“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.”
On Picket Duty.
The “Twentieth Century” withdraws its statement that B. F. Underwood is a convert to Spiritualism. I view the retraction as needless. Say what Mr. Underwood may, the man who believes in the genuineness of the phenomena reported by Mrs. Underwood in the “Arena” (and Mr. Underwood declares that he knows them to be genuine) is lost to Materialism. All his influence henceforth must be on the side of the ghosts.
Mr. Bellamy says in the “New Nation”: “The dime museum managers of the country have formed a combination to keep down the salaries of freaks and monstrosities to a reasonable figure. Under Nationalism freaks will not be exhibited.” Certainly not, though not for the reason in Mr. Bellamy’s mind. Freaks will not be exhibited, because everybody will be compelled to work at some “useful” function, and nobody will be allowed to earn his living in any but the regular and approved way.
There is an excellent article on “Marriage and Free Thought” in the August “Fortnightly.” The writer, “M,” points out that men and women who ridicule the sacraments of the Christian church as absurd observances will readily make common cause with pietists and puritans to enforce the Christian notion of marriage, and refuse to take a secular, rational, and philosophical view of the relation. It will be interesting to watch the reception of this criticism by the Freethinkers of England and this country.
Speaking of municipal management of the street car system, the New York “Sun” says: “One result of the eight-hour law under which the labor of New York city has to be carried on makes it necessary, whenever anything has to be done with special reference to the principles of economy and to the general interests of the community, to intrust it to private agencies that enjoy ordinary freedom to manage their affairs according to the regular rules of trade. A city horse-car system would be more apt to add two cents to the present fare and make it seven cents, rather than to cut it to three.”
The man who recently demonstrated inductively and deductively, in three paragraphs, the inevitableness of State Socialism, is now bringing his towering intellect to bear upon the question of value. His first discovery is announced in the “Twentieth Century,” to the effect that the error that value is in any sense dependent upon labor is common among amateurs. Such magnificent success unquestionably gives this philosopher the right to sneer at “the average social reformer, whose conception of the magnitude of the problem with which he endeavors to wrestle is as adequate as his knowledge of its literature is meagre.”
One year ago the act which excludes the Louisiana lottery company from the use of the mails became a law. The post officials claim that lottery matter is now practically excluded from the mails, and that the business and power of the lottery company have been greatly crippled. But this is the “official” view. Every ticket purchaser knows better, and the newspaper correspondents who disseminate this official view are bright and sophisticated enough to know better. The anti-lottery law is an outrageous piece of tyranny; but we have at least the satisfaction of knowing that it is constantly and systematically and successfully evaded. It is a dead letter.
Arguing at Chicago in favor of closing the World’s Fair on Sundays, Col. Elliott F. Shepard, proprietor of the New York “Mail and Express,” declared: “I believe firmly that if the fair is not closed on Sundays, the Lord will put his curse upon the enterprise and the nation. He will send plagues and pestilences, as he did in the days of Pharaoh.” Of course Col. Shepard lies. Neither he nor any sane man of education in touch with modern life and thought believes anything of the kind. It is a pity that some one did not ask him why the Lord allowed the Paris Exposition, which was open Sundays, to be the most successful of all Expositions, and why he is so slow about visiting France with plague and pestilence.
If the report that George Bernard Shaw has renounced Socialism for Individualism be true, it is the best news that has come to my ears for many a long day. To wrest from the enemy their ablest man is no small victory, and Mr. Shaw is, or was, the ablest State Socialist living, so far as I am able to judge. The report ought to be true, whether it is or not. As Mr. Shaw once confessed to me himself, all his instincts are Anarchistic, and I fancy that the unmistakable way in which these instincts constantly insisted on showing themselves must have long made him a terror in his own camp. Too strong to be a slave and unwilling to be a master, perhaps be has discovered that it is necessary to be one or the other in order to be a State Socialist. Let us hope so. As an Anarchist he will feel at home. But what will become of the “Fabian Essays” if their editor is no longer Fabian?
