Liberty and Prohibition

All these assumptions clearly show that Dr. Harris is a man of theory, and not of practice. He knows nothing but disem bodied principles. Consequently, w;hen the State Socialist proposes to embody a principle antagonistic to his, he recog nizes it as such and demolishes it by well-directed arguments. But this same antagonistic principle, so far as it is already embodi~d, is unrecognizable by him. As soon as it becomes in carnate~ he mistakes it for his own. No matter what shape it has taken, be it a banking monopoly, or a land monopQly,or a national post-office monopoly, or a common school system, or a compulsory tax, or a setting-up of non-aggressive individ uals to be shot at by an enemy, he hastens to offer it one hand, while he waves the flag of free competition with the other. In consequence of its fleshly wrappings, he is constitu tionally incapable of combating the status quo. For this reason he is not an altogether competent teacher, and is liable to confuse the minds of the ambitious ladies belonging to the Boston Political Class.

LIBERTY AND PROHIBITION Mr. Lucian V. Pinney, a protectionist and a green backer-but an anti-prohibitionist-made the following statement in his paper, the Winsted (Conn.) Press: INDIVIDU AL LIBERTY '67 C~There is, nothing' any better than Liberty ,and nothing any worse than despotism, be it theological despotism of, the ,skies, the theocratic ·despotism of kings, or the d~mocratic despotism of majorities; and the labor re former who starts out to combat the despotism of capi talism with other' despotism no better lacks only power to be worse than the foe he encounters.'" Mr,Tucker then took him to' task for his inconsistency: MR. PINNEY is a man whocomhats the despotism of capital with that despotism which denies the liberty.to buy foreign goods .untaxed and that despotism which denies the liberty to issue notes to' circulate as currency. Mr. Pinney is driven into this inconsistency 'by 'his desire for high wages and. an abundance of money, .which he thinks it impossible to get except through tariff monopoly and money monopoly. , But religiousdejspotism. pleads a desire' for salvation, and moral despotism pleads a desire for purity, and prohibitory despotism pleads a desire' for, sobriety. Yet all these despotisms lead to hell, though all these hells are paved )'lith good intentions; and Mr. Pinney's hens are just as hot as any. The above extract shows that he knows Liberty to be the true way of salvation. Why, then" does he not steadily follow it?

, ¥r. Pinney combats prohibition in the name of Liberty. Thereupon I showed him that his argument was equally good ! against his own advocacy of a tariff ort imports and an ex elusive. government currency.· Carefully avoiding any illusion to' the analogy,' Mr. Pinney now rejoins: 4:tIn-brief, ,we are despotic because we believe it is our right to de£end ourselves from foreign invaders on the one, side and wild-cat swindlers on the other." 'Yes, just as despotic as the prohibtionists who believe it is their right to defend themselves from drunkards and rumsellers." Continuing his•controversy with me regarding the logic of, the principle of liberty,' Mr. Pinney says: ttThere is no analogy between prohibition and the tariff; the tariff prohibits no' man from indulging •his ,desire to trade where he pleases. It is simply a tax. It is slightly analogous to 'a license tax for" the privilege of selling .,liquor ,in a given 68 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY territory, but prohibition, in theory if not in practice, is an entirely different matter."

This is a distinction without a difference. The so-called prohibitory liquor law prohibits no man, even theoretically, from indulging his desire to sell liquor; it simply subjects the man so indulging to fine and imprisonment. The tax imposed by the tariff law and the fine ilnposed by .the prohibitory law share alike the nature: of a penalty, and are equally invasive of liberty. Mr. Pinney's argument, though of no real validity in any case, would present at least a show of reason in the mouth of a ((revenue reformer"; but, coming from one who scorns the idea of raising revenue by the tariff and who has declared explicitly that he desires the tariff to be so effectively prohib itory that it shall yield no revenue at all, i ~ lacks even the ap pearance of logic. Equally lame is Mr. Pinney's apology for a compulsory money system: HAs for the exclusive government currency which we advo cate, and which Mr. Tucker tortures into prohibition of in dividual property scrip, there is just as much analogy as there is between prohibition and .the exclusive law-making, treaty ....

making, war-declaring, or any other powers delegated to gov ernment because government better than the individual can be intrusted with and make use of these powers." Just as much, I agree; and in this I can see a good reason why Mr. Pinney, who started out with the proposition that (Cthere is nothin~ better than liberty and nothing a1;ly worse than despotism," should oppose law-making, treaty-making, war-declaring, etc., but none whatever why he should favor an exclusive government currency. How much ((torture" it requires to extract the idea of ((prohibition of individual prop erty scrip" from the idea of an rr exclusive government. cur rency" our readers will need no help in deciding, unless the word cCexclusive"has acquired some new meaning as. unknown to them as it is to me. But Mr. Pinney's brilliant ideas are not exhausted yet. He continues: cCGovernmentprohibits the taking of private property for public uses without just compensation. Therefore, if we fit· Mr. Tucker's Procrustean bed, we cannot sustain this form of prohibition and consistently oppose prohibition of liquor 'INDIVIDUAL LIbERTY '69 drinking! This is consistency run niad,tanalogy' reduced to an absurdity. We are astonished that Mr. Tucker can be guilty of. it."

