Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1888-11-03
THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY,
n Befort Bax in London Commonwealth
(CmClusiOH).


to regulate the details of the private
life Of individuals in points where it
does not directly come in contact
with public life, any resistance on
the part Of individuals would be JUS
titled. Those entrusted with the
carrying out Of the mandates Of the
majority in such a case should be
treated as common enemies, and If
necessary, destroyed. Even though
the private conduct of individuals
might have an indirect bearing on
the commonwea, this would not
Justify direct interference; and tenn
porary inconvenience would be bet
ter than the infraCtion Of the prin-
ciple Of the inviolability of the indi-
vldual from Coerclve restraint within
his own sphere. Let us suppose a
case. The habit becomes prevalent
in Socialist community of sitting
up late at night. This habit rem
ders some of those addicted to it not
80 capable as they would otherwise
be in performing their share in the
labor Of the community. Now, an
otherwise sane majority might here
easily lose its head and enact cur
few. In this it would clearly be 60
ing beyond its function, inasmuch
as the habit in question is primarily
"a private and purely self-regarding
matter. Let the majority, if so
minded, exact more stringent stand
ards of discipline and efficiency in
work, and enforce obedience to
| them-such enactments should be
binding on all good citizens. But
an enactment compelling the citizen
to 20 to bed at u particular time
should clearly be resisted at all costs
OF course the probabilities are that
a habit which really tended,
although indirectly, to be detri-
mental to the community, would be
voluntarily given up in d society
where social morality prevailed.
Again, the fact of an action being
distasteful to the majority may be a
valid ground for its not being OBJ
truded on public notice, but is no
ground for its being forbidden in
itself. For instance, a certain or
der of Partisan palate dovours with
great gusto species of large garden
snail called EScargOt. TO the pres
ent writer, the notion Of eating these
snails is extremely disgusting. Now.
supposing an intelligent but unprin-
cipled majority took the same view,
as very likely it might, there would
likely enough be proposals carried
for prohibiting the consumption of
these articles of diet-on the ground
that it was bestial and degrading.
Here, again, would be case for re-
sistance to the knife. But take the
other side to this escargOt question.
The aforesaid molluscs are in Paris
hawked about in the early morning
IN barrows, around the sides of
which they crawl, the sight of them
tending to produc "nausea and loss
of appetite" Ito employ the phrase
ology of the quack medicine adver
tsement) in those about to take
breakfast. Now, it is obvious that
if this result obtained with the ma
jority, the majority would have a
clear right to prohibit the public
exposure of these commodities, even
} if the would.be consumer were
thereby indirectly debarred from OBJ
tanning them.
The same reasoning applies to
sexual matters Society is directly
concerned with the (D production of
offspring; (2) with the care that
things sexually offensive to the ma
iority shall not be obtruded on pub
lie notice, or any obscenlty on
young persons" Beyond this all
sexual actions lof course excluding
criminal violence or fraud), are mat
tiers of purely individual concern.
When a sexual act, from whatever
cause, Is not and cannot be produc-
tive of offspring, the feeling of the
majority has no locus aandl in the
matter. Not only is it properly out
side the sphere of coercion, but ii
does not concern morality at all. II
is a question simply of individual
, taste. The latter may be good OF
bad, but this is an aesthetic and not