Dedication
For always in thine eyes, O Liberty!
Shines that high light whereby the world is saved;
And though thou slay us, we will trust in thee.
--John Hay.
In abolishing rent and interest, the last vestiges of old-time slavery, the Revolution abolishes at one stroke the sword of the executioner, the seal of the magistrate, the club of the policeman, the gauge of the exciseman, the erasing-knife of the department clerk, all those insignia of Politics, which young Liberty grinds beneath her heel.
--Proudhon.
To the Memory
of
My Old Friend and Master
Josiah Warren
Whose Teachings were My First Source of Light
I Gratefully Dedicate this Volume (From: fair-use.org.)
Preface
Instead of a book! I hear the reader exclaim, as he picks up this volume and glances at its title; why, it is is a book. To all appearance, yes; essentially, no. It is, to be sure, an assemblage within a cover of printed sheets consecutively numbered; but this alone does not constitute a book. A book, properly speaking, is first of all a thing of unity and symmetry, of order and finish; it is a literary structure, each part of which is subordinated to the whole and created for it. To satisfy such a standard this volume does not pretend; it is not a structure, but an afterthought, a more or less coherent arrangement, each part of which was created almost without reference to any other. Yet not quite so, after all; otherwise even t... (From: fair-use.org.)
State Socialism and Anarchism[1]
How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ
Probably no agitation has ever attained the magnitude, either in the number of its recruits or the area of its influence, which has been attained by Modern Socialism, and at the same time been so little understood and so misunderstood, not only by the hostile and the indifferent, but by the friendly, and even by the great mass of its adherents themselves. This unfortunate and highly dangerous state of things is due partly to the fact that the human relationships which this movement—if anything so chaotic can be called a movement—aims to transform, involve no special class or classes, but literally all mankind; partly to the fact that these relation... (From: fair-use.org.)
Relation of the State to the Individual.[2]
[Liberty, November 15, 1890.]
Ladies and Gentlemen:—Presumably the honor which you have done me in inviting me to address you to-day upon The Relation of the State to the Individual is due principally to the fact that circumstances have combined to make me somewhat conspicuous as an exponent of the theory of Modern Anarchism,—a theory which is coming to be more and more regarded as one of the few that are tenable as a basis of political and social life. In its name, then, I shall speak to you in discussing this question, which either underlies or closely touches almost every practical problem that confronts this generation. The future of the tariff, of taxation, of finance, of pro... (From: fair-use.org.)
Our Purpose.[3]
[Liberty, August 6, 1881.]
Liberty enters the field of journalism to speak for herself because she finds no one willing to speak for her. She hears no voice that always champions her; she knows no pen that always writes in her defense; she sees no hand that is always lifted to avenge her wrongs or vindicate her rights. Many claim to speak in her name, but few really understand her. Still fewer have the courage and the opportunity to consistently fight for her. Her battle, then, is her own to wage and win. She accepts it fearlessly and with a determined spirit.(3 ¶ 1)
Her foe, Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: (From: fair-use.org.)
Contract Or Organism, What’s That To Us?
[Liberty, July 30, 1887.]
Some very interesting and valuable discussion is going on in the London Jus concerning the question of compulsory versus voluntary taxation. In the issue of June 17 there is a communication from F. W. Read, in which the following passage occurs:(4 ¶ 1)
The voluntary taxation proposal really means the dissolution of the State into its constituent atoms, and leaving them to recombine in some way or no way, just as it may happen. There would be nothing to prevent the existence of five or six States in England, and members of all these States might be living in the same house! The prop (From: fair-use.org.)
The Nature of the State
[Liberty, October 22, 1887.]
Below is reprinted from the London Jus the reply of F. W. Read to the editorial in No. 104 of Liberty, entitled Contract or Organism, What’s That to Us?.(5 ¶ 1)
To the Editor of Jus:(5 ¶ 2)
Sir,—Referring to Mr. Tucker’s criticisms on my letters in Jus dealing with Voluntary Taxation, the principle of a State organism seems to be at the bottom of th econtroversy. I will therefore deal with that first, although it comes last in Mr. Tucker’s article. Mr. Tucker asks whether the St (From: fair-use.org.)
A Misinterpretation of Anarchism
[Liberty, March 8, 1890.]
