y
Mr. Flower, his antagonist claims to deal with. I have already touched
on his treatment of Case II., that of the Christian Scientist. His
treatment of only one other is significant enough to call for notice
on my part. Case V. is that of one Powell of Pennsylvania. This man
had put a large sum of money into the business of manufacturing
oleomargarine. He had complied with all the conditions of the law. His
product was what it claimed to be, and was stamped as such. Nobody was
deceived or injured. But a later legislature--as if there were not
already crimes enough in existence--declares this manufacture a crime.
The "intelligent public" majority calmly robs him of his property and
ruins him, and feels no sort of compunction in the matter. One year it
encourages him to start a business; the next it ruins him for starting
it.

Mr. Bellamy, however, says this "proves too much. It shows a vested
money interest controlling a legislature and voting a rival business
into outlawry." And he adds, "This is a kind of instance socialists
like to get hold of." If socialists like to play with dynamite, then I
should think they might like such cases; otherwise, not. For it
happens precisely not to illustrate what Mr. Bellamy says it does.
Instead of its having been a case of "a vested money interest
controlling the legislature and voting a rival into outlawry," it
happened to be the "intelligent public opinion" of the farmers, who
wanted their butter business protected even though it took robbery to
do it. And this is just the kind of justice any new business may
expect, under nationalistic control, until it has accumulated "data"
enough to satisfy "intelligent public opinion."

Governmentalism and paternalism have always been evils, Mr. Flower
asserts. This Mr. Bellamy admits. For this reason, Mr. Flower thinks
the power of government should be minimized, and the individual left
more and more free. This would seem to be a most logical inference.
But, no, says Mr. Bellamy, for there is something peculiar in
nationalism that is going to neutralize all these malign tendencies.
He does not make it quite plain to the uninitiated as to how this is
to be done. The chief point seems to be that, instead of one man doing
it, as in a monarchy, or a few men doing it, as in an aristocracy,
everybody is going to do, and whatever everybody does is necessarily
going to be all right. Those to whom this appears perfectly plain and
satisfactory, of