Friday, 17 October 2025

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

 

Video Audiobook version

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

by Henry David Thoreau

1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government


I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government,—what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves; and, if ever they should use it in earnest as a real one against each other, it will surely split. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow; yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, aye, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts, a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be

“Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
    As his corpse to the ramparts we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
    O’er the grave where our hero we buried.”

The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least:

“I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world.”

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.

How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to and to resist the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of ’75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them: all machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say, “that so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that is, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God that the established government be obeyed, and no longer.”—“This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other.” Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

“A drab of state, a cloth-o’-silver slut,
To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt.”

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to, shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow,—one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the alms-houses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund for the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico,—see if I would go;” and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the State were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin, comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves,—the union between themselves and the State,—and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union, which have prevented them from resisting the State?

How can a man be satisfied to entertain an opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see that you are never cheated again. Action from principle,—the perception and the performance of right,—changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided states and churches, it divides families; aye, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offence never contemplated by government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who placed him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth,—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not every thing to do, but something; and because he cannot do every thing, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and, if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death which convulse the body.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year, no more, in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with,—for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel,—and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well what he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he shall treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborliness without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action? I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name,—if ten honest men only,—aye, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done for ever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State’s ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister,—though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her,—the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,—the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do any thing, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods,—though both will serve the same purpose,—because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man—not to make any invidious comparison—is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the “means” are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. “Show me the tribute-money,” said he;—and one took a penny out of his pocket;—if you use money which has the image of Cæsar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Cæsar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; “Render therefore to Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s and to God those things which are God’s,”—leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly and at the same time comfortably in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself, always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said,—“If a State is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a State is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame.” No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.

Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. “Pay it,” it said, “or be locked up in the jail.” I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State’s schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax-bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the church. However, at the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing:—“Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined.” This I gave to the town-clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.

I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money or your life,” why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.

The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirt-sleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the door-way, when I entered. But the jailer said, “Come, boys, it is time to lock up;” and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as “a first-rate fellow and a clever man.” When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably the neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest man, of course; and, as the world goes, I believe he was. “Why,” said he, “they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it.” As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.

He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw, that, if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even here there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of verses which were composed by some young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.

I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.

It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town-clock strike before, nor the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village-inn—a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.

In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left; but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after, he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good-day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.

When I came out of prison,—for some one interfered, and paid the tax,—I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth, and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene,—the town, and State, and country,—greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly purpose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are; that, in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that, after all, they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight though useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that most of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.

It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the grating of a jail window, “How do ye do?” My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker’s to get a shoe which was mended. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour,—for the horse was soon tackled,—was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off; and then the State was nowhere to be seen.

This is the whole history of “My Prisons.”

I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and, as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow-countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax-bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man, or a musket to shoot one with,—the dollar is innocent,—but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.

This, then, is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biassed by obstinacy, or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.

I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well; they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think, again, this is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill-will, without personal feeling of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But, if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker of fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.

I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and state governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.

“We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Out love of industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit.”

I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all time, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind’s range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given by him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of ’87. “I have never made an effort,” he says, “and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which the various States came into the Union.” Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, “Because it was part of the original compact,—let it stand.” Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect,—what, for instance, it behoves a man to do here in America today with regard to slavery, but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer as the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man,—from which what new and singular code of social duties might be inferred?—“The manner,” says he, “in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it, is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will.” [These extracts have been inserted since the Lecture was read —HDT]

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to,—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well,—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose, if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Friday, 10 October 2025

Patently rediculous

 

Several days ago I learnt some excellent news, a university medical research team have revealed a new way to treat bone fractures. It's called Bone-02 but has already gotten the nickname Bone glue due to how it works.

 

A Chinese research team in East China's Zhejiang Province unveiled an innovative product called "Bone 02" bone glue on Wednesday. Inspired by oysters, this glue can treat fractures with a single injection and bond shattered bone fragments in just three minutes, according to local media Zhejiang Online.

Global Times 

I'm impressed, this breakthrough has the potential to be life changing. In 2022, I was involved in a road accident and snapped my ankle, the break was clean, so surgery wasn't necessary, but it meant I spent months moving from crutches to a walking boot, and even today it still plays up. I don't know how Bone-02 would fair in my case, but I'm sure it'll be a marked improvement for many people. 

Much of the ecstatic news was coupled with cheering for Chinese Communism. Which is a bit odd since the People's Republic of China is a well-developed capitalist economy and in this particularly case has already applied for domestic and international patents. 

 Their perseverance paid off, and Bone-02 has now secured applications for Chinese invention patents and international PCT patents, paving the way for global adoption.

Dunapress 

This is literally capitalist economics 101. Odd praise aside this is an important development, I have no doubt that should the work pan out the world of medicine will have a major new tool. The issue here is that we'll have 20 years or more for the world to truly see the benefits of this new technology. Patents aren't quite copyright, but they work in similar ways, they grant the holder exclusive right to exploit the product or invention for a term of 20 years. This makes them highly desirable and lucrative, because it means reproduction and use are limited to the holder and anyone they enter into a licensing agreement with.

Usually at this point in the discussion someone declares that this is fine as it's only right that the creators of such useful inventions are rewarded for their work. The issue with that thinking is that it relies on two assumptions. 1. That the patent holder played a part in the creation, usually it's a corporation with the immediate benefits going to the owner and not anyone whose labours created the thing being patented. 2. It assumes that the creators would be unable to profit from their creations without patents, and odd argument since they last a mere 20 years. You remember Fidget Spinners? The inventor Scott McCorsky obtained a patent in 2018 for what he called the Torqbar, four years after he had already been selling his invention. That is why when the fidget spinner craze took off there were so many different versions. He still made money off his creation without a patent.  He still sells them and you can buy an original here.

The cheapest is $139, which is well out of my price range so as someone who benefits from fidget toys I both appreciate McCorsky awakening interest and his late patenting enabling the birth of many other variations and providers.

But moving on from toys medical patents and property rights and restrictions are serious business and potentially damaging. You go to a chemist to buy some medicine for some ailment and usually you'll have atleast two or three options to choose from, a branded version and a cheaper generic version. I don't how things work in your country but here generics are held to same standards on quality as the branded medications. Unfortunately this is not always the case and the lack of alternatives can be costly. Every morning I have to take a capsule, the capsule are quite clever they're modified release so just one is enough to see me through the day whereas otherwise I would need to take two. That's handy as while prescriptions are capped they still cost, and it saves me having to remember to take another halfway through the day.

I'm quite happy with my medication, the side effects are mild and cleared up quickly, and they've enabled me to function and live my life. Unfortunately, there are no generic alternatives. This is a problem as supply is limited to one producer which keeps the costs high relatively compared to alternatives, which means pharmacies (which are private companies) do not like to stock it, that keeps supplies low and also bottlenecks demand as providers prefer to prescribe the cheaper options with generic alternatives. This has led to occasional shortages, which has forced me to spend several days pulling lists of pharmacies and ringing them one by one to find one that still has some in stock or can order from their supplier. It's anxiety and worry I can do without, but unfortunately the patent was granted in 2021, so I'm stuck in this situation until 2041. 

In addition, the Epipen, remember the horrifying headlines of the price hikes for the device that administers insulin, and treatments for anaphylactic shock?  They could get away with that because the Epipen was patented, I say was because while looking up the patent for this post I discovered that the patent expired in September this year. 

 In January 2025, Mylan reached a $73.5m settlement with KPH Healthcare Services following accusations that it conspired with Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals to delay the release of generic EpiPens, thereby maintaining a monopoly and inflating prices for epinephrine autoinjectors.

The lawsuit contested that prices for a two-pack of EpiPens rose from around $100 in 2008 to $600 during the class period between March 2014 and February 2025.

Pharmaceutical Technology 

While it was still patented, the only recourse was to lobby government to intervene (good luck) or expensive and time-consuming lawsuits if enough grounds for a court hearing could be found. Well, not quite, there was another alternative, in 2016 a group of Anarchists with backgrounds in chemistry and medicine the Four Thieves Vinegar Collective develop a DIY Epipen they called an Epipencil and released the details and list of materials you'd need to build your own. That's right, in order to keep living and not die from a treatable condition some people have to build their own medical devices, and most patients don't even get that option.

Patents give an incredible amount of power to corporate interests. Yes, it is unfair and frustrating when companies like Nintendo use patents to squeeze out competition, but sometimes it's literally life and death!  

In order for humanity to advance and thrive, some shareholders will just have to learn to go without all the money in the world.  

Tuesday, 30 September 2025

Crown Copyright

 

You're probably familiar with the United States Government's unique relationship with copyright, namely that it doesn't really have one, most works produced by or for the United States Government are public domain, though there are a few small exceptions.

In the UK, works created by or for the Government or the Royal Family which is part of the government, but also its own thing have a separate relationship to copyright that differs from the life+ model that covers most works of media. It's Crown copyright and unfortunately unlike the US it maintains a period of exclusivity and even worse is a nightmare to navigate as there are so many contradictory categories of protection and dates of duration to take into account.

What is Crown Copyright you ask? Well according to the UK government's copyright office:

 

Crown copyright is defined under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as works made by officers or servants of the Crown in the course of their duties.

Crown copyright covers material created by civil servants (PDF, 0.52MB), ministers and government departments and agencies (PDF, 0.19MB). This includes legislation, government codes of practice, social media content (PDF, 0.1MB), government reports, official press releases, academic articles (PDF, 0.21MB) and many public records. For clarification of the duration of copyright please see the flowcharts for Crown copyright and non-Crown copyright. The National Archives has also produced a Permanent Secretary's Guide to Copyright (PDF, 0.88MB) and Generative AI and Crown copyright: a brief guide for government departments (PDF, 0.82MB).

Crown-owned copyright applies where Crown rights have been secured under contractual arrangements in works commissioned by the Crown (PDF, 0.1MB). Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment or transfer of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown. Copyright in a work which has been assigned to the Crown lasts 70 years after the death of the person who created it.

The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence.

Crown Copyright and the Soviet Union copyright situation are so convoluted that I've tried and failed to tackle both several times in the past. Thankfully I've had assistance, from Tim Padfield who created a flowchart to make it much easier to decipher Crown copyright.

 


 You might be wondering how they determined the different rates of duration and categories of work, or why 2039 is singled out as an important year, I have no idea. Honestly, I'm just thankful I now have an easy guide when determining if something is still in copyright or not.

 

Saturday, 20 September 2025

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝗲𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝘆 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶 𝗪𝗶𝘁

 

 


 From the Montreal Star, February 4, 1939: 

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝗲𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝘆 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗡𝗮𝘇𝗶 𝗪𝗶𝘁 

Comedians Banned For Humorous Remarks on Leaders

 BERLIN, Feb. 4 (U.P.) When Propaganda Minister Paul Joseph Goebbels yesterday blasted Germany's cafe society, he called it "society rabble and intellectual snobs," for laughing at comedians who make Nazi leaders the butts of their jokes.

 Goebbels turned his anger upon the "society rabble" after announcing that five German actors had been banned from the stage for publicly ridiculing Nazi party and state functionaries.

 He denied that there was any lack of humor in Nazi Germany, but said that it must be kept "good-natured, decent and clean."

 "There is plenty of humor in Germany, more than enough," he said in a three and one-half column editorial in the Nazi party's newspaper Voelkischer Beobachter. "But we do not permit ourselves to be ridiculed."

 The five actors were Werner Finck, actor-author: Pete Sachse, vaudeville comedian, and Helmut Buth, Wilhelm Meissner and Manfred Dlugi, the latter three members of a vaudeville combination known as "The Three Rulands."

 The five were said to have been warned repeatedly to stop making jokes about the Nazis.

 

Goebbels Ends Careers of Five Aryan Actors Who Made Witticisms About the Nazi Regime

Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES

BERLIN, Feb. 3.-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels today ended the professional careers of five "Aryan" actors and cabaret announcers by expelling them from the Reich's Chamber of Culture on the grounds that "in their public appearences they displayed a lack of any positive attitude toward National Socialism and therewith caused grave annoyance in public and especially to party comrades."

The five include perhaps the best known German stage comedians who survived previous Chamber of Culture purges and still dared to indulge in political witticisms-namely, Werner Finck, Peter Sachse and "The Three Rulands," represented by Helmuth Buth, Wilhelm Meissner and Manfred Dlugi. Their expulsion means that they are henceforth forbidden to appear before the public in Germany.

Besides motivating this action in an official communiqué, Dr. Goebbels also publishes a long article in the Voelkischer Beobachter in which he denounces them as "brazen, impertinent, arrogant and tactless"and generally imitators and successors to Jews. Simultaneously he denounces the "society rabble that followed them with thundering applause-parasitic scum, inhabiting our luxury streets, that seems to have only the task of proving can get along and even acquire money and prominence."

As regards the details of the "crimes" of which the five are accused, Dr. Goebbels mentions that they made political witticisms about the colonial problem, the Four-Year Plan and Chancellor Hitler's monumental building program and one of them even raised the question whether there was any humor left in Germany today. 

What amused the public of most, however, and presumably roiled the National Socialist authorities most -although Dr. Goebbels does not mention it- is that they deftly, but unmistakeably, caricatured some gestures, poses, and physical characteristics of National Socialist leaders -sometimes with bon mots that made the rounds of the country.

Dr. Goebbels says that the National Socialists proved during their struggle for power that they had a keen sense of humor that could kill opponents with ridicule. But as National Socialism proposes to remain in power 2,000 years it has neither the time nor the patience to apply that method to the "miserable literati".

If the anti-German press of Paris, London and New York, Dr. Goebbels says, or the democratic governments in Western Europe, should now again complain about the lack of freedom of opinion in Germany it does not matter, "for after all during the last year the Fuehrer reconquered 10,000,000 Germans for the Reich.  

The Peer Review Issue 02: Ten Theses on Science and Radicalism

 

 

The source zine can be found on the Internet Archive.

Letter from the Editor

The anarchist response to the emergence of COVID-19 put divisions in the movement into stark relief. On the one hand, many recognized its severity and the resulting need for quarantine, social distancing, and vaccination. There was a strong moral imperative to protect those who were immunocompromised, elderly, or at heightened risk, even if it meant sacrificing some personal freedoms. On the other hand, many decried the state response to the pandemic as authoritarian, the enforcement of vaccine mandates as dictatorial, and the involvement of big pharmaceutical companies in producing and marketing the vaccine as encouraging the capitalist stranglehold on health. As the writer of Anathema put it, “In the name of ‘public health’ all sorts of security measures are coming together to create an authoritarian wet dream” (“COVID-19: A Fork in the Road,” 2020, p. 3).

