VI ADMINISTRATIVE NIHILISM 283 



proved, that Government will manage these things 

 worse than private enterprise would do. Nor is 

 thciv ,-iny agreement upon the still more ini- 

 portant question whether the State ought, or 

 ought not, to regulateTthe distribution of w^ltfi. 

 If it ought not, then all legislation which regu- 

 lates inheritance the Statute of Mortmain, and 

 the like is wrong in principle ; and, when a rich 

 man dies, we ought to return to the state of 

 Nature, and have a scramble for his property. 

 If, on the other hand, the authority of the State is 

 legitimately employed in regulating these matters, 

 then it is an open question, to be decided entirely 

 by evidence as to what tends to the highest good 

 of the people, whether we keep our present laws, 

 or whether we modify them. At present the 

 State protects men in the possession and enjoy- 

 ment of their property, and defines what that 

 property is. The justification for its so doing is 

 that its action promotes the good of the people. 

 If it can be clearly proved that the abolition of 

 property would tend still more to promote the 

 ? good of the people, the State will have the same 

 justification for abolishing property that it now 

 has for maintaining it. 



Again, I suppose it is universally agreed that 

 it would be useless and absurd i<>r the Staio 

 to attempt to__pEOinata- friendship- and sympathy. 

 between man ami man directly. But I see no_ 

 reason why, it' it be otherwise expedient, theJState 



