II. The Individual, Society, and the State

Anarchism, in dealing with this subject, has found it neces sary, first of all, to define its terms. Popular conceptions of the terminology of politics are incompatible with the rigor2.0 INDIVIDU.8.L LIBERTY 2.:£ ous. exactness required in scientific investigation •.. To be sure~ .3. departure from the popular use of language is accompanied by the •risk. of misconception by themultitude,who persist ently ignore.·the new. definitions; •• but,· on the other hand~ conformity thereto is attended by the still more. deplorable alternative of confusion in the eyes of the competent, who would be justified in attributing inexactness of thought where there is inexactness of expression. Take the term (CState," for instance, with •which we are especially concerned to-day••It is .a.word .. that is· on· every lip..•But how many of those who use it have any idea of.what they mean by it? 11nd, of the few who have, how various· are .their conceptions! We desig nate. by the term ((State" institutions that em1;>ody absolutism in its extreme form and institutions that temper it with more or lessliberality •• We .apply the word 'alike to institutions that do' nathing butaggress . and. to institutions that, besidesag gressing, to some extent protect and defend. But· which. is the. State's essential· function, aggression·. or defence, few seem to know or care.· Some •champions .of·the State evidently consider •••aggression· its .. principle, .although they disguise .. it alike from themselves .and .from the people .under. the •.'term C(administration," which they wish to extend· in· every possible direction. Others, on thecontfary, consider defence. its .prin ciple, and wish to limit it accordingly. to the performance of police duties. Still others seem. to think. that it exists for b()th .aggression .. and defence, combined.·.in Tarying .propor tionsaccording to the momentary interests" or maybe only whims, ofthose happening to control it. Brought face to face with these diverse views, .the Anarchists, whose mission in the world is the abolition of aggression and all the evils that re sult therefrom, perceived that, to be understood, they. must at~ach .some definite and.·avowed significance to the •terms which they are obliged to employ, and especially to the words «State" and Hgovernment." .Seeking, then, the elements com...

mon to all the institutions to which the name UState " has been applied, •. they' have found them two in number: :fir~t, agres si<.)n;second, the assu,mptionof sol~ authority over a 'given area and all within it, exercised generally for the double pur pose ·()fmore complete oppression of its subjects and. exten sion of its boundaries. .That this. second. element is !common to all States, I think, will not bedenied,-at le~st, lam not 2.2 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY aware that any State has ever tolerated a rival State within its borders; and it seems plain that any State which should do so would thereby cease to be a State and to be considered as such by any. The exercise of authority over the same area by two States is a contradiction. That the nrstelement, aggression, has been and is common to all States will probably be less generally admitted. Nevertheless, I shall not attempt to l;'e-enforce here the conclusion of Spencer,which is gaining wider acceptancedaily,-that the State had its origin in ag gression, and has continued as an aggressive institution from its· birth. Defence was an afterthought, prompted by ne cessity; and its introduction as a State function, though ef fected doubtless with a view to the strengthening of· the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the State's destruction. Its growth in importance is but an evidence of the tendency of progress toward the abolition of the State.

Taking this view of the matter, the Anarchists contend that defence is·not an essential of the State, but that aggression· is. Now what is aggression? Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government, are inter convertible terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader;· and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an abso lute monarch, or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy. On the other hand, he who resists another's attempt to control is not an aggressor, an invader, a governor, but simply a defender, a protector; and the nature of such resistance is not changed whether it be offered by one man to another man, as when one repels a criminal's onslaught, or by one man to all other men, as when one declines to obey an oppressive law, or by all men to one man, as when a subject people rises against a despot, or as when the members of a community voluntarily unite to re strain a criminal. This distinction between invasion and re sistance, between government and defence, is vital. Without it there can be no valid philosophy of politics. Upon this dis tinction and the other considerations just outlined, the An archists frame the desired definitions. This, then, is· the An...

INDIVIDUAL LIBER TYz3' ~rchistic definitionofgovern~ent: the subjection Qfthe non invasive indivi1ual to~n external .will. ,,'And this, is .the A~" arcpistic debnitionof the St~te: the embodiment of theprin .. ciple of, invasion in an individual, orahanq of individuals, assJll11,ing to ac;t' asrepresentative~or m~sters of the ,entire pe~ple'within ,a given area., -As to the meaning of the remain .. ins term j~ the subject ullder discussion, the word Hindivid ual,"I think therei~ Jittledifficulty. ,Putting aside the subtle tie,s,.in which •• (:ertain,pletaphysicians .have. indulged, one may use this word without danger ofbei~g' misunderstood. WlIether -:the definitions thus arrived at prove geherallyac Iceptableo5J;1ot is.a ,.matter o£ 'minor" conseCJ.uence. 'r submit :that they ar~ reached:s,~,ientifica.lly, ,and serve the purposeo£ a •c;lea.r.• conveya11.ce,of thought. ,The Anarchists, having by t~i.r •adoption ~aken due <:are to be explicit, '. are. entitled to have their ideas judged in, the light of these definitions.

