< prev
next>
142
THE EGO AND HIS OWN
sorship as that of personal wilfulness, but otherwise
showing itself extremely inclined and willing to tyr-
annize over the press by " press laws " ; i. e., the civic
liberals want liberty of writing for themselves ; for,
as they are law-abiding, their writings will not bring
them under the law. Only liberal matter, i. e. only
lawful matter, is to be allowed to be printed; oth-
erwise the " press laws " threaten " press-penalties."
If one sees personal liberty assured, one does not no-
tice at all how, if a new issue happens to arise, the
most glaring unfreedom becomes dominant. For one
is rid of orders indeed, and " no one has any business
to give us orders," but one has become so much the
more submissive to the--law. One is enthralled now
in due legal form.
In the citizen-State there are only " free people,"
who are compelled to thousands of things (e. g. to de-
ference, to a confession of faith, and the like). But
what does that amount to? Why, it is only the--
State, the law, not any man, that compels them!
What does the commonalty mean by inveighing
against every personal order, i. e. every order not
founded on the " cause," on " reason," etc.? It is
simply fighting in the interest of the " cause "*
against the dominion of " persons " ! But the mind's
cause is the rational, good, lawful, etc. ; that is the
" good cause." The commonalty wants an impersonal
ruler.
Furthermore, if the principle is this, that only the
cause is to rule man--to wit, the cause of morality,
* [Sache, which commonly means thing.]
MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW 143
the cause of legality, etc.,--then no personal balking
of one by the other may be authorized either (as for-
merly, e. g., the commoner was balked of the aristo-
tocratic offices, the aristocrat of common mechanical
trades, etc.) ; i. e. free competition must exist. Only
through the thing* can one balk another (e. g. the
rich man balking the impecunious man by money, a
thing), not as a person. Henceforth only one lord-
ship, the lordship of the State, is admitted ; personally
no one is any longer lord of another. Even at birth
the children belong to the State, and to the parents
only in the name of the State, which, e. g., does not
allow infanticide, demands their baptism, etc.
But all the State's children, furthermore,, are of
quite equal account in its eyes (" civic or political
equality "), and they may see to it themselves how
they get along with each other; they may compete.
Free competition means nothing else than that
every one can present himself, assert himself, fight,
against another. Of course the feudal party set itself
against this, as its existence depended on an absence
of competition. The contests in the time of the Res-
toration in France had no other substance than this,--
that the bourgeoisie was struggling for free competi-
tion, and the feudalists were seeking to bring back the
guild system.
Now, free competition has won, and against the
guild system it had to win. (See below for the further
discussion.)
If the Revolution ended in a reaction, this only
* [Sache]