morality rests that social evolution means individual evolution, and vice versa. While every one admits that man is essentially social in his nature, the contest between Socialists and Individualists proves that the ultimate consequences of this view have not been fully realized. This is due to the fact that the relation of society to its members is interpreted by means of mechanical metaphors. Both Socialists and Individualists agree in thinking that the recent development of social functions has carried with it restraint upon the members of society. They differ only in the way in which they view this alleged limitation of the individual's powers. It seems almost too obvious for debate that the more the state undertakes, the less remains to be done by the individual. But this assumes that individual liberty and communal action are antagonistic. Such a mechanical relation between society and its members, however, is disproved by the facts. An oligarchic or monarchic despotism, which assumes every function to the exclusion of the individual, always has the most limited functions. Though it claims to do all, it can really do very little. To do more, it must make room for the individual and call forth his powers. And, on the other hand, an individual rich in the resources of will and intelligence will himself be powerless if he finds himself a member of a crude and unorganized state. The true view is that social and individual evolution are concomitant, and this means that as civilization advances the functions of society and those of its members are simultaneously enlarged. Every addition to the communal powers is capable of being, and generally is, a direct enlargement of the individual's capacity to fulfil his legitimate desires. If individual and social ends come into collision, the conflict arises because either the individual or the society has blundered, and sought an end which is illegitimate even from its own point of view.