'-!'Tow comes the question proper: What relations should ex: ist between the State andt~eln.divid\1al? 'The general method of determining these is tQ apply some theory of ethics involv ingabasis of moralopligation. ',~n this 111ethod,the Anarch is~~ have no confidence. , 'The idea of moral ob1igatio~, of inherent rights .anq duties, tbey totally discard. •They look \lp0p. all obligations, not .as moral, but .as soeial,andeven then not really as obligations except ,as these have been.con sCi9us1y ang voluntarilya,s$umed. ,I£a man, makes an, agree mellt with men, th~ ,latter' may. combine to hold him to his agreement; but, in the. absence of such agreement, no man, so Jar as the A~archists, are aware, has made· any agreement with God {)r with any othe~powerofany order whatsoever. The Anarchists are not only utilitarians, but egoists in the farthest and fullest sense.,. So •• far, as inherent right is con cerned, "might is ·its only 'measure. Any. :man, be his name Bi.H Sykes or Alexander 'R.omanoff" and .• any set of men~ i whether the Chinese highbinders or the. Congress of the United States, have theright rif ,they have the power,.to kill or coerce other ',111enand-to,.m~ke the entire world_subservient to their cnps. ,.SocieFY'srig~t'toe.llslavethe •individual and the ,indi "Vid~at~~ right t{)enslave society are unequal-only becausetheir poweJrs•are ,un~qual.. ,.. ,This ,position being subversive of,. all sy~tetn$ofr~ligion .'and.,morality', of course 1 cannot expect to win .immediate assent thereto :from the audience 'which, I '24 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y am addressing to-day; nor does the time at my disposal allow me to sustain it by an elaborate, or even a summary, exami nation of the foundations of ethics. Those who desire a greater familiarity with this particular phase of .the subject should read a profound German work, teDer Einzige und sein Eigenthum," written years ago by a comparatively unknown all-thor, Dr. Caspar Schmidt, whose nom de plume was Max Stirner. Read only by a few scholars, the book is buried in obscurity, but is destined toa resurrection that perhaps will mark an epoch.

If this, then, were a question of right, it would be, ac cording to the Anarchists, purely a question of strength. But, fortunately, it is not a question of right: it is a question of expediency, of knowledge, of science,-the science of living together, the science of society. The hjstory of humanity has been largely one long and gradual discovery. of the fact that the individual is the gainer by society exactly in propor tion as society is free, and of the law that ,the condition of a permanent and harmonious society is the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of libeJ;"ty. The average man of each new generation has said to himself more clearly and consciously than his predecessor: teMy neighbor is not my enemy, but· my friend,. and I am his, if we would but mutually recognize the fact. We help each other to a better, fuller, happier living; and this service might be greatly increased if we would cease to restrict, hamper, and oppress each other. Why can we not agree to let each live his own life, neither of us transgressing the limit that separates our in...

dividualities?" It is by this reasoning that mankind is ap proaching the real social contract, which is not, as Rousseau thought, the origin of society, but rather the outcome' of a long social experience, the fruit of its follies and disasters. It is obvious that this contract, this social law, developed to its perfection, excludes all aggression, all violation of equality of liberty, all invasion of every kind. Considering this contract in connection with the Anarchistic definition of the State as the embodiment of the principle of invasion, we see that the State is antagonistic to society; and, spciety being essential to individual life and development, the. conclusion leaps,,' to the eyes that the relation of the State to the individual and of the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 25 individual to the Sl:~te must be one of hostility, enduring till the State shall perish. ((But," it will beas.ked of the .Anarchists at this point in the argument, Uwhat'shallbe done withthose~ndividuals who undoubtedly will persist in .violating the.social law •• by invading their neighbors?" ·..... The Anarchists answer .• that the: abolition of the· St:ate.will.leave in existence a defensive association,.rest.,in,gn Q longer on a compulsory but onavoluntary basis, which ,will restrain invaders by any m~~ns th~tmay prove .necessary.

