American Social

of the United States to take steps toward the establishment of a periodic congress of nations. This proposal has met with unexpectedly strong and wide approval, has been made a leading feature of the program of the INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION, and will probably be one of the foremost subjects of discussion at the second Hague conference.

The society is stronger, more active, and more influential to-day than ever before in its history. It has a growing membership in all parts of the United States. By means of committees it is promoting interest in the peace movement among business men, among workingmen, among ministers and churches, etc. President, Hon. Robert Treat Paine. Secretary, Benjamin F. Trueblood, 31 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass.

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, THE: Founded 1903. Object: The encouragement of the scientific study of politics, public law, administration, and diplomacy. It meets annually in December. Dues, $3. President, Albert Shaw, New York. Vice-presidents: Albert Bushnell Hart; F. N. Judson; H. A. Garfield. Secretary and treasurer, W. W. Willoughby, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

AMERICAN PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION LEAGUE, THE: Organized (1893) to promote the reform of legislative assemblies, by abandoning the present system of electing single representatives on a majority or plurality vote in limited territorial districts, and by substituting the following provisions:

(1) That all representatives be elected "at large," on a general ticket either without district divisions or in districts as large as practicable.

(2) That the election be in such form that the several parties or political groups shall secure representation in proportion to the respective number of votes cast by each. President, William Dudley Foulke, Richmond, Ind. Secretary, Robert Tyson, 10 Harbord Street, Toronto, Can.

AMERICAN PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, THE: A secret association, commonly called the A. P. A. It was organized in 1887 against the asserted attack of Roman Catholicism upon the American public school and other American institutions. In 1890 or thereabouts it became very active, published an outspoken organ in Boston, Mass., and created widespread agitation and excitement. The association was organized by H. F. Bower, and rapidly grew in strength, claiming in 1895 a membership of 2,000,000, and extending into Canada, Great Britain, and Australia. Its influence, however, soon disappeared, and has now practically passed away.

The reasons given for the existence of the order were stated by one of its members to be as follows:

(1) The Roman Catholic attack on our public-school system. (2) The attempted foreignizing, by force, of whole communities, in language and religion, by Romish priests. (3) The complete control of our great cities by Romanism. (4) The fact that our army and navy are almost wholly Romanized. (5) The remarkable increase of untaxed church property. (6) The frequent desecration of the American flag by priests. (7) The Jesuit control of the heads of the government at Washington. (8) The well-known public declaration of the Pope that the United States is his one bright hope for the future.

As a proof of the need of the order, the Rev. James B. Dunn, secretary of the Committee of

One Hundred, of Boston, in a tract published by the committee, quotes from the papal encyclical of Jan. 10, 1890, where the Pope states that Roman Catholics are:

Even in politics, always to serve first the interests of Catholicism, and to submit themselves in obedience to the will of the pontiff as to God himself, and that the civil laws are binding on them only so long as they are conformable to the Roman Catholic religion. In that same encyclical the Pope says it is a duty to resist all civil laws hostile to anything ordered by the Church, and a crime to obey them. These being the facts, is it not quite certain that whatever his private or personal opinion and feelings may be as an American citizen, every good Roman Catholic must support the Church as against the State?

Papal Encyclicals

That cases happen in which the State demands one thing from the citizen, and religion the opposite from Christians, and this undoubtedly for no other reason than that the heads of the State pay no regard to the sacred power of the Church, or desire to make it subject to them. No one, however, can doubt which is to receive their preference. It is an impious deed to break the laws of Jesus Christ for the purpose of obeying the magistrates, or to transgress the laws of the church under the pretext of observing the civil law. .

If the laws of the State are in open contradiction with the divine law, if they command anything prejudicial to the Church, or are hostile to the duties imposed by religion, or violate in the person of the supreme pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then indeed it is a duty to resist them and a crime to obey them-a crime fraught with injury to the State itself.

