The recognition of exclusive chattels and estate has really harmed and

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



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



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