Chapter V: The Future

Is there any shred or remnant of this deserted and discredited voluntary principle that is worth saving? There is not. It is the last disreputable relic of the extreme individualism of the Manchester School of the early nineteenth century, which taught a political theory that has been abandoned by all serious thinkers. Everyone now admits that it is the function of the State to secure as far as it can the conditions of the good life to its citizens. It is the logical and inevitable corollary that it is the duty of every citizen to support and safeguard the State. It has long been one of the gravest weaknesses of our modern democracy that, while it has insisted vehemently upon its claims against the State--claims to education, employment, office, insurance, pension, and so on--it has remained comparatively oblivious to its responsibilities. Its so-called political leaders, who too often are but self-seeking flatterers fawning for its favour, have persistently encouraged it to concentrate its efforts upon getting without giving. It has been taught that it is proper to use political power in pursuit of selfish aims and to employ all manner of compulsion therein; but in the matter of national service it has received soothing lessons on the surpassing glories of the voluntary principle. It is the State which is to be coerced by threats of passive resistance or general strikes; but if the State attempts coercion in the exercise of its functions it is met by the passionate proclamation of the rights of personal freedom. Similarly, we have the amazing spectacle of Trade Unionists meeting in congress to condemn "conscription" and at the same time sanctioning the most extreme measures of illegal persecution to drive non-Unionists into the ranks of their own organizations. It is a monstrous and intolerable perversion of all sound political principles. The whole sorry business is a flagrant example of the subtle way in which a democracy can be cajoled, corrupted, and depraved.

I elaborated this point in a letter to the _Observer_ which the Editor kindly allows me to reprint here. It will be found in the issue of January 17th, 1915:

One of the most curious phenomena of present-day politics is the
opposition offered by collectivists to conscription--under which
term they persistently and disingenuously include both the
compulsory service of the German army and the very different
universal military training of the Swiss citizen.

Even Mr. Herbert Spencer and the extreme individualists of his
school admitted that national defence is a proper function of the
State, and that a government may rightly use compulsory powers to
safeguard the community from attack.

But Mr. Arnold Bennett and the semi-socialists of the _Daily
Chronicle_ and the _Daily News_--although they are filled with
horror and indignation if it is suggested that an artisan should be
allowed to choose whether or not he will enjoy the advantages of
the Insurance Act; or that a collier, if he wishes to do so, should
be permitted to work for more than eight hours a day; or that a
labourer should be exempted from persecution as a blackleg if he
prefers to remain outside the fold of a trade union--are fired
with a long-dormant zeal for individual liberty, if it is urged
that a young man's citizenship is incomplete until he has been
called and prepared to defend his home and his country in case of
need.

Their collectivism is, in fact, a peculiarly perverted or inverted
type of individualism. It insists on the right of the individual,
if unemployed, to come to the State for work; if in poverty, to
come to the State for relief; if ignorant, to come to the State for
education: but it strenuously resists the exercise by the State of
its reciprocal claim on the service of the individual. It is
engrossed by the contemplation of the rights of the individual and
the duties of the State; it ignores the rights of the State and the
duties of the individual.

It is true that our voluntary system of military service has done
wonders in this war, far more indeed than could ever have been
expected of it; but this does not alter the fact that it is _wrong
in principle_. It is quite conceivable that a similar voluntary
system of monetary contributions would, if compulsory taxation were
abolished, supply the necessities of government; but it would be a
most iniquitous system, pressing heavily on the generous, and
allowing the niggardly to escape. We all, in fact, admit that it
would be entirely improper to replace the income-tax form by the
begging-letter. For precisely the same reasons it is entirely
improper that enlistment for home defence should depend on the
voluntary sacrifice of the patriotic minority, while the careless
and worthless majority elude their duty.

It is, moreover, deeply humiliating to the national pride to see
the protection of our shores, and the existence of our Empire,
dependent on the response made to advertisements, to platform
appeals, to music-hall songs, and to the kisses so generously
proffered by popular actresses.

It will be no small compensation for the immeasurable losses of this war if the lofty old-English ideals of duty and service are restored to their rightful place in our political system, and if in respect of the essentials of national existence, viz., defence of the realm and obedience to law, we completely eliminate and frankly repudiate--as we have already done in the sphere of taxation--the enervating one-sided individualism of the voluntary principle.

IV

PASSIVE RESISTANCE