ABOUT ANARCHISTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4484, 11 October 1901, Page 2

ABOUT ANARCHISTS.

Mr P. J. (yßegau writes: —Perhaps I should err as much »s possible on tho side of leniency in dealing with Mr Fitzherbort. It is but natural that one who looks <>a Mr Herbert Spencer with the rapture of a devotee should take umbrage at what he conceives to no a misrepresentation of Mr Spencer’s phi. losophy. Nevertheless, I take leave toi think that I interpreted Mr Spencer aright ’ It is quite true that he does not claim to be an Anarchist any more than he claims to be a Materialist. Yet anyone who implicitly follows Mr Spencer must.bo led into anarchy as surely as he will find himself landed on the iov shores of materialism. Mr Fitzherbert will scarcely deny, nay, ho affirms, that Mr Spencer applies tho principle of evolution to sociology, ri ow, evolution can scarcely be called a eon, scious operation, whatever else it may be, else why do evolutionists speak of “naturtd selection”? Mr Spencer deprecates _ State interference in' what ho conceives tcv ho the sphere of individual action. He denounces ■ State education as a usurpation of voluntary action and he brushes ' aside all efforts at State charity, as encouraging pauperism and promoting the multiplication of the unfit. True sentiment is at war with Mr Spencer, but he is at war with sentiment. -Mere sentiment does not concern your rigid and stoical philosopher. What does Mr Fitzhorbert think of our old age pensions scheme, for instance, from tho viewpoint of Mr Herbert Spencer?

Now, as .Mr Spencer deprecates State' action and treats of sociological problems as an evolutionist, what must ! bo my conclusion ? To the State Mr Spencer s a ys- “hands off; evolution will , do involuntarily what you.seek to do . by regulated conduct.” Of course, no one said that Mr Spencer contended that man will “be suddenly made perfect ; ” and he does not say that society will over do without government. But V ho does say that the State should not interfere beyond repressing violence and administering justice, and that evolution will ultimately load to a state of society in which government _ will become an efficient but unconscious part of the social economy, just as tho heart beats without the individual taking thought. Leaving, out of consideration the few assassins who call themselves Anarchists, 1 maintain that Mr Spencer’s teaching amounts to anarchy in the tolerable sense. Ho does not mean toe do without order, but "ho contends that evolution will enable society to do without government as wo usually understand it. Mr Fitzherbert might have been generous enough to concede that in so. far as I contended that anarchy is one thing and socialism another, I was correct. liiferentially, however, he concedes as much. If ho is still dissatisfied with my interpretation of Spencer, well, wo must agree to differ.

Mr F. T. Mocrc writes;— S. W. ritz, bcrbert Ims fallen into the most egregious error possible, wlien no suys mat Jiaarchists are idealists. Anarchism, is the very 1 Antithesis of idealism. I take it tflat Anarchists aim at the bringing about Of a state ot things without .*“y form of ‘‘law’’ that will regulate and. govern the relations of men wuh each other, which aim is absolutely^erroneous and impossible of realisation. .Idealism... aims at the bringing about of Inc very highest system of ‘daw,” so that the relations and affairs of men shall ■ hi every respect bo governed and regulated (as ‘.ho title of'the doctrine: infers) 'by ideal methods. ' When ti. W. Fitzherbert says that “Anarchists are . idealists who think that by simply changing The ideas of men concerning society they can bring ■ about the. millennium, ami that when ' the faulty ideas of men ■ are got tid of the State will 'become -immediately unnecessary and will be nbo!-• ished/’ ho mixes idealism and anarchism in a .truiy dreadful manner. Idealists claim that when men hold and touoi" correct ideals concerning the ,-coutU.tians under which.-we live upon 1-11111., the millennium will be brought in, muchly Anarchists can make the outrageous claim that the State will ever c- 1.;neccasary or abolished. Tne a.m u: idealists is to nobly elovate the into a higher and wider power, tbaa their dominant ideal, which is . “tho Fatherhood of -God and the brotherhood of man,’ 1 may ’oe demonstrated upon earth, the State functioning 11s the father of all and regarding all men 1 in •is domain' as brothers, who are entitled to equal attention and consideration. To mik the ideal teaching of idealism with a doctrine whoso very title infers no law, no order, chaos, is an .outrage that only a man who knows roi what he is doing would coramic. In support of idealism, I will cite tho article upon “Ideals,” wrif£cp by Sir lloocrl Stout, which a’uipiciously inm gui uted tho commencement -of the . special series of most valuable articles that are appearing weekly in the "Sew Zealand Times.' 1 By virtue of his high office, Sir Robert is undoubtedly the greatest authority amongst us, but if a greater authority is, wanted.; the teach, ings of the Idealist of 1900 years ago should bo referred to.