Review by Edward Tanguay December 3, 1995

If Bellamy wanted to predict a 20th century government, I think he succeeded. The former Soviet Union and the former Eastern Bloc countries seem strangely familiar in many respects to Mr. Leete's nation: collectives, lack of advertising, attempts to equalize pay, and the types of incentive used such as "national recognition medals." In addition, the forced political language of Dr. Leete and his family eerily mirrors old GDR books that I pick up from time to time here in Berlin libraries. Lately I found a Meyers Encyclopedia with a forward by the wife of Erich Honecker, the head of the GDR from the early 70s to 1989. Her insistence on using the encyclopedia to "help build the socialist and communist society" sounds strangely familiar to Dr. Leete's insistence on the citizen "serving the nation." Also the pronounced frequency of superlatives in Bellamy's book ("there was absolutely no violence," "the whole mass of the people was behind it," "entirely new set of ideas") is a characteristic of propaganda put out by formerly existing communist governments.

If Bellamy wanted to provide a viable plan for a government or an economic structure, he failed horribly. As I was reading the text, I realized that Paul Smith had thoroughly pulled the argumentative rug out from under Bellamy before he started. The knowledge of the fact that competition is the means to acquire things (Paul's rule number 2) and that competition will not disappear but only change form, spoiled Bellamy's show. Paul mentioned that Bellamy's government might work only if "human nature significantly changes." It is interesting to note that Julian West (who I was pleased to read DOES ask some pointed questions) referred to human nature two times so far. The first time in terms of politicians being corrupt:

"Human nature itself must have changed very much," I said. "Not at all," was Doctor Leete's reply . . .

and Dr. Leete go on to explain that there is "no reason for a politician to be corrupt" in his day. Then closes with:

But these are matters which you can only understand as you come, with time, to know us better.

and so, in effect, avoids the issue. The second mention of human nature is in the question about the determination of wages:

" . . . Or has human nature itself changed, so that no man looks upon his own things but 'every man on the things of his neighbor'? One or the other of these events must be the explanation." And Dr. Leete avoids the question again:

"Neither one nor the other, however, is," was my host's laughing response. "And now, Mr. West," he continued, "you must remember that you are my patient as well as my guest, and permit me to prescribe sleep for you before we have any more conversation . . ."

So, Bellamy is now 1 for 2. On another point, if it was Bellamy's aim to write a good novel, he also failed. The characters in this novel are as flat as a wall. Bellamy's political/economic agenda comes booming through the mouth of every character, even the dainty Edith, which makes her sound like a robot spouting party-line slogans. (Has any character talked of anything but economics?) In most novels, when you get half way through the book, something significant in the story has happened: a character has fallen, a twist of fate has occurred, or the reader has some unanswered questions. The only unanswered question I have is when is the story going to get off the ground. I can't imagine that West is going to have any kind of relationship with Edith the Automaton--what would they talk about? There's no conflict in the story--everything is so hunky dory. So far the story has been a volley of economically oriented questions from West being returned by pat answers from Edith and her party-line-toting father.

Bellamy is now 1 for 3.

On my last point, if Bellamy wanted to inspire the masses of his time to unite and rise up against the economic and social suppression of capitalism of the late 19th century, I think he succeeded in writing an effective text. I think most people will agree that the conditions of the working class at the end of the last century were inhumane. The audience that Bellamy wanted to reach was uneducated, suppressed and frustrated. Fine points of economic theory would not have been the spark to light their revolutionary fire. They needed the Big Lie, exaggeration, a utopia, a glowing future to fight for. Bellamy sets Leete's world so far apart from his own that after reading the book, the world of the 19th century reader was atrocious, worthy of change only with the most radical of measures.

So at halftime Bellamy is 2 for 4 on my scoreboard.

I also think it is fascinating reading this book written 100 years ago about our present day. The collapse of many of the world's communist governments in the past decade sheds a new light on his theories. Sentences such as "American credit cards are recognized in Europe" have visionary rings to them. And you have to realize what we take for granted these days (CDs, radio stations, TV) when you read about his predictions such as the "music telephone," with which one could sleep and one could enjoy music (Sony Walkman?).

