Industrial freedom. [volume] (Edison, Wash.) 1898-1???, 1898-09-10
The Sphere of do as You Please"
In Socialism.

abolished MARRIAGE"
Now Equality colony and the colo
mics generally of the B c c are design
ed as practical Illustrations what?
OF new theories in theology? OF new
theories in dietetics? OF new notions
in family or domestic morals? Not
at all. The b G c is based on the
ethics of industrial socialism, it pre-
sents a reform in economics, and not
in religion, or in diet. or in dress, or
in literature: it is designed to afford
object-lessons in the way of the peo-
pies trust, municipal ownership, pop
ular capitalization. the conducting of
the peoples business by the new firm,
I'VE, the people, every member of
the whole community being an equal
partner in the business. an equal shar-
erin the profits and loss. In the sphere
of industry, the individual is, in our
ideal community, subject to the whole
body of the people: the individual is
controlled by the commonwealth, and
competition and individualism and all
theories of laissez-faire and might
is right are barred out and banished.
The freedom of action of the individ-
ual is, everywhere in this sphere of
socialized industry and economics,
| looked at in relation to its effect upon
the welfare of the whole people: and
hence the monopolization by any
person of any of the factors or ele-
ments of economic or industrial civil
lization is prohibited and prevented.
So much for the action of socialism
in the sphere of the ethics of industry
and political economy. But does So
cialism operate in this same regulat-
ing and restraining manner in other
spheres of civilized life? BY no means
There is large portion of conduct in
which the liberty of the individual
suffers no abatement, save what flows
from the rule mot strictly applicable
in the sphere of industry or econom-
iCs) that each is free to do or to be
what he wills, so long as he trenches
not on the equal freedom of others.
In matters of diet, in matters of
apparel, in things religious or ecclesi-
astic, III ideals esthetic or literary, we
pursue at Equality and in other CO.
operative colonies of this kind. the
laissez-faire or individualistic doc
6 trine. and we aim and should aim t.
infringe not on the affairs of our fel.
, low workers. so long as their bushes,
, is not forced upon Us and upon our in,
. terests in such manner d to partakt
of the nature of our own business
Nuisances of a public nature are
] always subject to abatement by those
whom they annoy. be it in a socialist
community or be it in an individuals
istic community: and public sentiment
in the cooperative commonwealth i
peculiarly potent in putting down
, public infringements or private in.
Engagements upon the equal freedom
= of all. But if some of the community
are advanced in dietary doctrines
! that they shun the use of certain
foods, the liberty of these reformers
= to practice their principles shall in no
: wise be diminished: and the freedom,
; on the other hand. OF those who OPP
pose these dietetic innovations is al
ways so large that never would they
/, be obliged or constrained in any man.
ner to practice what somebody else
breaches. In like manner the close
communicate inrelig ion isnot obliged
to surrender his ideals to the open-com-
munionist, nor is the high-churCh
member perfOrce TO come down to the
level of the low-churchman, nor is the
soft-shelled religionist obliged to UNI
dergO the same variations in theo-
logic temperature and meteorology as
does his hard-shelled co-labOrer. If
can't for that reason sue out an iniunc-
tion against his comrades devotion
to blue. nor his brothers supreme ado
ration of green; if one member is so
frail as to long for the luxury of starch
ed linen, there still exists no reason in
socialism why his neighbor should not
indulge in a fancy IF not TOO extra
ordinary for neglige or deshabille.
If, again, amember persists inprefer-
ring Marie Corelli to George Eliot,
and f. p. Roe to f.. \, Poe, and Hall
Caine to Thomas Hardy. and the Rev
| Dewitt Talmage as a tinselled and
agile rhetoricianl to Col. Bob Inger-
soil i'm the same role. or even. let us
say, Edward Bellamy to John Ruskin
while, especially in the first mem
toned contingencies. the depravity
of taste is probably deplorable, yet
the case is clearly one that falls with
in the sphere of laissezfaire or of
there's no accounting for taste" nor
interfering with it,
In things essential, unity. i'm thing,
ldonbtft1l lfbertN..iu al tliuu~ charity