in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation; and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable."[Footnote:  Essay on Liberty, Introductory.] Not a few observers today are reiterating this note of alarm with increasing emphasis.  Are their fears well founded?  We may at once agree in applauding the liberty worship of our fathers and of our contemporaries in the more backward countries.  No secure steps in civilization can be taken until liberty of body, of movement, and of possession are guaranteed; there must be no fear of arbitrary execution, arrest, or confiscation.  To this must be added liberty of conscience, of speech, and of worship; the right of free assembly, a free press, and that “freedom to worship God” that the Pilgrims sought.  Wherever these rights, so fundamental to human happiness, are impugned, “Liberty!” is still the fitting rallying-cry.[Footnote:  The exact limits within which freedom of speech must be allowed are debatable, (a) Speech which incites to crime, to lawbreaking, to sexual and other vice, must be prevented; and (b) slander, the public utterance of grossly disparaging statements concerning any person, without reasonable evidence of their truth.  May we attempt to stifle the utterance of (c) such other untruths as are inexcusable in the light of our common knowledge?  There are certainly many matters where there is no longer room for legitimate difference of opinion; and the general diffusion of correct knowledge is greatly retarded by the silly utterances of uninformed people.  Yet to draw the line here is so difficult that we must probably tolerate this evil forever rather than run the risk of stifling some generally unsuspected truth.] rights are safely won; the danger now is rather of abusing them.  We must not forget that liberty is only a means, not an end in itself, to be restricted in so far as may be necessary for the greatest happiness.  From our discussion in Part ii it should be clear that there are no “natural rights” which the community is bound to respect; liberty must be granted the individual so far, and only so far, as it does not impede the general welfare.  We do not hesitate to end the liberty, or even to take the life, of those we deem dangerous to society.  We do not hesitate to confiscate the land which we deem necessary for a highway or railroad or public building.  Indeed, we hedge personal liberty about with a thousand restrictions by general consent, in the realization that public interests must come before private.  We have no need to discuss the doctrine of anarchism [Footnote:  For an eloquent defense of anarchism see Tolstoy’s writings; here is