The recognition of exclusive chattels and estate has really harmed and
obscured Individualism. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made
gain, not growth, its aim, so that man has thought that the important thing
is to have, and has not come to know that the important thing is to be. The
true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is.
This state has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that
is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by
starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being
individual by putting them on the wrong road and encumbering them.
Indeed, so completely has man's personality been absorbed by his trinkets
and entanglements that the law has always treated offenses against a man‘s
property with far more severity than offenses against his person.
It is clear that no authoritarian socialism will do. For while under the
present system a very large number of people can lead lives of a certain
amount of freedom and expression and happiness, under an industrial
barrack system, or a system of economic tyranny, nobody would be able to
have any such freedom at all. It is to be regretted that a portion of our
community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the
problem by enslaving the entire community is childish. Every man must be
left quite free to choose his own work.
No form of compulsion must be exercised over him. If there is, his work
will not be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be good for
others. I hardly think that any socialist, nowadays, would seriously propose
that an inspector should call every morning at each house to see that each
citizen rose up and did manual labour for eight hours. Humanity has got
beyond that stage, and reserves such a form of life for the people whom, in
a very arbitrary manner, it chooses to call criminals.
Many of the socialistic views that I have come across seem to me to be
tainted with ideas of authority, if not of actual compulsion. Of course,
authority and compulsion are out of the question. All association must be
quite voluntary. It is only in voluntary associations that man is fine. It may
be asked how Individualism, which is now more or less dependent on the
existence of private property for its development, will benefit by the abolition
of such private property. The answer is very simple. It is true that, under
existing conditions, a few men who have had private means of their own,
such as Byron, Shelley, Browning, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, and others, have
been able to realize their personality, more or less completely.
Not one of these men ever did a single day‘s work for hire. They were
relieved from poverty. They had an immense advantage. The question is
whether it would be for the good of Individualism that such an advantage be
taken away. Let us suppose that it is taken away. What happens then to
Individualism? How will it benefit? Under the new conditions Individualism
will be far freer, far finer, and far more intensified than it is now. I am not
talking of the great imaginatively realized Individualism of such poets as I
have mentioned, but of the great actual Individualism latent and potential in
mankind generally.

1. The author of the passage most likely mentions Byron, Shelly, Browning,
Hugo, and Baudelaire in an effort to:
A. give examples of the harmful effect of money on Individualism and
art.
B. call attention to the rarity of artistic genius.
C. define what is meant by the phrase ―realize their personality‖.
D. stress the importance of financial independence
E. add credibility to his claims

OA


2. Which of the following would the author be most likely to consider an
example of ―enslaving the entire community‖?
I. South Africa under apartheid, where rights of citizenship were denied
to the Black majority, and granted in full only to the White minority
II. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, where the urban population was
forcibly deported to the countryside to perform agricultural labour
III. Sweden under the Social Democrats, where all citizens pay high taxes
to support extensive social programs
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II
D. II and III
E. I, II and III

OA


3. Suppose for a moment that Baudelaire was actually not wealthy, and often
had to work to earn money. What relevance would this information have to
the arguments posed by the author within the passage?
A. It would refute the author‘s claim that artists require independent
wealth to create.
B. It would refute the author‘s claim that poets are people who can
realize their own personality.
C. It would strengthen the author‘s claim that the acquisition of wealth
leads Individualism astray.
D. The central thesis of the passage would remain equally valid.
E. It would strongly weaken the main argument made by the author in
the passage

OA