Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1888-08-11


swer thereof. 1t Is one, however,
that is asked by awakening minds"
and is patiently answered;
"Suppose that in anarchy a ma
jority of city residents pave a street,
on which other residents, not shar-
ers of the cost, choose to travel.
These latter wear out pavements
they have not paid for, and so de-
stroy without compensation and get
something for nothing, which is in
justice. You will be obliged either
to forbid these non-co-operators to
travel your streets, or you must tax
them with a share of the cost"
Answer: "Neither. One of the
most fundamental rights is the right
Of free travel, in any direction, and
with as much directness as is reason
able and consistent with the neces-
sary occupancy and cultivation of
the major part Of the earth's sur
face. The public streets do not be-
long to any one man; neither are
they the communistic property Of
all; they are like the wilderness, un-
possessed except at the moment of
using. If | lay book down in the
street | may 90 and recover it, for it
is my property; but if the foot of a
pedestrian has defaced it, | can call
for no compensation, for the road is
for travel, and everything in it may
be travelled on; nevertheless, on the
other hand, if | fell a tree into the
street | may be compelled to remove
it and pay all damages, for the road
is for travel, and must not be OBJ
structed. If lay a paving stone in
the street instead of book it is with
it as with the book; any one who
goes that way may travel on it, for
the road is for travel. | may put
what please in the street at my
own cost, for the road being no.
body's is as much mine as anybody's;
but anybody may travel on what |
put there, for the road was left to
promote the liberty of travel, and to
make any man pay for improvements
made in the road before anybody
can travel is to obstruct the liberty
of travels to be an invader. How
belt may make private roads, COM
peting with but not obstructing the
public roads, as many as | please,
and take toll from all willing to pay
| it,"
The above answer is not satisfac-
tory to me, a State Socialist. 1t is a
fatal weakness for an individualist
to recognize any institution as essen
italy public. If he makes such ad-
missions he has no issue with the
State Socialist except in regard to
the number of institutions that are
necessarily public property. He
speaks Of the "pubIic road as a
thing settled beyond controversy
Should not q railroad also be pub
lie: How about telegraphs, canals,
etc: If these things are all alike
public, is not State administration
of them necessary; The indiyidu-
alst speaks of invasion as the only
crime, and proceeds to say what in
yaSion is, forgetting that differences
Of opinion may exist. For example,
IN the above quotation, to pereHt
any man from travelling a road which
he refuses to repair is called inya-
sion, while the State Socialist says
the traveller ls the invader, if he re-
fuses to pay tax S0merhere for roads;
that invasion can be defined only by
law, because there is no universal
definition.
If labor produces all wealth, are
not roads wealth: If wealth, are
they to be treated us the wilderness
If the product belongs to the pro-
Queer does the road not belong to
all as common property: Suppose
no one chooses to put paving stone
where it is needed and the street be.
comes impossible, how about the
right of uninterrupted travel of
those who elsewhere keep up theil
share of road How can | be COM
PEELED to remove an obstruction
placed by me if s" may put what
please in the street at my own cost: =
! fell a tree in the street and escape
arrest. have done the act at my
own cost, but the cost is nothing
therefore | have done no wrong, &C