The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902, July 06, 1899, Page 9, Image 9

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    Conservative *
had. They probably rose up iu up
roarious rebellion when Mr. Robiiisoii
appeared and threatened their previously
undisturbed monopoly. Mr. Eobiuson
possessing the superior might appropri
ated such portion of the island and such
goats and birds as he desired to his use.
Some say they wore made for him.
Others go so far as to assert that it was
predestined , from the beginning [ ( just
when and whore that was they do not
tell us ) that Mr. Robinson should find
that island and the goats and the birds
all ready for him , something as if some
kindly neighbor should take pity on
one's wants and leave a ready-made suit
of clothes on the door-stop : hence Mr.
Robinson had a natural right to that
island and all he found there. There
was no one "to jump his claim. " "He
was monarch of all he surveyed. " He
felt tolerably comfortable. It was a
beautiful island. There was abundance
of food. The presence of neighbors did
not force him to clad himself in the
leaves of tropical vegetation after the
manner of his traditional parents. Mod
esty was not a necessary virtue. He
had all his natural rights , there being no
one to dispute his omnipotence. But
one day he took a walk. He discovered
something. A foot-print in the sand
much disturbed his equanimity. He
felt some doubt as to his rights. He
felt more doubtful when he found Mr.
Friday. He seriously questioned
whether it was not necessary to kill Mr.
Friday. Mr. Robinson looked Mr. Fri
day over critically and came to the con
clusion that he was ' * a harmless kind of
a cuss. " He did not see any danger to
himself in Mr. Friday's presence. On
the contrary he saw some benefit to
himself. Goats , parrots and sea gulls
were rather lonesome company at the
best. Mr. Robinson , therefore , decided
to let Mr. Friday live. This may be
termed the right to live by concession.
Mr. Friday could not have been con
sulted in the matter. He had not had
time to acquire that modern accom
plishment , "pigeon-English. " But sup
pose he had looked dangerous , would
Mr. Robinson have respected the much-
vaunted "natural right to life ? " No
more than Americans have respected it
in the weaker red man. No more than
our government is respecting it in the
Filipino. Mr. Robinson conceded Mr.Fri-
day a right to live and enjoy his liberty
because he saw usefulness in him , be
cause he saw something self-maintaining
in him , even if but company , and felt
confident in his own might to not only
to maintain himself , but to make use of
Mr. Friday. He saw that he had ability
to make Mr. Friday "play his game , "
which is really the basis of social organ
ization. Mr. Friday probably appreci
ated that the best thing for him to do
was to play that game. Thus was
socialism begun on Juan Fernandez. A
sort of government was set up. It was
more a government of consent than one
of mutual assent. But a change camo.
This was a very peaceful government
until one fine day Mr. Robinson and Mr.
Friday awoke to a very disagreeable
fact , somewhat as the Filipinos did.
CrttHcio mul the Savages.
The savages came to dispute their
claim and endeavor to break up their
monopoly. Undoubtedly Mr. Robinson
and Mr. Friday felt some as the Filip
inos do. They must have said , "This is
our island. These goats , these birds ,
these fruits , all are ours. " Perhaps
they said , "God made them especially
for and gave them to us. They are
ours by the natural right of prior settle
ment. " Perhaps they had raised a
"bloody shirt , " or sheepskin , as a flag
and swore a big oath that "Our flag
shall never come down. " But the sav
ages , in their war-canoes , thought differ
ently. They probably said "This is a
mighty fine island with plenty of goats ,
birds and good fishing. These people
don't count. We can easily kill them
and make nice , delicious soup out of
them. They nre poor , weak things ,
while we are many. "
Thev did not count on the fact that
the one white man was mightier with
his big guns and dangerous explosives
than all their numbers armed with
primitive bows and arrows and fish
spears. They had a dispute and Mr.
Robinson and Mr. Friday , by their su
perior might , established their rights of
ownership. In what other way has
man ever established his right to any
thing except by his might ?
From the day that the first Anglo-
Briton landed on American soil to the
present has any other force than neces
sity backed by might established any
thing ? In all Nature might , and might
alone , prevails. The mightiest of all
mights is the moral might of self-control
to one's own maintenance. Whoever
heard of man's natural right to a moral
nature without the ethical might of
self-restraint ? Of one who has it not
we say , "Poor , weak fellow ; he has no
moral strength. " Nothing is more pit
iable than the weakling.
Everything is "Natural. "
Although it has been shown that in
Nature there is no such thing as right or
wrong , no such thing as perfect or im
perfect , still we are face to face with the
apparent paradox that there is such a
thing as a natural right and natural
wrong as there is nothing possible ,
thought , act or condition , which is not
natural. The possibility of the know
ledge as to what is right and what is
wrong distinguishes man from all other
natural productions. It is one of the
most striking peculiarities of man that
the so-called intelligent classes express
themselves most unintelligently on this
question. This is entirely due to wrong
education. They think traditionally
wrong and act instinctively right. In
this discussion the endeavor is made to
show them that they should think as
they act.
Nothing has been said hero that should
not be self-evident to men of thinking
minds. Unfortunately so despotic is
the power of traditionalism that few do
or can. In spite of traditionalism all
men act for themselves. All men fol
low the inevitable necessity of self-
preservation. Thousands deny this.
Thousands think that "they live for the
good of others. " No man does. No
man can. Even the scheme of tradi
tional past-mortal salvation is based on
that necessity. The most' 'self-sacrific
ing" saint lives to save the soul of the
sinner , feeds the hungry , nurses the
sick , in fond hope for the encomium
"Well done , good and faithful servant , "
in the life beyond. He who does not
first save himself can be of little or no
use in saving others. He who "makes
two blades of grass grow where only
one grew before" makes them , grow for
himself first. Ethics is personal. Mor
als are personal. Self-preservation is
the inevitable necessity. Every act of
man which threatens to weaken his
self-nreservincr micrht is immoral. Ev
ery act of man which conserves or tends
to conserve his self-maintaining might is
moral. There is no other wrong , no
other right. It is the distinguishing
glory of man that by his intelligence he
can differentiate between his dangerous
and beneficial acts. It is what distin
guishes the civilized from the uncivil
ized man. No man owes anything to
another for that other's sake. He may
owe everything to another for his
own sake. Man makes his own obliga
tions. Anything , any power , that im
poses an obligation on another is des
potic. These are conservatisms that
will go down very hard with the un
thinking many. Self-sacrifice is a false
egotism which no one practices. Whore-
ever or whenever a person lives a life of
complete sacrifice without one thought
or act of self-preservation , then and
there is an insane person. Men have
lived so insane with the idea of self-sac
rifice and future reward as to bring
themselves and their families to depen
dence on the town or on others. Those
who were beuefitted and some unthinking -
ing observers have called them "public
benefactors. " The general intelligence
brands them as "fools. " The court of
ten treat them as such and provide a
guardian. Be intelligently true to your
own best interests and you will be
equally so to others , the public and hu
manity.
The Origin and Nature of KightH.
The question is intricate because ig
norance has made it so. Truth is
always simple. Man admits this when
he says "the simple truth is so and so. "
There would be no difficulty in compre-
bending truth but for the error which