Long studies . . . have not caused me to recede from the belief expressed nearly fifty years ago that "the ultimate man will be one whose private requirements coincide with the public ones. He will be that manner of man who, in spontaneously fulfilling his own nature, incidentally performs the functions of a social unit; and yet is only enabled so to fulfil his own nature by all the others doing the like."

Whether this delectable state is to be reached by the slow and somewhat cruel process of evolution, as Spencer believes, or by the process of moral reform and religious evangelism, may be open to speculation. There are probably not many people who disagree with the general conclusion that government would be unnecessary in either case. If (but this is a large "if") human nature could be so perfected, either by the slow elimination of the unsocial and the antisocial (that is, the criminal and the immoral) or by their moral regeneration, it might very easily follow that government would ultimately become unnecessary, or at least that compulsion by governmental authority would become a thing of the past. This position, however, can hardly be called anarchistic in any real sense, for the real anarchist believes not that government may ultimately become unnecessary but that it is now unnecessary.

Impatience of restraint. There is another type of thought, sometimes characterized as anarchistic, which does not revolt so much against government and the use of compulsion in the form of police power as against what is called moral compulsion; that is, the setting up by society, or by people in authority, of standards which others are bound to follow. It is proposed, therefore, that we throw off the so-called shackles of conventionality and even of morality, and that everyone do that which is right in his own eyes, regardless of what may be said by other people or by institutions and organizations which pretend to tell us what we ought to do.

Is morality an invention of weaklings to curb the strong? Among the people who take this point of view, however, two diametrically opposite conclusions are reached. There is one

school represented by such writers as Kaspar Schmidt and Friedrich Nietzsche, who hold that religion and morality are the inventions of the weaklings of the world for the purpose of holding the strong in check. There is an old fable regarding the mice who found themselves oppressed by the cat. They voted unanimously that the cat should wear a bell in order that the mice might be protected. According to these writers religion and morality are merely different ways by which mice try to put the bell on the cat. They try to make it unpopular for the strong man to use his strength. They persuade him that it is immoral or irreligious, or that the vengeance of supernatural agencies will be let loose upon him if he exercises his strength to the detriment of the masses. Therefore the strong man, sometimes called the superman, should break loose from these conventionalities, should snap the cords with which the Lilliputians have bound him, and should dare to be great and independent, and impose his will on the masses if he is able to do so.

Is morality an invention of those in power to curb the masses? The other school of anarchists, and certain socialists who are anarchistic in spirit if not in program, assert that religion and morality are the cunning inventions of priests, soldiers, and capitalists for the purpose of holding the masses in check; that for the average man to be good is merely to be good for somebody else—that is, for those in power; that to be good is to support the priest or the capitalist or the policeman or the judge or someone else in authority; that to be free is to be good to oneself.

As to which of these two conclusions is the more absurd, it would be difficult to decide. They are mentioned to show to what extremes of aberration the human mind is capable of going. One doctrine would lead the strong man to do as he pleased, to impose his will upon his neighbors either by the weight of his fist or by his superior power of destruction in some other form; the other conclusion would lead the masses of the people to sink into a state of license and violence which

would destroy civilization and land us in a sort of primeval social chaos.

Are all human interests harmonious? There is, however, another system of thought which is truly anarchistic and less repulsive than either of these. This system is based on the fundamental assumption that all human interests are harmonious. In this best of all possible worlds, it is claimed, there can be no such thing as a conflict of human interests; it is in some way a reflection upon the Creator of the world to say that there could be anything but a harmony of real interests among men ; it cannot possibly be true that one man's meat is another man's poison; these apparent conflicts are the creation of men and human institutions and are not inherent in the nature of man and the universe.

This underlying assumption sounds attractive, and doubtless many of us would like to believe it if we could. There are, however, so many hard facts in the way that not many of us are able to bring ourselves to the point of ignoring the very present and prevalent conflict of interests. It was shown in the chapter on Scarcity that the mere fact of a congestion of population-of too many people's trying to live in one spotcreates in that spot a state of scarcity. Food enough in that particular spot cannot be produced for as many people as would like to live there. This situation in itself inevitably and necessarily produces a conflict of interests. Either some people must move to another spot or food must be brought from other spots to feed the people who are there. Either alternative will prove disagreeable to somebody. If neither of these alternatives is chosen, then there must be hunger; more than one person will be wanting each parcel of food, and this in itself is a conflict of interests. Here are certain facts of a physical nature which cannot by any effort of the will or the imagination be conjured out of existence. There is, in fact, a conflict of interests wherever two people want the same thing.

Conflict of interests makes control necessary. Wherever there is a conflict of interests, one of two things is absolutely nec

essary either the individuals must have a high moral development, which will lead each one to surrender certain interests in favor of others, or there must be an umpire to decide between them and enforce his decision. This umpire, by whatever name he may be called, exercises the function of government. In fact, this umpire is government, whether it be an individual or a great organization of individuals exercising various functions, such as legislation, administration, interpretation, enforcement, and so on.

Emotional anarchism. There is another type of anarchism which can scarcely be said to have any underlying philosophy. It is based wholly on feeling and sentiment. Doubtless every human being possesses some repugnance toward being ruled,— toward being compelled to do that which he dislikes to do, or to leave undone that which he would like to do. A preference for one's own way shows itself rather early in the lives of children. Doubtless all of us feel bitter at times regarding some act of some governing agency or authority. Generally, however, we are able to keep these feelings under sufficient control to enable us to obey the law and support the government. In other words, we generally see the necessity of government, however disagreeable it is at times to be forced to submit. Occasionally, however, an individual will react in the other way; that is, his repugnance will overcome his judgment. He has no particular philosophy, though he can always invent a reason or an excuse. A policeman, a court, a flag, or any other evidence or symbol of government is as a red flag in his face; it causes anger, resentment, and insurgency, and nothing else. Such people are sometimes very likable in other respects. So long as their feelings are properly soothed they may be exceedingly amiable and even affectionate. Those who know them personally find it difficult to reconcile their general personal qualities with their feeling against government. Nevertheless, from any broad and philosophical point of view they are among the most dangerous members of society. They are the unadapted in a very important social and psychological sense.

Psychologically they are as unfit for living under a settled, orderly government as a fish is physically unfit for living out of water. The process of evolution which, according to Spencer, would eventually produce the delectable state of society described in the above extract is steadily weeding such people out. They insist on bumping their heads against the walls of the universe and destroying themselves along with the criminals and others who are unadapted to a settled civil life. If by the meek we mean merely the adaptable, the teachable, and the reasonable, and if by the unmeek we mean the intractable, the unteachable, the self-willed, the pig-headed, then it is probably a scientific proposition to say that the meek "shall inherit the earth"; that is, survive, while the unmeek shall be exterminated by the slow but sure process of evolution. This will be the ultimate cure for this type of anarchism.

There is still another type of anarchist who is merely mean and bent on making trouble. He can always be relied upon to be on the wrong side of every question. Wherever decent, selfrespecting men and women are in general agreement on any subject, he will always be found opposing them. It is true he does not always go in for anarchism. He is found in every movement which gives him a chance to vent his general hate and spitefulness. Wherever there is a chance to denounce government, religion, law, order, morality, chastity, sobriety, or anything else that is of good report, his voice is always heard. He generally tries to get into good company by calling himself a radical, an iconoclast, or a revolutionist, knowing that excellent men and women have been called by all of these names. He is only another type of that numerous class which cannot stand even the moderate degree of civilization to which we have attained, and would, if he could, drive us back to savagery.

Is patriotism a vice? There are various other views, some of them of an idealistic nature, which savor of anarchism and lead to absurd conclusions on practical subjects. One of these is that patriotism is a vice. This strange doctrine is advanced on grounds of the broadest humanitarianism. We should love