^ i M /^i fy>-^ ,^M S or »w«> ji. Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924031293693 NATIONAL HAPPINESS UNDER LNDIVI DUALISM. The material basis of National Happiness is that a country should not have too many inhabitants' for comfort nor too few for safety. This- statement, I hope, will.be regarded as both true and unobjectionable by most of; my readers. For it expresses the underlying, idea of this essay, and, suggests my view of. the great social problems often referred to by political writers and, speakers as the Poverty and Riches problem. Fellow-men consist of feilow-countryfmen and foreign- eountrymen. Therefore. National Happiness depends.- on the avoidance of the fundamental causes of. unhappiness with fellow-countrymen and foreign-countrymen. The fundamental cause of. unhappiness with fellow- countrymen is unhappy competition for the means of healthjs subsistence; that is, excess of individuals over the. means. of healthy subsistence ; that< is, , Qverpopulatlon. The fundamental cause of. unhappiness with foreign-countrymen is foreign aggression or the fear of it; that; is, insufficiency of defenders ; that isy Dangerous Underpopulation. There,- fore National Happiness depends fundamentally on the avoidance of Overpopulation and. Dangerous Under^ population. From the foregoing it will be seen that the subject, according to my view of it, divides into two parts : — I. Fellow-Conntrymen— Overpopulation — Poverty ; Foreign-countrymen — Dangerous Underpopulation — Riches ; or more correctly, as I shall explain, II. Foreign-Countrymen— Dangerous Underpopulation— Luxuries. I.— Individualism and Overpopulation. That Poverty is essentially Overpopulation may be shown in two ways. Firstly, both can be defined as ' excess of individuals over the means of healthy subsistence.' Secondly, a really complete attempt to cure Poverty by taxing the rich — meaning as that policy does, a continuous elimination of the rich, and then of the merely relatively rich, to be taxed — must end in converting the local Poverty into a general Poverty ; that is, the local or individualistic Overpopulation into a general or socialistic Overpopulation . Poverty, in fact, may be regarded as individualistic Over- population. Therefore to understand Poverty and its prevention it is necessary to understand Overpopulation and its prevention. A' system of government that is to succeed in securing continuous National Happiness must, then, be based on some principle which continuously checks the natural ten- dency to Overpopulation ; that is, on some principle which •continuously checks the natural tendency to beget too many •children, and directs the consequently-required voluntary restriction of the natural birth-rate ; that is, on some prin- ciple which supplies a continuous and working answer to the question : " Who are not to beget children ? " Such a principle, as the answer will show, must be either the socialistic one or the individualistic one ; in other words, reveals the important fact that a people must make a definite choice, for their system of government, between Individualism and Socialism. The socialist says : " Those whom the State thinks least worthy." The individualist says : " Those who cannot afford to maintain them properly" \ his assumption being that if subsistence can be found for children, these will be able to find it for them- selves when they grow up, Since to avoid causing un- necessary suffering is a moral obligation, this economic preventive of the unhappiness called Overpopulation may be termed the individualistic Law of Parental Respon- sibility. Leaving the main argument for a moment, I might here make a few observations called-for and suggested by what 1 have been saying of Overpopulation, (i) The criticism may well be offered that ' excess of individuals over the means of healthy subsistence ' would even develop among childless adults (though such ought to be able easily to ■undersell in the labour market the parents of young and •dependent families) // they were sufficiently idle or im- provident. That is to say that altogether to avoid Over- population, observance is required not merely of the Law •of Parental Responsibility, but of the more comprehensive Law of Personal Responsibility, namely, that individuals must maintain themselves and any children they beget. But the childless poor are easily relieved. Their poverty- causing misfortune or vice dying with them, it does not lead to the serious chronic Poverty I am here concerned ■with. I feel justified, therefore, in affirming that to prevent •Overpopulation it is practically sufficient to insist strongly •on the Law of Parental Responsibility. (2) Immigration ipust also be regarded ^s a cau^e of Overpopulation. But it is aji external ca]use with an obvious remedy, so not prie qalling for more than mention here. (3) A strugglfe in, existence is unavoijlable' — arjji; would be under Socialism too, as already suggested. But with civilised communities ij ought, to be, a struggle to qualify for parenthood^— not a savage, Ipwer-aninial struggle to live. The, main argument may now be resumed by applying tp Poverty, what has above been sjijd- of Overpopulation. To avoid I^qverty, then, ipdividualists, must; insist that those ar.e. not tq b^get children who caqnot afford to maintain them properly ; in other words, must insist on the respon- sibility of parents for the proper maintenance of their children. Under modern conditions proper maintenance includes education*, in addition to ordinary home-maintenance. A State which grants free elementary education, loses, among^ other things, an opportunity for imposing a further restraint (through sqhool fees and attendance at school) on the tendency to Overpopulation. But in spite of free elementary education. Poverty continues, and more or less in the follow- ing painfully familiar sequence : child and juvenile wage- earners, unskilled workers, unemployed, uneniplqyables (and un-emigratiopables), sweated workers, wage-earning mothers, neglected infants and children, ill-kept homes, alcoholism and crime. Clearly, therefore, proper mainten- ance also includes occupational education ; apd this must somehow be made compulsory in order that the entrances *I often think that in a country that was really great, or promising greatness, the teaching profession would be the best paid i and most- attractive one. to blind-alleys of employment may be closed to juvertiltes. Legislation, again, with this effect, w'Ould act as a very important check to Overpopulation by prolorrging tb'e home-maintenance period ; and, eiven if ttee technical schools could replace the more natural app'i*eriticeBhip in field and factory. But beyond the gratuitous provisioh of education (elementary and occupational) Individualism surely cannot go. Here surely is a new and urgent line of demarcation between that principle and Socialism. The individualistic ■State, without rapidly getting into serious financial diffi- culties, cannot relieve parents of the responsibility for their children's home-mainteiiance (feeding, clothing and housing). The futility of attempting to cure Poverty by taxing the richer to relieve the poorer — a policy of endow- ing, and so of continuously increasing*, the dependent stocks — has already been shown. As must, in the end, at all events, be obvious, such policy is based on the denial of the right of any man to be richer than his neighbours whatever his industry and ability, and is therefore the negation of Individualism. — This indicates, too, what ought to be the individualist's objection to the Right to Work claim. In so far as it is a claim not merely to wages but to family-wages, it is the individualistically impossible ''This is denied by those of the riiOderh LiberSlfe, Vho claim to be individualists. They assert, on the contrary, that if the poor b'e but financially assist-ed to -attain -a ■certain 'miwifn-ttrn standard -of comfort,' *h^ will begeSt feWSr children. The brucial question hoW-ever, is, Will they ifelduce the numbers of their offspi'ing sd far as to ceaS6 the perpetual overcrowding of the labour tr.ark'et— ^that is, so far as to wAe continilatioh of such State c-harity possible? I WiS'h Libetels would realise that thfefr u'ndoubtediy attractive policy of effectively Relieving, out 6f taxes on tHfe ridh, all cases of Poverty that a'rtse from |;bnOiiTie invalfdity-ilhd unemplbi^- ment, could only -go on irid'fefinitely if wSfgfe-eai'ners were not to have moi% than three children per family. claim to a Right to Marry — the individualisticallj' im- possible claim to a right, of the poorer at the expense of the richer, to multiply freely till none was richer. — I might here make bold to add my opinion of eleemosynary efforts , in general, that relief which has the effect of reproducing in another generation the misfortune or vice relieved, is folly — not charity. Practically, then, under modern conditions, avoidance of Poverty requires that no man begets children unless he has sufficient wages to provide them with proper home- maintenance, and has insured himself against reduction or stoppage of these wages from any cause (under-employ- ment, unemployment, sickness, accident and death), till the completion of his children's apprenticeship. A child cannot easily be maintained properly for less than a shilling a day, if even for that in its later years of dependence. There certainly ought, therefore, to be only one child for every (at the lowest) seven shillings a week of wages beyond the sum (;^i ?) required to keep the parents. To encourage and establish this custom should be the aim of all social reformers who wish to see wages really raised ; should be the aim of the three co-operating (?) groups of active individualists : (i) the political, who are fighting Socialism ; (2) the philanthropic, who are fighting Poverty ; and (3) the eugenistic, who are fighting Race Degeneration.