Page:Pacific Monthly volumes 9 and 10.djvu/68



48

law of landholding survives today and gives a man legal title to these natural deposits or growths, there is an instinc- tive feeling that there is something wrong with a legal theory which permits the man on the spot, or with the ready money, to buy up and mo- nopolize the necessary natural gifts of the earth, even against those who at the time were unborn and had no possi- ble equality of opportunity: permits him for a few dollars an acre to clap his paper title upon all the coal, or iron, or oil, or timber he can find and lay it away idle, neither using it himself nor permitting others to use it till in th-; lapse of years he sees fit to do so.

There is no just condemnation to be made of the man who does this. The law exists, and while it exists any man may avail himself of it. For one to re- frain because he thought it wrong to lock up and monopolize these natural deposits would be useless. Though personally I believe the system of land liolding today to be very primitive and erroneous, I would not hesitate to take advantage of it myself.

Society must change the law, not abuse the men who grow rich under the law as it exists. Whatever changes come must take one of two directionr>, either toward socialism or toward an- archy. There is no other movement possible. Socialism means individual- ity surrendered so far as may be neces- sary to make the government master of all and owner of all for the common benefit. It is in short the very extreme of government. The Government is all in all. Anarchy is the exact opposite. It is the extreme of individualism. Its doctrine is the least government possi- ble. The individual is all in all.

Certain ill-balanced or uncontrolled and ignorant people calling themselves Socialists or Anarchists, have resorted to violence and crime, and the words Socialist and Anarchist today mean to the popular mind only an assassin or a firebrand. But these are perversions of the terms. Socialism and Anarchy are well recognized philosophic theor- ies of government, and in neither is there the slightest excuse for violence. Both recognize that change can only come bv evolution, from discussion;

and a prime essential in the philosophy of Anarchy is that no force must be used either against the individual or by him, except in self-defense or for the protection of a recognized right.

In theory Thomas Jefferson was an Anarchist. Herbert Spencer is an An- archist. William Dean Howells is a Socialist.

The true Anarchists and Socialists are men high up in the scale in intellect and in Christian spirit. And in a rough sort of way, it may be said, true Repub- licans are Socialistic and true Demo- crats Anarchistic; the one party be- lieving in more and more government, a strong central government, a some- what paternal government, protecting industries out of the people's funds, etc. ; the other party believing in less and less government, the least govern- ment possible, consistent with peace and order — no paternalism, and the ex- treme of local self-government, or in dividualism.

I repeat that all changes must tend either toward Socialism or toward An- archism, for these are the two ex- tremes. I have said all changes we can perceive today are in the direction of Socialism, and it seems to be the next experiment in government the hu- man race is destined to see. But I be- lieve the final and higher and better tendency will be toward Anarchy — and if I could I would direct our growth in that direction.

Nothing is ever settled in this world till it is settled right, and the one "right" thing in man's progress seems to be Freedom. Study the institutions of mankind from the earliest dawn of history, and though the progress at any epoch has been as imperceptible as the flow of a glacier, we see it has been ir- resistibly toward Freedom.

Liberty of the individual seems to be the destiny of the race. Liberty of the individual seems to be our highest ideal and ultimate truth. Therefore I believe that through every experiment some- thing will be gained toward an almost perfect liberty of the individual, or an- archy. It is a very high ideal, a very high condition. We are not fitted for it today. It may be we shall not be fitted for it in a thousand vears. But