Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1886-02-14
4 NAUGHTY THING.
THE BOYCOTT AND PERSON.
Al LIBERTY.
Afraid of Being Let Alone Bourgeois
Riff Raft - Personal Liberty.
"She Must R00st Lower"
Don't Monkey With
The Boycott.

Certain persons of delicatcly bal
anCcd minds, indeed so nlccl y bal
anced that a feathers weight will
disturb their equilibrium, have of
late been greatly agitated, for fear
that the boycott might endanger the
happy-go-lucky and sheol-take-the-
hindmost reign of personal liberty.
We have observed that, as rule,
people who were by nature and edu-
cation most untitled to deal with any
given order Of facts, were usually the
most diligcnt in mouthing about it.
This is made painfully evident by
the lamentably puerile efforts Of a
particular lecturer on "Social Sci
ence," and who, just at present, has
the ear of that ritf-ratf OF Gods crea-
lures, the ''bourgeoisie." Such
people are continually prating about
law. Yet, owing to native llmlta-
tions and improper mental training,
have no adequate conception OF the
term.
But to return to the matter Of the
boycott and it's unwholesome effects
on personal liberty. We would say
in the first place, that the boycott is
the moral weapon of the many, weak
individually, but strong collectively,
against the brutal tyranny of the
powerful few. If, as a result of this
moral warfare, the personal liberty
of the plutocracy and their lick-splt-
tie advocates is abridged, and in con-
sequence the life of the great mass OF
humanity is expanded, what son Of
Belial will dare stand up and say:
"this is an evil thing?"
And what, forsooth, is personal
liberty that we should be so careful
of her welfare?
Our anarchist friends assert, that
''liberty is the mother of order" In
that case we must look for order in
the society which existed (?) when
each and every man was a claw unto
himself, and consequently. a cut
throat, whenever Xigencles arose
which threatened his supremacy as
the main factor in the universe.
Heaven help this imbecile phlloso-
ply.
Persons addicted to this intempcr-
ate, and therefore silly view Of things,
whether they be late arrivals from
liberty-crowned Russia, or have for
some time past engaged the ample
ness, fguratively speaking, of the
chair of social science in any Of the
learned institutions known as uni
versities, should be little more
modest in their assertion, for it is
barely possible that, after all, they
may not be quite right; that is, they
haven't "got down to hard-pan."
1t seems to us, that some one may
pertinently object, that we are wan
dering from the subject, namely:
the boycott and its relation to per-
sonal liberty. 1t was stated that
some persons objected to the boycott,
as at present in vogue, because it re-
stricted personal liberty.
TO do as you please within certain
badly defined limits, is what these
persons joy in.
Exactly.
They are perfectly willing to sup
port boycott so conducted that no
ones feelings will be the least bit
ruffled, for of course, in that case
the personal liberty of some one
would kbe invaded, even though it
might result in that the cry of the
hungry would be stilled and the bur-
dens of the sorely Oppressed be light
ened; but surely this is of little mo-
ment. when compared to the djreful
calamity of some ones feelings being
hurt-of infringing on personal lib
ertv.
No, say these lovers of science (:)
and liberty, it is true there is great
suffering owing to the unequal dis
trihntion of the ssoood gifts of God''