Individual Liberty - Evernote

its borders; and it seems plain that any State which should do so would thereby cease
to be a State and to be considered as such by any. The exercise of authority over the
same area by two States is a contradiction. That the first element, aggression, has been
and is common to all States will probably be less generally admitted. Nevertheless, I
shall not attempt to re-enforce here the conclusion of Spencer, which is gaining wider
acceptance daily; that the State had its origin in aggression, and has continued as an
aggressive institution from its birth. Defence was an afterthought, prompted by
necessity; and its introduction as a State function, though effected doubtless with a
view to the strengthening of the State, was really and in principle the initiation of the
State's destruction. Its growth in importance is but an evidence of the tendency of
progress toward the abolition of the State. Taking this view of the matter, the
Anarchists contend that defence is not an essential of the State, but that aggression is.
Now what is aggression? Aggression is simply another name for government.
Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms. The essence of
government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is
a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed,
whether it is made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary
criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch,
or by all other men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy. On the
other hand, he who resists another's attempt to control is not an aggressor, an invader,
a governor, but simply a defender, a protector; and the nature of such resistance is not
changed whether it be offered by one man to another man, as when one repels a
criminal's onslaught, or by one man to all other men, as when one declines to obey an
oppressive law, or by all men to one man, as when a subject people rises against a
despot, or as when the members of a community voluntarily unite to restrain a
criminal. This distinction between invasion and resistance, between government and
defence, is vital. Without it there can be no valid philosophy of politics. Upon this
distinction and the other considerations just outlined, the Anarchists frame the desired
definitions. This, then, is the Anarchistic definition of government: the subjection of
the non-invasive individual to an external will. And this is the Anarchistic definition
of the State: the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of
individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a
given area. As to the meaning of the remaining term in the subject under discussion,
the word "individual," I think there is little difficulty. Putting aside the subtleties in
which certain metaphysicians have indulged, one may use this word without danger of
being misunderstood. Whether the definitions thus arrived at prove generally
acceptable or not is a matter of minor consequence. I submit that they are reached
scientifically, and serve the purpose of a clear conveyance of thought. The Anarchists,
having by their adoption taken due care to be explicit, are entitled to have their ideas
judged in the light of these definitions.
Now comes the question proper: What relations should exist between the State and
the Individual? The general method of determining these is to apply some theory of
ethics involving a basis of moral obligation. In this method the Anarchists have no
confidence. The idea of moral obligation, of inherent rights and duties, they totally
discard. They look upon all obligations, not as moral, but as social, and even then not
really as obligations except as these have been consciously and voluntarily assumed.
If a man makes an agreement with men, the latter may combine to hold him to his
agreement; but, in the absence of such agreement, no man, so far as the Anarchists are
aware, has made any agreement with God or with any other power of any order