Robert LeFevre, president and founder of the Freedom School, has also served as the editorial writer for the Gazette Telegraph in Colorado Springs, since 1954. In addition to several thousand editorials, he has written numerous articles for the Freeman Magazine, including: “The Straight Line,” “Jim Leadbetter’s Discovery,” “Shades of Hammurabi,” “Grasshoppers and Widows,” and “Coercion at the Local Level.”

His article “Even the Girl Scouts” (Human Events, 1953) led to a recall of the Handbook of this organization and extensive revisions. His book, “The Nature of Man and His Government,” has recently been published by Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.

A rational being, intent upon learning the nature of liberty or freedom, is confronted almost at once with innumerable instances of governmental predation against liberty.

As the subject of liberty is pursued, the more frequently and the more persistently the fact emerges that governments have been one of the principal opponents if not the only principal opponent to liberty.

Invariably, this discovery leads the perspiring seeker after truth to a fork in the road. Is it possible, the aspirant to libertarian certainty asks himself, to pursue the end of the rainbow of liberty into a miasma of quicksand and uncertainty?

Might I not end at a place where I would advocate the cessation of all government? And if I reached such a conclusion, would I not find myself aligned with the very forces I sought to oppose in the beginning, namely, the forces of lawlessness, chaos and anarchy?

At this fork in the road, libertarians hesitate, some briefly and some for lengthy periods of time. The choice to be made is a difficult one. To abandon liberty at this juncture and to endorse minimal governments as devices which might prevent license, could cause the devotee of liberty to endorse the active enemy of liberty, albeit in small doses. On the other hand, to pursue liberty to its logical conclusions might end in an endorsement of license, The very antonym of liberty.

It is at this juncture that the word[Pg 2] “anarchy” rears its dreadful visage. It becomes incumbent upon sincere seekers after liberty to grapple with this word and to seek to understand its implications.

Anarchy has very ancient roots. It is not wholly essential to probe to the last hidden tendril altho such a probe can be highly instructive. What does appear to be a necessary minimal effort, however, is to explore at least the principal authors of anarchistic thought with the view to discovering what it was that motivated these men.

We can begin with William Godwin of England. Godwin is noteworthy as the “father of anarchistic communism” (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

In 1793 he published the first of several works on this subject entitled, “Inquiry Concerning Political Justice.” He is probably most famous as the author of an anarchistic novel which he named, “Caleb Williams.”

It was Godwin’s thesis that governments are instruments of eternal bickering and war; that wars are fought over property; that the ownership of property privately is the greatest curse ever to beset the human race. As a specific example of tyranny in its worst form, Godwin suggests marriage.

Before we lay the soubriquet “crackpot” behind his name, let us look at the England of Godwin’s time to try to find an explanation for his radical conclusions.

In Godwin’s day (1756-1836) with only a few minor exceptions, all property was owned by the nobility, which is to say by the persons favored by government. The common people owned little save the shirts on their backs. As for marriage, women were chattels, given by a male parent to another[Pg 3] male, during a governmentally approved ceremony. The idea of one person actually owning and controlling another, which we would call slavery, and which Godwin saw as the marriage state, was repellent to him. He insisted that females were human beings and as such had as much right to individuality as males.

To cure the malady, which Godwin saw as ownership of property, the early Briton recommended an abolition of governments. It was the government which sanctified and protected property rights, even in marriage. To return to a state of nature (see Rousseau) governments would have to be abolished.

Be it noted to Godwin’s credit that he despised violence. And in this position he is far removed from both the true communist and the anarchists of action who followed him.

The next anarchist to be examined is Pierre Joseph Proudhon of Bexancon, France (1809-1865). Proudhon drank deeply from Godwin’s well and came forward with certain modifications and extensions of the Godwin doctrine.

Proudhon acknowledged a debt of gratitude to both Plato and Thomas More, a pair of dedicated socialists (see Plato’s “Republic” and More’s “Utopia”) and busied himself with some practical means for implementing the socialist dream.

Like his precursors, he was fundamentally opposed to property ownership. His most famous work, “Qu’est-ce que La Propriete?” (“What Is Property?”), got him into immediate difficulties with the government. Proudhon, in this opus, declared that “property is robbery” and set about outlining a[Pg 4] social order in which no property could be privately owned.

The Encyclopedia Americana says that Proudhon was the “first to formulate the doctrines of philosophic anarchism.”

It is probably true that there are no better writings extant extolling individualism as opposed to collectivism than Proudhon’s early essays. Yet, it should be recalled that Proudhon’s aim, in addition to a society free of governmental coercion, was a state in which property as a private device was abolished.

It is also interesting to recall that Karl Marx was deeply moved by Proudhon’s arguments. The first of Proudhon’s writings appeared in print in 1840 and formed the basis of Marx’s first expostulations which appeared in 1842. Shortly thereafter, Marx veered away from Proudhon’s individualism and contrived his concept of collectivism as the natural and the inevitable course of history.

Marx, however, was never an anarchist, despite the well-known phrase frequently attributed to him that in time the government of the proletariat would simply “wither away.” This phrase should properly be attributed to Lenin.

However, it is known that Marx did make an attempt to lure the anarchists of France into the first “Internationale” and was hooted down for his pains. The anarchists of that time were shrewd enough to sense that the enlargement of government into a general holding company for all property, would never result in the abolition of private ownership of property. Rather, it would result in the perpetuation of a privileged[Pg 5] class of persons who would have possession of the property to the exclusion of all others, the very contingency the anarchists sought to avoid. And since the aim of the anarchists was to eliminate exclusive ownership, they could not agree to the Marxist arguments respecting the usefulness of a government as the repository of all property.

We pass from Proudhon to another noteworthy anarchist, the Russian Prince Peter Alexeivich Kropotkin (1842-1921). In his hands, the doctrine of anarchism took on an international aspect. In point of fact he added little to either Godwin or Proudhon, except the more grandiose concept of a world order. He suggested that ALL governments must be overthrown either peacefully or in any other manner after which “the present system of class privilege and unjust distribution of the wealth produced by labor that creates and fosters crime” would be abolished.

It was Kropotkin who endeavored to preserve the ideals of a property-less society after the most exciting and destructive of all the anarchists had done his work. This was Michael Bakunin (1814-1876). Bakunin took his ideology both from Proudhon and from Marx and endeavored to unite the objectives of the former with the methods of the latter.

Bakunin despaired of bringing about a state of universal property-less-ness by means of education and propaganda. So did Marx. Marx declared that those who owned property would never give it up without a struggle. This idea entranced Bakunin. He devised what was to be called “propaganda of action.”

[Pg 6]

It was Bakunin’s contribution to anarchistic methods that persons who held governmental offices should be assassinated while they held office. Such assassination, he argued, would have a persuasive effect upon future politicians. If the offices could be made sufficiently dangerous and risky, there would be few who would care to hazard their necks in such unrewarding positions. The answer to the force of government, according to Bakunin, was the force of non-government. As an educational device, a thrown bomb was considered to be the final argument.

It is unnecessary to embroider the result. The peaceful arguments of Proudhon and Godwin went by the boards as anarchists rallied to Bakunin’s banner. Beginning in 1878 there was a series of assassinations and attempted assassinations against the heads of governments.

Germany’s Emperor William had a narrow escape and so did the German princes in 1883. In 1886 in Chicago, a bomb explosion in the Haymarket killed a number of persons. In the resulting hysteria, seven arrests were made, all of persons known to be teaching anarchy. Four were hanged, two drew life sentences, and one was imprisoned for 15 years. No one to this day is certain who threw the bomb.

Anarchists were pictured in cartoons as bearded radicals carrying smoking bombs. President Carnot of France was assassinated in 1894. The Empress Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated in 1898. King Humber of Italy was assassinated in 1900. President McKinley was assassinated in 1901.

But Bakunin’s enthusiasm wrecked the[Pg 7] anarchist movement despite all Kropotkin could do to save the fragments. These excesses, which have even been repeated in modern times, have had the effect of uniting public opinion against anything that smacks of anarchy.

There were, of course, other anarchists. Some have credited Rousseau, and some even Zeno with the actual birth of the idea of a property-less society. But the four men briefly reviewed here, with the possible additions of Elisee Reclus and the American, Benjamin R. Tucker, made the major contributions to anarchist doctrine. There is no serious cleavage in anarchist ranks.

It is these thoughts which must confront the libertarian as he seeks to understand the meaning of individualism, liberty, property, and so on.

But in complete candor, the sincere libertarian cannot be called an anarchist whichever fork of the road he elects to pursue. It must be recalled that without exception, anarchists wished to do away with private ownership of property. Some advocated peaceful means ending the abolition of government. Some advocated violent means by destroying politicians in government. But by any yardstick employed, and whether we are speaking of “philosophic anarchists” or “anarchistic communists,” the central aim of the anarchist movement was to eliminate private ownership. The reduction of the government to zero was simply, to them, a necessary first step.

In contrast, the libertarian is a better economist. From first to last he is in favor of private ownership. It is, in fact, the abuses of private ownership inflicted by[Pg 8] government which arouse the most ardent libertarians.

If we take the “communist” anarchists, we are confronted with violence as a means to abolish private ownership with the abolition of government as the first step. If we take the “philosophic” anarchists, we are confronted with essays on individualism and the desire to do away with private ownership by means of the elimination of government.

The aim of the anarchist is to eliminate private ownership. The libertarian is dedicated to the perpetuation and the full enjoyment of private ownership.

Never could two doctrines be more in opposition.

The most constructive of the anarchists were, socially speaking, individualists, peaceful and harmless. The least constructive, socially speaking, were dedicated to the overthrow of force by counter force. But without exception, in the realm of economics, every anarchist comes unglazed.

In brief, let us define the anarchist as a political individualist and an economic socialist. In contrast, the libertarian can be defined as an individualist, both politically and economically.

As the libertarian approaches or hesitates at the fork in the road, one direction seems to him to indicate anarchy and the other, an advocacy of coercion in minor doses. But, on careful analysis, the branch which seems to carry the banner “anarchy” does no such thing.

The libertarian, however he mulls over this dilemma to his progress, is not concerned with government. His concern is with[Pg 9] liberty. He is not opposed to government. He favors freedom. The libertarian wishes to preserve all human rights, among which and predominantly among them is the right to own property privately and to enjoy it fully.

The libertarian is a champion of individualism. He is an advocate of tools which can perform certain functions for him. He has no objection to the formation of any kind of tool that will assist him to protect his rights or his property. But he cannot brook the forceful compulsive tool which he is compelled to pay for when he has no use for it.

He has no objection to policemen whose function is solely that of protection. But he resists the supposition that others know better than he, how much protection he needs or can afford.

He sees in government a tool of man’s devising. He has no objection to this tool so long as it is totally responsive to the man who hires the tool and pays for its use. He does object to the employment of this tool by some against others in an aggressive manner, since he is primarily concerned with human liberty and the preservation of it for all individuals.

But it is destructive of libertarian aims and objectives to label a seeker after total freedom with the opprobrium of “anarchist.”

Economically speaking, all anarchists are, socialists, however they may coalesce to the political spectrum. Economically speaking, the libertarian is an individualist, believing in and supporting the concept of private ownership, individual responsibility and self-government.