What do you think?
Rate this book
The Right to Ignore the State
Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) is a British sociologist, anthropologist, philosopher and biologist. He is one of the pioneers of the idea of evolution. The main work of his life, Herbert called "First principles". Herbert was born in Derby, England and due to illness received home education. During his life he wrote many scientific works in many fields of science. He is the founder of the organic school in sociology and is the ideologist of liberalism.
"The Right to Ignore the State" is a great philosophical work by Herbert Spencer. In this book, the author discusses the general concepts and systems of government. He cites six main arguments to ignore the state. This work revealed the true potential of Herbert. Every reader who is interested in political science, will find in this work something for yourself.
"The Right to Ignore the State" is a great philosophical work by Herbert Spencer. In this book, the author discusses the general concepts and systems of government. He cites six main arguments to ignore the state. This work revealed the true potential of Herbert. Every reader who is interested in political science, will find in this work something for yourself.
11 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1993
27 people are currently reading
409 people want to read
About the author
Herbert Spencer
1,552 books244 followersHerbert Spencer was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.
Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.
Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.
Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did." As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, literature, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century." Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century" but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.
Spencer is best known for coining the expression "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
October 15, 2021
Timeless, definitive, indisputable arguments in favor of the individual's right to secede and separate from the State.
As to the place of this essay in the history of ideas, I often point at Herbert Spencer's Right to Ignore the State (along with Gustave Molinari, Lysander Spooner and Auberon Herbert) when people try to separate libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism from classical liberalism, arguing that they are different. This essay perfectly demosnstrates how a form of individualist anarchism have always been a part of classical liberalism.
As to the place of this essay in the history of ideas, I often point at Herbert Spencer's Right to Ignore the State (along with Gustave Molinari, Lysander Spooner and Auberon Herbert) when people try to separate libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism from classical liberalism, arguing that they are different. This essay perfectly demosnstrates how a form of individualist anarchism have always been a part of classical liberalism.
March 30, 2024
Ich war kurz davor, diesen knappen Text für mittelmäßig zu befinden. Die letzten paar Sätze aber haben ihn für mich dann doch sehr stark gemacht. Mit einer Übertonung des letzten Teils (und etwas weiter gedacht) nehme ich also Folgendes für mich mit: Ein Staat sollte danach streben, sich überflüssig zu machen. Das ist aber kein Switch, der von heute auf morgen passiert. In der Zwischenzeit sollte der Staat v.a. denen nutzen, die sich ohne ihn selbst kein Gehör verschaffen können.
January 12, 2017
This book is a tour-de-force of freedom. Let the man speak:
This book takes the assumption that individual (hu)man(s) are primary to their logical conclusion. If we as individuals are first and foremost then we are free. Our agent trumps all the other agencies that would be dependent on our constituency (including and especially government) because it depends on our constituency. In this sense Spencer takes what seems to be a more scientific view; that the agency of the sub-layer will always extricate beyond the apparatus of control of the supra-layer. The attempt by supra-layers to formalize the activity of the sub-layers will fail thusly as the sub-layers have more "moves" available to them than allowed by the supra-layer.
So once the in-itself of the government is dispelled as being only for-itself of humans, so Spencer attains the conclusion that Carlton Mellick III reached in Punkland, whereby a godless Heaven must be anarchist.
Let men learn that a legislature is not "our God upon earth," though, by the authority they ascribe to it and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporal purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is, at best, borrowed.
Nay, indeed, have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? Is it not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or, as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty--that is, less government--as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function? Not only does magisterial power exist because of evil, but it exists by evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality. Soldiers, policemen, and goalers; swords, batons, and fetters, -- are instruments for inflicting pain; and all inflection of pain is, in the abstract, wrong. The State employs evil weapons to subjugate evil, and is alike contaminated by the objects with which it deals and the means by which it works. Morality cannot recognize it; for morality, being simply a statement of perfect law, can give no countenance to anything growing out of, and living by, breaches of that law. Wherefore legislative authority can never be ethical -- must always be conventional merely.
This book takes the assumption that individual (hu)man(s) are primary to their logical conclusion. If we as individuals are first and foremost then we are free. Our agent trumps all the other agencies that would be dependent on our constituency (including and especially government) because it depends on our constituency. In this sense Spencer takes what seems to be a more scientific view; that the agency of the sub-layer will always extricate beyond the apparatus of control of the supra-layer. The attempt by supra-layers to formalize the activity of the sub-layers will fail thusly as the sub-layers have more "moves" available to them than allowed by the supra-layer.
So once the in-itself of the government is dispelled as being only for-itself of humans, so Spencer attains the conclusion that Carlton Mellick III reached in Punkland, whereby a godless Heaven must be anarchist.
By education, by free organization, by individual and associated resistance to political and economic tyranny, the Anarchist hopes to achieve his aim. The task may seem impossible to many, but it should be remembered that in science, in lierature, in art, the highest minds are with the Anarchists or imbued with distinct Anarchist tendencies. Even our bitterist opponents admit the beauty of our "dream," and reluctantly confess that it would be well for humanity if it were "possible." Anarchist Communist propaganda is the intelligent, organized, determined effort to realize the "dream," and to ensure that freedom and well-being for all shall be possible.
October 20, 2020
Hard to argue against!
March 1, 2025
I only agree because of the knowledge of British history, but definitely should respect other democratic states.
January 27, 2022
The Right to Ignore the State is an attack on the institution of state, in the form of a relatively short essay. Herbert Spencer argues, like many of his contemporaries, that state is an evil and its existence depends on evil, coercion and violence.
One point he raised, and I liked, is about the tyrrany of the majority. If rule of few over many is considered tyrrany, then isn't rule of many over few (which is what majority rule means) also a tyrrany, if only a less intense kind of tyrrany? He argues, that why should the minority agree to the decision of majority? Is it that to satisfy the will of the majority, we have to sacrifice the will of the minority, and subject them to the will of the larger number of people? He says, not entirely incorrectly, that the merit of the democratic form of government is that it trespasses against the right of the minority and not the majority. Every other form of government, almost universally, trespasses against the right of the majority (rule by few over many), which is why any other form is undesirable, but democracy is acceptable.
He raises a point that lays bare the absurdity of our system. In a democratic government, one agrees to the decision of the government via vote (directly or indirectly). Generally, it is the elected representative of the people who puts forth what is in the mind of the people. And people are believed to agree with their representative; it is assumed that he speaks on the behalf of the people. But what if someone - let's call him A - did not vote for that representative but for another one? Does the representative in question speak for A as well, since he did not vote for him and choose him? Of course, he also speaks for A, and A is assumed to have agreed. If A refuses to vote completely, then too, the representative is assumed to speak for A. It creates an absurd situation where A, if he is in the minority, is assumed to have agreed to (indeed, has no other option but to agree and accept) whatever the majority decides. Doesn't this seem absurd, that A has to agree to the thing that the majority of the people want, irrespective of whether he says YES, NO, or remains neutral!
In conclusion, it's a good essay to read for political science enthusiasts and political theory afficionados, and especially those who subscribe to Anarchism.
One point he raised, and I liked, is about the tyrrany of the majority. If rule of few over many is considered tyrrany, then isn't rule of many over few (which is what majority rule means) also a tyrrany, if only a less intense kind of tyrrany? He argues, that why should the minority agree to the decision of majority? Is it that to satisfy the will of the majority, we have to sacrifice the will of the minority, and subject them to the will of the larger number of people? He says, not entirely incorrectly, that the merit of the democratic form of government is that it trespasses against the right of the minority and not the majority. Every other form of government, almost universally, trespasses against the right of the majority (rule by few over many), which is why any other form is undesirable, but democracy is acceptable.
