ft *
Conservative.
v ,
( lucing powers have fallen positively
below his necessary consumption ; who
cannot , therefore , pay his way. A hu
man society needs the active cooperation
tion and productive energy of every per
son in it. A man who is present as a
consumer , yet who does not contribute
cither by land , labor or capital to the
work of society is a burden. On no
sound political theory ought such a per
son to share in the political power of
the state. He drops out of the ranks of
workers and producers. Society nnist
support him. It accepts the bui ja
Init he must be cancelled from the p'-d
of the rulers likewise. Sojmuch forK ' f
'j-j- * * ' * 1-
\
+ -
pauper. About him no Jmoire near ft
T- < < ? e * vi
said. But he is not tliQ > { 'poor man. ' , , . .
The ( > poor man" is an elastic term , uri"-
der which any number of social 'fallacies
may be hidden.
Neither is there any possible definition
of "the weak. " Some are weak in one
way and some in
THE POOK
another ; and those
THE WEAK.
whQ ftre wenk in
one sense are strong in another. In
general , however , it may be said that
those whom humanitarians and philan
thropists call the weak are the ones
through whom the productive and con
servative forces of society are wasted.
They constantly neutralize and destroy
the finest efforts of the wise and indus
trious , and are a dead-weight on the
society in all its struggles to realize any
better things. Whether the people who
mean no harm , but are weak in the es
sential powers necessary to the perform
ance of one's duties in life , or those
who are malicious and vicious , do the
more mischief , is a question not easy to
answer.
Under the names of the poor and the
weak , the negligent , shiftless , inefficient ,
silly , and imprudent are fastened upon
the industrious and prudent as a responsi
bility and a duty. On the one side , the
terms are extended to cover the idle ,
intemperate , and vicious , who by the
combination , gain credit which they
do not deserve , and which they could
not get if they stood alone. On the
other hand , the terms are extended to
include wage-receivers of the humblest
rank , who are degraded by the combi
nation. The reader who desires to guard
himself against fallacies should always
scrutinize the terms "poor" and "weak"
as used , so as to see which or how many
of these classes they are made to cover.
The humanitarians , pliilanthropists ,
and reformers , looking at the facts of
life as they present
PHILANTHROPISTS.
themselvcs > fin(1
enough which is sad and unpromising
in the condition of many members
of society. They see wealth and
poverty side by side. They note
great inequality of social position
and social chances. They eagerly set
about the attempt to account for what
they see , and to devise schemes for rem
edying what they do not like. In their
.v ,
eagerness to recommend the less for
tunate classes to pity and consideration
they forget all about the rights of other
classes ; they gloss over all the faults of
the classes in question , and they exag
gerate their misfortunes and their vir
tues. They invent new theories of
property , distorting rights and perpe
trating injustice , as any one is sure to
ito who sets about the re-adjustment of
social relations with the interests of one
jroup distinctly before his mind , and
the interests of all the other groups
thrown into the background. "When I
have read certain of these discussions I
have thought that it must be quite dis
reputable to be respectable , qiiite dis
honest to own property , quite unjust to
go one's own way and earn one's own
living , and that the only really admir
able person was the good-for-nothing.
The man who by his own effort raises
himself above poverty appears , in these
discussions , to be of no account. The
man who has done nothing to raise him
self above poverty finds that the social
doctors flock about him , bringing the
capital which they have collected from
the other class , and promising him the
aid of the state to give him what the
other had to work for. In all these
schemes and projects the organized in
tervention of society through the state
is either planned or hoped for , and the
state is thus made to become the pro
tector and guardian of certain classes.
The agents who are to direct the state
action are , of course , the reformers and
philanthropists. Their schemes , there
fore , may always be reduced to this
type that A and B decide what C shall
do for D. It will bo interesting to in
quire , at a later period of our discus
sion , who C is , and what the effect is
upon him of all these arrangements. In
all the discussions attention is concen
trated on A and B , the noble social re.
formers , and on D , the "poor man. " I
call C the Forgotten Man , because I
have never seen that any notice was
taken of him in any of the discussions.
When we have disposed of A , B , and
D we can better appreciate the case of
C , and I think that we shall find that
he deserves our attention , for the worth
of his character and the magnitude of
his unmerited burdens. Here it may
suffice to observe
POVERTY THE
Qu
BEST POLICY. .
O1.es of thJ
philosophers to whom I have referred ,
we should get a new maxim of judicious
living : Poverty is the best policy. If
you got wealth , you will have to sup
port other people ; if you do not get
wealth , it will bo the duty of other people
ple to support you.
No doubt one chief reason for the
unclear and contradictory theories of
class relations lies in the fact that our
society , largely controlled in all its or
ganization by one set of doctrines , still
contains survivals of old social theories
which are totally inconsistent with the
former. In the Middle Ages men were
united by custom and prescription into
associations , ranks , guilds , and com
munities of various kinds. These ties
K
endured as long as life lasted. Consequently
quently society was dependent , through
out all its details , on status , and the tie ,
or bond , was sentimental. In our mod-
rn state , and in the United States more
than anywhere else , the social structure
is based on contract , and status is of the
least importance. Contract , however ,
is rational even rationalistic. It is
also realistic , cold , and matter-of-fact.
A contract relation is based on a suffic
ient reason , not on custom or prescrip
tion. It is not permanent. It endures
only so long as the reason for it endures.
In a state based on contract sentiment is
out of place in any public or common
affairs. It is relegated to the sphere of
private and personal relations , where it
depends not at all on class types , but on
personal acquaintance and personal
estimates. The sentimentalists among
us always seize upon the survivals of the
old order. They want to save them and
restore them. Much of the loose think
ing also which troubles us in our social
discussions arises from the fact that
men do not distinguish the elements of
status and of contract which may be
found in out society.
Whether social philosophers think it
desirable or not , it is out of the question
to go back to status or to the sentimen
tal relations which once united baron
and retainer , master and servant ,
teacher and pupil , comrade and comrade.
That we have lost some grace and ele
gance is undeniable. That life once
held more poetry and romance is true
enough. But it. seems impossible that
anyone who has studied the matter
should doubt that we have gained im
measurably , and that our farther gains
lie in going forward , not in going back
ward. The feudal ties can never be
restored. If they could bo restored
they would bring back personal caprice ,
favoritism , sycophancy , and intrigue.
A society based on
SOCIETY BASKI )
contract is a society
ON CONTRACT.
ciety of free and
independent men , who form ties with
out favor or obligation , and co-operate
without cringing or intrigue. A society
based on contract , therefore , gives the
utmost room and chance for individual
development , and for all the self-reliance
and dignity of a free man. That a
society of free men , co-operating under
contract , is by far the strongest society
which has over yet existed ; that no such
society has over yet developed the full
measure of strength of which it is cap
able ; and that the only social improve
ments which are now conceivable lie in
the direction of more complete realization
of a society of free men united by con
tract , are points which cannot be con
troverted. It follows , however , that one
man , in a free state , cannot claim help