“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.”
Problems of Anarchism.
8. — How Collectivist Ideas Survive.
In explanation of the belief in government agency as the proper method for getting rid of existing social and economic maladjustments I wish to offer a few suggestions. While it is not true that society is more hopelessly diseased or economic conditions more unjust now than in former times, it is well to observe that much greater attention is directed to social problems and more efforts made to understand them than ever before. The propertyless class, the wage-workers, who bear the greatest burden, are realizing the extent of the weight that keeps them down and growing more discontented and ready to grasp at any means which seems to promise an improvement of their lot. At least an influential pert of organized labor pins its faith to governmental extension in the control of industry and property, and nearly all the working classes favor some amount of authoritative regulation; — in their own interests, of course — of Industrial conditions. Add to this that they hold the semblance of political power through manhood suffrage, and that statesmen and politicians profess, before election most unreservedly, to do the bidding of the majority and enact such laws as Demos shall demand. And as a result we find the doctrinaire collectivist, the opportunist reformer who wants to turn over the whole machinery of civilization to the all-wise and all-just majority and its still wiser and juster representatives and official servants, which will banish forever want and injustice and straightway usher in a new era. Of this type the more wily discard the notion of performing the feat by a sudden uprising or popular barricade revolution, and insist that the process must be gradual, a bit today, another bit tomorrow; believing that existing institutions can be socialized by popular vote, they go in for municipalization of gas and electric works, railroad and land nationalization, and kindred schemes; a policy that is finally to put an end to capitalism and wage slavery. The position is something after this fashion. A man comparatively weak, who has been incessantly clubbed by a superior, at length finds himself in possession of the stick and immediately starts to belabor his adversary, forgetting that the removal of his original weakness should make the weapon lose its terrors for him.
The working classes, becoming more alive to their inferior status and dimly realizing that authority is the weapon which has held them down, would now seize it to work their sweet will by short-hour laws, property confiscation, and government control, but fail utterly to comprehend that the weakness which brings about their oppression is the point which should first be reformed.
If the laboring classes, instead of extending the scope and power of government, which still retains its primal character, though nominally controlled by the majority of the people, would curtail its authority, take away its ability to privilege and protect the propertied class at the expense of the rest, and clear the way for free initiative and industrial effort, which would at once diminish their economic weakness, they would thus take a step on the road to social independence, and not merely be changing places with those they deem their oppression.
All schemes of communal property and municipal or State Socialism rest their claim to support on the ground that they will be directly and primarily beneficial to the wage workers. Thus these schemes imply that this class labors under peculiar disabilities and grievances from which other classes of society are free. If this be the fact, and the injustice consist — as it must under the circumstances — of economic oppression, then its precise nature should first be ascertained. The law of equal liberty, according to our demonstration, entitles each individual to the full benefit of his energies, the product of his activities exercised without hindering others to enjoy the like. Now the working classes as a whole either do or do not under existing regulations benefit to the full extent of their industrial efforts. If they do receive the full return, it would be manifestly unjust to alter things so that they would obtain more than this, for others would get less than the equivalent of their activities. And if, on the other hand, the wage workers do not reap the rewards due to their own acts and services, justice is not fulfilled, and the first duty of the reformer should be to learn the causes in order to establish conditions whereby it will be possible for each and all to receive the whole benefits of their individual exertions. When, as before observed, the existing injustice is economic, the reform, to be effective, must be of like character. But none of the schemes of collective Socialism and common property meet the question in this manner. They aim at doing something, anything that will on the face of it compensate the propertyless wealth producers for the injustice from which they suffer. It may be free education, cheap transportation, compulsory short hours, public libraries, municipal profit-saving industries, government organization of labor, or nationalization of land effected by such means as taxes on ground rents, incomes, capitalist profits, and inheritance, or through the suppression of competition, individual contract, and private property; the spirit in each case is coercive philanthropy, and the effect only palliative. None of these reforms offers a permanent and scientific solution of the economic problem underlying the whole subject. The belief in them, however, seems to me perfectly intelligible, and arises naturally out of historic conditions, just as theological beliefs and superstitions have done, but like these is illogical and untenable in face of the more comprehensive and exact knowledge now at our command.
When the nature of justice is so obscured that the need for individual liberty receives imperfect recognition, and the prime condition of progressive life is not fulfilled, that each should receive the consequences of his own conduct, enjoy the fruits of his life-sustaining activities undiminished by external or coercive power; and when the origin, claims, and sphere of government are as little understood as the nature of God, soul, and immortality, then there is nothing surprising about the widely extended craze for authoritative collectivism and common property. Its connection with the militant spirit of political authority becomes more evident the closer we investigate. For example, the government control of railways in Germany, France, Russia, and other European countries arises from a purely military motive, and likewise with other industrial functions. England’s first move to control her merchant marine by contracts with ocean steamships has the same end in view, as we also see in recent Congressional action with regard to ocean greyhounds. Bismarck and the present Kaiser have made collectivism an adjunct of militancy, and in the attempt to retain authority continue to administer to the German people increasing doses of Socialistic chloroform. It is now recognized that the Tory element in England and the Republicans in this country, both representing the jingo spirit, are the parties most willing to coquet with the like schemes. The effects of this marriage of the militant spirit with paternalism are well displayed in the policy of the English Post-office toward its employés who formed a union to improve their position. The latter were speedily taught that they had about as much right to complain and not quite so much liberty as a soldier in the army. Similarly have the municipal authorities dealt with their workmen engaged in Socialistic industries. The public funds have been used unstintingly to crush all manifestations of independence, termed insubordination; and notwithstanding the fact that Socialists generally protest against a comparison of their ideal Socialism with the bastard forms of it just cited, though hailing every extension as a triumph of their principles, I must confess that the prick of a pin is often sufficient to display the identity. Witness the recent declaration of the veteran leader of the German Social Democracy, Herr August Rebel, in the Reichstag, in reply to Herr Richter: “If the citizens of our Socialist State did not obey, we would refuse them bread” (vide New York papers, Feb. 12).
My own experience with lam tarpons advocates Of collectivism furnishes still more convincing proof of its despotic and authoritarian spirit. Some, if not most, men are, however, better than their principles, and I have no desire to impute to such as George Bernard Shaw personally the tendencies which the party he is identified with so unmistakably betrays.
Chief amongst the reasons, then, for the seeming progress of national collectivism is the surviving military character of government. The growth of local or municipal collectivism seems to be due principally to the unpopularity of private monopolies, which, performing services of a semi-public nature, have succeeded in annulling competition by securing privileges from those in authority and retaining them by legal force, and so, by overcharging for their services, robbing the people, who under existing laws have no redress. Thus the evil erroneously charged to private enterprise, but arising out of legal privilege, is sought to be removed by the creation of public monopoly, — a panacea fostered by the influential element, which sees an opening for jobs, emoluments, and power in every extension of the sphere of government. That such a movement will ultimately develop into common property, as Socialists appear to believe, is not a conclusion warranted by the facts. Moreover, social tendencies are not worked out by conscious and intentional effort, but are the result of causes seldom perceived or understood during the evolutional process. And because certain theorists have assumed compulsory Socialism to be the only means of salvation, which, were it true, would be no proof that society will next evolve that way, must we therefore regard the death of individual property as imminent, notwithstanding abundant evidence to the contrary In accordance with what is known of social growth, we believe that the militant function of government in industrial societies is sure to decline and finally disappear; and we also believe, for like reasons, that industrial monopoly is not a permanent phase, but will be undermined by the growth of scientific discoveries and mechanical inventions, which, as competition becomes more general, will offer an ever-increasing choice of means and services to meet all the wants and purposes of man; while the increasing intelligence and independence of the people manifested through voluntary association, and, where it proves itself the more competent, industrial coöperation, will eliminate every excuse for coercive political collectivism. This view is strengthened by remembering that to private effort and individual energy in face of authoritative discouragement and opposition are due the wonderful achievements of modern science. For one purpose only do European governments spend large sums every year in scientific experiment and discovery. In the art of human destruction, termed murder when practised on a small scale, we see inventive genius taxed to its utmost capacity under pressure of government patronage and reward. Yet here in its own unchallenged sphere we learn the same lesson which the analysis of government activity in other directions has made plain. State-built ships blow up, guns explode, and inefficiency marks every production of the government workshops, though the cost is much above the outside market rate for more reliable work. And it is found that private enterprise in these murderous industries, both in fertility of invention and mechanical skill, can successfully compete with government works. The only reason why the latter continue to exist lies in the unavoidable connection of corruption, jobbery, soft berths, and control of expenditure with political power. A history of the British government dockyards and arms factories and of attempts at reform would bring all this home to the reader with conclusive force. He must be left, how-ever, to seek out the facts for himself.
The purpose of this chapter has been to show that, although we cannot acquiesce in any form of collectivism or believe it a probable outcome of social evolution, yet we should recognize the sources of the movement to lie deeper than mere ephemeral agitation, while at the same time we must disentangle the conception of private property as a deduction from individual freedom from the actual property conditions that now exist. Wm. Bailie.
“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.
The Lucky Three.
Below is given the result of the fifth award of books under Liberty’s plan of giving away three books a week:
W. G. Scott, 204 Clinton St., Cincinnati, O. – “Horace Greeley and Other Essays,” by Charles Sotheran.
Mrs. E. H. Schumm, 38 Thornton St., Roxbury, Mass. — “A Song of Life,” by Margaret Warner Morley.
H. L. Koopman, 311 Pearl St., Cambridge, Mass. — “Cosmopolis,” by Paul Bourget.
On receiving from the foregoing successful applicants orders to forward their respective books, the books will be promptly sent, provided the publisher’s list price does not exceed $1.00.
Liberty gives away three books every week to persons selected at random, whether subscribers or not. Any person whomsoever may compete. The applicant should write his or her name and address plainly on a postal card, stating whether Mr., Mrs. or Miss, and, below the address, the title of the book wanted (the applicant may choose any book desired, provided the retail price does not exceed $1.00), with author, publisher, and price if known. This postal card should then be addressed and mailed to Liberty, Box 1812, New York City. Each applicant may, if he chooses, send any number of cards; and he may name the same book on each card, or be may name different books. But no person will receive more than one book In one week. All applicants, however, whether successful or unsuccessful, are entitled to put In fresh applications each week, being thus allowed fifty-two trials a year. All the postal cards, as they are received, will, at the end of each week, be placed in a receptacle, and three of them selected by lot. Each of the three persons thus selected must then, in order to receive the book post-paid, make formal application to Liberty by mall. On receipt of such application, the book will be promptly forwarded. The names and addresses of the successful applicants, with names of the books awarded, will be announced in Liberty weekly. It is at the option of each applicant to specify, Instead of a book costing $1.00, a subscription to Liberty for one year, costing $2.00 and carrying with it the privilege of baying books, periodicals, and stationery at whole-sale prices.
Is Not Money Capital?
I have always thought that money was capital in its most concentrated and available form; but here comes my friend Trinkaus and asserts, with all the confidence of a professor, that money is not capital at all. In a recent lecture he said: “It must first be understood that money is not capital. When interest is paid for a cash loan, it is paid for the use of an instrument that possesses the power to exchange itself for capital.”
To me this statement is fundamentally wrong. Had Mr. Trinkaus ever asked himself the simple question why it is that this “instrument possesses the power to exchange itself for capital” or any other kinds of wealth, the answer perhaps would have been: “Because it represents and is actual labor performed, — wealth.”
Now, why is money not capital? Mr. Trinkaus says: “Because it has no power in and of itself to produce more wealth.” But is this not equally true of every other element of capital, the machine, boiler, engine, and building that make up the plant of the manufacturer? Could any of these add anything to wealth unless in coöperation with labor and money?
Without discussing the intrinsic value of gold or silver, let us proceed to a methodical consideration of the problem.
A has $100,000, and wishes to embark in business. He invests in a lot, building, and machinery $75,000. The $25,000 still on hand he places to his credit in the bank, to draw on for wages and to meet various contingencies that may arise during the progress of his business. The question now is: Is that $25,000 a portion of A’s capital or not? Without it he cannot run his factory. Let us try to reduce it to a simpler form. Had A bought with the $25,000 sufficient quantities of flour, clothing, shoes, shelter, etc., with which to cancel all his commercial obligations as they matured, no one would question for a moment that they constituted an essential part of A’s capital. Now, as money is in essence all these things combined, why should it be excluded from the category of capital? It seems to me that the fog Mr. Trinkaus has gotten into is due to the fact that he considers money merely as a tool for the exchange of values, in the same sense as the yardstick or peck measure indicates lengths or quantities. But it is more than this; it is also an evidence of credit; the yardstick or peck measure never is. When they have performed their function of measurement, their value ceases, except as a trifling commodity; not so with money. It always represents and actually is in value the full amount indicated by its denomination. If I part with $100,000 worth of property for cash and choose to bank it, it constitutes a bona fide evidence that society is indebted to me, and all the values which flow through its commercial arteries are really mine, to that extent. Therefore money is capital and cannot be excluded from its category. G. A. Schilling.
Still Kicking Against the Pricks.
I am sorry you are sick of my preaching of goodness, for I am by no means through with it.
It is perhaps my misfortune that to me Anarchism is something higher than the Supremacy of Logic, somewhat deeper than the Rights of Contract, broader in foundation than the Mutual Bank.
I believe in the goodness of the plumb-line (if that be not preaching), but is there not danger of dancing with one leg on a mathematical point until one becomes a monomaniac?
I do not comprehend your sickness. It is to me as a revolt against Nature. Have you a contention with Truth, Beauty, Health, Social Harmony, and Self-Benefit? For, to me, Goodness implies and includes all these, all human conduct conducive to happiness.
What I call goodness is a fact in Nature.
Nature stands utterly indifferent. She is well defended. If you kick against her pricks, you may slay yourself upon her thorns, if you will.
Certainly it seems to me that, while Anarchism at large contains not enough men of character to make it possible to found at least one Anarchistic colony, Anarchism “at large” remains Anarchism at very small, Anarchism impossible.
With freedom granted, a society of honest men, although differing on all non-essentials, is perfectly conceivable; but a society of dishonest men, of whatever pretended unanimity, is a city of sand, doomed to utter disintegration. Truth and Freedom, says Ibsen, are the pillars of Society.
I agree with you that liberty will develop character, but, until we have convinced of its necessity enough men of character to win it, we shall not have liberty.
The development of character is perfectly possible, and by very force of spontaneous reaction constantly occurs, under all conditions of tyranny. I believe I stand pretty nearly where you place me. I believe in goodness and in the urging of its importance. I believe it is necessary to be just what you sneer at, “good in order to be happy.”
I believe it is necessary, whether in the individual or society, to have a majority of character in order to be free.
Fraternally, J. Wm. Lloyd.
This letter is chiefly remarkable for the calm way in which it ignores the argument presented in the article to which it is offered as an answer. In that article it was maintained that we already have the amount of character necessary to the securing of liberty, and that the thing now lacking is less an addition to this amount of character than the acquirement of sufficient knowledge of political economy to enable us to understand what liberty will do for us and therefore inspire us to desire and demand it. In answer to this not one word does Mr. Lloyd Ray; but instead, after lecturing me for I don’t know what unless that I am too logical, he adds the force of example to his anti-logical precepts by inferring front my opposition to the gospel of goodness that I am opposed to goodness itself. Which of course does not follow and is not the case. But by this method, which I suppose to be “something higher than Logic,” I am represented as kicking against the pricks. If Mr. Lloyd had more of that mathematical accuracy in thought and criticism at which he sneers, he would not fall into such gross blunders. Or, to put it in another way by combining his own metaphor with that of the street, if he were more given to “dancing with one leg on a mathematical point,” he would oftener “get there with both feet.”
Goodness, however desirable, does not come, to any important extent, by preaching. Truth, or the knowledge of truth, often comes that way, but not goodness. If, contrary to my view, the supply of character for the purpose of liberty is still insufficient, it will increase, if at all, by further developing under conditions, not of talk, but, as Mr. Lloyd himself says, of tyranny. In that case Mr. Lloyd, with his higher and deeper and broader Anarchism, may be permitted to take a back seat and wait. His services will not be needed for some time yet. For, even after enough character has been accumulated, it will still remain to comprehend and realize the low Anarchism of Logic, the shallow Anarchism of Contract, the narrow Anarchism of the Mutual Bank, before Mr. Lloyd can begin to make his gospel effective. And when that stage is at last reached, liberty will prove a better gospeller than he. There is a saying of Taine’s, which Zola has used after him, that “vice and virtue are products, like sugar and vitriol.” I commend it to Mr. Lloyd’s consideration. And with this quotation I offer him another, not from a logician, but from a poet, my old friend Sidney Morse, who thinks with me that we already have a majority of character. The lines have appeared in Liberty before, but will bear repetition:
“Be good and you’ll be happy, then.”
