Jakuaey 4, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



19 



necessity of having a navy equal to the 

 combined navies of several other European 

 powers, so governments feel that they must 

 overtop the corporate aggregations of 

 wealth with which they may have to cope. 



Were there space we might discuss the 

 question how far the movement toward 

 governmental interference can profitably 

 be pushed. The doctrine of socialism lies 

 at the extreme opposite pole from the doc- 

 trine of laissez faire, and we are moving 

 toward socialism dangerously fast. Yet 

 there are insuperable obstacles to the suc- 

 cess of socialistic projects. Governmental 

 power and efficiency are limited and, when 

 one class of society attempts actually to 

 rule another, there is always a tendency to 

 corruption, inefficiency, lack of adaptabil- 

 ity to new conditions and abuse of power. 

 Socialism can not be put in practise with- 

 out opposition, and to maintain itself social- 

 ism must hold the opposing class in subjec- 

 lion. Nominally this subjection would be 

 a, benevolent paternalism, but in political 

 history it is the universal experience that 

 the party in power, to entrench itself 

 against attaclcs, soon usurps more power, 

 employs indefensible and oppressive meth- 

 ods and tries to establish itself in the enjoy- 

 ment of special selfish privileges. 



Our present purpose, however, is to study, 

 not the political, but the economic, side of 

 the problem. The doctrine of laissez faire 

 is that governmental interference, in eco- 

 nomic matters at least, is unnecessary and 

 harmful. Sometimes it is added as a cor- 

 ollary that not only should government let 

 individuals alone, but also that individuals 

 should let each other alone. 'Live and let 

 live' and 'Each for himself are the mot- 

 toes of this type of individualism. The 

 advocates of extreme laissez faire maintain 

 that one class is not justified in imposing 

 its tastes upon another. They say, we 

 must not meddle with our neighbors' af- 

 fairs, even if they are wasting their lives 



in what appears to us trivial, useless or 

 positively harmful gratifications. Those 

 who love art, science or literature have no 

 right, we are told, to criticize those who 

 are bored by these things, but love prize- 

 fighting, fast horses, fast society or high 

 living. 



The reasoning by which these individual- 

 istic doctrines were supported may be brief- 

 ly stated in two propositions: first, each 

 individual is the best judge of what sub- 

 serves his own interest, and the motive of 

 self-interest leads him to secure the maxi- 

 mum of well-being for himself; and, sec- 

 ondly, since society is merely the sum of 

 individuals, the efl'ort of each to secure the 

 maximum of well-being for himself has as 

 its necessary effect to secure thereby also 

 the maximum of well-being for society as 

 a whole. 



In the light of the experience of the last 

 fifty years, it is not diificult to see wherein 

 each of these two propositions is in error. 

 First, it is not true that each man can be 

 trusted to pursue his own best interests. 

 Some men need enlightenment, owing to 

 ignorance of what constitutes their best 

 interests, and others need restraint, owing 

 to lack of self-control in following them. 

 The necessity for both enlightenment and 

 restraint has always been recognized in 

 the case of children, and an examination 

 of actual conditions will show that they 

 apply— often with equal force— to adults. 



Liberty is certainly indispensable in a 

 healthy society, but liberty insensibly 

 verges upon license. While most of us 

 would still agree that sumptuary laws are 

 ill-advised, there is certainly good ground 

 for maintaining that the liquor traffic 

 should be put under some restraint, even 

 if only by high license. It is not true that 

 the drunkard is the best judge of what is 

 for his own well-being and that of his fam- 

 ily, and it is still less true that even when 

 he thoroughly recognizes his failings he 



