance and treason, which they had once repudiated, against which they had fought, and by which the world had been enslaved, they thereby established for themselves an indisputable claim to the disgust and detestation of all mankind. * * * In subsequent numbers, the author hopes to show that, under the principle of individual consent, the little government that mankind need, is not only practicable, but natural and easy; and that the Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support.

The meaning of this is simply We, the people of the United States, acting freely and voluntarily as individuals, consent and agree that we will cooperate with each other in sustaining such a government as is provided for in this Constitution. The necessity for the consent of “the people” is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one’s consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of “the people of the United States” would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, “We, the people,” is, that the instrument offered membership to all “the people of the United States;” leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure. The agreement is a simple one, like any other agreement. It is the same as one that should say: We, the people of the town of A — , agree to sustain a church, a school, a hospital, or a theatre, for ourselves and our children. Such an agreement clearly could have no validity, except as between those who actually consented to it. If a portion only of “the people of the town of A — ,” should assent to this contract, and should then proceed to compel contributions of money or service from those who had not consented, they would be mere robbers; and would deserve to be treated as such." 93.38.68.62 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We follow what reliable, secondary sources say about Spooner and explicitly avoid priamary source analysis for cases like these. What exactly is the issue with the sources being called out here? What sources should be used instead? czar 03:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I do hear alarm bells whenever I see a sea of blue links to various ideologies, without any explanation. Sentences like "His economic and political ideology has been identified by some modern scholars with libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, free-market socialism, and mutualism" aren't helpful information, they just read like attempts to claim a figure's legacy for certain ideological labels. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure enough, all of them failed verification in the cited sources. This was just blatant ideological flag-planting. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

three-cent stamp

The legacy of Spooner's challenge to the postal service was the reduction in letter postage from 5¢ to 3¢, in response to the competition his company provided which lasted until late 1950's or early 1960's.

If this does not mean that competition lasted until circa 1960, a comma is needed after provided.

Is it not known more precisely when the price of a stamp was raised from 3¢? —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)