Resistance to Government

RESISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT In 1888 Mr. John Beverley Robinson (who just before his death in 1923 translated Proudhon's uGeneral Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century," published by Freedom Press, London) entered into a discussion with the editor of Liberty· on the question of non-resistance, which enabled Mr. Tucker to make clear the attitude of Anarchism· toward aggression and in its manner of treat ing aggressors: MR. ROBINSON says that the essence of government is com pulsion by violence. If it is, then of course Anarchists, al ways opposing government, must always oppose violence. But ~narchists do not so define government. To them the essence of government is invasion. From the standpoint of this definition, why should Anarchists, protesting against IN·DIVIDUA.L LIBERT··Y 37 invasion ~nd determined not to be invaded) not use violence :l~i~:t~f:*~dl~t~it;t~~o;i%~~~. shall seem·the~o~~ .Butitisnotthe most ,effective method, insists Mr. Rohin son; Uitdoes not accomplish its purpose." . Ah) .here weare on quite an()thergroun~. The' claim no longer is that it is necessarilyun ..Anarchisticto use violence, but that other influences.than •..•violence are '. more •potent· to .. overc.ome.inva siQflo< .E2tactly; •that is .t~egospel whi~h Liberty. has.always preac~ed. ," I have never said anything •to the ,contrary, and ¥~. ~obinson's criticism, so far as it lies in this direction, 'see111stom e 1na1a propos... His article <is prompted· by my ~fls'Wersto MrrBlodgett'in,Noo .115. . Mr.•.BIOdgett's q;ues· ti()ns ,were not as to what Anarchists would •find it best, to do, but as to' what their.A,narchistic doctrineJogically binds th~m todoandaY9id4oins... I confined my attention strictly toth,e tnafter in hand, 0tnitting. eJ{traneousmatters. · Mr.ltob~ in~on jSinot justifie~ ill. dr~'Wing inferences from my omissions, especially inferences that are antagonistic to my definite, assertions •~,t •. ~thertil11es.

Perhaps he will answer me, however) that there are certain Cit9\1mstances. under '\Vhich I thinkviolen~eadvisable. Stranted ;but~ according ,to his article, so does he. . These circutnstances, •however, he distinguishes from ,the social ••·state as>a state of .warfare. But so do I. Thefluestion cOmes -qpo£wnat you are. t?dowhen a tnall makes.[war upon 'you. Wardihimoff,saysMr. Itobinson, but do not attack him in ~\1rntopr,evellt a reEetitionofhis attack. As a general po1icy~ liagree;as arulew~thout. exceptions, 1 dissent. .,Suppose a 111antries to.knockme down.lwill.parry his blows for' awhile, m~anwhiletryin~t?dissuade.him. from his purpose. .But $1.lppose~e does not desist, and I have to take a train to r~ach the. bedside•of.m! ••.dying child.....• I straightway.knock 11i111 downiand. ,take ·the train. ..A.ndif ,afterwards he repeats ,his..atta<;¥.•.. again and again,.and •• thereb}7continually •takes.•. my titne<awayfrOm.the business of my life,l put him out of my way, in the most Clecentmannerpossible,but summarily-and forever. In, other words, it is foUy for people who desire to JiXe in society.to put up. with theinvasionsof the incorrigible.

"Whiphdo~s •. notalte~ .'. the Jact that-withthecorrigibleitis,.':not .only gOod policy,. but ·.inaccordance· with the. sentiments .. ()£ 38 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY highly-developed human beings, to .be as gentle and kind as possible. To describe such dealing with the incorrigible as the exer- . cise of Hour liberty to compel others" denotes an utter mis conception. It is simply the exercise of our liberty to keep others from compelling us. But who is to judge where invasion begins? asks Mr. Rob inson. Each for himself, and those to combine who agree, I answer. It will be perpetual w'ar, then? Not at all; a war of short duration, at the worst. I am well aware that there is a border-land between legitimate and invasive conduct o~er which there must be for a time more or less trouble. But it is ·an ever-decreasing margin. It has been narrowing ever since the idea of equal liberty :6.rst dawned upon the mind of man, and in proportion as this· idea becomes clearer and the new social conditions which it involves become real· will· it contract towards the geometrical conception of a line. And then the world will beat peace. Meanwhile, if the pickpocket continues his objeotionable business, it will not be because of any such reasoning as Mr. Robinson puts into his mouth.

