What do you think?
Rate this book
The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State
It is not possible to engage in principled political thinking without considering
the fundamentals of what is a state and what it should do. The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, Auberon Herbert’s clarion call for freedom of the individual, came at a time of rising socialism and state expansion in Britain. It urged a complete turn toward freedom as the one way forward — a freedom that rules out all impositions on person and property under whatever guise they take.
This major work remains among the best articulations of the liberty message ever written.
the fundamentals of what is a state and what it should do. The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State, Auberon Herbert’s clarion call for freedom of the individual, came at a time of rising socialism and state expansion in Britain. It urged a complete turn toward freedom as the one way forward — a freedom that rules out all impositions on person and property under whatever guise they take.
This major work remains among the best articulations of the liberty message ever written.
86 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1885
17 people are currently reading
225 people want to read
About the author
Auberon Herbert
52 books17 followersAuberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (Highclere, 18 June 1838 – 5 November 1906) was a writer, theorist, philosopher, and "19th-century individualist anarchist."
A member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Herbert was the son of the 3rd Earl of Carnarvon, brother of Henry Herbert, the 4th Earl, and father of the 9th Baron Lucas. He promoted a libertarian philosophy (that several authors consider related to libertarian anarchism) and took the ideas of Herbert Spencer a stage further by advocating voluntary-funded "government" that uses force only in defense of individual liberty and property. He is known as the originator of Voluntaryism.
Herbert was Member of Parliament for the two member constituency of Nottingham between 1870-1874. He served as President of the fourth day of the first ever Co-operative Congress in 1869.
Government, he argued, should never initiate force but be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights", and to be consistent in not initiating force they should maintain themselves only through "voluntary taxation." He stressed that "we are governmentalists... formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method"—however, using this force only in a defensive mode. He strongly opposed the idea that initiation of force may somehow become legitimate merely by constituting a majority, reasoning that "If we are self-owners (and it is absurd, it is doing violence to reason, to suppose that we are not), neither an individual, nor a majority, nor a government can have rights of ownership in other men."
Herbert recommends a "central agency" to defend liberty and property that is funded by a "voluntary tax," calling it "government." In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss the franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a voluntary "income tax," anyone "paying it would have the right to vote; those who did not pay it would be – as is just – without the franchise. There would be no other tax." The law would be strictly limited, of course, and the "government... must confine itself simply to the defence of life and property, whether as regards internal or external defence."
Herbert says that in "voluntaryism the state employs force only to repel force—to protect the person and the property of the individual against force and fraud; under voluntaryism the state would defend the rights of liberty, never aggress upon them."
A collection of Herbert's work, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays, was published by Liberty Classics in 1978.
A member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Herbert was the son of the 3rd Earl of Carnarvon, brother of Henry Herbert, the 4th Earl, and father of the 9th Baron Lucas. He promoted a libertarian philosophy (that several authors consider related to libertarian anarchism) and took the ideas of Herbert Spencer a stage further by advocating voluntary-funded "government" that uses force only in defense of individual liberty and property. He is known as the originator of Voluntaryism.
Herbert was Member of Parliament for the two member constituency of Nottingham between 1870-1874. He served as President of the fourth day of the first ever Co-operative Congress in 1869.
Government, he argued, should never initiate force but be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights", and to be consistent in not initiating force they should maintain themselves only through "voluntary taxation." He stressed that "we are governmentalists... formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method"—however, using this force only in a defensive mode. He strongly opposed the idea that initiation of force may somehow become legitimate merely by constituting a majority, reasoning that "If we are self-owners (and it is absurd, it is doing violence to reason, to suppose that we are not), neither an individual, nor a majority, nor a government can have rights of ownership in other men."
Herbert recommends a "central agency" to defend liberty and property that is funded by a "voluntary tax," calling it "government." In his essay "A Politician in Sight of Haven," Herbert does discuss the franchise, stating it would be limited to those who paid a voluntary "income tax," anyone "paying it would have the right to vote; those who did not pay it would be – as is just – without the franchise. There would be no other tax." The law would be strictly limited, of course, and the "government... must confine itself simply to the defence of life and property, whether as regards internal or external defence."
Herbert says that in "voluntaryism the state employs force only to repel force—to protect the person and the property of the individual against force and fraud; under voluntaryism the state would defend the rights of liberty, never aggress upon them."
A collection of Herbert's work, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays, was published by Liberty Classics in 1978.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 14, 2019
Auberon Herbert's criminally neglected writings are a joyous treasure trove of uncompromising liberalism. They are brought together in this exquisite collection produced by Liberty Fund.
