the man versus the state-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ral　taxation　is　increased　by　grants　for　education　and　to　the　departments　of　science　and　art；　etc。　Every　one　of　these　involves　further　coercion　　restricts　still　more　the　freedom　of　the　citizen。　For　the　implied　address　accompanying　every　additional　exaction　is　　〃Hitherto　you　have　been　free　to　spend　this　portion　of　your　earnings　in　any　way　which　pleased　you；　hereafter　you　shall　not　be　free　so　to　spend　it；　but　we　will　spend　it　for　the　general　benefit。〃　Thus；　either　directly　or　indirectly；　and　in　most　cases　both　at　once；　the　citizen　is　at　each　further　stage　in　the　growth　of　this　compulsory　legislation；　deprived　of　some　liberty　which　he　previously　had。　　　　　　Such；　then；　are　the　doings　of　the　party　which　claims　the　name　of　Liberal；　and　which　calls　itself　Liberal　as　being　the　advocate　of　extended　freedom。　

I　doubt　not　that　many　a　member　of　the　party　has　read　the　preceding　section　with　impatience；　wanting；　as　he　does；　to　point　out　an　immense　oversight　which　he　thinks　destroys　the　validity　of　the　argument。　〃You　forget；〃　he　wishes　to　say；　〃the　fundamental　difference　between　the　power　which；　in　the　past；　established　those　restraints　that　Liberalism　abolished；　and　the　power　which；　in　the　present；　establishes　the　restraints　you　call　anti…Liberal。　You　forget　that　the　one　was　an　irresponsible　power；　while　the　other　is　a　responsible　power。　You　forget　that　if　by　the　recent　legislation　of　Liberals；　people　are　variously　regulated；　the　body　which　regulates　them　is　of　their　own　creating；　and　has　their　warrant　for　its　acts。〃　　　　　My　answer　is；　that　I　have　not　forgotten　this　difference；　but　am　prepared　to　contend　that　the　difference　is　in　large　measure　irrelevant　to　the　issue。　　　　　　In　the　first　place；　the　real　issue　is　whether　the　lives　of　citizens　are　more　interfered　with　than　they　were；　not　the　nature　of　the　agency　which　interferes　with　them。　Take　a　simpler　case。　A　member　of　a　trades'　union　has　joined　others　in　establishing　an　organization　of　a　purely　representative　character。　By　it　he　is　compelled　to　strike　if　a　majority　so　decide；　he　is　forbidden　to　accept　work　save　under　the　conditions　they　dictate；　he　is　prevented　from　profiting　by　his　superior　ability　or　energy　to　the　extent　he　might　do　were　it　not　for　their　interdict。　He　cannot　disobey　without　abandoning　those　pecuniary　benefits　of　the　organization　for　which　he　has　subscribed；　and　bringing　on　himself　the　persecution；　and　perhaps　violence；　of　his　fellows。　Is　he　any　the　less　coerced　because　the　body　coercing　him　is　one　which　he　had　an　equal　voice　with　the　rest　in　forming？　　　　　　In　the　second　place；　if　it　be　objected　that　the　analogy　is　faulty；　since　the　governing　body　of　a　nation；　to　which；　as　protector　of　the　national　life　and　interests；　all　must　submit　under　penalty　of　social　disorganization；　has　a　far　higher　authority　over　citizens　than　the　government　of　any　private　organization　can　have　over　its　members；　then　the　reply　is　that；　granting　the　difference；　the　answer　made　continues　valid。　If　men　use　their　liberty　in　such　a　way　as　to　surrender　their　liberty；　are　they　thereafter　any　the　less　slaves？　If　people　by　a　plebiscite　elect　a　man　despot　over　them；　do　they　remain　free　because　the　despotism　was　of　their　own　making？　Are　the　coercive　edicts　issued　by　him　to　be　regarded　as　legitimate　because　they　are　the　ultimate　outcome　of　their　own　votes？　As　well　might　it　be　argued　that　the　East　African；　who　breaks　a　spear　in　another's　presence　that　he　may　so　become　bondsman　to　him；　still　retains　his　liberty　because　he　freely　chose　his　master。　　　　　　Finally　if　any；　not　without　marks　of　irritation　as　I　can　imagine；　repudiate　this　reasoning；　and　say　that　there　is　no　true　parallelism　between　the　relation　of　people　to　government　where　an　Responsible　single　ruler　has　been　permanently　elected；　and　the　relation　where　a　responsible　representative　body　is　maintained；　and　from　time　to　time　re…elected；　then　there　comes　the　ultimate　reply　　an　altogether　heterodox　reply　　by　which　most　will　be　greatly　astonished。　