gemini - kennedy.gemi.dev

💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000415.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:29:07.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
			    Anarchy

		  Pamphlet by Errico Malatesta


	Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies,
strictly speaking, "without government": the state of a people without
any constituted authority.

	Before such an organization had begun to be considered possible
and desirable by a whole class of thinkers, so as to be taken as the
aim of a movement (which has now become one of the most important
factors in modern social warfare), the word "anarchy" was used
universally in the sense of disorder and confusion, and it is still
adopted in that sense by the ignorant and by adversaries interested in
distorting the truth.

	We shall not enter into philological discussions, for the
question is not philological but historical. The common
interpretation of the word does not misconceive its true etymological
signification, but is derived from it, owing to the prejudice that
government must be a necessity of the organization of social life, and
that consequently a society without government must be given up to
disorder, and oscillate between the unbridled dominion of some and the
blind vengeance of others.

	The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the
meaning that the public has given to the word is easily explained.

	Man, like all living beings, adapts himself to the conditions
in which he lives, and transmits by inheritance his acquired habits. 
Thus, being born and having lived in bondage, being the descendant of 
a long line of slaves, man, when he began to think, believed that 
slavery was an essential condition of life, and liberty seemed to him
impossible. In like manner, the workman, forced for centuries to depend 
upon the goodwill of his employer for work, that is, for bread, and 
accustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess the
land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who 
gives him food, and asks ingenuously how it would be possible to live, 
if there were no master over him?

	In the same way, a man whose limbs had been bound from birth,
but who had neverless found out how to hobble about, might attribute to
the very bands that bound him his ability to move, while, on the
contrary, they would diminish and paralyze the muscular energy of his
limbs.

	If then we add to the natural effect of habit the education
given to him by his master, the parson, the teacher, etc., who are all
interested in teaching that the employer and the government are
necessary, if we add the judge and the policeman to force those who
think differently -- and might try to propagate their opinion -- to
keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to the utility
and necessity of masters and governments has become established.
Suppose a doctor brought forward a complete theory, with a thousand
ably invented illustrations, to persuade the man with bound limbs that,
if his limbs were freed, he could not walk, or even live. The man would
defend his bands furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to
tear them off.

	Thus, if it is believed that government is necessary and that
without government there must be disorder and confusion, it is natural
and logical to suppose that anarchy, which signifies absence of
government, must also mean absence of order.

	Nor is this fact without parallel in the history of words. In
those epochs and countries where people have considered government by
one man (monarchy) necessary, the word "republic" (that is, the
government of many) has been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply
disorder and confusion. Traces of this meaning of the word are still to
be found in the popular languages of almost all countries.

	When this opinion is changed, and the public are convinced that
government is not necessary, but extremely harmful, the word "anarchy,"
precisely because it signifies "without government," will become equal
to saying "natural order, harmony of needs and interests of all,
complete liberty with complete solidarity."

	Therefore, those are wrong who say that anarchists have chosen
their name badly, because it is erroneously understood by the masses
and leads to a false interpretation. The error does not come from the
word, but from the thing. The difficulty which anarchists meet in
spreading their views does not depend upon the name they have given
themselves, but upon the fact that their conceptions strike as all the
inveterate prejudices which people have about the function of
government, or "the state," as it is called.

	Before proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last
word (the "State") which, in our opinion, is the real cause of much
misunderstanding.

	Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all
the collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, 
military, financial, etc., by means of which management of their own
affairs, the guidance of their personal conduct, and the care of 
ensuring their own safety are taken from the people and confided to
certain individuals, and these, whether by usurpation or delegation,
are invested with the right to make laws over and for all, and to
constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective
force of the community to this end.

	In this case the word "State" means "government," or, if you
like, it is the abstract expression of which government is the
personification. Then such expressions as "Abolition of the State," or
"Society without the State," agree perfectly with the conception which
anarchists wish to express of the destruction of every political
institution based on authority, and of the constitution of a free and
equal society, based upon harmony of interests, and the voluntary
contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs.

	However, the word "State" has many other meanings, and among
these some that lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly 
when used among men whose sad social position has not afforded them 
leisure to become accustomed to the subtle distinction of scientific 
language, or, still worse, when adopted treacherously by adversaries,
who are interested in confounding the sense, or do not wish to 
comprehend it. Thus the word "State" is often used to indicate any 
given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given
territory and constituting what is called a "social unit,"
independently of the way in which the members of the said body are
grouped, or of the relations existing between them. "State" is used
also simply as a synonym for "society." Owning to these meanings of the
word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe, that
anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective
work, and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a
state worse than savagery.

	By "State" again is meant only the supreme administration of a
country, the central power, as distinct from provincial or communal 
power, and therefore others think that anarchists wish merely for a 
territorial decentralization, leaving the principle of government
intact, and thus confounding anarchy with cantonical or communal
government.

	Finally, "State" signifies "condition, mode of living, the
order of social life," etc., and therefore we say, for example, that 
it is necessary to change the economic state of the working classes,
or that the anarchical State is the only State founded on the
principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases. So that if we say
also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, we may at once
appear absurd or contradictory.

	For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use
the expression "abolition of the State" as little as possible, and to
substitute for it another, clearer, and more concrete --
"abolition of government."

	The latter will be the expression used in the course of this
essay.

	We have said that anarchy is society without government. But is
the suppression of government possible, desirable, or wise? Let us see.

	What is the government? There is a disease of the human mind,
called the metaphysical tendency, that causes man, after he has
by a logical process abstracted the quality from an object, to be
subject to a kind of hallucination that makes him take the abstraction
for the real thing. This metaphysical tendency, in spite of the blows
of positive science, has still strong root in the minds of the majority
of our contemporary fellowmen. It has such influence that many consider
government an actual entity, with certain given attributes of reason,
justice, equity, independent of the people who compose the government.

	For those who think in this way, government, or the State, is
the abstract social power, and it represents, always in the
abstract, the general interest. It is the expression of the rights of
all and is considered as limited by the rights of each. This way of
understanding government is supported by those interested, to whom it
is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority should be
maintained and should always survive the faults and errors of the
persons who exercise power.

	For us, the government is the aggregate of the governors, and
the governors -- kings, presidents, ministers, members of
parliament, and what not -- are those who have the power to make laws
regulating the relations between men, and to force obedience to these
laws. They are those who decide upon and claim the taxes, enforce
military service, judge and punish transgressors of the laws. They
subject men to regulations, and supervise and sanction private
contracts. They monopolize certain branches of production and public
services, or, if they wish, all production and public service. They
promote or hinder the exchange of goods. They make war or peace with
governments of other countries. They concede or withhold free trade and
many things else. In short, the governors are those who have the power,
in a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the collective force of
society, that is, of the physical, intellectual, and economic force of
all, to oblige each to their (the governors') wish. And this power
constitutes, in our opinion, the very principle of government and
authority.

	But what reason is there for the existence of government?

	Why abdicate one's own liberty, one's own initiative in favor
of other individuals? Why give them the power to be the
masters, with or against the wish of each, to dispose of the forces of
all in their own way? Are the governors such exceptionally gifted men
as to enable them, with some show of reason, to represent the masses
and act in the interests of all men better than all men would be able
to act for themselves? Are they so infallible and incorruptible that
one can confide to them, with any semblance of prudence, the fate of
each and all, trusting to their knowledge and goodness?

	And even if there existed men of infinite goodness and
knowledge, even if we assume what has never happened in history
and what we believe could never happen, namely, that the government
might devolve upon the ablest and best, would the possession of
government power add anything to their beneficent influence? Would it
not rather paralyze or destroy it? For those who govern find it
necessary to occupy themselves with things which they do not
understand, and, above all, to waste the greater part of their energy
in keeping themselves in power, striving to satisfy their friends,
holding the discontented in check, and mastering the rebellious.

	Again, be the governors good or bad, wise or ignorant, how do
they gain power? Do they impose themselves by right of war,
conquest, or revolution? If so, what guarantees have the public that
their rules have the general good at heart? In this case it is simply a
question of usurpation, and if the subjects are discontented, nothing
is left to them but to throw off the yoke by an appeal to arms. Are the
governors chosen from a certain class or party? Then inevitably the
ideas and interests of that class or party will triumph, and the wishes
and interests of the others will be sacrificed. Are they elected by
universal suffrage? Now numbers are the sole criteria, and numbers are
clearly no proof of reason, justice, or capacity. Under universal
suffrage the elected are those who know best how to take in the masses.
The minority, which may happen to be the half minus one, is sacrificed.
Moreover, experience has shown it is impossible to hit upon an
electoral system that really ensures election by the actual majority.

