diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 18603-8.txt | 3466 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 18603-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 76065 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 18603-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 80202 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 18603-h/18603-h.htm | 3693 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 18603.txt | 3466 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 18603.zip | bin | 0 -> 76032 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
9 files changed, 10641 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/18603-8.txt b/18603-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a09289d --- /dev/null +++ b/18603-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3466 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, by +William Graham Sumner + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: What Social Classes Owe to Each Other + +Author: William Graham Sumner + +Release Date: June 16, 2006 [EBook #18603] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE *** + + + + +Produced by Jeff G., Jeannie Howse and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + * * * * * + + +------------------------------------------------------------+ + | Transcriber's Note: | + | | + | The original from which this text is transcribed uses an | + | unusual capitalization style which has been faithfully | + | reproduced. | + | | + | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected in this | + | text. For a complete list, please see the bottom of this | + | document. | + | | + | With no copyright notice, the 1951 intro falls under Rule | + | 5, and is therefore public domain. | + | | + +------------------------------------------------------------+ + + * * * * * + + + + +WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES +OWE TO EACH OTHER + + + +By +WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER + + + + +First published by Harper & Brothers, 1883 + + + + +CONTENTS + + +CHAPTER PAGE + FOREWORD 5 + + INTRODUCTION 7 + + I. ON A NEW PHILOSOPHY: THAT POVERTY IS THE BEST POLICY 13 + + II. THAT A FREE MAN IS A SOVEREIGN, BUT THAT A SOVEREIGN + CANNOT TAKE "TIPS" 25 + + III. THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICH: NAY, EVEN, THAT IT + IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICHER THAN ONE'S NEIGHBOR 38 + + IV. ON THE REASONS WHY MAN IS NOT ALTOGETHER A BRUTE 51 + + V. THAT WE MUST HAVE FEW MEN, IF WE WANT STRONG MEN 63 + + VI. THAT HE WHO WOULD BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF MUST TAKE + CARE OF HIMSELF 71 + + VII. CONCERNING SOME OLD FOES UNDER NEW FACES 88 + +VIII. ON THE VALUE, AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE, OF THE + RULE TO MIND ONE'S OWN BUSINESS 97 + + IX. ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF 107 + + X. THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN MAN FARTHER CONSIDERED 116 + + XI. WHEREFORE WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER 132 + + + + +FOREWORD + + +Written more than fifty years ago--in 1883--WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE +TO EACH OTHER is even more pertinent today than at the time of its +first publication. Then the arguments and "movements" for penalizing +the thrifty, energetic, and competent by placing upon them more and +more of the burdens of the thriftless, lazy and incompetent, were just +beginning to make headway in our country, wherein these "social +reforms" now all but dominate political and so-called "social" +thinking. + +Among the great nations of the world today, only the United States of +America champions the rights of the individual as against the state and +organized pressure groups, and our faith has been dangerously +weakened--watered down by a blind and essentially false and cruel +sentimentalism. + +In "Social Classes" Sumner defined and emphasized the basically +important role in our social and economic development played by "The +Forgotten Man." The misappropriation of this title and its application +to a character the exact opposite of the one for whom Sumner invented +the phrase is, unfortunately, but typical of the perversion of words +and phrases indulged in by our present-day "liberals" in their attempt +to further their revolution by diverting the loyalties of +individualists to collectivist theories and beliefs. + +How often have you said: "If only someone had the vision to see and the +courage and ability to state the truth about these false theories which +today are attracting our youth and confusing well-meaning people +everywhere!" Well, here is the answer to your prayer--the everlasting +truth upon the greatest of issues in social science stated for you by +the master of them all in this field. If this edition calls this great +work to the attention of any of you for the first time, that alone will +amply justify its republication. To those of you who have read it +before, we commend it anew as the most up-to-date and best discussion +you can find anywhere of the most important questions of these critical +days. + + --WILLIAM C. MULLENDORE + +Los Angeles, California +November 15, 1951 + + + + +WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE TO EACH OTHER + +INTRODUCTION + + +We are told every day that great social problems stand before us and +demand a solution, and we are assailed by oracles, threats, and +warnings in reference to those problems. There is a school of writers +who are playing quite a _rôle_ as the heralds of the coming duty and +the coming woe. They assume to speak for a large, but vague and +undefined, constituency, who set the task, exact a fulfillment, and +threaten punishment for default. The task or problem is not +specifically defined. Part of the task which devolves on those who are +subject to the duty is to define the problem. They are told only that +something is the matter: that it behooves them to find out what it is, +and how to correct it, and then to work out the cure. All this is more +or less truculently set forth. + +After reading and listening to a great deal of this sort of assertion I +find that the question forms itself with more and more distinctness in +my mind: Who are those who assume to put hard questions to other +people and to demand a solution of them? How did they acquire the right +to demand that others should solve their world-problems for them? Who +are they who are held to consider and solve all questions, and how did +they fall under this duty? + +So far as I can find out what the classes are who are respectively +endowed with the rights and duties of posing and solving social +problems, they are as follows: Those who are bound to solve the +problems are the rich, comfortable, prosperous, virtuous, respectable, +educated, and healthy; those whose right it is to set the problems are +those who have been less fortunate or less successful in the struggle +for existence. The problem itself seems to be, How shall the latter be +made as comfortable as the former? To solve this problem, and make us +all equally well off, is assumed to be the duty of the former class; +the penalty, if they fail of this, is to be bloodshed and destruction. +If they cannot make everybody else as well off as themselves, they are +to be brought down to the same misery as others. + +During the last ten years I have read a great many books and articles, +especially by German writers, in which an attempt has been made to set +up "the State" as an entity having conscience, power, and will +sublimated above human limitations, and as constituting a tutelary +genius over us all. I have never been able to find in history or +experience anything to fit this concept. I once lived in Germany for +two years, but I certainly saw nothing of it there then. Whether the +State which Bismarck is moulding will fit the notion is at best a +matter of faith and hope. My notion of the State has dwindled with +growing experience of life. As an abstraction, the State is to me only +All-of-us. In practice--that is, when it exercises will or adopts a +line of action--it is only a little group of men chosen in a very +haphazard way by the majority of us to perform certain services for all +of us. The majority do not go about their selection very rationally, +and they are almost always disappointed by the results of their own +operation. Hence "the State," instead of offering resources of wisdom, +right reason, and pure moral sense beyond what the average of us +possess, generally offers much less of all those things. Furthermore, +it often turns out in practice that "the State" is not even the known +and accredited servants of the State, but, as has been well said, is +only some obscure clerk, hidden in the recesses of a Government bureau, +into whose power the chance has fallen for the moment to pull one of +the stops which control the Government machine. In former days it often +happened that "The State" was a barber, a fiddler, or a bad woman. In +our day it often happens that "the State" is a little functionary on +whom a big functionary is forced to depend. + +I cannot see the sense of spending time to read and write observations, +such as I find in the writings of many men of great attainments and of +great influence, of which the following might be a general type: If the +statesmen could attain to the requisite knowledge and wisdom, it is +conceivable that the State might perform important regulative functions +in the production and distribution of wealth, against which no positive +and sweeping theoretical objection could be made from the side of +economic science; but statesmen never can acquire the requisite +knowledge and wisdom.--To me this seems a mere waste of words. The +inadequacy of the State to regulative tasks is agreed upon, as a matter +of fact, by all. Why, then, bring State regulation into the discussion +simply in order to throw it out again? The whole subject ought to be +discussed and settled aside from the hypothesis of State regulation. + +The little group of public servants who, as I have said, constitute the +State, when the State determines on anything, could not do much for +themselves or anybody else by their own force. If they do anything, +they must dispose of men, as in an army, or of capital, as in a +treasury. But the army, or police, or _posse comitatus_, is more or +less All-of-us, and the capital in the treasury is the product of the +labor and saving of All-of-us. Therefore, when the State means +power-to-do it means All-of-us, as brute force or as industrial force. + +If anybody is to benefit from the action of the State it must be +Some-of-us. If, then, the question is raised, What ought the State to +do for labor, for trade, for manufactures, for the poor, for the +learned professions? etc., etc.--that is, for a class or an +interest--it is really the question, What ought All-of-us to do for +Some-of-us? But Some-of-us are included in All-of-us, and, so far as +they get the benefit of their own efforts, it is the same as if they +worked for themselves, and they may be cancelled out of All-of-us. Then +the question which remains is, What ought Some-of-us to do for +Others-of-us? or, What do social classes owe to each other? + +I now propose to try to find out whether there is any class in society +which lies under the duty and burden of fighting the battles of life +for any other class, or of solving social problems for the satisfaction +of any other class; also, whether there is any class which has the +right to formulate demands on "society"--that is, on other classes; +also, whether there is anything but a fallacy and a superstition in the +notion that "the State" owes anything to anybody except peace, order, +and the guarantees of rights. + +I have in view, throughout the discussion, the economic, social, and +political circumstances which exist in the United States. + + + + +I. + +_ON A NEW PHILOSOPHY: THAT POVERTY IS THE BEST POLICY._ + + +It is commonly 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 sometimes discontented, and sometimes not. Sometimes +they do not know that anything 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 +measure of their rights. They do not blame themselves or their parents +for their lot, as compared with that of other people. Sometimes 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 and +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 ordained the chances and +conditions of life on earth once for all. The case cannot be reopened. +We cannot get a revision of the laws of human life. We are absolutely +shut up to the need 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 whose claims we are +considering are told to apply themselves to these tasks they become +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 _pursue_ happiness, but to _get_ 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 tell them that they have +grievances, so long as they have unsatisfied desires. + +Now, if there are groups of people who have a claim to other people's +labor and self-denial, and if there are other people whose labor and +self-denial are liable to be claimed by the first groups, then there +certainly are "classes," and classes of the oldest and most vicious +type. 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 paupers meet on this plane, +and no other men are on it all. On the other hand, a man whose labor +and self-denial may be 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. Therefore we shall find that, in all the notions +which we 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 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 +producing equality and obliterating the organization of society produce +a new differentiation 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 +necessitates a sacrifice of liberty. + +It is very popular to pose as a "friend of humanity," or a "friend of +the working classes." The character, however, 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 advantage. +Anything which has a charitable sound and a kind-hearted tone generally +passes without investigation, because 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 allowed to pass as an +unquestioned doctrine in regard to social classes that "the 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 +be clusters 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 be contented with their lot and +respectful to their betters. Now, the greatest part of the preaching in +America consists in injunctions to those who have taken care of +themselves to perform their assumed duty to take care of others. +Whatever may be one's private sentiments, the fear of appearing cold +and hard-hearted causes these conventional theories of social duty and +these assumptions of social fact to pass unchallenged. + +Let us notice some distinctions which are of prime importance to a +correct consideration of the subject which we intend to treat. + +Certain ills belong to the hardships of human life. They are natural. +They are part of the struggle with Nature for existence. We cannot +blame our fellow-men for our share of these. My neighbor and I are both +struggling to free ourselves from these ills. The fact that my neighbor +has succeeded in this struggle better than I constitutes no grievance +for me. Certain other ills are due to the malice of men, and to the +imperfections or errors of civil institutions. These ills are an object +of agitation, and a subject for discussion. The former class of ills is +to be met only by manly effort and energy; the latter may be corrected +by associated effort. The former class of ills is constantly grouped +and generalized, and made the object of social schemes. We 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 interference +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 due to the faults of human institutions +is of prime importance. + +It will also be important, in order to clear up our ideas about the +notions which are in fashion, to note the relation of the economic to +the political significance of assumed duties of one class to another. +That is to say, we may discuss the question 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 respectively +between the parties. In the former case we might assume that the givers +of aid were willing to give it, and we 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 unwillingly. Here, +then, there would be a question of rights. The question whether +voluntary charity is mischievous 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 consequent error is produced by allowing these two +questions to become entangled in the discussion. Especially we 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 poor man." A pauper is a person +who cannot earn his living; whose producing powers have fallen +positively below his necessary consumption; who cannot, therefore, pay +his way. A human society needs the active co-operation and productive +energy of every person in it. A man who is present as a consumer, yet +who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work +of society, is a burden. On no sound political theory ought such a +person to share in the political power of the State. He drops out of +the ranks of workers and producers. Society must support him. It +accepts the burden, but he must be cancelled from the ranks of the +rulers likewise. So much for the pauper. About him no more need be +said. But he is not the "poor man." The "poor man" is an elastic term, +under 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 another; and those who are weak in one sense +are strong in another. In general, however, it may be said that those +whom humanitarians and philanthropists call the weak are the ones +through whom the productive and conservative forces of society are +wasted. They constantly neutralize and destroy the finest efforts of +the wise and industrious, 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 essential powers necessary to the +performance 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 responsibility 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 combination. 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, philanthropists, and reformers, looking at the facts +of life as they present themselves, find 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 remedying what +they do not like. In their eagerness to recommend the less fortunate +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 exaggerate their misfortunes and their virtues. They +invent new theories of property, distorting rights and perpetuating +injustice, as anyone is sure to do who sets about the readjustment of +social relations with the interests of one group distinctly before his +mind, and the interests of all other groups thrown into the background. +When I have read certain of these discussions I have thought that it +must be quite disreputable to be respectable, quite dishonest to own +property, quite unjust to go one's own way and earn one's own living, +and that the only really admirable 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 himself 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 +intervention of society through the State is either planned or hoped +for, and the State is thus made to become the protector and guardian of +certain classes. The agents who are to direct the State action are, of +course, the reformers and philanthropists. Their schemes, therefore, +may always be reduced to this type--that A and B decide what C shall +do for D. It will be interesting to inquire, at a later period of our +discussion, who C is, and what the effect is upon him of all these +arrangements. In all the discussions attention is concentrated on A and +B, the noble social reformers, 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 +that, on the theories of the social philosophers to whom I have +referred, we should get a new maxim of judicious living: Poverty is the +best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; +if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people 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 organization 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 communities of +various kinds. These ties endured as long as life lasted. Consequently +society was dependent, throughout all its details, on status, and the +tie, or bond, was sentimental. In our modern 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 sufficient reason, +not on custom or prescription. 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 thinking 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 our society. + +Whether social philosophers think it desirable or not, it is out of the +question to go back to status or to the sentimental relations which +once united baron and retainer, master and servant, teacher and pupil, +comrade and comrade. That we have lost some grace and elegance is +undeniable. That life once held more poetry and romance is true +enough. But it seems impossible that any one who has studied the matter +should doubt that we have gained immeasurably, and that our farther +gains lie in going forward, not in going backward. The feudal ties can +never be restored. If they could be restored they would bring back +personal caprice, favoritism, sycophancy, and intrigue. A society based +on contract is a society of free and independent men, who form ties +without 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 ever yet +existed; that no such society has ever yet developed the full measure +of strength of which it is capable; and that the only social +improvements which are now conceivable lie in the direction of more +complete realization of a society of free men united by contract, are +points which cannot be controverted. It follows, however, that one man, +in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give +help to, another. To understand the full meaning of this assertion it +will be worth while to see what a free democracy is. + + + + +II. + +_THAT A FREE MAN IS A SOVEREIGN, BUT THAT A SOVEREIGN CANNOT TAKE +"TIPS."_ + + +A free man, a free country, liberty, and equality are terms of constant +use among us. They are employed as watchwords as soon as any social +questions come into discussion. It is right that they should be so +used. They ought to contain the broadest convictions and most positive +faiths of the nation, and so they ought to be available for the +decision of questions of detail. + +In order, however, that they may be so employed successfully and +correctly it is essential that the terms should be correctly defined, +and that their popular use should conform to correct definitions. No +doubt it is generally believed that the terms are easily understood, +and present no difficulty. Probably the popular notion is, that liberty +means doing as one has a mind to, and that it is a metaphysical or +sentimental good. A little observation shows that there is no such +thing in this world as doing as one has a mind to. There is no man, +from the tramp up to the President, the Pope, or the Czar, who can do +as he has a mind to. There never has been any man, from the primitive +barbarian up to a Humboldt or a Darwin, who could do as he had a mind +to. The "Bohemian" who determines to realize some sort of liberty of +this kind accomplishes his purpose only by sacrificing most of the +rights and turning his back on most of the duties of a civilized man, +while filching as much as he can of the advantages of living in a +civilized state. Moreover, liberty is not a metaphysical or sentimental +thing at all. It is positive, practical, and actual. It is produced and +maintained by law and institutions, and is, therefore, concrete and +historical. Sometimes we speak distinctively of civil liberty; but if +there be any liberty other than civil liberty--that is, liberty under +law--it is a mere fiction of the schoolmen, which they may be left to +discuss. + +Even as I write, however, I find in a leading review the following +definition of liberty: Civil liberty is "the result of the restraint +exercised by the sovereign people on the more powerful individuals and +classes of the community, preventing them from availing themselves of +the excess of their power to the detriment of the other classes." This +definition lays the foundation for the result which it is apparently +desired to reach, that "a government by the people can in no case +become a paternal government, since its law-makers are its mandatories +and servants carrying out its will, and not its fathers or its +masters." Here we have the most mischievous fallacy under the general +topic which I am discussing distinctly formulated. In the definition of +liberty it will be noticed that liberty is construed as the act of the +sovereign people against somebody who must, of course, be +differentiated from the sovereign people. Whenever "people" is used in +this sense for anything less than the total population, man, woman, +child, and baby, and whenever the great dogmas which contain the word +"people" are construed under the limited definition of "people," there +is always fallacy. + +History is only a tiresome repetition of one story. Persons and classes +have sought to win possession of the power of the State in order to +live luxuriously out of the earnings of others. Autocracies, +aristocracies, theocracies, and all other organizations for holding +political power, have exhibited only the same line of action. It is the +extreme of political error to say that if political power is only taken +away from generals, nobles, priests, millionaires, and scholars, and +given to artisans and peasants, these latter may be trusted to do only +right and justice, and never to abuse the power; that they will repress +all excess in others, and commit none themselves. They will commit +abuse, if they can and dare, just as others have done. The reason for +the excesses of the old governing classes lies in the vices and +passions of human nature--cupidity, lust, vindictiveness, ambition, and +vanity. These vices are confined to no nation, class, or age. They +appear in the church, the academy, the workshop, and the hovel, as +well as in the army or the palace. They have appeared in autocracies, +aristocracies, theocracies, democracies, and ochlocracies, all alike. +The only thing which has ever restrained these vices of human nature in +those who had political power is law sustained by impersonal +institutions. If political power be given to the masses who have not +hitherto had it, nothing will stop them from abusing it but laws and +institutions. To say that a popular government cannot be paternal is to +give it a charter that it can do no wrong. The trouble is that a +democratic government is in greater danger than any other of becoming +paternal, for it is sure of itself, and ready to undertake anything, +and its power is excessive and pitiless against dissentients. + +What history shows is, that rights are safe only when guaranteed +against all arbitrary power, and all class and personal interest. +Around an autocrat there has grown up an oligarchy of priests and +soldiers. In time a class of nobles has been developed, who have broken +into the oligarchy and made an aristocracy. Later the _demos_, rising +into an independent development, has assumed power and made a +democracy. Then the mob of a capital city has overwhelmed the democracy +in an ochlocracy. Then the "idol of the people," or the military +"savior of society," or both in one, has made himself autocrat, and +the same old vicious round has recommenced. Where in all this is +liberty? There has been no liberty at all, save where a state has known +how to break out, once for all, from this delusive round; to set +barriers to selfishness, cupidity, envy, and lust, in _all_ classes, +from highest to lowest, by laws and institutions; and to create great +organs of civil life which can eliminate, as far as possible, arbitrary +and personal elements from the adjustment of interests and the +definition of rights. Liberty is an affair of laws and institutions +which bring rights and duties into equilibrium. It is not at all an +affair of selecting the proper class to rule. + +The notion of a free state is entirely modern. It has been developed +with the development of the middle class, and with the growth of a +commercial and industrial civilization. Horror at human slavery is not +a century old as a common sentiment in a civilized state. The idea of +the "free man," as we understand it, is the product of a revolt against +mediaeval and feudal ideas; and our notion of equality, when it is true +and practical, can be explained only by that revolt. It was in England +that the modern idea found birth. It has been strengthened by the +industrial and commercial development of that country. It has been +inherited by all the English-speaking nations, who have made liberty +real because they have inherited it, not as a notion, but as a body of +institutions. It has been borrowed and imitated by the military and +police state of the European continent so fast as they have felt the +influence of the expanding industrial civilization; but they have +realized it only imperfectly, because they have no body of local +institutions or traditions, and it remains for them as yet too much a +matter of "declarations" and pronunciamentos. + +The notion of civil liberty which we have inherited is that of _a +status created for the individual by laws and institutions, the effect +of which is that each man is guaranteed the use of all his own powers +exclusively for his own welfare_. It is not at all a matter of +elections, or universal suffrage, or democracy. All institutions are to +be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty. It is not to +be admitted for a moment that liberty is a means to social ends, and +that it may be impaired for major considerations. Any one who so argues +has lost the bearing and relation of all the facts and factors in a +free state. A human being has a life to live, a career to run. He is a +centre of powers to work, and of capacities to suffer. What his powers +may be--whether they can carry him far or not; what his chances may be, +whether wide or restricted; what his fortune may be, whether to suffer +much or little--are questions of his personal destiny which he must +work out and endure as he can; but for all that concerns the bearing +of the society and its institutions upon that man, and upon the sum of +happiness to which he can attain during his life on earth, the product +of all history and all philosophy up to this time is summed up in the +doctrine, that he should be left free to do the most for himself that +he can, and should be guaranteed the exclusive enjoyment of all that he +does. If the society--that is to say, in plain terms, if his +fellow-men, either individually, by groups, or in a mass--impinge upon +him otherwise than to surround him with neutral conditions of security, +they must do so under the strictest responsibility to justify +themselves. Jealousy and prejudice against all such interferences are +high political virtues in a free man. It is not at all the function of +the State to make men happy. They must make themselves happy in their +own way, and at their own risk. The functions of the State lie entirely +in the conditions or chances under which the pursuit of happiness is +carried on, so far as those conditions or chances can be affected by +civil organization. Hence, liberty for labor and security for earnings +are the ends for which civil institutions exist, not means which may be +employed for ulterior ends. + +Now, the cardinal doctrine of any sound political system is, that +rights and duties should be in equilibrium. A monarchical or +aristocratic system is not immoral, if the rights and duties of persons +and classes are in equilibrium, although the rights and duties of +different persons and classes are unequal. An immoral political system +is created whenever there are privileged classes--that is, classes who +have arrogated to themselves rights while throwing the duties upon +others. In a democracy all have equal political rights. That is the +fundamental political principle. A democracy, then, becomes immoral, if +all have not equal political duties. This is unquestionably the +doctrine which needs to be reiterated and inculcated beyond all others, +if the democracy is to be made sound and permanent. Our orators and +writers never speak of it, and do not seem often to know anything about +it; but the real danger of democracy is, that the classes which have +the power under it will assume all the rights and reject all the +duties--that is, that they will use the political power to plunder +those-who-have. Democracy, in order to be true to itself, and to +develop into a sound working system, must oppose the same cold +resistance to any claims for favor on the ground of poverty, as on the +ground of birth and rank. It can no more admit to public discussion, as +within the range of possible action, any schemes for coddling and +helping wage-receivers than it could entertain schemes for restricting +political power to wage-payers. It must put down schemes for making +"the rich" pay for whatever "the poor" want, just as it tramples on the +old theories that only the rich are fit to regulate society. One needs +but to watch our periodical literature to see the danger that democracy +will be construed as a system of favoring a new privileged class of the +many and the poor. + +Holding in mind, now, the notions of liberty and democracy as we have +defined them, we see that it is not altogether a matter of fanfaronade +when the American citizen calls himself a "sovereign." A member of a +free democracy is, in a sense, a sovereign. He has no superior. He has +reached his sovereignty, however, by a process of reduction and +division of power which leaves him no inferior. It is very grand to +call one's self a sovereign, but it is greatly to the purpose to notice +that the political responsibilities of the free man have been +intensified and aggregated just in proportion as political rights have +been reduced and divided. Many monarchs have been incapable of +sovereignty and unfit for it. Placed in exalted situations, and +inheritors of grand opportunities they have exhibited only their own +imbecility and vice. The reason was, because they thought only of the +gratification of their own vanity, and not at all of their duty. The +free man who steps forward to claim his inheritance and endowment as a +free and equal member of a great civil body must understand that his +duties and responsibilities are measured to him by the same scale as +his rights and his powers. He wants to be subject to no man. He wants +to be equal to his fellows, as all sovereigns are equal. So be it; but +he cannot escape the deduction that he can call no man to his aid. The +other sovereigns will not respect his independence if he becomes +dependent, and they cannot respect his equality if he sues for favors. +The free man in a free democracy, when he cut off all the ties which +might pull him down, severed also all the ties by which he might have +made others pull him up. He must take all the consequences of his new +status. He is, in a certain sense, an isolated man. The family tie does +not bring to him disgrace for the misdeeds of his relatives, as it once +would have done, but neither does it furnish him with the support which +it once would have given. The relations of men are open and free, but +they are also loose. A free man in a free democracy derogates from his +rank if he takes a favor for which he does not render an equivalent. + +A free man in a free democracy has no duty whatever toward other men of +the same rank and standing, except respect, courtesy, and good-will. We +cannot say that there are no classes, when we are speaking +politically, and then say that there are classes, when we are telling A +what it is his duty to do for B. In a free state every man is held and +expected to take care of himself and his family, to make no trouble for +his neighbor, and to contribute his full share to public interests and +common necessities. If he fails in this he throws burdens on others. He +does not thereby acquire rights against the others. On the contrary, he +only accumulates obligations toward them; and if he is allowed to make +his deficiencies a ground of new claims, he passes over into the +position of a privileged or petted person-emancipated from duties, +endowed with claims. This is the inevitable result of combining +democratic political theories with humanitarian social theories. It +would be aside from my present purpose to show, but it is worth +noticing in passing, that one result of such inconsistency must surely +be to undermine democracy, to increase the power of wealth in the +democracy, and to hasten the subjection of democracy to plutocracy; for +a man who accepts any share which he has not earned in another man's +capital cannot be an independent citizen. + +It is often affirmed that the educated and wealthy have an obligation +to those who have less education and property, just because the latter +have political equality with the former, and oracles and warnings are +uttered about what will happen if the uneducated classes who have the +suffrage are not instructed at the care and expense of the other +classes. In this view of the matter universal suffrage is not a measure +for _strengthening_ the State by bringing to its support the aid and +affection of all classes, but it is a new burden, and, in fact, a +peril. Those who favor it represent it as a peril. This doctrine is +politically immoral and vicious. When a community establishes universal +suffrage, it is as if it said to each new-comer, or to each young man: +"We give you every chance that any one else has. Now come along with +us; take care of yourself, and contribute your share to the burdens +which we all have to bear in order to support social institutions." +Certainly, liberty, and universal suffrage, and democracy are not +pledges of care and protection, but they carry with them the exaction +of individual responsibility. The State gives equal rights and equal +chances just because it does not mean to give anything else. It sets +each man on his feet, and gives him leave to run, just because it does +not mean to carry him. Having obtained his chances, he must take upon +himself the responsibility for his own success or failure. It is a pure +misfortune to the community, and one which will redound to its injury, +if any man has been endowed with political power who is a heavier +burden then than he was before; but it cannot be said that there is +any new _duty_ created for the good citizens toward the bad by the fact +that the bad citizens are a harm to the State. + + + + +III. + +_THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICH; NAY, EVEN, THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO +BE RICHER THAN ONE'S NEIGHBOR_ + + +I have before me a newspaper slip on which a writer expresses the +opinion that no one should be allowed to possess more than one million +dollars' worth of property. Alongside of it is another slip, on which +another writer expresses the opinion that the limit should be five +millions. I do not know what the comparative wealth of the two writers +is, but it is interesting to notice that there is a wide margin between +their ideas of how rich they would allow their fellow-citizens to +become, and of the point at which they ("the State," of course) would +step in to rob a man of his earnings. These two writers only represent +a great deal of crude thinking and declaiming which is in fashion. I +never have known a man of ordinary common-sense who did not urge upon +his sons, from earliest childhood, doctrines of economy and the +practice of accumulation. A good father believes that he does wisely to +encourage enterprise, productive skill, prudent self-denial, and +judicious expenditure on the part of his son. The object is to teach +the boy to accumulate capital. If, however, the boy should read many of +the diatribes against "the rich" which are afloat in our literature; if +he should read or hear some of the current discussion about "capital"; +and if, with the ingenuousness of youth, he should take these +productions at their literal sense, instead of discounting them, as his +father does, he would be forced to believe that he was on the path of +infamy when he was earning and saving capital. It is worth while to +consider which we mean or what we mean. Is it wicked to be rich? Is it +mean to be a capitalist? If the question is one of degree only, and it +is right to be rich up to a certain point and wrong to be richer, how +shall we find the point? Certainly, for practical purposes, we ought to +define the point nearer than between one and five millions of dollars. + +There is an old ecclesiastical prejudice in favor of the poor and +against the rich. In days when men acted by ecclesiastical rules these +prejudices produced waste of capital, and helped mightily to replunge +Europe into barbarism. The prejudices are not yet dead, but they +survive in our society as ludicrous contradictions and inconsistencies. +One thing must be granted to the rich: they are good-natured. Perhaps +they do not recognize themselves, for a rich man is even harder to +define than a poor one. It is not uncommon to hear a clergyman utter +from the pulpit all the old prejudice in favor of the poor and against +the rich, while asking the rich to do something for the poor; and the +rich comply, without apparently having their feelings hurt at all by +the invidious comparison. We all agree that he is a good member of +society who works his way up from poverty to wealth, but as soon as he +has worked his way up we begin to regard him with suspicion, as a +dangerous member of society. A newspaper starts the silly fallacy that +"the rich are rich because the poor are industrious," and it is copied +from one end of the country to the other as if it were a brilliant +apothegm. "Capital" is denounced by writers and speakers who have never +taken the trouble to find out what capital is, and who use the word in +two or three different senses in as many pages. Labor organizations are +formed, not to employ combined effort for a common object, but to +indulge in declamation and denunciation, and especially to furnish an +easy living to some officers who do not want to work. People who have +rejected dogmatic religion, and retained only a residuum of religious +sentimentalism, find a special field in the discussion of the rights of +the poor and the duties of the rich. We have denunciations of banks, +corporations, and monopolies, which denunciations encourage only +helpless rage and animosity, because they are not controlled by any +definitions or limitations, or by any distinctions between what is +indispensably necessary and what is abuse, between what is established +in the order of nature and what is legislative error. Think, for +instance, of a journal which makes it its special business to denounce +monopolies, yet favors a protective tariff, and has not a word to say +against trades-unions or patents! Think of public teachers who say that +the farmer is ruined by the cost of transportation, when they mean that +he cannot make any profits because his farm is too far from the market, +and who denounce the railroad because it does not correct for the +farmer, at the expense of its stockholders, the disadvantage which lies +in the physical situation of the farm! Think of that construction of +this situation which attributes all the trouble to the greed of +"moneyed corporations!" Think of the piles of rubbish that one has read +about corners, and watering stocks, and selling futures! + +Undoubtedly there are, in connection with each of these things, cases +of fraud, swindling, and other financial crimes; that is to say, the +greed and selfishness of men are perpetual. They put on new phases, +they adjust themselves to new forms of business, and constantly devise +new methods of fraud and robbery, just as burglars devise new artifices +to circumvent every new precaution of the lock-makers. The criminal law +needs to be improved to meet new forms of crime, but to denounce +financial devices which are useful and legitimate because use is made +of them for fraud, is ridiculous and unworthy of the age in which we +live. Fifty years ago good old English Tories used to denounce all +joint-stock companies in the same way, and for similar reasons. + +All the denunciations and declamations which have been referred to are +made in the interest of "the poor man." His name never ceases to echo +in the halls of legislation, and he is the excuse and reason for all +the acts which are passed. He is never forgotten in poetry, sermon, or +essay. His interest is invoked to defend every doubtful procedure and +every questionable institution. Yet where is he? Who is he? Who ever +saw him? When did he ever get the benefit of any of the numberless +efforts in his behalf? When, rather, were his name and interest ever +invoked, when, upon examination, it did not plainly appear that +somebody else was to win--somebody who was far too "smart" ever to be +poor, far too lazy ever to be rich by industry and economy? + +A great deal is said about the unearned increment from land, especially +with a view to the large gains of landlords in old countries. The +unearned increment from land has indeed made the position of an English +land-owner, for the last two hundred years, the most fortunate that any +class of mortals ever has enjoyed; but the present moment, when the +rent of agricultural land in England is declining under the +competition of American land, is not well chosen for attacking the old +advantage. Furthermore, the unearned increment from land appears in the +United States as a gain to the first comers, who have here laid the +foundations of a new State. Since the land is a monopoly, the unearned +increment lies in the laws of Nature. Then the only question is, Who +shall have it?--the man who has the ownership by prescription, or some +or all others? It is a beneficent incident of the ownership of land +that a pioneer who reduces it to use, and helps to lay the foundations +of a new State, finds a profit in the increasing value of land as the +new State grows up. It would be unjust to take that profit away from +him, or from any successor to whom he has sold it. Moreover, there is +an unearned increment on capital and on labor, due to the presence, +around the capitalist and the laborer, of a great, industrious, and +prosperous society. A tax on land and a succession or probate duty on +capital might be perfectly justified by these facts. Unquestionably +capital accumulates with a rapidity which follows in some high series +the security, good government, peaceful order of the State in which it +is employed; and if the State steps in, on the death of the holder, to +claim a share of the inheritance, such a claim may be fully justified. +The laborer likewise gains by carrying on his labor in a strong, +highly civilized, and well-governed State far more than he could gain +with equal industry on the frontier or in the midst of anarchy. He +gains greater remuneration for his services, and he also shares in the +enjoyment of all that accumulated capital of a wealthy community which +is public or semi-public in its nature. + +It is often said that the earth belongs to the race, as if raw land was +a boon, or gift. Raw land is only a _chance_ to prosecute the struggle +for existence, and the man who tries to earn a living by the +subjugation of raw land makes that attempt under the most unfavorable +conditions, for land can be brought into use only by great hardship and +exertion. The boon, or gift, would be to get some land after somebody +else had made it fit for use. Any one in the world today can have raw +land by going to it; but there are millions who would regard it simply +as "transportation for life," if they were forced to go and live on new +land and get their living out of it. Private ownership of land is only +division of labor. If it is true in any sense that we all own the soil +in common, the best use we can make of our undivided interests is to +vest them all gratuitously (just as we now do) in any who will assume +the function of directly treating the soil, while the rest of us take +other shares in the social organization. The reason is, because in +this way we all get more than we would if each one owned some land and +used it directly. Supply and demand now determine the distribution of +population between the direct use of land and other pursuits; and if +the total profits and chances of land-culture were reduced by taking +all the "unearned increment" in taxes, there would simply be a +redistribution of industry until the profits of land-culture, less +taxes and without chances from increasing value, were equal to the +profits of other pursuits under exemption from taxation. + +It is remarkable that jealousy of individual property in land often +goes along with very exaggerated doctrines of tribal or national +property in land. We are told that John, James, and William ought not +to possess part of the earth's surface because it belongs to all men; +but it is held that Egyptians, Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right +to the territory which they occupy, that they may bar the avenues of +commerce and civilization if they choose, and that it is wrong to +override their prejudices or expropriate their land. The truth is, that +the notion that the race own the earth has practical meaning only for +the latter class of cases. + +The great gains of a great capitalist in a modern state must be put +under the head of wages of superintendence. Anyone who believes that +any great enterprise of an industrial character can be started without +labor must have little experience of life. Let anyone try to get a +railroad built, or to start a factory and win reputation for its +products, or to start a school and win a reputation for it, or to found +a newspaper and make it a success, or to start any other enterprise, +and he will find what obstacles must be overcome, what risks must be +taken, what perseverance and courage are required, what foresight and +sagacity are necessary. Especially in a new country, where many tasks +are waiting, where resources are strained to the utmost all the time, +the judgment, courage, and perseverance required to organize new +enterprizes and carry them to success are sometimes heroic. Persons who +possess the necessary qualifications obtain great rewards. They ought +to do so. It is foolish to rail at them. Then, again, the ability to +organize and conduct industrial, commercial, or financial enterprises +is rare; the great captains of industry are as rare as great generals. +The great weakness of all co-operative enterprises is in the matter of +supervision. Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are +not hard to find; but men who can think and plan and tell the routine +men what to do are very rare. They are paid in proportion to the supply +and demand of them. + +If Mr. A.T. Stewart made a great fortune by collecting and bringing +dry-goods to the people of the United States, he did so because he +understood how to do that thing better than any other man of his +generation. He proved it, because he carried the business through +commercial crises and war, and kept increasing its dimensions. If, when +he died, he left no competent successor, the business must break up, +and pass into new organization in the hands of other men. Some have +said that Mr. Stewart made his fortune out of those who worked for him +or with him. But would those persons have been able to come together, +organize themselves, and earn what they did earn without him? Not at +all. They would have been comparatively helpless. He and they together +formed a great system of factories, stores, transportation, under his +guidance and judgment. It was for the benefit of all; but he +contributed to it what no one else was able to contribute--the one +guiding mind which made the whole thing possible. In no sense whatever +does a man who accumulates a fortune by legitimate industry exploit his +employés, or make his capital "out of" anybody else. The wealth which +he wins would not be but for him. + +The aggregation of large fortunes is not at all a thing to be +regretted. On the contrary, it is a necessary condition of many forms +of social advance. If we should set a limit to the accumulation of +wealth, we should say to our most valuable producers, "We do not want +you to do us the services which you best understand how to perform, +beyond a certain point." It would be like killing off our generals in +war. A great deal is said, in the cant of a certain school about +"ethical views of wealth," and we are told that some day men will be +found of such public spirit that, after they have accumulated a few +millions, they will be willing to go on and labor simply for the +pleasure of paying the taxes of their fellow-citizens. Possibly this is +true. It is a prophecy. It is as impossible to deny it as it is silly +to affirm it. For if a time ever comes when there are men of this kind, +the men of that age will arrange their affairs accordingly. There are +no such men now, and those of us who live now cannot arrange our +affairs by what men will be a hundred generations hence. + +There is every indication that we are to see new developments of the +power of aggregated capital to serve civilization, and that the new +developments will be made right here in America. Joint-stock companies +are yet in their infancy, and incorporated capital, instead of being a +thing which can be overturned, is a thing which is becoming more and +more indispensable. I shall have something to say in another chapter +about the necessary checks and guarantees, in a political point of +view, which must be established. Economically speaking, aggregated +capital will be more and more essential to the performance of our +social tasks. Furthermore, it seems to me certain that all aggregated +capital will fall more and more under personal control. Each great +company will be known as controlled by one master mind. The reason for +this lies in the great superiority of personal management over +management by boards and committees. This tendency is in the public +interest, for it is in the direction of more satisfactory +responsibility. The great hindrance to the development of this +continent has lain in the lack of capital. The capital which we have +had has been wasted by division and dissipation, and by injudicious +applications. The waste of capital, in proportion to the total capital, +in this country between 1800 and 1850, in the attempts which were made +to establish means of communication and transportation, was enormous. +The waste was chiefly due to ignorance and bad management, especially +to State control of public works. We are to see the development of the +country pushed forward at an unprecedented rate by an aggregation of +capital, and a systematic application of it under the direction of +competent men. This development will be for the benefit of all, and it +will enable each one of us, in his measure and way, to increase his +wealth. We may each of us go ahead to do so, and we have every reason +to rejoice in each other's prosperity. There ought to be no laws to +guarantee property against the folly of its possessors. In the absence +of such laws, capital inherited by a spendthrift will be squandered and +re-accumulated in the hands of men who are fit and competent to hold +it. So it should be, and under such a state of things there is no +reason to desire to limit the property which any man may acquire. + + + + +IV. + +_ON THE REASONS WHY MAN IS NOT ALTOGETHER A BRUTE._ + + +The Arabs have a story of a man who desired to test which of his three +sons loved him most. He sent them out to see which of the three would +bring him the most valuable present. The three sons met in a distant +city, and compared the gifts they had found. The first had a carpet on +which he could transport himself and others whithersoever he would. The +second had a medicine which would cure any disease. The third had a +glass in which he could see what was going on at any place he might +name. The third used his glass to see what was going on at home: he saw +his father ill in bed. The first transported all three to their home on +his carpet. The second administered the medicine and saved the father's +life. The perplexity of the father when he had to decide which son's +gift had been of the most value to him illustrates very fairly the +difficulty of saying whether land, labor, or capital is most essential +to production. No production is possible without the co-operation of +all three. + +We know that men once lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth, +just as other animals do. In that stage of existence a man was just +like the brutes. His existence was at the sport of Nature. He got what +he could by way of food, and ate what he could get, but he depended on +finding what Nature gave. He could wrest nothing from Nature; he could +make her produce nothing; and he had only his limbs with which to +appropriate what she offered. His existence was almost entirely +controlled by accident; he possessed no capital; he lived out of his +product, and production had only the two elements of land and labor of +appropriation. At the present time man is an intelligent animal. He +knows something of the laws of Nature; he can avail himself of what is +favorable, and avert what is unfavorable, in nature, to a certain +extent; he has narrowed the sphere of accident, and in some respects +reduced it to computations which lessen its importance; he can bring +the productive forces of Nature into service, and make them produce +food, clothing, and shelter. How has the change been brought about? The +answer is, By capital. If we can come to an understanding of what +capital is, and what a place it occupies in civilization, it will clear +up our ideas about a great many of these schemes and philosophies which +are put forward to criticise social arrangements, or as a basis of +proposed reforms. + +The first beginnings of capital are lost in the obscurity which covers +all the germs of civilization. The more one comes to understand the +case of the primitive man, the more wonderful it seems that man ever +started on the road to civilization. Among the lower animals we find +some inchoate forms of capital, but from them to the lowest forms of +real capital there is a great stride. It does not seem possible that +man could have taken that stride without intelligent reflection, and +everything we know about the primitive man shows us that he did not +reflect. No doubt accident controlled the first steps. They may have +been won and lost again many times. There was one natural element which +man learned to use so early that we cannot find any trace of him when +he had it not--fire. There was one tool-weapon in nature--the flint. +Beyond the man who was so far superior to the brutes that he knew how +to use fire and had the use of flints we cannot go. A man of lower +civilization than that was so like the brutes that, like them, he could +leave no sign of his presence on the earth save his bones. + +The man who had a flint no longer need be a prey to a wild animal, but +could make a prey of it. He could get meat food. He who had meat food +could provide his food in such time as to get leisure to improve his +flint tools. He could get skins for clothing, bones for needles, +tendons for thread. He next devised traps and snares by which to take +animals alive. He domesticated them, and lived on their increase. He +made them beasts of draught and burden, and so got the use of a +natural force. He who had beasts of draught and burden could make a +road and trade, and so get the advantage of all soils and all climates. +He could make a boat, and use the winds as force. He now had such +tools, science, and skill that he could till the ground, and make it +give him more food. So from the first step that man made above the +brute the thing which made his civilization possible was capital. Every +step of capital won made the next step possible, up to the present +hour. Not a step has been or can be made without capital. It is labor +accumulated, multiplied into itself--raised to a higher power, as the +mathematicians say. The locomotive is only possible today because, from +the flint-knife up, one achievement has been multiplied into another +through thousands of generations. We cannot now stir a step in our life +without capital. We cannot build a school, a hospital, a church, or +employ a missionary society, without capital, any more than we could +build a palace or a factory without capital. We have ourselves, and we +have the earth; the thing which limits what we can do is the third +requisite--capital. Capital is force, human energy stored or +accumulated, and very few people ever come to appreciate its importance +to civilized life. We get so used to it that we do not see its use. + +The industrial organization of society has undergone a development with +the development of capital. Nothing has ever made men spread over the +earth and develop the arts but necessity--that is, the need of getting +a living, and the hardships endured in trying to meet that need. The +human race has had to pay with its blood at every step. It has had to +buy its experience. The thing which has kept up the necessity of more +migration or more power over Nature has been increase of population. +Where population has become chronically excessive, and where the +population has succumbed and sunk, instead of developing energy enough +for a new advance, there races have degenerated and settled into +permanent barbarism. They have lost the power to rise again, and have +made no inventions. Where life has been so easy and ample that it cost +no effort, few improvements have been made. It is in the middle range, +with enough social pressure to make energy needful, and not enough +social pressure to produce despair, that the most progress has been +made. + +At first all labor was forced. Men forced it on women, who were drudges +and slaves. Men reserved for themselves only the work of hunting or +war. Strange and often horrible shadows of all the old primitive +barbarism are now to be found in the slums of great cities, and in the +lowest groups of men, in the midst of civilized nations. Men impose +labor on women in some such groups today. Through various grades of +slavery, serfdom, villeinage, and through various organizations of +castes and guilds, the industrial organization has been modified and +developed up to the modern system. Some men have been found to denounce +and deride the modern system--what they call the capitalist system. The +modern system is based on liberty, on contract, and on private +property. It has been reached through a gradual emancipation of the +mass of mankind from old bonds both to Nature and to their fellow-men. +Village communities, which excite the romantic admiration of some +writers, were fit only for a most elementary and unorganized society. +They were fit neither to cope with the natural difficulties of winning +much food from little land, nor to cope with the malice of men. Hence +they perished. In the modern society the organization of labor is high. +Some are land-owners and agriculturists, some are transporters, +bankers, merchants, teachers; some advance the product by manufacture. +It is a system of division of functions, which is being refined all the +time by subdivision of trade and occupation, and by the differentiation +of new trades. + +The ties by which all are held together are those of free co-operation +and contract. If we look back for comparison to anything of which +human history gives us a type or experiment, we see that the modern +free system of industry offers to every living human being chances of +happiness indescribably in excess of what former generations have +possessed. It offers no such guarantees as were once possessed by some, +that they should in no case suffer. We have an instance right at hand. +The Negroes, once slaves in the United States, used to be assured care, +medicine, and support; but they spent their efforts, and other men took +the products. They have been set free. That means only just this: they +now work and hold their own products, and are assured of nothing but +what they earn. In escaping from subjection they have lost claims. +Care, medicine, and support they get, if they earn it. Will any one say +that the black men have not gained? Will any one deny that individual +black men may seem worse off? Will any one allow such observations to +blind them to the true significance of the change? If any one thinks +that there are or ought to be somewhere in society guarantees that no +man shall suffer hardship, let him understand that there can be no such +guarantees, unless other men give them--that is, unless we go back to +slavery, and make one man's effort conduce to another man's welfare. Of +course, if a speculator breaks loose from science and history, and +plans out an ideal society in which all the conditions are to be +different, he is a law-giver or prophet, and those may listen to him +who have leisure. + +The modern industrial system is a great social co-operation. It is +automatic and instinctive in its operation. The adjustments of the +organs take place naturally. The parties are held together by +impersonal force--supply and demand. They may never see each other; +they may be separated by half the circumference of the globe. Their +co-operation in the social effort is combined and distributed again by +financial machinery, and the rights and interests are measured and +satisfied without any special treaty or convention at all. All this +goes on so smoothly and naturally that we forget to notice it. We think +that it costs nothing--does itself, as it were. The truth is, that this +great co-operative effort is one of the great products of +civilization--one of its costliest products and highest refinements, +because here, more than anywhere else, intelligence comes in, but +intelligence so clear and correct that it does not need expression. + +Now, by the great social organization the whole civilized body (and +soon we shall say the whole human race) keeps up a combined assault on +Nature for the means of subsistence. Civilized society may be said to +be maintained in an unnatural position, at an elevation above the +earth, or above the natural state of human society. It can be +maintained there only by an efficient organization of the social effort +and by capital. At its elevation it supports far greater numbers than +it could support on any lower stage. Members of society who come into +it as it is today can live only by entering into the organization. If +numbers increase, the organization must be perfected, and capital must +increase--_i.e._, power over Nature. If the society does not keep up +its power, if it lowers its organization or wastes its capital, it +falls back toward the natural state of barbarism from which it rose, +and in so doing it must sacrifice thousands of its weakest members. +Hence human society lives at a constant strain forward and upward, and +those who have most interest that this strain be successfully kept up, +that the social organization be perfected, and that capital be +increased, are those at the bottom. + +The notion of property which prevails among us today is, that a man has +a right to the thing which he has made by his labor. This is a very +modern and highly civilized conception. Singularly enough, it has been +brought forward dogmatically to prove that property in land is not +reasonable, because man did not make land. A man cannot "make" a +chattel or product of any kind whatever without first appropriating +land, so as to get the ore, wood, wool, cotton, fur, or other raw +material. All that men ever appropriate land for is to get out of it +the natural materials on which they exercise their industry. +Appropriation, therefore, precedes labor-production, both historically +and logically. Primitive races regarded, and often now regard, +appropriation as the best title to property. As usual, they are +logical. It is the simplest and most natural mode of thinking to regard +a thing as belonging to that man who has, by carrying, wearing, or +handling it, associated it for a certain time with his person. I once +heard a little boy of four years say to his mother, "Why is not this +pencil mine now? It used to be my brother's, but I have been using it +all day." He was reasoning with the logic of his barbarian ancestors. +The reason for allowing private property in land is, that two men +cannot eat the same loaf of bread. If A has taken a piece of land, and +is at work getting his loaf out of it, B cannot use the same land at +the same time for the same purpose. Priority of appropriation is the +only title of right which can supersede the title of greater force. The +reason why man is not altogether a brute is, because he has learned to +accumulate capital, to use capital, to advance to a higher organization +of society, to develop a completer co-operation, and so to win greater +and greater control over Nature. + +It is a great delusion to look about us and select those men who occupy +the most advanced position in respect to worldly circumstances as the +standard to which we think that all might be and ought to be brought. +All the complaints and criticisms about the inequality of men apply to +inequalities in property, luxury, and creature comforts, not to +knowledge, virtue, or even physical beauty and strength. But it is +plainly impossible that we should all attain to equality on the level +of the best of us. The history of civilization shows us that the human +race has by no means marched on in a solid and even phalanx. It has had +its advance-guard, its rear-guard, and its stragglers. It presents us +the same picture today; for it embraces every grade, from the most +civilized nations down to the lowest surviving types of barbarians. +Furthermore, if we analyze the society of the