Economics, chap. xxi. F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 55. G. G. Groat, Organized Labor in America. A. Tridon, The New Unionism. H. F. Ward, The Labor Movement.

Profit-sharing: W. H. Tolman, Social Engineering, chap. VII. Seager, op. cit., chap. xxvi, sec. 281. Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems, chap. IX. N. P. Gilman, Profit Sharing; A Dividend to Labor. Outlook, vol. 106, p. 627. Quarterly Review, vol. 219, p. 509. A. W. Burritt, etc., Profit-Sharing, its Principles and Practice. Coöperation: G. J. Holyoake, History of Coöperation. C. R. Fay, Coöperation at Home and Abroad. Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems, chap. x. Arena, vol. 36, p. 200; vol. 40, p. 632. H. R. Seager, op. cit., sec. 282. F. W. Taussig, op. cit., chap. 59. James Ford, Coöperation in New England.

Consumers' leagues: Publications of the National Consumers' League (106 East Nineteenth Street, New York City).

Government regulation: J. W. Jenks, op. cit., Appendices. C. R. Van Hise, op. cit., chaps. III-v. F. W. Taussig, op. cit., chaps. 62, 63. H. R. Seager, op. cit., chap. xxv. C. L. King, Regulation of Municipal Utilities. J. B. and J. M. Clark, Control of the Trusts. E. M. Phelps, Federal Control of Interstate Corporations. Atlantic Monthly, vol. 111, p. 433. Outlook, vol. 99, p. 649; vol. 100, pp. 574, 690; vol. 101, p. 353; vol. 103, p. 476. North American Review, vol. 197, pp. 62, 222, 350. International Journal of Ethics, vol. 23, p. 158; vol. 26, p. 323. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 20, pp. 309 f., 574 ff. C. McCarthy, The Wisconsin Idea.

Socialism: Edmond Kelly, Twentieth Century Socialism. H. G. Wells, New Worlds for Old. J. Spargo, Socialism. M. Hillquit, Socialism in Theory and Practice. A. Schäffle, The Quintessence of Socialism. F. W. Taussig, op. cit., chaps. 64, 65. J. Rae, Contemporary Socialism. R. T. Ely, Socialism. W. G. Towler, Socialism in Local Government. H. R. Seager, op. cit., sec. 282. N. P. Gilman, Socialism and the American Spirit. R. Hunter, Socialists at Work. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 14, p. 257. W. E. Walling, Socialism as It Is, and other books. R. W. Sellars, The Next Step in Democracy. A. J. Balfour, etc., The Case against Socialism. Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom. G. H. D. Cole, The Meaning of Industrial Freedom, and other books. Beckitt and Rechhofer, The Meaning of National Guilds. W. T. Goode, Bolshevism at Work. J. MacKaye, Americanized Socialism.

CHAPTER XXVIII

LIBERTY AND LAW

WE have spoken of the practical defects and dangers inherent in the various proposals that look to the rectification of industrial wrongs. But there is one source of opposition to these proposals that requires more extended consideration the fear that they and especially socialism unduly threaten that ideal of personal liberty which our fathers so passionately served and we have come to look upon as the cornerstone of our prosperity. What is this ideal of liberty, and how should it affect our efforts at industrial regeneration?

What are the essential aspects of the ideal of liberty?

Throughout a long stretch of human history one of the most vexing obstacles to general happiness and progress has been the irresponsible power of sovereigns and oligarchies. To generations it has seemed that if freedom from selfish tyranny could but be won, the millennium would be at hand. Our heroes have been those who fought against despots for the rights of the people; we measure progress by such milestones as the Magna Charta, the French Revolution, the American Declaration of Independence. To this day we engrave the word "liberty" on our coins; and the converging multitudes from Europe look up eagerly to the great statue that welcomes them in New York Harbor and symbolizes for them the freedom that they have often suffered so much to gain. In Mrs. Hemans's hymn, in Patrick Henry's famous speech, in Mary Antin's wonderful autobiography,

The Promised Land, we catch glimpses of that devotion to liberty which, it is now said, we are jeopardizing by our increasing mass of legislative restraints and propose to banish for good and all by an indefinite increase in the powers of the State. More than a generation ago Mill wrote: "There is in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation; and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable."1 Not a few observers to-day are reiterating this note of alarm with increasing emphasis. Are their fears well founded?

