Workmen's advocate., 1889-11-30
Indiyidualistic Logic.
StonebOro. Pa
To the Uorkmen'S .4drocdte:

must be allowed to criticize lndi- viduali5ts so long as they misrepresent Colectivism. What motive can men have in writing the following:-
 socialism, or all law and force, would entirely merge the individual into the social body, "-Natioldi Economist.
 "* Looking Backward and the DalcH which as everybody ought to know have no other rd3Son de}re and no other mission than the total abolition of political and social liberty. "-Boston Liberty.
 "To suppose that our fellow citizens at Washington, with no immediate stake in our City and town, would ad' minister onr affairs better than do our own fellow citizens at home This is the utter fallacy which lies at the bottom of Nationalism and socialism. Cor respondent Mdiridualist,
 "State Socialism, that theory of paternalism wherein the government attends to all businesses and industries, and forCibly extracts given amount of labor from each individual in short, where the government controls and manipulates eUerythatq. < The social l ism of which l speak makes the indi- vidual an af CT consideration. 1t assumes l that he was created for the benefit of society and when it becomes evident, that he will not conform to the rules and customs of society, it is the duty of the latter to coerce him into submission" Corr. IadiUidudI{St.
 "The only difference between Social ism and Anarchism is, that under the former men would be t0rced to cooper ate by majority rule, and under the latter they would be tempted to CO., perate by common sense. ."-1Wentieth Century.
 None of the gentlemen offers an item of proof. The only place they could search for valid proof would be the platforms of Socialists, where they would lind that the party reasserts the inalienable right of all men to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Instead of the individual being secondary, "the purpose of government IS to secure every citizen Ill the enjoyment of this right" Demand 8, Municipal self-govern- ment," destroys the ailusion to Wash ington.
 So busy are these writers refuting their own inventions that they find no time to discuss the real issue, which is: Whether there be any essentially public institutions and what shall be treated as such or whether du affairs be left to personal control or combined control of men acting independently of public direction.
 A great lack of fixed principle is found among InGividualists. One condemns all law and aliexecutions; another wants enough law to restrain acts which the first does not want restrained; one trusts to Nature wholly, another not at all. Some time ago Liberty said:
 Anarchists are not trying to set up system. Nature has provided the system in the very integral order of things, if only the grip of authority can be loOsened from human concerns
 The editor takes a vacation and his substitute now teaches (but not in Libe1fyD:
 Anarchists discard the simple faith in Nature, and hold that civilization with all its beauties and promises is the outcome of struggle for existence"
 To say that Anarchists believe in :" a natural order ill social affairs, which, if given free play, would enable society to dispense with all human legislation" " Is "utterly incorrect and absurd" MT. Pentecost, of the iWentieth Cen tury is involved ill the same difficulty, but he takes both sides. "Our funda- mental mistake Is that we do not trust | I, rnf, Il, trust Nature so implicitly as to suffer starvation and ostraclsm rather than use the slightest strategy to retain a position that yields lIylng; or curb the free speech that brings ruin to the reformer. The uan who keeps silent but furnishes money to the agltator is hardly honorable he should stand up boldly" Thus Mir. Pentecost's ideal is band of reformers without means, dropping into the grave one by one from want; their example and their preaching are to do the reforming.
 But later he says: For every indica- ton of intelligence in Nature can pro- duce as strong evidence of lunacy." He saw poor mans fourteen COWS killed by lightning aud failed to see any sense i'll that. Perhaps he would now permit strategy to the extent of a light ning-rod on the barn.
 Mir. PentecoSt treated Socialism very fairly at first, editorially and in lectures; now he has caught up with the rest and prattles habitually of "force," ''compul- sion," etc.
 I wonder how many Individualists hold on to certain piece of foolishness which passel muster as high-class phi losophy in the defunct Aiurm. If it were true it would justify all they say
 "Of all the modern delusions the ballot has certainly been the great est. In the first place it is founded