If we assume that, as _order_ belongs to the essence of the State, so _subordination_ too is founded in its nature, then we see that the subordinates, or those who have received preferment, disproportionately _overcharge_ and _overreach_ those who are put in the lower ranks. But the latter take heart (first from the Socialist standpoint, but certainly with egoistic consciousness later, of which we will therefore at once give their speech some coloring) for the question, By what then is your property secure, you creatures of preferment?--and give themselves the answer, By our refraining from interference! And so by _our_ protection! And what do you give us for it? Kicks and disdain you give to the "common people"; police supervision, and a catechism with the chief sentence "Respect what is _not yours_, what belongs to _others_! respect others, and especially your superiors!" But we reply, "If you want our respect, _buy_ it for a price agreeable to us. We will leave you your property, if you give a due equivalent for this leaving." Really, what equivalent does the general in time of peace give for the many thousands of his yearly income? another for the sheer hundred-thousands and millions yearly? What equivalent do you give for our chewing potatoes and looking calmly on while you swallow oysters? Only buy the oysters of us as dear as we have to buy the potatoes of you, then you may go on eating them. Or do you suppose the oysters do not belong to us as much as to you? You will make an outcry over _violence_ if we reach out our hands and help consume them, and you are right. Without violence we do not get them, as you no less have them by doing violence to us.