-Caveat Lector-
From:
Vices Are Not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty --Lysander Spooner, 1875.
<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/vices.html>
...We all come into the world in ignorance of ourselves, and of everything around us.
By a
fundamental law of our natures we are all constantly impelled by the desire of
happiness, and the
fear of pain. But we have everything to learn, as to what will give us happiness, and
save us from
pain. No two of us are wholly alike, either physically, mentally, or emotionally; or,
consequently,
in our physical, mental, or emotional requirements for the acquisition of happiness,
and the
avoidance of unhappiness. No one of us, therefore can learn this indispensable lesson
of happiness
and unhappiness, of virtue and vice, for another. Each must learn it for himself. To
learn it, he
must be at liberty to try all experiments that comment themselves to his judgment.
Some of his
experiments succeed, and, because they succeed, are called virtues; others fail, and,
because they
fail, are called vices. He gathers wisdom as much from his failures as from his
successes; from his
so-called vices, as from his so-called virtues. Both are necessary to his acquisition
of that
knowledge - of his own nature, and of the world around him, and of their adaptations or
non-adaptations to each other - which shall show him how happiness is acquired, and
pain avoided.
And, unless he can be permitted to try these experiments to his own satisfaction, he
is restrained
from the acquisition of knowledge, and, consequently, from pursuing the great purpose
and duty of
his life.
To know what actions are virtuous, and what vicious - in other words, to know what
actions tend, on
the whole, to happiness, and what to unhappiness - in the case of each and every man,
in each and
all the conditions in which they may severally be placed, is the profoundest and most
complex study
to which the greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed. It is,
nevertheless, the
constant study to which each and every man - the humblest in intellect as well as the
greatest - is
necessarily driven by the desires and necessities of his own existence. It is also the
study in
which each and every person, from his cradle to his grave, must necessarily form his
own
conclusions; because no one else knows or feels, or can know or feel, as he knows and
feels, the
desires and necessities, the hopes, and fears, and impulses of his own nature, or the
pressure of
his own circumstances.
It is not often possible to say of those acts that are called vices, that they really
are vices,
except in degree. That is, it is difficult to say of any actions, or courses of
action, that are
called vices, that they really would have been vices, if they had stopped short of a
certain point.
The question of virtue or vice, therefore, in all such cases, is a question of
quantity and degree,
and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by itself. This fact adds to the
difficulty,
not to say the impossibility, of any one's - except each individual for himself -
drawing any
accurate line, or anything like any accurate line, between virtue and vice; that is,
of telling
where virtue ends, and vice begins. And this is another reason why this whole question
of virtue and
vice should be left for each person to settle for himself.
Vices are usually pleasurable, at least for the time being, and often do not disclose
themselves as
vices, by their effects, until after they have been practiced for many years; perhaps
for a
lifetime. To many, perhaps most, of those who practice them, they do not disclose
themselves as
vices at all during life. Virtues, on the other hand, often appear so harsh and
rugged, they require
the sacrifice of so much present happiness, at least, and the results, which alone
prove them to be
virtues, are often so distant and obscure, in fact, so absolutely invisible to the
minds of many,
especially of the young that, from the very nature of things, there can be no
universal, or even
general, knowledge that they are virtues. In truth, the studies of profound
philosophers have been
expended - if not wholly in vain, certainly with very small results - in efforts to
draw the lines
between the virtues and the vices.
If, then, it became so difficult, so nearly impossible, in most cases, to determine
what is, and
what is not, vice; and especially if it be so difficult, in nearly all cases, to
determine where
virtue ends, and vice begins; and if these questions, which no one can really and
truly determine
for anybody but himself, are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each
person is
deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to
inquire,
investigate, reason, try experiments, judge, and ascertain for himself, what is, to
him, virtue, and
what is, to him, vice; in other words: what, on the whole, conduces to his happiness,
and what, on
the whole, tends to his unhappiness. If this great right is not to be left free and
open to all,
then each man's whole right, as a reasoning human being, to "liberty and the pursuit
of happiness,"
is denied him.
In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has
the right to
say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "we have tried this
experiment, and
determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for
ourselves, but for all
others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in
obedience to our
conclusions? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and,
consequently, no
further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"
Who are the men who have the right to say this? Certainly there are none such. The men
who really do
say it are either shameless impostors and tyrants, who would stop the progress of
knowledge, and
usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men; and are
therefore to be
resisted instantly, and to the last extent; or they are themselves too ignorant of
their own
weaknesses, and of their true relations to other men, to be entitled to any other
consideration then
sheer pity or contempt.
