Let me say at once that I know no question more difficult in the whole range of political science. I am quite certain that, from the angle of individual freedom, the less interference the state attempts, the better for everyone concerned; but, equally, I am clear that to some interference the state is fully entitled. I should deny, for instance, the right of any voluntary association to inflict physical punishment or imprisonment upon its members; and I should argue that any state was justified in immediate and drastic interference to this end. But the real problems we encounter are not so simple as this. Joseph Smith announces his reception of a message from Heaven ordaining the duty of men to practise polygamy in a community where the law only recognizes monogamy; what rights of interference has the state when a body of men and women join him and begin to give effect to his teaching? What are the rights of the state when a congress of trade unionists declares a general strike? Are those rights different when the purpose of the strike is industrial from what they are if it is political? How are we to distinguish between the two? What are the rights of combination among men employed in industries the nature of which makes the service they perform fundamental to the community? What should be the attitude of the state to a society of men engaged in propaganda for a revolution by the use of physical force? Is there a difference between such a society when it merely preaches the desirability of such a revolution and when it acts to that end? Does action, in the latter case, mean embarkation upon rebellion, for example, the purchase of machine-guns, or does it extend, say, to the stirring-up of industrial strife in the hope that a resort to political rebellion may be its outcome?