From Spencer's 1884 to Orwell's 1984; H. Hazlitt

HENRY HAZLITT FROM SPENCER'S1884 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. Spen cer'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 ]}f an Versus the State will probably be startled by two things. The first is the un canny clairvoyance with which Spencer foresaw what the future encroachments of the State were Mr. Hazlitt is the well-known economic and financial analyst, columnist, lecturer, and author of numerous books. This article will appear as a chapter in a forthcoming book, Man vs. the Welfare State, to be published by Arlington House.

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. The present generation has been brought up to believe that government concern for "social justice" and for the plight of the needy was something that did not even exist until the New Deal came along in 1933. The ages prior to that have been pictured as periods when no one "cared," when laissez faire was rampant, when everybody who did not suc ceed in the cutthroat competition that was euphemistically called free enterprise - but was simply a system of dog-eat-dog and the devil-take-the-hindmost - was al lowed to starve. And if the present generation thinks this is true l\7 68 THE FREEMAN February even of the 1920's, it is absolutely sure that it was so in the 1880's, which it would probably regard as the very peak of the prevalence of laissez faire.

The Seeds of Change Yet the new reader's initial as tonishment when he starts Spen cer's book may begin to wear off before he is halfway through, be cause one cause for surprise ex plains the other. All that Spencer was doing was to project or ex trapolate the legislative tendencies existing in the 1880's into the fu ture. It was because he was so clear-sightedly appalled by these tendencies that he recognized them so much more sharply than his contemporaries, and saw so much more clearly where they would lead if left unchecked. Even in his Preface to The Man Versus the State he pointed out how "increase in freedom on form" was being followed by "decrease of freedom in fact .... " Regulations have been made in yearly growing numbers, restraining the citizen in directions where his ac tions were previously unchecked, and compelling actions which previously he might perform or not as he liked; and at the same time heavier public burdens . . . have further restricted his freedom, by lessening that por tion of his earnings which he can spend as he pleases, and augmenting the portion taken from him to be spent as public agents please.

In his first chapter, "The New Toryism," Spencer contends that "most of those who now pass as Liberals, are Tories of a new type." The Liberals of his own day, he points out, had already "lost sight of the truth that in past times Liberalism habitually stood for in dividual freedom versus State-co ercion." So the complete Anglo-American switch of reference, by which a "liberal" today has come to mean primarily a Stflte-interventionist, had already begun in 1884. Al ready "plausible proposals" were being made "that there should be organized a system of compulsory insurance, by which men during their early lives shall be forced to provide for the time when they will be incapacitated." Here is al ready the seed of the American Social Security Act of 1935. Spencer also pays his respects to the anti libertarian implications of an increasing tax burden. Those who impose additional taxes are saying in effect: "Hitherto you have been free to spend this por tion of your earnings in any way which pleased you; hereafter you shall not be free to spend it, but we will spend it for the general benefit."

Spencer next turns to the com pulsions that labor unions were 1969 FROM SPENCER'S 1884 TO ORWELL'S 1984 69 even then imposing on their mem bers, and asks: "If men use their liberty in such a way as to sur render their liberty, are they there after any the less slaves?" In his second chapter, "The Coming Slavery," Spencer draws attention to the existence of what he calls "political momentum" the tendency of State interven tions and similar political meas ures to increase and accelerate in the direction in which they have already been set going. Ameri cans have become only too familiar with this momentum in the last few years. Spencer illustrates: "The blank form of an inquiry daily made is - 'We have already done this; why should we not do that?'" "The buying and working of telegraphs by the State" [which already ex isted in England when he wrote], he continued, "is made a reason for urging that the State should buy and work the railways." And he went on to quote the demands of one group that the State should take possession of the railways, "with or without compensation."

The British State did not buy and work the railways until 64 years later, in 1948, but it did get around to it, precisely as Spencer feared. It is not only precedent that prompts the constant spread of in terventionist measures, Spencer points out, "but also the necessity which arises for supplementing ineffective measures, and for deal ing with the artificial evils con tinually caused. Failure does not destroy faith in the agencies em ployed, but merely suggests more stringent use of such agencies or wider ramifications of them." One illustration he gives is how "the evils produced by compulsory charity are now proposed to be met by compulsory insurance." Today, in America, one could point to scores of examples (from meas ures to cure "the deficit in the balance of payments" to the con stant multiplication of measures to fight the government's "war on poverty") of interventions mainly designed to remove the artificial evils brought about by previous interventions.

