; 
i 
5 
{ 
g 
f 
Lo 
P= 
: 
4 
ED 
3= 
O 
N 
Di 
Nn 
0 
NC 
*N 
nl 
h 
om 
wn 
dd 
> 
om 
1S | 
A) 
= 
n {i 
ye 
- 
oo 
a1 
a 
wd 
e 
- 
®)| 
FH, 
~f 
0 
5 
)| 
We 
1.1 
yr 
Tr 
21] 
AY 
o 
m 
oo 
w 
Q 
LD) 
QO 
NY 
2 
rd 
0 
ay 
SOCIAL REFORM 135 
be added to what has already 
to the part of individualism 
roversy. Whatever welcome 
‘en accorded the policy of non- 
«in times more congenial to 
“ice of abstract philosophical 
rules of public conduct, there 
impatience in our own day 
estion of passivity as a re- 
he challenge of social ills. 
:nth-century watchwords as 
its” or “the beneficent sys- 
il liberty” sound to the twen- 
ear as archaic as the terms 
r the conventions of political 
= 
tn 
th biological analogy. Even 
ted in the more respectable 
cial evolution, laissez faire has 
ted alike by public sentiment 
rt opinion as the sufficient 
economic disorder. Were it 
tural selection, working raw 
in social evolution, would 
move what all right-minded 
nen regard as plague-spots in 
system, the process of elim- 
E 
: 
3 
vi) 
-—