Benjamin Tucker – “Algumas Respostas ao Sr. Blodgett”
Tradutor: Rafael Hotz
Observação:
Originalmente o texto aqui traduzido se encontra no livro “Instead Of A Book”, do próprio Tucker. “Instead Of A Book” trata-se de uma coletânea de artigos publicados no periódico Liberty, do próprio Tucker. Aqui não temos traduzidas toda a correspondência com o Sr. Blodgett, mas apenas algumas cartas.
********************
Direitos e Deveres sob Anarquia
[Liberty, 31 de Dezembro de 1887]
Leitores antigos desse jornal irão se lembrar da aparição em suas colunas, há cerca de dois anos, de uma série de questões propostas pelo escritor da seguinte carta e acompanhada de respostas editoriais. Hoje meu interrogador me questiona ainda mais; dessa vez, entretanto, não mais como um confiante combatente, mas sim como um sincero pesquisador. Como eu havia lhe respondido de acordo com sua combatividade, agora eu lhe respondo de acordo com sua cordialidade.
Ao Editor de Liberty
Por favor, você colocaria as seguintes perguntas em seu jornal bem como suas respostas, como um favor a um estudante ético, político e humanitário?
1.
Você, como Anarquista, acredita que algum ser humano possui o direito de julgar por outro o que ele deveria ou não fazer?
Os termos dessa pergunta precisam de definição. Supondo, no entanto, que a palavra “direito” seja usada no sentido do limite que o princípio de igual liberdade logicamente impõe à força, a frase “julgar por outro” inclua não apenas a formação de julgamento, mas também sua aplicação [*1], e a palavra “dever” seja equivalente a “precisar” ou “necessita”, eu respondo: Sim. Mas os únicos casos nos quais um ser humano possui tal direito sobre outro são naqueles cuja ação ou falhança em agir desse outro envolva uma transgressão do limite à força referido. Foi a isso que se referia quando se disse numa edição anterior de Liberty que o “único dever do homem é respeitar os direitos dos outros”. Poderia muito bem ser adicionado que o único direito de um homem sobre outro é fazer valer esse dever.
1.
Você acredita que qualquer agrupamento de pessoas reunidas possui tal direito?
Sim. O direito de qualquer agrupamento de pessoas reunidas é qualquer direito que seus indivíduos constituintes possuam e voluntariamente deleguem ao grupo. Segue disto, e da resposta anterior, que, da mesma forma que indivíduos possuem seus direitos questionados, um grupo também pode os ter.
1.
Você a credita que alguém, ou um grupo, possui o direito de prevenir outro de agir como bem entenda?
Sim. Essa questão está respondida pelas duas respostas anteriores reunidas.
1.
Você acha admissível, como Anarquista, usar de toda influência possível sem a ajuda da força bruta para induzir alguém a viver como mais adequado lhe pareça a você?
Por favor, explique que influência, caso haja, você acredita que possa ser empregada em harmonia com os princípios Anarquistas.
Sim. A influência da razão; a influência da persuasão; a influência da atração; a influência da educação; a influência do exemplo; a influência da opinião pública; a influência do ostracismo social; a influência das forças econômicas desimpedidas; a influência dos melhores prospectos; e sem dúvida outras influências que agora me fogem à memória.
1.
Você acredita que exista tal coisa como posse privada de uma propriedade, vista de um ponto de vista Anarquista? Caso acredite, por favor, me mostre uma forma ou regra para determinar se alguém possui algo ou não.
Sim. O Anarquismo sendo nada mais nada menos que o princípio da igual liberdade, a propriedade, numa sociedade Anarquista, deve estar de acordo com esse princípio. A única forma de propriedade que preenche essa condição é aquela que garante a todos a posse de seus próprios produtos, ou produtos de outros que tenha obtido incondicionalmente sem o uso de fraude ou força, e na realização de todos os títulos a produtos que possam ser possuídos devido a um livre contrato com outros. A posse, não corrompida por fraude ou força, de valores os quais ninguém mais possui um título não corrompido por fraude ou força, constitui o critério Anarquista de propriedade. Por fraude eu não quero dizer aquilo que é simplesmente contrário à igualdade, mas sim enganação e falsa alegação em todas as suas formas.
1.
É certo prender outros de forma que machuque, e provar a eles que são perigosos para estar em liberdade? Se sim, há alguma forma consistente com a Anarquia de
determinar a natureza desse confinamento, e por quanto tempo ele deveria continuar?
Sim. Tal confinamento às vezes é correto porque é a forma mais sábia de fazer valer o direito postulado na resposta à primeira pergunta. Há muitas maneiras consistentes com a Anarquia de determinar a natureza e duração de tal confinamento. Julgamento realizado por um júri, em sua forma original, é uma, e na minha visão, a melhor maneira já considerada.
1.
As pessoas boas são obrigadas a alimentar, vestir, e deixar confortável como acreditem ser necessário para confinar?
Não. Em outras palavras, é permissível punir invasores através de tortura. Mas, se as “pessoas boas” não são demoníacas, elas não se defenderão através de tortura até que a pena de morte e confinamento tolerável se mostrem destituídas de eficácia.
Eu faço essas perguntas parte por mim, e parte porque acredito que muitos outros encontraram dificuldades no caminho ao Anarquismo, as quais uma resposta racional, lúcida, removeria.
Talvez você já tenha lidado muito com isso, e possa se sentir impaciente em encontrar alguém tão na escuridão como eu, mas todos os aspirantes a reformista têm que continuar reiterando sua posição aos novatos, e eu creio que você tentará clarificar tudo para mim, e para outros que estejam tão mal guiados como eu.
S. Blodgett
Grahamville, Florida.
Tempo e espaço são os únicos limites para minha disposição em responder perguntas inteligentes sobre tal ciência cujos elementos fundamentais eu esteja
ensinando, e eu confio que meus esforços, nessa ocasião, não se provem completamente inadequados à admirável finalidade que meu bem vindo correspondente tenha em mente.
Mais Perguntas
[Liberty, 28 de Janeiro de 1888]
Ao Editor de Liberty:
Agradeço-lhe pelo tratamento cortês das minhas perguntas em sua edição de 31 de Dezembro, e como você demonstrou uma disposição nessa direção, eu seguirei com o mesmo estilo, e confio que você ainda ache minhas perguntas pertinentes e apropriadas.
Você acha que direitos de propriedade podem ser intrínsecos à coisas não produzidas pelo trabalho ou ajuda do homem?
Você diz, “O Anarquismo sendo nada mais nada menos que o princípio da igual liberdade etc.”. Mas, e se o governo fosse reformado de tal forma que restrinja sua operação à proteção da “igual liberdade”, você teria algo contra isso? Se sim, o que e por quê?
Você poderia, por favor, explicar o que seria “julgamento realizado por um júri em sua forma original”? Nunca soube que ele algum dia foi essencialmente diferente de como é agora.
S. Blodgett
Eu não acredito em nenhum direito de propriedade inerente. A propriedade é uma convenção social, e pode assumir diversas formas. A única forma de propriedade que pode persistir, contudo, é aquela baseada no princípio de igual
liberdade. Todas as outras formas devem resultar em miséria, crime e conflito. A forma Anarquista de propriedade já foi bem definida nas respostas prévias ao Sr. Blodgett, como “aquela que garante a todos a posse de seus próprios produtos, ou produtos de outros que tenha obtido incondicionalmente sem o uso de fraude ou força, e na realização de todos os títulos a produtos que possam ser possuídos devido a um livre contrato com outros”. Será visto a partir dessa definição que a propriedade Anarquista de propriedade tem a ver apenas com produtos. Mas qualquer coisa é um produto sob o qual trabalho humano foi despendido, seja ela um pedaço de ferro ou uma extensão de terra [1].
Se o “governo” se restringisse à proteção da igual liberdade, os Anarquistas não teriam nenhum problema com isso; mas tal proteção eles não chama de governo. Criticas da idéia Anarquista que não consideram definições Anarquistas são fúteis. O Anarquista define governo como invasão, nada mais nada menos. Proteção contra invasão, então, é o oposto de governo. Os Anarquistas, ao serem a favor da abolição do governo, são a favor da abolição da invasão, não da proteção contra a invasão. Pode ajudar a um entendimento claro se eu adicionar que todos os Estados, para se tornarem não-invasivos, devem primeiro abandonar o ato primário de invasão no qual todos eles estão baseados, - a coleta de impostos através da força, - e que os Anarquistas desejam a mudança nas condições sociais que resultará quando a liberdade econômica seja permitida ser uma proteção muito mais efetiva contra a invasão do que qualquer maquinário de restrição, na ausência de liberdade econômica, possa ser.
Julgamento realizado por um júri em sua forma original diferia de sua forma atual tanto na forma de selecionar o júri e nos poderes do júri selecionado. Ele era selecionado originalmente retirando doze nomes de uma urna contendo o nome de todo o corpo de cidadãos, ao invés de colocar um grupo especial de
jurados através de um processo filtrador de exame; e através de seus poderes originais ele era juiz, não só dos fatos apenas, como é geralmente agora o caso, mas sim da lei e da justiça da lei e da natureza a extensão da penalidade. Mais informação sobre essa forma pode ser encontrada no panfleto “Free Political Institutions”, de Lysander Spooner.
A Pergunta Final do Sr. Blodgett
[Liberty, 28 de Abril de 1888]
Ao Editor de Liberty:
Eu tenho mais uma pergunta, e não me passa pela cabeça querer lhe complicar mais ainda nessa direção.
Você diz: “Eu não acredito em nenhum direito de propriedade inerente. A propriedade é uma convenção social”.
Mas então, o Anarquismo reconhece a justiça de obrigar indivíduos a levar em conta convenções sociais?
S. Blodgett.
Grahamville, Florida.
Leitores que desejem refrescarem suas memórias sobre a serie de perguntas na qual se inclui a anterior devem consultar os números 115 e 117. A resposta à primeira pergunta no número 115 [*2] é na verdade uma resposta à pergunta colocada agora. Lá eu disse que a única compulsão de indivíduos cuja justiça o Anarquismo reconhece é aquela que compele indivíduos invasivos a abster de transgredir o princípio de igual liberdade. Agora, sendo a própria igual
liberdade uma convenção social (não existem direitos naturais), é obvio que o Anarquismo reconheça a justiça de compelir indivíduos a levar em conta alguma convenção social. Mas disso não se segue que ele reconhece a justiça de compelir indivíduos a levar em conta toda e quaisquer convenções sociais. O Anarquismo protege a igual liberdade (da qual a propriedade baseada no trabalho é simplesmente uma expressão numa esfera em particular), não porque seja uma convenção social, mas porque é igual liberdade, - isto é, porque é o Anarquismo em si. O Anarquismo pode muito bem proteger a si mesmo, mas aí sua missão acaba. Essa auto-proteção deve ser efetuada através de associação voluntária, e não através de governo; proteger a igual liberdade através de governo é invadir a igual liberdade.
Notas do Autor
[1] Deve ser colocado, entretanto, que no caso da terra, ou de qualquer outro material cuja oferta seja tão limitada de forma que todos não o possam possuir em quantidades ilimitadas, o Anarquismo não garante proteção a títulos exceto aqueles que estejam baseados na ocupação e uso atuais.
Notas do Tradutor
[*1] O termo em inglês, “enforcement”, é mais claro.
[*2] Ver acima
The terms of this question need definition. Assuming, however, that the word "law" is used in the sense of limit that the principle of equal liberty logically requires the strength, the phrase "by another judge" includes not only the bench, but it [* 1 ], and the word "duty" is equivalent to "need" or "need", I reply: Yes, but the only cases in which a human being has that right on the other are those whose action or failure to act involves a breach of that other limit the force said. That is what is meant when it said in a previous issue of Liberty that "the only duty is to respect the rights of others." It could well be added that the only right one man over another is to enforce that duty.1.Do you believe that any group of people gathered have that right?
Yes, the right of any group of people is no right to have their constituent individuals and willingly delegate to the group. Below this, and the previous answer, that just as individuals have their rights challenged, a group can also have them.1.You credited to someone or a group, have the right to prevent others from acting as well to understand?
Yes, that question is answered by the previous two answers together.
1.Do you find acceptable, as Anarchist, use all influence possible without the help of brute force to induce someone to live as it deems most appropriate to you?
Please explain what influence, if any, you believe it can be employed in accordance with the principles Anarchists.Yes, the influence of reason, the influence of persuasion, the influence of attraction, the influence of education, the influence of example, the influence of public opinion, the influence of social ostracism, the influence of economic forces unimpeded, the influence of the best prospectuses, and no doubt other influences that now escape me at the memory.1.You believe there is such thing as private ownership of a property, view from a viewpoint Anarchist? If you believe, please show me one way or rule to determine if someone has something or not.
Yes Anarchism is nothing less than the principle of equal liberty, property, in an anarchist society, must be in accordance with this principle. The only form of property that meets this condition is one that guarantees all the possession of their own products, or products of others who have obtained unconditionally without the use of force or fraud, and the achievement of all the titles for products that may be owned due to a free contract with others. The possession, not tainted by fraud or force, values which nobody else has a title not corrupted by fraud or force, is the criterion Anarchist property. By fraud I do not mean what is simply contrary to equality, but deception and false claim in all its forms.1.It is sure to hold others so hurt, and prove to them that are dangerous to be released? If yes, is there any way consistent with the Anarchy
determine the nature of this confinement, and for how long should it continue?
Such confinement Yes sometimes it is correct because the wiser way to enforce the law postulated in response to the first question. There are many ways consistent with the anarchy of determining the nature and duration of such confinement. That trial by jury, in its original form is one, and in my view, the best way ever seen.1.Good people are forced to feed, clothe, and leave as a comfortable believe are necessary to confine?
No. In other words, it is permissible to punish invaders through torture. But if the "good people" are not demonic, they do not defend themselves through torture until the death penalty and confinement tolerable prove devoid of validity.I make these questions part for me, and partly because I believe that many others have found difficulties in the way to Anarchism, which a rational response, lucid, remove.Perhaps you've dealt a lot with this, and can feel impatient to find someone so in the dark like me, but all would-be reformer must continue to reiterate its position to beginners, and I think you will try to clarify everything for me, and for others who are as misguided as I am.S. BlodgettGrahamville, Florida.Time and space are the only limits to my willingness to answer intelligent questions about such a science whose basic elements I'mteaching, and I trust that my efforts on that occasion did not prove entirely inadequate to the admirable goal that welcomed my correspondent has in mind.More Questions[Liberty, January 28, 1888]To the Editor of Liberty:Thank you for the courteous treatment of my questions in its issue of December 31, and how you demonstrated a willingness in this direction, I will follow the same style, and trust that you still think my questions are relevant and appropriate.Do you think that property rights can not intrinsic to the things produced by work or help from the man?You say, "Anarchism is nothing less than the principle of equal liberty, etc..." But what if the government was reformed in such a way that restricts its operation to the protection of "equal freedom" you have something against it? If yes, what and why?Could you please explain what is "that trial by a jury in its original form? Never knew it ever was essentially different from how it is now.S. BlodgettI do not believe in any inherent right to property. The property is a social convention, and can take several forms. The only form of ownership may persist, however, is that based on the principle of equalfreedom. All other forms should result in poverty, crime and conflict. The Anarchist form of ownership has been well defined in previous responses to Mr. Blodgett, as "one that guarantees all the possession of their own products, or products of others who have obtained unconditionally without the use of force or fraud, and conducting of all securities products that may be possessed because of a free contract with others. " It will be seen from this definition that the property Anarchist property has just about products. But anything is a product in which human labor has been expended, it is a piece of iron or an extension of land [1].If the "government" is restricted to the protection of equal freedom, the Anarchists would have no problem with that, but such protection they call government. Anarchist critiques of the idea that anarchists do not consider definitions are futile. The Anarchist government defines as an invasion, nothing more nothing less. Intrusion protection, then, is the opposite of government. Anarchists, by being in favor of the abolition of government, are in favor of the abolition of the invasion, no protection against invasion. It can help a clear understanding that if I add all states to become non-invasive, they must first abandon the primary act of invasion in which they are all based, - the collection of taxes by force - and the Anarchists want to change social conditions that result when economic freedom is allowed to be a more effective protection against invasion of any machinery that restriction in the absence of economic freedom may be.That trial by a jury in its original form differed from its present form much in the way of selecting the jury and the powers of the jury selected. He was originally selected by removing twelve names of an urn containing the name of the whole body of citizens, instead of putting a specialjurors through a process of filtering test, and through their unique powers he was a judge, not only of facts only, as is generally the case now, but the law of justice and the law of nature and the extent of the penalty. More information on this form can be found in the pamphlet "Free Political Institutions" by Lysander Spooner.The Final Question of Mr. Blodgett[Liberty, April 28, 1888]To the Editor of Liberty:I have one more question, and I do not want to go through the mind will further complicate this direction.You say: "I do not believe in any inherent right to property. The property is a social convention. "But then, anarchism acknowledges the justice of requiring individuals to take account of social convention?S. Blodgett.Grahamville, Florida.Readers who wish to refresh their memories about the series of questions which includes the former should consult the numbers 115 and 117. The answer to the first question in Item 115 [* 2] is actually a response to the question posed now. There I said the only compulsion of individuals whose justice system is one that recognizes Anarchism compels individuals to refrain from invasive transgressing the principle of equal liberty. Now, being the very samefreedom a social convention (there are no natural rights), it is obvious that anarchism acknowledges the justice of compelling individuals to take into account any social convention. But it does not follow that he recognizes the justice of compelling individuals to take into account any and all social conventions. Anarchism protects the equal freedom (of which the property based on the work is simply an expression in a particular sphere), not because it is a social convention, but because freedom is the same - that is, is because anarchism itself. Anarchism may well protect yourself, but then his mission is over. This self-protection must be done through voluntary association and not through government, to protect the equal freedom through government is invading the equal freedom.Author's Note[1] should be placed, however, that in the case of land, or any other material whose supply is so limited so that not everyone may possess in unlimited quantities, Anarchism does not guarantee protection to securities except those which are based onoccupation and use today.Translator's Notes[* 1] The English term "enforcement" is clearer.[* 2] See above
Benjamin Tucker - "Some Answers to Mr. Blodgett"
Translator: Rafael HotzNote:Originally the text translated here is found in the book "Instead Of A Book," Tucker's own. "Instead Of A Book" it is a collection of papers published in the journal Liberty, Tucker's own. Here we have translated all correspondence with Mr. Blodgett, but only a few letters.********************Rights and Duties under Anarchy[Liberty, December 31, 1887]Older readers will remember that newspaper's appearance in his columns, about two years, a series of questions proposed by the writer the following letter, accompanied by editorial responses. Today my interrogator questioned me further, this time, however, more confident as a fighter but as a sincere seeker. As I had answered him according to his fighting, now I will answer according to their warmth.To the Editor of LibertyPlease would you put the following questions in your journal as well as their responses, as a favor to a student ethical, political and humanitarian law?1.You, as an anarchist, believes that any human being has the right to judge others by what he should or should not do?The terms of this question need definition. Assuming, however, that the word "law" is used in the sense of limit that the principle of equal liberty logically requires the strength, the phrase "by another judge" includes not only the bench, but it [* 1 ], and the word "duty" is equivalent to "need" or "need", I reply: Yes, but the only cases in which a human being has that right on the other are those whose action or failure to act involves a breach of that other limit the force said. That is what is meant when it said in a previous issue of Liberty that "the only duty is to respect the rights of others." It could well be added that the only right one man over another is to enforce that duty.1.Do you believe that any group of people gathered have that right?
Yes, the right of any group of people is no right to have their constituent individuals and willingly delegate to the group. Below this, and the previous answer, that just as individuals have their rights challenged, a group can also have them.1.You credited to someone or a group, have the right to prevent others from acting as well to understand?
Yes, that question is answered by the previous two answers together.
1.Do you find acceptable, as Anarchist, use all influence possible without the help of brute force to induce someone to live as it deems most appropriate to you?
Please explain what influence, if any, you believe it can be employed in accordance with the principles Anarchists.Yes, the influence of reason, the influence of persuasion, the influence of attraction, the influence of education, the influence of example, the influence of public opinion, the influence of social ostracism, the influence of economic forces unimpeded, the influence of the best prospectuses, and no doubt other influences that now escape me at the memory.1.You believe there is such thing as private ownership of a property, view from a viewpoint Anarchist? If you believe, please show me one way or rule to determine if someone has something or not.
Yes Anarchism is nothing less than the principle of equal liberty, property, in an anarchist society, must be in accordance with this principle. The only form of property that meets this condition is one that guarantees all the possession of their own products, or products of others who have obtained unconditionally without the use of force or fraud, and the achievement of all the titles for products that may be owned due to a free contract with others. The possession, not tainted by fraud or force, values which nobody else has a title not corrupted by fraud or force, is the criterion Anarchist property. By fraud I do not mean what is simply contrary to equality, but deception and false claim in all its forms.1.It is sure to hold others so hurt, and prove to them that are dangerous to be released? If yes, is there any way consistent with the Anarchy
determine the nature of this confinement, and for how long should it continue?
Such confinement Yes sometimes it is correct because the wiser way to enforce the law postulated in response to the first question. There are many ways consistent with the anarchy of determining the nature and duration of such confinement. That trial by jury, in its original form is one, and in my view, the best way ever seen.1.Good people are forced to feed, clothe, and leave as a comfortable believe are necessary to confine?
No. In other words, it is permissible to punish invaders through torture. But if the "good people" are not demonic, they do not defend themselves through torture until the death penalty and confinement tolerable prove devoid of validity.I make these questions part for me, and partly because I believe that many others have found difficulties in the way to Anarchism, which a rational response, lucid, remove.Perhaps you've dealt a lot with this, and can feel impatient to find someone so in the dark like me, but all would-be reformer must continue to reiterate its position to beginners, and I think you will try to clarify everything for me, and for others who are as misguided as I am.S. BlodgettGrahamville, Florida.Time and space are the only limits to my willingness to answer intelligent questions about such a science whose basic elements I'mteaching, and I trust that my efforts on that occasion did not prove entirely inadequate to the admirable goal that welcomed my correspondent has in mind.More Questions[Liberty, January 28, 1888]To the Editor of Liberty:Thank you for the courteous treatment of my questions in its issue of December 31, and how you demonstrated a willingness in this direction, I will follow the same style, and trust that you still think my questions are relevant and appropriate.Do you think that property rights can not intrinsic to the things produced by work or help from the man?You say, "Anarchism is nothing less than the principle of equal liberty, etc..." But what if the government was reformed in such a way that restricts its operation to the protection of "equal freedom" you have something against it? If yes, what and why?Could you please explain what is "that trial by a jury in its original form? Never knew it ever was essentially different from how it is now.S. BlodgettI do not believe in any inherent right to property. The property is a social convention, and can take several forms. The only form of ownership may persist, however, is that based on the principle of equalfreedom. All other forms should result in poverty, crime and conflict. The Anarchist form of ownership has been well defined in previous responses to Mr. Blodgett, as "one that guarantees all the possession of their own products, or products of others who have obtained unconditionally without the use of force or fraud, and conducting of all securities products that may be possessed because of a free contract with others. " It will be seen from this definition that the property Anarchist property has just about products. But anything is a product in which human labor has been expended, it is a piece of iron or an extension of land [1].If the "government" is restricted to the protection of equal freedom, the Anarchists would have no problem with that, but such protection they call government. Anarchist critiques of the idea that anarchists do not consider definitions are futile. The Anarchist government defines as an invasion, nothing more nothing less. Intrusion protection, then, is the opposite of government. Anarchists, by being in favor of the abolition of government, are in favor of the abolition of the invasion, no protection against invasion. It can help a clear understanding that if I add all states to become non-invasive, they must first abandon the primary act of invasion in which they are all based, - the collection of taxes by force - and the Anarchists want to change social conditions that result when economic freedom is allowed to be a more effective protection against invasion of any machinery that restriction in the absence of economic freedom may be.That trial by a jury in its original form differed from its present form much in the way of selecting the jury and the powers of the jury selected. He was originally selected by removing twelve names of an urn containing the name of the whole body of citizens, instead of putting a specialjurors through a process of filtering test, and through their unique powers he was a judge, not only of facts only, as is generally the case now, but the law of justice and the law of nature and the extent of the penalty. More information on this form can be found in the pamphlet "Free Political Institutions" by Lysander Spooner.The Final Question of Mr. Blodgett[Liberty, April 28, 1888]To the Editor of Liberty:I have one more question, and I do not want to go through the mind will further complicate this direction.You say: "I do not believe in any inherent right to property. The property is a social convention. "But then, anarchism acknowledges the justice of requiring individuals to take account of social convention?S. Blodgett.Grahamville, Florida.Readers who wish to refresh their memories about the series of questions which includes the former should consult the numbers 115 and 117. The answer to the first question in Item 115 [* 2] is actually a response to the question posed now. There I said the only compulsion of individuals whose justice system is one that recognizes Anarchism compels individuals to refrain from invasive transgressing the principle of equal liberty. Now, being the very samefreedom a social convention (there are no natural rights), it is obvious that anarchism acknowledges the justice of compelling individuals to take into account any social convention. But it does not follow that he recognizes the justice of compelling individuals to take into account any and all social conventions. Anarchism protects the equal freedom (of which the property based on the work is simply an expression in a particular sphere), not because it is a social convention, but because freedom is the same - that is, is because anarchism itself. Anarchism may well protect yourself, but then his mission is over. This self-protection must be done through voluntary association and not through government, to protect the equal freedom through government is invading the equal freedom.Author's Note[1] should be placed, however, that in the case of land, or any other material whose supply is so limited so that not everyone may possess in unlimited quantities, Anarchism does not guarantee protection to securities except those which are based onoccupation and use today.Translator's Notes[* 1] The English term "enforcement" is clearer.[* 2] See above
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário