Spencer Welfare Views (Essay Sample)

SPENCER’S WELFARE VIEWS
Author
Course
Professor
Institution
Date
Introduction
Herbert Spencer was very antagonistic to the state views on the approach to welfare solutions. He frequently opposed the mechanisms that the state used to employ to address the citizen welfare. Moreover, his views on social welfare were based on the state of human beings and their liberty and freedom. In his sociology views, he comes up with the statement to term survival of the fittest indicating the mechanism in which humans adapt to their surroundings. This term was later used by Charles Darwin in his book describing the evolution of human beings.
During his time, Spencer opposed the State promotion of the welfare of the people because of a number of reasons. Humans deserved freedom and liberty so that their performance is enhanced by every measure. Among the things that Spencer was opposed to from the state included the factory inspections, various labour laws and the female suffrage that was intensive during the time. Additionally, Spencer also opposed the militarism and imperialism that existed at the time. Ownership of land as a private property was also something that Spencer opposed because of the several human rights that it denied to the people who lived there and did not have access to.
Equally important, there are some concepts that Spencer believed that if they were to be effected, then the social welfare of the people would be improved. These factors centred upon the improvement of the liberty and freedom of the people so that they can live and enjoy what the state can provide. Spencer believed that men were not political creatures and that societies functioned well when they were allowed a considerable degree of liberty to do what they want. He also believed that communism or socialism enslaves individuals instead of being their own masters. Additionally, Spencer believed in voluntary association as a more efficient problem-solving mechanism as opposed to government machinery. Moreover, he believed in individuals being masters of their own fate and votes for women.
Reasons for opposing State to promote welfare
Factory inspections by the state are one of the reasons Spencer opposes the state to promote welfare (Spencer, 1963). Human beings have emotions, and they need peace of mind especially when on their job site. As a result, the frequent inspections by the state to the factories makes the people be uneasy as they perceive it as too much monitoring. As a result, the performance of the workers is reduced, and there is a consequent reduction in the production and growth of the economy. Therefore, to ensure that the production is maintained high above average, the factory inspections should be minimised so as to create the desirable working environment conducive to everyone.
Moreover, the various labour laws that the state implemented made Spencer not support them. The division of labour law that was enacted was not fair as it was favouring some of the people with certain skills and abilities and ignoring the others (Spencer, 1969). During the allocation of tasks, there is some element of discrimination. Consequently, the kind of task that the people are given to do does not tally with what they know. Therefore, a rift is created, and the individuals are not able to perform to their level best. Additionally, sometimes the kind of labour that one is made to be doing may not be the one that they are interested in doing. Due to this, there is the creation of slavery in the workplace so that people do the work just because they are supposed to be doing, but they do not enjoy doing it (Spencer, 1958). As a result, monotony and boring job sites are what the people come across daily, increasing the stress level in people. Correspondingly, the blood pressure and stress levels increase reducing the lifespan. Altogether, these effects made the labour laws not to be supported by Herbert Spencer.
Likewise, the use of militarism and imperialism by the state to promote welfare made Spenser oppose them (Spencer, 1978). In particular, imperialism does not create a conducive environment for each individual to perform and feel secure in his/her own country. As a matter of fact, militarism involves the use of force to execute a particular law. Due to the use of force by the state to enforce this law, Spencer saw the need to oppose them as they were not taking into consideration the human rights. Therefore, because the application of force makes people act according to the circumstances and cannot make good decisions, he saw it not important to support it but oppose it.
In addition to this, the law concerning private property as the land was highly opposed by Spencer. He argued that by making the land private, basic rights and needs of humans were denied to people (Spencer, 1961). Moreover, the land was accessible to very few people who were able and wealthy. This meant that for the poor people who couldn’t have access to owning land, basic needs like housing could become an issue and practically impossible to own. Agricultural use of the land would also be reduced due to the fact that for the less wealthy, they only have small parcels of land which couldn’t be very productive. Due to this reason, he opposed the law claiming that the ownership of land should not be limited to the wealthy people only because everyone has right to use the earth.
Social welfare policies that were employed at the time were not favourable to women rights (Spencer, 1958). In particular, women rights to vote was infringed, and this violated the right of women to vote. Spencer had a great interest in votes from women and children made by the fact that he was a radical democrat of the time. Consequently, women in the states could not express their opinion and practice their rights making them suffer. Since the kind of leadership was aristocratic, Spencer opposed it as he was a democrat, so he wanted a different and easier approach. Through his efforts to support and find favourable conditions for women, his popularity grew as a radical democrat.
Herbert Spencer’s belief in improving social welfare
Leadership in a state is always very crucial especially when the factor under consideration is the social welfare of individuals. The leadership that was in place was so much about imperialism or militarism. Due to this, the common citizens had no voice as they always received the rules and were supposed to obey without any questioning. In the event the rules and laws were broken by anyone, the consequences were severe and this destroyed the social welfare of the people. Conversely, the social welfare of the citizens can, therefore, be improved by providing a certain degree of liberty and freedom to the people. With freedom, people are in a position to think on their own and make good decisions. Moreover, they have the liberty and go ahead to come up with innovative solutions to common problems that face humanity frequently. Therefore, in a step to improving the social welfare, Spencer suggested the provision of liberty to the people.
Similarly, the mode of treatment to humans should change when political matters are being considered (Spencer, n.d.). Spencer believed that human beings were not political creatures that are only important when the politicians want to gain from them. Through history, politicians have only been using human beings, the citizens, as political items especially when they are seeking for favors and considerations from them. They act nice during the times of elections and make good promises. Additionally, they give them the best treatment in terms of service when they want to be seen very good in the eyes of the other humans. As a result, they end up finding favour before them and get the votes. However, things change immediately they get what they have been looking for. Therefore, Spencer believed that for the improvement of the social welfare of any society, humans need proper consideration. Not only during the times when the politicians want a favor from them but all the time. This is because the politicians are charged with the role of providing service and proper representation to the people and not a violation of their rights and needs.
Moreover, social welfare would be improved if socialism and communism would be regulated or even eliminated within a society. According to Spencer, communism enslaves humans to the system (Spencer, n.d.). Consequently, the enslavement makes humans not to become the masters of the circumstances and the resultant of this is people are not in a position to make very good choices about themselves or the scenario at hand. By regulation or elimination of the socialism within a community, people are in a position to make critical decisions about their lives and the society in general. Likewise, the individuals who constitute the respective society are in a position to give opinions and make great and significant contributions to the improvement of the community. Therefore, it is indeed true that with the regulation of socialism and communism, the social welfare would be improved by the state.