application of his theories, has seen these limitations. Or, again, what does the system of competition mean? Why do we have such varied estimates from different writers? Why do some see in it a benevolent influence, while for others it is a ghastly nightmare? The answer is, I think, that competition is an abstraction, which each makes in his own way. If we look on competition as a system where each is free to follow his "pure economic" tendencies in the shortest and simplest manner, I think there can be no question but that we must condemn it. The "pure economic impulse," namely, the impulse to get the maximum of wealth with the minimum of effort, left unchecked and unguided by any other social forces, would lead, by the shortest and simplest path, to theft, robbery, and murder. They are easier than work! And more sensible than work, if one be "_reinwirtschaftlich_," and live in a society where there is little chance that he who creates wealth will enjoy it. Or, partly checked by social constraints (thinking of these as "external" matters solely), the "economic tendency" may lead--as it has led--to the dynamiting of rival plants, to the securing of preferential rates from common carriers, to the corrupting of legislatures and judges, to the spreading of false rumors, etc. On the other hand, if the "rules of the game" are high, if competition be limited to doing things which result in a better commodity with a decreased outlay of human effort and physical resources, and with kindly feeling among competitors (or even without this last), we may see in it a great source of justice and progress. It all depends on what Professor Seligman calls the "level of competition."[174] That is to say, it depends on the extent to which the system includes factors of moral, legal and social nature, other than the "pure economic"--a thing "that never was on land or sea."