Conservative.
OX A NKW PHILOSOPHY : THAT
POYKHTY IS TJIK 1JKST POLICY.
HV WILLIAM ( JHAIIAM SUM.NKIt.
It is coiuinonly asserted that there are
in the United States no classes , and any
allusion to classes is resented. On the
other hand , we constantly read and hear
discussions of social topics in which the
existence of social classes is assumed as
a simple fact. "The poor , " "the weak , "
"the laborers , " are expressions which
are used as if they had exact and well
understood definition. Discussions are
made to bear upon the assumed rights ,
wrongs , and misfortunes of certain
social classes ; and all public speaking
and writing consists , in a large measure ,
of the discussion of general plans for
meeting the wishes of classes of people
who have not. been able to satisfy their
own desires. These classes are some
times discontented , and sometimes not.
Sometimes they do not know that any
thing is amiss with them until the
"friends of humanity" come to them
with offers of aid. Sometimes they are
discontented and envious. They do not
take their achievements as a fair meas
ure of their rights. They do not blame
themselves or their parents for their lot ,
as compared with that of other people.
Sometinu's they claim that they have a
right to everything of which they feel
the need for their happiness on earth.
To make such a claim against God or
Nature would , of course , be only to say
that we claim a right to live on earth if
we can. But God and Nature have or
dained the chances and conditions of
life on earth once for all. The case can
not be ro-opened. Wo cannot get a
revision of the laws of human life. We
are absolutely shut up to the nei'rt and
duty , if we would learn how to live
happily , of investigating the laws of
Nature , and deducing the rules of right
living in the world as it is. These are
very wearisome and commonplace tasks.
They consist in labor and self-denial
repeated over and over again in learning
and doing. When the people whoso
claims we are considering are told to
apply themselves to the.su tasks they become -
como irritated and feel almost insulted.
They formulate their claims as rights
against society that is , against some
other men. In their view they have a
right , not only to ) > urxiu > happiness , butte
to yet it ; and if they fail to get it , they
think they have a claim to the aid of
other men that is , to the labor and self-
denial of other men to get it for them.
They find orators and poets who toll
them that they have grievances , so long
as they have unsatisfied desires.
Now , if there are groups of people who
have ti claim to other people's labor and
self-denial , and
( moups
< if there are other
people whose labor and self-denial are
liable to bo claimed by the first groups ,
then there certainly are "classes , " and
classes of the oldest and most vicious
typo. For a man who can command
another man's labor and self-denial for
the support of his own existence is a
privileged person of the highest species
conceivable on earth. Princes and pau
pers meet on this plane and no other
men are on it at all. On the other hand ,
a man whoso labor and self-denial maybe
bo diverted from his maintenance to
that of some other man is not a free
man , and approaches more or less
toward the position of a slave. There
fore we shall find that , in all the notions
which wo are to discuss , this elementary
contradiction , that there are classes and
that there are not classes , will produce
repeated confusion and absurdity. We
'
shall find that , in our efforts to eliminate -
nato the old vices of class government ,
we are impeded and defeated by new
products of the worst class theory. We
shall find that all the schemes for pro
ducing equality and obliterating the or
ganization , of society produce a new dif
ferentiation based on the worst possible
distinction the right to claim and the
duty to give one man's effort for another
man's satisfaction. We shall find that
every effort to realize equality necessi
tates a sacrifice of liberty.
It is very popular to pose as a "friend
of humanity , " or a "friend of the work
ing classes. " The
THE FKiENi ) OF character , howev
H UMA NIT Y. or , is quite exotic in
the United States.
It is borrowed from England , where some
men , otherwise of small account , have
assumed it with great success and ad
vantage. Anything which has a chari
table sound and a kind-hearted tone gen
erally passes without investigation , be
cause it is disagreeable to assail it.
Sermons , essays , and orations assume a
conventional standpoint with regard to
the poor , the weak , etc. ; and it is al
lowed to pass as an unquestioned doc
trine in regard to social classes that
"tho rich" ought to "care for the poor ; "
that churches especially ought to collect
capital from the rich and spend it for
the poor ; that parishes ought to bo clus
ters of institutions by means of which
one social class should perform its
duties to another ; and that clergymen ,
economists , and social philosophers have
a technical and professional duty to
devise schemes for "helping the poor. "
The preaching in England used all to be
done to the poor that they ought to
bo contented with their lot and respect
ful to their bettors. Now , the greatest
part of the preaching in America con
sists in injunctions to those who have
taken care of themselves to perform
their assumed duty to take care of
others. Whatever may bo one's private
sentiments , the fear of appearing cold
and hard-hearted causes these conven
tional theories of social duty and these
assumptions of social fact to pass un
challenged.
Let us notice some distinctions which
are of prime importance to a correct
consideration of the subject which wo
intend to treat.
Certain ills belong to the hardships of
human lifo. They are natural. They
are part of the struggle with Nature for
existence. We cannot blame our fellowmen
low-men for our share of these. My
neighbor and I are both struggling to
free ourselves from those ills. The fact
that my neighbor has succeeded in this
struggle bettor than I constitutes no
grievance for me. Certain other ills a 3
due to the malice of men , and to the
imperfections or errors of civil institu
tions. These ills are an object of agita-
tiottj and a subject of discussion. The
former class of ills is to bo met only by
manly effort and energy ; the latter maybe
corrected by associated effort. The
former class of ills is constantly grouped
and generalized , and made the object of
social schemes. Wo shall see , as we go
on , what that means. The second class
of ills may fall on certain social classes ,
and reform will take the form of interfer *
ence by other classes in favor of that
one. The last fact is , no doubt , the
reason why people have been led , not
noticing distinctions , to believe that the
same method was applicable to the
other class of ills. The distinction here
made between the ills which belong to
the struggle for existence and those
which are duo to the faults of human
institutions is of prime importance.
It will also bo important , in order to
clear up our ideas about the notions
which 'are in fash-
KEKOltX NATUUB
{
BY LEGISLATION.
Qf
nomic to the political significance of
assumed duties of one class to another.
That is to say , we may discuss the ques
tion whether one class owes duties to
another by reference to the economic
effects which will be produced on the
classes and society ; or we may discuss
the political expediency of formulating
and enforcing rights and duties respec
tively between the parties. In the
former case we might assume that the
givers of aid were willing to give it , and
wo might discuss the benefit or mischief
of their activity. In the other case we
must assume that some at least of those
who were forced to give aid did so un
willingly. Here , then , there would be
a question of rights. The question
whether voluntary charity is mischiev
ous or not is one thing ; the question
whether legislation which forces one
man. to aid another is right and wise , as
well as economically beneficial , is quite
another question. Great confusion and
conseqiient error are produced by allow
ing these two questions to become en
tangled in the discussion. Especially
wo shall need to notice the attempts to
apply legislative methods of reform to
the ills which belong to the order of
nature.
There is no possible definition of a
"a poor man. " A pauper is a person
who cannot earn his living ; whose pro-
