Individual Liberty

173 Pages·2014·0.68 MB·English

Individual Liberty
Benjamin Tucker
1926
Contents
Publisher’sNote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Editor’sForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sociology 7
I.StateSocialismandAnarchism:Howfartheyagree,andwhereintheydiffer. 8
Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
II.TheIndividual,Society,andtheState 20
TheRelationoftheStatetotheInvididual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Liberty’sDeclarationofPurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
AnarchismandtheState . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
ResistancetoGovernment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
LibertyandOrganization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
LibertyandTaxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
AnarchismandCrime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
LibertyandPolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
LibertyandProhibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
AnarchismandCapitalPunishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
LibertyandProperty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
AnarchismandForce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Methods 52
PassiveResistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
TheFutilityoftheBallot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
VoluntaryCooperationaRemedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Economics 58
I.MoneyandInterest 59
Capital,ProfitsandInterest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
FreeMoneyFirst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
FreeBanking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
TheAbolitionofInterest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
NecessityforaStandardofValue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
TheRedemptionofPaperMoney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
GovernmentandValue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
2
HenryGeorgeandInterest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
VariousMoneySchemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
II.LandAndRent 111
LandforthePeople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
EconomicRent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Liberty,Land,andLabor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
PropertyUnderAnarchism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
OccupancyandUseVersustheSingleTax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
GeorgeandtheSingleTax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Methods 146
RefusaltoPayRent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
III.TradeandIndustry 148
TheAttitudeofAnarchismTowardIndustrialCombinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
StrikesandForce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
LaboranditsPay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
ThePostOfficeandPrivateMailService . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
LibertyorAuthority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
LibertyandLabor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
CompetitionandCooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
LibertyandtheBoycott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
AnarchismandCopyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Bibliography 171
3
Publisher’s Note
C.L.S.,theeditorandcompilerofthisbook,hasknownBenjaminR.Tuckerpersonallysince1891,
having entered his employ at that time in the mechanical department of Liberty, Mr. Tucker’s jour-
nal for the exposition of Individualist Anarchism. After that time and until the final suspension of
publicationofLiberty,C.L.S.contributedmanyarticlestothecolumnsofthatperiodical,bothsigned
and unsigned, usually in the editorial department. For a considerable period he had complete edito-
rialcharge,duringMr.Tucker’sabsence.Thusthepresentworkhasbeenperformedbyonewhohas
entirefamiliaritywithLiberty’sphilosophyandwhoperhapsatpresenthasaclosersympathywith
Mr.Tucker’sideasthananyotherpersoninAmerica.
Mr.Tuckerhaswrittenthat“theeditoriswellchosen,andhisqualificationsforthejobundeniable.”
Hedoes,however,requestthatthevolumeshallbeprefacedbyastatementthathe,“whilegratefully
acknowledgingthegoodwillthathasinspiredthepublication,”hashadnohandintheworkofabridg-
ment,andthattheprojecthasbeenexecutedwithouthisexpresssanctionorapproval,althoughthe
publisher’sactionis“abovereproach.”
In justice to Mr. Tucker, however, it should be stated that he emphatically protested against the
elimination of the words of his opponents in the controversies, since he had always been scrupu-
louslyexactinpresentingtheirideasinfull;butthelimitedscopeofthisvolumemadesuchomission
imperative.
A word as to the title of this book. Tucker’s life work is devoted to the exposition of the rights of
the Individual. As a title for the journal which he used as a medium of expression for thirty years,
he chose Liberty . It seems fitting that these two words, standing as they do for the highest aspira-
tionsofmankind,shouldbejoinedtogetherinatitleforthiscompilationofTucker’slibertarianand,
anarchisticteachings.
Editor’s Foreword
For a number of years practically all of the literature of Individualist Anarchism has been out of
print. The great bulk of whatever matter there was had, of course, been in the hands of Benjamin R.
Tucker,andupto1908itwasbeingconstantlyaugmentedbyhim.Butwhen,inJanuaryofthatyear,
his entire wholesale stock of publications, manuscripts, etc., and nearly all of his plates were wiped
out by fire, the loss was irreparable, and little attempt has been made to replace any of the material
destroyed.
ThedemandforsomethingrepresentativeofIndividualistAnarchismhasbecomesoinsistentthat
ithasbeendeterminedtoproduceatleastonevolumeofthebestmatteravailable,andinthatvolume
toattempttocoverthewholesubject.
ThenearestthatanybookevercametoansweringthatdescriptionisTucker’s“InsteadofaBook”,
firstpublishedin1893,culledfromhiswritingsinhisperiodical,Liberty,andoutofprintsince1908.
This closely printed volume of nearly 500 pages was composed of questions and criticisms by his
correspondentsandbywritersinotherperiodicals,allansweredbytheeditorofLiberty inthatkeen,
clear-cutstylethatwasthedelightofhisadherentsandthedespairofhisopponents.
In casting about for material for the proposed volume, therefore, no other writings than those of
Benjamin R. Tucker could for a moment be considered, and it is no exaggeration to say that they
standhighaboveeverythingelsethathasbeenwrittenonthesubject,notevenexceptingtheworks
4
ofJosiahWarren,Proudhon,andLysanderSpooner,orofanyotherpersonwhohaseverattempted
toexpoundtheprinciplesofIndividualistAnarchism.
Mr.Tuckerisaneducatedandculturedman.Hisliterarystyleisbothfluentandelegant,hisstate-
mentsconciseandaccurate,hisargumentslogicalandconvincing,andhisrepliesterseyetcourteous.
Thereaderisneveratalosstoknowwhathemeans.Thereisnotawordtoomuchortoolittle.Every
sentenceisroundedandcomplete—notaredundantsyllableoramissingpunctuationmark.Whathe
writesisajoytoread,evenwhenthereaderhimselfisthevictimofhiswitheringsarcasmorcaustic
satire.
AbriefresumeofMr.Tucker’slifewillservetoindicatethebackgroundofhisremarkableperson-
ality. He was born in South Dartmouth, Massachusetts, April 17, 1854, the son of Abner R. Tucker,
owner and outfitter of whale ships and later a grocer in New Bedford. His mother was Caroline A.
Cummings,hisfather’ssecondwife,andBenjaminwastheironlychild.ThefatherwasofQuakerpar-
entsandthemotherwasaUnitarian,andanable,progressiveandradicalwoman,herfatherhaving
beenapronouncedadmirerofThomasPaine.
AttwoyearsTuckerwasreadingEnglishfluentlyandatfourgleefullydiscoveredthattheEpiscopal
PrayerBookhadmisquotedtheBible.AtsixteenhehadfinishedthecourseattheFriends’Academy,
and, while at first refusing to go to any college, he finally spent two years at the Massachusetts In-
stituteofTechnology(Boston).AfterhearingJosiahWarrenspeakandCol.WilliamB.Greenequote
Proudhon at a convention of the New England Labor Reform League in Boston in 1872, he soon be-
cameanAnarchistandtranslatedProudhon’s“WhatIsProperty?”fromtheFrench.In1877heedited
The Word in Princeton, Massachusetts, while its editor, Ezra H. Heywood, was in prison. In 1878 he
estabIishedandconductedforayearTheRadicalReview inNewBedford.Inthesameyearhejoined
theeditorialstaffoftheBostonDailyGlobe,remainingforelevenyears.
In 1881 he founded Liberty, which he continued to publish, with some irregularity and several
suspensions,until1908,thelastissueappearinginAprilofthatyear,afewmonthsafterthedisastrous
fire. In 1892, when he assumed editorial duties on The Engineering Magazine, he removed Liberty to
York, where it was published until its final suspension. Since that time Tucker has been living in
France.
“InsteadofaBook”wasdeemedunsuitableforreproductioninitspresentformbecauseitcontains
so many articles dealing with local and current events. It was decided that Individualist Anarchism
couldbetterbeexpoundedbypresentingthewordsofMr.Tuckeralone,eliminatingthevoluminous,
lettersofhiscorrespondentsandmanymoreorlesspersonalmattersthatcreptintothediscussions,
withjustenoughexplanatorymatterwrittenbytheeditortoindicatewhatdrewforththearguments
advanced by Liberty’s editor and to connect up the loose ends. In many cases Mr. Tucker has so
carefullyrestatedthepositionofhisadversarythatithasbeenunnecessaryfortheeditortorepeatit.
