At National Review Online’s Corner, Daniel Pipes unearths a remarkable quote by the historian A. J. P. Taylor on an England which effectively was ended by WWI:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. … broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
As Pipes adds, “In 2011, one can only dream of such a limited state.”
That passage also dovetails with a quote, from a possibly surprising source, remembered by the late Robert L. Bartley of the Wall Street Journal. In the last chapter of his 1992 book, The Seven Fat Years, his wonderful treatise on economics, written while America was in the midst of a recession far milder than today’s, Bartley looked at the then-recent fall of the Berlin Wall and wondered if it had finally meant the conclusion of a series of events that radically reshaped the world, beginning with World War I. Bartley had a remarkable flashback to Europe just before the lamps went out, as Sir Edward Grey was quoted as saying on the eve of WWI:
Against the temptation to fantasize the past, this exciting age did not bring happiness to everyone. Its denizens suffered pain from too much change, too much progress. In his [1986 book] France: Fin de Siècle, Eugen Weber explains, “This is what caught my eye about the circumstances: the discrepancy to between material progress and spiritual dejection reminded me of our own times. So much was going right, even in France, as the nineteenth century ended; so much was being said to make one think that it was all going wrong.”
Still, World War I changed mankind’s life and outlook, in ways by no means confined to France but throughout a common trans-Atlantic civilization and beyond. By now, we have forgotten the spirit that was swept away in 1914, and also the extraordinary economic underpinnings of the efflorescence of science and culture. These were once described from the perspective of London by an old friend, John Maynard Keynes:
What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man that age was which came to an end in August 1914! The greater part of the population, it is true, worked hard and lived at low standard of comfort, yet were, to all appearances, reasonably contented with this lot. But escape was possible, for any man of capacity or character at all exceeding the average, into the middle and upper classes, for whom life offered, at a low cost and with the least trouble, conveniences, comforts, and amenities beyond the compass of the richest and most powerful monarchs of other ages.
The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighbouring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable.
And the Heinlein quote that Glenn Reynolds has referenced several times recently fits in well to cap all this off:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Somehow, we keep forgetting how freedom and good economic “luck” are remarkably intertwined.
(Bumped to top.)
Really good article. Yes, we can only dream of such freedom.
The Anglosphere has been a miracle, one by which people loosened the chains of tribalism, and learned to trust strangers, and built this hugely wealthy world in which we live.
Oh well. The 20th century seems to have put paid to that.
It was not a mistake that Obama is now president of the USofA. He truly represents the ‘ruling class’, at the national and local levels.
In 1989 as the Iron Curtain fell, it was often remarked how the event was actually and finally the END of the great war that started in 1914. This made some sense: the treaty of Versailles settled nothing but set the stage for WWII. The 1917 Russian Revolution, brought about in large part by the Germans for tactical advantage, helped divide the world between two armed camps for nearly a half century after WWII’s end.
But perhaps there is one more effect, little attributed to WWI but which certainly came about in response to events caused in some part by it: the rise of the welfare state. Starting with Russia in the 1920s and in the US in the 30s and 40s, welfare states expanded almost unabated until the Soviet one collapsed in the early 1990s. Ours and Europes, began somewhat later, have persisted until now. But as they shake and shudder under their own dead weight, perhaps the final end of the 1914 era is about to arrive.
The fall of the Iron Curtain was the real end of WW II in the European Theater. This meant the end of part of WW I.
However, given the current military activities of the US, and their locations, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the events that began in 1914 are over yet, around the Mediterranean and parts of Asia.
So let me see if I got this right: in the early part of the last century one man (Marx) started a monumental change that eventually led to today’s class warfare and failing economies, and all in the name of doing just the opposite? That’s quite an accomplishment!
He’s the George Costanza of history.
That first quote from A. J. P. Taylor should be posted on every wall of every Tea Party Caucas and Republican local committee. Maybe getting back to that isn’t achievable in my lifetime, but big inspiring goals are the best sort.
“the rise of the welfare state. Starting with Russia in the 1920s and in the US in the 30s and 40s, welfare states expanded almost unabated until the Soviet one collapsed in the early 1990s. Ours and Europes, began somewhat later, have persisted until now. But as they shake and shudder under their own dead weight, perhaps the final end of the 1914 era is about to arrive.”
Obama isn’t the next FDR. He’s the next Mikhail Gorbachev. Communist to the bone; witness to the fall.
You might add that in 1913 an Englishman could buy any firearm he could afford, have it delivered by the Royal Mail, and keep it in his home with no restrictions whatsoever. If he went out he could slip it in a coat pocket if he anticipated trouble, as Dr. Watson often did with his revolver.
Not correct. The Pistols Act 1903, while not terribly abusive, did require a license to purchase. The Gun Licence Act 1870 required a license (although it was apparently readily available) to carry a firearm.
You might go back to the wars of Napoleon or the French Revolution to see the origins of the welfare state and the leveling (lowering) of society as a martial force.
Promising “something-for-nothing” has always been an easy to attract fools to do violence. It worked in France, Russia (tried several times before the Lenin gambit), Germany, Italy, and many thousand lesser thugs.
You might even track it back to the first agricultural beginnings when some saw that they could simply take the fruit of others labor. The violent always take in the name of protection and leveling. Of course, they must keep some small portion for their efforts. Not much, but some small percentage of what they risked their lives to obtain and defend…
The shift from hunter-gatherer society to farming and herding gave rise to government to protect from the rapacious. Nothing has changed except the clothes, weapons, stakes and words chosen to deceive.
Peace always brings forth a demand to lower the cost of defense. Reduced military always encourages those with less to seek more by violence. Every time America withdraws from the world, monsters arise with more weapons, power, and costs. While we cut back, Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela spend on more arms, training, new technology to kill.
Perhaps we should live in the world we find, not in the one we wish for. Perhaps our time line should be longer than one lifetime. Re-learning these lessons every generation or so, seems a waste of humanity… we keep killing or allowing others to kill when can be stopped while it is small.
Humans do not evolve, develop or -PROGRESS- into perfection very quickly (if at all). we need to see ourselves as the -same- hairless monkeys we were 10,000 years ago. We need to accept this. Learn what has worked. and emphasize it. we also need to remain constantly aware that other humans are the largest threats we face. Accept that and find what they keep doing to kill and enslave their way to temporary supremacy. Then we should make the effort to stop it while small.
“The death of one is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” Stalin was right and wrong. For politicians a million deaths -is- a statistic. For the rest of us it is a million tragedies.
For a fascinating and extremely well-written (and readable) book about the lead-up to WWI, I can recommend Barbara Tuchman’s “The Proud Tower”. It’s remarkable how much of our current society was set in motion by events in the last couple of decades of the 19th century. If you could read only one book on world history, this would be a good choice.
It almost seems that there is a “Gresham’s law” about productive societies.
That bad ones will drive out good ones if their guiding principles are set by law. As best as I can tell that is what is happening world wide. With any luck, I’ll be dead and comfortably buried long before the feces hits the spinner here in the states. But I doubt that.
To be an “inhabitant of London” in the period immediately prior to WWI was a privileged position, no doubt. But “mankind” did not live at the heart of the Empire. And the British Empire was not based on free trade but on mercantilism.
Isn’t the real issue, though, that not only can we go *there*, they are equally free to come *here*.
So that decades later, we end up with tens of millions of unskilled, unwanted heathens who refuse to learn the language and want us to support them. That is, when they’re not busy ramming our airplanes into our skyscrapers in a lame attempt to prove their superiority.
I don’t know that our governments necessarily want to keep track of us when we leave our civilizations, as much as someone needs to keep track of the uncivilized who are trying to enter, live off of, and overthrow those same civilizations.
Impressment, colloquially, “the Press”, was the act of compelling men into a navy by force and without notice. It was used by the Royal Navy, beginning in 1664 and during the 18th and early 19th centuries, in wartime, as a means of crewing warships, although legal sanction for the practice goes back to the time of Edward I of England. The Royal Navy impressed many British merchant sailors, as well as some sailors from other nations. People liable to impressment were eligible men of seafaring habits between the ages of 18 and 45 years. Non-seamen were impressed as well, though rarely.
Impressment was strongly criticized by those who believed it to be contrary to the British constitution; at the time, unlike many of its continental rivals, Britain did not conscript its subjects for any other military service, aside from a brief experiment with army impressment in 1778 to 1780. Though the public opposed conscription in general, impressment was repeatedly upheld by the courts, as it was deemed vital to the strength of the navy and, by extension, to the survival of the realm.
The impressment of seamen from American ships caused serious tensions between Britain and the United States in the years leading up to the War of 1812. After the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, Britain ended the practice, and never resumed it.
And no one made it worse for us than your hero George W. Bush.
Wow, more so than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Barack Obama combined? That’s some mighty powerful presidentin’!
Vinnie, those comments are much more effective when you stick out your tongue afterward. Try it in the mirror and you’ll see.
I think someone needs to have a read up on the history of the British empire and then have a rethink on what is meant by a ‘limited state’. The British Raj would be a good starting point. Deary me.
My thought exactly. This romantic view is notable mainly for its simplistic nostalgia for a past that never was. In that it resembles some of the loopier left vapors, like the wonderful lost matriarchy of blubbery goddesses and dronelike males, or the Noble Savage doctrine.
Let’s face it, we’re all here as part of and descended from state apparatuses who have provisional limits which can be exceeded at any time by the fiats of power. This is the birthright status of anyone in agricultural civilization, where food, water, and shelter have been turned into commodities (for profit, might I add) and land is redefined as real estate and considered less real at the point where local occupants stand upon the earth than at the lawyer’s office where the property documents are stored.
As soon as the Mesopotamian warrior kings instituted a system of accounting managed by the state, effectively fiat currency managed by the state, religion managed by the state, and everything that went with that, we haven’t had any civilized system with a “limited state.”
And because this kingly priestly warrior caste oversight has been largely unbearable, the history of humanity has been the history of one group after another trying to run away from their local overlords.
I’m all over rethinking anything and everything. But the lights went out for freedom when the first king connived with the first priest to sell the first farmer real estate in the afterlife, while demanding his family line up at the temple granary with their begging bowls.