In Part 1 of this 2-part interview, I chat with Sheldon Richman about his youthful enthusiasm for the Swamp Fox and his guerilla fighters; the Constitution as a betrayal of the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation; defying YAF with Karl Hess at the March to the Arch; the positive externalities achievable by sitting next to Dave Barry; using Koch money to fight big business; Robert Bidinotto’s dark anarchist past; the perils of publishing Kevin Carson; going crazy for Thomas Szasz; the identity of Filthy Pierre; how to smoke like Gandalf; an atheist’s favourite Bishop; and which prominent Austrian economist experimented on Sheldon’s newborn infant.
Tag Archives | Spencer
[cross-posted at BHL]
Karl Marx once wrote:
I do not claim to have discovered either the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was
1. to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production;
2. that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat;
3. that this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
Marx is certainly right that class analysis was a central feature of classical liberalism long before he picked it up. He’s fibbing a bit, though, about (1) and (3); many of his bourgeois predecessors (for example, the Censeur triumvirate of Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, and Augustin Thierry) most emphatically thought that class society as they understood it was a temporary phenomenon destined to be displaced. Thierry, for example, announces:
Federations will replace states; the loose but indissoluble chains of interest will replace the despotism of men and of laws; the tendency towards government, the first passion of the human race, will cede to the free community. The era of empire is over, the era of association begins.
The main difference between Marx and the liberals was that Marx took the differentiation between ruling and ruled classes to be grounded in differential access to the means of production, whereas the liberals took the differentiation between ruling and ruled classes to be grounded in differential access to predatory power, and in particular to the power of the state. (To be sure, Marx acknowledged and indeed insisted on the important role of the state in maintaining class division when examining the details of history or current events; but the state quickly receded in importance when he turned to abstract theory.)
All this is by way of noting that I just received in the mail my author’s copy of Social Class and State Power: Exploring an Alternative Radical Tradition, an anthology of libertarian and classical liberal writings on class analysis that I co-edited with David Hart, Gary Chartier, and Ross Kenyon.
The volume includes material by a rather heterogeneous collection of authors:
- from the 17th century, Richard Overton;
- from the 18th century, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Vicesimus Knox, and William Godwin;
- from the 19th century, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, Thomas Hodgskin, John Wade, William Leggett, Richard Cobden, John C. Calhoun, Adolphe Blanqui, Frédéric Bastiat, Charles Renouard, Augustin Thierry, Gustave de Molinari, Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker;
- and from the 20th century, Franz Oppenheimer, Albert J. Nock, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Roy Childs, Walter Grinder, John Hagel, Hans Hoppe, and your humble correspondent.
I would urge you to go out and buy a copy; but in light of the book’s $100 pricetag, I’ll just urge you to go out and suggest to your local research library that they buy a copy.
I recently participated in a Liberty Matters online discussion on Herbert Spencer, with George H. Smith, Alberto Mingardi, and David M. Levy, and edited by Sheldon Richman. Read it here.
If you missed last years Liberty Matters discussion of Gustave de Molinari, with me, Gary Chartier, Matt Zwolinski, David D. Friedman, and David M. Hart, check it out here.
So this guy made £35,000 selling forged celebrity autographs, and they caught him. Good. But theyve also charged him with copyright violations, which is crap; and theyve decided to lock him in a cage for 21 months, which is absurd. He should be forced to pay back the people he ripped off, to be sure; but he poses no serious danger to anybody. And even if I believed in retributive punishment, which I dont, how could anyone think nearly two years imprisonment was a proportionate response to selling fake autographs?
Of course there is nothing unusual about this case.
I make a cameo appearance in George Smiths latest post on the Herbert Spencer / Henry George debate.
As everyone knows, Herbert Spencer was a reactionary defender of capitalism and an opponent of socialism, while Thomas Hodgskin was a proto-Marxian defender of socialism and an opponent of capitalism; so what should one expect from Hodgskins review (now online) of Spencers Social Statics?
The right answer, it turns out, is almost total agreement: there are very few conclusions or remarks to which we are disposed to object. And the one point for which Hodgskin does take Spencer to task is Spencers rejection of private ownership of land.
Its almost as though traditional political categories are mistaken somehow ….
Incidentally, although Hodgskin makes some good points in his discussion of land (some of which are reminiscent of Dave Schmidtzs work), I dont think he quite sees the force of Spencers arguments. Spencer worries that if private land ownership were permissible, the entire earth could theoretically fall into private hands, whereupon the nonowners would be at the mercy of the owners since while on other peoples property you have to do as they say or leave, and when leaving is impossible all thats left is doing what they say. (Note, by the way, that Spencers worry is not that this would be a likely result. His worry is rather that the principle of land ownership gives the wrong answer to the question of what would be legitimate in the described situation; it says that the owners demanding whatever they like of the nonowners would be just, while the Law of Equal Freedom says it would be unjust.)
To this Hodgskin replies that nonowners would not be at the mercy of owners, because there are other ways of making a living besides farming: what use is possession of the land to seamen, locomotive carriage drivers, and waggoners? But Spencers point is not merely that nonowners would need permission from the owners in order to cultivate the soil; his point is that nonowners would need permission from the owners in order to sit, stand, or move. Hence Hodgskins waggoners and locomotive carriage drivers will be at the mercy of those whose land they have to cross, as will seamen if they need trees to make their ships out of. (At any rate, the force of Spencers thought experiment should cover hypothetical situations without navigable waters.)
Hodgskin is also unimpressed by Spencers insistence that nonowners would be at the mercy of owners, since, as Hodgskin points out, we are all at each others mercy anyway. But this likewise misses Spencers point, which is not the pragmatic worry that nonowners would in fact be at the mercy of owners, but rather the ethical worry that nonowners would be legitimately at the mercy of owners. My life may depend on other peoples not killing me, but my right to life does not.
I think Spencers worry can be answered, but the key to answering it lies in challenging the claim that if all the earth were private property, the owners could then demand whatever they wanted of the nonowners. As Ive argued elsewhere:
Even when A has a right to recover some property in Bs possession, there are limits to the harm A can inflict in exercising this right. If you swallow my diamond ring, I do not have the right to cut you open to get it out, possibly killing you or causing serious injury. If you are trespassing on my property, I do not have the right to shove you off my front lawn and onto the street at the precise moment that a truck is coming that would flatten you. … Hence Spencer is mistaken in thinking that under private ownership his hypothetical lords of the soil could legitimately deny nonowners a right to exist ….
Spencer argues against trying to solve the problem by building into property rights an exception clause for extreme situations. I dont have quite the same horror of exception clauses that he has, but in any case my suggestion is not an exception clause, but rather a proportionality requirement that is always in force.
A point Im surprised that Hodgskin didnt raise is the difficulty of reconciling Spencers views on land with his right to ignore the state. If everyone pays rent to society for their land, who is authorised to collect that rent?
P.S. – I wish Hodgskin had elaborated on his other points of difference (he says there are a few, but none as major as the land issue).