	Many and various are the theories by which men have sought to
justify the existence of government. All, however, are founded,
confessedly or not, on the assumption that the individuals of a society
have contrary interests, and that an external superior power is
necessary to oblige some to respect the interests of others, by
prescribing and imposing a rule of conduct, according to which each may
obtain the maximum of satisfaction with the minimum of sacrifice. If,
say the theorists of the authoritarian school, the interests,
tendencies, and desires of an individual are in opposition to those of
another individual, or perhaps all society, who will have the right and
the power to oblige the one to respect the interests of the other or
others? Who will be able to prevent the individual citizen from
offending the general will? The liberty of each, they say, has for its
limit the liberty of others: but who will establish those limits, and
who will cause them to be respected? The natural antagonism of
interests and passions creates the necessity for government, and
justifies authority. Authority intervenes as moderator of the social
strife and defines the limits of the rights and duties of each.

	This is the theory; but to be sound the theory should be based
upon an explanation of facts. We know well how in social
economy theories are too often invented to justify facts, that is, to
defend privilege and cause it to be accepted tranquilly by those who
are its victims. Let us here look at the facts themselves.

	In all the course of history, as in the present epoch,
government is either brutal, violent, arbitrary domination of
the few over the many, or it is an instrument devised to secure
domination and privilege to those who, by force, or cunning, or
inheritance, have taken to themselves all the means of life, first and
foremost the soil, whereby they hold the people in servitude, making
them work for their advantage.

	Governments oppress mankind in two ways, either directly, by
brute force, that is physical violence, or indirectly, by
depriving them of the means of subsistence and thus reducing them to
helplessness. Political power originated in the first method; economic
privilege arose from the second.  Governments can also oppress man by
acting on his emotional nature, and in this way constitute religious
authority. There is no reason for the propagation of religious
superstitions but that they defend and consolidate political and
economic privileges.

	In primitive society, when the world was not so densely
populated as now and social relations were less complicated, if
any circumstance prevented the formation of habits and customs of
solidarity, or destroyed those which already existed and established
the domination of man over man, the two powers, political and economic,
were united in the same hands -- often in those of a single individual.
Those who by force had conquered and impoverished the others,
constrained them to become their servants and to perform all things
according to their caprice. The victors were at once proprietors,
legislators, kings, judges, and executioners.

	But with the increase of population, with the growth of needs,
with the complication of social relationships, the prolonged
continuance of such despotism became impossible. For their own security
the rulers, often much against their will, were obliged to depend upon
a privileged class, that is, a certain number of cointerested
individuals, and were also obliged to let each of these individuals
provide for his own sustenance. Nevertheless they reserved to
themselves the supreme or ultimate control. In other words, the rulers
reserved to themselves the right to exploit all at their own
convenience, and so to satisfy their kingly vanity. Thus private wealth
was developed under the shadow of the ruling power, for its protection
and -- often unconsciously -- as its accomplice. The class of
proprietors arose, and, concentrated little by little into their hands
all the means of production, the very fountain of life -- agriculture,
industry, and exchange -- ended by becoming a power in themselves. This
power, by the superiority of its means of action and the great mass of
interests it embraces, always ends by subjugating more or less openly
the political power, that is, the government, which it makes its
policeman.


	This phenomenon has been repeated often in history. Every time
that, by military enterprise, physical brute force has taken
the upper hand in society, the conquerors have shown the tendency to
concentrate government and property in their own hands. In every case,
however, because the government cannot attend to the production of
wealth and overlook and direct everything, it finds it necessary to
conciliate a powerful class, and private property is again established.
With it comes the division of the two sorts of society, and that of the
persons who control the collective force of society, and that of the
proprietors, upon whom these governors become essentially dependent,
because the proprietors command the sources of the said collective
force.

	Never has this state of affairs been so accentuated as in
modern times. The development of production, the immense
extension of commerce, the extensive power that money has acquired, and
all the economic results flowing from the discovery of America, the
invention of machinery, etc., have secured the supremacy to the
capitalist class that it is no longer content to trust to the support
of the government and has come to wish that the government composed of
members from its own class, continually under its control and specially
organized to defend it against the possible revenge of the
disinherited. Hence the origin of the modern parliamentary system.

	Today the government is composed of proprietors, or people of
their class so entirely under their influence that the richest
do not find it necessary to take an active part themselves. Rothschild,
for instance, does not need to be either M.P. or minister, it is enough
for him to keep M.P.'s and ministers dependent upon him.

	In many countries, the proletariat participates nominally in
the election of the government. This is a concession which the
bourgeois (i.e., proprietory) class have made, either to avail
themselves of popular support in the strife against royal or
aristocratic power, or to divert the attention of the people from their
own emancipation by giving them an apparent share in political power.
However, whether the bourgeoisie foresaw it or not, when first they
conceded to the people the right to vote, the fact is that the right
has proved in reality a mockery, serving only to consolidate the power
of the bourgeoisie, while giving to the most energetic only of the
proletariat the illusory hope of arriving at power.

	So also with universal suffrage -- we might say, especially
with universal suffrage -- the government has remained the
servant and police of the bourgeois class. How could it be otherwise?
If the government should reach the point of becoming hostile, if the
hope of democracy should ever be more than a delusion deceiving the
people, the proprietory class, menaced in its interests would at once
rebel and would use all the force and influence that come from the
possession of wealth, to reduce the government to the simple function
of acting as policeman.

	In all times and in all places, whatever may be the name of
that the government takes, whatever has been its origin, or its
organization, its essential function is always that of oppressing and
exploiting the masses, and of defending the oppressors and exploiters.
Its principal characteristic and indispensable instruments are the
policeman and the tax collector, the soldier and the prison. And to
these are necessarily added the time serving priest or teacher, as the
case may be, supported and protected by the government, to render the
spirit of the people servile and make them docile under the yoke.

	Certainly, in addition to this primary business, to this
essential department of governmental action other departments
have been added in the course of time. We even admit that never, or
hardly ever, has a government been able to exist in a country that was
civilized without adding to its oppressing and exploiting functions
others useful and indispensable to social life. But this fact makes it
nonetheless true that government is in its nature a means of
exploitation, and that its position doom it to be the defense of a
dominant class, thus confirming and increasing the evils of
domination.

	The government assumes the business of protecting, more or less
vigilantly, the life of citizens against direct or brutal attacks;
acknowledges and legalizes a certain number of rights and primitive
usages and customs, without which it is impossible to live in society.
It organizes and directs certain public services, such as the post,
preservation of the public health, benevolent institutions, workhouses,
etc., and poses as the protector and benefactor of the poor and weak.
But to prove our point it is sufficient to notice how and why it
fulfills these functions. The fact is that everything the government
undertakes is always inspired with the spirit of domination and
intended to defend, enlarge, and perpetuate the privileges of property
and of those classes of which the government is representative and
defender.

	A government cannot rule for any length of time without hiding
its true nature behind the pretense of general utility. It
cannot respect the lives of the privileged without assuming the air of
wishing to respect the lives of all. It cannot cause the privileges of
some to be tolerated without appearing as the custodian of the rights
of everyone. "The law" (and, of course, those who have made the law,
i.e., the government) "has utilized," says Kropotkin, "the social
sentiments of man, working into them those precepts of morality, which
man has accepted, together with arrangements useful to the minority --
the exploiters -- and opposed to the interests of those who might have
rebelled, had it not been for this show of a moral ground."

	A government cannot wish the destruction of the community, for
then it and the dominant class could not claim their wealth
from exploitation; nor could the government leave the community to
manage its own affairs, for then the people would soon discover that it
(the government) was necessary for no other end than to defend the
proprietory class who impoverish them, and would hasten to rid
themselves of both government and proprietory class.

	Today, in the face of the persistent and menacing demands of
the proletariat, governments show a tendency to interfere in
the relations between employers and work people. Thus they try to
arrest the labor movement and to impede with delusive reforms the
attempts of the poor to take to themselves what is due to them, namely,
an equal share of the good things of life that others enjoy.

