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

recently published two articles in the Jour-
nal. the first Of which gave me occasion to
personally express TO Mr.. Butler my aston
ishment at the unusual amount of infor-
nation which he possessed on the subject
upon which he was writing. 1 cannot, how
ever. equally appreciate his reasoning in
the second of his articles. / write these
lines not for the purpose of entering into
n controversy with him. I only intend to
state another side Of the question. II l use.
nevertheless. some of his sentences as a
test, it is because a test serves well for a
starting point. Mr.. Butler closes his ar
ticles with the following words:
ut is a great mistake 10 think that the
struggle for liberty ceases when kings are
abolished. TIL struggle never ceases. Lib
erty would cease with the cessation or the
struggle for it. Arbitrary and ~tyranDical
power constantly manifests itself in new
and unexpected forms"
II is certainly true that the struggle for
liberty never ceases. But not only because
arbitrary and tyrannical power constantly
manifests itself in new and unexpected
forms, but because the conception Of liberty
changes. because what at one time was not
considered arbitrary and tyrannical. is con-
sidered so at a later period, and because the
standard of liberty constantly rises. For
instance. our courts consider the taking
of employment, no matter how dangerous it
is. a free and voluntary contract. because
the law compels nobody TO take or refuse
employment. The fact that poverty and
impossibility to find other employment COM
pei one to accept any kim Of employment,
is not considered by the courts at all. Ere
long we will in all probability have a high
er conception of liberty. and we will not
consider a man free who acts under the
%compuision of poverty and pressing need.
Can it really be said that that conception
of liberty which under our ndividualistic
system of government leaves every one free
to fight with every one else for his exist
ence 1--WE call it competition), is the highest
conception of liberty possible? May we not
at some time conceive that greater indi-
vidual liberty is possible when social ar
make man free from all the
cares, sorrows, struggles and uncertain
ties which now attend the gaining of a
livelihood? You may cite Proudhon or quote
Spencer or refer 10 Mill, the fact remains
that al individualistic philosophy treats
production and distribution, that is to say,
that part of human activity which is di-
rected toward subsistence, gain or profit, as
if il were the object of life and not only
a means 10 live.
Philosophy is very peculiar, and philoso-
piers are very often still more so. 1t
sometimes happens that philosophers cam
not see the forest on account of the trees.
Very frequently they see the phenomena
marking certain conditions, but see not and
cannot see the conditions themselves.
Hence the commonplace assertion that
social inequalities always existed. the in
timation that they are produced by the diff
ference of natural qualification, and that
consequently they will exist forever. In
the light of modern science and philosophy
it sounds not very progressive to affirm
that because something has been hereto
fore. it is bound TO be always hereafter.
This would not be necessary even if the
social inequalities were really caused by
nothing else than natural differences. 1t
seems TO me, however, that between the
son of a millionaire and the SON of a poor
day laborer there is from the start a diff
ference which is not caused by the differ
ence in natural qualifications. And it
seems to me. further, that between the
social inequalities of former times and
those of our times there is a great diff
ference. The social inequalities of former
times were caused by inequality before
the law, in our times the social Unequal
tiles are caused by our much-boasted of
equality before the law. The baron of
the manor and the poor serf had been
created by state authority; the coal baron,
the money king and the poor day laborer
are created by conditions as they have de-
veloped, not only under, but through our
so-called liberty. Inc abolition of ~inequal-
tiles Intentionally created or recognized by
the law of the land, and the abolition of in
CAPABILITIES arising from conditions, and en-
tirely contrary to the intention and the
spirit of the law are two absolutely diff
ferent problems.
Philosopher or no philosopher, the ma
jority Of men are conservative. First, it is
bon ton, and then 1t is much easier to be
conservative than to be radical. 1t requires
more knowledge and deeper understanding
to look into the future than to stick to the
present. 1t may happen that the greatest
mind lacks such knowledge and under
standing. The great Aristotle was unable
TO conceive of the possibility of the exist
ence of society without slavery, unless all
work could be performed by automatons.
nitHldl ldDOT DtlHS COHSluereQ degrading
by Grecian society, the great philosopher
could not imagine a society in which labor
was considered honorable. If such was the
case with Aristotle, / do not think 1 am
belittling Spencer or Mill if 1 express the
opinion that they were unable to tear
themselves from preconceived ideas.
1 admit, it is a puzzling phenomenon that
the effect of institutions, which we con-
slider to be free institutions, which many
are even inclined to believe to represent the
climax of freedom, is the arising of classes
which exercise arbitrary and tyrannical
power and of other classes which are prac-
tically slaves. But calling this phenomenon
excuses of individualism, neither explains
it nor does away with it. Mr.. Butler says:
"The principle of individualism has more
to fear from excuses that are committed
In its name" . II combinations of
men are formed which have for their pur-
pose the curtailment of that amount of
individual liberty which the government
was organized to secure, they are prac-
tically anarchistic. If they control the
markets and avenues of trade and manipu-
late them exclusively in their own inter
ests; If they forbid all competition with
themselves and inflict loss and ruin on
every man who engages in it: if they de-
Stroy the free agency of men in their legal
contracts with thair opoplouorc ord tbos.