The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-08-26

ton to correct these excesSes, out every
attempt to fulfill this obligation without
abandoning the principle upon which gov
eminent is founded will prove a failure.
Can Satan exhort the devil? Every ~restric-
ton of freedom of trade is an abandonment
of the principle of individualism. For ten
years we have set national and State leg
islation in motion against the trust. and
It Is to-day stronger than ever. Why did
we not succeed? Because our country is
not prepared to depart from i~ndividualistic
principles. at least not sufficiently to fight
the trust. For the same reason there is
no probability that We will succeed in the
near future.
L cannot see how it can successfully be
denied that anarchism as a theory is the
logical sequence OF individualism as a
theory. If the principle is correct that
every individual has a right TO seek his
happiness according TO his own fashion.
government is indeed unnecessary, because
all the functions of government are exclu-
sively restrictive. If we do not drift toward
anarchism, it is because the principle of
individualism is wrong, and we apply the
principle OF socialism wherever individual
ism fails. Really, taking the word in its
broadest sense, the organization of govern
ment itself is a socialistic act. There is no
greater gulf imaginable than that between
anarchism and socialism. The Anarchist
is an individualist, and, if he hates So
ciety as it is constituted now, ii is because
individualism is not carried out to its
logical conclusions.
Every attempt to establish principles for
the practical application OF individualism
results in incomplete, illogical and unjust
precepts. showing merely that absolute in
~dividualism, which perhaps would be
equivalent to anarchism, is impossible. Ac-
cording to Herbert Spencer, the shining
light of individualism, the criterion of a
good law is that it provides the greatest
good for the greatest number. Is IL indi-
vidualism if a number, although the small
er one, is left out in the cold? The precept
may be sound philosophy from the stand
point of those who belong TO the larger
number, but those belonging 10 the smaller
number may form a different opinion about
it. Have they ceased to be individuals?
Who is to decide beforehand the effect of
the law? Those who make it or those who
will be affected by it? If those who make
it, is it probable that they will ever make
a law which would put them into the ranks
of the smaller number, provided the inten-
ton were really to do good to the greatest
number, which as a matter of fact is never
the case? Would their opinion as to the
effect of the law not be influenced at all
by their own interests? INC is it not vir-
tually the outcome Of our individualistic
institutions that the laws are made by the
few in the interest of the few? Practically
the precept means nothing else but that the
majority shall rule for good or bad. Ma
jority rule, however, is a concession to
socialism. 1t is necessary for the peace Of
society. and proves the impossibility of
carrying out individualism to its logical
conclusions.
1t is the same with the limitation of an
individuals liberty to the point where the
liberty of another may be infringed. Plac-
ing myself upon the standpoint of individu-
alism, of what concern is the liberty of
another to me? But must not the acting
CT everybody unconcernedly of the right
OF others lead to utmost confusion and
anarchy? Undoubtedly so. We have to put
a limit to the individuals freedom of ac-
ton for the sake of the peace of society,
and this is a concession to Socialism. The
Anarchist is the most logical individualist.
But man being a social being, the applica-
ton of individualism as a basis of govern
ment would long before this have resulted
in destruction and dissolution of society if
individualism had not been tempered with
Socialism.
1t sounds like a cry Of despair If the great
individualists, John Stuart Mill, says q
quote from memory: IF we had to choose
only between the chances and failures of
communism and the permanency of con-
ditions in which wages are paid in an in
verse ratio, the highest being paid to those
who do the highest and most agreeable
work and the lowest to those who do the
hardest and most loathsome work, and
the wages Of these being hardly enough to
afford them a most miserable existence,
communism with all it's wants, failures and
drawbacks would not weigh heavier than
dust in the scale"
Suppose one is convinced that the per-
manency of individualism would mean the
permanency of the condition described
here?
And Proudhon, unable to reconcile the
principle of individualism with the social
nature of man and the needs of society,
discovers a new principle which he calls
inuludHSm, Dut winch is nothing but q
counterfeit Of socialism, although a very
poor one. Mr.. Butler says:
1--WE also know, and is it openly admitted
by sentimental Socialists like Pearson and
Kidd, that the return of any society to
the methods of Socialism in the administra-
ton of its affairs would mean for it the
suppression of individualism, an arrested
development, stagnation and decay"
Do you know it? And who is We? / do
rot know it. And moreover, 1 should like
10 know how it is possible to know it.
Where. is the society which returned to the
methods of Socialism in the administration
Of it's affairs and in consequence thereof
showed suppression of individuality, ar
rested development, stagnation and decay?
Still more, what do We know about the
methods of Socialism? De we know that the
methods used by France in the revolution
airy period, that the methods described by
utopian Socialism. that the methods used
by those who foolishly organize communis-
tic communities in the midst of a world
which is governed by capitalism, will be
the methods of international universal So
C;oIiSon ubao oooa eSfa bliSbad Apd oro +ha