The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1901-05-16
Paper Read Before the Cha,tauQuo Circle.


IF I WERE asked the question:
"What shall the state do for me ?''
my first impulse would be to
reply: Let me alone. I ask
nothing more from the state; I want
no interference. I want absolute free
dom to think as please; to speak as I
please and to do as please. I want to
go and come whenever 1 choose; 1
want to buy and 'sett where 1 feel like
it and when 1 feel like it, and to pur-
chase whatever suits my fancy. I
want no paternal government regulat-
ing my food or clothing, drink,
education or business pursuits. 1 want
to be my own government, law unto
myself. 1 want no superior. 1 want
power and influence. I want to own
wealth, possess culture, lands and men,
"But, hold onw some one would
say, "what kind of a world would it be
if all were possessed of such insatiate
desires ?"
But is not that democracy? Is it
not liberty? Should 1 not be allowed
to do what 1 please with my own, with
whatever 1 can acquire by my labor :?
After all why should the state do any,
thing for me?
It is evident in the first place that
the qualification of mans desires must
be limited, if only by his physical
powers. 1t is the infinite being alone
whose will is law unto himself. Be-
sides, the wants of individuals and, in
these cases at least, there must certainly
be a limit. The prevention of this
clash of interests cannot be left in the
hands of parties concerned, but must
be in the care of the state. Without it
the world would revert to a condition
of barbarism and savagery. Hence the
state must at least do this for me:
See that my liberty is not infringed by
others, and conversely that I do not
interfere with the liberty of others.
Some scientists, indeed, recognize no
abstract rights in man. A distinguished
professor has stated that man has no
more rights than rattlesnake. Profess
sor Huxley declared that we are born
into this world, "small reddish persons, {"
with no discernable abstract or concrete
rights of any description, beyond those
we can establish by competition with
our fellow-beings. But the philosophy
of these gentlemen, however profound
they may be in their own field of in
vestigation, certainly seems narrow
and one-sided when carried into the
domain of ethics. "You must struggle
against Others" they say, land that you
may have more, others must have less.
Make your own way, like blade of
grass, or the mountain torrent or, if
you have genius, like the bolt of light
ming. Your desires need only be
limited by physical laws, but these set
impossible bounds"
To these professors man is merely an
animal of more delicate construction
than the rest of animal creation. From
their purely material point of view,
man, as an animal, has no more rights
than any other; and from this stand
point they are presumably correct
Their science deals only with physical
laws and, if those laws alone govern
man, he is entitled to no more than he
can grab, and he may retain all he can
acquire by superior strength or skill OF
craft, however applied.
Religion-that is, the religion for the
most part preached in the churches-in
many instances takes the opposite view
The teachers overlook mans physical
wants. "What rights" they argue, 'can
be claimed by this clod of earth, SO
fallible and SO vain? You speak OF
power, wealth, authority; do you not
know that all power is from God