There is one other general part of this political aspect of liberty that I wish to consider before I turn to a different portion of my theme. I have argued that resistance to the encroachments of power is essential to freedom because it is the habit of power continuously, if it can, to enlarge the boundaries of its authority. Is there any specific rule by which men can be trained to such resistance? Is there, that is, a way in which the average citizen of the modern state can be persuaded that it is in his interest to be vigilant against those who would invade his rights? Can it, further, be shown that such a temper in the citizen is likely, as it grows, to confer benefit upon the community as a whole? Broadly speaking, I think the answer to these questions is in the affirmative. I hazard the generalization that the more widespread the distribution of power in the state, the more decentralized its character, the more likely men are to be zealous for freedom. That is, of course, a large statement to make. It is the thesis that, in terms of historic experience, good government is always, in the end, both less valuable and less efficient than self-government. I mean that, in general, rules imposed upon a society from above for its benefit are less effective to the end that they seek than rules which have grown naturally from below. I believe that to be true both of the individual and the group in society. Its full realization is, of course, an impossibility since it would make the uniformities we need in social life unattainable. But the greater the degree in which we can realize it, the better for the community to which we belong. I do not mean to imply that there is any rigid principle which enables us to mark off the lines of demarcation between what is individual and what is social, between what belongs to the group and what belongs to the state, between the sphere of central, and the sphere of local government. The only possible approach to that problem is a pragmatic one, as anyone can see who tries to make common sense out of John Stuart Mill’s famous attempt, with its list of exceptions[24] by which he reduced it to something like absurdity. Most of us, I think, could draw up lists of governmental subjects in which central and local topics could be demarcated without undue disagreement. We should fairly universally say that foreign policy and defence, fiscal technique and commercial regulation were naturally within the sphere of the central, and playing fields, were within the sphere of the local, authority. We should agree that crime is a matter for the state, and sin a matter for the churches. We should admit that there must be uniform regulations for marriage and divorce, but that individuals only could make up their minds when, within the regulations, either to marry or divorce.