{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:some-interrogation-points",
  "slug": "some-interrogation-points",
  "title": "Some Interrogation Points",
  "subtitle": "Questions for the clergy.",
  "excerpt": "A list of questions Ingersoll would have put to any clergyman willing to take the stand and answer under oath.",
  "year": 1885,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/some-interrogation-points/",
  "wordCount": 6069,
  "body": "A NEW party is struggling for recognition—a party with leaders who are\nnot politicians, with followers who are not seekers after place. Some of\nthose who suffer and some of those who sympathize, have combined.\nThose who feel that they are oppressed are organized for the purpose of\nredressing their wrongs. The workers for wages, and the seekers for\nwork have uttered a protest. This party is an instrumentality for the\naccomplishment of certain things that are very near and very dear to the\nhearts of many millions.\n\nThe object to be attained is a fairer division of profits between\nemployers and employed. There is a feeling that in some way the workers\nshould not want—that the industrious should not be the indigent. There\nis a hope that men and women and children are not forever to be the\nvictims of ignorance and want—that the tenement house is not always to\nbe the home of the poor, or the gutter the nursery of their babes.\n\nAs yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these aims have not been\nagreed upon. Many theories have been advanced and none has been adopted.\nThe question is so vast, so complex, touching human interests in so many\nways, that no one has yet been great enough to furnish a solution, or,\nif any one has furnished a solution, no one else has been wise enough to\nunderstand it.\n\n'The hope of the future is that this question will finally be\nunderstood. It must not be discussed in anger. If a broad and\ncomprehensive view is to be taken, there is no place for hatred or for\nprejudice. Capital is not to blame. Labor is not to blame. Both have\nbeen caught in the net of circumstances. The rich are as generous as\nthe poor would be if they should change places. Men acquire through the\nnoblest and the tenderest instincts. They work and save not only for\nthemselves, but for their wives and for their children. There is but\nlittle confidence in the charity of the world. The prudent man in his\nyouth makes preparation for his age. The loving father, having struggled\nhimself, hopes to save his children from drudgery and toil.\n\nIn every country there are classes—that is to say, the spirit of caste,\nand this spirit will exist until the world is truly civilized. Persons\nin most communities are judged not as individuals, but as members of a\nclass. Nothing is more natural, and nothing more heartless. These lines\nthat divide hearts on account of clothes or titles, are growing more and\nmore indistinct, and the philanthropists, the lovers of the human race,\nbelieve that the time is coming when they will be obliterated. We may\ndo away with kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich\nand poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and deformed,\nthe industrious and idle, and it may be, the honest and vicious. These\nclassifications are in the nature of things. They are produced for the\nmost part by forces that are now beyond the control of man—but the old\nrule, that men are disreputable in the proportion that they are useful,\nwill certainly be reversed. The idle lord was always held to be the\nsuperior of the industrious peasant, the devourer better than the\nproducer, and the waster superior to the worker.\n\nWhile in this country we have no titles of nobility, we have the rich\nand the poor—no princes, no peasants, but millionaires and mendicants.\nThe individuals composing these classes are continually changing. The\nrich of to-day may be the poor of to-morrow, and the children of the\npoor may take their places. In this country, the children of the poor\nare educated substantially in the same schools with those of the rich.\nAll read the same papers, many of the same books, and all for many years\nhear the same questions discussed. They are continually being educated,\nnot only at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by\nperpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is that those\nwho are rich in gold are often poor in thought, and many who have\nnot whereon to lay their heads have within those heads a part of the\nintellectual wealth of the world.\n\nYears ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute toward the\neducation of the children of the poor. The support of schools by general\ntaxation was defended on the ground that it was a means of providing for\nthe public welfare, of perpetuating the institutions of a free country\nby making better men and women. This policy has been pursued until at\nlast the schoolhouse is larger than the church, and the common people\nthrough education have become uncommon. They now know how little is\nreally known by what are called the upper classes—how little after all\nis understood by kings, presidents, legislators, and men of culture.\nThey are capable not only of understanding a few questions, but they\nhave acquired the art of discussing those that no one understands.\nWith the facility of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make\nbarricades of statistics, and chevaux-de-frise of inferences and\nassertions. They understand the sophistries of those who have governed.\n\nIn some respects these common people are the superiors of the so-called\naristocracy. While the educated have been turning their attention to the\nclassics, to the dead languages, and the dead ideas and mistakes that\nthey contain—while they have been giving their attention to ceramics,\nartistic decorations, and compulsory prayers, the common people have\nbeen compelled to learn the practical things—to become acquainted with\nfacts—by doing the work of the world. The professor of a college is\nno longer a match for a master mechanic. The master mechanic not only\nunderstands principles, but their application. He knows things as they\nare. He has come in contact with the actual, with realities. He knows\nsomething of the adaptation of means to ends, and this is the highest\nand most valuable form of education. The men who make locomotives, who\nconstruct the vast engines that propel ships, necessarily know more than\nthose who have spent their lives in conjugating Greek verbs, looking for\nHebrew roots, and discussing the origin and destiny of the universe.\n\nIntelligence increases wants. By education the necessities of the people\nbecome increased. The old wages will not supply the new wants. Man longs\nfor a harmony between the thought within and the things without. When\nthe soul lives in a palace the body is not satisfied with rags and\npatches. The glaring inequalities among men, the differences in\ncondition, the suffering and the poverty, have appealed to the good\nand great of every age, and there has been in the brain of the\nphilanthropist a dream—a hope, a prophecy, of a better day.\n\nIt was believed that tyranny was the foundation and cause of the\ndifferences between men—that the rich were all robbers and the poor all\nvictims, and that if a society or government could be founded on equal\nrights and privileges, the inequalities would disappear, that all would\nhave food and clothes and reasonable work and reasonable leisure, and\nthat content would be found by every hearth.\n\nThere was a reliance on nature—an idea that men had interfered with the\nharmonious action of great principles which if left to themselves would\nwork out universal wellbeing for the human race. Others imagined that\nthe inequalities between men were necessary—that they were part of a\ndivine plan, and that all would be adjusted in some other world—that\nthe poor here would be the rich there, and the rich here might be in\ntorture there. Heaven became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and\nhell their revenge.\n\nWhen our Government was established it was declared that all men are\nendowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which\nwere life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was then believed\nthat if all men had an equal opportunity, if they were allowed to make\nand execute their own laws, to levy their own taxes, the frightful\ninequalities seen in the despotisms and monarchies of the old world\nwould entirely disappear. This was the dream of 1776. The founders of\nthe Government knew how kings and princes and dukes and lords and barons\nhad lived upon the labor of the peasants. They knew the history of those\nages of want and crime, of luxury and suffering. But in spite of\nour Declaration, in spite of our Constitution, in spite of universal\nsuffrage, the inequalities still exist. We have the kings and\nprinces, the lords and peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopolists,\ncorporations, capitalists, workers for wages, have taken their places,\nand we are forced to admit that even universal suffrage cannot clothe\nand feed the world.\n\nFor thousands of years men have been talking and writing about the great\nlaw of supply and demand—and insisting that in some way this mysterious\nlaw has governed and will continue to govern the activities of the human\nrace. It is admitted that this law is merciless—that when the demand\nfails, the producer, the laborer, must suffer, must perish—that the\nlaw feels neither pity nor malice—it simply acts, regardless of\nconsequences. Under this law capital will employ the cheapest. The\nsingle man can work for less than the married. Wife and children are\nluxuries not to be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have fewer wants\nthan the educated, and for this reason can afford to work for less.\nThe great law will give employment to the single and to the ignorant in\npreference to the married and intelligent. The great law has nothing\nto do with food or clothes, with filth or crime. It cares nothing for\nhomes, for penitentiaries, or asylums. It simply acts—and some men\ntriumph, some succeed, some fail, and some perish.\n\nOthers insist that the curse of the world is monopoly. And yet, as\nlong as some men are stronger than others, as long as some are more\nintelligent than others, they must be, to the extent of such advantage,\nmonopolists. Every man of genius is a monopolist.\n\nWe are told that the great remedy against monopoly—that is to say,\nagainst extortion, is free and unrestricted competition. But after all,\nthe history of this world shows that the brutalities of competition are\nequaled only by those of monopoly. The successful competitor becomes a\nmonopolist, and if competitors fail to destroy each other, the instinct\nof self-preservation suggests a combination. In other words, competition\nis a struggle between two or more persons or corporations for the\npurpose of determining which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of\nextortion.\n\nIn this country the people have had the greatest reliance on\ncompetition. If a railway company charged too much a rival road was\nbuilt. As a matter of fact, we are indebted for half the railroads of\nthe United States to the extortion of the other half, and the same may\ntruthfully be said of telegraph lines. As a rule, while the exactions\nof monopoly constructed new roads and new lines, competition has either\ndestroyed the weaker, or produced the pool which is a means of keeping\nboth monopolies alive, or of producing a new monopoly with greater\nneeds, supplied by methods more heartless than the old. When a rival\nroad is built the people support the rival because the fares and\nfreights are somewhat less. Then the old and richer monopoly inaugurates\nwar, and the people, glorying in the benefits of competition, are absurd\nenough to support the old. In a little while the new company, unable to\nmaintain the contest, left by the people at the mercy of the stronger,\ngoes to the wall, and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to make the\nintelligent people pay not only the old price, but enough in addition to\nmake up for the expenses of the contest.\n\nIs there any remedy for this? None, except with the people themselves.\nWhen the people become intelligent enough to support the rival at a\nreasonable price; when they know enough to allow both roads to live;\nwhen they are intelligent enough to recognize a friend and to stand by\nthat friend as against a known enemy, this question will be at least on\nthe edge of a solution.\n\nSo far as I know, this course has never been pursued except in one\ninstance, and that is the present war between the Gould and Mackay\ncables. The Gould system had been charging from sixty to eighty cents a\nword, and the Mackay system charged forty. Then the old monopoly tried\nto induce the rival to put the prices back to sixty. The rival refused,\nand thereupon the Gould combination dropped to twelve and a half, for\nthe purpose of destroying the rival. The Mackay cable fixed the tariff\nat twenty-five cents, saying to its customers, \"You are intelligent\nenough to understand what this war means. If our cables are defeated,\nthe Gould system will go back not only to the old price, but will add\nenough to reimburse itself for the cost of destroying us. If you really\nwish for competition, if you desire a reasonable service at a reasonable\nrate, you will support us.\" Fortunately an exceedingly intelligent class\nof people does business by the cables. They are merchants, bankers, and\nbrokers, dealing with large amounts, with intricate, complicated, and\ninternational questions. Of necessity, they are used to thinking for\nthemselves. They are not dazzled into blindness by the glare of the\npresent. They see the future. They are not duped by the sunshine of a\nmoment or the promise of an hour. They see beyond the horizon of a\npenny saved. These people had intelligence enough to say, \"The rival who\nstands between us and extortion is our friend, and our friend shall not\nbe allowed to die.\"\n\nDoes not this tend to show that people must depend upon themselves, and\nthat some questions can be settled by the intelligence of those who buy,\nof those who use, and that customers are not entirely helpless?\n\nAnother thing should not be forgotten, and that is this: there is the\nsame war between monopolies that there is between individuals, and the\nmonopolies for many years have been trying to destroy each other. They\nhave unconsciously been working for the extinction of monopolies. These\nmonopolies differ as individuals do. You find among them the rich and\nthe poor, the lucky and the unfortunate, millionaires and tramps. The\ngreat monopolies have been devouring the little ones.\n\nOnly a few years ago, the railways in this country were controlled by\nlocal directors and local managers. The people along the lines were\ninterested in the stock. As a consequence, whenever any legislation was\nthreatened hostile to the interests of these railways, they had local\nfriends who used their influence with legislators, governors and juries.\nDuring this time they were protected, but when the hard times came many\nof these companies were unable to pay their interest. They suddenly\nbecame Socialists. They cried out against their prosperous rivals. They\nfelt like joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk about rights\nand wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they have passed into the hands\nof the richer roads—they were seized by the great monopolies. Now the\nimportant railways are owned by persons living in large cities or in\nforeign countries. They have no local friends, and when the time conies,\nand it may come, for the General Government to say how much these\ncompanies shall charge for passengers and freight, they will have no\nlocal friends. It may be that the great mass of the people will then be\non the other side. So that after all, the great corporations have been\nbusy settling the question against themselves.\n\nPossibly a majority of the American people believe to-day that in some\nway all these questions between capital and labor can be settled by\nconstitutions, laws, and judicial decisions. Most people imagine that a\nstatute is a sovereign specific for any evil. But while the theory has\nall been one way, the actual experience has been the other—just as the\nfree traders have all the arguments and the protectionists most of the\nfacts.\n\nThe truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred years all real\nadvance in legislation has been made by repealing laws. Of one thing\nwe must be satisfied, and that is that real monopolies have never\nbeen controlled by law, but the fact that such monopolies exist, is\na demonstration that the law has been controlled. In our country,\nlegislators are for the most part controlled by those who, by their\nwealth and influence, elect them. The few, in reality, cast the votes of\nthe many, and the few influence the ones voted for by the many. Special\ninterests, being active, secure special legislation, and the object of\nspecial legislation is to create a kind of monopoly—that is to say, to\nget some advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests, and kings ruled, robbed,\ndestroyed, and duped, and their places have been taken by corporations,\nmonopolists, and politicians. The large fish still live on the little\nones, and the fine theories have as yet failed to change the condition\nof mankind.\n\nLaw in this country is effective only when it is the recorded will of a\nmajority. When the zealous few get control of the Legislature, and laws\nare passed to prevent Sabbath-breaking, or wine-drinking, they succeed\nonly in putting their opinions and provincial prejudices in legal\nphrase. There was a time when men worked from fourteen to sixteen hours\na day. These hours have not been lessened, they have not been shortened\nby law. The law has followed and recorded, but the law is not a leader\nand not a prophet. It appears to be impossible to fix wages—just as\nimpossible as to fix the values of all manufactured things, including\nworks of art. The field is too great, the problem too complicated, for\nthe human mind to grasp.\n\nTo fix the value of labor is to fix all values—labor being the\nfoundation of all values. The value of labor cannot be fixed unless we\nunderstand the relations that all things bear to each other and to man.\nIf labor were a legal tender—if a judgment for so many dollars could be\ndischarged by so many days of labor,—and the law was that twelve hours\nof work should be reckoned as one day, then the law could change the\nhours to ten or eight, and the judgments could be paid in the shortened\ndays. But it is easy to see that in all contracts made after the\npassage of such a law, the difference in hours would be taken into\nconsideration.\n\nWe must remember that law is not a creative force. It produces nothing.\nIt raises neither corn nor wine. The legitimate object of law is to\nprotect the weak, to prevent violence and fraud, and to enforce honest\ncontracts, to the end that each person may be free to do as he desires,\nprovided only that he does not interfere with the rights of others. Our\nfathers tried to make people religious by law. They failed. Thousands\nare now trying to make people temperate in the same manner. Such efforts\nalways have been and probably always will be failures. People who\nbelieve that an infinite God gave to the Hebrews a perfect code of laws,\nmust admit that even this code failed to civilize the inhabitants of\nPalestine.\n\nIt seems impossible to make people just or charitable or industrious\nor agreeable or successful, by law, any more than you can make them\nphysically perfect or mentally sound. Of course we admit that good\npeople intend to make good laws, and that good laws faithfully and\nhonestly executed, tend to the preservation of human rights and to the\nelevation of the race, but the enactment of a law not in accordance with\na sentiment already existing in the minds and hearts of the people—the\nvery people who are depended upon to enforce this law—is not a help,\nbut a hindrance. A real law is but the expression, in an authoritative\nand accurate form, of the judgment and desire of the majority. As\nwe become intelligent and kind, this intelligence and kindness find\nexpression in law.\n\nBut how is it possible to fix the wages of every man? To fix wages is to\nfix prices, and a government to do this intelligently, would necessarily\nhave to have the wisdom generally attributed to an infinite Being. It\nwould have to supervise and fix the conditions of every exchange of\ncommodities and the value of every conceivable thing. Many things can be\naccomplished by law, employeers may be held responsible for injuries to\nthe employed. The mines can be ventilated. Children can be rescued\nfrom the deformities of toil—burdens taken from the backs of wives and\nmothers—houses made wholesome, food healthful—that is to say, the weak\ncan be protected from the strong, the honest from the vicious, honest\ncontracts can be enforced, and many rights protected.\n\nThe men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance, compete not only\nwith other men of strength, but with the inventions of genius. What\nwould doctors say if physicians of iron could be invented with curious\ncogs and wheels, so that when a certain button was touched the proper\nprescription would be written? How would lawyers feel if a lawyer could\nbe invented in such a way that questions of law, being put in a kind of\nhopper and a crank being turned, decisions of the highest court could be\nprophesied without failure? And how would the ministers feel if somebody\nshould invent a clergyman of wood that would to all intents and purposes\nanswer the purpose?\n\nInvention has filled the world with the competitors not only of\nlaborers, but of mechanics—mechanics of the highest skill. To-day the\nordinary laborer is for the most part a cog in a wheel. He works with\nthe tireless—he feeds the insatiable. When the monster stops, the\nman is out of employment, out of bread; He has not saved anything. The\nmachine that he fed was not feeding him, was not working for him—the\ninvention was not for his benefit. The other day I heard a man say\nthat it was almost impossible for thousands of good mechanics to get\nemployment, and that, in his judgment, the Government ought to furnish\nwork for the people. A few minutes after, I heard another say that he\nwas selling a patent for cutting out clothes, that one of his machines\ncould do the work of twenty tailors, and that only the week before he\nhad sold two to a great house in New York, and that over forty cutters\nhad been discharged.\n\nOn every side men are being discharged and machines are being invented\nto take their places. When the great factory shuts down, the workers who\ninhabited it and gave it life, as thoughts do the brain, go away and it\nstands there like an empty skull. A few workmen, by the force of\nhabit, gather about the closed doors and broken windows and talk about\ndistress, the price of food and the coming winter. They are convinced\nthat they have not had their share of what their labor created. They\nfeel certain that the machines inside were not their friends. They look\nat the mansion of the employeer and think of the places where they live.\nThey have saved nothing—nothing but themselves. The employeer seems to\nhave enough. Even when employeers fail, when they become bankrupt, they\nare far better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is better\nthan the toilers' best.\n\nThe capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells the workingman\nthat he must be economical—and yet, under the present system, economy\nwould only lessen wages. Under the great law of supply and demand every\nsaving, frugal, self-denying workingman is unconsciously doing what\nlittle he can to reduce the compensation of himself and his fellows. The\nslaves who did not wish to run away helped fasten chains on those who\ndid. So the saving mechanic is a certificate that wages are high enough.\nDoes the great law demand that every worker live on the least possible\namount of bread? Is it his fate to work one day, that he may get enough\nfood to be able to work another? Is that to be his only hope—that and\ndeath?\n\nCapital has always claimed and still claims the right to combine.\nManufacturers meet and determine upon prices, even in spite of the great\nlaw of supply and demand. Have the laborers the same right to consult\nand combine? The rich meet in the bank, the clubhouse, or parlor.\nWorkingmen, when they combine, gather in the street. All the organized\nforces of society are against them. Capital has the army and the navy,\nthe legislative, the judicial, and the executive departments. When the\nrich combine, it is for the purpose of \"exchanging ideas.\" When the poor\ncombine, it is a \"conspiracy.\" If they act in concert, if they really do\nsomething, it is a \"mob.\" If they defend themselves, it is \"treason.\"\nHow is it that the rich control the departments of government? In this\ncountry the political power is equally divided among the men. There are\ncertainly more poor than there are rich. Why should the rich control?\nWhy should not the laborers combine for the purpose of controlling the\nexecutive, legislative, and judicial departments? Will they ever find\nhow powerful they are?\n\nIn every country there is a satisfied class—too satisfied to care. They\nare like the angels in heaven, who are never disturbed by the miseries\nof earth. They are too happy to be generous. This satisfied class asks\nno questions and answers none. They believe the world is as it should\nbe. All reformers are simply disturbers of the peace. When they talk\nlow, they should not be listened to; when they talk loud, they should be\nsuppressed.\n\nThe truth is to-day what it always has been—what it always will\nbe—those who feel are the only ones who think. A cry comes from the\noppressed, from the hungry, from the down-trodden, from the unfortunate,\nfrom men who despair and from women who weep. There are times when\nmendicants become revolutionists—when a rag becomes a banner, under\nwhich the noblest and bravest battle for the right.\n\nHow are we to settle the unequal contest between men and machines? Will\nthe machine finally go into partnership with the laborer? Can these\nforces of nature be controlled for the benefit of her suffering\nchildren? Will extravagance keep pace with ingenuity? Will the workers\nbecome intelligent enough and strong enough to be the owners of the\nmachines? Will these giants, these Titans, shorten or lengthen the hours\nof labor? Will they give leisure to the industrious, or will they make\nthe rich richer, and the poor poorer?\n\nIs man involved in the \"general scheme of things\"? Is there no pity, no\nmercy? Can man become intelligent enough to be generous, to be just;\nor does the same law or fact control him that controls the animal and\nvegetable world? The great oak steals the sunlight from the smaller\ntrees. The strong animals devour the weak—everything eating something\nelse—everything at the mercy of beak and claw and hoof and tooth—of\nhand and club, of brain and greed—inequality, injustice, everywhere.\n\nThe poor horse standing in the street with his dray, overworked,\nover-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other horses groomed to\nmirrors, glittering with gold and silver, scorning with proud feet the\nvery earth, probably indulges in the usual socialistic reflections, and\nthis same horse, worn out and old, deserted by his master, turned into\nthe dusty road, leans his head on the topmost rail, looks at donkeys in\na field of clover, and feels like a Nihilist.\n\nIn the days of savagery the strong devoured the weak—actually ate\ntheir flesh. In spite of all the laws that man has made, in spite of\nall advance in science, literature and art, the strong, the cunning, the\nheartless still live on the weak, the unfortunate, and foolish. True,\nthey do not eat their flesh, they do not drink their blood, but they\nlive on their labor, on their self-denial, their weariness and want.\nThe poor man who deforms himself by toil, who labors for wife and child\nthrough all his anxious, barren, wasted life—who goes to the grave\nwithout even having had one luxury—has been the food of others. He has\nbeen devoured by his fellow-men. The poor woman living in the bare\nand lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing night and day to keep\nstarvation from a child, is slowly being eaten by her fellow-men. When\nI take into consideration the agony of civilized life—the number of\nfailures, the poverty, the anxiety, the tears, the withered hopes, the\nbitter realities, the hunger, the crime, the humiliation, the shame—I\nam almost forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most\nmerciful form in which man has ever lived upon his fellow-man.\n\nSome of the best and purest of our race have advocated what is known\nas Socialism. They have not only taught, but, what is much more to\nthe purpose, have believed that a nation should be a family; that the\ngovernment should take care of all its children; that it should provide\nwork and food and clothes and education for all, and that it should\ndivide the results of all labor equitably with all.\n\nSeeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the destitution and crime,\nthese men were willing to sacrifice, not only their own liberties, but\nthe liberties of all.\n\nSocialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery.\nNothing, in my judgment, would so utterly paralyze all the forces, all\nthe splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilization\nof man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some masters, a few are\nsupposed to be free; but in a socialistic state all would be slaves.\n\nIf the government is to provide work it must decide for the worker\nwhat he must do. It must say who shall chisel statues, who shall\npaint pictures, who shall compose music, and who shall practice the\nprofessions. Is any government, or can any government, be capable\nof intelligently performing these countless duties? It must not only\ncontrol work, it must not only decide what each shall do, but it must\ncontrol expenses, because expenses bear a direct relation to products.\nTherefore the government must decide what the worker shall eat and\nwherewithal he shall be clothed; the kind of house in which he shall\nlive; the manner in which it shall be furnished, and, if this government\nfurnishes the work, it must decide on the days or the hours of leisure.\nMore than this, it must fix values; it must decide not only who shall\nsell, but who shall buy, and the price that must be paid—and it must\nfix this value not simply upon the labor, but on everything that can be\nproduced, that can be exchanged or sold.\n\nIs it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this?\n\nThe present condition of the world is bad enough, with its poverty and\nignorance, but it is far better than it could by any possibility be\nunder any government like the one described. There would be less hunger\nof the body, but not of the mind. Each man would simply be a citizen of\na large penitentiary, and, as in every well regulated prison, somebody\nwould decide what each should do. The inmates of a prison retire\nearly; they rise with the sun; they have something to eat; they are not\ndissipated; they have clothes; they attend divine service; they have but\nlittle to say about their neighbors; they do not suffer from cold; their\nhabits are excellent, and yet, no one envies their condition. Socialism\ndestroys the family. The children belong to the state. Certain officers\ntake the places of parents. Individuality is lost.\n\nThe human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for any possible\ncomfort. You remember the old fable of the fat dog that met the lean\nwolf in the forest. The wolf, astonished to see so prosperous an animal,\ninquired of the dog where he got his food, and the dog told him that\nthere was a man who took care of him, gave him his breakfast, his\ndinner, and his supper with the utmost regularity, and that he had all\nthat he could eat and very little to do. The wolf said, \"Do you think\nthis man would treat me as he does you?\" The dog replied, \"Yes, come\nalong with me.\" So they jogged on together toward the dog's home. On the\nway the wolf happened to notice that some hair was worn off the dog's\nneck, and he said, \"How did the hair become worn?\" \"That is,\" said the\ndog, \"the mark of the collar—my master ties me at night.\" \"Oh,\" said\nthe wolf, \"Are you chained? Are you deprived of your liberty? I believe\nI will go back. I prefer hunger.\"\n\nIt is impossible for any man with a good heart to be satisfied with this\nworld as it now is. No one can truly enjoy even what he earns—what he\nknows to be his own, knowing that millions of his fellow-men are in\nmisery and want. When we think of the famished we feel that it is almost\nheartless to eat. To meet the ragged and shivering makes one almost\nashamed to be well dressed and warm—one feels as though his heart was\nas cold as their bodies.\n\nIn a world filled with millions and millions of acres of land waiting to\nbe tilled, where one man can raise the food for hundreds, millions are\non the edge of famine. Who can comprehend the stupidity at the bottom of\nthis truth?\n\nIs there to be no change? Are \"the law of supply and demand,\" invention\nand science, monopoly and competition, capital and legislation always to\nbe the enemies of those who toil?\n\nWill the workers always be ignorant enough and stupid enough to give\ntheir earnings for the useless? Will they support millions of soldiers\nto kill the sons of other workingmen? Will they always build temples\nfor ghosts and phantoms, and live in huts and dens themselves? Will they\nforever allow parasites with crowns, and vampires with mitres, to\nlive upon their blood? Will they remain the slaves of the beggars they\nsupport? How long will they be controlled by friends who seek favors,\nand by reformers who want office? Will they always prefer famine in the\ncity to a feast in the fields? Will they ever feel and know that\nthey have no right to bring children into this world that they cannot\nsupport? Will they use their intelligence for themselves, or for others?\nWill they become wise enough to know that they cannot obtain their own\nliberty by destroying that of others? Will they finally see that every\nman has a right to choose his trade, his profession, his employment,\nand has the right to work when, and for whom, and for what he will?\nWill they finally say that the man who has had equal privileges with all\nothers has no right to complain, or will they follow the example\nthat has been set by their oppressors? Will they learn that force, to\nsucceed, must have a thought behind it, and that anything done, in order\nthat it may endure, must rest upon the corner-stone of justice?\n\nWill they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish the spark that\nsheds a little light in every brain? Will they ever recognize the fact\nthat labor, above all things, is honorable—that it is the foundation of\nvirtue? Will they understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that\nevery healthy man must earn the right to live? Will honest men stop\ntaking off their hats to successful fraud? Will industry, in the\npresence of crowned idleness, forever fall upon its knees, and will the\nlips unstained by lies forever kiss the robed impostor's hand?—North\nAmerican Review, March, 1887.\n"
}