Michael Perelman asked,
> What does liberty mean?
According to the anonymous author of the Source and Remedy of the National
Difficulties, "wealth is liberty -- liberty to seek recreation -- liberty to
enjoy life -- liberty to improve the mind: it is disposable time, and
nothing more." So liberty is disposable time.
Public happiness, in the sense of "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness", according to the Marquis de Chastellux can be estimated by
examining "whether the performance of that duty, which the sovereign exacts
from him, be within, or beyond the time, which each man can spare from his
absolutely necessary avocations." (Thanks to Ian Murray for bringing
Chastellux to my attention). Happiness is thus also disposable time.
The Declaration of Independence might thus be translated as proclaiming the
inalienable right to life, disposable time and the pursuit of disposable time.
In the preface to Volume II of _Capital_, Engels discussed the relationship
between Marx's concept of surplus-value and earlier formulations by Smith
and Ricardo. Engels mentioned the importance of the anonymous pamphlet, _The
Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties_, and cited Marx's comment,
"This little known pamphlet . . . represents an essential advance over
Ricardo. It directly designates surplus-value . . . as surplus labour. . ."
The following quote is from _An Essay on Public Happiness, investigating the
state of human nature, under each of its particular appearances, through the
several periods of history, to the present time_ by the Marquis de
Chastellux, published in 1772 (translation published 1774). In _Inventing
America_, Garry Wills mentioned Chastellux and his calculation in connection
with the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
"First: how many days in the year, or hours in the day, can a man work,
without either incommoding himself, or becoming unhappy? one may perceive,
at the first glance, that this question refers to the nature of the climate;
to the constitution, and to the strength of men; to their education, to
their aliments; &c. &c. all cases, which may be easily resolved.
"Secondly, how many days must a man work in the year, or, how many hours
must he work in the day, to procure for himself that which is necessary to
his preservation, and his ease? having resolved these questions, it will be
no difficult matter to determine how many days in the year, or how many
hours in the day, may remain for this man to dispose of: that is to say, how
many may be demanded of him, without robbing him either of the means of
subsistence, or of welfare; so that now, the whole matter rests upon an
examination, whether the performance of that duty, which the sovereign
exacts from him, be within, or beyond the time, which each man can spare
from his absolutely necessary avocations."
The section of the essay where the quote comes from contains a number of
rhetorical elements that, in my view, suggest an influence on the anonymous
1821 pamphlet, _The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties, deduced
from principles of political economy, in a letter to Lord John Russell_.
Most important is the treatment of the central theme of "disposable time".
For Chastellux, "the time which each man can spare from his absolutely
necessary avocations" can also be expressed as "how many days in the year,
or how many hours in the day, [that] remain for this man to dispose of". For
the author of the 1821 pamphlet, "the WEALTH OF A NATION CONSISTS IN ITS
RESERVED SURPLUS LABOUR by which I mean the reserved labour beyond its usual
and necessary consumption [emphasis in the original]" and further, "when I
shall hereafter speak of the surplus labour of a man, I mean by it, the
representative of all the labour of the individual beyond what is
exclusively appropriated to the maintenance and enjoyment of himself and
family. . ." As in Chastellux, the alternative expression for the "surplus
labour", or wealth, is disposable time: "wealth is liberty -- liberty to
seek recreation -- liberty to enjoy life -- liberty to improve the mind: it
is disposable time, and nothing more."
Besides the theme of disposable time, both essays disparage the idea that
ancient monumental works are a sign of public happiness. Both texts reflect
on their own novelty and apologize for possible difficulties to the reader.
These disclaimers have all the appearance of formalities of the genre and
the times. But taken together with the similar treatments of disposable time
and the surplus/spare labour time, the rhetorical resemblances are, to say
the least, intriguing.
On ancient monuments
Chastellux:
"I do not think that any nation hath been happy, because it may have erected
immense pyramids, or magnificent palaces. On the contrary, I presume that
these suberb edifices, and vast monuments, indicated the poor condition, and
limited abilities of the people who assisted in raising of them."
Source and Remedy:
"From all the works I have read on the subject, the richest nations in the
world are those where the greatest revenue is or can be raised; as if the
power of compelling or inducing men to labour twice as much at the mills of
Gaza for the enjoyment of the Philistines, were proof of any thing but a
tyranny or an ignorance twice as powerful."
On difficulty and novelty:
Chastellux:
"As this truth results from very extensive principles, I cannot dispense
with the necessity of explaining them. They belong to the science of
Economicks; a science equally difficult, and obscure; to define it, hath
been the business of multitudes; but to agree to those definitions the lot
of few. These principles will, then, have some merit, should they prove
true, and clear: and I dare flatter myself that, in spite of the quantity of
writings, which have appeared on this subject, they will not be destitute of
novelty. It is indeed a cold and dry discussion; but I should be guilty of
injustice to the age in which I live, and to my readers, were I to feel an
inclination to avoid it."
Source and Remedy:
"I was confirmed in this intention [i.e., addressing the letter to Lord
Russell] by an Essay, in a work generally attributed to your Lordship,
wherein you acknowledge the little satisfaction you have hitherto received
from the contradictory opinions of writers on this subject. They are indeed,
my Lord, contradictory, not only the one to the other, but to our best
feelings and plainest sense. How far my own opinions will be conclusive with
your Lordship's, I dare not hazard a conjecture; but as many of them are
uncommon, they may, as Hume says, 'repay some cost to understand them.' But,
my Lord, if they are true, they have most important consequences; I
therefore earnestly intreat you not to reject them without a patient and
attentive examination."
"In the consideration of this important question, we must advert to and
reason from principles; I shall proceed therefore immediately to lay down
such as are of immediate consequence to the argument."
Tom Walker
Bowen Island, BC
604 947 2213