One of the most interesting papers that come to this office is the Personal Rights Journal of London. Largely written by men like J. H. Levy and Wordsworth Donisthorpe, it could not be otherwise. Virtually it champions the same political faith that finds an advocate in Liberty. It means by individualism what Liberty means by Anarchism. That it does not realize this fact, and that it assumes Anarchism to be something other than complete individualism, is the principal difference between us. This misunderstanding of Anarchism is very clearly and cleverly exhibited in a passage which I copy from a keen and thought-provoking lecture on The Outcome of Individualism, delivered (From: fair-use.org.)
Mr. Levy’s Maximum
[Liberty, November 1, 1890.]
Whatever else Anarchism may mean, it means that State coercion of peaceable citizens, into cooperation in restraining the activity of Bill Sikes, is to be condemned and ought to be abolished. Anarchism implies the right of an individual to stand aside and see a man murdered or a woman raped. It implies the right of the would-be passive accomplice of aggression to escape all coercion. It is true the Anarchist may voluntarily cooperate to check aggression; but also he may not. Quâ Anarchist, he is within his right in withholding such cooperation, in leaving others to bear the burden of resistance to aggression, or in leaving the aggressor to triumph unchecked. Individualism, on ... (From: fair-use.org.)
Resistance to Taxation
[Liberty, March 26, 1887.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(8 ¶ 1)
I have lately been involved in several discussions leading out of your refusal to pay your poll-tax, and I would like to get from you your reasons, so far as they are public property, for that action. It seems to me that any good object could have been better and more easily obtained by compromising with the law, except the object of propagandism, and that in attaining that object you were going beyond the right into paths where you could not bid any one follow who was trying to live square with the truth, so far as we may know it.(8 ¶ 2) (From: fair-use.org.)
A Puppet For a God
[Liberty, April 9, 1887.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(9 ¶ 1)
Please accept my thanks for your candid answer to my letter of November 11, 1886. It contains, however, some points which do not seem to me conclusive. The first position to which I object is your statement that voluntary association necessarily involves the right of secession; hereby you deny the right of any people to combine on a constitution which denies that right of secession, and in doing so attempt to force upon them your own idea of right. You assume the case of a new State attempting to impose its laws upon a former settler in the country, and say that they have no right to do so; I agree with you, but have I (From: fair-use.org.)
Mr. Perrine’s Difficulties
[Liberty, July 16, 1887.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(10 ¶ 1)
I suppose I should feel completely swamped by the great waves of satire which have rolled over my head from all directions but the front.(10 ¶ 2)
Still I feel able to lift my hand, and make the motion of scissors.(10 ¶ 3)
I have had the fallacy of a part of my argument so clearly pointed out to me by another than Liberty that I did not think it would be necessary for its editor to go so far around my position as to deny the sanctity of contract in order (From: fair-use.org.)
Where We Stand
[Liberty, August 19. 1882.]
Mr. B. W. Ball writes the best articles that appear in the Index, which is not saying much, and among the best that appear in any of the weeklies, which is saying a good deal. We were the more gratified, therefore, to find him treating in a recent number the incipient, but increasing, opposition to the existence of the State. He at least is clear-sighted enough not to underrate the importance of the advent into social and political agitation of so straightforward, consistent, unterrified, determined, and, withal, philosophically rooted a factor as modern Anarchism, although his editorial chief, Mr. Underwood, declares that the issue which the Anarchists present admits of no discussion.(11 &par... (From: fair-use.org.)
Tu-Whit! Tu-Whoo!
[Liberty, October 24, 1885.]
To the editor of Liberty:(12 ¶ 1)
Will you give direct and explicit answers to the following questions?(12 ¶ 2)
I certainly will, wherever the questions are direct and explicit.(12 ¶ 3)
Does Anarchism recognize the right of one individual or any number of individuals to determine what course of action is just or unjust for others?(12 ¶ 4)
Yes, if by the word unjust is meant invasive; otherwise, no. Anarchis (From: fair-use.org.)
Rights and Duties Under Anarchy.
[Liberty, December 31, 1887.]
Old readers of this paper will remember the appearance in its columns, about two years ago, of a series of questions propounded by the writer of the following letter and accompanied by editorial answers. To-day my interrogator questions me further; this time, however, no longer as a confident combatant, but as an earnest inquirer. As I replied to him then according to his pugnacity, so I reply to him now according to his friendliness.(13 ¶ 1)
To the Editor of Liberty:(13 ¶ 2)
Will you please insert the following questions in your paper with your answers theret (From: fair-use.org.)
More Questions.