Said my good friend to me.
I felt quite foolish at the time;
Just why I could not see.
I could not plead the opposite;
I could not say I shan’t;
But somehow felt it all to be
The poorest kind of cant.
’Tis not for lack of goodness, man,
The flames of hell are lit;
Hear a whole world’s experience
Proclaim: ’Tis lack of wit.
In conclusion, I have a few questions for Mr. Lloyd, inspired by his opening paragraphs Does his Anarchism that is higher than logic conflict with logic? If it conflicts with logic, does it also conflict with the multiplication table? If it does not conflict with logic, can it be resorted to for the overthrow of a position sustained by logic? Has such resort any advantage in point of merit over the cry of hair-splitting raised by one who has been forced into corner? Is it not Luciferian in its puerility? Does it not belong to the latitude of Topeka, and ought it not to be confined to that locality? In any case, is it deserving of notice? T.
A Chicago gentleman, when recently renewing his subscription to Liberty, which had lapsed for a time, improved the opportunity to write: “There is but one thing which I cordially dislike about the paper, and that is what I esteem to be the very unjust treatment of Mr. George.” Regarding which the editor wishes to say that he will cheerfully withdraw his hostile judgment upon Mr. George’s personality whenever it shall be shown to be wrong. This judgment is not at all biased by the fact that the editor is seriously at variance with Mr. George on questions of political economy. The editor numbers among his very best friends some of Mr. George’s most ardent though not most slavish disciples, and can bear positive testimony to the fact that a Single Taxer is by no means necessarily a humbug. But a close watch upon, Mr. George’s methods for many years has convinced him beyond any doubt that the leader of the Single Taxers is a humbug of the very first water. The grounds of this conviction have been stated repeatedly in these columns, and there is no occasion for their repetition. When the editor first arrived at this conviction, he held it, as far as he now knows, absolutely alone. For expressing it he was then, as now, frequently expostulated with by Mr. George’s friends. Since that time be has seen many of these friends, one by one, reluctantly abandon their faith in Mr. George’s character and finally denounce him most bitterly. Some of these friends, too, have had better opportunities than the editor of knowing Mr. George. He knows him only as a public man, having met him but once, and then for a few moments only; they have known him in private also, and very intimately. Is it any wonder, then, that the editor, seeing his own judgment thus borne out, holds to it more vigorously than ever? Of course, there are other friends of Mr. George who, like Liberty’s Chicago critic, have not yet found him out. It is but natural that they should feel indignation when their hero is denounced. But let them meet the charges and the evidence which the editor and the others have brought against Henry George. They are ready to listen and to be convinced.
In a paragraph approving my refusal to address the Labor Congress of the World’s Con. grew Auxiliary, Mr. H. C. Bechtold, editor of the Chicago “Fackel,” takes occasion to say: “But Mr. Tucker is undoubtedly wrong in his definition of Individualism when he says: ‘The Individualist believes that coöperation for defame and protection should be compulsory.’ Where is this written? There is certainly nothing in the word ‘Individualism’ that would justify or indicate such an interpretation; the contrary, rather, we should think.” If I had made the statement criticised in reference to individualism (with a small “i”), Mr. Bechtold’s criticism would have been sound. But I made my statement solely of Individualism (with a capital “I”). There is as much difference between individualism and Individualism as between democracy and Democracy. By democracy popular government is meant, by Democracy the platform of the Democratic party. Similarly individualism is the doctrine of Anarchism, but Individualism is the platform of the body of persona known as Individualists. This platform includes compulsory taxation. If Mr. Bechtold wishes to know where it is written, I refer him to the writings of such champions of Individualism as Herbert Spencer and J. H. Levy.
I lately heard a Single Taxer declare that one of his strong reasons for favoring the Single Tax is that this measure makes taxation voluntary, since any one who would avoid taxation could do so by avoiding the holding of land. This same Single Taxer is an ardent free trader. How he would have laughed, had a protectionist told him that the tariff makes taxation voluntary, since any one who would avoid taxation can do so by avoiding the use of articles on which duties are levied!
Numerous complaints have reached me of the non-arrival of Liberty of March 18. I think, however, that in nearly all cases the copies eventually arrived at their respective destinations. Hence I have neglected requests for duplicates. But any subscriber still lacking the issue of March 18 can get a copy by applying to me, or by renewing his application if he has already applied.
Besides the cloth-bound edition of “Instead of a Book,” I have an edition in paper covers, printed on very cheap paper, the price of which is fifty cents a copy. While I would not advise any one desiring to preserve the volume to buy the paper edition, it probably will be found useful in the work of propagandism.
A Sublime Theology.
Last January Madame Nordics, the distinguished contralto, paid a professional visit to Chicago. A local paper contained the following happy notice of her visit:
When Mme. Lillian Nordics stepped into her apartments at the Auditorium last evening, she found ample evidence that her many friends in Chicago had not forgotten her.
The rooms had been converted into perfect bowers of superb flowers. Every shelf and table had its perfumed burden. It was a pleasant surprise and made an impression upon the great artiste.
“Truly, I am the happiest woman alive,” she exclaimed in answer to the greeting of the reporter. “Why is that?” — with a little laugh — “Just look at those flowers, and find it in your heart, if you can, to ask me such a question again. Is not that enough to make me happy? So many kind friends. It is three years since I was here before, and you see they remember me. Ah, this is a good world after all; every one is so kind to me, so very kind,” and Mme. Nordics absently pulled the leaves from a great rose and watched them as they sank in circles to the floor.
I read this touching and decisive proof of the existence of Deity after taking my seat in the Auditorium. Partly by it and partly by the great cantatrice’s vocal incantations I was inspired to see the deep and damn-able disparity between the condition of the ladies of fashion who caper nimbly to the “lascivious pleasing of a lute” or loll on their downy divans, and the condition of those devil-protected creatures of poverty who purchase their daily bread by retailing or wholesaling their virtue. The woman of fashion, especially if she be of a wealthy family, hears continually the vows and sighs of prostrate devotees. To gratify her every taste the farthest climes and shores yield up their most delicate treasures and perfumes. Her every care is lulled to sweet oblivion by the miracles that wealth can work. Love, wealth, the favors of princes, the adoration of genius, the marvellous triumphs of art and science, all these are showered at her feet. . . . . .
Come with me now and survey a blacker hell than Dante ever dreamed of. Follow, if you will, that disease-devoured creature to her home, to that coffin of a room more repulsive than a real casket of death. Over the door you read, inscribed for business purposes, the magnificently-worked greeting, “Welcome.” But no mocking Mephistopheles has ever placed upon these walls, “God Bless Our Home,” for the hand of the infernal king, paralyzed at so ghastly a parody, would refuse to transcribe the “Bless” and trace instead a “Damn.” On this same floor, where lives this product of a Christian civilization, this wretch, you may find a dozen sister-spirits, and here you may find the beauties of sex commercialism divinely displayed. Here you may find creatures, made in the image of God, I am told, who, as the generations come and go, are bidding, scheming, fighting for the lecherous embraces of rotting rakes, for the caresses of human swine, for the kisses and affections of the imps and devils of hell. As the visitor stands in the hallway negotiating with his newly made friend, the doors of a dozen other rooms will suddenly stand ajar, their occupants hoping to catch some word to encourage them that the dissatisfied caller may perchance pay a visit to their door. And when customers of the usual sort have ceased to come, there is left to the starving creature the practice of other acts, by the side of which prostitution seems virtuous. Such services have been tendered me by a woman not less than three-score years of age. “‘Ah, this is a good world after all; every one is so kind to me, so very kind,’ and Mme. Nordica absently pulled the leaves from a great rose and watched them as they sank in circles to the floor.” Bah! I spit upon such a religion! I spit upon its God! Adam Anarchist.
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.