Furthermore, in politics, which are inseparably bound up with the laws of morality and religious duties, men ought always and in the first place to serve, as far as possible, the interests of Catholicism. As soon as they are seen to be in danger, all differences should cease between Catholics. Since the fate of states depends principally on the disposition of those who are at the head of the government, the Church cannot grant its patronage or favor to men whom it knows to be hostile to it, who openly refuse to respect its rights, who seek to break the alliance established by the nature of things between religious interests and the interests of the civil order. On the contrary, its duty is to favor those who, having sound ideas as to the relations between Church and State, wish to make them both harmonize for the common good. These principles contain the rule according to which every Catholic ought io model his public life.

Dr. Dunn also quotes one of Cardinal Manning's sermons, representing the Pope as saying:

I acknowledge no civil superior; I am the subject of no prince; and I claim more than this. I claim to be the supreme judge on earth, and director of the consciences of men; of the peasant that tills the field, and the prince that sits on the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislature that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the sole last supreme judge on earth of what is right and wrong.

Of these and other similar quotations Dr. Dunn says:

In view of such declarations and teachings, we ask, Can a good Romanist be at the same time a loyal American citizen? Many Romanists, no doubt, mean to be loyal citizens of the republic, and honestly think they are; yea, we are quite willing to believe that the great body of them have no wish to interfere with the liberties and institutions of America, and that if called upon to choose between serving our government and the power at Rome, think they would abjure Rome. But it must be remembered that they belong to a system in which free agency is impossible. As we have seen, the Vatican claims absolute and supreme authority in all things, civil as well as spiritual, and every member of that Church is bound to render to the pontiff absolute and unquestioning obedience. Can any person who is loyal to Romanism be true to republicanism? Can a Romanist be a good citizen of America?

(For an answer from the Roman Catholic standpoint to the statements of the A. P. A., see ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SOCIAL REFORM.) But Romanists are by no means the only ones who criticize and oppose the attitude of the A. P. A. H. K. Carroll wrote in The Methodist Review, 1895, a plea for Protestants to conquer their prejudices and to be reasonable in the matter. Concerning the assertion

Arguments against the A. P. A.

that Roman Catholics cannot be good citizens, Dr. Carroll says:

Are Catholics disloyal? I do not remember ever to have seen the affirmative of this question supported by the citation of any act. It is commonly argued from the doctrine of papal supremacy. Catholics, it is urged, know no higher law than obedience. The people obey the priests implicitly, the priests are in complete subjection to the bishops, and the bishops are bound to do whatever the Pope tells them. This Pope is a foreign potentate who assumes to be superior to kings and governments; and he would, if he could, subordinate the State to the Church. In answer let me ask, Is it not obvious that he could not if he would? Where is there a state over which he exercises even a shadow of sovereignty?"

Concerning the relation of the Roman Catholic Church to our public schools, Dr. Carroll says:

Does the Church of Rome desire to destroy our publicschool system? "Destroy" is a strong word. I doubt whether it is right to apply it even to the most hostile opinion that prevails among the hierarchy. The most any Catholic has asked for is exemption from payment of the public-school tax or division of the school funds. In neither case would the system be destroyed. If the first alternative were adopted it would impair the integrity of the system and limit it. It would not be for all the people as it is now, but only for the larger part of them. If the second proposal were accepted we should have in this country the conditions that prevail in England and elsewhere. We should have both the secular and religious elements represented in our public schools. The system would be greatly changed and impaired, but it would not be destroyed. It would not be fair, I think, to say that the hierarchy would destroy our public school; but it is fair to say that they are not satisfied with it as it is.

REFERENCES: North American, clix., 67; clxvii., 658; American Journal of Politics, v., 504.

AMERICAN PURITY ALLIANCE, THE: Incorporated under this name in 1895, as the continuation of the New York Committee for the Prevention of State Regulation of Vice, which commenced its work in 1876 and has held thirty annual meetings.

Objects: The repression of vice, the prevention of its regulation by the State, the better protection of the young, the rescue of the fallen, the extension of the White Cross among men, and to maintain the law of purity as equally binding upon men and women.

The chief present work of the alliance consists in organizing methods for the instruction of the young in schools and colleges, for the information of teachers, parents, and physicians in sexual hygiene; the distribution of purity literature, of which a supply of thirty-four pamphlets is kept on hand at its headquarters; and the publication of The Philanthropist. It is the American branch of the International Federation for the Suppression of State Regulation of Vice, and is actively interested in the suppression of the "White Slave" traffic. It is constantly at work to prevent attempts at state or city regulation of prostitution. Annual dues, $1. President, O. Edward Janney, M.D., Baltimore, Md. Secretary, Percy Russell, 93 Crooke Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. Office, 400 West Twenty-third Street, New York City.

AMERICAN RAILWAY UNION, THE: A union organized in Chicago in 1893 under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs. It played a large part in the PULLMAN STRIKE, and virtually ceased to exist after the failure of that strike. The report of the Commission on the Pullman Strike said of this union:

The theory underlying this movement is that the organization of different classes of railroad employees (to the number of about 140,000) upon the trade-union idea has ceased to be useful or adequate; that pride of organization, petty jealousies, and the conflict of views into which men are trained in separate organizations under different leaders, tend to defeat the

American Social

common object of all, and enable railroads to use such organizations against each other in contentions over wages, etc.; that the rapid concentration of railroad capital and management demands a like union of their employees for the purpose of mutual protection; that the interests of each of the 850,000 or more railroad employees of the United States, as to wages, treatment, hours of labor, legislation, insurance, mutual aid, etc., are common to all, and hence all ought to belong to one organization that shall assert its united strength in the protection of the rights of every member.

To

AMERICAN SECULAR UNION AND FREETHOUGHT FEDERATION, THE: Organized 1876. Object: "To propagate the nine demands of liberalism as specified in our constitution. effect a total separation of Church and State, not only in name as it now is, but as an actual fact. Taxation of church property, the elimination of all religious teaching in the public schools, and the abolition of all those clearly unconstitutional measures which are wrongly called Sunday laws." Annual report, $1. Secretary, E. C. Reichwald, 141 South Water Street, Chicago.

NINE DEMANDS OF LIBERALISM

(1) We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall be no longer exempt from taxation.

(2) We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in the legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by the public money, shall be discontinued.

(3) We demand that all public appropriations for educational and charitable institutions of a sectarian character shall

cease.

(4) We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a textbook or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.

(5) We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States or by the governors of the various states, of all the religious festivals and feasts shall wholly cease.

(6) We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.

(7) We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.

(8) We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of "Christian" morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.

(9) We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several states, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.

AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, THE: Founded 1865 in Boston, Mass., at a meeting called by Drs. S. G. Howe, Nathan Allen, R. T. Davis, and F. B. Sanborn, and presided over by Gov. John A. Andrew. Its first president was Prof. W. B. Rogers, founder of the Boston Institute of Technology; and its first secretaries Dr. Samuel Eliot and F. B. Sanborn. Ensuing presidents have been Dr. Samuel Eliot, George William Curtis, Prof. B. Peirce, President Gilman of Baltimore, President A. D. White of Cornell, Gen. John Eaton, Carroll D. Wright, Prof. Francis Wayland, F. J. Kingsbury, Oscar S. Straus, and other eminent scholars and publicists. It conducts its work under the five departments of Education, Finance, Health, Jurisprudence, and Social Economy. Heads of these departments have been David A. Wells, Dr. Francis Lieber, George S. Boutwell, President Woolsey, Charles L. Brace, Robert Treat Paine, John Graham Brooks, Edward Atkinson, Dr. Walter Channing, Dr. Stephen Smith, Judge S. E. Baldwin, Rev. H. L. Wayland, Robert C. Winthrop, Judge

