Such vicious indulgence is the result of cultivating unnatural and destructive appet.i.tes. Familiar ill.u.s.trations are those connected with the drink habit, the opium habit, or any other vice whose chief effect is seen upon the individual life of the one indulging himself. These involve the very highest wastefulness, because they destroy not only wealth, but ability. n.o.body can begin to compute in terms of money the actual waste of our country through indulgence in strong drink. The value of liquors consumed is no measure of the entire wastefulness. Yet this is more than enough to furnish all with bread.

The wrongfulness of such indulgence, from its harm to society through reducing the power of the race, is seldom disputed. Yet the right of society to restrict the individual indulgence is quite generally disputed.

The larger need of freedom in the exercise of judgment among mature members of a community outweighs the need of preventing even vice. Society does well to bring the restraints of law upon the immature, whose judgment is not yet formed, thus supplementing by law the directive energy of parental control. It may yet go further, and prohibit such indulgence to all who have lost the power of self-control. But in general it has been found impossible to enforce restriction upon vicious indulgence except where such acts occasion direct suffering upon others, or help to maintain an immoral business. The right of restraint and constraint, even to prohibition, of that which fosters vice and extends its range must be admitted by all thoughtful persons. Still, the right to prohibit and the power to prohibit are not identical. The only sure preventive is early education of public conscience through the training of youth to a clear understanding of the vicious practices and their relation to the poverty and weakness and crime of humanity.

_Destructive consumption._-A more obvious trespa.s.s upon prudential consumption is criminal destructiveness of every kind. Until society outgrows a condition in which fraud, theft, robbery and murder must be warded off by locks and bars, by immense bodies of policemen and armed militia, its wealth cannot be wholly invested for welfare. The possibility of such crimes as arson or train obstruction and destruction shows the condition of the best of modern communities to be far from ideal. n.o.body pretends to measure the actual waste in society resulting from such criminal purposes. It extends to almost every detail of production and trade, and occupies a large portion of the inventive and executive energy of the people. Organized society attempts to restrain such waste by its police force, or by restraining laws and in actions enforced by severe penalties. Every honest man is financially interested in the conviction of every knave. Sympathy with fraud, even in trifles, is contributing toward such destructive waste.

In this connection the enormous expenditure in maintenance of standing armies and navies for the protection of national boundaries is of special importance. Reduction of this waste of wealth and power should be desired by every cla.s.s of society. Though war has been the means by which human liberty has grown, it has also been the means of crushing it. It would seem that every incentive is offered each citizen to make an appeal to arms and the maintenance of armies a most remote necessity. Yet it seems that the ma.s.s of men of every rank are tenacious of national honor. While most communities have abandoned the duel as both wasteful and immoral in personal difficulties, the spirit of the duel is still rife in the differences between nations. A clearer perception of mutual interests in national welfare will bring nations, like individuals, to accept some method of enforcing neutral judgment for settling disputes, in place of war. The farmers of a country, being nearly 50 per cent of its people, and bearing a large proportion of the expense of armies and wars, have a tremendous interest in maintaining peace. This can be done not so much by reducing the provision for armies as by cultivating the spirit of fair settlement, against the false patriotism which claims everything for one's own nation.

_False notions of waste._-Wasteful expenditure and luxury and possibly even vicious indulgence are often excused with the plea that expenditures of this kind make employment for labor, and so aid the poor. While it is true that mult.i.tudes are employed in catering to the vices of others, all must grant that the same wealth might be much better employed in other occupations. More than that, the larger wealth resulting from acc.u.mulation in place of waste would provide capital needed for fuller employment of all who can work. All imprudent expenditure reduces the power of society to acc.u.mulate wealth for giving occupation to all who will work. Moreover, such wastefulness creates a tendency toward thriftless character among the people. The welfare of the whole community depends upon the thrift of the whole community. The thriftlessness of rich men's sons is more damaging than the thriftlessness of tramps, because it is more tempting to others.

Any man who lives simply to spend, however busy he keeps himself, is one of the wasteful ones in the community, unless he has some higher object than gratifying his desires. The energetic idler may be doing his worst for the community without being ranked as a spendthrift, because he makes such idleness respectable. It should be the desire of all good citizens to increase the ability of every other citizen, not only to live, but to live well. This thriftlessness can be overcome only by a strong public sentiment that corrects the early tendencies of youth to waste of means and energy.

_Waste in rivalry._-There is another kind of wastefulness resulting from excessive compet.i.tion for a particular business or a particular trade.

Immense amounts are expended upon rival advertis.e.m.e.nts, all of which enter into the general cost to consumers. A mult.i.tude of retail dealers maintain stocks of goods entirely out of proportion to the needs of the community, because they are rivals in trade. Very likely the business rents are higher than they need be because of such rivalry. Not only is there a strong compet.i.tion for a place, but also for showy equipment and elegance of display. All this could be saved by better organization. A still more evident waste is from the multiplication of agents and middle men of all kinds, employed simply in catching trade. Some of them act simply as interlopers, hoping to gain a small commission without the use of capital or painstaking in their business. These are the useless middle men maintained at the expense of the community. Full market reports and general information of buyers and sellers greatly reduce such waste.

Chapter XXVI. Social Organization For Consumption.

_Individualism._-While the social organization is necessarily thought of as a group of individuals, whose individual wants and plans and growth and character must be the chief incentive for action, it is necessary to avoid the extreme of individualism. In escaping from the false a.n.a.logy implied in considering society an organism, there is a tendency to make the individual not only of final importance but independent of a.s.sociation.

Excess of compet.i.tion is represented in the maxim, "Every man for himself." In the effort to carry out this maxim and in opposition to restraints of society, whether by law or by custom, many are led to advocate an abolition of organization, leaving all welfare to be secured by appeal to the individual judgment and conscience of men. It is true that back of all law is the law of righteousness in individual souls.

Under the name of "autonomy" theorists propose to appeal to this conscience of individuals, making every soul a law to itself. Such theorists a.s.sume that every human being will be wise and virtuous, or take the consequences of his failure. They forget that all organizations for constraint are a part of the natural consequences of failure in self-control.

Under the name of "anarchy" groups of people all over the world have united to destroy what they consider arbitrary rules in government.

Anarchists differ from autonomists in putting foremost the destruction of existing governments. Their ideals of right and wrong and their methods of individual action for individual welfare are left for the future to develop, after the rule of the present has become no-rule. Their present organization, as far as it is public, appears to be, in almost direct contradiction of their principles, an absolute despotism. The same idea has gained followers in some countries, particularly in Russia, under the name of "nihilism."

While in some instances such movements may be but a natural reaction against tyranny, the view of human wants and human welfare which all these advocates present is far from being correct. The grand economic fact that groups are superior to individuals in actual efficiency is beyond dispute; and it is equally true, though not so often stated, that groups gain greatest satisfaction for a given consumption of wealth. It is only when great numbers share in satisfaction that the highest range of wants can be gratified. Moreover, even individual wants are largely social. Each finds his highest pleasure in the society which nature has provided. The chief reasons for acc.u.mulating wealth are in what men can do for each other. Any individualism which overlooks these principles is opposed to welfare, and so self-contradictory.

The famous French phrases, "laissez faire" and "laissez pa.s.ser," which represent the individualistic side of economic theory, are often extended beyond the intent of the phrase makers. They mean essentially, let do, let go, and have their proper application in an appeal to conservative society to so modify laws and customs that individual enterprise, ingenuity and thrift shall be stimulated to its best by freedom. Freedom from restrictions in right-doing, under the evident motive furnished by general welfare, is an ideal for society. In economic directions it has great importance. No thinker can fail to see the trend of civilization toward such freedom. So far in the history of the world the enlargement of individual responsibility, by freedom from constraint among the mature members of society, has been the chief mark of progress. Yet the constraint of welfare, and of the general judgment as to what is welfare, as well as the necessity for agreement as to ways and means of reaching it, are better recognized today than ever before. The extreme of individualism destroys the natural constraint of a common judgment.

_Socialism._-The opposite extreme is the a.s.sumption that common wants are of supreme importance and common judgment absolutely efficient. Under the name of "communism" it stands in direct contrast with anarchy. Anarchists and communists may unite upon a platform of a single plank, opposition to existing inst.i.tutions; but in all ideals and purposes and plans for future welfare they are absolutely opposed to each other. The natural community of interests so evident in society gives a fair basis for the general principles of communism. No doubt the welfare of all is the interest of each, and the world is growing to recognize it. Among a group of beings perfectly wise and virtuous there could be no clashing of either interests or judgment. The ideal of Louis Blanc, "From every man according to his powers, to every man according to his wants," would represent the natural activity of such a group. But in application to humanity, as it is and is bound to be by its weakness and waywardness, it seems abstractly ideal. In fact it is only roughly applicable in ends to be served, and suggests almost nothing as to ways and means. Like the golden rule, it applies to the disposition and purpose of the actor, but leaves the acts to be decided by individual judgment.

The numerous phases of opinion in application of this principle cannot be presented even by name in this short chapter. They are worthy of study as indicating a growth of opinion and sentiment in recognition of the mutual dependence of all human beings. They are also worthy of study as indicating how arbitrary a zealot may become in enforcing his opinions upon others. All of them are grouped somewhat loosely under the name of "socialism," but there are many gradations in the supremacy of the social ideal over the individual welfare. There are also many shades of opinion as to how the final result of social supremacy shall be reached. Many are expecting a revolution by force of arms to establish the ideals of the leaders. More are opportunists, s.n.a.t.c.hing every opportunity in legislation, in decision of courts, and in executive power, to apply their methods.

Under the name of "collectivism" appeals are made to the mult.i.tude to combine their energies under leadership: first, to overcome present restraints; and then to secure combined action in all modes of production and consumption. "Nationalism" is more familiar to our thought in the United States, as embracing the aim of a somewhat noisy party to bring about the compulsory organization of all industries under the control of the nation, even to placing all property and all methods of consumption under an official despotism.

Few recognize the actual logic of their views as compelling complete subjection of every individual to others' judgment, and fewer still have any idea of the official machinery needed for such control. The great majority are satisfied in seeing evils which might be cured by greater social accord, expecting at once to vote into existence the necessary machinery. Most of these are misled into considering wealth and its uses to be the chief elements of welfare. They forget that wealth is only a means of accomplishing one's purposes toward his fellows and himself. The greed of power and position and praise are far stronger as evil motives than greed of wealth. If wealth were distributed by omniscient wisdom and power according to the maxim of Louis Blanc, the higher welfare would still be as far away as ever, unless the same omniscience should control all actions. Such control by outward force would banish the very idea of virtue, the highest of all welfare.

It is easy to see that every form of socialism, in practical methods, involves a leveling process inconsistent with human nature and its surroundings. Equality of environments is possible only by reducing all to the lowest condition. Equality of aspirations reduces all toward the most brutal of the race. Even equality of efficiency reduces all to the power of the least efficient. So the whole range of method, a.s.suming equality of wealth as important to welfare, lowers the welfare of the whole by destroying the best abilities and the best capacities for enjoyment in order to prevent inequality.

And yet it has not been proved that equality in any of these particulars is desirable. It is equally beyond proof that actual equality is possible.

The most absolute communism implies the greatest inequality in official power. Even the pleasing phrase, "Equality of opportunity," will not bear a.n.a.lysis as applied to human nature and human welfare, under the very highest ideals of social unity. Indeed, the lesson of facts in all activity is that inter-dependence of _unlike_ and _unequal_ forces makes the true unity of organization, and the surest welfare of mult.i.tudes. That each individual should have the best opportunity possible for his own development is best for each and for all in a community; but that such opportunities shall be equal in any other sense no wisdom can contrive.

Most socialistic theories presuppose almost immediate change of human nature under the new form of administration. But for this supposition there is little ground in the history of the race or of all nature. Growth there will be, and evolution of ideals; but the administration grows out of these, instead of being their cause.

