From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984
In 1884, Herbert Spencer wrote what quickly became a celebrated book, The Man Versus The State. The book is seldom referred to now, and gathers dust on library shelves — if, in fact, it is still stocked by many libraries. Spencer's political views are regarded by most present-day writers, who bother to mention him at all, as "extreme laissez faire," and hence "discredited."
But any open-minded person who takes the trouble today to read or reread The Man Versus The State will probably be startled by two things. The first is the uncanny clairvoyance with which Spencer foresaw what the future encroachments of the State were likely to be on individual liberty, above all in the economic realm. The second is the extent to which these encroachments had already occurred in 1884, the year in which he was writing. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (8)
Nice book review except for one glaring sin. He ends up saying that the government needs to make sure children getting run over by cars get medical attention without regard to ability to pay. No, sir, that is not the government's responsibility! Private charity can set up a fund to guarantee payment for emergency medical care without regard to ability to pay.
As he correctly worries, any government meddling will lead down the path of totalitarianism. Crying about the starving babies and children in need of medical attention is the classic siren song supposed to turn our hearts to socialist bondage. It works, but that is because people are emotionally gullible rather than rationally thinking. Alas, it is the will of the people to be enslaved.
God is a monarch who only lets people into Heaven if they obey the rules and mind their own business. Satan is a demagogue who encourages people do anything they please to each other--and that is Hell. We are creating Hell, not Heaven, on Earth.
Published: September 21, 2007 11:09 AM
As early as 1871 the Liberals in my home town of Kettering, England, had (as Herbert Spencer in near by Darby would have been aware) already given up supporting liberty.
They campaigned for a School Board (which they were able to do under the Act of Parliament passed by the Liberal party government the previous year) to force people to pay for schools they wished to build and control.
The Liberals did this not because there were no schools in Kettering, but because most of them were Church of England "National" schools and they disliked the Anglican Church.
There was nothing to stop the Liberals building more "Nonconformist" (i.e. hard line Protestant) "British" schools, and most of the rich manufacturers in the town were Liberal "nonconformists" (so they could have educated the children of the poor in schools that avoided the "wicked" teachings of the Church of England had they chosen to spend their own money) - but they choose to opt for force (i.e. to reject liberty).
There was a public vote in Kettering and the Liberals lost, as they lost every vote on the issue till government schools were forced on every town (whether the local voters wanted them or not) in 1891.
Now nationally the Conservative party was just as bad. For example, many aspects of statism were made compulsory for local government (whether local voters wanted them or not) by the Act of the Disraeli government in 1875, and in the same year unions were put above many of the aspects of the law of contract and "peaceful picketing" (i.e. obstruction) was allowed. But it is clear that by the 1870's at least the Liberals were no use to people who believed in liberty - other things were already more important to them.
Not just "nonsectarian" education, but also "temperance" (anti booze) and ...... well just about everything.
Published: September 21, 2007 11:38 AM
You don't give the full story of what Herbert Spencer thought about unions.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:10 PM
Any consistent individualist would support the individual right to form or join a (non-coercive) union.
Published: September 21, 2007 2:31 PM
'Spencer's political views are regarded by most present-day writers, who bother to mention him at all, as "extreme laissez faire," and hence "discredited." '
Ah yes, that pet favourite of the liberals; "discredited". Just ask "discredited by whom?", and you'll discover, most of the time, that it's just a slur.
Published: September 21, 2007 9:55 PM
"Yet though the problem of the relief of poverty and misfortune has not been solved, we cannot callously deny that the problem exists. Nor can we leave its solution entirely to private charity. To cite an extreme example, but unfortunately one of daily occurrence: If a child is run over in the street or if two cars crash, there ought to be the quickest possible provision for taking and admitting the victim or victims immediately to a hospital, if necessary, before there has been time to determine whether or not they can afford to pay for doctor or hospital service, and without depending on the offer of some private good Samaritan, who may or may not happen to be on the scene, to guarantee payment of the hospital bill. There should be governmental provision to meet all such emergencies."
David Spellman of the first comment hit the nail on the head. This passage of Spencer stood out as a great error on his part. Why he missed that is a mystery.
Published: September 22, 2007 8:24 PM
There should be governmental provision to meet all such emergencies.
But according to...Spencer, again, such a government can only be voluntarily funded.
Published: September 23, 2007 5:05 PM
Herbert Spencer's book is not picking up dust at all. I am from Rhode Island, and picked it up at my library. As long as there are people who want liberty, his writing will not disappear.
Published: September 26, 2007 11:40 AM