I am glad to see Comrade Simpson enter the arena, unsheath his blade in defense of Individualism, and fling his challenge at Communism. And I am more than pleased to find Comrade James a foeman worthy his steel. While I do not care to interfere in this contest, I feel impelled to indite my ideas on the subject.

The question seems to be, Can liberty be inaugurated and maintained by organization, or, on the other hand, is organization detrimental or subversive of freedom?

Comrade Simpson assumes that liberty can only be defended by organization. He says of Comrade James, I want to know if he is willing to defend the liberty he advocates by joining an organization for the mutual protection of that liberty. Well now, what is this liberty Comrade James advocates? He tells us that it is the absence of man-made law, which is a uniform rule of action imposed by a superior power. In other words, a man’s liberty can only be restricted by other men assuming control over his actions. But how can invasion be met? Can the equal freedom of all be maintained without organization? Perhaps not. We know that it cannot be done by organization. The question is, then, is organization a help or hindrance? Anarchism is founded on the assumption that government organization is a hindrance. But some Anarchists would have organization without government. Is it possible? I think not. What is organization? A comrade, F. Schulder, has issued a pamphlet on The Relation of Anarchism to Organization. He says:

Organization has been defined as the taking on of organic structure—the formation or development of organs. Now an organ is a part capable of performing some special function which is essential to the life of the whole.

Sociologically, then, organization is a combination of individuals, and an arrangement or constitution of this combination into parts, each having a special function which is essential to the life of this combination.

Now, does this mean an association of free individuals? I think not. It seems to me rather the subversion of the free individual. This comrade argues on lines of nature, as shown in the following:

Organization and evolution have about the same meaning. . .  . a series of changes under natural law.

Is not this the argument of the governmentalist? As our friend argues—from a diffused, uniform and indefinite arrangement, to a concentrated, multiform and definite arrangement. This arrangement does away with the various and conflicting wills of the multitude. A centralized will and wisdom directs. But is individual liberty advanced? Certainly not. Our author tells us in union there is strength, but in organization there is greater strength. Just so. When individuals surrender their individuality, allowing officials to act for them, their union is, perhaps, strengthened. They become organs of a central will, and this superior power may be stronger, but I deny it the name of Anarchism.

Mr. Tucker has defined government as the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external will. By striking out the word non-invasive, that would be my definition of organization. I fail to see how any strength otherwise could be added to a union of individuals. I am aware that our comrades who advocate Anarchist organization make some distinction between their theory and government by defining government as only an invasion of the non-invasive individual’s liberty. They can combine and utilize the methods of government even to courts, police, and jails. Mr. Schulder says:

I may join an organization and agree to abide by the decision of the majority; so long as I hold the freedom to secede, the principle of liberty has not been violated.

What makes him secede if his liberty has not been violated? The fact is this definition of government cannot stand examination at all. It is only a part, a faction of government. Any attempt to define government other than sovereign authority—an organization of men to control and direct the destenies of other men, will prove a failure. Government consists in the power of certain individuals over the masses, and this power is the essence of organization. Our author says:

What the Anarchist objects to in the State is not the element of organization, but the element of government. Take the element of government out of the State and no Anarchist will object to the remains.

Very true; but what would remain? If it was not for the organization there could be no government. The aim and object of organization is to control the organs—government.

Comrade Simpson says, If I with others who believe in the law of equal liberty organize for the defense of that equal liberty and give it out that as a uniform practise we shall defend that equal liberty. I say that is all right; you are not invading nor restricting the rights of others by so doing. But when you adopt rules for other people; when you assume what is and what is not invasion; when you establish courts to decide questions; when you create police and jails to enforce the fulfilment of contract,—the distinction between your organization and government is too fine for me to distinguish much difference.

Mr. Tucker has said:

I think it accurate to say that Anarchism contemplates anything and everything that does not contradict Anarchism. The writer whom Liberty criticized had virtually made it appear that police and jails do contradict Anarchism. Liberty simply denies this, and in that contemplates police and jails. Of course it does not contemplate the compulsory support of such institutions by non-invasive persons.

Now I cannot see what difference it makes whether these institutions—methods of government—be supported by compulsion of non-invasive individuals or supported by voluntary invasive or non-invasive persons. My ideas most decidedly make it appear that police and jails do contradict Anarchism. Police and jails are simply the tools of government institutions worked by an external will. How they can be contemplated by advocates of Anarchism passes my comprehension. I am not opposed to united action opposing invasion. I can readily conceive instances where such a course should be adopted. But oorganizing institutions, creating officials, instituting courts,—these things constitute government, and I claim are opposed to Anarchism. Another thought in relation to organization suggests itself. So long as a general government exists they must play second fiddle, being merely a sub-organization, and as such can do very little harm. But suppose government was abolished and these organizations had full sway. Does anyone believe the power of these organizations would differ from the power of government? Is it not true that all power generates abuse? Is it not true that power destroys liberty? The selfish principle in man is all right when he governs himself, but let him as the head of an organization govern others, and he is bound to do it—that selfish principle will be advanced to the detriment of others. I want Comrade Simpson to contemplate the principle of organization, not as a necessity to further some scheme of commercialism, but in its relation to the principle of liberty.

A. LeRoy Loubal

My fatherland is the world.—Marc Aurel.