sign in sign up
<<
Home , Auberon Herbert, Freedom, Tibor Machan, Voluntaryism, Voluntary taxation

: THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF

ERIC MACK

Deportment o/, Tulane Universily

Auberon Herbert (1838- 1906) was one of the in history and . In 1865, as a Con- distinctive figures in the profound and wide servative, he unsuccessfully sought a seat in the ranging intellectual debate which took place House of Commons. By 1868, however, he was during the late Victorian age. It was during this seeking a Parliamentary seat, again unsuc- period, in the intellectual and social ferment of cessfully, as a Liberal. Finally, in 1870, Herbert the 1880s and 1890s, that Herbert formulated successfully contested a by- and entered and expounded voluntaryism, his system of the Commons as a Liberal representing Not- "thorough" . Carrying natural tingham. Throughout this period one of theory to its logical limits, Herbert Herbert's major occupations seems to have demanded complete social and economic been observing wars. He spent much time near for all non-coercive and the front during the Prusso-Danish, Franco- the radical restriction of the use of force to the Prussian, and American Civil wars. He only role of protecting those - including missed viewing the Austro-Prussian war of the freedom of peaceful persons to withhold 1866 "owing to its short duration".''' In the support from any or all activities. All course of the Prusso-Danish war his activity must be founded upon the courageous aid to wounded Danish troops led free agreement of all those parties whose to his decoration by the Danish . rightful possessions are involved. Like many With.respect to the Civil War, he wrote, "I am other Victorian figures, Herbert had wide- very glad that is done away with, but I ranging interests. He wrote poetry and accounts think the manner is very bad and wrong". of his travels. And the subjects of his non- Whether he meant by this to emphasize the political essays included , clean air and hypocrisy of the North, which had always forest conservation. But Herbert's major ef- preached "the sacredness of ", or forts were devoted to his writings in political meant that even slavery should not be forcibly theory. This has been long neglected and it is trampled out is unclear."' For, as we shall see, the purpose of this essay to begin to redress that there is in Herbert a pacifist tendency toward wrong.''' denouncing the use of all force - even force Auberon Herbert was by birth and marriage directed against force. Herbert's accounts of a well-placed member of the British aristocracy. these excursions illustrate how safe war was in He was educated at Eton and at St. John's Col- the nineteenth century for non-combatants - lege, Oxford. As a young man be held commis- at least for aristocratic English non- sions in the army for several years and served combatants. briefly with the 7th Hussars in India (1860). In During his time in the House of Commons, a letter from India he expresses his opposition Herbert's most noteworthy political acts were to the caste system while maintaining that the to join Sir Charles Dilke in his declaration of British attempt to eliminate the system forcibly and to support 's at- was likely to "trample the evil in, not out".['l tempts to form an agricultural laborer's union. On his return to Oxford he formed several Con- Although, in hindsight, many of Herbert's ac- servative debating , was elected a tions and words during the sixties and early Fellow of St. John's, and lectured occasionally seventies can be read as harbingers of his later, 300 ERIC MACK consistent, , he was in reality writings of his mentor, , and throughout this period lacking in any consistent had resolved to do full to "the moral set of political principles. During this period, side" of the case for a of fully free and for .instance, he supported compulsory State voluntarily cooperative individuals.['' And education - albeit with strong insistence on its while Spencer grew more and more crusty, con- being religiously neutral. servative and pessimistic during the last decades In late 1873, Herbert met and was much im- of the nineteenth century, Herbert, who con- pressed by Herbert Spencer. As he recounts in tinued to think of himself as Spencer's disciple, "Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine", a study remained idealistic, radical and hopeful. And of Spencer led to the insight that, while he willingly addressed, he refused to join, such organizations as the and . . . thinking and acting for others had always hindered, not helped, the real progress; that all Defense League which he felt to be "a little forms of compulsion deadened the living forces in a more warmly attached to the fair sister Proper- nation; that every evil violently stamped out still per- ty than . . . to the fair sister Liberty".ts1 sisted, almost always in a worse form, when driven out of sight, and festered under the surface. Similarly, Herbert held himself separate from I no longer believed that the handful of us - the Personal Rights Association whose chief however well-intentioned we might be - spending mover, J. H. Levy, favored compulsory taxa- our nights in the House, could manufacture the life of a nation, could endow it out of hand with hap- tion for the funding of State protective ac- piness, wisdom, and prosperity, and clothe it in all tivities. With the exception of the in- the virtues."' dividualistic "reasonable anarchists", Herbert However, it was even before this intellectual :hought of himself as occupying the extreme transformation that Herbert had decided, left wing of the individualist camp, i.e. the wing perhaps out of disgust with party politics or that was most willing to carry liberty uncertainty about his own convictions, not to furthe~t."