The Man vs the State

American · 02-09-10, 10:08 AM

Herbert Spencer: The Man versus the State

A paper written by Herbert Spenser in 1884, sought to explain the reversal in Liberalism that occurred in the 1800's.

Quote:

....Passing now to our special question, we may understand the kind of confusion in which Liberalism has lost itself; and the origin of those mistaken classings of political measures which have misled it classings, as we shall see, by conspicuous eternal traits instead of by internal natures. For what, in the popular apprehension and in the apprehension of those who effected them, were the changes made by Liberals in the past? They were abolitions of grievances suffered by the people, or by portions of them: this was the common trait they had which most impressed itself on men's minds. They were mitigations of evils which had directly or indirectly been felt by large classes of citizens, as causes of misery or as hindrances to happiness. And since, in the minds of most, a rectified evil is equivalent to an achieved good, these measures came to be thought of as so many positive benefits; and the welfare of the many came to be conceived alike by Liberal statesmen and Liberal voters as the aim of Liberalism. Hence the confusion. The gaining of a popular good, being the eternal conspicuous trait common to Liberal measures in earlier days (then in each case gained by a relaxation of restraints), it has happened that popular good has come to be sought by Liberals, not as an end to be indirectly gained by relaxations of restraints, but as the end to be directly gained. And seeking to gain it directly, they have used methods intrinsically opposed to those originally used.
And now, having seen how this reversal of policy has arisen (or partial reversal, I should say, for the recent Burials Act and the efforts to remove all remaining religious inequalities, show continuance of the original policy in certain directions), let us proceed to contemplate the extent to which it has been carried during recent times, and the still greater extent to which the future will see it carried if current ideas and feelings continue to predominate......

The basic concept is that the righting of wrongs is a good, and therefore by applying the righting of wrongs to the mainstream of society the overall good is achieved. But at what cost?

There are two main avenues to achieve "good", that is by voluntary cooperation or by coercive cooperation. To put a modern reference on these two you can think of coercive cooperation as something like the federal welfare system, and voluntary cooperation as something like the Salvation Army. In the formal case the the achievement of "good" is decided by the State, and in the latter case the achievement of "good" is decided by the Man (the People).

So how did people with an ideology in the classic liberal sense changed into those modern liberals we know today?

American · 02-09-10, 12:09 PM

Quote:

But why do I enumerate facts so well known to all? Simply because, as intimated at the outset, it seems needful to remind everybody what Liberalism was in the past, that they may perceive its unlikeness to the so-called Liberalism of the present. It would be inexcusable to name these various measures for the purpose of pointing out the character common to them, were it not that in our day men have forgotten their common character. They do not remember that, in one or other way, all these truly Liberal changes diminished compulsory co-operation throughout social life and increased voluntary cooperation. They have forgotten that, in one direction or other, they diminished the range of governmental authority, and increased the area within which each citizen may act unchecked. They have lost sight of the truth that in past times Liberalism habitually stood for individual freedom versus State-coercion.

And now comes the inquiry — How is it that Liberals have lost sight of this? How is it that Liberalism, getting more and more into power, has grown more and more coercive in its legislation? How is it that, either directly through its own majorities or indirectly through aid given in such cases to the majorities of its opponents, Liberalism has to an increasing extent adopted the policy of dictating the actions of citizens, and, by consequence, diminishing the range throughout which their actions remain free? How are we to explain this spreading confusion of thought which has led it, in pursuit of what appears to be public good, to invert the method by which in earlier days it achieved public good?

Unaccountable as at first sight this unconscious change of policy seems, we shall find that it has arisen quite naturally. Given the unanalytical thought ordinarily brought to bear on political matters, and, under existing conditions, nothing else was to be expected. To make this clear some parenthetic explanations are needful.

Additional interesting points.

American · 02-09-10, 05:42 PM

Liberals?

*crickets*

Deuce · 02-10-10, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Liberals?

*crickets*

Faulty premise. Cooperative vs. Coercive (in a legislative sense) is dependent upon the issue being addressed and is also entirely subjective to the political or social beliefs of the individual.

Take, for instance, same-sex marriage. Some see legalizing same-sex marriage as expanding rights to everyone, removing restrictions that had previously placed on the individual by others. Others see it as an outside agenda being forcibly thrust upon them. Making them accept the views of another.

Liberals will see legalizing same-sex marriage as cooperative. Conservatives will see it as coercive.

The reverse is true if the courts were to uphold bans on same-sex marriage. Liberals would see it as coercive, Conservatives as cooperative.

Rassales · 02-10-10, 05:03 PM

Another consideration that Spenser neglects to consider is that the authority of the state is not the only sort of power from which people might be liberated. In its infancy, wealth and power were a single entity, since the landed gentry were the holders of both a nation's civil power and its wealth. As liberalism succeeded, individuals were able to develop wealth apart from government (a good thing) and this gave rise to a middle class. As the industrial revolution reached maturity, however (just about the time Spenser writes), relatively small groups of individuals began to accumulate such wealth that they became powers unto themselves, and their success came at the expense of the larger society. At that point, it became necessary to use the power of the state to reign in these wealthy individuals.

The project of liberalism isn't only to emancipate individuals from the power of the state, but to emancipate the larger group of individuals from whatever power subjugates them. Once central premise to the work of John Locke (that 18th century liberal) is that all individuals are roughly equal in strength. The developments of the 19th century put this assumption to lie. When some individuals become more powerful than government, and can even use government as a means of subjugating others, those powerful and wealthy persons become the enemy of individualism.

American · 02-10-10, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

Faulty premise. Cooperative vs. Coercive (in a legislative sense) is dependent upon the issue being addressed and is also entirely subjective to the political or social beliefs of the individual.

Take, for instance, same-sex marriage. Some see legalizing same-sex marriage as expanding rights to everyone, removing restrictions that had previously placed on the individual by others. Others see it as an outside agenda being forcibly thrust upon them. Making them accept the views of another.

Liberals will see legalizing same-sex marriage as cooperative. Conservatives will see it as coercive.

The reverse is true if the courts were to uphold bans on same-sex marriage. Liberals would see it as coercive, Conservatives as cooperative.

You obviously don't understand either, since you think both are by legal actions.

Deuce · 02-10-10, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

You obviously don't understand either, since you think both are by legal actions.

Explain it to me then.

American · 02-11-10, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

Explain it to me then.

Voluntary cooperation is not mandated by the state, but is undertaken by the people themselves through private contract.

Rassales · 02-11-10, 08:45 AM

So did I walk in on a private conversation, somehow? Am I supposed to unsubscribe from this thread?

American · 02-11-10, 09:13 AM

No, what gives you that idea?

02-09-10, 05:42 PM	#3
American Constitutionalist Join Date: Mar 2006 Last Seen: 03-19-10 05:33 AM Location: VA Posts: 14,794 Thanks: 2,994 Thanked 2,960 Times in 2,054 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender:	Re: The Man vs the State Liberals? crickets
	__________________ "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

02-10-10, 05:03 PM	#5
Rassales Advisor Join Date: Dec 2009 Last Seen: 03-08-10 12:23 AM Posts: 564 Thanks: 106 Thanked 165 Times in 122 Posts	Re: The Man vs the State Another consideration that Spenser neglects to consider is that the authority of the state is not the only sort of power from which people might be liberated. In its infancy, wealth and power were a single entity, since the landed gentry were the holders of both a nation's civil power and its wealth. As liberalism succeeded, individuals were able to develop wealth apart from government (a good thing) and this gave rise to a middle class. As the industrial revolution reached maturity, however (just about the time Spenser writes), relatively small groups of individuals began to accumulate such wealth that they became powers unto themselves, and their success came at the expense of the larger society. At that point, it became necessary to use the power of the state to reign in these wealthy individuals. The project of liberalism isn't only to emancipate individuals from the power of the state, but to emancipate the larger group of individuals from whatever power subjugates them. Once central premise to the work of John Locke (that 18th century liberal) is that all individuals are roughly equal in strength. The developments of the 19th century put this assumption to lie. When some individuals become more powerful than government, and can even use government as a means of subjugating others, those powerful and wealthy persons become the enemy of individualism.

02-11-10, 08:45 AM	#9
Rassales Advisor Join Date: Dec 2009 Last Seen: 03-08-10 12:23 AM Posts: 564 Thanks: 106 Thanked 165 Times in 122 Posts	Re: The Man vs the State So did I walk in on a private conversation, somehow? Am I supposed to unsubscribe from this thread?

02-11-10, 09:13 AM	#10
American Constitutionalist Join Date: Mar 2006 Last Seen: 03-19-10 05:33 AM Location: VA Posts: 14,794 Thanks: 2,994 Thanked 2,960 Times in 2,054 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender:	Re: The Man vs the State No, what gives you that idea?
	__________________ "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." -- Thomas Jefferson יהוה

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode