What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Versus The State
This is a pre-1923 historical reproduction that was curated for quality. Quality assurance was conducted on each of these books in an attempt to remove books with imperfections introduced by the digitization process. Though we have made best efforts - the books may have occasional errors that do not impede the reading experience. We believe this work is culturally important and have elected to bring the book back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide.
Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1884
50 people are currently reading
1698 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Spencer
1,587 books244 followersHerbert Spencer was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.
Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.
Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.
Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.
Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
July 18, 2014
Only pedophiles, alas, are more hated than the so-called "social darwinists" - whose granddaddy Herbert Spencer (who coined the term "survival of the fittest") is. This is rather unfair, and sad.
Spencer was a great intellectual and an important thinker. He was, contrary to the cold and selfish image with which he is treated, a passionate believer in human progress and the virtues of voluntary human cooperation. He simply opposed all forms of COERCED cooperation under what he called a "militant" society - i.e. a society that put the interests of the collective over the individual.
He was a proto-libertarian, or a true classical liberal, who believed in limited government, or even a minimal governemnt - a nightwatchman state. Many of his arguments are typical liberal arguments.
The fact that he was a classical liberal who happened to live in an age of declining belief in the power of the free market as the necessary foundation of a good society; and the fact that he combined classical liberalism with an "organistic", social-darwinian worldview; together meant that he became, and still remains, one of the most hated and misunderstood thinkers of the modern era.
He provided an evolutionary account of society's progress through the elimination of the unsuccessful and the prospering of the successful, which many considered callous and cruel - in an age of rising socialism. But, contrary to the eugenicists, he did not believe the GOVERNMENT ought to eliminate or hinder anybody. He believed unfit and unssuccessful forms of life would get weeded out by themselves in the natural progress of things. His judge of things was the impersonal spontaneous order of society, where free men were free to pursue their own ends in peace.
What was his relationship to the government? He argued for a small government which maximized human liberty. He was opposed to the rising welfare state. He believed the government ought neither help (provide support) nor hinder (discriminate against) anybody. The government should do little beyond taking care of the stability of the society, by maintaining law and order.
He was also an excellent essayist, and he could forge excellent prose at the flick of a hand.
I wish to focus on one essay, because I think it encapsulates the greatness of Spencer and the reason why his work is so relevant for us today. THE NEW TORYISM is a great essay that argues that the "new Whigs", the new liberals (of social democratic persuasion), by straying so far from the "old Whigs" (of classical liberalism), are, in fact, becoming the "new Tories": the proponents of a new "status society": a misguided regime of oppressive laws and government control of the economy.
The context behind this (true) allegation is the fact that, during the latter half of the 19th Century, the liberals in England moved leftward towards socialism (before the socialist parties were born). He lived to see (and condemn) the transition. He calls the bleeding-heart liberals on their intellectual mistake. He argues, convincingly, that arguing for extensive proactive legislationt constitutes an abandonment of old liberal principles. He, in fact, accuses the new liberals, of turncoatism of the worst kind: they argue, out of well-meaning philantropic concerns, for the introduction of new restrictions on human liberty, without even knowing they are acting like the Tories of old: destroying human progress and individual liberty.
This essay - and the collection in general - should be mandatory reading for anybody frustrated with the sophistry and self-deception of the "new liberals" of our own time - who, by accusing capitalism of causing all our misery, have instituted new slavery on earth - all in the name of helping the poor and needy, of course usually with results contrary to those intended.
Other great essays in the collection include:
THE COMING SLAVERY - a potent critique of central planning and communist fantasy, which anticipates, chillingly, the horrors of Soviet communism - by 50 years!
& THE GREAT POLITICAL SUPERSTITION, which argues, with great force and persuasion, that while "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments."
...
This collection of essays is one of the greatest libertarian/liberal reservoirs of wisdom. It should be read by ANYBODY with an interest in a free society and faith in free human progress. It is like a "sceptre of infinite power" in the hands of anybody with a healthy suspicion of the well-meaning but morally repugnant - and society-retarding - legislative acts of greedy humanitarian lawmakers.
Social Darwinism, despite the reputation, should be revitalized, into a new, if eternal, political force; the true monsters today are the left-leaning, well-meaning collectivists in state control.
Spencer was a great intellectual and an important thinker. He was, contrary to the cold and selfish image with which he is treated, a passionate believer in human progress and the virtues of voluntary human cooperation. He simply opposed all forms of COERCED cooperation under what he called a "militant" society - i.e. a society that put the interests of the collective over the individual.
He was a proto-libertarian, or a true classical liberal, who believed in limited government, or even a minimal governemnt - a nightwatchman state. Many of his arguments are typical liberal arguments.
The fact that he was a classical liberal who happened to live in an age of declining belief in the power of the free market as the necessary foundation of a good society; and the fact that he combined classical liberalism with an "organistic", social-darwinian worldview; together meant that he became, and still remains, one of the most hated and misunderstood thinkers of the modern era.
He provided an evolutionary account of society's progress through the elimination of the unsuccessful and the prospering of the successful, which many considered callous and cruel - in an age of rising socialism. But, contrary to the eugenicists, he did not believe the GOVERNMENT ought to eliminate or hinder anybody. He believed unfit and unssuccessful forms of life would get weeded out by themselves in the natural progress of things. His judge of things was the impersonal spontaneous order of society, where free men were free to pursue their own ends in peace.
What was his relationship to the government? He argued for a small government which maximized human liberty. He was opposed to the rising welfare state. He believed the government ought neither help (provide support) nor hinder (discriminate against) anybody. The government should do little beyond taking care of the stability of the society, by maintaining law and order.
He was also an excellent essayist, and he could forge excellent prose at the flick of a hand.
I wish to focus on one essay, because I think it encapsulates the greatness of Spencer and the reason why his work is so relevant for us today. THE NEW TORYISM is a great essay that argues that the "new Whigs", the new liberals (of social democratic persuasion), by straying so far from the "old Whigs" (of classical liberalism), are, in fact, becoming the "new Tories": the proponents of a new "status society": a misguided regime of oppressive laws and government control of the economy.
The context behind this (true) allegation is the fact that, during the latter half of the 19th Century, the liberals in England moved leftward towards socialism (before the socialist parties were born). He lived to see (and condemn) the transition. He calls the bleeding-heart liberals on their intellectual mistake. He argues, convincingly, that arguing for extensive proactive legislationt constitutes an abandonment of old liberal principles. He, in fact, accuses the new liberals, of turncoatism of the worst kind: they argue, out of well-meaning philantropic concerns, for the introduction of new restrictions on human liberty, without even knowing they are acting like the Tories of old: destroying human progress and individual liberty.
This essay - and the collection in general - should be mandatory reading for anybody frustrated with the sophistry and self-deception of the "new liberals" of our own time - who, by accusing capitalism of causing all our misery, have instituted new slavery on earth - all in the name of helping the poor and needy, of course usually with results contrary to those intended.
Other great essays in the collection include:
THE COMING SLAVERY - a potent critique of central planning and communist fantasy, which anticipates, chillingly, the horrors of Soviet communism - by 50 years!
& THE GREAT POLITICAL SUPERSTITION, which argues, with great force and persuasion, that while "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments."
...
This collection of essays is one of the greatest libertarian/liberal reservoirs of wisdom. It should be read by ANYBODY with an interest in a free society and faith in free human progress. It is like a "sceptre of infinite power" in the hands of anybody with a healthy suspicion of the well-meaning but morally repugnant - and society-retarding - legislative acts of greedy humanitarian lawmakers.
Social Darwinism, despite the reputation, should be revitalized, into a new, if eternal, political force; the true monsters today are the left-leaning, well-meaning collectivists in state control.
November 14, 2023
Soberbio. El mejor libro (opúsculo) de no ficción que he leído nunca. Lo enmarcaré con paspartú y cristal para recordarle siempre. Sencillísima edición de la "Serie básica La Rosa en el puño", con el clásico logo de los 'socialistas españoles de color rojo' (cuesta creerlo, pero así es) y maravillosa traducción de A. Gómez Pinilla. Si tienen intención de leerlo (no lo duden) tienen otras ediciones en Archive.org, en español o inglés, su idioma original.
October 9, 2017
Introduction by Donald MacRae
Palo Alto, California, 1968
The Man versus the State
containing
Contents
The New Toryism
The Coming Slavery
The Sins of Legislators
The Great Political Superstition
Postscript
The Essays:
The Social Organism
first published 1860
Representative Government - What Is It Good For?
first published 1857
Specialized Administration
first published 1871
From Freedom To Bondage
first published as the Introduction to a volume entitled A Plea for Liberty, &c.: a series of anti-socialistic essays, issued at the beginning of 1891
Index
This is an extract from The Man versus the State, written by Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903), published in 1884, long before he could have been aware of Climate Change.
THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE
The Sins of Legislators
[But leaving out the greater part of the large topic comprehended under the title of this article, I propose here to deal only with a comparatively small remaining part - those sins of legislators which are not generated by their personal ambitions or class interests, but result from lack of the study by which they are morally bound to prepare themselves.
A druggist's assistant who, after listening to the description of pains which he mistakes for those of colic, but which are really caused by inflammation of the caecum, prescribes a sharp purgative and kills the patient, is found guilty of manslaughter. He is not allowed to excuse himself on the ground that he did not intend harm but hoped for good. The plea that he simply made a mistake in his diagnosis is not entertained. He is told that he had no right to risk disastrous consequences by meddling in a matter concerned which his knowledge was so inadequate. The fact that he was ignorant how great was his ignorance is not accepted in bar of judgement. It is tacitly assumed that the experience common to all should have taught him that even the skilled, and much more the unskilled, make mistakes in the identification of disorders and in the appropriate treatment; and that having disregarded the warning derivable from common experience, he was answerable for the consequences.
We measure the responsibilities of legislators for mischiefs they may do, in a much more lenient fashion. In most cases, so far from thinking of them as deserving punishment for causing disasters by laws ignorantly enacted, we scarcely think of them as deserving reprobation. It is held that common experience should have taught the druggist's assistant, untrained as he is, not to interfere; but it is not held that common experience should have taught the legislator not to interfere till he has trained himself. Though multitudinous facts are before him in the recorded legislation of our own country and of other countries, which should impress on him the immense evils caused by wrong treatment, against rash meddling. Contrariwise, it is thought meritorious in him when - perhaps lately from college, perhaps fresh from keeping a pack of hounds which made him popular in his country, perhaps emerging from a provincial town where he aquired a fortune, perhaps rising from the bar at which he has gained a name as an advocate - he enters parliament; and forthwith, in quite a light-hearted way, begins to aid or hinder this or that means of operating on the body politic. In this case there is no occasion even to make for him the excuse that he does not know how little he knows; for the public at large agrees with him in thinking it needless that he should know anything more than what the debates on the proposed measures tell him.
And yet the mischiefs wrought by uninstructed lawmaking, enormous in their amount as compared with those caused by uninstructed medical treatment, are conspicuous to all who do but glance over history.]
Palo Alto, California, 1968
The Man versus the State
containing
Contents
The New Toryism
The Coming Slavery
The Sins of Legislators
The Great Political Superstition
Postscript
The Essays:
The Social Organism
first published 1860
Representative Government - What Is It Good For?
first published 1857
Specialized Administration
first published 1871
From Freedom To Bondage
first published as the Introduction to a volume entitled A Plea for Liberty, &c.: a series of anti-socialistic essays, issued at the beginning of 1891
Index
This is an extract from The Man versus the State, written by Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903), published in 1884, long before he could have been aware of Climate Change.
THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE
The Sins of Legislators
[But leaving out the greater part of the large topic comprehended under the title of this article, I propose here to deal only with a comparatively small remaining part - those sins of legislators which are not generated by their personal ambitions or class interests, but result from lack of the study by which they are morally bound to prepare themselves.
A druggist's assistant who, after listening to the description of pains which he mistakes for those of colic, but which are really caused by inflammation of the caecum, prescribes a sharp purgative and kills the patient, is found guilty of manslaughter. He is not allowed to excuse himself on the ground that he did not intend harm but hoped for good. The plea that he simply made a mistake in his diagnosis is not entertained. He is told that he had no right to risk disastrous consequences by meddling in a matter concerned which his knowledge was so inadequate. The fact that he was ignorant how great was his ignorance is not accepted in bar of judgement. It is tacitly assumed that the experience common to all should have taught him that even the skilled, and much more the unskilled, make mistakes in the identification of disorders and in the appropriate treatment; and that having disregarded the warning derivable from common experience, he was answerable for the consequences.
We measure the responsibilities of legislators for mischiefs they may do, in a much more lenient fashion. In most cases, so far from thinking of them as deserving punishment for causing disasters by laws ignorantly enacted, we scarcely think of them as deserving reprobation. It is held that common experience should have taught the druggist's assistant, untrained as he is, not to interfere; but it is not held that common experience should have taught the legislator not to interfere till he has trained himself. Though multitudinous facts are before him in the recorded legislation of our own country and of other countries, which should impress on him the immense evils caused by wrong treatment, against rash meddling. Contrariwise, it is thought meritorious in him when - perhaps lately from college, perhaps fresh from keeping a pack of hounds which made him popular in his country, perhaps emerging from a provincial town where he aquired a fortune, perhaps rising from the bar at which he has gained a name as an advocate - he enters parliament; and forthwith, in quite a light-hearted way, begins to aid or hinder this or that means of operating on the body politic. In this case there is no occasion even to make for him the excuse that he does not know how little he knows; for the public at large agrees with him in thinking it needless that he should know anything more than what the debates on the proposed measures tell him.
And yet the mischiefs wrought by uninstructed lawmaking, enormous in their amount as compared with those caused by uninstructed medical treatment, are conspicuous to all who do but glance over history.]
July 21, 2016
Solid 4. Each essay in this is a winner. However, I fear that reading them might be nyquil in book format, and listening to some of them on audio was a good idea.
He draws from a huge wealth of knowledge ranging from biology, to sociology/anthropology of various native cultures, british legislative history, ancient european history, physics, etc.
This was written as the shift from classical liberalism to "progressivism" was taking place within the liberal movement, and Spencer seems potently aware of this fact (the entire essay "the new toryism" is about it). He is clearly a libertarian, although its equally clear where his "class interests" lie (see Benajamin Tucker on Spencer: http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/i... although this is unduly harsh.)
Also interesting was the early observations of the coordination problem, and of a morally nihilistic justification for natural rights (or emergent natural rights as it seems to be called these days). In this, and all regards his clear, precise, reductionistic reasoning rings true. This makes him a man after my own heart.
Some of you will be bothered by his knocks on welfare recipients. The historical injustices against lower income groups in medieval england seems to be the only possible counterpoint to his arguments (points also raised by Spencer in other sections of the book). He also brings up a slew of other theories colored with social darwinism which were new to my eyes. For example, he posits that the "militant" phase of society (from ancient times up until the early industrial period) was necessary in order to naturally select for compliant, obedient humans. After the military phase, a sort of "free industrial phase" (by words, not his) may be entered into where compliant, obedient humans submit to industrial hierarchy voluntarily and create good economic outcomes.
Anyway it was good.
He draws from a huge wealth of knowledge ranging from biology, to sociology/anthropology of various native cultures, british legislative history, ancient european history, physics, etc.
This was written as the shift from classical liberalism to "progressivism" was taking place within the liberal movement, and Spencer seems potently aware of this fact (the entire essay "the new toryism" is about it). He is clearly a libertarian, although its equally clear where his "class interests" lie (see Benajamin Tucker on Spencer: http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/i... although this is unduly harsh.)
Also interesting was the early observations of the coordination problem, and of a morally nihilistic justification for natural rights (or emergent natural rights as it seems to be called these days). In this, and all regards his clear, precise, reductionistic reasoning rings true. This makes him a man after my own heart.
Some of you will be bothered by his knocks on welfare recipients. The historical injustices against lower income groups in medieval england seems to be the only possible counterpoint to his arguments (points also raised by Spencer in other sections of the book). He also brings up a slew of other theories colored with social darwinism which were new to my eyes. For example, he posits that the "militant" phase of society (from ancient times up until the early industrial period) was necessary in order to naturally select for compliant, obedient humans. After the military phase, a sort of "free industrial phase" (by words, not his) may be entered into where compliant, obedient humans submit to industrial hierarchy voluntarily and create good economic outcomes.
Anyway it was good.
July 29, 2013
Though this collection encompasses essays from 150 to 130 years ago concerning the consequences of State interference in society, the parallels in the loss of liberty for the individual and the growth of the over-weaning State in 19th century England are eerily similar to what has happened to us in the 20th century (and continuing in the early 21st) in America. Miseries are compounded and progress in technical and social development was slowed and stopped then and now by that great evil called the State, thus this book is still relevant to all of us today who value liberty.
November 25, 2019
This is a collection of Spencer’s essays. It is about his biological philosophy that he applies to various 19th century English governance problems.
“Biological philosophy?” It’s an interesting juxtaposition. Biology is factual; it is about “what is.” It describes the way that life, including human life, works and ought to work. For Spencer, this means that it is that the strong and smart who out compete the weak and dull in the struggle for existence. Buried in this characterization of evolution and humans is the notion of a biological progression. Humans, once only primitive, are evolving toward a higher, civilized state. This is the human species that, in promotion strict self-interest, has learned to cooperate with fellow humans to promote individual self-interest. In the end, there’s a “slow modification of human nature.” In pursuing our self-interest, we have become an evolved species. We become a community of highly interdependent people who understand they must give to get. Spencer’s philosophy is like the hidden hand of Adam Smith. Social good is the product of self-interest. Who we are is who we ought to be.
Spencer’s philosophy breaks down, biologically, because he missteps on the question of Darwinian variation. Spencer sees human nature as a species universal, whereas Darwinian variability allows for substantial differences in “who we are” as species members and specifically, how we go about to satisfy human needs and defend against our fears. Just as many are moved to act for the common good, many others are moved to serve their self regardless of others. That motivation, combined with strength (power) and intelligence, becomes lethal to Spencer’s scheme. Survival of the fittest becomes the philosophy of “might makes right.” Cooperative ventures for collective gain become utilitarian only and break down when such cooperation no longer serves self-interest. If it can be done without negative consequence, the rule of law gets tossed and power relationships come to dominate. Smith’s libertarian formula of doing no harm – and government’s task of ensuring no internal or external aggression* – is set aside and replaced by might and inequality.
In some circles today, there’s the belief that, like Spencer, there is this steady advance toward civilization and “rationality.” This is a conflation of two kinds. Regarding the products of civilization, we have advanced in what we do and how we do it. These are variable and change through time. Why we do what we do - the motivation force that pushes us to do what we do - is fixed. Rationality is instrumental. It tells us how to coordinate means with ends. Means are variable. Ends, traced to their base origins, are not. Ends reflect the deepest motive forces. They reflect Darwinian variability. They are not who we are as a species, but who we are as individuals. Some are mostly other regarding; many are not, and most fall between these two poles. Spencer fuses these two poles of human character and assumes that the hidden hand of evolution will always promote the good of the whole whereas common sense and historical evidence suggests that these twin poles have always been and will always be part of the species character.
As with other Spencer writings, this book is thick, dry and dull. This book is more so, but his key thoughts are stimulating.
*I think the following is Spencer’s minimalist libertarian principle: “[E]ach man should be allowed to pursue the objects of life, restrained only by the limits which the similar pursuits of their by objects by other men impose.”
“Biological philosophy?” It’s an interesting juxtaposition. Biology is factual; it is about “what is.” It describes the way that life, including human life, works and ought to work. For Spencer, this means that it is that the strong and smart who out compete the weak and dull in the struggle for existence. Buried in this characterization of evolution and humans is the notion of a biological progression. Humans, once only primitive, are evolving toward a higher, civilized state. This is the human species that, in promotion strict self-interest, has learned to cooperate with fellow humans to promote individual self-interest. In the end, there’s a “slow modification of human nature.” In pursuing our self-interest, we have become an evolved species. We become a community of highly interdependent people who understand they must give to get. Spencer’s philosophy is like the hidden hand of Adam Smith. Social good is the product of self-interest. Who we are is who we ought to be.
Spencer’s philosophy breaks down, biologically, because he missteps on the question of Darwinian variation. Spencer sees human nature as a species universal, whereas Darwinian variability allows for substantial differences in “who we are” as species members and specifically, how we go about to satisfy human needs and defend against our fears. Just as many are moved to act for the common good, many others are moved to serve their self regardless of others. That motivation, combined with strength (power) and intelligence, becomes lethal to Spencer’s scheme. Survival of the fittest becomes the philosophy of “might makes right.” Cooperative ventures for collective gain become utilitarian only and break down when such cooperation no longer serves self-interest. If it can be done without negative consequence, the rule of law gets tossed and power relationships come to dominate. Smith’s libertarian formula of doing no harm – and government’s task of ensuring no internal or external aggression* – is set aside and replaced by might and inequality.
In some circles today, there’s the belief that, like Spencer, there is this steady advance toward civilization and “rationality.” This is a conflation of two kinds. Regarding the products of civilization, we have advanced in what we do and how we do it. These are variable and change through time. Why we do what we do - the motivation force that pushes us to do what we do - is fixed. Rationality is instrumental. It tells us how to coordinate means with ends. Means are variable. Ends, traced to their base origins, are not. Ends reflect the deepest motive forces. They reflect Darwinian variability. They are not who we are as a species, but who we are as individuals. Some are mostly other regarding; many are not, and most fall between these two poles. Spencer fuses these two poles of human character and assumes that the hidden hand of evolution will always promote the good of the whole whereas common sense and historical evidence suggests that these twin poles have always been and will always be part of the species character.
As with other Spencer writings, this book is thick, dry and dull. This book is more so, but his key thoughts are stimulating.
*I think the following is Spencer’s minimalist libertarian principle: “[E]ach man should be allowed to pursue the objects of life, restrained only by the limits which the similar pursuits of their by objects by other men impose.”
May 7, 2024
Prophetic
July 11, 2024
No me acabó de convencer su pensamiento, centrado en el liberalismo. Se hace un poco complejo de leer, pero, sobre todo, lo que más me molesta es que parece que el autor ve que todo el mundo es una lacra para la sociedad y que el que no curra duro, no merece ningún tipo de sustento. El escritor tiene ratos como de superioridad y de egoísmo, pero supongo que es necesario conocer más a fondo el contexto para entender todo.
December 13, 2019
En varias ocasiones, Spencer le dedica bastante tiempo a presentar ideas y argumentos que me parecieron insulsos. De todas maneras, estos no opacan la gran cantidad de observaciones y críticas brillantes que el autor hace sobre los problemas que estaban apareciendo en la política y en pensamiento liberal durante la segunda mitad del siglo XIX.
June 1, 2023
برای کتاب انسان در مقابل دولت هربرت اسپنسر
قصد نداشتم در مورد این کتاب یادداشت بنویسم، اما نمرهای که براش مدنظر دارم این یادداشت را ضروری میکند.
چرا 2 ستاره؟ چون ضعف استدلالها و براهین کتاب بسیار است. البته با بسیاری از مفاهیم و ایدههای کتاب همراهم اما نویسنده نتوانستهاست مستدل از ادعاهای خود دفاع بکند. البته شاید بتوان این ایراد را به فضل تقدم داشتن کتاب بخشید. در برخی ایدهها مانند: پیشبینیِ شیب لغزنده دیکتاتوری و حکومت توتالیترِ در پس حکمرانی سوسیالیستی، تقدسزدایی از بروکراتها، بررسی هزینههای عدیدهی قوانین دولتی و... اسپنسر موضوعات مهمی را بیان کردهاست اما خوب نتوانستهاست از ایشان دفاع کند. برای مثال استدلالهای میزس، که خود جای واکاوی بسیار دارد، در مفاد مشترک با این کتاب به مراتب برتر از اسپنسر بود.
خلاصه این کتاب در مقام قیاس 2ستاره نسیب دارد و الا جزو آثار کلاسیک خوب برای آشنایی با لیبرالیسم میتواند باشد. شایان به ذکر است کتاب در سال 1884 منتشر شدهاست.
یکی از ویژگیهای مهم دیگر کتاب مصادیق و مثالهای زیاد آن است که به شفافشدن موضوع کمک میکند؛بر خلاف کتاب بروکراسی میزس که در بیان مصادیق ادعاهای خود کمکاری کردهبود. البته مثالها اصلا در تنقیح متن مفید نیست، اتفاقا گاها اطناب اضافی بود ارائهی این مثالها برای خوانندهای که من باشم.
در ادامه خلاصهی گزارشهایی که در حین مطالعه کتاب نوشتهام را بازنشر میدهم:
{پس از پایان فصل1}
« تازه خوبه که این ترجمه، گزیدهای از مقالههای کتاب اصلی است. با این حال فصل اول که اسپنسر تلاش میکرد مداخلات گسترده پارلمان در دوران خودش رو نقد کند ملالآور بود. چرا ملالآور؟ آخه همین امروز هم خوندن و بررسی قوانین و ابلاغیههای دولتی و... از کسلکنندهترین چیزهای ممکن است. آخه اینکه در سال 1871 پارلمان انگلستان قانون برای جریمهی دستفروشان تصویب کرده به من چه؟ البته که استدلال کلی اسپنسر بسیار مهم و قابل تأمل است. پارلمان به علت اینکه قدرت خود را از رای مردم گرفتهاست حق ندارد با دخالتهای گستردهی خود آزادیهای مردم را محدود کند... خلاصه باید مدافع آزادی بود!» {پس از پایان فصل2}
«فصلِ "بردگی در حال ظهور" THE COMING SLAVERY را میتوان از نخستین خوانشهایی دانست که آینده مداخلات دولتی را به سوسیالیسم و دولت حداکثری ختم میکند. یعنی مداخلات دولتی سنگفرش "راه بردگی" اند. میزس در کتاب بروکراسی خود نیز این مهم را صورتبندی کرد. البته صورتبندی میزس از اسپنسر منصفانهتر بود و بهتر مکانیزم این مسیر لغزنده را نشان میدهد. شایان به ذکر است که کتاب میزس مثالها و مصداقهای کمی را ارائه میدهد اما کتاب اسپنسر مالامال از مصادیق مداخلات دولتی است. تفسیر و پیشبینیهای اسپنسر از آیندهی مداخلات دولتی و بیان این موضوع که حکومت سوسیالیستی به احتمال قوی به حکومتی توتالیتر تبدیل میشود برای سال 1870، درخشان اند اما، اما نقص گفتههای اسپنسر زیاد است. به نظر من این اثر را میتوان جزو متون کلاسیک قابل تامل تقسیمبندی کرد. اما نهایتا نظرم تا اینجای اثر این است: نه، نتوانستهاست!»
قصد نداشتم در مورد این کتاب یادداشت بنویسم، اما نمرهای که براش مدنظر دارم این یادداشت را ضروری میکند.
چرا 2 ستاره؟ چون ضعف استدلالها و براهین کتاب بسیار است. البته با بسیاری از مفاهیم و ایدههای کتاب همراهم اما نویسنده نتوانستهاست مستدل از ادعاهای خود دفاع بکند. البته شاید بتوان این ایراد را به فضل تقدم داشتن کتاب بخشید. در برخی ایدهها مانند: پیشبینیِ شیب لغزنده دیکتاتوری و حکومت توتالیترِ در پس حکمرانی سوسیالیستی، تقدسزدایی از بروکراتها، بررسی هزینههای عدیدهی قوانین دولتی و... اسپنسر موضوعات مهمی را بیان کردهاست اما خوب نتوانستهاست از ایشان دفاع کند. برای مثال استدلالهای میزس، که خود جای واکاوی بسیار دارد، در مفاد مشترک با این کتاب به مراتب برتر از اسپنسر بود.