So am I. Or rather, I should be astonished if I had been guilty of it. But I haven't. To say nothing of the fac.t that the governmental prohibition here spoken of is a prohibition laid by government upon itself, and that such prohibitions can never .be displeasing to an, Anarchist, it is clear that the taking of private property from. persons who. ha.ve !violated the right~ .of nobody is invasion, and to the prohibition of .'invasion no friend of liberty has any objection. Mr. Pinney has already resorted 'to the plea of invasion as an excuse for his advocac;y of a tariff, and it would be a good defence if he could estab~ fish it. But I have pointed out to him 'that the pretence that the f()rei~nmerchantwho sells goods to American citizens or the ··individual who offers .his I '0 Uare invaders is as flinisy 'as' the prohibitionist's pretence' that the rumseller a\1d the . :drunkard are invaders. Neither invasion nor evasion will re lieveMr. Pinney of his dilemma.

In an unguarded rnoment of righteous impatience with the folly of the prohibitionists •.• Mr. Pinn~y. had. given utterance to soine very extreme and Anarchistic doctrine. I applauded him,. and, ventured to call his attention to onei or .. two forms of prohibition other than that of the liquor traffi~,equally repug nant to his .theory of liberty and yet· charhpioned by him. , One of these was the tariff. He answered me that ttthere is no ,analogy between· prohibition and the tariff; •the' tariff pro hibits no rnan from indulging his desire to trade where he pleases." Right· here logomachy made its. first. appearance, over. the word cCprohibit.:" I had cited two. forms of State in terference with trade, each of which in practice either annoys it or hampers it or effectively prevents it, according to circum stances. This analogy in substantial results presented a diffi culty, which Mr. Pinney tried. to overcome by beginning a dis puteover the meaning of the word ccprohibit,"-amatter of only formal moment so far as the present discussion is con cerned. He declared that the tariff is not like the prohibitory liquor law, inasmuch as it prohibits nobody from trading where he' pleases. A. purelynorninal distinction, if even that; .consequently Mr. Pinney, in passing it off as a real one, was guilty •• of .quibbling-.

70 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y But I met Mr. Pinney on his own ground, allowing that, speaking exactly, the tariff does not prohibit, but adding, on the other hand, that neither does the so-called prohibitory liquor law; that both simply impose penalties on traders, in the one case as a condition, in the other as a consequence, of carrying on their trades. Hence my analogy still stood, and I expected it to be grappled with. But no. Mr. Pinney, in the very breath that he protests against quibbling, insists on his quibble by asking if prison discipline is, then, so lax that convicted liquor sellers can carryon their business within the walls, and by supposing that I would still think prohibition did not prohibit, if the extreme penalty for liquor selling were decapitation. I do not dispute the fact that a man cannot carryon the liquor business as long as he is in prison, nor can Mr. Pinney dispute the fact that a man cannot sell certain foreign goods in this ·country as long as he cannot raise the money to pay the tariff; and while I am confident that de capitation, if rigorously enforced, would stop the liquor traffic, I am no less sure that the effect on foreign traffic would be equally disastrous were decapitation to be enforced as a tax upon importers. On Mr. Pinney's theory the prohibitory liquor laws could be made non-prohibitory simply by chang ing the penalties from imprisonments to fines. The absurdity of this is evident.

But, if I were to grant that Mr~ Pinney's quibble shows that there is no analogy between a ptohibitory liquor law and a revenue tariff (which I do not grant, but deny), it would still remain for him to show that there is no analogy between a pro hibitory liquor law and such a tariff as he favors,-one so high as to be absolutely prohibitory and yield no revenue at all,-or else ad,mit his inconsistency in opposing the former and not the latter. He has not attempted to meet this point, even with a quibble. One other point, however, he does try to meet. To my statement that his position on the abstract question of liberty involves logically· opposition to government in all its functions he makes this answer: UBetween puritan meddling with a man's domestic affairs, and necessary government regulation of matters which the in dividual is incompetent to direct, yet which must be directed in order to secure to the individual his rightful· liberty, there LIBER.TY 7"£' is a distance sufficiently large. tOg1ve £uUplay to~ur 1i~ited faculties."·· .• ..' ~utwho,is to judge what government regulation isttneces saty" and decide what matters ttthe individual is incompetent to direct"? The majority? ... But the Illajority are just as likely to decide that prohibition is necessary and that the in dividual is incompetent to direct his appetite as that a tariff is necessary and that the individual is incompetent to. make his own contracts. Mr. Pinney,then,rnhstsubrnit to the will. of the 111ajority. His •••original··d~claration, ·.however,·.··was·•• that despotism .w~s. despotism, .. whether exercised by a monarch. or•. a.