most civilized state, +especially in one of the great cities where the highest triumphs of +culture are presented, we find survivals of every form of barbarism and +lower civilization. Hence, those who today enjoy the most complete +emancipation from the hardships of human life, and the greatest command +over the conditions of existence, simply show us the best that man has +yet been able to do. Can we all reach that standard by wishing for it? +Can we all vote it to each other? If we pull down those who are most +fortunate and successful, shall we not by that very act defeat our own +object? Those who are trying to reason out any issue from this tangle +of false notions of society and of history are only involving +themselves in hopeless absurdities and contradictions. If any man is +not in the first rank who might get there, let him put forth new energy +and take his place. If any man is not in the front rank, although he +has done his best, how can he be advanced at all? Certainly in no way +save by pushing down any one else who is forced to contribute to his +advancement. + +It is often said that the mass of mankind are yet buried in poverty, +ignorance, and brutishness. It would be a correct statement of the +facts intended, from an historical and sociological point of view, to +say, Only a small fraction of the human race have as yet, by thousands +of years of struggle, been partially emancipated from poverty, +ignorance, and brutishness. When once this simple correction is made in +the general point of view, we gain most important corollaries for all +the subordinate questions about the relations of races, nations, and +classes. + + + + +V. + +_THAT WE MUST HAVE FEW MEN, IF WE WANT STRONG MEN._ + + +In our modern revolt against the mediaeval notions of hereditary honor +and hereditary shame we have gone too far, for we have lost the +appreciation of the true dependence of children on parents. We have a +glib phrase about "the accident of birth," but it would puzzle anybody +to tell what it means. If A takes B to wife, it is not an accident that +he took B rather than C, D, or any other woman; and if A and B have a +child, X, that child's ties to ancestry and posterity, and his +relations to the human race, into which he has been born through A and +B, are in no sense accidental. The child's interest in the question +whether A should have married B or C is as material as anything one can +conceive of, and the fortune which made X the son of A, and not of +another man, is the most material fact in his destiny. If those things +were better understood public opinion about the ethics of marriage and +parentage would undergo a most salutary change. In following the modern +tendency of opinion we have lost sight of the due responsibility of +parents, and our legislation has thrown upon some parents the +responsibility, not only of their own children, but of those of +others. + +The relation of parents and children is the only case of sacrifice in +Nature. Elsewhere equivalence of exchange prevails rigorously. The +parents, however, hand down to their children the return for all which +they had themselves inherited from their ancestors. They ought to hand +down the inheritance with increase. It is by this relation that the +human race keeps up a constantly advancing contest with Nature. The +penalty of ceasing an aggressive behavior toward the hardships of life +on the part of mankind is, that we go backward. We cannot stand still. +Now, parental affection constitutes the personal motive which drives +every man in his place to an aggressive and conquering policy toward +the limiting conditions of human life. Affection for wife and children +is also the greatest motive to social ambition and personal +self-respect--that is, to what is technically called a "high standard +of living." + +Some people are greatly shocked to read of what is called +Malthusianism, when they read it in a book, who would be greatly +ashamed of themselves if they did not practise Malthusianism in their +own affairs. Among respectable people a man who took upon himself the +cares and expenses of a family before he had secured a regular trade or +profession, or had accumulated some capital, and who allowed his wife +to lose caste, and his children to be dirty, ragged, and neglected, +would be severely blamed by the public opinion of the community. The +standard of living which a man makes for himself and his family, if he +means to earn it, and does not formulate it as a demand which he means +to make on his fellow-men, is a gauge of his self-respect; and a high +standard of living is the moral limit which an intelligent body of men +sets for itself far inside of the natural limits of the sustaining +power of the land, which latter limit is set by starvation, pestilence, +and war. But a high standard of living restrains population; that is, +if we hold up to the higher standard of men, we must have fewer of +them. + +Taking men as they have been and are, they are subjects of passion, +emotion, and instinct. Only the _élite_ of the race has yet been +raised to the point where reason and conscience can even curb the +lower motive forces. For the mass of mankind, therefore, the price of +better things is too severe, for that price can be summed up in one +word--self-control. The consequence is, that for all but a few of us +the limit of attainment in life in the best case is to live out our +term, to pay our debts, to place three or four children in a position +to support themselves in a position as good as the father's was, and +there to make the account balance. + +Since we must all live, in the civilized organization of society, on +the existing capital; and since those who have only come out even have +not accumulated any of the capital, have no claim to own it, and cannot +leave it to their children; and since those who own land have parted +with their capital for it, which capital has passed back through other +hands into industrial employment, how is a man who has inherited +neither land nor capital to secure a living? He must give his +productive energy to apply capital to land for the further production +of wealth, and he must secure a share in the existing capital by a +contract relation to those who own it. + +Undoubtedly the man who possesses capital has a great advantage over +the man who has no capital, in all the struggle for existence. Think of +two men who want to lift a weight, one of whom has a lever, and the +other must apply his hands directly; think of two men tilling the soil, +one of whom uses his hands or a stick, while the other has a horse and +a plough; think of two men in conflict with a wild animal, one of whom +has only a stick or a stone, while the other has a repeating rifle; +think of two men who are sick, one of whom can travel, command medical +skill, get space, light, air, and water, while the other lacks all +these things. This does not mean that one man has an advantage +_against_ the other, but that, when they are rivals in the effort to +get the means of subsistence from Nature, the one who has capital has +immeasurable advantages over the other. If it were not so capital would +not be formed. Capital is only formed by self-denial, and if the +possession of it did not secure advantages and superiorities of a high +order men would never submit to what is necessary to get it. The first +accumulation costs by far the most, and the rate of increase by profits +at first seems pitiful. Among the metaphors which partially illustrate +capital--all of which, however, are imperfect and inadequate--the +snow-ball is useful to show some facts about capital. Its first +accumulation is slow, but as it proceeds the accumulation becomes rapid +in a high ratio, and the element of self-denial declines. This fact, +also, is favorable to the accumulation of capital, for if the +self-denial continued to be as great per unit when the accumulation had +become great, there would speedily come a point at which further +accumulation would not pay. The man who has capital has secured his +future, won leisure which he can employ in winning secondary objects of +necessity and advantage, and emancipated himself from those things in +life which are gross and belittling. The possession of capital is, +therefore, an indispensable prerequisite of educational, scientific, +and moral goods. This is not saying that a man in the narrowest +circumstances may not be a good man. It is saying that the extension +and elevation of all the moral and metaphysical interests of the race +are conditioned on that extension of civilization of which capital is +the prerequisite, and that he who has capital can participate in and +move along with the highest developments of his time. Hence it appears +that the man who has his self-denial before him, however good may be +his intention, cannot be as the man who has his self-denial behind him. +Some seem to think that this is very unjust, but they get their notions +of justice from some occult source of inspiration, not from observing +the facts of this world as it has been made and exists. + +The maxim, or injunction, to which a study of capital leads us is, Get +capital. In a community where the standard of living is high, and the +conditions of production are favorable, there is a wide margin within +which an individual may practise self-denial and win capital without +suffering, if he has not the charge of a family. That it requires +energy, courage, perseverance, and prudence is not to be denied. Any +one who believes that any good thing on this earth can be got without +those virtues may believe in the philosopher's stone or the fountain of +youth. If there were any Utopia its inhabitants would certainly be very +insipid and characterless. + +Those who have neither capital nor land unquestionably have a closer +class interest than landlords or capitalists. If one of those who are +in either of the latter classes is a spendthrift he loses his +advantage. If the non-capitalists increase their numbers, they +surrender themselves into the hands of the landlords and capitalists. +They compete with each other for food until they run up the rent of +land, and they compete with each other for wages until they give the +capitalist a great amount of productive energy for a given amount of +capital. If some of them are economical and prudent in the midst of a +class which saves nothing and marries early, the few prudent suffer for +the folly of the rest, since they can only get current rates of wages; +and if these are low the margin out of which to make savings by special +personal effort is narrow. No instance has yet been seen of a society +composed of a class of great capitalists and a class of laborers who +had fallen into a caste of permanent drudges. Probably no such thing is +possible so long as landlords especially remain as a third class, and +so long as society continues to develop strong classes of merchants, +financiers, professional men, and other classes. If it were conceivable +that non-capitalist laborers should give up struggling to become +capitalists, should give way to vulgar enjoyments and passions, should +recklessly increase their numbers, and should become a permanent caste, +they might with some justice be called proletarians. The name has been +adopted by some professed labor leaders, but it really should be +considered insulting. If there were such a proletariat it would be +hopelessly in the hands of a body of plutocratic capitalists, and a +society so organized would, no doubt, be far worse than a society +composed only of nobles and serfs, which is the worst society the world +has seen in modern times. + +At every turn, therefore, it appears that the number of men and the +quality of men limit each other, and that the question whether we shall +have more men or better men is of most importance to the class which +has neither land nor capital. + + + + +VI. + +_THAT HE WHO WOULD BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF MUST TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF._ + + +The discussion of "the relations of labor and capital" has not hitherto +been very fruitful. It has been confused by ambiguous definitions, and +it has been based upon assumptions about the rights and duties of +social classes which are, to say the least, open to serious question as +regards their truth and justice. If, then, we correct and limit the +definitions, and if we test the assumptions, we shall find out whether +there is anything to discuss about the relations of "labor and +capital," and, if anything, what it is. + +Let us first examine the terms. + +1. Labor means properly _toil_, irksome exertion, expenditure of +productive energy. + +2. The term is used, secondly, by a figure of speech, and in a +collective sense, to designate the body of _persons_ who, having +neither capital nor land, come into the industrial organization +offering productive services in exchange for means of subsistence. +These persons are united by community of interest into a group, or +class, or interest, and, when interests come to be adjusted, the +interests of this group will undoubtedly be limited by those of other +groups. + +3. The term labor is used, thirdly, in a more restricted, very popular +and current, but very ill-defined way, to designate a limited sub-group +among those who live by contributing productive efforts to the work of +society. Every one is a laborer who is not a person of leisure. Public +men, or other workers, if any, who labor but receive no pay, might be +excluded from the category, and we should immediately pass, by such a +restriction, from a broad and philosophical to a technical definition +of the labor class. But merchants, bankers, professional men, and all +whose labor is, to an important degree, mental as well as manual, are +excluded from this third use of the term labor. The result is, that the +word is used, in a sense at once loosely popular and strictly +technical, to designate a group of laborers who separate their +interests from those of other laborers. Whether farmers are included +under "labor" in this third sense or not I have not been able to +determine. It seems that they are or are not, as the interest of the +disputants may require. + +1. Capital is any _product_ of labor which is used to assist +production. + +2. This term also is used, by a figure of speech, and in a collective +sense, for the _persons_ who possess capital, and who come into the +industrial organization to get their living by using capital for +profit. To do this they need to exchange capital for productive +services. These persons constitute an interest, group, or class, +although they are not united by any such community of interest as +laborers, and, in the adjustment of interests, the interests of the +owners of capital must be limited by the interests of other groups. + +3. Capital, however, is also used in a vague and popular sense which it +is hard to define. In general it is used, and in this sense, to mean +employers of laborers, but it seems to be restricted to those who are +employers on a large scale. It does not seem to include those who +employ only domestic servants. Those also are excluded who own capital +and lend it, but do not directly employ people to use it. + +It is evident that if we take for discussion "capital and labor," if +each of the terms has three definitions, and if one definition of each +is loose and doubtful, we have everything prepared for a discussion +which shall be interminable and fruitless, which shall offer every +attraction to undisciplined thinkers, and repel everybody else. + +The real collision of interest, which is the centre of the dispute, is +that of employers and employed; and the first condition of successful +study of the question, or of successful investigation to see if there +is any question, is to throw aside the technical economic terms, and to +look at the subject in its true meaning, expressed in untechnical +language. We will use the terms "capital" and "labor" only in their +strict economic significance, viz., the first definition given above +under each term, and we will use the terms "laborers" and "capitalists" +when we mean the persons described in the second definition under each +term. + +It is a common assertion that the interests of employers and employed +are identical, that they are partners in an enterprise, etc. These +sayings spring from a disposition, which may often be noticed, to find +consoling and encouraging observations in the facts of sociology, and +to refute, if possible, any unpleasant observations. If we try to learn +what is true, we shall both do what is alone right, and we shall do the +best for ourselves in the end. The interests of employers and employed +as parties to a contract are antagonistic in certain respects and +united in others, as in the case wherever supply and demand operate. If +John gives cloth to James in exchange for wheat, John's interest is +that cloth be good and attractive but not plentiful, but that wheat be +good and plentiful; James' interest is that wheat be good and +attractive but not plentiful, but that cloth be good and plentiful. All +men have a common interest that all things be good, and that all +things but the one which each produces be plentiful. The employer is +interested that capital be good but rare, and productive energy good +and plentiful; the employé is interested that capital be good and +plentiful, but that productive energy be good and rare. When one man +alone can do a service, and he can do it very well, he represents the +laborer's ideal. To say that employers and employed are partners in an +enterprise is only a delusive figure of speech. It is plainly based on +no facts in the industrial system. + +Employers and employed make contracts on the best terms which they can +agree upon, like buyers and sellers, renters and hirers, borrowers and +lenders. Their relations are, therefore, controlled by the universal +law of supply and demand. The employer assumes the direction of the +business, and takes all the risk, for the capital must be consumed in +the industrial process, and whether it will be found again in the +product or not depends upon the good judgment and foresight with which +the capital and labor have been applied. Under the wages system the +employer and the employé contract for time. The employé fulfils the +contract if he obeys orders during the time, and treats the capital as +he is told to treat it. Hence he is free from all responsibility, risk, +and speculation. That this is the most advantageous arrangement for +him, on the whole and in the great majority of cases, is very certain. +Salaried men and wage-receivers are in precisely the same +circumstances, except that the former, by custom and usage, are those +who have special skill or training, which is almost always an +investment of capital, and which narrows the range of competition in +their case. Physicians, lawyers, and others paid by fees are workers by +the piece. To the capital in existence all must come for their +subsistence and their tools. + +Association is the lowest and simplest mode of attaining accord and +concord between men. It is now the mode best suited to the condition +and chances of employés. Employers formerly made use of guilds to +secure common action for a common interest. They have given up this +mode of union because it has been superseded by a better one. +Correspondence, travel, newspapers, circulars, and telegrams bring to +employers and capitalists the information which they need for the +defense of their interests. The combination between them is automatic +and instinctive. It is not formal and regulated by rule. It is all the +stronger on that account, because intelligent men, holding the same +general maxims of policy, and obtaining the same information, pursue +similar lines of action, while retaining all the ease, freedom, and +elasticity of personal independence. + +At present employés have not the leisure necessary for the higher modes +of communication. Capital is also necessary to establish the ties of +common action under the higher forms. Moreover, there is, no doubt, an +incidental disadvantage connected with the release which the employé +gets under the wages system from all responsibility for the conduct of +the business. That is, that employés do not learn to watch or study the +course of industry, and do not plan for their own advantage, as other +classes do. There is an especial field for combined action in the case +of employés. Employers are generally separated by jealousy and pride in +regard to all but the most universal class interests. Employés have a +much closer interest in each other's wisdom. Competition of capitalists +for profits redounds to the benefit of laborers. Competition of +laborers for subsistence redounds to the benefit of capitalists. It is +utterly futile to plan and scheme so that either party can make a +"corner" on the other. If employers withdraw capital from employment in +an attempt to lower wages, they lose profits. If employés withdraw from +competition in order to raise wages, they starve to death. Capital and +labor are the two things which least admit of monopoly. Employers can, +however, if they have foresight of the movements of industry and +commerce, and if they make skillful use of credit, win exceptional +profits for a limited period. One great means of exceptional profit +lies in the very fact that the employés have not exercised the same +foresight, but have plodded along and waited for the slow and +successive action of the industrial system through successive periods +of production, while the employer has anticipated and synchronized +several successive steps. No bargain is fairly made if one of the +parties to it fails to maintain his interest. If one party to a +contract is well informed and the other ill informed, the former is +sure to win an advantage. No doctrine that a true adjustment of +interest follows from the free play of interests can be construed to +mean that an interest which is neglected will get its rights. + +The employés have no means of information which is as good and +legitimate as association, and it is fair and necessary that their +action should be united in behalf of their interests. They are not in a +position for the unrestricted development of individualism in regard to +many of their interests. Unquestionably the better ones lose by this, +and the development of individualism is to be looked forward to and +hoped for as a great gain. In the meantime the labor market, in which +wages are fixed, cannot reach fair adjustments unless the interest of +the laborers is fairly defended, and that cannot, perhaps, yet be done +without associations of laborers. No newspapers yet report the labor +market. If they give any notices of it--of its rise and fall, of its +variations in different districts and in different trades--such notices +are always made for the interest of the employers. Re-distribution of +employés, both locally and trade-wise (so far as the latter is +possible), is a legitimate and useful mode of raising wages. The +illegitimate attempt to raise wages by limiting the number of +apprentices is the great abuse of trades-unions. I shall discuss that +in the ninth chapter. + +It appears that the English trades were forced to contend, during the +first half of this century, for the wages which the market really would +give them, but which, under the old traditions and restrictions which +remained, they could not get without a positive struggle. They formed +the opinion that a strike could raise wages. They were educated so to +think by the success which they had won in certain attempts. It appears +to have become a traditional opinion, in which no account is taken of +the state of the labor market. It would be hard to find a case of any +strike within thirty or forty years, either in England or the United +States, which has paid. If a strike occurs, it certainly wastes capital +and hinders production. It must, therefore, lower wages subsequently +below what they would have been if there had been no strike. If a +strike succeeds, the question arises whether an advance of wages as +great or greater would not have occurred within a limited period +without a strike. + +Nevertheless, a strike is a legitimate resort at last. It is like war, +for it is war. All that can be said is that those who have recourse to +it at last ought to understand that they assume a great responsibility, +and that they can only be justified by the circumstances of the case. I +cannot believe that a strike for wages ever is expedient. There are +other purposes, to be mentioned in a moment, for which a strike may be +expedient; but a strike for wages is a clear case of a strife in which +ultimate success is a complete test of the justifiability of the course +of those who made the strife. If the men win an advance, it proves that +they ought to have made it. If they do not win, it proves that they +were wrong to strike. If they strike with the market in their favor, +they win. If they strike with the market against them, they fail. It is +in human nature that a man whose income is increased is happy and +satisfied, although, if he demanded it, he might perhaps at that very +moment get more. A man whose income is lessened is displeased and +irritated, and he is more likely to strike then, when it may be in +vain. Strikes in industry are not nearly so peculiar a phenomenon as +they are often thought to be. Buyers strike when they refuse to buy +commodities of which the price has risen. Either the price remains +high, and they permanently learn to do without the commodity, or the +price is lowered, and they buy again. Tenants strike when house rents +rise too high for them. They seek smaller houses or parts of houses +until there is a complete readjustment. Borrowers strike when the rates +for capital are so high that they cannot employ it to advantage and pay +those rates. Laborers may strike and emigrate, or, in this country, +take to the land. This kind of strike is a regular application of +legitimate means, and is sure to succeed. Of course, strikes with +violence against employers or other employés are not to be discussed at +all. + +Trades-unions, then, are right and useful, and it may be that they are +necessary. They may do much by way of true economic means to raise +wages. They are useful to spread information, to maintain _esprit de +corps_, to elevate the public opinion of the class. They have been +greatly abused in the past. In this country they are in constant danger +of being used by political schemers--a fact which does more than +anything else to disparage them in the eyes of the best workmen. The +economic notions most in favor in the trades-unions are erroneous, +although not more so than those which find favor in the counting-room. +A man who believes that he can raise wages by doing bad work, wasting +time, allowing material to be wasted, and giving generally the least +possible service in the allotted time, is not to be distinguished from +the man who says that wages can be raised by putting protective taxes +on all clothing, furniture, crockery, bedding, books, fuel, utensils, +and tools. One lowers the services given for the capital, and the other +lowers the capital given for the services. Trades-unionism in the +higher classes consists in jobbery. There is a great deal of it in the +professions. I once heard a group of lawyers of high standing sneer at +an executor who hoped to get a large estate through probate without +allowing any lawyers to get big fees out of it. They all approved of +steps which had been taken to force a contest, which steps had forced +the executor to retain two or three lawyers. No one of the speakers had +been retained. + +Trades-unions need development, correction, and perfection. They ought, +however, to get this from the men themselves. If the men do not feel +any need of such institutions, the patronage of other persons who come +to them and give them these institutions will do harm and not good. +Especially trades-unions ought to be perfected so as to undertake a +great range of improvement duties for which we now rely on Government +inspection, which never gives what we need. The safety of workmen from +machinery, the ventilation and sanitary arrangements required by +factories, the special precautions of certain processes, the hours of +labor of women and children, the schooling of children, the limits of +age for employed children, Sunday work, hours of labor--these and other +like matters ought to be controlled by the men themselves through their +organizations. The laborers about whom we are talking are free men in a +free state. If they want to be protected they must protect themselves. +They ought to protect their own women and children. Their own class +opinion ought to secure the education of the children of their class. +If an individual workman is not bold enough to protest against a wrong +to laborers, the agent of a trades-union might with propriety do it on +behalf of the body of workmen. Here is a great and important need, and, +instead of applying suitable and adequate means to supply it, we have +demagogues declaiming, trades-union officers resolving, and Government +inspectors drawing salaries, while little or nothing is done. + +I have said that trades-unions are right and useful, and perhaps, +necessary; but trades-unions are, in fact, in this country, an exotic +and imported institution, and a great many of their rules and modes of +procedure, having been developed in England to meet English +circumstances, are out of place here. The institution itself does not +flourish here as it would if it were in a thoroughly congenial +environment. It needs to be supported by special exertion and care. Two +things here work against it. First, the great mobility of our +population. A trades-union, to be strong, needs to be composed of men +who have grown up together, who have close personal acquaintance and +mutual confidence, who have been trained to the same code, and who +expect to live on together in the same circumstances and interests. In +this country, where workmen move about frequently and with facility, +the unions suffer in their harmony and stability. It was a significant +fact that the unions declined during the hard times. It was only when +the men were prosperous that they could afford to keep up the unions, +as a kind of social luxury. When the time came to use the union it +ceased to be. Secondly, the American workman really has such personal +independence, and such an independent and strong position in the labor +market, that he does not need the union. He is farther on the road +toward the point where personal liberty supplants the associative +principle than any other workman. Hence the association is likely to be +a clog to him, especially if he is a good laborer, rather than an +assistance. If it were not for the notion brought from England, that +trades-unions are, in some mysterious way, beneficial to the +workmen--which notion has now become an article of faith--it is very +doubtful whether American workmen would find that the unions were of +any use, unless they were converted into organizations for +accomplishing the purposes enumerated in the last paragraph. + +The fashion of the time is to run to Government boards, commissions, +and inspectors to set right everything which is wrong. No experience +seems to damp the faith of our public in these instrumentalities. The +English Liberals in the middle of this century seemed to have full +grasp of the principle of liberty, and to be fixed and established in +favor of non-interference. Since they have come to power, however, they +have adopted the old instrumentalities, and have greatly multiplied +them since they have had a great number of reforms to carry out. They +seem to think that interference is good if only they interfere. In this +country the party which is "in" always interferes, and the party which +is "out" favors non-interference. The system of interference is a +complete failure to the ends it aims at, and sooner or later it will +fall of its own expense and be swept away. The two notions--one to +regulate things by a committee of control, and the other to let things +regulate themselves by the conflict of interests between free men--are +diametrically opposed; and the former is corrupting to free +institutions, because men who are taught to expect Government +inspectors to come and take care of them lose all true education in +liberty. If we have been all wrong for the last three hundred years in +aiming at a fuller realization of individual liberty, as a condition of +general and widely-diffused happiness, then we must turn back to +paternalism, discipline, and authority; but to have a combination of +liberty and dependence is impossible. + +I have read a great many diatribes within the last ten years against +employers, and a great many declamations about the wrongs of employés. +I have never seen a defense of the employer. Who dares say that he is +not the friend of the poor man? Who dares say that he is the friend of +the employer? I will try to say what I think is true. There are bad, +harsh, cross employers; there are slovenly, negligent workmen; there +are just about as many proportionately of one of these classes as of +the other. The employers of the United States--as a class, proper +exceptions being understood--have no advantage over their workmen. They +could not oppress them if they wanted to do so. The advantage, taking +good and bad times together, is with the workmen. The employers wish +the welfare of the workmen in all respects, and would give redress for +any grievance which was brought to their attention. They are +considerate of the circumstances and interests of the laborers. They +remember the interests of the workmen when driven to consider the +necessity of closing or reducing hours. They go on, and take risk and +trouble on themselves in working through bad times, rather than close +their works. The whole class of those-who-have are quick in their +sympathy for any form of distress or suffering. They are too quick. +Their sympathies need regulating, not stimulating. They are more likely +to give away capital recklessly than to withhold it stingily when any +alleged case of misfortune is before them. They rejoice to see any man +succeed in improving his position. They will aid him with counsel and +information if he desires it, and any man who needs and deserves help +because he is trying to help himself will be sure to meet with +sympathy, encouragement, and assistance from those who are better off. +If those who are in that position are related to him as employers to +employé, that tie will be recognized as giving him an especial claim. + + + + +VII. + +_CONCERNING SOME OLD FOES UNDER NEW FACES._ + + +The history of the human race is one long story of attempts by certain +persons and classes to obtain control of the power of the State, so as +to win earthly gratifications at the expense of others. People +constantly assume that there is something metaphysical and sentimental +about government. At bottom there are two chief things with which +government has to deal. They are, the property of men and the honor of +women. These it has to defend against crime. The capital which, as we +have seen, is the condition of all welfare on earth, the fortification +of existence, and the means of growth, is an object of cupidity. Some +want to get it without paying the price of industry and economy. In +ancient times they made use of force. They organized bands of robbers. +They plundered laborers and merchants. Chief of all, however, they +found that means of robbery which consisted in gaining control of the +civil organization--the State--and using its poetry and romance as a +glamour under cover of which they made robbery lawful. They developed +high-spun theories of nationality, patriotism, and loyalty. They took +all the rank, glory, power, and prestige of the great civil +organization, and they took all the rights. They threw on others the +burdens and the duties. At one time, no doubt, feudalism was an +organization which drew together again the fragments of a dissolved +society; but when the lawyers had applied the Roman law to modern +kings, and feudal nobles had been converted into an aristocracy of +court nobles, the feudal nobility no longer served any purpose. + +In modern times the great phenomenon has been the growth of the middle +class out of the mediaeval cities, the accumulation of wealth, and the +encroachment of wealth, as a social power, on the ground formerly +occupied by rank and birth. The middle class has been obliged to fight +for its rights against the feudal class, and it has, during three or +four centuries, gradually invented and established institutions to +guarantee personal and property rights against the arbitrary will of +kings and nobles. + +In its turn wealth is now becoming a power in three or four centuries, +gradually invented and the State, and, like every other power, it is +liable to abuse unless restrained by checks and guarantees. There is an +insolence of wealth, as there is an insolence of rank. A plutocracy +might be even far worse than an aristocracy. Aristocrats have always +had their class vices and their class virtues. They have always been, +as a class, chargeable with licentiousness and gambling. They have, +however, as a class, despised lying and stealing. They have always +pretended to maintain a standard of honor, although the definition and +the code of honor have suffered many changes and shocking +deterioration. The middle class has always abhorred gambling and +licentiousness, but it has not always been strict about truth and +pecuniary fidelity. That there is a code and standard of mercantile +honor which is quite as pure and grand as any military code, is beyond +question, but it has never yet been established and defined by long +usage and the concurrent support of a large and influential society. +The feudal code has, through centuries, bred a high type of men, and +constituted a caste. The mercantile code has not yet done so, but the +wealthy class has attempted to merge itself in or to imitate the feudal +class. + +The consequence is, that the wealth-power has been developed, while the +moral and social sanctions by which that power ought to be controlled +have not yet been developed. A plutocracy would be a civil organization +in which the power resides in wealth, in which a man might have +whatever he could buy, in which the rights, interests, and feelings of +those who could not pay would be overridden. + +There is a plain tendency of all civilized governments toward +plutocracy. The power of wealth in the English House of Commons has +steadily increased for fifty years. The history of the present French +Republic has shown an extraordinary development of plutocratic spirit +and measures. In the United States many plutocratic doctrines have a +currency which is not granted them anywhere else; that is, a man's +right to have almost anything which he can pay for is more popularly +recognized here than elsewhere. So far the most successful limitation +on plutocracy has come from aristocracy, for the prestige of rank is +still great wherever it exists. The social sanctions of aristocracy +tell with great force on the plutocrats, more especially on their wives +and daughters. It has already resulted that a class of wealthy men is +growing up in regard to whom the old sarcasms of the novels and the +stage about _parvenus_ are entirely thrown away. They are men who have +no superiors, by whatever standard one chooses to measure them. Such an +interplay of social forces would, indeed, be a great and happy solution +of a new social problem, if the aristocratic forces were strong enough +for the magnitude of the task. If the feudal aristocracy, or its modern +representative--which is, in reality, not at all feudal--could carry +down into the new era and transmit to the new masters of society the +grace, elegance, breeding, and culture of the past, society would +certainly gain by that course of things, as compared with any such +rupture between past and present as occurred in the French Revolution. +The dogmatic radicals who assail "on principle" the inherited social +notions and distinctions are not serving civilization. Society can do +without patricians, but it cannot do without patrician virtues. + +In the United States the opponent of plutocracy is democracy. Nowhere +else in the world has the power of wealth come to be discussed in its +political aspects as it is here. Nowhere else does the question arise +as it does here. I have given some reasons for this in former chapters. +Nowhere in the world is the danger of plutocracy as formidable as it is +here. To it we oppose the power of numbers as it is presented by +democracy. Democracy itself, however, is new and experimental. It has +not yet existed long enough to find its appropriate forms. It has no +prestige from antiquity such as aristocracy possesses. It has, indeed, +none of the surroundings which appeal to the imagination. On the other +hand, democracy is rooted in the physical, economic, and social +circumstances of the United States. This country cannot be other than +democratic for an indefinite period in the future. Its political +processes will also be republican. The affection of the people for +democracy makes them blind and uncritical in regard to it, and they are +as fond of the political fallacies to which democracy lends itself as +they are of its sound and correct interpretation, or fonder. Can +democracy develop itself and at the same time curb plutocracy? + +Already the question presents itself as one of life or death to +democracy. Legislative and judicial scandals show us that the conflict +is already opened, and that it is serious. The lobby is the army of the +plutocracy. An elective judiciary is a device so much in the interest +of plutocracy, that it must be regarded as a striking proof of the +toughness of the judicial institution that it has resisted the +corruption so much as it has. The caucus, convention, and committee +lend themselves most readily to the purposes of interested speculators +and jobbers. It is just such machinery as they might have invented if +they had been trying to make political devices to serve their purpose, +and their processes call in question nothing less than the possibility +of free self-government under the forms of a democratic republic. + +For now I come to the particular point which I desire to bring forward +against all the denunciations and complainings about the power of +chartered corporations and aggregated capital. If charters have been +given which confer undue powers, who gave them? Our legislators did. +Who elected these legislators. We did. If we are a free, self-governing +people, we must understand that it costs vigilance and exertion to be +self-governing. It costs far more vigilance and exertion to be so under +the democratic form, where we have no aids from tradition or prestige, +than under other forms. If we are a free, self-governing people, we can +blame nobody but ourselves for our misfortunes. No one will come to +help us out of them. It will do no good to heap law upon law, or to try +by constitutional provisions simply to abstain from the use of powers +which we find we always abuse. How can we get bad legislators to pass a +law which shall hinder bad legislators from passing a bad law? That is +what we are trying to do by many of our proposed remedies. The task +before us, however, is one which calls for fresh reserves of moral +force and political virtue from the very foundations of the social +body. Surely it is not a new thing to us to learn that men are greedy +and covetous, and that they will be selfish and tyrannical if they +dare. The plutocrats are simply trying to do what the generals, nobles, +and priests have done in the past--get the power of the State into +their hands, so as to bend the rights of others to their own advantage; +and what we need to do is to recognize the fact that we are face to +face with the same old foes--the vices and passions of human nature. +One of the oldest and most mischievous fallacies in this country has +been the notion that we are better than other nations, and that +Government has a smaller and easier task here than elsewhere. This +fallacy has hindered us from recognizing our old foes as soon as we +should have done. Then, again, these vices and passions take good care +here to deck themselves out in the trappings of democratic watchwords +and phrases, so that they are more often greeted with cheers than with +opposition when they first appear. The plan of electing men to +represent us who systematically surrender public to private interests, +and then trying to cure the mischief by newspaper and platform +declamation against capital and corporations, is an entire failure. + +The new foes must be met, as the old ones were met--by institutions and +guarantees. The problem of civil liberty is constantly renewed. Solved +once, it re-appears in a new form. The old constitutional guarantees +were all aimed against king and nobles. New ones must be invented to +hold the power of wealth to that responsibility without which no power +whatever is consistent with liberty. The judiciary has given the most +satisfactory evidence that it is competent to the new duty which +devolves upon it. The courts have proved, in every case in which they +have been called upon, that there are remedies, that they are adequate, +and that they can be brought to bear upon the cases. The chief need +seems to be more power of voluntary combination and co-operation among +those who are aggrieved. Such co-operation is a constant necessity +under free self-government; and when, in any community, men lose the +power of voluntary co-operation in furtherance or defense of their own +interests, they deserve to suffer, with no other remedy than newspaper +denunciations and platform declamations. Of course, in such a state of +things, political mountebanks come forward and propose fierce measures +which can be paraded for political effect. Such measures would be +hostile to all our institutions, would destroy capital, overthrow +credit, and impair the most essential interests of society. On the side +of political machinery there is no ground for hope, but only for fear. +On the side of constitutional guarantees and the independent action of +self-governing freemen there is every ground for hope. + + + + +VIII. + +_ON THE VALUE, AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE, OF THE RULE TO MIND ONE'S +OWN BUSINESS._ + + +The passion for dealing with social questions is one of the marks of +our time. Every man gets some experience of, and makes some +observations on social affairs. Except matters of health, probably none +have such general interest as matters of society. Except matters of +health, none are so much afflicted by dogmatism and crude speculation +as those which appertain to society. The amateurs in social science +always ask: What shall we do? What shall we do with Neighbor A? What +shall we do for Neighbor B? What shall we make Neighbor A do for +Neighbor B? It is a fine thing to be planning and discussing broad and +general theories of wide application. The amateurs always plan to use +the individual for some constructive and inferential social purpose, or +to use the society for some constructive and inferential individual +purpose. For A to sit down and think, What shall I do? is commonplace; +but to think what B ought to do is interesting, romantic, moral, +self-flattering, and public-spirited all at once. It satisfies a great +number of human weaknesses at once. To go on and plan what a whole +class of people ought to do is to feel one's self a power on earth, to +win a public position, to clothe one's self in dignity. Hence we have +an unlimited supply of reformers, philanthropists, humanitarians, and +would-be managers-in-general of society. + +Every man and woman in society has one big duty. That is, to take care +of his or her own self. This is a social duty. For, fortunately, the +matter stands so that the duty of making the best of one's self +individually is not a separate thing from the duty of filling one's +place in society, but the two are one, and the latter is accomplished +when the former is done. The common notion, however, seems to be that +one has a duty to society, as a special and separate thing, and that +this duty consists in considering and deciding what other people ought +to do. Now, the man who can do anything for or about anybody else than +himself is fit to be head of a family; and when he becomes head of a +family he has duties to his wife and his children, in addition to the +former big duty. Then, again, any man who can take care of himself and +his family is in a very exceptional position, if he does not find in +his immediate surroundings people who need his care and have some sort +of a personal claim upon him. If, now, he is able to fulfill all this, +and to take care of anybody outside his family and his dependents, he +must have a surplus of energy, wisdom, and moral virtue beyond what he +needs for his own business. No man has this; for a family is a charge +which is capable of infinite development, and no man could suffice to +the full measure of duty for which a family may draw upon him. Neither +can a man give to society so advantageous an employment of his +services, whatever they are, in any other way as by spending them on +his family. Upon this, however, I will not insist. I recur to the +observation that a man who proposes to take care of other people must +have himself and his family taken care of, after some sort of a +fashion, and must have an as yet unexhausted store of energy. + +The danger of minding other people's business is twofold. First, there +is the danger that a man may leave his own business unattended to; and, +second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with +another's affairs. The "friends of humanity" almost always run into +both dangers. I am one of humanity, and I do not want any volunteer +friends. I regard friendship as mutual, and I want to have my say about +it. I suppose that other components of humanity feel in the same way +about it. If so, they must regard any one who assumes the _rôle_ of a +friend of humanity as impertinent. The reference to the friend of +humanity back to his own business is obviously the next step. + +Yet we are constantly annoyed, and the legislatures are kept +constantly busy, by the people who have made up their minds that it is +wise and conducive to happiness to live in a certain way, and who want +to compel everybody else to live in their way. Some people have decided +to spend Sunday in a certain way, and they want laws passed to make +other people spend Sunday in the same way. Some people have resolved to +be teetotalers, and they want a law passed to make everybody else a +teetotaler. Some people have resolved to eschew luxury, and they want +taxes laid to make others eschew luxury. The taxing power is especially +something after which the reformer's finger always itches. Sometimes +there is an element of self-interest in the proposed reformation, as +when a publisher wanted a duty imposed on books, to keep Americans from +reading books which would unsettle their Americanisms; and when artists +wanted a tax laid on pictures, to save Americans from buying bad +paintings. + +I make no reference here to the giving and taking of counsel and aid +between man and man: of that I shall say something in the last chapter. +The very sacredness of the relation in which two men stand to one +another when one of them rescues the other from vice separates that +relation from any connection with the work of the social busybody, the +professional philanthropist, and the empirical legislator. + +The amateur social doctors are like the amateur physicians--they always +begin with the question of _remedies_, and they go at this without any +diagnosis or any knowledge of the anatomy or physiology of society. +They never have any doubt of the efficacy of their remedies. They never +take account of any ulterior effects which may be apprehended from the +remedy itself. It generally troubles them not a whit that their remedy +implies a complete reconstruction of society, or even a reconstitution +of human nature. Against all such social quackery the obvious +injunction to the quacks is, to mind their own business. + +The social doctors enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to be +more moral or more enlightened than their fellow-men. They are able to +see what other men ought to do when the other men do not see it. An +examination of the work of the social doctors, however, shows that they +are only more ignorant and more presumptuous than other people. We have +a great many social difficulties and hardships to contend with. +Poverty, pain, disease, and misfortune surround our existence. We fight +against them all the time. The individual is a centre of hopes, +affections, desires, and sufferings. When he dies, life changes its +form, but does not cease. That means that the person--the centre of all +the hopes, affections, etc.--after struggling as long as he can, is +sure to succumb at last. We would, therefore, as far as the hardships +of the human lot are concerned, go on struggling to the best of our +ability against them but for the social doctors, and we would endure +what we could not cure. But we have inherited a vast number of social +ills which never came from Nature. They are the complicated products of +all the tinkering, muddling, and blundering of social doctors in the +past. These products of social quackery are now buttressed by habit, +fashion, prejudice, platitudinarian thinking, and new quackery in +political economy and social science. It is a fact worth noticing, just +when there seems to be a revival of faith in legislative agencies, that +our States are generally providing against the experienced evils of +over-legislation by ordering that the Legislature shall sit only every +other year. During the hard times, when Congress had a real chance to +make or mar the public welfare, the final adjournment of that body was +hailed year after year with cries of relief from a great anxiety. The +greatest reforms which could now be accomplished would consist in +undoing the work of statesmen in the past, and the greatest difficulty +in the way of reform is to find out how to undo their work without +injury to what is natural and sound. All this mischief has been done +by men who sat down to consider the problem (as I heard an apprentice +of theirs once express it), What kind of a society do we want to make? +When they had settled this question _a priori_ to their satisfaction, +they set to work to make their ideal society, and today we suffer the +consequences. Human society tries hard to adapt itself to any +conditions in which it finds itself, and we have been warped and +distorted until we have got used to it, as the foot adapts itself to an +ill-made boot. Next, we have come to think that that is the right way +for things to be; and it is true that a change to a sound and normal +condition would for a time hurt us, as a man whose foot has been +distorted would suffer if he tried to wear a well-shaped boot. Finally, +we have produced a lot of economists and social philosophers who have +invented sophisms for fitting our thinking to the distorted facts. + +Society, therefore, does not need any care or supervision. If we can +acquire a science of society, based on observation of phenomena and +study of forces, we may hope to gain some ground slowly toward the +elimination of old errors and the re-establishment of a sound and +natural social order. Whatever we gain that way will be by growth, +never in the world by any reconstruction of society on the plan of +some enthusiastic social architect. The latter is only repeating the +old error over again, and postponing all our chances of real +improvement. Society needs first of all to be freed from these +meddlers--that is, to be let alone. Here we are, then, once more back +at the old doctrine--_Laissez faire_. Let us translate it into blunt +English, and it will read, Mind your own business. It is nothing but +the doctrine of liberty. Let every man be happy in his own way. If his +sphere of action and interest impinges on that of any other man, there +will have to be compromise and adjustment. Wait for the occasion. Do +not attempt to generalize those interferences or to plan for them _a +priori_. We have a body of laws and institutions which have grown up as +occasion has occurred for adjusting rights. Let the same process go on. +Practise the utmost reserve possible in your interferences even of this +kind, and by no means seize occasion for interfering with natural +adjustments. Try first long and patiently whether the natural +adjustment will not come about through the play of interests and the +voluntary concessions of the parties. + +I have said that we have an empirical political economy and social +science to fit the distortions of our society. The test of empiricism +in this matter is the attitude which one takes up toward _laissez +faire_. It no doubt wounds the vanity of a philosopher who is just +ready with a new solution of the universe to be told to mind his own +business. So he goes on to tell us that if we think that we shall, by +being let alone, attain a perfect happiness on earth, we are mistaken. +The half-way men--the professional socialists--join him. They solemnly +shake their heads, and tell us that he is right--that letting us alone +will never secure us perfect happiness. Under all this lies the +familiar logical fallacy, never expressed, but really the point of the +whole, that we _shall_ get perfect happiness if we put ourselves in the +hands of the world-reformer. We never supposed that _laissez faire_ +would give us perfect happiness. We have left perfect happiness +entirely out of our account. If the social doctors will mind their own +business, we shall have no troubles but what belong to Nature. Those we +will endure or combat as we can. What we desire is, that the friends of +humanity should cease to add to them. Our disposition toward the ills +which our fellow-man inflicts on us through malice or meddling is quite +different from our disposition toward the ills which are inherent in +the conditions of human life. + +To mind one's own business is a purely negative and unproductive +injunction, but, taking social matters as they are just now, it is a +sociological principle of the first importance. There might be +developed a grand philosophy on the basis of minding one's own +business. + + + + +IX. + +_ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF._ + + +The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism +is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be +made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a +sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the +matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the +ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely +overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and +consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, +that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case +appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies +addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all +the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in +action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an +equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. +They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all +the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the +effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. +They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, +and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave +out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social +discussion--that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking +it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced +and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man. + +The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings +toward "the poor," "the weak," "the laborers," and others of whom they +make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, +and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other +classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other +noble sentiments of the human heart. Action in the line proposed +consists in a transfer of capital from the better off to the worse off. +Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization +is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used +in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a +shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for +it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put to +reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient +and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of +benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital to protect the +good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter, however, is +never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is provided +for and out of the account. Such a notion only shows how little true +notions of political economy have as yet become popularized. There is +an almost invincible prejudice that a man who gives a dollar to a +beggar is generous and kind-hearted, but that a man who refuses the +beggar and puts the dollar in a savings-bank is stingy and mean. The +former is putting capital where it is very sure to be wasted, and where +it will be a kind of seed for a long succession of future dollars, +which must be wasted to ward off a greater strain on the sympathies +than would have been occasioned by a refusal in the first place. +Inasmuch as the dollar might have been turned into capital and given to +a laborer who, while earning it, would have reproduced it, it must be +regarded as taken from the latter. When a millionaire gives a dollar to +a beggar the gain of utility to the beggar is enormous, and the loss of +utility to the millionaire is insignificant. Generally the discussion +is allowed to rest there. But if the millionaire makes capital of the +dollar, it must go upon the labor market, as a demand for productive +services. Hence there is another party in interest--the person who +supplies productive services. There always are two parties. The second +one is always the Forgotten Man, and any one who wants to truly +understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten +Man. He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and +self-supporting. He is not, technically, "poor" or "weak"; he minds his +own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists +never think of him, and trample on him. + +We hear a great deal of schemes for "improving the condition of the +working-man." In the United States the farther down we go in the grade +of labor, the greater is the advantage which the laborer has over the +higher classes. A hod-carrier or digger here can, by one day's labor, +command many times more days' labor of a carpenter, surveyor, +bookkeeper, or doctor than an unskilled laborer in Europe could command +by one day's labor. The same is true, in a less degree, of the +carpenter, as compared with the bookkeeper, surveyor, and doctor. This +is why the United States is the great country for the unskilled +laborer. The economic conditions all favor that class. There is a great +continent to be subdued, and there is a fertile soil available to +labor, with scarcely any need of capital. Hence the people who have the +strong arms have what is most needed, and, if it were not for social +consideration, higher education would not pay. Such being the case, +the working-man needs no improvement in his condition except to be +freed from the parasites who are living on him. All schemes for +patronizing "the working classes" savor of condescension. They are +impertinent and out of place in this free democracy. There is not, in +fact, any such state of things or any such relation as would make +projects of this kind appropriate. Such projects demoralize both +parties, flattering the vanity of one and undermining the self-respect +of the other. + +For our present purpose it is most important to notice that if we lift +any man up we must have a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society +that means that to lift one man up we push another down. The schemes +for improving the condition of the working classes interfere in the +competition of workmen with each other. The beneficiaries are selected +by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have recommended themselves +to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which does not +betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding +depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, +who once more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity +once more appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on +those who are trying to help themselves. + +Trades-unions adopt various devices for raising wages, and those who +give their time to philanthropy are interested in these devices, and +wish them success. They fix their minds entirely on the workmen for the +time being _in_ the trade, and do not take note of any other _workmen_ +as interested in the matter. It is supposed that the fight is between +the workmen and their employers, and it is believed that one can give +sympathy in that contest to the workmen without feeling responsibility +for anything farther. It is soon seen, however, that the employer adds +the trades-union and strike risk to the other risks of his business, +and settles down to it philosophically. If, now, we go farther, we see +that he takes it philosophically because he has passed the loss along +on the public. It then appears that the public wealth has been +diminished, and that the danger of a trade war, like the danger of a +revolution, is a constant reduction of the well-being of all. So far, +however, we have seen only things which could _lower_ wages--nothing +which could raise them. The employer is worried, but that does not +raise wages. The public loses, but the loss goes to cover extra risk, +and that does not raise wages. + +A trades-union raises wages (aside from the legitimate and economic +means noticed in Chapter VI.) by restricting the number of apprentices +who may be taken into the trade. This device acts directly on the +supply of laborers, and that produces effects on wages. If, however, +the number of apprentices is limited, some are kept out who want to get +in. Those who are in have, therefore, made a monopoly, and constituted +themselves a privileged class on a basis exactly analogous to that of +the old privileged aristocracies. But whatever is gained by this +arrangement for those who are in is won at a greater loss to those who +are kept out. Hence it is not upon the masters nor upon the public that +trades-unions exert the pressure by which they raise wages; it is upon +other persons of the labor class who want to get into the trades, but, +not being able to do so, are pushed down into the unskilled labor +class. These persons, however, are passed by entirely without notice in +all the discussions about trades-unions. They are the Forgotten Men. +But, since they want to get into the trade and win their living in it, +it is fair to suppose that they are fit for it, would succeed at it, +would do well for themselves and society in it; that is to say, that, +of all persons interested or concerned, they most deserve our sympathy +and attention. + +The cases already mentioned involve no legislation. Society, however, +maintains police, sheriffs, and various institutions, the object of +which is to protect people against themselves--that is, against their +own vices. Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really +protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man +from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are +terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the +gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and +tendency of things. Nature has set up on him the process of decline and +dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their +usefulness. Gambling and other less mentionable vices carry their own +penalties with them. + +Now, we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the +head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not +incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this +operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being +relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that +there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. Who are +the others? When we see a drunkard in the gutter we pity him. If a +policeman picks him up, we say that society has interfered to save him +from perishing. "Society" is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble +of thinking. The industrious and sober workman, who is mulcted of a +percentage of his day's wages to pay the policeman, is the one who +bears the penalty. But he is the Forgotten Man. He passes by and is +never noticed, because he has behaved himself, fulfilled his +contracts, and asked for nothing. + +The fallacy of all prohibitory, sumptuary, and moral legislation is the +same. A and B determine to be teetotalers, which is often a wise +determination, and sometimes a necessary one. If A and B are moved by +considerations which seem to them good, that is enough. But A and B put +their heads together to get a law passed which shall force C to be a +teetotaler for the sake of D, who is in danger of drinking too much. +There is no pressure on A and B. They are having their own way, and +they like it. There is rarely any pressure on D. He does not like it, +and evades it. The pressure all comes on C. The question then arises, +Who is C? He is the man who wants alcoholic liquors for any honest +purpose whatsoever, who would use his liberty without abusing it, who +would occasion no public question, and trouble nobody at all. He is the +Forgotten Man again, and as soon as he is drawn from his obscurity we +see that he is just what each one of us ought to be. + + + + +X. + +_THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN MAN FARTHER CONSIDERED._ + + +There is a beautiful notion afloat in our literature and in the minds +of our people that men are born to certain "natural rights." If that +were true, there would be something on earth which was got for nothing, +and this world would not be the place it is at all. The fact is, that +there is no right whatever inherited by man which has not an equivalent +and corresponding duty by the side of it, as the price of it. The +rights, advantages, capital, knowledge, and all other goods which we +inherit from past generations have been won by the struggles and +sufferings of past generations; and the fact that the race lives, +though men die, and that the race can by heredity accumulate within +some cycle its victories over Nature, is one of the facts which make +civilization possible. The struggles of the race as a whole produce the +possessions of the race as a whole. Something for nothing is not to be +found on earth. + +If there were such things as natural rights, the question would arise, +Against whom are they good? Who has the corresponding obligation to +satisfy these rights? There can be no rights against Nature, except to +get out of her whatever we can, which is only the fact of the struggle +for existence stated over again. The common assertion is, that the +rights are good against society; that is, that society is bound to +obtain and secure them for the persons interested. Society, however, is +only the persons interested plus some other persons; and as the persons +interested have by the hypothesis failed to win the rights, we come to +this, that natural rights are the claims which certain persons have by +prerogative against some other persons. Such is the actual +interpretation in practice of natural rights--claims which some people +have by prerogative on other people. + +This theory is a very far-reaching one, and of course it is adequate to +furnish a foundation for a whole social philosophy. In its widest +extension it comes to mean that if any man finds himself uncomfortable +in this world, it must be somebody else's fault, and that somebody is +bound to come and make him comfortable. Now, the people who are most +uncomfortable in this world (for if we should tell all our troubles it +would not be found to be a very comfortable world for anybody) are +those who have neglected their duties, and consequently have failed to +get their rights. The people who can be called upon to serve the +uncomfortable must be those who have done their duty, as the world +goes, tolerably well. Consequently the doctrine which we are discussing +turns out to be in practice only a scheme for making injustice prevail +in human society by reversing the distribution of rewards and +punishments between those who have done their duty and those who have +not. + +We are constantly preached at by our public teachers, as if respectable +people were to blame because some people are not respectable--as if the +man who has done his duty in his own sphere was responsible in some way +for another man who has not done his duty in his sphere. There are +relations of employer and employé which need to be regulated by +compromise and treaty. There are sanitary precautions which need to be +taken in factories and houses. There are precautions against fire which +are necessary. There is care needed that children be not employed too +young, and that they have an education. There is care needed that +banks, insurance companies, and railroads be well managed, and that +officers do not abuse their trusts. There is a duty in each case on the +interested parties to defend their own interest. The penalty of neglect +is suffering. The system of providing for these things by boards and +inspectors throws the cost of it, not on the interested parties, but on +the tax-payers. Some of them, no doubt, are the interested parties, and +they may consider that they are exercising the proper care by paying +taxes to support an inspector. If so, they only get their fair deserts +when the railroad inspector finds out that a bridge is not safe after +it is broken down, or when the bank examiner comes in to find out why a +bank failed after the cashier has stolen all the funds. The real victim +is the Forgotten Man again--the man who has watched his own +investments, made his own machinery safe, attended to his own plumbing, +and educated his own children, and who, just when he wants to enjoy the +fruits of his care, is told that it is his duty to go and take care of +some of his negligent neighbors, or, if he does not go, to pay an +inspector to go. No doubt it is often in his interest to go or to send, +rather than to have the matter neglected, on account of his own +connection with the thing neglected, and his own secondary peril; but +the point now is, that if preaching and philosophizing can do any good +in the premises, it is all wrong to preach to the Forgotten Man that it +is his duty to go and remedy other people's neglect. It is not his +duty. It is a harsh and unjust burden which is laid upon him, and it is +only the more unjust because no one thinks of him when laying the +burden so that it falls on him. The exhortations ought to be expended +on the negligent--that they take care of themselves. + +It is an especially vicious extension of the false doctrine above +mentioned that criminals have some sort of a right against or claim on +society. Many reformatory plans are based on a doctrine of this kind +when they are urged upon the public conscience. A criminal is a man +who, instead of working with and for the society, has turned against +it, and become destructive and injurious. His punishment means that +society rules him out of its membership, and separates him from its +association, by execution or imprisonment, according to the gravity of +his offense. He has no claims against society at all. What shall be +done with him is a question of expediency to be settled in view of the +interests of society--that is, of the non-criminals. The French writers +of the school of '48 used to represent the badness of the bad men as +the fault of "society." As the object of this statement was to show +that the badness of the bad men was not the fault of the bad men, and +as society contains only good men and bad men, it followed that the +badness of the bad men was the fault of the good men. On that theory, +of course the good men owed a great deal to the bad men who were in +prison and at the galleys on their account. If we do not admit that +theory, it behooves us to remember that any claim which we allow to the +criminal against the "State" is only so much burden laid upon those who +have never cost the State anything for discipline or correction. The +punishments of society are just like those of God and Nature--they are +warnings to the wrong-doer to reform himself. + +When public offices are to be filled numerous candidates at once +appear. Some are urged on the ground that they are poor, or cannot earn +a living, or want support while getting an education, or have female +relatives dependent on them, or are in poor health, or belong in a +particular district, or are related to certain persons, or have done +meritorious service in some other line of work than that which they +apply to do. The abuses of the public service are to be condemned on +account of the harm to the public interest, but there is an incidental +injustice of the same general character with that which we are +discussing. If an office is granted by favoritism or for any personal +reason to A, it cannot be given to B. If an office is filled by a +person who is unfit for it, he always keeps out somebody somewhere who +is fit for it; that is, the social injustice has a victim in an unknown +person--the Forgotten Man--and he is some person who has no political +influence, and who has known no way in which to secure the chances of +life except to deserve them. He is passed by for the noisy, pushing, +importunate, and incompetent. + +I have said something disparagingly in a previous chapter about the +popular rage against combined capital, corporations, corners, selling +futures, etc., etc. The popular rage is not without reason, but it is +sadly misdirected and the real things which deserve attack are thriving +all the time. The greatest social evil with which we have to contend is +jobbery. Whatever there is in legislative charters, watering stocks, +etc., etc., which is objectionable, comes under the head of jobbery. +Jobbery is any scheme which aims to gain, not by the legitimate fruits +of industry and enterprise, but by extorting from somebody a part of +his product under guise of some pretended industrial undertaking. Of +course it is only a modification when the undertaking in question has +some legitimate character, but the occasion is used to graft upon it +devices for obtaining what has not been earned. Jobbery is the vice of +plutocracy, and it is the especial form under which plutocracy corrupts +a democratic and republican form of government. The United States is +deeply afflicted with it, and the problem of civil liberty here is to +conquer it. It affects everything which we really need to have done to +such an extent that we have to do without public objects which we need +through fear of jobbery. Our public buildings are jobs--not always, but +often. They are not needed, or are costly beyond all necessity or even +decent luxury. Internal improvements are jobs. They are not made +because they are needed to meet needs which have been experienced. +They are made to serve private ends, often incidentally the political +interests of the persons who vote the appropriations. Pensions have +become jobs. In England pensions used to be given to aristocrats, +because aristocrats had political influence, in order to corrupt them. +Here pensions are given to the great democratic mass, because they have +political power, to corrupt them. Instead of going out where there is +plenty of land and making a farm there, some people go down under the +Mississippi River to make a farm, and then they want to tax all the +people in the United States to make dikes to keep the river off their +farms. The California gold-miners have washed out gold, and have washed +the dirt down into the rivers and on the farms below. They want the +Federal Government to now clean out the rivers and restore the farms. +The silver-miners found their product declining in value, and they got +the Federal Government to go into the market and buy what the public +did not want, in order to sustain (as they hoped) the price of silver. +The Federal Government is called upon to buy or hire unsalable ships, +to build canals which will not pay, to furnish capital for all sorts of +experiments, and to provide capital for enterprises of which private +individuals will win the profits. All this is called "developing our +resources," but it is, in truth, the great plan of all living on each +other. + +The greatest job of all is a protective tariff. It includes the biggest +log-rolling and the widest corruption of economic and political ideas. +It was said that there would be a rebellion if the taxes were not taken +off whiskey and tobacco, which taxes were paid into the public +Treasury. Just then the importations of Sumatra tobacco became +important enough to affect the market. The Connecticut tobacco-growers +at once called for an import duty on tobacco which would keep up the +price of their product. So it appears that if the tax on tobacco is +paid to the Federal Treasury there will be a rebellion, but if it is +paid to the Connecticut tobacco-raisers there will be no rebellion at +all. The farmers have long paid tribute to the manufacturers; now the +manufacturing and other laborers are to pay tribute to the farmers. The +system is made more comprehensive and complete, and we all are living +on each other more than ever. + +Now, the plan of plundering each other produces nothing. It only +wastes. All the material over which the protected interests wrangle and +grab must be got from somebody outside of their circle. The talk is all +about the American laborer and American industry, but in every case in +which there is not an actual production of wealth by industry there +are two laborers and two industries to be considered--the one who gets +and the one who gives. Every protected industry has to plead, as the +major premise of its argument, that any industry which does not pay +_ought_ to be carried on at the expense of the consumers of the +product, and, as its minor premise, that the industry in question does +not pay; that is, that it cannot reproduce a capital equal in value to +that which it consumes plus the current rate of profit. Hence every +such industry must be a parasite on some other industry. What is the +other industry? Who is the other man? This, the real question, is +always overlooked. + +In all jobbery the case is the same. There is a victim somewhere who is +paying for it all. The doors of waste and extravagance stand open, and +there seems to be a general agreement to squander and spend. It all +belongs to somebody. There is somebody who had to contribute it, and +who will have to find more. Nothing is ever said about him. Attention +is all absorbed by the clamorous interests, the importunate +petitioners, the plausible schemers, the pitiless bores. Now, who is +the victim? He is the Forgotten Man. If we go to find him, we shall +find him hard at work tilling the soil to get out of it the fund for +all the jobbery, the object of all the plunder, the cost of all the +economic quackery, and the pay of all the politicians and statesmen +who have sacrificed his interests to his enemies. We shall find him an +honest, sober, industrious citizen, unknown outside his little circle, +paying his debts and his taxes, supporting the church and the school, +reading his party newspaper, and cheering for his pet politician. + +We must not overlook the fact that the Forgotten Man is not +infrequently a woman. I have before me a newspaper which contains five +letters from corset-stitchers who complain that they cannot earn more +than seventy-five cents a day with a machine, and that they have to +provide the thread. The tax on the grade of thread used by them is +prohibitory as to all importation, and it is the corset-stitchers who +have to pay day by day out of their time and labor the total +enhancement of price due to the tax. Women who earn their own living +probably earn on an average seventy-five cents per day of ten hours. +Twenty-four minutes' work ought to buy a spool of thread at the retail +price, if the American work-woman were allowed to exchange her labor +for thread on the best terms that the art and commerce of today would +allow; but after she has done twenty-four minutes' work for the thread +she is forced by the laws of her country to go back and work sixteen +minutes longer to pay the tax--that is, to support the thread-mill. +The thread-mill, therefore, is not an institution for getting thread +for the American people, but for making thread harder to get than it +would be if there were no such institution. + +In justification, now, of an arrangement so monstrously unjust and out +of place in a free country, it is said that the employés in the +thread-mill get high wages, and that, but for the tax, American +laborers must come down to the low wages of foreign thread-makers. It +is not true that American thread-makers get any more than the market +rate of wages, and they would not get less if the tax were entirely +removed, because the market rate of wages in the United States would be +controlled then, as it is now, by the supply and demand of laborers +under the natural advantages and opportunities of industry in this +country. It makes a great impression on the imagination, however, to go +to a manufacturing town and see great mills and a crowd of operatives; +and such a sight is put forward, _under the special allegation that it +would not exist but for a protective tax_, as a proof that protective +taxes are wise. But if it be true that the thread-mill would not exist +but for the tax, or that the operatives would not get such good wages +but for the tax, then how can we form a judgment as to whether the +protective system is wise or not unless we call to mind all the +seamstresses, washer-women, servants, factory-hands, saleswomen, +teachers, and laborers' wives and daughters, scattered in the garrets +and tenements of great cities and in cottages all over the country, who +are paying the tax which keeps the mill going and pays the extra wages? +If the sewing-women, teachers, servants, and washer-women could once be +collected over against the thread-mill, then some inferences could be +drawn which would be worth something. Then some light might be thrown +upon the obstinate fallacy of "creating an industry," and we might +begin to understand the difference between wanting thread and wanting a +thread-mill. Some nations spend capital on great palaces, others on +standing armies, others on iron-clad ships of war. Those things are all +glorious, and strike the imagination with great force when they are +seen; but no one doubts that they make life harder for the scattered +insignificant peasants and laborers who have to pay for them all. They +"support a great many people," they "make work," they "give employment +to other industries." We Americans have no palaces, armies, or +iron-clads, but we spend our earnings on protected industries. A big +protected factory, if it really needs the protection for its support, +is a heavier load for the Forgotten Men and Women than an iron-clad +ship of war in time of peace. + +It is plain that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the +real productive strength of the country. The Forgotten Man works and +votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. +His name never gets into the newspapers except when he marries or dies. +He is an obscure man. He may grumble sometimes to his wife, but he does +not frequent the grocery, and he does not talk politics at the tavern. +So he is forgotten. Yet who is there whom the statesman, economist, and +social philosopher ought to think of before this man? If any student of +social science comes to appreciate the case of the Forgotten Man, he +will become an unflinching advocate of strict scientific thinking in +sociology, and a hard-hearted skeptic as regards any scheme of social +amelioration. He will always want to know, Who and where is the +Forgotten Man in this case, who will have to pay for it all? + +The Forgotten Man is not a pauper. It belongs to his character to save +something. Hence he is a capitalist, though never a great one. He is a +"poor" man in the popular sense of the word, but not in a correct +sense. In fact, one of the most constant and trustworthy signs that the +Forgotten Man is in danger of a new assault is, that "the poor man" is +brought into the discussion. Since the Forgotten Man has some capital, +any one who cares for his interest will try to make capital secure by +securing the inviolability of contracts, the stability of currency, and +the firmness of credit. Any one, therefore, who cares for the Forgotten +Man will be sure to be considered a friend of the capitalist and an +enemy of the poor man. + +It is the Forgotten Man who is threatened by every extension of the +paternal theory of government. It is he who must work and pay. When, +therefore, the statesmen and social philosophers sit down to think what +the State can do or ought to do, they really mean to decide what the +Forgotten Man shall do. What the Forgotten Man wants, therefore, is a +fuller realization of constitutional liberty. He is suffering from the +fact that there are yet mixed in our institutions mediaeval theories of +protection, regulation, and authority, and modern theories of +independence and individual liberty and responsibility. The consequence +of this mixed state of things is, that those who are clever enough to +get into control use the paternal theory by which to measure their own +rights--that is, they assume privileges; and they use the theory of +liberty to measure their own duties--that is, when it comes to the +duties, they want to be "let alone." The Forgotten Man never gets into +control. He has to pay both ways. His rights are measured to him by the +theory of liberty--that is, he has only such as he can conquer; his +duties are measured to him on the paternal theory--that is, he must +discharge all which are laid upon him, as is the fortune of parents. In +a paternal relation there are always two parties, a father and a child; +and when we use the paternal relation metaphorically, it is of the +first importance to know who is to be father and who is to be child. +The _rôle_ of parent falls always to the Forgotten Man. What he wants, +therefore, is that ambiguities in our institutions be cleared up, and +that liberty be more fully realized. + +It behooves any economist or social philosopher, whatever be the grade +of his orthodoxy, who proposes to enlarge the sphere of the "State," or +to take any steps whatever having in view the welfare of any class +whatever, to pursue the analysis of the social effects of his +proposition until he finds that other group whose interests must be +curtailed or whose energies must be placed under contribution by the +course of action which he proposes; and he cannot maintain his +proposition until he has demonstrated that it will be more +advantageous, _both quantitatively and qualitatively_, to those who +must bear the weight of it than complete non-interference by the State +with the relations of the parties in question. + + + + +XI. + +_WHEREFORE WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER._ + + +Suppose that a man, going through a wood, should be struck by a falling +tree and pinned down beneath it. Suppose that another man, coming that +way and finding him there, should, instead of hastening to give or to +bring aid, begin to lecture on the law of gravitation, taking the tree +as an illustration. + +Suppose, again, that a person lecturing on the law of gravitation +should state the law of falling bodies, and suppose that an objector +should say: You state your law as a cold, mathematical fact and you +declare that all bodies will fall conformably to it. How heartless! You +do not reflect that it may be a beautiful little child falling from a +window. + +These two suppositions may be of some use to us as illustrations. + +Let us take the second first. It is the objection of the +sentimentalist; and, ridiculous as the mode of discussion appears when +applied to the laws of natural philosophy, the sociologist is +constantly met by objections of just that character. Especially when +the subject under discussion is charity in any of its public forms, the +attempt to bring method and clearness into the discussion is sure to be +crossed by suggestions which are as far from the point and as foreign +to any really intelligent point of view as the supposed speech in the +illustration. In the first place, a child would fall just as a stone +would fall. Nature's forces know no pity. Just so in sociology. The +forces know no pity. In the second place, if a natural philosopher +should discuss all the bodies which may fall, he would go entirely +astray, and would certainly do no good. The same is true of the +sociologist. He must concentrate, not scatter, and study laws, not all +conceivable combinations of force which may occur in practice. In the +third place, nobody ever saw a body fall as the philosophers say it +will fall, because they can accomplish nothing unless they study forces +separately, and allow for their combined action in all concrete and +actual phenomena. The same is true in sociology, with the additional +fact that the forces and their combinations in sociology are far the +most complex which we have to deal with. In the fourth place, any +natural philosopher who should stop, after stating the law of falling +bodies, to warn mothers not to let their children fall out of the +window, would make himself ridiculous. Just so a sociologist who should +attach moral applications and practical maxims to his investigations +would entirely miss his proper business. There is the force of gravity +as a fact in the world. If we understand this, the necessity of care +to conform to the action of gravity meets us at every step in our +private life and personal experience. The fact in sociology is in no +wise different. + +If, for instance, we take political economy, that science does not +teach an individual how to get rich. It is a social science. It treats +of the laws of the material welfare of human societies. It is, +therefore, only one science among all the sciences which inform us +about the laws and conditions of our life on earth. Education has for +its object to give a man knowledge of the conditions and laws of +living, so that, in any case in which the individual stands face to +face with the necessity of deciding what to do, if he is an educated +man, he may know how to make a wise and intelligent decision. If he +knows chemistry, physics, geology, and other sciences, he will know +what he must encounter of obstacle or help in Nature in what he +proposes to do. If he knows physiology and hygiene, he will know what +effects on health he must expect in one course or another. If he knows +political economy, he will know what effect on wealth and on the +welfare of society one course or another will produce. There is no +injunction, no "ought" in political economy at all. It does not assume +to tell man what he ought to do, any more than chemistry tells us that +we ought to mix things, or mathematics that we ought to solve +equations. It only gives one element necessary to an intelligent +decision, and in every practical and concrete case the responsibility +of deciding what to do rests on the man who has to act. The economist, +therefore, does not say to any one, You ought never to give money to +charity. He contradicts anybody who says, You ought to give money to +charity; and, in opposition to any such person, he says, Let me show +you what difference it makes to you, to others, to society, whether you +give money to charity or not, so that you can make a wise and +intelligent decision. Certainly there is no harder thing to do than to +employ capital charitably. It would be extreme folly to say that +nothing of that sort ought to be done, but I fully believe that today +the next pernicious thing to vice is charity in its broad and popular +sense. + +In the preceding chapters I have discussed the public and social +relations of classes, and those social topics in which groups of +persons are considered as groups or classes, without regard to personal +merits or demerits. I have relegated all charitable work to the domain +of private relations, where personal acquaintance and personal +estimates may furnish the proper limitations and guarantees. A man who +had no sympathies and no sentiments would be a very poor creature; but +the public charities, more especially the legislative charities, +nourish no man's sympathies and sentiments. Furthermore, it ought to +be distinctly perceived that any charitable and benevolent effort which +any man desires to make voluntarily, to see if he can do any good, lies +entirely beyond the field of discussion. It would be as impertinent to +prevent his effort as it is to force co-operation in an effort on some +one who does not want to participate in it. What I choose to do by way +of exercising my own sympathies under my own reason and conscience is +one thing; what another man forces me to do of a sympathetic character, +because his reason and conscience approve of it, is quite another +thing. + +What, now, is the reason why we should help each other? This carries us +back to the other illustration with which we started. We may +philosophize as coolly and correctly as we choose about our duties and +about the laws of right living; no one of us lives up to what he knows. +The man struck by the falling tree has, perhaps, been careless. We are +all careless. Environed as we are by risks and perils, which befall us +as misfortunes, no man of us is in a position to say, "I know all the +laws, and am sure to obey them all; therefore I shall never need aid +and sympathy." At the very best, one of us fails in one way and another +in another, if we do not fail altogether. Therefore the man under the +tree is the one of us who for the moment is smitten. It may be you +to-morrow, and I next day. It is the common frailty in the midst of a +common peril which gives us a kind of solidarity of interest to rescue +the one for whom the chances of life have turned out badly just now. +Probably the victim is to blame. He almost always is so. A lecture to +that effect in the crisis of his peril would be out of place, because +it would not fit the need of the moment; but it would be very much in +place at another time, when the need was to avert the repetition of +such an accident to somebody else. Men, therefore, owe to men, in the +chances and perils of this life, aid and sympathy, on account of the +common participation in human frailty and folly. This observation, +however, puts aid and sympathy in the field of private and personal +relations, under the regulation of reason and conscience, and gives no +ground for mechanical and impersonal schemes. + +We may, then, distinguish four things: + +1. The function of science is to investigate truth. Science is +colorless and impersonal. It investigates the force of gravity, and +finds out the laws of that force, and has nothing to do with the weal +or woe of men under the operation of the law. + +2. The moral deductions as to what one ought to do are to be drawn by +the reason and conscience of the individual man who is instructed by +science. Let him take note of the force of gravity, and see to it that +he does not walk off a precipice or get in the way of a falling body. + +3. On account of the number and variety of perils of all kinds by which +our lives are environed, and on account of ignorance, carelessness, and +folly, we all neglect to obey the moral deductions which we have +learned, so that, in fact, the wisest and the best of us act foolishly +and suffer. + +4. The law of sympathy, by which we share each others' burdens, is to +do as we would be done by. It is not a scientific principle, and does +not admit of such generalization or interpretation that A can tell B +what this law enjoins on B to do. Hence the relations of sympathy and +sentiment are essentially limited to two persons only, and they cannot +be made a basis for the relations of groups of persons, or for +discussion by any third party. + +Social improvement is not to be won by direct effort. It is secondary, +and results from physical or economic improvements. That is the reason +why schemes of direct social amelioration always have an arbitrary, +sentimental, and artificial character, while true social advance must +be a product and a growth. The efforts which are being put forth for +every kind of progress in the arts and sciences are, therefore, +contributing to true social progress. Let any one learn what hardship +was involved, even for a wealthy person, a century ago, in crossing the +Atlantic, and then let him compare that hardship even with a steerage +passage at the present time, considering time and money cost. This +improvement in transportation by which "the poor and weak" can be +carried from the crowded centres of population to the new land is worth +more to them than all the schemes of all the social reformers. An +improvement in surgical instruments or in anaesthetics really does more +for those who are not well off than all the declamations of the orators +and pious wishes of the reformers. Civil service reform would be a +greater gain to the laborers than innumerable factory acts and +eight-hour laws. Free trade would be a greater blessing to "the poor +man" than all the devices of all the friends of humanity if they could +be realized. If the economists could satisfactorily solve the problem +of the regulation of paper currency, they would do more for the wages +class than could be accomplished by all the artificial doctrines about +wages which they seem to feel bound to encourage. If we could get firm +and good laws passed for the management of savings-banks, and then +refrain from the amendments by which those laws are gradually broken +down, we should do more for the non-capitalist class than by volumes +of laws against "corporations" and the "excessive power of capital." + +We each owe to the other mutual redress of grievances. It has been +said, in answer to my argument in the last chapter about the Forgotten +Women and thread, that the tax on thread is "only a little thing," and +that it cannot hurt the women much, and also that, if the women do not +want to pay two cents a spool tax, there is thread of an inferior +quality, which they can buy cheaper. These answers represent the +bitterest and basest social injustice. Every honest citizen of a free +state owes it to himself, to the community, and especially to those who +are at once weak and wronged, to go to their assistance and to help +redress their wrongs. Whenever a law or social arrangement acts so as +to injure any one, and that one the humblest, then there is a duty on +those who are stronger, or who know better, to demand and fight for +redress and correction. When generalized this means that it is the duty +of All-of-us (that is, the State) to establish justice for all, from +the least to the greatest, and in all matters. This, however, is no new +doctrine. It is only the old, true, and indisputable function of the +State; and in working for a redress of wrongs and a correction of +legislative abuses, we are only struggling to a fuller realization of +it--that is, working to improve civil government. + +We each owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain +to _results_, but only to _chances_. They pertain to the _conditions_ +of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the +_pursuit_ of happiness, not to the possession of happiness. It cannot +be said that each one has a right to have some property, because if one +man had such a right some other man or men would be under a +corresponding obligation to provide him with some property. Each has a +right to acquire and possess property if he can. It is plain what +fallacies are developed when we overlook this distinction. Those +fallacies run through _all_ socialistic schemes and theories. If we +take rights to pertain to results, and then say that rights must be +equal, we come to say that men have a right to be equally happy, and so +on in all the details. Rights should be equal, because they pertain to +chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are +provided or limited by the action of society. This, however, will not +produce equal results, but it is right just because it will produce +unequal results--that is, results which shall be proportioned to the +merits of individuals. We each owe it to the other to guarantee +mutually the chance to earn, to possess, to learn, to marry, etc., +etc., against any interference which would prevent the exercise of +those rights by a person who wishes to prosecute and enjoy them in +peace for the pursuit of happiness. If we generalize this, it means +that All-of-us ought to guarantee rights to each of us. But our modern +free, constitutional States are constructed entirely on the notion of +rights, and we regard them as performing their functions more and more +perfectly according as they guarantee rights in consonance with the +constantly corrected and expanded notions of rights from one generation +to another. Therefore, when we say that we owe it to each other to +guarantee rights we only say that we ought to prosecute and improve our +political science. + +If we have in mind the value of chances to earn, learn, possess, etc., +for a man of independent energy, we can go on one step farther in our +deductions about help. The only help which is generally expedient, even +within the limits of the private and personal relations of two persons +to each other, is that which consists in helping a man to help himself. +This always consists in opening the chances. A man of assured position +can by an effort which is of no appreciable importance to him, give aid +which is of incalculable value to a man who is all ready to make his +own career if he can only get a chance. The truest and deepest pathos +in this world is not that of suffering but that of brave struggling. +The truest sympathy is not compassion, but a fellow-feeling with +courage and fortitude in the midst of noble effort. + +Now, the aid which helps a man to help himself is not in the least akin +to the aid which is given in charity. If alms are given, or if we "make +work" for a man, or "give him employment," or "protect" him, we simply +take a product from one and give it to another. If we help a man to +help himself, by opening the chances around him, we put him in a +position to add to the wealth of the community by putting new powers in +operation to produce. It would seem that the difference between getting +something already in existence from the one who has it, and producing a +new thing by applying new labor to natural materials, would be so plain +as never to be forgotten; but the fallacy of confusing the two is one +of the commonest in all social discussions. + +We have now seen that the current discussions about the claims and +rights of social classes on each other are radically erroneous and +fallacious, and we have seen that an analysis of the general +obligations which we all have to each other leads us to nothing but an +emphatic repetition of old but well acknowledged obligations to perfect +our political institutions. We have been led to restriction, not +extension, of the functions of the State, but we have also been led to +see the necessity of purifying and perfecting the operation of the +State in the functions which properly belong to it. If we refuse to +recognize any classes as existing in society when, perhaps, a claim +might be set up that the wealthy, educated, and virtuous have acquired +special rights and precedence, we certainly cannot recognize any +classes when it is attempted to establish such distinctions for the +sake of imposing burdens and duties on one group for the benefit of +others. The men who have not done their duty in this world never can be +equal to those who have done their duty more or less well. If words +like wise and foolish, thrifty and extravagant, prudent and negligent, +have any meaning in language, then it must make some difference how +people behave in this world, and the difference will appear in the +position they acquire in the body of society, and in relation to the +chances of life. They may, then, be classified in reference to these +facts. Such classes always will exist; no other social distinctions can +endure. If, then, we look to the origin and definition of these +classes, we shall find it impossible to deduce any obligations which +one of them bears to the other. The class distinctions simply result +from the different degrees of success with which men have availed +themselves of the chances which were presented to them. Instead of +endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made +between the existing classes, our aim should be to _increase, +multiply, and extend the chances_. Such is the work of civilization. +Every old error or abuse which is removed opens new chances of +development to all the new energy of society. Every improvement in +education, science, art, or government expands the chances of man on +earth. Such expansion is no guarantee of equality. On the contrary, if +there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will +neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances the more +unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to +be, in all justice and right reason. The yearning after equality is the +offspring of envy and covetousness, and there is no possible plan for +satisfying that yearning which can do aught else than rob A to give to +B; consequently all such plans nourish some of the meanest vices of +human nature, waste capital, and overthrow civilization. But if we can +expand the chances we can count on a general and steady growth of +civilization and advancement of society by and through its best +members. In the prosecution of these chances we all owe to each other +good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guarantees of liberty and +security. Beyond this nothing can be affirmed as a duty of one group to +another in a free state. + + * * * * * + + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + | Typographical errors corrected in text: | + | | + | Page 27: millionnaires replaced by millionaires | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + + * * * * * + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, by +William Graham Sumner + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE *** + +***** This file should be named 18603-8.txt or 18603-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/8/6/0/18603/ + +Produced by Jeff G., Jeannie Howse and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/18603-8.zip b/18603-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9983dcd --- /dev/null +++ b/18603-8.zip diff --git a/18603-h.zip b/18603-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..169ca3e --- /dev/null +++ b/18603-h.zip diff --git a/18603-h/18603-h.htm b/18603-h/18603-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bec1181 --- /dev/null +++ b/18603-h/18603-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3693 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> +<html> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, by William Graham Sumner. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .5em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .5em; + text-indent: 1em; + } + H1 { + text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* all headings centered */ + } + H5,H6 { + text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* all headings centered */ + } + H2 { + text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* centered and coloured */ + } + H3 { + text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; /* centered and coloured */ + } + H4 { + text-align: center; font-family: garamond, serif; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; /* all headings centered */ + } + HR { width: 33%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + a {text-decoration: none} /* no lines under links */ + div.centered {text-align: center;} /* work around for IE centering with CSS problem part 1 */ + div.centered table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;} /* work around for IE centering with CSS problem part 2 */ + ul {list-style-type: none} /* no bullets on lists */ + + .cen {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} /* centering paragraphs */ + .sc {font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 95%;} /* small caps, normal size */ + .noin {text-indent: 0em;} /* no indenting */ + .linenum {position: absolute; top: auto; left: 4%;} /* poetry number */ + .note {margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;} /* footnote */ + .block {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} /* block indent */ + .right {text-align: right; padding-right: 2em;} /* right aligning paragraphs */ + .totoc {position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: 75%; text-align: right;} /* Table of contents anchor */ + .totoi {position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: 75%; text-align: right;} /* to Table of Illustrations link */ + .img {text-align: center; padding: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} /* centering images */ + .sidenote {width: 20%; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; font-size: smaller; float: right; clear: right;} + .tdr {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;} /* aligning cell content to the right */ + .tdrp {text-align: right; padding-right: 1em; vertical-align: top;} /* aligning cell content to the right */ + .tdc {text-align: center;} /* aligning cell content to the center */ + .tdl {text-align: left;} /* aligning cell content to the left */ + .tdlsc {text-align: left; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 95%; padding-left: .25em; vertical-align: bottom;} /* aligning cell content and small caps */ + .tdrsc {text-align: right; font-variant: small-caps;} /* aligning cell content and small caps */ + .tdcsc {text-align: center; font-variant: small-caps;} /* aligning cell content and small caps */ + .tr {margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; margin-top: 5%; margin-bottom: 5%; padding: 1em; background-color: #f6f2f2; color: black; border: dotted black 1px;} /* transcriber's notes */ + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: 75%; text-align: right; color: silver; background-color: inherit;} /* page numbers */ + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: text-top; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + .poem {margin-left:10%; margin-right:10%; text-align: left;} + .poem br {display: none;} + .poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} + .poem span {display: block; margin: 0; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} + .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 2em;} + .poem span.i4 {display: block; margin-left: 4em;} + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, by +William Graham Sumner + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: What Social Classes Owe to Each Other + +Author: William Graham Sumner + +Release Date: June 16, 2006 [EBook #18603] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE *** + + + + +Produced by Jeff G., Jeannie Howse and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> + +<div class="tr"> +<p class="cen" style="font-weight: bold;">Transcriber's Note:</p> +<br /> +<p class="noin">The original from which this text is transcribed uses an unusual +capitalization style which has been faithfully reproduced.</p> +<p class="noin">Obvious typographical errors have been corrected in this text.<br /> +For a complete list, please see the <a href="#TN">bottom of this document</a>.</p> +<p class="noin">With no copyright notice, the 1951 intro falls under Rule 5, and is +therefore public domain.</p> +</div> + +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> + + +<h1>WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES<br /> +OWE TO EACH OTHER</h1> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> + +<h3>By</h3> +<h2 style="font-variant: small-caps;">William Graham Sumner</h2> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> + +<h5>First published by Harper & Brothers, 1883</h5> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="toc" id="toc"></a><hr /> +<br /> + +<h3>CONTENTS</h3> +<br /> + +<div class="centered"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="80%" summary="Table of Contents"> + <tr> + <td class="tdr" width="10%"><span style="font-size: 80%;">CHAPTER</span></td> + <td width="80%"> </td> + <td class="tdr" width="10%"><span style="font-size: 80%;">PAGE</span></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp"> </td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#FOREWORD">Foreword</a></td> + <td class="tdr">5</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp"> </td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#INTRODUCTION">Introduction</a></td> + <td class="tdr">6</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">I.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#I">On a New Philosophy: That Poverty is the Best Policy</a></td> + <td class="tdr">13</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">II.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#II">That a Free Man Is a Sovereign, But that a Sovereign + Cannot Take "Tips"</a></td> + <td class="tdr">25</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">III.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#III">That it is Not Wicked to be Rich: Nay, Even, That It + Is Not Wicked to be Richer than One's Neighbor</a></td> + <td class="tdr">38</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">IV.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#IV">On the Reasons Why Man Is Not Altogether a Brute</a></td> + <td class="tdr">51</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">V.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#V">That We Must Have Few Men, if We Want Strong Men</a></td> + <td class="tdr">63</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">VI.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#VI">That He Who Would be Well Taken Care of Must Take + Care of Himself</a></td> + <td class="tdr">71</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">VII.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#VII">Concerning Some Old Foes under New Faces</a></td> + <td class="tdr">88</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">VIII.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#VIII">On the Value, as a Sociological Principle, of the + Rule To Mind One's Own Business</a></td> + <td class="tdr">97</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">IX.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#IX">On the Case of a Certain Man Who is Never Thought of</a></td> + <td class="tdr">107</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">X.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#X">The Case of the Forgotten Man Farther Considered</a></td> + <td class="tdr">116</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdrp">XI.</td> + <td class="tdlsc"><a href="#XI">Wherefore We Should Love One Another</a></td> + <td class="tdr">132</td> + </tr> +</table> +</div> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="FOREWORD" id="FOREWORD"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>FOREWORD</h3> +<br /> + +<p>Written more than fifty years ago—in 1883—<span class="sc">What Social Classes Owe +to Each Other</span> is even more pertinent today than at the time of its +first publication. Then the arguments and "movements" for penalizing +the thrifty, energetic, and competent by placing upon them more and +more of the burdens of the thriftless, lazy and incompetent, were just +beginning to make headway in our country, wherein these "social +reforms" now all but dominate political and so-called "social" +thinking.</p> + +<p>Among the great nations of the world today, only the United States of +America champions the rights of the individual as against the state and +organized pressure groups, and our faith has been dangerously +weakened—watered down by a blind and essentially false and cruel +sentimentalism.</p> + +<p>In "Social Classes" Sumner defined and emphasized the basically +important role in our social and economic development played by "The +Forgotten Man." The misappropriation of this title and its application +to a character the exact <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span>opposite of the one for whom Sumner invented +the phrase is, unfortunately, but typical of the perversion of words +and phrases indulged in by our present-day "liberals" in their attempt +to further their revolution by diverting the loyalties of +individualists to collectivist theories and beliefs.</p> + +<p>How often have you said: "If only someone had the vision to see and the +courage and ability to state the truth about these false theories which +today are attracting our youth and confusing well-meaning people +everywhere!" Well, here is the answer to your prayer—the everlasting +truth upon the greatest of issues in social science stated for you by +the master of them all in this field. If this edition calls this great +work to the attention of any of you for the first time, that alone will +amply justify its republication. To those of you who have read it +before, we commend it anew as the most up-to-date and best discussion +you can find anywhere of the most important questions of these critical +days.</p> + +<p class="right sc">—William C. Mullendore</p> + +<p class="noin">Los Angeles, California<br /> +November 15, 1951</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="INTRODUCTION" id="INTRODUCTION"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span><br /> + +<h2>WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE TO EACH OTHER</h2> + +<h3>INTRODUCTION<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> +<br /> + +<p>We are told every day that great social problems stand before us and +demand a solution, and we are assailed by oracles, threats, and +warnings in reference to those problems. There is a school of writers +who are playing quite a <i>rôle</i> as the heralds of the coming duty and +the coming woe. They assume to speak for a large, but vague and +undefined, constituency, who set the task, exact a fulfillment, and +threaten punishment for default. The task or problem is not +specifically defined. Part of the task which devolves on those who are +subject to the duty is to define the problem. They are told only that +something is the matter: that it behooves them to find out what it is, +and how to correct it, and then to work out the cure. All this is more +or less truculently set forth.</p> + +<p>After reading and listening to a great deal of this sort of assertion I +find that the question forms itself with more and more distinctness in +my mind: Who are those who assume to put hard questions <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span>to other +people and to demand a solution of them? How did they acquire the right +to demand that others should solve their world-problems for them? Who +are they who are held to consider and solve all questions, and how did +they fall under this duty?</p> + +<p>So far as I can find out what the classes are who are respectively +endowed with the rights and duties of posing and solving social +problems, they are as follows: Those who are bound to solve the +problems are the rich, comfortable, prosperous, virtuous, respectable, +educated, and healthy; those whose right it is to set the problems are +those who have been less fortunate or less successful in the struggle +for existence. The problem itself seems to be, How shall the latter be +made as comfortable as the former? To solve this problem, and make us +all equally well off, is assumed to be the duty of the former class; +the penalty, if they fail of this, is to be bloodshed and destruction. +If they cannot make everybody else as well off as themselves, they are +to be brought down to the same misery as others.</p> + +<p>During the last ten years I have read a great many books and articles, +especially by German writers, in which an attempt has been made to set +up "the State" as an entity having conscience, power, and will +sublimated above human limitations, and as constituting a tutelary +genius over <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>us all. I have never been able to find in history or +experience anything to fit this concept. I once lived in Germany for +two years, but I certainly saw nothing of it there then. Whether the +State which Bismarck is moulding will fit the notion is at best a +matter of faith and hope. My notion of the State has dwindled with +growing experience of life. As an abstraction, the State is to me only +All-of-us. In practice—that is, when it exercises will or adopts a +line of action—it is only a little group of men chosen in a very +haphazard way by the majority of us to perform certain services for all +of us. The majority do not go about their selection very rationally, +and they are almost always disappointed by the results of their own +operation. Hence "the State," instead of offering resources of wisdom, +right reason, and pure moral sense beyond what the average of us +possess, generally offers much less of all those things. Furthermore, +it often turns out in practice that "the State" is not even the known +and accredited servants of the State, but, as has been well said, is +only some obscure clerk, hidden in the recesses of a Government bureau, +into whose power the chance has fallen for the moment to pull one of +the stops which control the Government machine. In former days it often +happened that "The State" was a barber, a fiddler, or a bad woman. In +our day it often happens that "the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>State" is a little functionary on +whom a big functionary is forced to depend.</p> + +<p>I cannot see the sense of spending time to read and write observations, +such as I find in the writings of many men of great attainments and of +great influence, of which the following might be a general type: If the +statesmen could attain to the requisite knowledge and wisdom, it is +conceivable that the State might perform important regulative functions +in the production and distribution of wealth, against which no positive +and sweeping theoretical objection could be made from the side of +economic science; but statesmen never can acquire the requisite +knowledge and wisdom.—To me this seems a mere waste of words. The +inadequacy of the State to regulative tasks is agreed upon, as a matter +of fact, by all. Why, then, bring State regulation into the discussion +simply in order to throw it out again? The whole subject ought to be +discussed and settled aside from the hypothesis of State regulation.</p> + +<p>The little group of public servants who, as I have said, constitute the +State, when the State determines on anything, could not do much for +themselves or anybody else by their own force. If they do anything, +they must dispose of men, as in an army, or of capital, as in a +treasury. But the army, or police, or <i>posse comitatus</i>, is more or +less <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>All-of-us, and the capital in the treasury is the product of the +labor and saving of All-of-us. Therefore, when the State means +power-to-do it means All-of-us, as brute force or as industrial force.</p> + +<p>If anybody is to benefit from the action of the State it must be +Some-of-us. If, then, the question is raised, What ought the State to +do for labor, for trade, for manufactures, for the poor, for the +learned professions? etc., etc.—that is, for a class or an +interest—it is really the question, What ought All-of-us to do for +Some-of-us? But Some-of-us are included in All-of-us, and, so far as +they get the benefit of their own efforts, it is the same as if they +worked for themselves, and they may be cancelled out of All-of-us. Then +the question which remains is, What ought Some-of-us to do for +Others-of-us? or, What do social classes owe to each other?</p> + +<p>I now propose to try to find out whether there is any class in society +which lies under the duty and burden of fighting the battles of life +for any other class, or of solving social problems for the satisfaction +of any other class; also, whether there is any class which has the +right to formulate demands on "society"—that is, on other classes; +also, whether there is anything but a fallacy and a superstition in the +notion that "the State" owes anything to anybody except peace, order, +and the guarantees of rights.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span>I have in view, throughout the discussion, the economic, social, and +political circumstances which exist in the United States.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="I" id="I"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>I.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>ON A NEW PHILOSOPHY: THAT POVERTY IS THE BEST POLICY.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>It is commonly 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 sometimes discontented, and sometimes not. Sometimes +they do not know that anything 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 +measure of their rights. They do not blame themselves or their parents +for their lot, as compared with that of other people. Sometimes they +claim that they have a right to everything of which they feel the need +for their happiness on earth. To <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span>make such a claim against God and +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 ordained the chances and +conditions of life on earth once for all. The case cannot be reopened. +We cannot get a revision of the laws of human life. We are absolutely +shut up to the need 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 whose claims we are +considering are told to apply themselves to these tasks they become +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 <i>pursue</i> happiness, but to <i>get</i> 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 tell them that they have +grievances, so long as they have unsatisfied desires.</p> + +<p>Now, if there are groups of people who have a claim to other people's +labor and self-denial, and if there are other people whose labor and +self-denial are liable to be claimed by the first groups, then there +certainly are "classes," and classes of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span>the oldest and most vicious +type. 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 paupers meet on this plane, +and no other men are on it all. On the other hand, a man whose labor +and self-denial may be 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. Therefore we shall find that, in all the notions +which we 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 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 +producing equality and obliterating the organization of society produce +a new differentiation 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 +necessitates a sacrifice of liberty.</p> + +<p>It is very popular to pose as a "friend of humanity," or a "friend of +the working classes." The character, however, is quite exotic in the +United States. It is borrowed from England, where some men, otherwise +of small account, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>have assumed it with great success and advantage. +Anything which has a charitable sound and a kind-hearted tone generally +passes without investigation, because 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 allowed to pass as an +unquestioned doctrine in regard to social classes that "the 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 +be clusters 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 be contented with their lot and +respectful to their betters. Now, the greatest part of the preaching in +America consists in injunctions to those who have taken care of +themselves to perform their assumed duty to take care of others. +Whatever may be one's private sentiments, the fear of appearing cold +and hard-hearted causes these conventional theories of social duty and +these assumptions of social fact to pass unchallenged.</p> + +<p>Let us notice some distinctions which are of prime importance to a +correct consideration of the subject which we intend to treat.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span>Certain ills belong to the hardships of human life. They are natural. +They are part of the struggle with Nature for existence. We cannot +blame our fellow-men for our share of these. My neighbor and I are both +struggling to free ourselves from these ills. The fact that my neighbor +has succeeded in this struggle better than I constitutes no grievance +for me. Certain other ills are due to the malice of men, and to the +imperfections or errors of civil institutions. These ills are an object +of agitation, and a subject for discussion. The former class of ills is +to be met only by manly effort and energy; the latter may be corrected +by associated effort. The former class of ills is constantly grouped +and generalized, and made the object of social schemes. We 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 interference +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 due to the faults of human institutions +is of prime importance.</p> + +<p>It will also be important, in order to clear up our ideas about the +notions which are in fashion, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span>to note the relation of the economic to +the political significance of assumed duties of one class to another. +That is to say, we may discuss the question 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 respectively +between the parties. In the former case we might assume that the givers +of aid were willing to give it, and we 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 unwillingly. Here, +then, there would be a question of rights. The question whether +voluntary charity is mischievous 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 consequent error is produced by allowing these two +questions to become entangled in the discussion. Especially we shall +need to notice the attempts to apply legislative methods of reform to +the ills which belong to the order of Nature.</p> + +<p>There is no possible definition of "a poor man." A pauper is a person +who cannot earn his living; whose producing powers have fallen +positively below his necessary consumption; who <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>cannot, therefore, pay +his way. A human society needs the active co-operation and productive +energy of every person in it. A man who is present as a consumer, yet +who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work +of society, is a burden. On no sound political theory ought such a +person to share in the political power of the State. He drops out of +the ranks of workers and producers. Society must support him. It +accepts the burden, but he must be cancelled from the ranks of the +rulers likewise. So much for the pauper. About him no more need be +said. But he is not the "poor man." The "poor man" is an elastic term, +under which any number of social fallacies may be hidden.</p> + +<p>Neither is there any possible definition of "the weak." Some are weak +in one way, and some in another; and those who are weak in one sense +are strong in another. In general, however, it may be said that those +whom humanitarians and philanthropists call the weak are the ones +through whom the productive and conservative forces of society are +wasted. They constantly neutralize and destroy the finest efforts of +the wise and industrious, 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 essential powers necessary to the +performance of one's duties in life, or those who are <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>malicious and +vicious, do the more mischief, is a question not easy to answer.</p> + +<p>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 responsibility 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 combination. 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.</p> + +<p>The humanitarians, philanthropists, and reformers, looking at the facts +of life as they present themselves, find 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 remedying what +they do not like. In their eagerness to recommend the less fortunate +classes to pity and consideration they forget all about the rights of +other classes; they <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>gloss over all the faults of the classes in +question, and they exaggerate their misfortunes and their virtues. They +invent new theories of property, distorting rights and perpetuating +injustice, as anyone is sure to do who sets about the readjustment of +social relations with the interests of one group distinctly before his +mind, and the interests of all other groups thrown into the background. +When I have read certain of these discussions I have thought that it +must be quite disreputable to be respectable, quite dishonest to own +property, quite unjust to go one's own way and earn one's own living, +and that the only really admirable 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 himself 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 +intervention of society through the State is either planned or hoped +for, and the State is thus made to become the protector and guardian of +certain classes. The agents who are to direct the State action are, of +course, the reformers and philanthropists. Their schemes, therefore, +may always be reduced <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>to this type—that A and B decide what C shall +do for D. It will be interesting to inquire, at a later period of our +discussion, who C is, and what the effect is upon him of all these +arrangements. In all the discussions attention is concentrated on A and +B, the noble social reformers, 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 +that, on the theories of the social philosophers to whom I have +referred, we should get a new maxim of judicious living: Poverty is the +best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; +if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people to +support you.</p> + +<p>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 organization 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 communities of +various kinds. These ties <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span>endured as long as life lasted. Consequently +society was dependent, throughout all its details, on status, and the +tie, or bond, was sentimental. In our modern 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 sufficient reason, +not on custom or prescription. 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 thinking 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 our society.</p> + +<p>Whether social philosophers think it desirable or not, it is out of the +question to go back to status or to the sentimental relations which +once united baron and retainer, master and servant, teacher and pupil, +comrade and comrade. That we have lost some grace and elegance is +undeniable. That <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>life once held more poetry and romance is true +enough. But it seems impossible that any one who has studied the matter +should doubt that we have gained immeasurably, and that our farther +gains lie in going forward, not in going backward. The feudal ties can +never be restored. If they could be restored they would bring back +personal caprice, favoritism, sycophancy, and intrigue. A society based +on contract is a society of free and independent men, who form ties +without 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 ever yet +existed; that no such society has ever yet developed the full measure +of strength of which it is capable; and that the only social +improvements which are now conceivable lie in the direction of more +complete realization of a society of free men united by contract, are +points which cannot be controverted. It follows, however, that one man, +in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give +help to, another. To understand the full meaning of this assertion it +will be worth while to see what a free democracy is.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="II" id="II"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>II.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>THAT A FREE MAN IS A SOVEREIGN, BUT THAT A SOVEREIGN CANNOT TAKE +"TIPS."</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>A free man, a free country, liberty, and equality are terms of constant +use among us. They are employed as watchwords as soon as any social +questions come into discussion. It is right that they should be so +used. They ought to contain the broadest convictions and most positive +faiths of the nation, and so they ought to be available for the +decision of questions of detail.</p> + +<p>In order, however, that they may be so employed successfully and +correctly it is essential that the terms should be correctly defined, +and that their popular use should conform to correct definitions. No +doubt it is generally believed that the terms are easily understood, +and present no difficulty. Probably the popular notion is, that liberty +means doing as one has a mind to, and that it is a metaphysical or +sentimental good. A little observation shows that there is no such +thing in this world as doing as one has a mind to. There is no man, +from the tramp up to the President, the Pope, or the Czar, who can do +as he has a mind to. There never has been any man, from the primitive +barbarian up to a Humboldt or a Darwin, who could do as he had a mind +to. The "Bohemian" who determines to realize some sort <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span>of liberty of +this kind accomplishes his purpose only by sacrificing most of the +rights and turning his back on most of the duties of a civilized man, +while filching as much as he can of the advantages of living in a +civilized state. Moreover, liberty is not a metaphysical or sentimental +thing at all. It is positive, practical, and actual. It is produced and +maintained by law and institutions, and is, therefore, concrete and +historical. Sometimes we speak distinctively of civil liberty; but if +there be any liberty other than civil liberty—that is, liberty under +law—it is a mere fiction of the schoolmen, which they may be left to +discuss.</p> + +<p>Even as I write, however, I find in a leading review the following +definition of liberty: Civil liberty is "the result of the restraint +exercised by the sovereign people on the more powerful individuals and +classes of the community, preventing them from availing themselves of +the excess of their power to the detriment of the other classes." This +definition lays the foundation for the result which it is apparently +desired to reach, that "a government by the people can in no case +become a paternal government, since its law-makers are its mandatories +and servants carrying out its will, and not its fathers or its +masters." Here we have the most mischievous fallacy under the general +topic which I am discussing distinctly formulated. In the definition of +liberty it will be noticed <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>that liberty is construed as the act of the +sovereign people against somebody who must, of course, be +differentiated from the sovereign people. Whenever "people" is used in +this sense for anything less than the total population, man, woman, +child, and baby, and whenever the great dogmas which contain the word +"people" are construed under the limited definition of "people," there +is always fallacy.</p> + +<p>History is only a tiresome repetition of one story. Persons and classes +have sought to win possession of the power of the State in order to +live luxuriously out of the earnings of others. Autocracies, +aristocracies, theocracies, and all other organizations for holding +political power, have exhibited only the same line of action. It is the +extreme of political error to say that if political power is only taken +away from generals, nobles, priests, millionaires, and scholars, and +given to artisans and peasants, these latter may be trusted to do only +right and justice, and never to abuse the power; that they will repress +all excess in others, and commit none themselves. They will commit +abuse, if they can and dare, just as others have done. The reason for +the excesses of the old governing classes lies in the vices and +passions of human nature—cupidity, lust, vindictiveness, ambition, and +vanity. These vices are confined to no nation, class, or age. They +appear <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span>in the church, the academy, the workshop, and the hovel, as +well as in the army or the palace. They have appeared in autocracies, +aristocracies, theocracies, democracies, and ochlocracies, all alike. +The only thing which has ever restrained these vices of human nature in +those who had political power is law sustained by impersonal +institutions. If political power be given to the masses who have not +hitherto had it, nothing will stop them from abusing it but laws and +institutions. To say that a popular government cannot be paternal is to +give it a charter that it can do no wrong. The trouble is that a +democratic government is in greater danger than any other of becoming +paternal, for it is sure of itself, and ready to undertake anything, +and its power is excessive and pitiless against dissentients.</p> + +<p>What history shows is, that rights are safe only when guaranteed +against all arbitrary power, and all class and personal interest. +Around an autocrat there has grown up an oligarchy of priests and +soldiers. In time a class of nobles has been developed, who have broken +into the oligarchy and made an aristocracy. Later the <i>demos</i>, rising +into an independent development, has assumed power and made a +democracy. Then the mob of a capital city has overwhelmed the democracy +in an ochlocracy. Then the "idol of the people," or the military +"savior of society," or both in one, has <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>made himself autocrat, and +the same old vicious round has recommenced. Where in all this is +liberty? There has been no liberty at all, save where a state has known +how to break out, once for all, from this delusive round; to set +barriers to selfishness, cupidity, envy, and lust, in <i>all</i> classes, +from highest to lowest, by laws and institutions; and to create great +organs of civil life which can eliminate, as far as possible, arbitrary +and personal elements from the adjustment of interests and the +definition of rights. Liberty is an affair of laws and institutions +which bring rights and duties into equilibrium. It is not at all an +affair of selecting the proper class to rule.</p> + +<p>The notion of a free state is entirely modern. It has been developed +with the development of the middle class, and with the growth of a +commercial and industrial civilization. Horror at human slavery is not +a century old as a common sentiment in a civilized state. The idea of +the "free man," as we understand it, is the product of a revolt against +mediaeval and feudal ideas; and our notion of equality, when it is true +and practical, can be explained only by that revolt. It was in England +that the modern idea found birth. It has been strengthened by the +industrial and commercial development of that country. It has been +inherited by all the English-speaking nations, who have made liberty +real because they have <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>inherited it, not as a notion, but as a body of +institutions. It has been borrowed and imitated by the military and +police state of the European continent so fast as they have felt the +influence of the expanding industrial civilization; but they have +realized it only imperfectly, because they have no body of local +institutions or traditions, and it remains for them as yet too much a +matter of "declarations" and pronunciamentos.</p> + +<p>The notion of civil liberty which we have inherited is that of <i>a +status created for the individual by laws and institutions, the effect +of which is that each man is guaranteed the use of all his own powers +exclusively for his own welfare</i>. It is not at all a matter of +elections, or universal suffrage, or democracy. All institutions are to +be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty. It is not to +be admitted for a moment that liberty is a means to social ends, and +that it may be impaired for major considerations. Any one who so argues +has lost the bearing and relation of all the facts and factors in a +free state. A human being has a life to live, a career to run. He is a +centre of powers to work, and of capacities to suffer. What his powers +may be—whether they can carry him far or not; what his chances may be, +whether wide or restricted; what his fortune may be, whether to suffer +much or little—are questions of his personal destiny which he must +work out and <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>endure as he can; but for all that concerns the bearing +of the society and its institutions upon that man, and upon the sum of +happiness to which he can attain during his life on earth, the product +of all history and all philosophy up to this time is summed up in the +doctrine, that he should be left free to do the most for himself that +he can, and should be guaranteed the exclusive enjoyment of all that he +does. If the society—that is to say, in plain terms, if his +fellow-men, either individually, by groups, or in a mass—impinge upon +him otherwise than to surround him with neutral conditions of security, +they must do so under the strictest responsibility to justify +themselves. Jealousy and prejudice against all such interferences are +high political virtues in a free man. It is not at all the function of +the State to make men happy. They must make themselves happy in their +own way, and at their own risk. The functions of the State lie entirely +in the conditions or chances under which the pursuit of happiness is +carried on, so far as those conditions or chances can be affected by +civil organization. Hence, liberty for labor and security for earnings +are the ends for which civil institutions exist, not means which may be +employed for ulterior ends.</p> + +<p>Now, the cardinal doctrine of any sound political system is, that +rights and duties should be <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>in equilibrium. A monarchical or +aristocratic system is not immoral, if the rights and duties of persons +and classes are in equilibrium, although the rights and duties of +different persons and classes are unequal. An immoral political system +is created whenever there are privileged classes—that is, classes who +have arrogated to themselves rights while throwing the duties upon +others. In a democracy all have equal political rights. That is the +fundamental political principle. A democracy, then, becomes immoral, if +all have not equal political duties. This is unquestionably the +doctrine which needs to be reiterated and inculcated beyond all others, +if the democracy is to be made sound and permanent. Our orators and +writers never speak of it, and do not seem often to know anything about +it; but the real danger of democracy is, that the classes which have +the power under it will assume all the rights and reject all the +duties—that is, that they will use the political power to plunder +those-who-have. Democracy, in order to be true to itself, and to +develop into a sound working system, must oppose the same cold +resistance to any claims for favor on the ground of poverty, as on the +ground of birth and rank. It can no more admit to public discussion, as +within the range of possible action, any schemes for coddling and +helping wage-receivers than it could entertain <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>schemes for restricting +political power to wage-payers. It must put down schemes for making +"the rich" pay for whatever "the poor" want, just as it tramples on the +old theories that only the rich are fit to regulate society. One needs +but to watch our periodical literature to see the danger that democracy +will be construed as a system of favoring a new privileged class of the +many and the poor.</p> + +<p>Holding in mind, now, the notions of liberty and democracy as we have +defined them, we see that it is not altogether a matter of fanfaronade +when the American citizen calls himself a "sovereign." A member of a +free democracy is, in a sense, a sovereign. He has no superior. He has +reached his sovereignty, however, by a process of reduction and +division of power which leaves him no inferior. It is very grand to +call one's self a sovereign, but it is greatly to the purpose to notice +that the political responsibilities of the free man have been +intensified and aggregated just in proportion as political rights have +been reduced and divided. Many monarchs have been incapable of +sovereignty and unfit for it. Placed in exalted situations, and +inheritors of grand opportunities they have exhibited only their own +imbecility and vice. The reason was, because they thought only of the +gratification of their own vanity, and not at all of their duty. The +free man <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>who steps forward to claim his inheritance and endowment as a +free and equal member of a great civil body must understand that his +duties and responsibilities are measured to him by the same scale as +his rights and his powers. He wants to be subject to no man. He wants +to be equal to his fellows, as all sovereigns are equal. So be it; but +he cannot escape the deduction that he can call no man to his aid. The +other sovereigns will not respect his independence if he becomes +dependent, and they cannot respect his equality if he sues for favors. +The free man in a free democracy, when he cut off all the ties which +might pull him down, severed also all the ties by which he might have +made others pull him up. He must take all the consequences of his new +status. He is, in a certain sense, an isolated man. The family tie does +not bring to him disgrace for the misdeeds of his relatives, as it once +would have done, but neither does it furnish him with the support which +it once would have given. The relations of men are open and free, but +they are also loose. A free man in a free democracy derogates from his +rank if he takes a favor for which he does not render an equivalent.</p> + +<p>A free man in a free democracy has no duty whatever toward other men of +the same rank and standing, except respect, courtesy, and good-will. We +cannot say that there are no classes, when we <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span>are speaking +politically, and then say that there are classes, when we are telling A +what it is his duty to do for B. In a free state every man is held and +expected to take care of himself and his family, to make no trouble for +his neighbor, and to contribute his full share to public interests and +common necessities. If he fails in this he throws burdens on others. He +does not thereby acquire rights against the others. On the contrary, he +only accumulates obligations toward them; and if he is allowed to make +his deficiencies a ground of new claims, he passes over into the +position of a privileged or petted person-emancipated from duties, +endowed with claims. This is the inevitable result of combining +democratic political theories with humanitarian social theories. It +would be aside from my present purpose to show, but it is worth +noticing in passing, that one result of such inconsistency must surely +be to undermine democracy, to increase the power of wealth in the +democracy, and to hasten the subjection of democracy to plutocracy; for +a man who accepts any share which he has not earned in another man's +capital cannot be an independent citizen.</p> + +<p>It is often affirmed that the educated and wealthy have an obligation +to those who have less education and property, just because the latter +have political equality with the former, and oracles and warnings are +uttered about what will <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>happen if the uneducated classes who have the +suffrage are not instructed at the care and expense of the other +classes. In this view of the matter universal suffrage is not a measure +for <i>strengthening</i> the State by bringing to its support the aid and +affection of all classes, but it is a new burden, and, in fact, a +peril. Those who favor it represent it as a peril. This doctrine is +politically immoral and vicious. When a community establishes universal +suffrage, it is as if it said to each new-comer, or to each young man: +"We give you every chance that any one else has. Now come along with +us; take care of yourself, and contribute your share to the burdens +which we all have to bear in order to support social institutions." +Certainly, liberty, and universal suffrage, and democracy are not +pledges of care and protection, but they carry with them the exaction +of individual responsibility. The State gives equal rights and equal +chances just because it does not mean to give anything else. It sets +each man on his feet, and gives him leave to run, just because it does +not mean to carry him. Having obtained his chances, he must take upon +himself the responsibility for his own success or failure. It is a pure +misfortune to the community, and one which will redound to its injury, +if any man has been endowed with political power who is a heavier +burden then than he was before; but it <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>cannot be said that there is +any new <i>duty</i> created for the good citizens toward the bad by the fact +that the bad citizens are a harm to the State.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="III" id="III"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>III.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICH; NAY, EVEN, THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO +BE RICHER THAN ONE'S NEIGHBOR</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>I have before me a newspaper slip on which a writer expresses the +opinion that no one should be allowed to possess more than one million +dollars' worth of property. Alongside of it is another slip, on which +another writer expresses the opinion that the limit should be five +millions. I do not know what the comparative wealth of the two writers +is, but it is interesting to notice that there is a wide margin between +their ideas of how rich they would allow their fellow-citizens to +become, and of the point at which they ("the State," of course) would +step in to rob a man of his earnings. These two writers only represent +a great deal of crude thinking and declaiming which is in fashion. I +never have known a man of ordinary common-sense who did not urge upon +his sons, from earliest childhood, doctrines of economy and the +practice of accumulation. A good father believes that he does wisely to +encourage enterprise, productive skill, prudent self-denial, and +judicious expenditure on the part of his son. The object is to teach +the boy to accumulate capital. If, however, the boy should read many of +the diatribes against "the rich" which are afloat in our literature; if +he should <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>read or hear some of the current discussion about "capital"; +and if, with the ingenuousness of youth, he should take these +productions at their literal sense, instead of discounting them, as his +father does, he would be forced to believe that he was on the path of +infamy when he was earning and saving capital. It is worth while to +consider which we mean or what we mean. Is it wicked to be rich? Is it +mean to be a capitalist? If the question is one of degree only, and it +is right to be rich up to a certain point and wrong to be richer, how +shall we find the point? Certainly, for practical purposes, we ought to +define the point nearer than between one and five millions of dollars.</p> + +<p>There is an old ecclesiastical prejudice in favor of the poor and +against the rich. In days when men acted by ecclesiastical rules these +prejudices produced waste of capital, and helped mightily to replunge +Europe into barbarism. The prejudices are not yet dead, but they +survive in our society as ludicrous contradictions and inconsistencies. +One thing must be granted to the rich: they are good-natured. Perhaps +they do not recognize themselves, for a rich man is even harder to +define than a poor one. It is not uncommon to hear a clergyman utter +from the pulpit all the old prejudice in favor of the poor and against +the rich, while asking the rich to do <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>something for the poor; and the +rich comply, without apparently having their feelings hurt at all by +the invidious comparison. We all agree that he is a good member of +society who works his way up from poverty to wealth, but as soon as he +has worked his way up we begin to regard him with suspicion, as a +dangerous member of society. A newspaper starts the silly fallacy that +"the rich are rich because the poor are industrious," and it is copied +from one end of the country to the other as if it were a brilliant +apothegm. "Capital" is denounced by writers and speakers who have never +taken the trouble to find out what capital is, and who use the word in +two or three different senses in as many pages. Labor organizations are +formed, not to employ combined effort for a common object, but to +indulge in declamation and denunciation, and especially to furnish an +easy living to some officers who do not want to work. People who have +rejected dogmatic religion, and retained only a residuum of religious +sentimentalism, find a special field in the discussion of the rights of +the poor and the duties of the rich. We have denunciations of banks, +corporations, and monopolies, which denunciations encourage only +helpless rage and animosity, because they are not controlled by any +definitions or limitations, or by any distinctions between what is +indispensably necessary and what is abuse, between what is <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>established +in the order of nature and what is legislative error. Think, for +instance, of a journal which makes it its special business to denounce +monopolies, yet favors a protective tariff, and has not a word to say +against trades-unions or patents! Think of public teachers who say that +the farmer is ruined by the cost of transportation, when they mean that +he cannot make any profits because his farm is too far from the market, +and who denounce the railroad because it does not correct for the +farmer, at the expense of its stockholders, the disadvantage which lies +in the physical situation of the farm! Think of that construction of +this situation which attributes all the trouble to the greed of +"moneyed corporations!" Think of the piles of rubbish that one has read +about corners, and watering stocks, and selling futures!</p> + +<p>Undoubtedly there are, in connection with each of these things, cases +of fraud, swindling, and other financial crimes; that is to say, the +greed and selfishness of men are perpetual. They put on new phases, +they adjust themselves to new forms of business, and constantly devise +new methods of fraud and robbery, just as burglars devise new artifices +to circumvent every new precaution of the lock-makers. The criminal law +needs to be improved to meet new forms of crime, but to denounce +financial devices which are useful and legitimate because use is made +of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>them for fraud, is ridiculous and unworthy of the age in which we +live. Fifty years ago good old English Tories used to denounce all +joint-stock companies in the same way, and for similar reasons.</p> + +<p>All the denunciations and declamations which have been referred to are +made in the interest of "the poor man." His name never ceases to echo +in the halls of legislation, and he is the excuse and reason for all +the acts which are passed. He is never forgotten in poetry, sermon, or +essay. His interest is invoked to defend every doubtful procedure and +every questionable institution. Yet where is he? Who is he? Who ever +saw him? When did he ever get the benefit of any of the numberless +efforts in his behalf? When, rather, were his name and interest ever +invoked, when, upon examination, it did not plainly appear that +somebody else was to win—somebody who was far too "smart" ever to be +poor, far too lazy ever to be rich by industry and economy?</p> + +<p>A great deal is said about the unearned increment from land, especially +with a view to the large gains of landlords in old countries. The +unearned increment from land has indeed made the position of an English +land-owner, for the last two hundred years, the most fortunate that any +class of mortals ever has enjoyed; but the present moment, when the +rent of agricultural <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span>land in England is declining under the +competition of American land, is not well chosen for attacking the old +advantage. Furthermore, the unearned increment from land appears in the +United States as a gain to the first comers, who have here laid the +foundations of a new State. Since the land is a monopoly, the unearned +increment lies in the laws of Nature. Then the only question is, Who +shall have it?—the man who has the ownership by prescription, or some +or all others? It is a beneficent incident of the ownership of land +that a pioneer who reduces it to use, and helps to lay the foundations +of a new State, finds a profit in the increasing value of land as the +new State grows up. It would be unjust to take that profit away from +him, or from any successor to whom he has sold it. Moreover, there is +an unearned increment on capital and on labor, due to the presence, +around the capitalist and the laborer, of a great, industrious, and +prosperous society. A tax on land and a succession or probate duty on +capital might be perfectly justified by these facts. Unquestionably +capital accumulates with a rapidity which follows in some high series +the security, good government, peaceful order of the State in which it +is employed; and if the State steps in, on the death of the holder, to +claim a share of the inheritance, such a claim may be fully justified. +The laborer likewise <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span>gains by carrying on his labor in a strong, +highly civilized, and well-governed State far more than he could gain +with equal industry on the frontier or in the midst of anarchy. He +gains greater remuneration for his services, and he also shares in the +enjoyment of all that accumulated capital of a wealthy community which +is public or semi-public in its nature.</p> + +<p>It is often said that the earth belongs to the race, as if raw land was +a boon, or gift. Raw land is only a <i>chance</i> to prosecute the struggle +for existence, and the man who tries to earn a living by the +subjugation of raw land makes that attempt under the most unfavorable +conditions, for land can be brought into use only by great hardship and +exertion. The boon, or gift, would be to get some land after somebody +else had made it fit for use. Any one in the world today can have raw +land by going to it; but there are millions who would regard it simply +as "transportation for life," if they were forced to go and live on new +land and get their living out of it. Private ownership of land is only +division of labor. If it is true in any sense that we all own the soil +in common, the best use we can make of our undivided interests is to +vest them all gratuitously (just as we now do) in any who will assume +the function of directly treating the soil, while the rest of us take +other shares in the social <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>organization. The reason is, because in +this way we all get more than we would if each one owned some land and +used it directly. Supply and demand now determine the distribution of +population between the direct use of land and other pursuits; and if +the total profits and chances of land-culture were reduced by taking +all the "unearned increment" in taxes, there would simply be a +redistribution of industry until the profits of land-culture, less +taxes and without chances from increasing value, were equal to the +profits of other pursuits under exemption from taxation.</p> + +<p>It is remarkable that jealousy of individual property in land often +goes along with very exaggerated doctrines of tribal or national +property in land. We are told that John, James, and William ought not +to possess part of the earth's surface because it belongs to all men; +but it is held that Egyptians, Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right +to the territory which they occupy, that they may bar the avenues of +commerce and civilization if they choose, and that it is wrong to +override their prejudices or expropriate their land. The truth is, that +the notion that the race own the earth has practical meaning only for +the latter class of cases.</p> + +<p>The great gains of a great capitalist in a modern state must be put +under the head of wages of superintendence. Anyone who believes that +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>any great enterprise of an industrial character can be started without +labor must have little experience of life. Let anyone try to get a +railroad built, or to start a factory and win reputation for its +products, or to start a school and win a reputation for it, or to found +a newspaper and make it a success, or to start any other enterprise, +and he will find what obstacles must be overcome, what risks must be +taken, what perseverance and courage are required, what foresight and +sagacity are necessary. Especially in a new country, where many tasks +are waiting, where resources are strained to the utmost all the time, +the judgment, courage, and perseverance required to organize new +enterprizes and carry them to success are sometimes heroic. Persons who +possess the necessary qualifications obtain great rewards. They ought +to do so. It is foolish to rail at them. Then, again, the ability to +organize and conduct industrial, commercial, or financial enterprises +is rare; the great captains of industry are as rare as great generals. +The great weakness of all co-operative enterprises is in the matter of +supervision. Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are +not hard to find; but men who can think and plan and tell the routine +men what to do are very rare. They are paid in proportion to the supply +and demand of them.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>If Mr. A.T. Stewart made a great fortune by collecting and bringing +dry-goods to the people of the United States, he did so because he +understood how to do that thing better than any other man of his +generation. He proved it, because he carried the business through +commercial crises and war, and kept increasing its dimensions. If, when +he died, he left no competent successor, the business must break up, +and pass into new organization in the hands of other men. Some have +said that Mr. Stewart made his fortune out of those who worked for him +or with him. But would those persons have been able to come together, +organize themselves, and earn what they did earn without him? Not at +all. They would have been comparatively helpless. He and they together +formed a great system of factories, stores, transportation, under his +guidance and judgment. It was for the benefit of all; but he +contributed to it what no one else was able to contribute—the one +guiding mind which made the whole thing possible. In no sense whatever +does a man who accumulates a fortune by legitimate industry exploit his +employés, or make his capital "out of" anybody else. The wealth which +he wins would not be but for him.</p> + +<p>The aggregation of large fortunes is not at all a thing to be +regretted. On the contrary, it is a necessary condition of many forms +of social <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span>advance. If we should set a limit to the accumulation of +wealth, we should say to our most valuable producers, "We do not want +you to do us the services which you best understand how to perform, +beyond a certain point." It would be like killing off our generals in +war. A great deal is said, in the cant of a certain school about +"ethical views of wealth," and we are told that some day men will be +found of such public spirit that, after they have accumulated a few +millions, they will be willing to go on and labor simply for the +pleasure of paying the taxes of their fellow-citizens. Possibly this is +true. It is a prophecy. It is as impossible to deny it as it is silly +to affirm it. For if a time ever comes when there are men of this kind, +the men of that age will arrange their affairs accordingly. There are +no such men now, and those of us who live now cannot arrange our +affairs by what men will be a hundred generations hence.</p> + +<p>There is every indication that we are to see new developments of the +power of aggregated capital to serve civilization, and that the new +developments will be made right here in America. Joint-stock companies +are yet in their infancy, and incorporated capital, instead of being a +thing which can be overturned, is a thing which is becoming more and +more indispensable. I shall have something to say in another chapter +about <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>the necessary checks and guarantees, in a political point of +view, which must be established. Economically speaking, aggregated +capital will be more and more essential to the performance of our +social tasks. Furthermore, it seems to me certain that all aggregated +capital will fall more and more under personal control. Each great +company will be known as controlled by one master mind. The reason for +this lies in the great superiority of personal management over +management by boards and committees. This tendency is in the public +interest, for it is in the direction of more satisfactory +responsibility. The great hindrance to the development of this +continent has lain in the lack of capital. The capital which we have +had has been wasted by division and dissipation, and by injudicious +applications. The waste of capital, in proportion to the total capital, +in this country between 1800 and 1850, in the attempts which were made +to establish means of communication and transportation, was enormous. +The waste was chiefly due to ignorance and bad management, especially +to State control of public works. We are to see the development of the +country pushed forward at an unprecedented rate by an aggregation of +capital, and a systematic application of it under the direction of +competent men. This development will be for the benefit of all, and it +will enable each one of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span>us, in his measure and way, to increase his +wealth. We may each of us go ahead to do so, and we have every reason +to rejoice in each other's prosperity. There ought to be no laws to +guarantee property against the folly of its possessors. In the absence +of such laws, capital inherited by a spendthrift will be squandered and +re-accumulated in the hands of men who are fit and competent to hold +it. So it should be, and under such a state of things there is no +reason to desire to limit the property which any man may acquire.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="IV" id="IV"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>IV.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>ON THE REASONS WHY MAN IS NOT ALTOGETHER A BRUTE.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>The Arabs have a story of a man who desired to test which of his three +sons loved him most. He sent them out to see which of the three would +bring him the most valuable present. The three sons met in a distant +city, and compared the gifts they had found. The first had a carpet on +which he could transport himself and others whithersoever he would. The +second had a medicine which would cure any disease. The third had a +glass in which he could see what was going on at any place he might +name. The third used his glass to see what was going on at home: he saw +his father ill in bed. The first transported all three to their home on +his carpet. The second administered the medicine and saved the father's +life. The perplexity of the father when he had to decide which son's +gift had been of the most value to him illustrates very fairly the +difficulty of saying whether land, labor, or capital is most essential +to production. No production is possible without the co-operation of +all three.</p> + +<p>We know that men once lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth, +just as other animals do. In that stage of existence a man was just +like the brutes. His existence was at the sport of Nature. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>He got what +he could by way of food, and ate what he could get, but he depended on +finding what Nature gave. He could wrest nothing from Nature; he could +make her produce nothing; and he had only his limbs with which to +appropriate what she offered. His existence was almost entirely +controlled by accident; he possessed no capital; he lived out of his +product, and production had only the two elements of land and labor of +appropriation. At the present time man is an intelligent animal. He +knows something of the laws of Nature; he can avail himself of what is +favorable, and avert what is unfavorable, in nature, to a certain +extent; he has narrowed the sphere of accident, and in some respects +reduced it to computations which lessen its importance; he can bring +the productive forces of Nature into service, and make them produce +food, clothing, and shelter. How has the change been brought about? The +answer is, By capital. If we can come to an understanding of what +capital is, and what a place it occupies in civilization, it will clear +up our ideas about a great many of these schemes and philosophies which +are put forward to criticise social arrangements, or as a basis of +proposed reforms.</p> + +<p>The first beginnings of capital are lost in the obscurity which covers +all the germs of civilization. The more one comes to understand the +case <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>of the primitive man, the more wonderful it seems that man ever +started on the road to civilization. Among the lower animals we find +some inchoate forms of capital, but from them to the lowest forms of +real capital there is a great stride. It does not seem possible that +man could have taken that stride without intelligent reflection, and +everything we know about the primitive man shows us that he did not +reflect. No doubt accident controlled the first steps. They may have +been won and lost again many times. There was one natural element which +man learned to use so early that we cannot find any trace of him when +he had it not—fire. There was one tool-weapon in nature—the flint. +Beyond the man who was so far superior to the brutes that he knew how +to use fire and had the use of flints we cannot go. A man of lower +civilization than that was so like the brutes that, like them, he could +leave no sign of his presence on the earth save his bones.</p> + +<p>The man who had a flint no longer need be a prey to a wild animal, but +could make a prey of it. He could get meat food. He who had meat food +could provide his food in such time as to get leisure to improve his +flint tools. He could get skins for clothing, bones for needles, +tendons for thread. He next devised traps and snares by which to take +animals alive. He domesticated them, and lived on their increase. He +made them <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span>beasts of draught and burden, and so got the use of a +natural force. He who had beasts of draught and burden could make a +road and trade, and so get the advantage of all soils and all climates. +He could make a boat, and use the winds as force. He now had such +tools, science, and skill that he could till the ground, and make it +give him more food. So from the first step that man made above the +brute the thing which made his civilization possible was capital. Every +step of capital won made the next step possible, up to the present +hour. Not a step has been or can be made without capital. It is labor +accumulated, multiplied into itself—raised to a higher power, as the +mathematicians say. The locomotive is only possible today because, from +the flint-knife up, one achievement has been multiplied into another +through thousands of generations. We cannot now stir a step in our life +without capital. We cannot build a school, a hospital, a church, or +employ a missionary society, without capital, any more than we could +build a palace or a factory without capital. We have ourselves, and we +have the earth; the thing which limits what we can do is the third +requisite—capital. Capital is force, human energy stored or +accumulated, and very few people ever come to appreciate its importance +to civilized life. We get so used to it that we do not see its use.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>The industrial organization of society has undergone a development with +the development of capital. Nothing has ever made men spread over the +earth and develop the arts but necessity—that is, the need of getting +a living, and the hardships endured in trying to meet that need. The +human race has had to pay with its blood at every step. It has had to +buy its experience. The thing which has kept up the necessity of more +migration or more power over Nature has been increase of population. +Where population has become chronically excessive, and where the +population has succumbed and sunk, instead of developing energy enough +for a new advance, there races have degenerated and settled into +permanent barbarism. They have lost the power to rise again, and have +made no inventions. Where life has been so easy and ample that it cost +no effort, few improvements have been made. It is in the middle range, +with enough social pressure to make energy needful, and not enough +social pressure to produce despair, that the most progress has been +made.</p> + +<p>At first all labor was forced. Men forced it on women, who were drudges +and slaves. Men reserved for themselves only the work of hunting or +war. Strange and often horrible shadows of all the old primitive +barbarism are now to be found in the slums of great cities, and in the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>lowest groups of men, in the midst of civilized nations. Men impose +labor on women in some such groups today. Through various grades of +slavery, serfdom, villeinage, and through various organizations of +castes and guilds, the industrial organization has been modified and +developed up to the modern system. Some men have been found to denounce +and deride the modern system—what they call the capitalist system. The +modern system is based on liberty, on contract, and on private +property. It has been reached through a gradual emancipation of the +mass of mankind from old bonds both to Nature and to their fellow-men. +Village communities, which excite the romantic admiration of some +writers, were fit only for a most elementary and unorganized society. +They were fit neither to cope with the natural difficulties of winning +much food from little land, nor to cope with the malice of men. Hence +they perished. In the modern society the organization of labor is high. +Some are land-owners and agriculturists, some are transporters, +bankers, merchants, teachers; some advance the product by manufacture. +It is a system of division of functions, which is being refined all the +time by subdivision of trade and occupation, and by the differentiation +of new trades.</p> + +<p>The ties by which all are held together are those of free co-operation +and contract. If we <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span>look back for comparison to anything of which +human history gives us a type or experiment, we see that the modern +free system of industry offers to every living human being chances of +happiness indescribably in excess of what former generations have +possessed. It offers no such guarantees as were once possessed by some, +that they should in no case suffer. We have an instance right at hand. +The Negroes, once slaves in the United States, used to be assured care, +medicine, and support; but they spent their efforts, and other men took +the products. They have been set free. That means only just this: they +now work and hold their own products, and are assured of nothing but +what they earn. In escaping from subjection they have lost claims. +Care, medicine, and support they get, if they earn it. Will any one say +that the black men have not gained? Will any one deny that individual +black men may seem worse off? Will any one allow such observations to +blind them to the true significance of the change? If any one thinks +that there are or ought to be somewhere in society guarantees that no +man shall suffer hardship, let him understand that there can be no such +guarantees, unless other men give them—that is, unless we go back to +slavery, and make one man's effort conduce to another man's welfare. Of +course, if a speculator breaks loose from science and history, and +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>plans out an ideal society in which all the conditions are to be +different, he is a law-giver or prophet, and those may listen to him +who have leisure.</p> + +<p>The modern industrial system is a great social co-operation. It is +automatic and instinctive in its operation. The adjustments of the +organs take place naturally. The parties are held together by +impersonal force—supply and demand. They may never see each other; +they may be separated by half the circumference of the globe. Their +co-operation in the social effort is combined and distributed again by +financial machinery, and the rights and interests are measured and +satisfied without any special treaty or convention at all. All this +goes on so smoothly and naturally that we forget to notice it. We think +that it costs nothing—does itself, as it were. The truth is, that this +great co-operative effort is one of the great products of +civilization—one of its costliest products and highest refinements, +because here, more than anywhere else, intelligence comes in, but +intelligence so clear and correct that it does not need expression.</p> + +<p>Now, by the great social organization the whole civilized body (and +soon we shall say the whole human race) keeps up a combined assault on +Nature for the means of subsistence. Civilized society may be said to +be maintained in an <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>unnatural position, at an elevation above the +earth, or above the natural state of human society. It can be +maintained there only by an efficient organization of the social effort +and by capital. At its elevation it supports far greater numbers than +it could support on any lower stage. Members of society who come into +it as it is today can live only by entering into the organization. If +numbers increase, the organization must be perfected, and capital must +increase—<i>i.e.</i>, power over Nature. If the society does not keep up +its power, if it lowers its organization or wastes its capital, it +falls back toward the natural state of barbarism from which it rose, +and in so doing it must sacrifice thousands of its weakest members. +Hence human society lives at a constant strain forward and upward, and +those who have most interest that this strain be successfully kept up, +that the social organization be perfected, and that capital be +increased, are those at the bottom.</p> + +<p>The notion of property which prevails among us today is, that a man has +a right to the thing which he has made by his labor. This is a very +modern and highly civilized conception. Singularly enough, it has been +brought forward dogmatically to prove that property in land is not +reasonable, because man did not make land. A man cannot "make" a +chattel or product of any kind whatever without first appropriating +land, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>so as to get the ore, wood, wool, cotton, fur, or other raw +material. All that men ever appropriate land for is to get out of it +the natural materials on which they exercise their industry. +Appropriation, therefore, precedes labor-production, both historically +and logically. Primitive races regarded, and often now regard, +appropriation as the best title to property. As usual, they are +logical. It is the simplest and most natural mode of thinking to regard +a thing as belonging to that man who has, by carrying, wearing, or +handling it, associated it for a certain time with his person. I once +heard a little boy of four years say to his mother, "Why is not this +pencil mine now? It used to be my brother's, but I have been using it +all day." He was reasoning with the logic of his barbarian ancestors. +The reason for allowing private property in land is, that two men +cannot eat the same loaf of bread. If A has taken a piece of land, and +is at work getting his loaf out of it, B cannot use the same land at +the same time for the same purpose. Priority of appropriation is the +only title of right which can supersede the title of greater force. The +reason why man is not altogether a brute is, because he has learned to +accumulate capital, to use capital, to advance to a higher organization +of society, to develop a completer co-operation, and so to win greater +and greater control over Nature.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>It is a great delusion to look about us and select those men who occupy +the most advanced position in respect to worldly circumstances as the +standard to which we think that all might be and ought to be brought. +All the complaints and criticisms about the inequality of men apply to +inequalities in property, luxury, and creature comforts, not to +knowledge, virtue, or even physical beauty and strength. But it is +plainly impossible that we should all attain to equality on the level +of the best of us. The history of civilization shows us that the human +race has by no means marched on in a solid and even phalanx. It has had +its advance-guard, its rear-guard, and its stragglers. It presents us +the same picture today; for it embraces every grade, from the most +civilized nations down to the lowest surviving types of barbarians. +Furthermore, if we analyze the society of the most civilized state, +especially in one of the great cities where the highest triumphs of +culture are presented, we find survivals of every form of barbarism and +lower civilization. Hence, those who today enjoy the most complete +emancipation from the hardships of human life, and the greatest command +over the conditions of existence, simply show us the best that man has +yet been able to do. Can we all reach that standard by wishing for it? +Can we all vote it to each other? If we pull down those who are most +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>fortunate and successful, shall we not by that very act defeat our own +object? Those who are trying to reason out any issue from this tangle +of false notions of society and of history are only involving +themselves in hopeless absurdities and contradictions. If any man is +not in the first rank who might get there, let him put forth new energy +and take his place. If any man is not in the front rank, although he +has done his best, how can he be advanced at all? Certainly in no way +save by pushing down any one else who is forced to contribute to his +advancement.</p> + +<p>It is often said that the mass of mankind are yet buried in poverty, +ignorance, and brutishness. It would be a correct statement of the +facts intended, from an historical and sociological point of view, to +say, Only a small fraction of the human race have as yet, by thousands +of years of struggle, been partially emancipated from poverty, +ignorance, and brutishness. When once this simple correction is made in +the general point of view, we gain most important corollaries for all +the subordinate questions about the relations of races, nations, and +classes.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="V" id="V"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>V.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>THAT WE MUST HAVE FEW MEN, IF WE WANT STRONG MEN.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>In our modern revolt against the mediaeval notions of hereditary honor +and hereditary shame we have gone too far, for we have lost the +appreciation of the true dependence of children on parents. We have a +glib phrase about "the accident of birth," but it would puzzle anybody +to tell what it means. If A takes B to wife, it is not an accident that +he took B rather than C, D, or any other woman; and if A and B have a +child, X, that child's ties to ancestry and posterity, and his +relations to the human race, into which he has been born through A and +B, are in no sense accidental. The child's interest in the question +whether A should have married B or C is as material as anything one can +conceive of, and the fortune which made X the son of A, and not of +another man, is the most material fact in his destiny. If those things +were better understood public opinion about the ethics of marriage and +parentage would undergo a most salutary change. In following the modern +tendency of opinion we have lost sight of the due responsibility of +parents, and our legislation has thrown upon some parents the +responsibility, not only of their own children, but of those of +others.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>The relation of parents and children is the only case of sacrifice in +Nature. Elsewhere equivalence of exchange prevails rigorously. The +parents, however, hand down to their children the return for all which +they had themselves inherited from their ancestors. They ought to hand +down the inheritance with increase. It is by this relation that the +human race keeps up a constantly advancing contest with Nature. The +penalty of ceasing an aggressive behavior toward the hardships of life +on the part of mankind is, that we go backward. We cannot stand still. +Now, parental affection constitutes the personal motive which drives +every man in his place to an aggressive and conquering policy toward +the limiting conditions of human life. Affection for wife and children +is also the greatest motive to social ambition and personal +self-respect—that is, to what is technically called a "high standard +of living."</p> + +<p>Some people are greatly shocked to read of what is called +Malthusianism, when they read it in a book, who would be greatly +ashamed of themselves if they did not practise Malthusianism in their +own affairs. Among respectable people a man who took upon himself the +cares and expenses of a family before he had secured a regular trade or +profession, or had accumulated some capital, and who allowed his wife +to lose <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>caste, and his children to be dirty, ragged, and neglected, +would be severely blamed by the public opinion of the community. The +standard of living which a man makes for himself and his family, if he +means to earn it, and does not formulate it as a demand which he means +to make on his fellow-men, is a gauge of his self-respect; and a high +standard of living is the moral limit which an intelligent body of men +sets for itself far inside of the natural limits of the sustaining +power of the land, which latter limit is set by starvation, pestilence, +and war. But a high standard of living restrains population; that is, +if we hold up to the higher standard of men, we must have fewer of +them.</p> + +<p>Taking men as they have been and are, they are subjects of passion, +emotion, and instinct. Only the <i>élite</i> of the race has yet been raised +to the point where reason and conscience can even curb the lower motive +forces. For the mass of mankind, therefore, the price of better things +is too severe, for that price can be summed up in one +word—self-control. The consequence is, that for all but a few of us +the limit of attainment in life in the best case is to live out our +term, to pay our debts, to place three or four children in a position +to support themselves in a position as good as the father's was, and +there to make the account balance.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>Since we must all live, in the civilized organization of society, on +the existing capital; and since those who have only come out even have +not accumulated any of the capital, have no claim to own it, and cannot +leave it to their children; and since those who own land have parted +with their capital for it, which capital has passed back through other +hands into industrial employment, how is a man who has inherited +neither land nor capital to secure a living? He must give his +productive energy to apply capital to land for the further production +of wealth, and he must secure a share in the existing capital by a +contract relation to those who own it.</p> + +<p>Undoubtedly the man who possesses capital has a great advantage over +the man who has no capital, in all the struggle for existence. Think of +two men who want to lift a weight, one of whom has a lever, and the +other must apply his hands directly; think of two men tilling the soil, +one of whom uses his hands or a stick, while the other has a horse and +a plough; think of two men in conflict with a wild animal, one of whom +has only a stick or a stone, while the other has a repeating rifle; +think of two men who are sick, one of whom can travel, command medical +skill, get space, light, air, and water, while the other lacks all +these things. This does not mean that one man has an advantage +<i>against</i> the other, but that, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>when they are rivals in the effort to +get the means of subsistence from Nature, the one who has capital has +immeasurable advantages over the other. If it were not so capital would +not be formed. Capital is only formed by self-denial, and if the +possession of it did not secure advantages and superiorities of a high +order men would never submit to what is necessary to get it. The first +accumulation costs by far the most, and the rate of increase by profits +at first seems pitiful. Among the metaphors which partially illustrate +capital—all of which, however, are imperfect and inadequate—the +snow-ball is useful to show some facts about capital. Its first +accumulation is slow, but as it proceeds the accumulation becomes rapid +in a high ratio, and the element of self-denial declines. This fact, +also, is favorable to the accumulation of capital, for if the +self-denial continued to be as great per unit when the accumulation had +become great, there would speedily come a point at which further +accumulation would not pay. The man who has capital has secured his +future, won leisure which he can employ in winning secondary objects of +necessity and advantage, and emancipated himself from those things in +life which are gross and belittling. The possession of capital is, +therefore, an indispensable prerequisite of educational, scientific, +and moral goods. This is not <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>saying that a man in the narrowest +circumstances may not be a good man. It is saying that the extension +and elevation of all the moral and metaphysical interests of the race +are conditioned on that extension of civilization of which capital is +the prerequisite, and that he who has capital can participate in and +move along with the highest developments of his time. Hence it appears +that the man who has his self-denial before him, however good may be +his intention, cannot be as the man who has his self-denial behind him. +Some seem to think that this is very unjust, but they get their notions +of justice from some occult source of inspiration, not from observing +the facts of this world as it has been made and exists.</p> + +<p>The maxim, or injunction, to which a study of capital leads us is, Get +capital. In a community where the standard of living is high, and the +conditions of production are favorable, there is a wide margin within +which an individual may practise self-denial and win capital without +suffering, if he has not the charge of a family. That it requires +energy, courage, perseverance, and prudence is not to be denied. Any +one who believes that any good thing on this earth can be got without +those virtues may believe in the philosopher's stone or the fountain of +youth. If there were any Utopia its inhabitants would certainly be very +insipid and characterless.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>Those who have neither capital nor land unquestionably have a closer +class interest than landlords or capitalists. If one of those who are +in either of the latter classes is a spendthrift he loses his +advantage. If the non-capitalists increase their numbers, they +surrender themselves into the hands of the landlords and capitalists. +They compete with each other for food until they run up the rent of +land, and they compete with each other for wages until they give the +capitalist a great amount of productive energy for a given amount of +capital. If some of them are economical and prudent in the midst of a +class which saves nothing and marries early, the few prudent suffer for +the folly of the rest, since they can only get current rates of wages; +and if these are low the margin out of which to make savings by special +personal effort is narrow. No instance has yet been seen of a society +composed of a class of great capitalists and a class of laborers who +had fallen into a caste of permanent drudges. Probably no such thing is +possible so long as landlords especially remain as a third class, and +so long as society continues to develop strong classes of merchants, +financiers, professional men, and other classes. If it were conceivable +that non-capitalist laborers should give up struggling to become +capitalists, should give way to vulgar enjoyments and passions, should +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>recklessly increase their numbers, and should become a permanent caste, +they might with some justice be called proletarians. The name has been +adopted by some professed labor leaders, but it really should be +considered insulting. If there were such a proletariat it would be +hopelessly in the hands of a body of plutocratic capitalists, and a +society so organized would, no doubt, be far worse than a society +composed only of nobles and serfs, which is the worst society the world +has seen in modern times.</p> + +<p>At every turn, therefore, it appears that the number of men and the +quality of men limit each other, and that the question whether we shall +have more men or better men is of most importance to the class which +has neither land nor capital.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="VI" id="VI"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>VI.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>THAT HE WHO WOULD BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF MUST TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>The discussion of "the relations of labor and capital" has not hitherto +been very fruitful. It has been confused by ambiguous definitions, and +it has been based upon assumptions about the rights and duties of +social classes which are, to say the least, open to serious question as +regards their truth and justice. If, then, we correct and limit the +definitions, and if we test the assumptions, we shall find out whether +there is anything to discuss about the relations of "labor and +capital," and, if anything, what it is.</p> + +<p>Let us first examine the terms.</p> + +<p>1. Labor means properly <i>toil</i>, irksome exertion, expenditure of +productive energy.</p> + +<p>2. The term is used, secondly, by a figure of speech, and in a +collective sense, to designate the body of <i>persons</i> who, having +neither capital nor land, come into the industrial organization +offering productive services in exchange for means of subsistence. +These persons are united by community of interest into a group, or +class, or interest, and, when interests come to be adjusted, the +interests of this group will undoubtedly be limited by those of other +groups.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>3. The term labor is used, thirdly, in a more restricted, very popular +and current, but very ill-defined way, to designate a limited sub-group +among those who live by contributing productive efforts to the work of +society. Every one is a laborer who is not a person of leisure. Public +men, or other workers, if any, who labor but receive no pay, might be +excluded from the category, and we should immediately pass, by such a +restriction, from a broad and philosophical to a technical definition +of the labor class. But merchants, bankers, professional men, and all +whose labor is, to an important degree, mental as well as manual, are +excluded from this third use of the term labor. The result is, that the +word is used, in a sense at once loosely popular and strictly +technical, to designate a group of laborers who separate their +interests from those of other laborers. Whether farmers are included +under "labor" in this third sense or not I have not been able to +determine. It seems that they are or are not, as the interest of the +disputants may require.</p> + +<p>1. Capital is any <i>product</i> of labor which is used to assist +production.</p> + +<p>2. This term also is used, by a figure of speech, and in a collective +sense, for the <i>persons</i> who possess capital, and who come into the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span>industrial organization to get their living by using capital for +profit. To do this they need to exchange capital for productive +services. These persons constitute an interest, group, or class, +although they are not united by any such community of interest as +laborers, and, in the adjustment of interests, the interests of the +owners of capital must be limited by the interests of other groups.</p> + +<p>3. Capital, however, is also used in a vague and popular sense which it +is hard to define. In general it is used, and in this sense, to mean +employers of laborers, but it seems to be restricted to those who are +employers on a large scale. It does not seem to include those who +employ only domestic servants. Those also are excluded who own capital +and lend it, but do not directly employ people to use it.</p> + +<p>It is evident that if we take for discussion "capital and labor," if +each of the terms has three definitions, and if one definition of each +is loose and doubtful, we have everything prepared for a discussion +which shall be interminable and fruitless, which shall offer every +attraction to undisciplined thinkers, and repel everybody else.</p> + +<p>The real collision of interest, which is the centre of the dispute, is +that of employers and employed; and the first condition of successful +study of the question, or of successful <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>investigation to see if there +is any question, is to throw aside the technical economic terms, and to +look at the subject in its true meaning, expressed in untechnical +language. We will use the terms "capital" and "labor" only in their +strict economic significance, viz., the first definition given above +under each term, and we will use the terms "laborers" and "capitalists" +when we mean the persons described in the second definition under each +term.</p> + +<p>It is a common assertion that the interests of employers and employed +are identical, that they are partners in an enterprise, etc. These +sayings spring from a disposition, which may often be noticed, to find +consoling and encouraging observations in the facts of sociology, and +to refute, if possible, any unpleasant observations. If we try to learn +what is true, we shall both do what is alone right, and we shall do the +best for ourselves in the end. The interests of employers and employed +as parties to a contract are antagonistic in certain respects and +united in others, as in the case wherever supply and demand operate. If +John gives cloth to James in exchange for wheat, John's interest is +that cloth be good and attractive but not plentiful, but that wheat be +good and plentiful; James' interest is that wheat be good and +attractive but not plentiful, but that cloth be good and plentiful. All +men have a common <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>interest that all things be good, and that all +things but the one which each produces be plentiful. The employer is +interested that capital be good but rare, and productive energy good +and plentiful; the employé is interested that capital be good and +plentiful, but that productive energy be good and rare. When one man +alone can do a service, and he can do it very well, he represents the +laborer's ideal. To say that employers and employed are partners in an +enterprise is only a delusive figure of speech. It is plainly based on +no facts in the industrial system.