He raises a point that lays bare the absurdity of our system. In a democratic government, one agrees to the decision of the government via vote (directly or indirectly). Generally, it is the elected representative of the people who puts forth what is in the mind of the people. And people are believed to agree with their representative; it is assumed that he speaks on the behalf of the people. But what if someone - let's call him A - did not vote for that representative but for another one? Does the representative in question speak for A as well, since he did not vote for him and choose him? Of course, he also speaks for A, and A is assumed to have agreed. If A refuses to vote completely, then too, the representative is assumed to speak for A. It creates an absurd situation where A, if he is in the minority, is assumed to have agreed to (indeed, has no other option but to agree and accept) whatever the majority decides. Doesn't this seem absurd, that A has to agree to the thing that the majority of the people want, irrespective of whether he says YES, NO, or remains neutral!
In conclusion, it's a good essay to read for political science enthusiasts and political theory afficionados, and especially those who subscribe to Anarchism.
December 14, 2019
Misleading title good only in the final word
Book has not much to deal with overall concept.As a firm believer in anarchy myself i never seen how we get along with Marxist scumbags to form one party.Judging the fact that anarchists rises up against the Marxists system since the Proudon days.Now we have " Anarchy -communist"oxymoron makes no sense
Book has not much to deal with overall concept.As a firm believer in anarchy myself i never seen how we get along with Marxist scumbags to form one party.Judging the fact that anarchists rises up against the Marxists system since the Proudon days.Now we have " Anarchy -communist"oxymoron makes no sense
February 11, 2024
"The Right to Ignore the State" by Herbert Spencer is a thought-provoking and timeless essay that explores the individual's right to resist and even disregard the authority of the state. Originally published in 1851, Spencer's work challenges the conventional notion of absolute state authority and advocates for the recognition of individual liberties.
Spencer begins by asserting that individuals possess the inherent right to reject the mandates of the state when they infringe upon personal freedoms. He argues that the state's power should be limited to protecting individuals and their property, rather than encroaching on personal autonomy. Spencer contends that citizens have the right to live according to their principles and to disassociate themselves from state interference.
One of the main arguments in the book is Spencer's emphasis on voluntary cooperation and social contracts, as opposed to coercion by the state. He contends that a truly just society is built upon mutual consent rather than imposed regulations. Spencer also critiques the potential tyranny of the majority, highlighting the dangers of unchecked democratic power.
Counterarguments to Spencer's ideas often center on the necessity of state intervention for the common good and maintaining social order. Critics argue that unchecked individual autonomy could lead to chaos and an erosion of societal structures. Additionally, some argue that Spencer's perspective may overlook the need for collective action to address broader issues.
In conclusion, "The Right to Ignore the State" challenges readers to reconsider the balance between individual freedom and state authority. While Spencer's arguments highlight the importance of personal autonomy, counterarguments emphasize the role of the state in maintaining order and promoting the common welfare. The book remains a valuable contribution to political philosophy, sparking ongoing debates on the limits of state power and individual liberties.
Spencer begins by asserting that individuals possess the inherent right to reject the mandates of the state when they infringe upon personal freedoms. He argues that the state's power should be limited to protecting individuals and their property, rather than encroaching on personal autonomy. Spencer contends that citizens have the right to live according to their principles and to disassociate themselves from state interference.
One of the main arguments in the book is Spencer's emphasis on voluntary cooperation and social contracts, as opposed to coercion by the state. He contends that a truly just society is built upon mutual consent rather than imposed regulations. Spencer also critiques the potential tyranny of the majority, highlighting the dangers of unchecked democratic power.
Counterarguments to Spencer's ideas often center on the necessity of state intervention for the common good and maintaining social order. Critics argue that unchecked individual autonomy could lead to chaos and an erosion of societal structures. Additionally, some argue that Spencer's perspective may overlook the need for collective action to address broader issues.
In conclusion, "The Right to Ignore the State" challenges readers to reconsider the balance between individual freedom and state authority. While Spencer's arguments highlight the importance of personal autonomy, counterarguments emphasize the role of the state in maintaining order and promoting the common welfare. The book remains a valuable contribution to political philosophy, sparking ongoing debates on the limits of state power and individual liberties.
