Section G (I.). 

 SOCIAL AND STATISTiCAL SCIENCE. 



1.— THE LIMITS OF STATE INTERFEEENCE. 



By W. M. HUGHES. 



The fundamental and primary principle underlying the relation- 

 ship between the State and the individual is that the former is justified 

 in interfering with the individual's freedom of action only when this 

 freedom is incompatible with that of other individuals, or when it is 

 restricted or threatened by some act on the part of other individuals. 



The number of those whose freedom is thus affected is not material. 

 It would be easy to quote cases where laws have been made, and properly 

 made, to protect the interest of a mere handful of individuals ; and 

 where a grave injustice has been done the law has been amended in the 

 interests of a single person. And, of course, the law very frequently 

 protects small groups of persons to the detriment of the general com- 

 munity. 



This is the basic principle, and the State ought not to interfere 

 with the individual's freedom of action in any direction for any other 

 reason. Now, this principle extends to all acts of the State, and 

 includes interference in the industrial sphere. There is a prevalent 

 idea that though this is very right and proper in other spheres of social 

 .activity it is altogether out of place in the industrial sphere. 



It is not difficult to understand how such an opinion has arisen. 

 Those persons whose freedom of action the State restrains very naturally 

 object to any interference which curtails their opportunities for profit, 

 while others not now so situated, but who hope to be so, help to swell 

 the chorus of indignant protest. 



At first sight, too, this protest seems well founded. Interference 

 by the State in these matters is an innovation, and is the more irritating 

 because it is not hallowed by precedent. The State, according to the 

 individualist school of economists, ought to confine itself to keeping 

 order, and allowing the combatants in the industrial ring to fight their 

 own battle. The result of such a struggle, it is said, is the survival of 

 the fittest. This result makes for the general good of the nation — the 

 elimination of the unfit, the triumph of the strong, the energetic, the 

 provident, the inventive, and, in turn, means the direction of the 

 nation by such men, and the transmission of these qualities to their 

 progeny. As a consequence, too, it operates as a check upon the 

 fertility of the unfit by reason of the absence of those easy conditions 

 which make for increase in population. 



Any further interference by the State must be at the expense of 

 the best and most useful citizens. The talented and energetic are 

 handicapped. The industrial machine is slowed down to suit the 

 least active. The independence of the individual is sapped : ambition 

 dies, invention is discouraged, progress gives way to stagnation. 