خلاصه این کتاب در مقام قیاس 2ستاره نسیب دارد و الا جزو آثار کلاسیک خوب برای آشنایی با لیبرالیسم میتواند باشد. شایان به ذکر است کتاب در سال 1884 منتشر شدهاست.
یکی از ویژگیهای مهم دیگر کتاب مصادیق و مثالهای زیاد آن است که به شفافشدن موضوع کمک میکند؛بر خلاف کتاب بروکراسی میزس که در بیان مصادیق ادعاهای خود کمکاری کردهبود. البته مثالها اصلا در تنقیح متن مفید نیست، اتفاقا گاها اطناب اضافی بود ارائهی این مثالها برای خوانندهای که من باشم.
در ادامه خلاصهی گزارشهایی که در حین مطالعه کتاب نوشتهام را بازنشر میدهم:
{پس از پایان فصل1}
« تازه خوبه که این ترجمه، گزیدهای از مقالههای کتاب اصلی است. با این حال فصل اول که اسپنسر تلاش میکرد مداخلات گسترده پارلمان در دوران خودش رو نقد کند ملالآور بود. چرا ملالآور؟ آخه همین امروز هم خوندن و بررسی قوانین و ابلاغیههای دولتی و... از کسلکنندهترین چیزهای ممکن است. آخه اینکه در سال 1871 پارلمان انگلستان قانون برای جریمهی دستفروشان تصویب کرده به من چه؟ البته که استدلال کلی اسپنسر بسیار مهم و قابل تأمل است. پارلمان به علت اینکه قدرت خود را از رای مردم گرفتهاست حق ندارد با دخالتهای گستردهی خود آزادیهای مردم را محدود کند... خلاصه باید مدافع آزادی بود!» {پس از پایان فصل2}
«فصلِ "بردگی در حال ظهور" THE COMING SLAVERY را میتوان از نخستین خوانشهایی دانست که آینده مداخلات دولتی را به سوسیالیسم و دولت حداکثری ختم میکند. یعنی مداخلات دولتی سنگفرش "راه بردگی" اند. میزس در کتاب بروکراسی خود نیز این مهم را صورتبندی کرد. البته صورتبندی میزس از اسپنسر منصفانهتر بود و بهتر مکانیزم این مسیر لغزنده را نشان میدهد. شایان به ذکر است که کتاب میزس مثالها و مصداقهای کمی را ارائه میدهد اما کتاب اسپنسر مالامال از مصادیق مداخلات دولتی است. تفسیر و پیشبینیهای اسپنسر از آیندهی مداخلات دولتی و بیان این موضوع که حکومت سوسیالیستی به احتمال قوی به حکومتی توتالیتر تبدیل میشود برای سال 1870، درخشان اند اما، اما نقص گفتههای اسپنسر زیاد است. به نظر من این اثر را میتوان جزو متون کلاسیک قابل تامل تقسیمبندی کرد. اما نهایتا نظرم تا اینجای اثر این است: نه، نتوانستهاست!»
July 19, 2021
Los orígenes del liberalismo nació de la industrialización y no del gobierno militarizado, como bien se cree (esos fueron los conservadores). No obstante, a mediados del siglo XIX, ambas posturas contrarias se volvieron similares o contradictorias en su discurso y acciones; ambas se complementan en parlamentados y debates, pero aquello Spencer rechaza (sobre todo por su ideología liberal).
Spencer entiende que el problema social radica en la exageración del poder en base a las instituciones políticas y su aplicación de leyes y normas para la población. Las leyes, dice la política liberal, es reductora de la libertad del individuo; y este se ciñe a la voluntad de su nuevo gobernante. Pero el problema va más allá de un nuevo gobernante pues, en un gobierno extremadamente social, el individuo tiene más gobernantes en los que puede gobernar.
El funcionalismo de Spencer dicta que los seres humanos cumplen una función en sociedad y que cada accionar del individuo demuestra el "orden natural" de las cosas. Siendo así que, visto desde el punto de vista liberal, la libertad sería un acercamiento a esos cimientos previos a la sociedad donde cada uno consigue sus propios logros y forma progresivamente la cultura.
Ah, también dice: El altruismo forzado no funciona para mejorar una sociedad, sino uno aplicable y formativo laboralmente para las personas menos favorecidas.
Spencer entiende que el problema social radica en la exageración del poder en base a las instituciones políticas y su aplicación de leyes y normas para la población. Las leyes, dice la política liberal, es reductora de la libertad del individuo; y este se ciñe a la voluntad de su nuevo gobernante. Pero el problema va más allá de un nuevo gobernante pues, en un gobierno extremadamente social, el individuo tiene más gobernantes en los que puede gobernar.
El funcionalismo de Spencer dicta que los seres humanos cumplen una función en sociedad y que cada accionar del individuo demuestra el "orden natural" de las cosas. Siendo así que, visto desde el punto de vista liberal, la libertad sería un acercamiento a esos cimientos previos a la sociedad donde cada uno consigue sus propios logros y forma progresivamente la cultura.
Ah, también dice: El altruismo forzado no funciona para mejorar una sociedad, sino uno aplicable y formativo laboralmente para las personas menos favorecidas.
August 29, 2024
yeni liberallerin gerizekalı olduğunu/olacağını taa 150 yıl önceden görmüş zeki bir abimiz. okumaktaki amacım hate-read'lemekti ama çok aklıselim bi liberalmiş önyargılı olduğuma pişman etti beni, ki çok nadir olur bu, keşke günümüz liberalleri de bu adam gibi olsa en azından bu adamın onda biri seviyesinde donanımlı olsalar. çok klasik textbook bir liberal olmasına rağmen fikirlerini sunarken biyoloji, evrim, sosyoloji, psikoloji vb. onlarca farklı disiplinden faydalanıyor, argümanlarını gerçekten açıklamaya çalışıyor bazı liberallerin insanları hor görmekten sık sık atladığı önemli bir nokta... yeni liberalleri eleştirmenin yanında tabii ki komünistlere de sallıyor. hatta komünist yönetimlerin tehlikelerinden bahsettiği güzel bir essay de var içinde kitaptan 30-40 sonra kurulan sovyetler birliğinin yaşadığı sefilliğini (halkının yaşadığı sefillik daha doğrusu sefillik çeken devlet diye bir şey tarihte yok) kelimesi kelimesine tahmin etmiş sanırım en beğendiğim essay oydu. güzel kitap 9/10
October 14, 2024
When I was young, I was taught in public school that social darwinism was scientifically heretical and morally evil, and that subsequently all writings and readers adjacent thereto were morally suspect.
Now, in the intervening century-plus, the field of science for which we are indebted to Mr. Darwin has evolved considerably so that the old 19th-century social darwinism indeed requires a "radical modification," but the underlying concept has not been seriously dislodged from those who really understand ecology and population genetics.
With that aside, the meat of this work is not, in fact, the human ecology for which the author is held up as an anti-ikon, as object of hate, but rather the central "conflict" and thesis is to be found in Essay #4. And it deals with this question: What is the origin and extent of the authority of a majority vote over the whole of a society? And in answering this, Spencer in effect formulates an implicit Constitution not dissimilar from the American one.
Now, in the intervening century-plus, the field of science for which we are indebted to Mr. Darwin has evolved considerably so that the old 19th-century social darwinism indeed requires a "radical modification," but the underlying concept has not been seriously dislodged from those who really understand ecology and population genetics.
With that aside, the meat of this work is not, in fact, the human ecology for which the author is held up as an anti-ikon, as object of hate, but rather the central "conflict" and thesis is to be found in Essay #4. And it deals with this question: What is the origin and extent of the authority of a majority vote over the whole of a society? And in answering this, Spencer in effect formulates an implicit Constitution not dissimilar from the American one.
August 10, 2020
Yüzde 70'ini okudum ve bırakıyorum.
Tipik bir sosyal-darwinist acımasızlık, klasik liberalizm yandaşlığı, toplumsal hareketlere karşı bir burnu büyüklük var bu adamda. Tipik devleti sermaye gardiyanlığı hariç (!) olabildiğince küçült her şey yolunu bulur kafasında. Üç beş basmakalıp sosyalizm eleştirisi var bir de ki sosyalizmden ne anladığı da şüpheli.
Açıkçası Martin Eden'de geçiyor diye ve neye sövdüğümüzü bilelim okumaya çalıştım sadece ve liberal zırva bulacağımı biliyordum ama bu kadar teorik olarak fakir bir metin de beklemiyordum.
Tipik bir sosyal-darwinist acımasızlık, klasik liberalizm yandaşlığı, toplumsal hareketlere karşı bir burnu büyüklük var bu adamda. Tipik devleti sermaye gardiyanlığı hariç (!) olabildiğince küçült her şey yolunu bulur kafasında. Üç beş basmakalıp sosyalizm eleştirisi var bir de ki sosyalizmden ne anladığı da şüpheli.
Açıkçası Martin Eden'de geçiyor diye ve neye sövdüğümüzü bilelim okumaya çalıştım sadece ve liberal zırva bulacağımı biliyordum ama bu kadar teorik olarak fakir bir metin de beklemiyordum.
August 5, 2024
Spencer is a British conservative thinker and essayist. In the later 19th century his views were considered Liberal. He stands for minimal governmental interference and personal responsibility. What fascinated me is his citing of government actions or monarchical actions going back centuries that he asserts did more harm than good. The issues could be today’s list; affordable housing, protection for labour, civic installations, industrial safety rules, control of trade. A series of six essays worth a read.
June 12, 2022
Parece mentira que hace 150 años Spencer haya previsto el daño que ocasiona el Estado en su política de entrometerse y regular las actividades de un país. También advirtió el cercenamiento a las libertades individuales.
Un libro de imprescindible lectura.
Un libro de imprescindible lectura.
February 11, 2023
من این کتاب را با ترجمهی نجات بهرامی و چاپ شده توسط نشر دنیای اقتصاد خواندم. ترجمهی روانی بود؛ و کتاب در عین سادگی و قابل فهم بودن (بخاطر مثالهای دقیق و زیاد)، حاوی نکات بسیار مهم و عمیقی در حوزهی اقتصاد سیاسی بود. اگر به این موضوعات علاقهمند هستید، پیشنهاد میکنم اصلا از دستش ندهید!
August 15, 2022
Que buen libro de fácil lectura. Aunque no compartas opiniones
February 3, 2023
Liberalism
The evolution and corruption of classical liberalism is explained here. A good read for all who suspected the left had lost its way.
The evolution and corruption of classical liberalism is explained here. A good read for all who suspected the left had lost its way.
