Democracy is a device—­the best so far invented—­for diminishing as much as possible the interference of governments with liberty.  If a nation is divided into two sections which cannot both have their way, democracy theoretically insures that the majority shall have their way.  But democracy is not at all an adequate device unless it is accompanied by a very great amount of devolution.  Love of uniformity, or the mere pleasure of interfering, or dislike of differing tastes and temperaments, may often lead a majority to control a minority in matters which do not really concern the majority.  We should none of us like to have the internal affairs of Great Britain settled by a parliament of the world, if ever such a body came into existence.  Nevertheless, there are matters which such a body could settle much better than any existing instrument of government.

The theory of the legitimate use of force in human affairs, where a government exists, seems clear.  Force should only be used against those who attempt to use force against others, or against those who will not respect the law in cases where a common decision is necessary and a minority are opposed to the action of the majority.  These seem legitimate occasions for the use of force; and they should be legitimate occasions in international affairs, if an international government existed.  The problem of the legitimate occasions for the use of force in the absence of a government is a different one, with which we are not at present concerned.

Although a government must have the power to use force, and may on occasion use it legitimately, the aim of the reformers to have such institutions as will diminish the need for actual coercion will be found to have this effect.  Most of us abstain, for instance, from theft, not because it is illegal, but because we feel no desire to steal.  The more men learn to live creatively rather than possessively, the less their wishes will lead them to thwart others or to attempt violent interference with their liberty.  Most of the conflicts of interests, which lead individuals or organizations into disputes, are purely imaginary, and would be seen to be so if men aimed more at the goods in which all can share, and less at those private possessions that are the source of strife.  In proportion as men live creatively, they cease to wish to interfere with others by force.  Very many matters in which, at present, common action is thought indispensable, might well be left to individual decision.  It used to be thought absolutely necessary that all the inhabitants of a country should have the same religion, but we now know that there is no such necessity.  In like manner it will be found, as men grow more tolerant in their instincts, that many uniformities now insisted upon are useless and even harmful.