Referring to the growth of paternalistic sentiment in South Africa, the New York “Sun” says: “With the conquest of every foot of new country and the establishment of every new community, the vision of a world of unbroken free trade seems to fade more and more into nothingness.” And is the “Sun” glad of that? Is it glad of the growing State Socialist sentiments among the workmen of every country? Protection in one branch leads to a demand for protection and paternalism in other branches. The “Sun,” which bitterly assails State Socialism, cannot hope to succeed in resisting its advance while it rejoices in the spread of so-called protection. One is sometimes tempted to pray for a decade of Draconian Socialist rule, just for the sake of teaching the half-hearted champions of freedom a wholesome lesson and realizing to them the necessity of consistent adherence to principle. A few years’ discipline under a Bellamy overseer’s lash would cure such men as Dana of all partiality for paternalism. Some State Socialists are wont to say that their system will prepare men for freedom. Perhaps they are right, in the sense that men can only be taught by adversity, and that a short experience of intolerable tyranny will convert them into ardent lovers of liberty.
Hamlin Garland reviews “A Plea for Liberty” in the September “Arena.” He is disappointed in the book, and rises from it “with sorrow and bitterness.” He objects to its unsympathetic tone, to its tacit apology for things as they are in the economic sphere, and to its half-way statement of principles. Most of his observations are eminently just, — especially those with reference to the conspiracy of silence on the part of the essayists treating of specific factors and conditions so far as the land question is concerned. “What sort of individualism is it,” he asks, “that calmly assumes the right of a few Scottish and English nobles to depopulate the crofts of Scotland and turn them into shooting grounds? What kind of individualism is it that ignores the monstrous wrong involved in three dukes owning vast areas of London, and receiving in rentals millions of pounds for no service rendered, while the docks swarm with the ‘congested population’ of England, crazy to earn a sixpence? If these gentlemen expect to check Socialism, they must meet these problems on a higher plane or their writings will not be read.” In conclusion Mr. Garland points out the superiority of “single-tax individualism,” which “affords definite propositions leading to freedom and justice.” Is it not a little unfair to ignore Anarchistic individualism, Mr. Garland? The Anarchists too offer a solution of the land question, which they claim to be more in harmony with freedom and justice than the single-tax solution. But Mr. Garland is such a blind worshipper of Henry George that he is incapable of fairly estimating other solutions of the land question than the single-tax. And not only in economics does Mr. Garland hold Henry George supreme authority; he says that “all of the gentlemen” in “A Plea for Liberty,” aside from Mr. Spencer himself, “could with vast profit study Mr. George as a model of logic and lucidity of style.” If Mr. Garland means what he says, I am sorry for him; if it is only a childishly spiteful remark, I blush for him.
Rapine, Old Style and New.
In the olden time, when might had a mind to lord it over right, it took its good claymore in hand and went out in search of adventures. It slew its weaker adversary, appropriated to itself its lands and cattle and kine, and came home in triumph, bringing stores of spoils and attended by knights in armor and slaves in chains. Then it gave itself a title and founded a dynasty, and got poets to sing its praises and fools to make it merry, and historians to write down genius and prowess for mere brute force and cunning, thieving craft, and cruel pillage. Modern rapacity is more ingenious and less manly. The older ruffianism at least took its life in its hand and gave its enemy a chance. Its degenerate scion finds safer and surer means of achieving its desires. It organizes a corporation. It gets a charter. It hires a lobby. It leases an organ. It buys a legislature. And, there you are! Millions to a few, misery to all others; with the law to sustain the proceeding, and, if need be — just as in the days of yore — troops to enforce it!
But if a fellow in the castle there
Keeps doing nothing for a thousand years,
And then has — everything! (That isn’t fair.
But it’s — what has to be. The milk boy hears
The talk they have about it everywhere.)
Then if the man there in the hut, you know,
With water you could swim in on the floor,
(And it’s the ground — the place is pretty, though,
With gold flowers on the roof and half a door!)
