16 Chapter 1
workman,whois mulctedof a percentageof his day’s wagesto pay the policeman,is the
onewhobearsthe penalty.But he is the ForgottenMan.He passesby andis never
noticed,becausehe has behavedhimself,fulfilledhis contracts,and askedfor nothing.^60I havesaidit in BookTwo,and I will say it again:thereis no goodexcuseto deprivethe
ForgottenManof his mostbasicsurvivalneed—the libertyto act peaceablyon his own
judgment,absentof the immediatethreatof spoliation—for the Progressivepurposeof
safeguardingthe ostensivelongevityof the wino.To leavepeoplebe in a nightwatchman
statedoesnot hinderany individualfromdevotinghimselfto consensualphilanthropy
thatmayhelptreatthe addictionsof winos.Recallmy quotationsof SumnerfromBook
TwothatexhibitSumner’s endorsementof privatecharity.Yet governistsretortthatif
Sumnerdid not intendto implythat low-incomepersonsshouldjustoffthemselves,such
an outcomewas still the desireof his idol,HerbertSpencer.
Interestingly,criticsof SpencersometimesmentionSpencer’s worry,in the late nine-
teenthcentury,thatthe more-liberalWesternrealmwouldbe menacedby a particularly
aggressivestrainof socialism.^61 Spencerreferredto this particularlyaggressivestrainas
“the comingslavery.”^62 In 1903,the famedprogressiveeconomistRichardT. Ely—more
abouthimin chapter4—dismissedSpencer’s worryas groundless.^63 Somewritersof the
late twentiethandearlytwenty-firstcenturiesevidentlybelievethatthis predictionand
warningof Spencer’s is evidenceof himbeinga crank.^64 Thatis odd.As a matterof fact,
the historyof EuropeandAsiaduringthe twentiethcenturyindeedprovedSpencer
correct.CommunismindeedovertookEasternEuropeand Asia,and menacedthe more-
liberalWesternEuropeandthe UnitedStates.As we recognizedin BookOne,commu-
nismindeedrenderedthe citizensunderit the slavesof the red menace.ThatSpencer
predicted,in the late1800s,the Westwouldbe threatenedin the nextcenturyby a
socialistformof “slavery,” actuallyshowedhowprescientSpencer’s judgmentwas.Such
a correctpredictionis not the markof a crankbut of someonewhounderstoodthe topic
uponwhichhe elaborated.
DidSpencerWantto ProscribePrivateCharity?
Yet it is easyfor anti-capitaliststo caricatureSpencer’s oppositionto welfarelawsas a
rationalizationfor his selfishrefusalto partwithany of his money.His workas a civil
engineeron Britishrailroads—not to mentionthe patentson his inventions^65 —brought
himto enviablefortune.NorthernIllinoisUniversityscholarJamesGettierKennedy(b.
1932)disclosedthatwhenSpencerdied,his estatewasappraisedat whatwouldbe
valuedat 400,000U.S.dollarsin 1978money.^66 The inflation-adjustedequivalentfor the
year 2013 wouldbe over1.4 millionU.S.dollars.^67 Additionally,the net worthof Spen-
cer’s estateplacedhim withinthe wealthiest1 percentof the Englishmenof his period.^68
GovernistauthorsEdwinBlack,SusanJacoby,Fransde Waal,andAllanChasedo
muchmoreto fosterthe imagethatSpencerresentedthe institutionof privatecharity.
Theydo so by quotingSpencer’s remarkthatpersonswho“are sufficientlycompleteto
live” are the oneswho“dolive,and it is welltheyshouldlive.” Conversely,thosewhoare
“not sufficientlycompleteto live” simply“die, and it is besttheyshoulddie”^69 (emphasis
Spencer’s). Theseauthorsgrumblethatthis is Spencer’s opinionof thosein poverty.As
we shalldiscover,sucha framingof Spencer’s wordsis misleading.Andto makeSpencer
lookworseyet,Black,Chase,Waal,andRichardHofstadtergo on to quoteSpencer
saying,“The wholeeffortof natureis to get rid of such”—suchpoorpersons,if we are to
believethesethreequoters’ evaluationof whatSpencermeant—“to clearthe worldof
them,and makeroomfor better.”^70
CharlesDerberpileson the confusion.He takesthe Spencerstatements I quoted
above,andmanglesthemwhenhe putsthemtogether:“HerbertSpencer,one of Eng-