It is of little use merely _stating_ that it is perilous to try to purchase social benefits at the expense of individuals. To the majority, that seems the safest thing in the world; and, strange to say, the most just. The ancient idea of vicarious sacrifice is as rampant today as it was when the groves of ancient temples echoed with the cries of human victims, burnt on the altars, for the appeasement of the gods and the good of the community. The idea of _numbers_ enters largely into the popular idea of right and wrong—what I call arithmetical morality. Because 100 is ten times more than 10, it is assumed that ten _persons_ may justly be sacrificed for the sake of the 100. But that is to confuse mere nonsentient signs with living conscious beings; surely a strangely stupid proceeding. It is this deeply-rooted idea which we have to combat. First of all then, it must be noted, that, as a rule, the less liberty people enjoy, the less they value or respect it. The preoccupation will be not with liberty but with the best means of getting on without it. And the best way of doing that will be—or will seem to be—to force your own views as much as possible upon your neighbours—otherwise they will force theirs upon _you_. Mutually lacking in respect for liberty, there will be as many good reasons for attacking it in others as you have theories to enforce. And the same for them. The situation must obviously end in a stupendous tyranny of some kind: whether of king or oligarchy or State: and that of the State, being practically invulnerable, is the worst of all. I am far from thinking that the motive for aggression would always be self-interest. It would be less dangerous if it were. We all know the deadly tyranny of the thoroughly well-meaning person: the highly-moral person, for instance, who calls out for mediæval forms of punishment for especially reprobated crimes. As some philosopher said: “He must be an extraordinarily good man before he can safely be guided by his conscience.” I go farther, and say: “The extraordinarily good man must be trained for a lifetime by the Personal Rights Association before he can trust his conscience—and even then he had better not!” Of all human attributes, conscience, when backed by power over others, seems to be the most dangerous. Think what martyr-fires it has lighted, what torture-chambers it has furnished and kept busy! If we had only self-interest to deal with, we should not be troubled with the present ardent desire of increasing numbers of people, to further the interests of Society—of morals, medicine, science—even what are called the true interests of the individual himself, by progressive outrage against him. It is this eternal “good motive” that makes our reformers as irresistible as a swarm of locusts, and as destructive! The bravest of us flinch before Virtue on the war-path.