INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM. ixj 



stroy its power ! The economist of the old school may boldly 

 claim that so far as he has had a free hand his promises have 

 been realized. There has been a larger population with increased 

 means of subsistence and diminished necessity of toil, a people 

 better housed, better fed, better clothed, with fewer relative fail- 

 ures of self-support ; and if the teaching which has been partially 

 adopted has brought about so much, everything it promised 

 would have been secured had it been fully followed. 



It will be conceded by the most fearless and thoroughgoing- 

 advocates of the liberty of individual development that it must 

 be supported by large measures of co-operative action. The free- 

 dom and activity of association thus indicated are in no way in- 

 consistent with the fullest theory of individual responsibility. A 

 single workman may be powerless to induce his employer to 

 modify in any particular the terms of his employment, but when 

 workmen band together they may meet employers as equal pow- 

 ers. Such liberty of combination is a development and not a 

 limitation of individual liberty. Another step is taken when the 

 parties to such an arrangement as has been suggested seek to 

 make its provisions compulsory on others, be they workmen or 

 employers, who may enter into similar relations ; and the princi- 

 ples of former economists would generally prompt them to con- 

 demn such attempts at compulsion. The Factory Acts were op- 

 posed in this way, although they rested upon different grounds ; 

 for, though in their consequences they affected the labor of adults, 

 they were propounded for the defense of young persons and 

 children unable to protect themselves or to be the parties to free 

 contracts. Legislation has, however, been extended to control 

 directly the employment of fully responsible persons, and this has 

 been defended by three lines of argument. It is urged that, when 

 the unchecked liberty of individuals destroys in fact the liberty 

 of action of larger multitudes, it is in defense of liberty of action 

 that those individuals are controlled. If a sea wall is necessary 

 to prevent a large tract from being periodically inundated, it can 

 not be permitted to the owner of a small patch along the coast to 

 leave the wall unbuilt along his border, and thus threaten the 

 lands of his neighbors with inundation. Again, it is urged that 

 when the overwhelming majority of persons engaged in a par- 

 ticular industry, employers and employed, are agreed upon the 

 necessity of certain rules to govern the industry, it is not merely 

 a convenience, but is a fulfillment of their liberty, to clothe with 

 the sanction of law the regulations upon which they are agreed. 

 Lastly, it is submitted that there are individuals in whom the 

 sense of responsibility is so weak, and whose development of fore- 

 thought is so hopeless, that it is necessary the law should regu- 

 late their conduct as it may regulate the conduct of children. The 



TOL. L. 18 



