josiah warren and the sovereignty of the individual- ann caldwell butler

8/14/2019 Josiah Warren and the Sovereignty of the Individual- Ann Caldwell Butler

1/16

The Journol oJLiberlorim Srudics, Vol. IV , N o . 4 (Fall 1980)

Josiah Warren and the Sovereigntyof the Individual*by Ann Caldwell Butler

Redkey, Indiana

In a Notebook "D" entry dated January 29, 1840, Josiah Warren gave theplan for his "New Social Arrangements" which would emphasize humanfreedom. Writing in New Harmony, Indiana, he claimed that his plan wasintended to restore the natural liberty of mankind gradually -to render tolabor its just reward-and to establish security, peace, and the means ofenjoyment to all.' His ideal society was to be conducted with a watchful andstrict regard to the laws of human nature, particularly its individualities.Warren insisted that these laws teach us that our own happiness dependsupon a proper respect for the happiness of others and that therefore weshould not make social arrangements which require compulsion or theviolation of the natural freedom of any individual.

Further, Warren argued, there must be no arrangements which dependfor their success upon agreement on verbal rules or processes foragreements of opinions, tastes or interests. There should be, instead, pres-ervation of the liberty of each person to differ in these and all other respects.Man should have the liberty to change with his situation. This libertycannot be exercised in combinations, masses and organized associationswhich have connected interests and responsibilities. Therefore, personsought not to form them, but to preserve individual interests, individual re-sponsibility, and individual "executive" (the liberty to make decisions con-cerning the conduct of one's life). The sovereignty of every individual overhis or her person, time and property must be pre~erved.~

These laws of nature, Warren believed, required individuals to give anequivalent in labor, and in nothing but labor, for labor received. This prin-ciple of labor for labor rendered all natural wealth common to all. It re-jected all speculation and consequently forbade the buying up of land, pro-visions, building materials, goods, etc. for the purpose of selling them againat a profit beyond a reward for the labor bestowed.' Labor for laborrejected interest on money and, consequently, all banks and banking opera-

*The original version of this article was pan of a doctoral dissertation in history. "JosiahWarren: Peace ful Revolutionist," Ball State University, Sep tembe r 1978.


2/16

434 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIANSTUDIES Fall

tions together with all stock-jobbing and the whole of the present systems offinance and institutions built on money. In turn, it would give to everyonean equal opportunity to acquire knowledge and property and wouldcounteract the natural inequality of mankind. It would give women andchildren the just reward for their labor.4

Labor for labor made it impossible for one portion of the human race tolive upon the labor of others without their knowledge and consent, Warrenclaimed.' The great mistake of all society is the compromise or surrender ofthe sovereignty of the individual. This must not be. Society must beremodelled without this surrender. The sovereignty of each individual overhis own person and property in all cases was the great idea that must workout the problem of happiness.6 This was the keystone of Warren's thought.

Conversely, the greatest kindness that one can do to others is to assistthem in their happiness, to assist them in taking any particular course ormanner that they may choose. When the pursuit of happiness of oneconflicts with the pursuit of happiness of another, the conflict may be re-solved by a spirit of accommodation which can be exercised until the cir-cumstances which compel the two to clash can be removed or abolished.Warren said that the reduction of conflict is the purpose for which he hadcreated his new social arrangements.'

Warren described the organization of society as artificial, invented byman as he would invent a machine. It must necessarily contain a number ofelements for the accomplishment of certain purposes just as a machine haselements to accomplish its purposes. However, for humans to succeed ineither inventing an organization of society or a machine, they must under-stand the principles involved and they must be able to trace any defect to itsproper cause, "not alter a wheel when it is a lever that is in fault . . .but lookinto the causes, trace the connections of one thing with another till we cometo the fault and there is the point to apply the remed~."~

Some parts of society may be allowed to be slightly imperfect withoutmaterially affecting the general result, but there are some imperfections thatthe laws of nature will not allow. As Warren said:

For instance, the wheels of a clock must all be present, the proper num-ber must be there, and they must not vary much from their specifiedsize-a little imperfection may be allowed in the cogs, but very little, orthe clock will not go-each wheel might perhaps vary a little from theprecise mathematical circle and yet the clock might go, but there areother imperfections which the laws of Nature will not permit-they willnot permit the absence of the pendulum, with this imperfection themachine will not go-it would be no clock.P

The addition of ten thousand wheels would not take the place of the pen-dulum. These wheels would be analogous to the multiplicity of laws in oursocial state which only serve to complicate, to clog the machine. We musthave the pendulum, and the pendulum must be in proportion to the other


