« previous post | Main | next post »
May 20, 2005
blast from the past (two)
Don Herzog: May 20, 2005
It's one of my favorite pamphlets, but alas, it isn't reprinted any more. After the author published it, he handed it off to the Association for Preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers — yup, they don't name political groups like they used to — and they circulated it widely. Twenty-five years later, one radical was appalled to notice a newspaper ad for a new edition. "It is false," he thundered, "that whilst some have exorbitant fortunes, the rest are happy." Circulating such views "in the midst of desolation and ruin" was outrageous, "mocking the poor man's sorrow — jesting upon his misery." Eight years after that, a conservative newspaper reprinted the whole text. It was a dangerous time, they warned, "when the servant turns upon his master, and the shopman claims to be a philosopher," and the venerable old pamphlet was called for once again.
How the mighty have fallen: this delicious pamphlet hasn't even been publicly available online. But I have boldly taken matters in hand and now it is. The pamphlet is William Paley's Reasons for Contentment, Addressed to the Labouring Part of the British Public, first published in 1792. And that "British" matters. I know of nothing like this piece from contemporary America. As you read on, think about what that means about those American conservatives devoted to tradition, and especially the Anglophiles in the crowd. Why are they devoted to foreign traditions? Anyway, you should read Paley's deathless pamphlet. All nine pages of it. But here's a quick overview.
To put it politely, the English authorities were jittery in the aftermath of the French revolution. A helpful soul, Paley — moral philosopher, theologian, and Anglican churchman — put his shoulder to the wheel to try to quiet radical demands for equality. His pamphlet insists so vehemently on the superiority of poverty that it becomes entirely mysterious why the rich don't try to find some poor suckers to take their wealth off their hands. Or for that matter why they don't just burn it outright.
Those grumbling about inequality, Paley sweetly explains, should recall that property rights are good for one and all.
The laws which accidentally cast enormous estates into one great man's possession, are, after all, the self same laws which protect and guard the poor man. Fixed rules of property are established, for one as well as another, without knowing, before hand, whom they may affect. If these rules sometimes throw an excessive or disproportionate share to one man's lot, who can help it? It is much better that it should be so, than that the rules themselves should be broken up: and you have only one side of the alternative or the other. To abolish riches would not be to abolish poverty; but, on the contrary, to leave it without protection or resource.
Then too, Providence has ensured that most people can be happy without wealth. Workers are busy, so they have no time for the "irksome and tormenting" thoughts that afflict the wealthy in their leisure. "Frugality itself is a pleasure." The poor provide more easily for their children:
All the provision which a poor man's child requires is contained in two words, "industry and innocence." With these qualities, tho' without a shilling to set him forwards, he goes into the world prepared to become an useful, virtuous, and happy man.
The poor even get more pleasure from food and drink.
The rich who addict themselves to indulgence lose their relish. Their desires are dead. Their sensibilities are worn and tired. Hence they lead a languid, satiated existence. Hardly any thing can amuse, or rouse, or gratify them. Whereas the poor man, if something extraordinary fall in his way, comes to the repast with appetite; is pleased and refreshed; derives from his usual course of moderation and temperance a quickness of perception and delight, which the unrestrained voluptuary knows nothing of.
Much has changed since Paley's day. Today's poor are far better off materially. (Would Paley regret the change? Should we?) And while I am deeply committed to equality of opportunity, and think that that requires equality of starting points, I flatly reject equality of outcomes. (I've sketched my views here and in the two preceding posts linked in that one.) Then too I think some of Paley's sentiments are exactly right for governing one's private life. That sardonic reproach, "he who dies with the most toys wins," captures something important. Whether Paley's sentiments properly play a role in justifying public policy is another matter.
So I don't produce Paley to sneer that the opposite of what he says is true. Nor do I produce him to insinuate that conservatives haven't budged since his day. Instead, I want to raise two questions. One: how much of what Paley says is right? Two: how much of what Paley says still circulates in public debate? Well, three questions. (These longwinded academics with their insufferable homework assignments!) Three: how much overlap is there between one and two?
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834536ae669e200d83458c9ff69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference blast from the past (two):
» The mashie-niblick of liberty from blogs for industry
Although I think of myself as a libertarian, I confess that I've never read Hayek's Road to Serfdom...but I suspect that this version (via Left2Right) may not capture everything in Hayek's 320 page classic.