_Socialistic tendencies._-Socialistic theories gain adherence under the provocation of certain tendencies in society. First, they appear whenever by oppression or fraud of any kind a community is made up of one cla.s.s possessing wealth directly opposed to another cla.s.s without wealth, with no extended middle cla.s.s, and therefore with no ready means of transition from one cla.s.s to another. As long as the doors are open for real progress in power of accomplishment, all the way from poverty to wealth, society has a unity in its variety that is better than any communism promises. At present in our own country, with the great mult.i.tude of farmers' families furnishing not only the necessities of life, but the larger part of human energy that goes into every calling and every rank, socialism does not appeal to any large number. An earnest, thriving farmer's family will never believe advantage to come either to themselves or to the race by making them all practically mere wage-earners.

Second, a common cause of socialistic views is separation, under extreme division of labor and opposing organizations sustained by it, of the workers in very distinct fields of labor. The jealousies arising between these cla.s.ses, or guilds, or between employers and employed, foster the revolutionary spirit which jumps at any promise of relief from unsatisfactory conditions.

In the third place, a political revolution, if it has destroyed landmarks of the past and any natural sentiments growing out of social relations, leaves a ma.s.s of people at sea with reference to the nature of rights.

Under such circ.u.mstances socialism offers an apparent solution of difficulties unprovided for. Though any practical effort to apply these theories under such circ.u.mstances usually results in despotic a.s.sumption of authority by a few, the people are moved by the pleasant-sounding phrases. If, in the settling of social affairs after a revolution, an earnest effort is made to agree upon set phrases embodying principles of const.i.tutional liberty, the chances are in favor of some sweeping statements, too general to control action, but over-emphasizing individual rights in comparison with individual duties. Action under these declarations usually conforms to the necessities of the case, accepting the immediate welfare of the society as a guide to more complete welfare.

All these conditions are abnormal, wholly unfavorable to a fair consideration of what will promote welfare. Even if socialistic methods might work fairly well when all were favorably disposed, there is great question whether they would work as well as present social methods, under equal good will. It must not be forgotten that every scheme of nationalization, for its own sake, implies the government of every individual by everybody else, thus hampering under petty regulations and by force of mult.i.tudes the growth of every individual. No scheme for national direction provides as natural tests for merit, ability, enterprise or necessity as present methods are known to do wherever fraud and tyranny are abolished.

_Cooperative consumption._-In the natural order of social development there is room for much more general a.s.sociation in the consumption of wealth than we sometimes think. The world has made great progress in this direction during the last fifty years, through voluntary organizations for prudent expenditure. The only limit to such community of organization for special purposes is in the nature of the work and the relation of the workers. Cooperative stores, banks, building and loan a.s.sociations, laundries and even kitchens are within the range of actual experiments. We have already seen how such cooperative interests may operate in simple investment of capital for production. The chief obstacles in them all are the lack of certain characteristics of prudence in a mult.i.tude. In general the best management does not accord with the judgment of the ma.s.s.

A few brief maxims may indicate the natural restrictions upon such methods. Cooperative consumption is successful: first, where those cooperating are fairly equal in wants and abilities, or closely related through kinship or friendship; second, where the range of cooperation includes common wants; third, where no one is given the advantage of credit; fourth, where mutual confidence selects and sustains a continuous management; fifth, where frequent and full reports can make the business plain to all concerned. It would be interesting to follow the growth of cooperative stores and banking a.s.sociations from small beginnings to enormous enterprises, but the limits of this volume will not permit. This extension may be realized from the statement that the Rochedale cooperative societies of England now number nearly two thousand, with more than a million members and nearly seventy-five million dollars of capital.

Chapter XXVII. Economic Functions Of Government.

_Governmental limits._-All society recognizes certain universal wants and the necessity of meeting these with essential order and the best economy.

These universal wants enforce the organization of society under some form of government. Such an organization grows out of the necessity rather than the will of humanity. Hence government, local or more general, is the direct effort of individuals in society for the general welfare. Usually the best test of general welfare is the a.s.sent of the majority of mature and intelligent members of the community. In the history of the world, however, the importance of the object to be gained has overcome obstacles in the will of the governed as much as any other. Among children the right of the parent to govern for the welfare of the family is never questioned until character and wisdom are doubted. Among crude and disorganized bodies of people, superior wisdom and earnest purpose make leadership. Yet always, in the end, the ideal of welfare in any community implies growth of individuals into authority over themselves as one of its main objects, if not its chief one. Thus the best government for any community at any stage of its advancement is the one that best secures the welfare of all in existing circ.u.mstances.

It must be remembered that the chief elements of welfare are above government. All the kindly affections which make the chief bonds of society are to be cultivated by good government, but cannot be forced by any law, either positive or prohibitive. Individual character in all its proportions is individual growth, which can be fostered but not forced.

All the catalogue of virtues is made up of elements of character, not one of which can be made by force. So government of every grade fosters the highest welfare of individuals by sustaining virtuous motives and restraining vicious ones, or rather by encouraging right action in its enjoyment of welfare and restraining wrong action by deprivation of welfare. Government, therefore, is best when its aims are distinctly confined to universal welfare. The distinctly personal wants can be best provided for by affording the best conditions for free exercise of individual powers. Governments can never wisely do favors for a cla.s.s, since such favors weaken the power of government for promoting general welfare. What government does for any it needs to do for all. What it does for all it must secure to each in fair proportion. In any effort to extend the range of governmental action this natural limit of universal welfare for individuals must be considered.

_Ends of government._-In this view of the reasons for organized government and its natural limits, certain universal wants can be clearly perceived.

Most obvious is protection against external foes, personal or material.

This universal need, in the presence of personal enemies, is so plain as to make the crime of treason notorious. The internal peace of society is just as evidently a universal necessity, and so any infringement upon the order of society, as agreed upon either by express statute or by the common law of established precedent, is punished as a crime against all.

Personal violence, even in the shape of private vengeance for wrong done, is a menace to internal order, and so a crime against the whole organization. The mutual dependence of each upon all and all upon each in every-day transactions enforces the interest of the organization in personal contracts, and makes the government a partner with every right-doer against every wrong-doer in all attempts at fraud or abuse of power of every kind. This guardianship of personal freedom makes necessary the bulk of criminal law and most of the machinery of courts. The arbitration of disputes between interested parties is a natural sequence of the effort to prevent violence. Government does not and cannot right wrongs; it barely saves a remnant of good to the individual wronged, and furnishes a warning to others against future wrong.

_Universal needs._-Every force, external or internal, which is likely to be injurious to the whole community, the whole community through its organization is obliged to combat. Hence the necessity for quarantine against infections diseases wherever found, and provision against destructive storms wherever possible. Protection against the ravages of insects falls into the same list, and so does every safeguard in which the whole community is interested. The same principle applies to positive provisions for welfare in economical ways of meeting universal wants. The universality of the need makes the water supply and the lighting of cities a proper work for the city organization. If the same machinery can provide most economically for larger personal wants without infringing upon the rights of all, simple economy invites it, and the principles of good government sustain it. The question of munic.i.p.al lighting is simply one of true economy for the entire body of citizens.

For the same reason, that everybody needs it, the government is obliged to have control of the means of transit so far as ease and safety and economy to all require. Government must maintain highways suited to the needs of the community at all stages of its development. The question of city management of street car lines, beyond such control as secures safety and essential justice, is purely one of economy for all concerned; that is, for the entire community. This economy is not settled for one community by the conditions of any other. It must be decided in each community whose interests are to be served by the actual need and abilities of that community.

The same may be said in regard to all methods of providing ready communication of wants and abilities as needed for mutual welfare. The postal system is a natural government machine, because every citizen needs to be within reach of every other citizen in the same community. If government does not furnish the machinery, it must control it to the same end. The extent of the machine must be decided by the extent of the want.

If the want is sufficiently universal, the organization cannot avoid providing the machinery. This principle applies to every form of communication devised or discovered. The question of government ownership of telegraph or telephone connections becomes one of simple economy, whenever the community finds such means of communication a matter of universal want. If economy or vested rights of individuals prevent such provision, government must still guard these universal interests by inspection and control. The exact point where government ownership becomes economical and legitimate must be decided by a careful weighing of the general interests of the whole community.

_Universal education._-The necessity for universal intelligence is so evident that governments not only recognize and foster benevolent efforts of individuals for education, but rightly make the organization itself a direct force in maintaining educational inst.i.tutions. Public schools are now universally recognized by most enlightened people as meeting a universal need, and therefore one of the essentials of good government.