</p> + +<p>Employers and employed make contracts on the best terms which they can +agree upon, like buyers and sellers, renters and hirers, borrowers and +lenders. Their relations are, therefore, controlled by the universal +law of supply and demand. The employer assumes the direction of the +business, and takes all the risk, for the capital must be consumed in +the industrial process, and whether it will be found again in the +product or not depends upon the good judgment and foresight with which +the capital and labor have been applied. Under the wages system the +employer and the employé contract for time. The employé fulfils the +contract if he obeys orders during the time, and treats the capital as +he is told to treat it. Hence he is free from all responsibility, risk, +and speculation. That this is the most advantageous <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>arrangement for +him, on the whole and in the great majority of cases, is very certain. +Salaried men and wage-receivers are in precisely the same +circumstances, except that the former, by custom and usage, are those +who have special skill or training, which is almost always an +investment of capital, and which narrows the range of competition in +their case. Physicians, lawyers, and others paid by fees are workers by +the piece. To the capital in existence all must come for their +subsistence and their tools.</p> + +<p>Association is the lowest and simplest mode of attaining accord and +concord between men. It is now the mode best suited to the condition +and chances of employés. Employers formerly made use of guilds to +secure common action for a common interest. They have given up this +mode of union because it has been superseded by a better one. +Correspondence, travel, newspapers, circulars, and telegrams bring to +employers and capitalists the information which they need for the +defense of their interests. The combination between them is automatic +and instinctive. It is not formal and regulated by rule. It is all the +stronger on that account, because intelligent men, holding the same +general maxims of policy, and obtaining the same information, pursue +similar lines of action, while retaining all the ease, freedom, and +elasticity of personal independence.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>At present employés have not the leisure necessary for the higher modes +of communication. Capital is also necessary to establish the ties of +common action under the higher forms. Moreover, there is, no doubt, an +incidental disadvantage connected with the release which the employé +gets under the wages system from all responsibility for the conduct of +the business. That is, that employés do not learn to watch or study the +course of industry, and do not plan for their own advantage, as other +classes do. There is an especial field for combined action in the case +of employés. Employers are generally separated by jealousy and pride in +regard to all but the most universal class interests. Employés have a +much closer interest in each other's wisdom. Competition of capitalists +for profits redounds to the benefit of laborers. Competition of +laborers for subsistence redounds to the benefit of capitalists. It is +utterly futile to plan and scheme so that either party can make a +"corner" on the other. If employers withdraw capital from employment in +an attempt to lower wages, they lose profits. If employés withdraw from +competition in order to raise wages, they starve to death. Capital and +labor are the two things which least admit of monopoly. Employers can, +however, if they have foresight of the movements of industry and +commerce, and if they make skillful use of credit, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>win exceptional +profits for a limited period. One great means of exceptional profit +lies in the very fact that the employés have not exercised the same +foresight, but have plodded along and waited for the slow and +successive action of the industrial system through successive periods +of production, while the employer has anticipated and synchronized +several successive steps. No bargain is fairly made if one of the +parties to it fails to maintain his interest. If one party to a +contract is well informed and the other ill informed, the former is +sure to win an advantage. No doctrine that a true adjustment of +interest follows from the free play of interests can be construed to +mean that an interest which is neglected will get its rights.</p> + +<p>The employés have no means of information which is as good and +legitimate as association, and it is fair and necessary that their +action should be united in behalf of their interests. They are not in a +position for the unrestricted development of individualism in regard to +many of their interests. Unquestionably the better ones lose by this, +and the development of individualism is to be looked forward to and +hoped for as a great gain. In the meantime the labor market, in which +wages are fixed, cannot reach fair adjustments unless the interest of +the laborers is fairly defended, and that cannot, perhaps, yet be done +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span>without associations of laborers. No newspapers yet report the labor +market. If they give any notices of it—of its rise and fall, of its +variations in different districts and in different trades—such notices +are always made for the interest of the employers. Re-distribution of +employés, both locally and trade-wise (so far as the latter is +possible), is a legitimate and useful mode of raising wages. The +illegitimate attempt to raise wages by limiting the number of +apprentices is the great abuse of trades-unions. I shall discuss that +in the ninth chapter.</p> + +<p>It appears that the English trades were forced to contend, during the +first half of this century, for the wages which the market really would +give them, but which, under the old traditions and restrictions which +remained, they could not get without a positive struggle. They formed +the opinion that a strike could raise wages. They were educated so to +think by the success which they had won in certain attempts. It appears +to have become a traditional opinion, in which no account is taken of +the state of the labor market. It would be hard to find a case of any +strike within thirty or forty years, either in England or the United +States, which has paid. If a strike occurs, it certainly wastes capital +and hinders production. It must, therefore, lower wages subsequently +below what they would have been if <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span>there had been no strike. If a +strike succeeds, the question arises whether an advance of wages as +great or greater would not have occurred within a limited period +without a strike.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless, a strike is a legitimate resort at last. It is like war, +for it is war. All that can be said is that those who have recourse to +it at last ought to understand that they assume a great responsibility, +and that they can only be justified by the circumstances of the case. I +cannot believe that a strike for wages ever is expedient. There are +other purposes, to be mentioned in a moment, for which a strike may be +expedient; but a strike for wages is a clear case of a strife in which +ultimate success is a complete test of the justifiability of the course +of those who made the strife. If the men win an advance, it proves that +they ought to have made it. If they do not win, it proves that they +were wrong to strike. If they strike with the market in their favor, +they win. If they strike with the market against them, they fail. It is +in human nature that a man whose income is increased is happy and +satisfied, although, if he demanded it, he might perhaps at that very +moment get more. A man whose income is lessened is displeased and +irritated, and he is more likely to strike then, when it may be in +vain. Strikes in industry are not nearly so peculiar a phenomenon as +they are often thought to be. Buyers strike <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span>when they refuse to buy +commodities of which the price has risen. Either the price remains +high, and they permanently learn to do without the commodity, or the +price is lowered, and they buy again. Tenants strike when house rents +rise too high for them. They seek smaller houses or parts of houses +until there is a complete readjustment. Borrowers strike when the rates +for capital are so high that they cannot employ it to advantage and pay +those rates. Laborers may strike and emigrate, or, in this country, +take to the land. This kind of strike is a regular application of +legitimate means, and is sure to succeed. Of course, strikes with +violence against employers or other employés are not to be discussed at +all.</p> + +<p>Trades-unions, then, are right and useful, and it may be that they are +necessary. They may do much by way of true economic means to raise +wages. They are useful to spread information, to maintain <i>esprit de +corps</i>, to elevate the public opinion of the class. They have been +greatly abused in the past. In this country they are in constant danger +of being used by political schemers—a fact which does more than +anything else to disparage them in the eyes of the best workmen. The +economic notions most in favor in the trades-unions are erroneous, +although not more so than those which find favor in the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>counting-room. +A man who believes that he can raise wages by doing bad work, wasting +time, allowing material to be wasted, and giving generally the least +possible service in the allotted time, is not to be distinguished from +the man who says that wages can be raised by putting protective taxes +on all clothing, furniture, crockery, bedding, books, fuel, utensils, +and tools. One lowers the services given for the capital, and the other +lowers the capital given for the services. Trades-unionism in the +higher classes consists in jobbery. There is a great deal of it in the +professions. I once heard a group of lawyers of high standing sneer at +an executor who hoped to get a large estate through probate without +allowing any lawyers to get big fees out of it. They all approved of +steps which had been taken to force a contest, which steps had forced +the executor to retain two or three lawyers. No one of the speakers had +been retained.</p> + +<p>Trades-unions need development, correction, and perfection. They ought, +however, to get this from the men themselves. If the men do not feel +any need of such institutions, the patronage of other persons who come +to them and give them these institutions will do harm and not good. +Especially trades-unions ought to be perfected so as to undertake a +great range of improvement duties for which we now rely on Government +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>inspection, which never gives what we need. The safety of workmen from +machinery, the ventilation and sanitary arrangements required by +factories, the special precautions of certain processes, the hours of +labor of women and children, the schooling of children, the limits of +age for employed children, Sunday work, hours of labor—these and other +like matters ought to be controlled by the men themselves through their +organizations. The laborers about whom we are talking are free men in a +free state. If they want to be protected they must protect themselves. +They ought to protect their own women and children. Their own class +opinion ought to secure the education of the children of their class. +If an individual workman is not bold enough to protest against a wrong +to laborers, the agent of a trades-union might with propriety do it on +behalf of the body of workmen. Here is a great and important need, and, +instead of applying suitable and adequate means to supply it, we have +demagogues declaiming, trades-union officers resolving, and Government +inspectors drawing salaries, while little or nothing is done.</p> + +<p>I have said that trades-unions are right and useful, and perhaps, +necessary; but trades-unions are, in fact, in this country, an exotic +and imported institution, and a great many of their rules and modes of +procedure, having been <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>developed in England to meet English +circumstances, are out of place here. The institution itself does not +flourish here as it would if it were in a thoroughly congenial +environment. It needs to be supported by special exertion and care. Two +things here work against it. First, the great mobility of our +population. A trades-union, to be strong, needs to be composed of men +who have grown up together, who have close personal acquaintance and +mutual confidence, who have been trained to the same code, and who +expect to live on together in the same circumstances and interests. In +this country, where workmen move about frequently and with facility, +the unions suffer in their harmony and stability. It was a significant +fact that the unions declined during the hard times. It was only when +the men were prosperous that they could afford to keep up the unions, +as a kind of social luxury. When the time came to use the union it +ceased to be. Secondly, the American workman really has such personal +independence, and such an independent and strong position in the labor +market, that he does not need the union. He is farther on the road +toward the point where personal liberty supplants the associative +principle than any other workman. Hence the association is likely to be +a clog to him, especially if he is a good laborer, rather than an +assistance. If it were not for the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>notion brought from England, that +trades-unions are, in some mysterious way, beneficial to the +workmen—which notion has now become an article of faith—it is very +doubtful whether American workmen would find that the unions were of +any use, unless they were converted into organizations for +accomplishing the purposes enumerated in the last paragraph.</p> + +<p>The fashion of the time is to run to Government boards, commissions, +and inspectors to set right everything which is wrong. No experience +seems to damp the faith of our public in these instrumentalities. The +English Liberals in the middle of this century seemed to have full +grasp of the principle of liberty, and to be fixed and established in +favor of non-interference. Since they have come to power, however, they +have adopted the old instrumentalities, and have greatly multiplied +them since they have had a great number of reforms to carry out. They +seem to think that interference is good if only they interfere. In this +country the party which is "in" always interferes, and the party which +is "out" favors non-interference. The system of interference is a +complete failure to the ends it aims at, and sooner or later it will +fall of its own expense and be swept away. The two notions—one to +regulate things by a committee of control, and the other to let things +regulate themselves by the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span>conflict of interests between free men—are +diametrically opposed; and the former is corrupting to free +institutions, because men who are taught to expect Government +inspectors to come and take care of them lose all true education in +liberty. If we have been all wrong for the last three hundred years in +aiming at a fuller realization of individual liberty, as a condition of +general and widely-diffused happiness, then we must turn back to +paternalism, discipline, and authority; but to have a combination of +liberty and dependence is impossible.</p> + +<p>I have read a great many diatribes within the last ten years against +employers, and a great many declamations about the wrongs of employés. +I have never seen a defense of the employer. Who dares say that he is +not the friend of the poor man? Who dares say that he is the friend of +the employer? I will try to say what I think is true. There are bad, +harsh, cross employers; there are slovenly, negligent workmen; there +are just about as many proportionately of one of these classes as of +the other. The employers of the United States—as a class, proper +exceptions being understood—have no advantage over their workmen. They +could not oppress them if they wanted to do so. The advantage, taking +good and bad times together, is with the workmen. The employers wish +the welfare <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span>of the workmen in all respects, and would give redress for +any grievance which was brought to their attention. They are +considerate of the circumstances and interests of the laborers. They +remember the interests of the workmen when driven to consider the +necessity of closing or reducing hours. They go on, and take risk and +trouble on themselves in working through bad times, rather than close +their works. The whole class of those-who-have are quick in their +sympathy for any form of distress or suffering. They are too quick. +Their sympathies need regulating, not stimulating. They are more likely +to give away capital recklessly than to withhold it stingily when any +alleged case of misfortune is before them. They rejoice to see any man +succeed in improving his position. They will aid him with counsel and +information if he desires it, and any man who needs and deserves help +because he is trying to help himself will be sure to meet with +sympathy, encouragement, and assistance from those who are better off. +If those who are in that position are related to him as employers to +employé, that tie will be recognized as giving him an especial claim.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="VII" id="VII"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>VII.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>CONCERNING SOME OLD FOES UNDER NEW FACES.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>The history of the human race is one long story of attempts by certain +persons and classes to obtain control of the power of the State, so as +to win earthly gratifications at the expense of others. People +constantly assume that there is something metaphysical and sentimental +about government. At bottom there are two chief things with which +government has to deal. They are, the property of men and the honor of +women. These it has to defend against crime. The capital which, as we +have seen, is the condition of all welfare on earth, the fortification +of existence, and the means of growth, is an object of cupidity. Some +want to get it without paying the price of industry and economy. In +ancient times they made use of force. They organized bands of robbers. +They plundered laborers and merchants. Chief of all, however, they +found that means of robbery which consisted in gaining control of the +civil organization—the State—and using its poetry and romance as a +glamour under cover of which they made robbery lawful. They developed +high-spun theories of nationality, patriotism, and loyalty. They took +all the rank, glory, power, and prestige of the great civil +organization, and they took all the rights. They <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>threw on others the +burdens and the duties. At one time, no doubt, feudalism was an +organization which drew together again the fragments of a dissolved +society; but when the lawyers had applied the Roman law to modern +kings, and feudal nobles had been converted into an aristocracy of +court nobles, the feudal nobility no longer served any purpose.</p> + +<p>In modern times the great phenomenon has been the growth of the middle +class out of the mediaeval cities, the accumulation of wealth, and the +encroachment of wealth, as a social power, on the ground formerly +occupied by rank and birth. The middle class has been obliged to fight +for its rights against the feudal class, and it has, during three or +four centuries, gradually invented and established institutions to +guarantee personal and property rights against the arbitrary will of +kings and nobles.</p> + +<p>In its turn wealth is now becoming a power in three or four centuries, +gradually invented and the State, and, like every other power, it is +liable to abuse unless restrained by checks and guarantees. There is an +insolence of wealth, as there is an insolence of rank. A plutocracy +might be even far worse than an aristocracy. Aristocrats have always +had their class vices and their class virtues. They have always been, +as a class, chargeable with licentiousness and gambling. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>They have, +however, as a class, despised lying and stealing. They have always +pretended to maintain a standard of honor, although the definition and +the code of honor have suffered many changes and shocking +deterioration. The middle class has always abhorred gambling and +licentiousness, but it has not always been strict about truth and +pecuniary fidelity. That there is a code and standard of mercantile +honor which is quite as pure and grand as any military code, is beyond +question, but it has never yet been established and defined by long +usage and the concurrent support of a large and influential society. +The feudal code has, through centuries, bred a high type of men, and +constituted a caste. The mercantile code has not yet done so, but the +wealthy class has attempted to merge itself in or to imitate the feudal +class.</p> + +<p>The consequence is, that the wealth-power has been developed, while the +moral and social sanctions by which that power ought to be controlled +have not yet been developed. A plutocracy would be a civil organization +in which the power resides in wealth, in which a man might have +whatever he could buy, in which the rights, interests, and feelings of +those who could not pay would be overridden.</p> + +<p>There is a plain tendency of all civilized governments toward +plutocracy. The power of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>wealth in the English House of Commons has +steadily increased for fifty years. The history of the present French +Republic has shown an extraordinary development of plutocratic spirit +and measures. In the United States many plutocratic doctrines have a +currency which is not granted them anywhere else; that is, a man's +right to have almost anything which he can pay for is more popularly +recognized here than elsewhere. So far the most successful limitation +on plutocracy has come from aristocracy, for the prestige of rank is +still great wherever it exists. The social sanctions of aristocracy +tell with great force on the plutocrats, more especially on their wives +and daughters. It has already resulted that a class of wealthy men is +growing up in regard to whom the old sarcasms of the novels and the +stage about <i>parvenus</i> are entirely thrown away. They are men who have +no superiors, by whatever standard one chooses to measure them. Such an +interplay of social forces would, indeed, be a great and happy solution +of a new social problem, if the aristocratic forces were strong enough +for the magnitude of the task. If the feudal aristocracy, or its modern +representative—which is, in reality, not at all feudal—could carry +down into the new era and transmit to the new masters of society the +grace, elegance, breeding, and culture of the past, society would +certainly gain by <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span>that course of things, as compared with any such +rupture between past and present as occurred in the French Revolution. +The dogmatic radicals who assail "on principle" the inherited social +notions and distinctions are not serving civilization. Society can do +without patricians, but it cannot do without patrician virtues.</p> + +<p>In the United States the opponent of plutocracy is democracy. Nowhere +else in the world has the power of wealth come to be discussed in its +political aspects as it is here. Nowhere else does the question arise +as it does here. I have given some reasons for this in former chapters. +Nowhere in the world is the danger of plutocracy as formidable as it is +here. To it we oppose the power of numbers as it is presented by +democracy. Democracy itself, however, is new and experimental. It has +not yet existed long enough to find its appropriate forms. It has no +prestige from antiquity such as aristocracy possesses. It has, indeed, +none of the surroundings which appeal to the imagination. On the other +hand, democracy is rooted in the physical, economic, and social +circumstances of the United States. This country cannot be other than +democratic for an indefinite period in the future. Its political +processes will also be republican. The affection of the people for +democracy makes them blind and uncritical in regard to it, and they are +as fond of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span>the political fallacies to which democracy lends itself as +they are of its sound and correct interpretation, or fonder. Can +democracy develop itself and at the same time curb plutocracy?</p> + +<p>Already the question presents itself as one of life or death to +democracy. Legislative and judicial scandals show us that the conflict +is already opened, and that it is serious. The lobby is the army of the +plutocracy. An elective judiciary is a device so much in the interest +of plutocracy, that it must be regarded as a striking proof of the +toughness of the judicial institution that it has resisted the +corruption so much as it has. The caucus, convention, and committee +lend themselves most readily to the purposes of interested speculators +and jobbers. It is just such machinery as they might have invented if +they had been trying to make political devices to serve their purpose, +and their processes call in question nothing less than the possibility +of free self-government under the forms of a democratic republic.</p> + +<p>For now I come to the particular point which I desire to bring forward +against all the denunciations and complainings about the power of +chartered corporations and aggregated capital. If charters have been +given which confer undue powers, who gave them? Our legislators did. +Who elected these legislators. We did. If we are a free, self-governing +people, we must <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>understand that it costs vigilance and exertion to be +self-governing. It costs far more vigilance and exertion to be so under +the democratic form, where we have no aids from tradition or prestige, +than under other forms. If we are a free, self-governing people, we can +blame nobody but ourselves for our misfortunes. No one will come to +help us out of them. It will do no good to heap law upon law, or to try +by constitutional provisions simply to abstain from the use of powers +which we find we always abuse. How can we get bad legislators to pass a +law which shall hinder bad legislators from passing a bad law? That is +what we are trying to do by many of our proposed remedies. The task +before us, however, is one which calls for fresh reserves of moral +force and political virtue from the very foundations of the social +body. Surely it is not a new thing to us to learn that men are greedy +and covetous, and that they will be selfish and tyrannical if they +dare. The plutocrats are simply trying to do what the generals, nobles, +and priests have done in the past—get the power of the State into +their hands, so as to bend the rights of others to their own advantage; +and what we need to do is to recognize the fact that we are face to +face with the same old foes—the vices and passions of human nature. +One of the oldest and most mischievous fallacies in this country has +been the notion that <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>we are better than other nations, and that +Government has a smaller and easier task here than elsewhere. This +fallacy has hindered us from recognizing our old foes as soon as we +should have done. Then, again, these vices and passions take good care +here to deck themselves out in the trappings of democratic watchwords +and phrases, so that they are more often greeted with cheers than with +opposition when they first appear. The plan of electing men to +represent us who systematically surrender public to private interests, +and then trying to cure the mischief by newspaper and platform +declamation against capital and corporations, is an entire failure.</p> + +<p>The new foes must be met, as the old ones were met—by institutions and +guarantees. The problem of civil liberty is constantly renewed. Solved +once, it re-appears in a new form. The old constitutional guarantees +were all aimed against king and nobles. New ones must be invented to +hold the power of wealth to that responsibility without which no power +whatever is consistent with liberty. The judiciary has given the most +satisfactory evidence that it is competent to the new duty which +devolves upon it. The courts have proved, in every case in which they +have been called upon, that there are remedies, that they are adequate, +and that they can be brought to bear upon the cases. The chief need +seems to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>be more power of voluntary combination and co-operation among +those who are aggrieved. Such co-operation is a constant necessity +under free self-government; and when, in any community, men lose the +power of voluntary co-operation in furtherance or defense of their own +interests, they deserve to suffer, with no other remedy than newspaper +denunciations and platform declamations. Of course, in such a state of +things, political mountebanks come forward and propose fierce measures +which can be paraded for political effect. Such measures would be +hostile to all our institutions, would destroy capital, overthrow +credit, and impair the most essential interests of society. On the side +of political machinery there is no ground for hope, but only for fear. +On the side of constitutional guarantees and the independent action of +self-governing freemen there is every ground for hope.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="VIII" id="VIII"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>VIII.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>ON THE VALUE, AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE, OF THE RULE TO MIND ONE'S +OWN BUSINESS.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>The passion for dealing with social questions is one of the marks of +our time. Every man gets some experience of, and makes some +observations on social affairs. Except matters of health, probably none +have such general interest as matters of society. Except matters of +health, none are so much afflicted by dogmatism and crude speculation +as those which appertain to society. The amateurs in social science +always ask: What shall we do? What shall we do with Neighbor A? What +shall we do for Neighbor B? What shall we make Neighbor A do for +Neighbor B? It is a fine thing to be planning and discussing broad and +general theories of wide application. The amateurs always plan to use +the individual for some constructive and inferential social purpose, or +to use the society for some constructive and inferential individual +purpose. For A to sit down and think, What shall I do? is commonplace; +but to think what B ought to do is interesting, romantic, moral, +self-flattering, and public-spirited all at once. It satisfies a great +number of human weaknesses at once. To go on and plan what a whole +class of people ought to do is to feel one's self a power on earth, to +win a public <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>position, to clothe one's self in dignity. Hence we have +an unlimited supply of reformers, philanthropists, humanitarians, and +would-be managers-in-general of society.</p> + +<p>Every man and woman in society has one big duty. That is, to take care +of his or her own self. This is a social duty. For, fortunately, the +matter stands so that the duty of making the best of one's self +individually is not a separate thing from the duty of filling one's +place in society, but the two are one, and the latter is accomplished +when the former is done. The common notion, however, seems to be that +one has a duty to society, as a special and separate thing, and that +this duty consists in considering and deciding what other people ought +to do. Now, the man who can do anything for or about anybody else than +himself is fit to be head of a family; and when he becomes head of a +family he has duties to his wife and his children, in addition to the +former big duty. Then, again, any man who can take care of himself and +his family is in a very exceptional position, if he does not find in +his immediate surroundings people who need his care and have some sort +of a personal claim upon him. If, now, he is able to fulfill all this, +and to take care of anybody outside his family and his dependents, he +must have a surplus of energy, wisdom, and moral virtue beyond what he +needs for his own <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span>business. No man has this; for a family is a charge +which is capable of infinite development, and no man could suffice to +the full measure of duty for which a family may draw upon him. Neither +can a man give to society so advantageous an employment of his +services, whatever they are, in any other way as by spending them on +his family. Upon this, however, I will not insist. I recur to the +observation that a man who proposes to take care of other people must +have himself and his family taken care of, after some sort of a +fashion, and must have an as yet unexhausted store of energy.</p> + +<p>The danger of minding other people's business is twofold. First, there +is the danger that a man may leave his own business unattended to; and, +second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with +another's affairs. The "friends of humanity" almost always run into +both dangers. I am one of humanity, and I do not want any volunteer +friends. I regard friendship as mutual, and I want to have my say about +it. I suppose that other components of humanity feel in the same way +about it. If so, they must regard any one who assumes the <i>rôle</i> of a +friend of humanity as impertinent. The reference to the friend of +humanity back to his own business is obviously the next step.</p> + +<p>Yet we are constantly annoyed, and the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span>legislatures are kept +constantly busy, by the people who have made up their minds that it is +wise and conducive to happiness to live in a certain way, and who want +to compel everybody else to live in their way. Some people have decided +to spend Sunday in a certain way, and they want laws passed to make +other people spend Sunday in the same way. Some people have resolved to +be teetotalers, and they want a law passed to make everybody else a +teetotaler. Some people have resolved to eschew luxury, and they want +taxes laid to make others eschew luxury. The taxing power is especially +something after which the reformer's finger always itches. Sometimes +there is an element of self-interest in the proposed reformation, as +when a publisher wanted a duty imposed on books, to keep Americans from +reading books which would unsettle their Americanisms; and when artists +wanted a tax laid on pictures, to save Americans from buying bad +paintings.</p> + +<p>I make no reference here to the giving and taking of counsel and aid +between man and man: of that I shall say something in the last chapter. +The very sacredness of the relation in which two men stand to one +another when one of them rescues the other from vice separates that +relation from any connection with the work of the social <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>busybody, the +professional philanthropist, and the empirical legislator.</p> + +<p>The amateur social doctors are like the amateur physicians—they always +begin with the question of <i>remedies</i>, and they go at this without any +diagnosis or any knowledge of the anatomy or physiology of society. +They never have any doubt of the efficacy of their remedies. They never +take account of any ulterior effects which may be apprehended from the +remedy itself. It generally troubles them not a whit that their remedy +implies a complete reconstruction of society, or even a reconstitution +of human nature. Against all such social quackery the obvious +injunction to the quacks is, to mind their own business.</p> + +<p>The social doctors enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to be +more moral or more enlightened than their fellow-men. They are able to +see what other men ought to do when the other men do not see it. An +examination of the work of the social doctors, however, shows that they +are only more ignorant and more presumptuous than other people. We have +a great many social difficulties and hardships to contend with. +Poverty, pain, disease, and misfortune surround our existence. We fight +against them all the time. The individual is a centre of hopes, +affections, desires, and sufferings. When he dies, life changes its +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>form, but does not cease. That means that the person—the centre of all +the hopes, affections, etc.—after struggling as long as he can, is +sure to succumb at last. We would, therefore, as far as the hardships +of the human lot are concerned, go on struggling to the best of our +ability against them but for the social doctors, and we would endure +what we could not cure. But we have inherited a vast number of social +ills which never came from Nature. They are the complicated products of +all the tinkering, muddling, and blundering of social doctors in the +past. These products of social quackery are now buttressed by habit, +fashion, prejudice, platitudinarian thinking, and new quackery in +political economy and social science. It is a fact worth noticing, just +when there seems to be a revival of faith in legislative agencies, that +our States are generally providing against the experienced evils of +over-legislation by ordering that the Legislature shall sit only every +other year. During the hard times, when Congress had a real chance to +make or mar the public welfare, the final adjournment of that body was +hailed year after year with cries of relief from a great anxiety. The +greatest reforms which could now be accomplished would consist in +undoing the work of statesmen in the past, and the greatest difficulty +in the way of reform is to find out how to undo their work without +injury <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span>to what is natural and sound. All this mischief has been done +by men who sat down to consider the problem (as I heard an apprentice +of theirs once express it), What kind of a society do we want to make? +When they had settled this question <i>a priori</i> to their satisfaction, +they set to work to make their ideal society, and today we suffer the +consequences. Human society tries hard to adapt itself to any +conditions in which it finds itself, and we have been warped and +distorted until we have got used to it, as the foot adapts itself to an +ill-made boot. Next, we have come to think that that is the right way +for things to be; and it is true that a change to a sound and normal +condition would for a time hurt us, as a man whose foot has been +distorted would suffer if he tried to wear a well-shaped boot. Finally, +we have produced a lot of economists and social philosophers who have +invented sophisms for fitting our thinking to the distorted facts.</p> + +<p>Society, therefore, does not need any care or supervision. If we can +acquire a science of society, based on observation of phenomena and +study of forces, we may hope to gain some ground slowly toward the +elimination of old errors and the re-establishment of a sound and +natural social order. Whatever we gain that way will be by growth, +never in the world by any reconstruction of society on the plan of +some <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>enthusiastic social architect. The latter is only repeating the +old error over again, and postponing all our chances of real +improvement. Society needs first of all to be freed from these +meddlers—that is, to be let alone. Here we are, then, once more back +at the old doctrine—<i>Laissez faire</i>. Let us translate it into blunt +English, and it will read, Mind your own business. It is nothing but +the doctrine of liberty. Let every man be happy in his own way. If his +sphere of action and interest impinges on that of any other man, there +will have to be compromise and adjustment. Wait for the occasion. Do +not attempt to generalize those interferences or to plan for them <i>a +priori</i>. We have a body of laws and institutions which have grown up as +occasion has occurred for adjusting rights. Let the same process go on. +Practise the utmost reserve possible in your interferences even of this +kind, and by no means seize occasion for interfering with natural +adjustments. Try first long and patiently whether the natural +adjustment will not come about through the play of interests and the +voluntary concessions of the parties.</p> + +<p>I have said that we have an empirical political economy and social +science to fit the distortions of our society. The test of empiricism +in this matter is the attitude which one takes up toward <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span><i>laissez +faire</i>. It no doubt wounds the vanity of a philosopher who is just +ready with a new solution of the universe to be told to mind his own +business. So he goes on to tell us that if we think that we shall, by +being let alone, attain a perfect happiness on earth, we are mistaken. +The half-way men—the professional socialists—join him. They solemnly +shake their heads, and tell us that he is right—that letting us alone +will never secure us perfect happiness. Under all this lies the +familiar logical fallacy, never expressed, but really the point of the +whole, that we <i>shall</i> get perfect happiness if we put ourselves in the +hands of the world-reformer. We never supposed that <i>laissez faire</i> +would give us perfect happiness. We have left perfect happiness +entirely out of our account. If the social doctors will mind their own +business, we shall have no troubles but what belong to Nature. Those we +will endure or combat as we can. What we desire is, that the friends of +humanity should cease to add to them. Our disposition toward the ills +which our fellow-man inflicts on us through malice or meddling is quite +different from our disposition toward the ills which are inherent in +the conditions of human life.</p> + +<p>To mind one's own business is a purely negative and unproductive +injunction, but, taking <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>social matters as they are just now, it is a +sociological principle of the first importance. There might be +developed a grand philosophy on the basis of minding one's own +business.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="IX" id="IX"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>IX.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism +is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be +made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a +sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the +matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the +ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely +overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and +consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, +that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case +appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies +addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all +the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in +action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an +equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. +They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all +the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the +effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. +They are always under the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span>dominion of the superstition of government, +and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave +out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social +discussion—that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking +it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced +and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.</p> + +<p>The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings +toward "the poor," "the weak," "the laborers," and others of whom they +make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, +and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other +classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other +noble sentiments of the human heart. Action in the line proposed +consists in a transfer of capital from the better off to the worse off. +Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization +is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used +in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a +shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for +it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put to +reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient +and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of +benevolence which consists in an expenditure of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span>capital to protect the +good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter, however, is +never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is provided +for and out of the account. Such a notion only shows how little true +notions of political economy have as yet become popularized. There is +an almost invincible prejudice that a man who gives a dollar to a +beggar is generous and kind-hearted, but that a man who refuses the +beggar and puts the dollar in a savings-bank is stingy and mean. The +former is putting capital where it is very sure to be wasted, and where +it will be a kind of seed for a long succession of future dollars, +which must be wasted to ward off a greater strain on the sympathies +than would have been occasioned by a refusal in the first place. +Inasmuch as the dollar might have been turned into capital and given to +a laborer who, while earning it, would have reproduced it, it must be +regarded as taken from the latter. When a millionaire gives a dollar to +a beggar the gain of utility to the beggar is enormous, and the loss of +utility to the millionaire is insignificant. Generally the discussion +is allowed to rest there. But if the millionaire makes capital of the +dollar, it must go upon the labor market, as a demand for productive +services. Hence there is another party in interest—the person who +supplies productive services. There always are two <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>parties. The second +one is always the Forgotten Man, and any one who wants to truly +understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten +Man. He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and +self-supporting. He is not, technically, "poor" or "weak"; he minds his +own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists +never think of him, and trample on him.</p> + +<p>We hear a great deal of schemes for "improving the condition of the +working-man." In the United States the farther down we go in the grade +of labor, the greater is the advantage which the laborer has over the +higher classes. A hod-carrier or digger here can, by one day's labor, +command many times more days' labor of a carpenter, surveyor, +bookkeeper, or doctor than an unskilled laborer in Europe could command +by one day's labor. The same is true, in a less degree, of the +carpenter, as compared with the bookkeeper, surveyor, and doctor. This +is why the United States is the great country for the unskilled +laborer. The economic conditions all favor that class. There is a great +continent to be subdued, and there is a fertile soil available to +labor, with scarcely any need of capital. Hence the people who have the +strong arms have what is most needed, and, if it were not for social +consideration, higher education would not pay. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span>Such being the case, +the working-man needs no improvement in his condition except to be +freed from the parasites who are living on him. All schemes for +patronizing "the working classes" savor of condescension. They are +impertinent and out of place in this free democracy. There is not, in +fact, any such state of things or any such relation as would make +projects of this kind appropriate. Such projects demoralize both +parties, flattering the vanity of one and undermining the self-respect +of the other.</p> + +<p>For our present purpose it is most important to notice that if we lift +any man up we must have a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society +that means that to lift one man up we push another down. The schemes +for improving the condition of the working classes interfere in the +competition of workmen with each other. The beneficiaries are selected +by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have recommended themselves +to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which does not +betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding +depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, +who once more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity +once more appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on +those who are trying to help themselves.</p> + +<p>Trades-unions adopt various devices for <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>raising wages, and those who +give their time to philanthropy are interested in these devices, and +wish them success. They fix their minds entirely on the workmen for the +time being <i>in</i> the trade, and do not take note of any other <i>workmen</i> +as interested in the matter. It is supposed that the fight is between +the workmen and their employers, and it is believed that one can give +sympathy in that contest to the workmen without feeling responsibility +for anything farther. It is soon seen, however, that the employer adds +the trades-union and strike risk to the other risks of his business, +and settles down to it philosophically. If, now, we go farther, we see +that he takes it philosophically because he has passed the loss along +on the public. It then appears that the public wealth has been +diminished, and that the danger of a trade war, like the danger of a +revolution, is a constant reduction of the well-being of all. So far, +however, we have seen only things which could <i>lower</i> wages—nothing +which could raise them. The employer is worried, but that does not +raise wages. The public loses, but the loss goes to cover extra risk, +and that does not raise wages.</p> + +<p>A trades-union raises wages (aside from the legitimate and economic +means noticed in Chapter VI.) by restricting the number of apprentices +who may be taken into the trade. This device <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>acts directly on the +supply of laborers, and that produces effects on wages. If, however, +the number of apprentices is limited, some are kept out who want to get +in. Those who are in have, therefore, made a monopoly, and constituted +themselves a privileged class on a basis exactly analogous to that of +the old privileged aristocracies. But whatever is gained by this +arrangement for those who are in is won at a greater loss to those who +are kept out. Hence it is not upon the masters nor upon the public that +trades-unions exert the pressure by which they raise wages; it is upon +other persons of the labor class who want to get into the trades, but, +not being able to do so, are pushed down into the unskilled labor +class. These persons, however, are passed by entirely without notice in +all the discussions about trades-unions. They are the Forgotten Men. +But, since they want to get into the trade and win their living in it, +it is fair to suppose that they are fit for it, would succeed at it, +would do well for themselves and society in it; that is to say, that, +of all persons interested or concerned, they most deserve our sympathy +and attention.</p> + +<p>The cases already mentioned involve no legislation. Society, however, +maintains police, sheriffs, and various institutions, the object of +which is to protect people against themselves—that is, against their +own vices. Almost all legislative <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span>effort to prevent vice is really +protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man +from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are +terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the +gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and +tendency of things. Nature has set up on him the process of decline and +dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their +usefulness. Gambling and other less mentionable vices carry their own +penalties with them.</p> + +<p>Now, we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the +head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not +incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this +operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being +relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that +there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. Who are +the others? When we see a drunkard in the gutter we pity him. If a +policeman picks him up, we say that society has interfered to save him +from perishing. "Society" is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble +of thinking. The industrious and sober workman, who is mulcted of a +percentage of his day's wages to pay the policeman, is the one who +bears the penalty. But he is the Forgotten Man. He passes by and is +never noticed, because he has <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>behaved himself, fulfilled his +contracts, and asked for nothing.</p> + +<p>The fallacy of all prohibitory, sumptuary, and moral legislation is the +same. A and B determine to be teetotalers, which is often a wise +determination, and sometimes a necessary one. If A and B are moved by +considerations which seem to them good, that is enough. But A and B put +their heads together to get a law passed which shall force C to be a +teetotaler for the sake of D, who is in danger of drinking too much. +There is no pressure on A and B. They are having their own way, and +they like it. There is rarely any pressure on D. He does not like it, +and evades it. The pressure all comes on C. The question then arises, +Who is C? He is the man who wants alcoholic liquors for any honest +purpose whatsoever, who would use his liberty without abusing it, who +would occasion no public question, and trouble nobody at all. He is the +Forgotten Man again, and as soon as he is drawn from his obscurity we +see that he is just what each one of us ought to be.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="X" id="X"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>X.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN MAN FARTHER CONSIDERED.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>There is a beautiful notion afloat in our literature and in the minds +of our people that men are born to certain "natural rights." If that +were true, there would be something on earth which was got for nothing, +and this world would not be the place it is at all. The fact is, that +there is no right whatever inherited by man which has not an equivalent +and corresponding duty by the side of it, as the price of it. The +rights, advantages, capital, knowledge, and all other goods which we +inherit from past generations have been won by the struggles and +sufferings of past generations; and the fact that the race lives, +though men die, and that the race can by heredity accumulate within +some cycle its victories over Nature, is one of the facts which make +civilization possible. The struggles of the race as a whole produce the +possessions of the race as a whole. Something for nothing is not to be +found on earth.</p> + +<p>If there were such things as natural rights, the question would arise, +Against whom are they good? Who has the corresponding obligation to +satisfy these rights? There can be no rights against Nature, except to +get out of her whatever we can, which is only the fact of the struggle +for <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span>existence stated over again. The common assertion is, that the +rights are good against society; that is, that society is bound to +obtain and secure them for the persons interested. Society, however, is +only the persons interested plus some other persons; and as the persons +interested have by the hypothesis failed to win the rights, we come to +this, that natural rights are the claims which certain persons have by +prerogative against some other persons. Such is the actual +interpretation in practice of natural rights—claims which some people +have by prerogative on other people.</p> + +<p>This theory is a very far-reaching one, and of course it is adequate to +furnish a foundation for a whole social philosophy. In its widest +extension it comes to mean that if any man finds himself uncomfortable +in this world, it must be somebody else's fault, and that somebody is +bound to come and make him comfortable. Now, the people who are most +uncomfortable in this world (for if we should tell all our troubles it +would not be found to be a very comfortable world for anybody) are +those who have neglected their duties, and consequently have failed to +get their rights. The people who can be called upon to serve the +uncomfortable must be those who have done their duty, as the world +goes, tolerably well. Consequently the doctrine which we are discussing +turns out to be in practice only <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>a scheme for making injustice prevail +in human society by reversing the distribution of rewards and +punishments between those who have done their duty and those who have +not.</p> + +<p>We are constantly preached at by our public teachers, as if respectable +people were to blame because some people are not respectable—as if the +man who has done his duty in his own sphere was responsible in some way +for another man who has not done his duty in his sphere. There are +relations of employer and employé which need to be regulated by +compromise and treaty. There are sanitary precautions which need to be +taken in factories and houses. There are precautions against fire which +are necessary. There is care needed that children be not employed too +young, and that they have an education. There is care needed that +banks, insurance companies, and railroads be well managed, and that +officers do not abuse their trusts. There is a duty in each case on the +interested parties to defend their own interest. The penalty of neglect +is suffering. The system of providing for these things by boards and +inspectors throws the cost of it, not on the interested parties, but on +the tax-payers. Some of them, no doubt, are the interested parties, and +they may consider that they are exercising the proper care by paying +taxes to support an inspector. If so, they only get their fair deserts +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span>when the railroad inspector finds out that a bridge is not safe after +it is broken down, or when the bank examiner comes in to find out why a +bank failed after the cashier has stolen all the funds. The real victim +is the Forgotten Man again—the man who has watched his own +investments, made his own machinery safe, attended to his own plumbing, +and educated his own children, and who, just when he wants to enjoy the +fruits of his care, is told that it is his duty to go and take care of +some of his negligent neighbors, or, if he does not go, to pay an +inspector to go. No doubt it is often in his interest to go or to send, +rather than to have the matter neglected, on account of his own +connection with the thing neglected, and his own secondary peril; but +the point now is, that if preaching and philosophizing can do any good +in the premises, it is all wrong to preach to the Forgotten Man that it +is his duty to go and remedy other people's neglect. It is not his +duty. It is a harsh and unjust burden which is laid upon him, and it is +only the more unjust because no one thinks of him when laying the +burden so that it falls on him. The exhortations ought to be expended +on the negligent—that they take care of themselves.</p> + +<p>It is an especially vicious extension of the false doctrine above +mentioned that criminals have some sort of a right against or claim on +society. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>Many reformatory plans are based on a doctrine of this kind +when they are urged upon the public conscience. A criminal is a man +who, instead of working with and for the society, has turned against +it, and become destructive and injurious. His punishment means that +society rules him out of its membership, and separates him from its +association, by execution or imprisonment, according to the gravity of +his offense. He has no claims against society at all. What shall be +done with him is a question of expediency to be settled in view of the +interests of society—that is, of the non-criminals. The French writers +of the school of '48 used to represent the badness of the bad men as +the fault of "society." As the object of this statement was to show +that the badness of the bad men was not the fault of the bad men, and +as society contains only good men and bad men, it followed that the +badness of the bad men was the fault of the good men. On that theory, +of course the good men owed a great deal to the bad men who were in +prison and at the galleys on their account. If we do not admit that +theory, it behooves us to remember that any claim which we allow to the +criminal against the "State" is only so much burden laid upon those who +have never cost the State anything for discipline or correction. The +punishments of society are just like <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span>those of God and Nature—they are +warnings to the wrong-doer to reform himself.</p> + +<p>When public offices are to be filled numerous candidates at once +appear. Some are urged on the ground that they are poor, or cannot earn +a living, or want support while getting an education, or have female +relatives dependent on them, or are in poor health, or belong in a +particular district, or are related to certain persons, or have done +meritorious service in some other line of work than that which they +apply to do. The abuses of the public service are to be condemned on +account of the harm to the public interest, but there is an incidental +injustice of the same general character with that which we are +discussing. If an office is granted by favoritism or for any personal +reason to A, it cannot be given to B. If an office is filled by a +person who is unfit for it, he always keeps out somebody somewhere who +is fit for it; that is, the social injustice has a victim in an unknown +person—the Forgotten Man—and he is some person who has no political +influence, and who has known no way in which to secure the chances of +life except to deserve them. He is passed by for the noisy, pushing, +importunate, and incompetent.</p> + +<p>I have said something disparagingly in a previous chapter about the +popular rage against combined capital, corporations, corners, selling +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>futures, etc., etc. The popular rage is not without reason, but it is +sadly misdirected and the real things which deserve attack are thriving +all the time. The greatest social evil with which we have to contend is +jobbery. Whatever there is in legislative charters, watering stocks, +etc., etc., which is objectionable, comes under the head of jobbery. +Jobbery is any scheme which aims to gain, not by the legitimate fruits +of industry and enterprise, but by extorting from somebody a part of +his product under guise of some pretended industrial undertaking. Of +course it is only a modification when the undertaking in question has +some legitimate character, but the occasion is used to graft upon it +devices for obtaining what has not been earned. Jobbery is the vice of +plutocracy, and it is the especial form under which plutocracy corrupts +a democratic and republican form of government. The United States is +deeply afflicted with it, and the problem of civil liberty here is to +conquer it. It affects everything which we really need to have done to +such an extent that we have to do without public objects which we need +through fear of jobbery. Our public buildings are jobs—not always, but +often. They are not needed, or are costly beyond all necessity or even +decent luxury. Internal improvements are jobs. They are not made +because they are needed to meet needs which have been <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span>experienced. +They are made to serve private ends, often incidentally the political +interests of the persons who vote the appropriations. Pensions have +become jobs. In England pensions used to be given to aristocrats, +because aristocrats had political influence, in order to corrupt them. +Here pensions are given to the great democratic mass, because they have +political power, to corrupt them. Instead of going out where there is +plenty of land and making a farm there, some people go down under the +Mississippi River to make a farm, and then they want to tax all the +people in the United States to make dikes to keep the river off their +farms. The California gold-miners have washed out gold, and have washed +the dirt down into the rivers and on the farms below. They want the +Federal Government to now clean out the rivers and restore the farms. +The silver-miners found their product declining in value, and they got +the Federal Government to go into the market and buy what the public +did not want, in order to sustain (as they hoped) the price of silver. +The Federal Government is called upon to buy or hire unsalable ships, +to build canals which will not pay, to furnish capital for all sorts of +experiments, and to provide capital for enterprises of which private +individuals will win the profits. All this is called "developing <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>our +resources," but it is, in truth, the great plan of all living on each +other.</p> + +<p>The greatest job of all is a protective tariff. It includes the biggest +log-rolling and the widest corruption of economic and political ideas. +It was said that there would be a rebellion if the taxes were not taken +off whiskey and tobacco, which taxes were paid into the public +Treasury. Just then the importations of Sumatra tobacco became +important enough to affect the market. The Connecticut tobacco-growers +at once called for an import duty on tobacco which would keep up the +price of their product. So it appears that if the tax on tobacco is +paid to the Federal Treasury there will be a rebellion, but if it is +paid to the Connecticut tobacco-raisers there will be no rebellion at +all. The farmers have long paid tribute to the manufacturers; now the +manufacturing and other laborers are to pay tribute to the farmers. The +system is made more comprehensive and complete, and we all are living +on each other more than ever.</p> + +<p>Now, the plan of plundering each other produces nothing. It only +wastes. All the material over which the protected interests wrangle and +grab must be got from somebody outside of their circle. The talk is all +about the American laborer and American industry, but in every case in +which there is not an actual production of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>wealth by industry there +are two laborers and two industries to be considered—the one who gets +and the one who gives. Every protected industry has to plead, as the +major premise of its argument, that any industry which does not pay +<i>ought</i> to be carried on at the expense of the consumers of the +product, and, as its minor premise, that the industry in question does +not pay; that is, that it cannot reproduce a capital equal in value to +that which it consumes plus the current rate of profit. Hence every +such industry must be a parasite on some other industry. What is the +other industry? Who is the other man? This, the real question, is +always overlooked.</p> + +<p>In all jobbery the case is the same. There is a victim somewhere who is +paying for it all. The doors of waste and extravagance stand open, and +there seems to be a general agreement to squander and spend. It all +belongs to somebody. There is somebody who had to contribute it, and +who will have to find more. Nothing is ever said about him. Attention +is all absorbed by the clamorous interests, the importunate +petitioners, the plausible schemers, the pitiless bores. Now, who is +the victim? He is the Forgotten Man. If we go to find him, we shall +find him hard at work tilling the soil to get out of it the fund for +all the jobbery, the object of all the plunder, the cost of all the +economic quackery, and the pay of all the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span>politicians and statesmen +who have sacrificed his interests to his enemies. We shall find him an +honest, sober, industrious citizen, unknown outside his little circle, +paying his debts and his taxes, supporting the church and the school, +reading his party newspaper, and cheering for his pet politician.</p> + +<p>We must not overlook the fact that the Forgotten Man is not +infrequently a woman. I have before me a newspaper which contains five +letters from corset-stitchers who complain that they cannot earn more +than seventy-five cents a day with a machine, and that they have to +provide the thread. The tax on the grade of thread used by them is +prohibitory as to all importation, and it is the corset-stitchers who +have to pay day by day out of their time and labor the total +enhancement of price due to the tax. Women who earn their own living +probably earn on an average seventy-five cents per day of ten hours. +Twenty-four minutes' work ought to buy a spool of thread at the retail +price, if the American work-woman were allowed to exchange her labor +for thread on the best terms that the art and commerce of today would +allow; but after she has done twenty-four minutes' work for the thread +she is forced by the laws of her country to go back and work sixteen +minutes longer to pay the tax—that is, to support the thread-mill. +The <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span>thread-mill, therefore, is not an institution for getting thread +for the American people, but for making thread harder to get than it +would be if there were no such institution.</p> + +<p>In justification, now, of an arrangement so monstrously unjust and out +of place in a free country, it is said that the employés in the +thread-mill get high wages, and that, but for the tax, American +laborers must come down to the low wages of foreign thread-makers. It +is not true that American thread-makers get any more than the market +rate of wages, and they would not get less if the tax were entirely +removed, because the market rate of wages in the United States would be +controlled then, as it is now, by the supply and demand of laborers +under the natural advantages and opportunities of industry in this +country. It makes a great impression on the imagination, however, to go +to a manufacturing town and see great mills and a crowd of operatives; +and such a sight is put forward, <i>under the special allegation that it +would not exist but for a protective tax</i>, as a proof that protective +taxes are wise. But if it be true that the thread-mill would not exist +but for the tax, or that the operatives would not get such good wages +but for the tax, then how can we form a judgment as to whether the +protective system is wise or not unless we call to mind all the +seamstresses, washer-women, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span>servants, factory-hands, saleswomen, +teachers, and laborers' wives and daughters, scattered in the garrets +and tenements of great cities and in cottages all over the country, who +are paying the tax which keeps the mill going and pays the extra wages? +If the sewing-women, teachers, servants, and washer-women could once be +collected over against the thread-mill, then some inferences could be +drawn which would be worth something. Then some light might be thrown +upon the obstinate fallacy of "creating an industry," and we might +begin to understand the difference between wanting thread and wanting a +thread-mill. Some nations spend capital on great palaces, others on +standing armies, others on iron-clad ships of war. Those things are all +glorious, and strike the imagination with great force when they are +seen; but no one doubts that they make life harder for the scattered +insignificant peasants and laborers who have to pay for them all. They +"support a great many people," they "make work," they "give employment +to other industries." We Americans have no palaces, armies, or +iron-clads, but we spend our earnings on protected industries. A big +protected factory, if it really needs the protection for its support, +is a heavier load for the Forgotten Men and Women than an iron-clad +ship of war in time of peace.</p> + +<p>It is plain that the Forgotten Man and the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span>Forgotten Woman are the +real productive strength of the country. The Forgotten Man works and +votes—generally he prays—but his chief business in life is to pay. +His name never gets into the newspapers except when he marries or dies. +He is an obscure man. He may grumble sometimes to his wife, but he does +not frequent the grocery, and he does not talk politics at the tavern. +So he is forgotten. Yet who is there whom the statesman, economist, and +social philosopher ought to think of before this man? If any student of +social science comes to appreciate the case of the Forgotten Man, he +will become an unflinching advocate of strict scientific thinking in +sociology, and a hard-hearted skeptic as regards any scheme of social +amelioration. He will always want to know, Who and where is the +Forgotten Man in this case, who will have to pay for it all?</p> + +<p>The Forgotten Man is not a pauper. It belongs to his character to save +something. Hence he is a capitalist, though never a great one. He is a +"poor" man in the popular sense of the word, but not in a correct +sense. In fact, one of the most constant and trustworthy signs that the +Forgotten Man is in danger of a new assault is, that "the poor man" is +brought into the discussion. Since the Forgotten Man has some capital, +any one who cares for his interest will try to make capital <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span>secure by +securing the inviolability of contracts, the stability of currency, and +the firmness of credit. Any one, therefore, who cares for the Forgotten +Man will be sure to be considered a friend of the capitalist and an +enemy of the poor man.</p> + +<p>It is the Forgotten Man who is threatened by every extension of the +paternal theory of government. It is he who must work and pay. When, +therefore, the statesmen and social philosophers sit down to think what +the State can do or ought to do, they really mean to decide what the +Forgotten Man shall do. What the Forgotten Man wants, therefore, is a +fuller realization of constitutional liberty. He is suffering from the +fact that there are yet mixed in our institutions mediaeval theories of +protection, regulation, and authority, and modern theories of +independence and individual liberty and responsibility. The consequence +of this mixed state of things is, that those who are clever enough to +get into control use the paternal theory by which to measure their own +rights—that is, they assume privileges; and they use the theory of +liberty to measure their own duties—that is, when it comes to the +duties, they want to be "let alone." The Forgotten Man never gets into +control. He has to pay both ways. His rights are measured to him by the +theory of liberty—that is, he has only such as <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span>he can conquer; his +duties are measured to him on the paternal theory—that is, he must +discharge all which are laid upon him, as is the fortune of parents. In +a paternal relation there are always two parties, a father and a child; +and when we use the paternal relation metaphorically, it is of the +first importance to know who is to be father and who is to be child. +The <i>rôle</i> of parent falls always to the Forgotten Man. What he wants, +therefore, is that ambiguities in our institutions be cleared up, and +that liberty be more fully realized.</p> + +<p>It behooves any economist or social philosopher, whatever be the grade +of his orthodoxy, who proposes to enlarge the sphere of the "State," or +to take any steps whatever having in view the welfare of any class +whatever, to pursue the analysis of the social effects of his +proposition until he finds that other group whose interests must be +curtailed or whose energies must be placed under contribution by the +course of action which he proposes; and he cannot maintain his +proposition until he has demonstrated that it will be more +advantageous, <i>both quantitatively and qualitatively</i>, to those who +must bear the weight of it than complete non-interference by the State +with the relations of the parties in question.</p> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<a name="XI" id="XI"></a><hr /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span><br /> + +<h3>XI.<span class="totoc"><a href="#toc">ToC</a></span></h3> + +<h4><i>WHEREFORE WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER.</i></h4> +<br /> + +<p>Suppose that a man, going through a wood, should be struck by a falling +tree and pinned down beneath it. Suppose that another man, coming that +way and finding him there, should, instead of hastening to give or to +bring aid, begin to lecture on the law of gravitation, taking the tree +as an illustration.</p> + +<p>Suppose, again, that a person lecturing on the law of gravitation +should state the law of falling bodies, and suppose that an objector +should say: You state your law as a cold, mathematical fact and you +declare that all bodies will fall conformably to it. How heartless! You +do not reflect that it may be a beautiful little child falling from a +window.</p> + +<p>These two suppositions may be of some use to us as illustrations.</p> + +<p>Let us take the second first. It is the objection of the +sentimentalist; and, ridiculous as the mode of discussion appears when +applied to the laws of natural philosophy, the sociologist is +constantly met by objections of just that character. Especially when +the subject under discussion is charity in any of its public forms, the +attempt to bring method and clearness into the discussion is sure to be +crossed by suggestions which are as far <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span>from the point and as foreign +to any really intelligent point of view as the supposed speech in the +illustration. In the first place, a child would fall just as a stone +would fall. Nature's forces know no pity. Just so in sociology. The +forces know no pity. In the second place, if a natural philosopher +should discuss all the bodies which may fall, he would go entirely +astray, and would certainly do no good. The same is true of the +sociologist. He must concentrate, not scatter, and study laws, not all +conceivable combinations of force which may occur in practice. In the +third place, nobody ever saw a body fall as the philosophers say it +will fall, because they can accomplish nothing unless they study forces +separately, and allow for their combined action in all concrete and +actual phenomena. The same is true in sociology, with the additional +fact that the forces and their combinations in sociology are far the +most complex which we have to deal with. In the fourth place, any +natural philosopher who should stop, after stating the law of falling +bodies, to warn mothers not to let their children fall out of the +window, would make himself ridiculous. Just so a sociologist who should +attach moral applications and practical maxims to his investigations +would entirely miss his proper business. There is the force of gravity +as a fact in the world. If we understand this, the necessity of <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span>care +to conform to the action of gravity meets us at every step in our +private life and personal experience. The fact in sociology is in no +wise different.</p> + +<p>If, for instance, we take political economy, that science does not +teach an individual how to get rich. It is a social science. It treats +of the laws of the material welfare of human societies. It is, +therefore, only one science among all the sciences which inform us +about the laws and conditions of our life on earth. Education has for +its object to give a man knowledge of the conditions and laws of +living, so that, in any case in which the individual stands face to +face with the necessity of deciding what to do, if he is an educated +man, he may know how to make a wise and intelligent decision. If he +knows chemistry, physics, geology, and other sciences, he will know +what he must encounter of obstacle or help in Nature in what he +proposes to do. If he knows physiology and hygiene, he will know what +effects on health he must expect in one course or another. If he knows +political economy, he will know what effect on wealth and on the +welfare of society one course or another will produce. There is no +injunction, no "ought" in political economy at all. It does not assume +to tell man what he ought to do, any more than chemistry tells us that +we ought to mix things, or mathematics that we ought to solve +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span>equations. It only gives one element necessary to an intelligent +decision, and in every practical and concrete case the responsibility +of deciding what to do rests on the man who has to act. The economist, +therefore, does not say to any one, You ought never to give money to +charity. He contradicts anybody who says, You ought to give money to +charity; and, in opposition to any such person, he says, Let me show +you what difference it makes to you, to others, to society, whether you +give money to charity or not, so that you can make a wise and +intelligent decision. Certainly there is no harder thing to do than to +employ capital charitably. It would be extreme folly to say that +nothing of that sort ought to be done, but I fully believe that today +the next pernicious thing to vice is charity in its broad and popular +sense.</p> + +<p>In the preceding chapters I have discussed the public and social +relations of classes, and those social topics in which groups of +persons are considered as groups or classes, without regard to personal +merits or demerits. I have relegated all charitable work to the domain +of private relations, where personal acquaintance and personal +estimates may furnish the proper limitations and guarantees. A man who +had no sympathies and no sentiments would be a very poor creature; but +the public charities, more especially the legislative charities, +nourish no man's sympathies and <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span>sentiments. Furthermore, it ought to +be distinctly perceived that any charitable and benevolent effort which +any man desires to make voluntarily, to see if he can do any good, lies +entirely beyond the field of discussion. It would be as impertinent to +prevent his effort as it is to force co-operation in an effort on some +one who does not want to participate in it. What I choose to do by way +of exercising my own sympathies under my own reason and conscience is +one thing; what another man forces me to do of a sympathetic character, +because his reason and conscience approve of it, is quite another +thing.</p> + +<p>What, now, is the reason why we should help each other? This carries us +back to the other illustration with which we started. We may +philosophize as coolly and correctly as we choose about our duties and +about the laws of right living; no one of us lives up to what he knows. +The man struck by the falling tree has, perhaps, been careless. We are +all careless. Environed as we are by risks and perils, which befall us +as misfortunes, no man of us is in a position to say, "I know all the +laws, and am sure to obey them all; therefore I shall never need aid +and sympathy." At the very best, one of us fails in one way and another +in another, if we do not fail altogether. Therefore the man under the +tree is the one of us who for the moment is smitten. It may be you +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span>to-morrow, and I next day. It is the common frailty in the midst of a +common peril which gives us a kind of solidarity of interest to rescue +the one for whom the chances of life have turned out badly just now. +Probably the victim is to blame. He almost always is so. A lecture to +that effect in the crisis of his peril would be out of place, because +it would not fit the need of the moment; but it would be very much in +place at another time, when the need was to avert the repetition of +such an accident to somebody else. Men, therefore, owe to men, in the +chances and perils of this life, aid and sympathy, on account of the +common participation in human frailty and folly. This observation, +however, puts aid and sympathy in the field of private and personal +relations, under the regulation of reason and conscience, and gives no +ground for mechanical and impersonal schemes.</p> + +<p>We may, then, distinguish four things:</p> + +<p>1. The function of science is to investigate truth. Science is +colorless and impersonal. It investigates the force of gravity, and +finds out the laws of that force, and has nothing to do with the weal +or woe of men under the operation of the law.</p> + +<p>2. The moral deductions as to what one ought to do are to be drawn by +the reason and conscience of the individual man who is instructed by +science. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span>Let him take note of the force of gravity, and see to it that +he does not walk off a precipice or get in the way of a falling body.</p> + +<p>3. On account of the number and variety of perils of all kinds by which +our lives are environed, and on account of ignorance, carelessness, and +folly, we all neglect to obey the moral deductions which we have +learned, so that, in fact, the wisest and the best of us act foolishly +and suffer.</p> + +<p>4. The law of sympathy, by which we share each others' burdens, is to +do as we would be done by. It is not a scientific principle, and does +not admit of such generalization or interpretation that A can tell B +what this law enjoins on B to do. Hence the relations of sympathy and +sentiment are essentially limited to two persons only, and they cannot +be made a basis for the relations of groups of persons, or for +discussion by any third party.</p> + +<p>Social improvement is not to be won by direct effort. It is secondary, +and results from physical or economic improvements. That is the reason +why schemes of direct social amelioration always have an arbitrary, +sentimental, and artificial character, while true social advance must +be a product and a growth. The efforts which are being put forth for +every kind of progress in the arts and sciences are, therefore, +contributing to true social progress. Let any one learn what <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span>hardship +was involved, even for a wealthy person, a century ago, in crossing the +Atlantic, and then let him compare that hardship even with a steerage +passage at the present time, considering time and money cost. This +improvement in transportation by which "the poor and weak" can be +carried from the crowded centres of population to the new land is worth +more to them than all the schemes of all the social reformers. An +improvement in surgical instruments or in anaesthetics really does more +for those who are not well off than all the declamations of the orators +and pious wishes of the reformers. Civil service reform would be a +greater gain to the laborers than innumerable factory acts and +eight-hour laws. Free trade would be a greater blessing to "the poor +man" than all the devices of all the friends of humanity if they could +be realized. If the economists could satisfactorily solve the problem +of the regulation of paper currency, they would do more for the wages +class than could be accomplished by all the artificial doctrines about +wages which they seem to feel bound to encourage. If we could get firm +and good laws passed for the management of savings-banks, and then +refrain from the amendments by which those laws are gradually broken +down, we should do more for the non-capitalist class than by <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span>volumes +of laws against "corporations" and the "excessive power of capital."</p> + +<p>We each owe to the other mutual redress of grievances. It has been +said, in answer to my argument in the last chapter about the Forgotten +Women and thread, that the tax on thread is "only a little thing," and +that it cannot hurt the women much, and also that, if the women do not +want to pay two cents a spool tax, there is thread of an inferior +quality, which they can buy cheaper. These answers represent the +bitterest and basest social injustice. Every honest citizen of a free +state owes it to himself, to the community, and especially to those who +are at once weak and wronged, to go to their assistance and to help +redress their wrongs. Whenever a law or social arrangement acts so as +to injure any one, and that one the humblest, then there is a duty on +those who are stronger, or who know better, to demand and fight for +redress and correction. When generalized this means that it is the duty +of All-of-us (that is, the State) to establish justice for all, from +the least to the greatest, and in all matters. This, however, is no new +doctrine. It is only the old, true, and indisputable function of the +State; and in working for a redress of wrongs and a correction of +legislative abuses, we are only struggling to a fuller realization of +it—that is, working to improve civil government.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span>We each owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain +to <i>results</i>, but only to <i>chances</i>. They pertain to the <i>conditions</i> +of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the +<i>pursuit</i> of happiness, not to the possession of happiness. It cannot +be said that each one has a right to have some property, because if one +man had such a right some other man or men would be under a +corresponding obligation to provide him with some property. Each has a +right to acquire and possess property if he can. It is plain what +fallacies are developed when we overlook this distinction. Those +fallacies run through <i>all</i> socialistic schemes and theories. If we +take rights to pertain to results, and then say that rights must be +equal, we come to say that men have a right to be equally happy, and so +on in all the details. Rights should be equal, because they pertain to +chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are +provided or limited by the action of society. This, however, will not +produce equal results, but it is right just because it will produce +unequal results—that is, results which shall be proportioned to the +merits of individuals. We each owe it to the other to guarantee +mutually the chance to earn, to possess, to learn, to marry, etc., +etc., against any interference which would prevent the exercise of +those rights by a person who wishes to <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span>prosecute and enjoy them in +peace for the pursuit of happiness. If we generalize this, it means +that All-of-us ought to guarantee rights to each of us. But our modern +free, constitutional States are constructed entirely on the notion of +rights, and we regard them as performing their functions more and more +perfectly according as they guarantee rights in consonance with the +constantly corrected and expanded notions of rights from one generation +to another. Therefore, when we say that we owe it to each other to +guarantee rights we only say that we ought to prosecute and improve our +political science.</p> + +<p>If we have in mind the value of chances to earn, learn, possess, etc., +for a man of independent energy, we can go on one step farther in our +deductions about help. The only help which is generally expedient, even +within the limits of the private and personal relations of two persons +to each other, is that which consists in helping a man to help himself. +This always consists in opening the chances. A man of assured position +can by an effort which is of no appreciable importance to him, give aid +which is of incalculable value to a man who is all ready to make his +own career if he can only get a chance. The truest and deepest pathos +in this world is not that of suffering but that of brave struggling. +The truest sympathy is not compassion, but a <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span>fellow-feeling with +courage and fortitude in the midst of noble effort.</p> + +<p>Now, the aid which helps a man to help himself is not in the least akin +to the aid which is given in charity. If alms are given, or if we "make +work" for a man, or "give him employment," or "protect" him, we simply +take a product from one and give it to another. If we help a man to +help himself, by opening the chances around him, we put him in a +position to add to the wealth of the community by putting new powers in +operation to produce. It would seem that the difference between getting +something already in existence from the one who has it, and producing a +new thing by applying new labor to natural materials, would be so plain +as never to be forgotten; but the fallacy of confusing the two is one +of the commonest in all social discussions.</p> + +<p>We have now seen that the current discussions about the claims and +rights of social classes on each other are radically erroneous and +fallacious, and we have seen that an analysis of the general +obligations which we all have to each other leads us to nothing but an +emphatic repetition of old but well acknowledged obligations to perfect +our political institutions. We have been led to restriction, not +extension, of the functions of the State, but we have also been led to +see the necessity of purifying and perfecting the <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span>operation of the +State in the functions which properly belong to it. If we refuse to +recognize any classes as existing in society when, perhaps, a claim +might be set up that the wealthy, educated, and virtuous have acquired +special rights and precedence, we certainly cannot recognize any +classes when it is attempted to establish such distinctions for the +sake of imposing burdens and duties on one group for the benefit of +others. The men who have not done their duty in this world never can be +equal to those who have done their duty more or less well. If words +like wise and foolish, thrifty and extravagant, prudent and negligent, +have any meaning in language, then it must make some difference how +people behave in this world, and the difference will appear in the +position they acquire in the body of society, and in relation to the +chances of life. They may, then, be classified in reference to these +facts. Such classes always will exist; no other social distinctions can +endure. If, then, we look to the origin and definition of these +classes, we shall find it impossible to deduce any obligations which +one of them bears to the other. The class distinctions simply result +from the different degrees of success with which men have availed +themselves of the chances which were presented to them. Instead of +endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made +between <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span>the existing classes, our aim should be to <i>increase, +multiply, and extend the chances</i>. Such is the work of civilization. +Every old error or abuse which is removed opens new chances of +development to all the new energy of society. Every improvement in +education, science, art, or government expands the chances of man on +earth. Such expansion is no guarantee of equality. On the contrary, if +there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will +neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances the more +unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to +be, in all justice and right reason. The yearning after equality is the +offspring of envy and covetousness, and there is no possible plan for +satisfying that yearning which can do aught else than rob A to give to +B; consequently all such plans nourish some of the meanest vices of +human nature, waste capital, and overthrow civilization. But if we can +expand the chances we can count on a general and steady growth of +civilization and advancement of society by and through its best +members. In the prosecution of these chances we all owe to each other +good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guarantees of liberty and +security. Beyond this nothing can be affirmed as a duty of one group to +another in a free state.</p> + +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> + +<div class="tr"> +<p class="cen"><a name="TN" id="TN"></a>Typographical errors corrected in text:</p> +<br /> +Page 27: millionnaires replaced by millionaires<br /> +</div> + +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> + + + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, by +William Graham Sumner + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE *** + +***** This file should be named 18603-h.htm or 18603-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/8/6/0/18603/ + +Produced by Jeff G., Jeannie Howse and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/18603.txt b/18603.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a9d1b7f --- /dev/null +++ b/18603.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3466 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, by +William Graham Sumner + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: What Social Classes Owe to Each Other + +Author: William Graham Sumner + +Release Date: June 16, 2006 [EBook #18603] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE *** + + + + +Produced by Jeff G., Jeannie Howse and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + + * * * * * + + +------------------------------------------------------------+ + | Transcriber's Note: | + | | + | The original from which this text is transcribed uses an | + | unusual capitalization style which has been faithfully | + | reproduced. | + | | + | Obvious typographical errors have been corrected in this | + | text. For a complete list, please see the bottom of this | + | document. | + | | + | With no copyright notice, the 1951 intro falls under Rule | + | 5, and is therefore public domain. | + | | + +------------------------------------------------------------+ + + * * * * * + + + + +WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES +OWE TO EACH OTHER + + + +By +WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER + + + + +First published by Harper & Brothers, 1883 + + + + +CONTENTS + + +CHAPTER PAGE + FOREWORD 5 + + INTRODUCTION 7 + + I. ON A NEW PHILOSOPHY: THAT POVERTY IS THE BEST POLICY 13 + + II. THAT A FREE MAN IS A SOVEREIGN, BUT THAT A SOVEREIGN + CANNOT TAKE "TIPS" 25 + + III. THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICH: NAY, EVEN, THAT IT + IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICHER THAN ONE'S NEIGHBOR 38 + + IV. ON THE REASONS WHY MAN IS NOT ALTOGETHER A BRUTE 51 + + V. THAT WE MUST HAVE FEW MEN, IF WE WANT STRONG MEN 63 + + VI. THAT HE WHO WOULD BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF MUST TAKE + CARE OF HIMSELF 71 + + VII. CONCERNING SOME OLD FOES UNDER NEW FACES 88 + +VIII. ON THE VALUE, AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE, OF THE + RULE TO MIND ONE'S OWN BUSINESS 97 + + IX. ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF 107 + + X. THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN MAN FARTHER CONSIDERED 116 + + XI. WHEREFORE WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER 132 + + + + +FOREWORD + + +Written more than fifty years ago--in 1883--WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE +TO EACH OTHER is even more pertinent today than at the time of its +first publication. Then the arguments and "movements" for penalizing +the thrifty, energetic, and competent by placing upon them more and +more of the burdens of the thriftless, lazy and incompetent, were just +beginning to make headway in our country, wherein these "social +reforms" now all but dominate political and so-called "social" +thinking. + +Among the great nations of the world today, only the United States of +America champions the rights of the individual as against the state and +organized pressure groups, and our faith has been dangerously +weakened--watered down by a blind and essentially false and cruel +sentimentalism. + +In "Social Classes" Sumner defined and emphasized the basically +important role in our social and economic development played by "The +Forgotten Man." The misappropriation of this title and its application +to a character the exact opposite of the one for whom Sumner invented +the phrase is, unfortunately, but typical of the perversion of words +and phrases indulged in by our present-day "liberals" in their attempt +to further their revolution by diverting the loyalties of +individualists to collectivist theories and beliefs. + +How often have you said: "If only someone had the vision to see and the +courage and ability to state the truth about these false theories which +today are attracting our youth and confusing well-meaning people +everywhere!" Well, here is the answer to your prayer--the everlasting +truth upon the greatest of issues in social science stated for you by +the master of them all in this field. If this edition calls this great +work to the attention of any of you for the first time, that alone will +amply justify its republication. To those of you who have read it +before, we commend it anew as the most up-to-date and best discussion +you can find anywhere of the most important questions of these critical +days. + + --WILLIAM C. MULLENDORE + +Los Angeles, California +November 15, 1951 + + + + +WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE TO EACH OTHER + +INTRODUCTION + + +We are told every day that great social problems stand before us and +demand a solution, and we are assailed by oracles, threats, and +warnings in reference to those problems. There is a school of writers +who are playing quite a _role_ as the heralds of the coming duty and +the coming woe. They assume to speak for a large, but vague and +undefined, constituency, who set the task, exact a fulfillment, and +threaten punishment for default. The task or problem is not +specifically defined. Part of the task which devolves on those who are +subject to the duty is to define the problem. They are told only that +something is the matter: that it behooves them to find out what it is, +and how to correct it, and then to work out the cure. All this is more +or less truculently set forth. + +After reading and listening to a great deal of this sort of assertion I +find that the question forms itself with more and more distinctness in +my mind: Who are those who assume to put hard questions to other +people and to demand a solution of them? How did they acquire the right +to demand that others should solve their world-problems for them? Who +are they who are held to consider and solve all questions, and how did +they fall under this duty? + +So far as I can find out what the classes are who are respectively +endowed with the rights and duties of posing and solving social +problems, they are as follows: Those who are bound to solve the +problems are the rich, comfortable, prosperous, virtuous, respectable, +educated, and healthy; those whose right it is to set the problems are +those who have been less fortunate or less successful in the struggle +for existence. The problem itself seems to be, How shall the latter be +made as comfortable as the former? To solve this problem, and make us +all equally well off, is assumed to be the duty of the former class; +the penalty, if they fail of this, is to be bloodshed and destruction. +If they cannot make everybody else as well off as themselves, they are +to be brought down to the same misery as others. + +During the last ten years I have read a great many books and articles, +especially by German writers, in which an attempt has been made to set +up "the State" as an entity having conscience, power, and will +sublimated above human limitations, and as constituting a tutelary +genius over us all. I have never been able to find in history or +experience anything to fit this concept. I once lived in Germany for +two years, but I certainly saw nothing of it there then. Whether the +State which Bismarck is moulding will fit the notion is at best a +matter of faith and hope. My notion of the State has dwindled with +growing experience of life. As an abstraction, the State is to me only +All-of-us. In practice--that is, when it exercises will or adopts a +line of action--it is only a little group of men chosen in a very +haphazard way by the majority of us to perform certain services for all +of us. The majority do not go about their selection very rationally, +and they are almost always disappointed by the results of their own +operation. Hence "the State," instead of offering resources of wisdom, +right reason, and pure moral sense beyond what the average of us +possess, generally offers much less of all those things. Furthermore, +it often turns out in practice that "the State" is not even the known +and accredited servants of the State, but, as has been well said, is +only some obscure clerk, hidden in the recesses of a Government bureau, +into whose power the chance has fallen for the moment to pull one of +the stops which control the Government machine. In former days it often +happened that "The State" was a barber, a fiddler, or a bad woman. In +our day it often happens that "the State" is a little functionary on +whom a big functionary is forced to depend. + +I cannot see the sense of spending time to read and write observations, +such as I find in the writings of many men of great attainments and of +great influence, of which the following might be a general type: If the +statesmen could attain to the requisite knowledge and wisdom, it is +conceivable that the State might perform important regulative functions +in the production and distribution of wealth, against which no positive +and sweeping theoretical objection could be made from the side of +economic science; but statesmen never can acquire the requisite +knowledge and wisdom.--To me this seems a mere waste of words. The +inadequacy of the State to regulative tasks is agreed upon, as a matter +of fact, by all. Why, then, bring State regulation into the discussion +simply in order to throw it out again? The whole subject ought to be +discussed and settled aside from the hypothesis of State regulation. + +The little group of public servants who, as I have said, constitute the +State, when the State determines on anything, could not do much for +themselves or anybody else by their own force. If they do anything, +they must dispose of men, as in an army, or of capital, as in a +treasury. But the army, or police, or _posse comitatus_, is more or +less All-of-us, and the capital in the treasury is the product of the +labor and saving of All-of-us. Therefore, when the State means +power-to-do it means All-of-us, as brute force or as industrial force. + +If anybody is to benefit from the action of the State it must be +Some-of-us. If, then, the question is raised, What ought the State to +do for labor, for trade, for manufactures, for the poor, for the +learned professions? etc., etc.--that is, for a class or an +interest--it is really the question, What ought All-of-us to do for +Some-of-us? But Some-of-us are included in All-of-us, and, so far as +they get the benefit of their own efforts, it is the same as if they +worked for themselves, and they may be cancelled out of All-of-us. Then +the question which remains is, What ought Some-of-us to do for +Others-of-us? or, What do social classes owe to each other? + +I now propose to try to find out whether there is any class in society +which lies under the duty and burden of fighting the battles of life +for any other class, or of solving social problems for the satisfaction +of any other class; also, whether there is any class which has the +right to formulate demands on "society"--that is, on other classes; +also, whether there is anything but a fallacy and a superstition in the +notion that "the State" owes anything to anybody except peace, order, +and the guarantees of rights. + +I have in view, throughout the discussion, the economic, social, and +political circumstances which exist in the United States. + + + + +I. + +_ON A NEW PHILOSOPHY: THAT POVERTY IS THE BEST POLICY._ + + +It is commonly 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 sometimes discontented, and sometimes not. Sometimes +they do not know that anything 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 +measure of their rights. They do not blame themselves or their parents +for their lot, as compared with that of other people. Sometimes 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 and +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 ordained the chances and +conditions of life on earth once for all. The case cannot be reopened. +We cannot get a revision of the laws of human life. We are absolutely +shut up to the need 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 whose claims we are +considering are told to apply themselves to these tasks they become +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 _pursue_ happiness, but to _get_ 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 tell them that they have +grievances, so long as they have unsatisfied desires. + +Now, if there are groups of people who have a claim to other people's +labor and self-denial, and if there are other people whose labor and +self-denial are liable to be claimed by the first groups, then there +certainly are "classes," and classes of the oldest and most vicious +type. 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 paupers meet on this plane, +and no other men are on it all. On the other hand, a man whose labor +and self-denial may be 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. Therefore we shall find that, in all the notions +which we 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 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 +producing equality and obliterating the organization of society produce +a new differentiation 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 +necessitates a sacrifice of liberty. + +It is very popular to pose as a "friend of humanity," or a "friend of +the working classes." The character, however, 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 advantage. +Anything which has a charitable sound and a kind-hearted tone generally +passes without investigation, because 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 allowed to pass as an +unquestioned doctrine in regard to social classes that "the 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 +be clusters 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 be contented with their lot and +respectful to their betters. Now, the greatest part of the preaching in +America consists in injunctions to those who have taken care of +themselves to perform their assumed duty to take care of others. +Whatever may be one's private sentiments, the fear of appearing cold +and hard-hearted causes these conventional theories of social duty and +these assumptions of social fact to pass unchallenged. + +Let us notice some distinctions which are of prime importance to a +correct consideration of the subject which we intend to treat. + +Certain ills belong to the hardships of human life. They are natural. +They are part of the struggle with Nature for existence. We cannot +blame our fellow-men for our share of these. My neighbor and I are both +struggling to free ourselves from these ills. The fact that my neighbor +has succeeded in this struggle better than I constitutes no grievance +for me. Certain other ills are due to the malice of men, and to the +imperfections or errors of civil institutions. These ills are an object +of agitation, and a subject for discussion. The former class of ills is +to be met only by manly effort and energy; the latter may be corrected +by associated effort. The former class of ills is constantly grouped +and generalized, and made the object of social schemes. We 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 interference +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 due to the faults of human institutions +is of prime importance. + +It will also be important, in order to clear up our ideas about the +notions which are in fashion, to note the relation of the economic to +the political significance of assumed duties of one class to another. +That is to say, we may discuss the question 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 respectively +between the parties. In the former case we might assume that the givers +of aid were willing to give it, and we 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 unwillingly. Here, +then, there would be a question of rights. The question whether +voluntary charity is mischievous 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 consequent error is produced by allowing these two +questions to become entangled in the discussion. Especially we 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 poor man." A pauper is a person +who cannot earn his living; whose producing powers have fallen +positively below his necessary consumption; who cannot, therefore, pay +his way. A human society needs the active co-operation and productive +energy of every person in it. A man who is present as a consumer, yet +who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work +of society, is a burden. On no sound political theory ought such a +person to share in the political power of the State. He drops out of +the ranks of workers and producers. Society must support him. It +accepts the burden, but he must be cancelled from the ranks of the +rulers likewise. So much for the pauper. About him no more need be +said. But he is not the "poor man." The "poor man" is an elastic term, +under 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 another; and those who are weak in one sense +are strong in another. In general, however, it may be said that those +whom humanitarians and philanthropists call the weak are the ones +through whom the productive and conservative forces of society are +wasted. They constantly neutralize and destroy the finest efforts of +the wise and industrious, 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 essential powers necessary to the +performance 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 responsibility 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 combination. 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, philanthropists, and reformers, looking at the facts +of life as they present themselves, find 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 remedying what +they do not like. In their eagerness to recommend the less fortunate +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 exaggerate their misfortunes and their virtues. They +invent new theories of property, distorting rights and perpetuating +injustice, as anyone is sure to do who sets about the readjustment of +social relations with the interests of one group distinctly before his +mind, and the interests of all other groups thrown into the background. +When I have read certain of these discussions I have thought that it +must be quite disreputable to be respectable, quite dishonest to own +property, quite unjust to go one's own way and earn one's own living, +and that the only really admirable 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 himself 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 +intervention of society through the State is either planned or hoped +for, and the State is thus made to become the protector and guardian of +certain classes. The agents who are to direct the State action are, of +course, the reformers and philanthropists. Their schemes, therefore, +may always be reduced to this type--that A and B decide what C shall +do for D. It will be interesting to inquire, at a later period of our +discussion, who C is, and what the effect is upon him of all these +arrangements. In all the discussions attention is concentrated on A and +B, the noble social reformers, 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 +that, on the theories of the social philosophers to whom I have +referred, we should get a new maxim of judicious living: Poverty is the +best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; +if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people 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 organization 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 communities of +various kinds. These ties endured as long as life lasted. Consequently +society was dependent, throughout all its details, on status, and the +tie, or bond, was sentimental. In our modern 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 sufficient reason, +not on custom or prescription. 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 thinking 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 our society. + +Whether social philosophers think it desirable or not, it is out of the +question to go back to status or to the sentimental relations which +once united baron and retainer, master and servant, teacher and pupil, +comrade and comrade. That we have lost some grace and elegance is +undeniable. That life once held more poetry and romance is true +enough. But it seems impossible that any one who has studied the matter +should doubt that we have gained immeasurably, and that our farther +gains lie in going forward, not in going backward. The feudal ties can +never be restored. If they could be restored they would bring back +personal caprice, favoritism, sycophancy, and intrigue. A society based +on contract is a society of free and independent men, who form ties +without 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 ever yet +existed; that no such society has ever yet developed the full measure +of strength of which it is capable; and that the only social +improvements which are now conceivable lie in the direction of more +complete realization of a society of free men united by contract, are +points which cannot be controverted. It follows, however, that one man, +in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give +help to, another. To understand the full meaning of this assertion it +will be worth while to see what a free democracy is. + + + + +II. + +_THAT A FREE MAN IS A SOVEREIGN, BUT THAT A SOVEREIGN CANNOT TAKE +"TIPS."_ + + +A free man, a free country, liberty, and equality are terms of constant +use among us. They are employed as watchwords as soon as any social +questions come into discussion. It is right that they should be so +used. They ought to contain the broadest convictions and most positive +faiths of the nation, and so they ought to be available for the +decision of questions of detail. + +In order, however, that they may be so employed successfully and +correctly it is essential that the terms should be correctly defined, +and that their popular use should conform to correct definitions. No +doubt it is generally believed that the terms are easily understood, +and present no difficulty. Probably the popular notion is, that liberty +means doing as one has a mind to, and that it is a metaphysical or +sentimental good. A little observation shows that there is no such +thing in this world as doing as one has a mind to. There is no man, +from the tramp up to the President, the Pope, or the Czar, who can do +as he has a mind to. There never has been any man, from the primitive +barbarian up to a Humboldt or a Darwin, who could do as he had a mind +to. The "Bohemian" who determines to realize some sort of liberty of +this kind accomplishes his purpose only by sacrificing most of the +rights and turning his back on most of the duties of a civilized man, +while filching as much as he can of the advantages of living in a +civilized state. Moreover, liberty is not a metaphysical or sentimental +thing at all. It is positive, practical, and actual. It is produced and +maintained by law and institutions, and is, therefore, concrete and +historical. Sometimes we speak distinctively of civil liberty; but if +there be any liberty other than civil liberty--that is, liberty under +law--it is a mere fiction of the schoolmen, which they may be left to +discuss. + +Even as I write, however, I find in a leading review the following +definition of liberty: Civil liberty is "the result of the restraint +exercised by the sovereign people on the more powerful individuals and +classes of the community, preventing them from availing themselves of +the excess of their power to the detriment of the other classes." This +definition lays the foundation for the result which it is apparently +desired to reach, that "a government by the people can in no case +become a paternal government, since its law-makers are its mandatories +and servants carrying out its will, and not its fathers or its +masters." Here we have the most mischievous fallacy under the general +topic which I am discussing distinctly formulated. In the definition of +liberty it will be noticed that liberty is construed as the act of the +sovereign people against somebody who must, of course, be +differentiated from the sovereign people. Whenever "people" is used in +this sense for anything less than the total population, man, woman, +child, and baby, and whenever the great dogmas which contain the word +"people" are construed under the limited definition of "people," there +is always fallacy. + +History is only a tiresome repetition of one story. Persons and classes +have sought to win possession of the power of the State in order to +live luxuriously out of the earnings of others. Autocracies, +aristocracies, theocracies, and all other organizations for holding +political power, have exhibited only the same line of action. It is the +extreme of political error to say that if political power is only taken +away from generals, nobles, priests, millionaires, and scholars, and +given to artisans and peasants, these latter may be trusted to do only +right and justice, and never to abuse the power; that they will repress +all excess in others, and commit none themselves. They will commit +abuse, if they can and dare, just as others have done. The reason for +the excesses of the old governing classes lies in the vices and +passions of human nature--cupidity, lust, vindictiveness, ambition, and +vanity. These vices are confined to no nation, class, or age. They +appear in the church, the academy, the workshop, and the hovel, as +well as in the army or the palace. They have appeared in autocracies, +aristocracies, theocracies, democracies, and ochlocracies, all alike. +The only thing which has ever restrained these vices of human nature in +those who had political power is law sustained by impersonal +institutions. If political power be given to the masses who have not +hitherto had it, nothing will stop them from abusing it but laws and +institutions. To say that a popular government cannot be paternal is to +give it a charter that it can do no wrong. The trouble is that a +democratic government is in greater danger than any other of becoming +paternal, for it is sure of itself, and ready to undertake anything, +and its power is excessive and pitiless against dissentients. + +What history shows is, that rights are safe only when guaranteed +against all arbitrary power, and all class and personal interest. +Around an autocrat there has grown up an oligarchy of priests and +soldiers. In time a class of nobles has been developed, who have broken +into the oligarchy and made an aristocracy. Later the _demos_, rising +into an independent development, has assumed power and made a +democracy. Then the mob of a capital city has overwhelmed the democracy +in an ochlocracy. Then the "idol of the people," or the military +"savior of society," or both in one, has made himself autocrat, and +the same old vicious round has recommenced. Where in all this is +liberty? There has been no liberty at all, save where a state has known +how to break out, once for all, from this delusive round; to set +barriers to selfishness, cupidity, envy, and lust, in _all_ classes, +from highest to lowest, by laws and institutions; and to create great +organs of civil life which can eliminate, as far as possible, arbitrary +and personal elements from the adjustment of interests and the +definition of rights. Liberty is an affair of laws and institutions +which bring rights and duties into equilibrium. It is not at all an +affair of selecting the proper class to rule. + +The notion of a free state is entirely modern. It has been developed +with the development of the middle class, and with the growth of a +commercial and industrial civilization. Horror at human slavery is not +a century old as a common sentiment in a civilized state. The idea of +the "free man," as we understand it, is the product of a revolt against +mediaeval and feudal ideas; and our notion of equality, when it is true +and practical, can be explained only by that revolt. It was in England +that the modern idea found birth. It has been strengthened by the +industrial and commercial development of that country. It has been +inherited by all the English-speaking nations, who have made liberty +real because they have inherited it, not as a notion, but as a body of +institutions. It has been borrowed and imitated by the military and +police state of the European continent so fast as they have felt the +influence of the expanding industrial civilization; but they have +realized it only imperfectly, because they have no body of local +institutions or traditions, and it remains for them as yet too much a +matter of "declarations" and pronunciamentos. + +The notion of civil liberty which we have inherited is that of _a +status created for the individual by laws and institutions, the effect +of which is that each man is guaranteed the use of all his own powers +exclusively for his own welfare_. It is not at all a matter of +elections, or universal suffrage, or democracy. All institutions are to +be tested by the degree to which they guarantee liberty. It is not to +be admitted for a moment that liberty is a means to social ends, and +that it may be impaired for major considerations. Any one who so argues +has lost the bearing and relation of all the facts and factors in a +free state. A human being has a life to live, a career to run. He is a +centre of powers to work, and of capacities to suffer. What his powers +may be--whether they can carry him far or not; what his chances may be, +whether wide or restricted; what his fortune may be, whether to suffer +much or little--are questions of his personal destiny which he must +work out and endure as he can; but for all that concerns the bearing +of the society and its institutions upon that man, and upon the sum of +happiness to which he can attain during his life on earth, the product +of all history and all philosophy up to this time is summed up in the +doctrine, that he should be left free to do the most for himself that +he can, and should be guaranteed the exclusive enjoyment of all that he +does. If the society--that is to say, in plain terms, if his +fellow-men, either individually, by groups, or in a mass--impinge upon +him otherwise than to surround him with neutral conditions of security, +they must do so under the strictest responsibility to justify +themselves. Jealousy and prejudice against all such interferences are +high political virtues in a free man. It is not at all the function of +the State to make men happy. They must make themselves happy in their +own way, and at their own risk. The functions of the State lie entirely +in the conditions or chances under which the pursuit of happiness is +carried on, so far as those conditions or chances can be affected by +civil organization. Hence, liberty for labor and security for earnings +are the ends for which civil institutions exist, not means which may be +employed for ulterior ends. + +Now, the cardinal doctrine of any sound political system is, that +rights and duties should be in equilibrium. A monarchical or +aristocratic system is not immoral, if the rights and duties of persons +and classes are in equilibrium, although the rights and duties of +different persons and classes are unequal. An immoral political system +is created whenever there are privileged classes--that is, classes who +have arrogated to themselves rights while throwing the duties upon +others. In a democracy all have equal political rights. That is the +fundamental political principle. A democracy, then, becomes immoral, if +all have not equal political duties. This is unquestionably the +doctrine which needs to be reiterated and inculcated beyond all others, +if the democracy is to be made sound and permanent. Our orators and +writers never speak of it, and do not seem often to know anything about +it; but the real danger of democracy is, that the classes which have +the power under it will assume all the rights and reject all the +duties--that is, that they will use the political power to plunder +those-who-have. Democracy, in order to be true to itself, and to +develop into a sound working system, must oppose the same cold +resistance to any claims for favor on the ground of poverty, as on the +ground of birth and rank. It can no more admit to public discussion, as +within the range of possible action, any schemes for coddling and +helping wage-receivers than it could entertain schemes for restricting +political power to wage-payers. It must put down schemes for making +"the rich" pay for whatever "the poor" want, just as it tramples on the +old theories that only the rich are fit to regulate society. One needs +but to watch our periodical literature to see the danger that democracy +will be construed as a system of favoring a new privileged class of the +many and the poor. + +Holding in mind, now, the notions of liberty and democracy as we have +defined them, we see that it is not altogether a matter of fanfaronade +when the American citizen calls himself a "sovereign." A member of a +free democracy is, in a sense, a sovereign. He has no superior. He has +reached his sovereignty, however, by a process of reduction and +division of power which leaves him no inferior. It is very grand to +call one's self a sovereign, but it is greatly to the purpose to notice +that the political responsibilities of the free man have been +intensified and aggregated just in proportion as political rights have +been reduced and divided. Many monarchs have been incapable of +sovereignty and unfit for it. Placed in exalted situations, and +inheritors of grand opportunities they have exhibited only their own +imbecility and vice. The reason was, because they thought only of the +gratification of their own vanity, and not at all of their duty. The +free man who steps forward to claim his inheritance and endowment as a +free and equal member of a great civil body must understand that his +duties and responsibilities are measured to him by the same scale as +his rights and his powers. He wants to be subject to no man. He wants +to be equal to his fellows, as all sovereigns are equal. So be it; but +he cannot escape the deduction that he can call no man to his aid. The +other sovereigns will not respect his independence if he becomes +dependent, and they cannot respect his equality if he sues for favors. +The free man in a free democracy, when he cut off all the ties which +might pull him down, severed also all the ties by which he might have +made others pull him up. He must take all the consequences of his new +status. He is, in a certain sense, an isolated man. The family tie does +not bring to him disgrace for the misdeeds of his relatives, as it once +would have done, but neither does it furnish him with the support which +it once would have given. The relations of men are open and free, but +they are also loose. A free man in a free democracy derogates from his +rank if he takes a favor for which he does not render an equivalent. + +A free man in a free democracy has no duty whatever toward other men of +the same rank and standing, except respect, courtesy, and good-will. We +cannot say that there are no classes, when we are speaking +politically, and then say that there are classes, when we are telling A +what it is his duty to do for B. In a free state every man is held and +expected to take care of himself and his family, to make no trouble for +his neighbor, and to contribute his full share to public interests and +common necessities. If he fails in this he throws burdens on others. He +does not thereby acquire rights against the others. On the contrary, he +only accumulates obligations toward them; and if he is allowed to make +his deficiencies a ground of new claims, he passes over into the +position of a privileged or petted person-emancipated from duties, +endowed with claims. This is the inevitable result of combining +democratic political theories with humanitarian social theories. It +would be aside from my present purpose to show, but it is worth +noticing in passing, that one result of such inconsistency must surely +be to undermine democracy, to increase the power of wealth in the +democracy, and to hasten the subjection of democracy to plutocracy; for +a man who accepts any share which he has not earned in another man's +capital cannot be an independent citizen. + +It is often affirmed that the educated and wealthy have an obligation +to those who have less education and property, just because the latter +have political equality with the former, and oracles and warnings are +uttered about what will happen if the uneducated classes who have the +suffrage are not instructed at the care and expense of the other +classes. In this view of the matter universal suffrage is not a measure +for _strengthening_ the State by bringing to its support the aid and +affection of all classes, but it is a new burden, and, in fact, a +peril. Those who favor it represent it as a peril. This doctrine is +politically immoral and vicious. When a community establishes universal +suffrage, it is as if it said to each new-comer, or to each young man: +"We give you every chance that any one else has. Now come along with +us; take care of yourself, and contribute your share to the burdens +which we all have to bear in order to support social institutions." +Certainly, liberty, and universal suffrage, and democracy are not +pledges of care and protection, but they carry with them the exaction +of individual responsibility. The State gives equal rights and equal +chances just because it does not mean to give anything else. It sets +each man on his feet, and gives him leave to run, just because it does +not mean to carry him. Having obtained his chances, he must take upon +himself the responsibility for his own success or failure. It is a pure +misfortune to the community, and one which will redound to its injury, +if any man has been endowed with political power who is a heavier +burden then than he was before; but it cannot be said that there is +any new _duty_ created for the good citizens toward the bad by the fact +that the bad citizens are a harm to the State. + + + + +III. + +_THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO BE RICH; NAY, EVEN, THAT IT IS NOT WICKED TO +BE RICHER THAN ONE'S NEIGHBOR_ + + +I have before me a newspaper slip on which a writer expresses the +opinion that no one should be allowed to possess more than one million +dollars' worth of property. Alongside of it is another slip, on which +another writer expresses the opinion that the limit should be five +millions. I do not know what the comparative wealth of the two writers +is, but it is interesting to notice that there is a wide margin between +their ideas of how rich they would allow their fellow-citizens to +become, and of the point at which they ("the State," of course) would +step in to rob a man of his earnings. These two writers only represent +a great deal of crude thinking and declaiming which is in fashion. I +never have known a man of ordinary common-sense who did not urge upon +his sons, from earliest childhood, doctrines of economy and the +practice of accumulation. A good father believes that he does wisely to +encourage enterprise, productive skill, prudent self-denial, and +judicious expenditure on the part of his son. The object is to teach +the boy to accumulate capital. If, however, the boy should read many of +the diatribes against "the rich" which are afloat in our literature; if +he should read or hear some of the current discussion about "capital"; +and if, with the ingenuousness of youth, he should take these +productions at their literal sense, instead of discounting them, as his +father does, he would be forced to believe that he was on the path of +infamy when he was earning and saving capital. It is worth while to +consider which we mean or what we mean. Is it wicked to be rich? Is it +mean to be a capitalist? If the question is one of degree only, and it +is right to be rich up to a certain point and wrong to be richer, how +shall we find the point? Certainly, for practical purposes, we ought to +define the point nearer than between one and five millions of dollars. + +There is an old ecclesiastical prejudice in favor of the poor and +against the rich. In days when men acted by ecclesiastical rules these +prejudices produced waste of capital, and helped mightily to replunge +Europe into barbarism. The prejudices are not yet dead, but they +survive in our society as ludicrous contradictions and inconsistencies. +One thing must be granted to the rich: they are good-natured. Perhaps +they do not recognize themselves, for a rich man is even harder to +define than a poor one. It is not uncommon to hear a clergyman utter +from the pulpit all the old prejudice in favor of the poor and against +the rich, while asking the rich to do something for the poor; and the +rich comply, without apparently having their feelings hurt at all by +the invidious comparison. We all agree that he is a good member of +society who works his way up from poverty to wealth, but as soon as he +has worked his way up we begin to regard him with suspicion, as a +dangerous member of society. A newspaper starts the silly fallacy that +"the rich are rich because the poor are industrious," and it is copied +from one end of the country to the other as if it were a brilliant +apothegm. "Capital" is denounced by writers and speakers who have never +taken the trouble to find out what capital is, and who use the word in +two or three different senses in as many pages. Labor organizations are +formed, not to employ combined effort for a common object, but to +indulge in declamation and denunciation, and especially to furnish an +easy living to some officers who do not want to work. People who have +rejected dogmatic religion, and retained only a residuum of religious +sentimentalism, find a special field in the discussion of the rights of +the poor and the duties of the rich. We have denunciations of banks, +corporations, and monopolies, which denunciations encourage only +helpless rage and animosity, because they are not controlled by any +definitions or limitations, or by any distinctions between what is +indispensably necessary and what is abuse, between what is established +in the order of nature and what is legislative error. Think, for +instance, of a journal which makes it its special business to denounce +monopolies, yet favors a protective tariff, and has not a word to say +against trades-unions or patents! Think of public teachers who say that +the farmer is ruined by the cost of transportation, when they mean that +he cannot make any profits because his farm is too far from the market, +and who denounce the railroad because it does not correct for the +farmer, at the expense of its stockholders, the disadvantage which lies +in the physical situation of the farm! Think of that construction of +this situation which attributes all the trouble to the greed of +"moneyed corporations!" Think of the piles of rubbish that one has read +about corners, and watering stocks, and selling futures! + +Undoubtedly there are, in connection with each of these things, cases +of fraud, swindling, and other financial crimes; that is to say, the +greed and selfishness of men are perpetual. They put on new phases, +they adjust themselves to new forms of business, and constantly devise +new methods of fraud and robbery, just as burglars devise new artifices +to circumvent every new precaution of the lock-makers. The criminal law +needs to be improved to meet new forms of crime, but to denounce +financial devices which are useful and legitimate because use is made +of them for fraud, is ridiculous and unworthy of the age in which we +live. Fifty years ago good old English Tories used to denounce all +joint-stock companies in the same way, and for similar reasons. + +All the denunciations and declamations which have been referred to are +made in the interest of "the poor man." His name never ceases to echo +in the halls of legislation, and he is the excuse and reason for all +the acts which are passed. He is never forgotten in poetry, sermon, or +essay. His interest is invoked to defend every doubtful procedure and +every questionable institution. Yet where is he? Who is he? Who ever +saw him? When did he ever get the benefit of any of the numberless +efforts in his behalf? When, rather, were his name and interest ever +invoked, when, upon examination, it did not plainly appear that +somebody else was to win--somebody who was far too "smart" ever to be +poor, far too lazy ever to be rich by industry and economy? + +A great deal is said about the unearned increment from land, especially +with a view to the large gains of landlords in old countries. The +unearned increment from land has indeed made the position of an English +land-owner, for the last two hundred years, the most fortunate that any +class of mortals ever has enjoyed; but the present moment, when the +rent of agricultural land in England is declining under the +competition of American land, is not well chosen for attacking the old +advantage. Furthermore, the unearned increment from land appears in the +United States as a gain to the first comers, who have here laid the +foundations of a new State. Since the land is a monopoly, the unearned +increment lies in the laws of Nature. Then the only question is, Who +shall have it?