Anarchism

Emory Washburn, and many others. Mr. Sanborn remained secretary from 1865 until 1898, and was succeeded by Rev. F. S. Root, who died in 1906, and was succeeded by Prof. I. F. Russell of New York, the present secretary. Meetings have been held annually for forty-two years, and hundreds of addresses and papers have been read, many of them afterward published in The Journal of Social Science, edited in turn by S. Eliot, Henry Villard, F. B. Sanborn, and F. S. Root. From the Social Science Association have sprung_the National Prison Association, the National Conference of Charities, and numerous branch societies, clubs, etc. Its main office was for years in Boston, then in New Haven, Conn., and is now in New York. It numbers some 600 members in all parts of the United States, but chiefly in New York and New England. Secretary, Prof. I. F. Russell, 120 Broadway, New York City.

AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, THE: This association was organized in 1839, and has a membership of about 600. A quarterly publication was begun in 1888, by means of which special statistical monographs are being presented to the public, and in addition this journal contains a record of current statistical literature, which is intended to inform the members concerning the most important and recent statistical inquiries made in foreign countries. This publication has reached (March, 1906), its seventy-third number, and is recognized as a valuable record of statistical work. The present constitution of the association is as follows:

ART. I. This association shall be denominated the American Statistical Association.

ART. II. The objects of the association shall be to collect, preserve, and diffuse statistical information in the different departments of human knowledge.

ART. III. The association shall be composed of fellows and honorary members.

ART. IV. All members shall be chosen by the board of directors, the affirmative votes of four-fifths of the members of said board being necessary to a choice. Each fellow shall pay annually $2, or $20 at some one time.

ART. V. Fellows only shall be entitled to vote, but honorary members shall have the right to sit and deliberate in all the meetings of the association.

(ARTS. VI., VII., and VIII. omitted.)

NOTE. Each member shall be entitled to receive all reports and publications of the association.

The association's presidents have been: Hon. Richard Fletcher, A.M., LL.D.; George C. Shattuck, M.D., LL.D.; Edward Jarvis, A.M., M.D., and Francis A. Walker, Ph.D., LL.D. Its present officers are: President, Carroll D. Wright, LL.D. Vice-presidents, Horace G. Wadlin, Litt.D.; Henry C. Adams, Ph.D.; Henry Gannett; S. N. D. North, LL.D.; Walter F. Willcox, Ph.D. Corresponding secretary and librarian, Horace G. Wadlin, Litt.D., Public Library, Boston, Mass. Treasurer, S. B. Pearmain, 53 State Street, Boston, Mass. Recording Secretary, Carroll W. Doten, A.M., Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass. Councilors, Cressy L. Wilbur, M.D.; F. L. Hoffman; Chas. Edward A. Winslow. Committee on Publication, Davis R. Dewey, Ph.D.; John Koren; Edward M. Hartwell, M.D. mittee on Finance, Osborne Howes; Walter C. Wright; S. B. Pearmain. Committee on Library, Hon. Julius L. Clarke; Rev. Samuel W. Dike, LL.D.; W. Z. Ripley, Ph.D. (See also AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION and INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL INSTITUTION.)

Com

ANABAPTISTS: A religious community that arose principally in Germany in the sixteenth

century, opposing the baptizing of infants (whence their name), but better known for their revolutionary and communistic social efforts. Thomas Munzer (1520), the leader of a set of enthusiasts called the prophets of Zwickau, did much to spread the beliefs of Anabaptism through Saxony and Switzerland. Waldshut became one of their centers of propagation. Revolting from the rigid rule of the state and from the false formalism of the Church, they carried their principles too far, and it is certain that in some places the movement, guided by ambitious and licentious men, broke into lawlessness and lust. But for the most part the Anabaptists have been a maligned and misrepresented class of people, who earnestly desired and sought for a greater fulness of truth and brotherhood than any institutions under the then existing conditions provided. Their doctrines were: The equality of all Christians, the community of goods, the baptism of the Spirit, adult baptism, and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth. About 1525 the "Peasant War" broke out, partially caused and largely supported by these doctrines. The laboring classes were at this time cruelly opprest by the government, and the teachings of Anabaptism spread rapidly through Holstein, Westphalia, and the Netherlands. Again and again they were checked, and scattered, and persecuted even to death; but traveling preachers continued the agitation, and organizations sprang up wherever persecution turned its back.

