To the Editor of Liberty:
If it is a truth (as you say, and I endorse) that there is no production whatsoever which is not aided by and absolutely dependent upon the qualities inherent in matter, which the producer did not create,
then let us acknowledge this truth in all its importance and not give credit to the wrong party. Let us not take it for granted that every labor-effort is entitled to all it can grab, nor yield rights on account of labor which labor has not earned. But let it be known that we hold in reserve our right or might (it had better be might) to protect the forces of nature from such offensive (to us) mutilations as human labor is capable of. H.’s claim over his child, on the sole ground he gives of having produced my child myself,
needs qualification by your own admission as above. If, when I said: Parents are not producers of their children in the same sense that they are the producers of their handiwork,
I had said to the same extent instead of in the same sense, my sentence would have been more accurate, and I apologize for carelessness. If this proves anything, it proves too much and abolishes property altogether,
say you. Not so, say I. It abolishes the idea that property (right of possession
—Walker) can be indiscriminately based upon production, to the exclusion of other considerations.
Man’s handiwork cannot be sharply demarcated off from nature’s handiwork. The attempt to do so is as artificial as the other attempt to sharply demarcate the status of the child from that of the adult. If you persist in upholding the claims of labor before every other, you, necessarily, give up that part of your propaganda which claims for all equal access to the raw material of the universe. For this latter established proprietary or usufruct right, exclusively of producer’s rights.
When labor is expended in enclosing and planting large areas of land, for use and occupancy as hunting-preserves, for a comparatively few people, to the effect that others are landless and have to pay a monopolistic rent in order to live, you will not allow that such expenditure of labor makes the land so dealt with the absolute property of the landlord or land-laborer. Nor will I. You, who won’t grant more than a very limited ownership over land, yet grant absolute ownership over children. Yet the labor involved in breeding or catching these latter is often as small or smaller a part of the product as is the labor spent upon producing a park. In both cases it is the non-labor forces which predominate and force themselves upon our consciousness. Absolute ownership over land we cannot allow when we suffer thereby. Absolute ownership over children we can no more allow for the same reason. If our suffering is great re the land, it is sometimes immense re the children.
That the laborer’s labor force is necessarily and indissolubly connected with the raw material and forces of the universe, and that his claim to his own production is nought unless he can also claim and keep the material and non-labor forces bound up with them, are weighty considerations to be taken into account in all disputes affecting meum and tuum. But they are not the only considerations. If ownership is to be determinable wholly and solely by the formula: the product to the producer, together with that part of the universe which happens to be attached thereto, slavery and land monopoly, not to mention worse inflictions, receive sanctions on this labor-only basis. My labor may be devoted to catching slaves or in breeding them. The slaves may be human, bovine, canine, or feline. Are they really mine?
The destruction or mutilation of children, ancient monuments, cities, or any mortal thing, cannot be justified solely on the ground that the destroyer or mutilator produced them, as I have shown. Then some other reason than the one based on production
is required by those strong enough to demand an explanation before permitting (if they can help it) the continuance of acts which jeopardize their happiness. This necessarily follows, if my feelings and general interest in the world are to be equally considered with yours and everybody else’s. In asserting my claim to be considered in the disposal of the forces and beauties of nature, and the important relics of past generations, which are all outside of present producers’ productions, I base my claim upon my manhood with all its feelings, and not upon my labor power; and am so far careful of others’ liberties that I only require that their labors shall not injure me.
A few years back, some Egyptians exploited the pyramids for building stone and thereby pained many antiquaries. Recently the most magnificent trees, the pride and glory of this (now benighted) neighborhood, were sacrificed in order to give place to bricks and mortar, to the great sorry of yours truly and nearly everybody else except those pecuniarily interested in the change. Now I certainly weigh the pain caused by these deeds against the pleasure and profit of the exploiters, and such pain would influence my decision on any jury that had to act in such matters.
For many years (and I am not sure the practice is yet stopped) all tobacco and some other goods seized from those trying to smuggle into the port of London were burned in a furnace known as the Queen’s pipe. The value so destroyed has been enormous. I would uphold the right of any one to save anything from that furnace, such right being quite independent of the fact that government obtained the goods in the first place by invasion. This latter fact would certainly justify more force being used against the government or other invaders than against those who acquired the goods by fair means. In the latter case I do not think the person desirous of saving value intended to be destroyed should have any redress if he fails; and I might hold him liable if, in his attempts, he injured the would-be destroyer. Cases can be imagined in which it would be difficult to decide where the balance of aggression lay. Those uncertainties are always likely to appear under any system of trials. Suppose a pupil desirous to rescue some sketch which the master has thrown into the fire-grate. Suppose the master considered his reputation at stake, if the sketch was allowed to exist. Nothing succeeds like success. Decide the rights of the case, if you can. A vase which some old Roman iconoclast ordered to be destroyed may be saved by some menial, and turn up again two thousand years later to delight the eyes of millions. Shall we blame the stealer of that vase for his invasion of the property rights of his master/ On the contrary, say I. I am not so particular. My right upon this earth is nothing more than my might assisted by the might of my ancestors in invading other animals, and is justified by its success.
Whether my principles are broad enough; whether there are broader principles of action yet unknown to me that would enable the sensible to check the ravages of the insensible, without resting their action on might,—is not of supreme importance. All actions are ultimately backed by might; and no one can say that, at any given era, survival or equal freedom is the right of any nation or individual. When love pules and whines, the doctrine of hate shall be preached,
said Emerson, the Great; and his words are volumes. The present generation has to consider the present; and, if they are appreciative enough to prevent the irremediable despoliation of important relics of past generations, or of nature’s productions (the Yellowstone Park, for instance), their success will justify their actions, whether they have acted with principle or without principle. They have at least been backed by reason. Their pains and pleasures are reasons for their actions as weighty as any possible counter reasons.
I do not stickle to have my small crotchets and susceptibilities considered by the whole human race, for I see that it is a matter of strength and numbers that decides the total and kinds of primary interests which people respect in any country, in any age. What constitutes a nuisance, an aggression, a discord,—in a word, what gives pain,—varies with the people. And while the policy of antagonizing aggressions, and principle of equal liberty, may be legitimately held and practiced by many races holding diverse views as to what acts are aggressive, and the order of heinousness in which the aggressive acts are tabulated, there seems to be no finale to our wrangling—and that is good, or at least not bad.
Many people like fighting. Russian peasant women are said to like being whipped by their husbands; and the husbands would surely be aggressing if they did not whip away according to the marriage contract!?
Appreciating the blessings of living under a government of mixed principles, or devoid of any principle, as the lesser evil than living under the government of principles too narrow to concern itself with the protection requirements of any but those with a lack of sympathy,
I remain, yours hilariously,
St. Brelade’s, Leyton, England, November 8, 1895.