Public Debts Impolitic and Immoral. There is another consideration that is usually overlooked in this connection, and thus helps to obscure the real issue. Under our highly artificial and complex monetary system, the "property" left by rich men is seldom real wealth, but consists almost wholly of claims upon, or tribute exacted from society at large. Real wealth is highly perishable-food, clothing, houses, tools, machinery, &c.and if such wealth were given to another in large quantities it would rapidly deteriorate or require a considerable annual expenditure to preserve its value. But by ourmoneymarket system of funds, stocks, shares, and rents, permanent incomes are derived from perishable wealth, to the injury of all who are forced to pay these incomes. Money has been diverted from its original and beneficial purpose of facilitating the mutual exchange of commodities "a tool of exchange," as some economists have termed it into a means of enabling large numbers of wealthy individuals to live permanently at the expense of their working fellowcitizens. This is the real reason of the objection of the ancient law-givers to usury, that it enables men to live without doing any useful work; and the objection of modern socialists to interest is, not that to take interest for the use of money is morally wrong, but that the general application of the principle of national or municipal interest-bearing debts, railway shares, &c., afford the conditions by which perishable wealth is changed into permanent property, and offers facilities for the most gigantic and harmful system of gambling the world has ever seen. All wealth so acquired is a means of impoverishing those whose work produces all the real wealth that is consumed annually. Adam Smith again and again states this fact, that the annual consumption of the whole population, including all the idle rich, is produced annually by the workers; and it is because the system of interest enables false wealth, which is really tribute exacted from the people, to go on increasing indefinitely, and thus tends continually to impoverish the workers and to increase the numbers of the idle, that it has been condemned as both impolitic and evil. And we now see that, as it leads to results which are opposed to "equality of opportunity," it is also ethically unjust. Hereditary Wealth bad for its Recipients. There is yet another consideration which leads to the same conclusion as to the evil of hereditary or unearned wealth-its injurious effects to those who receive it, and through them to the whole community. It is only the strongest and most evenly balanced natures that can pass unscathed through the ordeal of knowing that enormous wealth is to be theirs on the death of a parent or relative. The worst vices of our rotten civilization are fostered by this class of prodigals, surrounded by a crowd of gamblers and other parasites, who assist in their debaucheries and seek every opportunity of obtaining a share of the plunder. This class of evils is too well known and comes too frequently and too prominently before the public to need dwelling upon here; but it serves to complete the proof of the evil effects of private inheritance, and to demonstrate in a practical way the need for the adoption of the just principle of equality of opportunity. Conclusion. Under such a system of society as is here suggested, when all were well educated and well trained and were all given an equal start in life, and when every one knew that however great an amount of wealth he might accumulate he would not be allowed to give or bequeath it to others in order that they might be free to live lives of idleness or pleasure, the mad race for wealth and luxury would be greatly diminished in intensity, and most men would be content with such a competence as would secure to them an enjoyable old age. And as work of every kind would have to be done by men who were as well educated and as refined as their employers, while only a small minority could possibly become employers, the greatest incentive would exist towards the voluntary association of workers for their common good, thus leading by a gradual transition to various forms of co-operation adapted to the conditions of each case. With such equality of education and endowment none would consent to engage in unhealthy occupations which were not absolutely necessary for the well-being of the community, and when such work was necessary they would see that every possible precautions were taken against injury. All the most difficult labour-problems of our day would thus receive an easy solution. I submit, therefore, that the adoption of the principle of Equality of Opportunity as our guide in all future legislation, should be acceptable to every social reformer who believes in the supremacy of Justice. To the individualist it would mean the fullest application of his principle of individual freedom limited only by the like freedom of others, since this principle is a mere mockery under the present negation of fair and equal conditions to the bulk of the citizens of all civilized states. And it should be equally acceptable to the socialist, because the greatest obstacle to his teachings would be removed by the abolition of ignorance and of that grinding poverty and want which leaves no time or energy for any struggle but that for bare existence. Equality of Opportunity, founded as it is upon simple Justice between man and man, is therefore well fitted to become the watchword of the social reformers of the Twentieth Century. CHAPTER XXIX JUSTICE, NOT CHARITY, AS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIAL REFORM. AN APPEAL TO MY READERS 1 OUR conceptions of social duty of what constitutes justice in social life will be to a considerable extent dependent upon the views we hold as to man's spiritual nature, and more especially upon the relation believed to exist between the present life and that which is to follow it. On this subject there has been a great change of opinion during the last forty years. The old doctrine as to the nature of the future life was based upon the idea of rewards and punishments, which were supposed to be dependent upon dogmatic beliefs and ceremonial observances. The atheist, the agnostic, even the Unitarian, were for centuries held to be certain of future punishment; and, with the unbaptised infant, the Sabbathbreaker, and the abstainer from church-going, were alike condemned to hell-fire. Beliefs and observances were then held to be of the first importance; disposition, conduct, health, and happiness were of little or no account. The new doctrines-founded almost wholly on the teachings of Modern Spiritualism, though now widely accepted even among non-Spiritualists are the very reverse of all this. They are based upon the conception of mental and moral continuity; that there are no imposed punishments ; that dogmatic beliefs are absolutely unimportant, except so far as they affect our relations with our fellows; and that forms and ceremonies, and the complex observances of most religions, are equally unimportant. On the other hand, what are of the most vital importance are motives with the actions that result from them, and everything that develops and exercises the whole mental, moral, and physical nature, resulting in happy and healthy lives for every human being. The future life will be simply a continuation of the present, under new conditions ; and its happiness or misery will be dependent upon how we have developed all that is best in our nature here. 1 The following pages (with verbal modifications) constitute the main portion of an Address to the International Congress of Spiritualists, at St. James's Hall, in June, 1898. Under the old theory the soul could be saved by a mere change of beliefs and the performance of certain ceremonial observances. The body was nothing; happiness was nothing; pleasure was often held to be a sin; hence any amount of punishment, torture, and even death were considered justifiable in order to produce this change and save the soul. On the new theory it is the body that develops, and to some extent saves, the soul. Disease, pain, and all that shortens and impoverishes life, are injurious to the soul as well as to the body. Not only is a healthy body necessary for a sound mind, but equally so for a fully-developed soul-a soul that is best fitted to commence its new era of life and progress in the spirit world. Inasmuch as we have fully utilized and developed all our faculties bodily, mental, and spiritual and have done all in our power to aid others in a similar development, so have we prepared future well-being for ourselves and for them. All this is the common knowledge and belief of Spiritualists; and I should not have thought it necessary to restate it were it not that their creed is often misunderstood and misrepresented by outsiders, and also because it is preliminary to certain conclusions which, I think, logically follow from it, but which are not so generally accepted among us. It seems to me that, holding these beliefs as to the future life and what is the proper and only preparation |