Letter: Samuel Smiles is innocent
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.YOU CLAIM in your editorial ('The high cost of low taxes', 2 January) that the Government's aim of low middle-class taxation follows the views of Samuel Smiles.
This is a fallacy that has grown out of Smiles's well- known insistence that self-help was the solution to most people's problems and has led to his being pilloried as an arch advocate of laissez-faire. But in 1849, for example, he told a parliamentary select committee that public libraries should not only be numerous and free but also that they were useless unless they were open when working people could use them.
In all Smiles's large output, the expression 'laissez-faire' occurs just once (Thrift, p377), where it is denounced as a 'dreadful theory' used to excuse the failure to eradicate commercial chicanery, sub- standard housing and squalor:
'To remove . . . disease requires industry, constant attention, and - what is far more serious - increased rates. The foul interests hold their ground and bid defiance to the attacks made upon them. Things did very well, they say, in 'good old times' - why should they not do so now?' (Thrift, p376).
That is not an endorsement of 'back to basics'. You flatter contemporary 'foul interests' by implying that anyone as liberal and fair-minded as Smiles might approve such policies.
Adrian Jarvis
Liverpool
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments