The VoluntaryistWhole Number 93 "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself" August 1998

Why I Write And PublishTHE VOLUNTARYIST

By Carl WatnerAs I compose this article, I have only a few more

issues of THE VOLUNTARYIST to write and publishbefore I reach No. 100. Once completed, that effortwill have spanned nearly seventeen years of my life.During that time I have been imprisoned for fortydays on a federal civil contempt charge (1982); mar-ried Julie (1986); witnessed the homebirths of ourfour children; operated two businesses here in SouthCarolina (one of them a feed mill, I have been run-ning since my marriage; the other, a retail tire storeand service center I took over in early 1997); havebeen responsible for the building of our family'shouse; and participate in the homeschooling of allour children. Although THE VOLUNTARYIST hasbeen an important and constant part of my life allthis time, the first article that I wrote and publishedpreceded THE VOLUNTARYIST by nearly a decade.It was "Lysander Spooner: Libertarian Pioneer" andappeared in REASON Magazine in March 1973.

As I reflect upon my writing career. I recall one ofmy very first self-published monographs—TOWARDS A THEORY OF PROPRIETARYJUSTICE. In it there was a piece titled "Let It NotBe Said That I Did Not Speak Out!". There isobviously something in my mental-spiritual-physicalconstitution that needs a publishing outlet. It isimportant to me to set forth my ideas, especially whenthey are so very different from the vast majority ofpeople that I associate with most of the time. If every-one seems to be heading toward a precipice, they needto be warned. If I am pushed and shoved along withthem, even if I am powerless to stop the crowd, it isimportant to me and my integrity that some recordbe left of my resistance and of my recognition thatwe are headed toward danger. "Let It Not Be SaidThat I Did Not Speak Out!" was published in 1976,and appears now in the pages of THE VOLUNTARY-IST for the first time:

When the individuals living under thejurisdiction of the United States Governmentawake to political reality, they are going tofind themselves living in government bond-age. Every act of government brings us closerto this reality. The only logical future is toexpect life in a socialized state. Henceforth,to be a citizen will mean to be a slave.

To speak the truth without fear is the only

resistance I am bound to display. To dissem-inate without reserve all the principles withwhich I am acquainted and to do so on everyoccasion with the most persevering constancy,so that my acquiescence to injustice will notbe assumed, is my self-assumed obligation.

The honest among us realize that theresort to coercion is a tacit confession of im-becility. If he who employs force against mecould mold me to his purposes by argument,no doubt he would.

The alternative is then simply living bythe libertarian principle that no person orgroup of people is entitled to resort to violenceor its threat in order to achieve their ends.This means that everyone, regardless of theirposition in the world, who is desirous of imple-menting their ideas, must rely solely on vol-untary persuasion and not on force or itsthreat.

Individuals make the world go round; indi-viduals and only individuals exist. No manhas any duty towards his fellow men exceptto refrain from the initiation of violence.Nothing is due a man in strict justice but whatis his own. To live honestly is to hurt no oneand to give to every one is due.

... Justice will not come to reign unlessthose who care for its coming are prepared toinsist upon its value and have the courage tospeak out against what they know to bewrong.

Let it not be said that I did not speak outagainst tyranny.As much as any other piece I have ever written, it

probably best explains why I have devoted so muchtime to THE VOLUNTARYIST over the years. Thereis an episode in Ayn Rand's ANTHEM in which theprotagonist, Equality 7-2521, discovers a room fullof books, someone's personal library, that had escapedthe book-burning that undoubtedly had accompaniedthe creation of the collectivist holocaust in which helived. It was among those books that he rediscoveredthe word "I" which had disappeared from the cur-rent lexicon. My hope is that THE VOLUNTARYISTmessage—that a non-violent and stateless society isboth moral and practical—will survive, just like thebooks that Equality found. Hopefully, if someone inthe future finds copies of THE VOLUNTARYISTnewsletter or the anthology that I am proposing topublish (see accompanying article) they will help to

continued on page 7

The VoluntaryistEditor: Carl Watner

Subscription InformationPublished bi-monthly by The Voluntaryists, P.O. Box 1275,

Gramling, SC 29348. Yearly subscriptions (six issues) are $18or .045 ounce or 1.400 grams of fine gold. For overseas postage,please add $5 or V3 of the regular subscription price. Singleback issues are $4 each or lk of the regular subscription price.Please check the number on your mailing label to see whenyou should renew.Back issues of this publication are available on microfichefrom John Zube, Box 52, Berrima, NSW 2577, Australia.

The Myth of American Liberty:Book Review of William J. Novak's

THE PEOPLE'S WELFARE: Law andRegulation in Nineteenth-Century America

By Carl WatnerWilliam J. Novak, a history professor at the

University of Chicago, has documented "America'slong history of government regulation in the areasof public safety, political economy, public property,morality, and public health." In his book, THEPEOPLE'S WELFARE, he challenges the myth ofAmerican liberty. This book argues that "the nine-teenth-century Jeffersonian world of minimalgovernment, low taxes, absolute private property,individual rights, self-interested entrepreneurship,and laissez-faire economics" never existed, (ix)Instead of a night-watchman state, the 19th Centurywas the era of many localized police states. As Novakexplains

A distinctive and powerful governmentaltradition ... of a well-regulated society domi-nated [the] United States from 1787 to 1877.[It had] deep and diverse roots in colonial,English, and continental European customs,laws, and public practices .... At the heart ofthe well-regulated society was a plethora ofbylaws, ordinances, statutes, and common lawrestrictions regulating nearly every aspect ofearly American economy and society, fromSunday observances to the carting of offal.These laws [were] the work of mayors,common councils, state legislators, town andcounty officers, and powerful state and localjudges .... Taken together they explodetenacious myths about nineteenth-centurygovernment (or its absence) and demonstratethe pervasiveness of regulation in earlyAmerican versions of the good society:regulations for public safety and security(protecting the very existence of the popula-tion from catastrophic enemies like fire andinvasion); the construction of a publiceconomy (determining the rules by whichpeople would acquire and exchange food and

goods); the policing of public space (definingcommon rights in roads, rivers, and publicsquares); all- important restraints on publicmorals (establishing the social and culturalcondition of public order); and the open-endedregulatory powers granted to public officialsto guarantee public health (securing thepopulation's well-being, longevity, and pro-ductivity). Public regulation—the power of thestate to restrict individual liberty andproperty for the common welfare—colored allfacets of early American development....

These laws, this regulatory tradition andthis vision of governance—what I collectivelyrefer to as "the well-regulated society"—arethe subjects of this book. (1-2)The basis of the well-regulated society was found

in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Consti-tution, and in the constitutions of the states that hadbeen adopted into the federal union. The TenthAmendment reserved to the states all powers notexplicitly delegated or prohibited to the federalgovernment under the Constitution. The mostimportant political power reserved to the states un-der the federal constitution was their sovereign rightto use violence and force to curtail the activities ofindividuals whose property threatened the generalwelfare of their respective communities. "Policepower" was defined as government actions for "thepromotion and maintenance of health, safety, morals,and general welfare of the public. It [was] groundedin the belief that an overriding public interest ofgeneral, widespread benefit asserts a superior claimover private property and individual activity." InEnglish and American jurisprudence the "policepower" formed the basis for all governmentalrestraint and regulation of life and property.

The police power as an element of statecraft tracesits roots back to the common law of England.Although libertarian legalists, such as LysanderSpooner have viewed the common law sympa-thetically, Novak's analysis utterly destroys the ideathat the common law could be a bulwark betweengovernment encroachments and individual liberty.Novak points out that "two of the most influentialcommon law maxims formed the basis for Americanpolice regulations. They were: salus populi supremalex est (the welfare of the people is the supreme law)and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (use yourown so as not to injure another). These were thecommon law blueprint for governance in a well-regulated society." (42) The first maxim, salus populi,made it possible for jurists and legislators to consis-tently uphold the public interest over private inter-ests, or as New York Chancellor James Kent put it,"Private interest must be made subservient to thegeneral interest of the community." (9) The othermaxim, sic utere, provided the basis for most regula-tory legislation and nuisance law. Lemuel Shaw, Chief

Page 2 August 1998

Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court,summarized Anglo-American jurisprudence's view ofthe police powers and the state in his 1851 decisionin Commonwealth v. Alger:

We think it is a well settled principle,growing out of the nature of well ordered civilsociety, that every holder of property, howeverabsolute and unqualified may be his title,holds it under the implied liability that hisuse of it may be so regulated, that it shall notbe injurious to the equal enjoyment of othershaving an equal right to the enjoyment oftheir property, nor injurious to the rights ofthe community. All property in this common-wealth ...is derived directly or indirectly fromthe government, and held subject to those gen-eral regulations, which are necessary to thecommon good and welfare, (emphasis added)Rights of property ... are subject to suchreasonable limitations in their enjoyment, asshall prevent them from being injurious, andto such reasonable restraints and regulationsestablished by law, as the legislature ... maythink necessary and expedient.... The powerwe allude to is ... the police power; the powervested in the legislature by the constitutionto make, ordain, and establish all manner ofwholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, andordinances, either with penalties or without,not repugnant to the constitution, as theyshall judge to be for the good and welfare ofthe Commonwealth. (19-20)Thus, the common law of England, which was

brought to North America by the English colonists,nurtured the deep roots of economic regulation foundin the United States during the late-18th and 19thcenturies. There were virtually no areas of life leftuntouched by the police power of the state. Forexample, between 1781 and 1801, the New York statelegislature specifically enacted laws regulating manyforms of economic behavior: hawkers and peddlers;rents and leases; mines; ferries; apprentices andservants; travel, labor, and play on Sunday; theexportation of flaxseed; the inspection of lumber, flour,beef, and pork; inns and taverns; attorneys; doctors;and sales by public auction. "There [was] no suchthing in American jurisprudence as a vested right tobuy and sell. No business, occupation, trade, oreconomic activity... was ever immune from the state'spolice powers for the protection and promotion ofpublic safety, morals, health, comfort, and welfare."(111-112) An example of the extremes to which thisregulation went may be found in the public market-place concept of the 19th Century. Public market-places originated in the exclusive prerogative of theEnglish king to establish marts and fairs for thepublic benefit. They were upheld by the Englishcourts on the basis of "the preservation of order, andprevention of irregular behavior." In America, public

Replacing Governmentwith Voluntary Action

In modern society, people everywhere are borninto an area "ruled" by some government. By law,citizens at their maturity become supporting, tax-paying members of that government. Attemptsto withdraw, or failure to pay support-taxes, re-sult in imprisonment or fine. ... [Nevertheless,some Americans] have advocated replacing gov-ernment with voluntar[y]ism. ...

From about 1790 to 1930, America produceda group who believed, taught, and demonstratedthat all human activities and all organizationsshould be voluntary—that even defense need notbe governmental and coercive. They worked hardto free the economy of monopoly and exploita-tion in order that crime would be reduced, andthe need for defense would fall to a minimum.

Persons holding these beliefs and practicessometimes call themselves "individualist anar-chists." Examining the root meaning of anarchy,we find that "an" means no or none, "archy"means rulership. Thus "anarchy" means norulership or enforced authority. Anarchy does notmean chaos and disorder. ...

The terms anarchist, anarchism, and anar-chy, have been used so loosely that their specificmeaning of no enforced authority has been ob-scured. Anarchists do, of course, believe in au-thority, and in leadership, and in organization—all voluntary and unimposed. It is an error touse "anarchy" to mean chaos, or mere hostilityto the status quo.

True anarchists hold that individual choiceis primary to maturity and responsibility. For thisthey hold that private property is essential, thatis, for courageous dissident beliefs or actions, aperson must be beholden to no one—neither toemployer nor group nor government. For suchindependence, he needs a place of his own, invio-lable and private to himself, from which he canproduce his own survival, and from which hecannot be excluded for speech or actions thatharm no one. To ensure widespread private prop-erty, individualist anarchists work to remove allforms of privilege and monopoly that centralizeproperty, ownership, and control into the handsof a few people.-Mildred J. Loomis, ALTERNATIVE AMERI-CAS, (1982) pp. 34-35.

marketplaces "were created to ensure an adequatesupply of wholesome, fairly priced food and provi-sions accessible to the general population." (96) Insome cities, like Philadelphia, "all provisions broughtto the town for sale could only be sold at publicmarket. Provisions sold elsewhere were subject to

