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