In every essay, each one of which merits its inclusion in the collection, Herbert's pen whiplashes eloquently against the forces of compulsion and socialism. Sure, Herbert was not necessarily the most sophisticated or analytical of philosophers, and sometimes he follows the logic of libertarianism to the point of ideological fanaticism. But his clarion call is more than mere flowery rhetoric. It constitutes one of the most important and powerful defences of individual liberty ever put on a page. And much of it still feels as timely as it has ever been; in fact, eerily so.
Let me present four suggestive reasons why Herbert is so important: 1) He took on and skillfully applied the evolutionary and progressive insights of Herbert Spencer, his great teacher, who deserves to be recognized as perhaps the most important libertarian philosopher of the 19th century. The enormous achievement of Herbert's penmanship is to create a credible path for the abstract and dry principles of Spencerian liberalism to be popularly accepted and emotionally embraced. 2) He ruthlessly follows the logic of individual liberty to its logical conclusion in all aspects of human life against the mischievous machinations of party politicians and bureaucrats. 3) He remained a staunch individualist and anti-collectivist in the face of the massive opposition of all the socialist forces of his time, which took some courage and devotion. 4) He showed, although with admittedly insufficient analytical rigour, the vital interdependence of deontological and consequentialist arguments in any comprehensive apology of classical liberalism.
That said, one should not remain oblivious to the many problems with Herbert's substantive arguments. He simply ignored many obvious problems with his Utopian scheme, preferring instead to wax lyrical about the expected social benefits of the voluntarily organized society. He thereby missed a good opportunity to showcase that he understood the main challenges to his view. His arguments against Georgism (as found in the early Herbert Spencer), too, are distressingly weak. The main fault lies with Herbert's inability to deal with the analytical problems associated with property acquisition - or any other serious challenge to his big system, for that matter. He never fails to turn any serious challenge to his system into a straw man. He believes that the arguments from the socialist/collectivist side are so incredibly weak as to deserve very little serious thought or consideration. This is a serious shortcoming in his otherwise beautiful style. His concise, simplified, clear-cut prose turned into one of his philosophical weaknesses, since it allowed him to paint the world in black and white and to avoid responding to the toughest challenges to liberalism.
But Auberon Herbert is not primarily a philosopher. He is not Herbert Spencer 2.0. He is Herbert Spencer's literary bulldog: a rhetorical and literary mastermind who fights the good fight in the service of the given principles, under the given flag, in the name of the given ideology. The first principles of voluntarism are, in fact, exogenously produced by Herbert Spencer. They are not endogenously produced by Auberon Herbert himself. Instead, he takes Spencer's axioms as given and explores the limits of their practical application with all the ferocity of a warrior. This permits a sympathetic reading of Mr. Herbert as a minor neglected St. Paul of classical liberalism.
In every essay, each one of which merits its inclusion in the collection, Herbert's pen whiplashes eloquently against the forces of compulsion and socialism. Sure, Herbert was not necessarily the most sophisticated or analytical of philosophers, and sometimes he follows the logic of libertarianism to the point of ideological fanaticism. But his clarion call is more than mere flowery rhetoric. It constitutes one of the most important and powerful defences of individual liberty ever put on a page. And much of it still feels as timely as it has ever been; in fact, eerily so.
Let me present four suggestive reasons why Herbert is so important: 1) He took on and skillfully applied the evolutionary and progressive insights of Herbert Spencer, his great teacher, who deserves to be recognized as perhaps the most important libertarian philosopher of the 19th century. The enormous achievement of Herbert's penmanship is to create a credible path for the abstract and dry principles of Spencerian liberalism to be popularly accepted and emotionally embraced. 2) He ruthlessly follows the logic of individual liberty to its logical conclusion in all aspects of human life against the mischievous machinations of party politicians and bureaucrats. 3) He remained a staunch individualist and anti-collectivist in the face of the massive opposition of all the socialist forces of his time, which took some courage and devotion. 4) He showed, although with admittedly insufficient analytical rigour, the vital interdependence of deontological and consequentialist arguments in any comprehensive apology of classical liberalism.
That said, one should not remain oblivious to the many problems with Herbert's substantive arguments. He simply ignored many obvious problems with his Utopian scheme, preferring instead to wax lyrical about the expected social benefits of the voluntarily organized society. He thereby missed a good opportunity to showcase that he understood the main challenges to his view. His arguments against Georgism (as found in the early Herbert Spencer), too, are distressingly weak. The main fault lies with Herbert's inability to deal with the analytical problems associated with property acquisition - or any other serious challenge to his big system, for that matter. He never fails to turn any serious challenge to his system into a straw man. He believes that the arguments from the socialist/collectivist side are so incredibly weak as to deserve very little serious thought or consideration. This is a serious shortcoming in his otherwise beautiful style. His concise, simplified, clear-cut prose turned into one of his philosophical weaknesses, since it allowed him to paint the world in black and white and to avoid responding to the toughest challenges to liberalism.
