a sample statement:  “For a Christian to promise to subject himself to any government whatsoever-a subjection which may be considered the foundation of state life-is a direct negation of Christianity.” (Kingdom of God, chap.  IX.) Cf. this utterance of one of the Chicago anarchists of 1886.  “Whoever prescribes a rule of action for another to obey is a tyrant:  usurper, and an enemy of liberty."]- unrestricted liberty since the general chaos that would result there from, in the present stage of human nature, is sufficiently apparent.  Liberty can never be absolute.  Indeed, there has been a curious reversal of situation.  The older cry of liberty that stirs us was a cry of the oppressed masses against their masters; now it is a slogan of the privileged upper classes against that increasing popular legislation which restricts their powers.  Kings are now but figureheads, if they linger at all, in our modern democracies; governments are not irresponsible masters of the people, they are instruments for carrying out the popular will.  The real tyrants now, those whose irresponsible authority is dangerous to the masses, are the kings of industry; if the cry of “liberty” is to be raised again, it should be raised, according to all historical precedent, in behalf of the slaves of modern industry rather than in behalf of the fortunate few who give up so grudgingly the practical powers they have usurped.  There were those, indeed, who fought passionately for the divine right of kings, those who died to maintain the right of a white man to hold Negroes as slaves; there are those today who with a truly religious fervor uphold the right of the capitalistic class to manage the industries of the country at their own sweet will, unhampered by such legislative restrictions as the majority may deem expedient for the general welfare.  But it is a travesty on the sacred word “liberty” that it should be thus invoked to uphold the prerogatives of the favored few.  Liberty, in the sense in which it is properly an ideal for man, connotes the right to all such forms of activity as are consonant with the greatest general happiness, and to no others.  It implies the right not to be oppressed, not the right to oppress.  Mere freedom of contract is not real freedom, if the alternative be to starve; such formal freedom may be practical slavery.  The real freedom is freedom to live as befits a man; and it is precisely because such freedom is beyond the grasp of multitudes today that our system of “free contract” is discredited; it offers the name of liberty without the reality.  But apart from this questionable appeal to the ideal of liberty, there are not a few who sincerely believe, on grounds of practical expediency, that legislation ought not to interfere any more than proves absolutely necessary with the conduct of industry.  This scheme of individualism we will now consider.