This　reply　is；　that　these　multitudinous　restraining　acts　are　not　defensible　on　the　ground　that　they　proceed　from　a　popularly…chosen　body；　for　that　the　authority　of　a　popularly…chosen　body　is　no　more　to　be　regarded　as　an　unlimited　authority　than　the　authority　of　a　monarch；　and　that　as　true　Liberalism　in　the　past　disputed　the　assumption　of　a　monarch's　unlimited　authority；　so　true　Liberalism　in　the　present　will　dispute　the　assumption　of　unlimited　parliamentary　authority。　Of　this；　however；　more　anon。　Here　I　merely　indicate　it　as　an　ultimate　answer。　　　　　　Meanwhile　it　suffices　to　point　out　that　until　recently；　just　as　of　old；　true　Liberalism　was　shown　by　its　acts　to　be　moving　towards　the　theory　of　a　limited　parliamentary　authority。　All　these　abolitions　of　restraints　over　religious　beliefs　and　observances；　over　exchange　and　transit；　over　trade…combinations　and　the　traveling　of　artisans；　over　the　publication　of　opinions；　theological　or　political；　etc。；　etc。；　were　tacit　assertions　of　the　desirableness　of　limitation。　In　the　same　way　that　the　abandonment　of　sumptuary　laws；　of　laws　forbidding　this　or　that　kind　of　amusement；　of　laws　dictating　modes　of　farming；　and　many　others　of　like　meddling　nature；　which　took　place　in　early　days；　was　an　implied　admission　that　the　State　ought　not　to　interfere　in　such　matters；　so　those　removals　of　hindrances　to　individual　activities　of　one　or　other　kind；　which　the　Liberalism　of　the　last　generation　effected；　were　practical　confessions　that　in　these　directions；　too；　the　sphere　of　governmental　action　should　be　narrowed。　And　this　recognition　of　the　propriety　of　restricting　governmental　action　was　a　preparation　for　restricting　it　in　theory。　One　of　the　most　familiar　political　truths　is　that；　in　the　course　of　social　evolution；　usage　precedes　law；　and　that　when　usage　has　been　well　established　it　becomes　law　by　receiving　authoritative　endorsement　and　defined　form。　Manifestly　then；　Liberalism　in　the　past；　by　its　practice　of　limitation；　was　preparing　the　way　for　the　principle　of　limitation。　　　　　　But　returning　from　these　more　general　considerations　to　the　special　question；　I　emphasize　the　reply　that　the　liberty　which　a　citizen　enjoys　is　to　be　measured；　not　by　the　nature　of　the　governmental　machinery　he　lives　under；　whether　representative　or　other；　but　by　the　relative　paucity　of　the　restraints　it　imposes　on　him；　and　that；　whether　this　machinery　is　or　is　not　one　that　he　has　shared　in　making；　its　actions　are　not　of　the　kind　proper　to　Liberalism　if　they　increase　such　restraints　beyond　those　which　are　needful　for　preventing　him　from　directly　or　indirectly　aggressing　on　his　fellows　　needful；　that　is；　for　maintaining　the　liberties　of　his　fellows　against　his　invasions　of　them：　restraints　which　are；　therefore；　to　be　distinguished　as　negatively　coercive；　not　positively　coercive。　

Probably；　however；　the　Liberal；　and　still　more　the　sub…species　Radical；　who　more　than　any　other　in　these　latter　days　seems　under　the　impression　that　so　long　as　he　has　a　good　end　in　view　he　is　warranted　in　exercising　over　men　all　the　coercion　he　is　able；　will　continue　to　protest；　knowing　that　his　aim　is　popular　benefit　of　some　kind；　to　be　achieved　in　some　way；　and　believing　that　the　Tory　is；　contrariwise；　prompted　by　class…interest　and　the　desire　to　maintain　class…power；　he　will　regard　it　as　palpably　absurd　to　group　him　as　one　of　the　same　genus；　and　will　scorn　the　reasoning　used　to　prove　that　he　belongs　to　it。　　　　　　Perhaps　an　analogy　will　help　him　to　see　its　validity。　If；　away　in　the　far　East；　where　personal　government　is　the　only　form　of　government　known；　he　heard　from　the　inhabitants　an　account　of　a　struggle　by　which　they　had　deposed　a　cruel　and　vicious　despot；　and　put　in　his　place　one　whose　acts　proved　his　desire　for　their　welfare　　if；　after　listening　to　their　self…gratulations；　he　told　them　that　they　had　not　essentially　changed　the　nature　of　their　government；　he　would　greatly　astonish　them；　and　probably　he　would　have　difficulty　in　making　them　understand　that　the　substitution　of　a　benevolent　despot　for　a　malevolent　despot；　still　left　the　government　a　despotism。　Similarly　with　Toryism　as　rightly　conceived。　Standing　as　it　does　for　coercion　by　the　State　versus　the　freedom　of　the　individual；　Toryism　remains　Toryism；　whether　it　extends　this　coercio