Almost every one who argues for freedom has heard the objection that some things are in their very nature monopolies and can never be left free from State control, because of the power it would give individuals to absorb wealth they did not create. This idea is so firmly imbedded in the minds of many intelligent men that to dispel it is to remove the barrier which prevents them from accepting Anarchism. Viewed from a purely statical point, it does seem that these objections are perfectly valid, and that the performance of some social functions must be interfered with by the collectivity. But drawing conclusions without fully considering the forces which produce social equilibrium is to ape the old woman who suggests a remedy for every organic disorder. In order to be able to judge even approximately of social correctives, the subject must be viewed dynamically. Before the State is called in to maintain equal opportunities, it must first be shown that the forces inherent in society are insufficient to preserve them. I maintain that they are all-sufficient; and that governmental attempts to create equality are destructive of the very forces which produce equality. Even today, whenever men are endowed with State-created privileges, there is a tendency to destroy their power of extortion by the devising of new methods with which the same want may be satisfied. How much more effective this principle would become, were these privileges destroyed! . . . Whatever advantage remained would be so fluctuating as to become readily dissipated in the increased facility with which society could adapt itself to changes of environment.

At one period the performance of a particular social function may be more advantageous than at another, and vice versa. To illustrate: Before the introduction of gas and electricity, oil was principally used for illuminating purposes. Those who performed the function of supplying oil absorbed only a normal amount of values; the industry was individualized, so to speak. Today other modes of illumination have displaced oil to a great extent. The laying of pipes and wires tends to make it an exclusive industry, and, therefore, a natural monopoly. Experiments of inventors, however, indicate the individualization of illumination in the near future. . . . The modes of transportation have undergone a change within the last century. Who knows that it will not assume a different character in the near future? To say that it will not is to lay claim to a knowledge of the possibilities of time to come.

So it is with all industries which seem to possess the elements of permanent advantage. The broad-gauged view, therefore, suggests the opinion that economic equilibrium is best effected by stripping industry of its legalized prerogatives, relying upon the inventive faculty to destroy undue advantages as they present themselves.

Wm. Trinkaus.