THE GREAT POLITICAL SUPERSTITION. 301 



their fundamentals. What does this prove ? It can not be by chance 

 that they thus agree. They agree because the alleged creating of 

 rights was nothing else than giving formal sanction and better defini- 

 tion to those assertions of claims and recognitions of claims which 

 naturally originate from the individual desires of men who have to 

 live in presence of one another. 



Comparative sociology discloses another group of facts having the 

 same implication. Along with social progress it becomes in an in- 

 creasing degree the business of the State, not only to give formal 

 sanction to men's rights, but also to defend them against aggressors. 

 Before permanent government exists, and in many cases after it is 

 considerably developed, the rights of each individual are asserted and 

 maintained by himself, or by his family. Alike among savage tribes 

 at present, among civilized peoples in the past, and even now in unset- 

 tled parts of Europe, the punishment for murder is a matter of private 

 concern : "the sacred duty of blood revenge " devolves on some one 

 of a cluster of relatives. Similarly, compensations for aggressions on 

 property, and for injuries of other kinds, are in early states of society 

 obtained by each man for himself. But as social organization ad- 

 vances, the central ruling power undertakes more and more to secure 

 to individuals their personal safety, the safety of their possessions, 

 and, to some extent, the enforcement of their claims established by 

 contract. Originally concerned almost exclusively with defense of 

 the society as a whole against other societies, or with conducting its 

 attacks on other societies. Government has come more and more to dis- 

 charge the function of defending individuals against one another. It 

 needs but to recall the days when men habitually carried weapons, or 

 to bear in mind the greater safety to person and property achieved by 

 improved police-administration during our own time, or to note the 

 increased facilities now given for recovering small debts, to see that 

 the securing to each individual the unhindered pursuit of the objects 

 of life within limits set by others' like pursuits, is more and more rec- 

 ognized as a duty of the State. In other words, along with social 

 progress there goes not only a fuller recognition of these which we 

 call natural rights, but also a better enforcement of them by Govern- 

 ment : Government becomes more and more the servant to these essen- 

 tial requirements. 



An allied and still more significant change has accompanied this. 

 In early stages, at the same time that the State failed to protect the 

 individual against aggression, it was itself an aggressor in multitudi- 

 nous ways. Those ancient societies which progressed enough to leave 

 records, having all been conquering societies, show us everywhere the 

 traits of the militant regime. As, for the effectual organization of 

 fighting bodies, the soldiers, absolutely obedient, must show no per- 

 sonal independence ; so, for the effectual organization of fighting soci- 

 eties, citizens must have their individualities subordinated. Private 