In many cases these are valid critiques. In the Philippines, for example, soldiers with assault rifles patrolled quarantine checkpoints during the early days of the pandemic (Magsalin, 2020), and the steps the Chinese Communist Party took enforce lockdown orders can only be described as despotic. Despite this, though, the pandemic offered opportunities for anarchists to organize—especially in mutual aid networks, eviction protests, and rent strikes (Firth, 2020).

In the five years since the pandemic began, however, I fear these legitimate criticisms have morphed into a broader distrust of science and medicine in the anarchist space. An anonymous writer to Montreal Counter-Information feared that we as a society now demand that “experts tucked away in labs using esoteric methods act as the only voices in the room to generate one-size-fits-all policy declarations for entire nations” (Anonymous, 2021). Another anonymous writer to i giorni e le notti (reprinted in English in The Local Kids) accused the creators of the COVID-19 vaccine of being “eugenicists ––and sterilizers of poor women” (Anonymous, 2022, section iv). I’ve met anti-vax punks at shows, and I’ve heard rumors that others have encountered the same (three6666, 2023). And this is setting aside the existing critiques of science and technology posed by primitivists. All of this echoes the anti-science and anti-health sentiments that have engulfed the right wing.

Years before the pandemic, William Gillis noted, “It’s no secret that a good portion of the left today considers science profoundly uncool” (2015). As our title suggests, The Peer Review runs contrary to that assertion. This issue is devoted to exploring ten theses about science and public health, as seen through a radical anarchist lens.

1. Every Anarchist Should Be a Scientist…

In the article that provides the title for this thesis, Isis Lovecruft (2016) wrote, “We should never allow ourselves to become so rigid as to forget what makes us anarchists in the first place: childlike curiosity, incessant inquiry, and a radical love for taking things to their roots to further our understanding. We seek to dismantle the world around us, knowing that it does not function as well as it could. We want to understand ourselves, our environment, and each other. We want the blueprints for the social machine, so we can sledgehammer the fuck out of it, and build it back up from scratch” (p. 5). And, as she points out, that sounds quite a bit like science.

In describing science, A.R. Prasanna reminds us that it “is not just a collection and collation of known facts,” but “a philosophy derived out of experience, innovation, and verification or validation” (2022, p. 6). It is not simply sterile empiricism or institutional authority, but rather a restless pursuit of understanding. In this light, the anarchist drive to dismantle the social machine and rebuild it “from scratch” echoes the foundations of science—it’s not a dogma to follow blindly, but a process grounded in experience, exploration, and discovery. In that sense, it’s not that every anarchist should be a scientist—it’s that every anarchist is a scientist.

2. …and Every Scientist Should Be an Anarchist

As William Gillis (2016) wrote in the article that—similar to Lovecruft—gave this thesis its name, “Control can only be achieved through disengagement and rigidity. And so any successful power structure must involve mechanisms to punish and suppress habits of inquiry” (p. 1). It is no secret that science, both as an area of study and a community, has its problems. Overreliance on funding either from private industry or from the government places restrictions—both overt and subtle—on what can and can’t be studied. It is exorbitantly expensive to publish in some of the most prestigious journals, with Nature charging authors as much as €9,500 ($10,800 in April 2025) for review and publication (Brainard, 2020). Women, persons with disabilities, and ethnic and racial minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in STEM careers (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2021).

Far from stifling scientific innovation, an anarchist society could work to resolve many of these issues. Bureaucratic inefficiencies will be reduced by dismantling and collectivizing large research organizations. The abolition of social and material hierarchies will provide underrepresented individuals greater opportunity to study science. The embrace of a community model (see thesis #4) will prevent the accumulation of capital by the benefactors of scientific research and instead focus on what benefits specific communities the most. In short, anarchism has a plethora of solutions to offer any scientist interested in improving the existing system.

3. Science is Methodical, Not Political

Unlike what tech billionaires will have you believe, technocracy is not the logical or inevitable result of embracing science. In the worst-case scenario, “Those of higher knowledge, status, or authority—experts—take it upon themselves, justified by their epistemic monopoly, to both define and solve the problem for nonexperts” (Byland & Packard, as cited in Caplan, 2023, p. S107). Nonexperts, in this situation, are expected to simply accept what the experts decide. In response, Arthur Caplan points out that “correcting that problem hardly means rejecting the input of scientific experts…Science tells us what can be done; the political task is to decide what ought be done within the constraints and boundaries that science provides” (2023, p. S107). Technocracy is a failure of democracy—not of science—and good scientists can inform the public on important issues without claiming political authority over those topics.

In fact, scientists oftentimes rebel against contemporaneous political power. The Roman Inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for arguing that the universe contained other stars and planets. Apotex, a multinational pharmaceutical company, publicly attacked Nancy Olivieri in the 1990s after her research found that one The Roman Inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in 1600 for arguing that the universe contained other stars and planets. Apotex, a multinational pharmaceutical company, publicly attacked Nancy Olivieri in the 1990s after her research found that one of their drugs, deferiprone, caused liver dysfunction. The German right wing was enraged by Albert Einstein’s work on relativity (as well as his pacifism), which led to Nazi officials stripping him of his academic positions and publicly burning his books. While scientists can sometimes assume positions of authority, science itself is only a method of uncovering empirical facts about the world. And sometimes those facts run contrary to existing power structures.

4. Science Should Be Done with Communities, Not to Communities

Science is most effective when it is the product of collaboration, especially with research subjects. Historically, scientists and researchers have often treated the communities they are working with purely as sources of data, ignoring the impact their research has on the rights and well-being of the participants. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is one of the most notorious examples: the U.S. Public Health Service spent forty years studying the progression of syphilis in a group of impoverished black men, giving them sugar pills as “treatment” and, for some participants, failing to inform them that they had the disease at all (Jones, 2008). Luckily, we are beginning to see signs of change. There has been a concerted push in recent decades to see communities as partners in research rather than a means to an end.

Citing a long history of exploitation in research, especially among indigenous peoples, Emily Doerksen et al. noted in their 2024 paper “Community-led approaches to research governance” that the communities that are commonly studied have been increasingly “voicing their demands for authority in the governance of research involving them” (p. 2). They identify three strategies that have been employed:

  1. The development of research guidelines by community representatives,

  2. Community review boards to assess the ethics of proposed research initiatives in their jurisdictions

  3. Community advisory boards that work in tandem with researchers to ensure that their cultural norms are being respected

Such governance helps to move science in a more participatory direction that ultimately has the potential to benefit both researchers and research subjects.

There is certainly still much to be done, and a number of scientists doggedly refuse to abide by these practices. However, Doerksen et al.’s work, as well as the work of other clinical ethicists, shows that there are possibilities to move beyond the quasi-colonial approaches of yesteryear.

5. Bring Down the Lab Elite, Not the Lab

Justin Podur (2014) distinguishes between three aspects of being a scientist: Science A, Science, B, and Science C. Science A (for Authority) is the authoritative stance that scientists can take when discussing matters of public interest. Science B (for Business) is the pragmatic, day-to-day routine of being a scientist: applying for grants, trying to publish in elite journals, etc. Science C (for Curiosity) is what science is supposed to be—it is the fundamental curiosity that drives scientists to try to understand the world. In his view, too much emphasis on Science B has turned science into an elitist, profit-driven enterprise that has moved scientists further from Science A and Science C. He writes, “Most of what scientists do is try to raise funds, generate publications in prestigious journals, find students to work on their projects, and keep up with other scientists according to these metrics. Science B operates like other sectors of capitalist society”​ (2014). Science must be liberated from the “dictates of profit” in order to return it to its intended purpose.

