F. Y. Gladney, in the Outlook, vol. 101, p. 261.] Unfortunately, however, it is those who are fittest to serve not the community but their own interests that have the best chance to survive-the clever, the privileged, the unscrupulous.  Nor is there equality of opportunity where some will not play fair and others have a long start.  The individualistic struggle makes for the selection of a type of greedy, self-centered man, with little sense of social responsibility.  Even granted that the men who reach the top are the men best fitted to manage the industries of the country, this method of selection of leaders is too wasteful of strength, too hard on the unsuccessful, to be generally profitable.  The prosperity of modern industry is due not primarily to its chaotic plan of individual effort and cross-purposes, but to the measure of cooperation we have nevertheless attained, with its consequent division and specialization of labor and large-scale production, aided by the extraordinary development of invention and machinery.  The ideal of legal control.  The epoch of ultra individualism, of what Huxley called “administrative nihilism,” is rapidly passing.  Jane Addams speaks of “the inadequacy of those eighteenth-century ideals the breakdown of the machinery which they provided,” pointing out that “that worldly wisdom which counsels us to know life as it is” discounts the assumption “that if only the people had freedom they would walk continuously in the paths of justice and righteousness.” [Footnote:  Newer Ideals of Peace, pp. 31-32.] H. G. Wells remarks, “We do but emerge now from a period of deliberate happy- go-lucky and the influence of Herbert Spencer, who came near raising public shiftlessness to the dignity of a natural philosophy.  Everything would adjust itself-if only it was left alone.” [Footnote:  Social Forces in England and America, p. 80.] It is becoming clear that we cannot trust to education and the conscience of individuals to right matters, not only because as yet we provide no moral education of any consequence for our youth, but because, if we did, the temptations in a world where every man is free to grab for himself would still be almost irresistible.  But there are two positive arguments for the extension of legal control that clinch the matter: 

(1) Without the support of the law it is often impossible for the conscientious man to act in a purely social spirit.  The competition of those who are less answerable to moral motives forces him to lower his own ideals if he would not see his business ruined.  The employer of child labor in one factory cannot afford to hire adults, at their higher wage, until all the other factories give up the cheaper labor also.  Where sweatshop labor produces cheap clothing for some manufacturers, the more scrupulous are undersold.  One employer cannot, unless he is unusually prosperous, raise the wages of his employees or shorten their hours until his competitors do likewise.  Improvement of conditions must take place all along the line or not at all.  And since unanimous voluntary consent is practically impossible to obtain, and of precarious duration if obtained, the legal enforcement of common standards is necessitated.