Works — and can get no work, and nothing more:
What I will do is — nothing! Don’t you see?
Then I’ll have everything my whole life through.
But if I work, why, I might always be
Living in huts, with gold flowers on them, too —
And half a door. And that won’t do for me.
Mrs. Sarah M. B. Piatt.
“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 gunge of the exciseman, the erasing-knife of the department clerk, all those insignia of Politics, which young Liberty grinds beneath her heel.” — Proudhon.
The appearance in the editorial column of articles over other signatures than the editor’s initial indicates that the editor approves their central purpose and general tenor, though he does not hold himself responsible for every phrase or word. But the appearance in other parts of the paper of articles by the same or other writers by no means indicates that he disapproves them in any respect, such disposition of them being governed largely by motives of convenience.
E. C. Walker, formerly editor of “Fair Play” and now a regular contributor to the columns of Liberty, is also an authorized agent for Liberty and for all books and pamphlets published by Benj. R. Tucker.
A New Book Given Away With Each Renewal. — Payment of subscriptions and of renewals is required in advance. The names of subscribers not heard from within two weeks after expiration of subscription are removed from the list. But to every subscriber who sends his renewal for one year, accompanied by the cash, so that It reaches the publisher not later than two weeks after it is due, will be sent, postpaid, any book published in the United States that the subscriber may select, provided that its retail price does not exceed 50 cents if published by Benj. R. Tucker, or 25 cents if published by any other publisher. This is a permanent offer, and enables every promptly-paying subscriber to get a new book each year free of cost. But only one book will be given at a time, no matter how low the price of the book selected.
A Motion for a New Trial.
The editor of the “Open Court” has discussed with the ability which usually characterizes his writings what he believed to be the issues between Anarchism and State Socialism. It is unfortunate that the real issues are so totally unlike those which he predicates that his admirable observations fail to illuminate the problem which occupies all modern students and social reformers. That which the editor of the “Open Court” introduces as Anarchism to his readers is not Anarchism at all, and that which he describes as Socialism (meaning State Socialism) is not the organized and militant Socialism which we know and encounter in practical life.
“Individualism,” according to the editor of the “Open Court,” “is the natural aspiration of every being to itself; it is the inborn tendency of every creature to grow and develop in agreement with its own nature. We might say that this endeavor is right, but it is more correct to say that it is a fact; it is natural, and we can as little abolish it as we can decree by an act of the legislature that fire shall cease to burn or that water shall cease to quench fire.” The editor’s notion of Socialism, which, he avers, is also a fact, is this; “I am not alone in the world; there are my neighbors, and my life is intimately interwoven with their lives. My helpfulness to them and their helpfulness to me constitute the properly human element of my soul among the members of society, and the truth dawns upon us that no advantage accrues to an individual by the suppression of the individuality of his fellows. First, he, in so doing, never succeeds for good, and secondly, the mutual advantage will in the end always be greatest to all concerned the more the factor of individualism in others remains respected.” In the light of these definitions it is perfectly natural and logical for the editor of the “Open Court” to maintain that Individualism and Socialism are not principles, but factors, that human society, in its evolution, is the result of both factors, and that the attempt to make either of them the sole regulative principle is as rational as would be the proposition to regulate gravity on earth by making either the centrifugal or the centripetal force the supreme and only law. The trouble is that the editorial judge, “instead of studying the facts” of the Individualist-Socialist controversy and delivering an opinion in accordance with them, “invents and proposes” original definitions of the reformatory movements on trial, and bases his verdict on his own version, which departs widely from the real facts of the case. “Does it prove that sociology is still in its infancy?” Not necessarily; but it does prove that some judges are prone to disregard the scientific method in the construction of theories.
No Anarchist will accept the editor’s definition of Socialism. If that is Socialism, we say, then we are all Socialists; and indeed that vague, nebulous, subjective, and sentimental kind of Socialism every civilized individual professes and craves. Few Socialists, on the other hand, will own to a deliberate intention to thwart the inborn tendency of every creature to develop in agreement with its own nature. Most Socialists will protest that they espouse Socialism for no other reason than that it promises to allow and foster this very end, which, they allege, is utterly defeated by the present system and would be equally excluded by Anarchism.
Anarchism and Socialism are not coexistent and coöperative factors, but opposite and mutually exclusive principles. Anarchism means the complete fulfillment of the scientific social law of equal liberty. It subordinates all institutions to the fundamental law of justice, and limits the use of physical force to cases of actual trespass upon equal liberty. It insists upon freedom in all things, and denies only the freedom to deprive others of their equal claims. The prevailing semi-individualist system being in many respects subversive of equal freedom, the Anarchists oppose it; and Socialism contemplating still greater violations of equal freedom, their opposition to it is naturally bitterer and more violent. Such apologies and explanations as that Anarchism is not hostile to voluntary coöperation, sociality, “helpfulness,” and all the rest of the long list of excellent things and qualities, are out.of date. It is time Anarchism were understood, and in fact it is understood by all who think favorably of the habit of basing criticism upon accurate information.
Socialism, at once ignorant and reckless of social science and the principle of justice, insists upon State monopoly of industry and commerce, and upon the total suppression of competition in the economic relation. Various minor tyrannical measures are joined with this principal plank in the Socialist platform. Passing over the tendencies and inevitable consequences of Socialism, it is sufficient to point out the scope and significance of the proposals frankly made by Socialists to convince men of ordinary intelligence that Socialism is incompatible with equal liberty. Anarchists cannot admit that anything is a “factor” in social development along the lines of progress which contravenes the first principle of progress, — the principle of equal liberty. On the other hand, Socialists cannot recognize as a factor anything which obstructs the tendency toward the supersession of private enterprise and competitive industry by governmental monopoly.
And now, having been shown new evidence and a new line of defence, will the judge presiding over the “Open Court” be induced to reopen the case, to grant a new trial? In reason and equity he is certainly bound to do so. I would suggest that he invite a representative Anarchist and a representative Socialist to contribute each a compact and clear statement of his basic principles and resultant demands for the “Open Court,” and that he then revise his opinion in the light of these authoritative expositions and announce it, in the modified form, to the intelligent audience in attendance. V. Y.
Solutions of the Labor Problem.
A propos of Labor Day, the Boston “Herald” printed in its issue of September 6 a collection of proposed solutions of the labor problem, received in response to a question which it had invited certain students and labor leaders to answer. The question was this: “How is a just distribution of the products of labor to be obtained?” The answers were from two hundred to five hundred words in length; below I give the essence of each.
George E. McNeill, general organizer of the Federation of Labor: — By a reduction of the hours of labor.
Edward Atkinson, political economist: — If laborers think themselves inadequately rewarded, they should work for themselves. The “scabs” should have unions of their own.
Edward S. Huntington, secretary of the First Nationalist Club: — By the organization of an all-inclusive trust by the laborers.
Albert Koss (Lynn Boyd Porter), novelist: — No individuals can justly distribute the products of other men’s labor. Hence the State must do it.
Charles E. Bowers, Nationalist: — By national control and management of industries.
H. R. Legate, leader of the Third Party: — By public ownership of the means of production and distribution.
Henry Abrahams, secretary of the Boston Central Labor Union: — Organization of trades; reduction of the hours of labor; coöperation.
William H. Sayward, secretary of the National Association of Builders: — Absolute justice in distribution is unattainable. Improvement can be made by joint consideration and united action of laborers and employers.
M. J. Bishop, State worthy foreman, K. of L.: — By organizing and educating the people to demand control of the natural monopolies and the transportation of intelligence, passengers, and freight.
P. C. Kelly, secretary-treasurer of the State Assembly and D. A. 30, K. of L.: — By the nationalization of mines, railroads, telegraphs, and telephones, and the levying of income taxes.
