PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G (l.). 627 



logically to do otherwise. Eeluctantly they concede the right of the 

 State to interfere, to regulate — in some cases to own and control — 

 industries where free competition no longer exists, or where, as in the 

 case of railways, telegTaphs, water, and other services, ownership by 

 individuals practically amounts to a monopoly. Having conceded so 

 much, however, they still continue to insist that any further departure 

 from " first principles " will and must be disastrous. Apparently they 

 fail to realise that they have given away the whole case by the admission 

 that there were occasions on which their doctrine could not be safely 

 applied. 



I propose shortly to show not only must exceptions be made, but 

 that the basic principle of their theory is both unscientific and illogical. 



First let us take the facts of the case. Competition is no doubt a 

 law of nature, but so is co-operation ; and the one is as general and 

 important as the other. It may be admitted that to competition 

 between individual organisms is due the present highly developed types. 

 It is also true that amongst men the effects of this competition has been 

 everywhere modified by persistent efforts to protect by co-operation 

 the weak from the strong. The elimination of the unfit by competition 

 has never been permitted to go to those extremes which a logical 

 application of the law of the " survival of the fittest " demanded. 

 Society has always recognised its duties to the so-called unfit, and the 

 rigors of competition have never been permitted to operate without 

 some check. 



Competition, perhaps, is the primary law of life, but co-operation 

 is certainly that of society. Amongst primitive communities the State 

 generally protects the individual but sHghtly. With civilisation the 

 restraint of the individual for the benefit of the community becomes 

 more marked. Life and property are protected from the operations of 

 the strong and unscrupidous. The weaker individuals by co-operation 

 prevent the stronger from exercising their strength against the rest of 

 the community. 



kSociety has always handicapped the strong. Nature has always 

 handicapped the weak. The handicap imposed by society has at times 

 b)een insufficient, at other times unjust. This has arisen in most cases 

 through the government being in the hands of a minority, which 

 naturally acted in a manner conformable to its own interests. Where 

 the government has been in the hands of a class the interests of that 

 class have always been paramount. 



Where government is in the hands of the whole people it is hardly 

 likely that State action in favor of a class wall be permitted. It may, 

 therefore, be laid down that in all democracies the people will not 

 hesitate to take whatever action may be necessary to prevent indi- 

 viduals acting in a way detrimental to the welfare of the general com- 

 munity ; and, in doing this, no regard will be paid to any so-called 

 first principles. Society is not moved to take action by any other 

 consideration than that of self-preservation. The only " principles " 

 it is concerned with are those of justice and common sense. 



It has not been necessary until recently for the State to interfere 

 to any great extent in the industrial sphere. I am not concerned here 



