Property Under Anarchism

Before he criticises Anarchism further, I. must insist that 'he make up his mind whether he himself wants or does not want a fixed standard. And whatever his! decision, his criticism falls. For if he wants a fixed standard, •that which he may adopt is as •liable to become a C(rigidi crystalline custom" as any rthatAnarchism may lead to. And i£ he. does not want a fixed' standard, then how can he complain of Anarchism for having none? If it were my main object to emerge from this dispute vic torious, I might well·leave· Mr. Herbert in. the queer predica ment in which his logic has placed him. But as.I .am really anxious. to win him .to the Anarchistic view, I shall try to show him. that the tear of scramble and rigidity .with which Anarchism inspires him has little or no foundation. Mr. Herbert, •.as I understand him, ·.believes in. voluntary association, voluntarily supported, for the defence of person and· property. Very well; let us suppose that he has' won his battle, and. that such a' state of thingsexistse Suppose that all:tnun~cipalities •h~ve .adopted the voluntary principle, and ~I4 INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY that compulsory taxation has been abolished. Now, after this, let us suppose further that the Anarchistic view that occu pancy and use should condition and limit landholding be comes the prevailing view. Evidently then these municipali ties will proceed to formulate and enforce this view. What the formula will be no one can foresee. But continuing with our suppositions, we will say that they 'decide to protect no one in the possession of more than ten acres. In execution of this decision, they, on October I, notify all holders of more than ten acres within their limits that, on and after the fol lowing January I, they will cease to protect them in the possession of more than ten acres, and that, as a condition of receiving even that protection, each must make formal dec laration. on or before December I of the specific ten-acre plot within his present holding which he proposes to personally occupy and use after January I. These declarations having been made, the municipalities 'publish them and at the same time notify landless persons that out of the lands thus set free each may secure protection in the possession of any amount up to ten acres after January I by appearing on December 15, at a certain hour, and making declaration of his choice and intention of occupancy. Now, says Mr.

Herbert, the scramble will begin. Well, perhaps it will. But what of it? When a theatre advertises to sell seats for a star performance at a certain hour, there is a scramble to secure tickets. When a pro~perous city announces that on a given day it will accept loans from individuals up to a certain aggregate on attractive terms, there is a scramble to secure the bonds. As far as I know, nobody complains of these scrambles as unfair. The scramble begins and the scramble ends, and the matter is settled. Some inequality still remains, but it has been reduced to a minimum, and everybody has had an equal chance with the rest. So it will be with this land scramble. It may be conducted as peacefully as any other scramble, and those who are frightened by the word are simply the victims of a huge bugbear. And the terror of rigidity is equally groundless. This rule of ten-acre possession, or any similar one that may be adopted, is no more rigid crystalline custom than is Mr. Herbert's own rule of protecting title transferred by purchase and sale.

:Any rule is rigid less by the rigidity of its terms than by INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 2.15 'the rigidity of its enforcement .. Now it is precisely in the tempering of the rigidity of enforcement that one of the chief excellences of Anarchism consists. Mr.• Herbert must re member that under Anarchism all rules a.n?, laws will be little more than suggestions for the guidance of. juries" and that all disputes~ whether. about land or anything else, will be submit ted to j~ries which will judge not only the facts,· but the,law~ the just)ce' of the law, its applicability to the given circum stances~land the penalty or damage to be inflicted.b~c:1us~ of its infra.ction.What.· better safeguard against. rigidity couid there b~ •.• than this? tcMachinery for altering" the law, •.in deed!.Why, under Anarchism the law will be so.flexible that itwilLspape itself to every emergency and need no alteration.