August 26, 2011
Spencer gets an "A" for effort and being informative of the times he lives in (the redeeming social value), and I also deplore these conditions he portrays about losing rights and freedoms--but I come to a different conclusion. He believes in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. An imperfect welfare system is not the reason to abolish it because its still better than having none at all. He is very constricting in his definition of state powers and legitimate authorities. It is true that the more power the "nanny state" has the less freedom the citizenry has. Doesn't he realize that God is interested in justice for the poor, alien, afflicted and victimized? (Ps. 82:3; Jer. 24:26; Amos 2:6,7). God will plead the case of the widow and orphan. I don't know where he gets his definition of government but the way I understand from the Bible there is no "Christian form of government per se." Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." I am not Utopian and believer the Christian's duty on earth is to evangelize and save people, not to convert to a political philosophy.
His perfect society would have no public education--I could see that in his day and time period but is unrealistic today. We must change with the times though, and possibly invest in internet classrooms for our nation that would eventually replace our public school system. When we say, "Justice for all" we are establishing equal opportunity as much as possible. There is such a thing as "social justice." I don't believe the government is "them" but "we the people." If you hate and despise the "powers that be" it is God's order that you are resisting, unless it directly contradicts Scripture, like telling you that you can't spread the gospel.
He refers to the "Almighty" several times but his faith is a sham as he popularized agnosticism (according to Wikipedia). If he wants to refer to the Bible, it says to revere all authority and people in positions of authority and to give honor to whom honor is due. He prophetically says the state shouldn't be involved in health care and I concede this point against socializing medicine. His point about England laying down its arms and "turning swords into plowshares" per Micah 4:3 is ludicrous. Doesn't he know that Joel 3:9 says to "prepare for war" and 3:10 says to turn "plowshares into swords." His pacifist philosophy will only work in Christ's millennial kingdom.
His perfect society would have no public education--I could see that in his day and time period but is unrealistic today. We must change with the times though, and possibly invest in internet classrooms for our nation that would eventually replace our public school system. When we say, "Justice for all" we are establishing equal opportunity as much as possible. There is such a thing as "social justice." I don't believe the government is "them" but "we the people." If you hate and despise the "powers that be" it is God's order that you are resisting, unless it directly contradicts Scripture, like telling you that you can't spread the gospel.
He refers to the "Almighty" several times but his faith is a sham as he popularized agnosticism (according to Wikipedia). If he wants to refer to the Bible, it says to revere all authority and people in positions of authority and to give honor to whom honor is due. He prophetically says the state shouldn't be involved in health care and I concede this point against socializing medicine. His point about England laying down its arms and "turning swords into plowshares" per Micah 4:3 is ludicrous. Doesn't he know that Joel 3:9 says to "prepare for war" and 3:10 says to turn "plowshares into swords." His pacifist philosophy will only work in Christ's millennial kingdom.
December 3, 2024
I agree with some of what he says, in general, but it’s pretty dated and had to skip read second half. Goes on and on about specific issues of the day. Has some interesting ideas and very well written passages, but for me much of what he writes is absolute nonsense though. He seems to believe (I think) that if everything was unregulated it would all work out, that voluntary charity would for instance mean there was no need for government hand outs. Government handouts in fact make the poor worse because they ruin their thirst to survive. I mean totally agree liberty of individual has to be maximised but there has to be some support and regulation. His heart was in the right place it seems, and he obviously wants humanity to ‘triumph’ - not sure what against exactly - there is more to life than being the fittest, and what is being fit anyway? Weakness has its place too.
In general philosophic terms it’s very relevant for today which is why I read it, wanting to understand more the various contradictions in the current rise of polarised partisan views that are dividing democracies, with so many thinking they know the answer. He points this out too, that he must have doubt in his own views because everyone else is certain in theirs, even though they are different. I respect that.
In general philosophic terms it’s very relevant for today which is why I read it, wanting to understand more the various contradictions in the current rise of polarised partisan views that are dividing democracies, with so many thinking they know the answer. He points this out too, that he must have doubt in his own views because everyone else is certain in theirs, even though they are different. I respect that.
January 26, 2016
A primary source of modern libertarian philosophy.
You can see forerunners to the ideas expressed by Rothbard and other Austrian economists nestled within these pages. Though many claim Spencer became a proponent of the state in his later years there is nothing here to indicate that. Having just finished Social Statics I can attest that Spencer, by and large, changed little in his positions on land ownership or government. If you are a Libertarian then you are doing yourself a disservice by not reading Spencer. Not only was Spencer an influence on the Austrians but The 'Man Versus The State' was one of the few books in Ayn Rands possession when she died. It is listed in the manifest at her estate sale. There is no substitute for Spencer. He stands apart from all the rest and with the exception of Rothbard is the clearest enunciation of modern Libertarian ideology.
You can see forerunners to the ideas expressed by Rothbard and other Austrian economists nestled within these pages. Though many claim Spencer became a proponent of the state in his later years there is nothing here to indicate that. Having just finished Social Statics I can attest that Spencer, by and large, changed little in his positions on land ownership or government. If you are a Libertarian then you are doing yourself a disservice by not reading Spencer. Not only was Spencer an influence on the Austrians but The 'Man Versus The State' was one of the few books in Ayn Rands possession when she died. It is listed in the manifest at her estate sale. There is no substitute for Spencer. He stands apart from all the rest and with the exception of Rothbard is the clearest enunciation of modern Libertarian ideology.
May 30, 2016
A collection of Herbert Spencer's essays, the most prominent 19th century English philosopher. There is a section on his ideas comparing social organization to the biology of organisms, but I didn't find it very useful so I skipped most of it. However the common sense arguments against oppressive governments are very good.
Important points in audio clips on my youtube channel soon.
Important points in audio clips on my youtube channel soon.
Read
September 23, 2010The man versus the state: With four essays on politics and society; (The Pelican classics) by Herbert Spencer (1969)
Read
September 16, 2018Repetitious. Point made in three essays. Good common sense read.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews