.

Once there was a Bishop who was worrying over what seemed to him the evils of the doomed world. Tossing on his bed at midnight he thought he heard the Lord say: "Go to sleep, Bishop. I'll sit up the rest of the night." - Reinhold Niebuhr

FROM TIME immemorial, man's religion, philosophy, political science, and economy have shaped themselves around the everlasting question: Should man live as an Individualist, untrammeled by man-made laws, professing allegiance to Nature only, or should he, as a mere speck in a peopled society, bow to its dictates, revelling in whatever little freedom is left to him? Today, even as thousands of years ago, the debate waxes hot, and men slaughter their brethren in the name of Truth. Today, more than ever; when the question is not: "Should we have a collectivist society?" but "What sort of collectivist society should we have?", a book on Individualism is a colossal affront. Eyebrows will be raised. People will say: "Individualism? Shouldn't it be rugged individualism? The book must be reactionary." Thus Judgment will be pronounced.

It is a strange world in which so reactionary an idea as collectivism is ecstatically acclaimed by all "liberals," while the grandeur of Individualism is tossed into the garbage-can of dis- carded ideas.

The day is coming when the letter that means first person singular will lose its capitalization, and sink to the level of the other twenty-five letters of the alphabet.

***

What is Individualism?

It is the belief in the innate powers and possibilities of every living person. Since each consciousness reveals the existence of "I," it is the concern with such "I" -- or ego -- that preoccupies each individual. From birth until death, he worries about the existence, health, and livelihood of his "I." If "I" is not fed, he starves; if "I" is not clothed, he freezes; if "I" is not sexually satisfied, he goes mad with desire; if "I" is ill, he suffers physical pain; if "I" is cut, he bleeds; if "I" is insulted, offended, or disappointed, he experiences mental anguish. Any kind of contact with "I"-physical or spiritual- results in one sensation or another for the individual. How can there be any other biologic association in Nature than the union of cells that now is called Man?

Whether it is the best combination in the world or not does not concern us. In point of fact, man is; and when he dies, he ceases to be. (Editorial note: Jack Schwartzman later changed his mind about this and became a believer in reincarnation.) All the effort and labor of mankind is directed to the satisfaction of the individual's desires. He is the beginning and the end.

If a man caters to his own wishes, and labors to satisfy them, is he selfish? If selfishness means feeding the ego's desires, yes! For what else is the goal of life but the satisfaction of man's inner self? This is what we call his striving toward pleasures. And if such pleasures, in the long run, result in a true contentment of mind and body, we say they produce happiness. Evidently, it is man's purpose in life to be happy. Even if he desires to kill himself, it is because he feels that in the long run, he will be "better off."

Man, therefore, being bounded on all sides by his cells, and being clearly separated from every other entity of the universe, is a distinct unit of life. His right to his actions and thought is inviolate by virtue of his separate existence. His immediate goal is pleasure; his permanent hope is happiness.

Now comes the great dilemma that agitates the souls of men. If happiness is what man strives for, should he not be helped to find it? Thus we have, firstly, advisory agencies, such as philosophers, poets and musicians. Then there are compulsory agencies, which assert their right to existence on the ground that they are here to help man -- in spite of himself. They include the State, organized religion, monopoly, and forced education. It is interesting to note that every form of compulsion indirectly rationalizes its existence by claiming to exist for man's "own good." Even the dictator, who screams that man must live and die for the State, indirectly appeals to man's desire for happiness -- because he holds out to man the supposed pleasure known as Glory.

All compulsory organizations are guided by the philosophy of collectivism, i.e., the collective will is assumed to be transmitted by some process of osmosis, to the ruling clique, which then governs for the individual's own sake.

The question then arises: If an individual is not to be trusted to follow his own pleasures to happiness, why should many individuals' pleasure in forming a collectivist society, or some individuals' pleasure in governing it, be less subject to distrust? If any one person is to be considered confused in his attempt toward his goal in life, shouldn't many people be that many more times confused? In fact, if it is axiomatic that man seeks pleasure, there is a definite violation of the axiom if man is forced to obey -- even "for his own good." Force is an act contrary to the free will implied in pleasure-seeking. Man can only be free if be lives without coercion.

"Well, then," says the collectivist, "are you going to permit people to live like savages, each for himself, following his own peculiar whims and fancies, with no guiding control to supervise man's drive toward chaos?"

The answer is that man always lives for himself, whether in a collectivist society or in absolute freedom. The word "permit" is objectionable, implying as it does authority in some men over the right of life in others. Insofar as solitary living is concerned, no one advocates a back- to-the-cave movement. On the contrary, men prefer associations, since they can thus exchange goods and ideas -- but such associations must be voluntary.

As for living like "savages," what is this barbaric "civilization" but organized savagery in which men devote their efforts to blasting each other from the face of the earth? Is there more misery under "weak" governments or "strong" ones?

No, it is not in control from the top that man will be guided on his path to happiness. He will find his answer in the source of all of his sustenance on earth, in the cause of his very existence, Mother Nature herself.

Dust to dust: that is the summary of man's life; and to know it, one must study the causes and effects of dust. Everything in Nature is governed by immutable laws. Since man is composed of Nature's atoms, his existence and happiness is dependent on natural laws. If a man leaps into the air, exultantly demanding to fly, his violent fall to earth is Nature's retribution for the violation of one of her basic laws. If man must fly, he has but to seek the laws that govern this art, and by complying with them he will be able to gratify his wishes. Man does not defy the elements with the aeroplane; he utilizes them in conformity with natural precepts.

By complying with such universal principles, man attains happiness. He distinguishes all things that bring him happiness by calling them right, and those that cause him misery, wrong. Poverty he calls wrong, because poverty deprives him of the bounty which Mother Nature has provided; wars are wrong, because they destroy his life; tyranny is wrong, because it subjugates his mind and body to another, thus taking away his freedom; organized ritual is wrong, because it exacts homage to some definite deity, thus preventing his compliance with the decrees of Nature; revolutions by force are wrong, because they are the substitution of one power for another; and beget a counter-force which eventually restores the original evil; rapacious living is wrong, because it hastens the demise of the body; hatred is wrong, because it impedes personal progress which love smoothes, and because it extinguishes life with the juice of its poison; monopolization of natural resources is wrong, because it shuts off the individual from the productive fountain.

Thus, living close to Nature, selfishly -- if we insist on so labeling it -- the individual conforms to all the requirements of the Golden Rule, and more than complies with the screeching morality of self-styled "men of God." As Bastiat said: "If every one would look after his own affairs, God would look after everybody's."

So much for generalities.

The basic concept of Individualism is acceptable to many people per se. It is only in its attempted application that difficulties and problems arise.

"Yes," says the person who thinks (and it is only to him that this volume is addressed). "I can see that the goal of life is the happiness of the individual. But what will you do when the individuals are trampled down? You must organize to fight the tyrants -- or else you perish. What's the use of a glorious philosophy when the stomach grumbles for food? It may be all well and good for the future, perhaps, but right now we must have a temporary alleviation of human ills."

The person who asks this -- bright as he is -- still shows his ignorance of the principle of Individualism. The latter is not merely a "glorious philosophy." It is the cure-all for all manmade evils.

The reason men fight is that they do not understand natural laws. Fighting is unnecessary where there is enough bounty for a hundred times the present population of the earth. (In fact, the more the merrier.) Therefore, rather than fight the oppressor, or throw a few crumbs of "charity" to the oppressed, teach both the truth.

The face of my bright, hypothetical friend is blank with incredulity. "That's all very fine in the movies," he snorts, "but here you are dealing with 'practical' issues. You've got to organize; you've got to help the poor. They cannot wait until you decide to teach all humanity."

I can take time out from this moral lesson to observe, with a solemn face, that the poor of the world have been "temporarily" helped out for the last seven or eight thousand years, and while we still don't have time to find permanent solutions (which can be put in practice immediately), we do go on prattling about temporary palliatives for all eternity. And meanwhile, the position of the poor is always on the bottom, as assured by the palliatives themselves.

As far as organization is concerned, whenever men organize to fight for freedom, they end by destroying freedom.

The "practical" issues are on my side. Truth is always simpler than distortion.

Basically, since man always lived in Nature -- as he still does -- he was dependent on Nature. All of his nourishment came from it. It stands to reason, then, that when forces of Ignorance and Fraud put fences around the source of man's subsistence, he starved. Marauders of the past had to keep attacking their victims constantly; but once they hit upon the scheme of permanent robbery -- by appropriating Nature itself -- they no longer had to slaughter the producers in order to take their produce. Now the victims were permanently enslaved.

And the masters had the upper hand. Now the producers came to them, and begged for permission to work on the landlords' land. And so miserable was the producers' lot that it was necessary to establish a police force to keep the wretches in place, in order to contend with the numerous revolts that the earth breeds every few years. So the supervision of the police force was placed in the bands of a few trusted politicians -- and that is how the State was born.

Ironically, this monster, which perpetuates the robbery of man's heritage, is supported by a levy on the victim himself. This tribute is known as "tax," and is today clothed with all the respectability that the power of the State can command. Woe to those who do not pay!

And in order to strengthen further its hold on the crushed producer, the State passes "laws" (human laws) which carry with them dire threats and penalties for "criminals"-people who do not obey. Thus, human laws are merely dictates of the conquerors to the conquered. If they are in compliance with natural laws, they are unnecessary; if they are in violation thereof (as they almost always are), then they are definitely injurious to humanity, and will be opposed (as they almost always are).

Occasionally, a few concessions are wrung from the self-appointed masters of the earth. This is called "reform," and is productive of more harm than good, since it shuts the people's eyes to the basic causes of the inequality of castes. "Charity" is in the same class, and so are organized religion, prescribed conduct, and censorship committees.

Attempts to displace the State by socialism are of the same nature as reform. Socialism is the administration by many (or few) for the good of the many (supposedly). What it amounts to is that a new face is given to the State, which supposedly turns a few degrees in the direction of "goodness" (whatever that is). It is, in other words, a more benevolent despot. In its extreme form of communism, it is supposed to assume the form of a truly co-operative society. If so, why the preliminary lashing of the whip? Can the spirit of understanding be instilled in men by force?

But communism and socialism are theoretically wrong. Their idea of "capitalistic" oppression is a blind jumbling of all superficial evils in one, thereby facilitating revolution. It is as if we were to hit the man whom the subway guard pushed in our direction in a crowded car. The basic cause (the subway guard, in this case) remains unexplored. Capital is man's creation, and is not responsible for human poverty and wars. Monopoly is -- but that is another matter -- and it is not understood by the socialistic mind. All monopoly stems from control of the universe: that is your evil cause.

Furthermore, the remedy that socialism advocates, supervision of men's production by the State, is the old tyranny repeated. And men are not equal; they cannot be treated with standard bromides. Nature designed them as they are, but gave herself to them, so that each, according to his own ability, might profit through labor. All that needs to be done is to free opportunity, now imprisoned in the State's garret, and men will live out their destiny in peace and freedom. Men must get rid of both the State and the monopoly of Nature, that is, the monopoly of land.

Neither the oppressor nor the oppressed has a free moment to himself to enable him to live in a leisurely manner and happily. In fact, because of the complete chaos existing, it is difficult to distinguish the oppressed from the oppressor, which accounts for so many contradictory theories concerning man's battle for freedom.

Forcible revolutions are fruitless because, once the oppressed organize themselves, and supposedly drive their masters out, they are left holding Force, wondering what to do next. Soon it will be used against them. Since their revolt is not based on scientific truths (in spite of the modern "scientific socialism"), they will immediately be subject to the same crushing forces that trampled them down before. It will be substitution of masters.

There is only one way to make the State "wither away." It is for each individual -- since the world is made up of individuals only -- to seek out the laws of Nature; to have access to natural resources that will permit him to produce; to co-operate, when and if he so desires, with his fellow-men, and to practice the eternal wisdom of the Golden Rule:

"As you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise."