It seems idle to deny it, and, in the event of denial, it would seem equally idle to argue it. No amount of evidence that human happiness has increased with human liberty would convince a man incapable of appreciating the value of liberty without reinforcement by induction. It would be but a poor apology for happiness that either factor alone could give, if it could not produce nor be accompanied by the other; but, on the whole, much liberty and little wealth would be preferable to much wealth and little liberty.
This being true, I have not begged the question and I have already established my case. Nothing is more needed to justify my Anarchistic creed. Even if some form of Archism could be devised that would create infinite wealth, and distribute it with perfect equity pardon the absurd hypothesis of a distribution of the infinite , still the fact that in itself it is a denial of the prime condition of happiness, would compel its rejection and the acceptance of its sole alternative, Anarchism.
It is enough for justification, but not enough for inspiration. The happiness possible in any society that does not improve upon the present in the matter of the distribution of wealth, can hardly be described as beatific. Now, Anarchism does promise both. In fact, it promises the second as the result of the first, and happiness as the result of both.
Will liberty abundantly produce and equitably distribute wealth? That is the remaining question to consider. And certainly it cannot be adequately treated in a single article in the Twentieth Century. A few generalizations are permissable [ sic ] at most. And if they are right, then, indeed, we are in a bad box, for we shall, in that case, never be able to get wealth without sacrificing liberty, and liberty we must have, whether or no.
But, luckily, they are not right. It is not competition, but monopoly, that deprives labor of its product. Wages, inheritance, gifts, and gambling aside, every process by which me acquire wealth, rests upon a monopoly, a prohibition, a denial of liberty. Interest and rent of buildings rest on the banking monopoly, the prohibition of competition in finance, the denial of the liberty to issue currency; ground rent rests on the land monopoly, the denial of the liberty to use vacant land; profits in excess of wages rest upon the tariff and patent monopolies, the prohibition or limitation of competition in the industries and arts.
There is but one exception, and that a comparatively trivial one; I refer to economic rent as distinguished from monopolistic rent. It probably will remain with us always. Complete liberty will very much lessen it; of that I have no doubt. But I do not ever expect it to ever reach the vanishing point to which Mr. At the worst, however, it will be a small matter, no more worth consideration in comparison with liberty than the slight disparity that will always exist in consequence of inequalities of skill.
Destroy the banking monopoly, establish freedom in finance, and down will go interest on money through the beneficent influence of competition.
Capital will be set free, business will flourish, new enterprises will start, labor will be in demand, and gradually the wages of labor will rise to a level with its product. And it is the same with the other monopolies. Abolish the tariffs, issue no patents[,] take down the bars from unoccupied land, and labor will straightway rush in and take possession of its own.
Then mankind will live in freedom and in comfort. And because anarchism will give this state of things, I am an Anarchist. To assert that it will is not to prove it; that I know. To show the invalidity of the claims of State Socialism, Nationalism, Communism, Single taxism, the prevailing capitalism, and all the numerous forms of Archism existing or proposed, is at the same blow to show the validity of the claims of Anarchism.
Archism once denied, only Anarchism can be affirmed. That is a matter of logic. Anarchism in Social and Political Philosophy. Social and Political Philosophy. Edit this record. Mark as duplicate. Find it on Scholar. Request removal from index. Revision history. Download options PhilArchive copy. Only published works are available at libraries. Rebecca Pates - unknown. Philosophical Anarchism. Cambridge University Press. Kenneth M. Ehrenberg - - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy Bertrand Russell - - Henry Holt and Company.
The Liberty Debate on Participation in Politics. Wendy Mcelroy - unknown. Journal of Libertarian Studies. Wendy McElroy - unknown. Stephan Kinsella - unknown.
0コメント