To the Editor of Liberty:
I have just read Mr. Yarros’s courteous review, in your paper, of an article of mine upon Voluntary Socialism.
Mr. Yarros considers the name and argument of my article a contradiction in terms. Very well; but let us see Mr. Yarros’s proof. He has a right to assert what he pleases, but let us see how he proves his point. He argues that my plan for action by government is not voluntary, because government can get the capital to carry on these industries in one way only,—by taxing all citizens,
—I quote Mr. Yarros’s words,—and that therefore some will have to pay for what they do not desire to support.
That shows the weak spot in Mr. Yarros’s and, I think, in all Philosophical Anarchists’ arguments. Their reasoning is strong, but the trouble is with their premises. Mr. Yarros argues: All cities, in order to carry on industry, must tax. Taxation is not voluntary. Therefore no city industry can be voluntary.
But if Mr. Yarros studied theory less and facts more, he would know that much industry is carried on by cities without taxation.
Glasgow makes two million dollars annually by its municipal activities in connection with the Clyde. Birmingham has recently attempted very large municipal undertakings without raising the tax rate one farthing. A city can borrow the capital of those willing and glad to lend it, and conduct industry, and out of the profits pay both the interest and the principal without raising taxes at all. This is happening today in Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Huddersfield, Berlin, London, Paris, and many smaller cities.
I do not use these cities as examples of voluntary Socialism. I use them to prove that Mr. Yarros’s premise is utterly mistaken, and therefore his logical result is overthrown.
This is my criticism on all your Philosophical Anarchism. You are very strong in logic, but you start from unproved and sometimes mistaken premises. You argue: The State is the embodiment of the invasive principle. Invasion is the opposite of liberty. Therefore liberty cannot come through the State.
Your logic, starting from your premise, is perfect, but your premise is at fault. You take what you wish to prove for granted. If the State is what you define it, certainly let us all be Anarchists; but that is just the question.
Now, I am perfectly well aware—who is not?—that the State has usually been invasive; but does that prove that it always must be? Until within a century electricity could be shown by universal experience—so men thought—to be harmful. Does it follow that it is our duty to oppose its use today? No; it is a great force, and man has learned to tame and use it. Anarchists admit that the State is a great force. They fill books with a catalogue of its evil powers. But society today is showing how we may, not throw away that force, but use it for liberty. Undoubtedly it will be a slow process, but all great good comes slowly. The State, first absolutely tyrannical, is to-day less so; to-morrow will be still less tyrannical; and by and by will become voluntary. You do not believe it. Perhaps not; that is a matter of rightly reading the signs of the times; but Mr. Yarros has not proved my contention inconsistent. I have rather proven his logic to be weak in its foundation. Certainly the State can conduct industry without doing violence to the invasive principle. Whether it will or not is another question. I firmly believe that it will, and that the only path to individual freedom lies through the evolution of the State out of tyranny, through less tyranny, to freedom. Abolish the State in hope of freedom, and men will become the servants of and dependents upon the biggest bully or the shrewdest devil.
Yours for the truth,
Boston, Mass, August 9, 1895.