Spooner sees it so clearly

We need a little Lysander Spooner, I think.
"It is no exaggeration but literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution, 'not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it-' the properties, liberties, and the lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the constitution itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them.
Article 1,sec.6 provides that, " for any speech or debate [or vote] in either house shall not be questioned in any other place".
The whole law making power is given to these senators and representatives, [when acting by 2/3rds vote] and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make.
[On an aside, this is from me, not Spooner, this means these garbage traps can spend the people into trillions of dollars of debt and can not be held accountable for it, according to the constitution. Back to Spooner.]
"Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?
It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within created limits, what should they care, for oaths or limits when it is expressly provided, by the constitution itself, that they shall never be questioned or held to any responsibility whatsoever, for violating these oaths, or transgressing their limits."
[From here I am going to paraphrase a little, or rather, jump ahead to a conclusion from Spooner.]
Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding this power must be men chosen by people to hold it. A man is NONE THE LESS THE SLAVE BECAUSE HE IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE A NEW MASTER ONCE IN A TERM OF YEARS. Neither is a people any less the slaves because they are permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be,absolute and irresponsible.
[This is me again, but here is the point of this whole post.]
The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. Neither can exist without the other.
If Congress have that absolute and irresponsible lawmaking power, which the constitution, according to their interpretation of it gives them, it can only be because THEY OWN US AS PROPERTY. If they own us as property, they are OUR masters, and their will is our law. IF they DO NOT own us as property, they are NOT our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us."
What Spooner is saying then, and rightfully so, is that if we are bound by the laws that congress passes, then congress owns us as property. But if congress does not own us as property, and they DO NOT, then we are not bound by their laws. They have no authority over us.
That is the whole point. We have to get out of this mind-controlling thought that we are their subjects, and they have any authority over us. If they do, and they are not responsible for anything they do to us, (and they are not) then they own us and we are no less slaves than any other slave in history.
I am NOT a slave.