No Treason by Lysander Spooner

Two years after the American Civil War Lysander Spooner published an outrageous tract titled "No Treason" which argues that a social contract agreed to by some people isn't binding on all people.

It has implications for arguments depending on the authority of the U.S. Constitution, or any country's founding documents that claim to depend on the consent of the governed.

Eerily, it turns out that Spooner makes his case persuasively.

He makes outrageous claims, many of which he backs up with reasoning I can't refute.

Among such claims are:
S-That two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two.
[Essentially, in that sentence, Spooner denies that democracies are more just than monarchies!]
S-Majorities, as such, afford no guarantees for justice.
S-It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority.

Spooner's arguments have startling implications, but can we dismiss his arguments on the grounds of their implications? I think it is better to reject arguments because they are wrong in themselves. Dismissing arguments because they have unpleasant implications is sometimes wrong.

Spooner's language is a bit archaic, and he refers to events better known in his time than in ours, but can anyone make a good argument against his arugments?

David