We know, however, that there are such men as these in the world. Some of them attempt
to exercise
their power only within a small sphere, to wit, upon their children, their neighbors,
their
townsmen, and their countrymen. Others attempt to exercise it on a larger scale. For
example, an old
man at Rome, aided by a few subordinates, attempts to decide all questions of virtue
and vice; that
is, of truth or falsehood, especially in matters of religion. He claims to know and
teach what
religious ideas and practices are conducive, or fatal, to a man's happiness, not only
in this world,
but in that which is to come. He claims to be miraculously inspired for the
performance of this
work; thus virtually acknowledging, like a sensible man, that nothing short of
miraculous
inspiration would qualify him for it. This miraculous inspiration, however, has been
ineffectual to
enable him to settle more than a very few questions. The most important to which
common mortals can
attain, is an implicit belief in his (the pope's) infallibility! and, secondly, that
the blackest
vices of which they can be guilty are to believe and declare that he is only a man
like the rest of
them!
It required some fifteen or eighteen hundred years to enable him to reach definite
conclusions on
these two vital points. Yet it would seem that the first of these must necessarily be
preliminary to
his settlement of any other questions; because, until his own infallibility is
determined, he can
authoritatively decide nothing else. He has, however, heretofore attempted or
pretended to settle a
few others. And he may, perhaps, attempt or pretend to settle a few more in the
future, if he shall
continue to find anybody to listen to him. But his success, thus far, certainly does
not encourage
the belief that he will be able to settle all questions of virtue and vice, even in
his peculiar
department of religion, in time to meet the necessities of mankind. He, or his
successors, will
undoubtedly be compelled, at no distant day, to acknowledge that he has undertaken a
task to which
all his miraculous inspiration was inadequate; and that, of necessity, each human
being must be left
to settle all questions of this kind for himself. And it is not unreasonable to expect
that all
other popes, in other and lesser spheres, will some time have cause to come to the
same conclusion.
No one, certainly, not claiming supernatural inspiration, should undertake a task to
which obviously
nothing less than such inspiration is adequate. And, clearly, no one should surrender
his own
judgment to the teachings of others, unless he be first convinced that these others
have something
more than ordinary human knowledge on this subject.
If those persons, who fancy themselves gifted with both the power and the right to
define and punish
other men's vices, would but turn their thoughts inwardly, they would probably find
that they have a
great work to do at home; and that, when that shall have been completed, they will be
little
disposed to do more towards correcting the vices of others, than simply to give to
others the
results of their experience and observation. In this sphere their labors may possibly
be useful;
but, in the sphere of infallibility and coercion, they will probably, for well-known
reasons, meet
with even less success in the future than such men have met with in the past.
A government that shall punish all vices impartially is so obviously an impossibility,
that nobody
was ever found, or ever will be found, foolish enough to propose it. The most that any
one proposes
is, that government shall punish some one, or at most a few, of what he esteems the
grossest of
them. But this discrimination is an utterly absurd, illogical, and tyrannical one.
What right has
any body of men to say, "The vices of other men we will punish; but our own vices
nobody shall
punish? We will restrain other men from seeking their own happiness, according to
their own notions
of it; but nobody shall restrain us from seeking our own happiness, according to our
own notions of
it? We will restrain other men from acquiring any experimental knowledge of what is
conducive or
necessary to their own happiness; but nobody shall restrain us from acquiring an
experimental
knowledge of what is conducive or necessary to our own happiness?"
Nobody but knaves or blockheads ever thinks of making such absurd assumptions as
these. And yet,
evidently, it is only upon such assumptions that anybody can claim the right to punish
the vices of
others, and at the same time claim exemption from punishment for his own.
It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for
their vices;
because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the
individuals
composing it had previously had, as *individuals*. They could not delegate to a
government any
rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the
government any
rights, except such as they themselves possessed as *individuals*. Now, nobody but a
fool or
impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their
vices. But
anybody and everybody have a natural right, as individuals, to punish other men for
their crimes;
for everybody has a natural right not only to defend his own person and property
against aggressors,
but also to go to the assistance and defense of everybody else, whose person or
property is invaded.
The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an
aggressor, and
to go to the assistance and defense of every one else whose person or property is
invaded, is a
right without which men could not exist on the earth. And government has no rightful
existence,
except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals.
But the idea
that each man has a natural right to decide what are virtues, and what are vices -
that is, what
contributes to that neighbor's happiness, and what do not - and to punish him for all
that do not
contribute to is; is what no one ever had the impudence or folly to assert. It is only
those who
claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever
did, or ever
could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish
vices.
It will do for a pope or a king - who claims to have received direct authority from
Heaven, to rule
over his fellowmen - to claim the right, as the vicegerent of God, to punish men for
their vices;
but it is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government, claiming to derive its power
wholly from
the grant of the governed, to claim any such power; because everybody knows that the
governed never
would grant it (note: this was penned in 1875, but the passing and repeal of the
Prohibition
Amendment has proven Spooner's point). For them to grant it would be an absurdity,
because it would
be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness; since to grant away
their right to
judge of what will be for their happiness, is to grant away all their right to pursue
their own
happiness.
We can now see how simple, easy, and reasonable a matter is a government for the
punishment of
crimes, as compared with one for the punishment of vices. Crimes are few, and easily
distinguished
from all other acts; and mankind are generally agreed as to what acts are crimes.
Whereas vices are
innumerable; and no two persons are agreed, except in comparatively few cases, as to
what are vices.
Furthermore, everybody wishes to be protected, in his person and property, against the
aggressions
of other men. But nobody wishes to be protected, either in his person or property,
against himself;
because it is contrary to the fundamental laws of human nature itself, that any one
should wish to
harm himself. He only wishes to promote his own happiness, and to be his own judge as
to what will
promote, and does promote, his own happiness. This is what every one wants, and has a
right to, as a
human being. And though we all make many mistakes, and necessarily must make them,
from the
imperfection of our knowledge, yet these mistakes are no argument against the right;
because they
all tend to give us the very knowledge we need, and are in pursuit of, and can get in
no other way.
The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes, therefore, is not only wholly
different from, but
it is directly opposed to, that aimed at in the punishment of vices.
The object aimed at in the punishment of crimes is to secure, to each and every man
alike, the
fullest liberty he possibly can have - consistently with the equal rights of others -
to pursue his
own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment, and by the use of his own
property. On the
other hand, the object aimed at in the punishment of vices, is to deprive every man of
his natural
right and liberty to pursue his own happiness, under the guidance of his own judgment,
and by the
use of his own property.
These two objects, then, are directly opposed to each other. They are as directly
opposed to each
other as are light and darkness, or as truth and falsehood, or as liberty and slavery.
They are
utterly incompatible with each other; and to suppose the two to be embraced in one and
the same
government, is an absurdity, an impossibility. It is to suppose the objects of a
government to be to
commit crimes, and to prevent crimes; to destroy individual liberty, and to secure
individual
liberty.
(note: As Spooner pointed out in the introduction):
Vices are those acts by which a man harms *himself* or his
property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms
the person or property of *another*. . . .
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to
punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature
of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth
to be falsehood, or falsehood truth....
Finally, on this point of individual liberty: Every man must necessarily judge and
determine for
himself as to what is conducive and necessary to, and what is destructive of, his own
well-being;
because, if he omits to perform this task for himself, nobody else can perform it for
him. And
nobody else will even attempt to perform it for him, except in very few cases. Popes,
and priests,
and kings will assume to perform it for him, in certain cases, if permitted to do so.
But they will,
in general, perform it only in so far as they can minister to their own vices and
crimes, by doing
it. They will, in general, perform it only in so far as they can make him their fool
and their
slave....
But some persons are in the habit of saying that the use of (drugs) is the great
source of crime;
that "it fills our prisons with criminals;" and that this is reason enough for
prohibiting the sale
of them.
Those who say this, if they talk seriously, talk blindly and foolishly. They evidently
mean to be
understood as saying that a very large percentage of all the crimes that are committed
among men,
are committed by persons whose criminal passions are excited, at the time, by the use
of (drugs),
and in consequence of the use of (drugs).
This idea is utterly preposterous.
In the first place, the great crimes committed in the world are mostly prompted by
avarice and
ambition.
The greatest of all crimes are the wars (note: "The War on Drugs") that are carried on
by
governments, to plunder, enslave, and destroy mankind.
The next greatest crimes committed in the world are equally prompted by avarice and
ambition; and
are committed, not on sudden passion, but by men of calculation, who keep their heads
cool and
clear, and who have no thought whatever of going to prison for them. They are
committed, not so much
by men who violate the laws, as by men who, either by themselves or by their
instruments, *make* the
laws; by men who have combined to usurp arbitrary power, and to maintain it by force
and fraud, and
whose purpose in usurping and maintaining it is by unjust and unequal legislation, to
secure to
themselves such advantages and monopolies as will enable them to control and extort
the labor and
properties of other men, and thus impoverish them, in order to minister to their own
wealth and
aggrandizement. The robberies and wrongs thus committed by these men, in conformity
with the laws,
- that is, their *own* laws - are as mountains to molehills, compared with the crimes
committed by
all other criminals, in violation of the laws. [...]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
