Therefore, what is true of the seven teachings here presented is true of Anarchistic teachings altogether. In their basis they have nothing in common, and are to be divided with respect to its differences as shown in the table on page 273. 3.--LAW I. In their relation to law--that is, to those norms which are based on men's will to have a certain procedure generally observed within a circle which includes themselves--the seven teachings here presented have nothing in common. 1. A part of them negate law for our future; these teachings may be called _anomistic_. The other part of them affirm it for our future; these teachings may be characterized as _nomistic_. Anomistic are the teachings of Godwin, Stirner, Tolstoi; nomistic those of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker. ====================================================== |_Genetic_ | _Critical Teachings_ | |_Teachings_| | | |----------------------------------------| | | _Idealistic_ | _Eudemonistic_ | | | |-----------------------| | | | Altruistic | Egoistic | |===========+================+============+==========| | Bakunin | Proudhon | Godwin | Stirner | | Kropotkin | Tolstoi | | Tucker | There cannot be given a more precise definition of what is common to the anomistic teachings on the one hand and to the nomistic on the other, and what is peculiar to the one group as against the other, than has here been given. For both the negation and the affirmation of law for our future have totally different meanings in the different teachings. The negation of law for our future means in the cases of Godwin and Stirner that they reject law unconditionally, and so for our future as well as everywhere else: Godwin because it is always and everywhere contrary to the general happiness, Stirner because it is always and everywhere contrary to the individual's happiness. In Tolstoi's case the meaning of the negation of law for our future is that he rejects law, though not unconditionally, yet for our future, because it is, though not at all times and in all places, yet under our circumstances, in a higher degree repugnant to love than its non-existence. The affirmation of law for our future means in the cases of Proudhon and Tucker that they approve law as such (though certainly not every particular form of law) unconditionally, and hence for our future as well as elsewhere: Proudhon because law as such never and nowhere offends against justice, Tucker because law as such never and nowhere impairs the individual's happiness.[1164]