[Liberty, January 28, 1888.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(14 ¶ 1)
I thank you for your courteous treatment of my questions in your issue of December 31, and as you express a willingness in this direction, I will follow in the same line, and trust you will still think my questions are pertinent and proper.(14 ¶ 2)
Do you think property rights can inhere in anything not produced by the labor or aid of man?(14 ¶ 3)
You say, Anarchism being neither more nor less than the principle of equal liberty, etc. Now, if government were so (From: fair-use.org.)
Mr. Blodgett’s Final Question.
[Liberty, April 28, 1888.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(15 ¶ 1)
I have one more question, and it does not occur to me now that I shall want to trouble you further in this way.(15 ¶ 2)
You say: I do not believe in any inherent right of property. Property is a social convention.(15 ¶ 3)
Now, does Anarchism recognize the propriety of compelling individuals to regard social conventionalities?(15 ¶ 4)
S. Blodgett.
Grahamville, Florida. (From: fair-use.org.)
Trying to Be and Not to Be.
[Liberty, June 9, 1888.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(16 ¶ 1)
I do not write this with the idea that you will publish it, for the tardiness with which you inserted my last question indicates that you do not care for any more of me in your paper. You are too good a reasoner to not know that, if it is proper to interfere to compel people to regard one social convention, it is not improper to force another, or all, providing there is any satisfaction in doing so. If there are no natural rights, there is no occasion for conscientious or other scruples, providing the power exists. Therefore, therei s no guarantee that there will be even as m (From: fair-use.org.)
Mr. Blodgett’s Explanation
[Liberty, Aug. 4, 1888.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(17 ¶ 1)
I was honest in the questions I asked concerning the foundation on which Anarchism is aiming to build. I had thought considerably on the matter, and read in Liberty as it came in my way, and while the ideal was fair to look upon, it seemed to me one must have a loose method of reasoning to suppose its practical realization possible. I also found that those of my acquaintance who favored the idea reasoned from the standpoint of an imaginary, instead of a real, humanity, which left their arguments on the subject of no practical value.(17 ¶ 2) (From: fair-use.org.)
A Plea for Non-Resistance
[Liberty, February 11, 1888.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(18 ¶ 1)
I must take exception to the teaching that the infliction of injury upon aggressors is compatible with the principle of equal liberty to all.(18 ¶ 2)
First, with an argument which is no argument, yet which has its force to those who have observed the growth of new ideas in their own minds: how there comes first a revulsion against what is, then strong sentiment in favor of the opposite, and last only, and often not then until long after, perhaps never, comes the possibility of rational justification of the sentiment.(18 ¶ 3) (From: fair-use.org.)
Liberty and Aggression
[Liberty, February 2, 1889.]
My dear Mr. Tucker:(19 ¶ 1)
Liberty has done me a great service in carrying me from the metaphysical speculations in which I was formerly interested into a vein of practical thought which is more than a mere overflow of humanitarianism; which is as closely logical and strictly scientific as any other practical investigation. In spite of certain small criticisms which it would be petty to dwell upon, it is the most advanced and most intellectual paper that I have seen. I esteem it most highly.(19 ¶ 2)
The particular matter upon which we have exchanged letters— (From: fair-use.org.)
Rule or Resistance—Which?
[Liberty, December 26, 1891.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(20 ¶ 1)
Do you think that it is accurate to say, as Liberty has said recently, that Anarchism contemplates the use of police, jails, and other forms of force? Is it not rather that Anarchism contemplates that those who wish these means of protection shall pay for them themselves; while those who prefer other means shall only pay for what they want? (1)(20 ¶ 2)
Indeed, the whole teaching that it is expedient to use force against the invader, which, as you know, I have always had doubts about, seems to me to fall when Egois (From: fair-use.org.)
The Advisability of Violence.
[Liberty, January 16, 1892.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(21 ¶ 1)
When you preach passive resistance, is it not precisely the same thing as what is commonly called nonresistance?(21 ¶ 2)
When William Penn (or was it Fox?) refused to take off his hat for the king it was certainly passive resistance; but, as he made no attempt to punch the king’s head, it is accounted as quite compatible with the Friends’ nonresistance tenets. (1)(21 ¶ 3)
I do not think that any practical difference exists between passive resistanc (From: Gutenberg.org.)
Mr. Pentecost an Abettor of Government.
[Liberty, November 14, 1891.]
Because I claim and teach that Anarchism justifies the application of force to invasive men and condemns force only when applied to noninvasive men, Mr. Pentecost declares that the only difference between Anarchism on the one hand and Monarchism or Republicanism on the other is the difference between the popular conception of invasion and my own. If I were to assert that biology is the science which deals with the phenomena of living matter and excludes all phenomena of matter that is not living, and if Mr. Pentecost were to say that, assuming this, the only difference between the biological sciences and the abiological is the difference between the popular conceptio... (From: fair-use.org.)
The Philosopher of the Disembodied.
[Liberty, June 8, 1889.]
Connected with the Massachusetts branch of the National Woman Suffrage Association is a body of women calling itself the Boston Political Class, the object of which is the preparation of its members for the use of the ballot. On Thursday evening, May 30, this class was addressed in public by Dr. Wm. T. Harris, the Concord philosopher, on the subject of State Socialism, Anarchism, and free competition. Let me say, parenthetically, to these ladies that, if they really wish to learn how to use the ballot, they would do well to apply for instruction, not to Dr. Harris, but to ex-Supervisor Bill Simmons, or Johnny O’Brien of New York, or Senator Matthew Quay, or some leading... (From: fair-use.org.)
The Woes of an Anarchist.
[Liberty, January 25, 1890.]
Sir:(24 ¶ 1)
That barrel-organ outside my window goes near to driving me mad (I mean madder than I was before). What am I to do? I cannot ask the State, as embodied in the person of a blue-coated gentleman at the corner, to move him on; because I have given notice that I intend to move on the said blue-coated gentleman himself. In other words, I have given the State notice to quit. Ask the organ-grinder politely to carry his melody elsewhere? I have tried that, but he only executes a double-shuffle and puts out his tongue. Ought I to rush out and punch his head? But, firstly, that might be looked upon as an invasion of his personal liberty; (From: fair-use.org.)
The Moral of Mr. Donisthorpe’s Woes
[Liberty, January 25, 1890.]
The reader of Mr. Donisthorpe’s article in this issue on The Woes of an Anarchist may rise from its perusal with a feeling of confusion equal to that manifested by the author, but at least he will say to himself that for genuine humor he has seldom read anything that equals it. For myself I have read it twice in manuscript and twice in proof, and still wish that I might prolong my life by the laughter that four more readings would be sure to excite. Mr. Donisthorpe ought to write a novel. But when he asks Liberty to comment on his woes and dissipate the fog he condenses around himself, I am at a loss to know how to answer him. For what is the moral of this art... (From: fair-use.org.)
L’État Est Mort; Vive L’État!
[Liberty, May 24, 1890.]
To the Editor of Liberty:(26 ¶ 1)
Hooks-and-eyes are very useful. Hooks are useless; eyes are useless. Yet in combination they are useful. This is cooperation. Where you have division of labor and consequent differentiation of function and, eventually, of structure, there is cooperation. Certain tribes of ants have working members and fighting members. The military caste are unable to collect food, which is provided for them by the other members of the community, in return for which they devote themselves to the defense of the whole society. But for these soldiers the society would perish. If either class peris (From: fair-use.org.)
Voluntary Cooperation.
[Liberty, May 24, 1890.]
It is questionable whether Herbert Spencer will relish Mr. Donisthorpe’s classification of him as one of four lights of Anarchy. I think he would be justified in putting in a disclaimer. No doubt Anarchy is immeasurably indebted to Mr. Spencer for a phenomenally clear exposition of its bottom truths. But he entertains heresies on the very questions which Mr. Donisthorpe raises that debar him from recognition as an Anarchist. His belief in compulsory taxation and his acceptance of the majority principle, not as a temporary necessity, but as permanently warranted within a certain sphere, show him to be unfaithful to his principle of equal liberty, as Mr. Donisthorpe has convincingly d... (From: fair-use.org.)
L’État, C’Est L’Ennemi.
[Liberty, February 26, 1887.]
Dear Tucker:(28 ¶ 1)
Since the occasion when you so arbitrarily side-tracked me in the editorial columns of Liberty,[7] certain notions of self-respect in connection with your attitude towards me have bid me pause whenever I attempted to state my present position, and wherein I feel that I have outgrown the partial methods by which you seek to deal with existing social maladjustments. I did send a communication to the Truth Seeker, but Macdonald, though he had just published your communication, chose to even out-do your side-tracking method of discipline by dumping (From: fair-use.org.)
