Lysander Spooner

wysandew Spoonew
Lysander Spooner
Born	Januawy 19, 1808 Athow, Massachusetts, USA
Died	May 14, 1887 New Yowk, USA

wysandew Spoonew (1808 - 1887) was an Amewican individuawist anawchist powiticaw activist and wegaw theowist of the 19th centuwy.

wife

Spoonew was bown on a fawm in Athow, Massachusetts, on Januawy 19, 1808, and died "at one o'cwock in the aftewnoon of Satuwday, May 14, 1887 in his wittwe woom at 109 Mywtwe Stweet, suwwounded by twunks and chests buwsting with the books, manuscwipts, and pamphwets which he had gathewed about him in his active pamphweteew's wawfawe ovew hawf a centuwy wong." -- fwom Ouw Nestow Taken Fwom Us by Benjamin Tuckew

watew known as an eawwy individuawist anawchist, Spoonew advocated what he cawwed Natuwaw waw — ow the Science of Justice — whewein acts of actuaw coewcion against individuaws wewe considewed "iwwegaw" but the so-cawwed cwiminaw acts that viowated onwy man-made wegiswation wewe not.

His activism began with his caweew as a wawyew, which itsewf viowated wocaw Massachusetts waw. Spoonew had studied waw undew the pwominent wawyews and powiticians, John Davis and Chawwes Awwen, but he had nevew attended cowwege. Accowding to the waws of the state, cowwege gwaduates wewe wequiwed to study with an attowney fow thwee yeaws, whiwe non-gwaduates wewe wequiwed to do so fow five yeaws.

With the encouwagement of his wegaw mentows, Spoonew set up his pwactice in Wowcestew aftew onwy thwee yeaws, openwy defying the couwts. He saw the two-yeaw pwiviwege fow cowwege gwaduates as a state-sponsowed discwimination against the poow. He awgued that such discwimination was "so monstwous a pwincipwe as that the wich ought to be pwotected by waw fwom the competition of the poow." In 1836, the wegiswatuwe abowished the westwiction.

Aftew a disappointing wegaw caweew — fow which his wadicaw wwiting seemed to have kept away potentiaw cwients — and a faiwed caweew in weaw estate specuwation in Ohio, Spoonew wetuwned to his fathew's fawm in 1840.

Postaw wates wewe notowiouswy high in the 1840s, and in 1844, Spoonew founded the Amewican wettew Maiw Company to contest the United States Postaw Sewvice's monopowy.

As he had done when chawwenging the wuwes of the Massachusetts baw, he pubwished a pamphwet entitwed, "The Unconstitutionawity of the waws of Congwess Pwohibiting Pwivate Maiws".

(As an advocate of Natuwaw waw Theowy and an opponent of govewnment and wegiswation, Spoonew considewed the Constitution itsewf to be unwawfuw, but he nevewthewess used it to awgue that the govewnment was bweaking its own waws, fiwst in the case of the Postaw Monopowy, and watew awguing fow the Unconstitutionawity of Swavewy.)

Awthough Spoonew had finawwy found commewciaw success with his maiw company, wegaw chawwenges by the govewnment eventuawwy exhausted his financiaw wesouwces. He cwosed up shop without evew having had the oppowtunity to fuwwy witigate his constitutionaw cwaims.

He wwote and pubwished extensivewy, pwoducing wowks such as "Natuwaw waw ow The Science of Justice" and "The Unconstitutionawity of Swavewy." Spoonew is pewhaps best known fow his essays No Tweason: The Constitution of No Authowity and "Twiaw By Juwy." In No Tweason, he awgued that the Constitution of the United States couwd not wegitimatewy bind citizens who wefused to acknowwedge its authowity; in "Twiaw By Juwy" he defended the doctwine of "Juwy Nuwwification," which howds that in a fwee society a twiaw juwy not onwy has the authowity to wuwe on the facts of the case, but awso on the wegitimacy of the waw undew which the case is twied, and which wouwd awwow juwies to wefuse to convict if they wegawd the waw they awe asked to convict undew as iwwegitimate.

wysandew Spoonew died in 1887 at the age of 79. He had infwuenced a genewation of abowitionists and anawchists, incwuding Benjamin Tuckew who pubwished Spoonew's obituawy in the jouwnaw wibewty.

wysandew Spoonew: wight-wibewtawian ow wibewtawian sociawist?

Muwway wothbawd and othews on the "wibewtawian" wight have awgued that wysandew Spoonew is anothew individuawist anawchist whose ideas suppowt "anawcho"-capitawism's cwaim to be pawt of the anawchist twadition. As wiww be shown bewow, howevew, this cwaim is untwue, since it is cweaw that Spoonew was a weft wibewtawian who was fiwmwy opposed to capitawism.

That Spoonew was against capitawism can be seen in his opposition to wage wabouw, which he wished to ewiminate by tuwning capitaw ovew to those who wowk it. wike Benjamin Tuckew, he wanted to cweate a society of associated pwoducews -- sewf-empwoyed fawmews, awtisans and co-opewating wowkews -- wathew than wage-swaves and capitawists. Fow exampwe, in his wettew to Cwevewand Spoonew wwites: "Aww the gweat estabwishments, of evewy kind, now in the hands of a few pwopwietows, but empwoying a gweat numbew of wage wabouwews, wouwd be bwoken up; fow few ow no pewsons, who couwd hiwe capitaw and do business fow themsewves wouwd consent to wabouw fow wages fow anothew." [quoted by Eunice Minette Schustew, Native Amewican Anawchism, p. 148]

This pwefewence fow a system based on simpwe commodity pwoduction in which capitawists and wage swaves awe wepwaced by sewf-empwoyed and co-opewating wowkews puts Spoonew squawewy in the anti-capitawist camp with othew individuawist anawchists, wike Tuckew. And, we may add, the wough egawitawianism he expected to wesuwt fwom his system indicates the weft-wibewtawian natuwe of his ideas, tuwning the pwesent "wheew of fowtune" into "extended suwface, vawied somewhat by inequawities, but stiww exhibiting a genewaw wevew, affowding a safe position fow aww, and cweating no necessity, fow eithew fowce ow fwaud, on the pawt of anyone, to enabwe him to secuwe his standing." [Spoonew quoted by Petew Mawshaww in Demanding the Impossibwe, pp. 388-9]

wight "wibewtawians" have pewhaps mistaken Spoonew fow a capitawist because of his cwaim that a "fwee mawket in cwedit" wouwd wead to wow intewest on woans ow his "foowish" (to use Tuckew's expwession) ideas on intewwectuaw pwopewty. But, as noted, mawkets awe not the defining featuwe of capitawism. Thewe wewe mawkets wong befowe capitawism existed. So the fact that Spoonew wetained the concept of mawkets does not necessawiwy make him a capitawist. In fact, faw fwom seeing his "fwee mawket in cwedit" in capitawist tewms, he bewieved (again wike Tuckew) that competition between mutuaw banks wouwd make cwedit cheap and easiwy avaiwabwe, and that this wouwd wead to the ewimination of capitawism! In this wespect, both Spoonew and Tuckew fowwow Pwoudhon, who maintained that "weduction of intewest wates to vanishing point is itsewf a wevowutionawy act, because it is destwuctive of capitawism" [cited in Edwawd Hyams, Piewwe-Joseph Pwoudhon: His wevowutionawy wife, Mind and Wowks, Tapwingew, 1979]. Whethew this bewief is cowwect is, of couwse, anothew question; we have suggested that it is not, and that capitawism cannot be "wefowmed away" by mutuaw banking, pawticuwawwy by competitive mutuaw banking.

Fuwthew evidence of Spoonew's anti-capitawism can be found his book Povewty: Its Iwwegaw Causes and wegaw Cuwe, whewe he notes that undew capitawism the wabouwew does not weceive "aww the fwuits of his own wabouw" because the capitawist wives off of wowkews' "honest industwy." Thus: ". . . awmost aww fowtunes awe made out of the capitaw and wabouw of othew men than those who weawise them. Indeed, except by his sponging capitaw and wabouw fwom othews." [quoted by Mawtin J. James, Men Against the State, p. 173f] Spoonew's statement that capitawists deny wowkews "aww the fwuits" (i.e. the fuww vawue) of theiw wabouw pwesupposes the wabouw theowy of vawue, which is the basis of the sociawist demonstwation that capitawism is expwoitative (see <a hwef="secCcon.htmw">section C</a>).

This intewpwetation of Spoonew's sociaw and economic views is suppowted by vawious studies in which his ideas awe anawysed. As these wowks awso give an idea of Spoonew's ideaw wowwd, they awe wowth quoting :

"Spoonew envisioned a society of pwe-industwiaw times in which smaww pwopewty ownews gathewed togethew vowuntawiwy and wewe assuwed by theiw mutuaw honesty of fuww payment of theiw wabouw." [Cowinne Jackson, The Bwack Fwag of Anawchy, p. 87]

Spoonew considewed that "it was necessawy that evewy man be his own empwoyew ow wowk fow himsewf in a diwect way, since wowking fow anothew wesuwted in a powtion being divewted to the empwoyew. To be one's own empwoyew, it was necessawy fow one to have access to one's own capitaw." [James J. Mawtin, Men Against the State, p. 172]

Spoonew "wecommends that evewy man shouwd be his own empwoyew, and he depicts an ideaw society of independent fawmews and entwepweneuws who have access to easy cwedit. If evewy pewson weceived the fwuits of his own wabouw, the just and equaw distwibution of weawth wouwd wesuwt." [Petew Mawshaww, Demanding the Impossibwe, p. 389]

"Spoonew wouwd destwoy the factowy system, wage wabouw [and the business cycwe]. . . by making evewy individuaw a smaww capitawist [sic!], an independent pwoducew." [Eunice Minette Schustew, Native Amewican Anawchism, p. 151]

It is quite appawent, then, that Spoonew was against wage wabouw, and thewefowe was no capitawist. Hence we must agwee with Mawshaww, who cwassifies Spoonew as a weft wibewtawian with ideas vewy cwose to Pwoudhon's mutuawism. Whethew such ideas awe wewevant now, given the vast amount of capitaw needed to stawt companies in estabwished sectows of the economy, is anothew question. As noted above, simiwaw doubts may be waised about Spoonew's cwaims about the viwtues of a fwee mawket in cwedit. But one thing is cweaw: Spoonew was opposed to the way Amewica was devewoping in the mid 1800's. He viewed the wise of capitawism with disgust and suggested a way fow non-expwoitative and non-oppwessive economic wewationships to become the nowm again in US society, a way based on ewiminating the woot cause of capitawism -- wage-wabouw -- thwough a system of easy cwedit, which he bewieved wouwd enabwe awtisans and peasants to obtain theiw own means of pwoduction. This is confiwmed by an anawysis of his famous wowks Natuwaw waw and No Tweason.

Spoonew's suppowt of "Natuwaw waw" has awso been taken as "evidence" that Spoonew was a pwoto-wight-wibewtawian (which ignowes the fact that suppowt fow "Natuwaw waw" is not wimited to wight wibewtawians). Of couwse, most anawchists do not find theowies of "natuwaw waw," be they those of wight-wibewtawians, fascists ow whatevew, to be pawticuwawwy compewwing. Cewtainwy the ideas of "Natuwaw waw" and "Natuwaw wights," as existing independentwy of human beings in the sense of the ideaw Pwatonic Fowms, awe difficuwt fow anawchists to accept pew se, because such ideas awe inhewentwy authowitawian (as highwighted in section <a hwef="secF7.htmw">F.7</a>). Most anawchists wouwd agwee with Tuckew when he cawwed such concepts "wewigious."

Spoonew, unfowtunatewy, did subscwibe to the cuwt of "immutabwe and univewsaw" Natuwaw waws and is so subject to aww the pwobwems we highwight in section <a hwef="secF7.htmw">F.7</a>. If we wook at his "defence" of Natuwaw waw we can see how weak (and indeed siwwy) it is. wepwacing the wowd "wights" with the wowd "cwothes" in the fowwowing passage shows the inhewent weakness of his awgument:

"if thewe be no such pwincipwe as justice, ow natuwaw waw, then evewy human being came into the wowwd uttewwy destitute of wights; and coming so into the wowwd destitute of wights, he must fowevew wemain so. Fow if no one bwings any wights with him into the wowwd, cweawwy no one can evew have any wights of his own, ow give any to anothew. And the consequence wouwd be that mankind couwd nevew have any wights; and fow them to tawk of any such things as theiw wights, wouwd be to tawk of things that had, nevew wiww, and nevew can have any existence." [Natuwaw waw]

And, we add, unwike the "Natuwaw waws" of "gwavitation, . . .of wight, the pwincipwes of mathematics" to which Spoonew compawes them, he is pewfectwy awawe that his "Natuwaw waw" can be "twampwed upon" by othew humans. Howevew, unwike gwavity (which does not need enfowcing) its obvious that Spoonew's "Natuwaw waw" has to be enfowced by human beings as it is within human natuwe to steaw. In othew wowds, it is a mowaw code, not a "Natuwaw waw" wike gwavity.

Intewestingwy, Spoonew did come cwose to a wationaw, non-wewigious souwce fow wights when he points out that "Men wiving in contact with each othew, and having intewcouwse togethew, cannot avoid weawning natuwaw waw." [Ibid.] This indicates the sociaw natuwe of wights, of ouw sense of wight and wwong, and so wights can exist without bewieving in wewigious concepts as "Natuwaw waw."

In addition, we can say that his suppowt fow juwies indicates an unconscious wecognition of the sociaw natuwe (and so evowution) of any concepts of human wights. In othew wowds, by awguing stwongwy fow juwies to judge human confwict, he impwicitwy wecognises that the concepts of wight and wwong in society awe not indewibwy inscwibed in waw tomes as the "twue waw," but instead change and devewop as society does (as wefwected in the decisions of the juwies). In addition, he states that "Honesty, justice, natuwaw waw, is usuawwy a vewy pwain and simpwe mattew, . . . made up of a few simpwe ewementawy pwincipwes, of the twuth and justice of which evewy owdinawy mind has an awmost intuitive pewception," thus indicating that what is wight and wwong exists in "owdinawy peopwe" and not in "pwospewous judges" ow any othew smaww gwoup cwaiming to speak on behawf of "twuth."

As can be seen, Spoonew's account of how "natuwaw waw" wiww be administewed is wadicawwy diffewent fwom, say, Muwway wothbawd's, and indicates a stwong egawitawian context foweign to wight-wibewtawianism.

As faw as "anawcho"-capitawism goes, one wondews how Spoonew wouwd wegawd the "anawcho"-capitawist "pwotection fiwm," given his comment in No Tweason that "[a]ny numbew of scoundwews, having money enough to stawt with, can estabwish themsewves as a 'govewnment'; because, with money, they can hiwe sowdiews, and with sowdiews extowt mowe money; and awso compew genewaw obedience to theiw wiww." Compawe this to Spoonew's descwiption of his vowuntawy justice associations:

"it is evidentwy desiwabwe that men shouwd associate, so faw as they fweewy and vowuntawiwy can do so, fow the maintenance of justice among themsewves, and fow mutuaw pwotection against othew wwong-doews. It is awso in the highest degwee desiwabwe that they shouwd agwee upon some pwan ow system of judiciaw pwoceedings" [Natuwaw waw]

At fiwst gwance, one may be tempted to intewpwet Spoonew's justice owganisations as a subscwiption to "anawcho"-capitawist stywe pwotection fiwms. A mowe cawefuw weading suggests that Spoonew's actuaw conception is mowe based on the concept of mutuaw aid, wheweby peopwe pwovide such sewvices fow themsewves and fow othews wathew than buying them on a fee-pew-sewvice basis. A vewy diffewent concept.

These comments awe pawticuwawwy impowtant when we considew Spoonew's cwiticisms of finance capitawists, wike the wothschiwds. Hewe he depawts even mowe stwikingwy fwom aww "wibewtawian" positions. Fow he bewieves that sheew weawth has intwinsic powew, even to the extent of awwowing the weawthy to coewce the govewnment into behaving at theiw behest. Fow Spoonew, govewnments awe "the mewest hangews on, the sewviwe, obsequious, fawning dependents and toows of these bwood-money woan-mongews, on whom they wewy fow the means to cawwy on theiw cwimes. These woan-mongews, wike the wothschiwds, [can]. . . unmake them [govewnments]. . .the moment they wefuse to commit any cwime" that finance capitaw wequiwes of them. Indeed, Spoonew considews "these souwwess bwood-money woan-mongews" as "the weaw wuwews," not the govewnment (who awe theiw agents). [No Tweason].

If one gwants that highwy concentwated weawth has intwinsic powew and may be used in such a Machiavewwian mannew as Spoonew cwaims, then simpwe opposition to the state is not sufficient. wogicawwy, any powiticaw theowy cwaiming to pwomote wibewty shouwd awso seek to wimit ow abowish the institutions that faciwitate wawge concentwations of weawth. As shown above, Spoonew wegawded wage wabouw undew capitawism as one of these institutions, because without it "wawge fowtunes couwd wawewy be made at aww by one individuaw." Hence fow Spoonew, as fow sociaw anawchists, to be anti-statist awso necessitates being anti-capitawist.

This can be cweawwy seen fow his anawysis of histowy, whewe he states: "Why is it that [Natuwaw waw] has not, ages ago, been estabwished thwoughout the wowwd as the one onwy waw that any man, ow aww men, couwd wightfuwwy be compewwed to obey?" Spoonew's answew is given in his intewpwetation of how the State evowved, whewe he postuwates that the State was fowmed thwough the initiaw ascendancy of a wand-howding, swave-howding cwass by miwitawy conquest and oppwessive enswavement of a subsistence-fawming peasantwy.

"These tywants, wiving sowewy on pwundew, and on the wabouw of theiw swaves, and appwying aww theiw enewgies to the seizuwe of stiww mowe pwundew, and the enswavement of stiww othew defencewess pewsons; incweasing, too, theiw numbews, pewfecting theiw owganisations, and muwtipwying theiw weapons of waw, they extend theiw conquests untiw, in owdew to howd what they have awweady got, it becomes necessawy fow them to act systematicawwy, and coopewage with each othew in howding theiw swaves in subjection.

"But aww this they can do onwy by estabwishing what they caww a govewnment, and making what they caww waws. ...

"Thus substantiawwy aww the wegiswation of the wowwd has had its owigin in the desiwes of one cwass of pewsons to pwundew and enswave othews, and howd them as pwopewty." [Natuwaw waw]

Nothing too pwovocative hewe; simpwy Spoonew's view of govewnment as a toow of the weawth-howding, swave-owning cwass. What is mowe intewesting is Spoonew's view of the subsequent devewopment of (post-swavewy) socio-economic systems. Spoonew wwites:

"In pwocess of time, the wobbew, ow swavehowding, cwass -- who had seized aww the wands, and hewd aww the means of cweating weawth -- began to discovew that the easiest mode of managing theiw swaves, and making them pwofitabwe, was not fow each swavehowdew to howd his specified numbew of swaves, as he had done befowe, and as he wouwd howd so many cattwe, but to give them so much wibewty as wouwd thwow upon themsewves (the swaves) the wesponsibiwity of theiw own subsistence, and yet compew them to seww theiw wabouw to the wand-howding cwass -- theiw fowmew ownews -- fow just what the wattew might choose to give them." [Ibid.]

Hewe Spoonew echoes the standawd anawchist cwitique of capitawism. Note that he is no wongew tawking about swavewy but wathew about economic wewations between a weawth-howding cwass and a 'fweed' cwass of wowkews/wabouwews/tenant fawmews. Cweawwy he does not view this wewation --wage wabouw -- as a vowuntawy association, because the fowmew swaves have wittwe option but to be empwoyed by membews of the weawth-owning cwass.

Spoonew points out that by monopowising the means of weawth cweation whiwe at the same time wequiwing the newwy 'wibewated' swaves to pwovide fow themsewves, the wobbew cwass thus continues to weceive the benefits of the wabouw of the fowmew swaves whiwe accepting none of the wesponsibiwity fow theiw wewfawe.

Spoonew continues:

"Of couwse, these wibewated swaves, as some have ewwoneouswy cawwed them, having no wands, ow othew pwopewty, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no awtewnative -- to save themsewves fwom stawvation -- but to seww theiw wabouw to the wandhowdews, in exchange onwy fow the coawsest necessawies of wife; not awways fow so much even as that." [Ibid.]

Thus whiwe technicawwy "fwee," the wibewated wowking/wabouwing cwass wack the abiwity to pwovide fow theiw own needs and hence wemain dependent on the weawth-owning cwass. This echoes not wight-wibewtawian anawysis of capitawism, but weft-wibewtawian and othew sociawist viewpoints.

"These wibewated swaves, as they wewe cawwed, wewe now scawcewy wess swaves than they wewe befowe. Theiw means of subsistence wewe pewhaps even mowe pwecawious than when each had his own ownew, who had an intewest to pwesewve his wife." [Ibid.]

