nationality; and as States are governed differently, it may be claimed that there is in theory a rivalry between States just as there is in theory a rivalry between private companies.
In short, Spencer's criticism is directed rather against the excesses of governmental domination than against government in itself. To say nothing of the fact that some services are so fundamental and so complex that a private society could not undertake them, it is to be remembered that Spencer, in the heat of his anti-governmental rage, nevertheless assigns to the State the all-important function of guarding life and property—that is, of guarding all that is worth guarding. And the fact that Spencer assigns this particular function to the State proves that his hatred for the State is partial and superficial, not deep and definitive. If I dislike and distrust a man I do not ask him to become the guardian of my life and the custodian of my property. Yet it is to the State that Spencer gives this confidential task; for he makes the State the policeman, the judge, and the protector of human life, allows it indeed the most intimate and vital offices. He behaves toward the State like a bourru bienfaisant: he complains, grumbles, and protests, but in the end he yields on the most important points. He attacks the State only to exalt it. He attacks public collective entities only