One Turn Deserves Another Everywhere, Spencer goes on, the tacit assumption is that "gov ernment should step in whenever anything is not going right. . . . The more numerous governmental interventions become ... the more loud and perpetual the demands for intervention." Every additional relief measure raises hopes of further ones: The more numerous public instru nlentalities become, the more is there generated in citizens the notion that everything is to be done for them, 70 THE FREEMAN February and nothing by them. Every genera tion is made less familiar with the attainment of desired ends by indi vidual actions or private agencies; until, eventually, governmental agencies come to be thought of as the only available agencies. Forms of Slavery "All socialism," Spencer con cludes, "involves slavery .... That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labors under coercion to satisfy another's de sires." The relation admits of many gradations. Oppressive tax ation is a form of slavery of the individual to the community as a whole. "The essential question is - How much is he compelled to labor for other benefit than his own, and how much can he labor for his own benefit?"

Even Spencer would probably have regarded with incredulity a prediction that in less than two generations England would have rates of income tax rising above 90 per cent, and that many an energetic and ambitious man, in England and the United States, would be forced to spend more than half his time and labor work ing for the support of the com munity, and allowed less than half his time and labor to provide for his family and himself. Today's progressive income tax provides a quantitative measurement of the relative extent of a man's economic liberty and servi tude. Those who think that. public housing is an entirely new de velopment will be startled to hear that the beginnings of it - as well as some of its harmful conse quences - were already present in 1884: Where municipal bodies turn house builders [wrote Spencer], they in evitably lower the values of houses otherwise built, and check the supply of more .... The multiplication of houses, and especially small houses, being increasingly checked, there must come an increasing demand upon the local authority to make up for the deficient supply .... And then when in towns this process has gone so far as to make the local authority the chief owner of houses, there will be a good precedent for publicly pro viding houses for the rural popula tion, as proposed in the Radical pro gram, and as urged by the Demo cratic Federation [which insists on] the compulsory construction of healthy artisans' and agricultural laborers' dwellings in proportion to the population.

One State intervention Spencer did not foresee was the future imposition of rent controls, which make it unprofitable for private persons to own, repair, or reno vate old rental housing or to put up new. The consequences of rent control provoke the indignant 1969 FROM SPENCER'S 1884 TO ORWELL'S 1984 71 charge that "private enterprise is simply not doing the job" of providing enough housing. The conclusion is that therefore the government must step in and take over that job. What Spencer did expressly fear, in another field, was that public education, providing gratis what private schools had to charge for, would in time destroy the private schools. What, of course, he did not foresee was that even tually the government would pro vide free tuition even in tax-sup ported colleges and universities, thus more and more threatening the continuance of private col leges and universities - and so tending more and more to produce a uniform conformist education, with college faculties ultimately dependent for their jobs on the government, and so developing an economic interest in professing and teaching a statist, pro-gov ernment and socialist ideology.

The tendency of government-sup ported education must be finally to achieve a government monop oly of education. Ancient Roots of Tyranny As the "liberal" readers of 1969 may be shocked to learn that the recent State interventions which they regard as the latest expres sions of advanced and compas sionate thought were anticipated in 1884, so the statist readers of Spencer's day must have been shocked to learn from him how many of the latest State interven tions of 1884 were anticipated in Roman times and in the Middle Ages. For Spencer reminded them, quoting an historian, that in Gaul, during the decline of the Roman Empire, "so numerous were the receivers in comparison with the payers, and so enormous the weight of taxation, that the la borer broke down, the plains be came deserts, and woods grew where the plough had been." Spencer reminded his readers also of the usury laws under Louis XV in France, which raised the rate of interest "from five to six when intending to reduce it to four." He reminded them of the laws against "forestalling"

(buying up goods in advance for later resale), also in early France. The effect of such laws was to prevent anyone from buying "more than two bushels of wheat at market," which prevented traders and dealers from equalizing sup plies over time, thereby intensi fying scarcities. He reminded his readers also of the measure which, in 1315, to diminish the pressure of famine, prescribed the prices of foods, but which was later repealed after it had caused the entire disappearance of various foods from the markets. He re72 THE FREEMAN February n1inded them, again, of the many endea vors to fix wages, beginning with the Statute of Laborers un der Edward III (1327-77). And still again, of statute 35 of Ed ward III, which aimed to keep down the price of herrings (but was soon repealed because it raised the price). And yet again, of the law of Edward III, under which innkeepers at seaports were sworn to search their guests "to prevent the exportation of money or plate."

This last example will uneasily remind Americans of the present prohibition of private gold hold ings and gold export, and of the Johnson Administration's attempt to put a punitive tax on foreign travel, as well as the actual puni tive tax that it did put on foreign investment. Let us add the still existing prohibitions even by al legedly advanced European nations against taking more than a tiny amount of their local paper cur rency out of the country! The federal Bulldozer Then I come to one last specific paral lel between 1884 and the present. This concerns slum clearance and urban renewal. The British gov ernment of Spencer's day re sponded to the existence of wretched and overcrowded hous ing by enacting the Artisans' Dwellings Acts. These gave to local authorities powers to pull down bad houses and provide for the building of good ones: What have been the results? A summary of the operations of the Metropolitan Board of Works, dated December 21, 1883, shows that up to last September it had, at a cost of a million and a quarter to ratepayers, unhoused 21,000 persons and pro vided houses for 12,000 - the remain ing 9,000 to be hereafter provided for, being, meanwhile, left houseless. This is not all .... Those displaced ... form a total of nearly 11,000 artificially made homeless, who have had to find corners for themselves in miserable places that were already overflowing.

Those who are interested in a thorough study of the present-day parallel to this are referred to Professor Martin Anderson's The Federal Bulldozer (M. 1. T. Press, 1964; McGraw-Hill paperback, 1967). I quote just one short para graph from his findings: The federal urban renewal pro gram has actually aggra vated the housing shortage for low-income groups. From 1950 to 1960, 126,000 dwelling units, most of them low-rent ones, were destroyed. This study estimates that the number of new dwelling units constructed is less than one fourth of the number demol ished, and that most of the new units are high-rent ones. Contrast the net addition of millions of standard dwelling units to the housing supply 1969 FROM SPENCER'S 1884 TO ORWELL'S 1984 73 by private enterpri~e with the mi nute construction effort of the federal urban renewal program." (p. 229) There is an eloquent paragraph in Spencer's book reminding his readers of the eighties of what they did not owe to the State: It is not to the State that we owe the multitudinous useful inventions from the spade to the telephone; it is not the State which made possible extended navigation by a developed astronomy; it was not the State which made the discoveries in physics, chen1istry, and the rest, which guide n10dern manufacturers; it was not the State which devised the machin ery for producing fabrics of every kind, for transferring men and things from place to place, and for minister ing in a thousand ways to our com forts. The world-wide transactions conducted in merchants' offices, the rush of traffic filling our streets, the retail distributing system which brings everything within easy reach and delivers the necessaries of life daily at our doors, are not of govern mental origin. All these are results of the spontaneous activities of citi zens, separate or grouped.

Aggravated Waste Our present-day statists are busily trying to change all this. They are seizing billions of addi tional dollars from the taxpayers to turn them over for "scientific research." By this compulsorily subsidized government competition they are discouraging and draining away the funds for pri vate scientific research; and they threaten to make such research, in time, a government monopoly. But whether this will result in more scientific progress in the long run is doubtful. True, enor mously more money is being spent on "research," but it is being di verted in questionable directions - in military research; in devel oping greater and greater super bombs and other weapons of mass destruction and mass annihila tion; in planning supersonic pas senger airplanes developed on the assumption that civilians must get to their European or Carib bean vacation spots at 1,200 or 1,800 miles an hour, instead of a mere 600, no matter how many eardrums or windows of ground lings are shattered in the proc ess; and finally, in such Buck Rogers stunts as landing men on the moon or on Mars.

It is fairly obvious that all this will involve enormous waste; that government bureaucrats will be able to dictate who gets the re rearch funds and who doesn't, and that this choice will either de pend upon fixed arbitrary qualifica tions like those determined by Civil Service examinations (hard ly the way to find the most origi nal minds), or upon the grantees keeping in the good graces of the 74 THE FREEMAN February particular government appointee in charge of the distribution of grants. But our Welfare Statists seem determined to put us in a posi tion where we will be dependent on government even for our fu ture scientific and industrial prog ress - or in a position where they can at least plausibly argue that we are so dependent. A Denial of Private Property Spencer next goes on to show that the kind of State interven tion he is deploring amounts to not merely an abridgment but a basic rejection of private prop erty: A "confusion of ideas, caused by looking at one face only of the transaction, may be traced throughout all the legislation which forcibly takes the property of this man for the purpose of giving gratis benefits to that man."

The tacit assumption underlying all these acts of redistribution is that: No man has any claim to his prop erty, not even to that which he has earned by the sweat of his brow, save by the permission of the community; and that the community may cancel the claim to any extent it thinks fit. No defense can be made for this ap propriation of A's possessions for the benefit of B, save one which sets out with the postulate that society as a whole has an absolute right over the possessions of each member. In the final chapter (just pre ceding a Postscript) Spencer con cluded: "The function of Liberal ism in the past was that of put ting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of put ting a limit to the. power of ParHaments." In endorsing some of the argu ments in Spencer's The Man Ver sus the State, and in recognizing the penetration of many of his in sights and the remarkable accu racy of his predictions of the po litical future, we need not neces sarily subscribe to every position that he took. The very title of Spencer's book was in one respect unfortunate. To speak of "the man versus the State" is to imply that the State, as such, is unnecessary and evil. The State, of course, is absolutely indispensable to the preservation of law and order, and the promotion of peace and social cooperation. What is unnecessary and evil, what abridges the liberty and threatens the true welfare of the individual, is the State that has usurped excessive powers and grown beyond its legi tima te func tions - the Superstate, the social ist State, the redistributive State, in brief, the ironically misnamed "Welfare State."

But Spencer was certainly right in the main thrust of his argu ment, which was essentially that 1969 FROM SPENCER'S 1884 TO ORWELL'S 1984 75 of Adam Smith and other classi cal liberals, that the t,vo indis pensable functions of government are first, to protect the nation against aggression from any other nation, and second, to protect the individual citizen from the ag gression, injustice, or oppression of any other citizen - and that every extension of the functions of government beyond these two primary duties should be scrutin ized with jealous vigilance. Weare deeply indebted to Herbert Spencer for recognizing with a sharper eye than any of his contemporaries, and warning them against, "the coming slav ery" toward which the State of their own time was drifting, and toward which we are more swiftly drifting today. It is more than a grim coinci dence that Spencer was warning of the coming slavery in 1884, and that George Orwell, in our time, has predicted that the full con summation of this slavery will be reached in 1984, exactly one cen tury later. ~ The 1940 hardcovered Caxton printing of Herbert Spencer's The Man Versus the State, with foreword by Albert Jay Nock, 223 pages, fully indexed, is available at $3.50.

Order from: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533 Saving PAUL L. POIROT THE LATE Lord Keynes and his disciples have heavily bombarded modern man with the theory that he can carelessly consume his way to prosperity. Laws without end have been enacted to implement this false doctrine of consumerism and compulsive spending. Yet, despite that trend, there are those who continue to save and invest in the essential tools of produc tion to which most of us owe our very lives. Call it our saving grace! Even the most ardent advocates of equality acknowledge a certain respect for the aims and desires of the individual. The ultimate formula for compulsory collec tivism would afford "to each ac cording to need," implying that each somehow is important. It is difficult to think of any philosophy of man and society that would wholly and consciously deny the dignity of the individual as a hu76 man being with a purpose. The point of divergence among phi losophers concerns how far into the future the individual should be free to proj ect his purpose.