SOCIETY DEPENDS ON MAN 285 



of his rights against society than of the rights of society 

 against him. 



Let us now turn to the Socialist. He is the victim of 

 the same fallacy as to the relative independence of the 

 State and the individual, but he accentuates the other aspect 

 of it. Not willingly, I admit. He would no more abolish 

 the individual than the Individualist would abolish the 

 State. He would even develop his powers, giving to 

 many more men, to all men, the opportunities of realizing 

 themselves to the uttermost. His intentions are good, 



his heart is in the right place ; but his headjnay_be wrong 



all the same. And if his Socialism carries him towards 

 the appropriation of the means of industry by the State, 

 towards the abolition of private property, then he is very 

 far wrong. For, in spite of his good intentions he would 



reduce the individual into a state of dependence and tute- 



mge^_wherethe responsibilities, and therefore the oppor- 

 tunities of realizinghis rational and moral nature would 



disappear. It is not by abolishing private property, my 



friends, nor even by weakening the sense of its sacredness 



that good citizens can be created. It is by extending and 

 deepening that sense, till men recognize that what is 

 another's, as well as that which is their own, demands their 

 care and protection. The distinction between meum and 



tuum must remain, under all social changes. If the State 

 appropriated all things to-day it would have in reality to 

 distribute them again to-morrow. Nay, its very appro- 

 priation would in itself be distribution ; for its assumption 

 of the means and materials of production and distribution 

 would not be the abrogation of them, nor would it lift 

 away the toil of dealing with them. The same industrial 

 and commercial operations would have to be carried on, 