William Gillis (2015) sees the same elitism at work. He distinguishes the scientific method from “Science!” (with a capital S and an exclamation point), or the view that the world can be systematized, ordered, and ultimately dominated. The latter functions as a surrogate for corporate domination: “Science! is how our paymasters excuse the damage our widget causes in military or economic application” (2015). He, however, sees science (with a lowercase s) as fundamentally radical—rather than merely an empirical pursuit, it is a search for the “deepest roots” of the physical universe. Scientists must remember to keep “digging for the roots” in order to maintain the spirit of scientific inquiry.

What both writers mean, I believe, is that we can reject the parts of scientific culture that are laser-focused on attaining grant awards, abusing grad students, and kowtowing to the desires of big business. What will remain is the core characteristics of the scientific method: curiosity, hypothesis, and discovery. In short, there’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater—we can focus on moving science away from its dependence on corporate interests and back to its original spirit.

6. Nobody Knows Everything…

The belief that individuals can be wholly self-sufficient is a myth. In reality, each of us has only a scattering of the skills we need to thrive in the modern age (and the pre-modern age too, for that matter). We need to rely on others to help us with the remainder. Human beings are social animals—we have been grouping together for hundreds of thousands of years in order to survive, and that impulse will not be disappearing anytime soon. In fact, the drive to be entirely self-sufficient echoes a profoundly capitalist mindset. In “Against Self-Sufficiency,” Sever writes, “We never bear our own weight, and to speak truthfully, we never feed ourselves” (2017, p. 32). They argue that self-sufficiency—defined here as a complete lack of dependence on others—is in fact an illusion that arose from capitalism, colonialism, and bourgeois individualism. The desire to rely only on oneself for survival obscures an important truth: community is absolutely essential. (Yes, it’s ironic that I’m quoting an Anti-Civ publication in a zine about science. But while I disagree with much of primitivism, Sever still makes some good points).

Mutual aid frameworks begin with this understanding. Dean Spade defines mutual aid as “collective coordination to meet each other’s needs, usually from an awareness that the systems we have in place are not going to meet them” (2020, p. 11). Whether in the form of soup kitchens, legal assistance, or housing support, mutual aid is built on cooperation and interpersonal solidarity. No single person is a doctor, a mechanic, an elementary school teacher, and a librarian, but every community needs someone with each of these skills in order to run smoothly.

7. …but Everybody Knows Something

Science, when done correctly, can fit well into the concept of mutual aid. Scientists have developed a specific skillset and corpus of knowledge over lifetimes of study, and these particular competencies are useful not only in laboratories but in daily life. Prasanna, for example, writes that the scientific thought process begins with ordinary curiosity: “It is something we all see and experience in day-to-day routines if only we stop and question after the action as to why did I do it?” (2022, p. viii). Science—good science, at least—doesn’t require researchers to shut themselves in universities away from the world. Rather, science actually opens pathways to participate in community building.

Modern capitalist societies tend to emphasize the partitioning of both individuals and knowledge into tiny, self-sealing pieces. Mutual aid models, by contrast, are built on interdependence—epistemic as well as material. We should be thinking together, not simply living together. Contrary to assumptions connecting science and technocracy, scientists should not act as infallible authorities in a society, but as contributors—trusted, yes, but also embedded in a much larger network of thinking individuals. As Prasanna further notes, science is a “continuous process with a firm beginning but never-ending” (2022, p. x). The more voices that are added to the process, the better.

Thus, scientific expertise can a boon to anarchist societies rather than a detriment. Instead of seeing science as a monolithic authority, esoteric and isolated, we can see it as an essential piece for the survival of a mutually dependent community.

8. No One Is Healthy by Themselves

Health isn’t fully determined by behavior, genetic makeup, or random chance: it is profoundly shaped through our environments. The social determinants of health are well-established—working conditions, housing, social inclusion, access to medical services, and other situational factors all have a lasting effect on one’s health. Similarly, infectious disease control, air and water quality, and crisis management all require community-based solutions. Thus, health is not just a biomedical issue. It is a collective condition that requires collective approaches to address.

Public health, at its root, is about populations, not individuals. This community-centered orientation distinguishes it from clinical medicine, which is largely individualistic, and situates one’s health within the larger social fabric. As Mary-Jane Schneider (2020) puts it, “Whereas medicine is concerned with individual patients, public health regards the community as its patient” (p. 86). The COVID-19 pandemic brought this distinction to the forefront of the public’s consciousness—a person’s risk of becoming ill with the virus didn’t depend only on their choices, but on whether others wore masks, had paid sick leave, and got vaccinated. No single person had the power to stop its spread, and this highlighted the need for population-wide interventions.

9. Care Without Coercion is Possible

Marcus Hill (2009) connects public health with radical values in his pamphlet Fragments of an Anarchist Public Health. In his view, health politics should ultimately be driven by consensus, not structured around an authoritarian approach. Instead, a major aim of public health should be to “encourage individuals to become involved in collective efforts to improve the structural determinants of their health” (2009, p. 3). For Hill, a healthy society does depend on health services. However, equity and participation—values that have been emphasized in anarchist thought for almost two centuries—can and should be incorporated into a more inclusive public health approach.

Hill points to several concrete examples of decentralized public health in action. The Zapatistas organized community-level health services among the indigenous peoples of Chiapas after the Mexican government failed to provide support, eventually founding a hospital in 1991 that runs independently of the state. The Ithaca Health Alliance in Ithaca, NY provides interest-free loans for individuals to repay medical debt. The Gesundheit! Institute, founded by Patch Adams, seeks to entirely redesign the health system in the United States by opposing market-based models of healthcare delivery. These projects have sought to make systemic changes by reshaping institutions “along the lines of participatory social values” (Hill, 2009, p. 5). Along those lines, Hill advocates for the creation of a healthcare system built around anarcho-syndicalist concepts, in which federations of local health groups collaborate to address broad issues in health.

This is only one possible path to a public health that is anti-authoritarian. Ultimately, health is a commons—it is defined by whether our neighbors have care, whether our workplaces both equitable and effective. Though public health has had its failures (sometimes spectacular ones) and has been host to broad abuses of power, it is nonetheless necessary to maintain our collective well-being. The key is to promote non-capitalist and non-centralized forms of public health that can work within an anarchist system.

10. Understanding Comes from Participation

Science is often associated with detached geniuses, corporate research, and ivory towers. There are as many different approaches to science as there are scientists, however: there are curious physicists, auto-didactic engineers, radical biologists, and indigenous ecologists. It can be practiced in basements and squats just as well as it is practiced in laboratories and clinics. Rather than treating it as the enemy, I encourage anarchists to see the radical potential of science and become scientists themselves.

Sources

Anonymous. (2021, February). On the anarchist response to the global pandemic. Montreal Counter-Information. https://mtlcounterinfo.org/on-the-anarchist-response-to-the-global-pandemic/

Anonymous. (2022, Summer). Theses on COVID-1984. The Local Kids, 8, 8–23. https://thelocalkids.noblogs.org/files/2022/06/tlk08.pdf

Brainard, J. (2020, November 24). For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read

Caplan, A. L. (2023). Regaining trust in public health and biomedical science following covid: The role of scientists. In L. A. Taylor, G. E. Kaebnick, & M. Z. Solomon (Eds.), Time to rebuild: Essays on trust in health care and science [Hastings Center special report, 53(5)] (pp. S105-S109). Hastings Center. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1531

COVID-19: A fork in the road. (2020, March/April). Anathema, 7(3), 1, 3. https://anathema.noblogs.org/files/2020/04/mar-apr_2020.pdf

Doerksen, E, Gunay, A. E., Neufeld, S. D., & Friesen, P. (2024). Community-led approaches to research governance: A scoping review of strategies. Research Ethics, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241269154

Firth, R. (2021). Mutual aid, anarchist preparedness and COVID-19. In J. Preston & R. Firth (Eds.), Coronavirus, class and mutual aid in the United Kingdom (pp. 57–111). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57714-8_4

Gillis, W. (2016). Every scientist should be an anarchist. Anarcho-transhuman, 2, 1–4. https://anarchotranshumanzine.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/h2.pdf

Gillis, W. (2018, August 18). Science as radicalism. Human Iterations. https://humaniterations.net/2015/08/18/science-as-radicalism/

Hill, M. A. (2009, July 8). Fragments of an anarchist public health. ZNetwork. Retrieved April 22, 2025 from https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/fragments-of-an-anarchist-public-health-developing-visions-of-a-healthy-society-by-marcus-hill/

Jones, J. (2008). The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. In E. J. Emanuel, C. C. Grady, R. A. Crouch, R. K. Lie, F. G. Miller, & D. D. Wendler (Eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 86–96). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195168655.003.0009

Lovecruft, I. (2016). Every anarchist should be a scientist. Anarcho-transhuman, 2, 5–6. https://anarchotranshumanzine.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/h2.pdf

Magsalin, S. (2020, April 2). Against a quarantine with martial law characteristics. Bandilang Itim. https://bandilangitim.xyz/library/simoun-magsalin-against-a-quarantine-with-martial-law-characteristics-en

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report/

Podur, J. (2014). Science and Liberation. Anarcho-transhuman, 2, 19–27. https://anarchotranshumanzine.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/h2.pdf

Prasanna, A. R. (2022). How to learn and practice science. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14514-8

Schneider, M. J. (2022). Introduction to public health (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Sever. (2017, Summer). Against self-sufficiency: The gift. Black Seed, 5, 32. https://archive.org/details/black_seed_5/

Spade, D. (2020). Mutual aid: Building solidarity during this crisis (and the next). Verso.

three6666. (2023, July 9). What’s the deal w anti-vax punks? [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://web.archive.org/web/20241216142958/https://www.reddit.com/r/punk/comments/14v3gq8/whats_the_deal_w_antivax_punks/

Thursday, 11 September 2025

1812: Hans in Luck

 

1912 Illustration by Robert Anning Bell

Some men are born to good luck: all they do or try to do comes right:—all that falls to them is so much gain:—all their geese are swans:—all their cards are trumps:—toss them which way you will, they will always, like poor puss, alight upon their legs, and only move on so much the faster. The world may very likely not always think of them as they think of themselves, but what care they for the world? what can it know about the matter?

One of these lucky beings was neighbour Hans. Seven long years he had worked hard for his master. At last he said, "Master, my time is up; I must go home and see my poor mother once more: so pray pay me my wages and let me go." And the master said, "You have been a faithful and good servant, Hans, so your pay shall be handsome." Then he gave him a lump of silver as big as his head.

Hans took out his pocket-handkerchief, put the piece of silver into it, threw it over his shoulder, and jogged off on his road homewards. As he went lazily on, dragging one foot after another, a man came in sight, trotting gaily along on a capital horse. "Ah!" said Hans aloud, "what a fine thing it is to ride on horseback! There he sits as easy and happy as if he was at home, in the chair by his fireside; he trips against no stones, saves shoe-leather, and gets on he hardly knows how." Hans did not speak so softly but that the horseman heard it all, and said, "Well, friend, why do you go on foot then?" "Ah!" said he, "I have this load to carry: to be sure it is silver, but it is so heavy that I can't hold up my head, and you must know it hurts my shoulder sadly." "What do you say of making an exchange?" said the horseman. "I will give you my horse, and you shall give me the silver; which will save you a great deal of trouble in carrying such a heavy load about with you." "With all my heart," said Hans: "but as you are so kind to me, I must tell you one thing,—you will have a weary task to draw that silver about with you." However, the horseman got off, took the silver, helped Hans up, gave him the bridle into one hand and the whip into the other, and said, "When you want to go very fast, smack your lips loudly together, and cry 'Jip!'"

Hans was delighted as he sat on the horse, drew himself up, squared his elbows, turned out his toes, cracked his whip, and rode merrily off, one minute whistling a merry tune, and another singing—

"No care and no sorrow,
A fig for the morrow!
We'll laugh and be merry,
Sing heigh down derry!"

After a time he thought he should like to go a little faster, so he smacked his lips and cried "Jip!" Away went the horse full gallop; and before Hans knew what he was about, he was thrown off, and lay on his back by the road-side. His horse would have ran off, if a shepherd who was coming by, driving a cow, had not stopped it. Hans soon came to himself, and got upon his legs again, sadly vexed, and said to the shepherd, "This riding is no joke, when a man has the luck to get upon a beast like this, that stumbles and flings him off as if it would break his neck. However, I'm off now once for all: I like your cow now a great deal better that this smart beast that played me this trick, and has spoiled my best coat, you see, in this puddle; which, by the by, smells not very like a nosegay. One can walk along at one's leisure behind that cow—keep good company, and have milk, butter, and cheese, every day, into the bargain. What would I give to have such a prize!" "Well," said the shepherd, "if you are so fond of her, I will change my cow for your horse; I like to do good to my neighbours, even though I lose by it myself." "Done!" said Hans, merrily. "What a noble heart that good man has!" thought he. Then the shepherd jumped upon the horse, wished Hans and the cow good-morning, and away he rode.

Hans brushed his coat, wiped his face and hands, rested a while, and then drove off his cow quietly, and thought his bargain a very lucky one. "If I have only a piece of bread (and I certainly shall always be able to get that), I can, whenever I like, eat my butter and cheese with it; and when I am thirsty I can milk my cow and drink the milk: and what can I wish for more?" When he came to an inn, he halted, ate up all his bread, and gave away his last penny for a glass of beer. When he had rested himself he set off again, driving his cow towards his mother's village. But the heat grew greater as noon came on, till at last, as he found himself on a wide heath that would take him more than an hour to cross, he began to be so hot and parched that his tongue clave to the roof of his mouth. "I can find a cure for this," thought he; "now will I milk my cow and quench my thirst": so he tied her to the stump of a tree, and held his leathern cap to milk into; but not a drop was to be had. Who would have thought that this cow, which was to bring him milk and butter and cheese, was all the time utterly dry? Hans had not thought of looking to that.

While he was trying his luck in milking, and managing the matter very clumsily, the uneasy beast began to think him very troublesome; and at last gave him such a kick on the head as knocked him down; and there he lay a long while senseless. Luckily a butcher soon came by, driving a pig in a wheelbarrow. "What is the matter with you, my man?" said the butcher, as he helped him up. Hans told him what had happened, how he was dry, and wanted to milk his cow, but found the cow was dry too. Then the butcher gave him a flask of ale, saying, "There, drink and refresh yourself; your cow will give you no milk: don't you see she is an old beast, good for nothing but the slaughter-house?" "Alas, alas!" said Hans, "who would have thought it? What a shame to take my horse, and give me only a dry cow! If I kill her, what will she be good for? I hate cow-beef; it is not tender enough for me. If it were a pig now,—like that fat gentleman you are driving along at his ease,—one could do something with it; it would at any rate make sausages." "Well," said the butcher, "I don't like to say no, when one is asked to do a kind, neighbourly thing. To please you I will change, and give you my fine fat pig for the cow." "Heaven reward you for your kindness and self-denial!" said Hans, as he gave the butcher the cow; and taking the pig off the wheel-barrow, drove it away, holding it by the string that was tied to its leg.

So on he jogged, and all seemed now to go right with him: he had met with some misfortunes, to be sure; but he was now well repaid for all. How could it be otherwise with such a travelling companion as he had at last got?

The next man he met was a countryman carrying a fine white goose. The countryman stopped to ask what was o'clock; this led to further chat; and Hans told him all his luck, how he had made so many good bargains, and how all the world went gay and smiling with him. The countryman then began to tell his tale, and said he was going to take the goose to a christening. "Feel," said he, "how heavy it is, and yet it is only eight weeks old. Whoever roasts and eats it will find plenty of fat upon it, it has lived so well!" "You're right," said Hans, as he weighed it in his hand; "but if you talk of fat, my pig is no trifle." Meantime the countryman began to look grave, and shook his head. "Hark ye!" said he, "my worthy friend, you seem a good sort of fellow, so I can't help doing you a kind turn. Your pig may get you into a scrape. In the village I just came from, the squire has had a pig stolen out of his sty. I was dreadfully afraid when I saw you that you had got the squire's pig. If you have, and they catch you, it will be a bad job for you. The least they'll do will be to throw you into the horse-pond. Can you swim?"

Poor Hans was sadly frightened. "Good man," cried he, "pray get me out of this scrape. I know nothing of where the pig was either bred or born; but he may have been the squire's for aught I can tell: you know this country better than I do, take my pig and give me the goose." "I ought to have something into the bargain," said the countryman; "give a fat goose for a pig, indeed! 'Tis not every one would do so much for you as that. However, I will not bear hard upon you, as you are in trouble." Then he took the string in his hand, and drove off the pig by a side path; while Hans went on the way homewards free from care. "After all," thought he, "that chap is pretty well taken in. I don't care whose pig it is, but wherever it came from it has been a very good friend to me. I have much the best of the bargain. First there will be a capital roast; then the fat will find me in goose-grease for six months; and then there are all the beautiful white feathers. I will put them into my pillow, and then I am sure I shall sleep soundly without rocking. How happy my mother will be! Talk of a pig, indeed! Give me a fine fat goose."

As he came to the next village, he saw a scissor-grinder with his wheel, working and singing—

"O'er hill and o'er dale
So happy I roam,
Work light and live well,
All the world is my home;
Then who so blythe, so merry as I?"

Hans stood looking on for a while, and at last said, "You must be well off, master grinder! you seem so happy at your work." "Yes," said the other, "mine is a golden trade; a good grinder never puts his hand into his pocket without finding money in it:—but where did you get that beautiful goose?" "I did not buy it, I gave a pig for it." "And where did you get the pig?" "I gave a cow for it." "And the cow?" "I gave a horse for it." "And the horse?" "I gave a lump of silver as big as my head for him." "And the silver?" "Oh! I worked hard for that seven long years." "You have thriven well in the world hitherto," said the grinder; "now if you could find money in your pocket whenever you put your hand into it, your fortune would be made." "Very true: but how is that to be managed?" "How? Why you must turn grinder like me, to be sure," said the other; "you only want a grindstone; the rest will come of itself. Here is one that is but little the worse for wear: I would not ask more than the value of your goose for it:—will you buy?" "How can you ask?" said Hans; "I should be the happiest man in the world, if I could have money whenever I put my hand in my pocket: what could I want more? there's the goose." "Now," said the grinder, as he gave him a common rough stone that lay by his side, "this is a most capital stone; do but work it well enough, and you can make an old nail cut with it."

Hans took the stone, and went his way with a light heart: his eyes sparkled for joy, and he said to himself, "Surely I must have been born in a lucky hour; every thing I could want or wish for comes of itself. People are so kind; they seem really to think I do them a favour in letting them make me rich, and giving me good bargains."

Meantime he began to be tired, and hungry too, for he had given away his last penny in his joy at getting the cow.

At last he could go no farther, for the stone tired him sadly: and he dragged himself to the side of a river, that he might take a drink of water and rest a while. So he laid the stone carefully by his side on the bank: but, as he stooped down to drink, he forgot it, pushed it a little, and down it rolled, plump into the stream.

For a while he watched it sinking in the deep clear water; then sprang up and danced for joy, and again fell upon his knees and thanked Heaven, with tears in his eyes, for its kindness in taking away his only plague, the ugly heavy stone.

"How happy am I!" cried he; "nobody was ever so lucky as I." Then up he got with a light heart, free from all his troubles, and walked on till he reached his mother's house, and told her how very easy the road to good luck was.

Saturday, 6 September 2025

The Peer Review Issue 01: The Anarchists Guide to Critical Thinking

 

 

The original pamphlet with more illustrations can be found on the internet archive.
 

Peer Review Issue 01 Transcript


What is critical thinking...


Some writers and philosophers have approach defining it broad strokes: Robert Ennis, who spent six decades writing about the topic, claimed that critical thinking is simply “reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.” (1991, p. 8). Similarly, Sharon Bailin and her colleagues identified only three characteristics that make thinking critical: (1) it is done to determine what to believe about something, (2) the thinker is trying to meet some standards of adequacy in their thinking; and (3) the thinker does meet those standards to an appropriate degree (1999).


Others have focused more specifically on critical thinking as applied to argumentation. Mark Battersby, for example, defines it as “the ability and inclination to assess claims and arguments” (2016, p. 7), and stresses the importance of evaluating evidence to expose false claims. Regardless of whether the definition is generic or specific, though, most writers agree that critical thinking is a habit that requires practice to master.


..and why should you

give a fuck?


Far from a bourgeois ideology, critical thinking is a necessary tool for anarchists. Anarchism demands that individuals be able to think accurately and effectively. From being able to spot exploitative power structures to understanding the minutiae of alternative economic theories, anarchism is far more than just tossing pipe bombs at cop cars. Even the most aware anarchist is in danger of falling for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and cults of personality— and before you think you're immune, remember that you have identical brain structures to the people who fall for it all the time. To avoid those traps, anarchists need to be able to think for themselves. When done right, critical thinking is a necessary step in the path to liberated, individual thinking.


Here’s the plan


There’s a longstanding debate about whether critical thinking skills are generalizable (in that there is a single skillset that applies to all areas of inquiry) or if it’s domain-specific (in that each discipline—math, science, history, philosophy, etc.—has its own set of critical thinking skills). I’m choosing to split the difference. In Part One, we'll address two generalizable skills: first, we'll discuss evidence gathering and assessment, and second, we’ll talk about heuristics, biases, and fallacies. In Part Two, I'll present a guide to critical thinking specifically designed for anarchists, based on Daniel Willingham’s 2019 paper “How to Teach Critical Thinking.” Willingham outlines four steps that should be taken when teaching critical thinking about any topic: first, identify what “critical thinking” means in that domain; second, identify the knowledge that is necessary for each understanding of critical thinking, third, create a sequence in which that knowledge should be learned; and fourth, revisit and relearn. With that, let’s get started.


PART ONE GENERALIZABLE SKILLS

1. EVIDENCE

When assessing any proposition, argument, or problem, a good thing to ask is: how good is the evidence? Every argument requires evidence: if someone were to claim that leprechauns are real, we shouldn’t take their claims at face value. Rather, we should ask for the proof. After that, we should assess if the evidence they provide is adequate.



In his book Is That a Fact? Mark Battersby divides the assessment process into two steps. First, ask if the evidence supports the determination. He uses the example of a letter to the editor published in 7ime, in which the author claims that her “85-year-old mother powerwalks two miles each day, drives her car (safely), climbs stairs, does crosswords, reads the daily paper and could probably beat [your columnist] at almost anything.” Thus, so the writer believes, people in this era must be “living to a healthy and ripe old age” (2016, p. 14). As Battersby points out, however, just because the writer’s grandmother does these things does not mean that all elderly people can do these things—the premise does nothing to support the conclusion. Whether or not the evidence is true, you should be skeptical of an argument if the evidence doesn’t provide any basis for the conclusion. Second, you should ask if the evidence is credible. If the above mentioned writer had cited a study instead of using her own grandmother as an example, you should ask if the sample size was adequate and if the study was funded by organizations that may have an interest in promoting its conclusion. Or if she had cited a poll conducted among senior citizens, you should pay attention to question bias (when the phrasing of the poll questions influences the responses) and context bias (when the context of the poll, such as a preliminary introduction by the researchers or the environment of the responder, influences the responses) (Battersby, 2016, pp. 29 & 52). Above all, you should seek to verify that the information being given to you is correct—if the premise is false it could point to an invalid or unfounded conclusion.

Philosophical razors are rules of thumb that can be used to metaphorically “shave off” unlikely premises and conclusions. The principle of parsimony, for example, holds that explanations should be as simple as possible. The most famous formulation of it, Occam’s Razor, states that we should only accept the more complicated theory if the simpler one cannot explain the event (Battersby 2016, p. 23). If you hear a crash, walk upstairs, and see a baseball, broken glass, and a group of kids with bats and mitts running away, the most likely explanation is that they were playing baseball and hit a ball through your window. The theory that aliens broke your window and planted the baseball there to frame the innocent kids should likely be rejected unless the first explanation doesn’t account for some aspect of the situation.

Similarly, the Sagan Standard, attributed to Carl Sagan in his book Broca’s Brain, holds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (1979, p. 73). The claim that a new treatment will cure any type of cancer in less than twenty minutes requires much more proof than the claim that diet and exercise help you lose weight. There are many other philosophical razors in existence, but a word of caution: while razors provide good bases for ruling out bad arguments, they are not foolproof. Though it is overwhelmingly unlikely, perhaps aliens did plant that baseball, and that new treatment does cure cancer. So, while they may provide a quick-and-easy method of detecting bullshit, they are not infallible.

2.HEURISTICS BIASES AND FALLACIES



Heuristics

Human beings (yourself included) are prone to biases, fallacies, and unclear thinking. The work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974) showed that we tend to rely on quick rules of thumb, called heuristics, when making probability judgments. While useful when making quick decisions, heuristics are prone to error, as when one estimates the probability of a heart attack occurring among a certain age group based on how many people they know have had heart attacks. Who you know that has had a heart attack has no bearing on the actual percentage of people that do, similar to how Battersby’s writer assumed that all elderly people are fit and healthy because her grandmother is.

Cass Sunstein (2005) extended Tversky and Kahneman’s work to include moral judgments, identifying a list of heuristics that tend to guide us when making ethical decisions. He includes, for example, the Betrayal Heuristic (in which an offense that includes a betrayal of trust is often judged as more immoral than one that does not include treachery, such as a close friend stabbing someone in the back rather than a known rival) and the Outrage Heuristic (in which most people’s judgment of how harsh a punishment should be is related to how outraged they are by the offense). Like Tversky and Kahneman, he argues that these rules of thumb are prone to giving inconsistent or incorrect guidance. One thing to watch out for when assessing claims (especially your own claims!) is the underlying heuristics that the claimant is using.



Biases

A number of other cognitive biases exist, too. Confirmation bias is the tendency for individuals to unconsciously reject information that doesn’t align with their existing beliefs. As Margit Oswald and Stefan Grosjean put it, confirmation bias means that “information is searched for, interpreted, and remembered in such a way that it systematically impedes the possibility that the hypothesis can be rejected” (2004, p. 79).

Framing effects occur when individuals draw different conclusions from the same information depending on how that information is presented. People are more likely to buy yogurt that is advertised as “92% fat free” than they are yogurt that is advertised as “8% full fat” even though they are the same product. This is because the advertiser is “framing” the first with positive language and the second with negative. Problematically, this means that “people will choose inconsistently in the sense of making different and opposed choices in decision problems that are essentially identical” (Kamm, 2007, p. 424)—in other words, how a problem is framed will affect what people decide to do about it, even though the framing doesn’t actually have anything to do with the problem.



Finally, the illusory truth effect occurs when continued repetition of a claim causes it to seem truer than alternatives, even if it is false. First identified in a 1977 paper by Lynn Hasher, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino, they found that their test subjects rated a statement as more likely to be true if it was repeated to them rather than if they read it once. Importantly, this is a prominent reason why propaganda techniques such as the Big Lie (like Trump’s claim that he won the 2020 election) and the firehose of falsehood (like Trump’s constant and endless lying) work.



Fallacies

Unlike heuristics and biases, which affect how people process claims, fallacies are mistakes made in the reasoning behind claims. There are hundreds, but below are some of the more common ones:

  • Sweeping generalization — The arguer expands a specific case into a general principle that does not always apply. For example, claiming “People from that city are always rude” takes what may be true of some residents (rudeness) and generalizes it to all residents.

  • Begging the question -The arguer leaves out an important premise to their argument, usually because they assume that it is settled and does not need to be addressed. The claim “Killing an innocent person is murder. Murder should be illegal. Therefore, abortion should be illegal” leaves out the controversial premise “abortion is murder.”

  • Ad hominem – The arguer attacks the character of their opponent rather than discussing the issue at hand. For example, claiming, “You don’t know anything about climate change, you’re too young and inexperienced” avoids engaging with the hypothetical young person’s argument by dismissing it based on their youth.

  • Straw man – The arguer takes another’s argument, extends it to an extreme, and then easily dismisses it. This makes it seem as if the arguer succeeded in defeating the original argument, but they have only torn down the extended version of it. For example, the claim “My opponent wants to reduce carbon emissions. Clearly, what he really wants is to ban all cars and shut down factories” takes a reasonable argument (reduce carbon emissions) and blows it up into an extreme not found in the original argument (banning all cars and shutting down factories).



PART TWO

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SKILLS

1. APPLICATIONS

Now that we’ve covered some general critical thinking skills, let us turn to Willingham’s plan to teach domain-specific skills. The first step is to identify what critical thinking means for anarchists. So, what should anarchists be able to do with their thinking? While this list is by no means exhaustive, below are some ideas.

Power & Hierarchy

Key to an anarchist evaluation of the existing social norms is the identification of existing hierarchies. After all, one of the core axioms of anarchism is that people have no obligation to follow those in power (Crowder, 2005). This set of skills may include spotting classism/racism/sexism/ableism, identifying structural violence, and recognizing cults of personality. Bonus points for assessing the role of police, politicians, and judges in perpetuating injustice.

Economics

Economic theory is one of the cornerstones of anarchist thought. It is not only important to learn and understand anarchist models (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc.) but also to study the captalist model that anarchism is working to overthrow. Skills in this area include the ability to discover and analyze labor exploitation and the basic knowledge required to understand the foundations of neoliberalism, communism, and socialism.

Media

Media can be both a tool of the state and a source of the truth. On the one hand is the corporate media that, as Peter Gelderloos has pointed out, exists only to “fatten the wallets of their executives and shareholders” and maintain social control (2004). On the other is, well, this zine! Skills in this area include identifying propaganda, discovering the sources behind specific information and narratives, and uncovering media bias in all of its forms (cf. Chomsky & Herman, 2002).

Organization

What’s the point of being an anarchist if you aren’t willing to act? Critical thinking skills in this area include identifying methods to engage with activists in other spheres, organizing protests, and advocating for alternative systems. Also included in this area are skills related to the history and praxis of anarchism, especially learning from past and present successes and failures.

2. CONTENT

Now that the goals of anarchist thinking have been identified, the second step in the process is to gather the knowledge necessary to reach those goals. Every problem requires the requisite background information in order to solve it. The example Willingham uses is a historical letter: to analyze a letter written by a sergeant before a battle, one needs to know the context in which the letter was written, the role of sergeants in the military, and knowledge of the war in general (2019).

There is quite a bit of knowledge that is necessary for anarchists to think critically. Existing anarchist theory provides a solid foundation: a working knowledge of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Zerzan, Marx, and others is _ indispensable. With this theory in hand, anarchists can learn to identify exploitation, material and social inequalities, and the class-based structures inherent to capitalism. An understanding of the ideological details of fascism and other ideologies opposed to anarchism can help with spotting propaganda as well, especially if that propaganda is particularly subtle (it doesn’t have to be the Two Minutes Hate to be propaganda).

Familiarity with politics, news, and world events is also essential. The world has seen a resurgence of right-wing populism recently that is threatening to undermine our collective rights. Any good anti-fascist should be able to discuss why it has arisen and how to address it. Knowledge about the struggles of our trans, gay, disabled, BIPOC, and marginalized brethren is likewise necessary to dismantle the barriers preventing us from full equality.

This list is not complete and is only meant to point critical thinkers in the right direction. Remember, knowledge is power, and power begins with knowledge.



3. SEQUENCE

Willingham’s third step is to identify the order in which skills should be learned. In most subjects, complex knowledge is built on a foundation of more basic information: musicians learn scales before they learn to improvise, artists learn to draw basic shapes before they draw hands, and math students learn algebra before they learn calculus. While this sequence can be flexible (as it should be— everyone learns information differently and at different rates), here is the sketch of a plan.

Phase I: Foundations

This includes learning about the core concepts of anarchism, such as anti-authoritarianism, liberty, solidarity, and direct action. One should practice spotting power structures in daily life, such as police presences and workplace managerial hierarchies. This stage should also include practice identifying common statist and capitalist arguments.

Phase II: Critique

This phase begins applying anarchist ideas from Phase I to real-life situations. It includes critiquing capitalism, the state, and the media, analyzing the successes and failures of historical examples of anarchism, and getting involved in collectives, unions, and other groups in the anarchist milieu.

Phase III: Praxis

This phase is advanced practice. It includes tackling complex debates within anarchism (such as violence vs. pacifism and individualism vs. collectivism), critically assessing both anarchist and non-anarchist movements, evaluating (and originating) tactics for organizing, and creating alternative and anarchist media such as zines, papers, and teachins.



4. REVISIT

Critical thinking is not something that one learns once and can simply use forever. Rather, it takes continual practice to cultivate. Willingham stresses that the fourth step is to revisit each critical thinking skill over time in order to master it. Often times the application of these skills will change, as new questions and problems arise in which they are put into use. It helps, however, to be deliberate about putting these skills into practice.

Engaging with fellow anarchists and others can help to keep critical thinking sharp. Start a reading group to discuss anarchist literature or regularly get together with non-anarchists to debate the merits of decentralized systems. Join a mutual aid organization in order to help others or plan a protest with other activists. The opportunities to interact with others are endless.



Critical thinking skills can be honed individually as well. Regularly challenge your own assumptions and thought processses when considering important questions or problems. Consider alternate scenarios to every solution you find and actively test your ideas in the real world. Resist accepting easy answers, and work to apply anarchist frameworks to daily life (like using prefigurative politics to imagine the world as it could be).



Anarchists often rally a round the slogan “No gods, no masters.” While a great phrase, it shouldn’t mean “no thought” as well. In fact, anarchism demands more thinking in order to work. Willingham may show how critical thinking can be taught, but anarchists must take those skills to go forth and build a world without domination. In order for this guide to be useful, it should be used—so please, go forward and practice these skills (for all of our sakes).



SOURCES

Bailin, 8., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183133

Battersby, M. (2016). Js that a fact? (and ed.). Broadview Press.

Chomsky, N. & Herman, E. S. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media (and ed.). Random House, Inc.

Crowder, G. (2005). Anarchism. In E. Craig (ed.), he shorter Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 14-15). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-s003-1

Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14/1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2

Gelderloos, P. (2004, October). Zhe patriarchal science of corporate media. The Anarchist Library. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloosthe-patriarchal-science-of-the-corporate-media

Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1&1), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80012-1

Kamm, F. M. (2007). Jntricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities, and permissible harm. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:0so/9780195189698.001.0001

Oswald, M. E. & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. F. Pohl (ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking judgement and Iemory (pp. 79-96). Psychology Press.

Sagan, C. (1979). Broca’s brain: Reflections on the romance of science. Ballantine Books.

Sunstein, C. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2X4), 531542. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.387941

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 18X4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0767426

Willingham, D. T. (2019). How to teach critical thinking. NSW Department of Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/maineducation/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changingworld/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf

Labels

1770s (2) 1800s (1) 1810s (2) 1820s (1) 1840s (2) 1850s (1) 1860s (1) 1880s (4) 1890s (7) 1900s (7) 1910s (11) 1920s (19) 1930s (15) 1940s (14) 1950s (5) 1960s (4) 1970s (6) 1980s (1) 2000s (2) 2010s (1) 2020s (5) Activism (1) Adverts (1) Animation (8) archive matters (1) Canada (1) cartoons (6) comics (5) Copyright Reform (2) Disney (6) Documentaries (3) Drama (2) Essays (46) Europe (1) Fantasy (4) Film (21) George Orwell (10) Germany (3) Greta Garbo (1) horror (4) images (20) Japan (1) letter (1) LGBTQ (1) Maps (1) music (2) news (2) Newspapers (2) Newsreels (3) Noir (1) Open Media (3) pamphlets (5) patents (3) photography (1) poetry (8) Reviews (4) Robert frost (1) Romance (2) Science Fiction (5) Silent (3) texts (42) thrillers (1) trademarks (2) translation (1) UK (6) Videogames (3) War movies (3) Westerns (1)