The Union daily times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1918-current, 1922-07-26

Man is not naturally an anarchist; +;
he is by nature the very opposite. Nor
is he by nature socialist He is
by nature opposed 20 socialism. An
archy knows no law-not even the
does recognize the law of ownership,
but it is collective ownership. Own
ership of property, the desire to call
thing his very own, is deeply i'm
bcdded in the heart of even child.
In the case of the child, so it is in
that of grown people, it may transpirc
that the idea of ownership, is domi-
mated by extreme selfshness. 1t is
pugnant, but the selfishness which
dominates it. If we take away the
desire to own, our whole civilization
would crumble. If nobody owned
house, lands, money or their equiva-
lent, human effort would cease and the
world drop ba:k into its savage state.
The loud mouthed anarchist, carrying
the torch to burn property Is not ex-
planned in his refusal to recognize the
right of the individual to hold prop
erty. He dreams of the day when he
himself will possess. 1t is because
others possess and he does not pos
sess, that he raves, and would pill
lage and burn. While burning tn.
home over the heads of others he is
dreaming of the day when he may own
house to cover his own head. The
anarchist desires to possess as wei.
as do other men. BY environment he
has been changed into beast. 1t did
rot take much to make him travel
in the course he chose. Men are by
nature brutal, sinful, lustful, haters
of law. Slowly through the centuries
civilization has been formulating the
rules of society. The rules are far
from perfect. hence open TO many crit
icisms. The anarchist, seeing the de-
fects, but refusing to see the great
basic principles taught by civilization,
raves and foams at the mouth anu
arises to destroy. Envy of Others,
who having Obeyed the laws of thrift
are possessed Of property while he is
owner of mo property, leads him 70
acts OF vlolencc-murder, arson There
- close relation between the word
"sln' and anarchy" The devil is an
anarchist. He rebels against author
ity. That is he would not live un
der the laws laid down for his life.
Sin is lawlessness in it's very essence.
Brute instructs, raw degeneracy pre-
walls in the heart of the anarchist.
Above all, he hates the law. He would
attempt to live without civil or moral
code. Just pure animal. But there
would be little to live upon in a world
without law. The anarchist differs |
very materially from the socialist. The
anarchist seeks to overthrow law. The |
socialist breaches law But the So
cIaiiSt would make the state every
thing and the individual nothing. He
would vest in the state practically all |
the property. He believes in collec-
tive ownership, not individual owner |
ship. Here he approaches, even if by
different route, the position of the
anarchist meet, two extremes have |
met. We are told that a straight line
extended in both directions to an in
finite length would finally meet. That
seems to us to be the case of the an.
archist and the socialist. The destruc-
ton resulting from the socialists
reign would be as fatal to civilization
as would that of the anarchist. For
human effort is largely the outcome of
the desire to possesses, to own. III
there be no individua! ownership there
would be little incentive to human eff
fort. To allow the state to usurp the
function of ownership is to take away
about the last force that impels men
to try to do and be. Hence both the
socialist and the anarchist lead us to
the abyss of destruction; one operat
ing through perverted law, the other
through the abolishing of all law.
Thinking upon these menaces to our