How extensive such provision should be is still an unsettled question. In fact, it can never be finally settled in any growing community, because the universal need of the community becomes more and more extended. So far as universal intelligence depends upon the higher intelligence of leaders in the community, the whole ma.s.s is interested in the training of that higher intelligence. The very nature of education, shedding its light over all in its neighborhood, makes every member of the community a sharer in the advantages of university training. Hence governments rightly and economically administer educational systems which involve the welfare of all. The same responsibility makes improper the use of public funds in support of private inst.i.tutions without such restrictions as insure the good of all.

The propriety of governmental control of churches and religious training must rest upon the same basis of principle. Religion is of such a personal nature, so wholly a matter of conscience, that it cannot be said in any proper sense to be universal. Yet the need of religions sentiment and freedom in development of that sentiment is universal. The state does well to provide security for religious thought, practices and fostering influences in all governmental machinery. On this ground the civil law protects a Sabbath. The state church has had its apparent reason for existence, and still has in many parts of the world, from the close connection between religious training and popular education. Naturally state churches emphasize the educational side of religions inst.i.tutions.

The world is coming to see more clearly the dividing line between information or thought about religion and religious action in faith, its common basis, and can leave the latter for individual growth.

_Government wards._-The welfare of the whole reaches finally to a guardianship over such individuals in the community as endanger, either by weakness or by wickedness, that welfare. For this reason government can maintain asylums for the weak or diseased, or even the extremely ignorant, not simply to protect these individuals, perhaps not chiefly for that purpose, but to protect the whole. It can rightly and wisely enforce such protection by health regulations and officers, and by truant laws and officials. Upon this principle it may rightly constrain even the friends of insane persons to give up control of the insane to the safer public provision in asylums. When any community realizes a similar need with reference to inebriates, it will a.s.sume the same constraining authority.

In dealing with the problem of personal wickedness, a community must still draw the line between universal and individual welfare. The criminal injures all; therefore all must constrain him, and effort is made to measure that constraint by the evidence of opposition to public welfare.

Vices are more distinctly individual. They touch the universal welfare in those forms which propagate vice in neighborhoods. Governments universally fail to enforce laws against personal vices wherever the danger to upright character in other persons is not clearly perceived. All restrictive legislation upon vicious habits, like intemperance, gambling or other immoral practices, is naturally aimed first at the places contrived to foster such habits, and therefore to attack the innocent. The actual working of such legislation in preventing the growth of vice is the only final test of its wisdom. What it _can_ do is what it _ought_ to do. In general the actual public sentiment in local communities must be the main dependence for executing such laws.

_Protection of the weak._-The common statement that government must protect the weak against the strong is subject to the same principle of universal welfare, and is applicable only where society has definitely recognized rules of good order which somebody is violating. Any attempt to supply to the weak a strength which they cannot wield is necessarily a failure. But society as a whole rightly shields children and youth, and even women of mature years, from burdens which may injure the general health or wisdom or virtue of the community. Laws prohibiting contracts which involve such burdens can be enforced so far as the community appreciates the evil of such contracts. So, to a certain extent, weakness from ignorance may be protected by any method that tends to remove the cause of weakness. All such action of government must be carefully guarded against becoming such a protection as will render the weak weaker.

_Public responsibility._-The organization of community is best for the ma.s.s of the people when all desires are allowed to give their proper impulse to action, and when every enterprise is encouraged by freedom until it is seen to infringe upon the general welfare. Any system of government which checks natural impulses and hinders individual enterprise, without clear evidence that all must suffer from such freedom, is harmful. The genuine application of the phrase "laissez faire" is in giving honest efforts free course, because these efforts secure the largest good. It really means, leave humanity free until injury is attempted. In general, government has to deal with all necessities which are identical throughout the community. Provision for those necessities and those only it is bound to make.

All questions of nationalization of industries or of community consumption must be brought to the test of universal need. What the whole community wants the whole community has a right to provide in the way which brings most good with least expenditure of exertion in any form. No other question can outweigh in importance this one of public need or public welfare. Every producer and every consumer is interested in seeing that such welfare is not overlooked by the public, or infringed upon by any individual or combination of individuals in his community. This must be done by emphasizing personal responsibility, even in public enterprises.