I didn't "quit" - I never started. Spooner explains it far better than I could.
...
Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. .....
Spooner had some good philosophies, including abolition and the right for a State to secede. But his underlying premise is fundamentally flawed.
Spooner starts from the flawed, anarchist position that governments are inherently illegitimate. Some here like to argue the same point less honestly based on who was or wasn't part of the body politic ("We the People") when it was adopted. Either argument is flawed because of the flawed presumption that governments are illegitimate, that the individual is the highest authority.
There are several ways to attack this ego-centric view. Other societies argue very forcefully that family is the highest authority. Some argue that society/government itself is. Let me show two paths to middle ground that recognizes the importance of the individual, but tempers the absolutist ego-centric view with obligations:
Religiously, Christian point out we are not our own but have been purchased with the blood of Christ. Alternatively, many religious traditions point to man being created by a higher power and thus accountable to him.
Sociologically and evolutionarily, it is self evident that no man comes into existence of his own accord. And no man, left to his own devices as an infant or toddler would survive to become a man who thinks himself the epitome of all authority. Parents conceive a child. Mothers give birth. Someone must nurture if there is to be survival much beyond birth. Someone providing education is what allows any of us to be more than mere animals with opposable thumbs. Only a thief or a liar would not admit to some obligation to the individuals and society that provided life itself and then the necessities and luxuries of life.
So, whether to God, parents, or society, I believe the honest man has a debt to pay for his mere existence. What is that debt?
I argue that in addition to living a peaceable, productive life and doing for the next generation as was done for him, this debt also includes accepting the legitimacy of society/government to impose certain rules of conduct intended to provide the continuance of the very society that was successful enough to allow the man to come into existence in the first place. As each generation grows and matures, it has the right and responsibility to propagate to the next those rules that continue to provide value, while altering those rules shown to not provide on going value.
The legitimacy of our federal and State Constitutions comes not just in their adoption process generations ago, but also in their explicit allowance for the current body politic to alter and amend them as they see fit. The legitimacy is proven with nearly 300 years of mostly success and generally decent progress toward respecting individual rights while maintaining a functioning, diverse society generally capable of defending its citizens from outside aggression and interior riots.
In real life, perfection is not possible and so cannot be the (impossible) standard against which we justly judge any social order. Show me where the grand theories of anarchy (by whatever name including perfectly voluntary government when those who can't get along with anyone claim they would get along with others) have matched our record and I'll take note. Until then, a single flawed premise will throw an entire argument out the window. Spooner and other anarchists start with the grossly flawed premise of the individual as the highest authority.
I trust no one who encourages others to read vast volumes, or who posts many paragraphs from long dead philosophers, will dare complain about anyone being "too verbose" in expressing in his own words, views as to where the individual stands in relation to other entities in society.
