more the activities of the state are extended the less room there will be for individual initiative. Quite the contrary. The more the functions of the state are enlarged, the greater the opportunities afforded for the development of the individual's capacities and powers. And the individual's interests are not inconsistent with those of the state. The more comprehensive and profound the interests of the individual, the more capable they are of promoting the good of the state as a whole.
When both state and citizens are strong, conflicts between them will be rare. On the other hand, when either state or citizens are unduly weak, constant collisions will occur. The regulations of the state will seem irksome to the citizens, and the pretensions of the citizens will seem to the state presumptuous. Both in state and citizens the sense of responsibility will be either weak or altogether lacking. But in the good and strong state it is recognised that the laws of the state supply the conditions under which the individual's best work can be done, and that the energy and initiative of the individual contribute not only to his own advantage, but also to the well-being of the state as a whole. Such state undertakings as the post office do not limit individual activity. Rather they widen the individual's sphere of legitimate enterprise, and enable him to use and organise more efficiently the means at his disposal.
A good state makes it possible for the individual to perform the function for which he is best fitted, and thus fulfil a worthy vocation. Every man has the right to choose his vocation, but the duty is laid upon every man to fulfil that vocation to the best of