But Auberon Herbert is not primarily a philosopher. He is not Herbert Spencer 2.0. He is Herbert Spencer's literary bulldog: a rhetorical and literary mastermind who fights the good fight in the service of the given principles, under the given flag, in the name of the given ideology. The first principles of voluntarism are, in fact, exogenously produced by Herbert Spencer. They are not endogenously produced by Auberon Herbert himself. Instead, he takes Spencer's axioms as given and explores the limits of their practical application with all the ferocity of a warrior. This permits a sympathetic reading of Mr. Herbert as a minor neglected St. Paul of classical liberalism.
January 7, 2017
I wrote the foreword to the Laissez Faire Books ebook edition of this important work. In reprinting this essay from its first edition, I believe we incorporated some ancillary matter that has appeared in no edition since. That material was certainly not included in the great (hardcover/softcover) Auberon Herbert omnibus edition printed by Liberty Classics years ago.
October 29, 2014
A truly amazing collection. "Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine" contains one of the most eloquent and persuasive analyses of power I've ever read. A true neglected classic of libertarian thought.
August 28, 2017
I'd put this right up there with "The Law" by Bastiat. It's not better - not sure anything ever will be (for sentimental reasons) - but it's neck and neck.
January 31, 2018
This should be required reading for every school in America (but wait, if you have read it, then you would know that requiring anything by force is wrong :) .
Seriously though, I learned a lot about why it is important to base what we do and how we govern on liberty and freedom, and not compelling or forcing others to do things or pay for things against their will (i.e. taxation is theft, etc.).
Seriously though, I learned a lot about why it is important to base what we do and how we govern on liberty and freedom, and not compelling or forcing others to do things or pay for things against their will (i.e. taxation is theft, etc.).
June 14, 2021
"It is impossible for us to make any real advance until we take to heart this great truth, that without freedom of choice, without freedom of action, there are not such things as true moral qualities; there can only be submissive wearing of the cords that others have tied round our hands."
April 6, 2021
Wow. This got me thinking
August 7, 2025
Best essay was the Right and Wrong of Compulsion. Also liked his points about taxation in the essay "The Principles of Voluntarism and Free Life"
August 13, 2016
I had never heard of Augeron Herbert or this book before. I LOVED it. I now consider it the best Liberty 101 course. It give's me hope that other gems are out there waiting to be found.
In this book, Herbert, a 19th century philosopher and member of the British parliament, laid the fundamental moral and logical case for liberty. The truths are so foundational and basic that I believe this book will be seen as a classic to those attempting to understand classical liberalism (or volantaryism as Herbert calls it) for centuries to come. I want to memorize every line of this book.
The thesis is simple: force is only justified as an act of defense against aggression. Any act of aggression, whether carried out by a single individual or a group of individuals (though they call themselves a democracy or a government) are in either case still aggression and unjust. Virtuous ends do not justify immoral means.
I just ordered 12 copies of this book to hand out to those willing to understand some marginalized but yet worthy truths.
In this book, Herbert, a 19th century philosopher and member of the British parliament, laid the fundamental moral and logical case for liberty. The truths are so foundational and basic that I believe this book will be seen as a classic to those attempting to understand classical liberalism (or volantaryism as Herbert calls it) for centuries to come. I want to memorize every line of this book.
The thesis is simple: force is only justified as an act of defense against aggression. Any act of aggression, whether carried out by a single individual or a group of individuals (though they call themselves a democracy or a government) are in either case still aggression and unjust. Virtuous ends do not justify immoral means.
I just ordered 12 copies of this book to hand out to those willing to understand some marginalized but yet worthy truths.
November 15, 2022
Herbert lays out the case against tyranny of the majority and for a government that only protects freedom. He uses theory more than example to make his case. Everyone should be aware of this theory, though you don't have to read it here (I believe Thomas Jefferson and Herbert Spencer espoused it as well). It's a boring read, and hard to follow his writing at times (especially the long sentences). I give it three stars for worthwhile content, though I'm tempted to give it less.
Prior to this I also read Herbert's Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, which I remember less fondly: two stars for it.
Prior to this I also read Herbert's Mr. Spencer and the Great Machine, which I remember less fondly: two stars for it.
Read
September 23, 2010The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State and Other Essays by Auberon Herbert by Auberon Herbert (1978)
November 9, 2015
Wonderful speech! Everyone needs to read this book.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews