10: Godwin's system of equality
Malthus refers to Godwin's system of equality as "by far the most beautiful and engaging of any that has yet appeared," but while the concept itself is attractive, the logic on which it is based it is unsound. As delightful as it is to contemplate, "The whole is little better than a dream, a beautiful phantom of the imagination."
Godwin's theory, in brief, is that human institutions (namely political reguilation) interfere with the ability of men to act in their own best interest, and as such are the principle cause of misery and suffering, the degradation of mankind, and as such where man has liberty, he has prosperity, happiness, and long life.
While a great deal of mischief can be caused through such institutions, Malthus considers government to be a contributing cause to misery and not its sole or even principal cause.
Godwin also asserts that mankind living in the midst of plenty, the bounties of nature, would know neither crime nor oppression. Where there is ample resources for all, there is no need for one man to steal from another, not any need for an institution that would enable some to hard and others to starve.
This seems true enough, but has never been the situation of man, not the character of nature. That is, there is no bounty available from nature itself - were it so, society would not have seen fit to evolve past the hunter-gatherer stage of development. To have all he needs, man must undertake significant effort to produce it.
Malthus continues to pick apart Godwin's system, using the "imagine it were true" method, possibly exaggerating a bit, but making a fairly good point: under perfect conditions where food is plentiful, everyone is preserved in excellent health, sexual intercourse is without restriction or reluctance, and no-one seeks to deprive or exploit anyone else, the population would grow at an enormous rate - to the point that the increase in population would result in scarcity of resources and a return to "society" and all its woes.
While there has been no Eden where Godwin's dream could be realized, the North American colonies are ample demonstration: consider that the states that are currently most settled (the northeast) were once thinly populated and scantly governed, where it was fairly easy for a man to produce far more than he could consume, and enjoy great prosperity. Consider them now, when population has increased - and while there is still greater productivity and liberty than in Europe, it is greatly reduced over a short period of time, and it is entirely foreseeable that, if the current trend of population increase continues, it will become settled, crowded, and not very different to Europe, though it will be some time before it becomes so.
To some degree, Godwin addresses this, suggesting that where resources are plentiful, it should be possible for a man to provide for his own sustenance in half an hour a day. This shows quite some ignorance of the difficulty of farming - the assumption that plants grow and animals graze without the need for much labor or encouragement. While it as not as simple a thing as Godwin suggests, neither is it particularly difficult, and it would be more reasonable to suggest that it would require half a day - but this depends on their being an infinite supply of fertile land as the population increases, and it also depends on each new member of the society pitching into the rudest forms of employment, rather than seeking to do other things with his time - whether to develop other goods to trade for food, or depend on the labor of others to sustain him.
Malthus again returns to the 25-year cycle during which the population is doubled - it follows that they would need double the amount of land to provide for their sustenance. While that may seem feasible, consider another 25 years, then another, then another - over the course of 100 years, the population increases fourfold, to the point where 8 times as much land is needed. Forward a second century, and 128 times the land is needed. Forward a third century, and 2056 times the land is needed. It is doubtful, even in the new world, there is a place where fertile land is available in such abundance.
Just as Godwin underestimates the availability of resources, so he overestimates the goodwill of mankind and the oppression of government. No ruler has set as his goal to increase the misery of his own subjects - and while there has arisen violence, oppression, falsehood, misery, every hateful vice, and every form of distress, it has largely been done by a government of men who are struggling to preserve their kingdoms in the fact of a peasantry that consumes too much and produces too little. While instances of tyranny are not uncommon, the better part of law and social custom merely forefend against the natural consequences of certain actions.
In Godwin's vision, where food is plenty and easily taken from the bounty of nature, there is little concern for those who refuse productive labor and steal from their neighbors - where supply is infinite, the "victim" of theft suffers nothing. But where food in short supply and requires labor to produce, the concept of theft becomes intolerable: to steal food from a neighbor is by measure to kill a neighbor by means of starvation.
So too, is the nature of charity dependent on plentitude: for one man to freely give to another that which he has no need of is very different that for a man to be compelled to give to another from the stock he needs to feed his own family.
And on a societal level, when the need of those who want food, but will not labor to produce it, exceeds the capacity of those who produce food, scarcity and misery follow in short order. Justice and common sense give right of possession of any product to its producer. To do otherwise would be to destroy any interest in production, and to starve those who are capable of producing the remedy to starvation itself.
This considered, it seems "highly probable" that an administration of property would and must be established in any state - not only to defend the product of those who have produced, but to encourage what is required by nature itself: for each to undertake the necessary steps, however distasteful, to produce for their own consumption.
Turning from production to population, Godwin's vision includes a great deal of liberty for law and social convention pertaining to "the commerce between the sexes." Moral objections aside, the more practical problem of adopting a casual and detached approach to sexual intercourse could only be a rapid increase of the population, outstripping its ability to produce the resources (food) necessary to sustain itself.
In Godwin's vision of a world in which food was in infinite supply and could be gathered effortlessly, this might not pose a problem - but in reality, where food is in limited supply and requires quite some effort to produce, it is simply not reasonable.
The most natural and obvious check to this is to make every man responsible for providing for his own children. It is not an unreasonable burden to expect that a man who is responsible for bringing children into the world will also bear the responsibility of providing for him - and as a prerequisite, to consider whether he can bear that responsibility.
If a man be held in disgrace for fathering children he cannot support, than it seems even more just that a woman who does the same be held in "superior disgrace." On the author's time, "it could not be expected that women should have resources sufficient to support their own children" and women should (and are) thus more reluctant at connecting with a man whose willingness and means to provide for the children that result from their union is questionable. It's also suggested that "the offence" is more obvious in women, as the father of a child may not be known, but motherhood is generally unmistakable.
The institution of marriage, or at least an "express or implied" obligation for those who choose to have children to be held responsible for supporting them, seems entirely reasonable and necessary to avoid an explosion of population, with far more children than adults to support them, who would be in a perpetual state of misery and want.
Malthus sees the security of property and the institution of marriage to be fundamental laws of society, and any utopian design that does not account for the consequences that will follow, as a virtual certainty, is not practicable and will, in a very short time, result in a state of misery and depravity.