((But that is what we have now," is. the rejoinder. UYou really want,thetl,·. only a change .ofname?" Not .so fast, please. Can it he soberly pretended for a moment that the State, /even as it exists herein America, is purely a defensive institu tion? ..•.Surely not, save.by those who .. see of •the State only its most palpable manifesta~ion,--the. policeman on the. street corner.·.Alld.o.newould not .have to watch him very closely to see the. error of this claim. Why, .the very first act of the State,thecompulsoryassessmental1dcollection -0£ taxes, is itself an •aggression,.•• a .• violation ofeq uallibetty, and, .• a,s •such, vitiates every subsequent .act, even those acts which would be purely defensive if paid out of a treasury filledbyvolun ta}:ycontributions ..•.' How. is .it possible to. sanctiOl~l, under the law of equal liberty , the confiscation of a maQ.'se~rningsto pay .. for protection. whichhe •. has not. sought and. does not desire? And, if. this is. an outrag~"what· name shall we .give to such •confiscation .whenthe.yictim is given, instead.of .br~ad, a stone, instead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of .his. own .liberty is indeed an addi tion of insult to injury~ .But that is •• exactly. what. the State is doing.. Read the ((Congressional Record"; follow the pro c.ee9ings•of the State .. legishttures;. examine our statute-books; test each act separately by the lawoi (equal Iiberty,-you will ~nd that ..a •good .!line-tenths of existing legislation serves, not to enforce that fundamentaL social law, but either to prescribe the individual's personal habits, or, worse. still, to create and sustain •• commercial, industrial, .. financial,.and proprietary mo nopolies which deprive labor of. a large part .of.the reward ~ that. it .would receive·.ina .• perfectly. free market. (tTo .be g()verned," s~ysProudhon, (tis to be watched, inspected,. spied, dir~cted, law-ridden, regulated, ..penned up,. indoctrinated, ~6 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T ~ preached at, checked, appraised, sized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title nor knowledge nor virtue.

To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction every .movement noted~ registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, cor rected. To be governed is, under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be laid under contribution, drilled, fleeced,.exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed; robbed; then, upon the slightest re sistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten~ dis armed, bound, imprisoned, shot, mitrailleused, judged, con demned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and, to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored." And I am sure I do not need to point out to you the existing laws that corre spond to and justify nearly every count in Proudhon's long indictment. How thoughtless, then, to assert that the ex isting political order is ofa purely defensive character instead of· the aggressive State which the Anarchists aim to abolish!

This leads to another consideration that bears powerfully upon the problem of the invasive individual, who is such a bugbear to the opponents of Anarchism. Is it not such treat ment as has just been described that is largely responsible for his existence? I have heard or read somewhere of an inscrip tion written for a certain charitable institution: UThis hospital a pious person built, But first he made the poor wherewith to fill't." And so, it seems tome, it is with our prisons. They are filled with criminals which our virtuous State has made what they are by its iniquitous laws, its grinding monopolies, and the horrible social conditions that result from them. We enact many laws that manufacture criminals, and then a few that punish them. Is it too much to expect that the new social conditions which must .follow the abolition of all in terference with the production and distribution of wealth will in the end so change the habits and propensities of men that our jails and prisons, our policemen and our soldiers,-.-in a word, our whole machinery and outfit of defence,-will be INDI,VID.UAL LIBERTY 2.7.

superfluous? That, at least, is the Anarchists' belief~ It sounds . Utopian, but it '. really, rests on severely ,economic grounds. To-day, however, 'time is lacking to explain the Anarchistic view of the dependence.of usury,' and, therefore of poverty, upon monopolistic privilege, especially the banking privilege, and to show how an intelligent minority, educated in the prin ciple of Anarchism' and .', determined to exercise that right to ignore the. State upon '. which Spencer, in his uSociaIStatics," soa.bly and admirably insists, might, by setting at, defiance.the National and State banking prohibitions, :;lIld establishing a Mutual Bank in competition with' the existing ,monopolies, 1;ak~ the first and most important step in the abolition of usury and, of the State. Simple.as such.a step would 'seem, from it aU'the rest would •follow.. A .half -hour is"a very short time in which to discuss, the relation of the State to the individ~al,. and I must ask your pardon for the brevity of my dealing with a succession of con siderations each of which.needs an entire essay for its, develop ment.· " If!" have, outlined the argument intelligibly, I have accomplished, all that I. expected. But, ,in the hope of· iJ.1l pr~ssingthe idea of the true social contract more .vividly upon your minds, in conclusion I shall take the liberty of reading another page from Proudhon, towhomT am indebted for most of what I know, or' think I know, upon this subject.

