What Social Classes Owe to Each Other | Page 6

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