“Manuel, what is your political philosophy?”
“With that new boy from Milwaukee I feel like investing.”
“Sometimes a man doesn’t have it defined but, under Socratic inquiry, knows where he stands and why.”
“I’ll back ’em against field, three to two.”
“What? You young idiot! How much?”
“Three hundred. Hong Kong.”
“Done. For example, under what circumstances may the State justly place its welfare above that of a citizen?”
“Mannie,” Wyoh asked, “do you have any more foolish money? I think well of the Phillies.”
I looked her over. “Just what were you thinking of betting?”
“You go to hell! Rapist.”
“Prof, as I see, are no circumstances under which State is justified in placing its welfare ahead of mine.”
“Good. We have a starting point.”
“Mannie,” said Wyoh, “that’s a most self-centered evaluation.”
“I’m a most self-centered person.”
“Oh, nonsense. Who rescued me? Me, a stranger. And didn’t try to exploit it. Professor, I was cracking not facking. Mannie was a perfect knight.”
“Sans peur et sans reproche. I knew, I’ve known him for years. Which is not inconsistent with evaluation he expressed.”
“Oh, but it is! Not the way things are but under the ideal toward which we aim. Mannie, the ‘State’ is Luna. Even though not soverign yet and we hold citizenships elsewhere. But I am part of the Lunar State and so is your family. Would you die for your family?”
“Two questions not related.”
“Oh, but they are! That’s the point.”
“Nyet. I know my family, opted long ago.”
“Dear Lady, I must come to Manuel’s defense. He has a correct evaluation even though he may not be able to state it. May I ask this? Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?”
“Uh. . . that’s a trick question.”
“It is the key question, dear Wyoming. A radical question that strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands–and what he will die for.”
Wyoh frowned. “‘Not moral for a member of the group–‘” she said. “Professor. . . what are your political principles?”
“May I first ask yours? If you can state them?”
“Certainly I can! I’m a Fifth Internationalist, most of the Organization is. Oh, we don’t rule out anyone going our way; it’s a united front. We have Communists and Fourths and Ruddyites and Societians and Single-Taxers and you name it. But I’m no Marxist; we Fifths have a practical program. Private where private belongs, public where it’s needed, and an admission that circumstances alter cases. Nothing doctrinaire.”
“Capital punishment?”
“For what?”
“Let’s say for treason. Against Luna after you’ve freed Luna.”
“Treason how? Unless I knew the circumstances I could not decide.”
“Nor could I, dear Wyoming. But I believe in capital punishment under some circumstances. . . with this difference. I would not ask a court; I would try, condemn, execute sentence myself, and accept full responsibility.”
“But–Professor, what are your political beliefs?”
“I’m a rational anarchist.”
“I don’t know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian–those I know. But what’s this? Randite?”
“I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”
“Hear, hear!” I said. “‘Less than perfect.’ What I’ve been aiming for all my life.”
“You’ve achieved it,” said Wyoh. “Professor, your words sound good but there is something slippery about them. Too much power in the hands of individuals–surely you would not want. . . well, H-missiles for example–to be controlled by one irresponsible person?”
“My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist–and they do–some man controls them. In tern of morals there is no such thing as ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”