on the part of one or both as will prevent a quarrel. Willingness to give up not only one's coat but one's cloak also would preserve peace. The third is a strong and effective umpire who will promptly decide the case and enforce his decision upon both parties to the conflict. This umpire is the government.

It will generally be agreed, except by extreme anarchists, that wherever human interests come in conflict, a strong umpire of some kind will be necessary until men are so selfrestrained by their morals or their religion as to govern themselves. Without such self-restraint the conflict of interests will result in the wasting of human life and energy by destructive combats, fights, and duels, unless there is a government at hand to settle the difference and send the disputants about their business.

Government control unnecessary where human interests are in harmony. But human interests are sometimes harmonious. When this is the case, the individual who pursues his own interest is also promoting the interest of others. Within this field where interests are in harmony it is true, as Adam Smith said long ago, that we are sometimes led as by an invisible hand to promote the public interest while trying to promote our own. It is to the interest of the farmer to grow good crops; it is likewise to the interest of the public to have him do so. In this and a vast multitude of other cases the individual needs no compulsion to lead him to promote the public good. In all such cases it seems to work better in the long run to leave the individual very much to himself. The wise government will generally keep its hands off.

1 He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. . . . By directing [his] industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. . . . By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. "Wealth of Nations," Book IV, Chapter II.

Tendency of government officers to increase their own power and importance. There is, however, a natural tendency in all human beings to wish to magnify their own power and importance. This tendency seems to be peculiarly strong in that kind of person who manages to get elected to public office. Modesty is not the outstanding characteristic of the average candidate who seeks office, though he may feign it pretty well. The more the government undertakes, the greater becomes the power and importance of the officeholder. There is, therefore, a strong tendency on the part of all successful candidates to extend the functions of government. The arguments in favor of this policy as used by the elected are sometimes so subtle as to deceive the very elect. They are always made as though in the interest of the people, though they are really in the interest of the officeholding class. It is a means of exalting the position of the vote getter. It therefore behooves the average citizen who has no hope of public office to study very critically all arguments in favoring the extension of the functions of the government.

The incompetent. There is, however, the question of the people who are not competent to pursue intelligently either their own interest or the public interest. The feeble-minded, the insane, and the immature who have no natural guardians must of course have their interests looked after and cared for by the government. With them it is not a question of the conflict or harmony of their interests with those of the public; it is a question of their competence to pursue even their own interests intelligently.

The individual's wisdom is not increased suddenly when he is put into public office. Is anyone really competent to pursue his own interest intelligently? This question is sometimes asked by those who advocate government activity in behalf of all classes of people. This is not a very convincing argument, for the reason that it goes too far. If no one is competent to look after his own interests, how can he possibly

be competent to look after the interests of the rest of mankind? The officeholder is merely a man or a woman like the rest of us. If we are not able to look after ourselves, neither is he or she able to look after himself or herself, much less to look after the rest of us.

Because of such considerations as these' the wisdom of mankind has for centuries moved toward the conclusion that government should confine itself mainly to the control of the field where individual interests come in conflict, leaving mature people of sound mind to govern themselves wherever and whenever their interests are harmonious. There are occasional reactionary tendencies toward more government interference, but these are usually encouraged by those whose expertness lies in the direction of vote getting rather than by those whose expertness consists in the power to do the useful and necessary things.

CHAPTER VI

MORALS AND RELIGION

It was suggested in a former chapter that the prosperity of a nation depended more upon the economizing and utilizing of its fund of human energy than upon any other factor, and that in consequence the most destructive forms of waste were those which wasted or dissipated portions of that fund. When a man's energy is going to waste, his life is going to waste, and he becomes a drain upon, rather than an addition to, the national strength. The following outline indicates some of the more familiar ways in which men go to waste :

For some of these forms of waste, law and government alone can furnish the remedy. Whenever force or compulsion is necessary and, at the same time, effective, government can and should use the force of positive law, supported by penalties. But there are many forms of waste which cannot be

remedied by force or compulsion, at least not without causing greater waste of other kinds. To try to control by law such things as laziness, private vices, luxury, false teaching, and many other wasteful and harmful tendencies would require an intolerable amount of espionage and repression. The waste from this source might easily overbalance the waste from the bad habits which the law was trying to control. In all such cases we must fall back upon morals and religion to induce self-restraint and the voluntary adoption of sound habits.

Can morality be taught? There are two conflicting theories as to the results of moral teaching. One is that such results are generally negligible because moral habits are the result of economic and social surroundings; the other is that man's moral nature may be so developed by teaching and example as to render it proof against bad economic and social conditions,

that these conditions are more likely to be the result than the cause of the moral habits of the people. The truth seems to be found in a combination of these two theories. We are undoubtedly influenced by our surroundings, but we can also by sheer force of character not only resist but even overcome and change our surroundings.

Again, weak characters are more largely controlled by their surroundings than are strong characters. Two men may go under a cold shower bath. One, being in vigorous health, comes out feeling refreshed. To him a cold shower is a favorable rather than an unfavorable condition. The other, being weak to begin with, comes out with a chill. To him it was an unfavorable rather than a favorable condition. Yet it was the same shower bath, with the same temperature etc. If one were studying jellyfish, one might find that they were the sport of such circumstances as the winds, the waves, the tides, and the ocean currents; but if one were studying sharks, one might, with equal certainty, find that they were independent of all such circumstances. Similarly, if one were studying human jellyfish, one might find them and their moral