Sec. 6.  The “Socialism” of Taxation—­But there is another form of State interference which is more direct and significant than any of these.  One of the largest State works is that of public education.  Now the cost of this is in large measure defrayed by rate and tax, the bulk of which, in this case, is paid by those who do not get for themselves or for their children any direct return.  The State-assisted education is said to tax A for the benefit of B. Nor is this a solitary instance; it belongs to the very essence of the modern socialistic movement.  There is a strong movement, independent too of political partisanship, to cast, or to appear to cast, the burden of taxation more heavily upon the wealthier classes in order to relieve the poor.  It is enough to allude to the income tax and the Poor Law.  These are socialistic measures of the purest kind, and are directly open to that objection which is commonly raised against theoretic socialism, that it designs “to take from the rich in order to give to the poor.”  The growing public opinion in favour of graduated income tax, and the higher duty upon legacies and rich man’s luxuries, are based on a direct approval of this simple policy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

The advocates of these measures urge this claim on grounds of public expediency, and those whose money is taken for the benefit of their poorer brethren, though they grumble, do not seriously impugn the right of the State to levy taxes in what way seems best.  Whether we regard the whole movement from the taxation standpoint, or from the standpoint of benefits received, we shall perceive that it really means a direct and growing pressure brought to bear upon the rich for the benefit of the poor.  A consideration of all the various classes of socialistic legislation and taxation to which we have referred, will show that we are constantly engaged more and more in the practical assertion and embodiment of the three following principles—­

1.  That the individual is often too weak or ignorant to protect himself in contract or bargain, and requires public protection.

2.  That considerations of public interest are held to justify a growing interference with “rights of property.”

3.  That the State or municipality may enlarge their functions in any direction and to any extent, provided a clear public interest is subserved.

Sec. 7.  Relation of Theoretic Socialism to Socialistic Legislation.—­Now it has been convenient in speaking of this growth of State and municipal action to use the term Socialism.  But we ought to be clear as to the application of this term.  Although Sir William Harcourt declared, “We are all socialists to-day,” the sober, practical man who is responsible for these “socialistic” measures, smiles at the saying, and regards it as a rhetorical exaggeration.  He knows well enough that he and his fellow-workers are guided by no theory of the proper limits of government, and are animated