W. J. Shields, ex-president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners: — The producers should free themselves from private control of all natural monopolies, and substitute government control and management.
George D. Moulton, Socialist: — By Socialism, to be reached through reduction of the hours of labor and a gradual increase of wages.
Harry Lloyd, president of the Carpenters’ District Council: — By reduction of the hours of labor, destruction of the wage system, coöperation, profit-sharing, and government ownership of land, mines, and patents.
Some of the solutions proposed in the foregoing answers are as inadequate as Mrs. Partington’s broom, others were buried by their authors in a flow of sentimentalism, and still others were presented so unsystematically and unscientifically that they could not influence reasoning minds.
Beside these, however, there were two answers that were analytical, that showed a true conception of the requirements of the problem, and that made a systematic attempt to meet them. I have no bump of modesty, and so am able to say unblushingly that one of these was written by Edward Bellamy and the other by myself. I give them in full.
Edward Bellamy, author of “Looking Backward” and founder of Nationalism: — Workmen will not receive a just proportion of the product of their labor until they receive the whole product. In order to receive the whole product, they must receive the profits which now go to the employers, in addition to their wages. In order to receive the profits which now go to the employers, they must become their own employers. The only way by which they can become their own employers is to assume through their salaried agents the conduct of industry as they have already (in this country) assumed the conduct of political affairs. The president, governor, and mayor do not make a profit on the business of the nation, State, or city, as employers do upon the industries which they manage. These and all other public officials receive salaries only, as agents, the business being conducted for the benefit of the people as the principals.
There is no more sense in permitting the industrial affairs of this country to be run for private profit than there would be in permitting their political affairs to be so exploited. Our industries are just as properly public business as our politics, and a great deal more important to us all.
As soon as the people wake up to the realization of this fact, there will be no labor question left. There will be no ground left for a dispute between workmen and capitalists, for every one will be at one and the same time employer and employee.
Benj. R. Tucker, Anarchist: — A just distribution of the products of labor is to be obtained by destroying all sources of income except labor. These sources may be summed up in one word, — usury; and the three principal forms of usury are interest, rent, and profit. These all rest upon legal privilege and monopoly, and the way to destroy them is to destroy legal privilege and monopoly. The worst monopoly of all is that of the power to issue money, which power is now restricted to the holders of a certain kind of property, — government bonds and gold and silver. If the holders of all kinds of property were equally privileged to issue money, not as legal tender, but acceptable only on its merits, competition would reduce the rate of discount, and therefore of interest on capital, to the mere cost of banking, which is much less than one per cent. And even this percentage would not be interest, properly speaking, but simply payment for the labor and expense of banking. When money could be had at such a rate and capital bought with it, of course no one would borrow capital at a higher rate. Free competition in banking would thus abolish interest, all rent except ground rent, and all profit on merchandise not enjoying the benefit of some special monopoly.
In the absence of monopoly of any kind, whatever the merchant “makes” out of his business is not strictly profit, but the wages of mercantile labor determined by competition. This wage is what will remain after the abolition of the money monopoly, of all tariffs and taxes on industry and trade, and of all patents and copyrights.
That form of usury known as ground-rent rests on land monopoly, that is, on government protection of land titles not based on personal occupancy and use. If this protection were withdrawn, landlordism would disappear, and ground rent would thereafter exist no longer in its monopolistic form, but only in its economic form; in other words, the only existing rent would be the advantage accruing to the owner and occupier from superiority of soil or site.
The growing diversity of industry, coupled with the greater mobility that will be enjoyed by labor as soon as greater mobility is given to capital by the abolition of the monopolies, will have a strong and constant tendency to neutralize the existing inequalities of soil and site, and thus economic rent will gradually approach its vanishing point. Thus the whole ground is covered, and all forms of usury are abolished. All the drains upon labor being stopped, labor will be left in possession of its product, which is the solution of the problem. This solution is that which Anarchism offers.