* •Speaking generally, the greater a man's inborn mental and physical capacities the greater his earnings. In other words, eugenic efficiency is proportionate to economic efficiency. Therefore Race Degeneration must accompany the multiplication of the economically unfit and le.ss fit at the expense of (and consequently diminution of) the econom - ically fit. ' Social reform ' in the last half century has been largely the endowment of the families worth less than £2 a week, by those worth more. The fundamental cause of tfie Poverty of the poor is their (mostly encouraged and so far pardonable)' improvi- dent propagation. Excessive families mean inability to save ; want of savings mean inability to protest effectively against low wages ; low wages, again, mean further inability to save. The real cause of the Poverty that ensues when rich landlords or employers do not renew agreements with poor tenants or employees is this want of savings on the part of the latter. It is surely unjust to deny to the rich . the liberty, which all other men possess and use, of renewing agreements or not according as it suits them. The rich (qua rich — see Part II.) do not cause the Poverty of the poor and should not be taxed to relieve it. True, they neglect to help in discouraging the birth of necessitous children, and might reasonably on this account be called- upon to support them — except that such endowment of dependence would involve the sacrifice of the individualistic regime, as I must keep pointing out. Are the children of those who disobey the Law of Parental Responsibility to be the victims of a laissez faire Individualism, and be left to bear the consequences ? The humanitarian individualist can hardly tolerate that, much as it would diminish the present numbers of children born to neglect. Here exactly is his problem, how to enforce parental responsibility without letting the children suffer. The solution would seem to be — State emigration of the necessitous children. Even assuming that some fiscal reform doubled wages,* it would mean but a brief post- *A large assumption, though it must be admitted, of course, that Protection implies (pins a small tax on every inhabitant to defray the cost of levying them) taxes in favour of the ivorkets at the expense ( l) of the non-workers i.e., the real and the so-called ' idle-rich and foreign visitors, and (2) of those workers who could not get their wages and salaries raised. ponement of ithis, or some equally drastic solution of the Roverty problem. The home-maintenance of children vvUl soon be all that is left of parental responsibility for .in- dividualists to defend ; it is .surely the last ditch for their retreating jfoirces. I ^challenge individualists to produce any other practicable pdlicy* for checking chronic Poverty and its sequel Socialism, than this one of child emigration. Therefore all children and juveniles persistently sent to -school or work insufficiently fed, clothed and cared-for should be taken over by the Poor Law ajuthorities, and emigrated, the parents by way of deterrence being made to contribute as far as possible to the cost. Were this proposal acceptable to the Colonies, and adopted, further r-eform of .the present Poor Law (except as regards the detention of vagrants and the feeble-minded) would hardly be necessarj'. For in this way can humanely be enforced the Law of Parental Responsibility by which Individualism prevents Poverty and Overpopulation. As an appendix to Part L, 1 shall briefly give what 1 think is England's special case for State emigration of the necessitous children. For her's is more than the simple problem of unernployment and under-employment at home, "^Unless any of the following be deemed practicable (i) St:ite segregation of necessitous children, parents or families, till such time as they could no longer reproduce themselves, (z) Encouragement of Malthusianism — late marriage and small families — by the institution, say, of a State marriage-fee of ;^5P, which would also be a fnmily insurance policy. (3) State encouragement of Neo-Malthusianism — early marriage and small families. ^^'- ttana. anvy xMLU.nl- •tjtctii-** ta brought about by failure to encourage observance of the Law of Parental Responsibility. Her's is a duplex im^ perial problem — too many Britishers at home (to say