Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1888-01-28

|
ton, the destruction of free competition,
compulsory cooperation, monopoly by
government OF Natures bounties' etc.
Now, Fenwick, if also may be al
lowed to ask a question or two should
like to know how YOU came to associate
such ugly Wolds as "compulsion' and
monopoly with Slate Socialism. And
should like, further, to know how the
people can cOlHHtdHiy compel themselves
to cooperate, and how the aggregate
population mutually cooperating can be
understood to monopOliZe Natures boun-
ties?
will leave "Fenwick to answer these
questions himself, merely begging him
to observe that State Socialistic regime
would be a r0luHtaly association OF the
whole people evolved from existing frag
mentary economic and social forms by
the natural law Of causation
The Goulds, etc, are men who have
taken advantage of privileges extended
by governments. Privilege is the maker
Of monopoly" etc. Indeed! But if you
want to abolish privilege, why not 90 to
the root of the evil, since government,
as you understand the word, is only its
secondary cause, having itself been
evolved by the "free competitions of
individual ambitions struggling for pow
er and its spoils. Hence, if YOU merely
abolish government while you leave its
cause intact how long will it be before
Gould q Co. evolve another more de-
structive Of liberty than the first? No,
"Fenwick,' | am afraid that SO long as
there are thieves we must needs have
locks, not quite seeing our way to con-
iiding our liberties to free competition"
and its ''ghouls."
"Fenwick" then goes on to inform lis
that the cooperation Of a number of
persons on the mutual plan is not
slavery, but is liberty III every way"
Precisely So but why then do you still
persist in arguing that an extension of
the same mutually embracing the whole
people involves a sacrifice Of liberty?
Further we are told that SEQ operation
to work mines, etc, when mutual, Is a
different thing from State Socialism"
Not at all! The difference is merely one
of degree, not of kind. If cooperation
is good for two or two hundred or two
millions, why should it not be extended
to all, if the benefit is found to be com
menSurate?
"Fenwick" emphasizes the word mt
tual," apparently implying that mutual
ity is antagonistic to Socialism! Why,
mutually is the very soul Of society;
eliminate it and Society becomes a mass
of antagonistc individuals tending to
exterminate each other by ''free compe-
tition.' Surely orr friend finds it hard
to keep the track of consistency with
such a team as mutual cooperation"
and free competition "a queer pair of
animals, these. Let him keep an eye on
them and look out for the ditch.
"Governmeat is a word which seems
to have fatal effect upon "Fenwick's"
peace of mind. and the thing so signilied
he is anxious to see abolished Now, if
he merely refers to existing forms of
government am with him entirely; but
if he thinks that government of any
kind can be absolutely dispensed with,
he is to my mind grossly mistaken.
Roughly defined, government is the
method by which the State or aggregate
of individuals adjusts collective acts to
collective ends, and 50 long as men are
unequal physically, intellectually, and
morally, government, under one form or
another, must exist. To illustrate, in
the simplest form: Suppose the aggre-
gate reduced to two individuals, and to
simplify still further, suppose these two
to be equal physically and morally, but
unequal intellectually; say they co-ope-
rate as Robinson Crusoe and Friday CO.
operated mutually to secure the means
of life with the least possible eXpendi-
ture of labor and energy, thus increasing
their Joint volume OF happiness much
more etfectually than if each had lived
upon a little ''individuaF' island Of his
own. Now, in the adjustment of their
joint acts to their joint ends Intelligence
must necessarily be the gorerniHg factor.
Whose intelligence, then, shall it be?
Who shall lead and direct: The man of
greater mental capacity or the man Of
more limited knowledge? Natural Sc
lection points out the man of superior
ability and elects him governor by the
assent of the inferior, tacit or expressed.
But does the man of inferior intellectual
gifts surrender his liberty by 50 assent
ing No; because he is convinced that
in their joint action the superior knowl-
edge of his co-partner will pursue the
line of least resistance, and thus increase
his opportunities of happiness and hence
of liberty" If thus the factor OF gov
eminent is necessarily present where the
individuals, means and ends are SO few
and simple, how eliminate it where they
are milhonfold in number and com
plexityt ....
To say that government under am
form will always be oppressive because
the lust OF power and the greed of gold
has hitherto mostly been coupled with
superior abilities, is equally to argue that