--the man who has the ownership by prescription, or some +or all others? It is a beneficent incident of the ownership of land +that a pioneer who reduces it to use, and helps to lay the foundations +of a new State, finds a profit in the increasing value of land as the +new State grows up. It would be unjust to take that profit away from +him, or from any successor to whom he has sold it. Moreover, there is +an unearned increment on capital and on labor, due to the presence, +around the capitalist and the laborer, of a great, industrious, and +prosperous society. A tax on land and a succession or probate duty on +capital might be perfectly justified by these facts. Unquestionably +capital accumulates with a rapidity which follows in some high series +the security, good government, peaceful order of the State in which it +is employed; and if the State steps in, on the death of the holder, to +claim a share of the inheritance, such a claim may be fully justified. +The laborer likewise gains by carrying on his labor in a strong, +highly civilized, and well-governed State far more than he could gain +with equal industry on the frontier or in the midst of anarchy. He +gains greater remuneration for his services, and he also shares in the +enjoyment of all that accumulated capital of a wealthy community which +is public or semi-public in its nature. + +It is often said that the earth belongs to the race, as if raw land was +a boon, or gift. Raw land is only a _chance_ to prosecute the struggle +for existence, and the man who tries to earn a living by the +subjugation of raw land makes that attempt under the most unfavorable +conditions, for land can be brought into use only by great hardship and +exertion. The boon, or gift, would be to get some land after somebody +else had made it fit for use. Any one in the world today can have raw +land by going to it; but there are millions who would regard it simply +as "transportation for life," if they were forced to go and live on new +land and get their living out of it. Private ownership of land is only +division of labor. If it is true in any sense that we all own the soil +in common, the best use we can make of our undivided interests is to +vest them all gratuitously (just as we now do) in any who will assume +the function of directly treating the soil, while the rest of us take +other shares in the social organization. The reason is, because in +this way we all get more than we would if each one owned some land and +used it directly. Supply and demand now determine the distribution of +population between the direct use of land and other pursuits; and if +the total profits and chances of land-culture were reduced by taking +all the "unearned increment" in taxes, there would simply be a +redistribution of industry until the profits of land-culture, less +taxes and without chances from increasing value, were equal to the +profits of other pursuits under exemption from taxation. + +It is remarkable that jealousy of individual property in land often +goes along with very exaggerated doctrines of tribal or national +property in land. We are told that John, James, and William ought not +to possess part of the earth's surface because it belongs to all men; +but it is held that Egyptians, Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right +to the territory which they occupy, that they may bar the avenues of +commerce and civilization if they choose, and that it is wrong to +override their prejudices or expropriate their land. The truth is, that +the notion that the race own the earth has practical meaning only for +the latter class of cases. + +The great gains of a great capitalist in a modern state must be put +under the head of wages of superintendence. Anyone who believes that +any great enterprise of an industrial character can be started without +labor must have little experience of life. Let anyone try to get a +railroad built, or to start a factory and win reputation for its +products, or to start a school and win a reputation for it, or to found +a newspaper and make it a success, or to start any other enterprise, +and he will find what obstacles must be overcome, what risks must be +taken, what perseverance and courage are required, what foresight and +sagacity are necessary. Especially in a new country, where many tasks +are waiting, where resources are strained to the utmost all the time, +the judgment, courage, and perseverance required to organize new +enterprizes and carry them to success are sometimes heroic. Persons who +possess the necessary qualifications obtain great rewards. They ought +to do so. It is foolish to rail at them. Then, again, the ability to +organize and conduct industrial, commercial, or financial enterprises +is rare; the great captains of industry are as rare as great generals. +The great weakness of all co-operative enterprises is in the matter of +supervision. Men of routine or men who can do what they are told are +not hard to find; but men who can think and plan and tell the routine +men what to do are very rare. They are paid in proportion to the supply +and demand of them. + +If Mr. A.T. Stewart made a great fortune by collecting and bringing +dry-goods to the people of the United States, he did so because he +understood how to do that thing better than any other man of his +generation. He proved it, because he carried the business through +commercial crises and war, and kept increasing its dimensions. If, when +he died, he left no competent successor, the business must break up, +and pass into new organization in the hands of other men. Some have +said that Mr. Stewart made his fortune out of those who worked for him +or with him. But would those persons have been able to come together, +organize themselves, and earn what they did earn without him? Not at +all. They would have been comparatively helpless. He and they together +formed a great system of factories, stores, transportation, under his +guidance and judgment. It was for the benefit of all; but he +contributed to it what no one else was able to contribute--the one +guiding mind which made the whole thing possible. In no sense whatever +does a man who accumulates a fortune by legitimate industry exploit his +employes, or make his capital "out of" anybody else. The wealth which +he wins would not be but for him. + +The aggregation of large fortunes is not at all a thing to be +regretted. On the contrary, it is a necessary condition of many forms +of social advance. If we should set a limit to the accumulation of +wealth, we should say to our most valuable producers, "We do not want +you to do us the services which you best understand how to perform, +beyond a certain point." It would be like killing off our generals in +war. A great deal is said, in the cant of a certain school about +"ethical views of wealth," and we are told that some day men will be +found of such public spirit that, after they have accumulated a few +millions, they will be willing to go on and labor simply for the +pleasure of paying the taxes of their fellow-citizens. Possibly this is +true. It is a prophecy. It is as impossible to deny it as it is silly +to affirm it. For if a time ever comes when there are men of this kind, +the men of that age will arrange their affairs accordingly. There are +no such men now, and those of us who live now cannot arrange our +affairs by what men will be a hundred generations hence. + +There is every indication that we are to see new developments of the +power of aggregated capital to serve civilization, and that the new +developments will be made right here in America. Joint-stock companies +are yet in their infancy, and incorporated capital, instead of being a +thing which can be overturned, is a thing which is becoming more and +more indispensable. I shall have something to say in another chapter +about the necessary checks and guarantees, in a political point of +view, which must be established. Economically speaking, aggregated +capital will be more and more essential to the performance of our +social tasks. Furthermore, it seems to me certain that all aggregated +capital will fall more and more under personal control. Each great +company will be known as controlled by one master mind. The reason for +this lies in the great superiority of personal management over +management by boards and committees. This tendency is in the public +interest, for it is in the direction of more satisfactory +responsibility. The great hindrance to the development of this +continent has lain in the lack of capital. The capital which we have +had has been wasted by division and dissipation, and by injudicious +applications. The waste of capital, in proportion to the total capital, +in this country between 1800 and 1850, in the attempts which were made +to establish means of communication and transportation, was enormous. +The waste was chiefly due to ignorance and bad management, especially +to State control of public works. We are to see the development of the +country pushed forward at an unprecedented rate by an aggregation of +capital, and a systematic application of it under the direction of +competent men. This development will be for the benefit of all, and it +will enable each one of us, in his measure and way, to increase his +wealth. We may each of us go ahead to do so, and we have every reason +to rejoice in each other's prosperity. There ought to be no laws to +guarantee property against the folly of its possessors. In the absence +of such laws, capital inherited by a spendthrift will be squandered and +re-accumulated in the hands of men who are fit and competent to hold +it. So it should be, and under such a state of things there is no +reason to desire to limit the property which any man may acquire. + + + + +IV. + +_ON THE REASONS WHY MAN IS NOT ALTOGETHER A BRUTE._ + + +The Arabs have a story of a man who desired to test which of his three +sons loved him most. He sent them out to see which of the three would +bring him the most valuable present. The three sons met in a distant +city, and compared the gifts they had found. The first had a carpet on +which he could transport himself and others whithersoever he would. The +second had a medicine which would cure any disease. The third had a +glass in which he could see what was going on at any place he might +name. The third used his glass to see what was going on at home: he saw +his father ill in bed. The first transported all three to their home on +his carpet. The second administered the medicine and saved the father's +life. The perplexity of the father when he had to decide which son's +gift had been of the most value to him illustrates very fairly the +difficulty of saying whether land, labor, or capital is most essential +to production. No production is possible without the co-operation of +all three. + +We know that men once lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth, +just as other animals do. In that stage of existence a man was just +like the brutes. His existence was at the sport of Nature. He got what +he could by way of food, and ate what he could get, but he depended on +finding what Nature gave. He could wrest nothing from Nature; he could +make her produce nothing; and he had only his limbs with which to +appropriate what she offered. His existence was almost entirely +controlled by accident; he possessed no capital; he lived out of his +product, and production had only the two elements of land and labor of +appropriation. At the present time man is an intelligent animal. He +knows something of the laws of Nature; he can avail himself of what is +favorable, and avert what is unfavorable, in nature, to a certain +extent; he has narrowed the sphere of accident, and in some respects +reduced it to computations which lessen its importance; he can bring +the productive forces of Nature into service, and make them produce +food, clothing, and shelter. How has the change been brought about? The +answer is, By capital. If we can come to an understanding of what +capital is, and what a place it occupies in civilization, it will clear +up our ideas about a great many of these schemes and philosophies which +are put forward to criticise social arrangements, or as a basis of +proposed reforms. + +The first beginnings of capital are lost in the obscurity which covers +all the germs of civilization. The more one comes to understand the +case of the primitive man, the more wonderful it seems that man ever +started on the road to civilization. Among the lower animals we find +some inchoate forms of capital, but from them to the lowest forms of +real capital there is a great stride. It does not seem possible that +man could have taken that stride without intelligent reflection, and +everything we know about the primitive man shows us that he did not +reflect. No doubt accident controlled the first steps. They may have +been won and lost again many times. There was one natural element which +man learned to use so early that we cannot find any trace of him when +he had it not--fire. There was one tool-weapon in nature--the flint. +Beyond the man who was so far superior to the brutes that he knew how +to use fire and had the use of flints we cannot go. A man of lower +civilization than that was so like the brutes that, like them, he could +leave no sign of his presence on the earth save his bones. + +The man who had a flint no longer need be a prey to a wild animal, but +could make a prey of it. He could get meat food. He who had meat food +could provide his food in such time as to get leisure to improve his +flint tools. He could get skins for clothing, bones for needles, +tendons for thread. He next devised traps and snares by which to take +animals alive. He domesticated them, and lived on their increase. He +made them beasts of draught and burden, and so got the use of a +natural force. He who had beasts of draught and burden could make a +road and trade, and so get the advantage of all soils and all climates. +He could make a boat, and use the winds as force. He now had such +tools, science, and skill that he could till the ground, and make it +give him more food. So from the first step that man made above the +brute the thing which made his civilization possible was capital. Every +step of capital won made the next step possible, up to the present +hour. Not a step has been or can be made without capital. It is labor +accumulated, multiplied into itself--raised to a higher power, as the +mathematicians say. The locomotive is only possible today because, from +the flint-knife up, one achievement has been multiplied into another +through thousands of generations. We cannot now stir a step in our life +without capital. We cannot build a school, a hospital, a church, or +employ a missionary society, without capital, any more than we could +build a palace or a factory without capital. We have ourselves, and we +have the earth; the thing which limits what we can do is the third +requisite--capital. Capital is force, human energy stored or +accumulated, and very few people ever come to appreciate its importance +to civilized life. We get so used to it that we do not see its use. + +The industrial organization of society has undergone a development with +the development of capital. Nothing has ever made men spread over the +earth and develop the arts but necessity--that is, the need of getting +a living, and the hardships endured in trying to meet that need. The +human race has had to pay with its blood at every step. It has had to +buy its experience. The thing which has kept up the necessity of more +migration or more power over Nature has been increase of population. +Where population has become chronically excessive, and where the +population has succumbed and sunk, instead of developing energy enough +for a new advance, there races have degenerated and settled into +permanent barbarism. They have lost the power to rise again, and have +made no inventions. Where life has been so easy and ample that it cost +no effort, few improvements have been made. It is in the middle range, +with enough social pressure to make energy needful, and not enough +social pressure to produce despair, that the most progress has been +made. + +At first all labor was forced. Men forced it on women, who were drudges +and slaves. Men reserved for themselves only the work of hunting or +war. Strange and often horrible shadows of all the old primitive +barbarism are now to be found in the slums of great cities, and in the +lowest groups of men, in the midst of civilized nations. Men impose +labor on women in some such groups today. Through various grades of +slavery, serfdom, villeinage, and through various organizations of +castes and guilds, the industrial organization has been modified and +developed up to the modern system. Some men have been found to denounce +and deride the modern system--what they call the capitalist system. The +modern system is based on liberty, on contract, and on private +property. It has been reached through a gradual emancipation of the +mass of mankind from old bonds both to Nature and to their fellow-men. +Village communities, which excite the romantic admiration of some +writers, were fit only for a most elementary and unorganized society. +They were fit neither to cope with the natural difficulties of winning +much food from little land, nor to cope with the malice of men. Hence +they perished. In the modern society the organization of labor is high. +Some are land-owners and agriculturists, some are transporters, +bankers, merchants, teachers; some advance the product by manufacture. +It is a system of division of functions, which is being refined all the +time by subdivision of trade and occupation, and by the differentiation +of new trades. + +The ties by which all are held together are those of free co-operation +and contract. If we look back for comparison to anything of which +human history gives us a type or experiment, we see that the modern +free system of industry offers to every living human being chances of +happiness indescribably in excess of what former generations have +possessed. It offers no such guarantees as were once possessed by some, +that they should in no case suffer. We have an instance right at hand. +The Negroes, once slaves in the United States, used to be assured care, +medicine, and support; but they spent their efforts, and other men took +the products. They have been set free. That means only just this: they +now work and hold their own products, and are assured of nothing but +what they earn. In escaping from subjection they have lost claims. +Care, medicine, and support they get, if they earn it. Will any one say +that the black men have not gained? Will any one deny that individual +black men may seem worse off? Will any one allow such observations to +blind them to the true significance of the change? If any one thinks +that there are or ought to be somewhere in society guarantees that no +man shall suffer hardship, let him understand that there can be no such +guarantees, unless other men give them--that is, unless we go back to +slavery, and make one man's effort conduce to another man's welfare. Of +course, if a speculator breaks loose from science and history, and +plans out an ideal society in which all the conditions are to be +different, he is a law-giver or prophet, and those may listen to him +who have leisure. + +The modern industrial system is a great social co-operation. It is +automatic and instinctive in its operation. The adjustments of the +organs take place naturally. The parties are held together by +impersonal force--supply and demand. They may never see each other; +they may be separated by half the circumference of the globe. Their +co-operation in the social effort is combined and distributed again by +financial machinery, and the rights and interests are measured and +satisfied without any special treaty or convention at all. All this +goes on so smoothly and naturally that we forget to notice it. We think +that it costs nothing--does itself, as it were. The truth is, that this +great co-operative effort is one of the great products of +civilization--one of its costliest products and highest refinements, +because here, more than anywhere else, intelligence comes in, but +intelligence so clear and correct that it does not need expression. + +Now, by the great social organization the whole civilized body (and +soon we shall say the whole human race) keeps up a combined assault on +Nature for the means of subsistence. Civilized society may be said to +be maintained in an unnatural position, at an elevation above the +earth, or above the natural state of human society. It can be +maintained there only by an efficient organization of the social effort +and by capital. At its elevation it supports far greater numbers than +it could support on any lower stage. Members of society who come into +it as it is today can live only by entering into the organization. If +numbers increase, the organization must be perfected, and capital must +increase--_i.e._, power over Nature. If the society does not keep up +its power, if it lowers its organization or wastes its capital, it +falls back toward the natural state of barbarism from which it rose, +and in so doing it must sacrifice thousands of its weakest members. +Hence human society lives at a constant strain forward and upward, and +those who have most interest that this strain be successfully kept up, +that the social organization be perfected, and that capital be +increased, are those at the bottom. + +The notion of property which prevails among us today is, that a man has +a right to the thing which he has made by his labor. This is a very +modern and highly civilized conception. Singularly enough, it has been +brought forward dogmatically to prove that property in land is not +reasonable, because man did not make land. A man cannot "make" a +chattel or product of any kind whatever without first appropriating +land, so as to get the ore, wood, wool, cotton, fur, or other raw +material. All that men ever appropriate land for is to get out of it +the natural materials on which they exercise their industry. +Appropriation, therefore, precedes labor-production, both historically +and logically. Primitive races regarded, and often now regard, +appropriation as the best title to property. As usual, they are +logical. It is the simplest and most natural mode of thinking to regard +a thing as belonging to that man who has, by carrying, wearing, or +handling it, associated it for a certain time with his person. I once +heard a little boy of four years say to his mother, "Why is not this +pencil mine now? It used to be my brother's, but I have been using it +all day." He was reasoning with the logic of his barbarian ancestors. +The reason for allowing private property in land is, that two men +cannot eat the same loaf of bread. If A has taken a piece of land, and +is at work getting his loaf out of it, B cannot use the same land at +the same time for the same purpose. Priority of appropriation is the +only title of right which can supersede the title of greater force. The +reason why man is not altogether a brute is, because he has learned to +accumulate capital, to use capital, to advance to a higher organization +of society, to develop a completer co-operation, and so to win greater +and greater control over Nature. + +It is a great delusion to look about us and select those men who occupy +the most advanced position in respect to worldly circumstances as the +standard to which we think that all might be and ought to be brought. +All the complaints and criticisms about the inequality of men apply to +inequalities in property, luxury, and creature comforts, not to +knowledge, virtue, or even physical beauty and strength. But it is +plainly impossible that we should all attain to equality on the level +of the best of us. The history of civilization shows us that the human +race has by no means marched on in a solid and even phalanx. It has had +its advance-guard, its rear-guard, and its stragglers. It presents us +the same picture today; for it embraces every grade, from the most +civilized nations down to the lowest surviving types of barbarians. +Furthermore, if we analyze the society of the most civilized state, +especially in one of the great cities where the highest triumphs of +culture are presented, we find survivals of every form of barbarism and +lower civilization. Hence, those who today enjoy the most complete +emancipation from the hardships of human life, and the greatest command +over the conditions of existence, simply show us the best that man has +yet been able to do. Can we all reach that standard by wishing for it? +Can we all vote it to each other? If we pull down those who are most +fortunate and successful, shall we not by that very act defeat our own +object? Those who are trying to reason out any issue from this tangle +of false notions of society and of history are only involving +themselves in hopeless absurdities and contradictions. If any man is +not in the first rank who might get there, let him put forth new energy +and take his place. If any man is not in the front rank, although he +has done his best, how can he be advanced at all? Certainly in no way +save by pushing down any one else who is forced to contribute to his +advancement. + +It is often said that the mass of mankind are yet buried in poverty, +ignorance, and brutishness. It would be a correct statement of the +facts intended, from an historical and sociological point of view, to +say, Only a small fraction of the human race have as yet, by thousands +of years of struggle, been partially emancipated from poverty, +ignorance, and brutishness. When once this simple correction is made in +the general point of view, we gain most important corollaries for all +the subordinate questions about the relations of races, nations, and +classes. + + + + +V. + +_THAT WE MUST HAVE FEW MEN, IF WE WANT STRONG MEN._ + + +In our modern revolt against the mediaeval notions of hereditary honor +and hereditary shame we have gone too far, for we have lost the +appreciation of the true dependence of children on parents. We have a +glib phrase about "the accident of birth," but it would puzzle anybody +to tell what it means. If A takes B to wife, it is not an accident that +he took B rather than C, D, or any other woman; and if A and B have a +child, X, that child's ties to ancestry and posterity, and his +relations to the human race, into which he has been born through A and +B, are in no sense accidental. The child's interest in the question +whether A should have married B or C is as material as anything one can +conceive of, and the fortune which made X the son of A, and not of +another man, is the most material fact in his destiny. If those things +were better understood public opinion about the ethics of marriage and +parentage would undergo a most salutary change. In following the modern +tendency of opinion we have lost sight of the due responsibility of +parents, and our legislation has thrown upon some parents the +responsibility, not only of their own children, but of those of +others. + +The relation of parents and children is the only case of sacrifice in +Nature. Elsewhere equivalence of exchange prevails rigorously. The +parents, however, hand down to their children the return for all which +they had themselves inherited from their ancestors. They ought to hand +down the inheritance with increase. It is by this relation that the +human race keeps up a constantly advancing contest with Nature. The +penalty of ceasing an aggressive behavior toward the hardships of life +on the part of mankind is, that we go backward. We cannot stand still. +Now, parental affection constitutes the personal motive which drives +every man in his place to an aggressive and conquering policy toward +the limiting conditions of human life. Affection for wife and children +is also the greatest motive to social ambition and personal +self-respect--that is, to what is technically called a "high standard +of living." + +Some people are greatly shocked to read of what is called +Malthusianism, when they read it in a book, who would be greatly +ashamed of themselves if they did not practise Malthusianism in their +own affairs. Among respectable people a man who took upon himself the +cares and expenses of a family before he had secured a regular trade or +profession, or had accumulated some capital, and who allowed his wife +to lose caste, and his children to be dirty, ragged, and neglected, +would be severely blamed by the public opinion of the community. The +standard of living which a man makes for himself and his family, if he +means to earn it, and does not formulate it as a demand which he means +to make on his fellow-men, is a gauge of his self-respect; and a high +standard of living is the moral limit which an intelligent body of men +sets for itself far inside of the natural limits of the sustaining +power of the land, which latter limit is set by starvation, pestilence, +and war. But a high standard of living restrains population; that is, +if we hold up to the higher standard of men, we must have fewer of +them. + +Taking men as they have been and are, they are subjects of passion, +emotion, and instinct. Only the _elite_ of the race has yet been +raised to the point where reason and conscience can even curb the +lower motive forces. For the mass of mankind, therefore, the price of +better things is too severe, for that price can be summed up in one +word--self-control. The consequence is, that for all but a few of us +the limit of attainment in life in the best case is to live out our +term, to pay our debts, to place three or four children in a position +to support themselves in a position as good as the father's was, and +there to make the account balance. + +Since we must all live, in the civilized organization of society, on +the existing capital; and since those who have only come out even have +not accumulated any of the capital, have no claim to own it, and cannot +leave it to their children; and since those who own land have parted +with their capital for it, which capital has passed back through other +hands into industrial employment, how is a man who has inherited +neither land nor capital to secure a living? He must give his +productive energy to apply capital to land for the further production +of wealth, and he must secure a share in the existing capital by a +contract relation to those who own it. + +Undoubtedly the man who possesses capital has a great advantage over +the man who has no capital, in all the struggle for existence. Think of +two men who want to lift a weight, one of whom has a lever, and the +other must apply his hands directly; think of two men tilling the soil, +one of whom uses his hands or a stick, while the other has a horse and +a plough; think of two men in conflict with a wild animal, one of whom +has only a stick or a stone, while the other has a repeating rifle; +think of two men who are sick, one of whom can travel, command medical +skill, get space, light, air, and water, while the other lacks all +these things. This does not mean that one man has an advantage +_against_ the other, but that, when they are rivals in the effort to +get the means of subsistence from Nature, the one who has capital has +immeasurable advantages over the other. If it were not so capital would +not be formed. Capital is only formed by self-denial, and if the +possession of it did not secure advantages and superiorities of a high +order men would never submit to what is necessary to get it. The first +accumulation costs by far the most, and the rate of increase by profits +at first seems pitiful. Among the metaphors which partially illustrate +capital--all of which, however, are imperfect and inadequate--the +snow-ball is useful to show some facts about capital. Its first +accumulation is slow, but as it proceeds the accumulation becomes rapid +in a high ratio, and the element of self-denial declines. This fact, +also, is favorable to the accumulation of capital, for if the +self-denial continued to be as great per unit when the accumulation had +become great, there would speedily come a point at which further +accumulation would not pay. The man who has capital has secured his +future, won leisure which he can employ in winning secondary objects of +necessity and advantage, and emancipated himself from those things in +life which are gross and belittling. The possession of capital is, +therefore, an indispensable prerequisite of educational, scientific, +and moral goods. This is not saying that a man in the narrowest +circumstances may not be a good man. It is saying that the extension +and elevation of all the moral and metaphysical interests of the race +are conditioned on that extension of civilization of which capital is +the prerequisite, and that he who has capital can participate in and +move along with the highest developments of his time. Hence it appears +that the man who has his self-denial before him, however good may be +his intention, cannot be as the man who has his self-denial behind him. +Some seem to think that this is very unjust, but they get their notions +of justice from some occult source of inspiration, not from observing +the facts of this world as it has been made and exists. + +The maxim, or injunction, to which a study of capital leads us is, Get +capital. In a community where the standard of living is high, and the +conditions of production are favorable, there is a wide margin within +which an individual may practise self-denial and win capital without +suffering, if he has not the charge of a family. That it requires +energy, courage, perseverance, and prudence is not to be denied. Any +one who believes that any good thing on this earth can be got without +those virtues may believe in the philosopher's stone or the fountain of +youth. If there were any Utopia its inhabitants would certainly be very +insipid and characterless. + +Those who have neither capital nor land unquestionably have a closer +class interest than landlords or capitalists. If one of those who are +in either of the latter classes is a spendthrift he loses his +advantage. If the non-capitalists increase their numbers, they +surrender themselves into the hands of the landlords and capitalists. +They compete with each other for food until they run up the rent of +land, and they compete with each other for wages until they give the +capitalist a great amount of productive energy for a given amount of +capital. If some of them are economical and prudent in the midst of a +class which saves nothing and marries early, the few prudent suffer for +the folly of the rest, since they can only get current rates of wages; +and if these are low the margin out of which to make savings by special +personal effort is narrow. No instance has yet been seen of a society +composed of a class of great capitalists and a class of laborers who +had fallen into a caste of permanent drudges. Probably no such thing is +possible so long as landlords especially remain as a third class, and +so long as society continues to develop strong classes of merchants, +financiers, professional men, and other classes. If it were conceivable +that non-capitalist laborers should give up struggling to become +capitalists, should give way to vulgar enjoyments and passions, should +recklessly increase their numbers, and should become a permanent caste, +they might with some justice be called proletarians. The name has been +adopted by some professed labor leaders, but it really should be +considered insulting. If there were such a proletariat it would be +hopelessly in the hands of a body of plutocratic capitalists, and a +society so organized would, no doubt, be far worse than a society +composed only of nobles and serfs, which is the worst society the world +has seen in modern times. + +At every turn, therefore, it appears that the number of men and the +quality of men limit each other, and that the question whether we shall +have more men or better men is of most importance to the class which +has neither land nor capital. + + + + +VI. + +_THAT HE WHO WOULD BE WELL TAKEN CARE OF MUST TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF._ + + +The discussion of "the relations of labor and capital" has not hitherto +been very fruitful. It has been confused by ambiguous definitions, and +it has been based upon assumptions about the rights and duties of +social classes which are, to say the least, open to serious question as +regards their truth and justice. If, then, we correct and limit the +definitions, and if we test the assumptions, we shall find out whether +there is anything to discuss about the relations of "labor and +capital," and, if anything, what it is. + +Let us first examine the terms. + +1. Labor means properly _toil_, irksome exertion, expenditure of +productive energy. + +2. The term is used, secondly, by a figure of speech, and in a +collective sense, to designate the body of _persons_ who, having +neither capital nor land, come into the industrial organization +offering productive services in exchange for means of subsistence. +These persons are united by community of interest into a group, or +class, or interest, and, when interests come to be adjusted, the +interests of this group will undoubtedly be limited by those of other +groups. + +3. The term labor is used, thirdly, in a more restricted, very popular +and current, but very ill-defined way, to designate a limited sub-group +among those who live by contributing productive efforts to the work of +society. Every one is a laborer who is not a person of leisure. Public +men, or other workers, if any, who labor but receive no pay, might be +excluded from the category, and we should immediately pass, by such a +restriction, from a broad and philosophical to a technical definition +of the labor class. But merchants, bankers, professional men, and all +whose labor is, to an important degree, mental as well as manual, are +excluded from this third use of the term labor. The result is, that the +word is used, in a sense at once loosely popular and strictly +technical, to designate a group of laborers who separate their +interests from those of other laborers. Whether farmers are included +under "labor" in this third sense or not I have not been able to +determine. It seems that they are or are not, as the interest of the +disputants may require. + +1. Capital is any _product_ of labor which is used to assist +production. + +2. This term also is used, by a figure of speech, and in a collective +sense, for the _persons_ who possess capital, and who come into the +industrial organization to get their living by using capital for +profit. To do this they need to exchange capital for productive +services. These persons constitute an interest, group, or class, +although they are not united by any such community of interest as +laborers, and, in the adjustment of interests, the interests of the +owners of capital must be limited by the interests of other groups. + +3. Capital, however, is also used in a vague and popular sense which it +is hard to define. In general it is used, and in this sense, to mean +employers of laborers, but it seems to be restricted to those who are +employers on a large scale. It does not seem to include those who +employ only domestic servants. Those also are excluded who own capital +and lend it, but do not directly employ people to use it. + +It is evident that if we take for discussion "capital and labor," if +each of the terms has three definitions, and if one definition of each +is loose and doubtful, we have everything prepared for a discussion +which shall be interminable and fruitless, which shall offer every +attraction to undisciplined thinkers, and repel everybody else. + +The real collision of interest, which is the centre of the dispute, is +that of employers and employed; and the first condition of successful +study of the question, or of successful investigation to see if there +is any question, is to throw aside the technical economic terms, and to +look at the subject in its true meaning, expressed in untechnical +language. We will use the terms "capital" and "labor" only in their +strict economic significance, viz., the first definition given above +under each term, and we will use the terms "laborers" and "capitalists" +when we mean the persons described in the second definition under each +term. + +It is a common assertion that the interests of employers and employed +are identical, that they are partners in an enterprise, etc. These +sayings spring from a disposition, which may often be noticed, to find +consoling and encouraging observations in the facts of sociology, and +to refute, if possible, any unpleasant observations. If we try to learn +what is true, we shall both do what is alone right, and we shall do the +best for ourselves in the end. The interests of employers and employed +as parties to a contract are antagonistic in certain respects and +united in others, as in the case wherever supply and demand operate. If +John gives cloth to James in exchange for wheat, John's interest is +that cloth be good and attractive but not plentiful, but that wheat be +good and plentiful; James' interest is that wheat be good and +attractive but not plentiful, but that cloth be good and plentiful. All +men have a common interest that all things be good, and that all +things but the one which each produces be plentiful. The employer is +interested that capital be good but rare, and productive energy good +and plentiful; the employe is interested that capital be good and +plentiful, but that productive energy be good and rare. When one man +alone can do a service, and he can do it very well, he represents the +laborer's ideal. To say that employers and employed are partners in an +enterprise is only a delusive figure of speech. It is plainly based on +no facts in the industrial system. + +Employers and employed make contracts on the best terms which they can +agree upon, like buyers and sellers, renters and hirers, borrowers and +lenders. Their relations are, therefore, controlled by the universal +law of supply and demand. The employer assumes the direction of the +business, and takes all the risk, for the capital must be consumed in +the industrial process, and whether it will be found again in the +product or not depends upon the good judgment and foresight with which +the capital and labor have been applied. Under the wages system the +employer and the employe contract for time. The employe fulfils the +contract if he obeys orders during the time, and treats the capital as +he is told to treat it. Hence he is free from all responsibility, risk, +and speculation. That this is the most advantageous arrangement for +him, on the whole and in the great majority of cases, is very certain. +Salaried men and wage-receivers are in precisely the same +circumstances, except that the former, by custom and usage, are those +who have special skill or training, which is almost always an +investment of capital, and which narrows the range of competition in +their case. Physicians, lawyers, and others paid by fees are workers by +the piece. To the capital in existence all must come for their +subsistence and their tools. + +Association is the lowest and simplest mode of attaining accord and +concord between men. It is now the mode best suited to the condition +and chances of employes. Employers formerly made use of guilds to +secure common action for a common interest. They have given up this +mode of union because it has been superseded by a better one. +Correspondence, travel, newspapers, circulars, and telegrams bring to +employers and capitalists the information which they need for the +defense of their interests. The combination between them is automatic +and instinctive. It is not formal and regulated by rule. It is all the +stronger on that account, because intelligent men, holding the same +general maxims of policy, and obtaining the same information, pursue +similar lines of action, while retaining all the ease, freedom, and +elasticity of personal independence. + +At present employes have not the leisure necessary for the higher modes +of communication. Capital is also necessary to establish the ties of +common action under the higher forms. Moreover, there is, no doubt, an +incidental disadvantage connected with the release which the employe +gets under the wages system from all responsibility for the conduct of +the business. That is, that employes do not learn to watch or study the +course of industry, and do not plan for their own advantage, as other +classes do. There is an especial field for combined action in the case +of employes. Employers are generally separated by jealousy and pride in +regard to all but the most universal class interests. Employes have a +much closer interest in each other's wisdom. Competition of capitalists +for profits redounds to the benefit of laborers. Competition of +laborers for subsistence redounds to the benefit of capitalists. It is +utterly futile to plan and scheme so that either party can make a +"corner" on the other. If employers withdraw capital from employment in +an attempt to lower wages, they lose profits. If employes withdraw from +competition in order to raise wages, they starve to death. Capital and +labor are the two things which least admit of monopoly. Employers can, +however, if they have foresight of the movements of industry and +commerce, and if they make skillful use of credit, win exceptional +profits for a limited period. One great means of exceptional profit +lies in the very fact that the employes have not exercised the same +foresight, but have plodded along and waited for the slow and +successive action of the industrial system through successive periods +of production, while the employer has anticipated and synchronized +several successive steps. No bargain is fairly made if one of the +parties to it fails to maintain his interest. If one party to a +contract is well informed and the other ill informed, the former is +sure to win an advantage. No doctrine that a true adjustment of +interest follows from the free play of interests can be construed to +mean that an interest which is neglected will get its rights. + +The employes have no means of information which is as good and +legitimate as association, and it is fair and necessary that their +action should be united in behalf of their interests. They are not in a +position for the unrestricted development of individualism in regard to +many of their interests. Unquestionably the better ones lose by this, +and the development of individualism is to be looked forward to and +hoped for as a great gain. In the meantime the labor market, in which +wages are fixed, cannot reach fair adjustments unless the interest of +the laborers is fairly defended, and that cannot, perhaps, yet be done +without associations of laborers. No newspapers yet report the labor +market. If they give any notices of it--of its rise and fall, of its +variations in different districts and in different trades--such notices +are always made for the interest of the employers. Re-distribution of +employes, both locally and trade-wise (so far as the latter is +possible), is a legitimate and useful mode of raising wages. The +illegitimate attempt to raise wages by limiting the number of +apprentices is the great abuse of trades-unions. I shall discuss that +in the ninth chapter. + +It appears that the English trades were forced to contend, during the +first half of this century, for the wages which the market really would +give them, but which, under the old traditions and restrictions which +remained, they could not get without a positive struggle. They formed +the opinion that a strike could raise wages. They were educated so to +think by the success which they had won in certain attempts. It appears +to have become a traditional opinion, in which no account is taken of +the state of the labor market. It would be hard to find a case of any +strike within thirty or forty years, either in England or the United +States, which has paid. If a strike occurs, it certainly wastes capital +and hinders production. It must, therefore, lower wages subsequently +below what they would have been if there had been no strike. If a +strike succeeds, the question arises whether an advance of wages as +great or greater would not have occurred within a limited period +without a strike. + +Nevertheless, a strike is a legitimate resort at last. It is like war, +for it is war. All that can be said is that those who have recourse to +it at last ought to understand that they assume a great responsibility, +and that they can only be justified by the circumstances of the case. I +cannot believe that a strike for wages ever is expedient. There are +other purposes, to be mentioned in a moment, for which a strike may be +expedient; but a strike for wages is a clear case of a strife in which +ultimate success is a complete test of the justifiability of the course +of those who made the strife. If the men win an advance, it proves that +they ought to have made it. If they do not win, it proves that they +were wrong to strike. If they strike with the market in their favor, +they win. If they strike with the market against them, they fail. It is +in human nature that a man whose income is increased is happy and +satisfied, although, if he demanded it, he might perhaps at that very +moment get more. A man whose income is lessened is displeased and +irritated, and he is more likely to strike then, when it may be in +vain. Strikes in industry are not nearly so peculiar a phenomenon as +they are often thought to be. Buyers strike when they refuse to buy +commodities of which the price has risen. Either the price remains +high, and they permanently learn to do without the commodity, or the +price is lowered, and they buy again. Tenants strike when house rents +rise too high for them. They seek smaller houses or parts of houses +until there is a complete readjustment. Borrowers strike when the rates +for capital are so high that they cannot employ it to advantage and pay +those rates. Laborers may strike and emigrate, or, in this country, +take to the land. This kind of strike is a regular application of +legitimate means, and is sure to succeed. Of course, strikes with +violence against employers or other employes are not to be discussed at +all. + +Trades-unions, then, are right and useful, and it may be that they are +necessary. They may do much by way of true economic means to raise +wages. They are useful to spread information, to maintain _esprit de +corps_, to elevate the public opinion of the class. They have been +greatly abused in the past. In this country they are in constant danger +of being used by political schemers--a fact which does more than +anything else to disparage them in the eyes of the best workmen. The +economic notions most in favor in the trades-unions are erroneous, +although not more so than those which find favor in the counting-room. +A man who believes that he can raise wages by doing bad work, wasting +time, allowing material to be wasted, and giving generally the least +possible service in the allotted time, is not to be distinguished from +the man who says that wages can be raised by putting protective taxes +on all clothing, furniture, crockery, bedding, books, fuel, utensils, +and tools. One lowers the services given for the capital, and the other +lowers the capital given for the services. Trades-unionism in the +higher classes consists in jobbery. There is a great deal of it in the +professions. I once heard a group of lawyers of high standing sneer at +an executor who hoped to get a large estate through probate without +allowing any lawyers to get big fees out of it. They all approved of +steps which had been taken to force a contest, which steps had forced +the executor to retain two or three lawyers. No one of the speakers had +been retained. + +Trades-unions need development, correction, and perfection. They ought, +however, to get this from the men themselves. If the men do not feel +any need of such institutions, the patronage of other persons who come +to them and give them these institutions will do harm and not good. +Especially trades-unions ought to be perfected so as to undertake a +great range of improvement duties for which we now rely on Government +inspection, which never gives what we need. The safety of workmen from +machinery, the ventilation and sanitary arrangements required by +factories, the special precautions of certain processes, the hours of +labor of women and children, the schooling of children, the limits of +age for employed children, Sunday work, hours of labor--these and other +like matters ought to be controlled by the men themselves through their +organizations. The laborers about whom we are talking are free men in a +free state. If they want to be protected they must protect themselves. +They ought to protect their own women and children. Their own class +opinion ought to secure the education of the children of their class. +If an individual workman is not bold enough to protest against a wrong +to laborers, the agent of a trades-union might with propriety do it on +behalf of the body of workmen. Here is a great and important need, and, +instead of applying suitable and adequate means to supply it, we have +demagogues declaiming, trades-union officers resolving, and Government +inspectors drawing salaries, while little or nothing is done. + +I have said that trades-unions are right and useful, and perhaps, +necessary; but trades-unions are, in fact, in this country, an exotic +and imported institution, and a great many of their rules and modes of +procedure, having been developed in England to meet English +circumstances, are out of place here. The institution itself does not +flourish here as it would if it were in a thoroughly congenial +environment. It needs to be supported by special exertion and care. Two +things here work against it. First, the great mobility of our +population. A trades-union, to be strong, needs to be composed of men +who have grown up together, who have close personal acquaintance and +mutual confidence, who have been trained to the same code, and who +expect to live on together in the same circumstances and interests. In +this country, where workmen move about frequently and with facility, +the unions suffer in their harmony and stability. It was a significant +fact that the unions declined during the hard times. It was only when +the men were prosperous that they could afford to keep up the unions, +as a kind of social luxury. When the time came to use the union it +ceased to be. Secondly, the American workman really has such personal +independence, and such an independent and strong position in the labor +market, that he does not need the union. He is farther on the road +toward the point where personal liberty supplants the associative +principle than any other workman. Hence the association is likely to be +a clog to him, especially if he is a good laborer, rather than an +assistance. If it were not for the notion brought from England, that +trades-unions are, in some mysterious way, beneficial to the +workmen--which notion has now become an article of faith--it is very +doubtful whether American workmen would find that the unions were of +any use, unless they were converted into organizations for +accomplishing the purposes enumerated in the last paragraph. + +The fashion of the time is to run to Government boards, commissions, +and inspectors to set right everything which is wrong. No experience +seems to damp the faith of our public in these instrumentalities. The +English Liberals in the middle of this century seemed to have full +grasp of the principle of liberty, and to be fixed and established in +favor of non-interference. Since they have come to power, however, they +have adopted the old instrumentalities, and have greatly multiplied +them since they have had a great number of reforms to carry out. They +seem to think that interference is good if only they interfere. In this +country the party which is "in" always interferes, and the party which +is "out" favors non-interference. The system of interference is a +complete failure to the ends it aims at, and sooner or later it will +fall of its own expense and be swept away. The two notions--one to +regulate things by a committee of control, and the other to let things +regulate themselves by the conflict of interests between free men--are +diametrically opposed; and the former is corrupting to free +institutions, because men who are taught to expect Government +inspectors to come and take care of them lose all true education in +liberty. If we have been all wrong for the last three hundred years in +aiming at a fuller realization of individual liberty, as a condition of +general and widely-diffused happiness, then we must turn back to +paternalism, discipline, and authority; but to have a combination of +liberty and dependence is impossible. + +I have read a great many diatribes within the last ten years against +employers, and a great many declamations about the wrongs of employes. +I have never seen a defense of the employer. Who dares say that he is +not the friend of the poor man? Who dares say that he is the friend of +the employer? I will try to say what I think is true. There are bad, +harsh, cross employers; there are slovenly, negligent workmen; there +are just about as many proportionately of one of these classes as of +the other. The employers of the United States--as a class, proper +exceptions being understood--have no advantage over their workmen. They +could not oppress them if they wanted to do so. The advantage, taking +good and bad times together, is with the workmen. The employers wish +the welfare of the workmen in all respects, and would give redress for +any grievance which was brought to their attention. They are +considerate of the circumstances and interests of the laborers. They +remember the interests of the workmen when driven to consider the +necessity of closing or reducing hours. They go on, and take risk and +trouble on themselves in working through bad times, rather than close +their works. The whole class of those-who-have are quick in their +sympathy for any form of distress or suffering. They are too quick. +Their sympathies need regulating, not stimulating. They are more likely +to give away capital recklessly than to withhold it stingily when any +alleged case of misfortune is before them. They rejoice to see any man +succeed in improving his position. They will aid him with counsel and +information if he desires it, and any man who needs and deserves help +because he is trying to help himself will be sure to meet with +sympathy, encouragement, and assistance from those who are better off. +If those who are in that position are related to him as employers to +employe, that tie will be recognized as giving him an especial claim. + + + + +VII. + +_CONCERNING SOME OLD FOES UNDER NEW FACES._ + + +The history of the human race is one long story of attempts by certain +persons and classes to obtain control of the power of the State, so as +to win earthly gratifications at the expense of others. People +constantly assume that there is something metaphysical and sentimental +about government. At bottom there are two chief things with which +government has to deal. They are, the property of men and the honor of +women. These it has to defend against crime. The capital which, as we +have seen, is the condition of all welfare on earth, the fortification +of existence, and the means of growth, is an object of cupidity. Some +want to get it without paying the price of industry and economy. In +ancient times they made use of force. They organized bands of robbers. +They plundered laborers and merchants. Chief of all, however, they +found that means of robbery which consisted in gaining control of the +civil organization--the State--and using its poetry and romance as a +glamour under cover of which they made robbery lawful. They developed +high-spun theories of nationality, patriotism, and loyalty. They took +all the rank, glory, power, and prestige of the great civil +organization, and they took all the rights. They threw on others the +burdens and the duties. At one time, no doubt, feudalism was an +organization which drew together again the fragments of a dissolved +society; but when the lawyers had applied the Roman law to modern +kings, and feudal nobles had been converted into an aristocracy of +court nobles, the feudal nobility no longer served any purpose. + +In modern times the great phenomenon has been the growth of the middle +class out of the mediaeval cities, the accumulation of wealth, and the +encroachment of wealth, as a social power, on the ground formerly +occupied by rank and birth. The middle class has been obliged to fight +for its rights against the feudal class, and it has, during three or +four centuries, gradually invented and established institutions to +guarantee personal and property rights against the arbitrary will of +kings and nobles. + +In its turn wealth is now becoming a power in three or four centuries, +gradually invented and the State, and, like every other power, it is +liable to abuse unless restrained by checks and guarantees. There is an +insolence of wealth, as there is an insolence of rank. A plutocracy +might be even far worse than an aristocracy. Aristocrats have always +had their class vices and their class virtues. They have always been, +as a class, chargeable with licentiousness and gambling. They have, +however, as a class, despised lying and stealing. They have always +pretended to maintain a standard of honor, although the definition and +the code of honor have suffered many changes and shocking +deterioration. The middle class has always abhorred gambling and +licentiousness, but it has not always been strict about truth and +pecuniary fidelity. That there is a code and standard of mercantile +honor which is quite as pure and grand as any military code, is beyond +question, but it has never yet been established and defined by long +usage and the concurrent support of a large and influential society. +The feudal code has, through centuries, bred a high type of men, and +constituted a caste. The mercantile code has not yet done so, but the +wealthy class has attempted to merge itself in or to imitate the feudal +class. + +The consequence is, that the wealth-power has been developed, while the +moral and social sanctions by which that power ought to be controlled +have not yet been developed. A plutocracy would be a civil organization +in which the power resides in wealth, in which a man might have +whatever he could buy, in which the rights, interests, and feelings of +those who could not pay would be overridden. + +There is a plain tendency of all civilized governments toward +plutocracy. The power of wealth in the English House of Commons has +steadily increased for fifty years. The history of the present French +Republic has shown an extraordinary development of plutocratic spirit +and measures. In the United States many plutocratic doctrines have a +currency which is not granted them anywhere else; that is, a man's +right to have almost anything which he can pay for is more popularly +recognized here than elsewhere. So far the most successful limitation +on plutocracy has come from aristocracy, for the prestige of rank is +still great wherever it exists. The social sanctions of aristocracy +tell with great force on the plutocrats, more especially on their wives +and daughters. It has already resulted that a class of wealthy men is +growing up in regard to whom the old sarcasms of the novels and the +stage about _parvenus_ are entirely thrown away. They are men who have +no superiors, by whatever standard one chooses to measure them. Such an +interplay of social forces would, indeed, be a great and happy solution +of a new social problem, if the aristocratic forces were strong enough +for the magnitude of the task. If the feudal aristocracy, or its modern +representative--which is, in reality, not at all feudal--could carry +down into the new era and transmit to the new masters of society the +grace, elegance, breeding, and culture of the past, society would +certainly gain by that course of things, as compared with any such +rupture between past and present as occurred in the French Revolution. +The dogmatic radicals who assail "on principle" the inherited social +notions and distinctions are not serving civilization. Society can do +without patricians, but it cannot do without patrician virtues. + +In the United States the opponent of plutocracy is democracy. Nowhere +else in the world has the power of wealth come to be discussed in its +political aspects as it is here. Nowhere else does the question arise +as it does here. I have given some reasons for this in former chapters. +Nowhere in the world is the danger of plutocracy as formidable as it is +here. To it we oppose the power of numbers as it is presented by +democracy. Democracy itself, however, is new and experimental. It has +not yet existed long enough to find its appropriate forms. It has no +prestige from antiquity such as aristocracy possesses. It has, indeed, +none of the surroundings which appeal to the imagination. On the other +hand, democracy is rooted in the physical, economic, and social +circumstances of the United States. This country cannot be other than +democratic for an indefinite period in the future. Its political +processes will also be republican. The affection of the people for +democracy makes them blind and uncritical in regard to it, and they are +as fond of the political fallacies to which democracy lends itself as +they are of its sound and correct interpretation, or fonder. Can +democracy develop itself and at the same time curb plutocracy? + +Already the question presents itself as one of life or death to +democracy. Legislative and judicial scandals show us that the conflict +is already opened, and that it is serious. The lobby is the army of the +plutocracy. An elective judiciary is a device so much in the interest +of plutocracy, that it must be regarded as a striking proof of the +toughness of the judicial institution that it has resisted the +corruption so much as it has. The caucus, convention, and committee +lend themselves most readily to the purposes of interested speculators +and jobbers. It is just such machinery as they might have invented if +they had been trying to make political devices to serve their purpose, +and their processes call in question nothing less than the possibility +of free self-government under the forms of a democratic republic. + +For now I come to the particular point which I desire to bring forward +against all the denunciations and complainings about the power of +chartered corporations and aggregated capital. If charters have been +given which confer undue powers, who gave them? Our legislators did. +Who elected these legislators. We did. If we are a free, self-governing +people, we must understand that it costs vigilance and exertion to be +self-governing. It costs far more vigilance and exertion to be so under +the democratic form, where we have no aids from tradition or prestige, +than under other forms. If we are a free, self-governing people, we can +blame nobody but ourselves for our misfortunes. No one will come to +help us out of them. It will do no good to heap law upon law, or to try +by constitutional provisions simply to abstain from the use of powers +which we find we always abuse. How can we get bad legislators to pass a +law which shall hinder bad legislators from passing a bad law? That is +what we are trying to do by many of our proposed remedies. The task +before us, however, is one which calls for fresh reserves of moral +force and political virtue from the very foundations of the social +body. Surely it is not a new thing to us to learn that men are greedy +and covetous, and that they will be selfish and tyrannical if they +dare. The plutocrats are simply trying to do what the generals, nobles, +and priests have done in the past--get the power of the State into +their hands, so as to bend the rights of others to their own advantage; +and what we need to do is to recognize the fact that we are face to +face with the same old foes--the vices and passions of human nature. +One of the oldest and most mischievous fallacies in this country has +been the notion that we are better than other nations, and that +Government has a smaller and easier task here than elsewhere. This +fallacy has hindered us from recognizing our old foes as soon as we +should have done. Then, again, these vices and passions take good care +here to deck themselves out in the trappings of democratic watchwords +and phrases, so that they are more often greeted with cheers than with +opposition when they first appear. The plan of electing men to +represent us who systematically surrender public to private interests, +and then trying to cure the mischief by newspaper and platform +declamation against capital and corporations, is an entire failure. + +The new foes must be met, as the old ones were met--by institutions and +guarantees. The problem of civil liberty is constantly renewed. Solved +once, it re-appears in a new form. The old constitutional guarantees +were all aimed against king and nobles. New ones must be invented to +hold the power of wealth to that responsibility without which no power +whatever is consistent with liberty. The judiciary has given the most +satisfactory evidence that it is competent to the new duty which +devolves upon it. The courts have proved, in every case in which they +have been called upon, that there are remedies, that they are adequate, +and that they can be brought to bear upon the cases. The chief need +seems to be more power of voluntary combination and co-operation among +those who are aggrieved. Such co-operation is a constant necessity +under free self-government; and when, in any community, men lose the +power of voluntary co-operation in furtherance or defense of their own +interests, they deserve to suffer, with no other remedy than newspaper +denunciations and platform declamations. Of course, in such a state of +things, political mountebanks come forward and propose fierce measures +which can be paraded for political effect. Such measures would be +hostile to all our institutions, would destroy capital, overthrow +credit, and impair the most essential interests of society. On the side +of political machinery there is no ground for hope, but only for fear. +On the side of constitutional guarantees and the independent action of +self-governing freemen there is every ground for hope. + + + + +VIII. + +_ON THE VALUE, AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE, OF THE RULE TO MIND ONE'S +OWN BUSINESS._ + + +The passion for dealing with social questions is one of the marks of +our time. Every man gets some experience of, and makes some +observations on social affairs. Except matters of health, probably none +have such general interest as matters of society. Except matters of +health, none are so much afflicted by dogmatism and crude speculation +as those which appertain to society. The amateurs in social science +always ask: What shall we do? What shall we do with Neighbor A? What +shall we do for Neighbor B? What shall we make Neighbor A do for +Neighbor B? It is a fine thing to be planning and discussing broad and +general theories of wide application. The amateurs always plan to use +the individual for some constructive and inferential social purpose, or +to use the society for some constructive and inferential individual +purpose. For A to sit down and think, What shall I do? is commonplace; +but to think what B ought to do is interesting, romantic, moral, +self-flattering, and public-spirited all at once. It satisfies a great +number of human weaknesses at once. To go on and plan what a whole +class of people ought to do is to feel one's self a power on earth, to +win a public position, to clothe one's self in dignity. Hence we have +an unlimited supply of reformers, philanthropists, humanitarians, and +would-be managers-in-general of society. + +Every man and woman in society has one big duty. That is, to take care +of his or her own self. This is a social duty. For, fortunately, the +matter stands so that the duty of making the best of one's self +individually is not a separate thing from the duty of filling one's +place in society, but the two are one, and the latter is accomplished +when the former is done. The common notion, however, seems to be that +one has a duty to society, as a special and separate thing, and that +this duty consists in considering and deciding what other people ought +to do. Now, the man who can do anything for or about anybody else than +himself is fit to be head of a family; and when he becomes head of a +family he has duties to his wife and his children, in addition to the +former big duty. Then, again, any man who can take care of himself and +his family is in a very exceptional position, if he does not find in +his immediate surroundings people who need his care and have some sort +of a personal claim upon him. If, now, he is able to fulfill all this, +and to take care of anybody outside his family and his dependents, he +must have a surplus of energy, wisdom, and moral virtue beyond what he +needs for his own business. No man has this; for a family is a charge +which is capable of infinite development, and no man could suffice to +the full measure of duty for which a family may draw upon him. Neither +can a man give to society so advantageous an employment of his +services, whatever they are, in any other way as by spending them on +his family. Upon this, however, I will not insist. I recur to the +observation that a man who proposes to take care of other people must +have himself and his family taken care of, after some sort of a +fashion, and must have an as yet unexhausted store of energy. + +The danger of minding other people's business is twofold. First, there +is the danger that a man may leave his own business unattended to; and, +second, there is the danger of an impertinent interference with +another's affairs. The "friends of humanity" almost always run into +both dangers. I am one of humanity, and I do not want any volunteer +friends. I regard friendship as mutual, and I want to have my say about +it. I suppose that other components of humanity feel in the same way +about it. If so, they must regard any one who assumes the _role_ of a +friend of humanity as impertinent. The reference to the friend of +humanity back to his own business is obviously the next step. + +Yet we are constantly annoyed, and the legislatures are kept +constantly busy, by the people who have made up their minds that it is +wise and conducive to happiness to live in a certain way, and who want +to compel everybody else to live in their way. Some people have decided +to spend Sunday in a certain way, and they want laws passed to make +other people spend Sunday in the same way. Some people have resolved to +be teetotalers, and they want a law passed to make everybody else a +teetotaler. Some people have resolved to eschew luxury, and they want +taxes laid to make others eschew luxury. The taxing power is especially +something after which the reformer's finger always itches. Sometimes +there is an element of self-interest in the proposed reformation, as +when a publisher wanted a duty imposed on books, to keep Americans from +reading books which would unsettle their Americanisms; and when artists +wanted a tax laid on pictures, to save Americans from buying bad +paintings. + +I make no reference here to the giving and taking of counsel and aid +between man and man: of that I shall say something in the last chapter. +The very sacredness of the relation in which two men stand to one +another when one of them rescues the other from vice separates that +relation from any connection with the work of the social busybody, the +professional philanthropist, and the empirical legislator. + +The amateur social doctors are like the amateur physicians--they always +begin with the question of _remedies_, and they go at this without any +diagnosis or any knowledge of the anatomy or physiology of society. +They never have any doubt of the efficacy of their remedies. They never +take account of any ulterior effects which may be apprehended from the +remedy itself. It generally troubles them not a whit that their remedy +implies a complete reconstruction of society, or even a reconstitution +of human nature. Against all such social quackery the obvious +injunction to the quacks is, to mind their own business. + +The social doctors enjoy the satisfaction of feeling themselves to be +more moral or more enlightened than their fellow-men. They are able to +see what other men ought to do when the other men do not see it. An +examination of the work of the social doctors, however, shows that they +are only more ignorant and more presumptuous than other people. We have +a great many social difficulties and hardships to contend with. +Poverty, pain, disease, and misfortune surround our existence. We fight +against them all the time. The individual is a centre of hopes, +affections, desires, and sufferings. When he dies, life changes its +form, but does not cease. That means that the person--the centre of all +the hopes, affections, etc.--after struggling as long as he can, is +sure to succumb at last. We would, therefore, as far as the hardships +of the human lot are concerned, go on struggling to the best of our +ability against them but for the social doctors, and we would endure +what we could not cure. But we have inherited a vast number of social +ills which never came from Nature. They are the complicated products of +all the tinkering, muddling, and blundering of social doctors in the +past. These products of social quackery are now buttressed by habit, +fashion, prejudice, platitudinarian thinking, and new quackery in +political economy and social science. It is a fact worth noticing, just +when there seems to be a revival of faith in legislative agencies, that +our States are generally providing against the experienced evils of +over-legislation by ordering that the Legislature shall sit only every +other year. During the hard times, when Congress had a real chance to +make or mar the public welfare, the final adjournment of that body was +hailed year after year with cries of relief from a great anxiety. The +greatest reforms which could now be accomplished would consist in +undoing the work of statesmen in the past, and the greatest difficulty +in the way of reform is to find out how to undo their work without +injury to what is natural and sound. All this mischief has been done +by men who sat down to consider the problem (as I heard an apprentice +of theirs once express it), What kind of a society do we want to make? +When they had settled this question _a priori_ to their satisfaction, +they set to work to make their ideal society, and today we suffer the +consequences. Human society tries hard to adapt itself to any +conditions in which it finds itself, and we have been warped and +distorted until we have got used to it, as the foot adapts itself to an +ill-made boot. Next, we have come to think that that is the right way +for things to be; and it is true that a change to a sound and normal +condition would for a time hurt us, as a man whose foot has been +distorted would suffer if he tried to wear a well-shaped boot. Finally, +we have produced a lot of economists and social philosophers who have +invented sophisms for fitting our thinking to the distorted facts. + +Society, therefore, does not need any care or supervision. If we can +acquire a science of society, based on observation of phenomena and +study of forces, we may hope to gain some ground slowly toward the +elimination of old errors and the re-establishment of a sound and +natural social order. Whatever we gain that way will be by growth, +never in the world by any reconstruction of society on the plan of +some enthusiastic social architect. The latter is only repeating the +old error over again, and postponing all our chances of real +improvement. Society needs first of all to be freed from these +meddlers--that is, to be let alone. Here we are, then, once more back +at the old doctrine--_Laissez faire_. Let us translate it into blunt +English, and it will read, Mind your own business. It is nothing but +the doctrine of liberty. Let every man be happy in his own way. If his +sphere of action and interest impinges on that of any other man, there +will have to be compromise and adjustment. Wait for the occasion. Do +not attempt to generalize those interferences or to plan for them _a +priori_. We have a body of laws and institutions which have grown up as +occasion has occurred for adjusting rights. Let the same process go on. +Practise the utmost reserve possible in your interferences even of this +kind, and by no means seize occasion for interfering with natural +adjustments. Try first long and patiently whether the natural +adjustment will not come about through the play of interests and the +voluntary concessions of the parties. + +I have said that we have an empirical political economy and social +science to fit the distortions of our society. The test of empiricism +in this matter is the attitude which one takes up toward _laissez +faire_. It no doubt wounds the vanity of a philosopher who is just +ready with a new solution of the universe to be told to mind his own +business. So he goes on to tell us that if we think that we shall, by +being let alone, attain a perfect happiness on earth, we are mistaken. +The half-way men--the professional socialists--join him. They solemnly +shake their heads, and tell us that he is right--that letting us alone +will never secure us perfect happiness. Under all this lies the +familiar logical fallacy, never expressed, but really the point of the +whole, that we _shall_ get perfect happiness if we put ourselves in the +hands of the world-reformer. We never supposed that _laissez faire_ +would give us perfect happiness. We have left perfect happiness +entirely out of our account. If the social doctors will mind their own +business, we shall have no troubles but what belong to Nature. Those we +will endure or combat as we can. What we desire is, that the friends of +humanity should cease to add to them. Our disposition toward the ills +which our fellow-man inflicts on us through malice or meddling is quite +different from our disposition toward the ills which are inherent in +the conditions of human life. + +To mind one's own business is a purely negative and unproductive +injunction, but, taking social matters as they are just now, it is a +sociological principle of the first importance. There might be +developed a grand philosophy on the basis of minding one's own +business. + + + + +IX. + +_ON THE CASE OF A CERTAIN MAN WHO IS NEVER THOUGHT OF._ + + +The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism +is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be +made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a +sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the +matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the +ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely +overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and +consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, +that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case +appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies +addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all +the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in +action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an +equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. +They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all +the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the +effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. +They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, +and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave +out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social +discussion--that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking +it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced +and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man. + +The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings +toward "the poor," "the weak," "the laborers," and others of whom they +make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, +and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other +classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other +noble sentiments of the human heart. Action in the line proposed +consists in a transfer of capital from the better off to the worse off. +Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization +is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used +in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a +shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for +it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put to +reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient +and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of +benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital to protect the +good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter, however, is +never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is provided +for and out of the account. Such a notion only shows how little true +notions of political economy have as yet become popularized. There is +an almost invincible prejudice that a man who gives a dollar to a +beggar is generous and kind-hearted, but that a man who refuses the +beggar and puts the dollar in a savings-bank is stingy and mean. The +former is putting capital where it is very sure to be wasted, and where +it will be a kind of seed for a long succession of future dollars, +which must be wasted to ward off a greater strain on the sympathies +than would have been occasioned by a refusal in the first place. +Inasmuch as the dollar might have been turned into capital and given to +a laborer who, while earning it, would have reproduced it, it must be +regarded as taken from the latter. When a millionaire gives a dollar to +a beggar the gain of utility to the beggar is enormous, and the loss of +utility to the millionaire is insignificant. Generally the discussion +is allowed to rest there. But if the millionaire makes capital of the +dollar, it must go upon the labor market, as a demand for productive +services. Hence there is another party in interest--the person who +supplies productive services. There always are two parties. The second +one is always the Forgotten Man, and any one who wants to truly +understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten +Man. He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and +self-supporting. He is not, technically, "poor" or "weak"; he minds his +own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists +never think of him, and trample on him. + +We hear a great deal of schemes for "improving the condition of the +working-man." In the United States the farther down we go in the grade +of labor, the greater is the advantage which the laborer has over the +higher classes. A hod-carrier or digger here can, by one day's labor, +command many times more days' labor of a carpenter, surveyor, +bookkeeper, or doctor than an unskilled laborer in Europe could command +by one day's labor. The same is true, in a less degree, of the +carpenter, as compared with the bookkeeper, surveyor, and doctor. This +is why the United States is the great country for the unskilled +laborer. The economic conditions all favor that class. There is a great +continent to be subdued, and there is a fertile soil available to +labor, with scarcely any need of capital. Hence the people who have the +strong arms have what is most needed, and, if it were not for social +consideration, higher education would not pay. Such being the case, +the working-man needs no improvement in his condition except to be +freed from the parasites who are living on him. All schemes for +patronizing "the working classes" savor of condescension. They are +impertinent and out of place in this free democracy. There is not, in +fact, any such state of things or any such relation as would make +projects of this kind appropriate. Such projects demoralize both +parties, flattering the vanity of one and undermining the self-respect +of the other. + +For our present purpose it is most important to notice that if we lift +any man up we must have a fulcrum, or point of reaction. In society +that means that to lift one man up we push another down. The schemes +for improving the condition of the working classes interfere in the +competition of workmen with each other. The beneficiaries are selected +by favoritism, and are apt to be those who have recommended themselves +to the friends of humanity by language or conduct which does not +betoken independence and energy. Those who suffer a corresponding +depression by the interference are the independent and self-reliant, +who once more are forgotten or passed over; and the friends of humanity +once more appear, in their zeal to help somebody, to be trampling on +those who are trying to help themselves. + +Trades-unions adopt various devices for raising wages, and those who +give their time to philanthropy are interested in these devices, and +wish them success. They fix their minds entirely on the workmen for the +time being _in_ the trade, and do not take note of any other _workmen_ +as interested in the matter. It is supposed that the fight is between +the workmen and their employers, and it is believed that one can give +sympathy in that contest to the workmen without feeling responsibility +for anything farther. It is soon seen, however, that the employer adds +the trades-union and strike risk to the other risks of his business, +and settles down to it philosophically. If, now, we go farther, we see +that he takes it philosophically because he has passed the loss along +on the public. It then appears that the public wealth has been +diminished, and that the danger of a trade war, like the danger of a +revolution, is a constant reduction of the well-being of all. So far, +however, we have seen only things which could _lower_ wages--nothing +which could raise them. The employer is worried, but that does not +raise wages. The public loses, but the loss goes to cover extra risk, +and that does not raise wages. + +A trades-union raises wages (aside from the legitimate and economic +means noticed in Chapter VI.) by restricting the number of apprentices +who may be taken into the trade. This device acts directly on the +supply of laborers, and that produces effects on wages. If, however, +the number of apprentices is limited, some are kept out who want to get +in. Those who are in have, therefore, made a monopoly, and constituted +themselves a privileged class on a basis exactly analogous to that of +the old privileged aristocracies. But whatever is gained by this +arrangement for those who are in is won at a greater loss to those who +are kept out. Hence it is not upon the masters nor upon the public that +trades-unions exert the pressure by which they raise wages; it is upon +other persons of the labor class who want to get into the trades, but, +not being able to do so, are pushed down into the unskilled labor +class. These persons, however, are passed by entirely without notice in +all the discussions about trades-unions. They are the Forgotten Men. +But, since they want to get into the trade and win their living in it, +it is fair to suppose that they are fit for it, would succeed at it, +would do well for themselves and society in it; that is to say, that, +of all persons interested or concerned, they most deserve our sympathy +and attention. + +The cases already mentioned involve no legislation. Society, however, +maintains police, sheriffs, and various institutions, the object of +which is to protect people against themselves--that is, against their +own vices. Almost all legislative effort to prevent vice is really +protective of vice, because all such legislation saves the vicious man +from the penalty of his vice. Nature's remedies against vice are +terrible. She removes the victims without pity. A drunkard in the +gutter is just where he ought to be, according to the fitness and +tendency of things. Nature has set up on him the process of decline and +dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their +usefulness. Gambling and other less mentionable vices carry their own +penalties with them. + +Now, we never can annihilate a penalty. We can only divert it from the +head of the man who has incurred it to the heads of others who have not +incurred it. A vast amount of "social reform" consists in just this +operation. The consequence is that those who have gone astray, being +relieved from Nature's fierce discipline, go on to worse, and that +there is a constantly heavier burden for the others to bear. Who are +the others? When we see a drunkard in the gutter we pity him. If a +policeman picks him up, we say that society has interfered to save him +from perishing. "Society" is a fine word, and it saves us the trouble +of thinking. The industrious and sober workman, who is mulcted of a +percentage of his day's wages to pay the policeman, is the one who +bears the penalty. But he is the Forgotten Man. He passes by and is +never noticed, because he has behaved himself, fulfilled his +contracts, and asked for nothing. + +The fallacy of all prohibitory, sumptuary, and moral legislation is the +same. A and B determine to be teetotalers, which is often a wise +determination, and sometimes a necessary one. If A and B are moved by +considerations which seem to them good, that is enough. But A and B put +their heads together to get a law passed which shall force C to be a +teetotaler for the sake of D, who is in danger of drinking too much. +There is no pressure on A and B. They are having their own way, and +they like it. There is rarely any pressure on D. He does not like it, +and evades it. The pressure all comes on C. The question then arises, +Who is C? He is the man who wants alcoholic liquors for any honest +purpose whatsoever, who would use his liberty without abusing it, who +would occasion no public question, and trouble nobody at all. He is the +Forgotten Man again, and as soon as he is drawn from his obscurity we +see that he is just what each one of us ought to be. + + + + +X. + +_THE CASE OF THE FORGOTTEN MAN FARTHER CONSIDERED._ + + +There is a beautiful notion afloat in our literature and in the minds +of our people that men are born to certain "natural rights." If that +were true, there would be something on earth which was got for nothing, +and this world would not be the place it is at all. The fact is, that +there is no right whatever inherited by man which has not an equivalent +and corresponding duty by the side of it, as the price of it. The +rights, advantages, capital, knowledge, and all other goods which we +inherit from past generations have been won by the struggles and +sufferings of past generations; and the fact that the race lives, +though men die, and that the race can by heredity accumulate within +some cycle its victories over Nature, is one of the facts which make +civilization possible. The struggles of the race as a whole produce the +possessions of the race as a whole. Something for nothing is not to be +found on earth. + +If there were such things as natural rights, the question would arise, +Against whom are they good? Who has the corresponding obligation to +satisfy these rights? There can be no rights against Nature, except to +get out of her whatever we can, which is only the fact of the struggle +for existence stated over again. The common assertion is, that the +rights are good against society; that is, that society is bound to +obtain and secure them for the persons interested. Society, however, is +only the persons interested plus some other persons; and as the persons +interested have by the hypothesis failed to win the rights, we come to +this, that natural rights are the claims which certain persons have by +prerogative against some other persons. Such is the actual +interpretation in practice of natural rights--claims which some people +have by prerogative on other people. + +This theory is a very far-reaching one, and of course it is adequate to +furnish a foundation for a whole social philosophy. In its widest +extension it comes to mean that if any man finds himself uncomfortable +in this world, it must be somebody else's fault, and that somebody is +bound to come and make him comfortable. Now, the people who are most +uncomfortable in this world (for if we should tell all our troubles it +would not be found to be a very comfortable world for anybody) are +those who have neglected their duties, and consequently have failed to +get their rights. The people who can be called upon to serve the +uncomfortable must be those who have done their duty, as the world +goes, tolerably well. Consequently the doctrine which we are discussing +turns out to be in practice only a scheme for making injustice prevail +in human society by reversing the distribution of rewards and +punishments between those who have done their duty and those who have +not. + +We are constantly preached at by our public teachers, as if respectable +people were to blame because some people are not respectable--as if the +man who has done his duty in his own sphere was responsible in some way +for another man who has not done his duty in his sphere. There are +relations of employer and employe which need to be regulated by +compromise and treaty. There are sanitary precautions which need to be +taken in factories and houses. There are precautions against fire which +are necessary. There is care needed that children be not employed too +young, and that they have an education. There is care needed that +banks, insurance companies, and railroads be well managed, and that +officers do not abuse their trusts. There is a duty in each case on the +interested parties to defend their own interest. The penalty of neglect +is suffering. The system of providing for these things by boards and +inspectors throws the cost of it, not on the interested parties, but on +the tax-payers. Some of them, no doubt, are the interested parties, and +they may consider that they are exercising the proper care by paying +taxes to support an inspector. If so, they only get their fair deserts +when the railroad inspector finds out that a bridge is not safe after +it is broken down, or when the bank examiner comes in to find out why a +bank failed after the cashier has stolen all the funds. The real victim +is the Forgotten Man again--the man who has watched his own +investments, made his own machinery safe, attended to his own plumbing, +and educated his own children, and who, just when he wants to enjoy the +fruits of his care, is told that it is his duty to go and take care of +some of his negligent neighbors, or, if he does not go, to pay an +inspector to go. No doubt it is often in his interest to go or to send, +rather than to have the matter neglected, on account of his own +connection with the thing neglected, and his own secondary peril; but +the point now is, that if preaching and philosophizing can do any good +in the premises, it is all wrong to preach to the Forgotten Man that it +is his duty to go and remedy other people's neglect. It is not his +duty. It is a harsh and unjust burden which is laid upon him, and it is +only the more unjust because no one thinks of him when laying the +burden so that it falls on him. The exhortations ought to be expended +on the negligent--that they take care of themselves. + +It is an especially vicious extension of the false doctrine above +mentioned that criminals have some sort of a right against or claim on +society. Many reformatory plans are based on a doctrine of this kind +when they are urged upon the public conscience. A criminal is a man +who, instead of working with and for the society, has turned against +it, and become destructive and injurious. His punishment means that +society rules him out of its membership, and separates him from its +association, by execution or imprisonment, according to the gravity of +his offense. He has no claims against society at all. What shall be +done with him is a question of expediency to be settled in view of the +interests of society--that is, of the non-criminals. The French writers +of the school of '48 used to represent the badness of the bad men as +the fault of "society." As the object of this statement was to show +that the badness of the bad men was not the fault of the bad men, and +as society contains only good men and bad men, it followed that the +badness of the bad men was the fault of the good men. On that theory, +of course the good men owed a great deal to the bad men who were in +prison and at the galleys on their account. If we do not admit that +theory, it behooves us to remember that any claim which we allow to the +criminal against the "State" is only so much burden laid upon those who +have never cost the State anything for discipline or correction. The +punishments of society are just like those of God and Nature--they are +warnings to the wrong-doer to reform himself. + +When public offices are to be filled numerous candidates at once +appear. Some are urged on the ground that they are poor, or cannot earn +a living, or want support while getting an education, or have female +relatives dependent on them, or are in poor health, or belong in a +particular district, or are related to certain persons, or have done +meritorious service in some other line of work than that which they +apply to do. The abuses of the public service are to be condemned on +account of the harm to the public interest, but there is an incidental +injustice of the same general character with that which we are +discussing. If an office is granted by favoritism or for any personal +reason to A, it cannot be given to B. If an office is filled by a +person who is unfit for it, he always keeps out somebody somewhere who +is fit for it; that is, the social injustice has a victim in an unknown +person--the Forgotten Man--and he is some person who has no political +influence, and who has known no way in which to secure the chances of +life except to deserve them. He is passed by for the noisy, pushing, +importunate, and incompetent. + +I have said something disparagingly in a previous chapter about the +popular rage against combined capital, corporations, corners, selling +futures, etc., etc. The popular rage is not without reason, but it is +sadly misdirected and the real things which deserve attack are thriving +all the time. The greatest social evil with which we have to contend is +jobbery. Whatever there is in legislative charters, watering stocks, +etc., etc., which is objectionable, comes under the head of jobbery. +Jobbery is any scheme which aims to gain, not by the legitimate fruits +of industry and enterprise, but by extorting from somebody a part of +his product under guise of some pretended industrial undertaking. Of +course it is only a modification when the undertaking in question has +some legitimate character, but the occasion is used to graft upon it +devices for obtaining what has not been earned. Jobbery is the vice of +plutocracy, and it is the especial form under which plutocracy corrupts +a democratic and republican form of government. The United States is +deeply afflicted with it, and the problem of civil liberty here is to +conquer it. It affects everything which we really need to have done to +such an extent that we have to do without public objects which we need +through fear of jobbery. Our public buildings are jobs--not always, but +often. They are not needed, or are costly beyond all necessity or even +decent luxury. Internal improvements are jobs. They are not made +because they are needed to meet needs which have been experienced. +They are made to serve private ends, often incidentally the political +interests of the persons who vote the appropriations. Pensions have +become jobs. In England pensions used to be given to aristocrats, +because aristocrats had political influence, in order to corrupt them. +Here pensions are given to the great democratic mass, because they have +political power, to corrupt them. Instead of going out where there is +plenty of land and making a farm there, some people go down under the +Mississippi River to make a farm, and then they want to tax all the +people in the United States to make dikes to keep the river off their +farms. The California gold-miners have washed out gold, and have washed +the dirt down into the rivers and on the farms below. They want the +Federal Government to now clean out the rivers and restore the farms. +The silver-miners found their product declining in value, and they got +the Federal Government to go into the market and buy what the public +did not want, in order to sustain (as they hoped) the price of silver. +The Federal Government is called upon to buy or hire unsalable ships, +to build canals which will not pay, to furnish capital for all sorts of +experiments, and to provide capital for enterprises of which private +individuals will win the profits. All this is called "developing our +resources," but it is, in truth, the great plan of all living on each +other. + +The greatest job of all is a protective tariff. It includes the biggest +log-rolling and the widest corruption of economic and political ideas. +It was said that there would be a rebellion if the taxes were not taken +off whiskey and tobacco, which taxes were paid into the public +Treasury. Just then the importations of Sumatra tobacco became +important enough to affect the market. The Connecticut tobacco-growers +at once called for an import duty on tobacco which would keep up the +price of their product. So it appears that if the tax on tobacco is +paid to the Federal Treasury there will be a rebellion, but if it is +paid to the Connecticut tobacco-raisers there will be no rebellion at +all. The farmers have long paid tribute to the manufacturers; now the +manufacturing and other laborers are to pay tribute to the farmers. The +system is made more comprehensive and complete, and we all are living +on each other more than ever. + +Now, the plan of plundering each other produces nothing. It only +wastes. All the material over which the protected interests wrangle and +grab must be got from somebody outside of their circle. The talk is all +about the American laborer and American industry, but in every case in +which there is not an actual production of wealth by industry there +are two laborers and two industries to be considered--the one who gets +and the one who gives. Every protected industry has to plead, as the +major premise of its argument, that any industry which does not pay +_ought_ to be carried on at the expense of the consumers of the +product, and, as its minor premise, that the industry in question does +not pay; that is, that it cannot reproduce a capital equal in value to +that which it consumes plus the current rate of profit. Hence every +such industry must be a parasite on some other industry. What is the +other industry? Who is the other man? This, the real question, is +always overlooked. + +In all jobbery the case is the same. There is a victim somewhere who is +paying for it all. The doors of waste and extravagance stand open, and +there seems to be a general agreement to squander and spend. It all +belongs to somebody. There is somebody who had to contribute it, and +who will have to find more. Nothing is ever said about him. Attention +is all absorbed by the clamorous interests, the importunate +petitioners, the plausible schemers, the pitiless bores. Now, who is +the victim? He is the Forgotten Man. If we go to find him, we shall +find him hard at work tilling the soil to get out of it the fund for +all the jobbery, the object of all the plunder, the cost of all the +economic quackery, and the pay of all the politicians and statesmen +who have sacrificed his interests to his enemies. We shall find him an +honest, sober, industrious citizen, unknown outside his little circle, +paying his debts and his taxes, supporting the church and the school, +reading his party newspaper, and cheering for his pet politician. + +We must not overlook the fact that the Forgotten Man is not +infrequently a woman. I have before me a newspaper which contains five +letters from corset-stitchers who complain that they cannot earn more +than seventy-five cents a day with a machine, and that they have to +provide the thread. The tax on the grade of thread used by them is +prohibitory as to all importation, and it is the corset-stitchers who +have to pay day by day out of their time and labor the total +enhancement of price due to the tax. Women who earn their own living +probably earn on an average seventy-five cents per day of ten hours. +Twenty-four minutes' work ought to buy a spool of thread at the retail +price, if the American work-woman were allowed to exchange her labor +for thread on the best terms that the art and commerce of today would +allow; but after she has done twenty-four minutes' work for the thread +she is forced by the laws of her country to go back and work sixteen +minutes longer to pay the tax--that is, to support the thread-mill. +The thread-mill, therefore, is not an institution for getting thread +for the American people, but for making thread harder to get than it +would be if there were no such institution. + +In justification, now, of an arrangement so monstrously unjust and out +of place in a free country, it is said that the employes in the +thread-mill get high wages, and that, but for the tax, American +laborers must come down to the low wages of foreign thread-makers. It +is not true that American thread-makers get any more than the market +rate of wages, and they would not get less if the tax were entirely +removed, because the market rate of wages in the United States would be +controlled then, as it is now, by the supply and demand of laborers +under the natural advantages and opportunities of industry in this +country. It makes a great impression on the imagination, however, to go +to a manufacturing town and see great mills and a crowd of operatives; +and such a sight is put forward, _under the special allegation that it +would not exist but for a protective tax_, as a proof that protective +taxes are wise. But if it be true that the thread-mill would not exist +but for the tax, or that the operatives would not get such good wages +but for the tax, then how can we form a judgment as to whether the +protective system is wise or not unless we call to mind all the +seamstresses, washer-women, servants, factory-hands, saleswomen, +teachers, and laborers' wives and daughters, scattered in the garrets +and tenements of great cities and in cottages all over the country, who +are paying the tax which keeps the mill going and pays the extra wages? +If the sewing-women, teachers, servants, and washer-women could once be +collected over against the thread-mill, then some inferences could be +drawn which would be worth something. Then some light might be thrown +upon the obstinate fallacy of "creating an industry," and we might +begin to understand the difference between wanting thread and wanting a +thread-mill. Some nations spend capital on great palaces, others on +standing armies, others on iron-clad ships of war. Those things are all +glorious, and strike the imagination with great force when they are +seen; but no one doubts that they make life harder for the scattered +insignificant peasants and laborers who have to pay for them all. They +"support a great many people," they "make work," they "give employment +to other industries." We Americans have no palaces, armies, or +iron-clads, but we spend our earnings on protected industries. A big +protected factory, if it really needs the protection for its support, +is a heavier load for the Forgotten Men and Women than an iron-clad +ship of war in time of peace. + +It is plain that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the +real productive strength of the country. The Forgotten Man works and +votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. +His name never gets into the newspapers except when he marries or dies. +He is an obscure man. He may grumble sometimes to his wife, but he does +not frequent the grocery, and he does not talk politics at the tavern. +So he is forgotten. Yet who is there whom the statesman, economist, and +social philosopher ought to think of before this man? If any student of +social science comes to appreciate the case of the Forgotten Man, he +will become an unflinching advocate of strict scientific thinking in +sociology, and a hard-hearted skeptic as regards any scheme of social +amelioration. He will always want to know, Who and where is the +Forgotten Man in this case, who will have to pay for it all? + +The Forgotten Man is not a pauper. It belongs to his character to save +something. Hence he is a capitalist, though never a great one. He is a +"poor" man in the popular sense of the word, but not in a correct +sense. In fact, one of the most constant and trustworthy signs that the +Forgotten Man is in danger of a new assault is, that "the poor man" is +brought into the discussion. Since the Forgotten Man has some capital, +any one who cares for his interest will try to make capital secure by +securing the inviolability of contracts, the stability of currency, and +the firmness of credit. Any one, therefore, who cares for the Forgotten +Man will be sure to be considered a friend of the capitalist and an +enemy of the poor man. + +It is the Forgotten Man who is threatened by every extension of the +paternal theory of government. It is he who must work and pay. When, +therefore, the statesmen and social philosophers sit down to think what +the State can do or ought to do, they really mean to decide what the +Forgotten Man shall do. What the Forgotten Man wants, therefore, is a +fuller realization of constitutional liberty. He is suffering from the +fact that there are yet mixed in our institutions mediaeval theories of +protection, regulation, and authority, and modern theories of +independence and individual liberty and responsibility. The consequence +of this mixed state of things is, that those who are clever enough to +get into control use the paternal theory by which to measure their own +rights--that is, they assume privileges; and they use the theory of +liberty to measure their own duties--that is, when it comes to the +duties, they want to be "let alone." The Forgotten Man never gets into +control. He has to pay both ways. His rights are measured to him by the +theory of liberty--that is, he has only such as he can conquer; his +duties are measured to him on the paternal theory--that is, he must +discharge all which are laid upon him, as is the fortune of parents. In +a paternal relation there are always two parties, a father and a child; +and when we use the paternal relation metaphorically, it is of the +first importance to know who is to be father and who is to be child. +The _role_ of parent falls always to the Forgotten Man. What he wants, +therefore, is that ambiguities in our institutions be cleared up, and +that liberty be more fully realized. + +It behooves any economist or social philosopher, whatever be the grade +of his orthodoxy, who proposes to enlarge the sphere of the "State," or +to take any steps whatever having in view the welfare of any class +whatever, to pursue the analysis of the social effects of his +proposition until he finds that other group whose interests must be +curtailed or whose energies must be placed under contribution by the +course of action which he proposes; and he cannot maintain his +proposition until he has demonstrated that it will be more +advantageous, _both quantitatively and qualitatively_, to those who +must bear the weight of it than complete non-interference by the State +with the relations of the parties in question. + + + + +XI. + +_WHEREFORE WE SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER._ + + +Suppose that a man, going through a wood, should be struck by a falling +tree and pinned down beneath it. Suppose that another man, coming that +way and finding him there, should, instead of hastening to give or to +bring aid, begin to lecture on the law of gravitation, taking the tree +as an illustration. + +Suppose, again, that a person lecturing on the law of gravitation +should state the law of falling bodies, and suppose that an objector +should say: You state your law as a cold, mathematical fact and you +declare that all bodies will fall conformably to it. How heartless! You +do not reflect that it may be a beautiful little child falling from a +window. + +These two suppositions may be of some use to us as illustrations. + +Let us take the second first. It is the objection of the +sentimentalist; and, ridiculous as the mode of discussion appears when +applied to the laws of natural philosophy, the sociologist is +constantly met by objections of just that character. Especially when +the subject under discussion is charity in any of its public forms, the +attempt to bring method and clearness into the discussion is sure to be +crossed by suggestions which are as far from the point and as foreign +to any really intelligent point of view as the supposed speech in the +illustration. In the first place, a child would fall just as a stone +would fall. Nature's forces know no pity. Just so in sociology. The +forces know no pity. In the second place, if a natural philosopher +should discuss all the bodies which may fall, he would go entirely +astray, and would certainly do no good. The same is true of the +sociologist. He must concentrate, not scatter, and study laws, not all +conceivable combinations of force which may occur in practice. In the +third place, nobody ever saw a body fall as the philosophers say it +will fall, because they can accomplish nothing unless they study forces +separately, and allow for their combined action in all concrete and +actual phenomena. The same is true in sociology, with the additional +fact that the forces and their combinations in sociology are far the +most complex which we have to deal with. In the fourth place, any +natural philosopher who should stop, after stating the law of falling +bodies, to warn mothers not to let their children fall out of the +window, would make himself ridiculous. Just so a sociologist who should +attach moral applications and practical maxims to his investigations +would entirely miss his proper business. There is the force of gravity +as a fact in the world. If we understand this, the necessity of care +to conform to the action of gravity meets us at every step in our +private life and personal experience. The fact in sociology is in no +wise different. + +If, for instance, we take political economy, that science does not +teach an individual how to get rich. It is a social science. It treats +of the laws of the material welfare of human societies. It is, +therefore, only one science among all the sciences which inform us +about the laws and conditions of our life on earth. Education has for +its object to give a man knowledge of the conditions and laws of +living, so that, in any case in which the individual stands face to +face with the necessity of deciding what to do, if he is an educated +man, he may know how to make a wise and intelligent decision. If he +knows chemistry, physics, geology, and other sciences, he will know +what he must encounter of obstacle or help in Nature in what he +proposes to do. If he knows physiology and hygiene, he will know what +effects on health he must expect in one course or another. If he knows +political economy, he will know what effect on wealth and on the +welfare of society one course or another will produce. There is no +injunction, no "ought" in political economy at all. It does not assume +to tell man what he ought to do, any more than chemistry tells us that +we ought to mix things, or mathematics that we ought to solve +equations. It only gives one element necessary to an intelligent +decision, and in every practical and concrete case the responsibility +of deciding what to do rests on the man who has to act. The economist, +therefore, does not say to any one, You ought never to give money to +charity. He contradicts anybody who says, You ought to give money to +charity; and, in opposition to any such person, he says, Let me show +you what difference it makes to you, to others, to society, whether you +give money to charity or not, so that you can make a wise and +intelligent decision. Certainly there is no harder thing to do than to +employ capital charitably. It would be extreme folly to say that +nothing of that sort ought to be done, but I fully believe that today +the next pernicious thing to vice is charity in its broad and popular +sense. + +In the preceding chapters I have discussed the public and social +relations of classes, and those social topics in which groups of +persons are considered as groups or classes, without regard to personal +merits or demerits. I have relegated all charitable work to the domain +of private relations, where personal acquaintance and personal +estimates may furnish the proper limitations and guarantees. A man who +had no sympathies and no sentiments would be a very poor creature; but +the public charities, more especially the legislative charities, +nourish no man's sympathies and sentiments. Furthermore, it ought to +be distinctly perceived that any charitable and benevolent effort which +any man desires to make voluntarily, to see if he can do any good, lies +entirely beyond the field of discussion. It would be as impertinent to +prevent his effort as it is to force co-operation in an effort on some +one who does not want to participate in it. What I choose to do by way +of exercising my own sympathies under my own reason and conscience is +one thing; what another man forces me to do of a sympathetic character, +because his reason and conscience approve of it, is quite another +thing. + +What, now, is the reason why we should help each other? This carries us +back to the other illustration with which we started. We may +philosophize as coolly and correctly as we choose about our duties and +about the laws of right living; no one of us lives up to what he knows. +The man struck by the falling tree has, perhaps, been careless. We are +all careless. Environed as we are by risks and perils, which befall us +as misfortunes, no man of us is in a position to say, "I know all the +laws, and am sure to obey them all; therefore I shall never need aid +and sympathy." At the very best, one of us fails in one way and another +in another, if we do not fail altogether. Therefore the man under the +tree is the one of us who for the moment is smitten. It may be you +to-morrow, and I next day. It is the common frailty in the midst of a +common peril which gives us a kind of solidarity of interest to rescue +the one for whom the chances of life have turned out badly just now. +Probably the victim is to blame. He almost always is so. A lecture to +that effect in the crisis of his peril would be out of place, because +it would not fit the need of the moment; but it would be very much in +place at another time, when the need was to avert the repetition of +such an accident to somebody else. Men, therefore, owe to men, in the +chances and perils of this life, aid and sympathy, on account of the +common participation in human frailty and folly. This observation, +however, puts aid and sympathy in the field of private and personal +relations, under the regulation of reason and conscience, and gives no +ground for mechanical and impersonal schemes. + +We may, then, distinguish four things: + +1. The function of science is to investigate truth. Science is +colorless and impersonal. It investigates the force of gravity, and +finds out the laws of that force, and has nothing to do with the weal +or woe of men under the operation of the law. + +2. The moral deductions as to what one ought to do are to be drawn by +the reason and conscience of the individual man who is instructed by +science. Let him take note of the force of gravity, and see to it that +he does not walk off a precipice or get in the way of a falling body. + +3. On account of the number and variety of perils of all kinds by which +our lives are environed, and on account of ignorance, carelessness, and +folly, we all neglect to obey the moral deductions which we have +learned, so that, in fact, the wisest and the best of us act foolishly +and suffer. + +4. The law of sympathy, by which we share each others' burdens, is to +do as we would be done by. It is not a scientific principle, and does +not admit of such generalization or interpretation that A can tell B +what this law enjoins on B to do. Hence the relations of sympathy and +sentiment are essentially limited to two persons only, and they cannot +be made a basis for the relations of groups of persons, or for +discussion by any third party. + +Social improvement is not to be won by direct effort. It is secondary, +and results from physical or economic improvements. That is the reason +why schemes of direct social amelioration always have an arbitrary, +sentimental, and artificial character, while true social advance must +be a product and a growth. The efforts which are being put forth for +every kind of progress in the arts and sciences are, therefore, +contributing to true social progress. Let any one learn what hardship +was involved, even for a wealthy person, a century ago, in crossing the +Atlantic, and then let him compare that hardship even with a steerage +passage at the present time, considering time and money cost. This +improvement in transportation by which "the poor and weak" can be +carried from the crowded centres of population to the new land is worth +more to them than all the schemes of all the social reformers. An +improvement in surgical instruments or in anaesthetics really does more +for those who are not well off than all the declamations of the orators +and pious wishes of the reformers. Civil service reform would be a +greater gain to the laborers than innumerable factory acts and +eight-hour laws. Free trade would be a greater blessing to "the poor +man" than all the devices of all the friends of humanity if they could +be realized. If the economists could satisfactorily solve the problem +of the regulation of paper currency, they would do more for the wages +class than could be accomplished by all the artificial doctrines about +wages which they seem to feel bound to encourage. If we could get firm +and good laws passed for the management of savings-banks, and then +refrain from the amendments by which those laws are gradually broken +down, we should do more for the non-capitalist class than by volumes +of laws against "corporations" and the "excessive power of capital." + +We each owe to the other mutual redress of grievances. It has been +said, in answer to my argument in the last chapter about the Forgotten +Women and thread, that the tax on thread is "only a little thing," and +that it cannot hurt the women much, and also that, if the women do not +want to pay two cents a spool tax, there is thread of an inferior +quality, which they can buy cheaper. These answers represent the +bitterest and basest social injustice. Every honest citizen of a free +state owes it to himself, to the community, and especially to those who +are at once weak and wronged, to go to their assistance and to help +redress their wrongs. Whenever a law or social arrangement acts so as +to injure any one, and that one the humblest, then there is a duty on +those who are stronger, or who know better, to demand and fight for +redress and correction. When generalized this means that it is the duty +of All-of-us (that is, the State) to establish justice for all, from +the least to the greatest, and in all matters. This, however, is no new +doctrine. It is only the old, true, and indisputable function of the +State; and in working for a redress of wrongs and a correction of +legislative abuses, we are only struggling to a fuller realization of +it--that is, working to improve civil government. + +We each owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain +to _results_, but only to _chances_. They pertain to the _conditions_ +of the struggle for existence, not to any of the results of it; to the +_pursuit_ of happiness, not to the possession of happiness. It cannot +be said that each one has a right to have some property, because if one +man had such a right some other man or men would be under a +corresponding obligation to provide him with some property. Each has a +right to acquire and possess property if he can. It is plain what +fallacies are developed when we overlook this distinction. Those +fallacies run through _all_ socialistic schemes and theories. If we +take rights to pertain to results, and then say that rights must be +equal, we come to say that men have a right to be equally happy, and so +on in all the details. Rights should be equal, because they pertain to +chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are +provided or limited by the action of society. This, however, will not +produce equal results, but it is right just because it will produce +unequal results--that is, results which shall be proportioned to the +merits of individuals. We each owe it to the other to guarantee +mutually the chance to earn, to possess, to learn, to marry, etc., +etc., against any interference which would prevent the exercise of +those rights by a person who wishes to prosecute and enjoy them in +peace for the pursuit of happiness. If we generalize this, it means +that All-of-us ought to guarantee rights to each of us. But our modern +free, constitutional States are constructed entirely on the notion of +rights, and we regard them as performing their functions more and more +perfectly according as they guarantee rights in consonance with the +constantly corrected and expanded notions of rights from one generation +to another. Therefore, when we say that we owe it to each other to +guarantee rights we only say that we ought to prosecute and improve our +political science. + +If we have in mind the value of chances to earn, learn, possess, etc., +for a man of independent energy, we can go on one step farther in our +deductions about help. The only help which is generally expedient, even +within the limits of the private and personal relations of two persons +to each other, is that which consists in helping a man to help himself. +This always consists in opening the chances. A man of assured position +can by an effort which is of no appreciable importance to him, give aid +which is of incalculable value to a man who is all ready to make his +own career if he can only get a chance. The truest and deepest pathos +in this world is not that of suffering but that of brave struggling. +The truest sympathy is not compassion, but a fellow-feeling with +courage and fortitude in the midst of noble effort. + +Now, the aid which helps a man to help himself is not in the least akin +to the aid which is given in charity. If alms are given, or if we "make +work" for a man, or "give him employment," or "protect" him, we simply +take a product from one and give it to another. If we help a man to +help himself, by opening the chances around him, we put him in a +position to add to the wealth of the community by putting new powers in +operation to produce. It would seem that the difference between getting +something already in existence from the one who has it, and producing a +new thing by applying new labor to natural materials, would be so plain +as never to be forgotten; but the fallacy of confusing the two is one +of the commonest in all social discussions. + +We have now seen that the current discussions about the claims and +rights of social classes on each other are radically erroneous and +fallacious, and we have seen that an analysis of the general +obligations which we all have to each other leads us to nothing but an +emphatic repetition of old but well acknowledged obligations to perfect +our political institutions. We have been led to restriction, not +extension, of the functions of the State, but we have also been led to +see the necessity of purifying and perfecting the operation of the +State in the functions which properly belong to it. If we refuse to +recognize any classes as existing in society when, perhaps, a claim +might be set up that the wealthy, educated, and virtuous have acquired +special rights and precedence, we certainly cannot recognize any +classes when it is attempted to establish such distinctions for the +sake of imposing burdens and duties on one group for the benefit of +others. The men who have not done their duty in this world never can be +equal to those who have done their duty more or less well. If words +like wise and foolish, thrifty and extravagant, prudent and negligent, +have any meaning in language, then it must make some difference how +people behave in this world, and the difference will appear in the +position they acquire in the body of society, and in relation to the +chances of life. They may, then, be classified in reference to these +facts. Such classes always will exist; no other social distinctions can +endure. If, then, we look to the origin and definition of these +classes, we shall find it impossible to deduce any obligations which +one of them bears to the other. The class distinctions simply result +from the different degrees of success with which men have availed +themselves of the chances which were presented to them. Instead of +endeavoring to redistribute the acquisitions which have been made +between the existing classes, our aim should be to _increase, +multiply, and extend the chances_. Such is the work of civilization. +Every old error or abuse which is removed opens new chances of +development to all the new energy of society. Every improvement in +education, science, art, or government expands the chances of man on +earth. Such expansion is no guarantee of equality. On the contrary, if +there be liberty, some will profit by the chances eagerly and some will +neglect them altogether. Therefore, the greater the chances the more +unequal will be the fortune of these two sets of men. So it ought to +be, in all justice and right reason. The yearning after equality is the +offspring of envy and covetousness, and there is no possible plan for +satisfying that yearning which can do aught else than rob A to give to +B; consequently all such plans nourish some of the meanest vices of +human nature, waste capital, and overthrow civilization. But if we can +expand the chances we can count on a general and steady growth of +civilization and advancement of society by and through its best +members. In the prosecution of these chances we all owe to each other +good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guarantees of liberty and +security. Beyond this nothing can be affirmed as a duty of one group to +another in a free state. + + * * * * * + + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + | Typographical errors corrected in text: | + | | + | Page 27: millionnaires replaced by millionaires | + | | + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + + * * * * * + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, by +William Graham Sumner + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WHAT SOCIAL CLASSES OWE *** + +***** This file should be named 18603.txt or 18603.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/8/6/0/18603/ + +Produced by Jeff G., Jeannie Howse and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/18603.zip b/18603.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..59156fa --- /dev/null +++ b/18603.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1e77792 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #18603 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18603) |