
The
fundamental political issue always confronting society is whether human
relationships shall be based on free association and voluntary choice,
or on governmental compulsion and command. Of course, in most societies
there are elements of both, often called the interventionist state or
the “mixed economy.” But, nonetheless, the basic institutional
alternatives are liberty or coercion.
This
often seems difficult for people to fully appreciate or understand. We
select where we live, we accept or not accept a job offering, we decide
on the furniture in our home and what (if anything) we will read in
terms of books or magazines, or to watch on television. We pick our
friends and choose the clubs and associations we want to join. A
thousand other everyday choices and decisions reflect our freedom in
still much of what we do.
Political Interference in Market Affairs
Yet,
at the same time, we take for granted many aspects and facets of our
lives where such decision-making is narrowed or co-opted for us by those
in political authority. We are compelled to pay into the government
pension system called Social Security; we are taxed to pay for types and
degrees of medical and health care that we may or may not desire or
consider worth what the government garnishes from our salaries to pay
for it before we even see a penny of our earned incomes.
The
government regulates how business is done, under what terms and
conditions an employer may hire a worker, what products may be produced
and with what qualities, features and characteristics, and sometimes the
price at which the good or service may be sold.
These,
too, are taken for granted and presumed to be the appropriate and
necessary tasks of government in modern society. Indeed, in many if not
most instances, the majority of Americans and the citizens of other
countries, as well, don’t or rarely think twice about these roles for
the political authority in our daily affairs. In fact, when they are
challenged, a good number of people are shocked that it should be even
questioned.
Yet,
all these government activities inescapably reduce and restrict our
free choices. Think of medical and health care. Increasingly government
prevents people from deciding on the health insurance and medical
treatment they may receive or purchase on their own. Practically all of
the candidates vying for the Democratic Party presidential nomination
have said they want to see implemented some form of a “single-payer”
system, which, in reality, is socialized medicine under which government
centrally plans all medical matters for everyone in society.
What Of Politically Mandated Euthanasia?

When
friends of freedom raise serious questions about this, including
government being handed control over life and death decisions for all of
us, in terms of type and duration of medical treatment, they are often
scoffed at. Yet, this danger has been warned about for more than a
century. In 1916, in the midst of the First World War, a fairly well
known British lawyer and classical liberal, E. S. P. Haynes (1877-1949),
published a book called The Decline of Liberty in England. He
explained how the British government had been encroaching on people’s
personal, social and economic freedom in Great Britain for nearly 40
years, and the wartime emergency had merely exacerbated this trend. He
wondered how much of all this could or might be reversed once the war
was over.
Haynes reprinted as an appendix a brief article that had appeared in a magazine called, The Free Woman, shortly before the publication of his own book in 1916. The article was on, “Home Life in A.D 2000.” It tells the tale of an old and ill gentleman in the far off future year of 2000, who is waiting for the government to enforce mandatory euthanasia, since government planned and managed medical care dictate treatments and termination of life.
The gentleman says to his son in this imagined future:
“It really seems a pity that the Medical Control Board won't let me live a little longer. Of course, there is a good deal of pain for one hour out of the twenty-four, which requires a certain amount of medical attention, but I should not mind paying a little extra for that if the State allowed any doctor or nurse to have a private practice. (However, I daresay I should never have been born under the new Inspection of Parents Act.) The point is that I am quite interested in the morning paper and talking to all of you and seeing a friend sometimes . . . and in old days I could have gone on indefinitely."
The
son comments that, yes, some are wistful for the “anarchy” of the old
days, of around 1900, when people could make those decisions for
themselves. But had not his father commented about how excited people
were with the Voluntary Euthanasia Act of 1940? The elderly gentleman
admits that that is so, “but, of course, it had to become compulsory
soon . . .The expenses of the State medical service have been
considerably reduced by the power of the Local Board to decide when a
patient is not worth further attention.” He then asked his son, “By the
way, did you see the official form? Did it give me a week or a
fortnight,” before his mandatory termination?
His son read him the official government notice that had arrived:
“I regret to inform you that my Board have decided to allow you no further medical service after a week from this date, and they are of opinion that you would save yourself and your relations much inconvenience and pain by availing yourself of Section 3 subsection (1) of the Compulsory Euthanasia Act of 1980. Everything can be done at your house, if suitable preparations are made, as our Travelling Euthanasia expert will be in London at that date. You are probably aware that in cases like yours the Board will allow a grant of five pounds towards the cremation expenses, and will accept a preliminary Probate affidavit from yourself for the purpose of assessing death duties. For your guidance I enclose a special form which you must forward within three days to the Inland Revenue Department.”
The
old gentlemen tells his son that there was a time when people would
have considered such a compulsory ending to human life at the command of
the State as against the very idea of a society of free individuals.
However, such people who believed in liberty “were all ultimately
secluded under the third Mental Deficiency Act,” that is, placed in
mental institutions for those with the insane idea that freedom
mattered.
How
long ago, he reflects, was that bygone time when people, “swore, drank
alcoholic preparations at meals, married without medical permission . . .
Why, they actually owned houses and land in perpetuity, and read books
which were excluded from the British Museum Catalogue, and wrote quite
scurrilously about the Government. Those were indeed turbulent times.
Everything was so casual and unforeseen.”
Finally,
the gentleman thinks that he better make sure his will is in order
before his mandatory termination, and he mentions to his son that as
part of any eulogy, they might mention his important work on legislation
relating to the “Better Regulation of Female Underclothing Act,” of
which he is clearly very proud.
British National Health Care Can be an Indirect Euthanasia
In the first decades of the 20th
century, this must have seemed all a fantasyland of “reactionaries” and
“anti-social,” old fashioned laissez-faire liberal types. But, in fact,
in the years before the First World War, the British government
introduced the first legislative elements that eventually became the
“single-payer” system under the inspiration of the welfare state already
established in Imperial Germany, the very country with which Great
Britain was then at war. Britain’s socialized healthcare system only was
fully implemented following the Second World War under a socialist
government.
Under
the current British system, the government may not order your death
after some point due to age or illness, but the stories are notorious
concerning the wait times for seriously sick individuals to have access
to doctor’s appointments or to the possible treatment that could cure
them or at least noticeably prolong their lives. It is merely compulsory
euthanasia through indirect means.
The Friendly Societies Provided Voluntary Social Safety Nets
Throughout the 19th
century, a primary means for the provision of what today we call the
“social safety nets” was by the private sector outside of government.
The British Friendly Societies were mutual assistance associations that
emerged to provide death benefits for the wives and children of the
breadwinner who had passed away. But they soon offered a wide array of
other mutual insurance services, including health care coverage,
retirement pension programs, unemployment insurance, savings clubs to
purchase a family house, and a variety of others.
A
number of scholars who have devoted time to researching the lost
history of the Friendly Societies estimate that by the end of the 19th
century around two-thirds to three-quarters of the entire British
population was covered by one or more of their programs and insurances.
The research also discovered that a large majority of the subscribers
were in the lower income brackets of the time; precisely because of
their more modest financial circumstances, the “working poor” and the
lower middle class were very conscious of the need to set aside a
certain sum of their limited budgets to anticipate unexpected
circumstances, as well as those situations that were inescapable for
anyone, such as old age.
What
stands out is that these were all private and voluntary associations
and exchanges, in which the government paid little or no role. One part
of this system of freedom was charity and philanthropy; that is, the
voluntary giving by those better off to assist those who were
financially worse off and deserved a helping hand.
The Generosity of Private Charity was Criticized!
How
pervasive was such philanthropy and charity? William Stanley Jevons
(1835-1882), one of the leading British economists of the second half of
the 19th century, and one of the developers of marginal utility
theory, called for the end to private charity and its replacement with a
full government system. This was not due to the paucity of private
benevolence, but rather due to what he considered its excessive
generosity.
At
a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in
September 1870, Jevons criticize the open-handedness of the wealthy and
better off in voluntarily helping the poor through various philanthropic
endeavors. Private charity was creating a class of permanent poor, he
said, which resulted in “the casual paupers [having] their London season
and their country season, following the movements of those on whom they
feed.”
The
government programs for caring for the poor are “frustrated by the
over-abundant charity of private persons, or religious societies.” He
even was critical of the over-generosity of the private sector in the
voluntary funding of hospitals for the poor and less fortunate. There
were so many such charity hospitals, Jevons lamented, that these private
medical establishments “compete with each other in offering the freest
possible medical aid to all who come.”
Here
was the heart of the problem. Rather than fear that private benevolence
would not be enough to assist those unable to fully pay for food or
medical treatment, there was too much of it! Jevons prayed, “that we are
rapidly approaching the time when the whole of these pernicious
charities will be swept away.” Instead, all such charitable matters
needed to be shifted to “the supervision of the [government] Poor Law
Board,” so bureaucrats could make wiser decisions concerning how much
assistance and support the less well off should receive, rather than the
uncontrolled generosity of individuals and private associations.
According
to William Stanley Jevons, Great Britain needed more government
responsibility for the poor and the unfortunate to bring a halt to the
excessive voluntary giving of a free people. Central planning of charity
was needed to replace the spontaneous giving of non-governmental civil
society. Jevons wanted government imposed welfare austerity, if you
will, in place of private philanthropic abundance. So much for the
constant hue and cry by those on “the left” that if not for compulsory
government welfarism, “the poor” would die in the streets!
Perverse Incentives of the British Poor Law Welfare System
Of course, Great Britain had had a form of the welfare state since the time of Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) in the 16th
century. But the excessive waste of government redistribution and its
perverse incentive effects had become clearly known by the 19th century,
and became a point of criticism by the classical liberals of that
period, and the basis of their case for reform in the private sector
instead, in spite of the type of criticisms made by someone like
Jevons.
For
instance, one of the last of the important British classical
economists, Henry Fawcett (1833-1884), explained the perverse
consequences under the government system of social safety nets in his
book, Pauperism: Its Causes and Remedies (1871). Investigations
were made in the first half of the 19th century concerning the impact of
the Poor Laws, under which taxed wealth was redistributed through the
Church of England parishes.
Fawcett
pointed out that illegitimacy was fostered under the government’s
welfare state, that government redistribution became viewed as an
“entitlement,” and that it created an attitude that taking the money of
others through the State was as honest and acceptable as wages earned
from a day’s work. Explained Fawcett:
“Men were virtually told that no amount of recklessness, self-indulgence, or improvidence would in the slightest degree affect their claim to be maintained at other people’s expense. If they married when they had no reasonable chance to being able to maintain a family, they were treated as if they had performed a meritorious act, for the more children they had the greater was the amount of relief obtained. All the most evident teachings of commonsense were completely set to naught . . .
“Population was also fostered by a still more immoral stimulus. A woman obtained from the parish a larger allowance for an illegitimate than for a legitimate child. From one end of the kingdom to the other people were in fact told not only to marry with utter recklessness and let others bear the consequences, but it was also said, especially to the women of the country, the greater is your immorality the greater will be your pecuniary reward. Can it excite surprise that from such a system we should have had handed down to us a vast inheritance of vice and poverty? . . .
“Pauperism often came to be regarded as a paying profession, which was followed by successive generations of the same family. Thus the Commissioners [of the Poor Laws] tell us of three generations of the same family simultaneously receiving relief . . . The feeling soon became general that pauperism was no disgrace, and that allowance which was obtained from the parish was just as much the rightful property of those who received it, as the wages of ordinary industry. Indolence was directly encouraged, and a spirit of lawlessness and discontent resulted.”
The Logic and Facts about Welfare Statism Cannot be Denied
Now,
a liberal economist such as Henry Fawcett was not a proponent of strict
laissez-faire in welfare matters, any more than he was in a number of
other government policy issues. But logic and facts were what they are,
and could not be wished away. If you pay people not to work, you have
more people not working; if you do this long enough a system of
intergenerational dependency emerges and recipients used to receiving
such redistributed wealth start considering it a “right,” equal to a
wage earned from employment in the marketplace.
Furthermore,
if you reward people with larger welfare benefits for having more
children including, especially, children out of wedlock, don’t be
surprised if those women on welfare become less concerned about the more
traditional notions of family responsibility in deciding how many
children to have.
These were some of the consequences that classical liberals in 19th
century Great Britain became concerned about, and wished to see
alleviated and improved through the private sector alternatives to
government compulsion through taxes for redistribution under the older
Poor Law system.
Jevons’ Misplaced Concerns and Understandings about Welfare
In
response to Jevons’ arguments, we all, no doubt, know parents who are
excessively indulgent of their children’s wishes and wants. This
sometimes creates an irresponsible attitude on the part of the child
that they can and should have anything they want with no thought to the
cost or the possibly negative impact on others. A few such children grow
up thinking they can get away with murder.
But
this is not generally the case in private households. Even with errors
and mistakes along the way, most parents attempt to bring up their
children with notions of responsibility and self-supporting habits for
their later adult life. It would be absurd and dangerous for the State
to declare that it will “plan” the upbringing of children within family
households with schedules, detailed procedures, and surveillance of what
is going on inside the family all day and night.
The
same is true with private charity and philanthropy by individuals and
voluntary associations. First, there is an ethical dimension not really
touched upon by Jevons, and that is the morality of those who have
honestly earned income and accumulated wealth being considered the
rightful owners of it, and who should have the liberty to use and
dispose of it as they think fit as a matter of individual right.
Second, Jevons seemed to be disturbed by the multitude of competing private charities serving the poor in the Great Britain of his time – and, by the way, this was before any notion of a charitable deduction on one’s income tax; it was guided simply by the idea that it was “the right thing to do.” What Jevons missed is that the charitable competition that he considered misplaced wasteful duplication is in fact the very avenue, like all other forms of peaceful rivalry, to discover the best and most efficient means and methods to reach an end or goal in mind.
And,
third, it never seemed to enter Jevons’ mind that those who man and
manage government welfare programs are not only as imperfect as the rest
of us about how best to assist those in financial and other forms of
need, but that those in political power in elected office and in the
appointed bureaucracy have their own agendas and purposes that have
nothing to do with the stated goals of any government program
implemented.
The
self-interests of those administering the government welfare system of
that time resisted all change into a less compulsory paternalistic
direction. A leading liberal reformer of the 1830s, Thomas Chalmers,
pointed out the resistance to any reduction to government redistributive
actions by the administrators of the relevant programs. The proponent
of voluntarism, he said, “comes into collision with the prejudices and
partialities of those who at present have the right and power of
management” of the then-existing Poor Law system.
That
is why it always comes down to that fundamental issue of voluntary
choice and free association, including for purposes of social
benevolence as well as decision-making in the marketplace, versus,
instead, politically imposed force through taxes and compulsory
redistribution and regulation of human affairs.
The
tragedy of contemporary politics in America and abroad is that the
debates and decisions all concern in what forms and for what purposes
compulsion in social and personal affairs will be imposed. Left out of
today’s public discourse is the issue that guided classical liberals in
the 19th century: should people be free or shall they be coerced to do
what others consider to be “the right thing”?
No comments:
Post a Comment