Letter Four
[ Intro ] -
[ I ] -
[ II ] -
[ III ] -
[ IV ] -
[ V ] -
[ VI ] -
[ VII ]
Letter IV April 17, 1843
SIR: Many readers probably will think that so long a note as my last
was not needful to prove the positions claimed in it. But these friends
may keep in mind that fact that there is a larger portion of society
that does not yet see how easy [is] the transition from despotism to
freedom, from monstrous to humane government. Almost a priori
it might be asserted that all the operations which are limited to the
township might be committed at once to the voluntary principle;
therefore no very strong arguments are needed for its proof. If the
neighborhood will not take care of itself, either on the ground of
selfish regard, or on the superior principle of the common good, there
must certainly be so great a defect of heart and head that such
individuals might not longer to be trusted with the management of their
own affairs; and still less should they be permitted to a participation
of authority over men.
But as respects the collective body of towns, or that association which
forms the State, a different course of reasoning may be considered
necessary. Not that this is so very certain, for it might be concluded
that if each township provided for its separate wants, the wants of the
whole would be provided for, and no further steps need be taken. And
why this should not be done, and the whole costly and immoral machinery
at once be swept away, by a godlike reliance on man, I know not. If
gold may be bought too dearly, that is to say at a greater outlay of
gold than you afterwards have in hand, so may State protection be
purchased at a greater outlay of moral life and social security than
you have remaining after all the labor.
In order that we may meet the questions fairly, and see, step by step,
what is the value, if any, which the present political machinery can
boast, we should with fairness trace it throughout. In the first place
we have to choose a man as a delegate to construct laws for us; to
determine what actions shall be criminal, and what consequences shall
result from them upon the actors; to regulate the cutting of canals,
the construction of wharves, rail roads, lunatic hospitals, armies,
navies; and to regulate intercourse with neighborhood nations. To the
selection of such a man what a number of doubtful or objectionable
steps are taken. What a canvassing, what finesse, what intrigues. What
a loss of money, time and temper. And then the antagonism of parties;
that old, hollow, but still successful means of stepping into office. -
The mischief that all countries, adopting the representative system,
have suffered by party is scarcely exceeded by that of the feudal
system which it supplanted. To name only one of the serious
disadvantages of this system of giving up our own government, the
perception now is almost universal that the best neighbors seldom or
never are chosen. The best men are not party men, and never can be, and
none but a man espousing, or rather chained to one party or other, has
any chance of appointment. The best man cannot be selected for another
reason also, that the law is so well and freely made, according to its
own principles, that the mass or majority of voters are faithfully
represented. - The representative is an exact reflex of the power which
makes him. But the mass is not the best, and it is impossible that at
any time they should be. The very integrity and presumed perfection of
the representative system therefore precludes the admission of the best
man to those offices which depend on the voice of the mass.
It is not to be denied that men of considerable talent are chosen, as
well as many of moral integrity; but it is admitted every where in
private that we shall in vain seek progressive and wisely inspired
souls in legislative halls. What remedy can be found for this
misfortune consistent with the purity of the representative system, it
is not easy to divine. Government by the best
is an aristocracy. That is the literal meaning of this Greek term. But
we do not desire an aristocracy in either the common view of a set of
hereditary legislators, or in the literal interpretation of the best
and purest selected men. The people desire persons to make their laws
who are most like themselves. Idle schoolboys if left to choose their
own teachers would make a selection on the same principle as grasping
and selfish men choose a representative.
Let us suppose all the unworthy and unpleasant processes of election to
be passed. The men are fairly chosen. In due time they are collected in
the metropolis, and proceed to business. First, however, comes an
adjustment of parties. Intrigue, finesse, and ill-will, commenced at
the town house are repeated on a magnified scale at the state house.
Business delayed, time dissipated, temper destroyed, wealth wasted there for a day or two, are here
extended to months. In the Massachusetts legislature, during the
session just closed, how many days, how many thousand dollars, were
absolutely wasted, according, not to my assertion merely but by
evidence of the members of the representative body, may be seen by any
one who will take the trouble to search the records, or to read the
newspaper reports. I believe it would not be too much to say the choice
of Speaker alone cost 15,000 dollars. And to supply these funds, sane
and honest men are to be sent to jail, terrified, coerced or cajoled,
for the amusement of a gaping nation, the satisfaction of party, or the
corruption of place hunters.
But these, it may be said, are accidental evils, and not necessarily
parts of the system. They have, however, clung so closely to
representation ever since parliaments were invented that it is pretty
evident they are essentially vices in the representative plan. "If you
would have your work done, do it; if you would not have it done, set
some one else about it," is an adage as applicable to nations as to
individual men of business. On calm investigation it will be found as
fatal to moral justice to thus make a profession of hireling statesmen
as it is deathful to religious love to set up the profession of
hireling priest. Nations and people have been unhappily under the
representative system, not on account of the defects in its several
modes, but because itself is one huge defect. It is actually a
defection from the principle of self-government, or conscience
government, or God government in the human soul. These are but three
expressions for one fact, which, while men, as religionists, profess to
uphold, they as statesmen practically subvert. Ideally they set up a
goal, but they are determined it shall be no more than talked about,
for they put the greatest obstacles in the way of its actual
attainment, and denounce any one who seems likely to get over them.
Supposing, however, all these disagreeables, which at least they are,
to be overcome, or that they are accidents, let us see what the
legislative body actually does. Like the town assembly, the apology for
much of what they do is only to be found in their meeting to do it.
Like a poor, benighted, oppressed negro servant who in his ignorance
and simplicity, makes as much work as he does, these simpleton people
are themselves the main occasion for their services. Having run up an
account of 15,000 dollars, they must pass enactments to raise the
money. But their charges do not end here. Other payments are contrived,
and altogether a large sum, say perhaps 50,00 dollars has to be levied.
- People do not like to pay so much in addition to their local taxes.
Well, then, some indirect contrivance must be adopted which will work
easier at the moment, though it will entail heavy consequences. They
proceed therefore to pawn the State to the money-mongers, who in the
form of banks extract from the people, by the license thus obtained, at
least twice as much as they pay over in the shape of taxes, which are
apparently imposed upon themselves, but really on the people; the banks
being merely the tax-gatherers at the moderate rate of 100 per cent
commission. Another most ingenious contrivance for involving the people
is that of public works. This is a most consummate gloss. It looks so
praiseworthy to promote manufacturing industry, it is so scientific, so
civilizing. Canals, bridges, railways and the like, are such
progressive, useful, honorable works, that they dazzle or delude
easily. So the State encourages these for the common good; and, while
the legislators are on one hand borrowing money to meet their own
exigencies, they lend money to railway companies on the other. If
private adventurers cannot be found willing to undertake these works,
it is pretty good evidence against their profitableness. Capitalists
are as ready as laborers to lay out their means to the best advantage;
and as soon as these works are really wanted they will be erected on
private speculation as ships and large ware-houses are built without
the especial interference of the State. But these expedients are
adopted, like education of children by the town assembly, as a
purifying and popular sanction to the existence of the state assembly:
with this further motive, that sources of personal income are created
by members of influential talent.
My feelings upon the subject of these so called improvements is that
they are no real advantage to human welfare. I see that if science
could enable us in one month, to compass all the sea and land on the
globe, we should compass no more virtue or happiness. On the contrary,
in most countries the march of manufacturing and travelling skill has
been the march of misery. However, it is needful to meet the popular
opinion where it is, and I must therefore show that these public works
could be erected and maintained without a forced government. Suppose it
should be deemed desirable by parties interested that a railway should
be constructed over a given space, and further, that they have
convinced the capitalists their money might be advantageously laid out
thereon, there-then remains nothing but to persuade the land-holders to
sell portions of their land for a fair equivalent. If they will not
consent, the road may take another direction, where the proprietors are
willing, or the execution may be deferred until reasoning or the
opinion of their neighbors has accomplished their consent. If the work
is clearly a public advantage there will be no dissention, or, if one
should be churlish, public opinion will sustain the project against
him, and justify as it does now the proceeding of the company. To this
ordeal every disputed point on such questions has now to be brought,
and it would be as efficacious without the government as with it. In
many cases, a legislative enactment, by tying down a public company to
certain forms is found so fettering that its protection is a hindrance,
and the capitalists prefer to be without it. So in an enlightened
community, would it be felt for even the largest public works. As to
any assistance which the State should give to specific speculations,
America, I think, has had experience enough. It will be many years
before the United States can recover the wealth and credit they have
lost by thus going out of their way. The fact that national assistance
is needed to accomplish any public work is proof absolute that
capitalists think it will not give them so good a return for the outlay
as other uses of their money. Why, then, should we be taxed, or exposed
to taxation, when the first principles of these very political
economists are against them? The argument is briefly this; if the work
is desirable, it will as surely be done as any other voluntary
association is formed. One feels here to be rather combatting against
no body; and that the real difficulty lies in finding reasons why the
nation should interfere, and not why it should leave alone.
I know of no other legislative acts which present more difficulties to
my position than this of a railway, laid down a long line passing
through many private properties, many townships, and several States.
Lunatic Asylums, Schools, and all establishments of a moral nature
should be left to moral control. In some countries you are aware that
not a book or a newspaper can be published without the revisal and
approbation of the government. A proceeding which to us appears
outrageous. Yet we seem to be bound by customs scarcely less absurd.
Banking is another amusement which governments play at; and for this
game the people have to pay the piper more than once. - Some simple
contrivance is loudly called for here. But it is too wide a subject to
be now discussed. I may however be allowed to say that if no voluntary
association can be contrived for all the honest banking that is
required, neither does the present system afford a greater degree of
security than obtains in ordinary transactions amongst men, in which no
specific government regulation interferes.
The postage of letters and papers is made a national business, and a
very great convenience, nay, luxury, it is. But there is no more
necessity to take this occupation out of individual hands than that of
transmitting large parcels, or the coaching of passengers. Why does not
the government force all freightage and passage in the State into its
own hands? Men's lives and bodies are at least as important as
education and letters; yet we are left at the care of the stage driver
without other guardianship than character. We know that private
adventurers would post for us at a cheaper rate, for the government
derives a considerable surplus revenue, although they pay their sorters
and clerks more highly, because more by favorteism, than individuals
would if exposed to competition. Furthermore, we know that such
adventurers would serve us quicker, for they do so now, expediting
their dispatches with such celerity as to excel the government. In
fidelity and trustworthiness I believe also private speculators do, and
ever would, eclipse the government, whose servants often purloin money
letters; for persons
have to earn and to maintain a reputation, about which governments
existing by force are much less regardful. If legislators are disposed
to try how unimportant they are to us let them give up the post office,
and Harnden will convince them.
Most of these particulars are however of an entirely national
character. They pertain to the State in respect to its own internal
affairs, and may therefore be allowed to be comparatively easy of
voluntary arrangement, as the business confined to the town is still
easier of unenforced settlement. But we now come to the more difficult
question of international harmony, and the method of intercourse with
the whole world. Commerce is the sole purpose to be served in this
intercourse so far as the State is concerned. Objects of a moral
character being out of its reach and cognizance, I say commerce seems
to be the sole purpose in foreign communications; for the maintenance
of peace, or the carrying on of war are subordinate to commerce. So
long as people imagine it is advantageous for them to carry on trade,
some regulations seem to be needed. - What are they? First, we have the
custom house. Some one, it will be said, must collect the duties; and
smuggling must be prevented. But surely all this parade of difficulty
may be at once got over by having no custom house, and no tariff to
maintain. Why should not a ship be as free to bring her freight of
goods to the wharf, and unload without molestation, as a tradesman is
to enter any town, and open a store? Why raise a revenue from the goods
of one and not from those of the other? To which it will be replied,
one is native and the other foreign. Which is a poor answer; for the
buyer in both cases is a native citizen, and as a consumer, he, and not
the seller, pays the tax. It seems mightily absurd to subject men to
hindering forms and rules who come to us with ship loads of wealth. If
commerce is good, why shackle it. If bad, why expend so much to
maintain it. For all these paraphernalia of State, the Governor, the
President, the Ambassador, the Consul, and the many more, are costly
articles. It was only for the purpose of making money by this country
that England wished to keep it in a subjugated colony; just as that
power has been murdering the Chinese. - Our arms were used for
political and personal freedom; the British only wanted to shoot us
into well-behaved, slavish, hard-working customers who would pay for
their wares a hundred per cent more than the articles were worth. We
ought to understand that the pretense for this heavy load of a forceful
government arises wholly out of our personal appetite for foreign
luxuries of diet and dress. If we subsisted and clothed ourselves as we
easily could, by native products, we should not be plunged into this
difficulty. Ships of war need not be kept afloat to protect merchant
vessels for a pure and simple people, who are contented with the
products of their own land, avoiding slavery to their own base
appetites, and the infliction of slavery on other men. Protection of
the mercantile navy has not shown much regard for men when it has
protected merchants in carrying over sea whole cargoes of human beings
to be sold to interminable slavery. Why, Sir, piracy is not much worse
than this. Who will assent that it is so base? It were better we should
be without the advantages which commerce is supposed to bestow than
secure them at such a price as this. Let piracy no more be committed on
the innocent by us; but let us expose ourselves to piracy by our
equals, by, in fact, some of us, the white race, and we shall know how
to meet it greatly. What have nations to fear by leaving their
frontiers open to assault? Nothing certainly from respectable nations.
Nothing from the inroads of armies, of books, or of opinions. Let all
such come to find what they want. The armed system does not protect the
weak against the strong; but the strong defer to the common sense of
justice, which even in the most ignorant nations will not suffer
governors to go to war wantonly; for, after all, men are forced to be
men, and necessarily to have hearts in their bosoms. Nations will not
attack notions without a motive; and disguised as it may have been
heretofore, we now very well know that wealth was the object.
Aggrandisement, by territorial, commercial or some other form of riches
has been the impulse to all war. For a sort season, perhaps, the first
nation that adopt[s] the principle of non-resistance might experience
some inconveniences, just as the first persons who adopted that
principle in regard to their own coercive government are now suffering.
But suffering and self-denial are the steps to the true triumph. It
seems to me quite laughable to talk of a nation being attacked because
it left its shores unguarded. A universal proclamation of peace brings
not enemies, but friends. The enemy now comes upon us in a much quieter
and surer manner. We have no more reason to expect visitations of
hostile armies and navies than of giants from fairy land. Even the old
monarchies maintain standing armies for the sole purpose of keeping
their own subjects in awe, or very little else. Public opinion has at
least frowned down aggressive war, though it still permits diplomatic
swindling and commercial chicanery.
I have not in this letter met objections on the highest moral ground,
because the remark is common that such a position is a mere attraction,
and might do well for a condition of man altogether different to the
present, but does not suit the case. My endeavor therefore has been to
meet the public world where it now stands, and to show that on
principles even no better than those now recognised, the world could go
on very well without a government forced on every man whether he be
willing or not.
Yours hopefully,
C.L.
Concord, Mass.
[ Intro ] -
[ I ] -
[ II ] -
[ III ] -
[ IV ] -
[ V ] -
[ VI ] -
[ VII ]