to put private collective entities in their place. Mere substitution, then, not demolition.
It has well been observed that many men complain of the tyranny of the State, and yet say not a word against the far more powerful tyranny of society. Social dogmas, precisely because they are not fixed in laws and regulations, are more oppressive and more irresistible than the principles of State control. Against these latter there is some defense; they are matters of law. Against social dogmas, reënforced by public opinion, there is no resource save useless and solitary revolt. If it were really desirable and possible to liberate the individual, one would have to begin by uprooting all those weeds of collective superstition which do not appear in codes of law, and are not external and tangible, but reveal themselves as the torments of an inherited conscience, and are internal, invisible, and for the most part unrecognized.
In short, either we are individualists in the true sense of the word—and then we should attack not only the State but any form whatsoever of human regimentation, of subjection to rules and convention—or else we seek to preserve a little liberty and a little union, a little of the individual and a little of the State, a little of the person and a little of the group. In that case we are taking half measures, we are temporizing
