Liberty and Politics

Moral: If the defenders of privilege desire to exclude from this country the opponents of privilege,· they should see to it that Congress omits the taking of the eleventh census. For the eleventh census, if taken, will undoubtedly emphasize these two lessons of the tenth: first, that foreign immigration does not increase dishonesty and violence among us, but does in crease the love of liberty; second, that the population of the world is gradually dividing into two classes,-Anarchists and criminals. LIBERTY AND POLITICS CONNECTED with the Massachusetts branch of the National Woman Suffrage Association is a body of women calling itself the Boston Political· Class, the object of which is the prepara tion of its members for the use of the ballot. On May 30, 1889, this class was addressed in public by Dr. Wm. T. Harris, the Concord philosopher, on the subject of State Socialism, Anarchism, and free competition. Let me say, parenthetically, to these ladies that, if they really wish to learn how to use the ballot, they would do well to apply for instruction, not to Dr. Harris, but to ex-Supervisor Bill Simmons, or Johnny O'Brien of New York, or Senator Matthew Quay, or some leading Tammany brave, or any of the ((bosses" who rule city, State, and Nation; for, the great object of the ballot being to test truth by counting noses and to prove your op ponents wrong by showing them to be less numerous than your friends, and these men having practically demonstrated that they are masters of the art of rolling up majorities at I INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY the polls, they can .teach themembers,of·the •Boston Political Class a trick or two. by which they cangainnumericcil su premacy, while Dr. Harris, in the most favorable view of the case, can only elevate their intelligence and thereby :fix them more hopelessly in a minority that must be vanquished ina contest where ballots instead of brains decide the victory.

But let that pass. <1 am not; concerned now with these e:x cellent' ladies, but with Dr. Harris's excellent address; Jor .it wa.s excellent, ,notwithstandi 118 .the fact tha.t he intended .it partly as a blow at Anarchism. Instead of being such a blow, the 'discourse was' really an affirmation of Anarchism almost from beginning to end, at least in so far as it dealt withprin ciples, '. and •departed from, Anarchism on\y in two or three mistaken attempts to illustrate the principles laid down and to ,identify existing society with them as expressive of them. Afte~ positing the proposition that the object of society is the pr9duction, of 'self-conscious intelligence in its •highest form, or, ,in, other words, the most 'perfect individuality, the lecturer spent the. first half of his time in considering State So cialism from, this standpoint. ,He had no difficulty in showing that the absorption of ,enterprise' by the State is indeed, a ulooking backward,"-a very long look backward ,at that communism which 'was the •only form ·of society known to primitive '.' man; ,at that, communism which purchases mate rial equality at the expense of the destruction of liberty; at that communism out of which evolution, with its tendency toward individuality, ha,s·been gradually lifting mankind for thousands of ,years; at that communism which, by subject ing the individual rights of life and property to industrial tyranny, theJ:eby renders necess.arya central political tyranny to at least partially secure the. right. to •life and. make possible the continuance of. some semblance, of social. existence. The lecturer took the position that civil society is dependent upon freedom ,in production, distribution, and, consumption, and that such freedom is utterly incompatible with State Socialism, which in its ultimate implies the absolute control of all these functions by arbitrary power as a substitute for economic law. Therefore Dr. Harris, settin~ great value upon civil society, has no us.efor State Socialism.N either have the Atlarchists.'rhus far, then, the Anarchists and the teacher o£\theBoston Political ,class walk hand in hand.

