PAPERS READ IN SECTION GC/ 



1.— THE LIMIT OF STATE ACTION. 



7?)- MAX HIRSCH. 



Two causes combine to foster the belief in the omnipotence of 

 the State and to extend governmental functions in every modern 

 community. One is the advent to political power of what are termed 

 the working classes. Dissatisfied with the conditions in which they 

 have to cany on their lives, they, not unnaturally, look to the only 

 power visible to them, the State, to improve these conditions, and 

 Socialism has crystallised their vague expectations into a system 

 which places scarcely any limit on State functions. This, the more 

 active force is supported, on the part of other classes, by a growth 

 in altruism, which also, with more or less intensity, looks to the State 

 to improve the condition of the mass of the people. Hence results a 

 tendency, temporarily irresistible, to extend governmental functions, 

 and every such additional function circumscribes the functions of 

 seme or all individuals. Individual freedom is thus being confined to 

 ever narrowing limits, the power of the State and the number of its 

 officials is constantly being extended, and with it goes of necessity a 

 constantly increasing transfer of expenditure from the individual 

 citizen to the State. The question whether there are any limits to 

 this transfer of functions and wealth to the State, and where the line 

 of demarcation between the legitimate functions of State and of 

 individuals lies, is therefore becoming one urgently calling for 

 solution. 



Two schools confront each other. One postulates that every 

 demand for an extension of governmental activities may and must 

 bo judged by " the balance of advantages" which it confers upon the 

 community. Though it includes many persons who do not favour the 

 governmental organisation at which Socialism aims — it nevertheless 

 may fairly be termed the socialistic school of thought, because it does 

 not postulate any limit in principle to such extension. 



The other school of thought denies the possibility of any such 

 empiric determination of '" the balance of advantages" arising from 

 any addition to the activities of the State. It teaches that certain 

 functions naturally belong to the State, while others naturally belong 

 to individuals; that the line of demarcation separating the functions 

 of the one from those of the other can be clearly established from 

 known and admitted principles, and that any encroachment by 

 either on the functions of the other must be detrimental to the com- 

 munity. This school, though materially differing in its conceptions 

 from the individualism taught in the first half of the last century, 

 nevertheless may be termed individualistic, because it teaches that 

 there are rights of the individual with Avhich the State may not 

 interfere. 



The object of this paper is to criticise the teaching of the 

 former school of thought, and to support that of the latter. 



