TRULY DEMOCRATIC:

The New Slavery: Nock on Spencer (Albert Jay Nock, October 24, 2005, Mises.org)

From 1851 down to his death at the end of the century, [Herbert] Spencer wrote occasional essays, partly as running comment on the acceleration of Statism's progress; partly as exposition, by force of illustration and example; and partly as remarkably accurate prophecy of what has since come to pass in consequence of the wholesale substitution of the principle of compulsory cooperation — the Statist principle — for the individualist principle of voluntary cooperation. He reissued four of these essays in 1884, under the title, The Man Versus The State; and these four essays, together with two others, called Over-legislation and From Freedom to Bondage, are now reprinted here under the same general title. [...]

The first essay, The New Toryism, is of primary importance just now, because it shows the contrast between the aims and methods of early Liberalism and those of modern Liberalism. In these days we hear a great deal about Liberalism, Liberal principles and policies, in the conduct of our public life. All sorts and conditions of men put themselves forward on the public stage as Liberals; they call those who oppose them Tories, and get credit with the public thereby. In the public mind, Liberalism is a term of hon our, while Toryism — especially "economic Toryism" — is a term of reproach. Needless to say, these terms are never examined; the self-styled Liberal is taken popularly at the face value of his pretensions, and policies which are put forth as Liberal are accepted in the same unreflecting way. This being so, it is useful to see what the historic sense of the term is, and to see how far the aims and methods of latter-day Liberalism can be brought into correspondence with it; and how far, therefore, the latter-day Liberal is entitled to bear that name.

Spencer shows that the early Liberal was consistently for cutting down the State's coercive power over the citizen, wherever this was possible. He was for reducing to a minimum the number of points at which the State might make coercive interventions upon the individual. He was for steadily enlarging the margin of existence within which the citizen might pursue and regulate his own activities as he saw fit, free of State control or State supervision. Liberal policies and measures, as originally conceived, were such as reflected these aims. The Tory, on the other hand, was opposed to these aims, and his policies reflected this opposition. In general terms, the Liberal was consistently inclined towards the individualist philosophy of society, while the Tory was consistently inclined towards the Statist philosophy.

Spencer shows moreover that as a matter of practical policy, the early Liberal proceeded towards the realization of his aims by the method of repeal. He was not for making new laws, but for repealing old ones. It is most important to remember this. Wherever the Liberal saw a law which enhanced the State's coercive power over the citizen, he was for repealing it and leaving its place blank. There were many such laws on the British statute-books, and when Liberalism came into power it repealed an immense grist of them.

Spencer must be left to describe in his own words, as he does in the course of this essay, how in the latter half of the last century British Liberalism went over bodily to the philosophy of Statism, and abjuring the political method of repealing existent coercive measures, proceeded to outdo the Tories in constructing new coercive measures of ever-increasing particularity. This piece of British political history has great value for American readers, because it enables them to see how closely American Liberalism has followed the same course. It enables them to interpret correctly the significance of Liberalism's influence upon the direction of our public life in the last half-century, and to perceive just what it is to which that influence has led, just what the consequences are which that influence has tended to bring about, and just what are the further consequences which may be expected to ensue.

For example, Statism postulates the doctrine that the citizen has no rights which the State is bound to respect; the only rights he has are those which the State grants him, and which the State may attenuate or revoke at its own pleasure. This doctrine is fundamental; without its support, all the various nominal modes or forms of Statism which we see at large in Europe and America — such as are called Socialism, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, etc. — would collapse at once. The individualism which was professed by the early Liberals, maintained the contrary; it maintained that the citizen has rights which are inviolable by the State or by any other agency. This was fundamental doctrine; without its support, obviously, every formulation of individualism becomes so much waste paper. Moreover, early Liberalism accepted it as not only fundamental, but also as axiomatic, self-evident. We may remember, for example, that our great charter, the Declaration of Independence, takes as its foundation the self-evident truth of this doctrine, asserting that man, in virtue of his birth, is endowed with certain rights which are "unalienable"; and asserting further that it is "to secure these rights" that governments are instituted among men. Political literature will nowhere furnish a more explicit disavowal of the Statist philosophy than is to be found in the primary postulate of the Declaration.

But now, in which direction has latter-day American Liberalism tended? Has it tended towards an expanding régime of voluntary cooperation, or one of enforced cooperation? Have its efforts been directed consistently towards repealing existent measures of State coercion, or towards the devising and promotion of new ones? Has it tended steadily to enlarge or to reduce the margin of existence within which the individual may act as he pleases? Has it contemplated State intervention upon the citizen at an ever-increasing number of points, or at an ever-decreasing number? In short, has it consistently exhibited the philosophy of individualism or the philosophy of Statism?

There can be but one answer, and the facts supporting it are so notorious that multiplying examples would be a waste of space. To take but a single one from among the most conspicuous, Liberals worked hard — and successfully — to inject the principle of absolutism into the Constitution by means of the Income-tax Amendment. Under that Amendment it is competent for Congress not only to confiscate the citizen's last penny, but also to levy punitive taxation, discriminatory taxation, taxation for "the equalization of wealth," or for any other purpose it sees fit to promote. Hardly could a single measure be devised which would do more to clear the way for a purely Statist régime, than this which puts so formidable a mechanism in the hands of the State, and gives the State carte blanche for its employment against the citizen. Again, the present Administration is made up of self-styled Liberals, and its course has been a continuous triumphal advance of Statism. In a preface to these essays, written in 1884, Spencer has a paragraph which sums up with remarkable completeness the political history of the United States during the last six years:

Dictatorial measures, rapidly multiplied, have tended continually to narrow the liberties of individuals; and have done this in a double way. Regulations have been made in yearly-growing numbers, restraining the citizen in directions where his actions were previously unchecked, and compelling actions which previously he might perform or not as he liked; and at the same time heavier public burdens, chiefly local, have further restricted his freedom, by lessening that portion of his earnings which he can spend as he pleases, and augmenting the portion taken from him to be spent as public agents please.

Thus closely has the course of American Statism, from 1932 to 1939, followed the course of British Statism from 1860 to 1884. Considering their professions of Liberalism, it would be quite appropriate and by no means in-urbane, to ask Mr. Roosevelt and his entourage whether they believe that the citizen has any rights which the State is bound to respect. Would they be willing — ex animo, that is, and not for electioneering purposes — to subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of the Declaration? One would be unfeignedly surprised if they were. Yet such an affirmation might go some way to clarify the distinction, if there actually be any, between the "totalitarian" Statism of certain European countries and the "democratic" Statism of Great Britain, France and the United States. It is commonly taken for granted that there is such a distinction, but those who assume this do not trouble themselves to show wherein the distinction consists; and to the disinterested observer the fact of its existence is, to say the least, not obvious.

MORE: -OBIT: Arthur Seldon (Daily Telegraph, 13/10/2005)

Arthur Seldon, who died on Tuesday aged 89, was, with Ralph Harris, one of the founders of the Institute of Economic Affairs, the think-tank which advanced free-market ideas at a time when they were deeply out of favour, and which provided much of the intellectual underpinning for Thatcherism.

The success of the IEA was in large part due to Seldon's gifts as an editor, and to the care with which he encouraged young writers. Many proposals which were later to be taken up by politicians might never have seen the light of day without Seldon's meticulous removal of jargon and insistence that the ideas being presented should be comprehensible to a wide audience.

Seldon himself had no interest in narrow party politics. He was not a Tory, but an old-fashioned Liberal, and insisted that shaping public attitudes, rather than courting politicians, should be the IEA's priority. [...]

In January 1957, on the initiative of a Liberal peer, Lord Grantchester, Seldon was introduced to Ralph Harris (now Lord Harris of High Cross), who was general director (and sole employee) of the newly-formed, independent Institute of Economic Affairs, of which Seldon soon became editorial director.

In a single week-end at the Reform Club he drafted a paper, published a few months' later as Pensions in a Free Society. It unfashionably declared: "The philosophy underlying this paper is that most of us are now adult enough to be left, or to be helped, to live our own lives according to our own lights... The transition from dependence to independence must be gradual; that is all the more reason for beginning soon."

There followed a remarkable 30-year partnership between Seldon and Harris that produced more than 300 scholarly books and papers which contributed powerfully, perhaps decisively, to the turn-round in party politics from the Keynesian-collectivist consensus of Butskellism to the market-centred programmes of Thatcher and Blair.

As self-confessed members of the awkward squad, Seldon and Harris were soon writing seminal studies of advertising and hire purchase in the free society series, and later co-authored further reports, including several on public versus private welfare.

The IEA had been set-up as an educational charity by a Sussex farming entrepreneur named Antony Fisher from the early profits of the Buxted Chicken company. While Harris built up the finances and student network of the Institute, Seldon became the incomparable, pro-active editor, orchestrating a rapidly growing academy of scholars, including Hayek, Milton Friedman and several other Nobel Laureates, as well as unknown junior scholars whom he coached to prominence.

Seldon identified not only important, but misunderstood or neglected, topics. After surviving an operation for an ulcer only when his rare blood group - for which stocks were unavailable - was matched to a bus driver from Edgware after a frantic search, he wrote The Price of Blood (1964), which argued for the market to be let loose to increase blood supplies.

He matched authors to each subject and urged them to develop analysis with recommendations for policy, but with no regard for what was then thought "politically impossible". His aim was to destroy the post-war consensus and rehabilitate the classical liberal philosophy of limited government based on a competition and the widest freedom of personal choice.

When faint-hearts dwelt on obstacles to radical reform, he declared that market forces would triumph over the short-term, opportunistic manoeuvres of puny party politicians. Yet despite his unceasing advocacy of the education voucher, in which he was especially helped by a devoted and energetic wife, he was doomed to watch his hopes dashed by mounting spending.

He was a pioneer in Britain of the American "public choice" school, which led him to confront the frequent cry of "market failure" with the charge of what he called "incorrigible government failure". The trouble he diagnosed was "that politicians are not generally saints pursuing the long-term public interest, but party politicians responding to demands from organised lobbies".

For Seldon, the profit motive governed by consumers in an open competitive economy was more truly democratic - and wholesome - than the vote motive operating in a regime of so-called representative government dominated by pressure groups.

His scholarly magnum opus entitled simply Capitalism (1990) failed to attract the public attention it deserved. But in his more populist writing he never ceased to challenge all three political parties. "The ultimate solution is nothing less than the displacement of 'public officials' and 'public servants' by the revival of the authority of parents to reject inadequate schools, crowded medical centres and captive housing, by empowering them to pay fees, medical insurance or other costs," he wrote in 2001.

On his 80th birthday, Lady Thatcher wrote to offer her congratulations, declaring that Seldon had made "an invaluable contribution to the political and economic map of Britain.

"At a time when free enterprise and the free market were unfashionable you championed their cause, laying the foundations for their revival in the 1970s… You always refused to accept Britain's decline and through your visionary work and rigorous preparation, you inspired much of our success during the 1980s."