Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and Its Influence on Modern Morals and Happiness (Dodo Press) [Paperback]

William Godwin (1756-1836) was an English journalist, political philosopher and novelist (as well as the husband of Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (Penguin Classics)). He is considered one of the first exponents of utilitarianism, and (with the publication of this book in 1793) became the first modern proponent of anarchism. (See also The Anarchist Writings Of William Godwin.)

He begins by stating that "The vices and moral weakness of man are not invincible: Man is perfectible, or in other words suceptible of perpetual improvement." (Pg. 140) Noting that "justice is reciprocal," Godwin asserts that if his neighbor is in need of ten pounds which he can spare, "unless it can be shown that the money can be more beneficiently employed," the neighbor has a "right" to that money. (Pg. 175) This is because "We have in reality nothing that is strictly speaking our own." (Pg. 194)

He rejects the obligatory Locke/Rousseau Social Contract, asking, "upon what principle is that obligation founded? Surely not upon the contract into which my father entered before I was born?" (Pg. 213) If government is founded on the consent of the people, "it can have no power over any individual by whom that consent is refused." (Pg. 216) He asserts that government in reality "is a question of force, and not of consent." (Pg. 239) A monarchical government renders the people subject to the "caprice of individuals." (Pg. 436) Even a limited monarchy "raises one man... over the heads of the rest of the community... arbitrarily and by accident." (Pg. 454) Aristocracy is "an arbitrary and pernicious institution." (Pg. 466) The self-government of men, "imperfect as it is, will be found more salutary than anything that can be substituted in its place." (Pg. 534)

He argues that government has only two legitimate purposes: the suppression of injustice against individuals, and the common defense against external invasion." (Pg. 544) Thus, he proposes the "dissolution of political government," and its "utter annihilation" (Pg. 554), as government is "little capable of affording benefit of the first importance to mankind." (Pg. 568) Even a constitutional government is "founded in misaprehension and error." (Pg. 604-605) Thus, he rejects the state support of an established religion (Pg. 573), the taking of federal oaths (pg. 584), libel laws, and prohibition of "any writing or words derogatory to religion or political government." (Pg. 593) He also recommends the "abolition of the present system of marriage" (pg. 763).

He proposes that this take place through "the gradual extinction of law" (pg. 610), since "All real crimes... are capable of being discerned without the teaching of law." (Pg. 618) All social decisions should be made by open vote (pg. 629), as "coercion... is injustice." (Pg. 645) He argues that we should not conclude that "the mischiefs of anarchy are worse than those which government is qualified to produce." He admits, however, that anarchy "cannot immediately lead to the best form of society, since it necessarily leaves mankind in a state of ferment." (Pg. 666)

He states, "it is my duty to advance the general good" (pg. 670), and it is the duty of "individuals, but never of communities, to exert a certain species of political coercion." (Pg. 681) He concludes, "Equality of conditions cannot be produced by individual compulsion," and proposes "the cession by him that has to him that wants an unrestrained and voluntary action." (Pg. 736)

Godwin's book is well worth reading for any modern student of historical political philosophy, or libertarians/anarchists.

As Isaac Kramnick remarks in his introduction, there are many 'schools' of political thought and one should ideally start at their beginnings. Libertarian? Locke. Communism? Marx. Anarchism? Proudhorn?....No. Godwin. This is the first book that I know of to advocate a society without a state. Unfortunately, the reasoning is too bizzarre to be practical and unfortunately for Godwin, time disproved most of this books contents.

Godwin's view of human nature is wrong. His view of the determinism (the nature around us is determined, so we have to be.) is immature. He mauls the definitions of 'voluntary' and 'involuntary' action beyond recognition. The good part, honestly, was his critique on existing governments. Very astute, unless you consider that Montesquieu made identical observations several years befor Godwin was born. Still, if you've not read or don't want to read Montesquieu, Godwin's is a forcefully stated, action-packed polemic.

His view of a stateless society based on a jejune faith in honesty of all people everywhere is extremely naive and one wonders why Godwin, who doesn't have faith in government or the ruled people (yes, even in democracies) could have faith in peoples capacities for honesty and the self-government that it entails.

Alas, I gave this two stars because of it's originality, it's contributions to anarchism (a movement that produces an adequate thinker from time to time) and most importantly, as an historically interesting contrast to Rousseau and Montesquieu who predated this book and Proudhorn, Goldman and even Marx who followed it.

› Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews  3.5 out of 5 stars