c of
a self-governing nation. The other side has first to show its case.

"_Better England Free Than England Sober?_"

This does not mean that every argument of the other side is valid. In
most of the public protestations, especially from the Middle West, far
too much is made of the claim that all the Puritanic laws and the
whole prohibitionist movement are an interference with personal
liberty. It is an old argument, indeed, "Better England free than
England sober." For public meetings it is just the kind of protest
which resounds well and rolls on nobly. We are at once in the midst of
the "most sacred" rights. Who desires that America, the idol of
those who seek freedom from the tyranny of the Old World, shall
trample on the right of personal liberty? And yet those hundreds
of singing-societies which have joined in this outburst of moral
indignation have forgotten that every law is a limitation of personal
liberty. The demand of the nation must limit the demands of the
individual, even if it is not the neighbor, but the actor himself who
is directly hurt. No one wants to see the lottery or gambling-houses
or the free sale of morphine and cocaine permitted, or slavery, even
though a man were to offer himself for sale, or polygamy, even though
all wives should consent. To prevent temptation toward ruinous
activities is truly the State's best right, and no injury to personal
liberty. The German reflects gladly how much more the German State
apparently intrudes upon personal freedom: for instance, in its
splendid State insurance for old age and accidents.

To be sure, from this German viewpoint it is hard to understand why
the right of the State to subordinate personal wishes to national ones
should not carry with it a duty to make compensation. To him the
actions of some Southern States appear simply as the confiscation of
property. When, as has happened, a captain of industry erects, for
instance, a most costly brewery, and the State in the following year
prohibits the sale of beer, turning the large, new establishment into
a huge, useless ruin, without giving the slightest compensation, the
foreigner stands aghast, wondering if to-morrow a party which believes
in the State ownership of railroads may not prohibit railroading by
private companies without any payment to the present owners.

Yet the political aspect does not concern the social psychologist. I
abstract from it as from many others. There is, indeed, no