English philosopher Herbert Spencer may have best analyzed the importance of appropriate limits on what should be subject to democracy, particularly in his 1857 “Representative Government—What is it Good For?” To honor his April 27, 1820, birthday, his insights merit repeating. Spencer spelled out the infirmities of governments when it came to producing goods and services and achieving intended goals, and found that democratic governments were the worst in that regard:
When we devise a machine we take care that its parts are as few as possible; that they are adapted to their respective ends; that they are properly joined with one another; and that they work smoothly to their common purpose. Our political machine, however, is constructed upon directly opposite principles. Its parts are extremely numerous: multiplied, indeed, beyond all reason. They are not severally chosen as specially qualified for particular functions. No care is taken that they shall fit well together: on the contrary, our arrangements are such that they are certain not to fit...In truth, had the problem been to find an appliance for the slow and bungling transaction of business, it could scarcely have been better solved...These defects are inherent in the very nature of our institutions; and they cannot fail to produce disastrous mismanagement.
...a notorious vice [of governments]...undertaking things which they ought not to undertake...the regulation of nearly all actions going on throughout society. Besides devising measures to prevent the aggression of citizens on one another, and to secure each the quiet possession of his own... they unhesitatingly take on themselves to provide for countless wants, to cure countless ills, to oversee countless affairs...confident that they know what knowledge is most required...
...what must be the knowledge and capacities of those who shall achieve it?...If there be any lack of insight respecting the mutual dependence of the many functions which, taken together, make up the national life, unforeseen disasters will ensue from not perceiving how an interference with one will affect the rest...how far do our legislators possess this qualification? Do they in any moderate degree display it? Do they make even a distant approximation to it?
See, then, the immense incongruity between the end and the means. See on the one hand the countless difficulties of the task; and on the other hand the almost total unpreparedness of those who undertake it...
…[citizens] recognize the right of property as sacred...yet their legislators suspend it at will. They take the money of citizens for any project which they choose to undertake; though such project was not in the least contemplated by those who gave them authority—nay, though the greater part of the citizens from whom the money is taken had no share in giving them such authority. Each citizen can hold property only so long as the...deputies do not want it.
Countless facts prove the Government to be the worst owner, the worst manufacturer, the worst trader: in fact, the worst manager, be the thing managed what it may. But though the evidence of this is abundant and conclusive...Legislators, thinking themselves practical, cling to the implausible theory of an officially-regulated society in spite of overwhelming evidence that official regulation perpetually fails.
Having shown the chronic, debilitating failings of representative governments as producers of goods and services and managers of the economy, Spencer proceeded to show that those infirmities did not extend to enforcing liberties, which he called justice or equity. And in that area, he found that democratically elected governments are the best forms of government.
It is quite possible to say all that we have said concerning the defects of representative government, and still to hold that it is the best form of government...For nothing that we have urged tells against its goodness as a means of securing justice between man and man...For discharging the true function of a government, representative government is shown to be the best...
...representative government is especially adapted for the establishment and maintenance of just laws...the objections to representative government...scarcely tell against it at all, so long as it does not exceed this comparatively limited function.
...incompetent to oversee and regulate the countless involved processes which make up the national life; [representative government] nevertheless has quite enough intellect to enact and enforce those simple principles of equity which underlie the right conduct of citizens to one another...it does not unfit it for discharging the comparatively simple duties of protector.
Again, in respect of this all-essential role of government, there is a much clearer identity of interest between representative and citizen than in respect of the multitudinous other functions which governments undertake...it is of great consequence to [a politician] that life and property should be secure; and hence he is more likely to care for the efficient administration of justice than for the efficient administration of anything else.
Moreover, the complexity, incongruity of parts, and general cumbrousness which deprive a representative government of that activity and decision required for paternally-superintending the affairs of...millions of citizens; do not deprive it of the ability to establish and maintain the regulations by which these citizens are prevented from trespassing against one another...the objections which so strongly tell against it in all its other relations to society do not tell against it in this fundamental relation.
Spencer concluded that democratically elected representative governments were indeed deficient, but that “these deficiencies tend to hinder it from doing the things which no government should do.”
To the question—What is representative government good for? Our reply is: It is good, especially good, good above all the others, for doing the thing which a government should do. It is bad, especially bad, bad above all others, for doing the things which a government should not do.
The original and essential office of government is that of protecting its subjects against aggression external and internal...In becoming so constituted as to discharge better its essential function, the government becomes more limited...Increasing its ability to perform its true duty, involves decreasing ability to perform all other kinds of actions.
...representative government is the best for securing justice...it is the worst for all other purposes...These various incapacities, which seem to tell so seriously against the goodness of representative government, are but the inevitable consequence of its more complete adaptation to its proper work...
Herbert Spencer saw democracy as the worst form of government for what it should not be allowed to do, but for government=s one essential role of defending inalienable rights from trespass, thus providing equal justice for all, he saw democratically elected governments as the best. Americans should pay renewed attention to that lesson, because a government constrained to that role, rather than one which routinely violates rights to do what our government was structured to prevent, was the central basis on which our founders trusted liberty to democracy. Further, it is the only basis on which our liberty can be reinvigorated.
