THE LIMIT OF STATE ACTION. 529 



functions from individuals to the State. Yet every such transference 

 tends to counteract its object — the increase of general happiness. 

 For happiness is a state dependent upon the satisfaction arising from 

 a due performance of functions — i.e., the normal discharge of all its 

 functions constitutes the happiness of any organism. Yet every 

 additional function performed by the State restricts the number of 

 functions which can be normally discharged by individuals, and thus 

 reduces their happiness. 



Moreover, the greatest measure of happiness of whicn meh are 

 capable arises from perfect adaptation to the requirements of social 

 life. Suffering is the inevitable concomitant of man's as yet imper- 

 fact adjustment to social requirements, and the only means by which 

 a more perfect adjustment, and consequent increase of happiness, can 

 be obtained. For, if maladjustment were not productive of unhappi- 

 ness, or if it produced happiness, man's nature could not evolve into 

 greater congruity with the requirements of social life. Hence, it 

 follows that every function transferred from individuals to the State, 

 lessening, as it must, the evolution towards greater congruity, must 

 tend to reduce the happiness of which men otherwise would be cap- 

 able. 



The foregoing examination, limited as it naturally must be, has 

 established the fact that there are principles — i.e., natural laws — 

 which determine, apart from individual •induction or from empirical 

 balancing of advantages, whether any action of the State will have 

 beneficent or maleficent sequences — i.e., whether it will increase or 

 induce general happiness. Fortunately, such proof was not needed, 

 for no one, not even the advocates of empirical balancing of advant- 

 ages, doubted it when confronted by particular acts. That disorder 

 increases when violence goes unpunished ; that contracts are broken 

 lightly and frequently when justice is expensive or uncertain ; that 

 production is checked where taxation is uncertain or unjustly appor- 

 tioned ; that wealth declines where property is insecure; that it con- 

 centrates in the hands of a few where monopolies abound — are pro- 

 positions which are assented to without any balancing of advantages. 

 What, then, are the principles Avhich determine the sequences of State 

 actions, and, hence, the line of demarcation between the action of 

 the State and of individuals ? It must now be attempted to answer 

 this question. 



For in the social state the happiness of every individual is affected 

 by the conduct of all other individuals. Dishonesty, by causing 

 expense in supervision, tends to a reduction in the production of 

 wealth ; incapacity does the same, besides reducing the happiness of 

 tlie incapable and of their children ; licentiousness and over-indulgence, 

 while having similar results, cause useless expenditure on hospitals, 

 prisons, and lunatic asylums ; selfishness tends to aggression on the 

 rights of others, and thus reduces happiness directly. The greatest 

 measure of happiness, therefore, arises when all individuals, being 

 guided by ethical considerations, have adapted their conduct to the 

 requirements of social life. In order that such conduct may become 

 general all adults must receive benefits according to their capacity, 

 capacity being measured by fitness for the conditions of social life. 

 On no other plan could the evolution of higher social types from lower 



2i 



