Spooner has chosen a convenient starting point to suit his purposes. Let's back up a bit and I'll paraphrase him again: Either anarchy gave us the government we have, or was powerless to prevent it.
Originally Posted by Citizen
What do I mean? Look at the words of Jefferson in the DoI, the very document they quoted anarchist looks to for his misguided view about governments needing personal, individual consent in order to be legit.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, ...
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, ...
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly... whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within....
Look at that closely. Among the many crimes of which the Continental Congress accused King George was the crime of imposing anarchy on the colonists, thus leaving them "exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."
This land had anarchy imposed on it. And from that anarchy came revolution, and from that revolution came, ultimately, our current form of government.
Thus, if anarchy did not give us our current form of government, it was, at least unable to prevent it.
Yet those who dislike our current form of government think a return to anarchy is the right path? That now all too familiar saw about the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results comes to mind.
Of course, it isn't really fair to blame anarchy for our current form of government. Such a form of government seems to be an unusual, almost unheard of high point in the wake of anarchy.
The far more usual course for anarchy to take is downward toward death, destruction, and totalitarianism of one form or another. In France it was the Reign of Terror, Maximilien Robespierre, and Napoleon. In Russia, China, North Korea, Los, Vietnam and others it was Communism with killing fields, re-education camps, gulags, etc. In Germany it was Nazism with concentration camps and the Holocaust. And so on and so forth around the world.
Anarchy is clearly incapable of maintain a stable society. Society is left "exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within" which most often leads to a charismatic leader seizing totalitarian power and engaging in ruthless oppression.
Counter-examples are, of course welcome. Bonus points for any such examples post Industrial Revolution. I won't hold my breath.