Edward Tanguay

*** Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy
*** Notes on the second half (chapters 16-28)
*** by Edward Tanguay
*** December 9, 1995

This novel was saved by three things in the second half:

First, the suspense of wanting to know Edith's secret. When I read recollection of the conversation going on as he woke up out of his sleep, I sat up in my seat and paid attention to the story as opposed to simply learning more about Bellamy's economic predictions of the 20th century.

Second, the beautiful and unique relationship between Julian and Edith. Julian has another lover (Edith in 1887), and although the 20th century Edith is jealous of her, she feels that she not only has Edith's name, but also her spirit in her. It is a new, unique, and fresh kind of love, spanning centuries. Although Bellamy failed to link my intellect with his spurious 20th century New Economic World, he did not fail to link my pathos with his new world. This relationship does it:

What if I were to tell you that I have sometimes thought that her spirit lives in me--that Edith Barlett, not Edith Leete, is my real name. I cannot know it; of course none of us can know who we really are; but I can feel it. Can you wonder that I have such a feeling, seeing how my life was affected by her and by you, even before you came? So you see you need not trouble to love me at all, if only you are true to her. I shall not be likely to be jealous.

It's a strange, new love triangle created by Mr. West's unique jump into the future. Very fresh, very nice.

The third literary device that saved this book from being a 234-page economic treatise was the existential roller coaster ride at the end. Which world is real and which a dream? Although I think the ending is generally powerful and moving, I found the first shift (from 2000 to 1887) much more effective than the second (from 1887 to 2000). The sudden drop from a world of perfect equality and freedom into the 19th- century abyss of sin, corruption, evil and poverty make the reader long for that forgotten dream. Very effective. The second shift, when Mr. West wakes up to find himself in 2000 again realizing that the 20th century is actually the real world of the novel as it ends, is a bit Hollywoodish--a happy end tacked onto a nice, realistic novel.

But Bellamy makes use of this last shift to make a moral statement about the actions of Julian West in his 19th century dream. Julian has a degree of guilt for having played a part in the corruption and inequality of his age. In his dream, he gets one last chance to strike out against it. This action is then praised by Bellamy in one paragraph:

"Better for you, better for you," a voice within me rang, "had this evil dream been the reality, and this fair reality the dream; better your part pleading for crucified humanity with a scoffing generation, than here, drinking of wells you digged not, and

eating of trees whose husbandmen you stoned." And my spirit answer, "Better, truly."

With this dream, Julian clears his conscience, and Bellamy urges his readers to do the same.

This book was a nice mixture of economic theory and novel. It is not surprising that Bellamy's sequel _Equality_ (1897) was a failure, for at his best Bellamy is a social reformer, not a novelist. He overcame this deficiency only in _Looking Backward_ which turned out to be a book that sold half a million copies in a few years and inspired over fifty utopian novels over four decades. It is a book that took a snapshot of the times and hence won itself a place in the American canon.

Speaking of utopias, the time is ripe for someone to write a 21st century "Looking Backward (2100 - 1995)" in which the effects of the Internet are played out. It is not uncommon to read predictions that the Internet will engulf the television, telephone, fax machine, VCR in the next century. It will blot out national and linguistic barriers. It will create a new plane (cyberspace) on which people find their livelihood. I just read a prediction in an article about the up-and- coming Java home page language which talked about a "hand held Internet device." Perhaps in the year 2100 we will all (yes, we will all still be alive connected to life-support machines via the Internet!) have this device implanted into our bodies. It could be a fun idea--and don't forget to throw another Edith into it!

Edward Tanguay

*** Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy
*** Review by Paul Smith

In general, I think the cause Mr. Bellamy is pursuing (finding a better way for man to live) is extremely commendable and quite a worthy cause to which to devote one's life. However, I do disagree with his solution.

In deciding how to respond to Mr. Bellamy's advocation of socialism, I will address the principles of his plan, one at a time, as they are presented by the author. Because I am commenting on a manuscript written 107 years ago, I have the luxury of a century of history against which to measure Mr. Bellamy’s logic, as well as my own.. Perhaps, then, unfairly to Mr. Bellamy, my arguements will be in the context of today, not of Mr. Bellamy’s time in the late 1800’s.

First, however, let me assert a few basic principles by which all life on this planet lives. These "natural laws" are an intrinsic part of life as we know it. They are both inescapable and unavoidable.

First, ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE AN INATE DESIRE TO AQUIRE THINGS for use in their protection or enjoyment, or for consumption in their survival. This is based on the assumption that living is better than not living, and its correlary tenets: some food is better than no food, more food is better than some food, staying warm and dry all the time is better than only some of the time. In general, MORE IS BETTER THAN LESS.