History

In 1534 they became masters of Münster; they destroyed churches and appointed twelve judges to rule over the city. A tailor named Jan van Leiden had himself crowned king, and for a year the city was given over to every kind of madness and licentiousness. At the end of that time several Protestant princes conquered the city and restored peace and order by executing the ringleaders of the uproar. In Amsterdam and other cities, however, Anabaptists, who had little in common with the lustful fanaticism of Buckhold, spread their doctrines. The Revelations of St. John was their chief source of doctrine; and their main desire was to found a new kingdom of pure and primitive Christianity. David Joris (1501-56), one of the chief of these, united liberalism with anabaptism, introduced much mystical theology, and strove to unite the different Christian sects. Another prominent leader was Menno Simons. In spite of dangers and persecutions he gathered together the scattered and disheartened Anabaptists of Germany and the Netherlands, known in the United States as "Mennonites." He explained his belief in a book published in 1556, "Elements of the True Christian Faith," which is still an authoritative book among the Mennonites. His adherents believe in strictly following the teachings of Scripture, in rejecting the taking of oaths, every kind of revenge, war, divorce (except for adultery), infant baptism, and the undertaking the work of a magistrate. Their belief is that while magistracy is necessary for the present time, it is foreign to the kingdom of Christ. education and theology of the colleges they set very little value upon. Menno called his adherents "God's congregation; poor, unarmed Christian brothers." In Germany the Mennonites are called Taufgesinnte, and in Holland, Doopsgezinden.

The

The church is a literal communion of the saints, which must be kept pure by strict discipline.

They celebrate the rite of feet-washing. Their bishops, elders, and teachers serve gratis. They are split into many divisions, mainly the strict and the mild Mennonites. The latter are known as Waterlanders, from a place in Holland. Some of their divisions take names from the peculiarities of their dress-Buttoners, Hook-and-eye-ers, etc. The purity of their lives, however, commands respect, and their industry makes them prosperous.

REFERENCES: The Social Side of the Reformation, by E. B. Bax; A Valuable Chapter in Ethic of Free Thought, by Karl Pearson; Anabaptism, by Richard Heath; also Ranke and other writers on the Reformation.

ANARCHISM (Gr. xv, privative, and apxh, government): The social doctrine of the abolition of government of man by man, and the constitution of society without government. In this article the subject is considered under three heads: (1) Individualist or Philosophical Anarchism; (2) Anarchist Communism;`and (3) Arguments against Anarchism.

Under the general definition there are two schools of anarchists, totally distinct and even opposed in their doctrines, methods, and in their general characteristics. The two schools are those of the individualist anarchists (often called in this country philosophical anarchists), and, secondly, the school of anarchist communists, a school which, however, is gradually dying out, and which the more thoughtful anarchists deny to be anarchism at all. The individualist anarchists, tho the fewer in number, are, in this country especially, the abler body of thinkers, and carry to their fullest logical results the principles which a great many individualists accept but do not carry out. Individualist anarchists do not believe in the use of force-not because they hold that it is wrong to use it, but because they are aware that the use of force never truly liberates, while their aim is absolute liberty-their motto being "Liberty, not the daughter, but the mother of order." They start from the philosophy of individual sovereignty, and apply it to the problems of social science with relentless logic. By no means objecting to organization and cooperation, provided it be voluntary, they would have all organization spring from the individual.

Anarchist communists, on the other hand, form a wholly different school of thought. They do not believe in government, and they do believe in overthrowing it by force. On its ruins they would plant a communal life, whose ideal is very little different from that of the Socialists, except that it is not to be realized through the state. Most of the men who are called anarchists in the press, particularly of Europe, and almost all the bomb-throwers and dynamiters of recent years on either continent have been lanarchist communists. This school is mainly European, while individualist anarchism is mainly American. Anarchist-communism counts among its followers names favorably known to science and letters, such as Krapotkin and Réclus, while many, even of the dynamitards, have been men of education and sometimes refinement. Nevertheless, it is mainly a movement among the working classes, particularly of France, Italy, Spain, and to a less extent, Germany and Austria. In England there are but few anarchist communists. In America they are found only in a few cities. The so-called Chicago anarchists were anarchist communists. Individualist an

Anarchism

archism, on the other hand, is not a class movement, but almost purely intellectual, naturally drawing its strength largely from the classes possessed to-day of intellectual advantages. It will thus be seen that in philosophy, method, and general characteristics the two classes of anarchists are carefully to be distinguished. Both are distinctly revolutionary and opposed to the state; but the one starts from the individual, and advocates a revolution through ideas; the other starts from the community, and advocates a revolution through force. We print a statement of individualist anarchism by Victor S. Yarros, former associate editor of Liberty, and a statement of anarchist communism by Pierre Krapotkin, perhaps its most distinguished representative. Mr

Yarros writes:

Definition

and Statement

I. Individualist or Philosophical Anarchism The individualistic or philosophical anarchists favor the abolition of 'the state" and government of man by man. They seek to bring about a state of political freedom-of anarchy. To comprehend the precise import of this statement it is essential to grasp and bear in mind the definitions given by the anarchists to the terms employed in their expositions. The current misconceptions of the anarchistic doctrines are chiefly due to the persistent, tho largely unconscious, habit of interpreting them in the light of the popular definitions of the terms "state,' government," etc., instead of in the light of their own technical use of these terms. The average man on being told that the anarchist would abolish all governmental restraints, not unnaturally concludes that the proposition involves the removal of the restrictions upon criminal conduct, the relinquishment of organized defense of life, liberty, and property. Those who are familiar with the doctrine of non-resistance to evil, preached by the early Christians and by the modern Tolstoïans, generally identify anarchism with it. But such interpretations are without any foundation. The anarchists are emphatically in favor of resistance to and organized protection against crime and aggression of every kind; it is not greater freedom for the criminal, but greater freedom for the non-criminal, that they aim to secure; and by the abolition of government they mean the removal of restrictions upon conduct intrinsically ethical and legitimate, but which ignorant legislation has interdicted as criminal. "The anarchistic principle of personal liberty is absolutely coincident with the famous Spencerian "first principle of human happiness," the principle of "equal freedom," which Mr. Spencer has exprest in the formula, "Every man is free to do what he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man. It is, in fact, precisely because the anarchist accepts this principle without reservation, and insists on the suppression and elimination of all aggression or invasion-all conduct incompatible with equality of liberty-that he declares war upon the "state" and "government." He defines "state" as "the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual or band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area." * Government he

*The definitions here given are those formed and consistently used by Benjamin R. Tucker, the editor of Liberty, the organ of the philosophical anarchistic movement.

defines as "the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external will"; and "invasion" as conduct violative of equal freedom.