Page 3

INTERNAL*EVENUESERVICE

"I no longer care to do business with you.Kindly take my name off your mailing list."

forfeiture,.... The clerk of the market was empoweredto seize all unsound and unwholesome provisions."(97) "To leave unregulated something as central tothe general welfare as the supply of basic foodstuffswas an abdication of public responsibility." (96)

The protection of public health and the food supplywere primary duties of political sovereignty, and weresanctioned by the common law from time out of mind.Governments provided street cleaning and paving, asafe water supply, and a gamut of regulations onnoxious slaughterhouses, temperance, burials, build-ing construction, midwives, sewage, garbage disposal,vital statistics, hospitals, and the policing of epi-demics and communicable diseases. Local boards ofhealth became the first real administrative agenciesin this country, and they had the power to exercisesummary jurisdiction over their subjects. "They wereone of the first political entities to be delegated inde-pendent discretionary police powers concerningquarantines, appointment of inspectors, the abate-ment of public nuisances, and the punishment ofviolators of their ordinances as criminals." (203)Quarantine officers, whether landed or marine, hadpowers of arrest, imprisonment, imposition of fines,and levying of liens. Quarantines, and their accom-panying police actions, were sometimes compared toa declaration of war or martial law, and quarantineofficers were sometimes said to hold more power thanthe President of the United States. Local healthboards and inspectors held broad powers to "discover,isolate, and sometimes destroy homes, buildings, andproperty deemed capable of spreading disease." (212)They were given the summary power to remove and

destroy buildings and property as health nuisances.Health officers often forcibly removed the sick tocounty fair grounds; impressed horses, carriages, andassistants to help them; and seized private homes,buildings, and even hotels for conversion intotemporary municipal hospitals. (214)

A court case evolving out of events in New Jerseyin the early 1870s demonstrates the power of publichealth and nuisance laws. After notifying thecompany that it was in violation of a city nuisanceordinance which prohibited the emitting of noxiousand unwholesome smells, city officials of Jersey Cityraided an offensive fertilizer plant and rendered itinoperative by removing some of the parts from themachinery used to grind baked blood into fertilizer.The company claimed "unreasonable search andseizure, the taking of property without due process,deprivation of trial by jury, and taking of propertywithout compensation." The courts sustained thecity's raid on the fertilizer works. First of all, theJersey City charter included the power to declare andremove nuisances, and to sell seized property at thepublic yard of the city. Secondly, the jurists declaredthat, under the common law, nuisances may be abatedby either individuals or public officials. The offend-ing "property may be destroyed and the ownerdeprived of it without trial, without notice, and with-out compensation. Such destruction for the publicsafety and health, is not a taking of private propertyfor public use ... in the sense of the Constitution. It issimply the prevention of its noxious and unlawfuluse, and depends upon the principles that every manmust so use his own property so as not to injure hisneighbor, and that the safety of the public is the para-mount law. These principles are legal maxims oraxioms essential to the existence of regulated society.Written constitutions presuppose them, are subordi-nate to them, and cannot set them aside." (emphasisin original) (227)

"A little light pushes away much darkness."—Ancient saying of the Jewish sages.

Under the common law, "no man is an island untohimself." There is scarcely any form of behavior oruse of property that does not somehow affect thepublic or the public's interest in a well-ordered com-munity. Consequently, "[t]he regulation of publicmorality played an absolutely central role in 19thCentury American life." Many people believed thatthe absence of moral restrictions in the law wouldthrow "society into disorder and confusion." (151)State legislatures authorized local communitygovernments to pass laws concerning adultery,fornication, solicitation, incest, bigamy, polygamy,bestiality, sodomy, obscenity, lewdness, keepingbawdy houses, Sabbath breaking, church attendance,Sunday travel, profane swearing, blasphemy, thekeeping of gaming houses, participation in cock-fighting, and every "public show and exhibition which

Page 4

outrages decency, shocks humanity, or is contrary togood morals." Fines, imprisonment, licensing, inspec-tion, prohibition, search, seizure, and summaryabatement of moral nuisances were all used by stateofficials to control people's behavior and use of theirproperty. (155)