Second, COMPETITION IS THE METHOD OF ALLOCATING THE THINGS all living creatures seek. Trees compete with one another for precious, life- giving sunlight by stretching their branches as high and wide as possible. Those that are successful will thrive. Those that are not, will eek out an existance diminished in size and beauty, or will wither and die. Almost all animals (humans included) compete ferociously for food, mates, and territory. The more successful the competitor, the more food, mates, and territory acquired. A study of Darwinism reveals that competition (survival of the fittest) is a necessary and good part of every species' existence. It is by virtue of this competition*through skill, cunning, or adaptation*that those most capable to succeed in an ever changing environment, are the ones whose genes will survive and populate future generations, better enabling them to survive and flourish. Without such competition, life would cease to exist as we know it.

So we must disabuse ourselves of any notion that there is something inherently wrong with competition. It is both a necessary and desirable part of life, without which we could not exist.

Economics has been defined as the study of "how to best allocate our limited resources to meet our unlimited desires." Therefore, economics is the study of competition and the results thereof. Further, one of the most widely held beliefs of modern "free market" economics is embodied in a phrase coined by the father of modern economics, Adam Smith. It was he who first noted that all people, while acting in their own self-interest, would work collectively for the public good¾as if an "invisible hand" were guiding them to do what was best for society.

What that means is that through the market forces of supply and demand, people will be naturally drawn to the type of work and to produce the type of goods and services that are most desired by society. For example, if there is a sudden increase in need or desire for wheat, the price of wheat will likely rise. Wheat farming, then being more profitable, will entice more farmers to devote a larger percentage of their farmlands to wheat, and perhaps coax more people into farming from other professions. When the supply rises to meet the increased demand, the price of wheat will drop and the economy will again be in "equilibrium." Individual farmers, acting in their own self-interest, will have altered their production to meet the needs of society¾without any beauracracy having to recognize and evaluate the change in demand, and instruct farmers to produce more wheat.

Having said that, let me begin.

Chapter 1

1) Bellamy states: ". . .interest on investment was a species of tax in perpetuity upon the product of those engaged in industry which a person possessing or inhereting money was able to levy."

This concept that "paying someone for the use of their money is inherently wrong" can be traced back to biblical times. However, so can the belief that the Earth is flat. Why is it that money should be treated differently than any other asset. People expect to pay money to rent a car or apartment or indeed any other thing that is of value¾why not money? Cars and apartments are used for productive purposes and so is money¾to start a business, go to college, etc. Interest is quite literally the fee paid to rent someone else’s money. When you return the car, move out of the apartment, or return the borrowed money, you stop paying the rent.

2) Bellamy compares society "to a prodigious coach" on which a fortunate few were able to ride comfortably on while the masses were forced to push and pull the coach along the very hilly road of life.

I take issue with this comparison for several reasons. First it insinuates that people who live comfortably (presumably wealthy ones) do not work for their money and nothing but luck has seperated them from the workers below. In fact, except in the most rare of circumstances, most wealthy people became so as a direct result of hard work, remarkable talent or intellect, the willingness to undertake risk, or a combination of all of these. Of course, there will always be some lazy boob who wins the lottery.

Admittedly, there are also many heirs to fortunes that did nothing to earn it themselves. But a fool and his money soon part. Even these people must put their inherited money to work wisely or it will dwindle, just as a gifted athelete, artist, or craftsman must put his inherited talents to work wisely or gain nothing from it.

Second, Bellamy states that "the seats are very insecure, and at every sudden jolt of the coach persons were slipping out of them and falling to the ground, where they were instantly compelled to take hold of the rope." He says this as if no one had any control over their own destiny¾as if life were something that HAPPENED to people and not something that people influence. Is life driving you or are you driving life !!??? Further, anyone who does "fall from the coach" is not "compelled" to take up the rope. That is the beauty of a free country. Build your own coach. Or, better yet, invent the automobile! Almost every successful entrepreneur has failed not once, but many times in his or her life before achieving their true success.

Lastly, Bellamy states here that passengers on the coach would to the workers "hold out hopes of possible compensation in another world for the hardness of their lot," presumably to encourage them to continue working even though no reward was to come. I would contend that a more accurate analogy would be that the reward for the hardest workers in pulling the coach is a place in the seats. Perhaps socioeconomic mobility was not as great in Mr. Bellamy’s day as it is today.

Chapter 5

1) Bellamy, in attacking the virtues of large corporations, states: "Having no business of his own to put his money in, the small capitalist, at the same time that he took service under the corporation, found no other investment for his money but its [the company he now works for] stocks and bonds, thus becoming doubly dependent upon it."

This makes no sense at all. Certainly is it unwise to "keep all your eggs in one basket." As such I would agree that investing all ones money in their employer is quite risky. But, even in Mr. Bellamy’s day, there was no law that said one’s savings must be invested in the company by which they were employed.. Today, his statement makes even less sense because of the development of very sophisticated financial markets. Today, even the smallest savings can be invested in hundreds of different companies in very diversified mutual funds. Therefore, as little as $100 could be invested across hundreds of companies, making ones "dependence" on any one company completely insignificant. Therefore, the development of publically traded corporations (businesses whose shares of stock can be purchased by anyone) and financial markets have allowed the "small capitalist" to be less dependent, not more.

2) Regarding Bellamy’s description of the government taking over all industry and commerce: To suggest that a single entity could more effectively and efficiently manage the country’s industrial affairs is outrageous. This has been proven time and again throughout history including the former USSR and communist China. Such a system is doomed to failure because it does not take advantage of the "natural law" of competition to regulate the economy via the "invisible hand." With only one national producer, there is no other producer to compete against. Therefore, there is no strong incentive to produce better products, more efficiently, to better meet the needs of the consumers. It is the desire for the profits and the aversion to the lack therof that spurs competing firms to constantly improve their products and processes. Imagine if there were only one grocery store in town. We would likely pay more and get less (in quality and quantity) than we do when several stores compete against one another for our business. In fact, it is a readily observable fact that in markets with more competition, prices are lower, quality is better, and selection is greater than in areas with less competition.

3) Bellamy: ". . . to entrust [industry] to private persons to be managed for private profit is a folly similar in kind. . . to that of surrendering the functions of political government to kings and nobles to be conducted for their personal glorification."

I believe the opposite to be true. In a free market, industry is managed by hundreds of thousands of businesses ranging from large corporations to small, family run companies, to individual entrepreneurs. In a socialistic economy, industry is run by a small group of beaurocrats who (more like kings and nobles) can at their own descretion make all the key decisions for the nation from what crops to produce this year to how much coffee will cost.

Imagine a growing suburban neighborhood that suddenly finds itself in need of another gas station. In a socialistic economy, the citizens would have to requisition the local magistrate for a gas station. Such a request could be denied until the next budget period when it could be afforded or until the neighborhood reached a certain population predetermined to be needing of a gas station. In a free market economy, the demand for gas at the nearest stations would increase, causing prices to go up. Sensing an opportunity, someone would construct a gas station in a matter of weeks. Once again, acting in their own self- interest, someone has acted in the best interest of society. The "invisible hand" has done its job.

Chapter 6 & 7

1) Bellamy here states that "We have no wars now and governments have no war powers." It is here that is first becomes clear that Bellamy’s world in the year 2000 could only exist if human nature had changed such that one of the "natural laws" no longer held. The vast majority of all wars in recorded history have been fought over property and the rights to it. Given that MORE IS BETTER THAN LESS and that there is a limited amount of land on the Earth, people will always seek more land, both in quantity and desirability. Since population increases and land does not, that struggle over land will only continue to intensify. Therefore, no matter how appealing the thought of global peace is, it is inconceivable to me that it would happen in such a manner. Unfortunately there will always be people who are willing to fight for more territory. And as long as there are such people, wise people will prepare themselves to defend against such threats.

2) Bellamy: "Nowadays. . . society is so constituted that there is absolutely no way in which an official. . . could possibly make any profit for himself or anyone else by a misuse of his power."

Preposterous! History has shown consistently that such beaurocracies are rife with corrpution. Granted, Mr. Bellamy did not have the benefit of history that I have at my disposal. However, a little logic can show the fallacy in his assertions without relying on history.

For this discusson, I will elaborate now on one of the "natural laws" discussed earlier. This is important as it will form the basis of future arguements as well. One of the characteristics of the natural law of competition is that WHEREVER THERE ARE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WANT, COMPETITION FOR THEM WILL TAKE PLACE IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER. IF ONE FORM OF COMPETITION IS SOMEHOW DISALLOWED, ANOTHER FORM WILL TAKE ITS PLACE.

Competition can take many forms. The basis for most competition in the economy is money. The purest example is that of a public auction. At a public auction, potential buyers competitively bid against one another for the items up for sale. The person who bids the highest amount of money, gets the item. More generally, most everyday trade and commerce is conducted via competition with money.

Business and store owners set their prices such that the forces of supply and demand are most evenly matched. If automobile dealerships charged only $1 for each car, their showrooms would be stormed by a mob of buyers and they would sell every car on the lot within minutes, and promptly go bankrupt. Therefore, in the competition for the cars, buyers similarly bid up the price from $1 to a more reasonable market clearing price.

A second form competition can take is "time." Persons wishing to dine at a popular restaurant typically wait in line for several minutes or hours just for the opportunity to buy dinner. The hungry diners compete with eachother by spending their time (instead of their money) to acquire a table. When new diners enter the restaurant and inquire about the length of the wait, they must decide whether or not they are willing to spend that much time for a table. If so, they wait. If not, they leave and go to another restauant.

A third form competition can take is brute force or physical violence, just like in the jungle. Examples of this form of competition over goods, territory, or services are not rare. Wars over land are an extreme example. Two old ladies pushing and shoving eachother over the last can of cranberry sauce on the store shelf is a more common example.

Back to the assertion that when ONE FORM OF COMPETITION IS SOMEHOW DISALLOWED, ANOTHER FORM WILL TAKE ITS PLACE. I will use the gas station example again and a real life situation from the 1970’s oil crisis in the United States. When the OPEC nations restricted the world supply of oil, prices of petroleum and petroleum products naturally went up. Normally the prices would rise enough that the demand for oil would fall to the exact amount of the supply as people began to use alternative sources for their energy needs that were cheaper, like natural gas or electricity.

However, in the 1970s, US President Jimmy Carter imposed a price freeze on gasoline in the US. Therefore, it was against the law to raise the price of gas. In effect, Mr. Carter had eliminated the natural basis by which people would compete for the limited supply of gasoline. So, what happened? People began to compete for the gas in other ways, like "time." Long lines formed at gas stations and people waited for hours to get gas. More rules had to be implemented to regulate the distribution of gas. In some states, on odd numbered days, only cars with odd numbered liscence plates could get gas, and vice versa on even numbered days. Further, reports came in from all over the country of fights breaking out at gas stations as people argued over their place in line. I suspect a check of the crime records would probably show that more gas was stolen during the oil crisis than any other time as well.

So, back to Mr. Bellamy’s original premis, that his beaurocratic official could not "possibly make any profit for himself or any one else by a misuse of his power." Mr. Bellamy is relying on the fact that there is no "money" in his utopian society to allow the corruption of the officials via bribery. As in the gasoline example, if this form of competition is dissallowed, another will take its place. In this case, the competitors need only revert to the barter system that existed before the invention of money and simply bribe the officials with THINGS instead of cash.

In Mr. Bellamy’s utopian world, if someone wanted to receive a higher professional rating than they could earn honestly, or if a neighborhood wanted a closer gas station that was not "approved" by the system, they could very easily offer to buy dinner for the official every night for a year, or purchase and deliver all his groceries, or buy him a new car. This is exactly the kind of corruption that gave comunist governments such a bad name. Again, PEOPLE WILL COMPETE over the things they want. And if one form of competition is removed, another will take its place.

Now, this corruption can happen in a capitalistic economy also. However, there is incentive in the free market to keep it to a minimum or prevent it from happening in the first place. For example, if a manager were to accept a bribe from his subordinate in order to receive a promotion or raise, the person most able and deserving of the promotion would obviously not receive it. The company would suffer as a result of 1) an incompetent employee doing work he is not qualified for, and 2) the better employee not being utilized to his full potential¾or worse yet, leaving the company entirely as a result of being passed over for the promotion. With repeated instances of improper staffing due to the bribery, the company’s costs would rise and the quality of their product would fall, putting them at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. Eventually such a firm would lose customers and perhaps go out of business leaving society better off as a result with higher quality, more affordable products.

In Mr. Bellamy’s beaurocracy, there is no overriding incentive for the official not to accept the bribe. Making it illegal can only slow down the problem. Even if the official himself does not receive future "rating increases" because he has created an inefficient organization, he has no incentive not to continue the practice. Since everyone makes the same amount of money, his forgone rating increases do not cost him any money. And since there are no competing firms for the business of his organization, he can never go "out of business."

3) Bellamy: "When the nation became the sole employer, all the citizens, by virtue of their citizenship, became employees, to be DISTRIBUTED {emphasis added} according to the needs of the industry."

Does anyone else find the thought of being "distributed" as offensive as I do. That sounds like slavery to me.

4) Bellamy suggests that an administrative body set the working hours of each profession so as to equalize supply and demand for their services. It should be obvious that no single body of people could make those thousands of decisions every year better than the hundreds of thousands of businesses and employees in a free market could.

5) Bellamy: "We find that the number of men who wish to abandon an accustomed occupation for a new one, and old friends and associations for strange ones, is small."

No shit! There is no incentive to ever seek change. In Bellamy’s world, there is no way to ever improve your situation in life. Presumably, he thinks everyone should be perfectly happy with the situation his society would provide. Two things are wrong with that. First, without capitalistic, free market competition, there would never be enough wealth created to provide everyone any more than a very subsistence level of existence¾and certainly nowhere near the oppulance described by Bellamy. That fact has been born out in history as well. Who ever thought that the Russians or Chinese were living "the really good life."

Second, Bellamy’s entire system is based on a principle that says there is a certain standard of living that should suffice for everyone. No one can or should be able to ever improve their enjoyment of or comfort in life. To me, these are personal decisions and not ones that should be made by someone else.

6) Bellamy: "The period of industrial service is 24 years."

Mr. Bellamy suggests that a society of great comfort and oppulance can be created by people who work only one third of their lifetime. Common sense should dictate that to be implausible. That would mean that every person in the labor force is supporting not only themselves, but two other people as well. Can you imagine a country today where two people were on the public dole for every one worker????

7) Bellamy: "No one is at all likely to enter the professional schools for the purpose of avoiding work."

Right, and if you believe that, I’ve got some swamp land I’d like to sell you in Florida. Once again, no matter how many times Bellamy denies it in his book, such a society could only exist if the human race were to undergo some remarkable changes to their very nature. If out of a 24 year labor requirement, one could reduce it by one sixth by merely staying in school longer with no reduction in pay, why wouldn’t many people try to do so? Bellamy suggests that those not up to the task of being a professional would not want to "try to keep up with his classes." Ha!

Chapter 8

1) Bellamy: ". . . burglary was not among the perils of the modern Boston {socialistic utopia}."

I would argue that crime would be not only be present, but more prevelant in such a world. In a free economy, people who desire more of something than they can’t afford can get a better paying job, work longer hours, or borrow money to get it. With none of these options available in Bellamy’s utopia, competition will take the only remaining form left. . . theft. Remember the natural law, MORE IS BETTER THAN LESS. Many people may be satisfied with the standard government allotment, but many people will not. In Bellamy’s world, those people will have no means to acquire those extra things but to steal them.

Chapter 9

1) Bellamy: "Everything was procurable from one source and nothing could be procured anywhere else."

Ah. . . the public mammary!

2) Bellamy states that the annual allowance from government is "so ample that we are more likely not to spend it all." However, "only under rare circumstances would one be allowed to accumulate any unspent funds for use in future year."

Remember, MORE IS BETTER THAN LESS. Why would anyone ever not spend their entire allowance if unspent portions are taken back by the state? If a family had $1,000 left over at the end of a year, wouldn’t they go on a vacation or buy a new car or finer clothes? Why would any rational person pass up a FREE opportunity to make life more enjoyable or comfortable?

3) Bellamy’s "equal pay" system is justified by the expectation that all persons should work to the best of their ability, however great or small that is. Such as system is wrought with incentive to perform the minimum of acceptable standards. Exactly how are one’s "natural endowments and ability" measured? Obviously there is no practical way to measure if someone is underperforming their abilities. Bellamy thinks that some silly little bronze or silver pin is enough to incentivize the masses to work to the best of their abilities. Although the world would indeed be a better place if it were filled with only people of that high of personal standards, it certainly is not.

Paul Smith

Send your thoughts on this book to The Online Reading Club.
Find out which books we are currently reading.