3/16


4/16

436 TH E JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUD IES Fall

proved by everyone, and any attempt at a universal definition would be anencroachment on others' liberty, the only satisfactory solution is theaffirma tion tha t each person should define na tura l liberty for himself. T husWarren concludes that "individual natural liberty includes the right of itsow n d e f i n i t i ~ n . " ' ~f the exercise of this right w as imprac tical in the societyof Warren's day, w hat was the problem? Connected interests an d connectedresponsibilities were wrong, an d it is here th at the remedies should be ap-plied, but not by multiplying laws or inventing new violations of naturalright. Such m ultiplication a nd inventions will never make the machine suc-ceed. Citizens of A merican society must let wh at is right alone a nd remedythe wrong "or we shall never get a ~ l o c k . " ' ~ arren concludes his argumentin this fashion:Suppose the remedy completed-suppose all connections of interest, allconnected resoonsibilities dissolved-suooose each Individual is no wiseconnected with any other excepting in voluntary and friendly socialintercourse-suooose each one ahsolutelv sovereien of himself orherself, time, property interests to such an extent thacno power on earthcould sav to him thou shaN and sunnose each one's interests and resoon-sihilitiesso completely separated from all others, that A may do jist ashe pleases without involving the person, property, or responsibilities ofany other one. W hat objection would there he to A's defining liberty forhimself?16

T he business of reform is plain for Warren. If huma ns can atta in indi-vidual interests an d individual responsibilities, the n they shall have attaine dthe goa l of the sovereignty of each individual. In ord er to d o this, they mus tmake no a rrangem ents which either directly or indirectly produce conn ectedinterests, or property, connected responsibilities or connected executivepower. These interests, property, responsibilities, and powers must all beindividual. Every individual should hold his or her property separate anddistinct and unconnected with that of any other. He should have hisseparate and distinct responsibilities, unconnected with those responsi-bilities of any other. Each and every individual should be his or her ownexecutive, unconnec ted w ith the executive power of a ny oth er."Th e first prerequisite t o carrying ou t this reform , W arren believed, wasto establish definitely what the proper and legitimate interests, responsi-bilities and executive powers were. What are the rights of the individual?These rights were already stated in the American Declaration of Indepen-dence, but the language used was subject to different interpretations bydifferent people an d ca nn ot act as a guide to definite social arrangements. Italso did no t seem to be possible to W arren to comb ine any sets of w ordswhich would n ot be subjected t o the sam e objection. Th e individuality ofhuman nature, and the right of everyone to use his individuality, compelsindividuals to comm unicate with one another . Having proposed a n idea an dcomm unicated it t o othe rs, the individual must let these others exercise their


5/16

1980 JOSlAHWARREN 437

free choice and ma ke their ow n decisions ab ou t it. "Each may differ fromeach." Consequently, Warren insisted that society must not lay down anyforms of words whatsoever with the idea of enforcing conformity ofopinion. "This is the great fundamental error of all organizations ofsociety."lsThe most important error current in contemporary society, accordingto W arren, w as that "when we enter into society, we surre nde r a portion ofou r na tur al liberty."'9

This is one of the visionary dogmas of Blackstone, a man who wrote inorder to reconcile mankind to a monarchial government, who held officeunder a monarchy, who was paid by a monarchy and who was paidaccording to what he wrote. There is a subtle sophistry in that dogmawhich, when it is once admitted, serves as the excuse for the mostmonstrous violations of the rights of persons and property that the mostinsatiable tyrants can desire.20

Warren continued his attack on this English interpretation of naturalrights theory by posing a not-so-theoretical situation. If a ruler wishes totake the whole proper ty of his subjects and have a conscription t o carry o nwars of plunder and destruction, he can tell his subjects that, when theyenter in to society, they surrender a portion of their natu ral liberty o r free-dom of choice. Or, in the same manner, if a member of a little neigh-borh ood meeting has th e ambition t o govern, he can d o so by using thesam e excuse, an d his small tyran ny will be allowed. W arren challenges this"for the sake of the hum an race, for the establishment of hum an right^.''^'Neither should Americans be decieved by the nineteenth-centuryemphasis up on equality, according t o Wa rren. Hu m ans must not surrendereven a po rtion o f their na tur al liberty in response t o the word equality. T hisword, "which has s o often been a w atchword o r rallying cry in revolutionsthat have shaken the world, and that have ended in disappointment anddisgust,"22 wo uld hav e been a valuable an d harmless word if each individu alhad been allowed to interpret o r define it for himself. However, equality asinterpreted by a vote of the majority or by any power who defines it inregard t o a n individual's prop erty o r happiness, against his ow n views, "isa n act of madness."zJW arren illustrated the problems inherent in the concept of equality by areference to his experience in Robert Owen's egalitarian community:

