|
The Archist and the Anarchist
.
In a recent number of your paper,
Mr. Livezey advises the Anarchists to change their name, because
of the general misconception of the word.
I would suggest, if the masses are
so ignorant as that, instead of changing the name it would be well
to enlighten them. Mr. Livezey claims to be a Christian. In view
of the crimes committed by the followers of Jesus, I think Mr. Livezey
would do well to drop the Christian name before advising others.
The history of Christianity is written
in blood and the history of all governments is a record of crime,
while there is no record of any act of violence on the part of an
Anarchist which was not committed against one who claimed the right
and made the threat to kill any one who refused to submit to his
authority.
It is said that all Anarchists should
be annihilated, because they believe in the assassination of rulers.
In the first place, all Anarchists do not believe in the assassination
of rulers, and especially in America, but very few believe in acts
of violence at all, preferring to submit to outrage, trnsting that
edncation [sic] will in time enable men to reach that high state
of civilization in which they will have no desire to rule or be
ruled. But admitting that there is now and then an Anarchist who
believes in assassinating rulers, how is he any more a criminal
than the ruler? Is there not with every law a threat to kill all
who resist it?
There is no stretch of the imagination
which can make it a crime for me to sell the product of my labor
to any one who wants to buy it, and yet the law denies me such an
opportunity. The law forbids me selling a cabbage of my own growing
to a man who wants to buy it. The law forbids me to ask a man to
buy a pound of sugar. The law forbids me to express my honest thoughts
to people who want to hear them. If I protest and defend my right
to do these things, the rulers murder me in cold blood. Who is the
greater criminal, the Archist or the Anarchist[?]
|
