Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902 | View Entire Issue (July 6, 1899)
10 'Che Conservative * igiiorauco hna built up about it. It has been said that socialism began when Mr. Robinson permitted Mr. Friday to live aiid oiijoy life with him. In 0110 souse of the word it was a sort of com- muuism. They both shared equally iu the products of the island. But this communistic equality did not last long uninterrupted. Those anarchists , the savages , rudely disturbed it. The greater self-protecting might of Mr. Robinson soon showed his superiority. Where was the natural equality ? The s.vvages would soon have made soup- meat of Mr. Friday. Mr. Robinson's superior ability was of life-saving value to Mr. Friday. Mr.Friday's companion ship was , in a certain sense , a lifesaving ing necessity to Mr. Robinson. "Were it not so we may bo sure Mr. Robinson would have sacrificed Mr. Friday. The necessity of self-preservation knows no law ( so far as others are concerned ) when it comes to the question of life or death. The story of Robinson Cru and his "Man " in this see Friday , emer gency , illustrates very well the true selections of the men of business ability and those who have simply ordinary working ability. Both are valuable to each other. Both should intelligently play each other's game. Both are de pendent on each other for self-preser vation. Only ignorance causes misun derstandings. Iu this respect the em ployer is often as ignorant and more often more pig-headed than the em ployee. The criminal of criminals js the agitator who seeks to incite one class against another. But to the ques tion of rights. All rights find their ori gin in the individual necessity to live. Every law , every social institution , finds its origin in the same all-pervad ing force. Socialism , then , is the union of men for their individual preservation. It is not a theory. Communism is something more. Communism de- mauds an absolute equality in reciprocal ability and mutual support in doing the same work , each then sharing equally in results. A business partnership in which each partner contributes an equal amount of capital , does an equal amount of work and shares equally in results is communistic. A trust maybe bo communistic. It may also be socialistic. It is socialistic when each partner contributes according to his ability and shares accordingly in results. Both socialism and communism , make no allowance for drones or inability. They are both based on the law of the fittest. They have no place for unfits. This is a truth modern "reformers" ( save the mark ) either utterly ignore or are ignorant of. Neither yields or ac knowledges any right to such as cannot "keep up with the procession ; " that is , play their part iu the game. Rights and Might. Rights then find their origin in the mutual necessity to live. Rights can not exist under isolated individual con ditions , as has been shown in the case of Mr. Robinson when alone on his island. Rights began when Mr. Friday entered on the scene. Rights were seriously in danger on the advent of the savages. They became again es tablished on their defeat and departure. Rights and socialism have the same ori gin. Rights are absolutely utilitarian in nature. No right is possible without the might to make it so. If A and B are to have the same rights they must have the same might. They must be equally useful to each other. Other wise they will be like an ill-mated pair of horses. The owner or driver , who may be a theoretic socialist , does not admit that they were born equal. He pets and holds back the one while he beats and blames the other. The same is true of man to man though the methods may bo different. It is true in our own families in spite of our selves. The parent encourages the useful child while the dolt , or weak ling , or mischievous tries all his patience. We are human even though we may strive to bo intelligently humane. Rights are the result of mut ual assent to the usefulness of one another in self-preservation. Men enter into social arrangements and form governments for individual preservation. Not one does it to save the other fellow. No business man enters into a copart nership to benefit his partner. Each partner expects the other to fulfill the conditions of the copartnership. Men do not take inability into copartnership in order that it may live. Governments were originally formed on the same basis. They have sadly departed from the ethical standard. Each man in a copartnership shares according to the ability he contributes to strengthen it. So it should be in the state. No such statement of this principle of the origin and nature of rights was ever formu lated into words as the enacting clause of the Constitution of the United States. This is why it is the most wonderful of all historic documents. It is abso lutely impossible to discuss the various phases of right in a series of short pa pers. Here it is intended to but call a few of the salient points to the attention of the readers of THE CONSERVATIVE. Before closing we must briefly discuss a much misunderstood question to which no better name can be applied than rights by concession. Many a reader has doubtless thought the writer a brute or savage from the emphasis that has been laid on might or ability as the basis of all rights. Many a reader who looks on the Declaration of Independence as a holy documeutsaucti- fled by the blood of the fathers , probably thinks the writer a heretic , an infidel and a traitor , forgetting that the revered author of that immortal document de clared it to be the guiding principle of his life "to follow truth ( liis ) and reason to whatever results they led and beard ing every authority which stands in their way. " The Right to Life. Rights by concession are not rights in the true sense. That impregnable con dition , or law , the survival of the fittest , allows of no right , not even to life , without the ability to maintain it. These so called inalienable rights of the De claration of Independence , the right to life , the right to liberty , and , that tee total absurdity , the right to pursue hap piness , are concessional rights to all that have not the individual ability to pursue and maintain them unaided. To return again to that assumed right that has been threshed to dust , the right to life. We concede the right to life only to such who so live as not to be crimi nally dangerous to society. In our great humanity wo concede it to thousands who are dangerous to or a burden on society ; consumptives , syphilitics , the insane. We say the murderer has "for feited his right to life. ' ' We are getting woefully tender-hearted in conces sions to the criminally and physi cally dangerous. But concede all we may we cannot give life to the con sumptive , health and happiness to the syphilitic , or reason to the insane. Ad mitted that an intelligent humanity could and can almost eradicate such evils and burdens still no sane person can admit that such have any rights to things be yond the possibility of individual attain ment. The very utmost that society can pos sibly do is to concede to its individual members the privilege of demonstrating their ability to show their right to live and bo members of it by supporting themselves and contributing to the sup port of these institutions which give them freedom to use all their abilities for themselves. Here is a great point men form combines and inaugurate gov ernments to better serve themselves , not others. As for chasing happiness , that man was created to be happy or that there is anything else for a man to debut but to live , if he can , and maintain those institutions which enable him to live , and look out for the responsibilities he has himself assumed , a greater piece of imbecility never was portrayed , even though it have Epicurus for a grandsire and Bentham as immediate progenitor. Man never organized governments to be happy or for ' 'the greatest happiness to the greatest number. " Man organ ized governments under the imperative necessity to live and nothing else. Man was not created even to live. He seeks to live because it is the inevitable necessity to live. Ho cannot help it except by suicide. While not born for anything , except as the accident of lust in most cases , man must live by broad alone , counting as bread all that is necessary to maintain life. Man was no more born to be happy than to be miserable. Un der normal conditions of mind man is
