The things that men desire are many and various:  admiration, affection, power, security, ease, outlets for energy, are among the commonest of motives.  But such abstractions do not touch what makes the difference between one man and another.  Whenever I go to the zošlogical gardens, I am struck by the fact that all the movements of a stork have some common quality, differing from the movements of a parrot or an ostrich.  It is impossible to put in words what the common quality is, and yet we feel that each thing an animal does is the sort of thing we might expect that animal to do.  This indefinable quality constitutes the individuality of the animal, and gives rise to the pleasure we feel in watching the animal’s actions.  In a human being, provided he has not been crushed by an economic or governmental machine, there is the same kind of individuality, a something distinctive without which no man or woman can achieve much of importance, or retain the full dignity which is native to human beings.  It is this distinctive individuality that is loved by the artist, whether painter or writer.  The artist himself, and the man who is creative in no matter what direction, has more of it than the average man.  Any society which crushes this quality, whether intentionally or by accident, must soon become utterly lifeless and traditional, without hope of progress and without any purpose in its being.  To preserve and strengthen the impulse that makes individuality should be the foremost object of all political institutions.

IV

We now arrive at certain general principles in regard to individual liberty and public control.

The greater part of human impulses may be divided into two classes, those which are possessive and those which are constructive or creative.  Social institutions are the garments or embodiments of impulses, and may be classified roughly according to the impulses which they embody.  Property is the direct expression of possessiveness; science and art are among the most direct expressions of creativeness.  Possessiveness is either defensive or aggressive; it seeks either to retain against a robber, or to acquire from a present holder.  In either case an attitude of hostility toward others is of its essence.  It would be a mistake to suppose that defensive possessiveness is always justifiable, while the aggressive kind is always blameworthy; where there is great injustice in the status quo, the exact opposite may be the case, and ordinarily neither is justifiable.

State interference with the actions of individuals is necessitated by possessiveness.  Some goods can be acquired or retained by force, while others cannot.  A wife can be acquired by force, as the Romans acquired the Sabine women; but a wife’s affection cannot be acquired in this way.  There is no record that the Romans desired the affection of the Sabine women; and those in whom possessive impulses