and phrases as “energy eircuits,” “dvnamos,”rn”kinetic energy,” “inertia,”rn”mechanisms,” and so forth. If Mrs. Patersonrnliad written in recent years, wernmight be subjected to more up-to-daternscientific metaphors, such as “servomechanisms,”rn”computer chips,”rn”fiberoptics,” and other techno-mvsticism.rnThough vou mav grasp lier meaningrnin a general sense, the metaphorsrnbecome annoying yhen you reahze thatrnfor Mrs. Paterson these metaphors werernreal, and she intended to vyrite scientificallyrnof human action in the sense that arnphysical scientist writes of chemical interaction.rnProfessor Cox makes a yaliant attemptrnto defend Mrs. Paterson’s engineeringrnconceit, and to some extent he is successful,rnpointing out that as she was religiousrnand believed in free will, hers wasrnnot really a “mechanistic” theory. Morernstrikingh, he adds that Mrs. Patersonrncountered the standard conservative critic[rnue of “rights talk” as unduly abstract.rnSince her property doctrine is rooted inrnthe concrete phvsicality of time andrnspace, it makes “abstract” rights realisticrnand concrete; in particular, she demonstratesrnthat “human rights” cannot existrnwithout concomitant rights in materialrnprivate property. Mrs. Paterson beginsrnher discussion of property rights not withrnLoekcan talk of mixing one’s labor withrnresources, but with this striking truth:rn”Tyo bodies cannot occup the samernspace at the same time. This is the reasonrnwhy pri’ate propertv’ belongs to manrnas a creative being (a right both naturalrnand divine).” She observes in a brilliantrnpassage thatrncollectiyists talk of civil rights in arncollective society, where in factrncivil rights cannot exist becausernthere is no place in which they canrnbe exercised and no materials onrnvyhich the}- can take effect. Howrncan a man speak freely if there isrnno spot on which he and his audiencernhave the right to stand? I lowrncan he practice his religion if hernhas no right to own a religious edifice,rnor to his own person? How isrna free press to exist if the materialsrnarc not in private ownership?rnThere are, in fact, many mar’elousrnchapters and passages in The God of thernMachine. “The Fiction of Public Ownership”rnemploys her concept of propertyas-rnspecific-placc to demolish this fiction:rnin reality, “public property” is “owned”rnnot by the public but by sections of therngovernment elite. Can you or I sell ourrn”share” of the TV, or the White I louse,rnas we could if we really “owned” these assets?rnTo Mrs. Paterson, the “Flital Amendments”rnto the U.S. Constitution werernthe centralizing 14th, 13th, 16th, andrn17th. The 15th Amendment, which hasrnbeen neglected bv conseryatives, transferredrnthe power to determine suffragernqualifications from the states to the centralrngox’crnment; as Mrs. Paterson says,rn”The Fifteenth Amendment fatalh’ perpetuatedrnthe destruction wrought by thernReconstruction Acts.” She, howeyer, fayorsrnreal landed property, rather thanrnrace or liquid property, as qualificationrnfor the franchise and makes an interestingrncase on behalf of her argument. Mrs.rnPaterson denounces the 16th Amendment,rnnot simply for its justification ofrnthe power of the national income tax tornloot but for its centralizing nullificationrnof the original constitutional insistencernthat any direct or personal tax be in proportionrnto the population.rnIn “The Corporations and StatusrnLaw,” Mrs. Paterson denounces the post-rnCivil War system of federal subsidies andrnland grants to railroads, which injectedrnpolitics and corruption into Americanrncapitalism. Moreover, as she points out,rnsubsidization caused the railroad networkrnto be built too early and inducedrnfarmers to settle the West sooner thanrnthey would otherwise have done. Thusrnthe Western farmers’ continuing migrationrnagainst railroad freight rates thatrnwere in fact already low and going everrnlower makes sense in the context of Paterson’srnargument that the farmers realizedrnthat something about the systemrnvyas amiss and blamed the railroads,rnrather than the government, for the specialrnprivileges the former enjoved. But,rnwhile properly critical of governmentrnsubsidies of business, Mrs. Paterson alsornattacks antitrust laws as pernicious andrnrestrictive. “Standard Oil,” she pointsrnout, “did not restrain trade; it went to thernends of the earth to make a market.”rnBusiness creates no problems in its activitiesrnon the market, difficulties being createdrnsolely bv the government, includingrngovernment as instrument of businessrnprivilege. Endorsing Herbert Spencer’srndemand for a society of contract in placernof a society of status, Paterson notes thatrn”goyernment cannot ‘restore competition,’rnor ‘ensure’ it. Government is monopoly;rnand all it can do is to impose restrictionsrnwhich may issue in monopoly.”rnAntitrust law can only create a society ofrnstatus.rnE’en on the vexed question of monc”,rnMrs. Paterson is sound as a bell. Inrn”Wh’ Real Money is Indispensable,” sherncalls for a gold standard and denouncesrnfiat paper. Guided by her real-space theoryrnof property, Paterson explains thatrnthe dollar as a fixed weight of gold becomesrnreal property and is defined b arnreal, existing unit. In a lengthy footnote,rnshe proyides one of the best critiques ofrnthe Irving Fisher protomonetarist “commodityrndollar” ever written. Prefiguringrncurrent critiques of mathematical economics,rnshe notes that for mathematicsrnto apply, the unit must be fixed, whilernpaper money and monetarist schemesrncan only destroy the fixed unit of money.rnBut the outstanding chapter is “ThernHumanitarian with the Guillotine,”rnwhich in m- view constitutes the finestrncritique of compulsory charity and thernwelfare state e’er written: here Mrs. Patersonrndelineates the crucial differencernbetween compulsory charity and charityrnas voluntary action generally conductedrnby churches. Voluntar’ charity was necessarilyrnsecondary to production, and,rnbeing conducted h churches, was notrnengaged in as a profitable career by thernpeople exercising and channeling charity.rnBy contrast, modern “humanitarianism”rnis different, since the “primar}’rnobjective” of the humanitarian, “his justificationrnfor living . . . his ultimate goodrnrequires that others shall be in want Ifrnhe v’ishes to help ‘humanity,’ the wholernof humanity must be in need.” “The humanitarian,”rnMrs. Paterson continues,rn”wishes to be a prime mover in the livesrnof others. He cannot admit cither therndiyine or the natural order, by whichrnmen have the power to help themselves.rn34/CHRONICLESrnrnrn