Spooner and the Constitution

Know your rights. These are your rights.

Today I may upset the Constitutionalists among my readers. Bear with me, please.

I was asked recently on X if I support 100-mile Constitution-free zones.

My answer was “yes.”

I didn’t realize that the poster referred to the 100-mile Border Zone, where Border Patrol agents have the authority to undertake otherwise unlawful searches (including of citizens), and more. I thought he was merely asking whether I support zones where the Constitution wasn’t recognized. I said yes, because everyone should be able to voluntarily exit any government on earth, without having to pledge allegiance to another.

One poster asked me if I realized that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply within the 100-mile Border Zone.

“My rights don't derive from some afterthoughts to a document that established a central government,” I answered.

As The Clash sardonically sang, “Know your rights. These are your rights.”

Of course, although the poster was referring to a special circumstance that suspends the Bill of Rights and involves abuses in the Border Zone, what I said is true.

The Bill of Rights did not grant us our rights. It merely affirmed them. And one should always be skeptical when any government (or other organization, like the UN) tells you what your rights are. As if we need a government (or an international intergovernmental agency) to know and exercise our rights. And as if the Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary primarily because the Constitution established a central government and central governments have been the greatest known infringers of rights in history, and still are.

And what are these rights? The right of self-ownership and the ownership of whatever property we acquire through labor or trade—free from the infringement of others. From this follows what libertarians call the nonaggression principle. No one can infringe these rights of another—without expecting retaliation, that is.

It’s easy to see how the Bill of Rights aligns with self-ownership and the right of other property. The freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association (and disassociation), freedom of the press, freedom to own and bear arms, freedom to hold property without molestation by the State, etc.—all these follow from self-ownership and the property right.

The U.S. Constitution supposedly established government on the basis of the consent of the governed. But as the great libertarian writer Lysander Spooner brilliantly argued in No Treason, very few people explicitly consented to the establishment of the federal government vis-à-vis the Constitution. And extracting taxes without an agreement, without consent, is theft. Likewise, the federal government essentially robs the people who have not given their explicit consent to the government to govern them.

If we indeed lived under a government deriving from the consent of the governed, if we lived under a free government as it were, then anyone would be able to withdraw his or her consent for any reason—without having to leave the country physically, or having to swear allegiance to another. But fool around and find out (FAFO), as the saying goes.

I can’t do enough to recommend reading Lysander Spooner for an understanding of the proper (voluntary) relationship between people and government.

Speaking of the right of property unmolested by the State, the Expat Summit, taking place entirely online from Oct 7-11, is vital for protecting your liberty and wealth.

Speakers include Dr. Ron Paul, Doug Casey, Scott Horton, Tom Woods, Marc Faber, and Tom Luongo, as well as dozens of experts in international living and wealth protection.

To reserve your free ticket, head over to the Expat Money Summit.

Yours truly will be discussing digital identity, CBDCs, and 15-minute cities.