Thanks for the plug — and yes, if you have ever debated race with a know-it-all (Left)-"liberal," then this book will give you ammo.

Patrick, you are right about where Spooner ended up: He argued, in effect, that NO constitution was binding on any one (anarchism). There was no "living Constitution" — the Constitution 'died' (or never lived) according to Spooner's final arguments in later years (I note this in my book commentary). Also, he was fully aware that slavery existed, the Founders accepted it, etc., etc. but it had no contractual or natural law foundation.

I'm *not* a defender of Spooner (far from it) but I included him because he had such a great impact on Frederick Douglass who came to a more moderate view of the Constitution than Spooner (i.e., most "classical liberals" were/are constitutionalists, not anarchists like Garrison or Spooner). Spooner, right or wrong, provided an argument that influenced others, and so they did the same for others with their own continuation of the classical liberal tradition.

That's why the book ends with Clarence Thomas and others citing Frederick Douglass. Spooner isn't the key figure; Douglass is the man. But he was only a man in the midst of a wide constitutional and natural law tradition of liberalism that we need to get back to in 2009.

Keep up the great work! Reviewing and blogging is a thankless task — as a former review editor and frequent reviewer, I know!