Socialism versus Natural Law
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, July-August
I have not yet been able to find Socialists who can agree upon any
definition of Socialism. They talk about how wealth should be
distributed or well-being procured.
Now, my definition is that a Socialist is one who believes that
people can be made better or happier by authority, provided the
authorities be either themselves or those who think as they think.
An Individualist, on the other hand, is one who believes in liberty
and that free competition will in the end bring the best results under
Herbert Spencer's definition of liberty; "So to use your own
faculties as not to interfere with the exercise of similar faculties
You will find that most people are Socialists without knowing it. Men
like Morgan, Frick, and so on, believe that if the best people were
allowed to rule, meaning by the best people like themselves, they
could do better for society than society could do for itself.
To try to regulate others as far as it goes beyond equal liberty, is
to set our own wisdom up as superior to that of the creative mind
which has been experimenting with mankind for at least some tens of
thousands of years, probably for tens of millions. As nothing occurs
except as the effect of causes, all things are as they must be.
Of course, I think that to allow persons to charge others in land
prices or land rents for living upon the earth is the main
infringement of liberty and is also in itself immoral.