He may so reason, but as a matter of fact he never does. Or, if he does, he is an exceptional pickpocket. The normal pickpocket has no idea of equal liberty. Whenever the idea dawns upon him, he will begin to feel a desire for its reali zation and to acquire a knowledge of what equal liberty is. Then he will see that it is exclusive of pocket-picking. And so with the people who hanged the Chicago martyrs. I have never blamed them in the. usual sense of the word blame. I charge them with committing gross outrage upon the principle of equal liberty, but not with knowing what they did. When they become Anarchists, they will realize what they did, and will do so no more. To this end my comrades and I are trying to enlighten them concerning the principle of equal liberty. But we shall fail if. we obscure the principle by denying or concealing the lengths to which, in case of need, it allows us to go lest people of tender sensibilities may infer· that we are in favor of always going to such lengths, regardless of circum stances.

While I should like .to see the line between liperty ana aggression drawn with scientific exactness, I cannot admit that INDIVIDUAL LI.BER TY 39 such rigor of definition is essential to' the realization of Anarchjsm. If,· in spite of. the lack of such .a, definition, the. history'ofliberty has been, asMr~Robinson truly says; U a\ .record of the continual widenIng of this limit," there is no reason why this widening. process should not go on until An... archy becomes a fact. It is perfectly thinkable that, after the last inch of· debatable ground' shall have heenadjudged to one side or the other, it may still be found impossible to scientific ally formulate the rule by which this decision and itsprede ... cessorswere arrived at. The chief influence in narrowing the strip. of· debatable .land is not so.much the increa.sing exactness of-the knowledge of what constitutes .aggression as the growing conception that aggression is an evil to be avoided and that liberty is the con dition of progress. The moment one abandons the idea that he was born to discover what is right and enforce it upon the' rest of the' world, .he hegins to· feel an· increasing disposition to let others alone and to refrain even from retaliation or resistance except/ in those. emergencies which immediately and impera tively .require· it. This remains true even if aggression be defined in. the extremely broad se~se of the infliction of pain; ''£orthe individual who traces. the connection between liberty and the.,general welfare, will be pained by few things so much as by the consciousness that his neighbors are curtailing their liberties out. of consideration for his. feelings, and such a J;Ilan will never say -,to·his neighbors, uThus far and no farther,"

until they commit acts of direct and indubitable interference andt~espass. The man who feels more pained at seeing his neighbor bathe naked than he would at· the knowledge that he 'refrained from doing so in-spite of ,his preference is invari ably the man who believes in aggression and, government as the hasis ofsociety and has not learned the lesson.that Uliherty is·.. the mother of order." I . This lesson, then, rather than an exact definition of aggres sion,· is the essential condition of the development of \Anar cbism~ Liberty has steadily taught this lesson, but has never professed an ability to define aggression,~ except in·a very -general way. We must trust to experience and_ theconclu siollstherefrom for the settlement of ~ all doubtful cases. is.for States and Churches, •I think ther~ is more founda tion·th~n. Mr. Robinson sees for the claim that they are.con40 INDIVIDU AL LIBERTY spiracies. Not that I fail to realize as fully as he that there are many good men in both whose intent is not at all to oppress or aggress. Doubtless there are many good and earnest priests whose sole 'aim is to teach religious truth as they see it and elevate human life, but has not Dr. McGlynn conclusively shown that the real power of control in the Church is always vested in an unscrupulous machine? That the State origi nated in aggression Herbert Spencer has proved. If it now pretends to exist for purposes of defence, it is because the advance of sociology has made such a pretence necessary to its preservation. Mistaking this pretense for reality, many good men enlist in the work of the State. But the fact re mains that the State exists mainly to do the will of capital and secure it all the privileges it demands, and I cannot see that the combinations of' capitalists who employ lobbyists to buy legislators deserve any milder title than ((conspirators," or that the term uconspiracy" inaccurately expresses the natureo£ their machine, the State. .

I think it accurate to say that Anarchism contemplates .anything and everything that does not contradict Anarchism. The writer whom Liberty criticised had virtually made it appear that police and jails do contradict Anarchism. Liberty ·simply denies this, and in that sense' contemplates police and jails. Of course it does not contemplate the compulsory sup port 'of such institutions by non-invasive persons. When I describe a man as an invader, I cast no reflec tion upon him; I simply state a fact. Nor do I assert for :a moment the moral inferiority of the invader's desire. I only ,declare the impossibility of simultaneously gratifying the in vader's desire to invade and my desire to be let alone. That these desires are morally equal I cheerfully admit, but they cannot be equally realized. Since one must be subordinated to the other, I naturally prefer the subordination of ~he in vader's, and am ready to cooperate with non-invasive persons to achieve that result. I am not wedded to the term ((justice,"