The contrast between the robust uprightness add straightforwardness of these two answers and the flaccid incoherence of most of the others emphasizes my constant contention that the labor problem is to be settled between extreme State Socialism and extreme Anarchism, and that the struggle will become clear and direct in proportion as all compromises disappear and leave an open field. When this struggle comes, the weak point in Mr. Bellamy’s position will be located. I point it out in advance. It lies in his enormous assumptions that laborers, in order to receive the profits which now go to the employers, must become their own employers, and that the only way by which they can do this is to assume through their salaried agents the conduct of industry. The Anarchistic solution shows that there is no such must and no such only. When interest, rent, and profit disappear under the influence of free money, free land, and free trade, it will make no difference whether men work for themselves, or are employed, or employ others. In any case they can get nothing but that wage for their labor which free competition determines. Therefore they need not become their own employers. Perhaps, however, they will prefer to do so. But in that case they need not assume the conduct of industry through their salaried agents. There is another way. Any of them that choose will be enabled through mutual banking to secure means of production whereby to conduct whatever industry they desire. This other way, being the way of liberty, is the better way, and is destined to triumph over Mr. Bellamy’s way, which is the way of authority and coercion.
I have reserved till the last the only remaining answer among those printed in the “Herald,” that of Frank K. Foster, editor of the “Labor Leader.” This too I give in full because of its significance.
The prime factors making toward the unjust distribution of the products of labor are profits, rent, and interest. In his direct relation to the employer, or buyer of labor, — not necessarily a capitalist, — the laborer has a remedy in every agency that gives him greater equality of bargaining power. The scope of this remedy is limited by the margin of profit on the joint product of the laborer and the “captains of industry.” In this class of agencies are to be reckoned the trades unions, and their influences of agitation and education. Incidentally, the problems of immigration, of the mobility of labor, and of the unwise and selfish competition (between the laborers themselves) for employment, are allied to this branch of the subject. Broadly speaking, in the field of adult labor, the principle of free association may be trusted to supply a remedy that shall adjust the supply of labor to meet the demand, and, by raising wages and regulating conditions, obtain for the laborer his just share of the profits of production. As wage earners, it is with this economic side of the question we have mainly to do.
The problems of rent and interest are not, in the same sense, class questions, for they affect both the man who buys and the man who sells the commodity of labor. The wage earner, as a unit in the productive social system, is concerned, however, in the promotion of those reforms which will lessen the power of monopoly in land and money, and thus make a larger margin of profit upon production to be divided between himself and employer.
The taxation of land held for speculative purposes to its full market value, the abolition of special privileges granted by the State to bankers, and the repeal of tariff laws taxing the many for the enrichment of the few, are among the more important remedies of this class.
Absolutely just distribution of the products of labor and absolute freedom from oppression by the possessors of power and pelf is only to be looked for in an ideal social state made up of creatures vastly different from the race in whose veins circulates the blood of old Adam.
It is surely a reasonable hope that justice and liberty may develop with the increasing years, and to my mind this development will come not by legislative enactment, but through the broader avenue of the education and upbuilding of the individuals composing our complex civilization.
This remarkable utterance, in everything except its sentimental remark about “unwise and selfish competition” and its inconsistent adherence to the single-tax fallacy, is thoroughly Anarchistic, and shows that its author, not long ago a stanch State Socialist, has already accepted the “better way” of liberty. T.
Dr. Juliet H. Severance has left Milwaukee, and will henceforth practise her profession in Chicago. Her office is at No. 2 Warren Avenue, to which address all applications for her services as a lecturer should be sent. Dr. Severance is a brave and sincere woman, who has said many a good word for liberty in times gone by. I only wish she would let politics alone.
How Much Can Be Loaned?
Mr. Alfred B. Westrup of Chicago has begun the publication of a paper to advocate free banking, two numbers of which have been received. Its name is the “Auditor,” and it is published at 343 Michigan Avenue. Mr. Westrup appears to have been an attentive reader of the “News,” from which he makes liberal extracts. The “Auditor” is opposed to every species of fiatism, but holds that the owners of property have a moral right to combine and do a banking business subject only to such laws as are a protection against fraud and dishonesty. The editor of the “Auditor” endorses an article from the “News” on a standard for valuation, but still in some portions of his writings leaves an obscurity hanging over his position in discussing the “standard of value” and “unit of value.” The point which presents itself for resolution is not covered by saying that promises of dollars are accepted on an understanding. The present understanding as to a dollar is so much gold, or silver, or paper which is so limited that it is sure to circulate at par with coin. If issues of paper were larger, the inquiry would be considerably sharper: what is a dollar? for the paper dollar is practically nothing but what it guarantees. And one cannot pay even 101 with 100, wherefore when bank paper is lent at any interest, however low, the interest should be payable in something else than that paper. Some paper is always lost. That should be repaid in something agreed upon. There come two men to borrow, and if one gets $1000 on certain security, by what rule shall his neighbor get $1200 and neither more nor less on other security? The “News” has explained, by having an agreed standard for valuation, and it means no more or less by a standard of value. Whenever government issues are inflated and uncertain, the “understanding” of the word dollar becomes too vague for dependence to be placed on it, and in mutual banking no noteholder wants a future borrower to get the issues at a more liberal rate with regard to property pledged than the earlier borrowers have got and used them at, for that would mean depreciation. Such a result is to be prevented by agreeing upon a standard for valuation, and let not this be confused with means of payment. The means of payment are the note itself and what it will bring, but there must be some thing or things uniformly referred to in determining how much shall be loaned. To refer to the bank notes themselves might lead to limitless inflation and a very variable relation between the expanding sum of notes and the comparatively fixed sum of real things, which relation would in a while cause two or more notes to go in exchange where one had gone before, giving those who held any money to see that by holding it they had lost purchasing power. The “Auditor” should not fear to adhere to a material standard, simple or complex, for uniform valuations, and still insist upon the utmost extension of the representative medium or media.
The Next Morning.
A Sequel to “A Love Affair.” by J. Wm. Lloyd.
George Carlton. Helen Carlton. Bridget.
[Scene. Carlton’s dining room, pleasant and well lighted table set for breakfast; fruit and game pieces on the wall closet with glass doors revealing china; buffet; chairs flowers.]
Mrs. Carlton in morning attire, very neat and pretty, is seated at the table on one side, Mr. Carlton on the other.
Carlton (toying with his egg). You don’t look as serene as usual this morning, Helen — what is it? Are you thinking about last night?
Mrs. Carlton. Yes, George, and —
Carlton. And what?
Mrs. Carlton (pouring out a cup of coffee rather nervously). Why, I was thinking a little regretfully about Arthur Eliot.
Carlton. What do you mean?
Mrs. Carlton (speaking rapidly). Now please don’t be angry with me (but I know you won’t), and indeed I love you as truly as ever a woman could, but I thought the matter all over last night, and I believe — I feel sure — that after all I do love Arthur Eliot a little.
Mrs. Carlton (a little catch in her voice). Please don’t speak in that way, George. I know Arthur didn’t show off in a good light last night, but after all I can’t help thinking he is noble at heart. I believe he really loves me, and I can’t help liking him. The trouble is, you know, that he has had an orthodox education, and cannot shake it off, and it makes him see everything wrong. O why, (sobbing) why can’t both of you love me, and yet still be friends, and let me love you both?
Carlton (speaking very kindly). Dear Helen, please don’t feel so badly about this. There is certainly nothing in reason to prevent two men loving and being beloved by the same woman and remaining good friends. Only I have this feeling of personal dislike to Eliot! But perhaps there is an unrecognized jealousy at work in me which makes me unfair to him — I sometimes wonder if it isn’t so. You see a man may think he is emancipated, and yet, when another man puts him to the test, the old feelings of sex-monopoly come up and take sly advantages to make their point. To be honest, I am not sure but I disliked Eliot, after all, mainly because he loves you, and I am afraid I enjoyed his defeat last night chiefly because I wanted you to love nobody but me.
Mrs. Carlton (wiping her eyes). O George, how good you are!
Carlton. I am an egoist, you know, and I have learned that spoiling other people’s happiness is a very poor way to promote my own, that is all. But I wish I could know about Arthur — if he could only prove himself all that you think he is, all that I fear he is not! — was that a ring at the bell?
Bridget. Here’s a ledthur for the missus.
Mrs. Carlton (excitedly). O, George, it’s from Arthur! (tears it open and peruses contents.)
Carlton (gnawing his moustache). Hum!
Mrs. Carlton (reads). “2 o’clock A. M. Dear Helen: — I cannot sleep. Ever since I left you I have been thinking, and more vigorously and to the purpose, I believe, than ever before in my life. A new world has opened to me, and I see that your husband was right in calling me a fool and a coward. I have acted like both, mainly to your disadvantage, and I sincerely apologize. What I am writing I want you to read to George, for I am done with underhanded work. In these few hours I have gone over the whole ground, and I see that he is right; that it is the woman who is the central figure in the drama of love — she is sovereign in her own domain. I admit that I have been plotting and hoping to get you away from your husband, to get exclusive possession of you myself, and I am ashamed. Now I turn squarely back on my tracks. I don’t want to possess you;
I don’t want to deprive any man of the love you may give him, or to interfere with his freedom in seeking it. I want simply that love which I know you feel for me, which you have freely given me, and which is fairly my own. For Helen, I love you, and therefore I want you to be free. Your husband’s attitude last night made me respect him, and I would like to be his friend if I may, but anyway, I renounce all attempts to be his rival — I want my own love, not his. I will send this by a special messenger in the morning.
Will you not answer today, and tell me whether I have permission to call on you both this evening?
For the first time, your true lover —
Carlton (rising, going over to his wife, and kissing her). Well, Helen, you two have conquered me. That is a square, manly letter, and I see that I have misjudged Eliot badly. For once I am tempted to drop my egoistic stiffness of speech and admit that I also am ashamed of myself. At any rate I have made a bad mistake, and Eliot is not the only fool. I should be a simpleton to spoil a true woman’s love, and make a true man my enemy, by attempting monopoly even in spirit, when, by leaving her free, the true woman loves me more than ever, and the true man becomes my friend. By all means have him come tonight.
Mrs. Carlton (embracing him rapturously). O, George, I never loved you as I do now!
Don’t keep Liberty to yourself, share it with others!
Leonard E. Read: Accent On The Right: To Frederic Bastiat (1801–1850), who sought for truth rather than outcome and never witnessed the fruits his labor bore. Obedience to conscience was his first rule; we witness the results.
Leonard E. Read: Anything That’s Peaceful: Many favor peace but not many favor the things that make for peace. — Thomas à Kempis
Leonard E. Read: Awake for Freedom’s Sake: Finally, share with others. Forget about “reforming” them! The more we share, the more we learn. This is in the interest of self and freedom!
Leonard E. Read: Castles in the Air: If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; there is where they should be. Now put foundations under them. — Henry David Thoreau
Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State: Political philosophy is dominated by a myth, the myth of the necessity of the state. The state is considered necessary for the provision of many things, but primarily for peace and security. In this provocative book, Gerard Casey argues that social order can be spontaneously generated, that such spontaneous order is the norm in human society and that deviations from the ordered norms can be dealt with without recourse to the coercive power of the state.
Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers: Murray Rothbard: Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) was an economist, historian, philosopher, and legal theoretician. His work was unified by a passionate and resolute commitment to a libertarianism that may be characterized as ‘anarcho-capitalism’ and which implied a belief that even the legal system may be provided privately without the need for a coercive collective authority. Hence, anarcho-capitalists envisage a society where the traditional role of government is wholly subsumed by private, profit-making enterprises and all social relationships are ultimately founded upon consent.