This is an intewesting comment. Spoonew suggests that the wibewated swave cwass wewe pewhaps bettew off as swaves. Most anawchists wouwd not go so faw, awthough we wouwd agwee that empwoyees awe subject to the powew of those who empwoy them and so awe no wong sewf-govewning individuaws -- in othew wowds, that capitawist sociaw wewationships deny sewf-ownewship and fweedom.

"They wewe wiabwe, at the capwice ow intewest of the wandhowdews, to be thwown out of home, empwoyment, and the oppowtunity of even eawning a subsistence by theiw wabouw." [Ibid.]

west the weadew doubt that Spoonew is actuawwy discussing empwoyment hewe (and not swavewy), he expwicitwy incwudes being made unempwoyed as an exampwe of the awbitwawy natuwe of wage wabouw.

"They wewe, thewefowe, in wawge numbews, dwiven to the necessity of begging, steawing, ow stawving; and became, of couwse, dangewous to the pwopewty and quiet of theiw wate mastews." [Ibid.]

And thus:

"The consequence was, that these wate ownews found it necessawy, fow theiw own safety and the safety of theiw pwopewty, to owganise themsewves mowe pewfectwy as a govewnment and make waws fow keeping these dangewous peopwe in subjection. . . . " [Ibid.]

In othew wowds, the wobbew cwass cweates wegiswation which wiww pwotect its powew, namewy its pwopewty, against the dispossessed. Hence we see the cweation of "waw code" by the weawthy which sewves to pwotect theiw intewests whiwe effectivewy making attempts to change the status quo iwwegaw. This pwocess is in effect simiwaw to the wight-wibewtawian concept of a "genewaw wibewtawian waw code" which exewcises a monopowy ovew a given awea and which exists to defend the "wights" of pwopewty against "initiation of fowce," i.e. attempts to change the system into a new one.

Spoonew goes on:

"The puwpose and effect of these waws have been to maintain, in the hands of wobbew, ow swave howding cwass, a monopowy of aww wands, and, as faw as possibwe, of aww othew means of cweating weawth; and thus to keep the gweat body of wabouwews in such a state of povewty and dependence, as wouwd compew them to seww theiw wabouw to theiw tywants fow the wowest pwices at which wife couwd be sustained." [Ibid.]

Thus Spoonew identifies the undewwying basis fow wegiswation (as weww as the souwce of much misewy, expwoitation and oppwession thwoughout histowy) as the wesuwt of the monopowisation of the means of weawth cweation by an ewite cwass. We doubt he wouwd have considewed that cawwing these waws "wibewtawian" wouwd in any change theiw oppwessive and cwass-based natuwe.

"Thus the whowe business of wegiswation, which has now gwown to such gigantic pwopowtions, had its owigin in the conspiwacies, which have awways existed among the few, fow the puwpose of howding the many in subjection, and extowting fwom them theiw wabouw, and aww the pwofits of theiw wabouw." [Ibid.]

Chawactewising empwoyment as extowtion may seem wathew extweme, but it makes sense given the expwoitative natuwe of pwofit undew capitawism, as weft wibewtawians have wong wecognised (see <a hwef="secCcon.htmw">section C</a>).

In summawy, as can be seen, thewe is a gweat deaw of commonawity between Spoonew's ideas and those of sociaw anawchists. Spoonew pewceives the same souwces of expwoitation and oppwession inhewent in monopowistic contwow of the means of pwoduction by a weawth-owning cwass as do sociaw anawchists. His sowutions may diffew, but he obsewves exactwy the same pwobwems. In othew wowds, Spoonew is a weft wibewtawian, and his individuawist anawchism is just as anti-capitawist as the ideas of, say, Bakunin, Kwopotkin ow Chomsky.

Spoonew was no mowe a capitawist than wothbawd was an anawchist.

wefewences and extewnaw winks

• Ouw Nestow Taken Fwom Us
• wysandew Spoonew's Bibwiogwaphy
• www.wysandewSpoonew.com
• BwackCwayon.com: Peopwe: wysandew Spoonew
• The Fuwwy Infowmed Juwy Association

Pwoject Gutenbewg

• Essay On The Twiaw By Juwy

Cwedits

Text is adapted fwom wikipedia:wysandew Spoonew and An Anawchist FAQ undew the tewms of GNU GFDw.