64 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y Dr. Harris, however, labors under a delusion that just at this point he parts c<;>mpany.with us. As we follow his argument further, we.shall see if this be true. The philosophy of society, he continued in substance, is coextensive with a ground covered by four institutions ,-namely, the family, civil society, the State, and the Church. Proceeding then to define the specific purposes of these institutions, he declared that the obje~t of the family is to assure the reproduction of individuals and prepare them, by guidance through childhood, to become reasonable beings; that the object of civil society is to enable each individual to reap advantage from the powers of all other individuals through division of labor, free ex change, and other economic means; that the object of the State is to protect each individual against aggression and se cure him in his freedom as long as he observes the equal free dom of others; and that the object of the Church (using the term in its broadest sense, and not as exclusively applicable to the various religious bodies) is to encourage the investiga tion and perfection of science, literature, the fine arts, and all those higher humanities that make life worth living and tend to the elevation and completion of self-conscious intelligence or individuality. Each of these objects, in the view of the lec turer, is necessary to the existence of any society worthy of the name, and the omission of anyone of them disastrous. The State Socialists, he asserted truthfully, would ruin the whole structure by omitting civil society, whereas the Anarchists, he asserted erroneously, would equally ruin it by omitting the State. Right here lies Dr. Harris's error, and'it is the most vulgar of all errors in criticism,-that of treating the ideas of others from the standpoint, not of their definitions, but of your own. Dr. Harris hears that the Anarchists wish to abolish the State, and straightway he jumps to the conclusion that they wish to abolish what he defines as the State. And this, too, in spite of the fact that, to my knowledge, he lis tened not long ago to the reading of a paper by an Anarchist from which it was clearly to be gathered that the Anarchists have no quarrel with any institution that contents itself with enforcing the law of equal freedom, and that they oppose the State only after first defining it as an institution that claims authority over the non-aggressive individual and enforces that authority by physical force or by means that. are effective INDIVIDUAL LIBER T,Y 6J only because they can and will be backed by physical force if necessary. Far from omitting the State as Dr. Harris defines it, the Anarchists expressly favor such an institution, by what· .ever name it may be called, as long as its raison d'etre con tinues; and certainly Dr. Harris would not demand its preset, vadon after it had become superfluous. , ' In principle, then, are not, the Anarchists and Dr.. Harris lit agreement at every essential point? It certainly seems so.

'I do not know an Anarchist that would not accept eveq division of his social map. Defining the object of the family as he defines it, the Anarchists believe in the family; they only insist that, free competition, and experiment shall alway~ be allowed ,in order that it rrlay be determined what form of· family best secures this object .. Defining the object of civil society ashe defines it, the An archistsbelieve in civil society; only they insist that the free domo£civil society shall be complete instead, of partial. Defining' theobjeGt of the State as he defines it, the An archists believe ,in the State; only they insist that the greater part, if not all,o£ the necessity for its existence is the result of ..an artificiallhnitation of the freedom of civil "'society,.and that the completion of industrial freedom may one day so harmonize individuals that it will no longer be necessary' to .provide a guarantee of political freedom. .

Denning the object. of the Church as he dennes it, the An archists most certainly believe in the Church; only they insist that, all its work shall be /purely voluntary, and that, its dis coveries and achievements, p.owever beneficial, shall not be imposed upon the individual by authority. But there is a point, unhappily, where. the Anarchists and Dr. Harris do part company, and that point is reached when he declares or -assumes or leaves it to be inferred that the pres ent form of the family is the form that best secures the objects of the family, and that no attempt at allY other form is to he tolerated, although evidence of the horrors engendered by the prevailing family life is being daily spread before our eyes in an ever-increasing volume; that th~ present form of civil so ciety is' the embodiment of complete ' economic,.freedom, al thoughit is ',' undeniable that the, most important freedoms, those without which all other freedoms are of little or no avail, 66 I N D I VI D U ALL I B E R T Y -the freedom of banking and the freedom to take possession of unoccupied land,-exist nowhere in the civilized world; that the existing State does nothing but enforce the law of equal freedom, although it is unquestionably based upon a compulsory tax that is itself a denial of equal freedom, and is daily adding to ponderous volumes of statutes the bulk of which are either sumptuary and meddlesome in character or devised in the interest of privilege and monopoly; and that the existing Church carries on its work in accordance with the principle of free competition, in spite of the indubitable fact that, in its various fields of religion, science, literature, and the arts, it is endowed with innumerable immunities, favors~ prerogatives, and licenses, with the extent and stringency of which it is still unsatisfied.