2

assassinations and the bomb outrages by anarchists?

This is an old argument which doesn't apply now. Most of the assassinations and outrages lately haven't been done by anarchists. There is nothing in anarchism that preaches bomb-throwing.

Of course it's true there have been anarchists who threw bombs maybe, just the same as there have been Roman Catholics who cut up their wives into bits. If you agree that the murder by Crippen is not an argument against the Pope, then an outrage by an anarchist proves nothing against Anarchism.

If you kick a dog, that dog will but you, but it does not prove the dog is an anarchist or a Wesleyan or a Mormon. Much he same thing happens in life; the people who chopped off King Charles' head were not anarchists. They were considered pious.

And now for Anarchism.

The word means "no-rule" or no-

3

government. What, you say, no government? How could the country be run? There would simply be chaos.

Well you can't have a spring clean, without upsetting a pail now and again. But what does it prove?

If you say "there will be a chaos" then you are saying perhaps the nastiest thing you have ever said against a government.

What would you think of a man who said that if he left home for a week his family would be fighting amongst themselves? You would say of course that he was a duffer in family affairs.

That is exactly what you suggest about the Government. A Government that cannot be thrown out without the people falling on each other with sticks is a pretty sort of Government.

In the first place, WHY should the people start fighting each other? Because some people have too much and some have nothing at all. Mind you, they are all the same kind of people too. Why should one Britisher have more than another?