Thecompilerhasthereforemereiyattemptedtoweldtogetherthedifferentsectionsandweavethe
various articles into a more or less continuous whole. The task has proved to be diffcult beyond all
preconception, and that it has been performed with complete success it would be presumptuous to
assert.
In Mr. Tucker’s controversies with his correspondents and others, occasional allusions to persons
and matters not involved in the discussion have entered. These, while perfectly pertinent wben his
opponents’remarksweregiven,addlittletotheforceoftheargumentsfortheAnarchisticposition
whichitisthepurposeofthisvolumeexclusivelytosetforth,andtheyhavethereforegenerallybeen
excised,inspiteofthefactthattheyconstitutesomeofMr.Tucker’smostpungentwriting.
5
In some places this method of treatment has made it necessary to eliminate parts of paragraphs
and even parts of sentences. This elision has not been indicated by asterisks or otherwise, because
thefrequencyofsuchinstanceswouldhavemadethemattertoodisconnected;whilethemainobject
of this volume is to present, as nearly as possible, an unbroken exposition. It is considered that this
proceedingisentirelyunobjectionable,sincetheessentialargumentsarethusexpressedjustasclearly,
andofcoursemoreconcisely,thaninthecompleteoriginal.
“Instead of a Book” contained only material published in Liberty previous to 1893, so the columns
ofLiberty sincethatdatehavebeenresortedtoforsomeadditionalmaterial.
Theeditorwishestoacknowledgehisindebtednesstothosecomrades,allplumb-linersoftheperiod
when Liberty was the venerated medium for the exchange of their ideas, who have aided him, by
adviceandhardwork,inthepreparationofthisvolume,theindextheretohavingbeenpreparedby
thesamepersonwhoperformedthatservicefor“InsteadofaBook”.
C.L.S.
LosAngeles,California.
August,1926.
6
Sociology
7
I. State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they
agree, and wherein they differ.
This essay, which is the clearest statement on the subject that has ever been produced,
was written by Mr. Tucker in 1886, in response to an invitation from the editor of the
NorthAmericanReviewtofurnishhimapaperonAnarchism.Itwasaccepted,announced
for publication, and was paid for; but it was never printed in that magazine, and, after
numerous letters of inquiry had been sent, the manuscript was returned to the author,
althoughtheeditoroftheReviewvolunteeredthedeclarationthatitwastheablestarticle
that he had received during his editorship. It appeared as the leading article in “Instead
ofaBook,”and,afterfortyyears,itisstilleasilythemostimportantthinginthepresent
volume:
Probably no agitation has ever attained the magnitude, either in the number of its recruits or the
areaofitsinfluence,whichhasbeenattainedbyModernSocialism,andatthesametimebeensolittle
understoodandsomisunderstood,notonlybythehostileandtheindifferent,butbythefriendly,and
even by the great mass of its adherents themselves. This unfortunate and highly dangerous state of
things is due partly to the fact that the human relationships which this movement — if anything so
chaoticcanbecalledamovement—aimstotransform,involvenospecialclassorclasses,butliterally
allmankind;partlytothefactthattheserelationshipsareinfinitelymorevariedandcomplexintheir
naturethanthosewithwhichanyspecialreformhaseverbeencalledupontodeal;andpartlytothe
factthatthegreatmouldingforcesofsociety,thechannelsofinformationandenlightenment,arewell-
nighexclusivelyunderthecontrolofthosewhoseimmediatepecuniaryinterestsareantagonisticto
thebottomclaimofSocialismthatlaborshouldbeputinpossessionofitsown.
Almost the only persons who may be said to comprehend even approximately the significance,
principles, and purposes of Socialism are the chief leaders of the extreme wings of the Socialistic
forces,andperhapsafewofthemoneykingsthemselves.Itisasubjectofwhichithaslatelybecome
quite the fashion for preacher, professor, and penny-a-liner to treat, and, for the most part, woeful
worktheyhavemadewithit,excitingthederisionandpityofthosecompetenttojudge.Thatthose
prominent in the intermediate Socialistic divisions do not fully understand what they are about is
evident from the positions they occupy. If they did; if they were consistent, logical thinkers; if they
werewhattheFrenchcallconsequent men,—theirreasoningfacultieswouldlongsincehavedriven
themtooneextremeortheother.
For it is a curious fact that the two extremes of the vast army now under consideration, though
united, as has been hinted above, by the common claim that labor shall be put in possession of its
own,aremorediametricallyopposedtoeachotherintheirfundamentalprinciplesofsocialactionand
theirmethodsofreachingtheendsaimedatthaneitheristotheircommonenemy,theexistingsociety.
Theyarebasedontwoprinciplesthehistoryofwhoseconflictisalmostequivalenttothehistoryof
theworldsincemancameintoit;andallintermediateparties,includingthatoftheupholdersofthe
8
existing society, are based upon a compromise between them. It is clear, then, that any intelligent,
deep-rooted opposition to the prevailing order of things must come from one or the other of these
extremes,foranythingfromanyothersource,farfrombeingrevolutionaryincharacter,couldbeonly
in the nature of such superficial modification as would be utterly unable to concentrate upon itself
thedegreeofattentionandinterestnowbestoweduponModernSocialism.
ThetwoprinciplesreferredtoareAuthorityandLiberty,andthenamesofthetwoschoolsofSocial-
isticthoughtwhichfullyandunreservedlyrepresentoneortheotherofthemare,respectively,State
SocialismandAnarchism.Whosoknowswhatthesetwoschoolswantandhowtheyproposetoget
itunderstandstheSocialisticmovement.For,justasithasbeensaidthatthereisnohalf-wayhouse
betweenRomeandReason,soitmaybesaidthatthereisnohalf-wayhousebetweenStateSocialism
and Anarchism. There are, in fact, two currents steadily flowing from the center of the Socialistic
forces which are concentrating them on the left and on the right; and, if Socialism is to prevail, it is
amongthepossibilitiesthat,afterthismovementofseparationhasbeencompletedandtheexisting
order have been crushed out between the two camps, the ultimate and bitterer conflict will be still
tocome.Inthatcasealltheeight-hourmen,allthetrades-unionists,alltheKnightsofLabor,allthe
landnationalizationists,allthegreenbackers,and,inshort,allthemembersofthethousandandone
differentbattalionsbelongingtothegreatarmyofLabor,willhavedesertedtheiroldposts,and,these
being arrayed on the one side and the other, the great battle will begin. What a final victory for the
StateSocialistswillmean,andwhatafinalvictoryfortheAnarchistswillmean,itisthepurposeof
thispapertobrieflystate.
Todothisintelligently,however,Imustfirstdescribethegroundcommontoboth,thefeaturesthat
makeSocialistsofeachofthem.
TheeconomicprinciplesofModernSocialismarealogicaldeductionfromtheprinciplelaiddownby
AdamSmithintheearlychaptersofhis“WealthofNations,”—namely,thatlaboristhetruemeasureof
price.ButAdamSmith,afterstatingthisprinciplemostclearlyandconcisely,immediatelyabandoned
all further consideration of it to devote himself to showing what actually does measure price, and
how,therefore,wealthisatpresentdistributed.Sincehisdaynearlyallthepoliticaleconomistshave
followedhisexamplebyconfiningtheirfunctiontothedescriptionofsocietyasitis,initsindustrial
andcommercialphases.Socialism,onthecontrary,extendsitsfunctiontothedescriptionofsociety
asitshouldbe,andthediscoveryofthemeansofmakingitwhatitshouldbe.Halfacenturyormore
afterSmithenunciatedtheprincipleabovestated,Socialismpickeditupwherehehaddroppedit,and
infollowingittoitslogicalconclusions,madeitthebasisofaneweconomicphilosophy.
