Their childish plays, even, could not be carried on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons of any age to llve together in peace on any other conditions.

These are fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three are six, or five and five ten.

It is not only the right of the injured child to resist, and, if 'need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs.

Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law as a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike, or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another.

Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law as a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike, or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another.

To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate.

Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice.

No man can rightfully be coerced into joining associations, or supporting one, against his will. His own interest, his own judgement, and his own conscience alone must determine whether he will join this association, or that; or whether he will join any.

These conditions, even as ignorance and darkness or wisdom and light, may be seen and observed but they can neither seen or observe. These conditions or results, as distinguished from the persons who bring them about, are senseless and no more have needs than they have eyesight.

These consequences of individual behavior -- slavery or freedom -- have no personality traits of their own; they are not sensory, acting things but, rather, impersonal conditions.

Freedom is a consequence of human actions. Slavery, on the other hand, is also a consequence of human actions, actions which restrain creative energy release!

None the less, this is our wonderful opportunity. The more clearly we apprehend why freedom should be the rule, the more clearly can we point it out.

It is questionable that anyone has more than slightly apprehended the whole of this truth: it correlates with understanding and wisdom -- a pursuit without end.

The first step in pointing out that freedom should be the rule is not only to grasp the point ourselves but to live by it as nearly as possible. Conceded, this is difficult.

This expanding perception is the expanding Universe and the ones who point out to us that which we have not seen before are our teachers. This pointing-out process is education.

We go through life without seeing most of the world around us. Ours are but infinitesimal peeks. If fortunate, our horizons are broadened when ever someone says, in effect, "See that!" And we behold that for the first time.

Some of these doubtless have looked, and will not see. But there must be many thousands of others who simply have never looked to freedom. If they would but look, freedom could become the rule.

Because those with authoritarian mentalities do not acknowledge or recognize their incompetence to run the economy and the lives of others, they are blind to the proposition that freedom should be the rule.

That other people's money is not his to give is a concept the would-be welfarist won't understand -- anymore than he understands that his way of doing things is authoritarian, the ultimate in antisocial behavior!

These people unwittingly contradict them selves: they fail to see that in thus deciding how to spend other people's money they are restraining others from doing as each chooses with the fruits of his own labor.