Here are certain examples of what I mean. The antithesis between capital and labour would be impossible. Some form of a restored guild system would be the only workable basis. Production would be normally for use, not profit; and advertising or exploitation of any kind, or any other form of “creating markets,” would be rigidly tabooed. Every family would hold land sufficient for its own maintenance so far as possible farm and garden products are concerned. Certain large, expensive machines, by their nature not always in use, would be owned by the community, while the transportation of surplus produce to outside markets, the maintenance of a dairy and a canning plant, possibly also a mill and bakery, would be communally undertaken. As joyful living through that simplicity which follows from the elimination of unwholesome desires is a fundamental principle, it follows that in every case there would be a revival of the old principle of sumptuary laws, certain things being excluded as vicious in themselves, others as poisoning in their influence. Of course there is great danger here, since there is the constant menace of a pernicious infringement on that personal liberty which is an essential of all right living. The fact is incontestable, however, that our present intolerable social condition which seems to focus at one point in the “high cost of living” is due to two things: first, the multiplication during the last forty years of an incalculable number of foolish luxuries and “amenities of life” we were far happier without, but which now through familiarity we look on as indispensable; second, the fact I already have referred to that more than half the labour expended today goes to produce utterly useless, grossly ugly, or vitiatingly luxurious commodities, while half the cost of this ridiculous mass of superfluities goes to the tout, the drummer, the tradesman and the advertiser. In some way the balance must be restored, and this can be accomplished partly by regulations formally set forth, partly by the moral force of a better type of life actually put in process and exerting its silent influence over the people themselves. To a great extent it would be a case of “local option” extended to more than the question of drink. It would be neither useful nor wise (indeed it might be actionable) for me to attempt a list of the things we should be better off without. Each one can make his list to suit himself, and he will be surprised, if he deals with the question frankly, at the length of the schedule.