166 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



then we must turn back to paternalism, discipline, and authority ; but 

 to have a combination of liberty and dependence is inrpossible." 



Chapter VIII is a very spicy discussion " On the Value as a So- 

 ciological Principle of the Rule to mind one's Own Business," 

 and here the author remarks : " 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 the head of a fam- 

 ily ; and when he becomes head of a family he has duties to his wife 

 and 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 excep- 

 tional position if he does not find in his immediate surroundings peo- 

 ple who need his care and have some sort of personal claim upon him. 

 If, now, he is able to fulfill all this and to take care of anybody outside 

 his family and his dependants, he must have a surplus of energy, wis- 

 dom, 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. . . . 

 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 dan- 

 gers. 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 of 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 every- 

 body 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 espe- 



