The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-11-29

people In any Of the elementary conditions OF
humane living
II IA we'll that tho current misconceptlon
Of the position taken by most English econ
omists tovnrd the idisset-faire doctrine
should be corrected by Mr.. Rae. for we find II
inculcated In regard to McCulloch. In particu-
lar. in the latest edition OF the Ency-
clopndia Britannica. It is, In truth. mis-
taken although chivalrous idea. which lies at
the bottom OF tho sentimental patronage OF
socialism, tho idea, namely. that ordinary self
interest has been gloriflcd by the English
econ mists into a sacred and all-sumcinR
principle. which II would be interfering with
tho designs OF Providence to restrict. The in
ference drawn by sympathetic persons from
this mistaken notion is that II 10 only right for
them TO side with socialism as n protest
against the position occupied by the upholders
OF the present state OF things. without being
understood to commit themselves to any par
ticuiar system which socialism may propose
to put in It's place. But as Mr.. Rae
shows, tho fact is that, although Eng
lish economists think that self-interest
must nlways be regarded as the ordinary
guide OF life. and that the world cannot
DO expected to become better or better
of II everybody were to look after other pco-
ple's interests (which he knows nothing
about. instead OF looking after his own lof
which he at Feast knows something). these
same economists are far from showing any
Indifference 10 the danger OF self-interest run
ming into selfishness. On the contrary. they
have continually insisted that where tho self
interest Of the strong failed to subject itself
spontaneously to the restraints Of social JUS
tice and tho responsibilities OF common hui
mainly. It WAS for society to ster In aud impose
such restraints MS might DO Just and requisite.
aud to do 30 either through public opinion
or by public authority in the way most likely
to be cfYectunl. Another thing overlooked by
those who fcel themselves sentmcntally at
tracted toward socialism is that the So
cielists OF the present day have no thought
Of substituting any other general economic
motive In the room OF self interest. IL their
schemes could be realized tomorrow man
would still be paid according to the amount OF
his individual work. and no would to this cX-
tent DO working for his own hand. His daily
motive would still DO his individual interest.
though his scope Of achievement would DO Sc
verey limited by law with tho view OF sccur-
ing higher general level OF happiness in the
community. The question. in flnc. between tho
English economists ard the Socialists is not,
us many sympathetic persons imagine.
whether the claims OF social justice are en-
titled to DO respected. but whether the claims
nut forward by one or other OF the opposed
parties really arc claims Of social justice or not.
1t Is. Of course. understood that when Mr.. Rne
speaks OF the views Of State Intervention held
by Adam Smith, Ricardo. McCulloch. and the
great majority OF English economists. he cx-
pressly excerpts Mr. Herbert Spencer. Tho
atters first work. Social Status" was an ex-
position OF the theory that the end OF all gov
eminent was the realization for every citizen
OF the greatest amount Of liberty 1t was pos
sible for him to enjoy without interfering with
the corresponding claims OF his fellow citizens
According to Mr.. Spencer. the individual has
only one right. tho right to equal freedom with
everybody else. md the State only one duty.
the duty Of protecting that right against vlo-
lence and fraud. Beyond that task the State
cannot stir without treadng on the right Of
some one. and therefore it ought not to stir
at all 1t has nothing to do with health.
or religion. or morals. or education.
or relief OF distress, or public convenience Of
any sort, except to leave such things sternly
alone. It must, OF course. renounco the
thought OF bounties and protective duties. but
it must also give UP marking plate. mintlng
coin. and stamping butter; 1t must take no
part In building harbors or lighthouses, or
roads or canals: and even town council
cannot. without offence. undertake to pave or
clean or light the streets under It's jurlsdic-
tion. II is true that Mr.. Spencer now refuses
to be bound by every detail OF his youthful
theory. but he has repeated the substance Of it
in his recent work. Tho 5Ian versus the
State" which aims to prove that the only thing
that we want from the State is protection. and
that the protection We want most OF lato is
protection against our protectors
This theory Is evidently as extreme develop
ment Of individualism as could we'll be COM
passed, and though it was transcribed at ono
or two points in a juvenile essay by Wilhelm
Won Humboldt. who objected even to marriage
laws. no important English writer has deliber-
ately and systematically adopted it. No doubt
the description OF the States business, as be-
ing the task Of protecting the citizens from
force and fraud. has been familiar In English
literature since the days Of Locke. and isolated
passages may DO cited from the works
of various political thinkers which. II
wrenched out OF their context. seem to
deny to the State any right to act except
for purposes OF sef-protection. John Stuart
Mill himself would sometimes speak in
that way. although it Is made certain by the
chapter he devotes to the subject Of govern.
ment interference In his :" Principles OF Polti-
cal Economy that no really assigned to the
State far wider functions To Mr.. Rae. who
has infinitely reviewed the writings OF English
economists for the express purpose OF deiin-
ing their precise relation to the laissez.taire
doctrine. it seems amazing how they ever
came to be credited with any scruple on
ground Of principle to invoke the power Of tho
State for the solution OF social and industrial
questions when that power seemed to them
likely to prove OF effectual assistance.
A Catholic Lie or Jesus.
Tho Messrs Appleton are to DO congratu.
lated on the excellence Of their English version