556 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



it is perilous not to know, but he rec- 

 ognizes that this is the essential fact uf 

 the laissez-faire view. He says : " What, 

 then, remains of the laissez-faire doc- 

 trine ? Nothing but this : that it is 

 useless, and may be dangerous, to con- 

 trol natural forces until their character 

 is at first well understood." "Nothing 

 but this " ! And is the thorough un- 

 derstanding of social forces in their com- 

 plicated actions and reactions really so 

 trivial a thing? We have been wont 

 to consider sociology — the true social 

 science inductively based and deductive- 

 ly verified as dependent for its establish- 

 ment upon all other sciences — as the 

 most intricate and difficult of all, as but 

 just fairly reached in the progress of 

 the human intellect, and as requiring the 

 highest range of intelligence for its suc- 

 cessful investigation ; and, if so, then by 

 insisting that the recognition and under- 

 standing of social laws is an indispen- 

 sable prerequisite to safe and effective 

 social action, the believers in laissez 

 faire put the highest premium upon in- 

 telligence, both as an instrument of the 

 establishment of truth and a means of 

 general education. 



Again, and in another aspect, lais- 

 sez faire implies, and by its nature pro- 

 vides for the best mental development. 

 Its advocates insist that, in dealing with 

 social subjects, there should be more re- 

 liance upon individual action, more per- 

 sonal responsibility, more spontaneous 

 co-operation, and larger demands upon 

 private enterprise. But this view obvi- 

 ously makes intelligence the controlling 

 factor in social life, for successful self- 

 direction is only possible with increas- 

 ing knowledge, keener discrimination, 

 and greater mental activity on the part 

 of the actors. Not only is the highest 

 pressure thus put iipon individuals, but 

 the conditions are favorable for what 

 is most needed — self - improvement. 

 There is no such thing as corporate in- 

 telligence, it is ever an individual thing. 

 Whatever view we take of the nature 

 of mind, it is essentially a personal attri- 



bute. If we hold it to be a special di- 

 vine gift, it is still a gift to the individ- 

 ual primarily for individual uses. If 

 we hold that mind has been naturally 

 evolved, its development has come 

 through individual experiences as a 

 preparation for the care of individual 

 interests. On any view mind is a per- 

 sonal endowment, its aptitudes a per- 

 sonal inheritance, its unfolding a result 

 of personal exertion, and its exercise a 

 matter of personal responsibility. Tlje 

 system, therefore, which calls for great- 

 er self-reliance and more independent 

 self-direction, must not only assign a 

 prerogative value to the social func- 

 tion of mind, but it adopts the only 

 possible means of attaining its highest 

 advantages. If it be said that the idea 

 of sufficient general intelligence for 

 social guidance is a chimera, that on! 3 

 shows that the laissez-faire view over- 

 estimates what mind can be made to do. 

 Can it be for a moment maintained 

 that the opposite school, which favors 

 corporate and wholesale social regula- 

 tion, the tendency of which is to para- 

 lyze the incentives to personal effort, 

 places a higher estimate upon "mind 

 as a social factor " than that which in- 

 sists that citizens should rely more upon 

 themselves and not shirk their individ- 

 ual duties? And what less is this high- 

 er trust in state compulsion as against 

 voluntary action than a virtual abdi- 

 cation of the function of intelligence in 

 the control of social activities ? Work- 

 ing by deputy is assuredly not the best 

 way of securing intelligent action. Is it 

 too much to say that the system of co- 

 ercive regulation flourishes best in igno- 

 rance? Ignorant constituencies clam- 

 or for endless legislative intermeddling, 

 and equally ignorant representatives 

 give them what they want. Notwith- 

 standing all Mr. Ward says about the 

 ascendency of laissez-faire ideas, do 

 they control the public policy, or are 

 they not limited to a few teachers who 

 are generally disparaged as mere specu- 

 lative doctrinaires? Are the members 



