 Vices are not crimes. A Vindication of Moral Liberty by Lysander Spooner, originally printed in 1875, this edition 2020 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Introduction by Murray Rothbard We are all indebted to Carl Wattner for uncovering an unknown work by the great Lysander Spooner, one that managed to escape the editor of Spooner's collected works. Both the title and the substance of Vices are not crimes highlight the unique role that morality and moral principle had for Spooner among the anarchists and libertarians of his day. For Spooner was the last of the great natural rights theorists among anarchists, classical liberals, or moral theorists generally. The doubty old air of the natural law, natural rights tradition of the 17th and 18th centuries was fighting a rearguard battle against the collapse of the idea of a scientific or rational morality, or of the science of justice, or of individual right. Not only had natural law and natural rights given way throughout society to the arbitrary rule of utilitarian calculation or nihilistic whim, but the same degenerative process had occurred among libertarians and anarchists as well. Spooner knew that the foundation for individual rights and liberty was tinsel if all values and ethics were arbitrary and subjective. Yet even in his own anarchist movement Spooner was the last of the old guard believers in natural rights. His successors in the individualist anarchist movement led by Benjamin R. Tucker all proclaimed arbitrary whim and might makes right as the foundation of libertarian moral theory. And yet Spooner knew that this was no foundation at all for the state is far mightier than any individual and if the individual cannot use a theory of justice as his armor against state oppression then he has no solid base from which to roll back and defeat it. With his emphasis on cognitive moral principles and natural rights Spooner must have looked hopelessly old-fashioned to Tucker and the young anarchists of the 1870s and 80s. And yet now a century later it is the latter's once-fashionable nihilism and tough amoralism that strike us as being empty and destructive of the very liberty they all tried hard to bring about. We are now beginning to recapture the once great tradition of objectively grounded rights of the individual. In philosophy, in economics, in social analysis we are beginning to see that the tossing aside of moral rights was not the brave new world it once seemed but rather a long and disastrous detour in political philosophy which is now fortunately drawing to a close. Opponents of the idea of an objective morality commonly charged that moral theory functions as a tyranny over the individual. This of course happens with many theories of morality but it cannot happen when the moral theory makes a sharp and clear distinction between the immoral and the illegal or in Spooner's words between vices and crimes. The immoral or the vicious may consist of a myriad of human actions from matters of vital importance down to being nasty to one's neighbor or to willful failure to take one's vitamins. But none of them should be confused with an action that should be illegal, that is an action to be prohibited by the violence of law. The latter in Spooner's libertarian view should be confined strictly to the initiation of violence against the rights of person and property. Other moral theories attempt to apply the law, the engine of socially legitimated violence, to compelling obedience to various norms of behavior. In contrast libertarian moral theory asserts the immorality and injustice of interfering with any man's or rather any non-criminal man's right to run his own life and property without interference. For the natural rights libertarian then, his cognitive theory of justice is a great bulwark against the state's eternal invasion of rights, in contrast to other moral theories that attempt to employ the state to combat immorality. It is instructive to consider Spooner and his essay in the light of the fascinating insights into 19th century American politics provided in recent years by the new political history. While this new history has been applied to most of the 19th century, the best work has been done for the Midwest after the civil war, in particular the brilliant study by Paul Klepner, the cross of culture. What Klepner and others have shown is that the political ideas of Americans can be reduced, with almost remarkable precision, back to their religious attitudes and beliefs. In particular, their political and economic views depend on the degree to which they conform to the two basic poles of Christian belief, pietistic or liturgical, although the latter might be amended to liturgical plus doctrinal. Pietistic by the 19th century meant all groups of Protestants except Episcopalian, High Church Lutheran, and Orthodox Calvinist. Liturgical meant the latter plus Roman Catholic, and pietistic attitudes often included deist and atheist. Briefly, the pietist tends to hold that to be truly religious. A person must experience an emotional conversion. The convert in what has been called the baptism of the Holy Spirit has a direct relationship to God or to Jesus. The liturgical, on the other hand, is interested in either doctrinal belief or the following of prescribed church ritual as the key to salvation. Now it might seem as if the pietistic emphasis on the individual might lead to a political individualism to the belief that the state may not interfere with each individual's moral choices and actions. In 17th century pietism it often meant just that. But by the 19th century, unfortunately, such was not the case. Most pietists took the following view. Since we can't gauge an individual's morality by his following rituals or even by his professed adherence to creed, we must watch his actions and see if he is really moral. From there the pietist concluded that it was everyone's moral duty to his own salvation to see to it that his fellow men as well as himself are kept out of temptation's path. That is, it was supposed to be the state's business to enforce compulsory morality, to create the proper moral climate for maximizing salvation. In short, instead of an individualist, the pietist now tended to become a pest, a busybody, a moral watchdog for his fellow man, and a compulsory moralist using the state to outlaw vice as well as crime. The liturgicals, on the other hand, took the view that morality and salvation were to be achieved by following the creed and the rituals of their church. The experts on those church beliefs and practices were, of course, not the state, but the priests or bishops of the church, or in the case of the few Orthodox Calvinists, the ministers. The liturgicals, secure in their church teachings and practices, simply wanted to be left alone to follow the counsel of their priests. They were not interested in pestering or forcing their fellow human beings into being saved, and they believed profoundly that morality was not the business of the state, but only of their own church mentors. From the 1850s to the 1890s, the Republican party was almost exclusively the pietist party, known commonly as the party of great moral ideas. The Democratic party, on the other hand, was almost exclusively the liturgical party, and was known widely as the party of personal liberty. Specifically, after the Civil War, there were three interconnected local struggles that kept reappearing throughout America. In each case, the Republicans and Democrats played out their contrasting roles. These were the attempt by pietist groups, almost always Republican, to enforce prohibition, the attempt by the same groups to enforce Sunday Blue Laws, and the attempt by the self-same pietists to enforce compulsory attendance in public schools in order to use these schools to Christianize the Catholics. What of the political and economic struggles that historians have until recently focused on almost exclusively sound money versus fiat money or silver inflation, free trade versus a protective tariff, free markets versus government regulation, small versus large government spending? It is true that these were fought out repeatedly, but these were on a national level and generally remote from the concerns of the average person. I've long wondered how it was that the 19th century saw the mass of the public get highly excited about such recondite matters as the tariff, bank credits, or the currency. How could that happen when it is almost impossible to interest the mass of the public in these matters today? Klepner and the others have provided the missing link, the middle term, between these abstract economic issues and the gut social issues close to the hearts and lives of the public. Specifically, the Democrats, who at least until 1896 favored the free market libertarian position on all these economic issues, linked them, and properly so, in the minds of their liturgical supporters with their opposition to prohibition, blue laws, and so on. The Democrats pointed out that all these statist economic measures, including inflation, were paternalistic in the same way as the hated pietistic invasions of their personal liberty. In that way, the Democrat leaders were able to raise the consciousness of their followers from their local and personal concerns to wider and more abstract economic issues, and to take the libertarian position on all of them. The pietist Republicans did similarly for their mass base, pointing out that big government should regulate and control economic matters as it should control morality. In this stance, the Republicans followed in the footsteps of their predecessors, the Whigs, who for example were generally the fathers of the public school system in their local areas. Generally, the mind your own business liturgicals almost instinctively took the libertarian position on every question. But there was of course one area before the Civil War, where pestering and hectoring were needed to write a monstrous injustice. Slavery. Here the typical pietistic concern with universal moral principles and seeing them put into action brought us the abolitionist and anti-slavery movements. Slavery was the great flaw in the American system in more senses than one, for it was also the flaw in the instinctive liturgical resentment against great moral crusades. To return now to Lysander Spooner. Spooner, born in the New England pietistic tradition, began his distinguished ideological career as an all-out abolitionist. Despite differences over interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, Spooner was basically in the anarchistic no-government Garrisonian wing of the abolitionist movement. The wing that sought the abolition of slavery not through the use of the central government, which was in any case dominated by the south, but by a combination of moral fervor and slave rebellion. Far from being fervent supporters of the Union, the Garrisonians held that the northern states should secede from a pro-slave holding United States of America. So far, Spooner and the Garrisonians took the proper libertarian approach towards slavery, but the tragic betrayal came when the Union went to war with the southern states over the issue of their declared independence. Garrison and his former no-government movement forgot their anarchistic principles in their enthusiasm for militarism, mass murder, and centralized statism on behalf of what they correctly figured would be a war against slavery. Only Lysander Spooner and very few others stood for square against this betrayal. Only Spooner realized that it would be compounding crime and error to try to use government to right the wrongs committed by another government. And so, among his pietistic and moralizing anti-slavery colleagues, only Spooner was able to see with shining clarity, despite all temptations, the stark difference between vice and crime. He saw that it was correct to denounce the crimes of governments, but it was only compounding those crimes to maximize government power as an attempted remedy. Spooner never followed other pietists in endorsing crime or in trying to outlaw vice. Spooner's anarchism was, like his abolitionism, another valuable part of his pietist legacy. For, here again, his pietistic concern for universal principles, in this case as in the case of slavery, for the complete triumph of justice and the elimination of injustice, brought him to a consistent and courageous application of libertarian principles, where it was not socially convenient, to put it mildly, to have the question raised. Talk about a suppressed intellectual tradition. While the liturgicals proved to be far more libertarian than the pietists during the second half of the 19th century, a pietistic spirit is always important in libertarianism to emphasize a tireless determination to eradicate crime and injustice. Surely it is no accident that Spooner's greatest and most fervent anarchistic tracts were directed in dialogue against the Democrats, Cleveland, and Bayard. He did not bother with the openly statist Republicans. A pietistic leaven in the quasi-libertarian liturgical lump? But it takes firmness in libertarian principle to make sure to confine one's pietistic moral crusade to crime, that is, slavery and statism, and not to have it spill over to what anyone might designate as vice. Fortunately we have the immortal Lysander Spooner, in his life and in his works, to guide us along the correct path.