~' stand for re-election in 1874. Later, in 1879, he In 1885 Herbert sought to establish a Party again sought Liberal support to regain a seat of Liberty and under this rubric he from Nottingham. But at that point his uncom- gave addresses across England. His central promising individualist was not ac- theoretical essay, The Right and Wrong of ceptable to the majority of the Central Council Compulsion by the State, was written as a state- of the Liberal Union of Nottingham. In the in- ment of the bases for, the character of, and the terim, he had organized, in 1877, "The Per- implications of, the principles of this Party. sonal Rights and Self-Help Association". And, Again with the aim of advancing libertarian in 1878, he had been one of the chief organizers opinion, Herbert published the weekly (later along with William Morris[a' of the anti- changed to monthly) paper, Free Life, "The Jingoism rallies in Hyde Park against war with Organ of and the Volun- Russia. Along with other consistent classical tary State", from 1890 to 1901. Free Life was liberals, Herbert repeatedly took anti- devoted to "One Fight More - The Best and imperialist stands. He consistently called for the Last" -the fight against the aggressive use Irish self-determination. In the early 1880s, he of force which is "a mere survival of bar- opposed British intervention in Egypt as a use barism, a mere perpetuation of slavery under of the power of the nation to guarantee the new names, against which the and moral results of particular speculations. And, later, he sense of the civilized world have to be called in- opposed the Boer War."' to rebellion".'"' Also during the 1890s. In 1880, following his rejection by the Herbert engaged in lengthy published ex- Liberals of Nottingham, Herbert turned to the changes with three prominent socialists of his publication of addresses, essays, and books in day, E. Belfort Bax, Grant Allen and J. A. defense of consistent individualism and against Hobson.1"' Herbert continued to write and all forms of political regimentation. Even in speak into this century and two of his best 1877, Auberon Herbert had been disturbed by essays, "Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine" "a constant undertone of cynicism" in the and "A Plea for Voluntaryism", were written VOLUNTARYISM: THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF AUBERON HERBERT 301 in 1906 - the last year of his life. claim that each individual has a right to judge In all his mature writings Auberon Herbert of his own happiness with the conclusion that defended a Lockean -Spencerian conception each individual has a special claim over the use of natural rights according to which each per- of his own faculties in the implementation of son has a right to his own person, his mind and those judgments. body, and hence to his own labor. Further- In his most systematic work, The Right and more, each person has a right to the products of Wrong of Compulsion by the State, Herbert the productive employment of his labor and adds several further arguments for rights. He faculties. Since each person has these rights, again ties the individual's claim to freedom to each is under a moral obligation to respect these the conditions necessary for the individual's rights in all others. In virtue of each person's well-being. But here the emphasis is on moral sovereignty over himself, each individual must well-being. Freedom is presented as both a consent to any activity which directly affects his causal and a logical precondition of a man's ac- person or property before any such activity can tions being truly self-beneficial - be morally legitimate. Specifically, each must '4. . . without , without forego the use of force and fraud. Each has a freedom of action, there are no such things as right to live and produce in and in volun- true moral qualities . . . ".["I Furthermore, it tary consort with others and all are obliged to is argued, those who believe that some men may respect this peace. rule others must appeal to the baseless premise Herbert offered a variety of arguments for that some people hold a natural "commission his basic ascription of rights. One highly con- to decide what (their) brother-man shall do or cise argument, credited to Spencer, appears not do".'"' And this is a premise that is both among other places in Herbert's 1880 address ungrounded and the historical source of terrible to the Vigilance Association. suffering. Nor is plausibility added if it is the We can suppose no other object to be placed before majority that is assigned the right to rule their ourselves but happiness . . . .We are then entitled to brother-man. Nor can the advocate of (mere) pursue happiness in that way in which it can be partial sovereignty of one man over another shown we are most likely to find it, and as each man can be the only judge of his own happiness, it draw any non-arbitrary line between the follows that each man must be left free so to exercise freedoms which such partial sovereigns are sup- his faculties and so to direct his energies as he may posed to be able to deny people and the think fit to produce happiness; -with one most im- portant limitation. His freedom in this pursuit of freedoms which they are required to respect. freedom must not interfere with the exactly cor- Those who embark on the restriction of equal responding freedom of others.'"' liberty Happiness being the right and proper aim of . . . are like men who start to make their passage each individual and eachperson's happiness be- over the wide seas, without chart or compass. and hopefully remark that the look of the waters, the ing the specific aim which that person is unique- face of the sky, and the direction of the wind at ly situated to pursue, each has a right to pursue any special moment tell them what course they ought his happiness. Yet since this is a right possessed to steer.L"I by all and equal in all men, no-one's rightful If one rejects , as Herbert did, pursuit of his own happiness includes the as the notion that " . . .nothing is sacred ex- prevention of a comparable pursuit on the part cept the convenience of the larger crowd", then of others. A similar argument -with a logical- one must speak in terms of rights. And then, ly appropriate emphasis on the presence in each one must choose between the clear-cut, un- person of faculties the function of which is the problematic, view that each has absolute rights attainment of that person's happiness - ap- over himself and the view that some people in pears in "A Politician in Sight of Haven". some combinations are the owners of others' There Herbert argues " . . . that as men have souls and bodies. In light of the oddities con- these faculties [in the exercise of which freedom nected with the latter alternative, Herbert con- consists] there must be freedom for their exer- cludes that each has absolute obligations to ci~e".~"' These premises connect Herbert's respect the self-ownership of each other person. 302 ERIC Also noteworthy is an intriguing, recurring, In what way, we ask, would it profit a man if he argument of Herhert's, perhaps best expressed were told that he owned his own body and mind, and if at the same time he were debarred . .. from the in the address of 1880: full and perfect possession, as an individual, of any of thegood things of the earth- eitherfsqnthe . . . no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over himself. He cannot possess Dossession of land. or of the oraducts of land. for ;he sake of which the labours 6f his body and mind the rights to direct the happiness of another man, have been expended?"" unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: if we grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former."*' For Herhert, as in other matters of principle, to accept any compromise of property rights, to Herhert's argument seems designed to bring out claim anything less than absolute private the incongruity between the demand for ah- ownership, would he to enter onto the slippery solute respect for any person A as a putative slope leading to full State control or ownership. (political) rightholder over another person B Still, despite the centrality of property rights to with at least partial rightful authority over what Herhert's system, he never does provide a B shall do or undergo, and the demand that A, detailed account of what specific actions pro- as all persons, should he under the authority of duce initial property rights to objects, or of others, including B, with respect to what A what specific actions are crucial to the transfer shall do or undergo. This incongruity does not of property rights. Often HerheR argues as plague the view that each man merits respect as though all he need do to establish his own an absolute rightholder over himself. This sort specific position on property rights is to of incongruity in the triumphant assignment to criticize convincingly the socialist and land na- each of political rights the real content of which tionalizer positions. Thus, he fails to deal is to render each the property of, and the ser- systematically with the common argument that, vant of, the will of others is what Herbert seems "The doctrine of individual rights may give to have in mind when he asserts that, "Pure property in lahour-power, hut not in the critical reason obliges us to believe in Self- material in which it is vested".lZ2l The closest owne~ship".~'~' Herhert comes to meeting such arguments is his In virtue of his absolute rights over himself claim that land to which one has established a and his faculties, a person comes to acquire a right will he as much, and as little, a "manufac- property right to the products of his faculties tured article" as the crop which one grows on and lahor -with the one qualification that one that land. Hence, if one can have an individual may not rightfully exercise one's faculties or right to the crop raised (perhaps in virtue of labor upon what another already has a right to "the difficulty of separating what is artificial without the consent of that party. Whatever from what is natural" in it) one can have an in- would he produced by such an illegitimate exer- dividual right to cultivated land and, cise would not be the rightful property of the presumably, to other material from nature transgressor. According to Herhert, to deny which has been readied for human use.["] But that the products of a man's rightful exercise of this still leaves unanswered the questions: exact- his faculties are his property is to deny that men ly what acts establish a property right and why? have rights over themselves and their own ac- Nor does Herbert seem to have been much con- tivities. cerned with insuring that contemporary holders It is idle to say in one breath that each man has the of e.g. land, had rightfully acquired their right to the free use of his own faculties, and in the holdings from parties who had themselves next breath to propose to deal by the power of the rightful title to those holdings. In the pages of State with what he acquires by means of those faculties, as if both the faculties and what they pro- 's Liberty, Herhert was accus- duced belonged to the State and not to himself."0' ed of joining Spencer in believing that since Herhert's arguments characteristically wove land holdings had so often been determined by together the utility of private ownership for robbery, one could not now do more for justice each person and the flow of entitlement from a than insist that all future acquisitions and person's labor to his products. transfers he non-aggre~sive.~"~ VOLUNTARYISM: THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF AVBERON HERBERT 303 Against what types of actions do a person's under a genuine threat. For he is not faced with rights provide moral immunity? Since person being deprived of something rightfully his (e.g. A's having a right to something involves his his arm or his life). Instead he is bribed, coax- moral freedom and prerogative to do with that ed, induced, into acting by the lure of B's offer thing as he chooses (provided that in so doing A of something which is rightfully B's. No rights- does not prevent person B from exercising his endangering act plays any role in motivating A. rights), A's rights are violated whenever he is A may, of course, wish that B had offered even prevented from doing as he chooses with what more. But in accepting B's offer, whatever it is rightfully his. Violations of rights consist in may be, A indicates that on the whole he con- subverting a person's choice about and disposal sents to the exchange with B. He indicates that of what he owns. Since physical force (and the he values this interchange with B over thestatus threat thereof) is the great subverter of choice, quo. He indicates that he sees it as beneficial - since this is the essential vehicle for the non- unlike all interactions involving direct force. consensual use of persons, their faculties, and The employer may be indirectly forced to accept the their , it is against force (and the workman's offer, or the workman may he indirectly threat thereof) that all persons have rights. In forced to accept the