Noteworthy among the sumptuary restrictionscreated in early American law were those involvingthe production and use of alcoholic beverages. Suchlaws traced themselves back to municipal and manor-ial restrictions of 14th Century England. The rightto manufacture, consume, or sell whiskey, rum, orother liquors was never viewed as a natural right inearly America. In 1847, when the United StatesSupreme Court upheld local license laws, it"concluded unanimously that liquor licensing was anappropriate exercise of state police power," which"conflicted with neither property rights, guaranteesof contract, or the commerce clause of theConstitution." (172) One Illinois jurist wrote that, "Agovernment that did not possess the power to protectitself from moral evils like liquor, lotteries, andgambling would scarcely be worth preserving." Oras one 20th Century legal historian put it, "Freeenterprise in liquor, lottery tickets, gambling, and sexnever much appealed to 19th Century judges." (156)

Public nuisance laws, like the moral regulationsembraced by most communities, were "one of the mostpotent regulatory weapons in the common lawarsenal." (157) Under the common law, a man's homehad never been thought of as his castle. The law ofoverruling necessity, based on a long line of Englishcases, clearly established that "in cases of calamity,such as fire, pestilence, or war, individual interestsand right would not inhibit the preservation of thecommonweal. Thus private houses could be pulleddown or bulwarks raised on private property with-out compensation when the safety and security ofthe many depended on it." (72) There was no recog-nition or respect for private property when thepublic's interest was at stake. "Necessity knows nolaw," and in the interests of preserving the State, thecommon law "often made it necessary for individualinjuries to go unredressed in the common interest."(72)

Nowhere was this attitude and practice moreprevalent than in 19th century fire regulations.Uncontrolled fires were considered one of the mostdestructive of all elements in a community setting.Colonial and early American history is replete withinstances of large fires in cities getting out of controland destroying much of the community. Fire regula-tions in New York City originated under Dutch rulein the 17th Century. Ordinances prohibited woodenor plaster chimneys, straw or reed roofs, hayricks orhayracks, and required each household to have aladder, buckets, and keep their chimneys clean. By1813, these regulations had evolved into a completefire code. Police and fire officials were given the

authority to compel the services of the citizenry tofight fires. Additionally, the mayor and aldermenwere given the special power to direct the destruc-tion of buildings to prevent the spread of fire."Inspectors were authorized 'to enter into and exam-ine all dwelling-houses, lots, yards, inclosures, andbuildings of every description within the said city, toexamine and discover whether any danger existstherein'." (57-58) Fines, imprisonment, forfeiture,abatement, summary destruction, and seizure werealso elements of the law. "Private prosecutionsaccompanied by forfeiture provisions were alsocommonly used tools, turning every citizen into apotential police officer and prosecutor." (58)

"Withdrawing in disgust is not the sameas apathy ...."

—from the movie, SLACKERFrom his research of 19th Century case law, Novak

cites several legal decisions relating to fire safetyregulations. They are of particular interest for theydemonstrate that state and public officials exercisedjust as much power then as their counterparts dotoday. Two court cases from the early 1830s willsuffice to illustrate. In Wadleigh v. Gilman [12 Me403 (1835)], the Maine Supreme Court upheld theright of city officials of Bangor to destroy a woodenstructure. The building fell under the grandfatherclause of the fire-limit ordinance, which exemptedpre-existing wooden structures. However, whenWadleigh moved the building, city officials classed itas new construction in a new location, and demol-ished it as being in violation of the prohibition againstnew wooden structures. Wadleigh sued them fortrespass and breaking and entering. The city officialsjustified their actions under Bangor's fire regulations.They were found innocent, and neither they nor thecity were held responsible for the destruction ofprivate property. The justice deciding the case notedthat city authorities should "take such measures, asmay be practicable, to lessen the hazard and dangerof fire. No city, compactly built, can be said to be wellordered or well regulated, which neglects precautionsof this sort." (68) The court recognized that a viola-tion of individual rights was occurring, but justifiedtheir decision by stating: "Though restrictions onprivate conduct 'may sometimes occasion an incon-venience to the individual,' compensation comes from'participating in the general advantage'. Police regu-lations were 'within the scope of the legislative power,without impairing any constitutional provision.' Sucha police regulation was not a taking or an appropria-tion of property requiring compensation—it merelyregulated such property's enjoyment." (68)

The second case stemmed from the eventsoccurring during the Great New York City Fire ofDecember 16, 1835. Mayor Cornelius Lawrence inconsultation with Chief Engineer James Gulickdecided to use gunpowder to destroy a number of

Page 5

private buildings in order to create an artificial fire-break in an attempt to stop the raging fire. Theowners of these buildings sued the mayor and city inorder to collect money for their destroyed buildingsand the contents thereof, but their efforts ultimatelyproved futile. The courts held that destruction of thebuildings was not a taking of private property, butrather an act of public necessity. "The privateproperty of any individual may be lawfully destroyedfor the relief, protection, or safety of the many with-out compensation to the owner thereof." The courtheld that the destruction of the property was not a"taking" under the law of eminent domain, but ratheran act of necessity, "which is founded upon principleswhich are above or beyond the reach of constitutionalrestrictions." In simple terms, "the New York Court ofErrors held that nothing in the federal or state consti-tutions kept governmental officials from blowing upvaluable private property without compensation whenthe 'public interest' necessitated it." (77)

"Instead of Molotov cocktails, prefer Gandhicocktails; that is to say a mixture of truth, cour-age, love, humor, and imagination."

—Hare & Blumberg, LIBERATIONWITHOUT VIOLENCE (1977), p. 61.

The StateBy Ernest Howard Crosby

They talked much of the State—the State.I had never seen the State, and I asked them

to picture it to me, as my gross mind could notfollow their subtle language when they spake ofit.

Then they told me to think of it as of a beauti-ful goddess, enthroned and sceptered, benignlycaring for her children.

But for some reason I was not satisfied.

And once upon a time, as I was lying awake atnight and thinking, I had as it were a vision,

And I seemed to see a barren ridge of sand be-neath a lurid sky;

And lo, against the sky stood out in bold reliefa black scaffold and gallows-tree, and from the endof its gaunt arm hung, limp and motionless, a shad-owy, empty noose.

And a Voice whispered in my ear, "Behold theState incarnate!"

(From PLAIN TALK IN PSALM & PARABLE,1899)

The cases spawned in the aftermath of the NewYork fire of 1835 helped establish the precedent thatlocal, city, and state governments need not reimburseindividuals for private property taken under the lawof overruling necessity. A noted legal author, John F.Dillon, wrote in his 1881 text that "The rights ofprivate property, sacred as the law regards them, areyet subordinate to the higher demands of the publicwelfare. Saluspopuli suprema est lex. Upon this prin-ciple... an individual or municipal officer may razeor demolish houses and other combustible structuresin a city or compact town, to prevent the spread ofan existing conflagration. This he may do indepen-dently of statute, and without responsibility to theowner for damages he thereby sustains." (79) Anothercommentator, Thomas Cooley, observed that firelimits might look like the "destruction of privateproperty" but they were really "a just restraint of aninjurious use of property'." (80) He explained: "Herethe individual is in no degree in fault, but his inter-est must yield to that 'necessity' which 'knows no law.'The injury to the individual was damnum absqueinjuria (an injury without a remedy) under thereasoning that 'a private mischief shall be enduredrather than a public inconvenience.' The higherprerogatives of the common law often made it neces-sary for individual injuries to go unredressed in thecommon interest." (72)

Some of the 19th Century cases that Novak citesstarkly demonstrate statist logic in its most convo-luted form. An 1833 New York State Supreme Courtdecision, Village of Buffalo v. Webster (10 Wend. 99

[1833]) upheld the right of the municipal authoritiesto prohibit the selling of meat outside of the publicmarket. Webster's attorney argued that "the local by-law was 'bad, as unreasonable and improperlyrestraining trade'." Chief Justice Savage "distin-guished illegal restraints of trade from illegitimatepublic regulations, observing that 'a by-law that nomeat should be sold in the village would be bad, beinga general restraint; but that meat should be not besold except in a particular place is good, not being arestraint of the right to sell meat, but a regulation ofthat right'." (299-300) Another Louisiana case, threedecades later, demonstrated the same perverted logic.In the State of Louisiana v. William Fagan (22 LaAnn 545 [1870]) the Court stated its belief that regu-lation of trade was not an invasion of the individual'sright to trade. "Liberty is the right to •do what thelaw permits. 'Freedom does not preclude the idea ofsubjection'. On the contrary, it presupposes theexistence of some legislative provision, the obser-vance of which insures freedom to one, by securingthe like observance from others." (Novak 231) (22 LaAnn 555)

The problem with this reasoning is that it isillogical and incorrect. Liberty is the absence ofmolestation and aggression. Of course, if you allowthe state to define the law, then nothing that the statelegislates will be considered (at least by the stateand state officials) to be aggressive or violating theliberty of its subjects. You also come up with suchhairsplitting as calling laws not a "restraint of theright to sell meat," but rather a "regulation of thatright." Fortunately, there were a few 19th Century

Page 6

jurists who saw through these obfuscations. In Beebev. The State of Indiana (6 Ind 501) of 1855, the Courtquestioned the State of Indiana's attempt to regulatethe liquor t rade. Justice Stuar t argued tha t"Abstractly, free traffic in liquor is as much a right ofprivate property as free traffic in flour, or corn, or[other] merchandise. If it is admitted that to conservethe peace, safety, and well-being of society, the trafficmay be regulated or restrained in any degree, thenthe whole point of the controversy is conceded. In theabstract, all government is tyranny—all political dis-cretion is despotism—all interference to regulate theenjoyment of private property is an invasion of thatright." (emphasis added) (6 Ind 535) A Georgia case(Bethune v. Hughes, 28 Ga 560, 73 Am Dec 789) fouryears later, pretty much summed up the voluntary-ist outlook on state regulations and prohibitions:"Fetters are equally galling whether imposed b3r oneman or by a community;...." But even the jurist whopenned these words backtracked when he concludedthat his sympathies were with the man who "claimsthe right to offer for sale, at any hour of the day, onthe highway or in the streets, as interest or inclina-tion may prompt him, any commodity which he maypossess, the traffic which is not forbidden by the lawsof the land." (emphasis added) (73 Am Dec 793) Hisconcluding proviso destroys the voluntaryist senti-ments. For once one concedes that the laws of theland may restrict trade in certain commodities, onehas already assumed a state with power to assertitself over individual rights.

I have always argued that, in principle, one Stateis just as bad as another. If the choice is between twoStates, of course, we might prefer living under theless totalitarian State. Nevertheless, the fact stillremains that the only difference between a lesstotalitarian and more totalitarian State is one ofdegree. There is no difference in principle: both assertand exercise similar powers. The myth of Americanliberty would have us believe that the AmericanRevolution resulted in a new and different kind ofState—one dependent on the consent of the people.But the truth is entirely different. No common lawtheorist ever believed that people could opt out ofthe State if they did not consent to its existence orthat any society could ever exist without the State.The colonial separation from Britain did not createa state of nature; nor was it intended that the Stateshould disappear. There was never a perceptiblebreak in the actual continuity of governments dur-ing the revolutionary era. Royal authorities werereplaced by provisional governments in every state.As Walter Lippmann wrote in ESSAYS IN PUBLICPHILOSOPHY (1955, pp. 67-68): the revolutionistsand Founding Fathers did not revolt against theauthority of the State, but rather against "the abuseof authority... Far from wishing to overthrow theauthority of government ... they went into rebellionfirst in order to gain admittance into, and then takepossession, of the organs of government."

If any reader of this newsletter needs proof thatthe common law has given great power to the Stateand that the 19th Century American states exercisedjust as much political power as their 20th Centurycounterparts and successors, they need search nofurther. The evidence is found here, in great abun-dance.

[Editor's Note: All parenthetic page referencesrefer to Novak's book, unless otherwise noted.]

Why I Write And Publishcontinued from page 1

re-kindle, re-discover, or elaborate the ideal of atotally free market society. One doesn't need to be apessimist to see that those ideas might one day dis-appear. Even in our own time, only a small part ofthe population embraces libertarian ideas; and onlya small number of libertarians would consider them-selves voluntaryists—people who reject voting andthe legitimacy of the State. Even the individualismof several centuries of American history is in dangerof being obliterated by State propaganda, With luck,THE VOLUNTARYIST will play some small part inpreserving a record of those times in history whenmen were free to act without State interference, andwere self-confident enough to know that the Statepossesses no magical powers.

May knowledge and wisdom come to those whoread THE VOLUNTARYIST. Long live voluntaryistideas.

A Fund Raising Appealcontinued from page 8

subscribers. My hope is to repeat these efforts byraising enough money to typeset and print THEVOLUNTARYIST anthology. Unfortunately, most ofthe articles have not been saved on disk, so they mustbe scanned or re-typed. Perhaps, a small commercialpublishing house might be found to print and marketthe book. Failing that, my intention would be to self-publish the book, marketing it to libraries, individualsubscribers, and libertarian booksellers. From thisvantage point, it is impossible to know the totalamount needed, but from past experience I estimatecosts for both typesetting and printing to be in therange of $3000 to $5000, depending on the numberof copies actually printed.

If you are interested in this project, please sup-port it by sending a donation. Those who contribute$50 or more will receive an autographed copy of thefinished book, at no further cost to them. If any fundsare left over they will be used, pro rata, to extend thesubscriptions of those making donations. Thosewanting to see the titles of articles chosen for theanthology, may obtain the complete list by sending$2 cash and a No. 10 self-addressed envelope. Inputfrom readers and subscribers is certainly welcome.

A Fund Raising Appeal forTHE VOLUNTARYISTAnthology

By Carl WatnerFor almost a year now, I have had the idea of pub-

lishing an anthology containing the best articles fromthe first 100 issues of THE VOLUNTARYIST. I havementioned it to a number of friends and long-timesubscribers, and each one has thought it a worth-while idea. Tentatively the anthology will consist ofarticles categorized into the following topics: State-ment of Purpose; Voting, Strategy, and Non- violence;Personal; Voluntaryist Solutions to Social andEconomic Problems of the Past; Robert LeFevre—Freedom School; Money and Economics; Voluntary-ist Critiques of Government; Book Reviews; Schoolingand Children; Anarcho-Capitalism; Miscellaneous; acomplete Table of Contents for the first 100 issues;and possibly a Topical Index.

The beauty of an anthology is that the most im-portant and significant articles appearing in THEVOLUNTARYIST over the last sixteen years wouldbe bound together in one volume. This collectionwould be unique in many ways. First of all, there isno other body of literature that embraces the methodsand strategy of THE VOLUNTARYIST. Voluntary-ists are the only ones who reject electoral politicsand voting - on the grounds that such activities

support the legitimacy of the State. Whether youembrace nonviolent strategies on moral or practicalgrounds, the ideas of Thoreau, Gandhi, and RobertLeFevre certainly offer an alternative to "politics asusual." The historical articles that have appeared inTHE VOLUNTARYIST deal mostly with examplesof how people have lived without the State at varioustimes in history. Many of the critiques of the Ameri-can government can be found nowhere else, becausefew libertarians have analyzed the legitimacy ofAmerican government. Another reason that theanthology will be unique is that over time, as editorof THE VOLUNTARYIST, I have tried to choose andpublish classic essays in voluntaryist thought. Manyof these, such as John Pugsley's "The Case AgainstT-Bills and Other Thoughts on Theft," HarryBrowne's "A Visit to Rhinegold," and Randy Barnett's"Pursuing Justice in a Free Society," will be preservedin this anthology. In book form those ideas will bemore usable and accessible to individuals than in thesingle issue format in which they originally appeared.In short, I believe the anthology is a valuable expen-diture of time and money.

Readers may be familiar with similar publishingprojects that I have engaged in over the years. BothA VOLUNTARY POLITICAL GOVERNMENT:Letters from Charles Lane, and TRUTH IS NOT AHALF-WAY PLACE: A Biography of Robert LeFevrewere self-published with assistance from friends and

continued on page 7

The VolmitaryistP.O. Box 1275 · Gramling, South Carolina 29348

rL

l̄J

FIRST CLASS-TIME VALUEPlease renew your subscription if the number on youraddress label is within one digit of this issue's number.

Page 8