We may at once agree in applauding the liberty worship of our fathers and of our contemporaries in the more backward countries. No secure steps in civilization can be taken until liberty of body, of movement, and of possession are guaranteed; there must be no fear of arbitrary execution, arrest, or confiscation. To this must be added liberty of conscience, of speech, and of worship; the right of free assembly, a free press, and that "freedom to worship God" that the Pilgrims sought. Wherever these rights, so fundamental to human happiness, are impugned, "Liberty!” is still the fitting rallying-cry;2 and we must confess that free1 Essay on Liberty, Introductory.

2 The exact limits within which freedom of speech must be allowed are debatable. (a) Speech which incites to crime, to lawbreaking, to sexual and other vice, must be prevented; and (b) slander, the public utterance of grossly disparaging statements concerning any person, without reasonable evidence of their truth. May we attempt to stifle the utterance of (c) such other untruths as are inexcusable in the light of our common knowledge? There are certainly many matters where there is no longer room for legitimate difference of opinion; and the general diffusion of correct knowledge is greatly retarded by the silly utterances of uninformed people. Yet to draw

dom of the press and of speech have been seriously curbed during the last few years, almost everywhere. But we must not forget that liberty is a means, not an end in itself, to be restricted in so far as may be necessary for the greatest happiness. There are no such things as "natural rights" which the community is bound to respect; liberty must be granted the individual so far, and only so far, as it does not impede the general welfare. We do not hesitate to end the liberty, or even to take the life, of those we deem dangerous to society. We do not hesitate to confiscate the land which we deem necessary for a highway or railroad or public building. Indeed, we hedge personal liberty about with a thousand restrictions by general consent, in the realization that public interests must come before private. We have no need to discuss the doctrine of anarchism1- unrestricted libertysince the general chaos that would result therefrom, in the present stage of human nature, is sufficiently apparent. Liberty can never be absolute.

Indeed, there has been a curious reversal of situation. The older cry of liberty that stirs us was a cry of the oppressed masses against their masters; now it is a slogan of the privileged upper classes against that increasing popular legislation which restricts their powers. Kings are now but figureheads, if they linger at all, in our modern democracies; governments are not irresponsible masters of the people, they are instruments for carrying out the popular will. The real tyrants now, those whose irresponsible the line here is so difficult that we must probably tolerate this evil forever rather than run the risk of stifling some generally unsuspected truth.

1 For an eloquent defense of anarchism see Tolstoy's writings; here is a sample statement: "For a Christian to promise to subject himself to any government whatsoever - a subjection which may be considered the foundation of state life is a direct negation of Christianity." (Kingdom of God, chap. IX.) Cf. this utterance of one of the Chicago anarchists of 1886. "Whoever prescribes a rule of action for another to obey is a tyrant: usurper, and an enemy of liberty."

authority is dangerous to the masses, are the kings of industry; if the cry of "liberty" is to be raised again, it should be raised, according to all historical precedent, in behalf of the slaves of modern industry rather than in behalf of the fortunate few who give up so grudgingly the practical powers they have usurped. There were those, indeed, who fought passionately for the divine right of kings, those who died to maintain the right of a white man to hold negroes as slaves; there are those to-day who with a truly religious fervor uphold the right of the capitalistic class to manage the industries of the country at their own sweet will, unhampered by such legislative restrictions as the majority may deem expedient for the general welfare. But it is a travesty on the sacred word "liberty" that it should be thus invoked to uphold the prerogatives of the favored few. Liberty, in the sense in which it is properly an ideal for man, connotes the right to all such forms of activity as are consonant with the greatest general happiness, and to no others. It implies the right not to be oppressed, not the right to oppress. Mere freedom of contract is not real freedom, if the alternative be to starve; such formal freedom may be practical slavery. The real freedom is freedom to live as befits a man; and it is precisely because such freedom is beyond the grasp of multitudes to-day that our system of "free contract" is discredited; it offers the name of liberty without the reality.

But apart from this questionable appeal to the ideal of liberty, there are not a few who sincerely believe, on grounds of practical expediency, that legislation ought not to interfere any more than proves absolutely necessary with the conduct of industry. This scheme of individualism we will now consider.