January 22, 2024
Decent Arguement
It’s a decent argument, though I have a few points to add that he did not include. Overall, he is correct that the people have inherent control over the state. It exists only because we created it. It is not a naturally occurring thing, nor is it given. Plainly stated, the state exists because the people say it does, and ceases to exist when we decide it is no longer useful. I think this is one of the many books everyone should read.
It’s a decent argument, though I have a few points to add that he did not include. Overall, he is correct that the people have inherent control over the state. It exists only because we created it. It is not a naturally occurring thing, nor is it given. Plainly stated, the state exists because the people say it does, and ceases to exist when we decide it is no longer useful. I think this is one of the many books everyone should read.
June 28, 2020
Democracy and Political participation is dogma of our.
A state has no right to coerce individual to recognize it or serve to it. Man lives for himself not for the state. Every state is rooted in violence therefore unethical. Democracy is not just, it is only less unjust than other known historical political-economic systems. T
A state has no right to coerce individual to recognize it or serve to it. Man lives for himself not for the state. Every state is rooted in violence therefore unethical. Democracy is not just, it is only less unjust than other known historical political-economic systems. T
October 26, 2022
“Progress toward a condition of social health—a condition, that is, in which the remedial measures of legislation will no longer be needed—is progress toward a condition in which those remedial measures will be cast aside, and the authority prescribing them disregarded.”
October 14, 2023
A SUCCINCT ARGUMENT AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL FORCES
Author Herbert Spencer begins this essay, “As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has the freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state---to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man’s property against his will, is an infringement of his rights.” (Pg. 3)
He continues, “Have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? It is not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty, that is, less government, as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function? Not only does magisterial power exist BECAUSE of evil; but it exists BY evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality.” (Pg. 4)
He argues, “The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public arrangements by vote implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied without sacrificing the desires of others---implies that in the pursuit of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of Unhappiness on the minority---implies, therefore, organic immortality. Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even its most equitable form it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil; and further, that unless the right to ignore the state is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.” (Pg. 7)
He explains, “what is meant by ignoring the state? Simply an assertion of the right similarly to exercise ALL the faculties. The one is just an expansion of the other---rests on the same footing with the other---must stand or fall with the other. Men do indeed speak of civil and religious liberty as different things; but the distinction is quite arbitrary. They are parts of the same whole and cannot be philosophically be separated.” (Pg. 10)
He concludes, “See here, then, the predicament, a system of moral philosophy professes to be a code of correct rules for the control of human beings---fitted for the regulation of the best as well as the worst members of the race---applicable, if true, to the guidance of humanity in its highest conceivable perfection. Government, however, is an institution originating in man’s imperfection; an institution confessedly begotten by necessity out of evil; one which might be dispensed with were the world peopled with the unselfish, the conscientious, the philanthropic; one, in short, inconsistent with this same ‘highest conceivable perfection.’ How, then, can that be a true system of morality which adopts government as one of its premises?” (Pg. 14)
This essay will be of interest to libertarians, other persons critical of government, etc.
Author Herbert Spencer begins this essay, “As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has the freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state---to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man’s property against his will, is an infringement of his rights.” (Pg. 3)
He continues, “Have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? It is not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty, that is, less government, as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function? Not only does magisterial power exist BECAUSE of evil; but it exists BY evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality.” (Pg. 4)
He argues, “The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public arrangements by vote implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied without sacrificing the desires of others---implies that in the pursuit of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of Unhappiness on the minority---implies, therefore, organic immortality. Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even its most equitable form it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil; and further, that unless the right to ignore the state is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.” (Pg. 7)
He explains, “what is meant by ignoring the state? Simply an assertion of the right similarly to exercise ALL the faculties. The one is just an expansion of the other---rests on the same footing with the other---must stand or fall with the other. Men do indeed speak of civil and religious liberty as different things; but the distinction is quite arbitrary. They are parts of the same whole and cannot be philosophically be separated.” (Pg. 10)
He concludes, “See here, then, the predicament, a system of moral philosophy professes to be a code of correct rules for the control of human beings---fitted for the regulation of the best as well as the worst members of the race---applicable, if true, to the guidance of humanity in its highest conceivable perfection. Government, however, is an institution originating in man’s imperfection; an institution confessedly begotten by necessity out of evil; one which might be dispensed with were the world peopled with the unselfish, the conscientious, the philanthropic; one, in short, inconsistent with this same ‘highest conceivable perfection.’ How, then, can that be a true system of morality which adopts government as one of its premises?” (Pg. 14)
This essay will be of interest to libertarians, other persons critical of government, etc.
April 2, 2020
Right now ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...
I am an anti-Christ
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I want to destroy the passerby
'Cause I want to be anarchy!
Herbert Spencer was a sort of 19th century Johnny Rotten, except instead of safety pins and orange hair he wore side whiskers and a bowtie. Bear in mind that those were the days before rock and roll.
Spencer was an anarchist who believed that the individual should be allowed to opt out of the State. The basis of his argument was that natural laws are over and above manmade laws, with individual freedom as the highest of the lot:
'If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the State.'
He used a legal argument to back his theory up, one impossible to refute from a logical standpoint.
'If A, B, and C debate whether they shall employ an agent to perform for them a certain service, and if, whilst A and B agree to do so, C dissents, C cannot equitably be made a party to the agreement in spite of himself. And this must be equally true of thirty as of three: and, if of thirty, why not of three hundred, or three thousand, or three millions?'
As such, Spencer was able to assert that minorities must have equal freedom, even a minority of one. This is the positive side of anarchy, a level of tolerance which no other theory of politics can promise, although democracy comes closest because,
'the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this,—that it trespasses against the smallest number.'
This essay was first published in 1850 as a chapter in his most influential work, Social Statics. However, in a revised version from 1892, Spencer left it out because he had abandoned anarchism and become predictably more conservative in his dotage.
Johnny Rotten later became sanitised as John Lydon, so I guess it happens to the most anarchic of us.
I am an anti-Christ
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want
But I know how to get it
I want to destroy the passerby
'Cause I want to be anarchy!
Herbert Spencer was a sort of 19th century Johnny Rotten, except instead of safety pins and orange hair he wore side whiskers and a bowtie. Bear in mind that those were the days before rock and roll.
Spencer was an anarchist who believed that the individual should be allowed to opt out of the State. The basis of his argument was that natural laws are over and above manmade laws, with individual freedom as the highest of the lot:
'If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the State.'
He used a legal argument to back his theory up, one impossible to refute from a logical standpoint.
'If A, B, and C debate whether they shall employ an agent to perform for them a certain service, and if, whilst A and B agree to do so, C dissents, C cannot equitably be made a party to the agreement in spite of himself. And this must be equally true of thirty as of three: and, if of thirty, why not of three hundred, or three thousand, or three millions?'
As such, Spencer was able to assert that minorities must have equal freedom, even a minority of one. This is the positive side of anarchy, a level of tolerance which no other theory of politics can promise, although democracy comes closest because,
'the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this,—that it trespasses against the smallest number.'
This essay was first published in 1850 as a chapter in his most influential work, Social Statics. However, in a revised version from 1892, Spencer left it out because he had abandoned anarchism and become predictably more conservative in his dotage.
Johnny Rotten later became sanitised as John Lydon, so I guess it happens to the most anarchic of us.
August 20, 2014
Great book! Uses simple logic to reveal the evil nature of the state. If A and B and C try to come to an agreement, B and C agree, however A declines, B and C have no right to force A into the pact. Just because man is born on a plot of land a certain State lays claim to does not make him their defunct slave. He has a right to be left alone.
January 16, 2019
This book scores many points for making anarchist thought palatable. In fact, very close to my own views independent of the influence of conservative friends. Though he even admits that it will take time for ancom ideology to become a marketable view. Which I don’t think it will be popular anytime soon because of everything going on, unfortunately. But these thoughts are what my thoughts tend to meander towards.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews