Page:Instead of a Book, Tucker.djvu/71

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
55
55
INSTEAD OF A BOOK. THE INDIVIDUAL, SOCIETY, AND THE STATE.

In that case, would not the State have been entirely abolished?[1]

Would not this be the realization of Anarchy and the fulfilment of Proudhon's prophecy of "the dissolution of government in the economic organism"?

To each of these questions we answer: Yes. That answer constitutes the ground on which we stand and from which we refuse to be drawn away. We invite Mr. Ball to meet us on it, and whip us if he can.

 

 

TU-WHIT! TU-WHOO!

[Liberty, October 24, 1885.]

To the Editor of Liberty:

Will you give direct and explicit answers to the following questions ?

I certainly will, wherever the questions are direct and explicit.

Does Anarchism recognize the right of one individual or any number of individuals to determine what course of action is just or unjust for others?

Yes, if by the word unjust is meant invasive; otherwise, no. Anarchism recognizes the right of one individual or any number of individuals to determine that no man shall invade the equal liberty of his fellow; beyond this it recognizes no right of control over individual conduct.

Does it recognize the right to restrain or control their actions, whatever they may be?

See previous answer.

Does it recognize the right to arrest, try, convict, and punish for wrong doing?

Yes, if by the words wrong doing is meant invasion; otherwise, no.

Does it believe in jury trial?

Anarchism, as such, neither believes nor disbelieves in jury

  1. In this series of questions the word "State" is used in a sense inclusive of voluntary protective associations, whereas in all other parts of this volume it is used in a sense exclusive thereof. Attention is called to this inconsistency in terminology, in order to prevent misunderstanding.