Program

Perhaps the clearest way of stating the political program of the anarchists will be to indicate its relation to other and better-known theories of government. The anarchists, agreeing with the view of the true Jeffersonian Democrats, that the best government is that which governs least, sympathizing with the position of the old Manchester individualists and laissez-faire-ists, who believed in a minimum of government interference, as well as with the less vague doctrines of the more radical modern individualists of the Spencerian school, who would limit the state to the sole function of protecting men against external and internal invaders, go a step farther and demand the dissolution of what remains of "government' -viz., compulsory taxation and compulsory military service. It is no more necessary, contend the anarchists, that government should assume the protective military and police functions, and compel men to accept its services, than it is that government should meddle with production, trade, banking, education, and other lines of human activity. By voluntary organization and voluntary taxation it is perfectly possible to protect liberty and property and to restrain crime. It is doubtless easy to imagine a society in which government concerns itself with nothing save preservation of order and punishment of crime, in which there are no public schools supported by compulsory taxation, no government interference with the issue of currency and banking, no custom-houses or duties on foreign imports, no government postal service, no censorship of literature and the stage, no attempt to enforce Sunday laws, etc. The laissez-faire-ists of the various schools have familiarized the thinking public with such a type of social organization. The anarchists simply propose to do away with the compulsory feature of the single function reserved for government by the radical laissez-faire-ists. In other words, they insist on the right of the nonaggressive individual to "ignore the state," to dispense with the protective services of the defensive organization and remain outside of it. This would not prevent those who might desire systematic and organized protection from combining to maintain a defensive institution, but such an institution would not be a government, since no one would be compelled to join it and pay toward its support. Anarchy, therefore, may be defined as a state of society in which the non-invasive individual is not coerced into cooperation even for the defense of his neighbors, and in which each enjoys the highest degree of liberty compatible with equality of liberty.

With regard to the question of putting down aggression, the jurisdiction of the voluntary defensive organization would of course extend to outsiders, and not be limited by its membership. The criminal are not to secure immunity by declining to join defensive associations. As the freedom of each is to be bounded by the equal freedom of all, the invader would be liable to punishment under anarchism no less than under government. Criminals would still be tried by juries and punished by executive officers. They would not be allowed to set up ethical standards for themselves and to do what is right in their own eyes. Such a doctrine involves not the abolition of government, but the widest possible

is

extension of it. It repudiates all ethical principles and abandons all attempts at enforcing justice and protecting rights. Every man allowed under it to govern his fellows, if he has the will and the power, and the struggle for existence in the simplest and crudest form is revived. Anarchism, on the other hand, posits the principle of equal liberty as binding upon all, and only insists that those who refrain from violating it should not be interfered with in any way, either by individual governors or combinations of would-be rulers.

Arguments for Anarchism

Anarchists reject governmentalism because they find no ethical warrant and no practical necessity for it. It appears to them self-evident that society, or the community, can have no greater claims upon the individual than the component members of it have. The metaphysical and misleading analogies between society and organism, upon which is usually founded the governmentalist's theory of the prerogatives of the state, anarchists reject with undisguised contempt. "The community,' or "the state," is an abstraction, and an abstraction has neither rights nor duties. Individuals, and individuals only, have rights. This proposition is the corner-stone of the anarchistic doctrine, and those who accept it are bound to go the full length of anarchism. For if the community cannot rightfully compel a man to do or refrain from doing that which private and individual members thereof cannot legitimately force him to do or forego, then compulsory taxation and compulsory cooperation for any purpose whatever are wrong in principle, and government is merely another name for aggression. It will not be pretended that one private individual has the right to tax another private individual without his consent; how, then, does the majority of the members of a community obtain the right to tax the minority without its consent? Having outgrown the dogma of the divine right of kings, democratic countries are unconsciously erecting the dogma of the divine right of majorities to rule. The absurdity of such a belief is apparent. Majorities, minorities, and any other combinations of individuals are entitled to insist on respect of their rights, but not on violating the rights of others. There is one ethical standard, not two; and it cannot be right for government to do that which would be criminal or immoral when committed by individuals. Laws of social life are not made at the polls or in legislative assemblies; they have to be discovered in the same way in which laws of other sciences are discovered. Once discovered, majorities are bound to observe them no less than individuals.

No Ethical Warrant for Government

As already stated, the anarchists hold that the law of equal freedom, formulated positively by Spencer and negatively by Kant, is a scientific social law which ought to guide men in their various activities and mutual relations. The logical deductions or corollaries of this law show us at once our rights and our duties. Government violates this great law not only by the fact of its very existence, but in a thousand other ways. Government means the coercion of the non-invasive, the taxation of those who protest against being forced to join the political organization set up by the majority. It enacts statutes and imposes restraints which find no sanction in