CoIltrasting authority with free" c()ntract, he says, .in his ~~General !dea·>of ..' the Revolution of the NineteenthCen tury":tCOfthedistancethat separates these tworegimes,we may judge by thedi£ference in their styles. ((One of the most solemn -momen.tsin the evolution of .the principle of authority is that of the promulgation of the Decalogue. The voice of the ang~lcommands the People, prostrate at the foot of Sin.ai:~ (CThousnalt worship the Eternal, and only the Eternal. (CTllou shalt swear only by him. uThoushalt keep his holidays, and thou shalt pay his.tithes. '(CThou shalt honor thy father and thy mother . .~cThou shalt not •kill. (CTh&u shalt not ~teal. wfhoushalt nOt commit_adultery,. cCThoushalt not bear false witness.

28 IN D I V ID U ALL I B E R T Y HThou shalt not covet or calumniate. HFor the ,Eternal ordains it, and it is the Eternal who has made you what you are. The Eternal is alone sovereign, alone wise, alone worthy; the Eternal punishes and rewards. It is in the power of the/Eternal to render you happy or unhappy at his will. HAll legislations have adopted this style; all, speaking to man,. employ· the sovereign. formula. The Hebrew commands in the future, the Latin in the ~mperative, the Greek in the infinitive. The moderns do not otherwise. The tribune of the parliament-house is a Sinai as infallible and as terrible as that of Moses; whatever the law may be, from whatever lips it may come, it is sacred once it has been proclaimed by that prophetic trumpet, which with us is the majority. <tThou shalt not assemble. HThou shalt not print. HThou shalt not read. HThou shalt respect thy representatives and thy officials, which the hazard of the ballot or the good pleasure of the State shall have given you.

HThou shalt obey the· laws which they in their wisdom shall have made. HThou shalt pay thy taxes faithfully. HAnd thou shalt love the Government, thy Lord and thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind, because the Government knows better than thou what thou art, what thou. art worth,' what is good for thee, and because it has the power to chastise those who disobey its commandments, as well as to reward unto the fourth genera tion those who make themselves agreeable to it. «With the Revolution it is quite different. HThe search for first causes and for final causes is elimi nated from economic science as from the natural sciences. HThe idea of Progress replaces, in philosophy, that of the Absolute. «Revolution succeeds Revelation. HReason, assisted by Experience, discloses to man the laws of Nature and Society; then it says to him:HThese laws are those of necessity itself. No man has made them; no man imposes them upon you. They have been INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, 2.9 gradually discoyered,and I exist only to bear testimony to them.

t~Ifyou9~serve the11l,yo\1willlJe just and good. ~~IfiYou violate them, you will.be unjust and wicked. eCI ~~er. you no other motive. uAlready, among your. fellows, several have recognized that justicq is better, for each and for all,than iniquity; and ~hey have agreed with each.other to mutually keep faith a~d right, -th~t is" to respect the rules of transaction which the nature o£· thi:p.gs indicates to them as .alone capable of assuring·them, inth~Jargest'JFeasure, well..being, security, peace. uD, you wish to adhere to their c01llpact, to forma part of their ~ocie~y? (CDb you promise to respect the. honor, the liberty, and the goods.of ·your bro~he:rs? (~po youprori1ise never t~appropriate, either by violence, or by fraud,orbyusury, or by.speculation, the product or the possession·iof another? ... ...•..... .. . uDo.you promise.never to.lie and, deceive,-either. in •justice, orin business,or inanyo£ your .transactions?

uYou are free to accept orto.ref llse, Ulf you refuse, you become a part·of the society of sa'V· ages. Outside of the communion of the human race, you be. come.an.ohj'ect ofsuspicio ll.• Nothing protects you.. At the sli?htest huult, thefirst'comer may.· li,ft his hand ag~instyou without i tlcurringally other .aceusationl than that. of cruelty lleedlesslypra~ticedupon a brute. i uOllthe ..• contrary, if you swear to ~ecompact, you·.be,~;:i~~~i:£erii:~~~i~l :t,~e;o~~o;eYi~~a:~: f~iendship, .•.aid, service, .,. exch~nge... .In Aase.. of infraction, on their,part ot' .on •Y0tlrs~. througb negIigen~e, .passion, or malice, Y0'l1arere~p()nsibletoeachotherfor the Namageas well as the scandalangthe insecurity of.whichyoul h~ve been the cause: thisr~sponsibility may extend, accordinglto the gravity of the peor;llryor t~e repetition~ of the offence,I even to excommunication and to death.. ... '.. .. ..1 ~cThe law .isclear,. the!)anction. still mqreso. Three articles, which make but. one,..-that is· the wholelsocial contract ..•In ste~d. .. 9f 1l'lakil;lg ,oath to' God and. his prince,., the. citizen 3° ~N])IVIDU,AL LIBERTY swears upon his conscience, before his brothers, and before Humanity. Between these two oaths there is the same dif..