Page 120 - erewhon

which society wants to eat, and which cannot defend itself.
This is ample. Who shall limit the right of society except
society itself? And what consideration for the individual
is tolerable unless society be the gainer thereby? Where-
fore should a man be so richly rewarded for having been
son to a millionaire, were it not clearly provable that the
common welfare is thus better furthered? We cannot seri-
ously detract from a man’s merit in having been the son of
a rich father without imperilling our own tenure of things
which we do not wish to jeopardise; if this were otherwise
we should not let him keep his money for a single hour; we
would have it ourselves at once. For property is robbery, but
then, we are all robbers or would-be robbers together, and
have found it essential to organise our thieving, as we have
found it necessary to organise our lust and our revenge.
Property, marriage, the law; as the bed to the river, so rule
and convention to the instinct; and woe to him who tam-
pers with the banks while the flood is flowing.
But to return. Even in England a man on board a ship
with yellow fever is held responsible for his mischance, no
matter what his being kept in quarantine may cost him. He
may catch the fever and die; we cannot help it; he must take
his chance as other people do; but surely it would be des-
perate unkindness to add contumely to our self-protection,
unless, indeed, we believe that contumely is one of our best
means of self-protection. Again, take the case of maniacs.
We say that they are irresponsible for their actions, but we
take good care, or ought to take good care, that they shall
answer to us for their insanity, and we imprison them in

11