If the individual will not or cannot protect himself against industrial mishaps, it is the duty of society to come to his aid. Society has a varied interest in the welfare of its workers. First, the workers are members of society. Second, society in the long run does provide for all. Third, society enjoys the product of labor. We have learned already that the interests of society are best promoted by giving attention to the interests of its individual members. Any large group of dependents, we may safely assume, is a menace to the social group of which they are a part. Furthermore, it is doubtful if society as a whole would be more greatly hindered if some form of insurance were provided in place of the prevalent haphazard methods now employed in our charity work. It is a fact generally overlooked that nowhere in this country do the authorities intentionally permit individuals to starve or to go unattended if aged or ill. In other words, our state-regulated charities guarantee a minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. Since this is true, the question may be raised: Why change the plan now in general use? A change is desirable if for no other reason than to make the recipient feel that he is not an object of charity, but an unfortunate partner in a mutual protective concern controlled by the state. Finally, it is doubtful if a well-regulated insurance scheme that provides contentment as well as protection would in the long run cost society a dollar. Workers free from worry turn out more product than those who fear to take a day off with a day's loss of wages or those who return to work before they are physically fit. In any case society as such consumes the product of labor and ought out of sheer justice to be willing to protect laborers against risks for which they themselves are not responsible.