The one question that should never be put to a petitioner for divorce is “Why?” When a man appeals to a magistrate for protection from someone who threatens to kill him, on the simple ground that he desires to live, the magistrate might quite reasonably ask him why he desires to live, and why the person who wishes to kill him should not be gratified.  Also whether he can prove that his life is a pleasure to himself or a benefit to anyone else, and whether it is good for him to be encouraged to exaggerate the importance of his short span in this vale of tears rather than to keep himself constantly ready to meet his God.

The only reason for not raising these very weighty points is that we find society unworkable except on the assumption that every man has a natural right to live.  Nothing short of his own refusal to respect that right in others can reconcile the community to killing him.  From this fundamental right many others are derived.  The American Constitution, one of the few modern political documents drawn up by men who were forced by the sternest circumstances to think out what they really had to face instead of chopping logic in a university classroom, specifies “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as natural rights.  The terms are too vague to be of much practical use; for the supreme right to life, extended as it now must be to the life of the race, and to the quality of life as well as to the mere fact of breathing, is making short work of many ancient liberties, and exposing the pursuit of happiness as perhaps the most miserable of human occupations.  Nevertheless, the American Constitution roughly expresses the conditions to which modern democracy commits us.  To impose marriage on two unmarried people who do not desire to marry one another would be admittedly an act of enslavement.  But it is no worse than to impose a continuation of marriage on people who have ceased to desire to be married.  It will be said that the parties may not agree on that; that one may desire to maintain the marriage the other wishes to dissolve.  But the same hardship arises whenever a man in love proposes marriage to a woman and is refused.  The refusal is so painful to him that he often threatens to kill himself and sometimes even does it.  Yet we expect him to face his ill luck, and never dream of forcing the woman to accept him.  His case is the same as that of the husband whose wife tells him she no longer cares for him, and desires the marriage to be dissolved.  You will say, perhaps, if you are superstitious, that it is not the same—­that marriage makes a difference.  You are wrong:  there is no magic in marriage.  If there were, married couples would never desire to separate.  But they do.  And when they do, it is simple slavery to compel them to remain together.

ECONOMIC SLAVERY AGAIN THE ROOT DIFFICULTY