In the experiments of communities of common property attempted inNew Harmony the word assumed a very important position. It was oneof the cornerstones of the whole superstructure, but it was a differentthing with almost every different person. One applied so as to prescribethe same amount of value to each member fo r clothinr and food leavinghim free to choose the kind according [to] taste etc.-while another in -sisted that the word fairly prescribed the same kind, color and make ofclothing and imisted on uniformity o f dress a\ on t o i the most necesw yexternal signs of that equality of condition desirable among men."


6/16

438 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES FallNor was that th e limit of interpretation. There were others at New H arm on ywho insisted that all should eat the same kind of food. Equality of labormeant for some that all should take equal turns in each of the differentforms of labor, especially the most disagreeable. Others said that equalityof labor simply meant equal amounts of time "employed in the service ofthe connected i nt er e~ t." ~' l l of these plus many other interpretat ions of theword were the subjects of contention which destroyed "those social sym-pathies w hich was th e ob ject o f the ex perimen t to establish."26Wa rren believed these interpretations equated equality with confo rmity,and , a t New Ha rm on y, "it seemed th at difference of opinion , views, tastesan d purposes increased just in proportion t o the demands of c~n for m ity. " '~There was no way to combat this. Even with the best intentions in theworld, tho se who advocated a ny type of commu nism with connected pro p-erty, interests, and responsibilities were doomed to failure because of theindividuality of t he persons involved in suc h a n experiment. A t New H ar -mony, Robert Owen had assembled "eight hundred people, mostly selectedfo r their su perio r intelligence an d m ora l excellence,"28 with th e idea ofsolving the problems of society through a com munistic com mu nity. Despitethe selective group , o r perhaps because of it , Wa rren fou nd the New Har -mony experience a failure i n achieving social harm ony.

We had assured ourselves of our unanimous devotedness to the causeand expected unanimity of thought and action: but instead of this wemet diversity of opinions, expedients and counteraction entirely beyondany thing we had just left behind us in common society: and the morewe desired and called for "union" the more this diversity seemed to bedeveloped: and instead of that harmonious co-operative we hadexpected, we found more antagonisms than we had been accustomed toin common Life.. .. We differed, we contended and ran ourselves intoconfusion: our legislative proceedings were just like all others, exceptingthat we did not come to blows or pistols; because Mr. Owen had shownus that all our thoughts, feelings and actions were the inevitable effectsof the causes that produce them; and that it would he just as rational topunish the fruit of a tree for being what it is, as to punish each other forbeing what we are: that our true issue is not with each other, but withcauses.29

The re was n o con formity amo ng the opinions of individuals, an d evengreat hopes a nd aspirations for success could n ot bring conform ity, despiterules, regulations, constitutions and other legislative measures brought tobear upon the New Harmony community. I t had been demonstra ted toWarren's satisfaction tha t the individuality of each person did n ot createan d could not create any more th an a voluntary cooperation. If each sur-rendered any portion of his individual right to differ, or allowed hissovereign rights t o be infringed up on, it must be his decision an d his alone.Warren then concluded that traditional society "had all the time beenright in its individual ownership of property and its individual responsi-


7/16

1980 JOSIAH WARREN 439

bilities."30 The wrongs in all societies are created because "all societies froma nation to the smallest partnership are more or less communistic." Anyconnection of interests and responsibilities and property must be the basisfor conflict and discord. "Even two children owning a jackknife together areliable to continual dissatisfaction and disturbance till somebody owns itindividually." Warren then asked if disintegration was the answer. Couldindividuality be the watchword in progress instead of union? "If the en-joyments derived from society are its true bond, what do we want of anyother bond?" Why do individuals need restrictions put upon manners ordress or the conduct of their lives? The only true bond of society was that oflabor.)' Having arrived at that point, Warren analyzed the situation existentamong workers:

The greatest advantages derived from civilization-all that distinguish itfrom primitive or savage life are derived from labor-but they havenever been enjoyed by those who perform the labor. The workers arethe foundation, soul and substance of civilization but they can scarcelybe expected to feel much devotion to that which takes all from them ilndgives them little or nothing in return.32Therefore, Warren reasoned that if society returued individuality to

labor, it would return natural liberty to men. Individual sovereignty wouldbe the redeeming principle of the world. This principle begins with the rightof the individual to construe words in any manner he wishes when these areapplied to his or her person or property or responsibilities.'3 When thishappens, words which have been sources of discord, confusion andbloodshed would suddenly become harmless and men could discuss wordmeanings "disinterestedly and consequently with rnoderati~n."'~Warrenlisted words evoking passion which would be rendered neutral:

Among these words are Liberty, Morality, Religion, Vice, Virtue,prudence, patriotism, public good, Utility, industry, high station, lowstation, philosophy, Intelligence etc., all creeds, verbal rules, laws,dogmas, controversial arguments and all other verbal processes."

The second consideration in reforming societies must be the realizationof the differences in people. Individual sovereignty is a right because wehave no power to make ourselves like other persons. Warren believed that"the sights, sounds, tastes, and smells, together with the external and in-ternal feelings which each has experienced, constitute the world."16 Thesewere collected differently and combined differently in each individual.Therefore, each individual was a world by himself or herself and should,"like the different planets of the universe, have his and her sphere to move insufficiently distinct from others as to be able to pass through life withoutcoming in collision-with each other."" Individuals may approach eachother in society as each chooses to do so, but they must maintain the libertyto be different.


8/16

440 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES Fall

The third principle to be appreciated, according to Warren, wasfreedom of choice and voluntary subordination in cooperative enterprises.Natural liberty creates freedom of choice, and by freedom of choice Warrenmeant an "exemption from the control of other persons in distinction fromthe natural and irresistible control of circumstances."~~herefore, all socialarrangements must allow freedom of choice of every individual and allsocial subordination should be voluntary. Warren suggests the followingexample to illustrate his principle:

As for instance in the performance of a piece of music at a private party,each one who takes a part subordinates himself voluntarily to the lead ofone person, the necessity of this is so obvious that it controls the choice,but it is not persons that compel this subordination and here is thedistin~tion.'~Warren predated William Graham Sumner in discriminations between

voluntary and involuntary cooperation. The distinction betweeninvoluntary and voluntary cooperation was that the force of circumstanceor necessity, originating out of each decision made by the individual, wasthe control for voluntary cooperation; whereas, persons or authoritydictated involuntary cooperation. As Warren phrased it, "the one is inperfect accordance with a natural personal liberty which constitutes the chiefelement of the happiness of human beings, the other violates it and is thechief cause of the Bedlam-like confusion which pervades all ranks andconditions of mind."40

In order for voluntary cooperation to work, Warren saw the necessity ofdetermining the ground rules carefully. Thus, just as with rules and regu-lations which may be made from time to time, the situation must be clearlystated so that the individual has control over his right to participate. A ruleprohibiting the smoking of cigars in a public room would be definite in itsapplication, and "whoever enters does so in accordance with his own freechoice, and knows that, as long as he refrains from smoking cigars, he willbe at peace."41 On the other hand, "if it be made a rule that whoever entersthere will be required to contribute to general order and decorum, thiswould be an indefinite rule and he might think himself hereby elected co-superintendent of the movements of everyone in the Anotherproblem with indefinite rules was the absence of specific instructions. If anindividual felt he was under someone else's supervision, he would beanything but comfortable and would never be sure that he had met the in-definite requirements. Warren believed that in many cases it was just suchvague and indefinite rules that were the causes of confusion and disorder.Subordination to simple rules of society made by free choice would makelife easier and cooperation possible.

There was, however, one institution in society which would be radicallychanged with individual sovereignty.


9/16

1980 JOSlAHWARREN 441

The blind and brutal subordination obtained through fear of punish-ment in the army of a despot whose use of i t is the extension of hispower, is involuntary or coerced subordination and works nothing butdegradation to the subordinates, an insane self importance in those whocommand, and destruction, disorder, confusion and suffering whereverthat army is emp10yed.~'

With voluntary subordination, every soldier would claim and exercise hisfree choice in every case in which he was required t o act an d "should refuset o move in any cause but th at of the defense of person an d pr~ p er ty ." ~ 'W arren carried this principle t o the point where th e individual soldiershould be expected to be a ble to act individually in all cases where com mo nsense sets the on ly practical course. I n True Civilization h e tells a story of aScottish regiment. Although the soldiers of this regiment were expected toact only upo n orders, the regiment stopped a t the bank of the Clyde Riverwithout any o rders to d o so, "rather th an walk in an d be drowned."4sSuddenly the fact that self-preservation had precedence over obediencestruck bo th the men a nd the officers an d "a little storm c lo ud .. .aro sebetween men an d master." Th is incident illustrated Warren's conviction thatthe instinct fo r self-preservation did no t wait to consult "precedents nor in-terpretations o f constitutions, t he 'right o f rebellion' no r authorities of a nyki11d."~6 Self-preservation is its own authority.W arren believed t ha t subo rdination t o another should only be the resultof a completely vo lunta ry process. It will always be necessary for som eon et o organize and direct others in a com mo n cause, bu t such direction shouldtake th e fo rm of counseling an d should be subject t o discussion by all thoseinvolved. Nor did W arren believe that this process would sp ring to existencewithout p repar ation . Lectures could be given preparing people for this typeof self-government, "taking as texts the details of t he destruction of personsand property going on all around us."41 Drill should be given with someorders calculated to be disobeyed because of their potential harm. Thiswould give subordinates practice in breaking old hab its and accustom themto "look before they leap o r strike."48 Then military strength might bedeveloped which would be within self-discipline an d not u nd er discipline ofothers. W arren did not intend, however, th at a n army was to be a perma-nent fixture. In the new society it would be necessary only in the transi-tionary phase from the present "confusion and wanton violence to trueorder and mature civilization."'gVoluntary subordination an d m utual cooperation could bring abo ut anydesired ends. F or p roof, W arren cited evidence from the French Revolutionof 1830.

The people o f Paris, in the "three glorious days of July," all impelled byone interest, by common suffering and common sympathy rushed intothe streets to put down their oppressors, but it was immediately evident


10/16

442 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTAR IAN STUDIES Fall

to all that, while each was left to. ..pursue different courses without anyparticular course being marked distinctly out.. .their power could notbe brought to bear to any effect.'"Therefore, they put themselves under the direction of the students of thePolitechnique School. They did this while at the same time stipulating thatthey would refuse to obey any order with which they might disagree. Whatwas the result? They attained their object "as if by miracle."5'

They exhibited such an example of rigid self-government from all ex-cesses, and such ready cooperation in the measures and movements an-nounced by their leaders, that it must stand as an everlasting monumentin refutation of the false and interested doctrine in favor of coercivesubordination and in proof of the safety, the harmlessness and right-eousness and the infinite superiority of voluntary ~ubordination.~'Warren next considered the question of what would become of the in-

terests of society if there were no rulers or lawmakers. Warren countered byasking such questioners to look at the condition of society and to see if anyplan could work more injustice to mankind than the ones under which itpresently operated. There was nothing in voluntary subordination thatviolated natural liberty, and the idea that giving this freedom would upsetall order was as groundless as the statement that coercive subordination hasbenefited mankind."Voluntary subordination, according to Warren, was the only techniqueenabling the individual to find true liberty and freedom to develop his capa-bilities and to use his time and energies to their fullest potential. Further-more, the word liberty was the pivot upon which all the institutions of menhave often turned and are still turning, but they are turning only to be trans-formed again and as often as any new interpretation was given to the word.The only guarantee against revolution and violence and the only security forperson and property and for the free pursuit of happiness will he found ineach individual's interpreting liberty for himself and herself and for his ownindividual interests. This individuality of interests would also require anindividualism of responsibilities and executives, "the executive alwaysincurring the consequences of its own decision^."^' Each individual shouldmake his own decisions realizing that he attains his happiness throughpleasure and rewards, or gains unhappiness through pain and punishment.This was the principle of Warren's which says that each acts at his own cost.In Notebook " D Warren gives several illustrations of his principle ofthe sovereignty of the individual. In one of these, from Modern Times inJuly 1860, Warren reported a conversation between W. and S. in detail.(Although no names were given, Warrenhimself must be W.) S, had askedwhether the formula that everyone act at his own cost was not impractical.Warren replied that the principle was impractical at that time because of theconnected interests of people in society. If conditions were created wherein


11/16

1980 JOSIAHWARREN 443the individual was freed from entanglements with others, then the costprinciple would mean that "no society revolutions would be needed-allwould be right now if everyone did act at his own cost , or the formulawould prov e itself defective.""Warren continued by means of this example: if you and I own a housetogether an d decide t o paint it , it would be as much agreement as one couldexpect from two people having natural differences of opinion. We mayexpect f o find difference in tastes when we com e to decide abou t the color t obe used. 1 can not h ave my way without preventing you fro m having yours."Here I must have my way at your cost or you at mine."56 If I owned thehouse individually o r you owned it, there would b e n o difficulty. "We m aysafely connect ourselves or our affairs only so far as we are sure tocoincide-this certainly is fou nd only in the sphere of the absolutely (anduniversally) true." We would not disagree that the house needs painting,because it is a fact proven by universal experience that paint preserveswoo d. But, we must realize th at we need also to preserve th e conditions inwhich it is possible t o differ in a ct a s well as in ta ste an d op inion , "withoutcrossing, co unteracting o r disturbing each other."57

S. "Now, we will take for instance the drunkard. He cannot act at hisown cost because he involves his family in destruction and theymust for self preservation restrain him."W. "Certainly, if they have the means to do so. But what are themeans? None have yet been discovered-with all the immense exer-tion and suffering around us the evil still goes on. Are you not tiredof waiting for a remedy?"S. "What would you propose as a remedy?"W. "A part of the true remedy would be found in the individuality ofinterests as in the case of the house. The wife and children shouldnot depend for their support upon a drunken man. There shouldnot be a communion of property between them.""

Com mun ity of prope rty interests inevitably brings discord and contention.Individuality, on the other hand, will bring a completely different way oflife by preventing disturbance, d isappointm ent and defeat.W arren gives an oth er illustration. "In 1848, an acquaintance suddenlypresented himself befo re me five hu ndr ed miles fro m hom e, a nd said, 'Youare surprised to see me, b ut no t m ore than I am surprised at myself. ' "59W arren then goes on t o describe the man's condition. H e had left home; hehad left everything bu t wh at he w ore on his back, m oney, clothes, horses,farm , everything he owned. H e was now throwing himself o n the world t obegin again. H e told Warren his story."My wife and I," said he, "were setting out a row of onions in thegarden. She remarked that I had set them crooked-I replied, nomatter, they were well enough; but she said that as we were foreigners,


12/16

444 TH E JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUD IES Fall

the neighbors were all the time criticizing our farming gardening and shewanted everything to look so as to defy their criticisms.""H e had replied t o his wife tha t he would no t trouble himself merely t osilence the neighbors; the spirit of fault finding would always find some ex-cuse, an d if they did no t rise abov e it, they would be enslaved by it. H is wiferefused to accept tha t philosophy a nd insisted th at h e straighten the row. H ebecame "a little irritated and made some reply that brought from her anallusion to a n old score"6' between them which really upset him. H e replied"with severity" and before he knew what he was doing, he had thrown apiece of wood at her. Alarmed and disgusted by his conduct, as well as ather, he had left home. "This was all in consequence of a communism ofinterest in a row of onions."6zIn another conversation, H. questioned Warren, saying that Warren'sindividuality seemed to g o against the com mon property idea. Warren repliedthat indeed, it went exactly in the opposite direction, and that the conser-vatives had been right in their objections to communism, "or what iscommonly ca l l ed ~oc ia l i sm."~~

Every shape it has assumed has proposed more closely connectedinterests than what conservatism or common life exhibits, while thesolution and the success demanded, requires, as a first step, exactly theopposite process-more individuality, disintegration, d i~ enta ngle m ent.~~W arren went on t o say that in an y so-called social reform movement th erewas the necessity of trusting leaders. In the exercise of individuality there isn o com bination with power over the person or property, and the individualdoes no t face the problems of being mixed indiscriminately with others.65H e was concerned tha t the public, "judging by what they already knew ofReforms looked on this [Warren's] movement as a 'community' or some-thing of the same kind, an d judged us altogether by th e acts of writings ofon e or Th e public must learn that this movem ent is built on thepremise that n o o ne is t o be judged by the acts of others. E ach person is en-titled to the reputation that he earns for himself and no other. Unlike anyother reform movement, there can be no partnership or organized reputa-tion, "any more than there would be to an accidental assemblage of thepeople of all nation^."^'One difficulty that Warren faced repeatedly was raised by people whoobjected t o the sovereignty of th e individual because it would, in theiropinion, permit offense to another. He states that the term involves thesovereignty of every individual, not of one individual. "Where thesovereignty of every on e is respected, no o ne can offend a nother by an y ofhis applications of it."6B

The street rowdy who delights in setting all order at defiance and offend-ing all surrounding tastes and feeling, may assert that he is carrying out


13/16

1980 JOSIAHWARREN 445his sovereignty. This is the sovereignty of one individual while that o fmany is violated-a regard to the sovereignty of every individual is seenin those who are delicately careful not to violate surrounding tastes orfeelings, nor unnecessarily to offend even those who may be in thewrong.69

This "beautiful trait of manners" was not f ou nd in any one single branc hof society as now know n. It was a characteristic of m any of the old nobilityan d gentry of other countries, o f som e of the aristocracy or th e independentclasses of the U nited States. I t was also to be f ou nd peculiarly amo ng sailorsand of ten amon g the very poorest of the poor. "They seem to have a happyfaculty of draw ing the line on the instan t where benevolence ends a nd selfpreservation begins."70 While they will suffer no unnecessary offense, theyare also careful t o give none . T his principle, extended t o all, "will be fo un dto be n ot only a substitute fo r laws hut a regulator o f social life in thousan dsof subtle and complicated cases that laws can never regulate nor evenreach.""

As an example, Warren cited the instance of a man, B , whowas stan ding in the middle of a sidewalk in Boston in 1851. H e was trying t odecide which way to take when three young men came quickly down thesidewalk an d pushed him i nt o a brick wall as they passed. Na tura;:~, thisanno yed him an d his first impulse was to resent it. His next thoug ht was ofth e sovereignty of th e individual which "instantly showed B that i twas he w ho was in fault in n o t sufficiently regarding the convenience of theyoung men."72

Although they were apparently bent on some disturbance it was not forB to sit in judgment on that matter now: whatever theirpurpose or general character, whether good or bad, they had unques-tionable right, to free passage on the sidewalk, where B wasunnecessarily obstructing the way. Such was the effect of this reflectionupon B that he would have turned and made an apology to theyoung men had they not been too far distant to admit of it."Laws could n ot have solved this; n o policeman would hav e reprimandedB for standing for a few minutes, and , on the other hand, no lawcould hav e prevented the beginning of a conflict if B had acted ou this resentment. The interference of the higher law, the sovereignty of theindividual, "this internal regulator," had solved the p r ~ b l e m . ' ~If the sovereignty of th e individual was used as the on e law, regulatingall cases, involving every individual on his own responsibility at his owncost, "no one will dispute the immense benefits i t would ~ o n f e r . ' ' ~ ~In 1854 the city government o f New York had h ad p roblems with a deci-sion as to whether citizens had the right to deco rate their homes with torchesor t o "illuminate" their h omes o n February 22, Washington's birthday. Asusual, Warren gave no names, but used the circumstances to prove hispoint. On e of the officers o f the law, according t o W arren, conversing with


14/16

446 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTA RIAN TUDIES Fall

Mr. L., thought that he understood the right of sovereignty. He decidedthat L. had a right to illuminate his home if he wished. Upon deliberation,Mr. L. decided that it would be an infringement of the right of sovereigntyof others if he did this, and "he concluded that he could not illuminate at hisown house while his adjoining neighbors would be disturbed by their fearsof accidental fire."76 He saw that they were in too close connection for thesovereignty of both parties to be carried out, and he could not sit in judg-ment on the reality of their fears. "Here the officer of the law was withoutany means of deciding, and finally decided wrong; while the 'Sovereignty ofevery Individual' wrought a decision of the highest possible order.""

Warren insisted that the sovereignty of the individual was possible onlywhere everyone agreed on what was to be done or proposed. Any situationin which connected interests were involved, such as the common schools,could not furnish the opportunity for right to be carried out equally. If oneparty was satisfied, it violated the right of the other party. "Both and allparties have a right to absolute sovereignty at their own cost whether rightor ~rong." '~Good and judicious expedients and compromises may be hitupon, but nothing short of the satisfaction of every individual involved isabsolutely and harmoniously right."'9 Collisions on the management ofschools were relatively common and were to be expected, given the princi-ples outlined by Warren.

In Y S , Indiana, in 1843, there was a beautiful school-house which had been built by the joint contributions of the inhabitants ofthe village. The contributors met to decide on the choice of a teacher. Therewas conflict and much discussion. Several meetings were held, "each partyinsisting on its 'rights,' neither of them knowing that the only thing that wasright (i.e., the Sovereignty of every individual) had been rendered imprac-ticable by combining their interest^."^" They argued, reasoned and debateduntil reasons, debates and debaters were exhausted. Finally a member of "achurch" took off his coat, picked up a club and "would probably have com-mitted manslaughter on the spot had he not been reasonably restrained bythose who surrounded him."s1 Someone of the group, seeing that nosolution was possible and that another meeting might end in bloodshed, setthe schoolhouse on fire that same night and it burned to the ground."Perhaps no one wished to save it, to prolong disturbances to which theycould hope for no peaceful s~lution."~*arren went on to say that he hadheld a meeting in the village a few days previous, and if the interestedmembers of the schoolhouse group had come and listened to the principlesof individuality, their schoolhouse "might now be standing, and success-fully used for the purpose intended."83Warren stated and restated his convictibn that individual sovereigntywas the necessary regulator of human relations, but that such sovereigntywas completely impossible unless each person's property, responsibilitiesand persons are "so far separate from others that he can exercise his legi-


15/16

1980 JOSIAH WARREN 447

timate control over his own without disturbing them."8' Disintegration ofsociety was necessary, until each person became responsible for himselfindividually. Then there would be no connected interests. Each personwould become his own regulator with "no prescription for others againsttheir choice of laws, rules, regulations, religions, morals, politics, ethics,manners, dress, etiquette modes, fashions, subordination, or in any othermanner wha ts~ever. "~~his, according to Warren, would lead to the mostperfect social order ever seen.

NOTESI . Josiah Warren, notebook "D", ed. Ann Caldwell Butler, masters thesis, Ball State Uni-

versity, 1968. Warren's original, handwritten notebook, written between 1840 and 1860 iscurrently at the Workingmen's institute Library, New Harmony, Ind. Most of the materialfor this article has been drawn from Notebook "D" because it is a source that has neverbeen used to explain and exemplify Warren's principles of the sovereignty of individual.The same ideas and similar examples may be found in his periodicals and published books.

2. Ibid., p. 3.3. Ibid., p. 4.4. Ibid., p. 6.5. Ibid., p. 7.6. I b i d , p. 5.7. Ibid.. o. 318. /bid.; bp. 31-33.9. Ibid., p. 33.10. Ibid., p. 35.

I I . Ibid.12. Ibid., p. 37.13. Ibid.14. Ibid.. D. 41..15. Ibid., p. 43.16. Ihid.~~ ~- ~17. Ibid., pp. 60-61,18. Ibid., p. 61.19. Ibid.20. Ibid.21. Ibid., p. 62.22. Ibid.23. Ibid.24. Ibid., p. 61.25. Ibid., p. 65.26. Ibid.27. Warren, Periodical Leller (Charlestown, Mass.), July 1856, p. 55; idem, The PeriodicalLetter on Principles and Progress (Boston), September 1856, p. 5.28. Warren, QuarIerlly Letter (Cliftondale, Mass.), October 1867, p. 2.29. Ibid.30 . Ibid.. n. 3 ~ ~ ~, r~31. Ibid. All quotations in this paragraph are typical of the way Warren writes. He follows his

questions with didactic statements. This method produces the very vague generalizationsthat he wishes to avoid32. Ibid., p. 5.33. Notebook "Dm.. 66.34. Ibid., p. 68.35. Ibid., p. 69.


16/16

448 THE JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES Fall36. Ibid., p. 105.37. Ibid.38. Ibid., p. 107.39. Ibid.40. Ibid.41. Ibid., p. 110.42. Ibid., p. 111.43. Ibid., p. 112.44. Ibid.45. Warren, True Civilization: A n Immediare Necessity and the Lasl Ground of HopeforMankind (1863: re~rintd.. Princeton. Mass.: Burt Franklin. 1967), D. 130. .46. Ibid., p. 131.47. Ibid., p. 26.48. Ibid.49. Ibid., p. 21.50. Notebook "D". D. 11251. Ibid., p. 113.52. Ibid.53. Ibid.. p. 115.54. Ibid.. p. 71.55. Ibid., p. 13. Modern Times was an anarchist village founded by Josiah Warren andStephen Pearl Andrews at the site of the present-day Brentwood, N.Y.56. Ibid., p. 74.57. Ihid., pp. 74-75.58. Ibid., p. 75.59. Ibid., pp. 81-82; True Civilizarion. p. 124.60.Notebook "D",p. 82.61. Ibid., p. 83.62. Ibid.63. Ibid., pp. 83-84.64. Ibid.65. Warren, Periodical Leller (Thompson Post Office), August 1854, p. 19.66. lbid.67. Ibid.68. Warren. Periodical Letler (Thompson Post Ofice), July 1854, p. 3.69. Ibid.70. Ibid.71. Ibid.

76. Ibid.77. Ibid.78. Ibid..- DD . 5-6..79 . Ibid., p. 6.80. Ibid. Seealso Tnre Civilization, pp. 117-18 for a similar story. I t should also be noted thatYellow Springs was, and is, in Ohio, not Indiana.81. Periodical Letter (Thompson Post Office), July 1854, p. 6.82. Ibid.83. Ibid., pp. 6-7.84. True Civilizarion, p. 150.85. Notebook "Dm,. 120.

josiah warren and the sovereignty of the individual- ann caldwell butler

Documents