It began with Bob McTeer’s article in the WSJ (June 4), and my response (June 12). Now we have E. Frank Stephenson of Berry College responding to my letter as follows (June 18):
Since Jeffrey M. Herbener considers it the task of economists to dispel ignorance, I am compelled to point out that he is incorrect that economics was labeled the “dismal science” because “economists were continuously pointing out the infeasibility of schemes for improving society by government coercion.”
The phrase “dismal science” was coined in an 1849 article “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” in which Thomas Carlyle applied the term to J.S. Mill and others who advocated the abolition of slavery. Thus, at least in its original usage, the term dismal science was applied to economists who would use, rather than naysay, government coercion (of slave owners) to further individual liberty and improve society. Unfortunately, the past 154 years have demonstrated that such uses of government power are quite rare.
And my response, sent in to the Journal today:
E. Frank Stephenson makes two mistakes in his response (”Economists Were ‘Dismal’ in Service of a Noble Cause,” June 18) to my comments on the dismal science.
First, my reference to the use of the phrase “dismal science” was to how it has come to be used, not its original meaning. Enemies of laissez faire embraced Thomas Carlyle’s phrase to use it as an ad hominem attack on economists because they could not assail the logic of economic theory as a bulwark of liberty. Since economic theory is still unassailable and the opponents of liberty are now legion, this meaning remains standard usage.
Second, classical liberals, like J.S. Mill, have always claimed that the primary, if not sole, function of the state is to defend the person and property of its citizens against aggression. For them, slavery is nothing more than legalized aggression. The abolition of slavery, therefore, requires that the state repeal its own unjust legal sanction of slavery. Such a policy is not “government coercion of slave owners to further individual liberty” as Mr. Stephenson asserts. It is extending the just principle of the right of self-ownership uniformly to everyone and thereby, removing one of history’s most egregious instances of state abridgement of liberty.