	We must also remember that on one hand the bourgeoisie, that
is, the proprietory class, make war among themselves and
destroy one another continually, and that, on the other hand, the
government, although composed of the bourgeoisie and, acting as their
servants and protector, is still, like every servant or protector,
continually striving to emancipate itself and to domineer over its
charge. Thus, this seesaw game, this swaying between conceding and
withdrawing, this seeking allies among the people and against the
classes, and among classes against the masses, forms the science of the
governors and blinds the ingenuous and phlegmatic, who are always
expecting that salvation is coming to them from on high.

	With all this, the government does not change its nature. If it
acts as regulator or guarantor of the rights and duties of
each, it perverts the sentiments of justice. It justifies wrong and
punishes every act that offends or menaces the privileges of the
governors and proprietors. It declares just and legal the most
atrocious exploitation of the miserable, which means a slow and
continuous material and moral murder, perpetrated by those who have on
those who have not. Again, if it administers public services, it always
considers the interests of the governors and proprietors, not occupying
itself with the interests of the working masses, except insofar as is
necessary to make the masses willing to endure their share of taxation.
If it instructs, it fetters and curtails the truth, and tends to
prepare the minds and hearts of the young to become either implacable
tyrants or docile slaves, according to the class to which they belong.
In the hands of the government everything becomes a means of
exploitation, everything serves as a police measure, useful to hold the
people in check. And it must be thus. If the life of mankind consists
in strife between man and man, naturally there must be conquerors and
conquered, and the government, which is the means of securing to the
victors the results of their victory and perpetuating those results,
will certainly never fall to those who have lost, whether the battle be
on the grounds of physical or intellectual strength, or in the field of
economics. And those who have fought to secure to themselves better
conditions than others can have, to win privilege and add domination to
power, and have attained the victory, will certainly not use it to
defend the rights of the vanquished, and to place limits to their own
power and to that of their friends and partisans.

	The government -- or the State, if you will -- as judge,
moderator of social strife, impartial administrator of the
public interests, is a lie, an illusion, a Utopia, never realized and
never realizable. If, in fact, the interests of men must always be
contrary to one another, if, indeed, the strife between mankind has
made laws necessary to human society, and the liberty of the individual
must be limited by the liberty of other individuals, then each one
would always seek to make his interests triumph over those of others.
Each would strive to enlarge his own liberty at the cost of the liberty
of others, and there would be government. Not simply because it was
more or less useful to the totality of the members of society to have a
government, but because the conquerors would wish to secure themselves
the fruits of victory.  They would wish effectually to subject the
vanquished and relieve themselves of the trouble of being always on the
defensive, and they would appoint men, specially adapted to the
business, to act as police. Were this indeed actually the case, then
humanity would be destined to perish amid periodical contests between
the tyranny of the dominators and the rebellion of the conquered.

	But fortunately the future of humanity is a happier one,
because the law that governs it is milder.

	Thus, in the contest of centuries between liberty and
authority, or, in other words, between social equality and
social castes, the question at issue has not really been the relations
between society and the individual, or the increase of individual
independence at the cost of social control, or vice versa. Rather it
has had to do with preventing any one individual from oppressing the
others; with giving to everyone the same rights and the same means of
action. It has had to do with substituting the initiative of all, which
must naturally result in the advantage of all, for the initiative of
the few, which necessarily results in the suppression of all the
others. It is always, in short, the question of putting an end to the
domination and exploitation of man by man in such a way that all are
interested in the common welfare, and that the individual force of
each, instead of oppressing, combating, or suppressing others, will
find the possibility of complete development, and everyone will seek to
associate with others for the greater advantage of all.

	From what we have said, it follows that the existence of a
government, even upon the hypothesis that the ideal government
of authoritarian socialists were possible, far from producing an
increase of productive force, would immensely diminish it, because the
government would restrict initiative to the few. It would give these
few the right to do all things, without being able, of course, to endow
them with the knowledge or understanding of all things.

	In fact, if you divest legislation and all the operations of
government of what is intended to protect the privileged, and
what represents the wishes of the privileged classes alone, nothing
remains but the aggregate of individual governors. "The State," says
Sismondi, "is always a conservative power which authorizes, regulates,
and organizes the conquests of progress (and history testifies that it
applies them to the profit of its own and the other privileged classes)
but never does it inaugurate them.  New ideas always originate from
beneath, are conceived in the foundations of society, and then, when
divulged, they become opinion and grow. But they must always meet on
their path, and combat the constituted powers of tradition, custom,
privilege and error."

	In order to understand how society could exist without a
government, it is sufficient to turn our attention for a short
space to what actually goes on in our present society.  We shall see
that in reality the most important functions are fulfilled even
nowadays outside the intervention of government. Also that government
only interferes to exploit the masses, or defend the privileged, or,
lastly, to sanction, most unnecessarily, all that has been done without
its aid, often in spite of and opposition to it. Men work, exchange,
study, travel, follow as they choose the current rules of morality or
hygiene; they profit by the progress of science and art, have
numberless mutual interests without ever feeling the need of ant one to
direct them how to conduct themselves in regard to these matters. On
the contrary, it is just those things in which no governmental
interference that prosper best and give rise to the least contention,
being unconsciously adapted to the wish of all in the way found most
useful and agreeable.

	Nor is government more necessary for large undertakings, or for
those public services which require the constant cooperation of
many people of different conditions and countries. Thousands of these
undertakings are even now the work of voluntarily formed associations.
And these are, by the acknowledgment of everyone, the undertakings that
succeed the best. We do not refer to the associations of capitalists,
organized by means of exploitation, although even they show
capabilities and powers of free association, which may extended until
it embraces all the people of all lands and includes the widest and
most varying interests. We speak rather of those associations inspired
by the love of humanity, or by the passion for knowledge, or even
simply by the desire for amusement and love of applause, as these
represent better such groupings as will exist in a society where,
private property and internal strife between men being abolished, each
will find his interests compatible with the interest of everyone else
and his greatest satisfaction in doing good and pleasing others.
Scientific societies and congresses, international lifeboat and Red
Cross associations, laborers' unions, peace societies, volunteers who
hasten to the rescue at times of great public calamity, are all
examples, among thousands, of that power of the spirit of association
which always shows itself when a need arises or an enthusiasm takes
hold, and the means do not fail. That voluntary associations do not
cover the world and do not embrace every branch of material and moral
activity is the fault of the obstacles placed in their way by
governments, of the antagonisms create by the possession of private
property, and of the impotence and degradation to which the
monopolizing of wealth on the part of the few reduces the majority of
mankind.

	The government takes charge, for instance, of the postal and
telegraph services. But in what way does it really assist them?
When the people are in such a condition as to be able to enjoy and feel
the need of such services they will think about organizing them, and
the man with the necessary technical knowledge will not require a
certificate from a government to enable him to set to work. The more
general and urgent the need, the more volunteers will offer to satisfy
it. Would the people have the ability necessary to provide and
distribute provisions? Never fear, they will not die of hunger waiting
for government to pass a law on the subject. Wherever a government
exists, it must wait until the people have first organized everything,
and then come with its laws to sanction and exploit what has already
been done. It is evident that private interest is the great motive for
all activity. That being so, when the interest of every one becomes the
interest of each (and it necessarily will become so as soon as private
property is abolished), then all will be active.  If they work now in
the interest of the few, so much more and so much better will they work
to satisfy the interests of all. It is hard to understand how anyone
can believe that public services indispensable to social life can be
better secured by order of a government than through the workers
themselves who by their own choice or by agreement with others carry
them out under the immediate control of all those interested.

	Certainly in every collective undertaking on a large scale
there is need for division of labor, for technical direction,
administration, etc. But the authoritarians are merely playing with
words, when they deduce a reason for the existence of government, from
the very real necessity for organization of labor. The government, we
must repeat, is the aggregate of the individuals who have received or
have taken the right or the mean to make laws, and force the people to
obey them. The administrators, engineers, etc., on the other hand, are
men who receive or assume the charge of doing a certain work.
Government signifies delegation of power, that is, abdication of the
initiative and sovereignty of everyone into the hand of the few.
Administration signifies delegation of work, that is, the free exchange
of services founded on free agreement.