Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

social expediency.
After reading Stirner, Tucker declared that
Anarchism of the 'natural right' type is out
of date. The Anarchism of today affirms the
right of society to coerce the individual and
of the individual to coerce society so far as
either has the requisite power .•• practical
i n d i v i d u a Iso v ere i g n t y - -. t h.atis, the
g rea t est am 0 un t 0 f lib e r t y compat i blewi t h
equality of liberty -- is the law of social
I i fe, the 0 n lye0 n d i t ion up 0 n wh ich h uma n
be i ngs can 1 i ve in harmony. When the truth
is ascertained and acted upon, we shall have
individual sovereignty in reality-- not as a
sacred natural right vindicated, but as a
social expedient agreed upon••• (79)
Tucker's endorsement of egoism produced a split in
the movement. Natural rights theorists such as Henry
Appleton, M. E. Lazarus and John Kelly (Spooner died in
1887, pr ior to Tucker's rejection of natural rights)
s eve red the ire0 nne c t ion wit h Libe r t y, wh i leeg 0 i s t s
1 ike J. L. Wa 1 k e r, and J. B. Rob i nson came to the defenseof
Tucker. The split never completely healed and
probably contributed at least somewhat to the ultimate
decline of philosophical anarchism.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that just one
month after his initial rejection of nat·ural law,
Tucker reaffirmed his attachment to Spooner's "common
law jury": "under Anarchism all rules and laws will be
little more than suggestions for the guidance of juri
e s , • • and a 1 I dis put e s, wh e t he r abo u t land or anyt
h i ngel s e, will b e submit ted t 0 j uri e s wh i c h wi I 1
judge not only the facts, but the justice of the law,
its applicabiliity to the given circumstances, and the
penalty or damage to be inflicted because of its infraction
."(80) Thus, both the egoist as well as the
natural rights strains of individualist anarchism advocated
the same institutional framework: competitive defense
companies to provide protection and the trial by
j u r y, wit h dec i s ion s bas e don comm 0 n law, t 0 set tie
disputes. Their real disagreement was philosophical:
whether common law was based on natural rights principles
or social expediency.
207