THE FISCAL QUESTION 143 



compromise which shall delimit and fix their boundaries ; 

 and they differ as to which should be end and which should 

 be means, or as to the limits that should be set to their 

 respective functions. The Socialist, weary of the strife 

 and strain of competing private interests, would take away 

 the occasion of these, so far as it lies in private property, 

 and would restrict the possession of it. The Individualist, 

 regarding the development of corporate social enterprise 

 as ' ' interference " with that of the individual, and fearing 

 the mechanisation of society, would reduce the functions 

 of society to the minimum. Both admit that the recent 

 development of state and municipal activity has had the 

 result of invading the province of individual enterprise. 

 But they differ in that the Socialist welcomes this invasion 

 because it limits the individual's power of doing wrong ; 

 while the Individualist bewails it because it limits his 

 power to do right. It is tacitly assumed by both alike that 

 individual and commercial action are antagonistic, that one 

 can be extended only by limiting the other. For is it not 

 plain that when the state or municipality undertakes a 

 business it ousts individuals, and that the more the former 

 does in an organised capacity the less room is left for private 

 enterprise ? How can it be otherwise ? it is asked. How 

 is it possible that the state or the city can do more and 

 more for its members, and at the same time enable them 

 to do more and more for themselves ? 



And yet this apparent impossibility is precisely what has 

 taken place. The history of the growth of civilised society 

 is one continuous illustration of the concomitant increase 

 of social organisation and of individual freedom. The 

 civilised state does more for its citizens than the barbarous 

 state, and at the same time enables them to do more for 