nor have I any objection to it. If Mr. Robinson doesn't like it, let us say u equalliberty" instead. Does he maintain that the use of force to secure equal libe'rty is precisely parallel to the use of force to destroy equal liberty? If so, I can only hope, for the sake of those who live in the houses which he INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 41 builds, that his appreciation 'of an angle is keener in architec ture than it is in sociology•. If the invader, instead of chaining me to a post, barri cades· the highway, do I any the less lose my liberty of loco motion?· Yet he has ceased to be violent. We obtain liberty, not.by the cessation of violence, but by the recognition, either voluntary or enforced, of equality of liberty. We are t9 establish the contrary by persistent inculcation of the. doctrine of equality of libertY', whereby·. :hn~lly the majority. will be made to see. in regard to existin,g for1!ls of invasion what they have already. been ma.deto see ·in regard to .. its obsolete forms,-nam~IY1' that. they are· not seeking equality of •liberty at all, but simply the·. subjection of .all others to themselves. Our sense of what constitutes invasion has. been acquired by experience. Additional experience is continually sharp~ning' that sen~e. Though we still draw the line by rule of thumb, weare 4rawingit more clearly every day. It woul9 be an advantage if we could frame a clear-cut generalization whereby to accelerate our progress. Butthough we have it nGt, we still progress.

Must I consent to be tra.mpled upon simply because no con tract has been .made? So the position· of the non-resistant is that, when nobody attacks him, he· won't resist. ttWe are all Socialists now," said some Englishman not long ago. Clearly we are all non-resist ants now, according to Mr.· Robinson. I know of no one who proposes to resist· when he isn't attacked, of· no one who pro poses to. enforce a •contract· which nobody desires· to violate. I tell Mr. Robinson, ·as I have told Mr.. Pentecost, that the be lievers in equal liberty ask pothingbetter than that an men should voluntarily act in accordance with the principle. But it is a melancholy fact .. that many men are not willing so to act. So far as our relations with such men are concerned, it is>not a matter of contract, but of force., Shall we consent to be ruled, or shall we refuse· to be ruled? If we consent, are 'we Anarchists? If we refuse, are we Archists? Thewhole question lies there, and Mr. Robinson fails to meet it.

The .chie£ difterencebetween passive resistance and non resistance is ,this: .passive resistance. is iregarded by its cham pions.. as· a·m.ere policy, while non-resistance is viewed by those 42 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y who favor it as a principle or· universal rule. Believers in passive resistance consider it as generally more effective than active resistance, but think that there are certain cases in which the opposite is true; believers in non-resistance con sider either that it is immoral to actively resist or else that it is always unwise to do so. Because violence, like every other policy, is advisable when it will accomplish the desired end and inadvisable when it will not. Anarchism .is philosophical, but i~ is not a system of philosophy. It is simply the fundamental principle in the science of political and social life. The believers in govern ment are not as easily to be satisfied as Mr. Robinson thinks; and it is well that they are not. The considerations upon which he relies may convince them that government does not exist to suppress robbery, but will not convince them that abolition of the State will obviate the necessity of dealing violently with the other and more ordinary kinds of govern ..

ment of which common robbery is one. For, even though they be led to admit that the disappearance of the robber State must eventually induce the disappearance of all other robbers, they will remember that effects, however certain, are not always immediate, and that, pending the consummation, there are often serious difficulties that must be confronted. If Mr. Robinson still maintains that doing violence to those who let us alone is precisely parallel to doing violence to those who assault us, lean only modestly hint once more that I have a better eye for an angle than he has. As long as nearly all people are agreed in their identification of the great majority of actions as harmonious with or counter to equal liberty, and as long as an increasing number of people are extending this agreement in identification over a still larger field of conduct, the definition of invasion as the infringement of equal liberty, far from being vain, will remain an important factor in political progress.

It seems that there are cases in which, according to Mr. Robinson, we· may resort to violence. It is now my turn to ask, Why? If he favors violence in one case, why not in all? I can see why, but not from his standpoint. For my part, I don't care a straw whether, when Mr. Robinson sees fit to use violence, he acts under protest or from principle. The main INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY 43 question is: Does he think it wise under some citcumst~nces to use violence, or is he so much ofa practical Archist that he would not save his child from otherwise inevitable murder by splitting open the murderer's head? LIBERTY AND ORGANIZATION Thirty-five yeats ago the Personal Rights Journal of London, at that time edited by J. H. Levy, was a valiant champion of what was then known as Individualism. This latter was practically Anarchism, but that fact. was not. realized by Levy,. Wordsworth Donisthorpeand other contributors to the columns of the Journal, which led to discussions between those gentlemen and the editor of·Liberty concerning Anarchism and organization, taxa tion, etc. Mr. Tucker's remarks are here set forth: Ni\.MES asid~, the thing that IndividuaHsmfavors is organi zation to· maintain· the widest liberty equally for all citizells.