This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationali-
ties,inthreedifferentlanguages:JosiahWarren,anAmerican;PierreJ.Proudhon,aFrenchman;Karl
Marx, a German Jew. That Warren and Proudhon arrived at their conclusions singly and unaided is
certain;butwhetherMarxwasnotlargelyindebtedtoProudhonforhiseconomicideasisquestion-
able. However this may be, Marx’s presentation of the ideas was in so many respects peculiarly his
ownthatheisfairlyentitledtothecreditoforiginality.Thattheworkofthisinterestingtrioshould
have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and
thatthetimewasripeandtheconditionsfavorablefortheappearanceofthisnewschoolofthought.
Sofaraspriorityoftimeisconcerned,thecreditseemstobelongtoWarren,theAmerican,—afact
whichshouldbenotedbythestumporatorswhoaresofondofdeclaimingagainstSocialismasanim-
portedarticle.Ofthepurestrevolutionaryblood,too,thisWarren,forhedescendedfromtheWarren
whofellatBunkerHill.
9
FromSmith’sprinciplethatlaboristhetruemeasureofprice—or,asWarrenphrasedit,thatcost
istheproperlimitofprice—thesethreemenmadethefollowingdeductions:thatthenaturalwage
of labor is its product; that this wage, or product, is the only just source of income (leaving out, of
course,gift,inheritance,etc.);thatallwhoderiveincomefromanyothersourceabstractitdirectlyor
indirectlyfromthenaturalandjustwageoflabor;thatthisabstractingprocessgenerallytakesoneof
threeforms,—interest,rent,andprofit;thatthesethreeconstitutethetrinityofusury,andaresimply
different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor
whichhasalreadyreceiveditspayinfull,itsuseoughttobegratuitous,ontheprinciplethatlaboris
theonlybasisofprice;thatthelenderofcapitalisentitledtoitsreturnintact,andnothingmore;that
the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant
areabletoexactusuryfromlaborliesinthefactthattheyarebackedbylegalprivilege,ormonopoly;
andthattheonlywaytosecurelabortheenjoymentofitsentireproduct,ornaturalwage,istostrike
downmonopoly.
It must not be inferred that either Warren, Proudhon, or Marx used exactly this phraseology, or
followedexactlythislineofthought,butitindicatesdefinitelyenoughthefundamentalgroundtaken
byallthree,andtheirsubstantialthoughtuptothelimittowhichtheywentincommon.And,lestI
maybeaccusedofstatingthepositionsandargumentsofthesemenincorrectly,itmaybewelltosay
in advance that I have viewed them broadly,and that, for the purpose of sharp, vivid, and emphatic
comparisonandcontrast,Ihavetakenconsiderablelibertywiththeirthoughtbyrearrangingitinan
order,andofteninaphraseology,ofmyown,but,Iamsatisfied,without,insodoing,misrepresenting
theminanyessentialparticular.
It was at this point — the necessity of striking down monopoly — that came the parting of their
ways.Heretheroadforked.Theyfoundthattheymustturneithertotherightortotheleft,—follow
either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the
other.ThuswerebornStateSocialismandAnarchism.
First,then,StateSocialism,whichmaybedescribedasthedoctrinethatalltheaffairsofmenshould
bemanagedbythegovernment,regardlessofindividualchoice.
Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize
and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in
one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer,
farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and
allinstrumentsofproductionmustbewrestedfromindividualhands,andmadethepropertyofthe
collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of pro-
ducingthem.Amanmayownhisclothesandhisfood,butnotthesewing-machinewhichmakeshis
shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the
formerbelongstoindividuals,thelattertosociety.Societymustseizethecapitalwhichbelongstoit,
by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the
majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices
by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc.
The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official.
Everything must be done on the costprinciple,the people having no motiveto make a profitout of
themselves.Individualsnotbeingallowedtoowncapital,noonecanemployanother,orevenhimself.
Everymanwillbeawage-receiver,andtheStatetheonlywage-payer.Hewhowillnotworkforthe
Statemuststarve,or,morelikely,gotoprison.Allfreedomoftrademustdisappear.Competitionmust
10