;
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)
-—