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. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
All this was changed by the impact of the Great War. The mass of the people became, for the first time, active citizens. Their lives were shaped by orders from above; they were required to serve the state instead of pursuing exclusively their own affairs. Five million men entered the armed forces, many of them (though a minority) under compulsion. The Englishman’s food was limited, and its quality changed, by government order. His freedom of movement was restricted; his conditions of work prescribed. Some industries were reduced or closed, others artificially fostered. The publication of news was fettered. Street lights were dimmed. The sacred freedom of drinking was tampered with: licensed hours were cut down, and the beer watered by order. The very time on the clocks was changed. From 1916 onwards, every Englishman got up an hour earlier in summer than he would otherwise have done, thanks to an act of parliament. The state established a hold over it citizens which, though relaxed in peacetime, was never to be removed and which the second World war was again to increase. The history of the English state and of the English people merged for the first time.
– A.J.P. Taylor, English History 1914-1945 (Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 1-2.
-
Oh sure, post-Edwardian Britain was such a Libertarian paradise! That is, unless you were an industrial worker in the massive ...
-
You make some very good points, particularly on colonialism and the British class system.
I don't concede that either colonialism or ...
-
It's all relative, Tom, which is my point. In spite of my harangue, the English peasant always had it ...
-
Absence of all-pervasive state control does not automatically lead to freedom, but it is a prerequisite.
I use "the state" as ...
-
You and I must have completely different views of the social universe. I have never felt threatened by the ...
-
That's actually surreal. Is this what happens to your head when you work for even a local government? ...
-
I spent most of my life working for private industry: Mom and pop shops, giant corporations, but also the ...
-
A Soviet science guy might not have been the best example. They were on the upper tiers in those ...
-
Not to worry, TB. China and Russia will carry the torch for free enterprise (ta-dah!). Just think, they're ...
-
The sad part is that you think China and Russia are "free enterprise" just because they contain rich businessmen.
-
Tom, they are rich businessmen, they get to decide what capitalism is, not two unemployed old geezers in North America ...
-
A great series of posts, ER! Thanks.
-
Thanks, super fly! It's reassuring to know someone is reading these posts who might actually benefit from them.
-
Thanks, super fly! It's reassuring to know someone is reading these posts who might actually benefit from them.
- The Soviet Union had rich people running businesses. A lot of them managed to hang on to those government-sanctioned ...
-
A great series of posts, ER! Thanks.
-
Tom, they are rich businessmen, they get to decide what capitalism is, not two unemployed old geezers in North America ...
-
The sad part is that you think China and Russia are "free enterprise" just because they contain rich businessmen.
-
Not to worry, TB. China and Russia will carry the torch for free enterprise (ta-dah!). Just think, they're ...
-
A Soviet science guy might not have been the best example. They were on the upper tiers in those ...
-
I spent most of my life working for private industry: Mom and pop shops, giant corporations, but also the ...
-
That's actually surreal. Is this what happens to your head when you work for even a local government? ...
-
You and I must have completely different views of the social universe. I have never felt threatened by the ...
-
Absence of all-pervasive state control does not automatically lead to freedom, but it is a prerequisite.
I use "the state" as ...
-
It's all relative, Tom, which is my point. In spite of my harangue, the English peasant always had it ...
-
You make some very good points, particularly on colonialism and the British class system.
I don't concede that either colonialism or ...