ergy, individual thrift, individual enterprise, and individual liberty. The choice is not between the devil of plutocracy on the one side and the deep sea of socialism on the other, for neither the one nor the other is necessary. Social organization and individual initiative, efficiency, and personality, are not contradictory terms. Socialism, in other words, is not synonymous with social reform.

The aristocratic, communistic, and socialistic ideals of distribution being defective, let us examine now the democratic or competitive ideal, which may be stated thus:

To everyone according to the value of his service.

The underlying idea is that a man who makes two blades of grass grow where only one grew before is a public benefactor and should receive a return for his service, such a return being based on the value of the service and not at all on the birth, position, or needs of the man. The value of the product is the thing to be considered, for there must be rewards for industry, enterprise, and talents, in order to stimulate their exertion. Productivity is the keynote of this ideal.

To get a little nearer to the problem, let us analyze briefly the means by which wealth is gathered. A fortune may be the result of chance or good luck, such as the return in mineral wealth

from land bought for a song or taken in return for a bad debt without knowledge of its real value, or a fortunate turn in the stock market, and thus come without any adequate return being made. Other fortunes are plain stealings, and as there are laws against murder and arson, so also there are laws against stealing whose scope ought to be extended. The mere transference of money from the pockets of one man to the pockets of another is not production. The promoter, gambler, and thief, who live by their wits, should be sent to jail, as well as directors who fail to direct or who loot a corporation. Land grabs, the securing of public utility franchises by fraud, or without an adequate return for their value, the bribing of legislators for favors, and the whole brood of graft and chicanery, come under this rubric of stealings. Law and public opinion should abolish such practices and render unnecessary the question of How did he get it?

The last and not least source of wealth is earnings, the giving of value for value received. The shoemaker sells a pair of shoes and receives five dollars in return. If the shoes are of honest value, both have profited from the trade, the purchaser as well as the shoemaker. Big business or little business, to be permanent, must, likewise, have the same basic principle.

The question now arises, whether or not selfinterest is sufficient to restrain the accumulation of wealth to earnings and thus benefit society. Adam Smith said, with sturdy common sense, that "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest," and that "nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens." Most sensible people would agree to this. Smith, moreover, believed that a man seeking his own interest is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." Such philosophy, while true to a certain extent, is not wholly true. It was partly the result of a reaction from excessive state interference. Evolution today dwells upon the survival of the fit, and to this must be added the social fit. The pirate in business is anti-social and should be exterminated. The welfare of society must be held in mind as well as the temporary welfare of the individual. Government and law must intervene when social and individual interests clash.

The way out is not the abolition of private ownership, but the improvement of the present system by better laws and customs. The public regulation of natural monopolies or business affected with a blic interest, such as railroads or public utiliand the hours of employment and wages of

1

and children, are examples.

The diffusion of education and technical train

ing among the masses also becomes a necessity when reward is based on service. The only equality that can be expected is an opportunity for training. Men vary in physical strength, intellectual capacity, and natural aptitudes, and so receive unequal rewards. The industrious, thrifty, and prudent succeed, while the idle, spendthrift, and imprudent go to the wall. Differences in fortune and position ensue, and the reason and the remedy lie to a large extent in the individual. No legislative fiat or soap-box orator's denunciation of "the system" or "capitalism” has ever changed this fundamental principle. Rewards are even now roughly apportioned to merit, and the extension of the ideal by the removal of all obstacles to merit would not reduce inequality, although promoting a more just distribution. Under any system of distribution there is bound to be inequality, for men are not equally endowed, whatever theorists may say to the contrary. A state of perfect equality is, frankly

speaking, a mirage, an ignis fatuus, and an impossibility, as long as men remain as they are. The difference, however, may be lessened by education and training.

The democratic ideal of distribution is, then, based fundamentally on the idea of service and the production of goods of value to society. The service is given or the product is made because somebody is willing to pay for the same and there is a mutual exchange of values. The various factors of production receive then the proportionate share which they add to the product. Such an idea of reward for service or productivity should be enforced by law as far as possible and by public opinion more. The consequent results would be the elimination of predatory methods, the abolition of special privileges, and the bringing about of a free field for all. The appeal is to the natural effort of every man to better his own condition, which is achieved only through the economic virtues of industry, thrift, and foresight. The truth is that "if a man preach a better sermon, write a better book, or build a better mouse trap than his neighbor, though he hide himself in the wilderness, the world will make a beaten path to his door." Likewise, the social order based on the idea of reward according to the services and capacities of its members, is built on the rock and will stand.