Of all the wild asses that roam the plain, the wildest wild ass that
roams the plain is indubitably the one that lifts his voice and heel
against that socialism known as "public ownership of public utilities,"
on the ground of "principle." There may be honest, and in some degree
intelligent, opposition on the ground of expediency. Many persons whom
it is a pleasure to respect believe that a Government railway, for
example, would be less efficiently managed than the same railway in
private hands, and that political dangers lurk in the proposal so
enormously to increase the number of Federal employes as Government
ownership of railways would entail. They think, in other words, that
the policy is inexpedient. It is a duty to reason with them, which, as
a rule, one can do without being insulted. But the chap who greets the
proposal with a howl of derision as "Socialism!" is not a respectable
opponent. Eyes he has, but he sees not; ears--oh! very abundant
ears--but he hears not the still, small voice of history nor the still
smaller voice of common sense.
Obviously to those who, having eyes, do see, public ownership of
anything is a step in the direction of Socialism, for perfect Socialism
means public ownership of everything. But "principle" has nothing to
do with it The principle of public ownership is already accepted and
established. It has no visible opponents except in the camp of the
Anarchists, and fewer of them are visible there than soap and water
would reveal. Antagonists of the _principle_ of Socialism lost their
fight when the first human government held the dedicatory exercises of a
Cave of Legislation. Since then the only question about the matter has
been how far the _extension_ of Socialism is expedient Some would draw
the limiting line at one place, some at another; but only a fool thinks
there can be government without it, or good government without a great
deal of it (The fact that we have always had a great deal of it yet
never had good government affirms nothing that it is worth while to
consider.) The word-worn example of our Postal Department is only one of
a thousand instances of pure Socialism. If it did not exist how bitter
an opposition a proposal to establish it would evoke from Adversaries of
the Red Rag! The Government builds and operates bridges with general
assent; but as the late General Walker pointed out, it might under some
circumstances be more economical, or better otherwise, to build and
operate a ferry boat, which is a floating bridge. But that would be
opposed as rank Socialism.
The truth is that the men and women of principle are a pretty dangerous
class, generally speaking--and they are generally speaking. It is they
that hamper us in every war. It is they who, preventing concentration
and regulation of un-abolishable evils, promote their distribution and
liberty. Moral principles are pretty good things--for the young and
those not well grounded in goodness. If one have an impediment in his
thought, or is otherwise unequal to emergencies as they arise, it is
safest to be provided beforehand with something to refer to in order
that a right decision may be made without taking thought. But "spirits
of a purer fire" prefer to decide each question as it comes up, and to
act upon the merits of the case, unbound and unpledged. With a
quick intelligence, a capable conscience and a habit of doing right
automatically one has little need to burden one's mind and memory with
a set of solemn principles formulated by owlish philosophers who do not
happen to know that what is right is merely what, in the long run and
with regard to the greater number of cases, is expedient Principle
is not always an infallible guide. For illustration, it is not always
expedient--that is, for the good of all concerned--to tell the truth,
to be entirely just or merciful, to pay a debt. I can conceive a case in
which it would be right to assassinate one's neighbor. Suppose him to
be a desperate scoundrel of a chemist who has devised a means of
setting the atmosphere afire. The man who should go through life on an
inflexible line of principle would border his path with a havoc of human
happiness.
What one may think perfect one may not always think desirable. By
"perfect" one may mean merely complete, and the word was so used in
my reference to Socialism. I am not myself an advocate of "perfect
Socialism," but as to Government ownership of railways, there is
doubtless a good deal to be said on both sides. One argument in its
favor appears decisive; under a system subject to popular control the
law of gravitation would be shorn of its preeminence as a means of
removing personal property from the baggage car, and so far as it is
applicable to that work might even be repealed.