CO-OPERAIION. 3 



Critical Evils. — But some may think that when an evil gets 

 to such a crisis, that, at any moment, it maj^ break out into a 

 crime and endanger society, it should be suppressed. But iipon 

 such an elastic construction, all evils might be turned into 

 crimes. Anger would become murder, houses could be sup- 

 pressed because they burn, horses, because they kick. No, 

 the name for this indemnity is insurance, not prohibition. In- 

 surance pi'otects the community in case there is any crime, 

 while prohibition suppresses the evil before there is any cer- 

 tainty that it ever loill be a crime! Insurance covers the dama- 

 ges, but under prohibition the evil goes free from paying 

 any damages. Of course insurance- cannot cover moral ruin, 

 only moral rectitude can do that. Insurance can only cover 

 damages assessable in dollars and cents. 



Crime. — A crime is an overt act of force accompanied with 

 a bad intent. It is unreciprocal in its action, destroying all 

 equality of relationship. It demands what it cannot confer, 

 and should therefore be suppressed. Why? Because in 

 exercising the supreme authority of denying to another the 

 right of habeas corinis, we cannot be too certain of our rea- 

 sons for so doing. 



Not the act itself- — The reason for the arrest of crime ari- 

 ses from its relationship and not from the nature of the act 

 itself. It is not our business to prevent another from visiting 

 his vengeance upon himself, neither is he to be hindered, by 

 mutual c(*nsent, from visiting it upon others. It is not because 

 people do wrong, or we think they are doing wrong, that they 

 should be dei>rived of their liberty. The nature of the act has 

 notliing whatever to do with it. Since our })rivacy and time 

 belong to us as much as our person and property, an act good in 

 itself, may interfere with our liberty, while a bad one may not. 



We have then reached the point wliich avo set out to seek, the 



LAW OF SOCIETARY FREEDOM. 



Ride of Reciprocity. — The only justifiable reason then, for 

 taking away another's freedom, is because another's acts adniit 

 of no reci])rocity, demanding for one's self wliat one cannot con- 

 cede, and denying to others what we demand for ourselves. 



