Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1897-01-12
SPIRIT OF JEFFERSON.
TUESDAY MORNING. JANUARY Ia. 1897.
TheMillionaire to the Anarchist.

In Ine New 10TH JOuTHai VI OC
cember "a Herr Most tells why oul
pIutocrats should be anarchists anc
millionaire Charles Broadway Rous:
replies in denial of Herr Most;
propositions. Anarchist Most says,
'sWe anarchists struggle to develop
individual liberty in the highest
sense:" and millionaire Rouss says,
"your whole policy is one of fault
finding, pulling down and destruc-
tion.''. The following is the able
letter of Mr.. Rouss:
To John Most
While 1 do not consider myself
called upon to accept the challenge
for public discussion with any and
all who may choose to rush into
print at pleasure, however promi-
nent they may be in the cause they
represent, yet there are one or two
thoughts which suggest themselves to
me in connection with the subject
matter of your letter which it may
not be Improbable to present.
You say 1--WE anarchists struggle
for the attainment of a society in
which it is possible 10 develop indi-
vidual liberty in the highest degree" "
You say this as though the object was
new 10 humanity and born of anar-
chistic wisdom. If you had read
Alright the history of the Colonial
revolution of 1776 you would have
been saved the necessity for such
struggle, for this struggle was surely
made by the patriots of that memoir
able period. And the Constitution
they brought forth as surely embod
les, not only the proof of this fact,
but also the evidence that that strug-
gle was not in vain.
Nor is it extravagant to affirm
that it is beyond the power of human
to construct docum ent
which would more thoroughly and
present and protect the
very principles of personal liberty
which you announce. The vital es-
seDce and salient feature of that
Constitution are tIat the Individual
was to be free to work out his own
destiny--free from both individual
and government Interference.
For this great boon which had thus
been guaranteed TO him by suprem-
est law, he was only obligated, in its
not TO encroach upon
either individual or government
is, upon society rights.
In other words that constitution
means that government should be
simply and only
First-To protect the life of the
individual.
Second-To protect the personal
liberty of the individual.
Third-Not to help the individual
to make property, but to secure to
him its possession when he by his
own exertion had earned it.
If individual liberty of greatest
attainment is not possible under the
government formula laid down in the
Constitution of the United States,
then verify there cannat be any hope
for it under any conditions of hu-
manity and civilization. 1t is DOOM
ed beyond anarchistic or any other
remedial device. Why do l say this ?
Because the individual cannot attain
his highest possibilities without pro-
tective law; not of law which would
aid him, by its positive act, 10 de-
velop himself, but that guardianship
of law which guarantees to him pos
session of that which he had acquired
by honest effort, and which protect
ed him against the unjust interfer-
ance of other individuals.
There is nothing practical in your
propositions. You deal only in com
planning geDeralities, unaccompaDied
by any formulated solution of the
difficulties involved. Your whole
policy is one of fauIt-finding pulling
down and destruction. You offer no
systematic, workable plan of relief
from the social calamIties which you
assert exist. You say you want no
State, no officials. What is State
Is it not organized society; and if
this be true, must there not be Off
ciaIs or designated authority some
where to manage It? What are you
hut an official in your organization
If you and your disciples could sue
ceed in thrustiDg your views upon
mankind it would surely be only
through organization, and you would
then, perhaps, be its head official,
or the head officer of your State
Our Republic is simply social en-
tity, Or society of fraternity vitalizeC
by organization. This is all there il
in it of State and "officiaIism.
Let us then not quibble about dis
tinctions which mean no difference.
The difference between US is tha
/ am in favor of respecting and oh
serving the laws which the peopl
have made, and if they need amend
ing, to do this through prescribe,
forms of law; while you ard you
disciples favor disregard of the pee
ple's laws, preferring devices c
your own and then becoming di:
turbers of public peace whenere
your voice can be heard. L recog
nize the wholesome energizing Law {
competition, which enables the poo
man of to-day to become the rlc
man of tomorrow. You PRACTICAL
repudiate the great natural law Q
mpetition-without which there
no incentiue to effort, no promise
;n,t rauord and-DOOliDQ th