employer's offer; but before addition, persons have rights against being sub- either does so, it is necessary that they should con- sent, as far as their own selves are concerned, to the jected to fraud. For fraud is simply a surrogate act that is in question. And this distinction is of the for, and the moral equivalent of, force. Fraud most vital kind, since the world can and will get rid is the "twin-brother of force . . . which by cun- of direct compulsion; hut it can never of indirect compulsion . . . "'I ning sets aside the consent of the individual, as force sets it aside openly and ~iolently".t'~~ Besides, Herbert argues, any attempt to rid the In The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by world of indirect force must proceed by expan- the State, Herbert is anxious to point out that ding the role of direct force. And, " . . . when there is a potentially dangerous confusion bet- you do so you at once destroy the immense ween '' . . . two meanings which belong to the safeguard that exists so long as [each man] must word Direct force is employed when give his consent to every action that he person A, without his consent, is deprived of, does"."" The believer in strong or threatened with the deprivation of, cannot claim, says Herbert, that in proposing something to which he has a right - e.g. some to regulate the terms by which individuals may portion of his life, liberty, or property. Anyone associate, he is merely seeking to diminish the subject to such a deprivation or threat is, in his use of force in the world. own eyes, the worse for it. His interaction with What, then, may be done when the violation the wielder of force (or fraud) is something to of rights threatens? So strong is Herbert's criti- be regretted, something to which he does not que of force that, especially in his early consent. This is the case, e.g. when A pays B to writings, he is uncomfortable about affirming stave off being beaten or murdered by B. In the propriety of even defensive force. Thus, in contrast, B might get A to pay B a certain sum "A Politician in Sight of Haven", the emphasis or do B a particular service, by indicating that B is on the fact that the initiator of force places will only do something which A values if A pays his victim "outside the moral-relation" and in- that sum or renders that service. By so in- to "the force-relation". Force, even by a dicating the conditions for A's receiving from B defender, is not "moral". The defender's only what A values, person B may get person A to justification is the necessity of dealing with the do something which, in itself, A had rather not aggressor as one would with "a wild beast". In- do. If B does induce A to act by threatening (so- deed, so pressed is Herbert in his search for called) to withhold what A values, then, accor- some justification that he says, in justification ding to Herbert, we can say that B has used "in- of his defense of himself, that "The act on my direct force" upon A. But "indirect force" is part was so far a moral one, inasmuch as I radically different from "direct force". In the obeyed the derived moral command to help my case of indirect force, person A does not act neighbor"."" In The Right and Wrong of 304 ERIC MACK Compulsion by the State, Herbert starts by interaction. An individual does not place identifying the task of finding moral authority himself outside the moral-relation by merely re- for any use of force with the task of finding taining his property, by not donating it to moral authority for any government. He some other person's conception of a worthy declares that no "perfect" foundation for such project. Such a peaceful individual is not a authority can be found, that all such authority criminal and is not properly subject to the is an usurpation - though "when confined punishment of having a portion of his property within certain exact limits . . . a justifiable confiscated. Herbert particularly urged those in usurpation".13o1 Herbert also asserts the in- the Individualist camp to reject compulsory alienability of each person's rights -including, taxation. presumably, the rights of each aggressor. This I deny that A and B can go to C and force him to seems to confirm the status of even defensive form a State and extract from him certain payments force as an usurpation. But then Herbert seems and services in thename of such State; and 1 goon to maintain that if you act in this manner, you at once to reverse himself -arguing that those who use justify State-. The only difference between force (or fraud), having disallowed, "this the -compelling Individualist and the State- Socialist is that whilst they both have vested owner- universal law . . . therefore lose the rights ship of C in A and B, the tax-compelling In- which they themselves possess under it". 1"' dividualist proposes to use the powers of ownership Finally, Herbert arrives at the considered judg- in a very limited fashion, the Socialist in a verycom- plete fashion. 1 object to the ownership in any ment that, within special contexts, self- fashion."" preservation does justify self-defense. Self- It is compulsory taxation which generates and preservation " .justifies an action wrong in . . sustains the corrupt game of politics the itself (as the employment of force) only because - game in which all participants strive to further of the wrong which has been already committed their aims with resources forcefully extracted in the first instance by some other per~on".["~ from those who do not share their aims. Com- Ten years later, Herbert was, if anything, more pulsory taxation breaks the link between the hesitant about defensive force when he wrote. preferences of the producers of, and peaceful If the self is the real property of the individual, we holders of, resources with respect to how those may. I think assume (it is however at best on assumption)that force may be employed to repel the resources (their property, their faculties, their force that would take from an individual this special minds and bodies) should be used and the ac- bit of property in himself. . . .I2" tual use of those resources. For instance, com- Finally, however, Herbert seems to have fully pulsory taxation, overcome his hesitancy about defensive force. . . .gives great and undue facility for engaging a Possibly his most forceful statement appears in whole nation in war. If it were necessary to raise the the essay, "A Voluntaryist Appeal". sum required from those who individually agreed in the necessity of war, we should have the strongest If you ask us why force should be used todefend the guarantee for the preservation of peace. . . . COm- rights of Self-ownership, and not for any other pur- pulsory taxation means everywhere the persistent pose, we reply by reminding you that the rights of probability of a war made by the ambitions or pas- Self-ownership are . . . supreme moral rights, of sions of politicians.'"' higher rank than all other human interests or institu- Perhaps the most profound direct challenge tions; and therefore force may be employed on behalf of these rights, but not in opposition to them. to Herbert's whole philosophical orientaiion All social and political arrangements, all appeared in Hobson's critique, "Rich Man's employments of force, are subordinate to these ". There Hobson, as a represen- universal rights, and must receive just suchcharacter and form as are required in the interest of these tative of the "new" Hegelian organicist rights."" , criticizes the "doctrine of separate According to Herbert, each person's absolute life and self ownership" by attacking its right to what he has peacefully acquired underlying "monadism". He accuses Herbert through the exercise of his faculties requires the of holding the purportedly false view that, abolition of compulsory taxation. The demand "The thing called Society is . . .merely an ag- for "voluntary taxation" only is a simple in- gregation of individuals, it has no corporate ex- stance of the demand for freedom in all human istence, no 'self which can be governed".~"~In- VOLUNTARYISM: THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF AUBERON HERBERT 305 stead, according to Hobson, the individual for evil, sometimes heightening the evil, is what we all daily know and experience; but I cannot see how mind is a product -" . , ,made, main- this heightening of emotioncan in any way affect the tained, and influenced fact that those who thus influence and are influenced minds".1"' In an original variation on the are individuals, each with his own set of feelings. theme that defenders of individual freedom are each with his own separate body and mind, and each with his own responsibility . . . no literary phrases crass materialists, Hobson asserts that about social are potent enough to Herbert's monadism flows from his assumption evaporate the individual.'"' that individuals are identical to their bodies. Hobson's argument, says Herbert, reduces to For it is only this assumption which leads to the the incredible claim that because a number of identification of a separate and discrete in- individuals interact freely in many mutually dividual for each separate and discrete body. beneficial ways they are properly subject to a But the physical distinctness of human bodies is Hobsonian scheme of coercion. not, according to Hobson, morally significant. The syllogism, I presume, would run: We all . . . the concession of physical independence is no upon the exchange of voluntary and mutually conve- bar lo the unity of the moral organism for anyone nient services, arranged according to our own in- whose thought has passed beyond the crude dividual likings and requirements; therefore we are which conceives mind as a physical to be placed, under the system of universal compul- function of brain. The "self-ownership" of mind, sion, which has been amiably devised for us by Mr. by means of which Mr. Herbert denies the moral Hobson's friends . . . .'"' unity of Society and posits all "rights" as individual ~t is true, Of that each of us is a member possessions, is a fiction, not a "natural" fact."*] or plays a part in a great number of interactions Hobson's ultimate positive position is that and organizations. gut, Society is the significant moral entity and that part duty All these various wholes, without any exception, in each of society has a to serve the which an individual is included - these socalled whole and has rights against the whole or its organisms of which he forms par- - exist for the parts only insofar as such immunities further sake of the individual. They exist to do his service; the good, i,e. the well-being of they exist for his profit and use. If they did not society, minister to his use; if they did not profit him, they Herbert's response to Hobson, largely found would have no plea to exist.wl in his essay, "Lost in the Region of Phrases", is id^^, if the goal is organic unity and if a uni- a model reply to this sort of organicist argu- ty must include each person's interests if it is t~ ment. First, Herbert questions the relevance, be truly organic, then freedom is the only for Hobson's political conclusions, of the fact means to such a unity, F~~only if individuals that we live and grow in communities with are not coerced into associations will their join- others, interact, affect one another for better or ing them reflect genuine accommodations on worse, and so on. the part of those associations to the interests We are all agreed probably that we are subject to in- and desires of those individuals. So if one's numerable influences, that we all act and re-act upon is organic unity one must, in theory, reject each other in the great social whole, that the en- vironment constantly affects and modifies the in. com~ulsion.~"~And, in ~ractice, Herbert dividual . . . .But what in the name of gmd logic and claims, "There is only one result you can get plain sense have this universal interaction and in- Of the suppression of the individual, and terdependence to do with the fundamental dogmas of [compulsory] SociaIi~m?~~' that is the organized dominant faction trium- And in what possible way do the facts of phing over the defeated faction".'"' human interaction (interaction which Hobson Herbert's demand for a "Voluntary State", himself is led to describe in terms of an in- i.e. a State devoted solely to the protection of dividual being affected by other individuals) Lockean -Spencerian rights and funded volun- imply the absence of individual minds and per- tarily, combined with his continual condemna- sons? tion of existing State activities, led to Herbert's being commonly perceived as an anarchist. That when You bring men together for any Purpose. Often these perceptions were based on hostility either for the purpose of listening to speeches or for some common undertaking, such men act upon each and knorance- the which even led to other in a very marked manner, both for good and the charges that, e.g. Herbert was an "advanc- 306 ERIC MACK ed Socialist" or that he favored the "abolition pions of the proletariat against the capit&st of all laws"."" But Herbert was also con- class. Herbert did not accept this sort of sidered to be an anarchist by serious and economic analysis. He saw interest as a natural reasonably well-informed pro-State critics such market phenomenon - not, as Tucker did, 8s as J. A. Hobson and T. H. Huxley. Similarly, the product of State enforced monopolization J. H. Levy thought that to reject the com- of credit. And Herbert saw rent as legitimate pulsory State was to reject the State as such. because he believed, contrary to Tucker, that And while, for these men, Herbert's purported one did not have to be continually using an ob- anarchism was a fault, the individualist anar- ject in order to retain just title to it and, hence, chist Benjamin Tucker always insisted that, to to be in the moral position to charge others for his credit, Auberon Herbert was a true anar- their use of that object. '4P chist.'"' Of course, there can be no question I suspect that it was these differences -dif- whether Auberon Herbert was an anarchist of ferences not actually relevant to the issue of the coercive collectivizing or terrorist sort. Herbert's anarchism - which, combined with Nothing could be further from his own posi- Herbert's desire not to grant the political idiots tion. For as Herbert points out in his "The of his day the verbal victory and advantage of Ethics of Dynamite", coercion, systematic or tagging him an "anarchist", sustained random, is nothing but a celebration of the Herbert's insistence that what he favored was, principles on which the coercive State rests. in fact, a type of State. But other factors and We live in an age of active evolution, and the art of nuances entered in. Herbert argued that a government is evolving like everything else around voluntarily supported State would do a better us. Dynamite is its latest and least comfortable job at defining and enforcing property rights development. It is a purer essence of government. more concentrated and intensified, than has ever yet than would the cooperatwe associations which been employed. It is government in a nutshell, anarchists saw as taking the place of the State government stripped as some of us aver, of all its and as protective of individual liberty and pro- dearly beloved fictions, ballot-boxes, political par- tier, House of Commons oratory, and all the rest of perty. Unfortunately, in his exchange with it . . . . It is the perfection, the ne plus uNro, of Tucker on this matter, the question of what sort go~ernment.l'~l of institution or legal structure was needed for, Whether or not Herbert was an anarchist of or consistent with, the protection of individual the individualist, , life, liberty, and property tended to be con- sort is another and far more complex question. flated with the question of what were the ge- Herbert himself continually rejected the label nuine bases for particular claims to and, although he maintained cordial relation- pr~perty.'~'lFinally. Herbert's considered ships with men like Benjamin Tucker, he in- judgment was that individualistic supporters of sisted that his views were sufficiently different liberty and property who, like Tucker, favored from theirs in relevant respects to place him the free establishment of defensive associations outside the camp of "reasonable" anarchists. and juridical institutions were simply making a In what ways, then, did Herbert's views differ verbal error in calling themselves "anarchists". from those of the individualist anarchists as They were not for no-government, Herbert represented by Tucker? Tucker had tied himself thought, but rather for decentralized, scattered, to a labor theory of value. It followed for him fragmented, government. Herbert's position that such activities as lending money and ren- was that, although it would be better to have ting property were not genuinely productive many governments within a given territory fa and that those who gained by means of such ac- republican one for republicans, a monarchical one tivities advanced themselves improperly at the for monarchists, etc.) than it would be to com- expense of less propertied people. Thus, Tucker pel everyone to support a single State,1511if took the laboring class to be an exploited class given the choice, individuals would and, for - exploited by the holders of capital. And he "strong minor moral " should, con- duly sympathized with, and often shared the verge on a single government as their common rhetoric of, others who were announced cham- judge and defender within a given territory."" VOLUNTARYISM: THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF AUBERON HERBERT 307 Ultimately how we classify Herbert depends victory; . . . When once we have taken our place in upon our answers to these two questions: (1) the gmgame, all choice as regards ourselves is at an end. We must win; and we must do the things Does the fact that Herbert would allow in- which mean ,,,inning, even if those things are not dividuals to withhold support from "the State" very beautiful in themselves.'"' and to form their own alternative rights- Progress is a matter of the development of respecting associations, show him to he an individuality - not the growth of anarchist?, and (2) Does the fact that Herbert uniformity and regimentation, Hence, thought that it would be unwise for individuals to form such splinter associations, and unlikely depends won a great number Of changes and adaptations, and experiments constant- that they form them, that the ly taking place, each carried out by those who have tral institution which he favored was a strong- beliefs and clear verce~tions. . of their own in State?'"' the matter. . . . But trueexperimentationis impossi- ble under universal systems. . . . Progress and im- sketch Herbert's views be 'Om- provement are not amongst the things that great vlete, even as a sketch, without some mention machines are able to supply at demand."" bf Herbert's multi-dimensional analysis of Progress, then, is part of the price we all pay power - "the curse and the sorrow of the for power. But the possessors of power pay a world".["' Following Spencer's distinction bet- further price. For, according to Herbert, power ween industrial and militant societies, Herbert is a "fatal gift". continually emphasized the differences between If you mean to haveand to hold power, you must do two basic modes of interpersonal co- whatever is necessary for the having and holding of ordination. There is the "way of peace and co- it. You may have doubts and hesitations and scruples, but power is the hardest of all taskmasters, operation" founded upon respect for self- and you must either lay these aside, when you once ownership and the demand for only voluntary stand on that dangerous, dizzy height, or yield your association. And there is the "way of force and place to others, and renounce your part in the great conflict. And when power is won, don't suppose strife" founded upon either the belief in the that you are a free man, able to choose your path ownership of some by others or in simple and do as you like. From the moment you possess reverence for brute force.15u It is difficult, power, you are but its slave, fast bound by its many however, to summarize Herbert's analysis since tyrant necessities.'"' it involves a great number of interwoven moral, Hence, ultimately, it is in no one's interest to seek psychological, and sociological insights. Essen- power over others. Such an endeavor simply tially one must look to his writings -especially generates a dreadful war of all upon all which, his two last essays, "Mr. Spencer and the Great even when momentarily won, makes the victor Machine", and "A Plea for Voluntaryism". the slave of the vanquished and which robs all Insofar as there is a division of labor between contestants of their dignity as self-owning and these two essays, the former focuses on the in- self-respecting beings. It is necessary to em- herent dynamic of political power, the ways in phasize that, according to Herbert, liberty and which the great game of politics captures its respect for all rights is, ultimately, in each in- participants no matter what their own initial in- dividual's interest. For Herbert often couched tentions, while the latter essay focuses on the his appeals in terms of self-denial and self- corrupting results of this captivity within those sacrifice. This was especially true of his appeals participants. According to Herbert, no man's to the working class whom he envisioned as for- integrity or moral or intellectual selfhood can ming electoral majorities for the purpose of withstand participation in the battle of power legislating downward redistributions of proper- politics. ty. Indeed, Herbert constantly associated socialism and force with (unconstrained) ma- The soul of the high-minded man is one thing; and the great game of politics is another thing. You are jority rule and and he always assumed that the now part of a machine with a purpose of its own - majority which would endanger freedom and not the purpose of serving the fixed and supreme property would be essentially composed of the principles - the great game laughs at all things that stand before and above itself, and brushes them least advantaged 51 per cent.[oo' Hence, he scornfully aside, but the purpose of securing sometimes was insensitive to the dangers from MACK well-placed minority factions, and he tended to 2. S. Hutchinson Harris, Auberon Herbert: Crusader for concentrate on State abuses which were intend- Liberty (London: Williams and Norgate, 1943). p. 31. 3. Dictionary of NationalBiography: SecondSupplement ed to aid the poor."'] Nevertheless, he did op- (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1912). p. 251. pose foreign interventions as being special in- 4. Harris, Auberon Herbert, p. 59. terest ventures and he recognized the dangers 5. Herbert, "Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine9',* p. 260. from the "rich" who desired "bigger armies 6. E. P. Thompson, Willium Morrir (New York: Pan- and fleets, more territory, more glory, and theon, 1977), p. 221. many noble opportunities of making a splash 7. Besides Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State,. pp. 172- 174, see Harris, Auberon before the eyes of the world", and from those Herbert, p. 237, and Herbert's "'The Rake's Progress' so nervous about socialism that they desire to in Irish Politics". Fortninhtlv Review (1891). and "The "turn the nation into an army for [their] conve- Tragedy of Errors in th;~& in ~ranivaal",Contern- porory Review (1900). nience, and submit it to military discipline".^@'' 8. Harris, Auberon Herbert, p. 248. And, ultimately, his calls upon the working 9. Auberon Herbert, "The Rights of Property" (London: classes for self-denial have to be seen in the Libertv and Prowrty. . Defense League, 1890), P. 7. lo. Ibid., b. 39. light of his vision of progress as possible only 11. S. Hutchinson Harris, "Auberon Herbert", Nine- through the development of individual moral teenth century and After (1938), pp. 700-701. character. In the end, Herbert makes clear that 12. All of these exchanges appeared in TheHurnaniturian: A Monthly Review of Sociological Science. They in- these calls are simply for the development of cluded: Herbert's "Wares for Sale in the Political the discipline to withstand the temptations of Market Place", Bax's "Voluntaryism Versus (merely) short-term political windfalls and to Socialism" and Herbert's "State Socialism in the Court of Reason" (1895). Herbert's "The Creed of appreciate the long-term moral, psychological, Restricted Faculties" and "The Harvest of the Sands" and economic importance, for each person, of and Grant Allen's "Strike! But Hear Me" (1899, respect for all individual rights. Thus, on the Herbert's "A Voluntaryist Appeal", Hobson's "Rich Man's Anarchism" and Herbert's "Salvation by moral and psychological level, Herbert Forcev* (1898). and Herbert's "Lost in the Region of rhetorically asks, Phrasesw* (1899). 13. Auberon Herbert. "Address on the Choices Between If you lose all respect for the rights of others, and Personal Freedom and State Protectionn,* p. 43.

with it your own self-respect, if you lose your own 14. Auberon~ ~ Herbert. "A Politician in Sight. ofHavenU,* sense of right and fairness, if you lose your belief in p. 97. liberty; and with it the sense of your own worth and IS. Auberon Herbert. The Right and Wrong of CompuC true rank, if you lose your own will and self- sion by the State,* p. 126. guidance and control over your own lives and ac- 16. Ibid., p. 127. tions, what can all the buying and trafficking, what 17. Ibid., p. 133. can all the gifts of politicians give you in return?L'" 18. "Address", P. 46. 19. Auberon Herbert. "The Princivles of Voluntaryism And on the tactical level, he adds, " . . . in the Herbert, Right and Wrong, p. 152. end you will gain far more by clinging faithfully Auberon Herbert, "A Voluntaryist Appeal", p. 314. to the methods of peace and respect for the Hobson, "Rich Man's Anarchism", p. 394. rights of others than by allowing yourselves to Herbert, "A Voluntaryist Appeal", p. 325. Liberty. ed. by Benjamin Tucker, Boston and New use the force that always calls out force in rep- York, 1881 - 1908 (reprinted Westport, COnn: Green- ly . . . ".16'1 The skepticism of Herbert's con- woad Press, 1970). temporaries about whether they would have to Auberon Herbert, "A Plea for Voluntaryism",' p. 329. live with such long-term consequences was, for 26. Herbert, Right and Wrong. p. 144. them, no virtue, and, for us, no favor. 27. Ibid., pp. 144- 145. 28. Ibid., pp. 145 - 146. 29. Herbert. " . . . Haven", p. 101. (Italics added) NOTES 30. Herbert, Right and Wrong, p. 141. I. Many of the major and representative essays by 31. Ibid. Herbert are reprinted in The Right and Wrong of Com- 32. Ibid., p. 142. pulsion by the Slate and Other Essays (Indianapolis, 33. Herben, "State Socialism . . . ". p. 29. (Italics Ind.: Liberty Classics, 1978). Portions of this essay ag added.) pear as my introduction to that collection. Essays by 34. Herbert, "A Voluntaryist Appeal", p. 317. Herbert for which the initial citation is marked with an 35. 1. H. Levy, 4.. Taxation and Anarchirrn (London: asterisk are included in this volume and page citations Personal Rights Assoc.. 1912), p. 3. Also see M. N. for these essays are to this collection. Rothbard's Power and Market (Kansas City: Shed VOLUNTARYISM: THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF AUBERON HERBERT 309

Andrews and McMeel, 1977). pp. 165-166. For a govern, but to protect themselves from government". discussion of the views of I. H. Levy, Herbert's an- 49. In rejming Tucker's bclrcf that merest reflected a tagonist in the exchange reprinted as Taxalion and grant of state monopoly, Herbcn rejected thc vrcw that Anarchism. see Libertv. Vol. VII. No. 14. o. 4. free banking would lead to the disappearance of in- 36. Herbert, h he ~rinciples.. . . "ip. 398. terest. For a defense of this view and of the centrality 37. Hobson's "Rich Man's Anarchism", p. 391. of - in a free bankinn svstem by Herbert's 38. Ibid., p. 392. economically sophisucated foilo&r, J. ~;eevzFisher. 39 Ibid., p. 393. Hobsoo also raises, as a problem for see Benjamin Tucker's Imlead of a Book (New York: Herbert's theory of property rights in created things, Tucker, 1893). pp. 222 - 245. For a systematic dixus- the issue of co-operative production. He argues that sion of problems in Tucker's economic thought, see "organic ceoperation . . . disables us from imputing "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's

any single product to the activity of an individual who View".~ .~~~in M. N. Rothbard's Ezalitar~knism:A Revoll was alone directly engaged in producing it" (p. 395). Agoiml Nolure and Other &&I (Washington. D.C.: To my knowledge, Herbert never addresses this issue. Libertarian Review Press. 1974). But see 's , Slale and Olopia 50. While Herbcn grounded his views in a belief in moral (New York: Basic Bwks, 1974), pp. 183- 189. rights and obli&ions, Tucker came to e;pouse a pur- 40. Herben, "Salvation . . . ", p. 228. --oonedlv, oost-moralistic,- . and while Herbert was 41. Herbert, "Lost . . . ", pp. 247-248. at least sympathetic to thelsm, ~uckcruas aggressively 42. Ibid., p. 252. anti-religious. But these differences never seem to have 43. Ibid., pp. 249 -250. been factors in their disputes. 44. Ibid., pp. 255 -256. 51. Liberfy, Vol. VII, No. 6, P. 5. 45. Ibid.. pp. 257-258. 52. See Levy, ed., Tarrrrion and Anarchism. pp. 3 -4. 46. Harris, Auberon Herbert. . ..pp. 319- 320. 53. Herbert, "A Voluntaryist Appeal", p. 329 and "The 47. See Hobson, "Rich Man's Anarchism"; T. H. Huxley. Principles . . . ", pp. 383-384. The quoted phrase is "Government: Anarchy of Regimentation". Nine- from "State Socialism . . . ",P. 29. reenlh Century (1890); Levy, ed., Taxalion and Anar- 54. SeeLiberIy, Vol. X, No. 12, p. 3. For a portion of the chism, p. 7; and Tucker's announcement of Herbert's contemporary version of this dispute see Nozick. Anar- death in Liberty, Vol. XV, No. 6, p. 16 - "Auberon chy, State, and Utopia, , Human Rightr Herbert is dead. He was a true Anarchist in everything and Human Likrties (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975). but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to and the essays by Eric Mack and in be an Anarchist in everything but name than to be an Anarchism, edited by J. W. Chapman and J. R. Pen- Anarchist in name only!" nock (New York: Press, 1978). 48. Herbert, "The Ethics of Dynamite",. p. 194. So 55. Herbert, "A Plea for Voluntaryism", p. 316. thorough is Herbert's condemnation of the dynamiter 56. Ibid., p. 358. that, as pointed out in his general 57. Herbert, "Mr. Spencer . . . ", p. 267. laudatory commentary in Liberty, Vol. X. No. 5, pp. 58. Ibid., pp. 300- 301. 3-4, " . . . Mr. Herbert reasons in a way which 59. Herbert, "A Plea for Voluntaryism", p. 321. logically involves the condemnation of force under ail 60. For reasons against expecting the majority coalition to circumstances and leads straight to non-resistance". be the lowest 51 per cent, see Nozick, Anarchy, State Here, again, we see Herbert's discomfort with even and Utopia, pp. 274 -275. self-defensive force. Yarros, in contrast, goes on tosay 61. Liberty, Vol. X, No. I I, p. 2. that "Everything depends on what the dynamite is in- 62. Herben, "Salvation. . . ", p. 237. tended for". If persons were to use dynamite in ge- 63. Ibid., p. 341. nuine acts of self-defense, they "would not be trying to 64. Ibid., p. 358.