Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Benjamin Tucker and His Periodical, Liberty

Benjamin Tucker and His Periodical, Liberty

Jaurnolo/Li&~~wionStudla, Vol. I.No.4, pp. 301-318. Pn8amon Prnr 1977. Printdin Grcal Britain

BENJAMIN TUCKER AND HIS PERIODICAL,

CARL WATNER

Baltimore, Maryland

In a letter to the New York Tribune on Avrich, Liberty was simply "the best Anarchist December 4, 1898, (1854- paper in the English language". 1939) described himself as an Anarchist. "I was The 403 issues of Liberty which appeared the first American - I may say the first have been reprinted and made available by the Anglo-Saxon - to start (in 1881) an avowedly Greenwood Reprint Corporation. They are a Anarchistic newspaper printed in the English great source of information both to the historian language. I am still the editor, publisher, and and the . Here we can analyze the proprietor of that paper. It is everywhere history of the individualist Anarchist move- regarded as the pioneer and principal organ of ment, its reaction to contemporary events of the modern individualist . I either am, or late 19th and early 20th Centuries, as well as have been, the publisher of the chief Anarchistic view the actual ideological content and doctrinal works in the English language. I am the author changes occurring in the movement. To study of the most widely-accepted English text-book Liberfy is to touch practically every social of Anarchism. I have enjoyed the friendship, question. (132-5) " . . . Liberty carried had the benefit of the instruction, and. have translations and articles from many of the most carefully studied the works, of those seminal thinkers of both and from whom the Anarchists have largely derived America."[z' While its subscription list probably their beliefs - , Stephen Pearl never exceeded 1000, it had a world-wide Andrews, , and Colonel circulation and impact, considering that it William B. Greene. I am the translator into sparked individualist Anarchist movements in English of some of the principal works of P. J. Russia and Australia, among other places. Proudhon, who was the first in any Tucker made it clear in his first issue that his language to declare himself an Anarchist. I am "journal be edited to suit its editor, not its acquainted, perhaps better than any other man, readers. He hopes that what suits him will suit with the English-speaking Anarchists of the them; but, if not, it will make no difference. No . It will be admitted then, I hope, subscriber, or body of subscribers, will be that I speak by the card." (359-3)' allowed to govern his course, dictate his policy, Tucker's Anarchist credentials were impec- or prescribe his methods. Liberty is published cable as he plainly stated. In August 1881, he for the very definite purpose of spreading started a "little fortnightly journal called certain ideas, and no claim will be admitted, on Liberty. Its purpose was to contribute to the any pretext of of speech, to waste its solution of the social problems by carrying to a limited space in hindering the attainment of that logical conclusion the battle against authority . . object. We are not afraid of discussion, and . "1'1. This journal appeared more or less shall do what we can to make room for short, continuously under the guidance of Tucker, first serious, and well-considered objection to our in , and then in New York, until 1908 views." (1-1) "The purpose of Liberty, boiled when ~ucker'sbookstore and composing room down to its ultimate essence, is the abolition of were destroyed by fire. In the words of Paul authority . . . . Liberty denies the authority of .All parenthetical footnotes refer to Liberty by Whole anybody's god to bind those who do not accept Number (issue number) and then page number. it through persuasion and natural selection. 308 CARL WATNER Liberty denies the authority of anybody's venture to crush her. And happy are those who, to bind those who do not lend voluntary having dared to receive her in her degraded and allegiance to it. Liberty denies the anthority of frightful shape, shall at length be rewarded by anybody's 'public opinion', 'social custom', her in the time of her beauty and glory." (1-4) 'consensus of the competent', and every other In order to fully appreciate Tucker and fashionable or scholarly despot, to step between Liberty, one must have an understanding of how the and his free option in all things." he and his readers understood the word (2-2) Anarchism. "Anarchism means no , As the proprietor and editor of Liberty, but it does not mean no and no coercion. Tucker was responsible for its opinions and This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox editorial content. While realizing that he was vanishes when the Anarchist definition of never the sole owner of Anarchism, Tucker did government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose dominate his paper, and accordingly came to government, not because they disbelieve in influence the Anarchist movement. However, he punishment of crime and resistance to aggres- well realized that anarchism existed before he sion, but because they disbelieve in compulsory did and would continue to exist after he passed protection. Protection and taxation without away. "I can interpret it only for myself", he consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism wrote. (327-3) Although gentlemanly and shy in favors a system of and his personal relations, Tucker was the "plumb- protection." (212-2) Tucker was one of the very line of plumb liners" in his editorial role. He first in the world to advocate the tolerated no deviation from the straight and true idea "that defense is a service, like any other path of as he understood it. His service", and that such a service could and intention as editor was to "win first the should be provided by private agencies sup- attention, and then the admiration and assent, ported by voluntary patronage. (104-4) of the most thoughtful thousand people in the This advocacy was in turn based on a certain world, though at the same time it may for the definition of government, namely "government moment shock, horrify, prejudice, madden, and has been defined . . . as the subjection of the alienate all others . . . . " (367-1) E. 0.Brown 'non-invasive' individual to a will not his own." elaborated this point: "I have seen much in (156-4) The State (or government) is in its very Liberty that I agreed with, and much that 1 nature a compulsory institution to which all are disagreed with, but 1 never saw any cant, forced to belong to and which all are compelled hypocrisy, or insincerity in it, which makes it an to support. (26-2) Liberty's supporters were the almost unique publication." (370-7) sternest enemies of invasion of person and Tucker's outlook and optimism are illustrated . "We make war upon the State as the by relating one item which he saw fit to include chief invader of person and property, as the in his first issue. Headlined, "The Penalty of cause of substantially all the crime and misery Treason to Liberty," it related the story told by that exist, as itself the most gigantic criminal Ariosto, in which a fairy, by some mysterious extant." (25-2) of her nature, was condemned to ap- The starting point of the entire Anarchistic pear at certain seasons in the form of a foul philosophy was the absolute sovereignty of and poisonous snake. Those who injured her in every individual. (28-2) The only way to respect the period of her disguise were forever excluded the sovereignty of the individual would be to from the blessings which she bestowed when in refrain from invasion of every person's body her power. To those who befriended her, in and justly acquired property. Tucker realized spite of her loathsome aspect, she afterwards that criminals and invaders of person and granted all their wishes and made them happy in property would remain, even in the absence of every way. "Such a spirit is liberty", concluded formal , but "Liberty's position Tucker. "At times, she takes the form of a [was] that, of the really serious and important hateful reptile. She 'grovels', she hisses, she acts of invasion of individual sovereignty, at stings. But woe to those who in disgust shall least nine-tenths are committed by organized BENAMIN TUCKER AND HIS PERIODICAL, LIBERTY 309 State governments or through privileges granted whatever he will with himself and his property, by them, and that the governmental idea, with for his body here, and his soul hereafter, so long the State as its principal embodiment, is the as he does not trespass upon the equal freedom efficient cause of almost all of our social evils." of any other person." (24-2) In still an earlier (86-4) Thus Anarchism was not only a issue was enunciated the cardinal right of all against every form of human invasion (94-5). individuals to do anything and everything which but in particular against the aggression of they may chose voluntarily to do so long as it is organized government. done at their own cost. (7-2) Liberty's advocacy of Anarchism had both a "Th[e] question of and obligations was positive and negative side. The negative side was thoroughly threshed out in Liberty in the year simply the call for the abolition of politics. 1887." (198-2) Although Tucker maintained (25-2) Liberty proposed to abolish government that he had not changed his fundamental and substitute in its place voluntary arrange- opinions since he had begun Liberty, it is ments. "We offer every possible method of obvious that by the late 1880s his defense of voluntary social union by which men and Anarchism had changed from one asserting a women may act together for the furtherance of natural rights justification to one asserting the well-being." (27-2) Tucker carried this doctrine Stirnerite version of . (201-4) By early to its fullest extent, as he was not hound by 1888, Tucker was no longer defending property political or cultural or social mores. Tucker and as a right, but rather claimed it to be only a his supporters differed from all other 19th social convention. (117-5) Having abandoned Century radicals in their conception of co- natural right as the basis of Anarchism, Tucker operation. These Anarchists distinguished them- replaced it with the concept of equal liberty as selves even from the Individualists, who believed the touchstone of his Anarchism. "It is true . . . that "cooperation for defense and protection that Anarchism does not recognize the principle should be compulsory, whereas the Anarchist of . But it recognizes human believeld] that cooperation should never be equality as a necessity of stable ." compulsory, and that no compulsion should (126-4) " . . . [Tlhe only compulsion of ever be exercised upon the non-invasive individ- individuals the propriety of which Anarchism ual." (260-2) Although Tucker was likely at recognizes is that which compels invasive times to call himself a socialist, he always individuals to refrain from overstepping the emphasized the voluntary aspect of . principle of equal liberty. Now, equal liberty His disagreement with the communists and itself being a social convention (for there are no socialists of other schools revolved around their natural rights), it is obvious that Anarchism as well as their conception of recognizes the propriety of compelling individ- cooperation. " . . . [Tlheir is uals to regard 'one' social convention. . . . another State, while my voluntary cooperation Anarchism protects equal liberty . . . , not is not a State at all. It is a very easy matter to tell because it is a social convention, but because it is who is an Anarchist and who is not. Do you equal liberty, -that is, because it is Anarchism believe in any form of imposition upon the itself." (123-5) human will by force?" (94-4) Tucker expressed his changed attitude as From the beginning of Liberty, Tucker placed follows: "From the start [of Liberty] I have emphasis on the rights of the individual and known that self- is the mainspring of individual sovereignty. This natural rights conduct and that the ego is supreme. I had not, approach may have been influenced by however, carefully thought out or even consid- Lysander Spooner who at the commencement of ered the bearing of this philosophy upon the Liberty was still living and contributing articles question of obligation. I took society for to it. Reminiscent of Spooner's outlook, was the granted and assumed the desire of man for statement inan 1882 issue that "there is but one society, and it was from this standpoint that I single kind of 'legal' freedom; and that is simply hadloosely talkedof natural rights. But Stirner's the 'natural' freedom of each individual to do book [TheEgo and His Own] caused me to ask 310 CARL W ATNER myself: If the individual does not wish society, is that exist through natural power, but the he under any obligation to act socially? And I no that are created by mutual guarantee." sooner asked it than I answered it in the (328-4) negative. At no time have I answered it in the Fearless logician that he was, Tucker was qffimative. . . . I have since [I8861 seen that my never afraid to endorse his reasoning, regardless use of the word right in those days was entirely of where it led him. It was only on egoistic and improper, and this, coupled with a steadily- utilitarian grounds -i.e. grounds of expediency clearing perception of the logic of egoism, is the - that he believed in equal liberty. (3204) On only change my ethical opinions have undergone several occasions during the later years of since I started Liberty." (2014) Liberty Tucker was forced to concur in certain In later years, Tucker exemplified his position deviations from his earlier Anarchistic position by questioning the moralists (those asserting the based on non-invasion and respect for individ- natural rights philosophy and opposing his ual sovereignty. Thus he claimed that a woman egoistical justification of Anarchism): "Why is who threw her baby into the fire was acting one man bound to refrain from injuring non-invasively, (321-1) and that in certain another? That is the question which the instances coercion of the non-invader was moralists must answer. I know plenty of reasons justified. Reasoning from his egoistic frame- why it is expedient for one man to refrain from work, Tucker denied that the thing funda- injuring another. Therefore I advise him to mentally desirable was the minimum of refrain. But if my reasons do not commend invasion. For him, "the ultimate end of human themselves to his judgement; if my view of endeavor [was] the minimum of pain. We aim to expediency does not coincide with his, - what decrease invasion only because, as a rule, obligation is there upon him to refrain? . . . 1 see invasion increases the total of pain (meaning, of no reason, as far as moral obligation is course, pain suffered by the ego, whether concerned, why one [man] should not sub- directly or through sympathy with others). But it ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of is precisely my contention that this rule, despite these men can be made to see that the other's the immense importance which I place upon it, free life is helpful to him, then they will agree is not absolute; that, on the contrary, there are not to invade each other; in other words, they exceptional cases where invasion - that is, will equalize their existences, or rights to coercion of the non-invasive lessens the aggre- existence by contract. . . Before contract is the gate pain. Therefore coercion of the non- right of might. Contract is the voluntary invasive, when justifiable at all, is to be justified suspension of the right to might. The power on the ground that it secures, not a minimum of ' secured by such suspension we may call the right invasion, but a minimum of pain. . . . [T]o me of contract. These two rights - the right of [it is] axiomatic - that the ultimate end is the might and the right of contract - are the only minimum of pain." (324-4) Thus Tucker rights that ever have been or ever can be. asserted that coercion and invasion were justi- So-called have no existence." fiable in the case of a burning city, which can (261-3) Tucker demanded to know what obliga- only be saved by blowing up the houses on a tion, apart from expediency, there is upon man strip of territory inhabited by non-invasive to refrain from aggressing against mother. persons who refuse to consent to such dis- (265-1) His point was that the obligation to position of their property. (324-4) (310-5) refrain from aggression was universal, without According to Tucker, necessity and only neces- exception, or it was nothing. The problem as he sity may excuse the coercion of the innocent, saw it was to justify the imposition of this (308-4) and he readily admitted that there were obligation upon the man who chose to forsake relations between men and the land and of men human society or enjoyed social unrest and to each other, where he would for the moment insecurity. Thus Tucker concluded that there are trample ruthlessly upon all the principles by no rights except mights. (194-1) "Rights begin which successful society must as a general rule only with convention. They are not the liberties be guided. (304-3) BENJAMIN TUCKER AND HIS PERIODICAL, LIBERTY 311 Tucker held "that emergencies are liable to was a follower of many Anarchists of inter- arise in the lives of men and of when all national fame, such as Elisee Reclus, Peter principles except that of self-preservation musi Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, and others of be thrown to the winds; that there are moments lesser note. As time wore on, particularly after when the continuance of individual life and the in 1886, Tucker came to social relations depends on the promptness with restrict his support of these revolutionaries who which we violate the very rules of conduct that practiced "propaganda by deed". His objection in ordinary and normal times contribute most was not only to their violent methods but also to vitally to our well-being." (339-4) In defending their support of . his position, Tucker declared that a critic's Tucker illustrated this discrimination in his answer amounted "in its conclusion to a eulogy on which appeared in 1883, statement that no evil can be as disastrous as an after Marx's death: "For Karl Marx, the act of invasion; that should be done 'egalitaire', we feel the profoundest respect; as though the heavens fall, for a precedent of for Karl Marx, the 'authoritaire', we must injustice would lead to a worse disaster than the consider him an enemy. . . . Proudhon was years falling of the heavens; . . . " and that further before Marx [in discussing the struggle of the discussion was hopeless. (341-4) classes and the privileges and of One final example will suffice to show that for ]. . . . The vital difference between Tucker, there were occasions when justice was Proudhon and Marx [was] to be found in their not the supreme consideration. (341-4) Another respective remedies which they proposed. Man of his critics propounded the situation of a would nationalize the productive and distrib- drowning man agreeing to forego all his worldly utive forces; Proudhon would individualize and goods in return for being saved from drowning. associate them. Marx would make the laborers The critic demanded to know if under political masters; Proudhon would abolish Anarchistic ethics such an agreement was political mastership entirely. . . . Man believed enforceable. Tucker's position was that such a in compulsory ; Proudhon believed contract was not enforceable, even though its in the voluntary principle. In short, Marx was an non-enforcement was a violation of Anarchistic 'authoritaire'; Proudhon was a champion of principle. Tucker's conclusion was that "there is Liberty." (35-2) no obligation upon outsiders to enforce any Tucker displayed basically the same attitude contract, even though it be just, and that, when towards the Haymarket martyrs. Nearly all the individuals associate themselves for defensive contemporary violence of the Anarchists was purposes, they will decide at the start what commented on in Liberty. This included the classes of just contracts it is advisable to assassination of President Garfield by Guiteau, enforce." (341-4) Such men will decline to the attempted killing of Carnegie's associate, enforce the just contract of a drowning man. Frick, by , as well as the Turning from Tucker's ethics and philosophy deeds of the revolutionaries abroad, especially of Anarchism, which were always and obviously in France and Russia. Tucker was not opposed a central part of Liberty, let us examine a few to the use of force, but it was foolish in his other themes which were taken up in his journal. opinion to "resort to it before necessity During his early editorial years, Tucker expres- compels, . . . as a general thing, when force sed great interest in the activities of the social becomes necessary, the wiser way is to use as revolutionaries, both abroad and in the United much as possible as promptly as possible; and, States. The Russian and European Anarchist until it becomes necessary, there cannot be too movement received both support and publicity little force." (85-1) He generally considered from Liberty.131Tucker wrote at the time of the violence to be inexpedient and an inappropriate Anarchist trial in Lyons, France in early 1883, way of achieving his goals. He realized that the "Anarchy knows no frontiers; it is a gospel of downfall of one government, unless accom- human brotherhood that spans oceans." (33-2) panied by a corresponding change in the ideas During the first three years of Liberty, Tucker among the populace, would only result in the 312 CARL \\IATNER substitution of another government in its place. der; . . . . " (154-4) His goal was the destruction of the govern- Children are probably always a problem in mental idea, ~hich~couldonly be accomplished any society, and that was no less true of through the use of persuasion and reason. In the Liberty's time and audience than for ours. The opinion of , another writer for subject of children under Anarchy, and of Liberty, "The practical abolition of the State parental-child responsibility aroused no serious wouldbe a very easy matter, if the State 'idea' controversy in Liberty until 1895. In 1890, were once abolished in the 'minds' of a Tucker had chosen to reprint a short, pithy considerable number of people." (1 13-8) article taken from , which appar- Regardless of the poor publicity generated by ently echoed his own sentiments at the time: that the revolutionaries, Tucker refused to com- parents have a certain lien upon their children, promise on his use of the word Anarchism or on at least as long as the children lean on them. his overall philosophy. He wrote, that "we (160-3) Later pronouncements emphasized that believe that the most manly and effectual the child, like the adult, has no right to life at method of dealing with the State is to demand its all, only the immunity from assault or invasion immediate and unconditional surrender as a which all human beings are due. (235-2) In May usurper, and to flatly and openly challenge its 1895, Tucker reprinted the letter of an English assumed right to forestall and crush out the Individualist, J. Greevz Fisher, which dealt with voluntary associative government and regu- the question of parental responsibility for the lation of individuals by themselves in all support of the children. The conclusion of both things." (16-2) Tucker believed that the Land Fisher and Tucker was that, "we must not League Movement in Ireland had been a interfere to prevent neglect, but only to repress glorious and significant social force, arising positive invasion," and that "no person, parent from the fact that it developed as the result of or not, may be rightfully compelled to support spontaneous, voluntary actions. (20-2) Further- any helpless being, of whatever age or circum- more, the "No Rent Manifesto" could have stance, unless he has made that being helpless by been a stepping stone towards to "No some invasive act." (312-5&8) Manifesto". Had the mass of Irishmen not swal- Some months later. Tucker reconsidered his lowed the idea that society is impossible without position and came to the conclusion that since a State, they might have been successful. Passive the mother owns her children, parental invasion resistance (ignoring the laws without causing is not to be prohibited. Thus, as we have seen, a direct harm to anyone) and resistance to taxa- mother who throws her baby into the fire is not tion were Tucker's two main methods of achiev- committing an aggression, since she is only ing Liberty in his own time. Although the dis- handling her property in a way that she sees fit. tance (the eventual triumph of Liberty) might be Tucker maintained that the change which his great, the point for Tucker was that the journey opinion underwent consisted "simply in the had begun. (51-7) substitution of certainty for doubt as to the Tucker could not be considered a utopian, non-invasive character of parental cruelty, - a even though he envisioned a stateless, non- substitution which involves the conclusion that monopolistic society. He clearly understood that parental cruelty is not to be prohibited, since Anarchism would not solve all of mankind's third parties have not to consider the danger to troubles. "[TJhere are some troubles from organisms that are outside the limits of social which mankind can never escape. . . . [The protection." (320-5) Anarchists] never have claimed that liberty will The debate about this issue continued for bring perfection; they simply say that its results many numbers of Liberty and ended ultimately are vastly preferable to those that follow by Tucker converting all of his critics but one. J. authority. . . .Asa choice of blessings, liberty is William Lloyd broke with Tucker and Liberty the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the over this issue and refused to associate any smaller. Then liberty always, say the Anarchists. longer with those calling themselves Anarchists. No use of force except against the inva- Lloyd disputed Tucker's contention that chil- BENJAMIN TUCKER AND HIS PERIODICAL, LIBERTY 313 dren were property, while he (Lloyd) maintained has discovered today, although some other man that "Each human being owns himself" and or men might, and in many cases very probably that "no human being owns another". (325-7) would, have discovered it tomorrow." (173-4) According to Tucker, the mother who uses force "[Flrom the justice and social necessity of upon her child invades no body at all. Tucker's property in concrete things we have erroneously editorial point of view was not clouded by any assumed the justice and social necessity of preconceived notions or any sentimentality. He property in abstract things, - that is, - of was quite willing to follow the consequence of property in ideas, -with the result of nullifying his reasoning so long as he could find no flaws in to a large and lamentable extent that fortunate his chain of logic. (322-5) As harsh or heartless element in the nature of things, in this case not as his doctrine may seem, he cautioned that he hypothetical, but real, - namely, the im- had the best interest of babies and children at measurably fruitful possibility of the use of heart as he believed that the observance of his abstract things by any number of individuals in principles would secure to children on the whole any number of places at precisely the same time, greater happiness than they can ever enjoy in without in the slightest degree impairing the use any society neglectful of these principles. thereof by any single individual." (366-3) "The (320-5) 'raison d'gtre' of property is found in the very Another lively topic of interest, which re- fact that there is no such possibility, - in the sulted in lengthy discussion, concerned the fact that it is impossible in the nature of things Anarchistic acceptance of and pat- for concrete objects to be used in different ents. In the early years of Liberty, when Tucker places at the same time." (366-3) reviewed Spooner's "A Letter to Scientists and Perhaps the most interesting part of this Inventors, on the Science of Justice, and their copyright- controversy was that one of Right of Perpetual Property in their Discoveries Liberty's subscribers offered a quotation from and Inventions," Tucker had expressed his Spooner's Law of Property, which disapproval of Spooner's thesis. He could resulted in a great odtburst from Tucker. The conceive of nothing more unreasonable than correspondent, A. H. Simpson, rightfully granting to any one the right to monopolize a claimed that Spooner had linked together the fact of nature. (47-1) Four years later, in 1888, argument for property in ideas to the justifica- Tucker commented on the position that Henry tion for property in material objects and land. George had taken regarding and copy- Tucker called Spooner's work on Intellectual right. The two agreed that patents had no Property "positively foolish because it is funda- validity but parted company over the legitimacy mentally foolish, - because, that is to say, its of copyright; George defending them and discussion of the acquisition of the right of Tucker denying them on the basis that discovery property starts with a basic proposition that can give no right of ownership. (128-4) Later must be looked upon by all consistent when international copyright agreements be- Anarchists as obvious nonsense. I quote this came prominent political discussion, Liberty basic proposition. 'The natural wealth of the picked up this theme again. Tucker's opinion world belongs to those who first take possession was that copyright, in any form and under any of it. . . . So much natural wealth, remaining limitation, was an injustice. According to unpossessed, as any one can take possession of Tucker, "there [was] no more justification for first, becomes absolutely his property.' In the claim of the discoverer of an idea to interpretation of this, Mr. Spooner defines exclusive use of it than there would have been taking possession of a thing as the bestowing of for a claim on the part of the man who first valuable labor upon it, such, for instance, in the 'struck oil' to ownership of the entire oil region case of land, as cutting down the trees or or petroleum product. . . . The central injustice building a fence around it. What follows from of copyright and patent law is that it compels the this? Evidently that a man may go to a piece of race to pay an individual through a long term of vacant land and fence it off; that he may then go years a price for knowledge that he to a second piece and fence that off; then to a 314 CARL WATNER third, and fence that off; then to a fourth, a as depriving property in land of legal sanction fifth, a hundredth, a thousandth, fencing them and title. (39-1) The doctrine of occupdncy and all off; that, unable to fence off himself as many use evolved from the mid-19th Century theories as he wishes, he may hire other men to do the of land reformer George Henry Evans, who fencing for him; and that then he may stand enunciated the principle that each man shall back and bar all other men from using these possess the ground he can use and no more. lands, or admit them as tenants at such rental as (126-5) he may choose to extract. Now, if this be true, The basis of all the controversy among the what becomes of the Anarchistic doctrine of Anarchists (and with other social reformers of occupancy and use as the basis and limit of land their time, especially and the ownership?" (180-4) Single-Taxers) was essentially about determining Tucker was alert enough to understand the the justness of land holding. , implications of Spooner's argument, and was the English voluntary taxationist and a contri- quite independent enough to reject them. In butor to Liberty, insisted on treating the fand fact, Tucker claimed that he had taken issue question as if it were simply a problem of buying with Spooner on this very point, after he had and selling, and loaning and borrowing. Tucker read Spooner's pamphlet on the Irish and cited another English critic of Herbert, who English landlord question. "In that pamphlet noted, "When we come to the question of the [, a Reply to Lord Dunraven] Mr. ethical basis of property, Mr. Herbert refers us Spooner bases his opposition to Irish and to 'the open '. But this is an evasion. The English landlords on the 'sole' ground that they question is not whether we should be able to sell or their ancestors took their lands 'by the sword' or acquire 'in the open market' anything which from the original holders. This is plainly stated, we rightfully possess, but how we come into - so plainly that I took issue with Mr. Spooner rightful possession." (172-7) on this point when he had asked me to Mr. Tucker's most relentless critic (although read the manuscript before its publication. I eventually a convert to the cause) of the then asked him whether if Dunraven or his occupancy and use doctrine was Stephen ancestors had found unoccupied the very lands Byington. The Anarchistic doctrine of occu- that he now holds, and had fenced them off, he pancy and use was always expounded in a would have any objection to raise against general sort of way and never really dealt with Dunraven's title to and leasing of these lands. serious details. The Anarchist doctrine consisted He declared emphatically that he would not. basically of the following provisions as outlined Whereupon I protested that his pamphlet, by Tucker: "Occupancy and use is the only title powerful as it was within its scope, did not go to to land in which we will protcct you; if you the bottom of the land question." (182-6) attempt to use land which another is occupying As the foregoing comments indicate, Tucker and using, we will protect him against you; if solved the 'land question' with the doctrine of another attempts to use land to which ;you lay occupancy and use as the sole basis and limit of claim, but which you are not occupying and land ownership. This doctrine was based upon using, we will not interfere with him; but of such the teachings of Josiah Warren who advocated land as you occupy and use you are the sole that natural wealth is not property at all and that master, and we will not ourselves take from you, neither the State nor the individual can set a or allow anyone else to take from you, whatever price upon it without violating the first principle you may get out of such land." (252-3) of commercial justice, that cost is the equitable Tucker further informed Byington that "A man limit of price. (28-2) The Anarchists of this cannot be allowed, merely by putting labor, to school were definitely against the payment of the limit of his capacity and beyond the limit of rent by tenants (the actual occupiers of a given his personal use, into material of which there is a piece of land) to a landlord. Their case was limited supply and the use of which is essential intertwined with their advocacy of removing the to the existence of other men, to withhold that restrictions from the business of banking as well material from other men's use; and any contract BENJAMIN TUCKER AND HIS PERIODICAL, LIBERTY 315 based upon or involving such withholding is and their economic objections. Politically, they lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a contract to were against government compulsion and there- deliver stolen goods." (32'1-4) Byington pushed fore were against governmental prohibition of Tucker to answer what would happen to people any voluntary or arrangements that the desirous of renting a room or a building for only people might make for and among themselves. a short time, or what would happen to the The Anarchists rejected the Greenback move- ownership of buildings when occupiers and ment primarily for this reason: "It is green- users of the land upon which they were built back'ism' that Liberty objects to, for its first changed, or how vacationers would secure their and fundamental principle . . . is that it shall be premises while away? Tucker considered these a criminal offense for any individual or asso- questions matters of administrative detail, un- ciation to issue currency for circulation, and worthy of discussion unless the attempt be to that there shall be no money except that issued show that the theory of occupancy and use was by the government. . . . Greenbackism is money unworkable. (331-4) monopoly in its most extreme form. Free According to Tucker, the last user and money, on the other hand, means free occupier of a given piece of land would have to carried into finance, unlimited competition in remove all of his (unless the business of 'making money', and as a result, specifically sold to the next occupier-user), the utter rout of inferior and usurious otherwise he would lose control of it. "The man by the virtues of the cheapest and the best." who persists in storing his property on another's (37-1) Again, politically speaking, the Anar- premises is an invader, and it 'is' his 'crime' that chists objected to laws relating to interest or alienates control of his property. He is 'fined legislation. They continuously opposed one house,' not 'for building a house and then "the claim that one has a moral right to take letting another man live in it,' but for invading usury, but advocate no method of abolishing it the premises of another." (331-4) save the removal of all restrictions preventing For Tucker and his band of 19th Century the free action of natural principles. To attempt Anarchists there were four fundamental mono- to suppress usury by statute is outrageous polies, i.e. four modes by which governments because tyrannical, and foolish because ineffec- granted legal privileges to the few at the great tual." (6-1) expense to the many. These four monopolies Most of Liberty's adherents believed that the were the land monopoly, the monopoly, governmental limitations placed on the ~ount the banking monopoly, and the patent and of currency issued and on the choice of media of copyright monopoly. All but the tariff question exchange (generally being restricted to gold and received prominent coverage in Liberty. The silver) were the cause of financial depressions tariff question was very clear cut and there was as well as the cause that interest was charged on little controversy among Anarchists on this loans of money. In a criticism of William point. They all believed in without Graham Sumner, a Liberfy correspondent put restriction. The question of the banking mono- forth the proposition that "Interest has no poly was not so simple, as the Anarchists existence in Nature, but is solely due to differed among themselves, as well as with their monopoly, whose parent the State alone is." opponents, on economic theory. Discussions (78-4) There were many other discussions in were carried on about economic problems Liberty relating to the value of money and the relating to money and banking, namely, the nature of capital and interest, which generally nature of capital and interest, the basis of the reduced themselves to the claim that any standard of value for money, and the signif- increase in the supply of money (which would be icance of theory to Anarchist the result of a regime of free banking) would doctrine. confer a social benefit and would lead to the In order to understand the Anarchist objec- disappearance of interest.I4' tion to government money, it is first necessary to Although their economic arguments have not distinguish between their political objections stood the test of time, the political objections to 316 CARL UIATNER government money were and still are quite valid. free, and that there can be no invasive quality in Free banking and free money meant the utter mere speech." (312-2) As a person does dot own absence of restriction upon the issue of all his own reputation, it merely being a measure of money not fraudulent (80-4) and this was the view held of him by others, then, regardless considered to be a cardinal doctrine of of the truth or falsity of an alleged libel or Anarchism. (314-5) Tucker was a supporter of slander, no speech, in and of itself, can be the concept of mutual banking, as outlined both invasive. Therefore all libel and slander laws by P. J. Proudhon, and his own friend and ought to be abolished. (312-2) mentor, Colonel William B. Greene (author of Liberty truly touched on nearly a11 of the Mutual Banking), by which the monetization of pressing social questions of its era. Space was all marketable wealth was made possible. devoted to articles about , and Tucker's position was that free banking would divorce, and sexual relations among men and lead to mutual banking, and that this could only women. Even the woman suffrage movement come about through absolute free competition came under attack: "Women are human beings, in banking. (314-5 and 69-4) It was Tucker's and-consequently have all the natural rights that belief that mutual banking would be the single any human beings can have. They have just as greatest step that could possibly be taken in the good a right to 'make laws' as men have, and no direction of emancipating labor from poverty. better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT No single liberty was as necessary as the liberty ALL." (22-4) Mormon polygamy, pornography of banking. (314-5) and postal censorship were also discussed. The Liberty's concern with social unrest and labor Chinese immigration issue was mentioned at was evinced by its discussion of boycotts, unions times. Freethought was always advocated and and the strike. As early as 1886,Tucker elaborat- the tyranny and cultism of religionnearly always ed that "any individual may place any condition denounced. Tucker proudly reprinted in Liberly he chooses, provided the condition be not in and his private press the English Anarchist itself invasive, upon the doing or not doing of classics, such as Spooner's , Letter anything which he has a right to do or not do; to Thomas Bayard, and A Letter to Grover but no individual can rightfully be a party to any , Auberon Herbert's A Politician in bargain which makes a necessarily invasive Sight of Haven, 's Vindicationof condition incumbent upon any of the contract- Natural Society, ' ing parties. From which it follows that an Science of Society and his discussion of Love, individual may rightfully 'extort' money from Marriage, and Divorce, as well as quoting another by 'threatening' him with certain excerpts from such as Nietzsche, consequences, provided those consequences are Proudhon, and Stirner. Tucker also made of such a nature that he can cause them without Liberty serve as a forum for and infringing upon anybody's rights." (85-1) On publicizing what he called "advanced liter- December 3, 1887, Liberty declared; "A man ature", by which he meant "the literature has a right to threaten what he has a right to which, in religion and morals, leads away from execute. The boundary-line of justifiable superstition, which, in politics, leads away from boycott is fixed by the nature of the threat government, and which, in art, leads away from used." (113-4) Tucker boasted that "prior to tradition". (391-4) these declarations, so far as [he knew], the true Tucker was ambitious and promoted many foundation and limitation of the right to boycott literary ventures alongside his Anarchist journal- had never been laid down." (369-2) In this ism. He had agents in different parts of connection it is also interesting to note that the world selling Liberty and his other literary Liberty not only questioned the law against wares. He had occasional foreign correspon- blackmail, but also the laws against libel and dents, such as Vilfredo Pareto, George Bernard slander. Victor Yarros, a close Tucker associate Shaw, and , submit their during many of the Liberty years, was "inclined evaluations of Anarchist developments to to take the position that all speech ought to be L~berty's readers. He maintained especially BENJAMIN TUCKER AND HIS PERIODICAL, LIBERTY 317 close contact with the English Individualist- makes right in the absence of mutual agree- Anarchist movement and carried on extensive ment). Tucker, himself, recognized the law of correspondence with the main English figures, equal liberty as being the essence of Anarchism; such as Auberon Herbert, Wordsworth Donis- but his own defense of this social convention thorpe, John Badcock, J. H. Levy, and J. seems circular, for it amounts to the statement Greevz Fisher. Other American associates and that we are Anarchists because we are Anar- correspondents of Liberty, such as Henry chists. (123-5) Or else we might adopt an Appleton, James L. Walker, Joseph Labadie, alternative defense of Anarchism, such as one Victor Yarros, Stephen Byington, Alan and which has been outlined by in Florence Kelly, John Kelly, Gertrude Kelly, his writings and which hinges on the twin axioms George and Emma Schumm, Francis Tandy, of self-ownership (the absolute right of each Henry Cohen, and J. Wm. Lloyd formed the person to own his or her own mind and body) often changing nuclei of Tucker's circle. and homesteading (the absolute right of each Among Tucker's other notable projects were person to own previously unused natural re- the publication of Insteadof aBook in 1893 and sources which they have in some way occupied the publication of Libertyin German for a short or transformed). Tucker's main challenge to the time. He promoted the formation of an moralists was to demand to know why one is Anarchist Letter Writing Corps under the bound not to injure or invade another. auspices of Byington and sold and printed sheets What obligation exists, in the absence of any filled with Anarchist slogans. He published such mutual agreement, to refrain from initiating books as Zola's Modern Marriage, Eltzbacher's violence? I think the answer is primarily logical Anarchism, and not coincidentally Stirner's The and epistemological in nature. Invasion violates Ego and His Own. The appearance of this later the axioms of self-ownership and homesteading. book was, in Tucker's opinion, the most notable The invader clearly acts on the axiom that he contribution on behalf of Anarchism that he controls his own life, yet in coercing others he had made in his 30 year career. (397-1) Stirner plainly denies it. The resort to violence is a was one of the three great Anarchists in 19th confession of imbecility. Invasion is anti-life century literature, according to Tucker; the and the invader, under the moralist's theory, other two being Proudhon and Ibsen. He loses his own rights (to life and property) to the constantly strived to call attention to all three extent that he has committed an aggression. Thus both in Liberty and wider literary circles. to answer Tucker, the obligation to refrain from (393-11) His New York bookstore eventually initiating violence is found in the real world came to house a large collection of literature around us. Anyone who acts so as to deny the that made for "Egoism in Philosophy, Anar- validity of these axioms must sooner or later fail chism in Politics, and in Art." and suffer disaster. As Tucker himself wrote, (399-2) early in his career, "It is better to suffer great Yet for all his boldness and greatness, Tucker inconveniences than the evils engendered by the and Liberty still leave something to be desired. violation of individual rights." (37-4) Did Tucker and his editorial columns in Liberty Of course, Tucker came to disagree with this present a true and consistent version of position. He called that person who would Anarchy? Of course it is easy to criticize enforce the drowning man's contract a person doctrine nearly a century old, but there is much "with justice on the brain, a man who would do in Tucker that is still valid, as well as much that justice though the heavens fall." (344-4) We can is still as wrong as the day it was published. In only speculate as to whether his rule of spite of Tucker's eventual deviations, his life- expediency would succeed or not, but as applied long emphasis on individual sovereignty and to individual lives we can make a comparison, the non-invasive individual is well-founded. which however may be an unfair one. Tucker As Libertarians and Anarchists today we retired to Europe soon after the fire of 1908 and might accept the philosophy of egoism that spent the next 30 years of his life mostly apart Tucker came to espouse (namely, that might from the Anarchist movement. In fact we might 318 CARL WATNER say that while Liberty existed Anarchism blazed libertarian thinking, we would have to say this: in glory, but when Tucker retired the flames We concur with Tucker that no living person soon returned to embers. By contrast, Lysander owes any other living person any thing in the Spooner, definitely a moralist and natural right absence of voluntary agreement; hut tile obli- defender of Anarchism and therefore an oppon- gation to refrain from initiating violence is not a ent of Tucker's, became steadily more radical positive duty. It is a negative one. It is and libertarian as he grew older. Each person something which we should not do, not some- must be left to judge the effect of historical thing we should do. We can stand by and see a circumstances on these two individuals, hut their man murdered or a woman raped (170-4); but differing phil&ophies of Anarchism must also be we cannot claim that there are times when it is taken into consideration when viewing the necessary for the Anarchist to become Archist, outcome of their lives. and to abandon the guiding rule of his life and To evaluate Tucker in terms of current day to coerce the noninvasive individual. (307-3)

NOTES 3. James J. Martin, Men Agahrt the Stole (Colorado I. Benjamin R. Tucker, Instead of a Book (New York: Springs, Col.: Ralph Myles, 1970), p.220. Haskell House, 1969), pix. 4. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: 2. William 0. Reichert, Partisans of Freedom (Bowling An Economist's View," in Egalitarianirm as a Revolt Green, Oh.: Bowling Green University Popular Press, Against Nature, and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: 1976), p.146. Libertarian Review Press, 1974), pp.129-33.

Top View