556 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



where upon the official anvil. The more 

 patient submit, but the stronger and 

 more rebellious characters are mad- 

 dened, and any weapon is considered 

 right as the weapon of the weaker 

 against the stronger." 



England, the writer admits, is in a 

 different position. " We have inherited," 

 he says, "splendid traditions of volunta- 

 ryism, which hardly any other nation lias 

 inherited ; and it is to voluntaryism, the 

 inspiring genius of the English char- 

 acter, that we must look in the future, 

 as we did in the past, for escape from 

 all difficulties. If we can not by reason, 

 by influence, by example, by strenuous 

 effort, and by personal sacrifice, mend 

 the bad places of civilization, we cer- 

 tainly can not do it by force." At the 

 same time England has entered, he con- 

 siders, on the dangerous path of paternal 

 and protective legislation. As yet she 

 has only soiled her ankles so he ex- 

 presses it where other nations have 

 waded deep, and it is not yet too late 

 " to step back from the mire and slough 

 which lie in front of her." The question 

 is, Will she? Under the guise of social- 

 ism and humanitarianism, the spirit of 

 compulsion is in the air. The well- 

 meaning everywhere are longing to see 

 whether they are not, or can not com- 

 mand, a majority in order that they may 

 begin to wield that compulsive power 

 which it is one of the strange delusions 

 of the modern world that majorities 

 have a right to exercise in everything. 

 Yet if one were to propose to put any 

 one of these well-meaning persons under 

 the absolute control of another well- 

 meaning person, who should prescribe 

 for him his comings and goings, decide 

 for him what causes he should support, 

 how much money he should give in 

 charity and for what particular objects, 

 how much wealth he should accumulate 

 and at what point the fruits of his in- 

 dustry should pass over to the state, we 

 greatly fear that well-meaning person 

 number one would make strong objec- 

 tions. True, he wants, with the aid of 



those who agree with him in opinion, 

 to settle these points for others; but he 

 has never seriously considered what it 

 would be like to part with his own lib- 

 erty. Ordinary human beings require 

 something more than an assurance of 

 another person's good intentions before 

 they are willing to make a surrender to 

 him of any large measure of their free- 

 dom of action; and we imagine that 

 many of those who to-day advocate an 

 indefinite increase in the power of the 

 state do so under a fond impression that 

 their particular views and schemes, hu- 

 manitarian or other, will always prevail. 

 They, with the help of others like-mind- 

 ed, want to govern the world for its good. 

 Well, what tyranny ever professed less? 

 Good intentions are excellent things to 

 have, but when they make alliance with 

 the policeman's truncheon they become 

 committed to many devious lines of pol- 

 icy, and quickly assume all the odious 

 characteristics of tyranny. 



But does not the present unchecked 

 action of laissez-faire, it may be asked, 

 threaten danger to society ? Society as 

 an organism, we answer, will always be 

 subject more or less to disturbances; 

 but the important thing is to see that 

 we do not interfere with the compen- 

 sating actions which, like organisms in 

 general when thrown out of equilibrium, 

 it has the power to set up. Action and 

 reaction in the social world, as else- 

 where, are equal and opposite ; and 

 given the fact that man's instinct is to 

 pursue happiness, and the further fact 

 that the happiness of each individual is 

 largely dependent on the dispositions of 

 others, the actions and reactions taking 

 place in a society not strangled by gov- 

 ernment control would steadily tend 

 toward an increase of the general wel- 

 fare. Public opinion is, in all free com- 

 munities, a powerful agent of reform ; 

 but it would be still more powerful if it 

 did not so often seek to embody itself in 

 law. We have yet to be convinced that 

 the world has suffered injury by any 

 application of laissez-faire. Under that 



