Pat Collins, the witty Democratic politician, once said of the late Prohibitionist leader, Robert C. Pitman, that he would be a first-class man if he would only let rum alone. And I always think to myself, when I read the writings of Mr. J. Greevz Fisher in behalf of liberty, that he would be a first-class philosopher if he would only let money alone. After my numerous battles with him on the money question, it is pleasant to quote here with my warmest approval a letter from his pen that appeared in the April number of Personal Rights, dealing with the question of parental responsibility for the support of children. Addressing the editor, Mr. Fisher says:
On page 18 of Personal Rights for 15th March, it is stated that a Socialistic measure about to be laid before the French chamber
bears a striking resemblance to the proposals of certain quasi-Individualists in England.It is not clear what are the proposals or who are the quasi-Individualists referred to in this phrase.The moral and the legal responsibility of fathers, like those of many other classes in the community, are extremely difficult to equate. In fact, it may be said with but little hesitation that it would be highly dangerous to attempt to make legal responsibilities generally and universally embrace all moral responsibilities, because, if it were attempted, the enforcement of every virtue and the suppression of every vice would become objects of legal concern. The objection taken to the proposed French law in the paragraph which alludes to it seems mainly to be that it reaffirms a long-standing maxim of French law that search for the paternity of a child is forbidden. But it is far from clear that, upon Individualistic principles, the search either for the father or the mother, or the enforcement of their parental affection, should be allowed or undertaken by any outsider or (under the deputed powers of these outsiders) by government. So long as Individualists can justify any mode of molestation of other persons by showing that it is undertaken solely to prevent molestation or invasion of themselves or those they choose to defend, then they occupy an impregnable position. But it can hardly be urged that cuasing or giving birth to a child is an invasion or molestation of the personality or life of the child. The care shown to offspring arises from a universal necessity that, if a race is to continue, it must successfully propagate. Neglect of offspring is a form of suicide. It is fatal to the race and exhibits a morbid, perverted instinct. Here is a child; there is a woman and there a man, who jointly or separately constitute a second party. Finally, here comes an Individualist in person or by deputy. He says:
Here is a young fellow citizen. It is my duty to see that no one molests or invades his rights. He is hungry. There is a pair of persons somewhere who have procreated the youngster. I feel nearly sure that woman yonder is one, and I have strong reasons to suspect that man walking by her side is the other of the couple who have given him birth. It is right that I should insist upon their feeding the child, and I feel so very strongly on the subject that I will, if necessary, fine or imprison them if they won’t carry out what I regard as their responsibilities.What is the logical connection between this so-called Individualist’s principles and his proposed action in this matter? To whom are the parents responsible? Is it to the child? If yes, how so? The child is a person who may have come as undesired to them as vermin or any other pest which dogs men’s steps and thwarts their efforts in the pursuit of happiness or pleasure. By highly endowed intelligent persons the arrival of the child would be hailed with love and joy; but this is no guide to the course to be taken when brutish, abnormal, inhuman people involuntarily spawn a breed tainted with their own degraded and perverted nature.
Neglect is not attack. It is unsafe for an Individualist to avow a duty to punish neglect, unless the fundamental principles of Individualism are closely similar to those of Social Democrats and Socialists in general.
If a person, male or female, alleging parentage, beats, enslaves, or defrauds a child, the Individualist has a perfect right to interfere. He can voluntarily associate himself with the child in a mutual defence organization, and may undoubtedly assume acquiescence by the child. No title to guardianship by a claimant parent ought to be admitted when the alleged guardianship is inimical to the minor. Beyond this point it is unsafe to take one step. Neglect can be better remedied by upholding liberty for anyone directly to supply the wants of the neglected. It can not be safely dealt with by attempts of a third party to force someone, supposed to be responsible, to undertake the duty.
No doubt it would be perfectly futile today, and in this country, to advocate the action which complete and true liberty from molestation demands in considering the question of intermeddling between other persons and their apparent children. Nevertheless, it will prove on analysis not merely the consistent, but in every respect the most highly advantageous, course to follow liberty in this matter, as in all other relationships of public and private life.
This letter brought great sorrow to the heart of the editor of Personal Rights, to whom these days give frequent cause to grieve over the sure displacement of halting Individualism by intrepid Anarchism, and he appended to Mr. Fisher’s letter the following comment:
We have printed this letter with some hesitation and much regret. The doctrine of parentage put forward by Mr. Fisher is not the Individualistic, but the Anarchistic one, as he will see by referring to Liberty for 3rd September, 1892, page 2. And the principle from which our correspondent deduces this doctrine is also Anarchistic. The assumption is that we must not interfere to prevent neglect, but only to repress positive invasion. If a parent beats his (or her) child, we may constitute ourselves and the child a
mutual defence organization, and may undoubtedly assume acquiescence by the child.But, if a parent leaves his (or her) child to starve, we may not join in the defence of this and other children, and may not entertain the question of the child’s acquiescence. If this were Individualism, the distinction between it and Anarchism would be merely verbal.On no question does the difference between Socialism, Individualism, and Anarchism come out more strongly than on that of parentage. The Individualist and the Socialist agree that the child should have the legal right of maintenance; but the Socialist would throw the corresponding duty on the State, while the Individualist would throw it on those who are responsible for the child’s existence. The Socialist and the Anarchist agree in repudiating parental responsibility for the maintenance of the child; but the Anarchist would do this at the expense of the child, while the Socialist would do it at the expense of the community.
Barring the possible implication that Anarchism would countenance compulsion of the neglectful parent in case the neglected child should acquiesce in the volunteered defence, Mr. Levy, who at least knows Anarchism when he sees it, states the case in a way which I, as one Anarchist, am very willing to accept. But it should be added that, as a matter of fact, the expense under Anarchism would fall, not on the child, but on the benevolent agencies which, moved by sympathy and by prudence, would almost certainly undertake to support abandoned children. I have never been able to understand why it should be considered more dreadful to support a helpless child than to support a helpless adult. And equally beyond my comprehension is the theory which, after compelling parents to support their children because of the responsibility of the former for the existence of the latter, ceases to compel them to do so after the children have passed a certain age. Why should a man be restrained from leaving his infant son to the mercy of the community, but allowed to abandon to the care of others this same son when grown-up, even though he be a helpless cripple or perhaps unwilling to support himself? By what right does the law declare that, when helpless individuals have reached a certain age, the authors of their being may transfer the burden to my shoulders? The simple truth of the matter is that no person, parent or not, may be rightfully compelled to support any helpless being, of whatever age or circumstance, unless he has made that being helpless by some invasive act.