But note what happens when central plann... [Read More]
Tracked on May 20, 2005 10:36:25 PM
» Too good for 'em!! from scribblingwoman
The wonderful Sharon, who has singlehandedly done more to collect and make available early modern web resources than anyone I... [Read More]
Tracked on May 22, 2005 10:37:06 AM
» Paris Hilton and Company Are Secretly Unhappy... from Brad DeLong's Website
Don Herzog dredges up the argument that we should feel sorry for Paris Hilton and company--that they have been harmed by lower marginal tax rates for the rich and would be harmed by permanent estate-tax repeal: Left2Right: blast from the past (two): D... [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 2, 2005 3:08:11 PM
Comments
Posted by: Shag from Brookline
Ted Turner was recently interviewed by Charlie Rose. On the subject of his wealth, Turner commented "That's how we [the wealthy] keep score." This applies to today's CEOs.
Posted by: Shag from Brookline | May 20, 2005 7:21:46 AM
Posted by: Rivers
I think what he says is right in a sense: everyone SHOULD try to be happy with their station in life. As Paley was a clergyman, his relaying of this message is certainly appropriate.
To the extent that this message is delivered today, if it is, clergy would still be the best ones to talk about this sort of thing, in my opinion. However, it does seem as if we have political hacks today that make the same argument, with no spiritual trappings. After all, "only the rich pay taxes; the rich are stretched as far as they can possibly be; etc."
So the "rich are miserable" argument is still being made. However, there is probably no overlap today, at least in our civil debates, since the "rich have it bad" argument has been completely secularized.
Posted by: Rivers | May 20, 2005 9:00:34 AM
Posted by: john t
I hope a fair amount of what Paley said still circulates today,if property is not afforded protection who gets to control or own it,the Dept of Health and Human services,the Bureau of Land Management? I assume Paley's comment about "innocence and Industry" is meant to refer to a willingness to work and sufficent virtue to advance oneself in a decent mode of behavior,nothing wrong with that. So yes their is still currency to what Paley said and the rightness is to be judged by the transporting thru time of the practices he outlines,which hopefully will continue. Regarding a connection between Don H's questions one and two,well most people still work toward self betterment and property is one of the payoffs and the ideas are still with us. So it's fair to say there is overlap.
Posted by: john t | May 20, 2005 9:19:41 AM
Posted by: Mtnmarty
Thanks for the recommendation, I thoroughly enjoyed the pamphlet.
My short answers.
1. A lot of what he says is right.
2. Very little of what he says still circulates.
3. I think that because we are all rich now( that is, we all have enough leisure to contemplate our lot in life) that we prefer too distract ourselves with anything but the type of truths he discusses.
Some anecdotal evidence of number 2. I have two teenagers that I have tried to teach points similar to those Tolstoy makes whether in the form of Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Illich, or that it is better to give than to receive from the New Testament, or beware the green-eyed monster jealousy from Othello, or about not gathering more manna from heaven than one needs for the days food, or from Bhuddist teachings that desire creates suffering or from homespun homilies such as those that marry for money earn every penny.
I am likely a poor teacher and teenagers may be especially unreachable on these points. They tell me not that I am a hypocrit but that I am crazy because NOBODY lives this way.
More anecdotes, indulge me, its my birthday. I think I do believe this way because similar to some characters from a John O'Hara novel I grew up in a town small enough where the same elementary school had kids whose parents were on welfare and kids whose grandparents were on the Forbes 100.
Money does not make people happy. Envy does make people unhappy.
It trust my kids: few believe it, no one lives it.
Posted by: Mtnmarty | May 20, 2005 9:22:51 AM
Posted by: Aaron S.
Paley?! Hell, I can't even ask him for the time of day without him ogling his watch.
Posted by: Aaron S. | May 20, 2005 10:22:52 AM
Posted by: catfish
Well, the contentment that Paley speaks of is good advice for anyone. However, his definition of poverty is completely ridiculous. Poverty, in our day and in his, is best defined, not by a lack of luxury items, but the lack of control. Those who are impoverished today are people who cannot afford health care, adequate housing, a decent education for their children, or adequate child-care. Many impoverished people also live in areas that are physically dangerous due to high crime rates. Many of these same people do not have adequate skills that would allow them to earn a decent wage. Frequently, they do not have the resources to move to a better neighborhood or reliable transportation to expand the geographical area in which to bargain for cheaper goods or higher wages.
Regardless of who is to blame for this situation, telling these people that they should be content with their lot is, at worst, deeply insulting. At best, it reinforces the fatalism which is at least partly responsible for their predicament in the first place.
Of course, the lot of the poor wasn't much differnt in Paley's day. The hunger, dangerous working conditions, lack of basic sanitation, or any social safety net other than the workhouse made actual poverty much different than his idealized version.
Note, none of the above necessarily demands a government, rather than private solution. Still, it is best to start the discussion with realistic picture of the lives of the poor.
Posted by: catfish | May 20, 2005 11:55:12 AM
Posted by: Larry
I don't want to be a pedant about this, but I'd like to just note, again, the common but misleading tendency to speak of generalized groups such as the Poor or the Rich as though they were Platonic ideals, when in fact these terms represent huge swaths of actual wealth levels, wide ranges of individual situations and circumstances, etc. Perhaps we need, Margaret Thatcher-like, to simply deny the existence of the Poor or the Rich.
Posted by: Larry | May 20, 2005 12:23:09 PM
Posted by: Tad Brennan
Mtnmarty--
Happy birthday!
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 20, 2005 12:58:27 PM
Posted by: CTW
catfish:
the illogic of your post is breathtaking.
"Poverty ... is best defined, not by a lack of luxury items ..."
of course not! as was pointed out on an earlier thread, the problem with poverty today is a surfeit of luxury items, ie, the poor are suffering the very disincentives paley described re the rich. wants are sated, initiative is stifled, ambition becomes unnecessary, etc. fortunately, current admin proposals are addressing this by eliminating much of the deplorable excess that degrades a once noble life of poverty.
"Frequently, they do not have the resources to move to a better neighborhood"
white flight was bad enough - now you're advocating poor flight. if this terrible policy were actually implemented urban areas would soon be overrun by yuppies. then you'd see real moral decay - inner cities would be unlivable for anyone with decent values.
"Many impoverished people also live in areas that are physically dangerous due to high crime rates."
you obviously don't know a syllogism when you see one. high crime rates occur in poor areas; high crime rates imply the presence of large numbers of criminals. ergo, most poor people are criminals. if the poor would simply stop committing crimes, the crime rate would go down. sheesh!
"fatalism which is at least partly responsible for their predicament in the first place."
you're clearly an atheist, ie, a liberal. again, the reasoning is so simple even an engineer can see it. urban poor are typically black, most blacks are religious, therefore they accept that their fate is in the hands of god. so what you're saying is they should abandon their fate and reject god. why don't you take your hedonistic commie views and move to cuba. or any blue state.
and please work on your reasoning skills before posting further in this forum.
Posted by: CTW | May 20, 2005 12:59:50 PM
Posted by: catfish
CTW,
Touche
Posted by: catfish | May 20, 2005 1:06:30 PM
Posted by: mikey
Who argues for equality of outcomes anymore?
Posted by: mikey | May 20, 2005 1:27:15 PM
Posted by: Stagnolio
Interesting post. As to the first two block quotes, they are certainly still a major part of public debate. But the third block quote, when stripped to its core, contains a sentiment to which no politician would own up. Not since ancient Sparta has a politician made a serious case against material prosperity. Aside from some fringe anarchoprimitivists, that idea has no place in political life. Somewhat strangely, however, it has a strong place in private reflection - there is a long strand of cultural thought, movies, and novels, that espouse the idea that "Money doesn't make you happy" or even "Money corrupts you and makes you unhappy." This public/private divide can be reconciled as follows: few non-rich people actually believe that wealth will make them unhappy, or at the very least, they'd like the opportunity to find out for themselves.
Posted by: Stagnolio | May 20, 2005 2:11:22 PM
Posted by: Achillea
One: how much of what Paley says is right?
Paley's basic contention appears to be 'Poor people should be content being poor and not attempt, or even think about attempting, to improve their lot.' In support of this, he makes the following claims:
A) Worrying their little heads about matters best left to their betters will only confuse and upset them.
B) Any realization of what they don't have will bring on soul-destroying paroxysms of envy.
C) The laws that maintain the elevated status of the rich also serve to keep the poor from sinking any lower -- in fact, they provide protection that, being comparatively powerless, the poor would otherwise lack.
D) There is no difference between what the rich produce/consume than what the poor produce/consume, so why fuss.
E) It's the natural way of things.
F) Work is virtuous and keeps one from becoming bored.
G) Rich people sometimes receive no acknowledgment/thanks for what they do.
H) Scrimping and saving provides a sense of accomplishment and teaches children good habits.
I) It's always been that way.
J) Poor people get to choose who they work for.
K) Luxury isn't as much fun if you have it all the time.
L) Rich people have the same pastimes, so they're people too.
M) Sudden windfalls never work out well.
N) God wants it this way, and those who question it are bound to burn in hell.
Other than C, and to some extent H, K, and M, these are either irrelevant to the question or utter tosh.
Two: how much of what Paley says still circulates in public debate?
Very little that I've seen, unless the discussion is about "Brave New World" or some leftist is claiming that's how conservatives and/or the Christian right really think.
Three: how much overlap is there between one and two?
Not sure I understand this question. You're asking if how much truth there is (or isn't) to the points in the treatise affects how often they're raised in the modern day?
Posted by: Achillea | May 20, 2005 2:30:22 PM
Posted by: Tad Brennan
page 1, 7 lines from bottom--
"fending it forth to wander" is presumably a mis-transcription from "sending it forth"--the same problem of flowery script 's's that gave Stan Freeberg jokes about the "purfuit of happineff".
Posted by: Tad Brennan | May 20, 2005 2:37:15 PM
Posted by: Don Herzog
Achillea, a more direct rendition of what I meant to ask in three is: identify what in Paley's pamphlet is both (1) true and (2) still floating around in debate. To come at it the other way, think about what in the pamphlet is bilge or worse but still circulates, what in the pamphlet is true but has dropped out of circulation, and what in the pamphlet is false and has dropped out. But thanks, yours made me laugh aloud.
No one has yet picked up on a thought of Paley's that is politically very powerful -- and I think wrongheaded. When Paley writes,
you have only one side of the alternative or the other.
He means there is no real possibility of maintaining private property but doing some redistribution. Either you leave the system the way it is, or civilization goes down the tubes. The thought that there are no choices, no room for maneuver, has historically been deeply characteristic of some (must I emphasize "not all"?) right-wing views. (And it has its left-wing versions, like the grade-B Marxist who assures us that the revolution is inexorably on its way.) I guess Paley would think the legal regime of today's UK, or the US, is not possible. Compare Hayek's snazzier argument that the social-welfare state isn't stable but will tip over into totalitarianism. It's been a long time tipping, now hasn't it?
Tad, thanks for catching the typo. If I can figure out how to bend typepad to my puny will, I'll fix it.
Posted by: Don Herzog | May 20, 2005 2:49:26 PM
Posted by: Terrier
Mtnmarty, maybe you should teach your kids "Earthly desires are enlightenment." The simple reason these old doctrines about love and community are hollow now is because many people just don't feel a connection or an obligation to anyone else. Dog-minded people believe that the entire country sprung into being the moment they were born and all the advancements that took place to make being poor and downtrodden (or rich and indolent) a pleasure in this society are the result of the magic of people working against each other's best interests. If you read the letters that Sumerian fathers wrote to their sons you would discover that this is not a new problem - it is at least as old as cities. When the struggle for existence went from the satisfaction of physical needs to the hustle of abstract examinations we discovered that humanity could be a burden that we should "never to allow our attention to dwell upon." When you read Paley think about infant mortality, glasses of wine, the coming Potato Famine, and Rotten Boroughs and see if you can remember that "Religion smooths all inequalities, because it unfolds a prospect which makes all earthly distinctions nothing." Surely we have it much better today than even citizens after Paley did, but do we have enough compassion not to sanction the defects that he ignored?
Posted by: Terrier | May 20, 2005 2:52:31 PM
Posted by: D.A. Ridgely
Compare Hayek's snazzier argument that the social-welfare state isn't stable but will tip over into totalitarianism. It's been a long time tipping, now hasn't it?
By historical standards? No, not really.
Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | May 20, 2005 3:00:13 PM
Posted by: Don Herzog
Well, we could make Hayek's argument unfalsifiable by indefinitely extending the time horizon. Do you think he thought we'd have as many decades of social-welfare-state as we have in fact had without tipping?
Posted by: Don Herzog | May 20, 2005 3:02:03 PM
Posted by: mtnmarty
Tad: Thanks!
Don: A couple of points. I think Paley is also saying something about security in addition to redistribution. I think the very existence of the term "The age of anxiety" is some evidence that despite our much greater level of economic development, the number of possbilities produces a certain anxiety.
The second point is that I think we can have our cake and eat it too, if we focus on absolute rather than relative prosperity. Famine, infectious disease, and slavery are not the same as some poeple making 20,000 aand others 2 million.
I am more willing to feed all starving children than to provide everyone higher education.
Terrier: Thanks for your comments. The research( or agitprop) on happiness shows that social contact and community bonds make for more happiness, so why the trend you point out towards more people that feel no connection?
Posted by: mtnmarty | May 20, 2005 4:01:22 PM
Posted by: Bret
Don Herzog wrote: "Do you think he [Hayek] thought we'd have as many decades of social-welfare-state as we have in fact had without tipping?"
I don't think Hayek thought that if there were even a single dollar of redistribution that it would inevitably lead to totalitarianism. I thought it was more that if the magnitude of the social-welfare-state ever passed a certain threshold that it would then likely lead to totalitarianism. I never saw in any of his writing that he expected the U.S. to tip into totalitarianism (due to its welfare statedness) or that he considered it a social-welfare-state, including his last works in the 1980s. Which writings are you referring to? The Road to Serfdom? Or something later?
Posted by: Bret | May 20, 2005 4:30:02 PM
Posted by: Don Herzog
I was thinking of The Road to Serfdom, but I haven't read it in many years, and it wouldn't be the first book I might be misremembering. I went just now to grab it from my shelf and discovered it's gone missing: no doubt I lent it to some anonymous student and will never see it again. Sigh.
Mr. Ridgely has an evil twin in this discussion, too: the Marxist who firmly holds out hope for the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Eventually....
Posted by: Don Herzog | May 20, 2005 4:33:18 PM
Posted by: john t
"The century of socialism in this sense{totalitarianism] is nearly dead in the western world". " It seems unlikely that,even when another Labor government should come to power in Great Britain,it would resume the experiments in large scale nationalization and planning". F A Hayek,1952. Did Hayek say the welfare state must tip over into totalitarianism or it could,if so when. And if it hasn,t or couldn't would we owe more to Hayek or J K Galbraith? Maybe the total state hasn't arrived in part because of Hayek.
Posted by: john t | May 20, 2005 5:26:43 PM
Posted by: john t
Don H I saved you the trouble of searching for your lost copy,my quote is from the Road to Serfdom.
Posted by: john t | May 20, 2005 5:31:00 PM
Posted by: Bret
I don't have my copy of The Road to Serfdom handy either, but consider the following excerpt from this interview with Hayek in 1977:
Reason: Is Britain irrevocably on the road to serfdom?So from this I interpret what he would say is that we are on the road to totalitarianism, but it isn't necessarily true that you can't park along it for extended periods of time or that you can't drive the other direction for a while. It's a road, not a one-way street, and not a waterfall where you're inevitably swept away in it.Hayek: No, not irrevocably. That's one of the misunderstandings. The Road to Selfdom was meant to be a warning: "Unless you mend your ways, you ll go to the devil." And you can always mend your ways.
Posted by: Bret | May 20, 2005 5:34:11 PM
Posted by: john t
This is the second Blast etc,each based on English conservative writings and referring to the French Revolution. So when do we get representative samples from across the channel during the same time period. Marat,Saint-Just,Danton,Robespierre,heck we could throw in Tom Paine,a big fan of the new order,until he barely escaped with his life. There must be some reason why these old English reactionaries wrote what they did in the 18th century. All of which was more meaningful and valid then the emissions from France,which sadly have had a long and influential history of their own.
Posted by: john t | May 20, 2005 5:46:08 PM