nothing of the underselling aliens), and too few Britishers in the Colonies. But Britain's excess population is practically an excess of town-bred workers. The Colonies, on the other hand, are ortly eager for immigrants who will help 'them usefully and sympathetically to occupy their dangerously underpopulated territories ; are only eager, that is, for out- door and in-door farm servants of British extraction. The solution of the difficulty (and of the imperial problem) is the compromise of child-emigration. In no other way can Britain supply this demand for farm-workers, and of both sexes in equal proportions, than in the form of child- ren or potential farm-workers. Experience appears already to have proved that even slum children do well when sent out to farms and farra- .schools. They quickly develop there into- useful colonials. Notwithstanding this bright prospect, it may seem harsh in many cases that they should be taken away from their parents. So it nius.t be duly emphasised that it is ^s the only means of rescuing tbem from lives of anxious struggle, privation, and often failure at home ; and also as the means of easing the terrible competition pressure on all those parents (invariably overlooked by public and private philanthropists) honourably striving aiiid just suc- •ceedingto mainlaJTO their and their children's independence. And lastly, from the mother-country point of view, it may te said that State emigration of the necessitous children Tvould bring about an immediate and steadily progressive 10 reduction of the suffering and expense of Poverty, and of its Socialism breeding discontent. For it would mean a rapid elimination, though a humane one, of. the dependent stocks ; a direct inculcation of the much-needed lesson of parental responsibility ; and, in so far as it relieved distress- without reproducing it, the carrying-out of a real and imperial charity. II.— Individualism and Dangerous Underpopulation.. Dangerous Undeipopulation, the avoidance of which under Individualism is now to be discussed, will only be a possibility, of course, so long as there is such an institu- tion as war. Underpopulation might be described as the occupation of a country by fewer inhabitants than it could support healthily. Dangerous Underpopulation as the occu- pation of a country by fewer inhabitants than it could support healthily and safely. (To exclude, however, the unnecessary consideration of new countries with vast un- occupied areas, I shall only discuss here the Underpopula- tion of countries whose land has all been taken up.) A people's expenditure, like an individual's, falls under two heads— necessaries and luxuries. The more they spend, on luxuries the less they spend on necessaries. This means that the more they spend on luxuries the less they spend on population ; for in a country that has to keep prepared for war, necessaries may be defined as whatever makes for war- like efficiency. Although this depends also on armaments, training and organisation, it depends essentially on numbers ;, that is, on the existence of a sufficiency of inhabitants. A country, therefore, may be said to be underpopulated when its inhabitants use a portion of its resources for the 11 production of luxuries (not for export, of course, but for their own use), and dangerously underpopulated when its inhabitants use an excessive portion of its resources for the production of luxuries. (So the Underpopulatton of new countries with vast unoccupied areas may be partly due to expenditure on luxuries.) What constitutes Dangerous Underpopulation depends, it need hardly be remarked, upon various factors, and must be decided by each country for itself. Thus a country that is an island, or is moun- tainous, or is very large, or has alliances with neighbours, might need a lesser density of population to defend it 'against invasion than other countries without these advan- tages. The following statements will help to illustrate my idea that expenditure on luxuries causes Underpopulation, and may cause Dangerous Underpopulation (insuiificiency of population to provide the men and money required for national defence). Sums are spent on luxuries by the rich, which, if invested in companies producing necessaries, would (besides giving employment, as expenditure and investments in luxuries do) woVild increase and cheapen necessaries^ thereby reducing the cost of living for all. But at the same time it must be acknowledged, ( i ) that many married couples of moderate means, were they to forego luxuries, could afford larger families; (2) that many wage-earners, were they to forego luxuries, would be able to bring up healthily the children they have— thereby saving the children, the rates or the charities ; and (3) that many men in comfortable circumstances dela}'' marriage, or remain bachelors, rather than forego luxuries. To control Underpopulation — that is, to prevent it becoming Dangerous Underpopulation — it is therefore 12 necessary to control a people's expenditure on luxuries ; it is necessary, -th^ is, to tax luxuries. Moreover, it is necessary to spend the protfeeds 'in making good as far as possible the national wSakefHing which the ejtpenditUrfe on luxuries is responsible for; that iS, to spend the proceeds on the national defences. And since the amount of weakening is proportionate to the amount spent on luxuries, it is necessary to tax them on their capital value. In short, any required Army and Navy nhauld be financed as far as possible by taxes on the capital value of luxuries— A multi- niillipnaire may be a man living comparatively simply on ;^5oo a year, spending the remainder of his income on further investments ; that, is (like all investors in companies which, produce necessaries) lending his money to the public for the. public good ; in other words, using his Riches to cheapen necessaries. Suc.h- a man is, in effect, employing bis money as if it belonged- to his fellow-men, and he had been appointed at a salary of £^00 to invest it for them. Whereas, the semi-millionaire may be spending ;^io,oop a year- on (necessaries-enbancing) luxuries.— It should also be noted that one man may thus spend, more injuriously to the. nation,, his earned ;^i,ooo a. year than. another does 14 his unearned ;{^ 1,000. — The idea, too, of taxing a bachelor simply because he is a bachelor, is similarly unjust. It may not be a selfish preference for luxuries which keeps him single. Taxation of luxuries on their capital value would make the necessary discrimination between the (nationally speaking) good and bad celibates. I might sum up Part II.,* then, by saying that there would be (i) no unjust taxation of non-luxury-users ; (2) a. cheapening of necessaries (a nationally and eugenically useful encouragement, in effect, of the homely and thrifty) ; and (3) an incentive to luxury-users to exercise their considerable influence in the cause of international peace — if luxuries could be taxed on their capital value to maintain the Army and Navy, and the remaining expenses be met by a uniform and universal income-tax. Conclusion. It is surely time that individualists began to realise what Individualism means, and how vulnerable it is to socialistic attacks. If they freely yield to plausible appeals for extensions of State maintenance, their regime must speedily advance towards bankruptcy and Socialism. If, failing strictly to enforce the fundamental individualistic Law of Parental Responsibility, they grudgingly and *Lest it be supposed that I regard legislation for the iivoidance of Dangerous Underpopulation, as next in order of importance to legislation for the avoidance of Overpopulation, I would like to say that I look upon the following as the two reforms most urgently required: (i) that people should not beget more children than they can afford to maintain properly ; (2) that Parliaments should not have power to pass imeasures by narrow majorities, i.e., by smaller than two-thirds majorities. 15 partially yield. Poverty and the general discontent con- tinue. Then the socialists say that Individualism has failed, when it is only pseudo-Individualism that has failed. So either let us adopt Socialism frankly and intelligently, or let us give Individualism what chance we still can by drawing the line at home-maintenance , and by beginning to encourage people not to have more chil- dren than they can easily afford to feed, clothe and house adequately. Laissez faire Individualism is, as I have suggested perhaps as impossible as pseudo-Individualism ; (i) because the freedom which it grants to individuals to decide for themselves how many children they can afford to maintain properly, may be mis-used to bring children into the world ■doomed to starve ; (2) because the freedom which it grants to individuals to spend as they like, may be miS-used (from the nation's warlike efficiency point of view) to spend excessively on luxuries. So in my opinion the Poverty and Riches problem is really the two problems of Poverty and Luxuries — the two problems of excessive families and excessive luxuries. J conclude, therefore, by asking consideration for the modified Individualism I have been advocating, which — by interfering with the liberty of the poor and the liberty of luxury-users in the directions indicated — would secure the material basis of National Happiness ; namely, the avoid- ance of too many inhabitants for comfort and of too few for safety; that is, the avoidance of Overpopulation and Dangerous Underpopulation.