| Reformatory Teachings | Revolutionary Teachings | |
| Renitent | Insurgent | |
| Godwin Proudhon | Tucker Tolstoi | Stirner Bakunin Kropotkin |
FOOTNOTES:
[1164] [I shall not indorse this statement till I understand it, and I doubt if Tucker will. Perhaps Eltzbacher might have been content with saying "is in no case more injurious to the happiness of most individuals than its non-existence.">[
[1165] [This, if interpreted by Eltzbacher's quotations from Tucker, must refer to the right of a voluntary association of any sort to make rules for its own members. But in this sense it seems in the highest degree doubtful whether Eltzbacher is justified in denying the same to all the other six, who have omitted to mention this point (perhaps regarding it as self-evident) while they were talking against laws in the sense of laws compulsorily binding everybody in the land.]
[1166] [But see on Proudhon and Stirner my notes on [pages 80] and [ 97].]
[1167] [It will be seen by consulting the footnotes on [pages 46], [47], and [48] that the warrants for this statement about Godwin are drawn exclusively from the first one-fifth of his book, contrary to Eltzbacher's profession at the top of [page 41]; that the passages quoted verbatim are not in Godwin's second edition; and that the quotations which are not verbatim are of doubtful correctness by the second edition. This makes it appear that Godwin's sweeping rejection of the principle of contract was one of those over-hasty propositions about which he changed his mind even before they were published (see his words quoted on [page 40], and the preface to his second edition). Yet I am not prepared to assert that Godwin would at any time have made contract the basis of his civil order.]
[1168] [On Proudhon, Stirner, Tucker, see my notes on [pages 80], [97], [274].]
[1169] [We are getting into an ambiguity of language here. The "collectivity" in which Kropotkin vests property is, as I understand, the entire population; the only "collectivity" which Tucker could recognize as owning property would be a voluntary association, whose membership, whether large or small, would in general be limited by the arbitrary choice of men.]
