"Not at all, or, at least, only in the larger sense. If they were entitled to life, neither nature nor the law would deprive them of it—if to liberty, neither could interfere with it—if to the pursuit of happiness, we should have to reconstruct their minds."
"Then, in Heaven's name, what are they entitled to?" I exclaimed.
"First, under certain conditions, to the best fruits of properly organized society; to light—enlightenment—then to opportunity to have an equal chance for what they are willing to work for."
"Among other things, to work?" I hazarded, feeling that he had delivered himself into my hands. "Every man has a right to labor at whatever work and for whatever prices he pleases," I said; "that you will admit is fundamental?"
"Provided you allow me to define what you mean—provided it does not injure his neighbor. You, as a lawyer, quote your Sic utere tuo ut non."
"If the laborer and his employer contract, no one else has a right to interfere."
"Not the public—if they are injured by it?"
"Except by law."
"Who make the laws? The people in theory now, and some day they will do it in fact. As the spirit of the time changes, the interpretation of the law will change, and the spirit is changing all the time."
"Not in this particular."