Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/704

690 Can it not be made the eve of an era of reforms really great and far-reaching? If, as was indicated above, there is a general and profound realization of the threatening evils, is it not possible to evolve an agreement with regard to the irreducible minimum of social reform?

For example, can there be anything more nearly axiomatic than the proposition that to the inevitable natural inequalities of men there shall not be added artificial inequalities—monopolies and privileges created and supported by the state? On the subject of competition there is an irrepressible conflict between the individualists and the socialists; but is it not clear that competition in a "fair field and no favors" is entirely different from competition between men who are heavily handicapped and men who are free and untrammeled? Inequality of faculty may imply inequality of rewards in a society governed by individualistic principles, but society never yet has tried equality of opportunity. There certainly was no equality of opportunity in Greece or Rome, and there was none under feudalism. Has there been any since the industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism, and the wage system? Shallow economists like Bastiat and his contemporary disciples (whose number, fortunately, is not legion) may assert that there has been; but who takes them seriously? No school is more thoroughly discredited than that which accepts existing iniquities and meets all demands for reform with the laissez-faire mockery. Nothing will be "let alone" which is not in accordance with the requirements of social justice. The law may have its time limits, but morality is not bound by any statute of limitations. Vested wrongs, however ancient, do not become rights. Laissez-faire did not prevent the abolition of the institution of slavery, and it cannot prevent the rectification of other firmly established institutions. True, consistent, honest individualism presupposes two conditions: equal opportunities, and equal liberty to utilize them and develop one's faculties. Any defense of privilege, artificial monopoly, and law-created inequality is necessarily a repudiation of the essence of the individualistic philosophy.

Now, equality of opportunity and of liberty is but another