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.

Lew Rockwell on withdrawing consent from the government

The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is a "free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.  Lysander Spooner

Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

I have often opined that if we actually would get back to 1787, I would much prefer it to today's government. Basically because Thomas Jefferson was still around, and the principles of Liberty were not totally lost on the Jeffersonian Republicans (not to ever, and may it never be, mistaken for the "republican party" of Lincoln and today.)
I still like to think of the time when total Liberty, or in another term, ANARCHY, ruled America, and for 11 whole years, when Jefferson penned that Man should and, of Right, ought to be Free, with the God-given Right of Life, Liberty, and Property, the Declaration of Independence.
For 11 years Americans were a free people. Then, some folks that the American people like to glorify, decided to make a constitution. Now, the delegates that ratified the Constitution had no authority from the people who sent them there to do so; they were merely supposed to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, yet monetary and mercantile interest proved the day.
And won.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.

Hamilton's first move was for funding all the obligations of the government at face value, thereby putting the interests of the speculator on a par with those of the original holder, and fusing both classes into a solid bulwark of support for the government. This was inflation on a large scale, for the values represented by the government's securities were in great part — probably 60 percent — notoriously fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders. A feeble minority in Congress, led by Madison, tried to amend Hamilton's measure in a small way, by proposing a fair discrimination against the speculator, but without success.

 Hamilton's bill contained a supplementary measure which reached out after the state creditors, united them with the mass of federal creditors, and applied a second fusing heat. The several states which had at their own expense supplied troops for the Revolutionary army, had borrowed money from their citizens for that purpose; and now Hamilton proposed that the federal government should assume these debts, again at face value — another huge inflation, resulting in "twenty millions of stock divided among favored States, and thrown in as pabulum to the stock-jobbing herd," as Mr. Jefferson put it.

 The point being, while we do face adversity, and the Rights of Man have been and are trampled, to say that one would want to "go back" is to be ignorant of fact.
Instead, let's "MOVE FORWARD." Just as Jefferson did with John Locke.
Let's take the lessons learned from the good of the Founders, and take the good from the dissidents of this Country that promoted Liberty VS. Statism, (Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard) and let us progress to a New Liberty, one of Individualism, Voluntarism, and the Golden Rule.

Read the rest of Albert Jay Nock's "Liberty vs. the Constitution" here.