Page:Philosophical Review Volume 20.djvu/277

263 with, and has the power to claim the result of the contract. What he possesses are his capacities on the one hand and the use of his tools, etc., on the other; and what he earns as the result of the contract is his reward or wages. The right of contract carries with it, therefore, the right of property, and vice versa. It is within these conditions that the rights of labour are asserted. And both can be determined and carried out to any extent consistent with the position of the labourer in the state.

The only question regarding these rights is the limits within which they can be asserted. Now these limits are determined simply by reference to (1) the well-being of the whole community, and (2) the share of the individual workman in the general good. It is not in the interests of the community to sanction contracts for labour which are made under any compulsion, for the essence of a contract implies freedom of personality in the forming of the contract. Compelled labour is slave labour in all but the name; and such forms of labour stand condemned by the very purposes of the community. It is again not in the interests of a community to sanction contracts for labour which is carried on under conditions which imperil the life and safety of those engaged in the labour, for that is subordinating the person to the contract instead of the contract to the person. Hence, e.g., 'sweated' labour, which is carried on at the expense of the well- being of the toiler, must be suppressed in the interests of the community. The same is true of labour under dangerous conditions; hence the origin of protective legislation for labour. Further, the well-being of a community can only be secured by the fullest and freest development of the power of the labouring individuals composing the community. An absolutely essential condition for this is an efficient provision of the very means of subsistence. There can be no good life without life itself. To be unable to secure this absolute minimum for subsistence is therefore hostile to the very well-being of the community. From this it follows as a direct corollary that a minimum living wage ought to be fixed and recognized by the State as resolutely as it is insisted on by labourers themselves. Once more, since