Revolt Library >> Browsing by Tag "reformer"
(1816 - 1898) ~ American Anarchist, Individualist, Inventor, and Land Reformer : Joshua King Ingalls (July 16, 1816 – 1898), born in Swansea, Massachusetts, was an inventor, and land reformer who influenced contemporary individualist anarchists despite never self-identifying as one. He was an associate of Benjamin Tucker and the "Boston anarchists." (From : Wikipedia.)
He believed that government protection of idle land was the foundational source of all limitations on individual liberty. This was in disagreement with Tucker who, while also opposing protection of idle land, believed that government protection of the "banking monopoly" was the greatest evil. (From : Wikipedia.)
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. Feb. 1887 THE SCIENTIFIC BASES OF ANARCHY ANARCHY, the No-Government system of Socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economical and the political fields which characterize our century, and especially its second part. In common with all Socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And, in common with the most advanced representatives of political Radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of ... (From : Anarchy Archives.)
Its Nature, Object, and Destiny
Benjamin R. Tucker translation THE STATE: Its Nature, Object, and Destiny. By P. J. PROUDHON. Translated from the Voix du Peuple of December 3, 1849, by Benj. R. Tucker. The Revolution of February raised two leading questions: one economic, the question of labor and property; the other political, the question of government or the State. On the first of these questions the socialistic democracy is substantially in accord. They admit that it is not a question of the seizure and division of property, or even of its repurchase. Neither is it a question of dishonorably levying additional taxes on the wealthy and property-holding classes, which, while violating the principle of property recognized in the constitution, would serve only to overturn... (From : proudhonlibrary.org.)