Date: 1950-01-01T07:00:00+00:00
Keywords: liberty
Description: The Foundation for Economic Education The Freeman 1973

The Freeman 1973

Foundation for Economic Education
the Freeman VOL. 23, NO 1 • JANUARY 1973 The Premises of Freedom Donald M. Dozer 3 Societies are to be judged by their impact on the individual, and his freedom. A Herculean Task Francis E. Mahaffy 11 Concerning the limits of one man's responsibility to others. Valueless Education Ray Colvard 15 A teacher's call for a reformation in the establishment-a reorientation toward freedom. Before We Burn It Down! E. F. Wells 25 A sobering look at the results of socialism before we destroy our private enterprise economy. The Foundingof the American Republic: 18. The Bill of Rights Clarence B. Carson 31 The arguments and arrangements for a listing of protections against governmental infringement of personal rights. Drug Legislation-Mainline to Disaster Robert Patton 45 To outlaw a bad habit creates a profitable market opportunity for criminals. HerbertSpencer: Apostle of Liberty Ronald F. Cooney 54 More than eighty years ago, he spoke for liberty against threats from a growing Statism.

Book Review: 61 "The Fall of the American University" by Adam Ulam Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the . Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc~, a non political, nonprofit, educational' champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,000-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "The Founding of the American Republic."

The Premises of Freedom DONALD M.DoZER THE "mania of saving worlds," wrote Thomas Carlyle, "is itself a piece· of the Eighte.enth Century w'ith its windy sentimentalism. Let us not follow it too far. For the saving of the world I will trust confidently to the Maker of the world; and look a little to my own saving, which I am more compe tent to!"! As individuals we are not, in any realistic sense, as much a neighbor to the English clerk in Fleet Street, or to the Russian worker in Dnepropetrovsk, or to the Chinese peasant in Yunnan as we are to Mr. and Mrs. John Doe across the way. We all live in the ,vorld, but we do not live for the world at large except in a way which is meaningless for all prac tical purposes. "They have had a 1 "The Hero as Man of Letters" in Heroes and Hero Worship (Boston, 1902), 203. Dr. Dozer is Professor of History Emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

peace meeting here" in Concord, Henry D. Thoreau wrote to Ralph Waldo Emerson who .was in Eng land in November 1847, "and some men, Deacon Brown at the head, have signed a long pledge, swearing that they will 'treat all mankind as brothers henceforth.' I think I shall wait and see how they treat me first." Each of us lives in a community \vhich has, to be sure, round-the world relationships, but which, at the same time has a hard core of community relationships trans cending in importance those of any other area. The challenge to successful living on the Main Streets of America is greater and even more exhilarating than is the call. to "Greenland's icy moun tains" or "India's coral strand." In each· individual conscience is found the only true basis for uni versality. "To be of one's own region, of one's corner of the earth," writes 3 4 THE FREEMAN January the Brazilian sociologist, Gilberto Freyre, "is to be more of a per son, a living creature, closer to reality. One must. belong to one's own house in order to belong more intensely to humanity."2 Like Antaeus· of old we renew our strength every time we touch our own earth. We will find our best inspiration in our own reality.

Did not Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln as they worked and lived in the service of their nation perform also a service to mankind in general? In this sense they can truly be called cosmo politan patriots, whose fame en dures precisely because they were, first of all, patriots. Universal values can have meaning for us all only within the framework of our own national realities. The more intensely we Iive our American beliefs the more fully we enrich the human race. In international relations volun taryism or the free consent of peo ples, growing out of the genius and efforts of each nation, must remain our principal reliance. Our dictates are resented by foreign peoples, for many of those peo ples have traditions and cultures long antedating ours and they like their own ways. Our creed of lib erty does not authorize us ever to 2 Gilberto Freyre, Regiao e Tradiciio (Rio de Janeiro, 1941),20.

say to another people : "We know what is good for you better than you yourself know, and we are go ing to make you do it." Too many people think they know what is good for other people. To assume all wisdom and all justice is to fall into a fatal delusion of univer sality, if not indeed divinity. It was Hamlet's tragedy that he be lieved that because the time was "out of joint" he "was born to set it right." Our peccavimus must, therefore, include the greatest of all sins, blasphemy, or making ourselves equal with God. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the first lesson of philosophy is to learn that one is not God. The Political Dilemma Our persistent political dilemma arises from the fact that while we assume in our political philosophy that only the people can say, through their ballots, what is good for them they expect their leaders to tell them what is good for them and to get it for them. The ideo logical battle between John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx still goes on, projected with vital meaning into our present age. It is a conflict between those who hold that gov ernment should do only what in dividuals themselves lack the means to do and those who de mand that government assume a positive role in promoting indi1973 THE PREMISES OF FREEDOM 5 vidual welfare; between those who would enlarge the area of individ ual initiative and freedom and those who would circumscribe it with legislative and official limita tions; between those who regard society as only a changing complex of individual citizens and those who consider it as an organic specimen to be systematized and directed; between those who would keep open the book of life containing the pages of the past and those who would write a brand new book starting with the pat formu las of a narrow science. In this conflict the old liberalism of the free man in society will be .de stroyed by the new positivism un less we do something about it.

What we all desire is to get some of the advantages of con scious social management without sacrificing our individual freedom. Our most difficult problem as so cial beings is to derive from so ciety the constant aid that we need without accepting its yoke. What we really want is the fullest possible individualism consistent with the putative benefits of col lectivism. The individual action which is most highly esteemed and which is most satisfying over the years is not utterly free individ ualistic abandon but rather indi vidual enterprise which is socially motivated. We desire a balanced combination of responsible individual action on the one hand and responsible social action on the other. But we must exert constant vigilance to ensure first the achievement and then the mainte nance of this essential balance be tween the individualistic-anarchist impulse on the one hand and the collectivist-socialist impulse on the other. The emphasis must be placed not upon equality but upon the harmony of unequal classes and individuals. This is the syn thesis which we desire. This is the reconciliation between the old liberalism and the new. "The in dividual," -Reinhold Niebuhr has acknowledged, "cannot find his fulfillment outside of the commu nity; but he also cannot find fulfillment completely within society."3 Voluntary Cooperation Social action taken. primarily for the purpose of creating favor able conditions for individual de velopment, if undertaken co operatively, is not inconsistent with the fullest individual free dom. In just such endeavors men may reach their highest sense of accomplishment and feel their greatest glow of satisfaction. By voluntary, cooperative action the American pioneers raised their homes in new wildernesses and 3 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of Ame'rican History (New York, 1952), 62.

6 THE FREEMAN January organized joint stock companies without direction by government. By concerted group activity a peo ple not only may harden their own fiber and. character but may en rich themselves by their own ef forts, literally raising themselves by their own bootstraps. All the people in a society acting together can do many constructive and wholesome acts which single in dividuals cannot do. But the value of every cooperative effort, every institution, every governmental policy must be judged by its ef fect upon individuals. If it is not conducive to individual growth it must be abandoned, for the aim of society must be not society but the individual. The objective that must be kept steadily in mind is to increase the range of oppor tunities open to each individual in society and to create the kind of conditions which will predispose him to make moral choices as be tween the largest possible number of available opportunities.

The Great Danger of Ascribing Moral Attributes to Government Great danger comes from as cribing moral attributes and therefore moral duties to govern ment. For government is not moral, though a state may make itself a champion of moral causes and may claim moral power for political purposes. The proper function of government is to enact 20nd enforce legal justice as be tween man and man, not to estab lish changed economic and social relations between them. When· it tries to do the latter it finds itself lacking in legal criteria for action. Statutory enactments may ade quately define legal justice, but they cannot define social justice. When a government undertakes to be the fountainhead of social j us tice it makes itself responsible not simply for the legal or orderly operation of society but also· for the moral conduct of individuals in society. As the number of citi zens who act illegally is much smaller than the number who act immorally, the state which claims social justice functions must en large not only its obligations but also its coercive authority. Love and charity are primarily indi vidual responsibilities. They can not be practiced or enforced by society as a whole. Social justice is a paradox and social love is meaningless. What kind of social action can possibly be taken which V\-yill assure to all citizens freedom from want and freedom from fear? And would not such action also necessarily have to assure them freedom from desire and ambition, freedom from adventur ing, and freedom from risk?

We can be certain that no so cial action can be justified in the 1973 THE PREMISES OF FREEDOM 7 long run if it causes individuals to lose their integrity and char acter. The indispensable thing is the preservation of personal mo rale, the elan vital or inner drive of individuals, the right of each individual to be a person. What is needed is a reassertion of egoism, a new ringing, hands-clenched af firmatIon by each individual that "I am I. I am a unique human be ing. I want to .live my life, and I am not willing to be suffocated even by those who wish me well and say that they intend to do me good." As Ayn Rand is pointing out, it is a psychological impossi bility to live someone else's life. If people do not live their own lives, nobody will live at all. If life, as Coleridge defined it, is "the principle of individuation" then fusion, coalition, alliance, and merger which destroys variety and suppresses individualism is death. 4 Whatever builds up indi vidual virtue, therefore, is so cially good; whatever tears it down is socially evil. Whatever increases human worth increases the strength of our society; whatever reduces it weakens us all.

The maintenance of the proper balance between individualism and collectivism requires that state in tervention should only supplement 4 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, quoted in Joseph Needham, Time, The Refreshing River (London, 1943), 187. individual requirements in char acter and degree. When it does more, the state starts down the road toward totalitarianism. What is acceptable social conduct for an individual must be determined largely by the individual himself, except in cases which have been deemed to be of overriding social concern ever since the Mosaic code. Man Inclined Toward Goodness This conception assumes that an impulse toward good citizenship is the natural condition of mankind. If it were not so, government and social life generally would be im possible. To nurture this condition but not to smother it is the true function of government. Govern mental action should be limited merely to attempts to remove the more formidable barriers to the achievement of this goodness, with out, however, forgetting that the individual struggle for goodness, is, by divine law, a necessary part of the process. Our assumption that \ve can eliminate tragedy from hu man life is an impious conceit, for tragedy is embedded in the very processes of history. The ancient Greeks, who perhaps attained the finest adj ustment to life of any peo ple in the world's history, accepted tragedy and tried to sublimate it into something constructive. "The final wisdom of life," says Niebuhr, "requires, not the annulment of 8 THE FREEMAN January incongruity but the achievement of serenity within and above it."5 Only the travailing soul experi ences great spiritual revelations and produces great works of art.

The most beautiful lines in a hu man face are the lines etched there by struggle. Unless the chrysalis of the butterfly is allowed to strug gle out of its cocoon it does not de velop the wing strength necessary to fly. If the stone in the arch of great cathedrals is not made to bear its full share of structural stress, it will crumble away - not from strain but from lack of strain. Opposition must not be underval ued as a stimulus to action. "To overcome difficulties," wrote Scho penhauer, "is to experience the full delight of existence." The destiny of humanity, it appears, is to ad vance through personal struggle. Nothing is more certain than that in the divine, scheme of things each individual must endure the consequences of his own wrong doing, misjudgments, and short comings. The Values Individuals Hold We must believe that the final judgment on our handling of the problems of our times will be ex pressed in terms of individual val ues. The passion for the preserva tion of those values is ineradicable in every human being. Even mod5 Reinhold Niebuhr, Ope cit., 62-63.

ern war, which represents the height of collectivist effort, must still be "sold" to the people under the guise of promoting individual liberty. The first desideratum for an ordered universe is to establish order within each individual self. This point was made many centur ies ago by the Chinese philosopher Confucius, as follows: The ancients who wished to illus trate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their own states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowl edge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed.

1973 THE PREMISES OF FREEDOM 9 Their states being rightly governed, The whole kingdom was made tran quil and happy.6 The question that constantly haunts each one of us, despite all the hapless confusion and obscur antism with which it has been sur rounded, is "How shall I live up to the best in my own nature?" This is intensely personal. Each one must begin with himself, through a repentance and rebirth which will establish a new and right re lationship between himself on the one hand and God and his fellow men on the other. Only such an effort of individual wills can re store the sanity and relieve the hy pertension of our years. The essen tial problem. is the problem of sin in the world, and no one has ever found a mechanistic answer to that. When a durable answer is found it will have to be found in each human heart. We perceive that the rules that govern our mastery of the physical world are of little avail in spiritual matters. Our ma terial wealth is accompanied by spiritual poverty. We realize that "the infinite perfectibility of man"

of which Thomas Jefferson spoke is not attainable by our methods. It is our spiritual deficiencies which predispose us to failure and fright. 6 James Legge, The Chinese Classics, 5 vols., (Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, 1960), 1,357-359. The human adventure is not a really human adventure unless it is viewed as also a divine adven ture. The founders of the Ameri can government wisely warned that the durability of the new nation would depend upon individual vir tue. Whether to make that our goal or not is the decision on which our future hinges. Faith in Freedom We must place our faith in the excellence of free institutions and their destiny to survive. The So viets have preached so dogmati cally the inevitable triumph of Communism that they have con trived to draw the design of his tory over to their side. We need a counter-faith in the inevitable triumph of freedom. We need to remind ourselves that everything truly evil will in time disclose and punish itself. It is the function of evil to destroy itself. Otherwise \ve would not be living in a moral universe, a universe which makes sense. Collectivist pressures to make the American system over in a for eign image muffle our voices when we try to speak out for human freedom. A society in which the government is supreme over its eitizens is not a free society. A governmentally managed economy is not a free economy. A state which is the master and not the agent of its citizens is a total state.

10 THE FREEMAN January To the extent to which we subordi nate ourselves to foreign influences or limit the freedom of individual citizens beyond traditional bounds the authority of our national ex ample is limited. It behooves in dividuals, therefore, so to order their lives as to conform to the framework of history within which they live and move, confi dent that this framework is di vinely implanted within it. We can do so only when we make sure that the present lives in har mony with the past. If we can accomplish this result we can be op timistic about the future, for, in the words of Professor William Ernest Hocking, "no man who knows reality as purposeful, and history as therefore significant, can have a right to ultimate doubt, nor to ultimate fear, nor to ulti mate condemnation."7 Freedom should not be impatient, for she is immortal. 7 William Ernest Hocking, Strength of Men and Nations: A Message to the U.S.A. vis a vis the U.S.S.R., (Harper and Brothers, Publishers, New York, 1959), 8.

IDEAS ON L$ LIBERTY Nature' s Way SENTIMENTAL M·EN AND WOMEN, observing the weaknesses of the human race, hope to spare their fellow-beings pain and suffering by relieving them of personal responsibility. Thus we get our uplift movements, our paternalism, our coddling of the shiftless, the thriftless, the unfit. This man will not save money for his old age; therefore, we shall do his saving for him. Another man will not learn a trade; therefore, we shall protect him against the consequences by unemployment insurance. A third man refuses to conserve his health; therefore, we shall pay him a weekly dole in time of sickness. That is not nature's way. Nature would compel us to suffer the consequences of our acts. Nature puts the responsibility on the individual. I do not argue for less sympathy and kindness. I merely urge the necessity of .responsibility. From The William Feather Magazine, October, 1972 A HERCULEAN TASK FRANCIS E. MAHAFFY WHILE SERVING as a missionary in Africa, I received a letter from a fellow minister in which he stated, "We have a responsibility for the welfare of all men." I am sure that the author of this statement is a pious Christian who has a genuine concern for helping the poor in Africa and in the United States.

Yet the philosophy behind such a statement is hostile to the Chris ... tian ethic. If generally applied, it would destroy Christianity and re duce the world to abject poverty. A more careful scrutiny of·. this cliche will reveal that it would destroy the very welfare it aims to promote. Yet to challenge such a pious-sounding statement immeThe Rev. Mr. Mahaffy served for twenty three years as a missionary of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ethiopia and is pre sently serving as a home mission pastor north of Chicago. dia telyca tegorizes the challenger as· lacking in Christian love. One writer described those who oppose the coercive redistribution of the Welfare State as a "bunch of cold hearted rascals." Nevertheless, I emphatically deny that I am responsible for the welfare of all men. Nor is the min ister who made this assertion. Nor is anyone. Such a task is impossi ble of fulfillment. A scrutiny of the meaning of this all-too-popular cliche is very much in order.

Had my friend said, "I have a responsibility for the welfare of all men," I might have considered him irrational and utterly unreal istic. Had he sought to fulfill this responsibility as an individual, he might amuse himself in the effort, with. few adverse effects except on himself and his family. 11 12 THE FREEMAN January But when he said "we," he was seeking to rest this herculean task on my shoulder and implying that, were I a devout Christian, I would naturally assume my· responsi bility. If all men are our responsi bility, the task obviously must be a collective one with the ~ve broad ened to include all in our society acting through their representa tives in the state. This can not be accomplished apart from legal co ercion. The author of a recent book clearly indicates this when he writes: But when people will not give volun tarily, is it wrong to make sure that they at least produce the external fruits of Christian love, even if this means legal enforcement? Is the freedom of people to give or not to give more important than the des perate needs of other human be ings? ...

The Christian himself must remain uncommitted to any human system, holding himself free to move where God leads him at a given time and under a given set of conditions. . . . The free enterprise system is best suited for an individualistic society where high value is placed on ma terial gains; the socialistic system is best suited for a large, strongly interacting society where it is essen tial to retain some human values.! 1 Richard H. Bube, The Human Quest (Waco, Texas: Word Book Publishers. 1971) pp. 223-4, 236. This popular cliche seeks to fix responsibility for universal wel fare. Responsibility, however, in volves a higher authority to whom we must give an account. A child is responsible to his parents. Par ents are not responsible to their children, but responsible to God for the care of their children. We have a respo~sibility to those in authority over us to obey the laws and not to interfere with the free dom of our neighbor. We do not have a responsibility to other peo ple as such. If we did, they would have a just claim to our wealth, our care, or for whatever our re sponsibility involved. This is a popular concept but not a Chris tian one. For the Christian, charity and help must spring from love to God and must be voluntary in na ture to be true charity.

Armed Hitchhikers Sometime after I received the above-mentioned letter, I was on the way to preach in a distant African village when stopped by fifteen armed villagers who wanted a ride. When I declined because of lack of room and began to drive on, a gun was leveled at my head. Though my righteous indignation (a clerical expression for anger) was aroused, my respect for the power of the rifle impelled me to stop, to compromise my former re fusal, and to "voluntarily" offer 1973 A HERCULEAN TASK 13 rides to two of the villagers. When ten of them squeezed into my Volkswagon Combi along with my other passengers, I refused to grant that I had a responsibility for the welfare (transportation to the next village in this case) of all ten. Keeping my eye on the many rifles to make sure none threatened me from behind, I was prepared to resist this claim upon my property. I won a partial moral victory when, after a protracted discussion, all but two of them backed 0 ut. (The added adrenalin put some extra punch into my ser mon that .morning.) Shortly thereafter a boy from a neighboring village came to our house with a few eggs to sell. He looked ill. Upon inquiry we learned tha t the family of ten children with their parents were on their last bag of grain,. reduced to one scant meal of coarse bread per day.

We purchased a sack of grain and took it to the family as a gift to help tide them over until harvest. But we did not have a responsi bility to the hungry family, nor did they have any claim on our charity. Our responsibility we deemed only as one to God to help the neighbor we meet in his need. This, while a much-needed Chris tian activity, is something far re moved from the· concept of a uni versal responsibility for all men. My friend failed to define what . he meant by the welfare of all. Just how well is each to fare? A good daily wage for common labor in the area in which we worked was about forty cents. Should our effort at assuming responsibility for all begin with increasing the increment of those in our employ or in giving aid to. the vast ma jority who lived on far less in come? It is easy to state -a pious cliche; it is quite another thing to put it into practice. Even if all the wealth of the world were evenly divided, I am told, each individual would receive something like $50 the outer limit of fulfilling this re sponsibility to all. The attempt to fulfill this "responsibility" for universal welfare would necessi tate complete collectivization. But as numerous economists have dem onstrated, the result of collectivi zation is always an increase in general poverty, never an increase in the welfare of all.:!

Love Thy Neighbor None of us is responsible for the welfare of all men. This demand is not only impossible to meet but also would destroy the very wel fare it proposes to promote. We do, however, have a respon sibility to our Creator which in2 See Ludwig Von Mises, Socialism, F. Hayek, Road to Serfdom, and H. Hazlitt, .Economics in One Lesson for examples.

14 THE FREEMAN January eludes a proper relationship with our fellow man. This, first of all, involves a refusal to interfere with his freedom. The Apostle Paul summarized this obligation clearly: Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13: 10. We are responsible for obedi ence to the commands of God which forbid murder and all coer cion, theft whether ,individually or the "legal plunder" of the collec tive, dishonesty in our dealings with him, and even coveting that which belongs to him. It involves also the positive demand of volun tarily lending a. helping hand to the neighbor we meet in special need. One of the most effective ways of helping is to show him by example and precept that in this world the only way to improve ment in welfare is by assuming our responsibility before God in refraining from coercive activity except to restrain violence, in us ing and improving our God-given minds and; abilities, and by peace ful exchange of the fruit of our labor with others. Accepting a re sponsibility for the welfare of all men is a task that even a Hercules could not perform. Let us rather accept the limited· responsibility which God has given to us and not seek to lay upon our· own .. and the shoulders of others an unbear able burden. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY To Help a Neighbor WHAT POSSIBLE MOTIVE can a man have for wanting to put the responsibility of social welfare on the willing shoulders of the bureaucrats in Washington? How much is needed? Who can say where poverty stops and plenty begins? Where can government get what it gives but from the people? How can it take it but by the use of force? How can it avoid taking more and giving less?

We do not escape the problems of our needy neighbors by putting these problems at the door of the legislators in Washington. We only compound what must eventually return to us for solution. GLENN PEARSON RAY L. COLVARD w~nM~n~$~ IEcdlM<c~itli~ffu It was found that all his property ... was represented by valueless shares in bubble companies. Thackeray: Vanity Fair WE CAN CREATE an entertaining kind of excitement in the class room talking about the great gov ernment-financed swindles of his tory: the Mississippi Bubble of Louis XIV and the South Seas Company of George 1. We hold students' interest as we tell about the larcenous grabbing of rail road subsidies by California's Big Four. We can join with students to denounce the government part nerships which puffed up a utili ties balloon for Samuel Insull and financed the invisible storage tanks of Billie Sol Estes. "The art of government," Voltaire said, "consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citi zens to give to the other." We sup port that, insofar as it does not touch our own enterprise.

Mr. Colvard teaches at Clairemont High School in San Diego. In or outside· the Classroom we teachers ignore the bureaucratic beams which are in our own eyes. As an integral part of a govern ment bureaucracy, we excuse our Federal dependency and even en hance the role of government's in tervention in our schools. The National Education Association, in the true spirit of Parkinson's Law, actively lobbies for a cabinet post - Secretary of Education. We blandly ignore the widespread tax payers' votes which have turned down educators' bond proposals election after election. We might consider the possibility that their votes are expressions of "no-con fidence" in our programs and that American taxpayers may believe that they have been conned into investing in America's fastest growing bubble company - public education. 15 16 THE FREEMAN January In favoring our security over freedom and the equality of mass performance over individual ex cellence, we are systematically un dermining the fundamental con cept of a free market economy. The thrust of our policies has been to place the public school systems among the liabilities rather than among the assets of the wealth of the nation. A fair question might be this: Should public education be allowed to go the way of the stage coach and canal boat? Henry Hazli tt noted: "It is just as neces sary to the health of a dynamic economy that dying industries be allowed to die as that growing in dustries be allowed to grow." A case could be made for rendering out what is valueless in educating the nation's youth.

Premises Stated To paraphrase Leonard Read, the Freeman reader has a right to know my biases. Certainly I favor education. Long years of class room teaching in public schools have whitened my hair, thickened the lenses in my bifocals, and rounded my shoulders. I am proud of my work and I have a solid re spect for the great majority of my co-workers. I can not objectively appraise the superintendents, as sociates and assistants in my busi ness. They keep their own counsel. Nor can I speak for the educational directors, specialists and consultants. They seem to meet and confer with others at their hierarchical level. Meanwhile, in the classrooms across the nation we teachers and our students are trying to do the best we can with what we have. We don't do what we do well enough, however. The most charitable thing that can be said for us is that we are in con flict and are confused about our purpose and our far goals. A harsher indictment would be that we are effectively conditioning our students for purposeless living in a valueless society.

Students are not given freedom in our structured programming to exercise the principle of choice, to grow toward maturity in value judgment. The late Abraham H. Maslow wrote that education of youth, if it hasl purpose beyond the custodial, must be concerned with man's final values: ... Questions: What is the good life? What is the good man? The good woman? What is the good so ciety and what is my relation to it? Wha t are my obligations to society? What is best for my children? What is justice? Truth? Virtue? What is my relation to nature, to death, to aging, to pain, to illness? What is my responsibility to my brothers? Who are my brothers? What shall I be loyal to? What must I be ready to die for?

1973 VALUELESS EDUCATION 17 We have encouraged our youth to "do it if it feels good." We have avoided fixed values. It would seem that our primary aim has become bigness. We expand our programs wildly to maintain our position in claiming financial and legislative support from an expanding gov ernment. An old folk song runs through my brain. It begins with, "There was an old lady who swallowed a fly, I don't know why she swal lowed the fly. . .."To get rid of the fly she, according to the song, swallowed in turn a spider to swal low the fly, a bird, a cat, a dog, a cow, and then, a horse. The song ends abruptly with, "she's dead, of course." As teachers we note ap prehensively that mushrooming problems in public education have progressed far beyond the "fly" stage, and we fear we are ap proaching the year of the "horse". An uncomfortable feeling prevails that successive decades of Ameri can educators have jumped down the pedagogic gullet in search of an illusive fly which is becoming more and more enveloped in the hierarchical bowels of birds and cats and other misplaced instruc tional innovations. Even among educators we need to place a limit on gullibility.

Thomas Paine wrote these lines in The American Crisis No.1, De cember 23, 1776: . . . What we· obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Old-Fashioned Recently Professors William Ebenstein and Edward Mill pub lished American Government in the Twentieth Century. Dr. Eben stein has lived under two extremes of socialism, thE: Nazi control of the means of production and the Communist ownership. His is a profound gratitude to America. His text's chapter, "Democracy and the Free-Market Economy" reflects his feeling. I asked a col league how he had presented this chapter's concepts to his students. He said, "It was a riot. I let the class comedian in each section read it aloud. The kids broke up laughing over the American house wife pushing her cart in the super market being called a reincarna tion of the goddess of liberty.

When the kids got to the 'crap' about customer sovereignty they were about ready to hold a demon stration in the cafeteria." "My class thought the descrip tion of the market system was es pecially well presented," I told him.

18 THE FREEMAN January "Strictly right-wing," he said. John Maynard Keynes gave us this' truism: "Economics is not everything." He went on to say, ". . . Do not let us over-estimate the importance of the economic or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance." Keynes' thesis was that individual econ omic freedoms must give way to the collective need in the planning of a welfare state. Professor B. F. Skinner calls the desire for free dom a "fetish" and Herbert Mar cuse notes in One Dimensional Man that independence is over rated: .Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning not altogether a bless ing. As the liberty to work or starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast maj ority of the popula tion. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this kind of freedom would be one of the great est achievements of civilization.

Traditionally in public education we have vocally set major impor tance on individual liberties. Our property in freedom and our free dom to own property we have as serted, and many of us firmly be lieve, is the foundation of our eco nomic system. We would that each man become an independent par ticipant in a market, that he be free to determine where and for whom he shall work and what and from whom he shall buy. We be lieve in the maximum freedom for every man. The President's Commission on National Goals stated in their 1960 report that: . . . Schools and institutions of higher education ... have a particu lar responsibility to ensure freedom of expression by students, faculty and administrators alike. We must bring up young men and women to believe in the individual and to act upon that belief. There are subtle and powerful pressures toward con formity in the economic, social, and political world. They must be re sisted so that differences of taste and opinion will remain a construc tive force in improving our society.

The Urge to Conform In a curious kind of logic the drive toward alienation from our society is unimaginative and col lective. The matron in a New Yorker cartoon a few years ago looked at her husband who was wearing sandals, jeans, granny glasses and a beard and asked: "Do you have to be a non-con formist like everybody else?" On the campus and from the pulpit the phrase "materialistic capital ism" is spouted by liberal scholars and clergymen with the caustic distaste that was, in the McCarthy 1973 VALUELESS EDUCATION 19 era, reserved for the term "atheis tic communism." The mouthing of political economic labels, however, does not indicate an adherence to a principle. For a teacher to talk realisti cally with students about socialism and the welfare state may appear as foolhardy as it would be for a politician to denounce motherhood or for a minister to advocate sin. The trend in our teaching, directly and indirectly, is toward favoring some form of socialist economy.

There is a wry comfort for some of us in knowing our ideological counterparts around the globe have their troubles too. In Czecho slovakia educational leaders com plained in the official party news paper, Rude Pravo, last year. that children learn in schools that so cialism is good, but the free enter prise ideas they hear at home con fuse them. "The school gives the children a materialist, atheistic, world outlook, but in the family there is still a belief in God and churchgoing." The freedom of an American has three fundamental limits: (1) the regulations of organized society, (2) the rights of other individuals, and (3) the capacity of the individual. Within these di mensions each individual in the nation has every right to reach as high as he is able. Obviously such a concept of indi vid ual freedom would demolish the myth of mass equality and the belief in comlnu nity ownership which are the stock in trade of sla vemasters and slaves, of despots and dependents.

Early Warning A quarter century before Rob ert Owen established his fanciful experiment in community brother hood at New Harmony, Indiana and almost three centuries before Karl Marx published Capital, John Adams warned the nation against leveling schemes: Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded and voted. The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extrava gance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, an archy and tyranny commence. There is a terrible paradox for us, as teachers, to proclaim a dec laration of independence. We are as a profession among the most devoted adherents of what Ayn Rand calls "the cult of depravity and impotence." We fear to test ourselves or our ideas in the mar20 THE FREEMAN January ket place. We claim the benefits of weakness: tenure in office so that we need not compete, and com pulsory attendence for students so that we are ensured a monopoly.

We pay lip service to individual freedom, but we join with the economically non-productive who claim welfare rights, and the po litically privileged who demand subsidies. If the concept of free dom is cloudy to us, it becomes virtually impossible to clarify our value judgment for our students. This point may be clarified by the explanation which is said to be overheard in Warsaw. "Under Capitalism man exploits man; un der Socialism it's just the oppo site." 25 Centuries of Socialism I seek no quarrel with those whose conviction it is that indi..; vidual freedom is a burden from which they would be relieved. I do not, however, wish them to re lieve me of my freedom because they believe that my freedom should seem onerous to me. The renouncing of personal in dependence, and absolute obedience to law, has been the keystone of twenty-five hundred years of so cialism. The "philosopher kings"

of Plato, the "general will" of Rousseau, the "cooperation" of Robert Owen, the "Welfare State" of Bismarck all lead to what the socialist novelist George Orwell pointed out as the basic feature of socialism: a totalitarian and ter roristic nightmare. There is neither a collective conscience nor a collective responsibility. The purge trials of Moscow, the ex termination camps at Auschwitz, and the peoples' court at Peking are ultimate examples of socialism following its collective dream. Ironically, it is the "good" so cialists who pose the threat to in dividual freedom in America. In spite of Marxian agitators like Herbert Marcuse and activists like Angela Davis, American institu tions have little to fear from Marxism. The great danger is the relentless drive for a Utopia of Fabian Socialism as it is per meated through the Skinner Box of public education. It was the promise of Sidney Webb that "the inevitability of gradualism" will save the world from the evils of capitalism.

Fabians of the 1880's, as the so ciety was formed, would support no violent overthrow of govern ment, no seizure of political power. They would form a socialist elite to reconstruct society "in accord ance with the highest moral pos sibilities." They would remake man in their image through education, by planting doubt as to the politi cal capacity of the average man, and by teaching him to look to a 1973 VALUELESS EDUCATION 21 social elite for direction. The na tional state, according to the Fa bians, was a machine which they could take over and use to promote the general welfare. Goals Achieved A measure of the Fabians' suc cess may be gauged by noting their goals as stated in the 1880's: social security; compulsory insur ance managed by the state; mini mum wage laws; progressive taxa tion on income and inheritance. The Fabian Essays of 1889, edited by R. H. S. Crossman, were writ ings by comfortable and patient men and women willing to use existing political machinery to achieve their social solutions in a far distance - years, decades, cen turies.

The Fabians preferred John Stuart Mill over Karl Marx. They chose evolution over revolution. As summarized in the Fourteenth Edition of Encyclopaedia Britan nica, ". . . the impact of Fabian ism has been through the gradual permeation of Fabian ideas among teachers, civil servants, politicians, trade union officials and others in influential positions." Fabian So cialists' goal was not public owner ship of all industry, "but a planned economy in which public and pri vate ownership exist together." The name of a thing changes, but the thing remains. Today the term "Fabianism" is virtually un known while its principles are be ing widely espoused by today's educators under the concept .of "the general welfare." Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth cen turies the rise in individual free dom was a continuous and spec tacular phenomenon. During this century the trend has reversed it self, and the concept of J effer sonian Democracy seems about as archaic to many Americans as the belief in the divine right of kings.

It is now the collective right of the welfare state which holds pri macy. A Way of Life The Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, has observed Americans of this century as objectively as did the French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, during the nine teenth. In Beyond the Welfare State Myrdal points out to us that socialism, whatever else we may choose to call it, is now our way of life: The sanctity of private property rights to do what one pleases with a piece of land; or the right to keep all, except a nominal tax charge, of one's income and wealth for private consumption or investment; the free dom to enter upon any profession one wants at one's own risk; the right of the employer to negotiate individually with his workers, to 22 THE FREEMAN January pay the smallest salary he can for the job, and to hire and fire whom he wants, when he wants; or the right of the worker to leave the shop as and when he desires; indeed, the free choice to own, acquire, a~d dis pose, to work or to rest, to invest, to trade, to move - all these time honored individual liberties are gradually eaten away by the con trols of organized society.

At all levels in our national edu cational bureaucracy are those who firmly avow and .actively foster the principles of Marx and Mao. Others favor the benefits of collective responsibility. Idealists preach "brotherhood" and the commune as the way of life. They search for a new philosophy of hedonism in a mass surrendering of reason and of living by emo tion. They would drop out of com petitive social systems and return to a pastoral and primitive world. These lovable and not so lovable "fringes" in our schools have only modest and fluctuating followings. But those who continue the fourth generation exposition of Fabian principles are malevolently corro sive. Say What You Believe Teachers who believe in the meri ts of the market system need to clarify their own value systems. When Jesus asked, "who is a neighbor?" his parable pointed clearly to a significant fact - that an individual, not a collective so ciety, had come to another indi vidual's assistance. We hear the rhetorical question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" and we have been altruistically conditioned to respond with "yes." The answer should be "no." When Cain posed this weasel-worded question, rather than state a forthright answer, he had never been ex pected under the Hebraic Code to provide for his brother's welfare~ He'd just been expected to contain his envy and to refrain from murder.

Our task as teachers who believe in the free market is what Albert Jay Nock called an "Isaiah's Job." To paraphrase the words of Nock, there are in the Nation's class rooms many teachers who believe in the value of individual freedom. "They are obscure, unorganized, inartic'ulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. . . ." Thoreau noted that "public opin ion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion." It is the values of the individual teacher,what he thinks of him self and in what respect he holds his students, that determine his classroom goals. There are power ful drives toward mediocrity. Only as free individuals can we reverse the course of history. We can depict the role of Amer1973 VALUELESS EDUCATION 23 ican capitalism for what it is the moral, nonmaterial base of our freedoms. Professor Peter Viereck wrote in The Unadjusted Man: Private property educates its pos sessors in the moral qualities of sturdy independence, sense of re sponsibility, and the training of judgment and character brought whenever free choice is exercised in any field, including the economic field. It is these moral qualities, not the gluttonous material ones that have historically associated the rise of personal liberty with the rise of personal property.

It was the fundamental faith of a century of freedom-seekers from Locke to Jefferson that freedom for property would in the end re sult in liberties for men. During the decade before 1776 Colonial newspapers carried the motto on their masthead: "THE UNITED VOICE OF ALL HIS MAJESTY'S FREE AND LOYAL SUBJECTS IN AMERICA - LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND NO STAMPS." Conversely, the emotive nihilistic feeling of valuelessness which per meates the minds of floundering youth in the 1970's is summed up in the lyrics of a popular song, "... freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.... " Free dom in teaching and in learning is more than an idea; it is a skill which will eventually disappear if it is not used. Any true teacher, whatever his political bias, would take issue with critics of the 1972 Oldsmobile who based their criticism on the embryonic malfunctioning of the 1902 production model. Yet in hun dreds of classrooms across the na tion there is a continuing de nouncement of laissez faire. Con clusions are formed against capi talism because of the monopoly policies of Jay Gould and the "watered stock" sold by Daniel Drew. Surely we need not con tinue fighting the mouldering ghosts of Henry C. Frick .and George Pullman in this age of polyesters and jets.

Man Is Evolving Capitalism is by historical standards still a young force. It is yet unpatterned and largely ex perimental. It is still creating and evolving. Its value systems are those of freedoms, individualists, and responsibilities. The philoso pher Teilhard de Chardin saw man as nature's phenomenon, "the ascending arrow of the great bio logical synthesis." No teacher would restrain creativity and as piration. "Man's chief purpose is the creation .and preservation of values," stated Lewis Mumford. "That is what gives meaning to our civilization, and the participa24 THE FREEMAN Januar;'y tion in this is what gives signifi cance, ultimately, to the individual human life." Socialist dogma of envious and vitrioli~ criticism toward Ameri can Capitalism labels it "Social Darwinism." Their frustrated name-calling should be a major source of our renewed confidence in our adoption of freedom of choice as Man's greatest value.

"Social Darwinism," like "laissez faire" is not a term for which in dividualists need apologize. Man evolves in accordance with his freedoms. The great lesson that Darwin gave us is that man has not evolved. He is evolving. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Valae and Exchange FOR ALMOST two thousand years economic investigation was handi capped by the common notion that economic exchange is fair only as long as each party gets exactly as much as he gives the other. This notion of equality in exchange even permeated the writings of the classical economists. Back in the 1870's the Englishman Jevons, the Swiss Walras, and the Austrian Menger irrefutably exploded this philosophical foundation. The Austrian School, especially, built a new founda tion on the cognition that economic exchange results from a dif ference in individual valuations, not from an equality of costs. According to Menger, "the principle that leads men to exchange is the same principle that guides them in their economic activity as a whole; it is the endeavor to insure the greatest possible satis faction of their wants." Exchange comes to an end as soon as one party to the exchange should judge both goods of equal value.

HANS F. SENNHOLZ, "The Formation and Function of Prices"

SOME TIME AGO, Reverend Billy Graham spoke with one of the New Left's leading theorists, a part time university professor. Writing of it in Reader's Digest, (June, 1969) Reverend Graham added that the young man an nounced, "Our intention·· is to tear this country apart." The religious leader asked, "What system would you subsii tute after this one's demolished?" "I don't know," the young man replied, "but anything's better than what we have now." If our young are so woefully misinformed, perhaps they ought to study in China, Cuba, or the Soviet Union, so that they can see and experience the serfdom suf fered by the laborer under state ownership. One year under those tightly Mr. Wells has been an educator and currently is a freelance writer and supervisory training consultant. E. F. WELLS regimented, totalitarian govern ments would undoubtedly leave these students as disillusioned as are the young Africans who have studied in Russia. According to Victor Lasky, author of The Ugly Russian' (1965), Africans quickly learned that socialism was no cure for bigotry. Russian students often surrounded blacks and snickered over racial differences. A boy from Uganda was beaten by a mob of mocking Muscovites. A medical student from Ghana was found dead in the snow, a victim of vio lence. The Patrice Lumumba Uni versity where they study is a seg regated school, dubbed "Apartheid U" by the embittered Africans.

The Sino-Soviet split and the in tense nationalism displayed by most Russians has been enough to con vince many of the brighter black radicals that socialism will not end wars. The tanks rolling into Czech25 26 THE FREEMAN January oslovakia were proof enough for most that socialism is no guaran tee against imperialism. These students have shared the popular Czech joke currently being whis pered among the Soviets. "What is the most neutral country in the world?" one Czech is supposed to have asked another. "Ah, Czecho slovakia, of course," his friend re plied; "she doesn't even interfere in her own affairs." So before we burn it down, per haps we should face up to the alternatives. Pure socialism has never succeeded anywhere. Even though half the working force is assigned to farms, the Soviet Union has never been able to feed its people. According to U.S. News and World Report of May 15, 1972, one American farmer outproduces seven Soviet farm workers, be cause the American benefits per sonally from his increased pro ductivity. The Ukraine, once the breadbasket of Europe, has been unable to feed the people, who have had to rely on wheat sold to them by such capitalistic countries as Canada and the United States.

As Eugene Lyons wrote in Workers' Paradise Lost (1967), Russia is a laboratory test of the effectiveness of private versus so cialized farming. Because of the peasants' resistance and sabotage, Joseph Stalin was forced to grant them the right to own a cow, a few animals, and a small section of land on which they could produce products for the open market at free prices. These private farms make up merely three per cent of the acreage in use, yet they pro duce forty per cent of all Russia's vegetables, sixty per cent of its potato crop, and sixty-eight per cent of all its meat products. Lazo Finds Problems in Cuba Before Fidel· Castro seized the farms, Cubans produced almost 8 million tons of sugar. It was Cu ba's "money crop." Four years after Castro shot his way to pow er, sugar production had plunged to 4.8 million tons. To harvest this vital commodity, Castro forced the militia into the fields at the rate of 7 pesos a month (about $2.00).

Conscripts must spend ten hours a day for a minimum of twenty four months cutting cane or work ing the fields, policed by armed guards. When the rebellious deride ma terialism, they should remember that the abundance of food in the United States is due both to our incentive system and our indus trial adva,nces. Machinery, im proved fertilizers, electrical and mechanized power are contribu tions made by many of the giant companies that are now being har assed by those wishing to destroy our republic.

1973 BEFORE WE BURN IT DOWN! 27 Cuba can scarcely feed its own. Toward the end of 1967, butter was no 'longer available. Chicken could not be bought, nor could fish. Except for infants and the aged, milk could be purchased only with a doctor's prescription. Dr. Mario Lazo, a noted Cuban attorney and author of Dagger in the Heart (1968), stated that meat was doled out at a quarter of a pound a week - "what Americans consume in a single hamburger." Even the con temptible malanga, humble cousin to the potato, which used to be given away free, was being ra tioned. Despite huge shipments of wheat from Canada, bread, too, was a scarcity. In fact, Castro's regime has been kept from bank ruptcy, not only by aid from Rus sia, but by credit or aid from Canada, England, France, and even Spain. Communes Fail, Incentives Restored in China As for China, according to Mor ris R. Wills, one of the twenty-one GI's who defected and later re turned, Chinese officials attempted to combine the agricultural coop eratives into communes back in 1958. In these communistic units, the diligent worker, the skilled, and the lazy were all paid, not ac cording to' their ability or output, but according to their needs, a basic tenet of Marxism. It resulted in complete, if grim, equality for the serfs, while the influential Party members or highly skilled citizens lived in comfort or even wealth. It also resulted a year later in nationwide starvation. The com munes had failed!

"It was a common thing in the countryside," Wills told J. Robert Moskin in an interview for the book Turncoat (1966), "to find a baby lying at the side of the road - thrown away." It had died, and, helplessly, the parents had left it there, but make no mistake, they were not indifferent; they were bitter. The desperate situation forced the Chinese officials to reintroduce the ,inc'entive system, an important aspect of capitalism. Workers were to be rewarded for special effort by monthly bonuses - extra food, extra clothing, extra allowances. In a bakery Wills visited in 1965, he learned the women wrapping candy were being paid a.ccording to piece 'work! How Karl Marx would have raged over' such bour geois retrogression! But, unhap pily for the Chinese, Marx's theory ignored human nature. It is hu man to resent inj ustice. Paying the competent the same as the in competent infuriates the able and causes them to despair. Seeing no future in their efforts, most cease striving. Any political theorist, of whatever leanings, had best take 28 THE FREEMAN January into consideration this inescapable fact.

Housing Shortages in Russia Despite Russia's fifty years of highly touted progress, it cannot adequate'ly house its people. Al most half of Moscow's citizens still share kitchen and bath facilities with other families. In this so called "laborer's paradise," the workers' requests for apartments get less consideration than do the requests of privileged Communist Party members. Russia's astounding scientific and technical advances have been equaled or surpassed by other na tions, nations that have not had to resort to political genocide and mass enslavement. Furthermore, the New Left ought to make a careful note that when President Richard M. Nixon made his fa mous visit to Russia as Vice Pres ident he found roughly half the machines in Novosibirsk's largest machine-tool plant were American made. Many of the rest bore Ger man markings, proof that much of the Soviet's technical progress has been made through the efforts of the free enterprise system.

According to Time magazine's annual review in 1929, the Interna tional General Electric Company signed a twenty-five million dollar contract to electrify the Soviet Un ion. Other U. S. corporations agreed to build a 100-million dol lar hydro-electric plant in the Ukraine, steel mills, coal mines, and tractor factories at Stalin grad. Ford sold the Russian gov ernment a complete automotive factory, installed and equipped. These are crucial facts, because current leftists too often dismiss the failure of socialism in China, Cuba, and Russia by saying these countries were not sufficiently in dustrialized for the changeover. They overlook or ignore Russia's utilization of the technical ad vances created by capitalism. Much of Russia's difficulty came from the resistance of the people. They grew less grain because of heavy taxes and the scarcity of goods. They slaughtered their cattle and uprooted their fruit trees rather than turn them over to the state.

They burned their houses, think ing that soon they would get a brand new one from the govern ment. During 1928, nine thousand homes were destroyed by fire in the Russian province of Samarra. Of these, one third, three thou sand, were gutted because of arson. Red Tape and Waste Theoretically, socialism is sup posed to be more efficient than capitalism due to state control and centralized planning. In practice, it isn't. It suffers from the same ills 1973 BEFORE WE BURN 1'£ DOWN! 29 that plague our own huge, cum bersome, Federal bureaucracy. It is strangled by red tape. It suffers from wasteful duplication. Typical is the factory that received sev enty different commands from fif teen overlapping, government bureaus. Since it isn't necessary to show a profit for a plant or factory to survive, gross ineffi ciency· continues year after costly year. Unlike our own economy, however, there is no free enter prise system to support bureau cratic mismanagement.

The humor of the people is per haps more revealing than are the periodic progress reports. One story tells of a leading Communist who died and was sent to hell. At the entrance, Satan offered him the choi ceo f two ga t es, 0 n e marked "Capitalists," the other "Communists." "I'll take the Communist hell, naturally," the Russian replied. "Oh?" said Satan. The Communist nodded cynical ly, then added, "Yes. There's bound to be a fuel shortage there." As Nation's Business pointed out, if we wanted to match Rus sia's economy, we would have to: "tear down sixty per cent of our homes, demolish sixty percent of our steel mills, rip up two thirds of our railroad tracks, destroy nine out of every ten telephones, and reduce our standard of living a full sixty per cent." Of course, in comparison to China and Cuba, Russia has indeed made giant strides. Mao and Castro have re duced the worker's lot to grim sur vival.

Government Doesn/t Wither Furthermore, the government that Karl Marx said would de crease in importance and disap pear, remains as strong as ever. It ha's become entrenched by sup pressing all dissent. Recently, sev en Russians were imprisoned for merely complaining about the plight of the worker (Facts on File, November 26, 1969). In Cuba, according to Dr. Lazo, a .person cannot change his resi qence or transport so much as a chair or lamp to a new apartment without the knowledge and consent of the Committee for the Defense of the Revolution. China, like Cuba and Russia, has found the most insidious in strument of tyranny is the in former. For awhile, Wills played poker with an American couple also working with the Chinese Communists until their children walked in to demand the gambling be stopped or the children them selves would report it. Borrowing a device from Czar Nicholas I, the Soviet leaders have had many critics .declared "de mented" and placed in insane asyl30 THE FREEMAN January urns. So, before we tear down our republic, perhaps we should de cide: Do we want a system where the sane are caged and the Inad allowed to rule?

Paper Promises So long as socialism remained an untried theory, it was under standable that idealistic young Inen and WOInen should be drawn to it. It promised Inuch: more efficiency in the productive capac ity of a country, equality for all, an end to depressions (such as the famines both the Soviets and the Chinese COInmunists have suf fered), a fairer i distribution of the goods, and - once the state had been abolished - a true de mocracy of the people. The promises were paper prom ises. They have all failed to ma terialize. Today, the only explana tion for the continuing dream of a Utopian Socialistic Society is lack of knowledge or a belief that by destroying the free world, there need be no atomic war. In view of the possible consequences, to re main ignorant is criminal negli gence. As for the fear of a worldwide holoca ust, there is no guarantee that the internal destruction of AInerica would end this awesome threat. Such a belief is naive and illogical, for if a socialistic China can split with a socialistic Russia, there is no reason to believe a so cialistic America would fare any more harmoniously.

At a prominent Eastern univer sity, the majority of young men who were polled agreed with the slogan, "Better Red than dead." But how many of these knew they were voting for slavery? Surely, if the real test comes, the majority of Americans will choose the words of Franklin Delano Roose velt, as expressed in his third In augural, (January 20, 1941) : "We, and all others who believe as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees." ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY The Youth Movement IN THE DECADE preceding the First World War Germany, the country most advanced on the path toward bureaucratic regimen tation, witnessed the appearance of a phenomenon hitherto un heard of: the youth movement. Turbulent gangs of untidy boys and girls roamed the country, making much noise and shirking their school lessons. In bombastic words they announced the gos pel of a golden age. LUDWIG VON MISES, Bureaucracy CLARENCE B. CARSON THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 18 The Bill of Rights THE THRUST for a list of rights to be added to the Constitution gained momentum during the de bates over ratification which took place in the states. No distinct statement of rights had been made a part of the Constitution, nor did it contain any systematic protec tion of those rights traditionally thought to be in especial need of defenses. To some few within the convention, and to a much larger number of those who were not there, the omission was a defi ciency that must be corrected or the Constitution rejected. In retros spect, it appears strange that the men who sat in the convention should have neglected to supply something that was so universally considered essential by Americans and the absence of which so many would judge to be a fatal defect of their work. Among the reasons they did not were these: the leaders were focusing their efforts on getting a stronger general government, not upon restraining it; declarations of rights had not proved to be sub stantial deterrents to governments within the states; and, as some would argue, it was unnecessary to have such restrictions for a gov ernment possessing only enumer ated powers. However good their Dr. Carson, noted lecturer and author, is Chair man of the Department of History at Hillsdale College in Michigan. The articles of this series will be published as a book by Arlington House.

31 32 THE FREEMAN January reasons might be, the omission ran counter to American tradition and the predilections of the bulk of the populace. The belief in the necessity of a bill of rights went deeper than the American tradition, too. Britons traced their liberties to restraints on government. That was the les son, Americans thought, of Magna Charta, of the Petition of Right, and of the Bill of Rights. That government should be restrained by documentary prohibitions was deeply ingrained in Americans with a British background. Statements of rights, too, drew much force from natural law theory which under lay so much of American constitutional theory. The doctrine of natural rights not only held that man has certain rights in the nature of things but that government which is charged with protecting them tends, if not restrained, to invade and diminish them. The accepted means for in trod ucing protections of such rights into practice was by way of distinct bills of rights. By natural law theory, they do not become rights because attention is caned to them in fundamental instru ments of government - they inhere in the nature of things; but many believed that there was greater likelihood of their being observed if they were written into funda mental law.

The example of the states ap peared conclusive to many. If state governments which were much more closely dependent upon popu lar support had to be restrained, then how much more necessary would be restraints on a general government which was remote from the people both in physical distance and by the manner in which its branches were to be chosen. Conventions proceeded state by state to the consideration of and debate over ratification following the submission of the Constitution to the states in September of 1787. The Constitution provided for ratification by conventions made up of delegates chosen by elector ates within states. For it to go into effect, it was mandatory that two-thirds of the state conventions approve the Constitution. Ap proval required only a majority vote. Whether a state which failed to ratify would be excluded from the union was not stated in the Constitution, but presumably the state would have to take some kind of affirmative action to come into it. Most of the states acted with dispatch to hold elections followed in short order by conventions, but Rhode Island refused to hold a convention until 1790, and the North Carolina convention ad journed without acting on ratifica tion in July of 1788.

1973 THE BILL OF RIGHTS 33 "The Federalist" The debates over ratification within the states have retained considerable historical interest. Perhaps the most important rea son for this is that during these debates a thorough examination and exposition of the principles of the Constitution took place. Its strengths, weaknesses, and nature were thoroughly explored. The greatest brief in support of the Constitution was The Federalist, a book which was first published as newspaper articles for the express purpose of getting New York to ratify the Constitution. The arti cles were published under pseu donyms, but the bulk of them have since been attributed to Alexander Hamilton, a goodly number of the others to James Madison, and a few to John Jay. They are gen erally considered to be the most authoritative exposition of the original Constitution, despite the fact that they must have been com posed in considerable haste for a specific occasion. Their success is a tribute not only to the brilliance of Hamilton and Madison particu larly but also to the superiority of the analytical tools and rhetoric of an age. Though papers in opposi tion to ratification were published in a losing cause, some highly per ceptive ones were brought forth; of these the most important were by George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and Elbridge Gerry. In sev eral of the conventions, spirited and lengthy debates took place.

The debates in the Virginia con vention were the most thorough, as befitted the leading state in America, followed by those in Mas sachusetts and New York. L.oopholes Feared The other matter to come out of the debates to make them lastingly important was the demand for, promise of, and eventual adoption of a Bill of Rights. There were many objections raised to the Con stitution in the debates. Some saw it as establishing a general gov ernment of such powers that as they were augmented over the years would tend to extinguish the independence of the states. The powers of the President were much too great, critics declared, and since there was no barrier to re election, he might become, in effect, a ruler for life. The Senate, too, came in for much criticism, since it was remote from the peo ple, the terms of its members were long, and its powers were inter twined with those of the President.

Hardly a phrase or idea or provi sion of the Constitution that did not somewhere by somebody come under biting criticism. Even the phrase, "We the people," in the preamble was found to be offen sive: reference should have been 34 THE FREEMAN January to the states rather than the peo ple, they thought. Much of the cri ticism was frivolous, some of it was entirely off the mark, and part of it was arrived at by simply mis construing what was provided in the Constitution. The heart of the criticism, however, was that a gov ernment was being set up unre strained by sufficient protections of traditional and natural rights. Until this deficiency should be made up, there were a great many who simply could not accept the Constitution. Hamilton's Ingenious Argument Alexander Hamilton attempted to make as full answer as could be made to the proponents of a bill of rights in The Federalist number 84. He noted, first of all, that certain rights were protected within the Constitution, such as the right toa writ of habeas corpus, to trial by jury, and so forth. So far as particular bills of rights are concerned, he pointed out that they were, in their incep tion, instruments to restrain mon archs, hence, of doubtful appro priateness in a republic. Perhaps the most ingenious part of his ar gument is contained in the follow ing, however: I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they ·are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dan gerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not . be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be im posed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power ... This may serve as a speci men of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of con structive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.! Patrick Henry probably made as good answer to Hamilton as could be made when he spoke on the sub ject in the Virginia convention: Mr. Chairman, [he said] the neces sity of a bill of rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before. I have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly of Great Britain, is against the construction of rights be ing retained which are not expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction - that all rights not expressly and unequiv ocally reserved to the people are im pliedly and incidentally relinquished 1973 THE BILL OF RIGHTS 35 to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powets. It is so in Great Britain; for every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some express provision or compact, is within the king's prerog ative ... It is so in Spain, Germany, and other parts of the world.

Demand for Specific Limitations Whatever the merits of the ar guments on either side, feeling was strong for a bill of rights and opposition was great to a Con stitution which did not contain one specifically. As one recent ac count says, many were "sincere in deploring the failure of the Con stitution to defend basic freedoms in so many words. At worst these prohibitions would do no harm, and might be expected to work much safety. America had re cently, in the Revolution, freed it self from certain concrete oppres sions by a distant government, and these should not be allowed to creep in again by any eventu ality."2 Richard Henry Lee penned a poignant plea for just this dur ing the debates: ... Fortunate it is for the body of a people, if they can continue attentive to their liberties, long enough to erect for them a temple, and constitutional barriers for their permanent secur ity: when they are well fixed between the powers of the rulers and the rights of the people, they become visible boundaries, constantly seen by all, and any transgression of them is immediately discovered: they serve as sentinels for the people at all times, and' especially in those un avoidable intervals of inattention. 3 Indeed, so strong was the senti ment for some sort of bill of rights that the Constitution received rati fication in several crucial states only after the promise that one would be added.

Broad Support for Constitution Despite Criticism Though the debates over ratific cation of the Constitution do pro vide valuable insights into it - and opponents did make some telling points - it is easy to make too much of them. Some twentieth century historians have alleged that the Constitution was unpopu lar, that its ratification was ac complished by underhanded ma neuvers, and that had a larger electorate been consulted it might not have been adopted. This is not only speculative but alsoargumen tative, for it assumes that unin formed opinions should be given equal weight with the opinions of those who had studied the ques tions carefully. In fact, in most places the Constitution had the support of the bulk of men of learning and substance as well as most of the leading characters in the country. Most of the more 36 THE FREEMAN January thoughtful opponents of ratifica tion of the Constitution as it stood were by no means whole hearted in their opposition.

Besides, the vote in favor of ratification in most states was not close. Delaware ratified the Con stitution December 7, 1787, by a vote of 30-0; Pennsylvania fol lowed on December 12, by a vote of 46-23; New Jersey was unani mous for ratification a few days later, 39-0; Georgia unanimous on January 2, 1788, 26-0; Connecti cut overwhelmingly approved, 128 40, on January 9. The vote was close in Massachusetts, 187-168, but ratification was achieved on February 16. The Maryland vote in favor of ratification was not even close; it was 63-11, despite the fact that several Maryland delegates to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia op posed it. Those in favor of ratifi cation in South Carolina won handily, 149-73, on May 23; New Hampshire followed on June 21, 57-47. Nine states had now ratified it, and the Constitution could be put into effect. But the chances of succeeding without Virginia and New York were slim. Attention now focused on their conventions.

The Debate in Virginia In the Virginia convention which met for most of June, both sides were most reluctant to take a vote for fear of losing. This was one of the reasons the debates were so prolonged and the exami nation of the Constitution so thor ough. J ames Madison was the leading exponent of the Consti tution' ably assisted by John Marshall among others. Patrick Henry was the most tenacious op ponent of ratification. When the vote was finally taken, it was 89 to 79 for ratification. The New York vote was even closer ; that state ratified the Constitution by a vote of 30-27 on July 26. Thereafter, Americans turned to the task of organizing and getting the new government underway. North Carolina finally ratified the Con stitution in November 1789 by a vote of 194-77. With all the other states in, and under the threat of a boycott, Rhode Island finally held a convention in 1790 which proceeded to the ratification of the Constitution by the narrowest pos sible margin, 34-32. 4 There were some close votes, then, but the composi te picture is one of wide spread willingne~s to try the new Constitution and almost universal acceptance of it when it had been amended. The fact that opposition dwindled into insignificance once it was ratified shows the limited nature of that opposition; the op ponents could accept its adoption as a condition of political life which they found· tolerable. The 1973 THE BILL OF RIGHTS 37 main questions about the Consti tution now concerned how it should be amended and interpreted.

Of course, the opposition did not melt away until the Bill of Rights was made a part of the Constitution. Moreover, North Carolina's (and probably Rhode Island's) ratification of the Con stitution was given impetus by the fact that such amendments were in the process of being adopted. Thus, while other things of great moment for the founding of the American Republic were taking place between 1788 and 1791, it is appropriate to complete at this point the discussion of the Bill of Rights. Madison's Role Whether James Madison was the Father of the Constitution may re main debatable, but that he was the Father of the Bill of Rights is as near indisputable as such things can be. He examined the proposals as they had come from the state conventions, pondered the question of what rights were generally in greatest need of protection,' and as a member of the first House of Representatives kept bringing the matter up until the House con sented to act. Moreover, Madison served on the committee which brought forth the proposals as well as on the joint House-Senate committee which worked out the final form of the amendments.

There were suggestions at the time that he was less than enthusiastic about a bill of rights - as well as suggestions since that he delib erately made them vague and im precise -, but the record shows him working diligently to get something done when many of those who had been called Feder alists were dragging their feet and some of the anti-Federalists were more inclined .to niggling criticism than to working toward what could be achieved. Madison did oppose going into intricacies in the amendments; let us, he said, "confine ourselves to an enumera tion of simple, acknowledged prin ciples," for by doing so, "ratifica tion will meet with but little diffi culty."5 Surely this was wise counsel. A Happy Choice Two pitfalls were avoided by the manner in which the Bill of Rights was made a part of the Consti tution. It was passed by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratified by legisla tures of the states, with concur rence by three-fourths of the states being necessary for adoption. The method used was one of amend ment rather than of inserting these protections of rights within the body of the original Constitu tion. The first pitfall would have 38 THE FREEMAN January been the calling of another consti tutional convention to produce a bill of rights. Those who wanted to get on with establishing a gen eral government were most de sirous of avoiding any such gather ing, for it would most likely get out of hand and proceed to the un doing of the work of the first con vention. To have the amendments advanced by Congress not only avoided that danger but also util ized the legislative branch of the new government in one of its more important functions, thus enhan cing the prestige of the new gov ernment. Madison had at first thought that protections of rights should be placed within· the origi nal Constitution, but the House decided that they should be added as amendments. This, too, was a happy decision, for it avoided the spectacle of Congress tampering with the Constitution and setting the precedent for its being rewrit ten from time to time by the legis ture.

The Bill of Rights was submit ted to the states in September of 1789 and acquired a sufficient num ber of state votes of approval to go into effect in December of 179l. Twelve amendments were submit ted, but two were not approved. The first of the two dealt with ap portioning representatives in the House and would have fitted poorly in a bill of rights. The second laid down rules about determining the pay of members of Congress and would have been equally ill-placed at the head of an enumeration of rights and privileges. Madison had hoped to include an amendment which would have restricted the states as well as the general gov ernment from violating basic rights, but this proposal was turned down in the Senate. A Bill of Prohibitions The first ten amendments to the Constitution contain a list of re strictions, some specific, others more general, on the United States government. It would not be in correct to call them a Bill of Pro hibitions instead of a Bill of Rights, for they are in the nature of prohibitions. They are not so much a list of rights as they are a series of protections of rights.

The phraseology is generally nega tive: "Congress shall make no law," "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not· be infringed," "no Warrants shall is sue," "No person shall be held," "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined," "Exces sive bail shall not be required," "shall not be construed," and "pow ers not delegated." The meaning of this negative formulation and restrictive char acter can be succinctly stated. Some constitutions have contained 1973 THE BILL OF RIGHTS 39 declarations of rights which were more or less extensive lists of the rights supposed to belong to the people. Such lists tend to be inef fectiveand to amount to little more than pious wishes of those who state them. If one has a. right, who is it against, and how is it to be enforced? For example, suppose it be declared that the people have the right to free speech. This is a noble sentiment, but unless there is a prohibition against someone who would violate it, it is of no use. Moreover, even if such a gen eral right were enforced, it might well be done so as to limit someone else's speech.

Fear of Government The Founders w~re generally of the opinion that once law and order had been established the greatest danger to rights came from government itself. The move ment for a bill of rights to be added to the United States Con stitution came specifically from those who feared that the govern ment it established would violate them. For example, Richard Henry Lee was involved in the debates in the Senate over whether a bill of rights was necessary. Some said that they needed more experience to determine which and if amend ments were necessary. -Lee indi cated in a letter that he thought there had been experience enough "to prove the propriety of those great principles of Civil liberty which the wisdom of the Ages has found to be necessary barriers against the encroachments of power in the hands of frail Man."G Wherever government power was lodged, there must be a variety of restrictions and limitations on its exercise if men's rights were to be protected; so thought most Americans of that day.

Specified Rights The first two amendments deal with certain specified rights. The first reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peace ably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." An established reli gion is one which is supported by government, i.e., by tax money, by requiring attendance, or other such aids and privileges. To say that Congress should make no law pro hibiting the free exercise of reli gion would appear to mean that Congress should not concern itself with either prescribing or pro scribing religious practices. (This prohibition did not extend to state governments, since they were left free to prescribe or proscribe reli gions, limited only by their own 40 THE FREEMAN January constitutions.) The right to be lieve and practice any or no reli gion was usually described at the time as the "right of conscience."

Free speech, free press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition did not mean so much as one might suppose. The historical problem had been that those who governed had used such restrictions to pre vent criticism of themselves or in fluences upon their actions. What the Founders were primarily, probably exclusively, interested in protecting was the right of the people to speak, write, assemble, or petition so that they might freely characterize, criticize, or in fluence those who governed them. It is most doubtful, for example, that they any· more conceived of the right to a free press as a right to publish pornography than that they thought of the right to as semble as the right to intimidate. It is true, of course, that govern ments may restrict speech, the press, and assembly on other grounds than protecting those who govern from citicism and influ ence, but it is not clear what the incentive would be except for some public, as opposed to per sonal, reason. Be that as it may, the first amendment provides pro tections for several traditional rights generally most prized and often standing in need of protec tion.

The Right to Sear Arms: Argument for a Trained Mi/itia The second amendment is the most peculiarly phrased of all of them, and for that reason its im port is somewhat obscure. It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the· people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first two phrases are surely rhetorical flourishes rather than prohibitions on gov ernment. The only rights involved are those of keeping and bearing arms. There is no mystery about the right to keep arms; it means simply the right to store them on one's property. The right to bear arms is subject to two inter pretations. It might mean simply the right to carry them about from place to place. But in the context of the opening phrases, it might mean also the right to serve in the militia. The larger purpose of the amendment appears to have been to tip the scales in favor of citizen armies. Few things were more feared at the time than armies composed of foreign mer cenaries. Indeed, standing armies from whatever source were con sidered a grave danger. A govern ment with these at its disposal could go far to impose its will on the people, as had occurred at many times in the past. The sug gestion of the amendment, per1973 THE BILL OF RIGHTS 41 haps it should be called a hint, is that the military force should be assembled from part-time soldiers who composed the militia. The ef fectiveness of the militia would be greatly enhanced, they thought, if its members were practiced in the use of firearms. This would be greatly facilitated if they were permi tted to keep as well as to bear arms. Arms in the hands of the citizenry would also be a safe guard against either foreign mer cenaries or standing armies.

A Man's Home Is His Castle Amendments three and four deal with both rights and proce dures. The primary right involved is the right to the use of one's home in privacy and security. "A man's home is his castle" is an an cient saying, and these amend ments were aimed to make this so as against the United States gov ernment. The third amendment prohibits the quartering of sol diers in private houses, in time of peace without the consent of the owner, and. in time of war only .> according to rules laid down by law. The fourth deals with searches and seizures and pre scribes the procedures by which they may be done. Amendments five through eight are concerned almost entirely with processes by which government may take life, liberty, and property. They constitute resrictions which government is supposed to observe when it is going about the business of taking one or more of these from a person. It may appear ironic that a government which is supposed to protect life, liberty, and property may also take these on occasion. Yet, it has been the considered judgment of most men through the ages that govern ments must take one or more of these from persons from time to time in order to protect the life, liberty, and property of the> gen erality of people. It was also the view of the Founders that these are dread actions which must be hedged about with procedures and prohibitions to assure that men a,re not casually deprived. Article V declares, in part, that no per son shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Most of these processes are set forth in amend ments five through eight, such as, trial by jury, indictment by a grand jury, compulsory processes for obtaining witnesses by the ac cused, and the right to counsel.

To Protect the Innocent The courts exist, however, to settle disputes and to discover and punish malefactors. The primary purpose of the criminal courts is to protect the life, liberty, and property of peaceful persons by 42 THE FREEMAN January dealing sternly with those who violate them ..They do not exist for the purpose of protecting crimi nals; if this were their purpose, it is doubtful that society would be sufficiently concerned to establish courts. Those who attend only to the Bill of Rights might suppose that our constitution-makers were concerned only with the rights of the accused. They were not, of course; the basic business of gov ernment and of the courts was as sumed - so apparent as hardly to be worth stating -, whereas, the supplementary matter of protect ing the accused and the criminal was considered worthy of concen trated attention. Umbrella of Profec:f;on The ninth and tenth amend ments provide the general protec tions of rights; they were drawn as an umbrella over the whole to protect the individual and the states from encroachment by the general government. The ninth specifies that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Opponents of a bill of rights had pointed out that it would be impossible to spell out all the rights which men might justly claim. The listing of a few of them might set up the presump tion that those not listed did not belong to men as rights. This article was intended to make it as clear as could be· that all manner of rights still belonged to the peo ple, though no mention was made of them in the listing.

The tenth amendment puts the roof on the edifice, so to speak. It proclaims that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The language derives its impact from the natural law philosophy. On this view, rights belong to individuals in the nature of things. The powers of govern ment are justly derived from the people, and since these govern mental powers place some limit on indiyidual rights they must be ac quired by delegation (or by usur pation, which would be unjust, of course) . The powers not dele gated, then, whether it be to the general government or to the states, are reserved. Room for Flexibility There were those who would have attached the modifier "speci fically" to "delegated," but they were defeated in their efforts to do so. This raised ~the specter. of endless wrangling over whether the power to perform acts in order to exercise the powers delegated had been granted or not. More 1973 THE BILL OF RIGHTS 43 deeply, the inclusion of the modi fier would have posed the problem whether this government could exercise powers .that are said to be inherent in government or not.

Perhaps there was no need to re tain the notion of powers inherent in government, but Inen who have Just been engaged in the business of drawing up a constitution may be forgiven for being uncertain as to whether they had covered the whole ground or not. They might have, for aught they knew, failed to grant powers specifically which would shortly be necessary to the performance of functions which they had readily conceived. At any rate, the tenth amendment can be accurately construed as re strictive - that is surely its pur pose - but not as confining as it would be if "specifically" were added to it. A Unique Position Any amendment to the Consti tution occupies a unique position in the American system. It super sedes anything preceding it which is contrary to it; that is, it be comes the governing article in the matters with which it deals. The first ten amendments, however, occupy an even more prominent place in the Constitution than their position as amendments would perforce give them. They were conceived as and quickly became known as the Bill of Rights.

They were thought of, in part, as taking their place alongside Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights, and the British Bill of Rights. But the American Bill of Rights is signifi cantly different from and more than these great British guar antors of the rights of English men. For the British bethought themselves only to guarantee themselves against encroachment by the monarch. Whereas, the American Bill of Rights draws a line between the whole govern ment and the citizenry which the government is not to transgress. In doing this, it differs somewhat from the original Constitution. That instrument generally grants and restricts powers i.n terms of branches. This mode was continued in the first amendment, then abandoned in the rest, so they may be interpreted as restraining the whole Federal government. The American Bin of Rights is in formed by the idea that it is not just the executive, not only the courts, but also the legislature that must be restrained. Govern ment itself - in all its branches and so far as it may reach - is a potential threat to the people un der it. If they are to be secure in their rights, if they are to enjoy their lives and possessions, that government over them must be kept to its appointed tasks atid 44 THE FREEMAN January observe the procedures prescribed for it.

The adoption of the Bill of Rights reconciled most of the op ponents of the Constitution to the new government. With it as a bul wark of defense against consoli dated government, all the states could come into the union. The Bill of Rights did not yet reach through to all the inhabitants of the United States, but the provi sions were such that all could de sire to be covered by them. ~ • FOOTNOTES • 1 Alexander Hamilton, et. al., The Fed eralist Papers (New Rochelle: Arlington House, n.d.), pp. 513-14. 2 Broadus and Louise Mitchell, A Biog raphy of the Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 189. 3 Forrest McDonald, intro., Empire and Nation (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1962), pp. 134-35. 4 See Merrill Jensen, The Making of the American Constitution (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1964), pp. 141-46. ;) Mitchell and Mitchell, Ope cit., p. 196. 6 Quoted iri Robert A. Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights (New York: Collier Books, 1962), p. 215.

lDEASON LIBERTY Next: Establishing the Government. Government of the People GOVERNMENT, as has been before observed, is in the very nature of it a Trust; and all its powers a Delegation for gaining particu lar ends. This trust may be misapplied and abused. It may be em ployed to defeat the very ends for which it was instituted; and to subvert the very rights which it ought to protect .... Nothing, then, can be more absurd than a doctrine which some have taught, with respect to the omnipotence of parliaments. They possess no power beyond the limits of the trust for the execution of which they were formed. If they contradict this trust, they betray their constituents, and dissolve themselves. All delegated power must be subordinate and limited. If omnipotence can, with any sense, be ascribed to a legislature, it must be lodged where all legislative authority originates; that is, in the PEOPLE. For their sakes government is instituted; and theirs is the only real omnipotence.

RICHARD PRICE Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, 1776.

-Mainline to Disaster ROBERT PATTON IN THE LONG-STANDING debate over the question of drug legislation in the United States, two major and opposite positions stand out. There are those who call for im mediate legalization of marijuana. Some would go so far as to lift the ban on all drugs including heroin and other so-called "hard" nar cotics as well. Others decry what they see as a breakdown in moral order and vehemently oppose any letup in the government's war against the manufacture, sale, and use of illegal drugs. They fre quently point to the high incidence of drug-related crime - particu larly in major population centers such as New York City - as a ma jor argument for their case against drugs. There can be no argument against the obvious fact that such crime is on the rise. The problem has reached such proportions that law enforcement officials fre quently point with pride to a de crease in the rate of increase of violent crimes against persons and property in a given year. And the connection between drug addic tion and crimes against persons and property is well documented.

To sustain a $50 per day narcot ics habit, the addict needs re sources, which may lead him to Mr. Patton is a graduate student and part-time lecturer in physics at Hunter College in New York City. 45 46 THE FREEMAN January steal enormous amounts of prop erty ranging to $2500 or more each week! Few would argue with the as sertion that the widespread use of drugs is detrimental in the ex treme both to the unfortunates who have become dependent upon them and to others who pay a bit ter price in property loss, personal injury, and the debilitating fear that oppresses those who dwell in our once great cities. The very foundations of our social order would appear to be threatened by this pernicious epidemic that rages unchecked through our midst. Most pitiful is the fact that the primary victims of narcotics ad diction are the young - those in whose hands our future rests. HuntinOg the Villains Human nature being what it is, it is perhaps not surprising that our first instinct is to seek the vil lains that are responsible for our affliction. And find them we do. We find them in the persons of popu lar singers who, allegorically or directly, extol the virtues of drugs in their songs, in the pushers who prowl our streets, campuses, and even playgrounds. And we find them in the specter of organized crime, the syndicate, the interna tional narcotics czars.

The answers seem obvious. Crack down on the street pusher. Guard the borders. Impose eco nomic sanctions on the countries of origin. Clean up our films, our books, our records. Use the pow ers of the Federal Communica tions Commission to deprive the apostles of drugs of the podium from which they transmit their message of doom to our nation's youth. But many of these answers have been tried to one degree or another, whereas the problem grows at an accelerated pace. Why? Again the obvious answers. Soft judges. Corrupt police. Lax cus toms agents. Spineless do-gooders in government. Get tough - de clare all-out war on narcotics and the problem will be solved. Unfortunately, we are all too slow to learn from our mistakes. We have, after all, trod this path once before, in the twenties, the era of bathtub gin, the speakeasy, and the St. Valentine's Day mas sacre. The conclusions that can be drawn from our nation's experi ence with alcohol prohibition are painfully obvious. Contrary to the desires of our undoubtedly well intentioned legislators, the net ef fect of the Eighteenth Amend ment was to increase the use of hard liquor in the nation; the ef fect of repeal was to decrease it, although never to its pre-Prohibi tion level.

This argument, of course, has 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 47 been raised before and the usual reply is that hard narcotics such as heroin are incomparably more dangerous to the individual and to society than alcohol. It is further argued that, in attempting to eliminate the use of alcohol, pro hibition was doomed to failure be cause alcoholic beverages are part of our Western cultural tradition. Hall-Truths These arguments are both true and dangerously misleading. Cer tainly, heroin is far more danger ous in its effects than alcohol. But if the parallel we have been drawing between Prohibition and present drug legislation is valid then there is all the more reason to believe that the net effect of drug prohibition will be infinitely more pernicious than alcohol pro hibition proved to be. Further more, while narcotic use is not yet a part of our Western tradition, there is every reason to believe it is fast becoming so and that drug prohibition is largely responsible.

Let us not forget that many of the folk heroes of our Revolution, such as John Hancock, were smugglers who openly defied the authority of the British crown. Can anyone deny that within an increasingly large segment of our nation's youth - men of the same age as those who defied the rule of force at· Lexington and Concord - there is much the same regard for those who defy our drug laws as there was for the Hancocks during our beginnings as a free and inde pendent people. It is ironic that the strongest support for the enforcement ap proach to the drug problem tends to come from the ranks of politi cal conservatives. For it is from conserva ti ve economic theories that the most devastating argu ment against drug control through legislation can be made: the argu ment that the only effective con trol of harmful drugs is that im posed by the untrammeled opera tion of the free market. In such a market the will of the consumer, as expressed through the mechan ism of price, reigns supreme.

They Prey on the Young The biggest villain in today's drug picture is the unscrupulous pusher whose prey are the young people on our college campuses, schoolyards, and playgrounds. Those that become his customers may eventually have narcotics habits that cost as much as $500 per week tq support. For the vast majority of addicts, to support such a habit by honest labor is impossible. And so the addict en ters a twilight world in which long periods of driving need are punc tuated by moments of incapaci tating euphoria. He lives from fix 48 THE FREEMAN January to fix; nothing else matters. To get that next fix he will lie, cheat, steal or even kill if necessary. No wonder then that some 60 to 80 per cent of all crimes against property are committed by narcot ics addicts. Yet, these crimes are committed to supply a habit that, in the absence of restrictive drug legislation would cost no more to maintain than the habit of a heavy cigarette smoker. How many tobacco merchants do we find haunting elementary school play grounds to entice youngsters into smoking their first cigarette? The very suggestion is ludicrous. Why?

Simply because the profits on the sale of cigarettes do not supply sufficient incentive. Thus the very actions of govern ment that are intended to curb the use and sale of dangerous narcot ics act instead to line the coffers of organized crime. Suppose the all-out war against narcotics that many call for were actually ini tiated. Forgetting the inevitable corruption in the ranks of those who would be called upon to fight this crusade, let us assume that the government succeeds in totally shutting off aU of the present sources of narcotics. What would be the immediate consequences of such a program? The addict, thus deprived of his usual source of supply would be driven to the point of desperation. Burglaries and robberies of phar macies and doctor's offices would likely reach record heights. What small supplies of narcotics re mained on the streets would change hands at fantastically in flated prices. Those who could not pay these prices would either steal drugs or do without. But an ad dict cannot "do without" drugs in the same way that one can do with out a new shirt or a pair of shoes.

The vast armies of addicts who were left without the psychologi cal crutch that their habit pro vides would represent an enormous potential market for anyone who could supply their need. The pre cise way in which that need would be filled cannot be predicted. That it would be filled is a certainty. Market Principles The principles that apply here are identical with those that apply to any market situation. Economic law knows no moral code. When the demand for any commodity outruns the supply, the price of that commodity will inevitably rise. At the present time, the "market" price for heroin at the level of the street dealer is more than one hundred times the cost of manufacture. The reason is plain. The manufacture, sale, and dis tribution of heroin is a high-risk venture. The action of government, and nothing else, is responsible 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 49 . for the high price levels that now prevail. The "all-out war" that we are discussing would further raise these prices in proportion to the intensity of the crackdown. The il legal drug market is subject to the very same principles of economics that apply when the issue is price control or minimum wage legisla tion.

On September 21, 1970, the Fed eral government initiated a crack down on the illegal drug traffic across the Mexican border. Opera tion Intercept, as ·it was called, was an unqualified success; the New York Times Encyclopedic Al manac for 1970 calls it "the largest civil search and seizure operation ever conducted in peacetime." A virtual army of radar-equipped patrol boats and search planes slowed the immense flow of nar cotics (chiefly marijuana) into this country from Mexico to a dribble. The result? One month later, on October 22, a joint legis la tive committee of Congress heard testimony that heroin use among New York City youngsters had jumped alarmingly. By drying upthe supply of marijuana, Opera tion Intercept had raised street prices to the point that heroin be came competitive with it. The inevitable consequences of the enforcement approach to nar cotics has been stated most suc cinctly by Peter Drucker writing in Saturday Revie'w of May 13, 1972: Paradoxically, every "victory" in the "war against narcotics" increases the profitability of this trade and soon creates new pushers, more ad dicts, and bigger profits. When the narcotics agents "smash a drug ring"

and confiscate 50 kilograms of heroin, the drug temporarily becomes scarce around Manhattan, in downtown San Francisco, or on Harvard Square. The price goes up - and with it the profit for the drug rings whose sources of supply are still intact. Addicts be come more desperate. Crime and vio lence - and with them, fear.- r!se more sharply. More people are lured by their own need and by the high profits into becoming peddlers and pushers, producing still more addicts. But this. has been perhaps a bit one-sided. What of the govern ment's point of view? What do the officials charged with "curbing the drug traffic" have to say? Inter viewed by U.S. News & World Re port in their September 25, 1972 issue, Nelson G. Gross, Senior Ad viser, International Narcotics Mat ters, Department of State, was asked if progress had been made in stopping the illegal importation of heroin. Responding in the af firmative, Mr. Gross described the tangible results of an eighteen month government crackdown on the international drug traffic: "The availability of heroin on the streets is less than it was a year ago. The 50 THE FREEMAN January quality is not as good. The whole sale price is higher, and the retail price - which is what addicts pay - is higher ."Later in the same in terview, Gross indicates that he is aware of a second major conse quence of the crackdown as he points out that" ... those engaged in the drug traffic are turning to other sources of supply, and new routes are being developed to keep the flow of heroin coming to the U.S."

Gross also refers to the growing traffic in low grade, Mexican "brown" heroin. "There has not been an appreciable amount of brown heroin used within our bor ders," he observes, "although in creasing supplies are beginning to appear asa result of the East Coast shortage of heroin." [italics added] Incredibly, there is no disagree ment .between Gross and Drucker as to the consequences of strict en forcement of drug prohibition. Methadone Addiction The current methadone contro versy is a second case in point. Methadone is a synthetic drug that, taken in appropriate doses, can satisfy the heroin addict's craving and prevent the appear ance of withdrawal symptoms without inducing euphoria.Dos .. ages above this "appropriate" level, however, are intoxicating. Since 1964 various clinical pro grams have been instituted in which methadone is administered regularly to heroin addicts to en able them to live near normal lives, to hold down regular jobs and so on. According to the August 11, 1972, issue of the prestigious journal, Science, 50,000 heroin ad dicts presently are enrolled in such clinical methadone "maintenance"

programs in the U.S. Discussing new regulations proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, Science reports: The new guidelines basically recog nize methadone as a safe and effective drug, but surround its use with re strictions aimed at curbing a black market that has been spreading at an alarming rate ... Doctors through carelessness or ignorance, have dis pensed prescriptions for methadone tablets that are promptly sold for up to $10 apiece so that the "patient" can buy more heroin. Who could be paying $10 for a drug that is dispensed free to heroin addicts? There are only two possibilities. Black market methadone is being sold both to heroin addicts enrolled in metha done programs who wish to in crease their intake of the drug to a level that allows them the eu phoric escape from reality they crave, and to primary methadone users - individuals addicted to or 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 51 becoming addicted to methadone itself. An ironic but likely possi bility is that individuals may be using methadone in the mistaken belief that, since it is dispensed by the government, it must not be harmful.

In methadone we have a com modity that is in demand - either actually or potentially - and it should come as no surprise that a market has developed around it. What we must realize is that certain men have existed in every society by pandering to the weak nesses and vices of their fellows. Their modus operandi is diaboli cally simple. Find a commodity or service for which there is a mar ket, have government outlaw it, then move in and reap the rich financial rewards made possible by the artificially high·. price levels maintained by the government re strictions on the prod uct. Not only is this technique profitable, it is relatively safe; for the greater the force with which government attempts to destroy such a mar ket, the higher the price levels and the profits attendant on those prices. And the higher the profits, the more police officials, customs agents, and judges can be "bought"

by the syndicate. Crackdowns ini tiated in response to public pres sure will ineyitably fall heaviest on the small operators, while the financiers and organizers sit tight in their penthouses until the. heat is off once again. The British Experience Those that oppose the liberaliza tion or repeal of our present drug laws often point to the "failure" of such an approach as in Great Britain. For many years narcotic drugs were available to British ad dicts by prescription. Then, in re sponse to statistical indications that drug use was on the rise, the government clamped down. The conclusion drawn from this is that any letup in the government's war on narcotics mandates a rise in the use of hard drugs. Several im portant points are overlooked by such a conclusion. First, although drug addiction undeniably in creased in Britain during those years of limited restrictions, it never reached the epidemic propor tions that it has in this country.

Furthermore, a large part of that increase - perhaps the greater part - can be attributed to the large numbers of American ad dicts that emigrated to Britain so they could supply their habit with out being driven to criminal acts. And that leads to a most important point: addiction in Britain has never been associated with crime to the extent that it is here. This, in fact, is the justification given for the methadone programs dis cussed earlier. An addict in a 52 THE FREEMAN January methadone program is as much an addict as the heroin· addict in the street; no one has ever claimed for methadone maintenance the status of a cure. The difference is simply and only that the methadone pa tient need not steal to support his habit. Ironically, this is the cen tral point raised by many "liber als" in attacking the methadone programs. Their argument, as stated in the Science article quoted above, is "that it is a sinister form of social control in that its only purpose is to cut down on addict related crime."

The principal opposition to lib eraliza tion or repeal of present drug laws comes from those who fear that this would be a signifi cant step in what they view as a general breakdown in the moral fiber of our society. That this breakdown is all too real is unde niable, but the contention that so called permissivity is the root cause of the problem is moot. Is it not, rather, that we have created a society in which the natural con sequences of immoral or amoral behavior are not allowed to oper ate? It is not the intelligence or industriousness of the purveyor of hard drugs that makes it possible for him to sport $200 suits and drive $8000 automobiles. It is the action of government that has created his monopoly business. If it were true that "permissivity" were the root cause of breakdowns in the moral order of society, then Soviet Russia or Communist China would be the examples to emulate in today's world. In these countries, morality is rigidly enforced by state edict.

The State defines morality and harshly punishes transgressions against it. Now, many of us ob j ect to the particular moral code that is imposed on the Russian and Chinese peoples. Does this mean that if a tyrant's edicts were based· on the "right" mo rality, that they would be any the less tyrannical? It is obvious that they would not. The very concept of morality is meaningless in any context in which the individual is not free to choose to act immorally. Certainly, any viable society must protect itself against those who would use force to violate the rights of others. It does not fol low, however, that it is either de sirable or proper that any govern ment impose its idea of the good on its citizens. If we wish a so ciety in which people behave hon estly and self-reliantly, we can not achieve it by force. Rather, let us create a social order in which virtue is its own reward.

A Perverted Order What we have created in this century is the antithesis of such an order. We live in a world in 1973 DRUG LEGISLATION-MAINLINE TO DISASTER 53 which sloth is rewarded and indi viduals are protected, by govern ment, from the natural conse quences of their own immoral acts. At least, such is the professed in tention of those who create gov ernmental policy today. An in divid ual does not wish to work? It is the responsibility of others to see that he is fed. An individual is careless with his life on the highway? Let us insulate all driv ers from the consequences of care lessness and ineptitude with belts, airbags, helmets, and padding. An individual chooses to destroy his mind and body with narcotic drugs? Take away the drugs and, failing that, incarcerate or com mit him for "his own good." A Place to Draw the Lin~ If such policies did in fact lead to material prosperity, increased highway safety, and a decrease in the ranks of those whose minds and bodies .are rotted away by narcotic drugs, they would still be abhorrent to anyone who valued freedom. The truth, however, is that they do no such thing. In stead, they foster the very prob lems they are designed to solve.

The zombies who stalk our city streets in search of their next vic tim and their next fix are not a problem for government to solve but, rather, one more problem that government has created. And gov ernments'prescribed cure is a more virulent dose of the dread disease itself. . ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY THE GOVERNMENT tried to "protect" people from the ill effects of alcoholic beverages during 1918 to 1933 with notable lack of suc cess. Their efforts not only failed in their stated purpose but in the process spawned the growth of an organized underworld that is with us today, encouraged corruption of public officials, and taught a general disrespect for the law that still plagues us. The government's efforts to outlaw gambling have had the same dismal results. So have the government's efforts to prevent citi zens from reading pornographic literature, or to regulate sex relations between consenting adults.

If any citizen wishes to engage in activities that are dangerous, considered immoral or frowned upon - which do not hurt anybody else - he should be free to do so. Let's draw the line for freedom and keep the government behind it. Let's not pass any more laws to reduce our freedom by "pro tecting" us from our own 'actions. B. V. BROOKS, JR., The Westport News (Connecticut) August 25,1972 Herbert Spencer: RONALD F. COONEY LIKE ANY ERA one would care to mention, the last half of the Nine teenth Century offered a fair field for the votaries of Statism. The evil effects of the Industrial Revo lution, especially in the country of its origin, England, effects of long hours and little pay, of factories dangerous and unhealthful, of woman and child labor in those factories, of squalid industrial towns, of workmen reduced to the level of automatons, combined with ever-present ignorance, dis ease, and .poverty to complete a picture of misery for much of the British population. The situation demanded a remedy. Then, as now, the agent of deliverance, the deux ex machina, was thought to be the State. England's ills were per ceived not as the result of a natuMr. Cooney is a freelance writer recently graduated from the University of Nevada.

54 raJ and inevitable friction between 2. waning agricultural life and an emerging industrial life, not as the symptoms of a society in the throes of a profound and difficult transition, but rather as the wages of a political sin of omis sion. Correct that omission, it was said in effect, pass enough laws, the implicit argument ran, and human suffering would vanish. Men of all political stripes, f rom the Liberal Gladstone to the Tory Disraeli succumbed to the pleasant· vision of. a nation where laws would provide the solution to every problem. The motives of these men were doubtless. pure. They were decent men who were shocked at the conditions they saw and tried to relieve them. They were good men, but they were mis guided men. They vastly over estimated the law's properties to 1979 HERBERT SPENCER: APOSTLE OF LIBERTY 55 heal, to cure, to make right. Sadly, they could not foresee liberty, a delicate thing, being ground un der the heel of an unrestricted State.

There were indeed few people willing to challenge the logic and correctness of their society's di rection, and fewer still who real ized its peril. The occasional cries raised in defense of individual freedom were drowned out in the clamor for more and ever more State intervention. Questions· con cerning the future of freedom un der an accelerating State power were infrequently entertained, and more often than not completely ignored. Nonetheless, rare though the voices of liberty were, they did· exist. Of those voices, the most tireless and influential was the great English philosopher, Herbert Spencer. Darwin's Influence Spencer, a contemporary and friend of Darwin, is best known to posterity as the thinker who based an entire philosophic sys tem - his "Synthetic Philosophy" - upon the theory of evolution. Scarcely less significant, but far less well-known, are the contribu tions which he made to political thought, chiefly. in the form of two books, Social Statics (1850), and The Man vs. The State (1884).

For it was in those works that Spencer registered a vigorous dis sent from the prevailing dogma and expressed his deep and abid ing antipathy - what he called his "profound aversion" - to the un checked extension of State author i ty. And it was in those pages too that Spencer, in a lonely sixty year advocacy, championed the rights of the individual, laissez faire, and a classical liberalism. These several strains of Spen cer's political faith are easily dis cerned throughout Social Stat,ics, at once the more theoretical and more satisfying of the two books. Whereas The Man vs. The State elaborates on certain points raised in the earlier work, thus forming a kind of appendix to it, Soc'ial Statics presents the Spencerian view of government in toto. Its wide l'ange encompasses specula tions upon the origin and purpose of government, the nature and ex tent of individual rights, and the proper (and improper) functions of the State. The latter portions of the book, devoted to a discus sion of such timely issues of the day as poor relief, national educa tion, sanitation and health laws, regulation of commerce and cur rency, postal services, and State churches, seek to relate practical concerns to the theories and prin ciples previously laid down.

The argument contained in So cial Statics, and it can be said 56 THE FREEMAN January without much fear of overstate ment, Spencer's whole political philosophy, rests on the "law of equal freedom." The law reads: "Every man has freedom to all he wills provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." In other words, a man has freedom to act so long as his ac tions remain within the bound aries set up by the correspond ing equal freedom of all other men. Spencer notes what he feels will be the obj ections to the principle, namely either "that men have no rights," or "that they have un equal rights." The first assump tion, Spencer says, leads to the doctrine that countenances abso lute monarchy or a dictatorship, i.e., "might makes right." That men should have unequal claims to freedom, or rights in proportion to their "merits" Spencer also de nies. Noway exists for deter mining what is or is not a merit, and there is no authority for such a determination were it possible.

In a State of Nature Here Spencer is speaking of man in a pre-social state where government as such has not yet been established. How and why government came into being is a question Spencer must answer be fore he can proceed to the all important problem of the State's lawful and moral limits. Probably, Spencer thinks, the State origi n.ated in a single individual, su perior in some way to the in dividuals around him. The su perior person keeps (exactly how, Spencer does not say) the group or tribe together, and for this he is revered by the other members of the community. As civilization advances men begin to assert what they feel to be their rights, until they finally reach a state "under which their rights will be entire and inviolable." But why did men originally enter a social arrange ment? Spencer answers thus: ... they found it preferable to the isolated one; which means that they obtained a greater sum total of grati fication under it; which means that it afforded them fuller exercise for their faculties; which means that it of fered a safer guarantee for such ex ercise - more security for their claims to life and property; that is, for their rights.

If this is the reason for the formation of society, then the du ties of the State should reflect it. If men entered the social state for the better protection of their Iives, liberty, and property, then it is the function of government to act first as a police force against aggression from within and with out, punishing criminal acts and defending the nation from foreign invasion, and second as an ad1973 HERBERT SPENCER: APOSTLE OF LIBERTY 57 ministrator of justice, adjudica ting the unavoidable conflicts that arise among imperfect human be ings. The State creates no rights, but only the atmosphere wherein the citizen may exercise what rights he will without infringing the equal exercise of others. The Law of Equal Freedom The benefits issuing from the State's correct maintenance of se'curity and justice, are, unlike the false "rights" that the State at tempts to bestow, indivisible.

That is to say, they are not granted to one segment of the population at the expense of an other. They are, or should be, available to all. The degree to which they inhibit liberty is offset by the degree to which they make possible a climate where liberty can flourish. Finally, they are the only functions the State may un dertake consistent with the law of equal freedom - the law of free men. And if the State endeavors to expand this limited sphere, if it essays to provide more than is necessary for the safety of the citizenry and the rights of the citizenry, it transgresses doubly, first against the law of equal free dom, and secondly against the pur pose for which the State itself was established, the protection of freedom. For this reason is the law of equal freedom particularly valuable as a dictum of absolute justice and as a gauge for the rightness and wrongness of legis lation.

Spencer vehemently denies that the State should interfere in com merce. An Adam Smith free trader, he opposes any regulation of the market - whether in the form of "artificial stimuli or arti ficial restraints." The first, assum ing the shape of bounties to en courage production, are wrong be cause they require more of the citizen's property than is needed to maintain his physical protec tion and his rights. "Artificial re straints" are likewise improper since they directly violate the in dividual's right of free exchange with other individuals. Separation of Church and State Neither may the State legiti mately tax the people in order to set up a State-church. By doing so, Spencer believes, the State pre supposes its own infallibility while simultaneously restricting the freedom of the individual to use his faculties. Furthermore, any disagreement with church doctrine would compel the State to outlaw and punish religious non-conform ity, a fact which Spencer, the des cendant of a long line of Dis senters, could appreciate.

Obviously the State may no lTIOre institute laws for the relief 58 THE FREEMAN January of the poor than it may intervene in matters of trade or religion. Why? Because here again it in fringes on individual freedom and exceeds its proper powers as the guardian of life, liberty, and prop erty. Spencer recognizes and meets head on the argument which says that by providing aid to the poor the State is actually increasing the freedom of action of the poor, however much it may be reducing the freedom of the man who pays for poor relief. Spencer answers: "Cutting .away men's opportuni ties one side, to add to them on another, is at best accompanied by a loss." The State, he argues, can only guarantee the freedom of a person to act to the fullest extent of his rights, bounded, as always, by the equal freedom of other men. Within a confined area the State may aid in the pursuit of happiness, but it cannot assure that happiness will be attained.

That is up to the individual and how he uses his freedom. How Much Is Enough? Spencer argues further that even if one grants that aid to the poor should be supplied, it would be impossible to decide its amount. He notes that even among the pro ponents of "poor-laws" there is considerable divergence· of opinion as to what constitutes a suitable "maintenance." One thinks that a bare subsistence is all that can be fairly demanded. Here is another who hints at some thing beyond. mere necessaries. A third maintains that a few of the en j oyments of life should be provided for. And some of the more consistent, pushing the doctrine to its legitimate result, will rest satisfied with nothing short of community of property. This passage has a special rele vance for our own day, as we hear the debate over the correct" amount, but never the propriety, of a guaranteed annual income. Other Interventions Deplored Finally, Spencer says the State has no right to educate, to satisfy the mental needs of the popula tion, any more than it has the right to satisfy the population's physical needs through State-run charities. The State may not colon ize, since this violates the rights of native peoples, nor can it shoulder the burden for public health, ex cept, interestingly enough, in mat ters of air and water pollution. Last of all, State action in currency ar rangements and postal services are both forbidden as transgressions of the individual's freedom of as sociation and action.

The. views which Spencer enun ciated in Social St.atics changed little throughout the remaining fifty years of his life. The same unwavering devotion to individual 1973 HERBERT SPENCER: APOSTLE OF LIBERTY 59 liberty, the same unflagging es pousal of freedom that marked that book can be found in The Man VB. The State, Spencer's second important work of political phil osophy. Although the ultimate intent of The Man VB. The State is the same as Social Statics, the approach is somewhat different. Spencer al ways referred to himself as a lib eral and to his philosophy. of gov ernment as liberalism. He was speaking, of course, of classical liberalism, of the liberalism exem plified by men like John Locke. About 1860, liberalism of the type that Locke represented underwent a fundamental change. No longer content with merely overseeing a negative government which al lowed a broad area for personal freedom, the Liberal party in England forsook its guiding ideals to 'wholly embrace State interven tion. Spencer himself never wea ried of pointing out to these "new"

liberals how far they had strayed from true liberalism, and how greatly. their notion of liberalism differed from his own. A sizable part of the lesson. he read to the liberals of his time, that the so called liberals of the pres.ent would do well to ponder, is The Man vs. The State. The first essay in the book pointedly expresses Spencer's dis enchantment with the transfiguration of liberalism. Entitled, "The New Toryism," it not only charges the Liberal party with abandon ing its own basic precepts, but also with adopting those of the opposition Tory party. While lib eralism had always stood· for. in dividual rights, voluntarycoopera tion, and a regime of contract, toryism, from the beginning, had stood for privilege, compulsory co operation, and a regime of status. Spencer accounts for the exchange of ideologies this way: The gaining of a popular good, be ing. the external conspicuous trait common to Liberal measures in ear lier days (then in ea.ch case gained by a relaxation of restraints), it has happened that the popular good has come to be sought by Liberals, not as an end to be· indirectly gained· by re laxations of restraints, but as the end to be directly gained.

The consequences and efficacy of liberal lawmaking, from acts reg ulating the railroads to laws pre venting the sale of beer on Sun days, are considered by Spencer in the four essays following "The New Toryism." In "The Coming Slavery" he reflects on the in ability of politicians to see beyond the immediate ramifications of their actions. Pursuing the public welfare through "humanitarian" legislation (such as poor-laws), legislators, knowingly or unknow60 THE FREEMAN January ingly, move a society toward State tyranny, or as Spencer calls it in "From Freedom to Bondage," a military regime which uses force, or the threat of force to achieve its ends. Whether or not legislators have the competence, much less the right, to execute the immense re sponsibilities they are constantly taking on, and whether laws are the best and only ways of solving society's problems, Spencer ques tions in "The Sins of Legislators"

and "Over-Legislation." The need less, oppressive, or simply bad laws so often enacted by a "slow, stupid, extravagant, and unadap tive" officialdom do not simply fail, but frequently worsen the situa tion they were designed to relieve. And, the more they fail, the louder is the demand that they be multi plied. Divine Right of Majorities The Man vs. The State closes with "The Great Political Super stition." In the past, the supersti tion was the divine right of kings, and in the present it is the divine right of majorities, the divine right of parliaments. Spencer cau tions against seeing the proximate good in any widening of Statepower and ignoring the ul,timate evil that such a widening would bring about. Failure to do thi~, he says, will produce a state like that which preceded the French Revo tion, when there was "so exces sive a regulation of men's actions in all their details . . . that life was fast becoming impracticable."

He recapitulates the theme of "The New Toryism" with the final lines: "The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the power of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be' that of putting a limit to the power of Parlia ments." The more than eighty years that have passed since Spencer wrote those words have done nothing to undermine, and everything to vin dicate his warnings. What he stated in Social Statics and The Man vs. The State affronted the Statist orthodoxy of his time as it affronts the Statist orthodoxy of ours. It is not so important whether Spencer's work had any effect on slowing State-socialism, for he did not expect that it would. What is important is that he spoke for liberty when he felt liberty was threatened. For that, he will not be. forgotten. ~ A REVIEWER'SNOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN NOT SO LONG AGO Erik von Kuenhnelt-Leddihn entertained a luncheon gathering of The Rem nant with a description of the peregrinations of a bad idea. The notion that students have a right to use university premises as a privileged sanctuary from which to carryon a revolutionary war against society and/ or the State first took hold in Latin America.

Then, after ruining Latin Ameri can education, it skipped to J a pan. The next stop was Berkeley in California (in 1964, a year be fore Lyndon Johnson decided to put drafted troops into Vietnam), from which it moved erratically eastward to the grisly climax of Columbia, the deaths at Kent State, and the disruption of Har vard. The European universities were not immune, but the crises in France and West Germany had a shorter duration. Adam Ulam, a Polish-born Pro fessor of Government at Harvard University, lived through the tu multuous period in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with a constantly growing wonder that the Ameri can public high school and private preparatory school could have pro duced such a totally lack-logic generation of students. They couldn't distinguish between a strike and a boycott. They con fused academic life with politics and labor relations. They thought they had a mission to prescribe foreign, military, and economic policy before they had learned something about history and gov ernment, not after. Instead of ask ing for French teachers who could teach French, or mathematicians 61 62 THE FREEMAN January who knew something about im parting the principles of the cal culus, they wanted a faculty that could satisfy their religious, ideo logical, and political yearnings. In short, they were in the market for anything but learning and the ac quisition of skills that might en able them to lead productive or at least unalienated lives.

First Things First Professor Ulam has put his ruminations on the college scene of the Nineteen Sixties into a wise and searching book, The Fall of the AmericIan Un1iversity (Library Press, $7.95, trade distribution by Nash Publishing Company), that is part history and part .essay. He starts out with the common sensical idea that universities should be institutions of learning. Tradi tionally the uni versi ty has existed to impart knowledge and skills for a fee. The university may turn out people with ideas about solving social problems, or running governments, or fighting (or abstaining) from wars, but it is not set up to do any of these things directly. Professor Ulam is a first-things-first man, with a gift for aphoristic expression. He doesn't see why classrooms should be used as pulpits, or· why profes sors of English literature should be psychiatrists, or why students should assault deans when they are really mad at Congress for supporting the draft or letting the President fight /an undeclared war.

He wants the lines of logic to run clear. Above all, he asks for pre cision in the use of language. There was the business of the student "strike" at Harvard, for example. A boycott of classes is not a strike. How do you "strike" against something you have paid for? In normal life, if you don't like what you are getting, you ask for money back and take your patronage elsewhere. Harvard's answer to the student "strike" should have been to close down the university. If your patrons don't like your· service, they have the right to complain or to go to a store across the street. But the university is under· no compulsion to stop teaching Spanish, or the history of the Middle Ages, merely because its President can't at the same time satisfy the students that the Black Panthers are get ting justice, or that the White House really knows what it is buy ing when it asks for a position paper on neo-colonialism in the Third World.

Who Is to Blame? Adam Ulam does not make the mistake of blaming the young 'for everything. Our whole society be came rather disoriented in the Sixties. The professors who went 1979 THE FALL OF THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY 63 to Washington in the days of Camelot could not have. it both ways. They were great when "cost effectiveness" worked. But when, as whiz kid advisers to White House and· Pentagon, they sup ported the strange idea that dedi cated Asian Marxist guerrillas would give in to "graduated pres sure" in a tropical jungle terrain, they ran the risk of exposing themselves to the students back home in Cambridge as stupid run ning dogs of a brainless military industrial complex. When college authorities failed to protect the civil liberties of visiting speakers or business recruiters, radical stu dents drew the correct conclusion that they could get away with anything short of murder.

As Professor Ulam puts it, "in the mid-Sixties it was suddenly discovered that there was one place which miraculously fitted the requisite of every man's ill humor. The university was elitist; it de based learning by letting in utterly unqualified people. It permitted, nay encouraged, promiscuity and the use of drugs; it repressed the young. It advised the Pentagon and big business how to meddle in the affairs of other nations; it bred anti-patriotic feelings and anarchism. It epitomized white supremacy; it stimulated black radicalism and separatism. It was a repository of useless pedantry; it was full of busybodies who, un der the pretense of objective study of society, sought power and were eager to submit their fellow citi zens to some half-baked schemes of their fabric~tion." And, so Professor Ulam sums it up, "by 1969 one had to admit that there was an element of truth in all those charges!"

In a permissive age the uni versity administrations and facul ties let students claim rights and indulgences that were not pos sessed by ordinary citizens. Stu dents were beyond the reach of ordinary police power. A growing army of university officials came into being to administer a con stantly diminishing body of rules. Professors were at once permissive and patronizing. And so, of course, they lost all respect. The Age of IIRe/evance li The worst of it was that pro fessors did not defend their own disciplines. They· allowed fashion able ideas about "relevance" to undermine their belief in the use fulness of their various subjects. Instead of insisting that the cure for "alienation" is to lure the stu dent into becoming engrossed in a language, a literature, an ancient civilization, or a science, profes sors allowed students to define "relev~nce" in terms of current events. There was a great pro64 THE FREEMAN January fusion of courses that confused things that students should worry about with things they should study. As for some of the sub jects that go under the name of sociology, Professor Vlam asks why should young men and women be required as part of their ex pensive higher education to sit through lectures on what they al ready know and hear incessantly from newspapers, magazines, TV, and their own rap sessions?

In the brave new world of the modern university, students hold forth on ecology and abortion but learn little biology. They can dis cuss Red China's role in the VN but fail to master a single foreign language. They know all about in justice but scorn history as ir relevant. Everything dissolves into fashionable platitude, and the young arrive at adulthood in "a state of mental fatigue, aimless agitation and anger, incapable of that discriminating approach to public affairs which democracy calls for in its citizens." So far has the American uni versity "fallen." Professor Vlam wonders whether the "counter revolution of common sense" will ever restore it to its proper pur poses of "promoting learning and advancing knowledge." tJ HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION fOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.2. FEBRUARY 1973 ControllingPollution Hans F. Sennholz 67 A search for ways to better define property rights and fix upon the owner the full advantages and the full costs of his use of his property.

The .Anatomy of Consumerism Max E. Brunk 78 Movements for consumer protection seem to run in cycles, most of them short-lived and relatively harmless. The Founding of the American Republic: 19. Establishingth'e Government Clarence B. Carson 85 The story of the men and events in the precarious beginnings of Union under the Constitution. ShelteringIdeologies leonard E. Read 99 "The guaranteed life turns out to be not only not free - it's not safe." The Myth of the Perfect Solution Ridgway K. Foley, Jr. 105 Neither men nor their institutions are perfect, but we need the freedom to keep trying for improvement. Chaff About Wheat William F. Rickenbacker 114 Government meddling in the market for wheat forces taxpayers to pay for the inevitable mistakes. Edmund Burke on Inflationand Despotism Gary North 117 . Burke's warning of the evils of inflation is as timely for us today as for the French of 1790 who failed to heed him.

Book Reviews: 125 "Trousered Apes" by Duncan Williams Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

tt1e Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic· Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to. $10,OOO-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "The Founding of the American Republic," and "Chaff About Wheat."

HANS F. SENNHOLZ "POLLUTION is a classic example of failure of the private enter prise system." At least this is what we are told by countless critics of environmental pollution. Private property and the profit motive are held responsible for polluting man's environment with ever-increasing quantities of wastes or effluents. As the by products of economic production and consumption, such as gasses, solid or liquid wastes, or released energy in the form of heat or noise, the effluents are said to overload the capacity of the en vironment to assimilate them, which is injurious to human, ani mal and plant life. Pollution is affecting the comfort, well-being, Delivered November 19, 1972 before Board Members and guests, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hud son, New York. Dr. Sennholz, a Trustee of the Foundation, heads the Department of Eco nomics at Grove City College - Pennsylvania.

and possibly even the survival of the human race. Such serious charges must ulti mately be answered by biologists, chemists, and physicians. But for the sake of argument let us as sume that the pollution problem really is as serious as described by the environmentalists. Let us then search into the causes of the di lemma so that we may find the cure. For only an understanding of the causes can lead us to a possible solution. The explanations so popular with environmentalists appear to be taken directly from the armory of political and economic radical ism that blames the private prop erty order not only for aU eco nomic shortcomings but also nearly all human vices. These ex planations. invariably misinterpret the causes and consequently pre scribe solutions that are either 67 68 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry ineffective or even detrimental to our environment. Even economists schooled in the classical tradition are joining the chorus of vocal critics. The private enterprise system, they contend, does not lead to maximum welfare because many social costs are ignored in the calculation of wel fare. Large blocs of "externali ties," which are social costs not included in private costs, are char acteristic of the enterprise system.

These extern alities are destroying our physical environment and pre cipitating disaster for the human race. Robert U. Ayres and Allen V. Kneese make such charges in an essay on "Production, Consump tion and Externalities." (Ameri can Economic Review, June, 1969, pp. 282-297). Private businessmen are discharging wastes into the atmosphere and water courses without cost to themselves. And consumers do not fully use up, through the act of economic con sumption, the material elements that enter production. Almost 3 billion tons of residue are going back annually into our environ ment. This is becoming unbearable, especially in mass urban societies with growing populations and ris ing material output. Ad hoc taxes and government restrictions are not sufficient to cope with the growing problem. Central, or at least' regional, control is needed; and above all, a new economics must be devised that considers waste disposal an integral part of the production and consumption process, and places it within the framework of general equilibrium analysis. "Under conditions of in tensive economic and population development the environmental media which can receive and as similate residual wastes are not free goods but natural resources of great value with respect to which voluntary exchange cannot operate because of their common property characteristics."

Such observations reflect an un bounded faith in the political and bureaucratic process. No matter what the grievance may be, the blame is always laid on private property and individual enter prise, and the solution is always more government! Who is Polluting? Even some of the facts are grossly misstated. The worst of fenders are not private business men in their search for profits, but government itself rendering eco nomic services in a primitive manner. Urban communities are polluted by an increasingly form idable cascade of solid waste, such as garbage and trash, rubbish and debris. According toa preliminary report made in 1968 by the Bureau 1973 CONTROLLING POLLUTION 69 of Solid Waste Management in the U.S. Public Health Service, only 64 per cent of the nation's people lived in communities that had refuse collection systems. About half of household wastes were collected by public agencies, and one-third by private collec tors; the rest were disposed by householders themselves. Most commercial and industrial wastes were handled· by private collec tors. And most of the dumps and incinerators were operated by public authorities or licensed con tractors. -working for public au thorities.

These facts primarily indict government rather than profit seeking enterprise for our environ mental crisis. Or, take the pollution of our waterways. Who is discharging pollutants into streams and rivers, lakes and oceans? Lake Erie, the most polluted inland body of water, is an example. According to independent surveys, the city of Cleveland is by far the worst of fender, followed by Toledo and Buffalo and other cities. Numer ous public sewer authorities dis charge thousands of tons of waste into the lake every day. So filthy is Cleveland's Cuyahoga River that it catches fire occasionally and traps tugs and boats in its flames. Surely, Lake Erie would suffer no serious· pollution were it not for sewer authorities established and operated by government. Under common law, the beds of navigable bodies of water are gov ernment property. Can it be sur prising then that government it self either is polluting the lakes and rivers or permits them to be polluted? To blame individual en terprise is an obvious distortion of facts.

It is true, public attitude toward government property usually dif fers from that toward private property. While the latter is gen erally respected and the owner protected in its use, government property is treated as a common good without an owner. Unless it is guarded by a host of inspectors and policemen, it is used and abused by the citizenry as if it were free. This common attitude can hardly be construed as recom mendation for more government ownership or control over environ mental resources. The Air We Breathe The third pollution that is often laid on the doorstep of profit seeking enterprise is the contam ination of the air we breathe. In a stinging criticism of the "con ventional wisdom" of economics, E. J. Mishan of the London School of Economics and Political Science called the private automobile one of the great disasters of the hu70 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry man race. It pollutes the air, clogs city streets, and contributes to the destruction of natural beauty.

The economic growth it represents conflicts with social welfare. ("Economic Priority: Growth or Welfare" in P oZitical Qua,rterly , January, 1969). Such a severe indictment of the automobile is tantamount to a rejection of one of the most splen did fruits of private enterprise. There are few, if any, private automobiles in collective econo mies, from Soviet Russia to Castro Cuba. The automobile means high standards of living, great indi vidual mobility and productivity, and access to the countryside for recreation and enjoyment. In rural America it is the only means of transportation that assures em ployment and income. Without it, the countryside would surely be depopulated and our cities far more congested than now. The air pollution in our cities, the smoke, haze, and smog, never theless present grave health haz ards to millions of city dwellers. Is individual enterprise that man ufactures those millions of auto mobiles not responsible for most of the city pollution?

Zoning and Other Intervention Again, the blame for the intol erable pollution of city air rests mainly with government. In particular, three well-established po litical practices have contributed to .the environmental dilemma. First, zoning has beco}lle a popu lar legislative method of govern ment control over the use of land. Primarily applied in urban areas, zoning constitutes government planning along "orderly lines," to control congestion in houses and neighborhoods, height, size and ap pearance of buildings and their uses, density of population, and so on. S'urely, zoning has shaped the growth of American cities ever since the 1920's when it became popular. Take Los Angeles, for instance. Radical zoning ordinances made it the largest U.S. city in area, a vast sprawling metropolis of more than 500 square miles in which trans portation is an absolute necessity. The resident of Los Angeles may travel a hundred miles every day to work, shop, eat, to attend school or church, or to seek recreation or entertainment. Public transporta tion cannot possibly meet the mil lionfold needs of Los Angeles transportation; only the private automobile can.

Secondly, in nearly all American cities public transportation has deteriorated to disgraceful levels of inefficiency and discomfort. The private companies that first pro vided the service were regulated and taxed into losses, and finally 1973 CONTROLLING POLLUTION 71 replaced by public authorities. Under their control, mass .trans portation has generally deteri orated in quality and quantity while the costs have soared, as in the New York City subways, for example. Union Tactics Public transport authorities are easy prey for militant unions. Pol iticians or their appointees can not easily resist the demands of teamsters locals and their allies, despite the resultant inefficiency and high cost. The traveling pub lic is frequently left stranded by organized work stoppages, slow downs, and other union tactics. When public transportation is most urgently needed, in the vaca tion or holiday season, it is often struck by one of the unions.

The privately-owned mass trans portation media are taxed by a host of government authorities until their services deteriorate or even sputter to a halt. The ex amples are legion. But the recent bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad illustrates the point. Even in bankruptcy, public tax authorities' are crowding the courts to force collection of their levies. While labor unions threaten nationwide walkouts, government tax collectors prey on railroad in come and assets. And when a com pany finally petitions its regulatory authority to halt some loss inflicting service, it may be denied the right to do so. If permission is granted, local courts may order the company to continue the serv vice and bear the losses. Can it be surprising, then, that service re luctantly rendered is minimal and poor? When public transportation is dismal, undependable and inef ficient, neglected and uncomforta ble, primitive and costly, people naturally provide their own trans portation. And millions of private automobiles are clogging the city streets adding their exhaust fumes to the city air.

In the "Free Goods" Class Finally, there is the tendency to treat road and highway invest ments, no matter how huge, as "free goods" that are available to anyone without charge. City gov ernments endeavor to provide ade quate approach roads for unre stricted use of the automobile, continually constructing new ex pressways on the city's fringes. It is true, a great number of high way taxes are levied on those who use the highways. The Federal government collects taxes on gas oline, lubricating oil, new auto mobiles, tires and tubes. A high way trust fund established by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 receives and expends the excise 72 THE FREEMAN February taxes, which are the sole source of funds for the Federal aid highway systems. But as soon as an ex pressway is completed it is over crowded with countless automo biles speeding or crawling to the city. No matter how many millions of dollars were expended on its construction, it is "free" to the user who simply does not relate the tax on his gasoline or tire to a particular trip to the city. But Policy Free or minimal cost trash and gar bage collection by government agen cies Free dumps and incinerators oper ated by governmental agencies Free or minimal cost sewage treat ment Free lakes, waterways and harbors Free airport facilities Free highways Free public parks Zoning laws and ordinances Public transport authorities Labor legislation even if he were mindful of the tax aspect of the expressway, its convenience, speed and safety may exceed by far the tax cost. Thus, millions of suburban automobiles are rushing to or from the cities on billion-dollar highways, adding their exhaust fumes to our envi ronmental dilemma.

In summary, the following table clearly depicts the role of govern ment in environmental pollution. Effects Littering, hazard to health, air pol lution Hazard to health, air pollution Water pollution Water pollution, traffic congestion Air pollution, noise pollution Air pollution, traffic congestion Waste, littering Favoring the automobile over mass transportation, air pollution Inefficient service, promoting the au tomobile, air pollution Expensive and unreliable mass trans portation, promoting the automobile, air pollution 1973 CONTROLLING POLLUTION 73 Removing the Causes of Pollution As government is the prime polluter of our environment, we must call on government to cease and desist. All levels of govern ment must abandon their policies that invite, promote or even sub sidize the pollution. This is not to be interpreted as a call for further government intervention in our economic lives. On the contrary, the previous intervention that caused the deplorable conditions in man's environment cannot be im proved through more radical in tervention.The prior intervention must be removed step by step so that its destructive consequences can be gradually assimilated by nature.

First of all, government itself must cease to damage the environ ment. As owner of some 24 per cent of the land within the limits of the continental United States, as operator of many thousands of installations that sp·an the con tinent, the United States Govern ment probably is the worst pol luter (Cf. Dennis Farney, "Meet a Prime Polluter: Uncle Sam," Wall Street Journal, Sept. 23, 1970). If it is unable to manage its property without harming the environment it should .dispose of land and installations that lack significance for national defense. The economic services it renders free or at minimal costs should be left to the market place where economic costs and benefits are efficiently compared by the price system. For no matter who ren ders a service free or at minimal charges, misuse, abuse, and waste are invited. Governmental services are no exception. This basic knowledge of human action points toward a solution to many pollution problems. If gov ernment would cease to subsidize the polluters, the condition of the environment would instantly im prove. The interstate and inter city highways, for instance, pro vided at little or no cost to users, could be improved overnight if they were trea ted as scarce re sources, that is, as economic goods.

Road use charges that fully cover the costs of construction, main tenance, and administrative serv ices would greatly reduce their wasteful use and thereby the pol lution. It is true, use charges that cover the expenses of government services would probably be extra ordinarily restrictive as govern mental costs usually are excessive. Many government investments probably are malinvestments, made without economic considera tions but for political objectives. Use charges that fully cover all expenses would reveal the dread ful waste of resources .and thus hopefully discourage government 74 THE FREEMAN February from rendering a service that can be provided much more efficiently by the market. Deficient Property Rights Most pollution problems would soon be solved or at least allevi ated if all governments would halt their own pollution and cease to subsidize other offenders. It is true, some pollution undoubtedly would remain even after this clean-up. After all, individuals as prod ucers and consumers add smoke, soot, noise, waste, and other effluents to the environment.

But no matter who the offender should be, pollution that measur ably detracts from the property of other individuals or denies their rights to healthful living must be discouraged. This pollution by producers and consumers reveals unfortunate le gal deficiencies in the protection of private property. The law has always been and continues to be inadequate in its treatment of property rights, in particular, the liability and indemnification for damages caused by the owner's use of property. Ideally, the right of property. as a market phenomenon entitles the owner to all the advan tages of a given good and charges him with all the disadvantages which the good may entail. Over the centuries governments have again and again restricted or even abolished the rights of pri vate property. At other times the law, either by design or default, shielded the owner from somediB advantages of his property and charged other people with some of the costs, the external costs. Obvi ously, if an owner does not reap all the benefits of his property, he will disregard such benefits in his actions; and if he is not charged with all its costs, he will ignore such costs.

During the. nineteenth century, legislation and adjudication re flected enthusiasm for the rapid industrial and commercial devel opment. Legislators and judges understood the great importance of capital investment for economic betterment. They favored invest ments in industry and transporta tion and the productive employ ment of property. Unfortunately, they decided to hasten the econ omic development through tariffs, subsidies, land grants, and relief from some external costs. Thus, as the tariffs and subsidies encour aged some production, so did the relief from externalities. Some in vestments were made and some consumption took place just be cause part of the costs was shifted from the owners to other people and their property. The pollution of air and water was overlooked as a "public price" for economic progress, that is, some costs were 1973 CONTROLLING POLLUTION 75 shifted from one owner to another to encourage economic activity fa vored by government.

To remove this cause of pollu tion, no property owner - whether public or private - must be shield ed from the costs and disadvan tages of his property. Damaged parties must have their day in court and find relief from any harmful effect of someone else's property. They must be able to claim and collect damages for losses suffered, and obtain court injunctions, that is, restraining orders that protect their rights. Popular Solutions The growing awareness of en vironmental problems is laudable indeed. But the explanations given by "experts" today are taken straight from the armory of politi cal and economic radicalism. The private property order is sum marily condemned, and govern ment is hailed as the only savior from our self-destruction. More taxes and regulations, or better yet, comprehensive government planning and control, are to cor rect a deplorable situation. Many environmentalists would like to "ration the use of the en vironment" so that the quantity and type of effluents discharged into the environment are reduced to a level where the social costs are assumed to be equal to social benefits (Cf. Schreiber, Gatons, Clemmer, Economdcs of Urban Problems, Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p. 104 et seq.). Three basic meth ods of intervention are to achieve a short-run solution: direct con trols, taxes or fines, and subsidies.

Direct controls set minimum emissions standards for various classes of effluents. No polluter is permitted to emit more than a certain quantity of effluents, such as fly ash, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and the like per time period. Federal standards of emis sion by automobiles, for instance, were imposed on auto manufac turers. But unfortunately, such standards cannot achieve an effi cient level of··pollution abatement because the environmental condi tions in various parts of the coun try vary considerably. The car that adds its hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide to the pollution of New York City would have no visible effect on the environment of Farmers Mills in Pennsylvania. And the car that rarely leaves its garage in Big Horn, Montana, can hardly be likened in its environ mental effects to the Los Angeles taxi that is cruising the streets day and night. And yet, under the Federal standards many billions of dollars must now be spent on abatement equipment by all auto mobile owners regardless of social costs and benefits.

76 THE FREEMAN February Subsidies to Curb Production To abate pollution, some writers urge the government to subsidize polluters so that they may reduce production and thereby harmful emission. Such subsidies are lik ened to the "soil bank" that pays farmers to reduce their land under cultivation and thus production. But as the soil bank has not achieved its stated objectives, so must the pollution subsidy be ex pected to fail. After all, the poten tial demand for such payments is unlimited, while the reduction in pollution would tend to be negli gible. Effluent emission may also be attacked by fines and taxes. At first, government levies taxes in order to provide the facilities that are used free or at minimal cost by the polluters. It thus subsidizes the polluters, and then proposes to tax them for the pollution. Would our environment not be cleaner if government had not entered the scene from the outset?

It is true, a tax levied on the polluter may make him· consider the external costs of his activity. But it .offends one's sense of equity that government should pocket tax revenues as a compen sation for losses suffered by other individuals. If I am victimized by pollution, government will reap more revenue. A government in urgent need of revenue merely needs to promote more pollution through free services to polluters in order to derive more tax rev enue from the polluted public. A strange and yet so popular method of government intervention in our economic Iives ! Employ Space-Ship Technology As a long-run solution, we are urged to develop a "space ship" technology which recycles all waste and makes it reusable for future production, or to develop a technology that leaves no waste matter. Unfortunately, we do not know what the technology of the future will be. But we do know that the inventive genius of man that may bring forth a new technology can not assure its use and application.

History records countless examples of great inventions that failed to benefit man because a static so ciety would not permit any change, or at least lacked the capi tal resources needed for such changes. Inventions spring from individual freedom, and their ap plication from competition in a private property economy. This is . why one may be skeptical about a new technology that is chosen and enforced by government. But the ultimate solution, ac cording to more radical ecologists, must be sought in population con trol. After all, it is man's produc1973 CONTROLLING POLLUTION 77 tion and consumption that is pol luting the environment. A grow ing population must be expected to add to the waste that results in pollution, although the social costs per person may be reduced through technological advances. These en vironmentalists would provide fi nancial incentives for refraining from having children, such as an exemption of $3,000 on Federal income taxes to couples without children, or the payment of subsi dies to every woman in child-bear ing age who does not give birth during a given year. (Schreiber, Gatons, Clemmer, ibid., p. 115).

Man or Environment? Man or environment, that is the choice. As one is not compatible with the other, we are told, the radical ecologists choose the en vironment. They prefer grass and tree,ant and beast of the ferest over man. They would preserve nature undisturbed and in a natu ral condition, as in a jungle. However, the role of man on this earth is radically different from that of plant and animal. Al though man is part of nature, his intelligence permits him to wisely use environmental resources for his best interests. He is like a steward in the use of natural re sources who responsibly manages his environment in order to sur vive. His right to life embodies his right to manage the resources of nature. But how can he best manage his environment? What are the proper means to this end? As in all other human pursuits, freedom works best in releasing man's cre ative energy. In freedom, man economizes his use of scarce natu ral resources and strives to safe guard his life with the least pos sible waste. Merely to preserve na ture as man found it when he first set foot on this earth may appear to be easier, indeed, than the wise use of environment for the best interests of man. And yet, mere preservation denies not only the nature of man but also the very laws of nature. (Cf. Leonard E.

Read, "A Conservationist Looks at Freedom" in Then Truth Will Out, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hud son, New York, 1971, pp. 74-83.) ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY A Word of Caution WE undoubtedly need some preservation. But it cannot be the answer to the control of man's environment, for we are an eco logical part of that environment, and to preserve it makes us a museum-piece as well. Weyerhaeuser World, Apri11970 The Anatomyof UONSUMERISM MAXE. BRUNK THERE IS PERHAPS no better sub ject than Consumerism on which to polarize an audience. For ex ample, a conference of consumer organizations in Washington re cently graded the two Senators from New York State on how they voted on eleven so-called major consumer bills during the last term of Congress. One Senator received a perfect score of 100, the other, a score of zero. Both the Senators probably received a majority vote from this audience and both probably feel that they properly represented the majority view of their constituents.

This, in itself, tells us some thing about the nature of con sumer issues. It tells us that Dr. Brunk is Professor of Marketing at Cornell University. This article is from a talk before the Annual ¥eeting of the Cooperative Extension Association of Livingston County, New York, November 15, 1972. 78 there is a wide divergence in our personal economic philosophies. It tells us that the issues of con sumerism are relatively unim portant .in our choice of political representation. But if we are to assume a rational position of ad vocacy or dissent on various issues we need to know much more about the general anatomy of consum sumerism. Traditionally our economy has been built around the market mechanism. In a very real sense the market provides a voting place for the wants and needs of people. The uniqueness of this voting place is t}:lat it respects and re sponds to the will of minorities as well as majorities. And this is fortunate because not all people have the same wants, needs and desires. When we see others .do things we ourselves would not do, 1973 THE ANATOMY OF CONSUMERISM 79 we do not know whether they are being victimized, are expressing a value different from. our"own, or have been deprived of opportuni ties equal to our own. As a result, against this backdrop of a free market, we are gradually building up a set of socially determined restrictions and mandates having universal application to all people.

These are restrictions imposed on people in their role as consumers. And we would not have it other wise for we as a people, in at tempting to find a way of "living together, have decided to forego some of the material wealth pro vided by the free market in the interest of what we call the public welfare. Third.Party Activists On previous occasions, and in no derogatory sense, I have de fined consumerism as a movement of third-party activists who cham pion causes which appear to them to be beneficial to consumers in general. It is not an organized movement of 210 million Ameri cans speaking in common cause on their own behalf. It is a movement of many fragments with issues frequently championed by small minorities. While this is no in dictment, it does raise certain questions about the leadership, how well informed it is, how well it truly represents the general consumer interest. The point I make is that consumerism is made up of a third-party involvement in a buyer-seller relationship.

It is not my function here to argue the case of the free market or how far down the road of socialism we should continue to go. But I do have some personal convictions about consumerism. In many instances the costs far ex ceed the social benefits. I" do not like the negativism of consumer ism - the constant search for scapegoats and things that are wrong. I do not like the sensa tionalism of consumerism which leads society to accept impulsively certain restrictions on our produc ti ve capaci ty. I do not like the emotional verbalism of consumer ism - the "truth" issues, the con sumer "protection" issues, and so on. I resent the hypocrisies of con sumerism: the hypocrisy that someone is doing something on my behalf which in reality serves only to further someone else's selfish political or social interests; the hypocrisy that consumerism is aimed at" the business community when in reality it is only the con sumer who is deprived or who pays the bill. We forget that the business community can operate and prosper under any given set of rules that society imposes on it. In final analysis the question is: how much production do we 80 THE FREEMAN February want out of our business com munity? In fact, within the busi ness community itself many strong advocates can be found for almost any consumer issue simply because each issue serves to en hance the competitive advantage some business may have over another.

Waves 01 Consumerism Consumerism is not a new phe nomenon. We have always had it. But its identity becomes more apparent during certain periods of economic growth. Around 1900 we had the sensationalism of Upton Sinclair. Looking back we can see the transparency of the many fabrications and· fantasies of' this colorful writer. But in his day they were accepted by many unhappy people who felt they were being exploited by big business. For example, Sinclair wrote of packinghouse workers falling into vats of fat and not being fished out "until all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham's Pure Leaf Lard I" Very quickly we had our first Federal Meat Inspection Act and although this legislation was largely an emotional response to journalistic sensationalism I think most of us today would agree that it has served the consumer interest in a constructive way. Anyway, the consumerism of 1900 resulted, as you will recall, in considerable antitrust as well as labor-rights legislation. The teeth of our anti trust laws and the economic power of labor unions can be traced to the consumerism of that time.

Then, consumerism. declined with the build-up of international ten sion that culminated in World War I. Our need for productivity could no longer tolerate the false lux uries of consumerism, the false luxury of responding to every scrap of sensationalism. Toward the end of 1920 we hit another peak in industrial development. Again, displaced· workers became disciples of Stuart Chase and the sensationalist writings of Kallet's and Schlink's 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs. Many New Deal programs had relevance to the' charges set forth by these writers. Then, along came World War II followed by the Korean conflict and we for got about consumerism for a while. Once again it has been brought to life, first through the writings of Vance Packard and then through the activities of Ralph Nader and his many disci ples, who seem to know more about what the consumer needs or should have than do the consumers them selves.

The food industry is a prime target for the consumerist. Not only is food a major item of ex penditure but also it has a direct 1973 THE ANATOMY OF CONSUMERISM 81 bearing on health. Add to this the consideration of the changing na ture of our food composition, nec essitated by a dynamic m,arket structure ever responding to con sumer demands, technological de velopments and population demo graphics, and you have the mak ings of an industry highly vulner able to the issues of consumerism. To Gain Popular Support Taking a. closer clinical look at those consumer issues which have gained widespread public support in recent years, we can perhaps gain some appreciation of the characteristics of such issues and their applicability to our food sup ... ply. First, the social benefits of an issue must be easily rationalized usually by some grossly oversim plified cause and effect relation ship: for example, the directed ra tionale in truth-in-Iending, truth in-packaging, inform,ative labeling and so on. Benefits must be di rected at a major proportion of consumers and the more such bene fits have the appearance of being directed at health or economic wel fare the more viable the issue.

Typical of popular consumer issues is that costs of protection are hidden by dispersion through out a complex production and dis tribution industry; or such costs are easily, though sometimes spuriously, rationalized as falling on large, concentrated or prosper ous industries .. One of the remarkable features of the marketing system, as con trasted with the negativism in volved in many consumer issues, is the way it has broadened choice in serving the specific and diverse needs of an almost endh~ss num ber of consumer groups each hav ing peculiar requirements. We must not make the mistake of as suming a universality of consumer values. Each of us, in terms of his own individual values, tends to ra tionalize what he considers appro priate universal values for others. We have difficulty understanding and respecting values other than our own. The Food Labeling Panic: Does It Serve Consumers?

Looking back over the many consumer protection bills that have passed the Congress in recent years and more importantly the many administrative regulations that have been imposed on the consumers' freedom of choice in the marketplace, one is at a loss to see where some of these actions have served the consumer well. Take for example the current food labeling panic. Depending on particular interests, advocates want foods labeled as. to ingre dients. They want nutrient values indicated, weights, use directions, 82 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry product count and number of serv ings, guarantees and warnings about misuse, prices per unit of content, open code dating, inspec tion stamps, identity of manufac turer, and many oth,er kinds of information. One can set forth very formid able· arguments for the nutritive labeling of food products. And certainly no one with the con sumer interest at heart would argue against the need for a bet ter informed consumer. But is the problem really that simple? Do we really have a set of nutritive values universally applicable to all people? We have many sets of min imum daily requirements, but are they true values? Do people know how to use them? Do all persons have the same needs? Then there is the whole question of the avail ability of nutrients depending on the way food is prepared and used.

Would such labeling lead to a false confidence by consumers that cer tain needs were' being met? In what terms should the require ments be stated? What would be the cost of conforming to such labeling requirements and how many new bureaucrats would it re quire to police the program? Would consumers take such label ing into consideration in their buying decisions? How much di gestible information can be pro vided on a label? And there are many other questions one could raise. ~eep in mind, I am neither advocating nor condemning nutri tive labeling. I raise these ques tions only to illustrate the kind of considerations which we have all too often negJected in 'establishing many of our regulations on the consumer. Open Dating of Foods For a moment along this line we might take a brief look at the propo~ed consumer protection leg islation that would require the open dating of food products. If . the manufacturer puts a bunch of funny numbers on a package to tell them when a product was made, why shouldn't the consumer be entitled to know what all this means? With some products this may be appropriate; but the false inference really lies in the fact that the date code is not used by the manufacturer nearly so much as a time code as for lot identifi cation. The suitability of a product for consumption depends far more on storage and handling condi tions than on time. I'd much rather eat hot dogs kept under proper refrigeration for 30 days than those only 3 days old but not refrigerated. Require an open date on them and what would be the added cost of store stock rotation and returned merchandise which is perfectly suitable for consump1973 THE ANATOMY OF CONSUMERISM 83 tion? And who do you think would pay that cost?

Are No Risks Worth Taking? Permit me to comment on one other example. The Congress re cently passed a law prohibiting the use of DES (Diethylstilbes trol) in animal feeds. Headlines reporting this issue could have read: "Congress votes to outlaw use of dangerous' drug" or "Con gress votes to increase annual beef cost $3.50 per capita and to make it a little tougher." Both head lines would be appropriate. In brief, these simple facts led to the action: First, direct dosages of DES to maternity cases in France were found to have caused cancer. Secondly, traces of DES were re cently found in the livers of sev eral animals. Consequently, the extremely remote risk that the use of DES in livestock feed might cause cancer was traded off against lowering the quality of beef and raising its price to the consumer. In testimony, the Food and Drug Administrator took the position that prohibiting the use of this feed additive will cause more fatalities through malnutri tion than would result from the controlled use of DES.

I used these two examples of consumer protection because they seem to illustrate two distinct yet general types of measures. One prohibits a practice or service while the other creates a practice or service to which it is hoped consumers will respond. Seat belts, nutritive labeling, unit pricing are all added services prescribed un der the guise of consumer protec tion. In this type of protection the cost is imposed on the consumer by law but the use by the con sumer remains optional. On the other hand, prohibited practices are made mandatory on the con sumer and the costs of the protec tion lie in the vague area of de privation. As more and more regu lations are imposed on the con sumer, we need increasingly to recognize this distinction in mak ing our individual judgments on each new issue. Gradually Overwhelmed Perhaps you do not feel strong ly about any of the specific issues I have discussed here. The costs and benefits of any particular con sumer issue are not great; and that is the nature of consumer issues - the importance of being unimportant. It is somewhat like the gradual encroachment of taxes.

We passively accept each incre ment until suddenly we find our selves overburdened. Increasingly, I think we must recognize that consumer protec tion does not come free - that it must be paid for by the consumer 84 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry either in terms of added costs or through suffering the consequences of deprivation. If we accept the idea that the consumer is to be fully protected in all his actions, he must by definition become nothing more than the ward, or prisoner if you will, of the State. Personally, I cherish the oppor tunityof making a mistake be cause I know with it I have econ omic and social freedom. With all its shortcomings, I like capital ism; and I resent all socialistic measures limiting my freedom. It has been ten years since President Kennedy enunciated the now famous Consumer Bill of Rights: 1) the right to safety, 2) the right to be informed, 3) the right to choose, and 4) the right How To Be Cheated to be heard. These are rights with which we would not disagree. The question is really one of what we do in the name' of these rights, for these are the rights only of a truly free society. What President Kennedy did not say, and which is more to the point, is that the right to ,safety is appropriate only in the exercise of reasonable and prudent judgment by the con sumer. The right to be informed carries with ·it the responsibility of becoming better educated. The right to choose carries with it the opportunity of making the kind of choice which consumer protection ism prohibits. And the right to be heard carries with it a respect for the differing desires and wants of one's fellow men. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY THE same guards which protect us from disaster, defect and enmity, defend us, if we will, from selfishness and fraud. Bolts and bars are not the best of our institutions, nor is shrewdness in trade a mark of wisdom. Men suffer all their life long under the foolish superstition that they can be cheated. But it is as impossible for a manto be cheated by anyone but himself, as for a thing to be and not to be at the same time.

RALPH WALDO EMERSON, Compensation CLARENCE B. CARSON THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 19 Establishing the Government "GREAT OAKS from tiny acorns grow," run the words of an old saying. They seem particularly ap propriate to the United States government, as we look back on its small, uncertain, and precari 0us beginnings from the twentieth century when the lineal descend ant of that government has grown to immense proportions. It is dif ficult for us who are used to this Leviathan with its symmetry, sta bility, and massiveness even to imagine the frail beginnings and the contingency of its existence. The government, which has long since proceeded on the momentum of an established institution, once had to be made to go by conscious and concentrated effort; and a little of that story needs to be told. The first Congress was so slow in assembling that there was some reason to doubt whether the gov ernment might even get underway.

It was scheduled to begin with its sessions on March 4, 1789 in the city of New York. But only a few members of either house had ar rived by that date. Historian Claude Bowers describes the fur ther difficulties of Congress this way: "A week after the date set for the opening of Congress but six Senators had appeared, and a Dr. Carson, noted lecturer and author, is Chairman of the Department of History at Hillsdale College in Michigan. The articles of this series will be published as a book by Arlington House. 85 86 THE FREEMAN February circular letter was sent to the others urging· their immediate at tendance. Two weeks more and neither House nor Senate could muster a quorum .... 'The people will forget the new government before it is born,' wrote [Fisher] Ames. 'The resurrection of the infant will come before its birth.'" This was· unduly pessimistic, how ever, for the houses had the nec essary quorums for organizing to do business on April 6.

A few days later, April 16, George Washington set out by carriage from Mount Vernon to make the journey to New York City to be inaugurated as the first President of the United States. The electors were unanimous in selecting him to the post, though their unanimity dissolved when it came to selecting John Adams as Vice-President. Along the way on his journey north, Washington was greeted with pomp. and cere rnony and by throngs of people. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Thomas Mifflin, greeted Washing ton at the border of his state with a troop of calvary and escorted the President-elect into Philadelphia where his arrival was celebrated by thousands of inhabitants. Tren ton, New Jersey, however, pro vided him the most effusi ve welcome. "There a triumphal arch composed of thirteen flower...; bedecked pillars straddled the road. In front of it stood thirteen maidens in white, each with a flower basket on her arm. As the great man, now astride a white horse, rode into view the maidens burst into song."

Virgins fair and matrons grave, Those thy conquering arm did save, Build for thee triumphal bowers; Strew, ye fair, his way with flowers Strew your hero's way with flowers.! Republican simplicity had not yet replaced monarchical pomposity in A.merica, but it is doubtful that any monarch was ever so genu inely admired, loved, a,nd re spected as the hero chosen to be chief of state of this Republic. Inauguration in New York City Quite a spectacle was prepared in New York City for Washing ton's arrival. The inauguration day was set for April 30. A splen did procession formed at Wash ington's residence to escort him to the place of inauguration, Fed eral Hall. He took the oath of office in public view, and then went into the Senate chamber to de liver his inaugural address to both houses of Congress there assem bled. Washington had taken great care in preparing this address and had practiced the delivery of it before he had left Mount Vernon.

Even so, he appears to 'have had great difficulty with giving it ut1973 ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT 87 terance. Fisher Ames noted that the President was "grave, almost to sadness; his modesty, actually shaking; his voice deep, a little tremulous, audso low as to call for close attention."2 Senator Wil liam Maclay of Pennsylvania de clared that "this great man was agitated and embarrassed more than ever he was by the leveled cannon or pointed musket. He trembled, and several times could scarce make out to read."3 It is certain that Washington was no orator, nor was he com fortable in attempting to fulfill that office. But there was good reason aside from that for him to approach the highest office in the land tremulously. There is evi dence that he entertained doubts as to his capabilities for the task ahead. One historian says that "Washington in some respects was a humble man, despite that mas sive outer shield of dignity which served to freeze the overfamiliar and even to awe his closest friends.

He knew his own limitations. He had a sufficient faith in his pow ers as a military strategist and commander in the field; he had no such confidence in his abilities as a statesman in time of peace."4 But even a man lacking his mod.;, esty might well have blanched be fore the prospect of the difficulties he would face. Indeed, all those who undertook leading roles in the new government had their work cut out for them. Starting from Scratch L. D. White, who made ex tensive studies of the early ad ministrations, says that when Washington became "the first President under the new Constitu tion, he took over almost nothing from the dying Confederation. There was, indeed, a foreign of fice with John Jay and a couple of clerks to deal with correspondence . . .; there was a Treasury Board with an empty treasury; there was a 'Secretary at War' with an authorized army of 840 men; there were a dozen clerks whose pay was in arrears, and an unknown but fearful burden of debt, almost no revenue, and a prostrate credit.

But one could hardly perceive in the winter of 1789 a government of the Union." Indeed, the problems of getting an effective government underway in early 1789 were greater than even the above would suggest. The population of the country was not so great, of course. The census of 1790 showed it to be just under 4,000,000. But it was spread over a vast area. Though the bulk of the population was on or near the Atlantic seaboard, that fact hardly indicated that the population was concentrated. The seaboard itself stretched for perhaps 1500 miles 88 THE FREEMAN February from Maine through Georgia. Along this great stretch of coast population was located mostly in clumps here and there, and these were frequently separated from one another by considerable dis tances. Back of the seaboard was a vast area, split by the Appa lachians, much of it inhabited by Indians, by and large still in its primeval condition, and most of it as yet unsurveyed. Travel from one place to another was often an unpleasant adventure, and from some parts of the country to others a virtual impossibility overland.

Differences to Contend With Although the preponderance of the population, save for the Blacks, was British in background 8nd tradition, there were many differences among the people in any given area as well as many regional differences. Americans as a whole had not yet been gov erned by a real government lo cated on this continent, and even British rule had not bound them together; that had held them only to the mother country as best it could. There were differences of religion: they were Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Con gregationalists, Episcopalians, Quakers, and members of a multi tude of small sects, though, again, Americans were usually Protestanto The middle states differed decidedly from the New England, and the Southern ones from all the rest. These diversities made any union by government appear un likely, if not impossible. The financial situation of the government of the United States was so precarious that it might well be said that the new govern ment was receiver for the bank rupt Confederation. Even after the repudiation of the Continental currency the debts of the states and the Union which were left over from the war were large and growing, for in many instances not even the interest was being paid. In 1790, Alexander Hamil ton estimated that the United States owed to foreign creditors $11,710,378, of which $1,640,071 was interest. The principal of the domestic debt he declared to be $27,383,917, to which would be added interest arrears to the amount of $13,030,168. 5 States had debts, too, which had been con tracted during the war and which might be charged to the United States government.

Complex Foreign Affairs To these difficulties were added those of dealing effectively with foreign powers. The United States had not yet earned the respect or fear of foreign countries. British troops still held sway in the Old 1973 ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT 89 Northwest from forts on the Great Lakes. The Spanish dominated much of the Mississippi River as ,veIl as egress from it. As if this were not enough, on July 14, 1789, only two-and-a-half months after Washington's inauguration, a mob in Paris stormed the Bastille, sig nalling the onset of the French Revolution. There were undoubt edly many in Americawho thought that the early events of that rev olution were a good augury for the United States. Much of the rhetoric of the revolutionaries bore a family resemblance to that just used by Americans. (This was neither entirely coincidence nor attributable to the Zeitgeist alone; Thomas Paine devoted him self to the French cause as he had lately done to the American one.) This was to be a revolution in de fense of the rights of man, so Americans heard, and were glad dened. Moreover, the French pro claimed a republic in 1792, and Americans welcomed company in that aspiration.

But out of the French Revolu tion grew such activities, contests, and, eventually, wars that all of Europe was caught up in them and repercussions reached to many other parts of the world. If George Washington, in preparing his inaugural address, had fore seen the trial that the wars and disturbances surrounding the French Revolution would be to the United States, he might have giv en up in despair, though it was hardly in his character to do so. War broke out in Europe in 1793, receded and expanded, but con tinued until 1815 with only one intermission of peace for about a year. It involved not only all the European powers at one time or another, and most of them several times, but also their empires in the rest of the world and any neutral nations trading with Europe. The American Republic. . needed peace very much for the development of unity; instead it was pressed toward war and torn between the warring parties of Europe.

Puffing Ideas to Practice To contend with these difficulties in 1789, the United States govern ment had a Constitution - a piece of paper - consisting of a few articles setting forth a plan of government. The United States was a vision in 1789, its govern ment was a dream, and a mere hope was its dominion over the vast continental territory vouch safed to its keeping. Americans had proved themselves masters of rhetoric: they could pen declara tions, draw up constitutions, add to them bills of rights; they had even fought a war succesfully; but it was still very much in doubt 90 THE FREEMAN February that they could effect a permanent union, would submit· to the nec essary taxation to retire their debts, could govern the domain, and could take their place as a nation among nations. Words are wonderful things; ideas move men; and plans con tain the necessary patterns for human endeavor. But there is a missing link between words on paper - though they compose a constitution or some other· noble document - and the realities of unity,government, stability, and liberty. That missing link, if it is supplied, is supplied by men. Man is a frail reed, but his proposals are evanescent without his ener gies. It was men who breathed the breath of life into the govern ment, who provided the flesh to the bones of the Constitution, who in their contests with one another held the government in check, and who gave impetus and direction to it. But it was neither the gener ality of men who did this nor even all of those who held office in the government. Madison's comment 'after looking over the roll of those elected to the first Congress may have been somewhat harsh, but it was much to the point: he said that there were few members who would take an active hand "in the drudgery of the' business."6 That part would be played, as it usually is, by a few men with the tenacity, the ambition, the drive, and the determination to make the govern ment work. Critics abound; lead ers who get things done are few.

The Greatest of These . .. The number of the men who played the leading roles in making the new government work were few and can be named on the fingers of a single hand - almost. Of course, there were others who played important parts, and no government could succeed without widespread support from the pop ulace (and the social base which their activities provide); b-ut given all these things, it still re quired and had the leadership of a remarkable set of men. ,The ones that stand out above all the other~ in the early years of the Republic are: George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and John Marshall. Americans were jealous of their rights and' loath to grant that power over their lives and for tunes which is necessary even for limited government. Nor was it easy to reconcile them to' the po tential concentration of power that was vested in the office of President. If such power had to be vested in men, .even many of those at the Constitutional. Con vention thought, it would be bet ter imparted to three men than 1973 ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT 91 one. What made it finally accepta ble to Americans to have but one man as President was that the man would be George Washington at first. Washington's reaction to all this is summed up by a biographer: Even before the Constitution was adopted, public opinion had fixed on Washington as the first president. He repelled the suggestion when it was made to him and opposed it wherever he decently could. Fame he had never coveted and the purely military am bition of his youth had long since been burned out, as he had gained close ac quaintance with the scourge of war.

At the age of fifty-six he had no "wish beyond that of living and dying an honest man on my own farm."7 It was this modesty, this lack of personal ambition, this humility, and his sense of stewardship and honor that made him so right for the. post. Washington could be trusted, that was the key: trusted to stick to his post until he had accomplished the goal, trusted to do the honorable thing, trusted with the affairs of the people, and trusted to think in terms of the Union. He would not be expected to achieve daring coups, to make risky innovations, or to use his office for purely personal ambi tions. He would and did bring dig nity to the office and make of it a symbol of unity for a people. James Madison Wispy James Madison is a strange choice for one of· the es sential leaders in establishing the government. Historians and bi ographers did not make the choice, though it should be said that they have affirmed it. Nor could it be said that for most of his career he was the choice of the people.

With his quiet voice, his unassum ing manner, and his small stature, he was not one to .be picked for leadership. The Virginia legisla ture passed over him for one of their Senators, and he had to make do with being a member of the House of Representatives. In a sense, Madison must have chosen himself for the role. He had it, at any rate, because of his cultivated intellect, his determination to have a national government, and be cause he spoke with such cogency and authority on the Constitution. Where others doubted or vacil lated, he was certain and deter mined. He was the man who had so much to do with drawing the Constitution, getting it adopted, making a Bill of Rights, and guid ing through the House the early legislation by which the govern ment was established. Alexander Hamilton Alexander Hamilton was, and has remained, a controversial fig ure in the history of the early 92 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry years of the Republic. Given his brilliance, his audacity, his drive, and his ambition, it probably could not have been otherwise. He was the man with a plan, a plan he intended to see adopted, and a plan over whose merits men were sharply divided. Perhaps what he achieved could have been accom plished without the acrimony he aroused, but we may doubt it. He wanted an energetic government which men would look upon as the government, and any program to achieve it was bound to stir up deep animosities. Hamilton was a nationalist; much less than any other leading figure of th.ese times was he associated by allegiance with any state. He was born and partially educated in the West Indies. He came to Boston in 1772 or 1773, at the age of 15-18,de pending on which birth date is accepted and which year he ar rived. Shortly, he moved to New York for such local base as he ever had for his political ambi7"

tions. He had hardly arrived wheI). he entered the lists of pamph leteers against British measures. He served in the army during the war, was appointed an aid to Gen eral George Washington and at that post learned much about the country. He was instrumental,both in getting the Constitutional Con vention called and less so in help ing with its work~ He was, however, a leading figure in securing its ratification in New York. Washington appointed Hamil ton to what many considered the most important post in the new government, that of Secretary of the Treasury. If it was not the most important, he acted as if it were, and from it he proceeded to the establishment of a financial system for the United States. His overall achievement has been aptly described this way: He created as from a void a firm public credit; he strengthened the government by not merely placing it on a sure financial foundation, but also uniting great propertied inter ests behind it ... He saw the impor tance of what he called "energy in the administration" ..., and if only be cause he went further than any other member of the government in exercis ing the powers of the Constitution, he must rank as one of the boldest and most farsighted of the founders of the nation. s Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson has had the loftiest of reputations among the Founders. There was something somewhat Olympian about him; he had more skills and abilities than any man ought: he was archi tect, inventor, lawyer, statesman, writer, and linguist, among other accomplishments. But his Olym pian position may owe more to his 1973 ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT 93 absence from the center of most continental and national efforts during the crucial years of the late 1770's and the 1780's. When other prominent men were en gaged in· the War for Indepen dence he was serving ineptly as Governor of Virginia. While the new Constitution was being drawn and ratified he was serving as Minister to France. While others were engaged in the heat of the contest for ratification or altera tion, he could and did write calm and judicious letters about the document. Even after he was brought to the center of affairs in Washington's Administration as Secretary of State, he remained in the shade of the more energetic and imaginative Hamilton; and it would have been a sensible judg ment that he was unsuited to the rough and tumble of politics. It is ironic, then, that he' is included among the list of men who estab lished the government for his role in partisan politics. Jefferson did grasp the nettle of involvement in the exercise of power, forge a political party which attracted a large national following, establish what became a succession of Pres idents, and bring republican sim plicity to government as well as make political parties another in strument in the balance and con tainment of power in America. He hardly wished to be remembered as a partisan politician, or even a politician for that matter; yet he adorns history· books largely in that role, and in the largest vie,w this is as it should be. It is in the rough and tumble of politics that ideas are tested along with the mettle of those who advanced them. To be founder of a political party appears to be' a lesser thing than to be "Father of the Consti tution," butJ efferson's reputation has been more secure than that of James .Madison. (Lest someone remind me that Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, I note again that indeed he did, and maintain also that this authorship would have given him a secure place in American history but it would probably have no more'made him a Founder than did Paine's authorship of Com,mon Sense and The Crisis.) John Adams Why include John Adams in the list of eminent establishers of the government? There is no doubt, of course, that he should have' a secure niche among the Founders for his service over the years in working for independence and for his dogged diplomacy in Europe.

Moreover, he was the' first Vice President of the United States and the second President. These latter activities are the ones that give trouble, however, for he has 94 THE FREEMAN February frequently been adjudged a weak and ineffective President, one who inherited from Washington and kept a cabinet which he could not dominate, and who lacked the au thori ty to keep the Federalists in line. The consensus of historians has sometimes been more generous with him, however. About twenty years ago historian Arthur M. Schlesinger queried over half a hundred prominent· historians and political scientists asking them to evaluate the Presidents on a scale ranging from Great to Failures. John Adams finished in the top ten, and was rated as near Great. 9 Perhaps, if the reason for rating him so high must be simplified it is that as President he steered the United States on a course of neu trali ty and independence in the world, averted both serious in ternal troubles and a major for eign conflict, and achieved out of it an· accord with France.

John Marshall John Marshall came late to the role of establishing the govern ment. He did take part in the war and in politics during the 1770's and 1780's but in positions that did not bring him to the forefront of the attention of Americans. He was prominent in the Virginia convention which took up the ques tion of ratification of the Consti tution and debated in favor of adoption. But he only emerged as a major national figure in 1800 when John Adams appointed him Secretary of State. And, in 1801 he was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a position which he occupied until his death in 1835. It was, of course, as Chief Justice that he distinguished him self and played a prominent part in giving stability to the United States government. Marshall does not exactly fit our image of an eminent jurist. He was not particularly well stocked with formal education; his academic training in the law was restricted to a few lectures by George Wythe which he attended.

A contemporary said he was "'tall, meagre, emaciated,' loose jointed, inelegant in 'dress, atti tudes, gesture,' of swarthy com plexion, and looking beyond his years,· with a countenance 'small in proportion to his height' but pervaded with 'great good humour and hilarity . . .' "10 Even so, he came to dominate the court in fairly short order, a fact which is the more remarkable because he was a Federalist, and the men ap pointed to be his brothers on the court over the years were Repub licans. He had a mind which could go the nub of the matter; he was unencumbered by any great knowledge of the law; and he would carry the field with' the 1973 ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT 95 force of an argument. His great strength "lay in his devotion to the Constitution and his determina tion to have it hold"sway regard less of what there might be in ordinary law to the contrary. Thf impact of his "opinions on the Constitution raised that document far above the realm of" ordinary law and did much to make the Constitution into a Higher Law.

As Justice Story said in the dedi cation of his Commentaries to Marshall: Your expositions of constitutional law enjoy a rare and extraordinary authority. They constitute a monu ment of fame far beyond the ordinary memorials of political and military glory. They are destined to enlighten, instruct, and convince future genera tions; and can scarcely perish but with the memory of the constitution itself. 11 Building from the Blueprint The great task which confronted the men who would establish the government of the United States at the outset, aside from getting respect for it, was to flesh out the very general outline for a gov ernment contained in the Consti tution. Their work can be likened to that of a master carpenter who has .the task of constructing a house from a blueprint. The blue print indicates what the house should be' like, but it rarely tells in any detail how the effects are to be achieved. That is the task of the builder. So it was with the men who took the reins of the government. Moreover, they had the momentous job of deciding .which way, among numerous ways, things should be done in the knowledge that once away was chosen it would be a precedent for the future. The writers of a con stitutional history text comment on this point in the following way: The decisions made by the sta tes men who launched the new govern ment were of especial importance, for the institutions they erected and the policies they inaugurated established precedents that were certain to affect profoundly the entire subsequent de velopment of the constitutional sys tem.l 2 The Setting of Precedents There were many such prece dential decisions in the early years, some trivial, or apparently so~others momentous. For exam ple, the Senate spent some little time over what the proper form of addressing the President should be. A Senate committee actually recommended that Washington be addres'sed as "His Highness~ the President of the United States of America, a:o..d Protector of their Liberties." Many in the Senate were outraged, and under Madi son's leadership in the House, that 96 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry body insisted that he be addressed as the Constitution implies he should, namely, as "the President of the United States," and so he has been ever since. 13 There was considerable discus sion over· whether or not heads of departments should be permitted to appear before the houses of Congress to present and discuss legislation. The decision was against it. President Washington appears to have been uncertain himself as to how he was to get the "advice and consent" of the Senate to treaties. He came in person to the Senate to present his first treaty. He was so disgruntled at the proceedings there, however, that he vowed after a second visit over this same treaty that he would never return on a similar errand, and he did not. Since that time, Presidents have caused trea ties to be drawn, have sent them along to the Senate for approval, amendation, or rejection, and have considered themselves to be thus complying with the Constitution.

How Many-Terms as President? Perhaps the best example of a precedent being set which men adhered to for a very long time was in the matter of the number of terms a President would serve. There had been considerable con cern when the office was set up that election to the office once would amount to election for life, for a President might be expected to be reelected time after time. No doubt some even hoped that this would be the case. George Washington, however, decided to retire after his second term. His example carried such weight that every other man who had the op portunity stepped down voluntar ily after two terms for the next 144 years. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first President to attempt to succeed himself for a third term. The precedent was still so highly valued, however, that the two-term limi t has since been made part of the fundamental law. Duties 01 Congress The Congress had the most im mediate task of getting the gov ernment underway. It had to pass legislation that would call into being powers and functions that had been authorized by the Con stitution. The first order of busi ness was to provide revenue for the government. The first act, then, was the Tariff Act passed July 4, 1789. Though there were some protectionist features to it, the average duties laid were only 8 per cent, making it an act for revenue primarily. On July 20, a Tonnage Act was passed, levying a tax on goods unloaded in Ameri can ports. The rate was to be 50 cents a ton on foreign shipping 1973 ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNMENT 97 and 6 cents a ton on domestic.

These duties,· while not prohibi tive, did obviously discriminate in favor of American ships. These things done, the Congress busied itself much in the next couple of months with creating departments of the government. The first de partments called into being were State, War, and Treasury, in that order, and these were followed shortly by authorizations for a Postmaster General and an At torney General, though these dig nitaries did not yet oversee de partments. A Federal Judiciary Act was passed on September 24, which provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and five associates. Three circuit courts were authorized, each of which was to have the attention of two Supreme Court justices. And Con gress established 12 district courts. Though that body had been em powered by the Constitution to establish such courts, it .was a discretionary power. The bringing of the lower courts into being was a decisive measure by the Con gress and set the United States in the direction of having two dis tinct court systems, those of the United States and those of the states.

The leadership in originating and pressing through much of this legislation was taken by James Madison. With respect to part of the .legislation, one his torian says; "In the formulation of the fiscal policies of the new government, James Madison as serted over Congress the same high order of leadership that he had exercised over the Consti tu tional Convention."14 Presidential Coordination It was now President Washing ton's turn to take the necessary actions to get all this functioning. Men had to be appointed to high offices with the consent of the Senate,and others had to be ap pointed to the more mundane jobs. Washington was finally able to persuade Thomas Jefferson to serve as the first Secretary of. State. He got his old comrade at arms, Henry Knox, to become Sec retary of War, which involved for him, mainly, continuing. the post he occupied under the Confedera tion. Hamilton was the first Secre tary of the Treasury, Edmund Randolph the first Attorney Gen eral, and John Jay the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Department heads were not at first thought· of as composing the President's Cabinet. They began to be convened as a cabinet, how ever, when Washington found it more convenient to have their opinions in concert rather than individually on certain matters. However, the Cabinet, as such, has 98 THE FREEMAN February only such power and influence as the President accords it. With Washington this was considerable. "He surveyed his Cabinet with justifiable complacency. All were men of ability, and two were men of genius. With such as these, he wrote, 'I feel myself supported by able Co-adjuto~ who harmonize well together."'15 This estimate, however, turned out to be much too optimistic. With these things done, the government began slowly to func tion. Some of the most basic laws had been passed, men appointed to posts, and the tasks of perform ing functions assigned. The three branches of government were act ing or ready to act, their separate functions becoming more clearly delineated, the· relationships among them being sorted out.

What had been a dream and a hope only a few months before was by 1790 becoming a reality. , • FOOTNOTES • 1 Nathan Schachner, The Founding Fathers (New York: Capricorn Books, 1954), p. 6. 2 Ibid., p. 11. 3 Ibid., p. 12. 4 Ibid., pp. 3-4. 5 Curtis P. Nettels, The Emergence of a National Economy (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962) ,p. 115. 6 Schachner, op. cit., p. 33. 7 John C. Fitzpatrick, "George Wash ington," The American Plutarch, Edward T.James, ed. (New York: Scribner's, 1964), p. 5l. 8 Allan Nevins, "Alexander Hamilton," ibid., p. 113. 9 Morton Borden, ed., America's Ten Greatest Presidents (Chicago: Rand Mc Nally, 1961), p. 4. 10 Edward S. Corwin, "John Marshall," James, op. cit., p. 164. 11 Ibid., pp. 171-72. 12 Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution (New York: Norton, 1955, rev. ed.), p. 167. 13 Schachner, Ope cit., pp. 46-47. 14 John C. Miller, The Federalist Era (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), p.

15. 15 Schachner, Ope cit., p. 63. Next: Steering a Course for the Nation.

LEONARD E. READ IDEOLOGIES he magistrates who play, "protect me, I'll protect you." -Petronius SOME THINGS never change, ap parently: the nature of politicians, as distinguished from statesmen, for example. There is cameraderie in the trade; they take care of each other. "You play ball with me, and I'll play ball with you." No wonder the Roman magistrates winked at one another when they met! However, I do not damn the politicians who play the game that Petronius so rightly decried. My attitude is rather one of pity: they do not know any better! Let us define our terms. What is meant by ideology? It is "the study of ideas, their nature and source . . . the doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc." And sheltering?' As used here, it means protection from life's problems - seeking refuge from , difficulties - not by building and strengthening one's own intellec tual and physical assets but by using force or coercion to live-off the resources of others. In politico economic parlance these sheltering ideologies .. range from protection ism and state interventionism to socialism, welfarism, the planned economy, nazism, fascism, Fabian ism, communism.

Though sorry for politicians who play the barbaric game of logrolling, my sorrow extends even more to those citizens who elevate politicians to their domineering positions. Why are these low caliber men in office? Simply be cause too many voters themselves are of this caliber - they do as well as they know how to do. The dominators in office merely echo those in the population who be lieve their interests are best served .by living at the expense of 99 100 THE FREEMAN Februa,ry others. Barbarism in both cases; like begetting like! Why this harsh term, barbar ism? The animal world, exce'pt for man, is guided by instincts. Man has lost most, not all, of his in stincts. And few human beings have acquired man's distinctive features: the ability· to think for self, personally to will conducit, to make moral decisions. Those who are neither animal nor man -trap ped between the two - exhibit bar baric behavior: less than animals in instinctual guidance and short of man in rationality.

A Simple Test How may we decide whether a person is trapped at the barbaric level or has ascended to the human level? There are many ways, but this simple test in economics should suffice: does an individual believe that one man's gain is an other's loss? Why is it that the Golden Rule is not universally accepted and applied as the only solution to the social problem? The answer is simple. Mr. Lippman put his finger on the heart of the matter in saying that the fear that "one man's or one country's gain is another man's or another country's loss is undoubtedly the greatest obstacle to human progress. It is the most primitive of all our social feelings and the most per sistent and obstinate prejudice which we retain from our barbarian an cestors. It is upon this prejudice that civilization has foundered again and again. It is upon this prejudice that all schemes of conql.lest and ex ploitation are engendered. It is this prejudice which causes almost all men to think that the Golden Rule is a counsel of perfection which cannot be followed in the world of affairs."1 At the Human Level Each person's position on the ladder of civilization is determined by the sheltering ideologies he condones or sponsors. If' he sub scribes to exploitation in one or more of countless forms, he has not thought his way out of prim itive prejudices. If, on the other hand, he has freed his thinking of these superstitions, he is at the human level.

Except in the case of gambling and thievery (illegal), or state exploitation (legal, but identical in .an economic sense), every gain of mine is someone else's gain as well. I value your product or serv ice more than the cash paid or I would not have made the ex change. You value the cash more than the product or service or you would have retained your wares. Whenever and wherever there are voluntary exchanges, each party 1 See Consent by Newton Dillaway (Unity Village, Mo., Unity Books, 1967), p.74.

1973 SHELTERING IDEOLOGIES 101 gains in his own judgment - the sole basis of assessing value. 2 No sheltering ideology here! No hint of exploitation! Each doing for others that which he would have them do for him - the free market way. Conceded, .many people have as cended above the primitive level in other than the-politico-economic realm which we are discussing here. But in this area, if we are to judge a man by his urge to plunder others, the number of "saved souls" is distressingly small. Further, this sad trait is not confined to anyone' occupa tional category. This propensity to live at the expense of others is as much in evidence among busi nessmen as labor union members, among professors of economics and clergymen as politicians. Examples 01 Protectionism Let us further identify those who subscribe to - support, con done, promote - the sheltering ideologies. First, there are businessmen who seek varying forms of gov ernment protection against com2 For an explanation of this point see The Exploitation Theory by Bohm Bawerk (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1960). See also the chapter, "Readiness Is All" in my Then Truth Will Out (Irvington-on-Hudson, N. Y., The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1971), pp. 144-152.

petition, domestic or foreign. Such people are' not to be distinguished from labor union members who seek above-market wage rates for themselves by excluding other workers from certain jobs. Each practice is backed by government and thus exploits taxpayers and consumers. In this same, category are those educators who demand tenure and go on strike to enforce their demands - all in the name of academic freedom! Next are the' promoters of such public works as The Gateway Arch, Urban Renewal, or moon shots. They may be likened to the monarchs of ancient Egypt. The pyramids were built with slave labor; today's public works are built by the coercively extorted income representing a portion of your labor and mine. What's the difference! Those who support rent control and all other forms of wage and price controls are afflicted with a sheltering ideology. Controls seem to be a plausible way of dealing with rising costs, which in turn result from an increase in the money supply: inflation. Inflation is a device for syphoning private property into the coffers of gov ernment, and will be activated whenever the costs of government rise to the point where they cail not be met by direct tax levies inflation to make up the difference.

102 THE FREEMAN February Expanding the Money Supply These excessive costs result be cause· other sheltering ideologies are practiced; prices rise. as they would were everyone to practice counterfeiting. Wage and price controls hide the' truth; they de pri ve buyers and sellers of the facts as to the demand for and the supply of goods and services. Thus, exploitation, which most people favor, can go on its merry way ~ people blinding themselves to reality! Those who favor paying farmers not to farm - farm supports - are at precisely the same sheltering level as the American bureaucrats of the thirties who, killed baby pigs to raise the price of pork, or the Brazilians who burned part of their coffee to raise the price of the balance. Exploitation of both consumers and taxpayers! Physicians and dentists who sup port medicare and a system of licensing in order to suppress free entry and competition will, by and large, claim opposition to cartels and monopolies in the business world; they simply want their own cartel. "Dares thus the devil re buke our sin! Dare thus the kettle say the pot is black!"3 Take account of the' millions who favor unemployment insur ance - a device so sheltering that 3 Henry Fielding.

many employables prefer their handouts coercively taken from taxpayers to earning their own way. The Pension Idea Who, we must ask, is free from sheltering ideologies in one or more of their numerous forms? If the above examples fail to em brace most of the population, then note the multitudes who favor Social Security. Nearly all educa tional, religious, and charitable institutions-not compelled by law to join in this economic mon strosity - have rushed to the trough. Favored, indeed! Monstrosity? Reflect on the facts. "... the Social Security tax is not only rising faster than any other Federal tax but is also in creasingly unfair to lower income workers .... The maximum Social Security tax rose from $60 in 1949 to $811 in 1971 and will jump to $1,324 in 1974."4 Here, however, is the shocker: not a cent of the billions collected in Social Security taxes is put in a reserve fund to pay beneficiaries - only IOU's in the form of gov ernment bonds. These billions are spent, as any other tax money, to defray the current costs of gov ernment. From what, then, are 4 See New York Times, November 19, 1972, First Section, p. 18.

197,3 SHELTERING IDEOLOGIES 103 beneficiaries paid? From more taxes imposed at time of payment, a tax on the beneficiaries as well as on other taxpayers. The enor mous cost of this sheltering pro gram is one of the, major causes of inflation. If the money in cir culation continues to escalate as in the' past 33 years, it will total $1.5 trillion by, the year 2000. What will the Social Security ben eficiary then be able to buy with his dollar? Substantially nothing !5 The proper function of govern ment - organized force - is to codify the taboos against destruc tive actions and to enforce them. All creative activities, including the practice of charity, are ap propriately left to men acting freely, voluntarily,' cooperatively, competitively, privately. This is the freedom philosophy. As I see it, anyone who advocates, supports, or condones governmental inter vention into any of the creative areas is a victim of one or more of the sheltering ideologies .. And that covers all but a very few indeed!

I know the rebuttal; we hear it everywhere, by TV, radio, the press, nearly all associations business, religious, educational, or whatever. Its substance? How else 5 For more explanation, see "Social Security Re-examined" by Paul L. Poirot, The Freeman, November, 1965. are we to care for the poor, the unfortunate, the unemployed, the aged? As a result, faith in free men to create a good society has all but disappeared. A Record of Failure The fact is that not a one of these alleged remedies is working. N'othing better illustrates the truth of this observation than one other of the sheltering ideologies: the minimum wage law. This pop ular panacea harms the very peo ple it is supposed to assist, those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Workers whose skills are not valued by others at $2.25 per hour, for instance,are relegated to permanent unemployment. Economists, the world over, re gardless of their oth~r pers ua sions, are nearly unanimous on this point, and a moment's thought should tell us why.6 I insist that every sheltering ideology, be it Social Security, un employment insurance, medicare, farm supports, wage and price controls, modern pyramids, teach e.r tenure, cartels, or whatever, has precisely the same debilita ting, destructive effect as the min imum wage law. All of these, 6 See the chapter, "A Laborer Looks at Freedom," in Then Truth Will Out (Irvington-on-Hudson, N. Y.: The Foun dation for Economic Education, Inc., 1971), pp. 61-66.

104 THE FREEMAN February without exception, harm the very people they are foolishly designed to help. At the root of these pana ceas is nothing but an unwilling ness to think, a failure to rise out of the primitive and up to the human level. As to the sheltering ideologies, rare, indeed, is the person who favors none; rare, also, is he who favors but one. What shall we infer from this? Sheltering has a near-unanimous approval. The individual who stands for even one special privi lege endorses the principle of co ercive exploitation; by his actions he declares that living off others is morally admissible. The way to test the validity of this coercive exploitation is to assume its unanimous practice. It becomes obvious then that every one would perish! Parasites die in the absence of a host. One further observation: to the extent that the responsibility for self is removed, whether volun tarily surrendered or coercively taken over by governmental ac tion, to that extent is denied the very essence of one's being, and the indi vid ual perishes by unseen degrees.

Man's laudable purpose is not to vegetate, to retire, to seek an escape from life ~ to be secure as in a coma; it is, instead, to get ever deeper into life, to grow. And this can be accomplished only by an increasing use of one's facul ties, solving problems, surmount ing obstacles. For it. is an ob served fact that the art of be coming is composed of acts of overcoming. Why not be done with shelter ing ideologies? As Maxwell An derson wrote in his preface to Knickerbocker Holiday in 1938: "The guaranteed life turns out to be not only not free - it's not safe." ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Something for Nothing WHENEVER one man gets something without earning it, some other man has to earn something without getting it. That is morally wrong and any nation built on that kind of philosophy is headed for trouble because the real irony of this is that the man who pays nothing actually pays the highest price of all through the destruction of his character and self-respect.

From an address, "Don't Blame Caesar," by ED w. HILES MAN PERSISTS in pursuit of uto pian dreams. It seems second nature to search for the ideal solu tion to existing problems. Both self-improvement and societal change represent viable.objectives and merit more than a sneer. Nevertheless, enthusiasm for perfection or a final, conclusive solution must be tempered with an appreciation of the real nature of man. Man, a finite creature, lacks the quality of perfectibility; he is capable of improvement; he is not perfectible. Since human in stitutions merely reflect the na ture of the men who form and operate them, one cannot reason ably expect perfection from soRidgway K. Foley, Jr., is a partner in the firm of Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe and practices law in Portland, Oregon. ciety any more than one can an ticipate it from individual man. The statist errs in his consum mate misapprehension of man's inherent nature. Indeed, his view appears ambivalent. The social engineering of the statist neces sarily must be premised upon the assumption that man is inherently good and capable of creating Heaven on earth, yet the identical theorist often disdains the masses as mere sheep to be led, as mass voters incapable of· knowing their own minds. Thus, he asserts that man may be perfected by the so cial engineer, the onet'who posses ses the key to the door of ultimate understanding, notwithstanding the contrary contention that the mass man is incapable of self perfection!

105 106 THE FREEMAN February On the other hand, the volun tarist who believes in the freedom philosophy! may likewise be snared by a related delusion. At the foun dation, the exponent of freedom may comprehend man's finiteness. At the same time, he may continue a relentless quest for a positive, conclusive form of government which will necessarily secure the fruits of freedom to the governed. 2 I conclude against the existence of a perfect form of the state which will positively .protect . the individual from excesses of power. This essay explores this myth which may delude both the free dom exponent and the statist. 1 I use the terms "voluntarist," "liber tarian," and "exponent of the freedom philosophy" interchangeably. By these words, I mean a person who adheres to the concepts of private property, limited govern men t, free market economics, and individual self-determination, one who believes that the state is properly limited to promotion of common justice and pro tection of the individual from force and fraud by internal predators or external aggressors.

2 The Declaration of Independence, in salient part, forms the basis of the liber tarian philosophy and suggests the obli gation of government should be limited to securing personal freedom: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that tJaey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happi ness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ***." The Search for Sovereignty to Best Assure Individual Freedom Sovereignty represents the threshold inquiry. Where does, or should, sovereignty reside to best assure individual freedom? Sov ereignty may be defined as the su preme power in a body politic. 3 Cursory reflection reveals that ul timate power of organized force must have a residence. In a milieu of anarchy or civil chaos, sover eignty constantly shifts, resting with the most currently powerful individual or clique. In a society controlled by organized govern ment, sovereignty (the ultimate government power) must dwell in some individual or group ulti mately controlling the coercive force of the state. That ruling force may be called a political party, a politburo, a king, a legis lature, a privy council, or by any number of other names. Whatever its denomination, it is the ultimate repository of organized force in society.

The libertarian fears organized coercion; he recognizes that, de spite good intentions, the monopoly of force provides fertile ground for misuse of power to the detri ment of individual freedom. Chief Justice Roger Taney summed up 3 Webster's New International Dic tionary, third edition, unabridged (G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Massachusetts) 2179.

1973 THE MYTH OF THE PERFECT SOLUTION 107 the problem succinctly over a cen turyago: It is said that this power in the President is dangerous to liberty and may be abused. All .power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands. 4 Thus, the essential libertarian con cern considers limitatioris on· the use of state power wherever sov ereignty resides, since exertion of the law beyond its proper boun daries necessarily curtails liberty. 5 Institutional Barriers to the Misuse of Power To solve this concern, the liber tarian searches for the location of sovereignty in the society in which he lives. Having determined where sovereignty abides, he often de votes his efforts to the erection of barriers designed to limit the sov ereign and, hopefully, to inhibit the misuse of power. Consider the American scene. The Founding Fathers greatly agonized over limitations on gov ernment, having lately removed the young states from the grip of royal and parliamentary despo tism. They constructed intricate 4 Luther v. Borden, 17 U.S. (7 How) 1, 12 (1849).

5 See Foley, Ridgway K., Jr., "Indi vidual Liberty and the Rule of Law" 21 Freeman No.6, 357-378 (June 1971), and 7 Will. L,. J. 396-418 (Dec. 1971), wherein I have attempted to analyze proper and improper uses of law. governmental institutions, sepa rating and dividing power, check ing and balancing the use of coer cive force. Thus, for example, the House of Representatives wields the power of the purse; the Sen ate advises upon, and· consents to, various executive appointm.ents; the two houses of Congress must concur in the passage of legisla tion; the President proposes legis lative acts, and executes them after passage; the Supreme Court may declare an act of .Congress unconstitutional (beyond its pow er); lifetime appointments are made to the Supreme Court, with good behavior, without reduction in salary, by the Chief Executive, upon the advice and consent of the Senate; election to legislative and executive office occurs in staggered terms of 2, 4, or 6 years. In addi tion, power is further. fragmented between the national government and the several states (division of power) and most state govern ments contain, on their own level, additional checks and balances. 6 Fragmented Power The American system posits the premise that diffused power poses 6 Of course, this cursory summary is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis -of the system of checks and balances, di vision of power, and separation of power.

Entire treatises have considered these conditions and provisions. The statements in this paragraph are intended as illus trative only.

108 THE FREEMAN February less danger to individ ual freedom than concentrated coercive force. Liberty could survive handsomely under an enlightened monarch or unitary council, if the possessor of power limited the role of the state to its appropriate functions. His tory .teaches the unlikelihood of this condition. It offers the col lateral lesson that fragmented power, diffused among several in dividuals, entities, and institutions, may more likely retard abuse and salvage freedom. Have They Worked? Review American history. Has this system of checks and balances wrought preservation of. freedom and limitation of the state? Sadly, the objective observer must re spond negatively. The Supreme Court early usurped the power to declare congressional acts uncon stitutional under a rule of "neces sity";7 this self-serving doctrine of judicial supremacy could be checked by congressional removal of jurisdiction, or by more explicit legislation, or by constitutional amendment, but none of these de vices have yet achieved the needed limitation. Thus, the Federal courts proceed to judicially legis late, oblivious to constitutional re straints and unanswerable to the electorate. Using shibboleths like 7 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).

"state action,"8 "affected with the public interest,"9 and the like, the judiciary has imposed upon the body politic concepts of economics, morals, and sociology which sat isfy the particular jurists but few others. One ·can measure whether we are in a nation of laws, not men, by comparing the change in judicial policy evoked in four years by four additions to the United States Supreme Court po Assaults Upon Liberty Again, legislative action in a bi furcated Congress has proved no savior of liberty. Political deals, use of odius riders upon needed legislation, the artifice of pork8 But see Moose Lodge No. 17 v. Irvis, Supreme Court Bulletin B2734 (June 12, 1972), and Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, Supreme Court Bulletin B3140 (June 22, 1972), where the Court has taken a much desired backward step from the govern mental expansive concept of "state ac tion." The philosophical defects and lib ertarian antidotes to'this freedom emas culating tenet deserve a separate essay.

9 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77 (1876). 10 The author holds no brief for Chief Justice Burger and Associate Justices Blackman, Powell and Rehnquist as lib ertarians in the sense used here. Indeed, their decisions reveal a singular ambiv alence and inconsistencies so typical of those not endowed with any consistent philosophy of freedom. (Mr. Justice Rehnquist may prove the exception to this broad statement.) Nevertheless, no one can deny that these men, "conservatives" at least in the traditional sense, have worked a major change in the jural fab ric of our nation.

1973 THE MYTH OF THE PERFECT SOLUTION 109 barrel politics, and bottling up bills in committee for mean and venal ends have persisted since the nation began. Members of Con gress display an increasing tend ency to voice freedom and econ omy at the same time that they vote repressive and uneconomic bills into law. The checks and bal ances designed to encourage ma ture reflection have not fared well. Finally, the executive branch of government has contributed to the decline .of freedom. Not the least of its sins has been the appoint ment of persons to public office lacking in any appreciation of in genuity and the desirability of maximum individual freedom. Again, the constant inordinate de mands upon the legislative branch to legislate in all nooks and cran nies of human existence can only induce and achieve the lessening of human creati vity. Nor has the division of power between the states and national government protected the citizenry from the assault upon their lib erty. The original premises of the nation included (1) control of gov ernment by those closest to it; (2) strictly delegated or limited func tions of the government; and (3) the in.dividual states as incubators of political theory. Nevertheless, two hundred years reveal the con stant usurpation of power by the general government, a corresponding increase· in activities by both state and nation, a loss of direct control by the electorate, and a continuing assault upon political variation and a growth of the orthodoxy of mediocrity.

The Trap of the Constitutionalism Response If the present system fails to preserve freedom, rationallY one should inquire whether any other system might provide that sought after perfect solution. At this point the libertarian may be en snared by the trap laid by the myth. For lack of a better phrase, we may term this delusion the constitutionalism response. The advocates of the constitu tionalism response recognize that carefully formulated institutions devised by the Founding Fathers have failed to achieve the sole viable end of government: human freedom. They comprehend that the most carefully conceived insti tutions may decline, even in a de mocracy or republic, where 51 per cent of the voters can ravage the remainder by ballot fiat. Yet their rejoinder is to propose more care fully constructed constitutional provisions. How often have you heard a strong libertarian utter the cliche, "There ought to be a law against (or compelling) - -"?

I have perceived even kindred souls suggesting that reading 110 THE FREEMAN February Bastiat's The Law should be man datory! A contradiction in terms. The constitutionalism response suffers from twin deficiencies. It rests upon the fallacious premises that (1) it is desirable to legislate (read: coerce) others to conform to this chosen· mode of behavior and (2) it is possible to legislate proper conduct, and even to de fine the content of such conduct. These premises, in turn, rely for support upon the arrogant assump tion that some man (or group of men) is better able and equipped to determine the destiny of other men, so that it is proper and de sirable that the former compel the latter~ A subsidiary false as sumption presumes that any man is even privileged to make this decision about another. Just· Ends and Coercive Means Reduce the problem to simple terms. Am I better qualified, by intrinsic worth, brains, or talent, to judge how my neighbor should conduct his life, even in the small est particular? Stated in thes.e terms, a negative rejoinder seems prudent. Yet, I violate that con clusion every time I coerce my neighbor into paying Social Se curity against his will. Recognize that I may have his best interests at heart: he does not spend his money wisely and I fear he will wind. up a destitute and unhappy old man. Besides, Social Security really costs him very little and this represents, indeed, a small particular since I leave my neigh bor his freedom in other arenas.

Nothwithstanding these rationali zations, no circumstance justifies my ordering my neighbor's des tiny, even ,in minute instances, . save one: to prevent the use of force and fraud against free men and for the promotion and admin istration of common justice. In fact, it is the height of arrogance for me to even claim the privilege of making this decision for my neighbor. Of course, logic patently demonstrates that if I am not in dividually privileged to restrain my neighbor, neither am I entitled to coerce him by banding together with my fellows, either to form a majority or a ruling claque. Ac tion under the imprimatur of ma jority rule may soothe the super ficial conscience, but it renders the evil deed no less evil. Observe where the constitution alism response first failed - at the point where the libertarian advo cates the use of nonlibertarian methods to produce a. "desirable"

result. You may agree that the world would be 'a better place if all men memorized Bastiat's The Law. I suggest that such a desir able end should not be produced by threat of death to all those who fail in this endeavor. Such an edict 1973 THE MYTH OF THE PERFECT SOLUTION 111 would violate the very principle sought to be achieved. On a less violent scale, the constitutionalism response proposes to correct inj us tice and restraint by the use of or ganized force'- "There ought to be a law." If ends preexist in means, such propositions are doomed to failure. The Art of the Possible Most libertarians successfully hurdle the first deficiency. More of us stumble upon the second: the possibility of achieving desired ends by legislative or constitu tional reform. I propose two axioms: first, the Founding Fathers more nearly ap proached the ideal of human free dom tllan any other group of men, and that they constructed an .in tricate fabric (the Constitution) upon which to maximize individual liberty. Second, the condition of freedom has rapidly deteriorated despite this philosophy and pro tection. Given these premises, what can be done to better our condition? Is it possible to write a better constitutional answer?

I suggest that while improve ment might be made in our Con stitution, no man-made vehicle can possess perfection. Just as finite man is fallible, so also are his words, works, and institutions. The problem' is complicated by the nature of language. Words provide poor vehicles for transporta tion of concepts. Concepts contain the amount of precision and per fection injected by the perceiver; the perceiver is finite. But the per ceiver may arrive at something close to perfection in his mind, yet be deterred or obstructed in con veying his thoughts_ to a listener or reader by the sheer clumsiness of language. Words possess shades and varia tions of meanings. Meaning and content differ from man to man. The classic intra-libertarian in tellectual struggles bear ample wit ness to the fact that even persons in basic agreement in principle may contest in context. Differences in Interpretation For example, I. may say that the state should limit its activities to the prevention of force and fraud, to the protection of its citizens from internal violence and exter nal aggression, and to the promo tion of common justice. You may agree. You know these words and you understand their common sig nification; to you, the content is sound and we affirm our harmony.

Yet this accord may dissipate rapidly when we apply my broad statement to concrete situations, or when we test it by definition or analysis. We may agree in princi ple and thus form a consensus, but disagree in application. Con112 THE FREEMAN February sider fraud. To a lawyer, fraud possesses a stylized jural meaning: it is a material representation, false in fact, made by a party when he knows that it is false or made recklessly by that party without knowledge of its falsity and as a positive assertion, made with the intention that it should be acted upon by that other person in reliance and to his detriment. ll I may mean the government shall only penalize active legal fraud as defined by the court; you may con ceive of fraud as something quite different, incorporating common (and just) senses of indignation against a more wide-r"lnging and invidious type of deception. Any general definitional term may divide us when we seek to apply the rule to specific situations.

A constitution resembles the in stance set forth in the last para graph. By nature, constitutions are fundamental, basic documents. They are full of open-textured con cepts which possess many inter pretational interstices. As our Hfraud" analysis demonstrated, words are susceptible to many meanings. General agreement can be achieved at the core; less agree ment will hold sway at the penum bra. For example, most of us would agree that it is fraudulent for a used car dealer to affirmatively tell 11 See, e.g., Amort v. Tupper, 204 Or. 279,282 P. 2d660 (1955). a buyer that the subject vehicle has only been driven 10,000 miles when in fact the dealer set back the speedometer from 50,000 miles himself that very morning, at least if the buyer believed the dealer, bought the car in reliance upon his affirmation, and was harmed by the misstatement. We might have a much more difficult time in reaching a consensus of fraud in a case where a seller conveyed a new vacu um cleaner to a buyer upon the affirmation that the machine was manufactured in Yuma, when in fact it was made up of parts made in Yuma but assembled in Flagstaff.

Two examples of open.,.textured phrases from the present Consti tution sufficiently manifest this intrinsic deficiency appearing in that essential document. The states granted Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."12 Scholarly analysis dem onstrates that the draftsmen in tended to grant to Congress the power to inhibit trade barriers be tween states such as plagued the nation under the Articles of Con federation. Yet the Federal gov ernment has used this little clause as the basis for usurpation of a vast range of human action by im12 United States Constitution, Art. I, § 8, Cl, 3.

1973 THE MYTH OF THE PERFECT SOLUTION 113 plementation of restrictive legis lative and judicial decisions. A similar flagrant linguistic misuse concerns the "general welfare"13 clause of the preamble which has been tortured beyond belief. History thus proffers a clear les son to be learned: no matter how clear and precise a constitution may be, there exists no guarantee that succeeding generations of po liticians and judges will not distort the phraseology, history, and meaning to their own ends, which usually involve the assumption of greater power to the state. I chal lenge whether it is possible to draft a constitution which will withstand the ravages of "un worthy" men. 14 The Solution I tender no perfect solution. None exists. I do offer a solution which may not be wholly palatable to today's activists who are ag13 United States Constitution, Preamble: "We the People of the United States in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 'do mestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the gen eral Welfare, and secure the Bless ings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

14 See Footnote 4. The Soviet Consti tution, in many respects, appears to be a most liberal instrument, yet witness the depredations wrought in that family of nations. grieved by the miasma wrought by governmental intervention. That solution is persuasion and reliance upon enlightened men. The concept ~f limited government requires, in final analysis, an agreement upon basic principles of limitation and the good faith of all citizens who participate in the body politic. Legislators and executives can be elected with a majority mandate to overturn or ignore basic prin ciples ;15 judicial officers can mis read a constitution or a statute. The sole viable solution is to edu cate and persuade an increasingly greater number of men to act in harmony with the principles of the freedom philosophy both in their pri vate lives and as public servants. 16 The nature of the solution should not deter us from seeking after perfection. It does not mean we should desist from ruffling lib15 I am reminded of Dr. Poirot's recent article "Who Should Vote?" 21 Freeman No.2, 120-124 (February 1971) wherein he discusses, inter alia, potential limita tions upon the franchise to the end that freedom might better survive. I do not disagree necessarily with some of his ex cellent ideas, I merely point out that franchise limitations pose no insurmount able barrier to the statists who convince the electorat~ that plunder is proper. En lightened freemen provide our sole effec tive recourse in final analysis.

16 Insofar as the method of education and persuasion consistent with the free dom philosophy is concerned, I defer to the writings of Mr. Leonard Read who has given this subject much consideration.

114 THE FREEMAN February eral tail feathers wherever we can. It does not mean that we should desert the polling place. I merely suggest that we should not place ultimate reliance upon the ballot box or a written document for the perfect solution. We come nearer Chaff About Wheat WILLIAM F. RICKENBACKER WHEAT, of all things, has been making the headlines in recent .. weeks as if it were married to a Greek shipping lord. There has been the announcement of general crop failures in the Communist world, an enormous sale by Amer ican exporters, accusations of "windfall" profits by those ex porters, guarantees of higher than-market prices for wheat and even for the shipowners who trans port it to the Soviet Paradise, the decision of the longshoremen's union to abandon its long-estab lished policy of refusing to work @National Review, Inc. 1972. Reprinted by permission from the November 24, 1972 issue of National Review, of which Mr.

Rickenbacker is a contributing editor. He also is editor of the Rickenbacker Report, an invest ment advisory service, and publisher of the Financial Book Digest. to perfection if we concentrate on self-improvement and self-enlight enment, so that each of us brings his own candlepower into conjunc tion with others. Who knows the Remnant might become a horde. ~ vessels under Soviet flag - and so on and so forth. Wheat, quite clearly, is a "problem." N ow the interesting thing is that there is no reason why wheat intrinsically should be a problem, as, for example, carbon monoxide is a problem. Men of average abil ity can cooperate with the Lord's creation in such a way as to pro duce wheat in abundance; mechan isms can match up supply and de mand as they do for hundreds, nay thousands, of other commodities; transportation can be arranged at less than the presidential level for wheat as it is routinely for, say, cornflakes or narcotics. What's so special, and what's so especially problematical, about wheat?

I submit that the. special char1973 CHAFF ABOUT WHEAT 115 acteristic is governmental inter vention. Across the sea, in the Soviet Paradise, where the farm ers in czarist days never failed to export their agricultural produc tion' to Europe and Asia, the intrusion of a crazy .political ide ology has converted abundance into penury, an agricultural ex porter into an importer. On this side of the water, the intrusion of an equally crazy political ideology has distorted just about every as pect of wheat economics. You can't plant wheat without a license. Trafficking in licenses is a crime. General tax revenues are used to prop up the domestic price of wheat, raising the cost of living. If a wheat exporter sells wheat at less than the domestic price, the Department of Agriculture will make up the difference. So, general tax revenues are used to depress the world price. Exporters can gamble on varying differentials in the daily quotes, and apply for subsidies calling for larger pay ments than needed to offset their actual losses. In the recent sale of wheat to the Soviet Paradise, this system alone cost the taxpayers $120 million. Some "sale"! The artificially swollen price for do mestic wheat encourages perennial overproduction and embarrassing "surpluses" that, in merely eco nomic terms, are as surely a sign of coercive distortion as the "shortages" created by Soviet ide ology in the historic breadbasket of Europe.

As for transportation, the two meddling governments, Washing ton and Moscow, have agreed to pay more than the market rate for shipping. General tax revenues will be used to line the pockets of the shipowners. By political agree ment, one-third of the wheat transported from the U.S. to the USSR must go in American bot toms, one-third in Soviet bottoms and one-third in "other" vessels. No matter what price the "other" vessels charge, the Soviets will pay 10 per cent more to the American shipowners. Presumably this will help American ships to stay in business despite the ruinous re sults of governmental interven tionism and subsidies in the ship ping industry - another, but sick eningly similar, story. All of this finagling, boondoggling, price setting and reciprocal pocket-lin ing would be strictly illegal if done by private citizens. It seems clear that the effect of governmental meddling in wheat has been to unbalance the supply demand function in the U.S. and the USSR, to raise prices in both places, to create "problems" where none had existed before (trans portation of Ukrainian wheat to Europe was no "problem" when it was handled, year after year, by 116 THE FREEMAN February freely functioning agents), and to misallocate scarce resources such as human labor, farm machinery, real estate, storage bins, fertilizer and on and on. It is, in fact, im possible to show that the wheat maneuvers of Washington and Moscow have done any economic good at all; and it is easy to show that the overall net result has been entirely negative, raISIng everyone's cost of food and creat ing hostility where once there had been only cooperation.

Here, as always when the gov ernment intervenes in a market, the "problem" does not reside in some inanimate obj ect named "wheat" or ','natural gas," but in false ideologies. More .precisely, the problem does not lie in false ideologies but in a political system that permits some people to im pose their false ideologies on oth ers. I would gladly let the Depart ment of Agriculture go on forever with its delusions and magicalop erations. But why· must it have the power to force all of us to pay for its mistakes? Wonder what would happen if the Department of Agriculture had to offer its "services" in a free market? ~ Inventions vs. Interventions THE INTRODUCTION of great inventions appears to be one of the most distinguished of human actions, and the ancients so con sidered it, for they assigned divine honors to the authors-of inIDEAS ON ventions, but only heroic honors to those who displayed civil merit $ such as the founders of cities· and empires, legislators, the delivLIBERTY erers of their country from lasting misfortunes, the quellers of tyrants, and the like. And if anyone rightly compares them he will find the judgment of antiquity to be correct; for the benefits derived from inventions may extend to mankind in general, but civil benefits to particular lands alone; the latter, moreover, last but for a time, the former forever. Civil reformati<>-n seldom is carried on without violence and confusion, while inventions are a blessing and a benefit without injuring or afflicting any.

SIR FRANCIS BACON EDMUND BURKE is generally re garded as one of the founders of modern conservative thought. As a defender of tradition, private property, slow social change, and "muddling through," he was an opponent of aprioristic thinking, rationalistic blueprints for social reconstruction, and "metaphysical arithmeticians." He is therefore not heralded as a master of the subtle skills of economic reason ing. Nevertheless, Burke's teach ings on the relationship between policies of monetary debasement and social change indicate that he was far more alert to the dangers of monetary inflation than are recent defenders of Federal defi cits and a system of price-wage controls. When N a,Uon's Business Dr. North, economist of the Pacific Coast Coin Exchange, also lectures at seminars of The Foundation for Economic Education. EdmundBurke on Inflation and Despotism GARY NORTH can survey 450 leading business executives concerning their opin ions on price and wage controls, and find that over 70 per cent of them favor the controls, with 47 per cent of them favoring an in definite extension of such controls, it is not difficult to conclude that Edmund Burke had a more sophis ticated sense of economics than our modern professionals. 1 In 1790, Burke distinguished himself by writing what was to become the classic statement of conservative social theory, Reflec tions on the Revolution in France.

Though its focus is social and poli tical, the book contains several penetrating sections dealing with two crucial economic issues: wealth redistribution and mone tary debasement. His presupposi tions are not those of classical liberalism, given his commitment to landed property as distin117 118 THE FREEMAN g'uished from commercial ("monied") property, but his con clusions are quite close to nine teenth-century liberal monetary theories. Burke's defense of private prop erty in land as a form of owner ship superior to stocks, bonds, and other "paper" investments hark ens back to the famous Putney Debates of Cromwell's Army in 1647. Burke, like Ireton (Crom well's son-in-law) before him, viewed the owners of landed prop erty as men with a greater stake in the preservation of society than either the propertyless or those owning nonlanded property.2 Un derstandably, given this perspec tive, Burke was appalled by the advent of money speculators in France, coupled with the simul taneous confiscation of church and Crown lands. "The monied interest is in its nature more ready for any adventure," he wrote, "and its possessors more disposed to new enterprises of any kind. Be ing of a recent acquisition, it falls in more naturally with any novel ties. It is therefore the kind of wealth which will be resorted to by all who wish for change."3 Burke was not opposed to change as such; he wrote that any state "without the means of some change· is without the means of its conservation."4 But he wanted slow, steady, familiar, "organic"

changes, and not the more rapid changes associated with modern industrial society. In this sense, he was certainly a "conservative" rather than a "libera1." This preference for landed prop erty - which in eighteenth-century England meant property hedged about by statist restrictions on ownership, transfer of such own ership, inheritance, and politically imposed land enclosures 5 - over monied property undoubtedly col ored Burke's economic analysis. He resented what he regarded as land confisca tion in France and the sale of this .land to middle class French businessmen, thereby "carrying on a process of contin ual transmutation of paper into land, and land into paper. . . . By this means the spirit of money jobbing and speculation goes into the mass of land itself and in corporates with it."6· Yet he ac cepted Parliamentary enclosure bills, and he was personally inter ested in agricultural rationali zation and improvement for England's increasingly market oriented system of farming. In deed, as Prof. Herbert Heaton has written, "Burke discussed cab bages and pigs almost as earnestly as he did the grievances of the American colonies."7 Thus, he was not fully consistent in his support of private ownership nor in his at tacks on political confiscation.

1973 EDMUND BURKE ON INFLATION AND DESPOTISM 119 Immorality and Instability His real concern was with mo rality and with semifeudal con cepts like honor and loyalty. These concepts were being undermined in France by revolutionary politics and monetary debasement on the part of the French government. Instability - Burke's greatest fear - was becoming the order of the day in France. Most serious, this instability was undermining the French family, that most funda mental of all institutions in con servative social analysis. Nothing stable in the modes of hold ing .property or exercising function could form a solid ground on which any parent could speculate in the ed ucation of his offspring or in a choice for their future establishment in the world. No principles would be early worked into the habits .... Who would insure a tender and delicate sense of honor to beat almost with the first pulses of the heart when no man could know what would be the test of honor in a nation continually varying the standard of its coin?8 The result of such an unsettled commonwealth, BurkE; predicted, would be barbarism. What was to take place in. France over the dec ade following the publication of the Re/lecbions convinced many of his contemporaries of the accu racy of his prediction.

France, it should not be forgotten, was probably the wealthiest nation on earth in the final quar ter of the eighteenth century, al though the English were rapidly overtaking their French neigh bors, and by 1800 had probably succeeded in becoming the world's richest citizens. Burke understood the position of the French better than the French revolutionaries did; he praised France's cities, the transportation system, French ag riculture, manufacturing, charit able foundations, and scholars. 9 But the French state was also in debt - so heavily in debt that half of all the King's revenues went in interest payments on the debt. (England was in a similar situation, and Burke may have been hinting at this fact in the Re/lec tions. 10 ) Nations are wading deeper and deeper into an ocean of boundless debt. Public debts, which at first were a security to governments by interesting many in the public tran quility [a variation of an agrument used by Alexander Hamilton in 1790 in his Report on Public Credit ll] are likely in their excess to become the means of their subversion. If governments provide for these debts by heavy impositions, they perish by becoming odious to the people.l 2 Burke, like Hamilton, failed to see that a "little" governmental in debtedness is comparable to a lit120 THE FREEMAN February tIe unwanted pregnancy, but he did grasp the politically unsettling reality of heavy state debt. Such conditions lead to revolution. (The French Estates General were sum moned in order to approve tax in creases necessary to finance the French debt; this was the first great event in the French Revolu tion.) Burke feared this reper cussion of state debt because, he said, revolutions "are favorable to confiscation; and it is impossible to know under what obnoxious names the next confiscations will be authorized."13 Monetization of Debt Like so many politicians before and since, the French revolution aries decided that the best pos sible way of getting out of debt was to go deeper into debt. The Anglo-American version of this system is through the monetiza tion of debt, through the mech anism of a, central bank and frac tional reserve commercial banks.l 4 The French leaders adopted a somewhat different system. They first confiscated the lands of the church and Crown. Then they is sued paper debt certificates, called assignats, that could be used in the purchase of these lands. These certificates bore 5 per cent inter est at first, lowered to 3 per cent a few months after the initial offer ing in 1789. The decree of April 17, 1790, made these legal tender.

These were "given" to - forced upon - those holding ,other forms of state debt certificates. 15 In the words of Prof. Bosher, who is not hostile to these administrative re forms, "Any of the alternative methods put forward would have perpetuated the old private enter prise system."16 The value of these fiat notes fell almost immediately. The "tempo rary" expedient of inflation and legal tender laws became a perma nent phenomenon. The 400 million of them issued in 1789 became a roaring flood of 40 billion within four years. Again, quoting Bosher: "A decree of 8 April 1793 ordered all government purchases and pay ments to soldiers to be in aB s'ignats. Three days later, the Con vention prohibited circulation, sale or purchase of golq. and silver coin. All transactions were henceforth to be in assignats, now the princi pal legal currency."17 The penalty (not mentioned by Bosher): imprisonment for six years. 1S An drew Dickson White's Fiat Money Inflation in France continues the analysis: Later, on September 8, 1793, the penalty for such offenses was made death, with confiscation of the crim inal's property, and a reward was offered to any person informing the authorities regarding any such crim inal transaction. To reach the climax 1973 EDMUND BURKE ON INFLATION AND DESPOTISM 121 of ferocity, the Convention decreed, in May 1794, that the death penalty should be inflicted on any person convicted of "having asked, before a bargain was concluded, in what money payment was to be made."19 It is not •surprising that an in crease of circulation from 400 mil lion to 40 billion in a span of four years would have produced price inflation. What is surprising is that a book seriously advertising itself as "conservative economics"

could argue, as one widely read study does, that "The fact that they were destroyed as money by t.he gigantic counterfeiting opera tions of the money creators later, does not detract from their valid ity."20 Burke, almost two centuries ago, knew better than that! Price and Wage Controls On September 29, 1793, the "Law of the Maximum" was de clared, setting forth· a system of price and wage controls. But, as White says, it "could not be made to work well-even· by the shrewd est devices. In the greater part of France it could not be enforced."21 It was abolished in the latter months of 1794, a total disaster. It was as unworkable as the early attempts to control prices and wages had been in New England, and it was as disastrous as the controls had been in the Ameri can Revolution. 22 Burke had foreseen these events in 1790. The politics of mass in flation, he warned, would create a gambler mentality in the minds of French citizens, a mad rush to stay ahead of rising prices. He warned· the citizens of France or at least those who might be reading his book - of this fact: Your legislators, in everything new, are the very first who have founded a commonwealth on gaming, and infused this spirit .into it as its vital breath~ The great object of these politics is to metamorphose France from a great kingdom into one great play table ; to turn its inhabitants into a nation of gamesters; ... With you a man can neither earn nor buy his dinner without a speculation.

What he receives in the morning will not have the same value at night. . . . Industry must' wither away. Economy mus't be driven from your country. Careful provision will have no existence. 23 It is not simply that industry will decline or that people will have to become speculators. The real curse of mass inflation is that it harms the ignorant, the un protected, the citizen who is not aware of the nature of the new, inflationary game. In the name of democracy, the French revolution aries had constructed a system that favors the elite - an elite made up of the least honorable, least prod ucti ve men in the community.

122 THE FREEMAN February The truly melancholy part of the policy of systematically making a nation of gamesters is this, that though all are forced to play, few can understand the game; and fewer still are in a condition to avail them selves of the knowledge. The many must be the dupes of the few who conduct the machine of these specu lations. What effect it must have on the country people is visible. The townsmen can calculate from day to day, not so the inhabitant of the country. When the peasant first brings his corn to market, the magis trate in the. towns obliges him to take the assignat at par; when he goes to the shop with the money, he finds it seven per cent worse for crossing the way. This market he will not readily resort to again. The townspeople will be inflamed; they will force the country people to bring their corn. 24 The nation will be torn with social conflict. This, in turn, will create disruptions, further insta bility, and the destruction of law and order. His warnings were in vain, and his prophecies came true.

Convertibility Makes a Difference There is a difference, he said, between the paper money of Eng land and that of France, contrary to certain French writers. "They forget that, in England, not one shilling of paper money of any description is received but of choice; and that it is convertible at pleasure, in an instant and with out the smallest loss, into cash [specie] again."25 The Napole onic Wars were to bring an end to convertibility in England for temporary periods, but Burke's polemical point was grounded in fact: the presence of the threat of specie demands by the public acted as a restraint on the process of fractional reserve banking, thus reducing the extent of mone tary inflation. But French lead ers have gone mad, he said: The only difference among their financial factions is on the greater or the lesser quantity of assignats to be imposed on the public sufferance. They are all professors of assignats.

Even those whose natural good sense and knowledge of commerce, not ob literated by philosophy [by which Burke meant the a priori theories of Enlightenment theorists], furnish de cisive arguments against this delu sion conclude their arguments by proposing the emission of assignats. I suppose they must talk of ass,ig nats, as no other language would be understood. All experience of their inefficiency does not in the least dis courage them. Are the old assignats depreciated at market?- What is the remedy? Issue new assignats. 26 Burke's jibes at the self-deceived and self-assured manipulators could (and perhaps someday will) be lodged against our contem porary "metaphysical arithmeti1973 EDMUND BURKE ON INFLATION AND DESPOTISM 123 cians," the inflation-minded econ ometricians : In all this procedure I can see neither the solid sense of plain deal ing nor the subtle dexterity of in genious fraud. The objections within the Assembly to pulling up the flood gates for this innundation of fraud are unanswered, but they are thor oughly refuted by a hundred thou sand financiers in the street. These are the numbers by which the meta physic arithmeticians compute. These are the grand calculations on which a philosophical public credit is founde~ in France. They cannot raise supplies, but they can raise mobs. 27 The people of France ought to see where a philosophy of state theft is leading them: I see the confiscators begin with bishops and chapters, and monas teries, but I do not see them end there .... Flushed with the insolence of their first inglorious victories, and pressed by the distresses caused by their lust of unhallowed lucre, disappointed but not discouraged, they have at length ventured com pletely to subvert· all property of all descriptions throughout the extent of a great kingdom. They have com pelled all men, in all transactions of commerce, in the disposal of lands, in civil dealing, and through the whole communion of life, to accept as· perfect payment and good and lawful tender the symbols of their speculations on a projected sale of their plunder. What vestiges of lib erty or property have they left?28 Once begun, this madness will be compounded. "If possible, the next Assembly must be worse than the present. The present, by destroy ing and altering everything, will leave to their successors apparent ly nothing popular to do. They will be roused by emulation and ex ample to enterprises the boldest and the most absurd."29 This, of course, is precisely what was to take place in France. "So violent an outrage upon credit, property, and liberty a.s this compulsory paper currency has seldom been exhibi ted by the alliance of bank ruptcy and tyranny, at any time or in any nation."30 Yet it got much worse in the next five years.

Theft is an insidious philoso phy, whether public or private in scope. Short-run benefits of the confiscation of another's property tempt men to expand their activi ties and bring on personal and national disaster. Burke's warn ings went unheeded by the French government in 1790. Today's metaphysical arithmeticians con sider such opinions as Burke's utterly narrow, dogmatic, and un enlightened by the-principles of modern thought. The results of today's confiscators will be com parable to the results of the French Revolution, since the 124 THE FREEMAN February principles are similar. If not mass inflation, then it will be some Napoleon of the mass media. Per haps it may be both. f) • FOOTNOTES • 1 Nation's Business (July, 1972), pp. 28 ff. ~ See Ireton's remarks in A. S. P. Woodhouse (ed.), Puritanism and Liberty (London: Dent, 1938), pp. 52 ff., 64 fj. On the setting of the Putney Debates, see Robert S. Paul, The Lord Protector: Re ligion and Politics in the Life of Oliver Cromwell (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), Chap. 7.

3 Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, edited by Thomas H. D. Ma honey (Indian·apolis: Bobbs-Merrill, Lib eral Arts Press, 1955), p. 126. 4 Ibid., p. 24. 5 Cf. Christopher Hill, Reformation to Industrial Revolution (Baltimore: Pen guin, 1969), p. 270; Herbert Heaton, Eco nomic History of Europe (rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1948), pp. 413-14, 419; Shepard B. Clough, The Economic Development of Western Civilization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), pp. 296-97. 6 Reflections, p. 224. 7 Heaton, p. 410. 8 Reflections, p. 108. 9 Ibid., p. 151. 10 J. F. Bosher. French Finances, 1770 1795 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 24. 11 Hamilton wrote in his First Report on Public Credit (1790) : "If all the pub lic creditors receive their dues from one source, distributed with an equal hand, their interest will be the same. And, hav ing the same interests, they will unite in the support of the fiscal arrangements of the Government .... " Robert Birley (ed.), Speeches and Documents in American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951), Vol. I, p. 159. Yet, as Prof.

John C. Miller notes, "The national debt, instead of cementing the nation politically, acted as a divisive force .... " Alex ander Hamilton and the Growth of the New Nation (New York: Harper Torch book, 1964), p.255. 12 Reflections, pp. 178-79. 13 Ibid. 14 Charles Holt Carroll, writing for Hunt's Merchants' Magazine in the 1850's and 1860's, produced some excellent anal yses of the process of the monetization of debt: Organization of Debt Into Currency and Other Papers (New York: Arno Press, 1971). This was the essence of Hamilton's "sinking fund": Miller, p. 257. It is also the essence of the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Sys tem: Herbert V. Prochnow Ced.), The Federal Reserve System (New York: Harper & Bros., 1961), Chap. 7. 15 Bosher, pp. 273-74. 16 Ibid., p. 273. 17 Ibid., p. 274. 18 Andrew Dickson White, Fiat Money Inflation in France (Foundation for Eco nomic Education, [1912] 1959), pp. 78-79.

19 Ibid., p. 79. 20 Gertrude Coogan, Money Creators (Hawthorne, Calif.: Omni Books, [1935] 1963), p. 320. For a critical analysis of the writings of Miss Coogan, see my es say, "Gertrude Coogan and the Myth of Social Credit," An Introduction to Chris tian Economics (Nutley, N. J.: Craig Press, 1973). 21 White, p. 77. 22 On Puritan economic controls, see Richard B. Morris, Government and La bor in Early America (New York: Colum bia University Press, 1946), pp. 56 fj. These tended to die out after 1675. On the controls during the American Revolution, see Percy Greaves; "From Price Control to Valley Forge," THE FREEMAN (Feb., 1972). 23 Reflections, pp. 226-27. 24 Ibid., p. 227. 25 Ibid., p. 273. When Burke speaks of "cash" he means "specie": p. 283. 26 Ibid., p. 276. 27 Ibid., p. 281. 28 Ibid., pp. 174-75. 29 Ibid .. p. 232. 30 Ibid., p. 141.

ARE V lEW E RI S N OT E BOO K Trousered Apes As WILLI SCHLAMM once put it, the whole darned army is in the avant garde. Insofar as writers are concerned, this means that we have an almost totally unrelieved pre occupation with savagery in our plays, poems, novels and even phil osophical speculation. The excuse is that you "gotta see it like it is." In the avant garde writer's view, "seeing it like it is" means that the human being is just another ani mal, and not one of the cleaner ani mals' at that - Trousered Ap'es, as Duncan Williams calls our literary "anti-heroes" in his scarifying at tack on "sick literature in a sick society" (Arlington House, $6.95) . Professor Williams, a British critic, thinks rather better of hu man possibilities than the angry young playwrights of London or such American novelists as Nor man Mailer. Not everyone is dedi cated to "violence and animalism,"

are still whole sections the recalcitrant "boure!eImE~nt - that would reject "decision to en cou e psychopath in oneself." Nevertheless, Mr. Williams does admit the provocation that pushes young writers to pessimistic ex tremes. For one thing, there has been "an almost total loss of religious faith." We have "no ultimate ref erence." Mr. Williams thinks the population explosion, which he takes seriously, must offer a dizzy ingly dangerous temptation to to talitarian rulers who possess the nuclear ability "to destroy the spe cies .." With no belief in a ration ally structured universe or in a beneficent Creator or First Cause, it is easy for people to slip into the attitude of "anything goes." Our novelists and poets and dramatists, with no faith of their own to sus125 126 THE FREEMAN February tain them or guide their artistic efforts, become easy '- victims in their turn of a temptation to mis take an ugly part for a less lurid whole. It is all quite understand able.

The Double Duty of Artists In Mr. Williams's opinion, how ever, artists have what amounts to a double duty. They should "mir ror" the civilization they see around them. But they should also be capable of rising above the "chronic upheaval which is engulf ing our culture." This has not been a popular notion of the artist's duty, as Malcolm Muggeridge makes clear in his foreword to the American edition of Trousered Apes. Not since the Eighteenth Century have writers considered themselves to be teachers or moral ists. There was a time in the "half way house" of the Nineteenth Cen tury when they aspired to be "ob jective" observers, as the very word "naturalism" indicated. More re cently, out of despair, they have become consc.ious immoralists, mocking the idea that you can have a believable moral code in a world without purpose, or teleology, or God, or any other concept that gives meaning· and dignity to existence.

The trouble is~ as Mr. Williams demonstra tes with a wealth of ref erences to scores of writers from the times of Samuel Johnson and Alexander Pope and'tT ane Austen down to the present, that one little thing leads to another. The crea tions of the poets and the fiction writers have a definite influence on the texture of a culture. When a Shakespeare or a Richardson can discover heroes and gentlemen, life will ennoble itself by imitating what it sees on the stage or reads in books. But when the very idea of a hero is called into question, lead ing ultimately to the cult of the Dostoevsky anti-hero, life will imi tate that, too. So the modern avant garde writer who has a clinical ob session with man as something that is "violent, animalistic, alienated, mannerless and uncivilized," be comes more than a mere neutral observer. Our Sartres, our Mailers, our Truman Capotes (In Cold Blood) and the film makers of Bonnie and Clyde take on Satanic pastorates in spite of themselves.

A Re-Run from the Thirties The Williams thesis, however heartening and welcome it may be, is not quite as novel as either Mal colm Muggeridge or Christopher Booker (the delighted· sponsors of Trousered Apes) might suppose. Wehad the whole argument out in the early Nineteen Thirties, when Gorham Munson and the "new" Humanists took issue with the pre vailing negativistic cults of the mo ment. The fact that Munson and 1973 TROUSERED APES 127 his friends got nowhere in the "proletarianized" Rooseveltian dec ade is an indication that the mal aise goes much deeper than any thing that might be corrected if only Truman Capote, say, would start writing about something other than moral monsters. But if novelists, dramatists and poets cannot be satifactory substitutes for great religious leaders or phil osophers, they should be quick to catch any stray hints of regenera tion in society. After all, they pride themselves on their acute sensibili ties. Gorham Munson was right to the extent that he held it a novel ist's duty to "body forth" the best that might be found in the world around him, even though few fic tion writers can ever have the stat ure of a Confuci us~ a Thomas Aquinas, a Luther, a Calvin or a John Wesley.

America follows the Trend Since he is an Englishman, Mr. Williams chooses most of his more extended references from his own side of the Atlantic. If he had taken a closer look at American litera ture, he might have discovered that the American writer held on to a basic moral health until well into the Twentieth Century. It was not until the Nineteen Thirties that the anti-hero really invaded our fiction. The characters of Sinclair Lewis, Willa Cather, Elizabeth Roberts (The Time of Man), Ellen Glasgow, Booth Tarkington and even Scott Fitzgerald had a healthy forward-living quality that disap peared from our fiction only after Hitler and the depression had made their simultaneous appearance on the world scene. For all his naivete, Lewis's George F. Babbitt had something to commend .him; he wanted to live in a true community. Lewis even found himself a hero in the businessman protagonist of Dodsworth. Willa Cather's operatic singer in The Song of the Lark and her glowing pioneer women in My Antonia and OJ Pioneers were cer tainly not anti-heroines. We have had only one full generation of writers whose stupid devotion has been to the literature of the absurd.

If memories weren't so short, we Americans might still find it in us to recover from the malaise that Mr. Williams anatomizes with such powerful accuracy. Prospects for Recovery The conditions of recovery, how ever, will not prevail as long as our contemporary critics remain sunk in what Mr. Williams, who has a genius for the happy phrase, calls our "temporal provincialism." This provincialism is currently en hanced by the current academic rage for the "relevant" - Le., what is being thought and said in 1972 and 1973 at the expense of ideas 128 THE FREEMAN February that were prevalent twenty, forty or a hundred and fifty years ago. How to break the vicious circle? Maybe a maverick group of young college presidents such as George Roche at Hillsdale College in Mich igan and John Howard at Rockford in Illinois can do· something about it. They might even prevail on Mal colm Muggeridge, or even Duncan Williams himself, to spend a year or two in American surroundings as visiting lecturers. Even our re bellious young might be willing to listen to common sense when it comes with a foreign accent.

Aside from his perspicacity as a critic, Mr. Williams is a competent theologian. He does not try to prove the existence of a Supreme Being. He notes that, just as a cat can't do calculus, the human spe cies can't fathom the ultimate pur pose of the universe. But he argues with great good sense that if the calculus exists beyond the ken of a cat, so there may be an ultimate purpose in the universe despite man's inability to go beyond the intuition that where there is evi dence of structure there must also be a structuring intelligence. HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX 'FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 tt1e Freeman VOL. 23, NO.3. MARCH 1973 Freedom ... What Is That? "Freedom is a timelesstorch, Blazing in the dark." Ralph Bradford 131 The Natural Controls C. R. Batten 140 If men would refrain from lawmaking to repeal the laws of nature, prospects for peace and progress might improve.

Is Red China an Economic Paper Tiger? Eric Brodin 143 Prospects for expanding trade with Red China are slim as long as communistic practices prevail. "I'm for the Achiever!" Let's encourage individual excellence. Miller Upton 147 The Pros and Cons of Socialism Henry Hazlitt 148 The dream of socialism is doomed to fail because it cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. Loving One's Country Haven Bradford Gow 155 Acall for revival of the spirit of religion and the spirit of the gentleman. The NorthwoodIdea V. Orval Watts 157 Concerning the importance of the Judeo-Christian ethic, an emphasis on work and thrift, and an appreciation of the need for business. The Foundingof the America.n Republic: 20. Steeringa Course for the Nation Clarence B. Carson 165 Laying the foundations of financial stability, foreign policy, party checks and balances, and Constitutional supremacy. Book Reviews: 183 liThe DoomsdaySyndrome" by John Maddox "The New Totalitarians" by Roland Huntford "The Political Culture of the United States" by Donald J. Devine "The Bonhoeffers: Portrait of a Family" by Sabine Leibholz-Bonhoeffer Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

t t1C' Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON-ON·HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591·7230 . LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a' non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,000-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy. 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per· mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "The Founding of the American Republic," "The Natural Controls," and liThe Pros and Cons of Socialism."

whatis that? RALPH BRADFORD My ELDERLY and somewhat crusty friend had read that I was to address a local service club, and he asked me what my theme would be. Rather absently, for my thoughts 'were elsewhere, I replied that I had not yet prepared the address, but that I would try to talk about the importance of freedom. He squinted an eye at me for a moment, then tossed off the ques tion which I've been trying since to answer - not for him, .but for myself: "Freedom, eh ... and what is that?" We do use the word rather loosely, don't we? It sounds good to the ear; it tastes good on the tongue; it evokes pleasant feel ings; it tingles the spine; it has patriotic overtones - we live in "the land of the free." It is··a good word, freedom ... but what, ex actly, does it mean? Mr. Bradford is well known as a writer, speak er, and business organization consultant. He now lives in Ocala, Florida.

I once thought freedom meant independence - national independ ence, that is, as when our Amer ican colonies separated themselves from England. As a boy I gloried (and still do) in the achievements of Washington and the other co lonial leaders and soldiers who wrested the political direction of their lives fromthe British crown. And yes, that was freedom.. . . in a limited contexture of the term. It was an aggregate free dom, a wholesale change of status. The people of the former colonies where thereafter "free" in the sense that they would henceforth make their own rules and regula tions, write their own laws, de termine their own policies, elect their own governing bodies, im pose their own taxes. They were "a free nation." They were also individually "free" to the extent that the original concept of the Founders w'as adhered to - namely, the idea lRl 132 THE FREEMAN March of a government of and for and by the people, with limited powers and defined responsibilities. They were also "free," and became in creasingly so, in the matter of the suffrage.

Denials of Freedom But even within such a frame work there were denials of free dom from the start. Slavery, for instance, had become a part of the colonial economy; and while some early leaders clearly under stood and explicitly denounced its evil nature, to many people there was nothing incongruous in hav ing slaves in a nation which, in fine rhetoric, had based its very reason for being upon the princi ple of individual freedom. Also, forces were soon at work which have always signalized the diminution, if not the outright denial, of freedom. Such forces are many, but they can be expressed generally as the effort of people, acting singly or in organized groups, to obtain from government advantages which are not ac corded, and may indeed be dis advantageous, to others. Under the incessant onslaughts of such privilege-seekers, government be comes .a battleground of special interests. The fine abstractions of liberty are replaced by the de mands of and for privilege. Free dom becomes. secondary to the question, What-can-I-get-out-of-it?

In our country as in all others these demands have multiplied, and their gratification has become, in the minds of many, synonymous ,,'ith freedom itself. As a result it is now rather general practice to refer to freedom always in the plural. We are no longer blessed with the great boon of freedom; we are the beneficiaries of numer ous "freedoms." The result of this has been to cheapen the concept of freedom by counterfeiting its sig nificance. Instead of holding free dom up, not only as a noble ab straction, but as a condition in dispensable to the development of a whole man, this practice splits it up into an aggregation of social and economic benefits, advantages and privileges. Liberty· or License? Thus we hear talk about free dom from fear, freedom from want - and so on through a num ber of highly desirable objectives - objectives which can be obtained in full measure only under the essential condition of freedom, but which, if provided through the compulsions of statism, may in the long run help destroy the very freedom they are supposed to sup plement.

The tendency to confuse liberty with license is strong, pervasive - and ancient. Today it evinces 1973 FREEDOM •••WHAT IS THAT? 133 certain new manifestations, certain demands that are based on sup posedly modern· social and eco nomic needs; but counterpart de mands can be identified back to earliest times. The history of gov ernment has been the story of shifts from the minumum author ity necessary to protect citizens in their rights, to the maximum of bureaucracy that results when government has been expanded to gratify the universal desire to secure what is mistakenly be lieved to be "something for noth ing." Whether in Rome or Athens or Memphis or Lagash, the pen dulum of government has swung from an early Jeffersonian sim plicity to an apotheosis of statism ... and then to stagnation, decay and ruin. Freedom is a timeless torch, Blazing in the dark. So wrote a minor American poet some years ago,! He meant, I'm sure, that freedom is one of the great realities by which men live - like faith, like virtue, like honor.

He meant that freedom is not just a desirable political condition under which to live, but a princi ple of life and growth for which to live. Even in stilted dictionary terms there is an inspirational content 1 The author refers to himself. The quote is from his book Heritage, pub lished in 1950 by Judd & Detweiler. in the definition of freedom. The condi tion of being free, says Webster's, is to be "not subject to an arbitrary external power or authority; not under despotic gov ernment; subject only to fixed laws which defend from encroach ment upon natural or acquired rights." Responsible Citizenship It is clear that the highest con cern and duty of good citizenship is not to be fretting about a num ber of so-called "freedoms," but to be alert that men shall progress toward the fulfillment of their highest. potential; to. be zealous tha t men shall be truly. free - not with four freedoms, or six, or a dozen, as though human liberty could be cut up into segments like a pie, but free in the essential meaning of human liberty, which is to be one's self, to express. one's self, to possess one's self. That is the measure of responsible citi~ zenship.

A man named Saul of Tarsus once long ago was arrested by the Romans and put in irons. When he demanded to know: if that was any way to treat a Roman citizen, the centurion in charge ran to call the chief captain. The latter was amazed that this prisoner should be a Roman, and he said, "With a great price did I purchase .this freedom" - meaning his Roman 134 THE FREEMAN March citizenship, which at that time could be bought if one had the money. And Saul replied proudly, "But I ~oas born free!" Born free! So are· most men these days, in the political· sense, especially those of the Western World. But like the centurion, those who would remain free must pay the price -a .fact that many, alas, have not learned. That price is the eternal. vigilance that was enj oined upon free men by John Curran .long ago. But vigilance against what? Against whom? External enemies, those who would subject us to "an arbitrary external power or authority?" Yes, to be sure. Against internal plot ters and subverters who would bring us "under despotic govern ment?" Of course. But especially against ourselves! Against busi nessmen who want Washington to insure their prosperity;. against labor leaders who demand the legal status of special privilege; against 'farmers (including large corporate agriculturists) who want to be subsidized for produc ing nothing; against educators who lobby for Federal funds and are willing to submit to Federal control; against communi ty or ganizations that work to wangle wealth from Washington. To the extent tha t any or all of those special interests are gratified, they will have helped fasten upon Ute whole people more debt, more in flation, more assertive bureaucra cy, less real and general prosperity - and less freedom.

The mere recital of such prac tices emphasizes how far we have departed from the dream of those who founded our nation. That dream was based upon. the faith that they could build in the new world a· society where men were free. Why else did they leave the relative comforts of Europe and come out to what was then the American wilderness? Were they fleeing from wicked kings, who might. whimsically chop off their heads? Not at all. The power of sovereigns in matters of life and death had long since been curbed. There were courts, there was trial by jury and the right of habeas corpus; and to a far greater ex tent than most people now realize there was representative, parli amentary government. They Came to Be Free Why then did men flee to Amer ica? As time passed various mo tives were at work - to avoid debt, to escape going to prison, to evade military service, to seek fortune and adventure. But for the greater part men left the older countries simply because in most of them the powers·of·government had been extended - by parliamentary proc ess, be it remembered - to the 1973 FREEDOM .•. WHAT IS THAT? 135 point that men of spirit and initia tive could no longer endure dicta tion by the state as to the minutiae of their daily lives. They did not flee to America because the king might chop off their heads, but because the king's ministers were taxing them beyond endurance.

They fled because they did not want their· employments, their wages, their profits, and the terms and conditions under which they might work, to be controlled and directed by the state. They fled, in simplest terms, from .too much government. They wanted free dom. Contradictions Did they find it here? Never wholly, for man is seldom com pletely free from one inexorable tyrant -himself. His ultimate bat tle for liberation is with his own selfishness, which· has so often destroyed him; and on this con tinent he suffered from that op pressor, as elsewhere. And by a strange paradox of human be havior, even some who were will ing to brave the wilderness seek ing freedom for themselves did not scruple to deny it to others, as Roger Williams, Anne Hutchi son and eventually several million slaves could woefully testify! But here, to a greater extent than anywhere else on earth, men were poli tic ally free. They had economic opportunity. They had religious freedom. They could worship God as they pleased, or not. at all. And especially they were liberated, for a -time at least, from the nagging and repressive supervision of the state. There was a newness, a largeness. And there were abundant natural re sources.

Urbanization But in time the pratrles were spanned, the mountains scaled, the hidden resources opened up and exploited. Eventually this country reached a new stage: urbaniza tion. Now· the farm shrinks; the village decays; the cities fester; megalopolis· looms - and beyond the moon Mars beckons. War has eaten up our wealth, increased our debt, divided our people, weak ened our pride and lessened our faith. The academy, too often, has become the seedbed of revolution. And despite a general prosperity never exceeded, the doctrine is being preached by many in posi tion to influence our youth that the American economy is spent, and that it can survive only if it is allowed to be directed bya coterie of leftist economists in the nation's capital. All this repre sents a radical shift in spirit and emphasis from individualism to collectivism ... and away from freedom.

136 THE FREEMAN March An Ancient Fallacy A fallacy of our times is the bland assumption that the idea of a governmentally "managed" economy is novel and "modern." On the contrary, such ideas are very old, and have been put into practice many times as the cen turies have gone wheeling by. The Romans, in the 3rd Century B. C. had farm loans, crop man agement and wage and price con trols. Under the Emperor Domi tian grape vines were uprooted to prevent overproduction of wine. UnderDiocletian, in order to com bat a rise in the cost of Iiving, both wage and price controls were decreed. Under Vespasian, to help maintain employment a ban was laid on mechanization. Under Alex ander Severus the government made loans to enable people to purchase land. Also, all commercial concerns that operated on accumu lated capital were put under state control. In time, as a result of external military upkeep and other overs~9S expenditures, Rome ex perIenced an unfavorable trade balance vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Needless to say, as a con sequence of all this, Rome had a vast bureaucracy, unbalanced budgets, enormous debt, inflation . . . and of course, a devalued cur rency . At one time the denari us had its content progressively re duced, and the weight of the gold coin was cut by 50 per cent. Does all this sound faintly familiar?

But it happened over 2000 years ago. The Romans were enlightened -and modern. They had a man aged economy! 2 Up and down the ages men, who know they must be governed for their own protection, have set up their forms of social and political management. Being essentially creatures of nature, they have al ways begun simply. Loving their freedom and personal liberty, they have instituted first those minima of restraint and control necessary for .their safety from aggression by their fellows, or by enemies outside their tribe or nation. But being also covetous and acquisi tive, sooner or later in the mad search for an imaginary free hand out, they have expanded their gov ernments into bureaucratic mon strosities ... and sacrificed th~ir freedom in the process. The disastrous experiments that were tried out in the bureaucra cies beside the Tiber had been long before enacted in the lower Tigris valley, and in the gloomy palaces along the NHe.. And they were to be echoed with variations many centuries later in the re pressive guild systems of Europe .

It was this ultimate heritage of self-imposed tyranny, this stifling 2 See A History of the World in 300 Pages by Rene Sedillot, pages 99-101.

1973 FREEDOM •••WHAT IS THAT? 137 of initiative and smothering·. of freedom's spirit, that caused men of vision and courage to leave the tired economies of Europe and seek new opportunity and enlarge ment in what they fondly called the New World. In that New World they worked out what came to be known ,as the American Dream;· they created what is referred to poetically as the American Heritage. In part that heritage consisted of a vast new continent, enormously rich in natural resources. But other con tinents had the same riches-.. Africa, South America. What made the difference? Freedom! Not just political and religious freedom, not just freedom eventu ally from colonialism (actually, in a physical sense they prospered under colonialism); but economic and personal freedom-freedom for growth through freedom from too much government. Special Interests That was the American dream as expressed finally in the Consti tution. But almost from the be ginning, as we have seen, the new government was beset, as govern ments always are, by the demands of thgse .who were not content to be protected in their persons, but who wanted something -.. some thing special, that is, for them selves, their business, their industry, their union, their farm organization, their state, their city, their community.

For a long time this was re sisted. Even as late as 1890 Grover Cleveland was asserting that it was the duty of the people to support the government, not of the government to support the people.. And 22 years later Wood row Wilson was writing: "The history of liberty isa history of limitations of governmental pow er, not the increase of it." A Sacred Ideal If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps freedom is in the mind of those who discuss and try to define it. Certainly freedom seems to vary with the bias, knowledge or prejudice of the speaker or writer who has it under discussion. There was a time, within the ready memory of most Americans, when freedom didn't need definition or defense. It was a slogan, a shibboleth; like beauty, it was its own excuse for being. To invoke the name of free dom was a clincher in most any argument about the condition un der which men should live. It was an idea that transcended analysis or question.

But today it is weighed, de bated, analyzed, compared -.. and denied. It is alleged by some to be a relative thing. Ask of them 138 THE FREEMAN March whether the Russians are free and you get an equivocal hedge to the effect that it depends on what we mean by freedom. Ask, are the Chinese free under Mao? For re..; ply you get something like "well ... things are relative. In our society we place major emphasis on individual achievement and progress, and by our values the Chinese might be said not to be free. However, their system does not center about the individual, but exalts the State. In such a society it is no denial of freedom to make the individual completely subordinate to the State." Those who support such ideas of freedom are usually the same people who profess to be disen chanted with traditional Ameri can values. To them, it is wrong to be competitive, evil to be am bitious, foolish to be patriotic, wasteful to be· industrious, stupid to be frugal. All material values, to such people, are worthless.

America has gone off after false gods. Our civilization is grossly materialistic; success is a delu sion; our system of production and exchange is without heart or vision ; and the whole fabric of American life - its legends, its traditions, its achievements - all this, in terms of real human wel fare, is a gigantic swindle. The history we have been taught, the patriotism we have imbibed, the pride of citizenship we have in herited - it is all a fantastic and deceptive fable so they allege. A Matter 01 Contrast Noone who has observed the American scene fails to recognize the deficiencies of the American economic system, or indeed of rep resentative government itself. But judgments upon the faults of our country are valid only when meas ured against its corresponding merits, and when all this is weighed in turn against the per formance of other systems, such as communism in Russia and its satellites, or in China, and social ism in Sweden and Chile. But this is seldom done .. Instead, we are fed a torrential catalogue of leftist peeves against the American soci ety - criticism of a sort that would bring immediate literary excommunication, if not sudden death, in ·many other lands.

But here, in the country they defame, they can get away with it. And the reason is simple : We are free !The crass, soulless, heartless, materialistic American society rises above its detractors, and guarantees their right ... to destroy it! Such is at once the Quixotic and sublime nature of freedom. And perhaps it needs no better definition. So . . . what is freedom? It is a thing of law and constitutional 1973 FREEDOM ... WHAT IS THAT? 139 right, to be sure. It must be guar anteed and preserved in the basic structure of government if it is to have meaning. But it is more than a legalism, more .than a Bill of Rights. It is a condition of the human spirit. But "you can't eat freedom." So runs a leftist cliche of a few years ago. It was meant to imply that there is a conflict between free dom and physical welfare. This, of course, is nOIlsense. You can't eat sunlight, either; but you soon die without it. You can't eat beau ty or truth or honor, but they are the leaven of life, nonetheless. Ac tually, we can and do "eat" free dom, in the sense that it is thees sential condition for human wel fare, achievement and progress.

Even on the level of food, clothing, shelter and the conveniences of life, experience has shown that these material comforts are found in greatest abundance where men are most free from the inhibiting compulsi.ons of statism. Deeply and inherently men know this. They understand, of course, that no man can be completely free. His freedom, in an .organized society, is necessarily limited by the like freedom of others; and so he relinquishes a small part of his freedom of action in exchange for protection and the greater good. But he has always hedged this about with basic limitations upon the power he will concede to his government. And always, alas, sooner ·or later he will diminish his freedom· by multiplying the bureaucracies of his government. And finally - he destroys it! That is because as his demands increase his vigilance weakens, and his sense of responsibility, or account ability, dies.

Human society is built, and can only be built, upon a foundation of citizenship accountability. The strength of a nation is not its legal machinery, .but the moral stamina and courage of its people. The law is but the codification of their conscience. There are not enough laws, and never will be, to keep a society stable if its mem bers no longer will it. There are not enough policemen, courts, judges or prisons, nor ever can be, to prevent the death of a civiliza tion whose people no longer care. Law enforcement is for the crim inal few; it collapses if it must be enforced against the many. When the sense of personal accountabil ity is no longer present in robust majority strength, then no legal device known to man can hold the society together. Freedom is a timeless torch, Blazing in the dark. ~ "WE REJECT all forms of racial op pression or political enslavement. Above all, we see in war the ulti mate misuse of science, the baleful destroyer of all economic and so cial benefit and the final betrayal of our common humanity."

This statement was buried at the end of a list of General Prin ciples adopted by the Non-Govern mental Organizations meeting in an Environment Forum in con.. junction with the United Nations Conference on the Human En vironment in Stockholm last June. Another principle from the Forum: "We must accept new eco nomic perspectives. . . . Both in production and physical consump tion, the world economy must come to be in balance with environmen tal carrying capacity." Another noble goal - but do the delegates to the Forum mean the same thing as I when we agree that "We must accept new economic perspectives?" Mr. Batten, experienced forester and student of human and natural resources, presently is a free~lance writer in Boulder, Colorado. 140 The Natural Controls C. R. BATTEN A person's conception of that statement depends on how he views today's economy. In order to understand each other, we must first define what we see.

In the world economy of today, I see a world of division; a world struggle for power; a world torn apart by trade barriers; increas ing reliance on the force of gov ernment to fulfill human goals; increasing demands that those who are better off "share" their good fortune with the less fortunate; a world of bickering, violence, and conflict as many nations and in dividuals seek to gain advantage and power over others through force - the force of majority rule, the force of alliances, or the force of brute strength. On the other hand, the majority of the delegates to the Environ ment Forum probably see in our present system that the undevel oped peoples, races and nations have been held back by force by wealthier nations, or by colonial ism. They feel a sense of despair 1973 THE NATURAL CONTROLS 141 at being unable to rise above pov erty because of trade barriers or legal restrictions imposed on them by the more powerful; they envy the more· wealthy, and see wealth to be gained with power. They at tribute all the good things of the developed nations to the power those nations have wielded in in ternational politics, and their own lack of wealth to their own lack of power.

International Planning Their solutions, then, are more government planning on an inter national scale; a world system of taxation, the spoils to be used to help the developing nations control environmental problems; and a re distribution of the world's re sources. These are not measures that will lead toward more freedom, less slavery, the elimination of poverty, or an end to war. Those who sup port them simply seek to wrest power from those who have it, and give power to those who do not the same old method that has been used throughout .the history of man. As long as this attitude pre vails in this nation and on this earth, mankind will be doomed to conflict and violence, and some part of it will be doomed to pov erty and slavery. It is the very exercise of power that creates slavery, keeps one nation or race bonded to· others more powerful, .. leads to violence such as that tragic incident in Munich last August, and causes wars.

A truly new perspective would be one that would drop trade bar riers, drop laws and agreements that give to some advantage over others through the force of some legal structure, and give the in dividual the freedom to do with his resources what will best meet his own goals. It is logical to ask: Without some kind of controls, how can we be expected to conserve resources, and live within earth's human carrying capacity? Won't we just keep on using up materials at our present alarming rate? The answer is that we have con trols through natural law that are much more efficient than any con trols man can devise. Without man-made interventions, the na7 tural controls would operate freely, and would serve to bring the economy into balance with en vironmental carrying capacity. Man does not make the laws that compose the system of nature. He only discovers them. He cannot re peal them, no matter how hard he may try.

Though man has learned to fly, he has not repealed the law of gravity. He has only learned to apply other laws of nature in such a way that he can cr~ate lifting 142 THE FREEMAN March forces stronger. than the pull of gravity. When the systems that man has devised fail, he crashes back to earth. Supply and Demand There are economic laws such as the law of supply and demand: If the supply of an economic good remains constant and demand rises, then prices will also rise. If the supply increases and the de mand remains constant, then prices will fall. It is this law, working in com bination with others, that pro vides the means for the world economy to come into balance with its supply of natural resources. Since natural laws govern the forces of life that created this uni verse in which we live, all of those laws are in harmony with each other. If man can learn more about them, and use them in his human and economic relations, he will learn to live in peace with his fel low men, and in harmony with his environment.

Under natural law, it is the function of prices to bring supply and demand toward balance. Thus, when the reserves of natural gas appear to be running short, and demands are increasing, we' find the prices going up - in spite of the attempts of regulatory agen ... cies to hold them down. If the prices are successfully held down, we can be sure that there will be shortages of natural gas in the near future. If prices are allowed to find their own level, they will rise to the point where gas producers will be willing to invest risk capital in a search for more reserves. Yet, it is to the best interest of those same producers that the prices not go too high - because at some point, it will become more profitable to produce gas from coal, or to develop some other source of energy. If the producers are not successful in locating more reserves, then the price of gas will continue to rise until alterna tive sources of energy are devel oped and substituted.

In short, as defined by one econ omist, economics is the science of making scarce materials go around. If we let it work, the natural sys tem of economic .law will provide tha t the scarce resources of earth continue to meet human needs. It is when man intervenes to up set the workings of economic na ture that he begins to have trou bles. It is when he tries (always without success) to repeal natural laws - by artificial trade barriers, price controls, production quotas, inflationary policies, and other means - that we find ourselves de stroying our natural resources and our environment. ~ ~~ ~~~ ~f\it\c~ C-t\ ~c.~t\~m·lc. ~c~'Q~t ~·l~~t~ ERIC BRODIN IN THE WAKE of President Nixon's well-publicized trip to China in the spring of 1972, many of the world's businessmen began to get visions of a brand new market with 800 million customers. Rep resentatives of a great many of the world's industries and export firms made their way to various trade fairs in China. At the Can ton fair in the spring of 1972, for example, 16,000 foreign business men were present, 1,500 from Japan alone representing almost 1,000 firms. No doubt these busi ness interests were partly respon sible for the ouster of Japan's Premier Sato, and for the recent diplomatic recognition of Com munist China by Japan. An early advocate of Red China's interna tional recognition is Sweden, who at· the same fair had representa tives from 147 firms. The Swedish Trade Minister also was there and expressed the hope. for a 100 to Mr. Brodin, economic journalist and foreign correspondent, is working· on his doctoral dis sertation in Sweden.

200 per cent rise in Swedish .. Chinese trade. Did Nixon's visit with Chair .. man Mao thus open vast new trade possibilities between Communist China and the world of business beyond the "Bamboo Curtain" ? We can only make guesses from some of the statistics published in China, from reports from re cent visitors, and of course from the "gnomes of Hong Kong" who often have amazingly accurate re ports from "contacts" who can freely pass from the British Crown Colony to Mainland China. First of all, we are not even sure of the population of Main land China, which has been vari ously estimated as 750 or 800 million. But numbers alone do not make China a consumer of inter national goods. Mainland China's foreign trade has risen from $1 billion in 1950 to $4.2 billion in 1971. This is comparable to the foreign trade of Italy, or of Yugo slavia, and some 20 per cent less than that of tiny Hong Kong with 143 144 THE FREEMAN March its four million population. Even with one-fourth of the world's population, Red China's share of world trade is but two-thirds of one per cent.

Peking's income from external trade amounted in 1970 to $2.8 billion, with imports of $2.1 bil lion. Such imports amount to about $2.50 per person per year. Only four percent of, China's Gross National Product is ascribed to foreign trade. It is evident, there fore, that China may either (for economic reasons) be incapable of being a viable international trad ing partner, or it chooses (for ideological reasons) to be a self sufficing economy. That the latter might be the objective is evident from many official statements which insist on' self-reliance and reflect the traditional Chinese hatred of foreigners. Expressed in Maoist terminology, reliance on foreign trade is "bourgeois" think ing full of "veneration of foreign technology." Trade patterns of Mainland China since the revolution show several changes. Foreign trade in 1966 was higher than that of 1971. It declined to $3.7 billion in 1967, then started slowly to rise again.

Communist China's main trading partner in the past had been the Soviet Union - $2 billion in 1959 - but by 1970 it had declined to a mere $55 million, indicating a complete reversal of Chinese for eign trade patterns. Formerly, 60 per cent of Mainland China's trade was with Communist countries; now the main trading partners are Japan ($822 million in 1970), Hong Kong ($477 million), the Federal Republic of Germany ($253 million), and Great Britain ($187 million). And where does .the Uni ted States fit into this trade picture? It is too early to know what future trade relationships may be, except that they are not likely to be very significant. United States' trade with Communist China, since re strictions began to be gradually removed in 1970, had risen by February 1972 to a mere $5 mil lion of imports by the United States. (United States imports from Nationalist.China (Taiwan) during the first nine and a half months of 1972 amounted to $2.3 billion. U.S. imports from Japan amounted to $4.9 billion in 1969, $5.9 billion in 1970.) · .The problem in international trade for Mainland China is that they have so few products which are attractive to or needed by in dustrialized nations; or, if they have these products, a poor or inadequately developed infrastruc ture makes transport and shipping difficult. If tempted to think of 800 million potential consumers, one ought to take a closer look at 1973 IS RED CHINA AN ECONOMIC PAPER TIGER? 145 the internal economy of China.

China is an underdeveloped country with a per ·capita income among the lowest in the world. In an authoritative series of articles in November 1971, the Italian journal Successo estimated the an nual per capita income in Red China to be between $93 and $97. Richman in Industrial Society in Communist China· puts the figure (in 1966) at between $70 and $100, whereas the more optimistic report on China by Business In ternational estimates it to be $111 in 1969, with a possible rise to $122 by 1980. (By that time, for comparison, estimated annual per capita income would be $3,600 for Australia, $4,517 for Japan, and $6,655 for the United States.) It is evident that such income severely limits what the Chinese peasant can afford to buy from abroad. By the best estimates pos sible, a Chinese peasant today may have a monthly income of· about $20,an industrial worker about $25. One of Red China's leading authors, Hao Jan, reports a monthly income from the Peking government amounting to $44. But, it can be argued, if foodstuff and other necessities are cheap, these statistics might not be meaning ful. This does not seem to be the case, however. From visitors, and chiefly from some of the refugees who are still fleeing Communist China at about 30,000 a year, we learn that the Chinese worker (with an average wage of $24 a month) will have to work from 7 to 15 days for a sweater, 70 to 80 days for a raincoat, and three months for a bicycle or a sewing machine.

Mainland China is in desperate need of industrialization in order to become self-sufficient in the goods necessary for its citizens, let alone any surplus for export. Its "Great Leap Forward" and other economic innovations turned out to be costly mistakes for the Chinese economy. It is evident that Red China· needs first of all to make technical· advances in its ag ricultural sector, and then to ex pand and modernize its industrial sector. Visitors to China are in variably shown a mechanized com mune and a chemical fertilizer fac tory - showing the priority of their interests. As in any develop ing society, the agricultural sec tor is very important; China must first feed its large and expanding population. (The rate of growth has been variously estimated at 1.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent per annum, and the higher figure is more probable.) But it is the in dividualistic Chinese peasant who has been one of the chief head aches to the Communist regime, what with his opposition to com munes and collectivist thinking. It 146 THE FREEMAN March is also in the agricultural sector where most charges of "sabotage"

have been leveled. "Class enemies and capitalists are always finding opportunities to try to wreck the collective econ omy" reports the Red Chinese theoretical journal, Red Flag, and this was due to the "failure of low-echelon party-cadres of follow ing Mao Tse-tung's line." Peking's Kwangning Daily of November 9, 1972, reported that "capitalism has reared its ugly head in productive teams in Sinkiang Province." And according to People's Daily (Peking) an "evil anarchism wind" has also swept across Mongolia which has "encouraged many to lean toward capitalism." It ap pears that some of the "sabotage" is due to dissatisfaction among the thousands of students who are be ing shipped into the interior for compulsive (corrective) farm la bor. China Mail for September 2, 1972, reports that a veritable black market in rationing cards has be gun by such students "after they had been banished to the country side."

As long as agricultural and tech nical improvement and changes can be determined only by the Thoughts of Chairman Mao (poeti cal though they may be) there are slim chances for any real expan sion in the economy of Mainland China. The Hopei Daily of Novembel" 13, 1972, in a typical reaction to a farm problem: "Under the criticism and rectification cam paign, sllstained anti-drought ef forts have led to comparatively satisfactory harvests ... Chair man Mao's policy must be strictly observed .... [and] vehement at tacks must be launched against Liu Shao-chi. ..... " Such ideological, rather than technical, ideas are also at work in the embryonic Chinese indus try. Jonathan Unger, writing a perceptive article in Far East Economic Review, attributes the slow growth of Red Chinese in dustry to chauvinism and ideologi cal preoccupation which prevents the Chinese from learning new methods and importing technical innovations from abroad. The chairman of Alfa-Romeo of Italy commented, during a visit to China in 1971, that the technical efficiency of a Chinese automobile plant in Shanghai was comparable to that of his own plant in 1910.

It will be a long time until the visions of massive trade with Mainland China by the world's businessmen and industrialists can ·be realized. First, the Chinese will have to abandon the unwork able ideas of Communism and the equally unworkable ideas of Chair man Mao. Until then, it is likely that Communist China will re main an "economic paper tiger." ~ 147 The Pros and Cons of SOCIALISM HENRY HAZLITT MICHAEL HARRINGTON'Smassive book on socialism is a strange and baffling performance. What is baf fling first of all is how such a book - so piously reflecting the century-old and long-discredited Marxian ideology, vocabulary and prophecies - can come to··be writ ten in this day and country. Even more baffling is how its author manages to combine such a for midable range of book-learning and current factual knowledge with such profound ignorance of basic economics and of the devas tating refutations of Marx that have appeared over the last cen tury.

Henry Hazlitt is well known to Freeman read ers as author, columnist, editor, lecturer, and practitioner of freedom. This review article is reprinted by permission from the January 6, 1973 issue of Human Events. 148 The book is well-written, at moments even eloquent. Mr. Har rington has a gift for phrase making. Perhaps this accounts for his success in becoming head of the American Socialist party. His erudition is impressive. He seems to have read, in the original Ger man, practically everything that Marx and Engels ever wrote. He 1973 THE PROS AND CONS OF SOCIALISM 149 has flashes of an ingratiating can dor. Yet his boqk as a whole is a long, repetitious and tedious con demnation of capitalism and an extravagant eulogy of socialism. Capitalism is represented as the sum of all evil. Socialism, on the other hand, may not bring an earthly paradise - it is only "finite," as Harrington stops him self to concede at one point - but whatever evil remains after it has been achieved will hardly be worth talking about.

Socialism may be finite, but Harrington's errors are not. I hardly know where to begin in pointing them out, and must con fine myself to a few random sam ples, of first some theoretical and then some factual errors. Labor Theory of Value Harrington is a devout Marxist, and swallows practically every thing, including the labor theory of value. He sets out to prove that labor is productive, but that capi tal is not. He does this mainly by rhetoric: "It is not capital or the market or abstention from con sumption that produces wealth; it is man (p. 77)." This is an ab surdly false antithesis. He may a~ well have written: "It is not work that creates wealth, but man." He even calls it a brilliant "animating insight," first seen by Marx, "that men create wealth." Well, let's take an elementary case. A man, using an ax, chops down a tree. Did the man chop down the tree, or did the ax do it?

Obviously it was the combination, the manusing-an-ax, that was needed to chop down the tree. It could not have been done without both. To argue, as Marx-cum-Har rington do, that the services of the man should be paid for but the services of the ax should not be paid for, is to argue that the man who made the ax should not be paid. Suppose, now, that the woods man is supplied with a power-saw instead of an ax, so that he can now cut down six times as many trees a day as before. Is he to be paid six times as much per day on the argument that his productivity has increased sixfold, with no com pensation for the use of the power saw ? Yet the increase in produc tivity has been made possible solely by the substitution of the power-saw. If power-saws are not paid for they will not be produced. If the principle of noncompensation for capital is universalized there will be no economic progress, but de cay and impoverishment.

Harrington does not seem to have even a glimmering of this elementary truth. He appears to assume that capitalist production goes on automatically, and even 150 THE FREEMAN March goes on increasing automatically, regardless of compensation or noncompensation, incentives or de terrents. I do not remember that the word "incentive" ever appears in his book; certainly it does not get into the index. Production, Harrington assumes, goes on increasing - even fright eningly fast - because of improve ments in "technology." But that improvements in technology would never have been possible without capital accumulation, and that cap ital accumulation - produced only by saving and investment - would never have taken place without compensation and rewards, seems never to have occurred to him. All the immense and acceler ative progress in productivity in the modern world has been the result of increasing capital ac cumulation, of more and better tools and machines. Yet Harring ton is blind to this. Not only does he not believe in profit, but he is constantly advocating confiscatory taxation and outright seizures that would eventually destroy the whole basis of production.

The Exploitation Theory It is probably needless to add that Harrington plumps without reservation for the Marxian theory that "labor" is everywhere "exploited" by the "capitalist." He does this by the naive argument (pp. 94-96) that there is such a thing as profit - i.e., that the gross sales value of the prod uct that the entrepreneur creates is greater than its cost of produc tion. Ergo, somebody must be be ing robbed of this "surplus," and it must be the workers! There is a bundle of fallacies here. First, Harrington assumes that profit is something automatic and certain. Millions of business men, including the managers and stockholders of recent outstanding loss-makers, like Penn-Central, Litton Industries, Ampex, Boise Cascade, Pan-Am, and so on, wish that were true. Over the years, some 40 per cent of corporations, by number, report losses. Harrington, again following Marx and others, confidently speaks of "the rate of profit." No such "rate" exists. Profit is dif ferent in every industry, in every firm, and in every year. Statisti cians can figure a mathematical average, of course (though that doesn't help the losers).

In 1970 all manufacturing cor porations in the U.S. reported an average profit after federal income tax of four cents per dollar of sales. Even if this were what economists call pure profits, it doesn't prove that any workers were robbed. Moreover, in an inflationary pe riod like the present, orthodox 1973 THE PROS AND CONS OF SOCIALISM 151 bookkeeping practices greatly overstate real profits. Even in normal times such bookkeeping "profits" include, especially in small firms, what should more properly be imputed to interest, rent, or the wages of management. In fact, pure profits go only to those entrepreneurs who succeed in creating economic values in excess of their costs. This they can normally do only if they are above average efficiency. Many economists now hold that in a non-expanding economy the profits of one entrepreneur tend to be offset by the losses of another, and that in such an economy no net "pure" profits exist. However that may be, neither profits nor production are ever automatic.

A Bundle of Errors But we must move on from ele mentary economics to Harring ton's numerous factual errors. He is concerned to show that "labor" is constantly producing more but not getting paid for it. Our productive system, he holds, expands "geometrically" but pays wages only in "arithmetic incre ments." If this were so, there would obviously be a progressive decline in the proportion of the "social dividend" going to labor. Then how explain that in 1971, according to official statistics, 70 per cent of total personal income came from wages, salaries, and other labor disbursements, but less than 3 per cent from divi dends? Or how it has happened that, in the five years, say, from 1965 to 1970, of tile money avail able for distribution between the employes and the shareowners of the country's corporations, the employes· received more than seven-eighths, and the share own ers less than one-eighth? Or that, if we count only the money that was actually paid out in dividends, the corporation employes in that period got 14 times as much as the stockholders?

Harrington keeps contending that wages haven't held their own against the rising cost of Iiving. The evidence against him is over whelming. A sample figure: In the 30-year period from 1939 to 1969 average actual weekly wages paid in manufacturing rose from $23.64 to $129.51 - an increase of 448 per cent .. Even when we ad just for the rise in living costs, real wages rose 108 per cent in that period. Misinterpretation of·Marx Harrington seems no more re liable concerning the writer Marx himself than concerning economic theory or fact. He has a tough time following Marx's obfusca tions, flounderings, tergiversa tions, and tactical zigs and zags.

152 THE FREEMAN March Though Marx repeatedly de manded the "dictatorship" of the proletariat, Harrington explains he really didn't mean it, but "used the word 'dictatorship' to describe democracy" (p. 54)! In an equal gem, on the next page, he assures us that Marx was "certainly rev olutionary, but also a. moderate"! As a revolutionary, when the word is used seriously, means one who demands forcible overthrow of the government by armed rebellion or civil war, with whatever shooting, bombing, or slaughter may be necessary, I personally find visual izing a "moderate" revolutionist somewhat difficult. But for Harrington words seem to have lost their dictionary mean ings. We find this when he comes to the key concept of "socialism" itself. He abhors any existing Socialist or Communist regime. From the horrifying facts that he cites about the history of social ism or communism in Russia, China, or Cuba, the "militarization of work," (229), the resemblance to a "barracks," (242), the slave camps, the crop failures, plummet ing industrial production, the deaths of millions of peasants by starvation, the espionage, suppres sion and assassinations, this book could stand as a damning indict ment of socialism or communism everywhere.

But Harrington does not come to that conclusion. None of these are the failures of socialism but of an "anti-Socialist 'socialism'." For real socialism, don't you see, must be "democratic," peaceful, harmonious, voluntary; and every body so far has taken the wrong route. Coercion Inevitable Harrington simply rufuses to recognize that socialism by its very nature must depend on co ercion and dictatorship to make it work. For where there is no pri vate property, no comparative profits or losses, no competitive prices or competitive wages, there is no guide as to who should turn out what, or how much of it. Everybody must be arbitrarily assigned to his job, as in an army, by orders originating from· the High Command at the top. One looks in vain for a clear definition of socialism in these pages. It does not mean, apparent ly, government ownership of the means of production, as we had all previously supposed, because that can lead to "anti-Socialist 'social ism'" and dictatorship. We are told that the "essence" of social ism is "democracy," but even if one believes the two to be compat ible, this is embarrassingly vague.

Harrington reveals his real pipe-dream on page 344. Here we come to "the vision of socialism 1973 THE PROS AND CONS OF SOCIALISM 153 itself" - a world in which "man's social productivity will reach such heights that compulsory work will no longer be necessary. And as more and more things are provided free, money, that universal equiv alent by means of which necessi ties are rationed, will disappear." It would be brutal to analyze this utopian dream realistically, and I refrain. What is amazing is how, with all his kno'wing allusions to scores of authors, Harrington has man aged to insulate himself so com pletely from any knowledge of real economics or of even the most famous refutations of Marxist socialism. Harrington's Most Glaring Omission: Mises and Others In all these pages you will not find a single reference to .Boehm Bawerk, to Pareto, to John Bates Clark, to Frank Knight to Wilhelm Roepke, to Murray Rothbard. You will, indeed (p. 296), find seven lines quoted out of context from F. A. Hayek, which represents the author of The Road to Serfdom as drawing "Socialist conclusions"

when he was in fact doing pre cisely the opposite. The treatment of the quotation alone shakes one's confidence in the dependability of every other citation or its inter pretation in the entire Harring ton book. But the most glaring omission is the name of Ludwig von Mises, whose SociaUsm: A n Economic and Sociological Analysis, first published in Germany in 1922, and available in an English trans lation in four editions from 1936 to 1969, is the most thorough and devastating analysis of socialism ever penned. The Mises book, as its title im plies, examines socialism from al most every possible aspect - its doctrine of violence as well as that of the collective ownership of the means of production; its ideal of equality; its relation to problems of sex and the family; its pro posed solution of the problem of production as well as of distribu tion; its probable operation under both static and dynamic condi tions; its national and interna tional consequences.

It considers particular forms of socialism and pseudo-socialism; the doctrine of the class war and the materialist conception of his tory; various Socialist criticisms of capitalistic tendencies or alleged tendencies; Socialistic ethics; and finally various forms of "gradual socialism" and "destructionism." It is amazing how many of his criticisms of 40 or 50 years ago anticipated the essentially destruc tionist proposals now made by Harrington. But this is because these "new proposals are merely 154 THE FREEMAN March repetitions or rehashes of what Socialists and other anticapital ists have been advocating over the decades. No open-minded reader can fail to be impressed by the closeness of Dr. Mises' reasoning, the rigor of his logic, the power and pene tration of his thought. The con tention most closely associated with his name is that full social ism is certain to fail because it is incapable by its very nature of solving the problem of economic calculation.

A· completely Socialist society would not know how to distribute its labor, capital, land and other factors of production to the best advantage. It would not know which commodities or services it was producing at a social profit and which at a social loss. It would not know what any worker, or what any factor, was actually con tribu ting to the production of economic values. Unable to determine any work er's productive contribution, the Socialist society would be unable to fix his reward proportionately or know how to maximize his in centives. The greatest difficulty to .the realization of socialism in Mises' view, in short, is intellectual. It is not a mere matter of goodwill, or of willingness to cooperate ener getically without personal reward. "Even angels, if they were en dowed only with human reason, could not form a Socialist com munity." Capitalism solves this problem of economic calculation through private ownership, and by money prices of both consum ers' and producers' goods which are fixed in the competition of the open market.

Ludwingvon Mises Mises' Social,ism is an economic classic written in our time. It is one of the author's three master pieces, of which the other two are The Theory of Money and Credit and Human Action. ~ HAVEN BRADFORD Gow FOR US to love our country, said Edmund Burke, our country must be lovely. If Burke meant that only a country which is lovely is loved by its people, then he was mistaken, for it is true that many Germans loved Nazi Germany. But if we understand Burke's remark to mean that for a country to be worthy of admiration, it must be lovely, then Burke certainly made a valid observation. But what causes a country to be lovely? The British statesman had a ready reply. The country that is lovely, wrote Burke, is per meated with the spirit of religion and the spirit of the gentleman both being essential to the survi val of any tolerable civil social order. The "spirit of religion" is a complicated te~m. But what I think Burke meant is a reverence for God and a corresponding acknowl edgement of an authority higher Mr. Gow of Fall River, Massachusetts, is a student majoring in philosophy and intellectual history.

than the state. For Burke, it also meant a commitment to a cluster of values and the religious foun dation for those values such as tra dition, liberty under law, courage, love, integrity, honor, civility, the dignity of the individual because he is made in the image of God, individual freedom and responsi bility, the recognition of rights and corresponding duties. By the "spirit of the gentle man," Burke was referring to something more than mere social poise and the ability to win friends and influence people. Cardinal John Henry Newman once described the gentleman as one who is "tender towarus the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd. . . He never speaks of himself unless compel led, never defends himself by mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip. . . ." The gentleman, continued Newman, is "patient and forbearing"; he resigns him self to suffer because "it is inevita ble, to bereavement because it is 155 156 THE FREEMAN March irreparable, and to death because it is his destiny." And if the gen tleman engages in controversy of any kind, "his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds, ,who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack in stead of cutting clean, who mis take the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, miscon ceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it."

Burke would have agreed with Newman's sentiments; but he, like Newman, meant something more than the observance of the tradi tions of civility. Burke also was talking about the refinement of mind and character which elevates one above the social and intellec tual fads and foibles of his group and of his times. As Russell Kirk observes, Burke believed that the spiri t of the gentleman meant "that elevation of mind and tem per, that generosity and courage of mind, [and that] habit of act ing upon principles which rise superior to immediate advantage and private interest." Were Burke alive today, he would find little of the spirit of religion and the spirit of the gentleman in our country. He would discover little respect for the canons of civilized discourse; and he would find little observance of the norms and traditions of civility. Instead, Burke would find the spirit of the gentleman considered "effeminate" by those most doubt ful of their own masculinity; he would encounter widespread in difference, if not hostility, toward religion in both private and public life. He would find increasing num bers who think in slogans, who shout down speakers, who refuse to listen to views contrary to their own; he would see a denigration of the concepts of individual free dom and responsibility; he would witness in our society an attack by those without roots upon the delicate balance between freedom and order, tradition and change.

And Burke, to his dismay, would discover a violent and tragic dis ruption of what Garry Wills terms "the bond of social affections," the ties that promote unity rather than division; the ties, that is to say, which bind a person to his neighbor, to his family, to his com munity, to his country. To fight today for the resusci tation of the spirit of religion and the spirit of the gentleman would seem to be in a lost cause. Yet, for so worthy a cause we must· con tinue to struggle until these qual ities prevail - qualities which cause a country, as well as an individual, to be lovely. ~ V. ORVAL WATTS WHAT I have to say about the UNorthwood Idea" is not original with me. I have tried to do little but put together what I have gleaned from discussions with many persons at Northwood trustees, administrators, faculty and students; but perhaps this summary may be useful and it may be that my concluding point deserves a little more emphasis than we usually give it.

At the outset, we should note that the Northwood philosophy is based on what, for want of a bet ter phrase, we may call the Judeo Christian Ethic. Next, I shall refer to our emDr. Watts is Director of Economic Education, Northwood Institute, Midland, Michigan, a private college dedicated to the philosophy and practice of free enterprise. This article is from remarks at a recent faculty meeting there. phasis on work and thrift, not merely as economic virtues to pro duce so-called "material welfare," but as spiritual therapy; that is, as necessary means for "spiritual development" - welfare in its non material aspects. Finally, I shall remind you of the. necessity for business, that is, for commerce and finance, includ ing advertising and selling, book keeping, accumulation of cash re serves, banking, and the dickering of free markets. Business in this sense of the term is an essential aspect of every great civilization, and I believe it is necessary for the development of truly human and humane character and per sonality. That concluding idea, I expect, is the most distinguishing feature of what I have to say.

157 158 THE FREEMAN March 1. THE JUDEa-CHRISTIAN ETHIC As to the Judeo-Christian Ethic, I've been tempted to use instead the "Bourgeois Ethic," the ethic of the tradesman; but Karl Marx and others have given that phrase so nasty a connotation that I know I would have two strikes against me at the outset if I called our . moral code the "Bourgeois Ethic." Yet, whatever we call it, the moral basis for our North .. wood philosophy is the ethic which is necessary for a good life as a trader or financier. The Idea o/Individual Responsibility It begins with the idea of in dividual responsibility. This is the psychological basis for the J udeo Christian Ethic. The Ten Commandments and the moral injunctions of both the Old and the New Testaments were al ways directed to the individual: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"; "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" ; "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

These commandments were di rected to one preson, the individ ual, who is thereby charged with responsibility for his choices. In other words, humans must choose - that's what I mean by individual responsibility and self determination. Ideas and acquired values determine our specific ac tions, and they may prompt us to ignore various influences in the outside environment. We can di rect our own actions to prolong and enrich our Iives, or we can choose suicidal paths as people choose to smoke when they have abundant evidence that it shortens life. We can choose to jump off cliffs, we can choose to play Rus sian roulette; or we can choose ways of life, ways of health and welfare. The Idea 0/ Moral Law Of equal importance in the Judeo-Christian Ethic is recogni tion of the enduring nature of Moral Law. The essence of this moral law is summed. up in the "Golden Rule," and it derives from the fact that humans need one an other.

Without other human beings, we cannot be born, cannot be reared, cannot prosper; and to have the cooperation of other hu mans - to avoid the conflicts which would be suicidal for humans we must follow the "Golden Rule.:" When we apply it in practice, we find it is the unifying principle of those commandments that refer to the relations between the indivi dual and his fellows: "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill,"

1973 THE NORTHWOOD IDEA 159 and "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Now, it should be clear that obedience to Moral Law means voluntary cooperation and free dom. If we don't steal, we leave other persons free to use their tal ents in peaceful cooperative ways to produce goods for their own use, for exchange, or for gifts to others, such as gifts to one's family or heirs. Therefore, we have a state of individual freedom if we live by the "Ten Commandments." We have private property and number less associations for voluntary co operation. And humans develop as humans and make progress only in this condition of individual free dom and voluntary association es tablished by adherence to these moral principles. Therefore, these moral principles are antecedent to and take precedence over all man made laws and customs. Respect for Property In other words, these enduring moral principles require of us re spect for the property rights of other people - that· is, respect for their rights to control their own persons and for their rights to control those things which they obtain in voluntary cooperation, whether by gift, by voluntary ex change, or by the productive use of these things. Living by these principles requires that we fulfill our contracts, that we speak the truth, and that we revere the laws of Life and Nature. The human need for this reverence appears in the first four of the "Ten Com mandments."

We should note, incidentally, that this voluntary cooperation and ~x change is doubly productive of benefits in contrast to the one sided gain that anyone may get by coercion, as for example, by burg lary, by slavery, or by taxation. In voluntary cooperation, all partici pants must benefit if the coopera tion is to continue, for if it is vol untary, anyone may withdraw when he feels he is not benefiting, when he feels that the gains are distributed unjustly or going en tirely to one person or group at the expense of the time and energy of others. We should note also that living by the Golden Rule involves re spect for privacy - the right to be let alone and the right to choose one's associates. Coercion - the at tempt to compel people to associate with others - leads to conflict rath er than to the attitudes and ac tions which are mutually bene ficial. Freedom established by the Moral Law of the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments includes the moral right to withdraw from an unwelcome contact with other persons, as well as the right freely 160 THE FREEMAN March to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways.

As Paul wrote in his "Second Letter to the Corinthians" 2000 years ago, "Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness and what com munion hath light with darkness? . . . Wherefore come out from among them and be separate saith the Lord . . . and I will receive you." (II Cor. 6: 14-17) Conditions 01 Sale I mention this because it is sometimes said that, by our rules at Northwood prohibiting the use of liquor and· marij uana and re quiring the women students to re turn to the dormitories at a cer tain time, we are coercing the students. This is not· true. We are thereby merely exercising our moral rights and duties in select ing those student associates who are to use the facilities provided by the college founders and sup porters. We use no coercion to en-' force these rules. To say that choosing our associates is coercion is a misuse of the term coercion.

We choose only to disassociate our selves from those who are not will ing to abide by our rules. Our rules are conditions for continued use of Northwood's fa cilities. We must have such rules, or standards, and we must separate ourselves from anyone not willing to accept them, if the Northwood Idea is to, have mean ing and effect. II. EMPHASIS ON WORK AND THRIFT Next, I wish to call attention to Northwood's emphasis on work and thrift as marks and means of human progress. It is fashionable in some circles nowadays to dis parage both of these. But, work is merely persistent, purposeful ef fort, and investment of human time and energy for long-range, indirect benefits. Long-range benefits are those that occur in the future. Indirect benefits are those that may first benefit another person, but bring a return benefit of some sort later. Such planned, purposeful effort for a long-range or indirect bene fit is. surely necessary for human survival and progress; and the traits of character and personality developed by such effort we regard as virtues.

Thrift is the postponement of present consumption in order to obtain greater satisfactions in the future. Like work, it requires the highest human qualities of under standing and imagination to fore see the future and to hold it in mind in order to gain the neces sary self-restraint. In short, work and thrift require understanding, 1973 THE NORTHWOOD IDEA 161 self -control. They are means, not only of self-development but of service to others. Without Savings and Tools, We'd Still Live in Caves Where would we be today had it not been for the thrift and work involved in the creation of our buildings, and the production of the myriad of tools, or capital goods, that we use ?The answer is we would still be living in caves, eking out a short-lived, hand-to mouth existence derived from the roots and grubs we could dig up, the small animals we could catch in our hands, and the berries we could get in season.

Everything that we call the ma terial aspects of civilization, and the moral and spiritual ones as well, our understanding that en ables us to live longer, to live bet ter and to cooperate - all of this comes from the thrift and work, the accumulations of thousands of years of human effort, inventive ness, planning, thrift andself-dis cipline. This Puritan Ethic - this sys tem of values, this way of life is essential to human living, not only economically but for develop ing the qualities that are most dis tinctively· human, the qualities that make us humane.,It is mental, moral, and spiritual "therapy," to use a modern cliche. III. THE IMPORTANCE OF BUSINESS Finally, if we are to have coop eration, we must exchange serv ices; and as the cooperation gets more and more complicated we need specialists to work out the terms and procedures of the multi tudinous exchanges. Therefor,e, we must use money and credit; and we must have traders and finan ciers, advertisers, brokers and salesmen, accountants and collec tion agencies to complete the ex changes, including those ex changes which are made over a period of time and which there fore require credit and finance.

Finance is the monetary aspect of credit. Credit is merely a de layed exchange, an incomplete ex change. In every civilized society, most exchanges take time to com plete because they are indirect, three-cornered or four-cornered exchanges, taking place over a dis tance and involving roundabout (capitalistic) methods of produc tion. In all such time-consuming transactions, we must have credit (trust and waiting). Therefore, money, credit and financial expert5 are as necessary for civilized life and progress as tools and ma chines, mechanics and engineers. Business, then, means those as pects of voluntary cooperation which we call commerce and fi nance, and the function of the 162 THE FREEMAN March businessman is to promote, in spire, and guide cooperation. He organizes and teaches competitive cooperation - cooperation to pro vide better opportunities for life and for a more abundant life.

These business activities - organ izing, inspiring, leading and teach ing cooperation - promote devel opment of the highest qualities of mind, character, and personality. Now, from time immemorial from the first introduction of mon ey and the specialists who traded and promoted trades - busine'ss has been widely regarded with suspicion and looked down upon as a degrading occupation. In primitive societies, the view pre vails that a merchant or money lender profits only at the expense of producers. This belief helps ex plain why such societies remain backward, or "underdeveloped." Of course, this belief is an en tire misjudgment as to what most of a businessman's wealth consists of and what he contributes to the value of other producers' services and incomes. Most of his wealth consists of the means for serving his customers, and he contributes some of the most essential ingre dients of human progress.

Wherever this disparaging atti tude toward business becomes gen eral, you'll find that business is harassed, regulated, plundered, and repressed; and under such persecution, the character and wis dom of businessmen tends to be low. Where opinion-makers teach that business is a dishonest racket, then those that are willing to be racketeers or cheats will monopo lize business, while achievers who value the good opinion of their fellows will choose other occupa tions, such as politics and the mil itary. Then we find the kind of government the Pharaohs had in ancient Egypt, or that prevailed as the Roman Republic gave way to the Empire. Under such oppres sive governments, a businessman must be something of a trickster to survive. Spreading Hostility As hostility to businessmen grows, politicians tax them more heavily, while debasing and in flating the currency to maintain an illusion of prosperity. Then, when these policies cause rising price levels, a deluded populace demands price controls, which am bitious politicians are all too ready to impose.

The resulting shortages and "black markets" provide further excuses for more government ac tion to combat these supposed evi dences of private "greed." This cancerous growth of gov ernment produces political "lead ers" who promise peace and plenty even while they squander the 1973 THE NORTHWOOD IDEA 163 fruits of industry in pauperizing the poor and waging "perpetual war for perpetual peace." The result must be, sooner or later, a spreading decline in the quality. of life despite (or because of) the increasing largess to "the poor" and the privileged, the rise of great new public works, and the display of awe-inspiring arma ments. Civilization progresses when business is widely regarded as Horatio Alger represented it in his stories 75 or more years ago. In those once-popular tales, work and thrift in honest business service were the high road to personal suc cess in the broadest sense of that word. That view of business helped attract able, enterprising youths into business careers. It prevailed in this country long be fore Alger wrote and helps explain the astounding economic and cul tural progress of the United States during the past two centuries.

On the other hand, insofar as we lose the Horatio Alger under standing and spirit, we succumb to increasing paternalism and des potism, collectivism and war, which demoralize and belittle the individual and produce a wide spread cultural decline. This has happened time and time again in history, and if we don't learn the lesson from this history, we shall be doomed to repeat it. Every nation has developed and flowered - with art, music and the other ornaments and means of civilization - only on the basis of flourishing business, trade and commerce. This was true of the Phoenicians, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Egypt, the Chinese civili zation, the Byzantine Empire, Venice, Florence, Spain, England, France, Germany and the United States. Go through the history of each and you'll find in its origins this period in which commerce and finance were highly regarded and relatively free in a developing civ ilization.

Again and again, however, these eras of progress have ended as the intelligentsia became worshippers of the Almighty State .. Then these intellectuals - scribes and priests - became more and more scornful of businessmen; and business lost its vision because it lost its men of vision. Men of talent and imagi nation, instead, accepted the faith of the state-employed intellectuals that a well-schooled elite must make more and more choices for the general run of the population and compel the inferior masses to accept this planning and direction of their lives. Submerging the Individual With this elitist excuse for tyr anny, governments organize mili taristic and imperialistic gangs to 164 THE FREEMAN March substitute forms of slavery for the voluntary cooperation of free in dividuals. Then, as in Communist China and Russia today, even the ablest of the ruling bureaucracies find that any individual is expend able - trapped and exploited or liquidated - as millions of humans are sacrificed on the altars of Planned Perfection. The Moral Law of the Golden Rule and of the Ten Commandments may be vio lated, but not with impunity. He who harms others, harms himself; he who deceives another, cheats himself.

This faith in Moral Law, I find, permeates the thinking of our Northwood administration and faculty. Along with it goes insigt ence on the fact of individual re sponsibility and a broad, long range view of personal success. A businessman's moral responsibility is no less than that of a teacher, physician, minister, artist or writer. Essential to the Northwood Idea, then, is appreciation of the unlimited opportunities for char acter development in voluntary business enterprise. Temptations correspond to the opportunities, and each occupation has its own peculiar temptations as it has its own peculiar oppor tunities. As few find the "strait gate" and "narrow way" of right eousness in other walks of life, like wise few businessmen will claim that they have always followed the right path in their own work. Only those who look for business profits in life-supporting efforts that are mutually beneficial can achieve success in the true mean ing of that word.

This, I believe, may be the most distinctive feature of the North wood Idea - the view that our graduates should look on business not merely as an easier way to at tain ease and affluence, but as an opportunity for utilizing their highest human qualities and at taining lasting satisfaction in a life well spent. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Courtesy: A Saving Grace To BE DISAGREEABLE is high treason against your role in civiliza tion. Examples of this crime are: to say some sickening thing off handedly and make the victim writhe, or to provoke others into breach of good manners, or to indulge in crude behaviour or lan guage. There is no possible excuse for vulgarity. The Royal Bank of Canada Monthly Letter, September, 1972 CLARENCE B. CARSON THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 20 Steering a Course for the Nation REPUBLICS had been notoriously unstable, fiscally irresponsible, subject to being pulled hither and yon by foreign influences, divided and laid open to civil commotions by partisan conflicts, and rent by contests over succession to leader ship. No fact troubled the more thoughtful of the Founders of the United States more than this one.

The United States had already wit nessed before 1789 many of the results of the fatal tendencies of republics. Monarchy had ever· and again been revived to solve the more tenacious problems of re publics. Could the United States be steered around the shoals on which other republics had foun dered? There were those who doubted it. After all, what would be the rock to anchor a govern ment against the storms without a monarch? The answer seemed to be that there must be no storms, but it was unrealistic. How could a country be induced to yield to precedent, tradition, and those founts of governmental stability - awe and obedience - without the bulwarks of established church, hereditary aristocracy, and mon archy? Perhaps it could not be done at all. But if it could be done, it would be because the best and Dr. Carson, noted lecturer and author, is living at present in Alabama. The articles of this series will be published as a book by Arlington House.

165 166 THE FREEMAN March most able men should be engaged in political leadership and that they should set examples which lesser men would follow in the course of tirne. The outstanding men had come to the fore and taken their places, as we have seen; it now remained to be seen if they could set a safe course. Erecting a Financial Structure It is all too easy to find fault with Hamilton and his programs. Much of what his political foes said against him and his programs was true. He did entertain great doubts about the political wisdom of the general populace. He was a nationalist who cared little enough about the integrity of the states, if he thought they had any. He was a mercantilist, or at least he was under the sway of the fag ends of mercantilist ideas. He was ambitions, aggressive, a broad con structionist, and did intrude in foreign affairs. Those of us who differ with him in the main thrust of his economic policies may cri t icize him for his protectionist and promanufacturing posture.

Yet, when all has been said against him and his programs, it should be granted that what he accomplished offsets. much of it. He emerges from an examination of his policies as one who, if he did not always do right, generally did well. There are few enough men with large VISIon, probably fewer who can conceive the pro grams necessary to realize it, and the number is quite small who will labor tenaciously to get them in operation. It is easy enough, as I say, to criticize hi~ financial pro gram; but which of the critics could establish the financial foun dations of a nation? Hamilton conceived a financial program which he hoped would provide the sinews of a nation. His task would have been hopeless enough if he had aimed only to get revenue to run the govern ment. Americans were loath to pay taxes of any kind, and politi cians had shown themselves all too willing to adopt expedients which would enable them to operate for a time without the onerous neces sity of taxes. But Hamilton want ed much more than a revenue. He wanted to establish the credit of the United States, when bank ruptcy was the obvious outlet.

And, he wanted to do so in such a way that would tie men of wealth and position to the government, get the people to look toward the United States government as the government, and make it clear that the general government would take care of national concerns. Hamilton's program was pre sented in a series of reports to Congress in 1790-91, and much of it as was enacted, which was most 1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 167 of it, was enacted during the same years. The main acts dealt with the acceptance and funding of the national debt, the assumption of state debts, the establishment of a Bank of the United States, and the establishment of an excise tax on whisky. Establishing the Credit of the United States Hamilton's first report, which was on the public credit, was pre sented January 14, 1790. In it, he argued vigorously that the do mestic debt as well as the foreign debt should be assumed at the full value originally contracted. There were many of the opinion that the domestic debt should be discount ed. Most of the obligations were held by speculators now, it was argued, men who had bought them at· a fraction of their face value and who stood to be greatly enriched if they were paid off at full value. Hamilton approached the subject from the angle ofes tablishing the credit of the gov ernment. "By what means is it to be effected ?" he asked. "The ready answer to which question is, by good faith; by a punctual performance of contracts. States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an op posite conduct."

While the observance of that good faith, which is the basis of public credit, is recommended by the strong est inducements of political expedi ency, it is enforced by considerations of still greater authority. There are arguments for it which rest on the immutable principles of moral obli gation. And in proportion as the mind is disposed to contemplate, in the order of Providence, an intimate connection between public virtue and public happiness, will be its repug nancy to a violation of those princi ples. This reflection derives additional strength from the nature of the debt of the United States. It was the price of liberty. The faith of America has been repeatedly pledged for it, and with solemnities that give peculiar force to the obligation .. .1 Hamilton's propo~al to establish a fund for paying the national debt at face value was linked in the same bill with a plan for the assumption of state debts con tracted during the War for Inde pendence. Assumption of state debts was much more contro versial than the other matter. In fact, the idea bordered on the pre posterous, in view of past history.

At least some of the states had made headway in paying their debts; whereas, as yet, no United States government had demon strated either the willingness or ability to service any debt. More over, there were differences in 168 THE FREEMAN March size of debt from state to state. However,adjustments were made for this, Hamilton did some horse trading with the Vir'ginia delega tion, and both funding and as sumption passed. The United States issued new securities to re place the old, paid interest on them, and set aside funds to take care of them. No immediate prog ress was made, however, in actu ally paying off the debt. Even so, the credit of the United States be gan to show improvement. A United States Sank Hamilton's next major proposal was for a United States bank. He proposed that it should be char tered as a corporation by the Fed eral government, that the govern ment should subscribe to 20 per cent of the stock, and that the r,e mainder should come from private investors. Federal funds were to be deposited in it, and the bank was to issue paper money which would become the main currency of the United States. Jefferson argued that there was no author ity in the Constitution for char tering such a corporation, but Hamilton carried the field, and Washington signed the bank bill into law February 25, 1791. Stock in the bank sold within hours after it went on the market.

Congress passed an excise tax on whisky in March 1791. This was the first tax levied by the United States government to be borne directly by American pro ducers. It was much resented, par ticularly by western Pennsylvania farmers, who were accustomed to shipping their corn east in a liquid state. A rebellion broke out there in 1794, and it was put down by troops. Some Americans, at least, had felt the power of the new gov ernment directly. Protection ism Hamilton's most ambitious and extensive program was contained in his Report on Man uf actures which he presented in December of 1791. In it, he clothed the argu ment for government intervention in its most attractive apparel. He held ,forth a vision of America drawn together in fraternal bonds through the interdependence of manufacturers, shippers, and farmers. North and South, East and West, would be drawn to gether in a great economic cornu copia. Few could gainsay him that there were advantages to the divi sion of labor, to an American inde pendence of. foreign countries, or even that there was good reason to draw immigrants to American shores along with foreign capital.

All of this was attractive back ground to an argument for gov ernment aid to manufacturing. "Such aid must consist of pro1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 169 tective duties against competitive foreign manufactures, bounties for the establishment of new in dustries, premiums for excellence and quality of manufactured ar ticles,exemptions of essential raw materials from abroad from im port duties . . ., the encourage ment of inventions, improvement in machinery and processes by substantial grants ... , and, finally, the construction of roads and canals for a . . . flow of physical goods and materials."2 Too Much for Congress With such a program, however, Hamilton had bit off more than Congress could swallow. Even sup posing the program to be desir able, which many doubted, where was the authority in the Constitu tion to spend the tax moneys taken from the generality of the people for such purposes? Hamilton ar gued that the power was there in the general welfare clause. If this were so, Madison declared, then Hevery thing from the highest ob ject of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress."3 Thus, the mainele ments of Hamilton's grandest scheme were turned back.

Even so, the broad lines of Ham ilton's achievements have been en thusiastically summarized in this way by a present-day historian: By 1792, largely as a result of the leadership assumed by Alexander Hamilton,. the heavy war debt dating from. the struggle for independence had been put in the course of ex tinguishment, the price of govern ment securities had been stabilized close to their face value ... , a Fed eral revenue system had been brought into being, a system of debt management had been created, the power of the .Federal government had been decisively asserted ... , and the credit of the Federal government had been solidly established. 4 Independence in a Hostile World The United States were depend ent upon European countries in the gaining of separation from England. The French alliance sup plied both the naval power and a considerable army for the winning of the most impressive .victory against the British on the Amer ican continent. That other nations were at war with or hostile to Britain made the American vic tory more· certain. The favorable treaty gained by the United States atParis in 1783 "ras made possible by the cross currents of animos ities and jealousies among Euro pean powers. The United States staved off bankruptcy time and again in the 1780's with loans ac quired in European countries.

One of the greatest tasks of the United States under the Constitu tion was to shake off the depend170 THE FREEMAN March ence upon Europe. Undoubtedly, European powers still viewed the United States as a potential pawn in their contests with one another. The French were inclined to the view that they had a special claim on both the good will of and spe cial favors from the United States. The British, on the other hand, could not view with equanimity anything short of such close re lations with the United States as that the old relationship of de pendence would be in some meas ure restored. The Spanish were not resigned to the dominance by the United States of the eastern portion of the continent. Nor would the United States be inde pendent of Europe until the Brit ish hold on ·the Great Lakes and the Spanish control of the Missis sippi were broken. The most alluring way out of the difficulties these things posed was for the United States to attach itself to some European power which would become their protec tor and champion their causes against all others. That is what, to a limited extent, had been done with France. But the French had been of very little help against Britain and Spain after the war.

Moreover, the changes in France after 1792, and the new European war which broke out, made the French connection an almost cer tain liability and would have linked the United States to gov ernments which not only changed frequently but also were tyran nical and oppressive. The course which Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson chose suc cessively was independence from all these powers. But it was easier to choose such a course than to steer it. European Conflicts with American Repercussions The first crisis of the Washing ton Administration came when the French declared war on England, Spain, and Holland. The Franco American Alliance committed the United States to the defense of the French West Indies and not to render aid to France's enemies. Washington issued a Neutrality Proclamation shortly after the war broke out, stating that the United States was at peace with both Great Britain and France, and warning Americans not to commi ~ hostile acts against either side.

tJefferson had raised some doubt as to Washington's authority to do this, but he did not push the point. A few days before Washington made his proclamation, a new Min ister from France had arrived in the United States, a man known as Citizen Genet. Genet had no sooner arrived than he began to commission privateers from Amer ican ports to prey on Br~tish ship1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 171 ping. Washington warned him against this, but he persisted in similar activities, and the Presi dent eventually demanded his re call. In 1794 Congress passed a Neu trality Act, which confirmed Wash ington's earlier Proclamation, in effect, and put teeth into it. Al ready, relations with France had deteriorated considerably. When the United States came to terms with Britain in a treaty, they grew worse. The accord with Brit ain is known as Jay's Treaty; it was signed by the diplomats in November of 1794 and ratified by the Senate June 24, 1795. By this treaty, Britain agreed to and did shortly withdraw their troops from the posts on the Great Lakes.

It also opened up the East and West Indies to trade with the United States. A joint commission was appointed to deal with the debt claims, particularly of Brit ish merchants, which went back to colonial days, and a final settle ment was made in 1802. British trade with the United States was placed on a most favored nation basis, which meant that any trade concession granted to any other nation would also be granted to British traders. This treaty set tled most of the outstanding diffi culties between the two countries; but in view of increasing difficul ties with France, it was interpreted by that country as a slap in the face. On the heels of Jay's Treaty came Pinckney's Treaty with Spain in 1795. By its terms, Spain acknowledged the boundaries of the United States as being. those established by the Treaty of Paris (1783), agreed to the free navi gation of the Mississippi, and accordedthe right of deposit at New Orleans to Americans for a period of 3 years. By these two treaties the United States made great headway toward the practical at tainment of an independence of Europe which had been sought in the Treaty of Paris.

However, the French govern ment now posed increasing prob lems for the United States. It re fused to receive Charles C. Pinck ney as U.S. Minister to France when he arrived there in late 1796. Nor was the commission made up of Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry, appointed by President Adams to negotiate a settlement, treated any better. The French government did not for mally receive them, and agents of the foreign minister, Talleyrand agents designated in dispatches as X, Y, and Z - suggested that the government would be happy to treat with them if they would pay a bribe and give France a loan. This XYZ affair stirred up much re sentment in America when it was 172 THE FREEMAN March made public in 1798. Many expect ed that France would go to war with the United States at any time. Adams initiated such meas ures in preparation for the con flict as he thought prudent. And, an undeclared naval war between the two countries did take place, 1798-1800. Meanwhile, Adams con tinued efforts to reach an accord with France. This was achieved in what is known in diplomatic his tory as the Convention of 1800.

France agreed to release the United States from the treaties made in 1778, and diplomatic re lations between the two countries were resumed. The Monroe Doctrine It would take us too far afield to go into any detail about the for eign relations of the next twenty five years under Jeffersonian Re publicans .. They were, however, pointed toward the following of an independent course in the world. This was· made extremely difficult by the Napoleonic wars which em broiled Europe for the first fifteen years of the new century. Both France and England continued pressure on the United States. The pressure of France however, was greatly reduced by the Louisiana Purchase. But the pressure of Bri tain led eventually to the War of 1812, which some historians have called the Second War for Independence. Perhaps the culmi nating symbolic move in the es tablishment of American Inde pendence was the Monroe Doctrine set forth in 1823. By it, President Monroe announced that the Amer icas were not subject to further colonization and by so saying at tempted to place the Americas off limits to the European quest for empire and to free this continent from the struggles of Europe.

During these early years of trial a set of principles for American conduct with other nations had emerged from pronouncements and practice. The following is a summary of them, stated as im peratives: The United States should • 1. Establish and maintain a po sition of independence with regard to other countries. • 2. Avoid political connection, in volvement, or intervention in the af fairs of other countries. • 3. Make no permanent or en tangling alliances. • 4. Treat all nations impartially, neither granting nor accepting spe cial privileges from any. • 5. Promote commerce with all peoples and countries. • 6. Cooperate with other coun tries to develop civilized rules of in tercourse. • 7. Act always in accordance with the "laws of nations." • 8. Remedy all just claims of in jury to other nations, and require 1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 173 just treatment from other nations, standing ready, if necessary, to pun ish offenders.

• 9. Maintain a defensive force of sufficient magnitude to deter ag gressors. 5 The Rise of Political Parties One of the unforeseen and, by some, unwished for developments in the early years of the Republic was the rise of political parties. No reference to any role for them was made in the Constitution. There had not been, as yet, any political parties in America; divi sions were occasional or tied to factional leadership of some man, as a rule. To formalize such dif ferences by organizing them into political parties would have ap peared the height of folly to many of the Founders. In fact, there was good reason to suppose that if the Republic did not founder on the shoals of foreign entangle ments it would split under the stress of partisan or factional con tests, as republics had tended to do in times past. George Washington, in his Fare well Address, warned the country "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party" generally. He declared that: It serves always to detract the public councils and enfeeable the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealous ies and false alarms; kindles the ani mosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insur rection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the govern ment itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another .

Washington admitted that the spirit of party arose out of human nature its~lf and was unlikely to be entirely extinguished, but he exhorted his countrymen that the "effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and as suage it."6 Washington had reason enough for his fears about the spirit of party. Even before he left office the lines of party were forming; his Cabinet had already experi enced the strain; and the country at large was about to witness some of the most acrimonious dis putes that have ever taken place. It should be noted, however, that as yet disputants did not ordi narily mount the stump to address the· people directly about their dif ferences. Attacks usually appeared in newspapers, and more· likely than not ifmaj or figures were in volved they wrote or had their cases presented under pseudonyms. Such· practices did not, however, promote restraint or prevent 174 THE'FREEMAN March breaks between individuals which were difficult to heal. They may well have had the contrary effect.

It is not difficult to see why parties and factions arise when men are free to hold and practice different views. Men simply do not see all questions from the same angle, and they do have, as indi viduals and groups, different in terests from one another. And, men ever and again are drawn to the conceit that what is to their advantage is also to the advantage of the generality of people. Those in power usually take a more gen erous view of the extent of their power than those who do not have such power. There is, undoubtedly, a general welfare, but men hardly discern it and focus upon it ex clusively in the course of their careers. Major Questions at Issue There were choices of course in plenty to divide Americans and provide the opportunity for politi cians to capitalize on them in the early years of the Republic. After all, the course of the nation was being set. Strong willed and deter mined men were placing their im print upon it. Small wonder that those favoring and those opposing certain courses of action should form opposing factions which even tually assumed more permanent status. How should the Constitution be interpreted? Should it be broadly or· strictly construed?

Should the powers of the general government be greater, or those of the states preserved and enhanced? In foreign affairs, should the French Revolution be supported? Or should the United States link its fortunes to those of Britain? Or, if the United States was to be neutral, would this not benefit one side at war to the disadvantage of the other? More fundamentally, were there not choices to be made between order and liberty, between reason and experience, and between the individual and the community? If this latter formulation poses the distinctions too bluntly, it never theless indicates configurations of belief toward which men tended. The two parties which emerged . in the 1790's were called Federalist and Republican. Alexander Hamil ton and John Adams are usually as sociated with leadership of the Federalist Party, which indicates also the early division in that party, division which in the course of time sundered it. New England was the center of the strength of the Federalist Party, but it had devotees throughout the country.

Thomas Jefferson and tJames Madi son were the leaders of the Repub lican Party, and the bulk of its strength was from Pennsylvania southward. The Republican Party was born in opposition, which prob1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 175 ably made it considerably more united than the Federalist, which was born in power and suffered in the beginning from the stresses of power. It is much easier to be united in opposition and adversity than in possession of power and . prosperity. Federalists vs. Republicans Though it must be understood that leaders of parties are not in perfect agreement, that men do not readily acknowledge either-or posi tions, that the following should not be taken as absolutes, Federalists and Republicans did tend to divide along the following lines. Federal i~ ts were more inclined to empha size the depravity of man, particu larly that of the generality of men, than were Republicans, though Madison readily declared man; to be a frail vessel, and Jefferson would not deny it. Federalists em phasized the importance of experi ence, tradition, awe, and venera tion, while Republicans were more hopeful about the benefits of rea son. Federalists inclined to be na tionalists (when they were in power), and the Republicans to favoring state's rights. Federalists tended toward mercantilism in eco nomic policy, while Republicans were much more favorably dis posed toward laissez-fa,ire. Feder alists favored industrializing, while Republicans wanted an agricultural economy with an emphasis on for eign trade. Republicans were much more favorably disposed toward France than were the British-lean ing Federalists.

It is not to the purpose of this work to devote much attention to these conflicts. What is important is that they were there and that political parties took shape around them as issues. Nor is it so im portant that when the Republicans were in power for awhile they be gan to abandon the policies they had championed and to advance some of those they had opposed. Being in power is a severe test of anyone's beliefs, and there are usu ally excuses enough in changing circumstances for altering them. What is important is that though political parties are extra-constitu tional they came to play an impor tant role in buttressing and main taining the Constitution. One of the checks and balances on government not conceived and contrived in the Constitutional Convention was that provided by political parties. Perhaps the great est check of all on those in power is provided by the opposition party and by its members who hold of fice, not the power of determining policies. If the party in power takes a generous view of the powers available to its members, the one out of power uses the limited pow ers doctrine as one of its reasons 176 THE FREEMAN March for opposing the extension of power. The Jeffersonians out of power opposed the Sedition. Act as unConstitutional. Federalists out of power opposed the Jeffersonian Embargo and defended state's rights. So it has frequently been throughout· American history. The strict construction doctrine would sometimes have few advocates without a minority party.

The Jeffersonians brought par ticularly important counter-bal ances to the Federalist emphasis. It probably was most useful that the early officials of the United States should have emphasized dig nity, respect for law, pomp, and even ceremony. But Jefferson was much more in keeping with the genius of America in his emphasis upon republican simplicity and in formality. Though the mercantile ideas of Hamilton may have served some temporary purpose, the Jef fersonians brought to the' fore newer, fresher, and freer economic ideas, and there was no doubt that Jefferson believed in paying off the debt. Albert· Gallatin, as J effer son's· Secretary of the Treasury, was a· remarkable' counterpart to Hamilton. He was equally brilliant, and his thought tended toward the freeing of enterprise. It may be of some use to quote him in a critique of the tariff system, a critique pen ned long after he had left the Treasury: Let it be recollected, that the sys tem is in itself an infraction of an essential part of the liberty of the citizen. The necessity must be urgent and palpable, which authorizes any government to interfere in the pri vate pursuits of individuals; to for bid them to do that which in itself is not criminal, and which everyone would most certainly do, if not for bidden. Every individual, in every community, without exception, will purchase whatever he may want on the cheapest terms within his reach.

The most enthusiastic restrictionist, the manufacturer, most clamorous for special protection, will,each in dividually, pursue the same course, and prefer any foreign commodity, or material, to that of domestic ori gin, if the first is cheaper, and the law does not forbid him. All men ever have acted, and continue, under any' system, to act on the same prin ciple .... The advocates of the tariff system affirm, that what' is true of all men, individually, is untrue, when applied to them collectively. We can not consider the adherence· of en.,. lightened nations to regulations of that description, but as the last relic of that system of general restric tions and monopolies, which had its origin in barbarous times. . ..7 Perhaps the greatest precedent set .in the early years of the Re public grew out of party divisions. That precedent was the peaceful change from one set of rulers to another. The congressional elec tions are so staggered that at no 1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 177 time would there be an entirely new Congress. Even more is it un likely that the personnel of the Federal courts would all change at any time. The one crucial branch, then, for the above and other rea sons, for a change from one group of rulers to another is the execu tive bruneh. There WUg no over-9Jl change in that branch until 1801.

Though Washington stepped down in 1797, there was a clear continu~ itybetween his administration and that of Adams, for the members of the Cabinet were continued. Not so, when Jefferson came into office as President. Party divisions and loyalties had become so strong and .determining, the feelings between Adams and Jefferson were so heated, that there could be no ques tion of Jefferson's continuing with Adams' Cabinet. Yet, for all the strong feelings, the change from Adams to J effersonwas made peacefully. And so it has been ever since: Americans have become so accustomed to the peaceful change of rulers (or governers, if one's sen sibilities are stirred by the other term) as not to remark it. Yet it is always a remarkable thing in history when a man with such pow ers yields them up to someone else without war. In a sense, our poli tical contests are a means of shift ing the conflict from the field of battle' to the arena of ideas and words. The contest is usually sharp, but the loser retires gracefully from the field.

The Two-Party System Were Washington's fears of parties groundless, then? Surely, they were not groundless; he could have called up much history in sup port of them. Nor did h~ ~xp~ct that America would be without such divisions; he hoped only for a mitigation of the harshness of them. And, it can be' reported that this occurred. Two major develop ments have made party contests less than seriously divisive, as a rule. One is that the United States has usually had only two major parties. A multiplicity of parties does tend to divide the country into irrecon cilable factions. Whereas, when there are only two major parties, they. tend both to contain many people of similar views in each of them and to try to attract any considerable faction not yet within the party. But why, it is asked, has the United States had only two major parties? Some have sup posed that the predilection to do this is peculiar to Anglo-Saxon peoples. But such an explanation is of most doubtful validity. The much more likely explanation is the winner-take-all practices, some in the Constitution, some added by the states. In elections to Congress, there is, as a rule, only one winner 178 THE FREEMAN March in a district and in a state. (On rare occasions, there occurs an elec tion of two Senators from the same state in the same election.

But in such a case, candidates run separately for the positions, since the term of one of the men elected would not be for the full six years.) The office of President is clearly a winner-take-all affair, and states have made this true for elec tors along party lines as well by giving the whole vote for electors to the party which attains a plu rality. The effect of this practice (as contrasted with proportional representation) is that only major paI:ties can sustain any consider able following over the years by patronage. And only two parties can reasonably expect to elect many to office. They do so, as a rule, only by appealing to a very broad elec torate. The other offset in the American system to the baneful effects of party is a little more complicated. Washington noted that in "govern ments of a monarchical cast" it is plausible to "look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popu lar character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged."8 We can read be tween the lines of this a Iittle and almost certainly infer his meaning.

A land which has an hereditary monarch has continuity and stability. Governments change, cab inet officers come and go, a new election brings new members of the legislature, but the monarch remains. A republic, however, does not have this visible symbol of con tinuity and stability. When it is divided by parties, there is no man beyond these contesting groups to provide it. Yet the United States has had a sign and symbol - a vertitable rock - to give it con tinuity and stability. It is, of course, the Constitution. Washing ton may be pardoned for not fore seeing that it would serve in that office. The Constitution as Higher Law The most likely prognosis for the Constitution in 1789 was that in very short order it would become a dead letter. After all, it was only a "piece of paper," and power re- . sided in the' hands of men once the government was' organized. The ways by which it might have be come a dead letter are so numerous that only a few of them need be suggested. Once men had power in their hands, they might have gone their own way, using the Constitu tion only as a launching pad, as it were, to come to power, then ignor ing its restrictions. The states, on the other hand, might have made of it a nullity by so circumscribing the actual exercise of powers that the general government would be 1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 179 of no account. The President might have become a dictator. The Con stitution might have remained; all might have given it their vocal al legiance ; but none allowing it any effect on their actions.

We know, of course, that these things did not occur . Instead, the Constitution became, in fact, a Higher Law in the United States, a Constitution above constitutions, and a document to which men truly repaired for the resolution of vexed issues. That this occurred can be attributed to tradition, cir cumstances, andthe efforts of lead ing men. Americans had a tradition of higher law, and it needs here only to be briefly recalled. They· were a people of the Book, to whom the Bible was a higher law. They ac cepted, also, the belief that natural law was higher law. In the British and colonial traditions, they had re ceived the belief that certain basic documents constitute a higher law, Le., charters, covenants, declara tions, and acts of conventions. This is to say that Americans were pre disposed to the acceptance of a higher law, and they were especi ally sensitized to written laws.

The circumstances in which the Constitution was drawn and rati fied lent weight to the giving of a unique place to it. It had been drawn in convention by some of the most prominent men in America. This had been done behind closed doors and by way of debates to which the public at large was not pri vy. It had been ratified by spe cial conventions within the states by men chosen for the particular task. And, most of the prominent men in America came forth to serve in the government which it authorized. Course Set by Washington George Washington gave the full weight of his prestige to the Con stitution. He wanted only men in his government who were devoted to it, and in his appointments at tern pted to make this the first re quirement. His public pronounce ments were such as to add weight and authority to the document. In his First Inaugural Address, he referred "to the great constitu tional charter under which you are assembled, and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given."9 ,He said in his Farewell Address that those entrusted with governmental powers should confine themselves within their re spective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the pow ers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroach ment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. . . . If 180 THE FREEMAN March in the opinion of the people the dis tribution or modification of the con stitutional powers be in any particu lar wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one· instance may be the instrument of good, it is the cus tomary weapon by which free gov ernments are destroyed.l O Other men who were or would be Presidents uttered similar mes sages. James Madison said in 1792 : Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe, until a trespass on the constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness that resents an invasion of the dear est rights, until every citizen shall be an Argus· to espy, and Aegeon to avenge, the unhallowed deed.

Thomas Jefferson declared in 1793 : Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no other than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. But it was John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 35 years, who raised the Constitution to the pinnacle as the Higher Law in the United States. Among the large number of decisions of the court written by Marshall, a goodly number were referred to the Constitution for resolution. Indeed, Marshall ap pears to have relished those in stances when he could make of the question before the court a con stitutional question. This judg ment is based on the fact that some of them could have been decided readily. on other than con stitutional grounds. Marshall made the Constitution very much a live letter, by making it avail able as law on which decisions could rest, by bringing Congress to heel, by bringing the states to heel, and by using it both as au thority and restraint. Marshall tried to make it clear always that those brought to heel were not brought to that posture by the court but by the Constitution. In Osburn v. U.S. Bank delivered in 1824, he said: "Judicial power, as contra-distinguished from the power of the law, has no existence.

Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing."ll He viewed the Constitution as "intended to endure for ages to come," and made decisions de signed to ensure that it would. In Marbury v. Madison, deliv ered in 1803, Marshall declared that the Constitution limits the 1973 STEERING A COURSE FOR THE NATION 181 Congress. "The powers of the leg islature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the consti tution is written." When the .leg islature acts contrary to its con stitutional authority, its acts are not to be put in force. For, he said, "the particular· phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the prin ciple, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."12 Upholding the Constitution In Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Marshall spoke for a unanimous court when he held that the states were restrained by the Constitu tion. He said that Georgia "is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution, the supremacy of which all ac knowledge, and which imposes lim its to the legislatures of the sev eral states, which none claim a right to pass."13 Marshall could buttress his de cisions with the broadest princi ples, but he could also construe the Constitution with great attention to distinctions. For example, the case of Craig et. al., v. The State of Missouri involved the attempt to issue paper money by the state.

The state contended that since this money was not made legal tender, it was permitted. Not so, said Marshall : The Constitution itself furnishes no countenance to this distinction. The prohibition is general. It extends to all bills of credit, not to bills of a particular description ... The Con stitution ... considers the emission of bills of credit and the enactment of tender laws as distinct operations, independent of each other, which may be separately performed. Both are forbidden. To sustain the one be cause it is not also the other; to say that bills of credit may be emitted if they be not made a tender in pay ment of debts, is in effect, to ex punge that distinct independent pro hibition, and to read the clause as if it had been entirely omitted. Weare not at liberty to do this ... .14 Marshal/Is Great Contribution I t has been commonly said of l\tlarshall that in his decisions he construed the Constitution in a way to increase the power of the general government, that he was a nationalist, and that he built the power of the United States gov ernment at the expense of the states. This view contains some truth, obviously, but it is not the most important thing to say about him. It can also be truly said that Marshall by the tone and character of his decisions gave the central 182 THE FREEMAN March role in expounding the Constitu tion to the Supreme Court, but that is not the most important thing to say about him, for that posi tion can be and has been abused. What looms above all the other things he did as an enduring contribution is that he looked to and raised the Constitution to the position of Higher Law - a law to which courts, congresses, presi dents, andsta tesm ust yield.

Above all, he professed to be bound by the Constitution. "This department," he said, "can listen only to the mandates of law, and can thread only that path which is marked out by duty."15 The Su preme Court arose to high regard not because people believed that the Constitution was what the court said it was but because they believed that the court spoke not the will of its members but sub: mitted their wills to the Constitu tion. John Marshall made such a view credible. The course of the nation was set in the early years of the Re public. The credit was established, and men came to believe that the obligations of the United States would be met. The United States adopted and followed an independ ent course in the world. The gov ernment was further checked and balanced by political parties. And the Constitution achieved a special place as a Higher Law binding all Americans. I) • FOOTNOTES • 1 Richard B. Morris, Alexander Ham ilton and the Founding of the Nation (New York: Dial Press, 1957), pp.

290-9l. 2 Nathan Schachner, The Founding Fathers (New York: Capricorn Books, 1954), p. 187. 3 John C. Miller, The Federalist Ern (New York: Harper and Row, 196U), p.66. 4 Ibid., pp. 68-69. 5 Clarence B. Carson, The American Tradition (Irvington: Foundation for Economic Education, 1964), p. 212. 6 Henry S. Commager, Documents of American History (New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1962, 7th ed.), p. 172. 7 E. James Ferguson, ed., Selected Writings of Albert Gallatin (Indiana polis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967), pp. 438-39. 8Commager, op. cit., p. 172. 9 Ibid., p. 152. 10 Ibid., pp. 172-73. 11 Quoted in Edward S. Corwin, The Constitution and What It Means Today (New York: Athenaeum, ·1963), p. X. 12 Commager, op. cit., pp. 193-95. 13 Ibid., p. 206. 14 Ibid., pp. 252-53. 15 Ibid .. p. 253. Next: The Beacon of Liberty A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN IN THE EARLY Nineteenth Century William Miller, using Scripture for his authority, confidently pre dicted the end of the world would come in 1843. He had thousands of disciples. When the year of doom passed and nothing happened, he revised his calendar: the funeral date for humanity on this earth would coincide with the Second Coming of Christ in October of 1844.

Miller was a religious fanatic, and we laugh at his kind in a secu lar age. But are our secular doom sayers any more credible in their extrapolations and prophecies? I was an early ecologist, and I wrote about - and practiced - organic gardening back in the Thirties. Chemurgy, which advocated the recycling of practically everything, was an exciting movement of the times. So, when the ecologists had their grand revival in the Sixties, I felt a sympathetic stirring in old bones. There -is a pollution prob lem, and it must be tackled. The Long Island Sound coast where we dug for clams and harvested mus sels when I was a boy is now ver boten as a source of consumable shellfish, and to swim at low tide is to risk a bath in oil. The ecol ogists have many. good points in decrying such a state of environ mental affairs. Unfortunately, the secular Milleri tes among them started running away with the predictable result that the sensi183 184 THE FREEMAN March hIe parts of the movement have been discredi ted along with the palpable idiocies.

I t is with the hope of saving ecology from its fanatic friends that John Maddox, the editor of Nature ~agazine in England, offers his The Doomsday Syn drome (McGraw-Hill, $6.95). Mr. Maddox grew tired of hearing that the world was about to asphyxiate itself. The "numbers game" of the population explosionists, which predicted the starvation of "hun dreds of millions of people" in the Nineteen Seventies, seemed to him a vastly overdramatic posing of unreal scarecrows. He doubted that DDT, which had eradicated malaria in many tropical areas, was a universal menace, even though it may have had some as yet undetermined impact on the birthrate of a few species of birds. He couldn't accept the claim that we must suffer from a shortage of metals; after all, the junk piles can become the new mines, and the uses of plastics as a metal substi tution are practically infinite. Scared to Death? Rachel Carson had started the doomsayers on their way with her Silent Spring, which scared thou sands with its warning that "a few false moves on the part of man may result in destruction of soil productivity and the arthropods may well take over." Looking back on such a statement, Mr. Maddox asks if there was ever any reason to fear that the entire surface of the earth would be treated in ex actly the same way at exactly the same time, with all vegetation dying and the insects proliferating despite the insecticides and the lack of foliage to eat?

When Mr. Maddox looked at a map of the Amazon basin, or the Congo, or even of Wiltshire in Eng land, it was more than obvious to him that even the worst agricul tural practices would still leave plenty of trees and plenty of pho tosynthesis around to keep some body and something,even a few robins, alive. Playing around with his own figures, Mr. Maddox says the atmosphere of the earth, which weighs more than 5,000 million million tons, has more than a mil lion tons of air for each human being. The earth's water is so voluminous that each living per son's share would fill a cube half a mile in each direction. Denying the utility of comparing "space ship earth" to one of the Apollo moon capsules, Mr. Maddox says human activity, "spectacular though it may be, is still dwarfed by the human environment." Dirty Old Nature Nature itself has provided in stances of pollution that make 1973 THE DOOMSDAY SYNDROME 185 even the multiple car exhausts of all the Los Angeles freeways seem piddling by comparison. Mr. Mad dox mentions the disappearance of the Pacific island of Krakatoa in a volcanic eruption in 1887. The explosion threw more than a mil lion tons of dust into the strato sphere, and for years thereafter this dust provided the world with gorgeous .sunsets. The dust also reduced the amount of solar en ergy reaching the earth, and we had lower temperatures for four or five years. Eventually the at mosphere purified itself. This is not an argument for defective carburetors or smoke belching chimneys, but it should convey something to the gloom-and-doom boys who think the internal com bustion engine is about to do us all in.

Mr. Maddox recognizes that Malthus, whose "law" insists that populations must continue to out strip the food supplY,has some contemporary relevance in places like India. As an Englishman, however, he is quite aware of what happened to his own nation as it became industrializ~d. The pace of population growth slows down in countries whenever the need for juvenile farm hands becomes less important to families, and Mr. Maddox is sure that the British experience of a lowered birth rate will be repeated in all the underdeveloped countries as the' fac tories move in. A family with a two-child preference in countries that have decent hygiene doesn't need a third and a fourth child for "insurance" as it did in the days of yellow fever and diptheria epi demics. Mr. Maddox wrote his book before the statisticians pointed to a real approach to zero population· growth in the United States, but he was sure the curves were about to level off here as they had already leveled off in Sweden, Bulgaria, Japan and else where. His verdict: the population explosion "has all the signs of being a damp squib."

The Green Revolution Even in the Asiatic countries that are not yet industrialized, the so-called green revolution is en abling the local farmers to keep a jump or two ahe~d of Malthus. Mr. Maddox may sound overlyrical in his praise of miracle rice and the new "Mexi-Pak" wheat, but in spite of the risk of disease in highly specialized strains of ce reals the green revolution is a demonstrated success. What is now happening in Asia has yet to happen in Africa and South America, but if Mexican wheat can help save India there is no reason to believe it can't thrive in Latin· American lands that look to Mexico for leadership.

186 THE FREEMAN March Even though the appropriation for cleaning .up the atmosphere hasn't been what the ecologists want, it is not true that pollution is on the increase in American cities. Mr. Maddox says that Chi cago reached its air pollution peak in 1965. Since then the carbon monoxide in Chicago air has "de creased most spectacularly." In New York the peak was reached in 1968. In London smog disap peared after the Clean Air legisla tion of the Fifties; there is no reason, says Mr. Maddox, why the London experience can't be re peated in the United States. Mr. Maddox's book has special significance in that it comes from an ecol<;>gist who is himself in earnest about cleaning up the skies, the streets and Lake Erie. When a bona fide environmentalist tells us that we can continue to have industrial growth and a rise in the standard of living without adding to poisons and litter and overcrowding, it is good news indeed.

~ THE NEW TOTALITARIANS by Roland Huntford (New York: Stein & Day, 1971) 354 pp., $10. Reviewed by Allan C. Brownfeld SWEDEN, once labeled the middle way, is now totalitarian, reports the London Observer's Scandina vian correspondent. This total ~,tate is benign. Such words as in dividuality and freedom have lost their traditional meaning, having lanK been neglected in practice. People are passive, and so there is no need to employ the instruments of incarceration and the firing squad to keep them in line. Sweden reminds Huntford of Brave N e'w World where Huxley told us that "A really efficient totalitarian state would be the one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude." Sweden is run by nonelected bu reaucrats, and the Diet, which is elected, is virtually power less. The Diet has neither a say in running the civil service, nor the ability to influence the administrative proc ess.Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats are privileged to rule by administrative orders, which the .Diet is prohibited from de bating and over which it has no say. Most of the rules and regula tions that govern Sweden are be1973 OTHER BOOKS 187 yond parliamentary control, and the power of the bureaucracy has been extended to almost all aspects of society, even reaching into the home.

The Directorate of Social Af fairs has total authority concern ing the custody of children. An ad ministrative order issued by a party official is sufficient to take any child away from its parents and have it brought up by any per son or institution and in anyway seen fit. Courts of law have no say in this matter, and there is no way that a parent can oppose an order depriving him of. custody of his own child. "At no point is it possible," states the authot, "to invoke the due process of law, and parents may not be present at the civil service boards which discuss the removal of children from their homes .... In 1968, 21,000 children were removed from their parents' custody. This is about 1 per 350 inhabitants." Academic freedom has never been known in Sweden. 'rom the start, university professors have been appointed directly by the gov ernment; curricula and even the detailed content of individual lec tures were decided by ecclesiasti cal functionaries and state offi cials. Mr. Sven Moberg, deputy Minister of Education, explains the goal of education in today's Sweden: "Education is one of the most important agents for chang ing society. . . . Its purpose is to turn out the correct kind of person for the new society. The new school rejects individuality, and teaches children cooperation. Chil dren are taught to work in groups.

They solve problems together; not alone. The· basic idea is that they are considered primarily as mem.,. bers of society, and individuality is discouraged." Culture is also dominated by the ~tate and used for its own politi cal purposes. The center of the Swedish stage is t~e Royal Dra matic Theater in Stockholm, a state institution. The artistic di rector, Erland Josephson is of course a member of the Social Democratic Party which has ruled the country since the 1930s. "The purpose of the theater," he says, "is to expand emotional life. A country must have a rich emo tional life. Without this, politi cians cannot bring about changes or appeal to the public. You see, our people are emotionally and culturally underdeveloped. The arts, particularly the theater, are being· used to accelerate and bring about a maturing of emotional life." The drama, says Josephson, Blust promote the intentions of the Government. Nothing that contradicts the changes in Swed188 THE FREEMAN March ish society is permitted to appear.

"Education," he. says, "is turning out people who have learned to fit into society. So that means I won't allow any plays that glorify the individual. That excludes most of the romantic dramatists, like Schiller. And it definitely cuts out most of Ibsen. Brand and Peer Gynt are two Ibsen plays I defi nitely do not want to see per formed." While we are told how happy and content the Swedes are, Mr. Huntford reports that crime in Sweden increased from 250,000 cases in 1960 to 500,000 in 1970. During 1969-70 there· was a 20 per cent increase in thefts, 16 per cent in robheries, 62 per cent in check-passing, and violent crimes increased by 40 per cent in 1969. Seventy-five per cent of all crimes in Sweden are committed by chil dren and youth between the ages of 10 and 25. Despite "sexual lib eration," rape increased by 65.2 per cent between 1963 and 1967. There are a few cracks in the unappetizing picture drawn by Huntford. One such is the recent defection from Prime Minister Palme's majority. Another is the built-in economic inefficiency of a centrally directed technocratic sys tem. A third is the accumulation of evidence that there is a shift in public opinion, denoting a loss of faith in the system. In a new book by Sture Ka.llberg, Report from a Swedish Village, thena tives come through as resigned and cynical, complaining of mo notony and critical of officialdom, uncertain' of where they are or where they want to go. Sweden has matured; those who walked the road to serfdom have finally arrived.

~ THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES by Don ald J. Devine (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972) 383 pp., $7.95 Reviewer: Allan C. Brownfeld IT IS EASY to mistake the pop cul ture for reality, and those who spend a great deal of time watch ing television and reading head lines are apt tofalI into such a trap. A basic element of "fashion able" thought is that American politics is hopelessly unrepresent ative of the American people, that most citizens are receiving a raw deal and would like nothing more than to turn the system upside down. Thus, radical intellectuals call for revolution in the name of the people, while the only revolu tion the people seem interested in is one against the intellectual elite itself. A recently published scholarly study, The Political Culture of the United States, by Professor Donald J. Devine of the Univer1973 OTHER BOOKS 189 sity of Maryland, leads to these conclusions and many more.

Professor Devine explores in great detail the nature of our value consensus, as reflected in opinion polls, and finds these val ues to be largely in "the liberal tradition," having little relation ship, of course, with the political tendency which today calls itself "liberal." Professor Devine notes that this liberal tradition coin cides with the writings of the political philosopher John Locke: "Locke saw man as rational and free, and his consent is needed for government to be legitimate. He is unrestricted in that he begins life with a mind like a white paper - not unlike America before set tlement. But this man also has a tradition within which his reason operates. This is especially so for his values, which are based upon a natural law ... Locke viewed gov ernment as contracted by this complex but essentially free man to preserve himself from the in security of the state of nature.

Government was thus somewhat unnatural-limited to protecting the individual's life, liberty and property through popular consen~, established laws, impartial judges, and limited but effective execu tives. A government that exceeds these bounds is illegitimate ..." The liberal tradition about which there exists a consensus is one which calls for a very strictly limited government, whose pri mary function is to insure man's freedom and· protect his life and property. Those in the political process today who speak of taxing the rich and bestowing their prop ertyamong the poor are speaking in direct opposition to a basic ele ment of our own liberal tradition. The Federalist Papers (No.1, p.36) states: "The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an unsuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of differ ent degrees and kinds of property immediately results."

In his Second Treatise, John Locke set forth in no uncertain terms the value of private proper ty. He noted that, "The great and chief end, therefore, of man's unit ing into commonwealths and them selves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of nature there are many things wanting ... Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out 190 THE FREEMAN March of the state that nature hath pro vided and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his 'property." In the American political tradi tion, states Professor Devine, "property is necessary because its protection insures that individual liberty and achievement possibili ties survive ... Property is a basic liberal value because its protec tion allows the individual to be free and· secure."

Those who advocate more state intervention into the lives of in dividuals .are calling for a policy which the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. The author's analysis of public opinion surveys indicates that more than eight out of ten choose liberty over economic security and seven out of ten choose individual freedom over duty to the state. Seven out of ten support freedom of the press while more than 95 percent support freedom of speech. Eighty-one per cent prefer private over public ownership of property and six out of ten support achievement more than job security. Professor Devine believes that too many men in politics attempt to please a radical intellectual elite which has views which are at variance with the views of the majority of Americans, rather than the people themselves. The views of the majority are set forth in detail in The Political Culture of the United States. If the au thor's thesis is correct, political stability and political and eco nomic freedom will continue into the future, despite those who chal lenge them today - that is, if the win of the people has anything to do with it.

~ THE BONHOEFFERS: POR TRAIT OF A FAMILY by Sabine Leibholz-Bonhoeffer, with a Fore word by Lord Longford and a Pre face by Eberhard Bethge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972) 203 pp., $7.95 Reviewer: Dr. Gottfried Dietze WHETHER ONE BELIEVES that his tory is made by great men or by the masses, certainly the progress of history is unthinkable without individuals standing out in great ness from what has been amassed around them, by standing up for their beliefs against the powers of this world. It may be added that the greatness of our civilization is due in a large measure to the· fact that men again and again have had the courage to challenge what was fashionable. This is why the idea of freedom has relevance to all men irrespective of color, creed, or national origin, why the idea is older than Adam Smith and, in deed, timeless. One of the men who stood up to 1973 OTHER BOOKS 191 oppression in the not too distant past was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young Protestant theologian mar tyred by the National Socialists in a concentration camp at the end of World War II. When Hitler came to power Bonhoeffer went on the air saying that an individual feels the need of submitting himself to a leader only to the extent that he is not mature or responsible enough to do good by himself.

From then on to his famous Letters from Prison, Bonhoeffer courageously resisted National Socialism ,and wrote his influential books. His life was the more re markable in view of the fact that he left a safe haven in the United States and returned to Germany although he had been warned and knew that he would· get into trou ble there, feeling that his teaching would be more necessary under a government which oppressed re ligion than in a nation. known for religious tolerance. The attractive, well-illustrated book here reviewed, written by his twin sister, provides frank in sights into Bonhoeffer's attitudes and beliefs, bringing in many per sonal remembrances. The author also vividly portrays the family she and her twin brother belonged to, one which Lord Longford calls the most remarkable family of our time, "with their distinguished ancestry on both sides, their father perhaps the leading psychiatrist in Germany, the eight children all extremely gifted. " Certainly, the whole family courageously opposed National Socialism. Aside from Dietrich, another brother, Klaus, and two brothers-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi and Riidiger Schleicher, were killed by Hitler's men.

In a human and touching way the author also describes her own life. Married to Gerhard Leibholz, a "non-Aryan" professor of con stitutional law who due to Hitler's racism had to leave his professor ship in Gottingen, her account shows the ostracism and persecu tion suffered under socialism of the nationalist brand. The book describes the family's flight to Switzerland and England, where they lived until 1947, when Dr. Leibholz resumed his professor ship and became an outstanding judge· of West Germany's highest court. The book is a well-written and fascinating document of contem porary history. In away, the or deal of the Bonhoeffers is repre sentative of the experience of all those who courageously resist op pression and who suffer the. inevi table consequences. It was said above that freedom is older than Smith's Wealth of }.lations, generally credited with having ushered in the era of lib eralism. And yet, that era perhaps 192 THE FREEMAN March constitutes the climax in the his tory of freedom. This reviewer asked himself whether the family here described is not a typical product of the liberal era with its sense of individualism, propriety, honesty and achievement. All these values have increasingly come un der challenge since World War I, when socialism made deep inroads upon liberalism. In our time when, as Hayek put it, the worst tend to get on top, a closely knit, dis tinguished family like the Bon hoeffers becomes increasingly a reminder of a past age, just as individualism, family life, and dis tinction are. Perhaps such losses are inevitable after the revolt of the masses which Ortega's Gasset described. Perhaps, therefore, our mass age which produced a regime like that of National Socialism under which the Bonhoeffers had to suffer, an age which still suffers regimes that oppress freedom, now needs a revolt against the masses.

Certainly many men like those here described would be needed to accomplish that task. The book was an immediate suc cess in Germany where it was originally published. Danish and English editions came out before the present American edition. A Japanese translation is to follow. HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON.,ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.4. APRIL 1973 The Foundingof the AmericanRepublic: 21. The Beacon of Liberty Clarence B. Carson 195 "They had relighted the beacon of liberty; it remains for those who come after to keep it burning." Pilot·Errors If "flight plans" depend upon coercion, beware! Leonard E. Read 207 Industrialism:Friend or Foe? V. Orval Watts 211 It is not "the power of the market" that dehumanizesthe individual, but his subjection to unlimited political power. Right Congregation,Wrong Sermon John C. Sparks 218 For an enduring International armistice, we need to curb our personal appetites for governmentaid and intervention.

The Rationalefor Liberty Ridgway K. Foley, Jr. 222 Put simply, freedom must reign because it works and it is just. Does Madison Avenue Rule Our Lives? If so, isn't that better than the compulsory alternative? Dennis H. Mahoney 230 The Making of an InternationalMonetaryCrisis Paul Stevens 233 The policy-maker who seeks an artificial substitute for "the barbarous relic" seems doomed to fail. Book Reviews: 252 "Land Use Without Zoning" by Bernard H. Siegan "Selected Works of Artemus Ward" edited with an introduction· by Albert Jay Nock "Foundation For Protest: A Father's Letters to His Grown-Up Children" by Frederic W. Overesch Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in c'are of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

ttle Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591·7230 LEONARD E. READ PAULL. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,000-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "The Founding of the American Republie," and "The Making of an International Monetary Crisis."

CLARENCE B. CARSON THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC 21 The Beacon of Liberty WHY SHOULD ANYONE bother to write the history of the· founding of the American Republic? Or why, if it be written, should any one bother to read or study it? Because, it has been asserted, it constitutes an epoch, and even an epic. That may be true enough, but if that epoch be wrenched out of its broader context, why should it be considered an epic? Here were some colonies on a remote con tinent which revolted from the empire of which they were a part and succeeded in effecting the sep aration. Having done so, they re pudiated their paper money, could not meet many of their obligations, and lacked respect of the great powers of the world. Their Con federation lacked energy, and there was considerable doubt whether their state governments could maintain order. In these cir cumstances, they made a concerted effort to revamp and reorganize to effect a "more perfect Union." As we have left the story, they appear to have succeeded in doing this in considerable measure. Though this was an achievement to be admired, it would not suffice to make the story one of epic dimensions~ N or should the account be read as a glorification of war. Even if Dr. Carson, noted lecturer and author, is living at present in Alabama. The articles of this series will be published as a book by Arlington House.

195 196 THE FREEMAN April war were worthy of glorification, the struggles in America would surely count as among its less notable episodes. There were few great battles; usually when one loomed ahead, a withdrawal oc curred rather than a fight to the finish. The British used a great many foreign mercenaries. The Americans relied extensively on the militia, whose members would hardly qualify as soldiers. The Continental armies were rag-tag bob-tail aggregations with all too little discipline and shortages of almost everything else that makes armies go. True, there were great acts of personal heroism, and there was the exemplary tenacity of a few leaders, but these were offset often enough by cowardice of mi litia, lack of resolution by govern ments, and a civilian population looking the other way when help was needed. In any case, it is un likely that the miseries of the Continental armies would be re called as a glorification of war.

No more is this account to be understood as simply a veneration of government in general or of American governments in particu lar. Government is necessary; those of a pious bent may properly say that it is ordained. That is, man is such, and society is such, that government is required to maintain the peace. But if govern ment were all that were wanted, it would be possible to construct a much simpler one than the federal system of government in these United States. The exercise of gov ernment power does not require checks and balances, the separa tion of power, two or more distinct jurisdictions, a d uplica tion of court systems, nor a multiplicity of elected officials. Much of this is actually extraneous to the efficient exercise of governmental power. The Idea of Ordered Liberty What makes the story worth re telling, then, and gives it its epic dimensions, is neither war nor government. It is worth recalling because in the midst of war, diplo matic contests, internal divisions between Patriots and Loyalists, fiscal irresponsibilities, political squabbles, a sufficient number of .

Americans clung to a hope and an idea to bring it forth from the upheaval and make strides toward realizing it. That idea, if it must be put in a phrase, was the idea of ordered liberty, the idea that America should be a land where protections of liberty and property were firmly established, a refuge for the persecuted to come to, and a beacon shining forth as a guide for others to follow. George Wash ington could speak with the as surance that he knew his country men when he said, in his Farewell Address, "Interwoven as is the 1973 THE BEACON OF LIBERTY 197 love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment." This epoch is raised to epic pro portions, then, by the quality of the idea that nourished it and by the degree to which the men of that day were able to achieve it. The era is appreciated the more for the epic that it was when it is seen in its proper context of past and future. It is what the United States became that justifies our attention to its beginnings, and it is that out of which it was wrought that gave it substance.

A Rebirth of Freedom on the American Continent The epic of the founding of the American Republic is no less than the epic of the rebirth of liberty on the American continent. That is right; it was indeed a rebirth. It would have been quite strange if it had been other than a rebirth. All our births are but rebirths. They are not the less remarkable for that, for we celebrate and stand in awe of the succession of rebirths which give continuity to and perennially freshen and re new our world. What is spring but a rebirth of what was there the year before? Every plant that springs from a seed is a rebirth of its parent plant. Every child born of woman is a rebirth of the human form in new attire. Rebirth stands at its peak when Christi anity proclaims that you must be born again, that a rebirth in spirit is greater than the original birth. It is not for man to create; it is sufficient that he be able to take part in recreation.

But there are facts enough to support the position that it was a rebirth of liberty that took place in America ; it does not have to be made to follow from the uni versality of. the phenomena. It was a rebirth of liberty because Amer icans took the elements from the past which they shaped into their own system for the protection of liberty. That is about all that history affords-elements-, for they have all too seldom been drawn together in a working system. The story of mankind is full to over flowing with examples of oppres sions, tyrannies, restrictions, and repressions. Arbitrary government has been the rule; government restrained is the exception. Yet here and there and from time to time there have been practices which ameliorated the oppressions and allowed for greater or lesser amounts of liberty. The Founders of these United States combed the pages of history, read the works of political thought, sought guid-.

ance from all sources known to them, and brought their own tra ditions to bear on the subject to 198 THE FREEMAN April learn wha~ they could of how to establish governments that would provide· ordered liberty. The records· of the Hebrew peo ple contained in Scripture were of interest; the philosophers of Greece offered hints; the natural law philosophy in ancient Rome was a fount of inspiration; the separation of powers in the Middle Ages in abstracted form provided them a clue and example; the British tradition was ever at their back; and their own colonial ex perience provided them with num. erous examples, bad and good. From these they drew and out of them they wove a frame of gov ernment with which to work. All that they had learned they viewed with a canny eye to discern where other systems had failed and what it would be in their own that would give way first hefore the bent of men toward power. Look ing at the matter in the long run, they were reasonably certain that their labor was futile, for the work of men in the past had eventually fallen prey to man's interior bent to destruction; they saw little enough reason to suppose that theirs would meet with much bet ter luck. Perhaps what was reborn would be a little stronger than what had gone before because its elements had been carefully se lected, but that was the most to be hoped for.

A Success Story The act of rebirth would not, however, have been worthy of ex tended attention if the infant had been stillborn or if it had been frail and sickly, destined shortly to pass away. What finally makes the founding of such significance is that the American story is, in most important ways, a success story. So it has been adjudged, and so it must be adjudged by the yardsticks that men apply to na tions. Those English Americans who had landed on some of the most forbidding territory, or that which was among the least promis ing in the new world, did, in the course of time, press on across the Appalachians, push their way to the Mississippi, surge across the grea t plains, pick their way through the Rockies,· and establish themselves on the Pacific. Every where they went, they carried with them their religion, institutions, language, and constitutions; all others yielded to them, by and large. Conquests there were, but that is not the main story. The main story is one of construction: of houses, of bridges, of fences, of factories, of roads, of canals, of railroads, of barns, of communi ties, and of cities. In time, they were so productive that the Europe which had once succored them would turn to America for sus tenance. It is not a story, of 1973 THE BEACON OF LIBERTY 199 course, in \vhich the pure in heart can ahvays rejoice and take. com fort. None of the stories that in volve men over any span of time are of that kind. But it has been a success story \vhich could have been viewed by the Founders who were mostly men who did not expect too much of the frail reed that is man and could therefore rejoice in what he did accomplish - with a measure of pride. They had laid a strong foundation for the United States.

What Accounts for Success? Any historian worth his salt must pause to ponder the sources of this success, and, it should be said, a goodly number have. But the success of America has not been of academic interest alone; peoples around the world have had and have a considerable interest in America. They have poured in large number to American shores in search of refuge and opportun ity. They have sought to abstract from the American system those features they supposed have given the success. Of course, the success ful are frequently envied, often despised, and sometimes hated, but they are, nonetheless, imitated. It is common to ascribe the American success to a variety of causes, ranging from chance or luck to a favorable environment. Some declare that the United States ,vas particularly fortunate during the nineteenth century be ca use of the remoteness from Europe, or because of bountiful resources, or because Presidents have been of a higher caliber than might have been expected, or be cause the British navy formed a protective shield, or because of a temperate climate \vhich was mild enough to permit \vork the year round yet demanding enough to stir effort, or any of a large num bor of causes in combination. But the underlying explanation to which most \vho have \vritten or spoken on the subject subscribe as judged by the attention given to it is American democracy. They have seen the greatness of Amer ica in the quest for democracy and the achievements of America as the fruit of democracy. It is this, above all else, that Americans have talked most about exporting in more recent times and that other countries have most often made the most noise about imitating, however sincerely or with what ever results.

Accidentally Democratic There is no denying that there are and have been democratic ele ments in the American political system. The Founders believed in popular government, up to a point, and many quotations could be ar rayed to show that they argued 200 THE FREEMAN April that the Constitution provided for a government resting on the con sent of the people. They held that popular consent was the source of governmental authority and the fount of its strength. It should be said, however, that what they meant when it is decided by what they did was that government ac tions, to be legitimate, must have the consent of the property owners and taxpayers. But it is seriously to misread both what they thought and what they did to call it simply democratic; and it is an even more serious error to ascribe to de mocracy the foundation of Amer ican liberty and success. The matter can be put strongly, perhaps too strongly, by saying in philosophical terminology that the democratic features of the Amer ican political system are accidents.

In the common parlance, this is roughly the equivalent to saying that the democratic features are incidental. Note well, however, that to call them philosophical ac cidents is not to declare them un important. It is an accident, in this sense of the word, that one man is born black, another white, one red,· and another yellow. None will deny that much importance has been and some importance may attach to these distinctions. But they do not go to the heart of the matter of what a man is. Color is not essential-again, speaking philosophically -; it is accidental or incidental to the nature of man. So democracy is accidental, that is, not of the essence of the Amer ican political system. Means to an End To put the matter another way, and to get closer to the point, the democratic (or republican, if one prefers) features of the. political system are largely means to an end, and not to be confused with the end. They are means to legiti mating government, selecting of ficials, and justifying the claims of government on the goods and serv ices of the people. The end of gov ernment, so the Founders thought, is to provide order and to protect life, liberty, and property . Nor did they suppose these to be disparate ends. The surest means of promot ing happiness (to which order is the one absolute requirement), they thought, is to protect individ uals in their possession of life, liberty, and property. After all, the sources of disorder among men in community are the quest for power and the contentions over property. Indeed, so universal have been the contentions over property that some have supposed that, if property be done away with, so would the sources of conflict among men. There is no reason to suppose that this would follow, however, nor do such efforts as 1973 THE BEACON OF LIBERTY 201 have been made to do so give evi dence to support it. On the con trary, when property rights are abolished, the contest shifts to the arena of the quest for power and special privilege, which immeas urably worsens rather than im proves the situation. At any rate, the Founders thought that order and liberty are correlative ends of government.

Limited Government - and Free Men The essence of the American political system is limited govern ment. This conclusion is supported in almost every paragraph of the Constitution. Limited government is the reason for being of checks and balances, the separation of powers, the two branches of Con gress, the presidential veto, the power of the courts to receive ap peals, the enumera tion of powers, the prohibitions against the exer cise of certain powers, the stag gered terms of elected officers, the indirect modes of election, the dis persion of powers among· the states and the general government, and the having of a Bill of Rights. One qualification should be made to the classifying of the democratic features as accidents; insofar as the necessity for popular consent limits government, it is essential to the American system. Had the men who made the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 been concerned only with estab lishing a popular (or democratic) government, their task would surely have been much simpler than it was, and they might have finished with it in short order. If they considered a direct democ racy impractical - which they did, of course - then all they need have done would have been to contrive a list of the officials necessary to the exercise of governmental powers and to have provided for the elec tion of them from time to time, by an explicit electorate. It is quite true, of course, that such a system might never have witnessed a sec ond election, but anything added to it would have been by way of limiting government, not of mak ing it democratic.

This is to say, of course, that the Founders conceived their task quite o'therwise, that what was up permost in their minds was to con fide governmental powers to a gen eral government - to make these adequate to the exigencies of the Union - and then to see that both the general government and the state governments were restrained and confined. It was for these pur poses that they scanned the records of history, consulted the best minds, and called upon their ex perience. It was for these ends that they made the system as com plex as it is.

202 THE FREEMAN April The Release of Human Energy The essence of the American system - which is something much more than the political system - is limited government and free men. Government was confined that the energies of men might be released. This is the clue to the productive and constructive successes of Americans. When their energies are released, peaceful men are cap able of and have achieved wonders of building, invention, production, transportation, and so forth. These activities proceed from people as individuals. They do not proceed from government, whether the government be democratic, aristo cratic, or monarchical. Government is not capable, by nature, of being productive or constructive. In its capacity as government, it acts to restrain and restrict. When it uses these powers against those who would disturb the peace in dne way or another it enables peaceful men to produce and construct .. When it uses them to restrain peaceful men, it inhibits the constructive.

Thus it is that limited government is the requirement for releasing the energies of men. It would not be appropriate for Americans to be overmuch proud of their successes. Not only does pride go before a fall, but it is much less warranted than may be supposed. One need only to look casually at American history to see that Americans .have quite often ignored and forgotten the principles of their political system, tha t they have confused means with ends and accidents with es sences. The ink was hardly dry on the Constitution before there were those conceiving of means to ex pand the powers of the general government. And it would be less than candid not to say here that in more recent times there have been increasing numbers who act as if their government were some sort of energizer and fount of con struction and production. The powers exercised by all govern ments have been greatly expanded and the energies of individuals have been more and more chan neled and confined. The means the democratic features - have been made into an end - democ racy -, and many suppose that America comes closer and closer to its goal the more democratic that it is. American politicians have proven themselves to be as imagi native and inventive as those of any other land in devising justifi cations for the expansion of their powers. Bemused by the supposed attractions of democracy, many voters must suppose that their own powers are thus being in creased, but they only increase the powers of those who hold the reins of government at their own ex pense.

1973 THE BEACON OF LIBERTY 203 Enduring Principles of Liberty It is not in pride, then, but with humility, that we return to an ac count of the foundations and of the Founders. It is to visit the scene of the beginnings of a great nation, but more than that to cap ture the sources of the greatness of it in the principles upon which it was founded. Out of the web of conflicts and contests of those years emerge the principles of lib erty. They are, we may believe, enduring principles, not something invented by a generation of out standing men. Indeed, the princi ples of liberty could probably be rediscovered by any man who would put his mind to the matter for long enough. But that is not necessary, they have long since been clearly enough discerned and written out. What distinguishes the Founders is that they were able to incorporate them into the fundamental laws of the land. This epoch of history is an epic, finally, because of the quality of the work that was done, the caliber of the men who performed it, the nobility of the ideas that impelled the action, and the durability of the structure they devised. It was not uncommon for men during the days .of the founding to declare that Americans had been espe cially blessed by the remarkable confluence of men, events, and happenings in the midst of which these United States were born.

George Washington put the matter about as elegantly and reverently as could be in his First Inaugural Address: . . . No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the im portant revolution just accomplished in the system of their united govern ment the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many dis tinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be com pared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious grati tude, along with an humble anticipa tion of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. . . . Vestiges of Immortality One by one, the men who had so much to do with the founding passed on to their final reward. To close this historical account with a record of their departures may serve to remind us not only that all men are mortal but also that those who strive to know and real ize great ideas have a portion of their immortality here on earth.

James Otis died in 1783, the first of the notabl~s of the epoch 204 THE FREEMAN April to go. He had been among the first to raise his voice against British repression, reached the peak of his forensic skill in the mid-1760's, thereafter succumbed to occasional bouts with madness, but did suf ficiently recover to fight at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Benjamin Franklin died in 1790. He was probably the first Ameri can of international fame. He had risen from obscurity to be a print er, postmaster, inventor, philos opher, diplomat, leader in his state, and elder statesman at the Consti tutional Convention. His country had done well by him; he did even better by it. George Mason died in 1792. His moment of national prominence came during the Convention, in whose deliberations he participat ed so well but whose product he rejected. Roger Sherman died in .1793. This dour Connecticut Yankee per formed yeoman service for his state and country over the years, never so outstandingly as at the Constitutional Convention. His last years were well spent in the Con gress of the United States, where he supported the programs of Hamilton.

John Hancock died in 1793. His national fame probably rests al most solely on his efforts as presid ing officer of the Second Continen tal Congress which enabled him to plant an oversized signature on the Declaration of Independence, but he was involved in the Patriot cause from the early years and was perennial governor of Massachu setts during most of the early years of that state. Richard Henry Lee died in 1794. He joined early in the resistance to the oppressive acts of Britain, introduced the resolution for inde pendence into the Second Conti nental Congress, was an opponent of the Constitution as it was drawn, but nevertheless served in the first Senate under it. James Wilson died in 1798. He is remembered best for his work at the Constitutional Convention, but he was also the most able apol ogist for it at the state convention to consider ratification. Patrick Henry died in June of 1799. His was over many years one of .the most eloquent voices in America in defense of liberty. The making of strong and effective governments, however, was not his forte. During mos't of his years he could not forget that government remote from the people was a dan ger to their liberties.

The End of a Century George Washington died in De cember of 1799, probably as a re sult of the ministrations of his physicians, not an uncommon way to go in those days. Most of his 1973 THE BEACON OF LIBERTY 205 adult life had been a sacrifice to the public service, for he ever longed to devote himself to his own affairs. Although he' had frequent ly perforce to neglect his business affairs he did not, according to his accounts, neglect his private char ities. Samuel Adams died in 1803. His had been a leading role in arous ing opposition to British acts in the 1760's and 1770's: to the Sugar Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, and Tea Act. Once the revolt had succeeded, however, his public ser vice was restricted to the state of Massachusetts. Alexander Hamilton died in 1804. His death was caused by wounds suffered in a duel with Aaron Burr, making him the only one of the Founders to die of vio lence from the anger of another. It is .not so surprising that this should have happened to someone, for quarrels were particularly acri monious in those days. There are many impressions to be had of Hamilton, but it is perhaps most fitting that we take our leave of him by quoting a letter he wrote to his wife just before his death.

It brings us more dramatically into another age than anything I know. This letter, my dear Eliza, will· not be delivered to you, unless I shall first have terminated my earthly career, to begin, as I humbly hope, from redeeming grace and divine mercy, a happy immortality. If it had been possible for me to have avoided the interview, my love for you and my precious children would have been alone a decisive motive. But it was not possible, without sacrifices which would have rendered me un worthy of your esteem. I need not tell you of the pangs I feel from the idea of quitting you, and exposing you to the anguish I know you would feel. Nor could I dwell on the topic, lest it should unman me. The con solations of religion, my beloved, can alone support you; and these you have a right to enjoy. Fly to the bosom of your God, and be comforted. With my last idea I shall cherish the sweet hope of meeting you in a "bet ter world. Adieu, best of wives best of women. Embrace all my dar ling children for me.!

Henry Knox died in 1806, Rob ert Morris in the same year, Oliver Ellsworth in 1807, John Dickinson in 1808, 'Thomas Paine in 1809, Edmund Randolph in 1813, El bridge Gerry in 1814, Gouverneur Morris in 1816, and Charles C. Pinckney in 1825. Jefferson and Adams - J826 Thomas Jefferson and John Ad ams died on the same day, of the same. month, of the same year July 4, 1826. There was more that 1 Richard B. Morris, ed., Alexander Hamilton and the Founding of the Nation (New York: Dial, 1957), p. 610.

206 THE FREEMAN April was symbolic about this than their death on July 4, but that would have been enough, for both of them had been on the sub-commit tee for drawing the Declaration of Independence. There was more, however, for in some ways they came to represent the poles of po litical belief: Adams the propo nent of awe, respect, and dignity of government, Jefferson the ex emplar of republican simplicity; Adams the sturdy voice of con servative New England, Jefferson the eloquent spokesman for liberal Virginia; Adams, the Federalist, Jefferson, the Republican. They had been early believers in inde pendence and had participated in many of the tasks by which it had been won. Partisan contests had made them the bitterest of polit ical enemies by 1800. Time has a way of healing such wounds, however, and they were fortunate to live long enough to put behind them such animosities. Eventually, they resumed correspondence with one another, and continued the friendship until death.

John Jay died in 1829, Charles Carroll of Carrolton in 1832, and John Marshall in 1835. Shortly before his death, James Madison concluded that he was the last of the men still living who had participated in making the Con stitution. Indeed, he observed, wryly, that he might well be thought to have outlived himself. Frail "Jimmy" finally died in 1836 at the ripe age of 85. The last of that remarkable group of men called Founders had passed on. They had relighted the beacon of liberty; it remains for those who come after to keep it burning. ~ This concludesthe series on Tile FOlllldillg of the Anlerican Republic. These articles are being prepared as a book, which will be announced as soon as it is available.

IT was year's end, December 31, 1972. One of my journal entries for the day: The New York Sunday Times reports as a disaster the crash of a jumbo jet in the Florida Everglades. And on the same page a mere announce ment that "the President is willing to name union men to all Federal de partments." In my judgment, the lat ter is by far the greater disaster in the long run. The jet crash, I sus pect, was due to pilot error; naming union men to all Federal depart ments, I am certain, is also pilot error. I have no respect for organiza tions as such - be they labor unions, chambers of commerce, organized religions, educational organizations, governments, or whatever. Respect can be extended only to indiyidual persons who 'upPilot Errors LEONARD E. READ hold and practice the several vir tues. A person's membership in this organization or that may re veal much or nothing. An organization is analogous to a book defined as an assemblage of pages bound between two cov ers. Books, as such, do not merit respect; it is the content that counts. Books range all the way from filth and pornography to in tellectual and spiritual enlighten ment as found in the Bible or in The Wealth of Nations. The vices and virtues between the covers of organizations are no less diverse.

The content of each must be ex amined. Why do we not witness the polit ical pilot's willingness to name chamber of commerce men to all Federal departments? Or members of the Women's Liberation move ment? Or Catholics, Lutherans, 207 208 THE FREEMAN April Episcopalians, Holy Rollers? Or corporate executives? Or Farm Bureau members? Or certified ac countants? Or physicians? Why single out union members ?From the standpoint of good govern ment, there is no more logic in naming the latter than the others. There is, of course, a "reason." And the "reason" is not that union members are distinguished beyond all others in the popula tion for their statesmanship; they do not exhibit devotion to a com mon, across-the-board justice, free market and private ownership un derstanding and practice, or a. disdain of special privilege! The real reason? Labor unions, more than any other labeled segment of the population, dictate what gov ernments - Federal, state and local-shall and shall not do.

Naming union men to all Federal departments is but an acknowledg ment of their overpowering influ ence. It is a resignation to a po litical fact and I believe that this resignation, in itself, is a disaster. Find, if you will, any other reason for this "if you can't lick 'em, j ine 'em" attitude! In Search of Power Before assaying the disastrous effects of resignation, let us reflect on the policies we are giving in to, admitting helplessness before, ac cepting as fa'it accompli. Union men, by and large - or their officials, at least - sincerely believe in gaining political power, in "running the show." They re gard this as a proper aspiration and, in this respect, are not to be distinguished from most of their opponents - the losers - the ones who also seek political power but with their men in the driver's seat rather than unionists. Virtually all contestants in the political arena are striving to get themselves in a position from whi,ch they can run the show. There is little at tention to the philosophical issue: domineering versus freedom; the contest is which side shall have the dictatorial say-so. Most people who criticize union men should hark to Cicero's advice: "Every thing you reprove in another, you must carefully avoid in yourself."

Very well! Having agreed that union men differ little from the mill run of humanity over the ages, let us now have a look at the policies they espouse. A Cartel Backed by Force A cartel is defined as "an asso ciation of industrialists for estab lishing a monopoly by price fixing, etc." Labor unions are no less cartels than are some industrial combines. They are price fixers; this is their chief claim to fame. They fix prices not by voluntary agreement but by edict backed by 1973 PILOT ERRORS 209 violence. Monopolists? Try to be come a 747 Captain for less than $57,000 a year or a plumber in Westchester County for less than $15.80 an hour plus the contrac tor's percentage. All above-market wage rates forcibly exacted by labor unions cause unemployment precisely as $20 for a pound of cheese would cause its unemployment at the table. How is this unemployment catastrophe covered up? Labor unions, using their political power, get the government to pick up the tab: public housing, urban re newal, the Gateway Arch, moon shots, and thousands of other pyramids - "make work" projects to employ resources which have been coercively excluded from the market. 1 These "make work" projects cost billions upon billions annually.

How does government pay these enormous bills? First, by direct taxation - all the voters will tol erate. This, however, is far from adequate. How make up the dif ference? Increase the money sup ply: inflation! The result? The 1 The so-called Full Employment Act of 1946 authorizes governmental spend ing and relief programs to employ over priced labor and other resources for pur poses for which there are no willing customers. For further discussion see Henry Hazlitt, The Failure of the "New. Economics," Princeton, N. J., 1959, pp. 399-408. dollar becomes worth less and less. It has lost nearly 70 per cent of its purchasing value in the past 33 years. As one perceptive wit phrases it: "Nothing can replace the American dollar - and it prac tically has." Reflect on this problem realis tically. If it were generally be lieved that these tactics of labor unions were leading us to disaster, citizens would have none of them.

Indeed, union men themselves would not be a party to what they now applaud. liThe New Economics" -- a Primitive Lust for Power But the general belief is to the contrary. Tactics such as these comprise "the new economics" and they are given prestige by such celebrated characters as Lord John Maynard Keynes, as well as by thousands of so-called economists spawned by them. These tactics are now believed to lead not to disaster but to prosperity and so cial. welfare. Old fogeys may still frown on wage rates fixed above the market by violence, with gov ernment taxation and inflation to pick up the tab for the resulting unemployment; but why fret when assured that the consequence is all to the good! So goes the "reasoning." As if "the new economics" were really new! Actually, all of this is 210 THE FREEMAN April an inheritance from our barbaric ancestors. It rests on the primitive notion that these self-appointed rulers are capable of running the Iives of others beneficially. The fact? No person who has ever lived has such a capability over any single individual, let alone over millions. All wielders of this kind of power resemble the rest of us in knowing substantially nothing, but they are unaware of how little they know. All of "the new eco nomics" is old hat.

I am trying to suggest that beHefs are here at issue. And at stake is the overthrow of the newest and most enlightening thoughts in human history, .that is, as pertaining to political econ omy: free, voluntary exchange, private ownership, and limited government concepts. Were we to collapse life on this earth into a calendar year, these ideas have been perceived during the last 3V2 seconds before midnight of De cember 31. However, as Ortega points out, it is always the latest and highest acquisitions of the mind that are the least stable and the first to be abandoned whenever crisis threatens. The new, the wonderful - individual freedom is now being abandoned in favor of the old, the primitive, the domineering way of life. Sound economics is about as simple as this : Were the price of cheese to be coercively fixed at, say, $20 per pound, there would be no consumption. And were it co ercively fixed at, say, 2¢ per pound, there would be no production. I say to all political rigging, "Cheese it !"

Even if the political pilot gives in to "the new economics" by ex pressing. a willingness that union men be named to all Federal de partments, and even if millions of others evidence such resignation, I must hold out for freedom though I may seem to stand alone. My faith tells me, however, that there are thousands of others _. The Remnant - who are determined to do the same. i IDEAS ON LIBERTY On Power POWER tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. LORD ACTON In letter to Creighton, April 5, 1887 V.ORVAL.WATTS INDUSTR CAPITALISTIC industry today stands before Judge Public Opinion charged with various high crimes and misdemeanors. Among the charges are (1) that it makes those who take part in it materialistic in tastes, interests, and ways of living; (2) that it standardizes people - turns them into robots, kills individualism; (3) that it concentrates "power"

in the hands of a few who use this power with little regard for the welfare of others. Those making the charges de mand increasing government ac tion to punish and prevent these alleged offenses against the com mon weal. Unfortunately, all too many Americans are ready to cast their ballots for the prosecution Dr. Watts is Director of Economic Education, Northwood Institute, a business-oriented col lege with campuses at Midland, Michigan; West Baden, Indiana; and Cedar Hill, Texas. when they enter the polling booths on election days. Yet, nearly all Americans show by their daily conduct that they really like what modern industry - big and little - does; and the vast majority of mankind look to the most industrialized, free-en terprise nation-the United States - as a Mecca which they would like most of all to visit and if possible make their permanent home. Most people, worldwide, for ex ample, like what modern industry produces. From chewing gum to cameras, from aspirin to auto mobiles, they buy .machine-made goods. Moreover, they buy, often and abundantly, the products of the free-enterprise elite, that is, the products of the industrial gi ants; and they generally buy with confidence that they will get a fair deal. Similarly, where they can, millions of housewives go to the 211 212 THE FREEMAN April supermarkets, chain stores, and big department stores for the nec essaries of life, as well as for thousands of comforts, gadgets, and sundries from toothpaste to tissues, from soap to stockings, and from vitamins to vacuum cleaners. And when shoppers go to small stores, or dealers, they usu ally buy goods that big companies, in some way or other, have helped to make.

Millions of these customers also earn their wages and salaries in the employ of the biggest manu facturing, commercial, and finan cial firms where free-enterprise in dustrialism is supposedly doing most to turn them into dehuman ized robots. Fully one-fourth of the working force of the United States prefer the wages, working condi tions, and "fringe benefits" of the big employers; and I never met any of these who seemed ashamed of his employer. On the contrary, they generally appear proud to be associated with one of these out st.anding enterprises. More millions of Americans, in cluding millions of employees and customers, also invest their sav ings in the stocks and bonds of these big companies. Or they put their money in banks, insurance companies, and other agencies which buy the securities of big companies in the belief that these are likely to be especially safe and profitable ways to invest the funds entrusted to them.

Big Businesses Foster Small Businesses Millions of small businesses buy, sell, and service the products of the biggest industrial companies; and hundreds of thousands of small producers act as suppliers for the "big boys." For example, the United States Steel Co. buys from 50,000 small and medium size concerns and sells to 100,000 more. Thus, small and medium-size es tablishments do most of the busi ness in the United States, the world's most industrialized coun try. A firm with less than 500 em ployees is a small or medium-size business by U.S. standards. Such firms, together with farmers and the self-employed, account for two thirds or more of the total work force outside of government serv ice. The fact is that big business gives rise to smaller businesses. So the "Big Four" in the automo bile industry create opportunities for many thousands of dealers in cars and accessories, car "laun dries," and garages, and the big oil producers and refineries create opportunities for more thousands of service stations. Furthermore, the growth of big business provides the jobs, income, and materials necessary for new enterprises to 1973 INDUSTRIALISM: FRIEND OR FOE? 213 develop and market new products.

Some of these may rise from a basement or garage to skyscraper status; but they all start small, and most of them remain small. Without large-scale industrialism and big business, in fact, America would be still in the horse-and buggy age, and so too·would be the rest of the world. The industrial giants - railroad companies, pro ducers of steel, aluminum and cop per, auto manufacturers, produc ers of farm machinery and chem icals - these built the foundations of our modern economy, and they are still maintaining our unprece dented affluence. We should remember, too, that mass merchandising is essential for large-scale industry. The great selling organizations - mail-order hou~es, department stores, chain stores, and supermarkets - have brought down the costs of trade as the great industrial organiza tions have reduced costs of extrac tion, transportation, and process ing. These "distributors" are as truly productive and as necessary for economic progress as the mines and factories. The same may be said for finance. Without large scale banking, investment, insur ance, and brokerage there would be neither large-scale merchandis ing nor large-scale output of goods to market.

But is this affluence provided by modern ind ustry too costly in terms of the human spirit and in dividual dignity? Does mass pro duction turn human beings into materialistic, standardized robots? Mass Production Means Mass Prosperity True, "mass production" means standardization of products and methods, and this mass production implies amass market. It is pro duction for "the masses." At first thought - without looking at the facts - this seems to mean stan dardization of people - turning them into faceless non-persons. Yet, this mass production by way of standardization is precisely what the communist rulers of Russia and China want for their subjects because lit means mass prosperity. What big concerns arise in free dom to serve only a wealthy few? In freedom, big business must pro duce mainly for factory workers, farmers, stenographers, school teachers, bookkeepers, sales clerks, mechanics, waiters, government employees, carpenters, and plumb ers, along with other modestly paid producers and their dependents.

These buy most of the products of industry because they get most of the total income of this nation. And let us not forget that the pensioners and "reliefers" also have radios, TV sets, and· drip-dry 214 THE FREEMAN April shirts, along with the necessaries of life. If any American goes bare foot, it is from choice, not neces sity, for our mass production has made shoes so abundant that Americans commonly give away or throw into the trash cans better shoes than the shoddy new foot wear the victims of Communist "planning" can buy in their dingy shops. But besides an abundance of the necessaries and comforts of life, and besides the great variety of recreations and entertainments, free-enterprise industry and busi ness provide the high purchasing power and leisure necessary for cultivation of the arts and litera ture, for schooling and research, for books and free lectures on ev ery conceivable subject. They pro vide these on a scale never known before the advent of modern indus trialism, and have made them avail able even to the poorest of our pop ulation.

The victims of communist rule covet these fruits of free-enter prise capitalism; and their rulers try hard to establish the same great industries and marketing or ganizations that we have in the United States. And they do get a certain bigness and large-scale in dustry . But their industries, big and little, lack efficiency; and lack ing efficiency, they progress only at a painfully slow rate - and I do mean painfully. Consequently, com munist countries lag behind the U.S., economically, as far as they did 30 or 40 years ago. But we come back to the ques tion: does mass production and mass prosperity produce a mechan ized, standardized, collectivized, materialistic people? Industry Fosters Personality In the answer to this question we find a strange paradox. In freedom, mass production actually person alizes - individualizes - both con sumer goods and the uses we make of them. It con'tinually creates a greater variety of occupations and greater opportunity for individ uals to choose the kind of work and working conditions which best fit their particular interests and abilities. It provides increasing opportunities for intellectual and artistic pursuits, for extending each person's circle of friends, for increasing awareness and sensi tivity, that is, for the development of personality. In short, modern free-enterprise industrialism re duces the amount of drudgery, the long hours of monotonous, mind dulling toil, and the subsistence levels of poverty which .held the vast majority of mankind at a near-animal level of mind and spirit for untold aeons of the past.

It enables humans to become per sons.

1973 INDUSTRIALISM: FRIEND OR FOE? 215 Furthermore, it is the oppor tunity for individuals to satisfy a vast variety of tastes and pursue countless individual interests - in tellectual, artistic, literary and so cial, as well as recreational-that provides the drive and enterprise which in freedom gives rise to rapid economic progress, with its mass production and giant busi ness organizations. Look in on any typical American assemblage - a roomful of stu/ dents, a concert audience, a crowd of diners - what do you see? Out side the ranks of the few militant revolutionaries, it is hard to find two persons dressed in any way alike. Similarly, if you ask Ameri cans about their life experiences and expectations, their work and their leisure pursuits, you will find individual variations too numerous to list. Where else but in highly indus trialized America, the land where most of the giant businesses arose and flourish, will you find the va,..

riety of consumers' goods offered for sale, the variety of jobs, the variety of leisure pursuits, the proportion of the population in col leges and universities, the amount and variety of scientific research, the wide circles 0 f friends pos sessed by everyone who wants them, the amount of travel, and the widespread awareness of hu man problems and opportunities? And, insofar as other nations per mit freedom for private enterprise, they correspondingly provide op portunity for development of more humane and individualized person alities. Communism Standardizes and Dehumanizes This points to a seldom-noted paradox: When they gain power, as in Soviet Russia and Red China, socialist authorities impose on their people, by force, the very same mass production methods which they say make robots of workers in capitalistic countries. In fact, they often carry the stan dardization much further than in capitalistic countries and in more burdensome fashion, as, for ex ample, in use of the manual labor of women street sweepers and con struction workers. But despite thefts, loans and subsidies from capitalistic countries, and despite ruthless coercion to get labor and capital from their subjects, they fail to achieve the prosperity nec essary for individualized living except for a small minority of privileged bureaucrats and their favorites of the moment (ballet dancers, mistresses, champion ath letes or chess players, and a few scientists) .

The reason for the continued de privations and standardized ways of living for the masses in com216 THE FREEMAN April munist countries should be obvi ous. Centralized planning, imposed by legal force, suppresses indi vidual experimentation, reduces in dividual incentive, and denies indi vidual responsibility. Indeed, sup pressing individual freedom to ex periment is precisely what social ists mean by "planned production." Communists regard people as no more than complex machines to be manipulated by physical means as are inanimate tools. Or they look on the proletarian masses as rather dull-witted creatures to be fed, stalled and herded about as domesticated animals. Therefore, although communist governments impose on their subjects much standardization and some mechani zation, they so dehumanize their people that they lose the individual enterprise necessary for mass prosperity and general economic progress. They have achieved a measure of techn.ical ("material") progress; but they provide less op portunity for developing individual talent, person~lity, character, and intellect than prevailed three gen erations ago under czarist rule.

Despite the standardization of machines, materials, and gadgets, free-en.terprise industrialism pro vides increasing opportunities for "the masses" to develop, individu ally, the highest human qualities. This freedom for individuation in these United States is precisely why we have so much big indus try, big business, mass production, mass prosperity, and mass oppor tunity. It releases human energies and imagination which are the driving and directing factors in progress. Why Communist Economies Are Backward Under socialism and commu nism, on the other hand, the "plan ners" dictatorially restrict indi viduation of products and personal pursuits. As a result, they fail to develop the mass production and universal affluence which they so much covet and try to produce without regard for human life and human dignity. It is under social ism, or communism, therefore, that we find the actual concentra tion of power and rampant abuses of power. Only under socialism or communism can the few force the rise of great industries to serve their whims about what standard ized goods their subjects should have, including the weapons for imperialism, war, and their own enslavement.

For these reasons, the victims of this concentrated power remain poor - drably dressed, badly housed, misinformed, restricted, standardized, materialistic and col lectivized. As a consequence, their masters must maintain mine fields, grea t walls, and millions of armed ~ 1973 INDUSTRIALISM: FRIEND OR FOE? 217 guards to keep their people at home. If we can understand these facts and the reasons for them, perhaps we can enlarge the freedom for en terprise which this and other "capitalistic" nations have so well demonstrated is necessary for all truly human e'humane") progress. Freedom Depends on Understanding I say we can "enlarge freedom" advisedly; and I mean that we can enlarge it everywhere tha~ humans congrega teo Complete freedom is as unat tainable as complete understand ing. In fact, we gain in freedom freedom from trespass, freedom from infringement of individual rights - only as we progress in un derstanding of human. nature, hu man conduct, individual rights and individual responsibilities.

How many Americans, for ex ample, understand that minimum wage laws restrict the freedom of our young people and the less skilled adults? And how much thought do we give to the demoral izing effects of this tragic denial of opportunity to bear and dis charge self-responsibility? We know that "unemployment" - useless or destructive dissipation of human energies - demoralizes its victims. But how often do we hear or read of anyone relating the sudden rise in teenage unemployment, especially among black teen agers, to the hikes in minimum wage rates in the past 20 years in this country? Yet, that relation is clear and obvious; and time and time again, research has verified it as well as any cause-and-effect relationship can be demonstrated in human af fairs. We hear and read that "welfare" is demoralizing millions of our fel low citizens. But how often do we stop to think that the confiscation of some two-thirds or more of business profits by taxes is re stricting the freedom of every competent employer to offer jobs to unemployed job-seekers?

I repeat: in freedom, industri alism provides increasing oppor tunity for humans to develop mor ally, intellectually, physically, and esthetically; and this freedom is far from complete in these United States or anywhere else on earth. But although it is an unattain able ideal, it is imperative that man pursue it. For that pursuit re quires of us the pursuit of under standing that is the very well spring of all human progress. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom; and with all thy getting get understand ing. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ~ Right Congregation, Wrong Sernlon JOHN C. SPARKS IT WAS Sunday morning in church. The sermon was over. "The Price of Waging Peace" was a timely topic, for on the previous evening at seven o'clock the undeclared war between the United States and North Vietnam formally came to an end. It was evident that the pastor had prepared well, and his delivery was flawless. His sincerity was in disputable. He talked of the need to work harder at peace ~ to love one another more - to bring more trust of others into our lives. He exhorted us to "pay such a price"

in order to make peace work. Since more love, more peaceful intentions, more trust of others Mr. Sparks is an executive of an Ohio manu facturing company and a frequent contributor to The Freeman. '>10 were the keys to a lasting peace, it seemed to follow that the lack of these attributes among us, here in this small Ohio community, was somehow instrumental in causing the previous years of war. Was the preacher talking to me? Did I feel more peaceful, loving and trusting this morning than I felt last week or during the past years when the war was being waged? While grateful that the fighting was now concluded, I could detect no change in my atti tude favoring peaceful ways. My peaceful inclinations were then as strong as now. Concluding that I was not one of the culprits ac countable for the war, then who could it be among others in the congregation? Knowing most of my fellow 1973 RIGHT CONGREGATION, WRONG SERMON 219 townsmen, I mentally took inven tory to see who might be respon sible. There were several elderly widows seated together. No kind lier or more gentle persons could be found anywhere. Count them out.

No Hatred Here; Then Who's At Fault? An insurance man and his fam ily were in the front row. They had been worried about their son, now away at college. The father had told me his son had drawn a low draft number and would be claimed in one more year. But that had changed yesterday, too. The Secretary of Defense had ended the military draft. Before that good news, the family and the college son were worried and perplexed. The young man would not harm anyone, had even declined to hunt and shoot deer, his father had re cently confided to me. How could hebe molded into a soldier trained to kill an enemy, not personally his enemy, but one designated by the state? Was the preacher's sermon aimed at this family? Hardly, I concluded. Across the aisle sat an attorney. His nephew had moved to Canada rather than accede to the call of the U. S. military forces. To call the nephew a coward was to ignore a courageous act he performed while yet a high school studentwhen he risked his life to save a small child who had broken through the ice of a nearby lake.

The attorney never failed to stand up for his nephew - speaking qui etly in the face of rancor evident in some others who had loved ones serving in Vietnam. The attorney did not appear to be the pastor's target. One by one I moved through the members of the congregation - all upstanding citizens, law-abiding, active in community affairs. I stopped with one family seated near the front. They used to be five, but this morning only four and such it probably would remain. The oldest boy was lost in a bomb ing raid over Hanoi. Knowing the young man, I could imagine how difficult it was for him to carry out orders that would destroy lives of people he had never been closer to than at the moment the planes re leased their destruction thousands of feet overhead. He had no hate for anyone. The Nature of War Finding no one seated around me to be an appropriate culprit lacking in peacefulness and love, it seemed that the preacher's exhor tation had no real meaning. If he sincerely wanted to achieve sub stantial progress toward perma nent peace, the means he advocated - while sounding good - would ac220 THE FREEMAN April complish nothing. Nor would any thing come of it. if every church membership in America would have heard the same well-meant message. Why not?

The preacher had simply failed to recognize the real compelling factor in every war between na tions in recent centuries. Only states conduct major wars. Man power is a prerequisite of waging war. A physical conflict between two persons of strong differing opinions will attract very few sup porters on either side willing to risk their lives or other physical harm to assist one or the other. It is only when such conflict is between persons, who have the po litical power to demand that their fellow citizens join in the conflict, that a war occurs. Not much per suasion is needed to cause young men to join in arms to protect their homeland against attack. But when the conflict is difficult for the pol iticians to justify - when the is sue is not clear, or the act not readily supportable, and especially when the conflict is in a geograph ic location far removed from the homeland-the state must use force to compel young men to be come soldiers. Only a strong politi cal power can enforce such a pol icy. Only large, strong nations wage major wars.

It logically follows, therefore, that wars in the world among nations will continue to be a probabil ity as long as the people give their own governments great power including the power to force the young men to become soldiers. Big Wars from Small Errors My thoughts on this matter turn back several years to a short essay by my good friend, E. W. Dykes, "Big Wars from Little Errors Grow" (The Freeman, January 1964). A friend had chided Dykes for being so engrossed in the basic principles of freedom and all their violations - no matter how seem ingly insignificant, such as illus trated by a city government's gar bage collection service -that he (Dykes) tended to ignore the most vital problem of the time: war and peace. He accepted the friend's challenge by the following reason ing: War -like many other of today's problems - is the culmination of the breaking of the principles of indi vidual freedom, not once, but thou sands of times. We are challenged to jump in at this point and apply our principles to get out of· the unholy mess resulting from years and years of errors on errors. The challenge might just as well have been put in terms like this: "You are a second lieutenant. Your platoon is sur rounded. Your ammunition is gone.

Two of your squad leaders are dead, the third severly wounded. Now, Mr. Individual Freedom, let's see you get 1973 RIGHT CONGREGATION, WRONG SERMON 221 out of this one with your little sem inars." My answer: "Demunicipalize the garbage service." Now, wait, before you cross me off as a nut. I have a point. That second lieutenant is a goner. And so is the prospect of lasting peace until man learns why it is wrong to municipal ize the garbage service. You can't apply libertarian principles to wrong things at their culmination and ex pect to make much sense or progress. You have to start back at the very beginning, and that is precisely what our little seminars are for. There are people who build for tomorrow, others who build for a year, some who look forward a generation. The student of freedom takes the long view - forward to the time when war will be looked upon as we now look upon cannibalism, a thing of the past.

And believe me, unless someone takes the long view, wars will continue. Suppose a group of doctors in a meeting on cancer prevention decide to do with cancer as the state pro poses to do with war: "Outlaw it." What chance would the doctors have? None. And precisely for the same reason that the state can't outlaw war: They don't know what causes it. I think I know what causes war. In an unpublished article called "War, the Social Cancer," I developed the thesis that war is the malignancy re sulting from the growth of interven tionism, which invariably becomes uncontrolled, once started. Without interventionism - starting way back with things like the garbage service - war simply cannot happen. What do we do in our little sem inars ? We make the case for freedom, which cannot coexist with interven tionism. Slow? Of course, painfully slow. But who can really say and prove there is a better - or faster way?

Agreed! If understanding of right principles must precede right action, then we must get to the job of bringing about an understand ing of the principles of individual freedom. And it must be done so well that even the smallest ·seem ingly most insignificant violation will not be countenanced. Therein lies the remedy. Who, now, are the culprits? Everyone who has supported the growth of the state - voting more taxes, al lowing more areas of decision making to be removed from indi vidual responsibility, involved in actions that give more and more power to the state. The preacher had the culprits properly identified all the time! But the sermon he wrote to solve the problem of war simply did not fit the need. The power of the state must be reduced to a level where individual peaceful acts, love of fellowman, and trust of one's neighbors can come shining through in fact, internationally.

To reduce that power is the chal lenge facing peace-loving people everywhere. ~ RIDGWAY K. FOLEY, JR. WHY FREEDOM? What reason un derlies the contention that indi vidual liberty supplies the most desirable condition for human existence, and that coercive re straints should be held to the min imum?! A dual rationale appears, prag matic and moral. Put simply, free dom must reign because it works and it is just. 2 The Pragmatic Reason The basic proposition to be proved: freedom works better than restraint in a significantly greater number of cases. Proof of this postulate will manifest a Mr. Foley is a partner in the firm of Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe and practices law in Portland, Oregon. 222 substantial reason to opt for lib erty and avoid· coercion, indepen dent of any other argument. Theories may be proven by dif ferent means. One may substan tiate a supposition by conceptual rational analysis or by empirical proof. Both methods result in the identical conclusion when freedom forms the subject of inquiry. A study of human action in an ideal 1 I have suggested elsewhere that the use of· organized force should be· limited to the deterrence of fraud and aggression and to the sanctioning of the administra tion of common justice. See, Foley, Ridg way K., Jr., "Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law," 21 Freeman 357-378 (June 1971); 7 Willamette Law Journal 396-418 (November 1971).

2 One might substitute such open textured semantic concepts as "right" or "moral" or "proper" for the word "just."

1973 THE RATION ALE FOR LIBERTY 223 free market - a condition which has never existed - is only possi ble in the realm of the mind, yet the fruits of such an investiga tion impel the conclusion that only in the absence of unnecessary or man-concocted restraints will the creativity of mankind reach its zenith. An identical conclusion derives from a study of history: the freer the society, the greater the outpouring of ideas and prod ucts. 3 A state or nation founded upon the principles of libertarian thought will witness production and distribution by free men, to all members of society resident within the borders, of a greater variety, safer, better, more dur able and more desirable goods and services than will an oppressive state or nation in an identical setting. The Saracenic culture and the 19th century United States 4 3 These lessons appear over and over in the literature of freedom, from the simple and direct survey by Henry Grady Weaver -[see, Weaver, Henry Grady, The Mainspring of Human Progress (The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-the-Hudson, New York, 1953)] to the monumental classic analysis of Dr. Ludwig von Mises [see, von Mises, Ludwig, Human Action (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 3d revised edition, 1966)]. I will not attempt to duplicate these magnificent·efforts, for the purpose of this essay is much more limited: to demonstrate the foundations of freedom.

4 Beware of the "GoldenAge" fallacy when considering the 19th century United States. See Footnote 1, op. cit. witnessed a magnificent outpour ing of ideas, values and material goods in comparison with their counterpart cultures, even though some of the latter were blessed with even greater natural re sources and a more commodious climate. Simple modern compari sons demonstrate the validity of the proposition: East Germany versus West Germany; Russia versus the United States. In every case, by every index, more men enjoy greater economic or mate rial benefits as society becomes less totalitarian and more liber tarian. A commonplace assertion tar nishes the value of production of material goods. Such an approach will not withstand rigorous scrutiny. Say these traducers of creativity and innovation, man is a superfluous being so long as he aims no higher than to produce material goods for <consumption and to reproduce the species; it is only when he is concerned with higher or finer motivations that his existence is justified. 5 No libertarian questions the 5 Query: Is this the meaning of the title of the autobiography of that amaz ing 20th century freedom philosopher, Albert Jay Nock'? See, Nock, Albert Jay, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1943). As suming, arguendo, this to be true, I submit that the moral rationale for liberty pro vided sufficient justification for the N ock ian paean to individual freedom.

224 THE FREEMAN April right of the immaterialist to his belief, so long as he does not util ize coercive means to impose his principles upon society. It does seem singular to preach such a philosophy at the same time the preacher satisfies his material wants at the expense of others by virtue of food stamps, public hous ing, and welfare dole - all extract ed by force from the productive in society. What's Wrong With This? I challenge the assertion that disparages the production of an avalanche .of goods and services available for the choosing to all members of society. I can perceive no evil in creating value and ex changing that value with my neighbor for something that he has created, to the happiness of each of us. I do not find a system immoral that provides an ever widening choice of necessaries and luxuries to the citizenry at an ever-decreasing real cost. I view no wrong in a philosophy that, by necessity, encourages the widest possible distribution of created products to all persons, in place of a closed mercantilist program which offers luxuries to the power ful or affluent and crumbs to the yeoman.

Remember well: free' market capitalism offers the greatest com parative benefits to the poorer and least powerful individuals in so ciety; the "poor" in the United States, even in that mixed bag which forms our economic system, fare far better than the wealthy in other countries. While the poli tically motivated recently have discovered the existence of the poor, one must remember that they have been with us always there just were more of them a century ago. Prior to the Market Bef ore the market became freer, few goods and services filtered to the sadder societal segments; one hears little of these people for a simple and pitiful reason: they died young and often of pestilence or starvation. Only the free mar ket, with its abundance of food, clothing, and housing, with the freeing of creative men to con ceiveand develop new forms of medical assistance, has rendered the life of the erstwhile loser any thing but short, dull, solitary and brutish. I can see no wrong in this system which so alleviates suffer ing and extends life.

The citizen who produces goods and services successfully in a· re stricted market may benefit from illiberal dislocation engendered by the politics of power. For example, the state may cede a producer a monopoly market, or grant to a worker a minimum wage. Such 1973 THE RATION ALE FOR LIBERTY 225 market interferences distort the supply, demand, and price of goods and services. On the other hand, the producer or supplier who successfully mar kets goods and services in a free market does so because he is able to supply willing consumers with the best bargain: desirable prod ucts at an acceptable price. When he fails to satisfy people, or when his price becomes too high, or when a competitor markets a more desirable substitute, the producer either modifies his ways or leaves the market. He will not remain in business long unless, like TVA or Lockheed, he is forced upon an unwilling public by state interven tion. A natural concomitant of this market dislocation appears to be the supplying of increasingly shoddy goods and services at in creasingly high and inelastic prices.

Any man who freely supplies the wants of his fellowmen at the lowest bargained-for price, can hardly term himself superfluous by any objective justification. In the absence of a market, each in dividual would be forced to expend his efforts to supply all of his needs and those of his dependents. Such a situation allows precious little time for the production of luxuries and virtually none for creative thought. Granted a market, and each man produces his specialty -"does his thing" in modern argot. He be comes proficient at his task, much more so than if he had to perform the myriad chores of farmer, weaver, tanner, builder, plumber, doctor, herdsman, and so on. He be comes able to devote a share of his time to pleasurable and creative activities, or just plain relaxation if he chooses. He supplies his wants by free trade, asking such price for the value he has created at a point where he can profit the most by securing the goods and services he desires. As he becomes more efficient at his chosen pro duction, his neighbor improves his lot because the neighbor is en abled to buy better quality goods and services at ever-decreasing prices, thus permitting the ac cumulation of more and better products.

Supplying Cornflakes Consider a simple example, an ordinary yet honorable profession, and measure the immaterialist claim against the seen and the un seen consequences.6 Suppose I make and sell cornflakes, charging a price which will produce .the 6 Noone thinker has employed the con cept of the seen and the unseen like that amazing Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat. See, e.g.,"What is Seen and What is NQt Seen," Bastiat, Frederic, Selected Essays on Political Economy (D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1964) 1-50.

226 THE FREEMAN April greatest profit, and employing no deceit in my business. The imma terialist focuses upon the seen ef fect: I take otherwise unused or uneconomically employed goods and services and, using my efforts and my stored-up labor (capital), I create a new product which is desired by some of my fellowmen; I sell to them and receive money which I expend as I like. The perceptive observer consid ers the rest of the sequence, the unseen consequence. One of my customers, freed· from the prod uc tion of his own food and shelter (partially by my entrepreneural efforts) studies long hours until he becomes qualified to impart knowledge at a university. The young people who flock to his classes include a brilliant youth who, some day, partly because of the exposure to the professor's mind, will discover a cure for can cer. Another customer, freed from the drudgery of toil in the fields, composes a magnificent anthem which brings pleasure to genera tions yet unborn. A third consum er, of indeterminate occupation, likewise freed from toil, finds time to become a friend to yet another individual who needs one at that partIcular moment. Still other cus tomers have stories to tell, some simple, some profound, but each in his own way sending shockwa ves of benefit through the lives of others. How can I, even a simple producer of a plain product, term myself superfluous if these events follow in cause-and-effect fashion?

Obviously, I can lay no valid claim to all good things that flow from the consumption of my corn flakes, any more than I can be charged with complicity in the crimes perpetrated by other, more odious, characters who likewise enjoy my product. The salient point adduced: uncoercive, unde .. ceitful production of goods and services relieves other individuals of the necessity of production of those same goods and services if that is their choice; with the un structured time thus created, con sumers of those products are pro vided with the opportunity to par take of other activities 7 which may benefit themselves and others. Whether, and to what extent, the freed man engages in creative en deavors resides solely within his own free choice.. The benefit grant ed by the innovator or producer to the customer is a gift of a more meaningful freedom, possibly the highest grant which one individ ual can bestow upon another.

The Moral Reason The pragmatic rationale, stand .. ing independently, offers a com7 At least some of which apparently meet the vague criteria of the "finer things in life" set forth in the immateri alist hypothetical heretofore.

1973 THE RATIONALE FOR LIBERTY 227 plete defense to those who would challenge or limit man's liberty~ Yet, the moral underpinnings of freedom afford an even more in tense justification for individual liberty against the ravages of man concocted restraints. 8 Simply stat ed, freedom is desirable because it is just, moral and proper. Perhaps this simplistic conclu sion requires explanation and anal ysis to produce conviction. Man is a finite creature, limited in talent, knowledge, and ability, capable of improvement but incapable of per fection. 9 No man, no matter how wonderfully prescient he seems when compared to his fellows, pos sesses the omniscience to control the lives of others. Indeed, many of us find it exceedingly difficult to adequately govern our own en deavors, yet clearly each of us possesses more innate knowledge concerning our own desires and direction than does any other in dividual. Compare and multiply the problem confronting each of us in the myriad decisions which must be made in each human life, 8 Mr. Leonard E. Read uses this phrase throughout his many writings in the de fense of freedom; I cannot improve upon it and can only acknowledge the source with gratitude for his efforts. See, e.g., "Justice Versus Social Justice," Read, Leonard E., Notes from FEE (The Foun dation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, May 1972) .

9 See essay cited in Footnote 1, op. cit. with a multitude of persons, each exhibiting similar strengths and weaknesses, goals and drives, com plexi ties and dreams, and the chore of social engineering boggles the imagination. Those persons advocating the restriction of individual freedom beyond that necessary for the pre vention of aggression and fraud and for the arbitration of interper sonal disputes must rest their case upon a single arrogant assump tion: some man, or group of men, no different in essence from the rest of us, cursed with the identi cal finiteness which afflicts us all, should be empowered, by virtue of strength, wisdom, or talent of some undefined nature, to restrict the actions of others and to choose alternatives in their stead. The Nature of Mankind Calls for Freedom of Choice I cannot accede to embrace this proposition. It fails to square with the nature of mankind, with real ity as I perceive it. It ignores the fact that no man, however tal ented, possesses the innate or ac quired ability to choose for others and to make demonstrably better choices. If I choose Cheer for my wash in place of Bold, who is to say that I have made an incorrect choice? Perhaps one product man ifests different characteristics than the other, and rational rea228 THE FREEMAN April sons persuade many to choose in conformity with those character istics; this fact does not logically prove that one is better, safer, or more appropriate for my use, given my nature, my goals, and my needs. Only I am privy to the information necessary to an in formed choice. What is right for you may very well be wrong, or less satisfactory, for me. Thus, only I should be privileged to make my choice.

In such manner, we can demon strate rationally that free choice should inhere in each acting, pur posive being as only he can wisely choose. The moral justification for liberty resides on a more funda mental base. Each individual should be allowed to choose among available alternatives because he is a purposive being, capable of charting his own destiny. If we grant to each person the right to life,10 then the right to liberty in the broadest sense naturally fol lows. Life encompasses purpose and choice; a slave lacking free choice becomes less than human to the extent his choice is restricted; man enslaves other men to the extent that he, solely or collec tively, inhibits a selection of al10 The meaning of the right to life de serves special and separate treatment. For purposes of this essay, the right of each individual human being to his own life, without interference or enslavement by others, is assumed.

ternatives; moral man ought not to coerce his fellows. Restrictive Methods Cannot Serve the Ends 01 Freedom A third moral tenet appears when we recall Emerson's axiom ll that the ends preexist in the means. Just results cannot follow from coercive actions. I cannot make you believe in God by com pelling you to attend religious ser vices, nor can I coerce my neigh bor into the production of better goods and services by the tacit or explicit threat of violence. Often the opposite results derive from the application of force. Because I am not better qualified by intrinsic worth to judge how even one of my fellowmen should live his life in even the smallest particular, it forms the height of arrogance for me to exercise compulsion against him, no matter how foolish he ap pears to be. Subtly related to this premise we discover the equally valid norm that one man cannot morally force another to do his bidding because to do so would not only render the object of compul sion less human but also fail to achieve just and desirable results 11 This concept is stressed in the writ ings of Mr. Leonard E. Read. See, e.g., "The Bloom PreExists in the Seed,"

Read, Leonard E., Let Freedom Rei,qn (The Foundation for Economic Educa tion, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1969) 78-86, 1973 THE RATIONALE FOR LIBERTY 229 because of the restrictive means employed in the action. From these simple examples we ded uce the valid rule that morally freedom is right and restriction is wrong. Notice that coercive man does not improve his position by banding together with others to form a collective which will force a decision on another or restrict the subject's alternatives. Logi cally, denuded of needless trap pings, the state consists of collec tive force - the majority or cur rently most powerful individuals produce a cohesive force in a given territorial unit within which they limit the alternatives available to other men. Coercive force becomes no more or less restrictive or evil when exercised by conspiracy or agreement. Individual man bears For Moral Conduct moral responsibility for every choice made in life, and he must be prepared to accept the moral consequence of each act notwith standing the fact that some or all decisions were rendered under the aegis of committee, convention or majority rule. Pillage and looting do not diminish in ethical oppro brium when performed by claques or associations. Man cannot escape the moral consequences for an ac tion by the alibi that he acted in harmony with the dictates of the United States Army, the Chamber of Commerce, or the National Democratic Committee.

Moral order and material bene fits justify the condition of free dom. Rational man should demand no other course in life. I) IDEAS ON LIBERTY FREEDOM TO ORDER our own conduct in the sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us, and responsibility for the arrangement of our own life according to our own conscience, is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily recreated in the free decision of the individual. Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one's conscience, the awareness of a duty not exacted by compulsion, the necessity to decide which of the things one values are to be sacrificed to others, and bear the consequences of one's own decision, are the very essence of any morals which deserve the name. F. A. HAYEK dOES MAdisON AVENUE RulE OUR livEs? DENNIS H. MAHONEY THE ADVOCATE of any type of planned economy or welfare state must sooner or later, if he is even slightly honest with himself, face the unpleasant reality that he is taking away the people's right to spend their money in the way they most prefer. Under a competitive and open market. system, the in dividual determines his own life style. One is free to buy or not to buy any product of one's choice.

Under the welfare state, on the other hand, the government makes decisions for us, presulll;ably for our own good. Unfortunately, you may not happen to want medical insurance, public transportation, government-furnished housing, or whatever else Big Brother wants to give you. Too bad, comrade, you may as well use them, because you Mr. Mahoney is now serving in the U.S. Navy, following his graduation in political science from the University of California· at Berkeley. 230 pay for them whether you like it or not. The dedicated totalitarian prob ably won't lose a minute's sleep over this discovery. The demo cratic socialist, however, faces a dilemma. He is "democratic" be cause he wants to imitate the economy of a communist system without sacrificing basic liberties. Rather than face the inherent im possibili ty of his goal, he devel ops rationalizations designed to convey the message that the free market isn't really free (leaving socialism, of course, as the alter native) .

One of the more persistent cliches reads, "Madison Avenue rules our lives." According to this theory, we buy things that we neither want nor need because we are hopelessly brainwashed by a barrage of clever advertising. Big business, the theory continues, doesn't need to respond to the 1973 DOES MADISON AVENUE RULE OUR LIVES? 231 consumer's desires, because the ad men can artificially create a de mand for any product their em ployers produce. An essential element of this ar gument is the belief that' the American public as a whole is so gullible that it will rush out and waste its money on any product it sees attractively packaged. Few of us want to accept this pessimistic outlook. However, simply because something is unpleasant, it is not necessarily untrue. Nor, by the same reasoning, is it necessarily true. Personally, I am more optimis tic than the potential central plan ner. If Ford was able to sell any thing it produced, we'd still be driving Edsels. Nonetheless, for the sake of this discussion, let's concede a point and assume - just assume - that the planner is cor rect, and the average consumer is really incapable of knowing what he wants or needs.

In Place of the Marlcet What substitute for the market place is proposed by the democrat ic socialist, and, to a lesser extent, by the contemporary liberal? Sim ple. We free ourselves from our own folly by turning our money over to the government in the form of taxes. The state, then, provides those services which are most conducive to our welfare. And who runs the state? Poli ticians elected by - well, what do you know? - by those very same gullible people who can't think for themselves. The voter, who (ac cording to the "Madison Avenue ... rule theory") can't even buy a bar of soap intelligently, is expected to select a President and a Congress wise enough to know what is best for all of us. If Americans are too foolish to purchase medical insurance, or too selfish to support the genuine needy through voluntary charity, how can we expect them to elect leaders who are smart enough and unselfish enough to make decisions about the lives of others? Th~ only people wise enough to select some one to run their lives are those who never needed anyone to run their lives in the first place.

At this point, one might be tempted to think, as Plato did, that the only way to protect us from the irrational mob is to toss democracy out the window and let our society be controlled by a few authoritarian rulers. Unfortunate ly, with so many so-called "fool ish" people running around, how do we guarantee that our dictator won't be one of them? How many dictators of the past and present have displayed the wisdom to un derstand the best interests of an entire nation? (Hitler? Stalin? Castro?) And even if we do man232 THE FREEMAN April age to get an intelligent Octavian in one generation, we must always live in dread of being saddled with a sick, brutal Nero in the next. As long as we remain a system of men, rather than angels, a great many bad decisions will be made; this will be true regardless of what form of economy we have - capitalist, socialist, communist, or fascist. Is their really any dif ference?

Only the difference between a free man and a slave. The Important Difference None of us is subject to another consumer's taste, nor are we hurt by hifJ bad judgment. If my neigh bor buys expensive aspirin when cheap aspirin is just as good, he hasn't hurt me. I'm still free to buy the cheap brand if I so choose. Can anyone say the same for a de cision made by government? If that same neighbor votes for an incompetent politician because the old fellow likes to kiss babies, then I suffer the consequences of bad government regardless of how I voted. Further, I pay the bill for every worthless program that Washington decides to launch, whether I support the program or not. The only way· to protect ourselves is to permit as little taxa tion and government power as possible. Let medicare, social se curity, Amtrak, and even the post office remain unsubsidized in the minds of the politicians who con ceive them. If the majority sup ports these programs, then that majority will be free to purchase similar services on the open mar ket, which can provide them for anyone who pays voluntarily. But don't force the rest of us to pay also.

The socialist who complains that the average citizen is easily pursuaded by Madison Avenue, and other attractive forms of packaging, is givinga strong ar gument in favor of the open mar ket. Competitive private enter prise is the only system which protects the individual against the fickle mob by letting him decline to support its whims. Although I don't want my neigh bor's mistakes to hurt me (nor mine to hurt him) ,there is no reason to assume that I am not concerned about his welfare. I may try to pursuade him to do what is best, but I will not force him. I am my brother's keeper, but only insofar as he welcomes me. Otherwise, I am no longer his brother, but his slavemaster. ~ PAUL STEVENS FOR YEARS the world has been plagued by continuing interna tional monetary crises. The inter national monetary system since 1944 has endured dollar shortages and dollar gluts; chronic deficits and chronic surpluses; perpetual parity disequilibria and currency realignments; disruptive "hot money" flights of capital, and nu merous controls on the exchange of money and goods.

In 1968 a "two-tier" gold mar ket was established in the midst of a run on . Treasury go ' eserves. In 17 the two-tie iment fai the face new nds for e U.S em bargoe ld and a owed the dol lar to seek its own level on the free market. The making ofan international monetary crisis Mr. Stevens is a freelance writer who special izes in the field of economics. 233 234 THE FREEMAN April Further Devaluation Meanwhile, only fourteen months after the Smithsonian Agreement was reached, the dollar was brought under new selling pressure and was again forced to devalue (a total of almost 20 per cent in under two years), and the free market price of gold soared to nearly $100 an ounce, making the official price and the now mythical "two-tier" system look embarrass ingly unrealistic. The most immediate and visible cause of the 1971 international monetary crisis can be traced di rectly to an excess supply of dol lars which have been accumulating in foreign central banks. These dollars, some· $60 billion, were at one time theoretically claims on U. S. gold. But over the years, U. S. gold reserves (now about $10 billion) have become conspic uously inadequate to meet foreign demand for gold convertibility.

At present, the major problem confronting economic and mone tary Policy Makers is: "What is to be done with the approximately $60 billion held by the central banks of the western world?" Policy Makers have instituted one stop-gap measure after an other in order to buy the time necessary to solve this problem and to reach agreement on long term monetary reform. Agreement on monetary reform will be the basis for the development of a new international monetary sys tem, tentatively scheduled to be established by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the near future. But before one can determine which reforms are necessary for a successful future monetary sys tem, one must know what mone tary policies caused the past sys tem to fail. Today'sPolicy Makers have re fused to identify the most funda mental cause of the 1971 interna tional monetary crisis; they have never wanted to know which mon etary theories and policies led to the excessive and disrupti ve amounts of dollars that now flood the world, for the answer is: their own monetary theories and domes tic policies of artificial money and credi t expansion. If one wishes to project the kinds of policies that will be employed internationally and the effects they will produce in the future, one need only to look at the monetary theories held by today's Policy Makers and their effects when implemented in the past.

Monetary Theory: Past During the nineteenth century the free world was on what was called the classical gold standard. It was a century of unprecedented production. More wealth and a 1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 235 greater standard of living was achieved and enjoyed by more peo ple than in all the previous history of the world. The two conditions most responsible for the great in crease in wealth during the nine teenth century were competitive capitalism and the gold standard: Capitalism because it provided a social system where men were free to produ,c!e and own the results of their labor; the gold standard be cause it provided a monetary sys tem by which men could more readily exchange and save the re sults of their labor. While capitalism afforded men the opportunity to trade in the open market which led to economic prosperity, the gold standard pro vided a market-originated medium of exchange and means of saving which led to monetary stability.

But because neither competitive capitalism nor the gold standard were ever fully understood or prac ticed, there existed a paradox dur ing the nineteenth century: a se ries of disruptive economic and monetary crises in the midst of a century of prosperity. These crises can all be traced to excessive supplies of money and credit. T~e U.S. panics of 1814, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907 and the international monetary crises of 1933 and 1971 all have one thing in common: excessive supplies of money and credit. The fact is that no monetary crisis in history has ever resulted from a lack of money and .credit. Every monetary crisis can· be traced to excessive supplies of money and credit. Where does this money and credit come from? Under a gold standard, the amount of money in circulation is the amount of gold circulating among individuals or held in trust by banks. All claims to gold (e.g.

dollars) are receipts for gold and are fully convertible into a specific amount of gold. If the claims to gold are circulating, .the gold can not. The money supply is deter mined in the open market - by the same factors that determine the production of any and all commodi ties - the· factors of supply, de mand, and the costs of production. Thus the only way to increase wealth under such a market-origi nated monetary and economic sys tem is through the production of goods or services. No Curb on Governments But the world never achieved a pure gold standard. While indi vid uals opera ted under a classical gold standard with the conviction that production was the only way to gain wealth, they allowed their government to become the excep tion to this rule. Government produces nothing. During the nineteenth century it 236 THE FREEMAN April operated mostly on money it taxed from its citizens. As government's role increased, so did its need for money.

The Policy Makers knew that gold stood in the· way of govern ment spending, that direct con fiscation of wealth via taxation was unpopular,. So Policy Makers advocated a way of indirectly tax ing productive men in order to finance both government programs and the increasing government bureaucracy necessary to imple ment those programs. The method was to increase the money supply. Since government officials were not about to go out and mine gold, they had to rely on an artificial increase. Although the methods of artificial monetary expansion varied, the net effect re mained the same: an increase in the claims to goods in circulation and a general rise in commodity prices. The layman called this phe nomenon "inflation." This resulted invariably in monetary crises and economic depressions. Capitalism and gold got the blame for these crises, but the blame was undeserved. Why then were capitalism and the gold standard not exonerated from this unearned guilt? Why were these two great institutions tried .and sentenced to death by the slow strangulation of govern ment laws? The verdict must read: "Found guilty due to inadequate defense."

The few whispers of defense from a handful of scholars were easily drowned out by every poli tician who argued for more gov ernment controls and regulations over the economy; by every pro fessor who argued for the redistri bution of private wealth and for government to provide for the wel fare of some group at the expense of another; by every businessman and his lobbyist who argued for government to subsidize his busi ness or industry while protecting him from foreign competitors; by every economist who advocated that government should "stimu late" the economy; and by every media spokesman who argued that the public should vote for policies of government intervention. These, and men like them, made up an army of educators. The Policy Makers They were the "intellectuals" who promoted theories that could not exist without the governmen tal expropriation of private funds; who sponsored, advocated, or en couraged government policies that would victimize men (taxation), deceive and defraud men (infla tion) , and turn men against one another (the redistribution of pri vate wealth). They were the men who provided government with the 1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 237 theoretical ammunition necessary to disarm men of their rights. They educated the public on the "bless ings" of government intervention, and were the ones. directly or in directly responsible for all the sub sequent coercive government ac tions and all of their economically disruptive efFects.

They were (and still are) the Policy Makers. Policy Makers damned capital ism and the gold standard as be ing inherently unstable. They at tributed capitalism's productive booms to government's interven tion into the economy, and the government-made busts to the gold standard and the "greed of man." Such distortions of truth could not be sold to the public easily. A united attack on common sense was necessary in order to obscure the virtues of freedom and the meaning of money. The Process of Confusion The Policy Maker led that at tack.Armed with the slogans of a con man, he slowly obscured the obvious and concealed the sensible, cloaking monetary and economic theories in graphs, charts, and statistics, until men doubted their own ability to deal with the now esoteric problems of economy and state. But the American public had great confidence in the integrity of their public leaders and trusted the knowledge of experts in the fields of higher learning, and so they accepted the conclusions of their Policy Makers.

The Policy Maker had made his first and most important move to ward institutionalizing govern m~nt int~rv~ntion and his theories of artificial monetary expansion into the American way of life: he convinced the American public that men needed government protection from the "natural" depressions of capitalism and the monetary crises "inherent" in the gold standard. Policy Makers had to do a lot of talking to convince men that the most productive system ever known to them was the cause of depressions. They had to do even more talking to convince men that the precious metal freely chosen and held as money was the cause of monetary depreciation and the source of bank insolvency. It took a lot of talking, but when they had finished, men were convinced. They were convinced that their minds their own eyes - had been deceiv ing them. They were convinced tha t the way to freedom was through greater controls and more restrictions, and that paper was as good as gold.

While the attack· on capitalism was subtle and implicit, condem nation of the gold standard was open and explicit.

238 THE FREEMAN April Condemnation of Gold The reason for the Policy Mak er's condemnation is that, even though governments never really adhered to it, the gold standard placed limits on the amount of artificial money and credit a gov ernment could create. Money and credit expansion was always brought to a quick end because banks and governments had to re deem their notes in gold. Redemp tion was the major obstacle in the way of the Policy Maker's dream of unlimited artificial money cre ation, unlimited spending. The Policy Maker learned how to obtain in a matter of minutes the purchasing power of 50 pro ductive men working 50 weeks. He learned of the plunder and loot that a button on a printing press would provide. But it would not be until the twentieth century that he would convince the government to eliminate gold and convince men of the "virtues" of legal counter feiting. The Policy Maker had to destroy man's idea of property in order to entice men with dreams of unearned wealth. He had to per suade men of the "merits" of mon etary redistribution and govern ment handouts.

If there was a monetary rule of conduct among men during the days of the semi-gold standard it was: the man who desires to gain wealth must earn it, by producing goods or their equivalent in gold. It was in this spirit and by this golden rule of conduct that men could and did operate in the mone tary and economic spheres of so ciety. Consequently, they achieved the most productive and beneficial era that mankind had ever known. But what they never identified or challenged was the opposing monetary rule of conduct advo cated by their Policy Makers: the government that aims to acquire wealth must confiscate it - or counterfeit its equivalent in paper claims. Evolution of the Theory The gold standard limited arti ficial monetary expansion and in doing so, it limited artificial eco nom,ic expansion. The Policy Maker considered this great virtue of the gold standard to be its maj or vice.

The Policy Maker saw that arti ficial monetary expansion had led to economic booms. He also saw that at the end of every artificial boom· there occurred a financial panic and depression. The Policy Maker ignored the cause of financial panics, he SRW only their effects - bank runs and the demand for gold redemption. He ignored the cause of economic depressions, he saw only that the boom had ended. Reversing cause and effect, the Policy Maker con eluded: eliminate gold redemption 1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 239 and the financial panics would stop; eliminate the gold standard and the boom would never end. The Policy Maker had to make another major move toward insti tutionalizing government interven tion and his theories of artificial monetary expansion into the American way of life: he had to divorce the idea of nalional pro duction from the idea of indiv'id ualproductivity.

Ignoring the fact that the in dividual was the source of produc tion, he convinced men that in the name of "social prosperity," gov ernment could and should "stim ulate" the economy and "encour age" national production; while at the same time he advocated income taxation to penalize individuals for being productive. Implicit in this doctrine is the idea that produc tion is a gift of state, the result of government guidance; and that individual productivity is a sin, the result of human greed. Men were subtly offered a false alternative: the "permission" to produce and be taxed directly through government confiscation; or the "luxury" of an artificial boom, to be taxed indirectly through inflation. The American people rej ected both alternatives (and still do to day) yet saw no other acceptable course of action - the intellectual opposition was still too weak to provide them with one. Thus, by default, they accepted both alter natives "to a limited degree." An income tax should be levied "only on those who could afford it,"

while the government "should steer the economy on a prosperous course." How was the economy to be "steered"? By supplying unending paper reserves to a regimented banking system and compelling bankers to keep interest rates arti ficially low. But in 1913 it was too early to sell the public on the "vir tues" of the direct confiscation of gold. But the time was "right" for the takeover of the banking sys tem. A monetary revolution was in store for America. Fractional Reserve Banking In the name of "economizing" gold (which allegedly was not in sufficient supply to be used as money), Policy Makers advocated a fractional reserve system. A frac tional reserve system would by law set a ratio at which gold must be held .to back legal tender notes. While fractional reserve banking had always been practiced by banks and condoned by govern ments, the Policy Maker formal ized and legitimized it through the Federal Reserve System domesti cally and the gold exchange stand ard internationally.

What the Federal Reserve Sys240 THE FREEMAN April tern and the gold exchange stand ard had in common was a central banking system that used as re serves both gold and money sub stitutes (such as demand deposits, fractionally backed Federal Re serve notes, commercial paper the oretically convertible into various commodities, and government se curities backed by the taxing power of the government). These reserves - gold and the money sub stitutes - served as a base for monetary expansion. Gold was no longer the sole re serve asset: it was now supple mented by paper reserves. The government exercising a monopoly on the issuance of paper money could designate what should com prise the monetary reserves. Hence, redemption was now not only in gold, but also in money substitutes. In this way a pyra miding of money and credit ex pansion could take place without the automatic limitations imposed by the gold standard.

By the 1920's the Federal Re serve System had grown and in creased its power and controls, which enabled it to increase the money supply and reduce interest rates for longer periods of time. The Federal Reserve Board suc ceeded in implementing its easy money policies. The problem now was that money and credit became so easy to obtain that it spilled over into the stock market and other investment areas. The government became alarmed over this wild speculation, raised interest rates sharply, and slammed on the monetary brakes - but it was too late. The day came (that inevitable day) in October 1929 when the Law of Causality pre sented its bill. Men found that their profits were merely paper profits, that their prosperity was an illusion. The stock market crashed. Men suddenly realized that on the other side of the coin of credit there ex isted debt. Industries fought to become "liquid"; everyone tried to get hard cash. But the hard cash - the gold - was insufficient to cover the outstanding claims.

The Great Depression The Policy Maker succeeded in implementing his theories, yet all of the consequences that his the ories were to have eliminated con fronted him once again - this time to a far greater degree. This was the Grea,t Depression; this was the monetary crisis that not only forced an entire national banking system to close its doors, but was of international dimensions. The dollar was in trouble not only at home, but also abroad. What to do? The Policy Maker had the "an swer." He viciously condemned gold and capitalism for causing 1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 241 the crisis and advocated even greater policies of money and credit expansion in order to "stim ulate" the economy; more govern ment controls, more government regulations, more and higher taxes were the "answer." Men were asked to patriotically give up their gold in order to save the nation's credit. It was a time of emergency, so Americans complied. They did not know that they would never see their gold again, that taxes would continue to rise higher and higher, and that inflation would become a way of life.

The Policy Maker had to do a lot of talking to convince men of the "evils" of gold and capitalism. He had to do a lot of talking, but when he was finished, men were convinced. They were convinced that nothing less than the direct confiscation of wealth and a vigor ous credit expansion could save the nation. Devaluation in J934 ... In 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt with one stroke of the pen confis cated the entire gold stock of America. When government held the gold and the citizens held only paper, the government reduced the value of the paper by over 40 per cent, raising the official dollar "price" of its gold holdings. (The Policy Maker had learned that credit expansion meant debt creation, but showed governments how to default on their debts by deval uing the monetary unit in relation to gold and other currencies.) The U. S. was now on a fiat standard domestically, and again in the name of "economizing" gold, the government printed new mon ey against its total stock of newly acquired gold. Deficit spending be came a way of life and government borrowing became so insatiable that any mention of paying off the national debt was smeared as un realistic and regressive in light of the "virtues" of continued mone taryexpansion. (The Policy Maker had learned that borrowing meant debt accumulation, but showed the government how to "amortize" its debts by charging its citizens in direct and hidden taxes.) Domestically the fiat standard has failed miserably. It was de signed to "economize" gold and provide a stable dollar. Since 1913, the dollar has lost approximately 75 per cent of its purchasing pow er. The fractional gold cover has been progressively reduced, and transferred to cover obligations abroad. That gold reserve has been reduced from $25 billion to $10 bil lion through demands for redemp tion by foreign governments which finally forced the U.S. to close the doors of its central bank. (The central bank was supposed to be a bank of last resort. The run on the 242 THE FREEMAN April Treasury's gold amounts to the largest and most prolonged bank run in the history of any nation.) Bretton Woods Meanwhile, internationally, in 1944 a "new" system was estab lished - the Bretton Woods sys tem. During the Bretton Woods era Policy Makers adopted policies of vigorous credit expansion as a panacea for the world's problems.

The instrument of credit used was the dollar. In its role as reserve currency, the dollar was consid ered "as good as gold" and served as a supplement to world gold re serves. In the name of world li quidity, dollars would be furnished as needed to replenish and build up world reserves. The dollar was envisioned as a stable yet ever expanding reserve currency. In this spirit, dollars poured forth on demand via U.S. deficits in the form of foreign aid, loans, and military expenditures. Foreign demand for dollars never ceased, nor did the expansion of money and credit, until the world found itself in the midst of an inflation ary spiral which turned to reces sion and ended in an international monetary crisis: the dollar incon vertible, dropping in value, an un desirable credit instrument and in effective reserve currency. The dollar was again devalued, while gold soared in value, reaching new highs. And through all this, Policy Makers have been screaming the same old theories: "Gold is a barbarous relic! It ought to be eliminated completely!

What we need is more liquidity . . . more money and credit!" What more can the Policy Mak er do? The Theory Projected There is a causal link between history and future events - the link is theory. A theory is a policy or set of ideas proposed as the basis for hu man action. To the extent that a theory furthers man's life it is a practical basis for human action and therefore a good theory. To the extent that a theory destroys man's life it is impractical, self defeating, and therefore a bad theory. A sound monetary theory, if em ployed, will facilitate trade and economic growth, while an un sound monetary theory will lead to monetary crises and economic dis ruptions. The Policy Maker has been charged with providing theoretical ammunition to government. To the Policy Maker's great discredit he has learned nothing about mone tary theory in the last two cen turies, save how to employ more sophisticated techniques of credit expansion. He has rejected the 1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 243 lessons of history through self-in duced blindness and has made him self deaf and dumb to rational eco nomic analysis. He sees nothing except his precious theories of ar tificial monetary expansion.

Today's Policy Maker sees him self as participating in an evolu tion of the international monetary system comparable in "impor tance" to the role his intellectual ancestor played in evolving the gold standard into the gold ex change standard. And if by evolu tion the Policy Maker means a series of changes in a given direc tion, this is a correct description of his role. But it is the wrong di rection. And it has been the wrong direction for over a century. Given the monetary theories held by today's Policy Makers who are concerned with international monetary reform, one can expect a change only in the method and degree of monetary expansion not a change in direction. Each time the Policy Maker has seen his monetary theories imple mented he has blinded himself to their effects. Each time a monetary or economic crisis has occurred he has refused to identify the cause, blaming it on the so-called "busi ness cycle" which he insists is an inherent weakness within capital ism and which invariably causes depressions. But there is no such thing as a "business cycle" that causes depressions - only a cycle of continuous government inter vention into the 'economy, provid ing newly printed money that causes inflation, malinvestment, overconsumption, the misalloca tion of resources - distortions and mistakes that, when liquidated, are called, depressions.

There is nothing in the' nature of capitalism and the free market to cause such crises. If economic history has tended to repeat itself, it is because the Policy Maker has been guiding human action and government policies along a circu lar theoretical course that has been tried and has failed - again and again and again. IIIf at first you don't succeed . . ." The spectacle of billions of in convertible dollars frozen in the vaults of central banks has brought on cries of condemnation over the dollar's credibility as a reserve currency. The Policy Maker's theory of a stable yet artificially ever-expand ing reserve currency has failed. ,Policy Makers are willing to admit this freely. The failure, of course, was not theirs - it was "all gold's fault." The Policy Maker avoids dealing with the problem by insist ing that there is too little gold in existence instead of too many claims to gold outstanding.

The "solution" to the problem 244 THE FREEMAN April (if the Policy Maker remains con sistent) will be to evolve the inter national monetary system from. a system in which an ever-expand ing reserve currency provided the world with credit and liquidity, to a system in which an ever-expand ing reserve "asset" will fill that role. Like the dollar, this reserve "asset" will amount to circulating debt, i.e. something owed rather than something owned. It will be a nonmarket instrument, deriving its acceptability from government cooperation and decree, "immune from the laws of the free market and outside the reach of greedy speculators." Where will this "asset" come from? Under the Bretton Woods system, dollar reserves were fur nished by the U.S. central bank. Both the bank and the "asset" failed. The next step is to create a world bank (a larger bank of last resort) controlled by an interna tional organization (the IMF) with the power to create a new "asset," independent of any single government's monetary policy.

As a supplement to gold and like the dollar before it, this "asset" should be a credit instrument. Un like the dollar, it would have the backing of an entire world of cen tral banks. The "asset" should be ever-expanding and should provide both liquidity and stability. In short, "as good as gold." The SDR: lias good as gold ll again! Special Drawing Rights (SDR's), or "paper gold" as it is sometimes referred to by those who can keep a straight face, was introduced to the international monetary system in 1967. It was a time when the dollar was under suspicion and gold was increasingly demanded. In order to "economize" gold, the IMF issued a new reserve "asset" (SDR's) to supplement gold and take pressure off the dollar. The SDR is a bookkeeping entry, de fined in gold yet non-convertible into gold. It serves the same func tion as gold since it is a reserve, but unlike gold, it can be created by a stroke of the pen.

U.S. Policy Makers have chosen the SDR as the reserve "asset" most likely to succeed in replacing gold. But just as the dollar was supposed to be as good as gold and was not, the SDR, even if made tangible and convertible into gold and/ or other currencies, will suffer the same demise. The Policy Maker has chosen to ignore the fact that there is no fundamental difference between an artificially ever-expanding reserve currency and· an artificially ever expanding reserve "asset" - both are inflationary and therefore self destructive. But the real threat is not that the SDR may fail as the dollar did in bringing monetary stability.

1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 245 The threat is in the damage SDR's can do if developed within a for mal system. Just as the dollar re placed gold as the primary asset, SDR's have a very real potential for further diminishing the role of gold, and in doing so changing the entire nature and inflationary po tential of the IMF. The most controversial question in monetary reform today centers around the respective roles of gold and SDR's. While the U.S. has taken an anti-gold position, France has been said to have taken a pro gold position in opposition to U.S. proposals. But if one checks the theories held by the Policy Makers of the governments involved, the "pro-gold" opposition looks ab surdly weak. The Mythical Pro-gold Governments The U.S. wants a lesser role for gold, holding that SDR's can serve as a measurement of currency val ue, act as a credit instrument, earn interest, and absorb dollars. In ef fect the U.S. position would elimi nate gold's major role without eliminating gold. SDR's would not only become the standard of value for all currencies, they would re place gold as redemption instru ments.

The "opposition" (mainly France) wants gold as the major reserve asset in which all currency values are measured. While the U.S. proposes that excess dollars be "absorbed" by an IMF issuance of SDR's, France proposes instead that the official "price" of gold be raised sufficiently high to convert excess dollars in central banks. Superficially, it would appear that there are two opposing posi tions being taken: one anti-gold, one pro-gold. However, both posi tions are anti-gold standard, hence anti-gold as a reserve asset. A gold standard requires that governments limit the currencies they print to the supply of gold they possess - and this is considered out of the question by today's gov ernment leaders. They insist on the "right" to inflate. "Pro-gold" European governments have, time and time again, inflated their cur rencies, then devalued. To advo cate arbitrarily raising the "price"

of gold is as much an attempt to use gold as a fiat reserve asset as is the U.S. position. While the U.S. would increase reserves by printing "assets" to cover present and future money and credit needs, France would in crease reserves by raising the "price" of gold to cover the arti ficial money and credit previously created. And this is the common denominator that links the two ap parently opposing positions: their basic agreement, in principle, that the artificial creation of money and credit is essential to any monetary 246 THE FREEMAN system. Disagreement only arises over the method to be used in deal ing with excessive monetary ex pansion, i.e., debt. There are no pro-gold govern ments in existence today, only pro inflation governments. The differ ence between governments is only in the degree of monetary expan sion and the freedom of gold own ership a government permits.

II Amortize ll or Default: the False Alternative So, basically, monetary reform boils down to the following two al ternatives: the "pro-gold" coun tries advocate defaulting on for eign debts via devaluation; the "anti-gold" countries advocate "amortizing" foreign debts via artificial reserve expansion. (The kind of "amortization" that is con sistent with the Policy Makers' theories amounts to a method of constantly refinancing government debt below the market rate of in terest. Given the past record of government, the principal may never be repaid in full or in real money terms.) The third alternative is simply to not create debts that govern ments are unable or unwilling to repay. The third alternative is for governments to stop arbitrarily creating debt instruments such as the dollar in its role as reserve currency, and the SDR. These instruments and the currencie~ printed against them invariabb depreciate and cause monetary crises. The third alternative would mean returning to the gold stand ard which, in today's "enlight ened" era and within our "evolv ing" economic structure, is consid ered "passe" and "old-fashioned."

Thus, in the present political context, monetary reform will con sist of devaluation (and/ or reval uation more recently) and default on debts, or artificial reserve ex pansion and the "amortization" of debts or, more probably, a combi nation of both. What is the difference between default and "amortization?" Consider the example of a man whose expenditures have for some time been exceeding his income. He has in effect been running a deficit. He finds himself with more short-term claims against him than he has liquid assets. If he refuses to liquidate assets and finds a way to default on his short-term claims, the loss falls directly on his credi tors. (When governments default on their creditors, they call it de valuation.) But what if the man refinances his short-term obligations by printing IOU's far in excess of his assets, and offers interest on this new "medium of exchange"? What if this new "medium of exchange"

is then used as an "asset" by cred1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 247 itors who, in turn, print IOU's against it and distribute these as direct claims to goods? Here the loss falls on all those who are in the domain of the coun terfeiters, and who must suffer the effects of artificially rising prices. (When the government thus cre ates fiat money in this way, they call the process "amortization".) From this example, the follow ing conclusion can be drawn rela tive to governments: any form of debt default falls squarely on the shoulders of the creditors, Le., on the citizens of creditor govern ments. Any form of debt "amorti zation", however, falls indiscrimi nately on the shoulders of all those individuals within the monetary sphere of those governments par ticipating in an international monetary system of debt "amorti zation." No ring of international counterfeiters has ever been, or could ever be, more of a threat to individuals and their wealth than is the IMF in its move toward in ternational monetary "reform."

The frightening Prospect of an International Debt In the past, devaluation and de fault on excessive debt has been the method most used to eliminate debt. But, given an international system of artificial reserve expan sion, the issuance of credit and the "amortization" of debts may be exp'ected to give rise to the specter of an international debt. The possibility of an interna tional debt is not a pleasant one to contemplate. Like a national debt that continues to grow without re straint through continuous refi nancing, an international debt would soon become uncontrollable and self-perpetuating. The victims of such debt "amor tization" must ultimately be indi viduals: taxpayers to the degree that the debt is financed directly or repaid; consumers to the degree that the debt is refinanced indi rectly through the inflationary method of money creation; or creditors if and when (or to the degree that) the debt is ultimately repudiated.

Given the choice between "amor tization" and default as methods of dealing with the problem of debt, and given the inflationary policies that governments are determined to follow, it makes little difference what kind of monetary "reform" is implemented. Our monetary au thorities are only haggling over who should be the victims of their debt creation - foreigners or na tionals. Rational and morally concerned individuals will not cheer their government for shifting the bur den of their debt onto foreign citi zens through the process of debt default and devaluation. On the 248 THE FREEMAN April other hand, given debt "amortiza tion," the citizens of all countries will suffer the inevitable result of more taxation and more inflation. Thus an individual will pay taxes, and on top of that the hid den tax of inflation for domestic progra,ms, and on top of that an inflationary tax for world expen ditu.res, and on top of that the in flationary tax for interest on all inflationary debts both domestic and international.

Toward an International Fiat Reserve System It is not an easy thing to elimi nate gold from a monetary system and replace it with the continuously depreciating promises of paper money and paper "assets." All such money substitutes at one time de rived their value from and were dependent on the market or ex change value of commodities. It takes a lot of time and a lot of talking to convince men to accept artificial values as distinguished from the market-determined values in exchange. In America, Policy Makers have had nearly two cen turies in which to propagate their monetary theories and institution alize them within the policies of state. The result has been a slow erosion and obscuring of gold's role in the monetary systems of man. The monetary system that lies at the end of the Policy Maker's theories is an international fiat re serve system. The foot in the door that opens the way to this system is the SDR.

The U.S. proposal to replace gold with the SDR amounts to just such a proposal. (Whether or not "SDR" is the final name given to a fiat reserve asset· is unimportant. What is important is simply whether that asset derives its val ue realistically or arbitrarily.) But the U.S. knows that governments will not simply give up their gold overnight. And while it is true the so-called "pro-gold" countries have no intention of giving up their gold, the role of gold can be so diminished within the future mon etary system that it will no longer serve as a protection against arti fichU monetary expansion, even to the limited degree that it has in recent years. An "opposition" that is in basic agreement with U.S. theories of artificial credit expan sion cannot be expected to properly defend gold's. role in any future international monetary system. If there is to be a "meeting of the minds" on international mone tary reform, it will come through compromise - and tha t compro mise must lessen gold's role in the future. Worse, if this compromise is achieved, it will establish an un precedented potential for world in flation.

1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 249 International Demonetization What will be the nature of this compromise? Given the theories of world Policy Makers, the most probable compromise would be to issue, as "legal tender" notes, SDR's backed by a fractional amount of gold. The effect of such an agreement will concede to the IMF the power to create reserves and set in motion the unrestricted workings of an international frac tional reserve system. Just as gold was demonetized in the U.S. through the method of fractional reserve banking, the Policy Makers will attempt to de monetize gold internationally. A sequence of events typical of what one might expect from Policy Makers would be for them to ad vocate the establishment of a cel?- tral bank (the IMF) that has the power to create reserve assets, de fine the asset in gold to give it credibility (fractionally backing the asset with a percentage of gold) and, in the name of "econo mizing" gold, increase SDR allot ments, thereby reducing and even tually eliminating the gold back ing, thus facilitating the constant increase in fiat reserves.

Ultimately this system would eliminate any objective limitations on monetary expansion, thereby surrendering monetary policy into the collective hands of a world body the monetary heads of which would subjectively decide which nations will be given the "special right" to consume goods and at whose expense. Simply Repetitious This is not a prediction of com ing events. It is simply an example of the methods Policy Makers would most likely advocate in or der to achieve their goal. Notice that there is nothing innovative about the method of creating a fiat instrument, arbitrarily decreeing its value by force, then proceeding through fractional reserve bank ing and monetary expansion to sys tema tically undermine the accept ability it had enjoyed by reason of its gold backing. It has all been done before. These men are not innovators. They are simply repetitious! They would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. But today's Policy Makers are dangerous. They have the power of government force be hind all the theories they propa gate. And at the end of their the ories awaits chaos.

Given today's political context, an international fiat reserve sys tem must ultimately add to mass ive world inflation as governments are inclined to spend more and more. This must lead to the even tual collapse of the international monetary system and with it the economies of the world.

250 THE FREEMAN Apri The Real Meaning of Monetary Reform Monetary crises are not born from nature, they are made man-made. As long as governments contin ue to adopt policies of inflationary finance, the monetary systems of the world will be in pei'petual dis integration. This disintegration will lead to crises of greater scope and intensity, recurring at shorter intervals, while the meetings on monetary reform become a way of life as Policy Makers offer only variations of their destructive and futile theories. As long as governments con tinue their policies of artificial monetary expansion there can be no such thing as monetary reform. To reform means to abandon those policies which have proven to be unj ust and incorrect. Fundamental monetary reform means that gov ernments would have to abandon their policies of inflationary fi nance. The essence of contemporary monetary policy is the employment of inflationary finance, which means injustice to individuals who must bear the brunt of the default and "amortization" of government debt, and the continuous depreci ation in the value of their curren cies. Further, it means that indi viduals will be forced to suffer the unnecessary and harmful effects of continuous recessions and de pressions.

Until fundamental reform il achieved, the indi vid ual will re, main the source of governmen1 financing. One can easily see thai the source is being more and morE exploited as governments resort tc greater and more extensive polio cies of artificial monetary expan· sion. If fundamental reform does not occur, it is only a matter of time until individuals and private prop erty are squandered in an infla tionary system of waste. In the last analysis, real mone tary reform must consist of re turning to a gold standard. But there are preconditions to be met before a gold standard can be es tablished as a lasting monetary system. Men must understand what money is. They must rediscover why gold is the most effective me diurn of exchange and means of saving. And men must discover what money is not. They must un derstand that by accepting a mon etary unit of value by decree, they are not only condoning theft, but are sanctioning the instrument of their own monetary and economic destruction.

When men have understood this, they will want to return to the gold standard. But the gold standard cannot 1973 THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS 251 survive in an economy mixed with socialist controls and vaguely de fined individual freedoms. Men must rediscover the virtues of the gold standard; and men will not rediscover the virtues of the gold standard until they rediscover the virtues of capitalism. Men will not rediscover the virtues of capitalism until they identify the nature of man's rights and the injustices of government-initiated force and coercion. If the gold standard is to return to this country, it will return on the wings of capitalism and not before. If one wishes to fight for eco nomic and monetary stability, one must also fight for capitalism. If one wishes to fight for capitalism, one must fight for man's rights. If one wishes to engage in this fight, the battle lines are clear: one must engage in an intellectual battle to displace the theories held by his intellectual adversaries - the ad vocates of policies based on coercion. II IDEAS ON LIBERTY Benefits oj Money THE EMERGENCE of money was a great boon to the human race.

Without money - without a general medium of exchange - there could be no real specialization, no advancement of the economy above a bare primitive level. With money, the problems of indivisi bility and "coincidence of wants" that plagued the barter society all vanish. The establishment of money conveys another great benefit. Since all excbanges are made in money, all the exchange-ratios are expressed in money, and so people can now compare the mar ket worth of each good to that of every other good. If a TV set exchanges for 3 ounces of gold, and an automobile exchanges for 60 gold ounces, then everyone can see that 1 automobile is "worth" 20 TV sets on the market. These exchange-ratios are prices, and the money-commodity serves as a common denominator for all prices. Only the establishment of money-prices on the market allows the development of a civilized economy, for only they per mit businessmen to calculate economically .... Such calculations guide businessmen, laborers, and landowners, in their search for monetary income on the market. Only such calculations can allo cate resources to their most productive uses - to those uses that will most satisfy the demands of consumers.

MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, What Has Government Done to Our Money?

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK BERNARD H. SIEGAN'S Land Use Without Zoning (D. C. Heath and Co., Lexington Books, $10) is one of the most difficult compendiums of intensely analytical prose that this reader has ever encountered. To get past the detail to the gen eralizations entails hacking one's way with a machete through an undergrowth that offers briars, burrs and thorns on every branch. But when one has come out into the clear one has the feeling that Mr. Siegan has accomplished something that will stand as a landmark for the rest of our cen tury. Mr. Siegan got into his subject during years spent as an attorney specializing in real estate prob lems in Chicago. He was impressed with the fact that the land plan ners who· have been responsible for the idea that you can zone a community for beauty and gra cious living almost never suc252 JOHN CHAMBERLAIN ceed in acting as the disinterested judges which they fancy them selves to be. They are necessarily in politics up to their ears, with pressures beating in upon them from all sides. In suburbs where life styles have already been fixed they may not do badly, for in such circumstances they are merely called upon to endorse patterns that are part of an accepted status quo. But in big cities where life styles vary and the needs of com merce are many, there can be no standards by which every pro posal can be measured.

Market surveys costing thou sands of dollars may be necessary. Who has the wisdom to decide on priorities? There are questions of compatibility, property values, traffic, existing use, Utopian ex pectations, future growth, conser vation, nuisances, the need for schools, and general economic feas ibility. The whole thing becomes 1973 LAND USE WITHOUT ZONING 253 a political struggle, and those with the biggest clout at the polls or in the councils of the dominant polit ical party must win. The strong est, it is per haps unnecessary to add, are not always the ones with the most cultivated esthetic sensi bilities. The Houston Example Having witnessed the trials of the zoning planner in Chicago, Mr. Siegan looked about him for a city tha t has managed to get along without zoning laws. He found one in Houston, Texas. The University of Chicago Law School gave him a research fellowship in law and economics, and he was off to Texas to make some empirical studies on the spot. His investigations not only took him to Houston, where "planning" is left to the profes sional subdivision developers, but to Dallas, a community that de pends on zoning both for its sub urbs and its downtown business sections. What he found is pre sented in massed detail that can be extremely bewildering. But when one has finished with the in tricate statistical columns and the graphs one realizes that zoning is one of the great "liberal" hoaxes of our time.

The fact is that Houston and its suburbs, which have always re j ected zoning boards and the eter nal struggle for "variances" and amended rules, do just as well as Dallas, and even a little better. In Dallas they tell you where you can and cannot put up a highrise of fice building; in Houston there are no geographical restrictions. So what happens? The Houston sky line is just as orderly as the one in Dallas. The Houston business section is contained in one big self-created "district." In Dallas there are two "districts." The ef fect of architectural comeliness is more or less the same in both cities. And neither yields to the other in convenience. Restrictive Covenanfs Beyond the business area Hous ton tends to be a "single-family" town. The residential areas, many of which have restrictive cove nants of a voluntary nature (you accept the space rules put into the contract by the developer), are neat and orderly. Gas stations and shops have not invaded the back streets; they couldn't make a go of it economically if they did.

Land values have proved effective in separating business and indus trial real estate from the single family lots. Houston is an indus trial town, but both its heavy and light industry stick close to the major truck arteries, the railroads, and the docking facilities. The city has not been "Manhattan ized," which means that the apart254 THE FREEMAN April rnent houses have not taken over even where one might expect peo ple to go in for apartment living. As for billboards, they are where thousands of motorists need them for information. The citizens of Dallas, who have accepted zoning, can't boast of any amenities (aside, maybe, from Nieman Marcus ) that may not be found in "anarchic" Houston. Dallas is a single-family home town, too. But the virtues of reg ulation provide nothing that Houston's voluntaristic approach does not offer in comparable pro fusion and at less cost. Can one draw a generalized con clusion from the fact that rents in Houston are lower than in Dallas?

Mr. Siegan obviously thinks that one can. The conclusion would seem to be that Houston offers more variety for less rental money than Dallas without debasing its land value structure by charging less for home acreage. Mr. Sie gan's tables are complicated, but this is what they seem to tell us. The Voluntary Urban Pattern Other generalizations follow from Mr. Siegan's study of the two Texas towns. The absence of land use restrictions is financially rewarding to a community because it allows for a greater develop ment. Where the negative action of zoning curtails construction and drives business and employ ment away, the real estate tax col lections suffer. There is less mon ey to pay for parks and schools. This, says Mr. Siegan, is an ex tremely high price to pay for forc ibly maintaining the urban pat tern which, as the experience of Houston demonstrates, can be pre served by voluntary means. The best fiscal zoning, so Mr. Siegan insists, is no zoning.

The only people who really bene fit from zoning are the planners themselves. They make careers of it, which pays off in ego trips if not in money. The planning they do, however, is more improviza tion than planning, for zoning laws are invariably the resultant of pressures exerted on planning boards by a medley of politicians, owne'rs, courts, do-gooders, do badders, and general busybodies. Speaking of land use legisla tion, Mr. Siegan says the planning of large areas is repugnant to the intelligence. Any state agency is bound to have only the most cur sory knowledge about local condi tions. Just evaluating the poten tial uses and demands for a frac tion of a mile within a metropoli tan area may cost thousands of dollars. In the end, as Mr. Siegan shows, one comes out with less than the free market will provide if one lets things alone. Will our zone-crazy country take 1973 LAND USE WITHOUT ZONING 255 Mr. Siegan seriously? I am told that some 4,000 copies of his book have been sold, but surely it needs translation into a less complicated idiom if it is to have the maxi mum effect. Mr. Siegan explains himself most lucidly in interviews, which means that he is quite cap able of doing the necessary simpli fication if he so chooses.

~ SELECTED WORKS OF ARTE MUS WARD Edited with an Intro duction by Albert Jay Nock (New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1972, 295 pp., ,$7.50) (Available from the Nockian Society, 30 South Broad way, Irvington, New York 10533.) Reviewer: Robert M. Thornton Charles Farrar Browne, who used the pen name Artemus Ward, was born in 1834, at Waterford, Maine, and died in 1867. He was a reporter on the Cleveland Pla,in Dealer, edited Vanity Fair for a short time, and gained a reputa tion as a humorous lecturer. Ward was much more than this, Nock contends; he was "the first really great critic of American society. ... In fact," Nock continues, "the only one who seems to me to stand with him is another victim of pop ular misbranding in our own time, Mr. Dooley. In our appreciation of both these men it is interesting to see how far our instinct outruns our intelligence; we think they affect us by the power of their humour, when nine times out of ten whatactually atf ects us is the power of their criticism - and here, no doubt, we have the reason why their names persist .. For in stance, there is no great humour in Ward's oft-quoted observation on the fanatical extravaganzas of Abolitionism; what really inter ests us is its exact correspondence with history's verdict upon them."

Ward had the ability to keep a clear and steady view of things as they are. He was a Unionist, a friend of the Administration, yet his greatest praise of Lincoln was for remaining "unscared and un moved by Secesh in front of you and Abbolish at the back of you, each one of which is a little wuss than the other, if possible." Ward once said of writers like himself that "They have helped the truth along without encumbering it with themselves." As Ward saw Amer ica, writes Nock, "its god was Good Business; its monotheism was impregnable. Of man;s five fundamental social instincts only one, the instinct of expansion, had free play, and its range was limit less. The instincts of intellect and knowledge, of religion and morals, of beauty and poetry, of social life and manners, were disallowed and perverted." Ward had the true critical tem per - an easy, urbane, unruffled 256 THE FREEMAN April superiority to the subject of his criticism. "Its influence dissolves rancour; by its aid one surveys the hardness and hideousness of Baldwinsville in a truly Socratic spirit, with no resentment, and with no evangelical desire to ex postulate with the citizens of Baldwinsville upon their waste of life."

This book was first published in 1924, and it is good to see it back in print. ~ Foundation For Protest: A Fa ther's Letters to His Grown-Up Children by Frederic W. Overesch (516 West 34th St., New York, N. Y., Vantage Press 1972) 121 pp. $4.95. Revie'wed by Paul L. Poirot Fritz Overesch spent most of his first seventy years in advertising and market communications work and wants to share some of the things he has learned about the blessings of freedom and the mir acle of the market. Let his words tell the story: "It seems to me that these Laws of Creation, so well defined by Moses on the basis of past experience, pretty well govern the volun tary behavior of human beings regardless of religious faith or lack of it-regardless of economic theories - regardless of political philosophies. But human beings, born with free will and free choice, can choose whether or not to obey them ....

"The foundation for my protest is based on past experience and the mistakes of past generations recorded in 4,000 years of history. Consequently, my protests are not against those in the Establishment 'who fail to solve our current prob lems, but against the members of the Establishment who cont,inue to repeat the mistakes of the past . - which caused the problems in the first place . . .. "From all the years of recorded history, it seems self-evident that the greatest miracle of Creation' is that human beings were born to be free. And in all the Laws of Creation which accompanied the orderly nature of Creation some were designed to govern the be havior of human beings so they could be free to fulfill their pur pose in this great universe. "Once we stop violating the Laws of Creation - once we start working in harmony with those Laws, we shall make the same kind of progress in the improve ment of human behavior as we have in the field of science." ~ the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.5. MAY 1973 The European Communitiesand the Free Ec~momy J. Enoch Powell 259 Calling somethingan economic communitydoes not alter the political nature of the arrangement.

Freedom Is an UninsurableRisk Paul L. Poirot 269 The results of freedom cannot be classified or known in advance. Stubborn Facts and Hard Heads Edmund A. Opitz 275 The sooner we recognize that there are unchanging rules of life, the easier for us to enter into it. The Passing Parade How to find in commonplace things the miracle of the market. R. W. Demers 288 Evolutionand Liberty Ronald F. Cooney 290 A search for the "fittest" among the ideas of the Social Darwinists. Bretton Woods: 1944-1971 Paul Stevens 296 Bretton Woods is dead and an autopsy is called for to determine the cause of death. Seeds of Oppression Robert E. Hood 307 How governmf;nt welfare programs inevitably lead to abuse and oppression. SomethingElse FredericBastiat 309 When it comes to protectionism, are we better able than Robinson Crusoe to see its fallacy? Book Reviews: 315 "How to Start Your Own School" by Robert D. love "What You Cail Do About Inflation, Unemployment, Productivity, Profits, and Collective Bargaining" by lemuel R. Boulware Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON·ON·HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591·7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "Bretton Woods: 1944-1971."

THANK YOU for inviting me to dis cuss "The European Communities and the Free Economy." I do so the more gladly because I am sure that Britain's presence in or ab sence from the European economic communities is going to be one of the central questions in British politics in the coming months and years. Ten or twelve years ago, when British membership of the Euro pean Economic Communities was first raised, I was under the mis taken impression that the EEC was concerned with free trade. I now know that the first important fact to grasp about the EEC is From an address of February 13, 1973, before a group of ministers - The Remnant - and guests in New York City. that it has nothing to do with free trade. Free trade is the absence of barriers - of artificial barriers to trade between the citizens of the various countries, so that what ever may be the respective circum stances and the types of govern ment under which they live and the follies which those governments respecti vely commit, nevertheless the citizens on either side of the national frontiers may within those limitations enjoy the best return in exchange for that which they produce. In other words, it enables the citizen to make the best choices and obtain the best reward for what he produces and offers for exchange. That is what free trade is about. It is about 259 260 THE FREEMAN May helping those who belong· to differ ent political units nevertheless to exchange automa tically, often un consciously, and as freely as possi ble, the produce of their hands and their brains. And that, I repeat, has nothing to do with the EEC.

The· object of that organization, as the name denotes, is to create ,an economic community. Let us put it the· other way round; to create a common economy. Para doxical though it may appear, an economy is not a fact of economics. An economy is not an economic entity.N 0 amount of economic in formation supplied to a visitor from Mars would enable him to outline on a map of the world the various economies. Of course, he could draw attention to areas where he suspected there would be a maritime economy, a riverine economy, and so forth. But "the British economy," "the United States economy," "the European economy" would remain entirely unknown and invisible to him. In order to detect and define those, the information that he would require would be political. The Essence Is Political "The British economy" means the economic aspects of a political thing, the nation called Britain or the United Kingdom. "The econ omy of the United States" is not something derived from nature; it is about a political thing - the United States of America. When we talk about "the American econ omy," we are viewing from an economic aspect something of which the essence is political. It is not .economic facts that make the United States. It is political facts.

Therefore it is not surprising to find that the intention in the Treaty of Rome, as· it has been im plemented over the past 15 or 16 years, to create a European eco nomic community is a political intention. It is one hundred per cent politics and zero per cent economics. That is not to say that it is right or wrong, wise or fool ish, or that its results will be fortunate or unfortunate; but we must not be misled either by the alternative title, "Common Mar ket" - which the British (rather significantly) have hitherto pre ferred to use-or by the appear ance of the word "economic" in the title of this new political entity. Three months before the due date of British membership on January 1, 1973, the leaders of the nine countries concerned met in Paris and, among other de cisions, arrived at the conclusion that they intended to bring about "economic and monetary union" by 1980. I suppose that the politi cal intention behind the EEC could not have been more sharply de noted than by that assertion. Mon1973 THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE FREE ECONOMY 261 etary union? A single money, or the automatic convertibility of the respective national currencies?

That implies that there is only one government; for the behavior of money is affected or determined by government - and not merely by the direct monetary policies of government, but by all the deci sions that government takes, to intervene or not to intervene, to tax or not to tax, to spend or not to spend. All these have their effect on the value of the currency. One Money - One Government Therefore 'an area in which there is a single money - a single ness of purpose in all the ways in which government may influence the value of money - must mean that in that area there is one and only one government, one and only one political will. That is so obvi ous that it is superfluous to carry through the same proof again in the context of econom,ic union. In deed, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that economic and monetary union is a tautology: the same de gree of political unification is nec essary for monetary as for eco nomic union. This, then, is what is aimed at within seven years - so we are told by the representatives of the nine countries of the Com munity.

Already a very considerable de gree of political unification has taken place. Most people in Britain probably don't know it yet; but since the first of January Britain has had no trade policy. What, no trade policy? Yes, literally, no trade policy! Decisions which fall within the scope and definition of trade policy are no longer within the power of the British Govern ment or Parliament. Those politi cal decisions; that aspect of gov ernment, is now exercised else where and is withdrawn from the control of any purely British authority. So I am not drawing your atten tion to a speculative, hypothetical, ultimate development, but to a process implicit in the nature of the EEC itself, a process which by the very act of membership is car ried a large stride forward, a proc ess which is intended to be might ily accelerated - if not completed - in the years immediately ahead. What Sort of Government?

The immediate effect of politi cal unification is by no means un ambiguous in its economic conse quences. One is obliged to examine what may be the policies of the government which is to be set up within this new political unit. Will it be devoted to the free economy? Will it be bureaucratic? Will it be interventionist? The mere fact that there is to be a new political unit. does not predetermine what 262 THE FREEMAN May will be its policies and its pro clivities. But the effects upon the economic life of the component countries are already more far reaching than I think they suspect, and I should like to spend a mo ment on one very important effect, directly connected with the bid to produce political union and uni formity of economic policy within the Community. Inside a single nation, where there are no trade barriers and not merely the money but the economic policy is the same throughout, the economic balance - which is constantly altering between the various regions of that nation is restored by the movement of people and of re sources. If you could imagine, for example, the United Kingdom di vided into three, four, or five sep arate countries, each with its own government and each with its own money, then the balance between these economies would be main tained by the exchange rate be tween their respective currencies.

But as they are parts of one mon etary and political unit, the con sequence of economic change is a movement of resources and of peo ple which takes place freely in response to those forces. Out of this arises what we know as "the regional problem." Even within a single nation peo ple are so attached, for other than economic reasons, to their own area, to their own part of the coun try, to the historic region to which they belong, that they resent the economic consequences of the na tional unity which is theirs, and demand that the central govern ment shall take interventionist steps in order to defeat the effects of economic and political union, by making it appear more; favorable instead of less to conduct industry in a place which otherwise indus try would desert or giving prefer ences to areas which are economi cally less advantageous. The Regional Problem on an International Scale Bearing in mind that picture of the regional stresses within a uni tary nation, let us look at the European Economic Community.

We immediately see that the effect is bound to be the same on a larger scale. No longer will economic re lations among the members be equilibrated through the exchange of currencies. On the contrary, they will be equilibrated by the free and automatic movement of people and resources; and just be cause that collides with the fact of the enduring local and national affections of the various parts of the Community, regional policy is one of the big problem areas of EEC politics. It is as though, hav ing decided to achieve economic 1973 THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE FREE ECONOMY 263 union, the Community found itself obliged at the same time to undo or counteract what must necessar ily be the effects of political union. So we see straight from the begin ning a direct political impact on the member countries of the po litical intention which lies behind the formation and the extension of the EEC.

So I return to my question: what sort of government is this going to be which is implied by the nascent economic and mone tary union of the EEC? I've al ready given one indication. I have pointed out that the EEC has felt immediately moved to counteract the very economic consequences at which it purported to aim by using the power of the central authority to redistribute resources again, to falsify the economic data and to divert the economio forces within the enlarged community. But if we look at the character of the Community from the beginning, and at its background, I think we shall have little difficulty in dis covering what kind of government there will be, and what kind of policy will be pursued, in this new political entity. Three Communities I notice that very accurately, in the specification of my title, the plural was used - "the Economic Communities" - and indeed there are in fact three. There is not only the EEC itself, as it was set up by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. There is the Coal and Steel Community; and there is EURATOM, the atomic community. So let's have a look at those other two communi ties that make up the plural.

There is a high authority for the coal and steel industry through out the European Economic Com munity. What for? If the inten tion were the freest possible ex ploitation, in response to economic forces, of the coal and steel re sources of the Community, then the last thing which would be needed is an "authority," to do what the market will do of itself. When an authority is set up, that is a clear sign of intention to en sure that the economic forces do not produce their natural effect but that something else happens instead. Sure enough, the object of these two communities, the Atomic Community and the Coal and Steel Community, is not to ensure that the exploitation of the potentiali ties of coal and steel and atomic power occurs wherever and to the extent that it produces the highest return to the resources employed. If that were the object, no author ity would be necessary. The object is a political object. It is so to con trol both the location and the volume of production as to achieve 264 THE FREEMAN May an outcome different from the purely economic - in other words, a political outcome. Already the governments in all the countries of the Community are knee-deep in coal, steel, and atomic energy.

If those governments are to be unified within the Community, then the Community is bound to have an "authority" which will stand in relation to coal, steel, and atomic energy for the Community as a whole as the individual gov ernments have been doing hitherto for their respective territories.! In other words, it is plainly and wholly interventionist. Trade Policy Let us take trade policy as an other example. What is meant by saying - and we hear these words on the most respectable lips - that the new European entity will con stitute a "powerful" economic bloc, that it will wield economic power comparable with that of such giant economies as the United States or the Soviet Union. What does this mean, this talk of eco nomic power? In what sense would western Europe, with no internal tariff barriers, represent a power or force in the world? Not by trad ing freely, either inside its limits or across a common tariff against the outside world. The essence of trade is that one party to a trans action exercises no more power than the other party. Trade in it self is of all human relationships the most pure of any taint of the exercise of power; for trade takes place when mutual advantage is equal and opposite.

Yet "economic power" is very much what lies at the heart and intention of the creators and the magnifiers of the European Eco nomic Community. So what do they intend? How do you wield what is called "economic power"? Obviously, not by freeing economic activity and trade or by multiply ing the voluntary relationships be tween individuals in one part of the globe and in another. You do it by exercising political constraint over your own citizens in their trading activities, so that their behavior may in turn bring duress to bear upon the citizens of other countries. We witnessed in the 1930s what was meant by the exercise of "economic power": the deliberate use of a nation's ability, by mold ing the economic actions of its own citizens, to bring leverage to bear upon others. This is not the attitude or the approach of a new government with ambitions for freedom of trade and intercourse.

It is the language of a neW gov ernment with strictly political am bitions, where economic welfare will be subordinated to politidtl intention.

1973 THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE FREE ECONOMY 265 Taxation Policies Uniform Throughout Turn now to taxation. One of the principles of the European Economic Community is that tax ation, and indeed all the other aspects of government which have an economic consequence in the life of the citizen, shall progres sively be harmonized throughout the Community. We are at the moment enacting in Britain a Value-Added-Tax. Whether good or bad, this taxation is unparal leled in the course of the last 500 years; it is a tax which we cannot repeal, whether we like it or not; for it is a condition of member ship of the European Economic Community that all the countries must have a Value-Added-Tax. In due course, the same logic will re quire that they shall all have the same Value-Added-Tax. In every sort of government ac tion which has economic conse quences, the European Economic Community aims at attaining uni formity. We are, therefore, en gaged in creating a government, a new government, a supergovern ment, which will impose upon all the citizens of that area a system of taxation, a system of social wel fare and insurance, a system of law wherever it touches economic affairs - uniform throughout.

I ask: is that likely to be mini mal or is it likely to be maximal? Is it likely that harmonization will take place downwards or that it will take place upwards? Will in tervention be raised to the level of the maximum which prevails any where in the Community or re duced to the minimum which is anywhere to be had? Well, I can tell you that in Britain, when Rnx ious souls inquire, "Is there any truth in the rumor that in the European Economic Community we would have to dismantle the Health Service?", the reply is al ways confidently given, HOh, no, no! What we expect will happen will be that in due course the rest of the Community will imitate us." That's how political harmonization takes place: in the nature of things, it takes place in an upward and not a downward direction. The Nature of the Animal Let us now have a look at the animal itself. Thus far, I have dis cussed in the abstract the-political unit, the new political unit, the new government, the new super government. But who are they who comprise this government? They don't at all closely resemble the present government, for example, of Britain. Those who make up the present government of Britain, for all their faults and failings, sit in the House of Commons and are answerable to the House of Commons in the sense that they 266 THE FREEMAN Ma,y may be called to debate there, and certainly are ultimately answer able to the electorate, in the sense that the electorate can turn them out. The government of the Euro pean Economic Community will not be like that at all.

The government of the Euro pean Economic Community con sists of two parts. One part of this government is the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy which created it, the bureaucracy which inspired its extension and which is already busily engaged, on an ever-increas ing, Parkinsonian scale, in work ing out plans for harmonizaton. This is a bureaucracy which is not answerable to any democratic au thority whatsoever anywhere in the Community. It thus differs from the civil services of the re spective governments, which, after all, are the servants of those gov ernments although they may some times behave more like masters. The bureaucracy of Brussels, the bureaucracy of the Community, the Commission is entrenched in the Treaty. It is part of the con stitution. It has its own inherent power and its own independent source of growth and of authority. The other part of the govern ment is a combination of the na tional governments, meeting to gether in conclave to arrive at bargains among themselves to their common or mutual advantage, a sort of lowest common de nominator of the national execu tives of the respective countries.

But when they are together they are not the same as when they are separate. When they are separate, they each return to their makers. The British Government at home behaves as the British Govern ment. Parliament has to explain and to argue; the supporters have to defend their actions to their electors; the electors then have the last word. The Whole Differs from the Parts Not so when governments join to become a collective. The com bining of nine governments does not leave those' nine governments unaltered. They become a tenth thing, something new. The deci sions which they take in common are decisions for which none of them is -separately and independ ently responsible. They are all, as individual governments, irrespon ~ible in respect to the decisions which they take together; and each and everyone of them can say, "But, of course, this wasn't our decision. No doubt, if we had been free, we wouldn't have done exactly this. But you see, we had to agree, because we are a Com munity."

Both parts, therefore, of the government of the new political entity are irresponsible. And I 1973 THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE FREE ECONOMY 267 have to ask you this question: is it more likely that a bureaucracy and an executive which are not democratically responsible will be less or more greedy of power, less or more ready to find new work to do, than national governments, which at least in the last resort, have to render account for. their actions to those whose activities and lives are affected? So, I conclude that the Euro pean Economic Community repre sents the erection of a new.. govern ment, a new political unit with a new government, and that the whole spirit and trend of this new unit and new government will be to increase the power of govern ment vis-a.-vis the citizen and to increase the scope and range of government intervention in the economic life of the citizen throughout the area which is cov ered. As I said when I started, this is not about free trade. This is not about economic freedom. It is about the regulation of trade and the regulation of economic life.

A National Interest I want to leave this reflection with you in conclusion. It is a reflection which has been borne in upon me with new sharpness by the many valuable encounters and discussions I have enj oyed here in the United States during the past nine days. Though we hold in common many beliefs and princi ples, these are seen by each of us in the context of his own national background. We err if we imagine that the laws of economics apply merely to individuals, and that the aggregations of mankind into nations and societies is the mere totaling of individuals. The case for a free economy - the case for which we contend~ all of us in our respective situations-the case for economic freedom does not depend upon an artificial picture of hu manity. The case consists in what the application of those principles can·· do in particular societies, the societies into which men are actu ally organized as sovereign na tions; and the story of Britain in the European Economic Commun ity really illustrates this.

The decision that Britain has to make - and we haven't made it yetI - is essentially a national de1 At the last general election, Mr. Heath said that such a thing as membership in the Community could not come about without the full-hearted consent of Par liament and people. The measure was forced through Parliament by paper-thin majorities and no one, however enthusi astic for British membership, has ever dared to claim· that· there is even a bare majority in favor amongst the public out side Parliament. In those circumstances, what has happened must be regarded as provisional and I do not believe that the electorate can be denied the opportunity if it wishes to make this the deciding factor in a decision at a general election.

268 THE FREEMAN May cision, a national political decision. The question is: By whom are we going to be ruled? So, as one who labors with you in the same field, I find myself opposing Britain's membership in the European Eco nomic Community - indeed, be lieving that it cannot be brought permanently to pass - not primar ily on the ground that it will operate to increase the povver of intervention by government over a great area of humanity, but be cause of its political unrealism: that! it assumes a will to be gov. erned where a will to be governed in the new unit does not exist. Economic laws, of course, are independent of human volition; but like the other laws of nature which we cannot change, we seek to place a true interpretation and use of such laws at the disposal of our fellow citizens. And we do that - I believe, all of us - not from general and abstract consid erations of the welfare of the total of humanity, but because we our selves enter as members into the fate and destiny of a specific hu man society. It is in that sense, though only in that sense, that I have always claimed that the eco nomic in human life is subordinate to the political. It is a servant, a servant in the sense that any of the other natural forces is a ser vant if rightly used. That is why the politician has the duty to his own society to insure that that society understands the necessary consequences of the policies which it adopts or rejects. It is because I want to preserve to the people of Britain the opportunity still to take that kind of decision for Britain, that I, for my part, have said "No" to the creation of this new superstate and supergovern ment-at least insofar as Britain is intended to be a part of it. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Freedom to Cooperate INTERNATIONAL CONFL,ICTS are inherent in the systems of inter ventionism and socialism and cannot be solved unless the systems themselves are abolished. The principles of national welfare as conceived by our progressive planners conflict with the principles of international cooperation and division of production. If inter national cooperation is to be restored, the policies of government interventionism and socialism must be abandoned.

IIANS F. SENNHOLZ, How Can Europe Survive?

UNDER "no-fault" auto insurance, presumably every owner would be covered and have to pay premi ums, and most claims for damages would be drawn against the pool, regardless of whose negligence might have caused or contributed to the casualty. In many respects, such "no-fault" insurance resem bles Workmen's Compensation and is .in keeping with other develop ments in our welfarist society. Formerly, an individual was allowed to assume· the risks and responsibilities of caring for him self in his old age. Then came "Social Security," and rare today is the individual who is allowed exemption from this compulsory program. Compulsory· unemployment in surance now tends to relieve indi viduals of full responsibility for earning a livelihood. PAUL L. POIROT Consistent with universal com pulsory schooling are various gov ernmental child care and family assistance programs. Health care and medicare insur ance programs have been largely collectivized and rendered com pulsory.

Plans are being discussed for governmental remuneration of any victim of crime, regardless of con tributory negligence by the victim - or by the police force instituted to suppress crime. One after another, the risks of living, that once might have been assumed by the individual or in sured against privately if he so desired, have been brought under compulsory insurance programs which cost a· typical taxpaying family $2000 a year. This amount is increasing and is now some three times what it was a decade 269 270 THE FREEMAN May earlier. Further, this figure is over and beyond the costs of any in surance policies still privately car ried such as life insurance, home owner's fire and casualty, automo bile liability and casualty, private pension and medical plans, and so forth. Some private insurance costs are loaded into rental rates and carrying charges on mort gages and other loans, or as fringe benefits of employment, so that the customer may not be fully aware how much he pays privately for insurance - any more than he would know how much of his tax bills go toward compulsory insur ance coverage of one kind or another.

The Age of Socialism The point is that many Ameri cans, from those living below the so-called poverty level on up through middle and higher income groups, literally are being insured to death. The· age of compulsive and compul~ory protectionism is upon us, and another name for this is socialism. It ia not insurance. A voluntary insurance contract is a viable and sound protective device for the pooling of the classi fiable and calculable risks people encounter in life. In a competitive market economy where savings may be privately accumulated and invested and owned - where pri vate property is respected - men have long since devised coopera tive ways of insuring themselves against various contingencies . . But the application of the insur ance principle depends upon a fairly accurate and reliable method of grouping the risks into classes. In the case of life insurance for instance, a person of a given age and normal life expectancy would not want to be pooled at the same premium rate charged persons of another race or society or of ad vanced years with a life expectancy much less than his own. Nor would Mr. Average want to be pooled with a group known to have a poor medical history or with per sons engaged in a particularly haz ardous occupation. Such classes of risks each would be expected to have its own premium for life in surance, based upon fairly accu rate act,uarial tables or experience ratings. Otherwise, anyone with longer life expectancy would more than likely carry his own risk stay out of such high-cost pools perhaps form a new company with others in a class of risk compar able to his own. Men acting volun tarily in open competition thus tend to serve and satisfy their respective and variable needs, each buying as much life insurance as he chooses at competitive rates be fitting his class of risk.

Supposedly, however, there is something wrong with such vol1978 FREEDOM IS AN UNINSURABLE RISK 271 untary life insurance: it fails to cover those who do not want to be insured and who would not, or could not, voluntarily pay premi ums at competitive rates. In other words, if life insurance is volun tary, some persons may choose to use their property for purposes deemed by them to be more im portant than insurance - possibly for food, clothing, shelter, recre ation, some other form of saving and investment; perhaps even for cigarettes, liquor, dr'tlgs, gambling or who knows what. Not Like Insurance Under the Social Security pro gram of the United States, the Federal government insists that nothing· shall be more important to an individual during his work ing lifetime in "covered employ ment" than that 11.7 per cent of the first $10,800' of his annual earnings (1973 rates) be paid into the Social Security pool, regard less of his current needs for food, clothing, shelter, or whatever.

True, the OASDI premium pay ments may vary depending upon the amount of one's earnings; and the eventual benefit payments also may be related to one's record of past earnings. But there also are marked departures from the es tablished insurance principle of grouping the risks into compara ble classes. For instance, the premium rate is the same for a youth in his twenties as for a person in his sixties. The coverage is the same for those who want less in surance, or none, as for those who want more; the same for all occu pations, races,· colors, creeds, re gardless of actuarial histories. Such unrealistic groupings explain why this sort of an insurance pro gram has been made compulsory; it simply couldn't attract volun tary participation. Hard-to-Classify Risks The principles that apply in the case of life insurance also relate to other types of insuranc,e: fir,e, theft, liability, collision, hail, windstorm, flood, malpractice, and so on. If a program of voluntary insurance is to be practical, then the risks must be measurable and more or less easily classifiable' so that rates may fairly reflect the costs for a particular class of risk.

And in some cases, such as hail or hurricane or flood insurance, the risks may differ so much from one geographic area to another, or may be so great in any given area, that an owner might simply elect to take his loss if and when it oc curs rather than pay a very high annual premium. Following a local hailstorm or hurricane or flood of disastrous proportions, there is likely to be a clamor for Federal aid - which would amount to com272 'THE FREEMAN May pulsory insurance of these hard to-classify risks on a nationwide basis. Another principle of sound in surance is that the policyholder (and presumably the one who pays the premium) has a morally and legally insurable interest in the property in question. In other words, it is definitely to his in terest to see the property main tained intact in its prevailing use rather than lost or destroyed. He'd rather have his home or business property as it stands than to have it burned down for the insurance.

He'd rather have his actual and anticipated earnings from the market place than to collect on his life or disability or unemployment policy. Some persons are known to be poor moral risks for certain types of insurance, and no one of sound mind and character willing ly chooses to be pooled with such high-risk cases when he buys his own insurance. Breakdown of Morals The proliferation of compulsory government insurance programs. in any society seems to be closely linked with the moral deteriora tion of the people, though the pro grams are seldom if ever ini tia ted or promoted on any such premise. On the contrary, Social Security, Workmen's Compensation, Unem ployment Payments, Medicare, Disability Benefits, Veterans Pen sions, Family Welfare, No-Fault Auto Insurance, Flood Relief, and the like invariably are launched upon good intentions to help the hapless and worthy poor - usually at taxpayer expense. But if actu arial tables tell us anything for certain, the fact is that subsidiz ing a weakness aggravates and accentuates it. The "worthy poor"

multiply in proportion to the hand outs made available - which is a ' condition known in the insurance business as a poor moral risk. The same result may be expected of any compulsory insurance pro gram: excessive demand for the benefits, and no one volunteering to pay the premiums. The Human Situation The utopian dream of living ex clusively upon the fruits of the labor of others is forever doomed to disappointment. And the reason is clear. There are no "others" who want to work and produce and save entirely for someone else's satisfaction rather than for their own purposes. Socialism sadly misreads the human situation, presuming self-interest to be no significant feature of human na-j ture. "All for each and each for all," is the basic socialist slogan, and it does have great emotional appeal; wouldn't that be nice! "To each his own," however, is 1973 FREEDOM IS AN .UNINSURABLE RISK 273 a slogan far more consistent with the nature of man. He is motivated by self-interest, and often, if not always, can understand that it is in his own best interest to serve efficiently the most urgent inter ests of others. Thereupon rests the case for private ownership of property, voluntary exchange, open competition and government lim ited to policing the market. This affords the maximum or optimum cooperation possible among men who are not perfect saints. The consumer may be king, but only if he is guided by the economics of production rather than by the fictions of consumerism or the fully insured life. What is not pro duced may not be consumed. And what is not privately owned and controlled is not realistically in surable.

An Insurable Interest So, we come once more to the principle of insurance against cas ualties and the reason why the principle is inoperable under so cialism. If there is property, a portion of it may be invested (pooled, if you prefer) to cover the probability of losing all of it. Now, who is interested in covering that sort of risk? Have you ever seri ously considered buying a policy to insure your neighbor's life or his house against loss by fire? Probably not. You insure your life or your own property against such losses, and you do it only because tha~ property, or the loss of it, is all yours. The Preamble to the Constitu tion of the United States reads like an insurance policy: We, the people . . . in order to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution ....

Here we have the one thing and the only thing in which all the peo ple of a society have a common insurable interest: protecting peaceful persons and their activi ties against criminal intervention - in order to secure the blessings of liberty. The Founding Fathers thus gave us the formula for limi ted government - compulsory in surance against criminal inter vention. In contrast, the formula of com pulsory collectivism - "to each ac cording to need" - would presume to insure against every contin gency, thereby precluding the for ever uncertain blessings of liberty. Governmentally managed "welfar ism" has been thoroughly tested, in the United States and in other nations. All the evidence indicates that this leveling-down process eventually strips the individual of 274 THE FREEMAN May his dignity, choice, incentive, prop erty, and personality - a compuls ory insurance scheme with its premiums taken "from each ac cording to ability."

Many today have forgotten that the Pilgrim Fathers on the shores of Massachusetts, as well as the first colonists of Virginia at J a,mestown, tried this· communal form of insurance. Out of their common product and storehouse they set up a system of rationing. And the result was famine - until they abandoned the socialist for mula and resorted to private own ership, competition, and trade. The lesson seems to be that the most trustworthy way to insure one's life, or property, or anything else one possesses of value is to put that property and those talents to productive use. By thus serving others, one earns from them all the insurance he deserves. If a person would be free, he has to assume the responsibili ties and uncertainties of open compe tition and peaceful exchange. These essential conditions of free dom, as variable as the thoughts or the fingerprints of individ uals, are not subject to classification, nor can the results be calculated or known in advance. This is why freedom is an uninsurable risk. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY Voluntary Cooperation IN A WORLD of voluntary social cooperation through mutually beneficial exchanges, where one man's gain is another' man's gain, it is obvious that great scope is provided for the develop ment of social sympathy and human friendships. It is the peace ful, cooperative society that creates favorable conditions for feelings of friendship among men.

The mutual benefits yielded by exchange provide a major in centive to wouldbe aggressors (initiators of violent action against others) to restrain their aggression and cooperate peace fully with their fellows. Individuals then decide that the ad vantages of engaging in specialization and exchange outweigh the advantages that war might bring. MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, Man, ECO'nomy, and State EDMUND A. OPITZ larll I.all. ABOUT a dozen years ago, the London magazine, Contemporary Rev'iew, published an article by Colin Welch, a new Member of Parliament, reflecting on his first year at Whitehall. "Coming afresh to Parliament in this silver age," he wrote, "it is impossible not to feel one is too late. The great de bate is over. The voice now silent was a great and uniquely English one: that of Milton and Locke, of Burke, Mill, Gladstone and Morley - [it was the voice] of liberalism, with a small '1'."

Liberalism with a small "I" is the philosophy of the eighteenth century 'Vhigs which inspired our Founding Fathers and the men who wrote The Federalist. Adam Smith outlined a system of eco nomics to go with Whiggery, pro ducing a science which has been The Reverend Mr. Opitz is a member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Educa tion, a seminar lecturer, and author of the book, Religion and Capitalism: AIIies Not En emies. amplified in our day by such men as Ludwig Mises and F. A. Hayek. Present-day spokesmen for this tradi tion generally call themselves Conservatives or Right Wingers, for the word Liberalism has been captured by the opposition. Certain of our contemporaries have turned·· this old liberal phi losophy inside out, but they have kept the label. Contemporary Lib eralism is an ideology which is the very reverse of classical liberalism. Today's Liberal has his ideologi cal heroes: chiefly Marx, Veblen, and John Maynard Keynes. Today's Liberal is a man of the Left; he seeks political power in order to impose some sort of a "Deal" on the nation. He demands that gov ernment manage the economy; he finds religion useful only insofar as the churches focus on social ac tion ; he wants to control the schools in order to condition stu dents to play their role in society.

275 276 THE FREEMAN May The contemporary Liberal has been described as a man with both feet planted firmly in mid-air. A Man of the Right I hope I have said enough to broadly identify these two schools of thought, Conservatism and Lib eralism. And to let you know where I stand, I am a man of the Right, a Conservative. I'm a Conservative, first of all, because men of this persuasion approach life with a healthy re spect for its variety, its complex ity, and its mysteries. Life is full of stubborn facts; reality is very much what it is and our wishes will not make it otherwise. It would be convenient on occasion if the multiplication table did not insist relentlessly that three times two is six; but the answer is al ways six. The facts are equally stubborn in other departments of life - not only in the natural and biological sciences, but in the re ligious, ethical, economic, and po litical sectors as well. We are surrounded by inexorable regu larities, laws which we cannot re write because we did not write them in the first place. We must accommodate ourselves to these laws,in order to succeed. But there are those among us with hard heads, and this thought does not penetrate.

Somebody said that if you ask a psychotic "How much is three times two?" he'll give you a defi nite answer. He knows three times two is seven. Ask a neurotic the same question, and this nervous chap is uncertain; the answer might be five or six or seven, but he's not sure. The Liberal knows the answer; he knows that three times two is six, but he resents it! Getting the Message Each of us, as he makes his way through life, might be compared to a blind man at the seashore using Braille to read an important message in the sand, written in code. The mall feels a sense of urgency because the tide is rising and he knows that the waves will soon obliterate the message. But the blind man restrains his anxi ety, knowing that he must not in his haste thrust his fingers roughly· against the letters in the sand lest his heavy handedness disturb and erase them. He must make every move with great deli cacy, touching the sand just firmly enough to trace the contours of each letter but not so heavily as to disturb the sand which forms them.

Tactile contact with irregulari ties in the sand puts the blind man in possession of a cluster of words. He decodes the words and gets the message; and thinking about the message, he gets its meaning.

1973 STUBBORN FACTS AND HARD HEADS 277 Ufe's Meaning Life is like that; its meaning is not self-evident, nor is it forced upon us. As we grow up into life we feel an inner compulsion to decipher its mysteries, discover some of its regularities, align our lives with what we believe to be real. Our means for doing this are meager, compared to the immense complexity of the task. We possess a spark of intelligence, our in stincts are feeble, and we have spasmodic help from experience, tradition, and the conventional wisdom of our society. But with a little luck, we can decode the message and find its meaning. What are some of the things it tells us? It tells us that we live on a rest less planet, a globe where change goes on constantly. The continents float on a molten lake, and they slowly drift away from each other. The earth's crust fidgets with a deep anxiety and occasionally erupts to change the contours of the land. Erosion occurs and we lose huge chunks of the shoreline to the sea. Iron rusts, the dollar is devalued, and each one of us is a day older than he was yesterday.

Although we ourselves change without ceasing and live our lives amidst constant change, we never theless know that some things do not change. Some things are now what they always were and always will be.· I've referred to one· such, the multiplication table. The table of atomic numbers is another in stance of fixed relationships, im mune to change. In short, there is a realm where things· are perman ent, a realm of Being in contrast to the· realm of Becoming. Some things remain; they are beyond the reach of time, and so they do not grow old, nor do they decay or rust. Theism There is God - the same yester day, today, and forever. You've heard rumors that .God is dead. Certain conceptions of the deity are dead, and good riddance. The idea of God as a heavenly Santa CIaus or God as a Cosmic Bellhop --- these ideas are laid to rest and I hope they remain so. But the idea of an overarching meaning and purpose in the universe is not dead. This is a stubborn fact, and we find meaning and purpose in our own lives only as we come to terms with it.

Belief in God, or Theism, is not an easy philosophy, but the alter native to it - carried to its logical end - is impossible. Theism is the belief that a mental-spiritual di mension is at the very heart of things. It is the belief that Mind is ultimate, and not Matter. If we do not accept this position we are driven to affirm that Matter is ulti278 THE FREEMAN May mate, with Mind being a mere de rivative. But to say that Mind is a mere offshoot of matter is to down grade our own reasoning processes and to discredit any conclusions we might reach by taking thought. Antitheism makes Matter the master of Mind; it reduces the search for truth to the movement of material particles and thus re futes itself. Life Without God I believe that Theism is impor tant, not because theology is my bag, but because of what happens when belief in God goes. First off, we lose our minds! Our mental processes are reduced to the level of a secretion from a gland.

Secondly, we lose a proper goal for life. When a society loses con tact with the transcendent there will ensue a passionate pursuit of wealth and power. Every gain by the power-hungry nullifies freedom at that point; and the frantic pur suit of material gain will destroy the market economy. Thirdly, the materialistic philos ophy of the anti-theist throws out free will; it regards every human action as determined by physical causes, overlooking human creativ ity. And if man is not a freely choosing person, it's pretty silly to try to defend the free choice eco nomic system, and even sillier to work for the free society where men enjoy maximum liberty to choose and pursue their own life goals. Fourth, and finally, there is no place for moral values in a uni verse where Matter is ultimate where, in philosophical language, the distinction between right and wrong has no ontological status, no reality. In Communist coun tries, right is whatever the Party commands, and wrong is whatever the Party forbids. In such a soci ety there is no appeal from arbi trary commands to a standard of justice above the law; goodness is equated to Party loyalty. On this point, at least, the comrades are logical; if God is dead, men are creatures of the State; its fiats are their la:w.

My second stubborn fact is that there is a moral order. The uni verse consists of more than brute facts; it contains ethical values. If there is a genuine moral law op erating in 1973, it is the same moral law which operated in 1973 B.C. Men's interpretations of the moral law might vary, due to ig norance or wishful thinking. But the law which is subject to mis taken interpretations does not it self vary; it is what it is, and our thinking does not make it so or not so. A primitive people might believe that the stars in a night sky are the souls of departed tribesmen, 1973 STUBBORN FACTS AND HARD HEADS 279 and that the sun is a huge torch borne across the sky by the tribal deity. But these erroneous concep tions no more invalidate our as tronomy than do the weird notions of right and wrong entertained by these same tribesmen - or by con temporary intellectuals - invali date the ethical code built up around the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. There is a moral order with ideal norms and standards for flourishing human life, and in the long run no society can flout the moral order without courting destruction; every per son must eventually come to terms with it if he would fulfill the po tentials his life holds.

The third stubborn fact is hu man nature itself. A piece of silly putty can be molded into any shape you choose; throw it down and it will slowly subside into a formless mass. The human being, by con trast, is a dynamic transformer of his environment; he does not pass ively lapse into whatever the situ ation in which he finds himself. We are adaptable and durable crea tures, but we adjust to realities only so that we might more effec tively cope with the difficulties at tendent upon survival and growth. There are permanent elements in human nature because of our relationship to God and the moral order. There is in us a sacred es sence, a private domain in each person to which he alone has ac cess and over which he alone pos sesses rights. "We are endowed by our Creator," the Declaration reads, "with certain unalienable rights," and it is a function of gov ernment to help secure those rights. We are not mere end prod ucts of natural and social forces; we are created beings. God made us free, and any man or institution.

which impairs liberty frustrates some purpose of the Creator. Laws of Economics God, the moral order, human na ture; these are stubborn facts. And so are the laws of economics. When certain consequences follow invariably from certain antece dents we are entitled to speak of this regularity as a law. There are indeed economic laws, for we can say: Choose these policies and you will be visited by such and such consequences; the consequences are built into the policies and the only way you can avoid them is to reject those policies. For example: • Whenever a government expands the money supply - which is the definition of inflation - the price level rises and people find that they cannot afford things. It Impose rent controls and the growth rate of new housing de clines, while present housing de teriorates. • Pay a man for not working - Un280 THE FREEMAN May employment Compensation - and he will produce less, or stop work ing altogether.

• Legislate monopoly unionism and you institutionalize unemployment. • Impose minimum wage laws and you do someone out of a job. • Launch a government war on pov erty and you increase the number of poor people. • Allow the trading nations of the world to fix the price of each oth er's currency and you will suffer periodic deval uations of the dollar - or the mark, or the yen, or the pound. I might lengthen this list - and I know that each of these blunt propositions needs to be backed by a book - but you get the idea. The last of the stubborn facts I want to mention concerns govern ment. I remarked earlier that peo ple of my persuasion who today ac cept the Conservative label would have been called Whigs or classical liberals a couple of centuries ago. Classical liberalism marked a radi cal departure from all other polit ical theories and practices. It de clared that the end of government is justice between man and man, and maximum liberty for each per son in society.

Questions of Power From ancient times to the pres ent, every political theorist - ex cept the classical liberals - tried to frame answers for three questions. The first question was : Who shall wield power? Whether the struc ture took the form of a monarchy backed by divine right or a democ racy based on the so-called will of the majority, it was esserttial that power be wielded by the small group thought most fit to exercise rule. But it was not power simply for power's sake, but political pow er for the sake of economic ad vantage. So the second question is: For whose benefit shall this power be wielded? The· court at Versaille is a good example of what I mean. The French nobles favored by roy alty lived rather well although they'd rather be ca.ught dead than working. In virtue of their priv ileged position in the political structure, they got something for nothing. I daresay that each of you can think of parallel instances op erating today, even in our own country.

Now, when someone in a society gets something for nothing through political channels, there are others in that society who are forced to accept nothing for some thing! So the third question is: At whose expense shall this power be wielded? Let me repeat these three ques tions, for they provide an apt key to most political puzzles: Who shall wield power? For whose benefit? At whose expense? One might put 1973 STUBBORN FACTS AND HARD HEADS 281 this in a formula: Votes and taxes for all; subsidies and privileges for us, our friends, and whoever else happens at the moment to pack a lot of political clout. Equality Before the Law The American system was to be based upon a different idea. It took seriously the ideas of God, the moral order, and the rights of per sons. It discarded the notion of using government to arbitrarily disadvantage a selected segment of society, and instead embraced the idea of equality before the law.

Government, in this scheme, func tioned somewhat like an umpire on the baseball field. The umpire does not write the rules for base ball; they have emerged and been inscribed in rule books over the years and they lay down the norms as to how the game shall be play-ed. If any person is on the field it is to be presumed that he has freely chosen to be there because he wants to play baseball; otherwise he'd be on the tennis court, the golf links, or in the poolroom. He wants to play ball, and in his thoughtful moments he knows that the game cannot go on unless there is an impartial arbiter on the field to interpret and enforce last resort decisions - such as ball or strike, or safe at first. Baseball is inconceivable with out a rule book, and that goes for every other game as well. It would not be a baseball game if every man on the diamond merely did his own thing; it would be chaos. The rules of the game are not designed to hamper the player, although ev eryone who has ever played ball has had moments when he'd like the rules to bend a little in his fa vor; the rules are what make base ball possible. Or chess. Or tennis.

Or any other area of life you'd care to mention. In the absence of rules there is sheer disorder, on the playing field as in life. But surely not in the realm of art, someone might say. There may be economic laws, and Edmond Hoyle did compile his bqok of games; but Shakespeare did not write his poems "according to Hoyle." Great artists often com pose or paint in a frenzy of inspi ration, our objector might say; the creator knows that the rules are there to be broken; the artist is averse to order. At first thought this rebuttal does seem to carry some weight, for some modern composers do disregard the rules; they compose without melody, without rhythm, without harmony -- without talent. But there is mag nificent order in a Beethoven sym phony; the great composer did not write his symphonies "by the book," but most emphatically he did not discard the rules. There is indeed an affinity between the art282 THE FREEMAN May ist and disorder, but only in the sense that disorder or chaos chal lenges the artist to bring order and harmony out of it.

The order present in all real art might not be immediately obvious to the untrained eye or ear, and in great art it is artfully concealed. Go to the Parthenon and contem plate the frieze sculpted by Phid ias. Motion and fluidity strike the eye, but as Gerald Heard writes: "Scrape down the figures to their main structural lines and there, clear and hard as the rib and fret work of an Arabian vault, stands out the geometrical design, hold ing all this apparent streaming fluidity in an iron order." Who would dare argue that Shakespeare's genius was blunted by having to conform to the fixed pattern of the sonnet? This ready made poetic form actually en hanced the poet's freedom; it al lowed him to spend all his genius on content. Apart from the various forms a written language might take poetry, novels, essays, dramas, and so on - there is the language it self. Sometimes the niceties of grammar seem to lie in wait just to ensnare the ideas that rush pell mell out of our minds, or we bog down in a syntactical quagmire.

But if it weren't for the language which we absorb as our mother tongue we would have no way to express our ideas, and our ideas would be of the foggiest sort. Not even the most brilliant mind con ceivable could invent a new lan guage from scratch; and even if the miracle occurred he could not use it to communicate. The rules of language, which sometimes are an noying, are at the same time a vehicle for our freedom; just as, for a swimmer, the water whose friction impedes his progress pro vides the buoyancy without which swimming would be impossible. Chaos and Disorder I have belabored this point only beca use we Iive at a time of pas sionate rebellion against the very concept of order, a time when dis order is the new thing, the "in" thing in every department of hu man affairs. Such key words as Law, Order, Norms, Standards, and the like, are dirty words today. Abandonment of the rules is con fused with freedom; the slave to impulse and whim thinks he is a free man. The result is chaos in the souls of men and anarchy in society.

Every society must find ways of dealing with people whose erratic conduct deviates significantly from the norms of human behavior ac ceptable in that society. Those who cannot figure out what these norms are, or who know but refuse to conform to them, are the crimi1073 STUBBORN FACTS AND HARD HEADS 283 nals and the psycopaths. In a hu mane society such people are treat ed with understanding, compas sion and Christian charity; but no society can long survive a take over by the antisocial. By defini tion, this is the case. It must, therefore, be able to distinguish social from antisocial conduct, and this our society is having trouble doing. So far has the erosion of norms gone in our society that the, idea of abnormality has just about disap peared. Standards of right and wrong have crumpled, the rule book has been pitched out the win dow, and each one of us is advised merely to do his own thing. Any thing goes ; every variety of con duct and any kind of life style is to be tolerated because, it is al leged, no one can say what is nor mal and what is not. What is right for one man may not be right for another, we hear it said, so let every person decide for himself what is right for him. Anything goes; everything must be tol erated.

No Standards Remain At this point we turn the corner and the relativist is hoist with his own petard. The rela tivist can pro pound his theory and practice his eccentricities only so long as most other people refuse to accept rela tivism and continue to live straight. But as soon as the bal ance begins to tip toward relativ ism, the result is nihilism. If ev erything must be tolerated, then intolerance is sanctioned. If any thing goes, and there's no way to prove that anything is better or worse than anything else, then in tolerance is no worse and no better than tolerance! Tolerant is what a person should be if he's so in clined; and intolerant is what a per son should be if his conscience im pels him· in that direction. Having abandoned norms and standards, we have no way of deciding that one thing is better than another, or that this is right and that wrong. "If it feels good," reads the bumper sticker, "do it."

Each of us has his inner world, but we also live in the world out side. Rules and standards, right and wrong, are in the area that exists outside of and above indi vidual subjectivity; feelings, on the other hand, are strictly private, inhabiting the individual's inner domain. Norms are objective; they are "out there," and they are what they are regardless of what we might think they are. A toothache is subjective, it belongs to you alone; it is wholly private, not public at all. There's no limit to the number of persons who can come to a knowledge of the norms which apply to human behavior, but only you experience your pain.

284 THE FREEMAN May The only response another person can make to your pain is to sym pathize. Go back now to the bumper sticker: "If, it feels good, do it." The only referent here is to the domain of individual subjectivity. If an individual says that some thing feels good he has made an ultimate judgment, for no one is in a position to get inside another and tell him otherwise. There's nothing to discuss; preferences and likes are final. It might occur to you to tell another that the wrong things make him feel good, that his affectional nature is warped and perverted; otherwise, he wouldn't take pleasure in beat ing up old ladies. But this fellow is a bit of a philosopher too, so he re minds you that he has abandoned norms, and without this plumbline there's no reason why he should not prefer his feelings to yours which, in fact, he does. It's another story if we amend the advice to read: "If it's right, do it." Now here there is some thing to discuss, for the idea of right is "out there." We can talk things over and possibly come to an agreement that the proposed line of action is indeed right, or not; and further, if it is right, whether doing it now is proper, or expedient, or whatever.

I do not mean to suggest that every person who innocently repeats the catchphrase, "Do your own thing," is a nihilist, with full awareness of the implications of this position. He might say, Do your own thing, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone; or Do your own thing and allow everyone else the same latitude. But such a per son has appealed to a' norm, the ancient norm, "Injure no man." This norm implies others, and pretty soon you've restored the rule book. A warning is in order: Those who begin by adopting the vocabulary of nihilism may end by becoming its victims. The Cult of Abnormality Having opened the can of worms this far, permit me to pry back the lid a little further and offer a clinical example: gay liberation. Homosexuality is a sad fact of life, and because homosexuality is not a life-affirming but rather a life denying attitude, it comes to the fore especially during periods of a nation's decadence. When all stand ards are in doubt, the norms of maleness and the norms of female ness become unclear, and so we hear it said that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality.

They pose the question: Who is to say what is normal? The question is intended to be merely rhetorical, supplying its own answer, that no one is entitled to say what is nor mal and what is abnormal. But if 1973 STUBBORN FACTS AND.HARD HEADS 285 the rule book has been discarded and there. is a general rej ection of the idea that there are standards which men and women. should try to live up to, then ruthless dealing with our fellows is no more to be condemned than kindliness and generosity is to be applauded. It is a fact of the human situa tion as such, that if a male does cut a sorry figure as a man he will cut an even sorrier figure in the feminine role; likewise the female. Such persons cut themselves off from the understanding and help they need from the rest of us when they employ the false and des perate argument that no one can say what is normal. The argument will eventually backfire in the form of hostility and intolerance on the part of those who have been in formed that this reaction is just as normal as the opposite atti tude, and twice as much fun.

The Realm of Necessity I have talked at length about stubborn facts, unchanging regu larities, rules, order - and the ne cessity thereby imposed upon us to conform our conduct to the way things are. I have emphasized the domain of necessity only because its imperatives are widely ignored or denied today. But if this were the whole story, or even the most important part of it, we'd come away with the notion of a mechanically arranged universe in which man cheerlessly and robot-like serves out his sentence under a rigid prison routine of eat, sleep, and work. This is not at all what I have in mind, for such a grim caricature of life would be an af front to our Creator and omit the most important fact of our inner nature, its radical freedom! There is a realm of necessity, but there is also a realm of freedom; suc cessful living demands that we give each its due. Imagine yourself at the poker table. You are dealt a particular hand. The cards you hold may give you an edge or they may impose a handicap; in either case it is the way you exercise your freedom to play your hand that really counts; it's a combination of luck and skill, with skill being the critical factor.

Now take a look at baseball. I have stressed the importance of the rule book in baseball; but men sitting down to chew over the rules is not baseball. We couldn't play baseball without the rule book, but the game itself is' something else again. It is the incredible hatting, pitching, fielding, and strategic skills of the players and coach; it is the excitement of Yankee Stadi um, the constant. murmur of the crowd, the tension that mounts in tight situations; it is winning, and the horseplay in the locker room. This is the game of baseball, and 286 THE FREEMAN May the only function of the rule book is to make all this possible. If Nature Were Unpredidable, We Could Not Survive It is much the same in life; it is only from the neutral base of order and dependability in nature and society that we can exercise our freedom creatively. If nature were completely unpredictable we could not survive, and if we could not count on our fellow men in a vari ety of situations society would col lapse. There are stubborn facts we cannot change, which we must simply accept, to which we must adjust ourselves; but there is also the infinitely expansible domain of our freedom where our capacity to create tips the balance in the di rection we will it to go. The things at stake here have been well put in the old prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom· to know the difference."

When we do understand the diff erence' our freedom begets a new awareness of the majesty of the order where necessity prevails; we are awed by Jts mysteries and charmed by its beauties. Beyond mere survival we get a bonus ev ery time we interact with our world. Reflect for a moment on our five senses; sight, taste, hearing, smell, and touch. The animal uses his eyes to survive, to spot his prey and to see his foes before they see him. Our eyes also serve a utilitarian pur pose, but in addition we can look with them, and when we look we find sheer delight in the colors, the patterns, and the visible arrange ments of our planetary home. Be yond this, there is reading, there are the pleasures of art and archi tecture. We get a second bonus with the sense of taste. It is conceivable that we might be fed intravenously with all the food elements we need for survival but with no accom panying gustatory pleasure; I don't suppose an earthworm has a palate and the same is true of most other forms of life. How come we human beings are so lucky?

Then there is the gift of hearing There is survival value in being able to pick up sound waves and be thus warned of danger, but that's only a minor part of the auditory world. There's the murmur of the wind in the. pines, the song of a bird, the babble of a brook, the roar of the surf, the sizzle of a steak, the sound of music. Music is a realm unto itself, and without it, the philosopher said with pardon able exaggeration, life would be a mistake. Nor should we overlook the sense of smell which takes us· into the subtle world of fragrances. In1973 STUBBORN FACTS AND HARD HEADS 287 cense has performed its humble service for the sacred since the dawn of time, and the art of the perfumer antedates history. The blossom and the fruit strike the olfactory sense and an ancient ra cial memory stirs. And it is not only for the blind that the world of touch - the feel of textures, contours, warmth, re silience - exists.

Life pours out its richness in a veritable torrent, but we stand alongside this flood trying to scoop up the precious stuff with a thim ble! Our container is too small; that's why we take in only a frac tion of what's available to us. The bottleneck is within us, in our own thick heads! We've got to enlarge our capacity; exchange the thim ble for a tea cup; the tea cup for a bucket; the bucket for a barrel. We'~e got to work on ourselves, for there's little any person can do for another until he has done Communication his utmost with his own being. As Gerald Heard put it, we've got to grow as big inside as the whale has grown outside. Some few have made it, and what they have done we can emulate. Harry Emerson Fosdick tells about baby sitting his five-year-old niece. The child got restless so Fos dick went to an old copy of Life magazine and tore out a p~ge on which was a map of the world. He cut this into a number of little pieces and then told his niece, "Now put this map together." He set the child at a table and went back to work in his study.

In ten minutes the child popped into his study and announc~d that she had finished. This seemed in credible so Fosdick asked her how she had done it. "There was a man's picture on the other side of the map," said the child, "and when I put the man together the world came out right." ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY How do you persuade a man to change his mind? You don't threaten him, you don't lecture him, you don't accuse him of evil crimes. You show your own security in other ideas and you keep on exhibiting evidence of the validity of those ideas. You don't especially try to prove anything; that only makes people sus picious; you get busy creating the good society filled with good men of the sort you say flouris~ naturally under the rules of your society .... You concentrate on production of the persuasive facts. From MANAS, September 26, 1962 Too FREQUENTLY too many of us ig nore the clear, concise lesson to be learned by incidents and situations which we .. view only as passing commonplace, and principally a source of boredom or delay, or both.

Consider the situation which has surely confronted· us all on fre quent occasions - a long, rumbling freight train has crossed our path, and what is our usual reaction? We wait, of necessity, but we are im patient, irritable, and aggravated Mr. Demers is a vocational counselor in Veneta, Oregon. 288 R. W. DEMERS at the inconvenience this rolling behemoth has imposed upon us. What niight have been, or could still be, a much more fruitful reac tion? Could we not find a wealth of concrete, specific examples of the amazing success formula which has blessed us as the most free and independent of all people? As the cars roll by, starting with the chug ging diesels to the rickety caboose, we have a graphic, demonstrative testimony to the genius and indus try of free enterprise, acting in concert across a vast span of miles. Long refrigerated cars bearing 1973 THE PASSING PARADE 289 perishable citrus fruits from the sub-tropical climes of Florida, Ari zona and Southern California to tiered flat cars loaded with the gleaming, shining bodies of new cars and trucks from Detroit and the various assembly plants across the land. Huge earth-moving roll ing stock lashed to swaying flat beds in their multicolored cover ings of paint, and defying imagina tion as to the nature and variety of their uses. Open-top cars, re vealing their cargo and destination by the streamers of sawdust and wood chips as they bump and clat ter across the rails. All sorts of cars with letters, titles, codes, and destinations from a host of rail ways across the length and breadth of the U.S.A., challenging the im agination as to what cargo, if any, fills their interiors. Stacks of ply wood, huge timbers, and sheets of gypsum. Sacks of grain, lime, ce ment. Tanks of milk, oil, gasoline, and acid. Dump cars of sand, stone, scrap iron, and coal. These and many, many more all followed by a swaying, creaking caboose, with wisps of smoke from its peaked smoke stack and a friendly face and a waving hand from one of the trainmen as it terminates our pass ing parade.

Is all this to you just a noisy in terlude of annoyance and inconven ience? Have you joined the ranks of the brainwashed who can no longer feel goose flesh shoot up and down their spines as the whis tles blast, and the bells ring, and the thunder of the rolling wheels become a glorious overture to the wonderous symphony of free and competitive production? The trains will still roll, the ma chines will still operate, the fields will still grow, under the heel of an omnipotent government; but the days will be dull and grey, the pro duction will be inadequate, weak, in decay; and a cold, chilling shroud will be drawn over the light and spirit of free man. Unless we awaken and realize that the festive table of plenty at which we feast is the result of hard-working, frugal, honest, trustworthy, God-fearing, free in dividuals, we may find our table swept clean and the bright lamp of freedom extinguished. I) RONALD F. COONEY WHEN, on July 1, 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace presented their paper on the ori gin of species before London's Linnean Society, they could have had but little inkling of the revo lution in thought they were fo menting. Of course, a theory of the origin of man outside the ac cepted religious belief of man as a divine creation was sure to pro voke a new clash, in a war cen turies old, between science and religion. Then too, the assumptions of science up to that time would have to be modified-or abandoned - to fit the new knowledge. This much Darwin could have divined.

But could he have known the ef fect his theories were to have on fields as distant from biologic sci ence as .political philosophy and economics? Could he have known Mr. Cooney is a freelance writer recently graduated from the University of Nevada. 290 the uses - or misuses - to which his theories would be put in those fields? In truth, Darwin's discoveries were very influential in both of these areas. For proof of that, one need look no further than the school of social and political think ers known to us as the Social Dar winists. To these men, the Dar winian hypothesis was a galvaniz ing axiom. Darwin had found in the struggle for existence a bio logical foundation for competition among and between men, and in the survival of the fittest a justi fication for laissez-faire. Here, felt the libertarian spirits of the Social Darwinists, was the definitive an swer to all socialistic and reform ist agitators. Lockean liberalism was thereby wedded - as we shall see, not entirely compatibly - to the findings of modern science.

Nowhere were the peculiar 1973 EVOLUTION AND LIBERTY 291 strengths and weaknesses of this union more apparent than in the writings of the chief American Social Darwinist, in many ways the Social Darwinist, William Graham Sumner. So thoroughly did Sumner dominate Social Dar winist thinking from the middle 1880's to 1900, so completely did he represent the movement as theoretician, expositor, and publi cist, that his work, a few books and numberless essays and news paper articles, offers a kind of proving ground for the truth or falsity of Social Darwinist doc trine. Sociology and the Scientific Study of Society Sumner began his adult life as an ordained minister. He had, however, a great interest in soci ology, then a fledgling science. After reading Herbert Spencer's Stu,dy of Sociology and Principles of Sociology, he became convinced of the need for studying society as the biologist studied plants, ani mals, or any other organisms, within the framework of fixed and immutable laws.

The first of these is evolution. The slow and steady process which brings a new species of animal into being is at work all the time in society, working toward a new social organization. Man has no control over the designs of Nature, nor should he. "Reforms" aimed at "improving" the plan of Nature are doomed to well-deserved failure. Then comes competition. Ani mals compete for food or territory, and man competes with man for the necessities of life. Next comes the survival of the fittest. Certain animals survive be cause of their superior strength, cunning, or adaptability. They are Nature's favored. So it is too in human society. The fittest are those best qualified by natural aptitude, intelligence, or economic strength to survive the struggle for existence with Nature and with other men. Liberty and laissez faire are demanded, not because of natural rights, which Sumner scorns as specious, but because they alone allow the free play of evolution and competition, and in sure the survival of the fittest.

At times it is difficult to disen tangle one thread of Sumner's ar gument from the other, so inter woven are the two, evolutionary and libertarian. Here he is, for instance, in his book What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, speak ing on the reasons why state charitY,that popular socialist nos trum, should be disallowed: Certain ills belong to the hardships of human life. They are natural. They are part of the struggle with 292 THE FREEMAN May Nature for existence. We cannot blame our fellowmen for our share of these. As we can see, the evolutionary naturalistic argument is the dom inant one in this passage. Else where though, the libertarian holds sway, as in this excerpt from the same book: ... if his fellowmen, either indi vidually . . . or in a mass, impinge upon him otherwise than to surround him with neutral conditions of secur ity, they must do so under the strict est responsibility to justify them selves. Jealousy and prejudice against all such interferences are high political virtues in a free man.

It is not at all the function of the State to make man happy. Taking these two passages to gether they seem to say this: Each man must wring from Nature what his capacities and his liberty will permit. To interfere with this struggle and with the dictates of Nature isanti-Nature, anti-lib erty, and finally, anti-civilization. For Sumner sees the end-product of such meddling as nothing less than the destruction of society. The following extract from his essay, "The Challenge of~acts," draws freely on the vocabulary of the evolutionist: Nature is entirely neutral; she submits to him who most energ-etically and resolutely assails her. She grflnts her rewards to the fitte!t, therefore, without any regard to other considerations of any kind. If then, there be liberty, men get from her just in proportion to their works ... If we do not like it, and if we try to amend it, 'there is only one way in which we can do it. We can take from the better and give to the worse. We can deflect the penalties of those who have done ill and throw them on those who have done better ... We shall favor the survival of the unfittest, and we shall accom plish this by destroying liberty . . .

we cannot go outside of this alterna tive: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, sur vival of the unfittest. Few passages in the whole Social Darwinist canon show the unique junction of evolutionary and liber tarian concepts as sharply as this one does. If the struggle for existence pro ceeds without interference from the State or any other agency, then men will receive from Nature what is their due. Private proper ty, therefore, is simply the reward of the struggle. No impediments may be placed in the way of get ting and keeping property. Liberty and property are complimentary. Sumner says: The condition for the complete and regular action of the force of com petition is liberty. Liberty means the security given to each man that, 1973 EVOLUTION AND LIBERTY 293 if he employs his energies to sustain the struggle on behalf of himself and those he cares for, he shall dis pose of the product exclusively as he chooses . . . it is the definition of justice that each shall enjoy the fruit of his own labor and self-denial, and of injustice that the idle and in dustrious, the self-indulgent and the self-denying, shall share equally in the product.

To sum up the main points of Sumnerian Social Darwinism: Ev olution determines the social struc ture. Interference with evolution is presumptuous folly, especially inimical if it includes interference with the law of competition and the struggle for existence. Such interference will favor the worst members of the community at the expense of the better. Eventually, pri vate property will be destroyed, and with it justice, liberty, and civilization. The Laws of Nature Sumner obviously believed that liberty and evolution are synon ymous. But are they? Sumner per ceived society as being ruled by the laws of Nature. Man remains an animal, subject to the whims of Nature. He may try to avoid his fate, to postpone or deflect it, but in the end he must accept it. Na ture is the master, man the ser vant. No conceivable amount of man-made laws can alter the fact. No amount of interference will stay the great tide of evolution from rolling on to the goal it has set for itself.

Certainly such a deterministic view comprises a forceful case against hasty legislative meddling, but it also has serious implications for human liberty. If we agree on the inevitability of evolution, we must further agree that all human effort - which is man using his liberty - is useless, unless it is in accord with Nature's plan. But being mere men, we cannot know what that plan is. Nature conceals her intentions. Suppose, as Marx believed, the arrival-point of history is the so cialized state, the so-called "inev itability" of communism. Does this mean we should bow our heads for the yoke of statism because evolu tion has ordered us to do it? Is it not futile to oppose socialism if evolution wills socialism? Con versely, is it not superfluous to op pose socialistic laws if evolution will. destroy them anyway? More, what assurances have we that evo lution will not bring socialism in spite of our labors? Truthfully, we have none. Yet we can still oppose socialism as destructive of free dom without resorting to the posi tion that it is counter-evolution ary . We can hope evolution moves toward freedom,and we can work to the attainment of that end 294 THE FREEMAN May through the medium of our free will - something such evolution ary predestination refuses to recognize.

A thoroughgoing determinism has the secondary consequence of rendering moral judgments prac tically meaningless. Men who are the victims of blind natural forces beyond their control cannot be held answerable for their actions, eith er good or bad. In fact, words like "good," "bad," "guilty," and "in..: nocent" are drained of all signifi cance. No system of justice or morality is possible unless one supposes a man is accountable for what he may do. The assumption of this is the essence of libertari anism, just as absolving a man of responsibility is the essence of statism. Determinism makes for incon sistency in one who sees life in the stark moral terms Sumner did. The theological training he re ceived earlier in life colored his thinking long after he had aban doned preaching and taken up the gospel of evolution. He divided society into two halves, each il lustrating a moral absolute, both mutually exclusive. The virtuous he identified with the qualities of thrift, honesty, industry, and eco nomic success. The virtueless he identified with the qualities of profligacy, dishonesty, sloth, and economic failure. The virtuous were the "fittest," the "better" in the struggle for existence. The virtueless were the "unfittest," the "worse" in the struggle for exist ence. Socialism would interfere with the natural law of competi tion and maintain the unfit at the expense of the fit. Often, when discussing this question, Sumner would cite the intrusion on indi vidual liberty almost as an after thought.

An Oversimplification One can understand and sympa thize with Sumner's strict dichot omy of society· while admitting it is rather too simple. Comparisons between the human and animal world can go so far and no farther. By equating "fitness~' and virtue with economic success, Sumner has surely gone too far. There is no evidence that the economically successful are the "fittest," and the poor the "unfittest," or that evolution recognizes either as such. We may believe that thrift, industry, and honesty are virtues worthy of praise, but we can never be sure evolution will not favor profligacy, sloth, and dishonesty. Sumner was curiously pessimis tic about man's ability to influence evolution, and curiously optimistic about the result evolution would produce. And optimistic too that the fittest are necessarily the sen 'tinels of liberty. One can only 1973 EVOLUTION AND LIBERTY 295 guess at the number of people who wore with ease the mantle of the "fittest" while simultaneously sup porting - against Sumner - high tariffs and protectionism.

With competition, Sumner is on firmer ground, although here once again he falls into traps of his own making. Men do compete, and so do animals. Except as a meta phor, however, the analogy is of little worth. It ignores the vital part contract plays in the rela tions between men, the combining of interests for common benefit which is a distinctly human inven tion and which exists nowhere else in Nature. Sumner is doubtless correct that competition permits a full realization of man's potenti alities. Contract, however, keeps competition from being the brutal process, "red in tooth and claw," that it is in Nature. Socialist attacks on Social Dar winism were common throughout the 1890's and early 1900's. Some of these attacks, it must be admitted, were convincing insofar as they refuted - or tried to refllte - the applicability of evolutionary theo ries to society. Admitting this by no means confirms the validity of socialism, however. Indeed, the ref utation of glaring evolutionary presumptions disposes not at all, as some commentators sympathetic to socialism have suggested, of the core of libertarian truth in Social Darwinism. One need not believe, for example, that competi tion is "natural" to believe that it provides an essential impetus for the improvement of man and so ciety. One need not defend an ar bitrary "fittest" to oppose State interferences with the rights of the individual. One need not think it is wrong to meddle with the forces of Nature to support laissez-faire on the conviction that it maximizes freedom.

The mistake the Social Darwin ists made was thinking liberty re quired an external justification, a scientific apologia. In this, they conceded the libertarian defense of capitalism, individual rights, and laissez-faire no longer held cur rency. They built a new foundation upon the irrelevant and highly dubious base of natural science. By so doing, they weakened the very thing they sought to sustain. They ceased being libertarians and began being evolutionists. If we can successfully distinguish evolu tion from liberty, we can save the Social Darwinists from them selves. Then, perhaps, they will cease being evolutionists and be gin again to be libertarians. Lib erty will emerge the stronger for it. ~ IN 1944, as the world was recover ing from the effects of World War II, the heads of state from over 100 countries met in Bretton Woods to create an international monetary system that would unite the western world, insure mone tary stability, and farcilitate inter national trade. Over the years since then the system· has been plagued by dollar shortages and dollar "gluts"; chronic deficits and chronic surpluses; perpetual parity disequilibria, "hot money" capital flows, and currency depreciation.

By 1968, a "two-tier" gold market Mr. Stevens is a freelance. writer who spe cializes in the field of economics. 296 PAUL STEVENS was established in the midst of a gold crisis which, by 1971, cul minated in the suspension of dollar convertibility together with a dol lar devaluation against multilat eral revaluations of most other maj or foreign currencies. Bretton Woods is dead and an autopsy is called for to determine the cause of death. If meaningful international monetary reform is to follow, it is necessary to know what went wrong. Fixed exchange rates, flexible rules. . .. Under the rules established by the Bretton Woads agreement, the gold values of a member nation's currency could be altered "as con1973 BRETTON WOODS: 1944-1971 297 ditions warranted." This distin guishing feature of the Bretton Woods system exposed a drastic ideological departure from the gold standard. Under the gold standard, no natural conditions would ever war rant a change in the gold value of a nation's currency. Under a pure gold standard, all the money in circulation would be either gold or claims to gold. Any paper money would be fully convertible into gold.

There would be no difference be tween claims to gold and gold it..; self, since, if claims to gold cir culated as money, the' gold could not. However, there are government made conditions that could war rant a reduction in the gold value of a nation's currency. If govern ments have the power to artifi cially increase the claims to gold (e.g., dollars) , they have the power to depreciate the value of the na tional monetary unit. Bretton Woods was established with the intention of aiding gov ernments in exercising their pow ers of inflationary finance. Govern ment leaders knew that the gold standard prevented them from fully pursuing domestic goals that depended on deficit spending and prolonged, artificially induced "booms." They detested the gold standard for its fixed rules which brought adverse economic repercussions whenever they refused· to adhere to them, and they detested flexible exchange rates that ex posed the government's policy of currency depreciation.

The political temptations of ar tificially increasing the money sup ply in order to "stimulate the econ omy" prevailed against the gold standard and brought the begin ning of a "new era": fixed ex change rates with flexible rules, the exact opposite of the gold standard. No longer would politicians ad here to the discipline of the gold standard. No longer would they have to restrict their deficits or domestic money supplies. Govern ment leaders would make their own rules and fix the nominal value of money by decree. And if "conditions warranted" a reduc tion in the nominal value of a na tion'smoney, it was agr~ed that a nation could devalue up to ~O per cent after the formality of obtain ing other nations' permission. This was called the "adjustable peg" system. The great ideological distinction between the gold sta,ndard and the Bretton Woods system, then, is that the Bretton Woods system was ostensibly intended to stabil ize exchange rates, but at the same time it anticipated that govern ments would not defend the value of their currencies. Worse, Bretton 298 THE FREEMAN May Woods institutionalized a method which allowed and condoned future currency depreciation.

Export or devalue: institutionalizing the devaluation bias .... Historically (and the Bretton Woods era was no exception) nations have seen fit to pursue a basically mercan tilistic trade policy, i.e., a policy which maintains various regula tions intended to produce more ex ports than imports. The mercantilistic case is not a realistic one. For example, it would be impossible to develop a logical case advocating that all individuals should sell products and services at the same time. Obviously, some individuals must be consumers if there is to be a market for sellers. There is no difference when it comes to nations trading in a world market. This is simply to say that not all nations can run trade surpluses at the same time. An equally difficult case would be to try to convince some indi viduals that most of the money they receive from the sale of goods and services should be saved rather than spent on the consumption of goods. Yet this is the intent un derlying all government policies that aim at increasing exports (sales) and restricting imports (consumption) .

There is no logical reason why individuals should not be allowed to reduce their cash balances by buying goods from other nations if they believe it is to their bene fit; that is what their cash bal ances are for. To penalize men or discourage them from importing by imposing licensing restrictions, capital controls, tariffs, or "import surcharges," only serves to limit the variety of their economic choices. This in turn only serves to reduce their standard of living. A nation's drive for export sur pluses, together with its "protec tionist" policies of restricting im ports, leads to an increase in the domestic money supply. This influx of money, together with the money that governments feel they must artificially create in order to "stimulate the economy," leads to higher domestic wages and prices as more money chases fewer goods. These higher wages and prices create an illusion of prosperity, which explains the popularity of mercantilist-inflationist policies.

But higher domestic wages and prices lead to a dwindling trade surplus as a nation's goods become less competitive in world markets, and a dwindling trade surplus, un less corrected, eventually deterio rates into a trade deficit. This is the dilemma facing all govern ments that pursue the contradic tory and self-defeating policies of mercantilism and inflationary fi nance.

1973 BRETTON WOODS: 1944-1971 299 Under a gold standard there is only one way to resolve this di lemma: stop artificially creating money, stop preventing money from leaving the country. The re sult would be a normal, self-cor recting deflation - Le., a contrac tion of the domestic money sup ply - which would lead to a fall in domestic prices and to equilibrium in that nation's balance of trade position. But because governments hold an unwarranted fear of lower prices and favor higher prices that give the illusion of prosperity, the framers of Bretton Woods adopted a mechanism that would allow gov ernments to inflate their curren cies yet escape the process of a normal self-correcting deflation. By devaluing their currencies, governments could continue to in flate their domestic wages and prices while making their exports less expensive to the world. The device of devaluation was established to allow nations to re gain their competitive edge once their surplus deteriorated into deficit. Devaluation immediiately lowers the price of a nation's ex ports, and in this way nations can more actively strive for export sur pluses. Thus the framers of Bret ton Woods found a way in which nations could continue both their drive for export surpluses and their domestic policies of inflation.

A nation would simply export its goods until its domestic inflation reduced or eliminated its trade ~urplus, then devalue. In this way the Bretton Woods system estab lished an implicit code of con duct: export or devalue. It insti tut,ionalized a devaluation bias within the new international mone tary system, which led to serious imbalances, ultimately resulting in hundreds of devaluations during the Bretton Woods era. IIHot Money Blues. 1I •••Because-de valuations are completely arbitrary (at best mere guesswork), new problems arose in place of old ones. The problems centered around the pre-devaluation exchange rate: na tions were committed to supporting the rate even when it was unreal istic. Bright investors soon began to realize when a particular currency was overvalued and to shift their money from the weak currency to stronger ones. This caused further pressure on exchange rates and re sulted in speculation - Le., selling short on X currency, buying gold, or buying long on Y currency. Gov ernments intervened in foreign ex change markets in order to preserve their unrealistic exchange rates, by accumulating massive amounts of un'Yanted weak currencies. But this could not continue for long.

Finally, when a government was 300 THE FREEMAN May forced to devalue, the action had repercussions on other currencies (particularly if a major currency were involved): it brought all other weak currencies under sus picion. This resulted in further de valuations as investors transferred their money into only the strong est currencies in anticipation of competitive devaluations and ma jor currency realignments. This was called "hot money" and was attributed to speculators - not to currency-depreciating policies of governments. Finally, under the Bretton Woods agreement, national currencies were not allowed to "float" and seek their own levels. The new "par value" of a. currency was ar bitrarily set by the IMF - and these were consistently either too high or too low. Like all forms of government price-fixing, the fixed exchange rate system was in per petual disintegration. This resulted in further "hot money" flurries, further realignments of curren cies,and an inherently unstable exchange rate system - the exact opposite of the goal intended by the framers of monetary reform at Bretton Woods.

The role of the dollar under Bretton Woods .... The role of the dollar under the Bretton Woods system was vastly different from that of other currencies. Because of the United States' economic strength andE urope' S economic weakness after World War II, the dollar was used by other governments as a re serve for their currencies. This meant the dollar was pegged to gold and supposedly committed to stability and convertibility. Thus the dollar was supposed to be "as good as gold," and therefore to be treated as a reserve asset just like gold. There are several implications tied to the concept of a paper re serve currency. (1) Gold, the main reserve asset, was considered too limited in quantity to restore world liquidity or to provide sufficient wealth for rebuilding war-tornna tions. (2) While gold could not be increased, a paper asset (U.S.dol lars) could - consequently the re serves of the western world could be expanded. (3) Inflation could be implemented in a "more equita ble" manner by an ever-increasing paper reserve. (4) A paper reserve currency "should not be devalued"

yet it should be increased "as needed" to meet demand. This ·last blatant contradiction was the ma jor factor in the disintegration of the IMF in later years. Limited gold - unlimited dollars: a formula for disaster .... Since gold was limited, the vast maj ori ty of the assets on which foreign curren cies were based'to finance Europe's 1973 BRETTON WOODS: 1944-1971 301 recovery was not gold but U.S. dol lars - the second primary reserve asset. The demand for dollars came in two forms: (1) demand for foreign exchange to be used for importing goods, and (2) de mand for reserve liquidity and re plenishment. The U.S. satisfied the demand for foreign exchange by inflating its currency and extending loans and .gifts to Europe. These gifts and loans were used almost entirely to import goods from the U.S. Therefore, many of these dollars returned to the U.S. However, the demand for reserve liquidity and replenishment was met by continu ing U.S. deficits that led to Euro pean "stockpiling" of dollars in the form of interest-bearing notes and demand deposit accounts. De mand for dollars between 1950 and 1957 continued and an excess of dollars began to build up in foreign central banks.

After 1957, and to this day, the foreign banks have been obliged to continue to take in dollars that were neither intended for imports nor needed for liquidity. This era has become known as the era of the dollar "glut." Confidence versus liquidity - a two tier tale . ..• During the 1960's the progressive supply andaccumula tion of dollars mounted and world central bankers found themselves confronted with a government made monetary dilemma: the more dollar reserves they acquired, the more likely was the chance that their dollar surplus would depreci ate in value. To state the problem another way, the more liquidity central bankers enjoyed, the less confidence they had in their most liquid asset - the dollar. Gresham's Law prevailed and in 1968 central bankers and private speculators began to convert their dollars into gold. A gold crisis de veloped: the U.S. could not hope to convert the amount of dollars out standing against its gold stock. A "two tier" gold market was set up to avert a dollar devaluation and the break-up of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), i.e., one free market for speculators and industrial users who would buy gold at the free market price, and an official market where govern ments would transact dealings at the pegged price of $35 per ounce.

Finally in 1971, in a wave of "hot money" speculation, the U.S. was forced to devalue the dollar against gold and to suspend its converti bility. Goldls limitations: a blessing in dis guise. . . . The demise of Bretton Wood. can be traced directly to an exce~sive supply of dollars. The anti-gold principles of inflationary finance practiced diligently under 302 THE FREEMAN May the Bretton Woods era, turned into a give-and-take fiasco: the U.S. became a faucet of wealth, supply ing dollars on request to every corner of the world, while over a hundred countries drained the U.S. in the name of world liquidity and "reparations. " The result was a flood of dollars that swept over the world prod uc ing world inflation, numerous re cessions, hundreds of currency re alignments, disruptive trade, a gold crisis, and the final interna tional monetary crisis that has left the world precariously groping for stop-gap measures to resume monetary and trade transactions.

Clearly the Bretton Woods vision of a stable and ever-expanding re serve currency was doomed from the onset. Had the governments limited their reserves to gold, the kind of monetary and credit expan sion under Bretton Woods - and all of its disastrous consequences - could never have occurred. Gold places objective limits on monetary and credit expansion, and this in itself was enough for the framers of Bretton Woods to condemn it. It is no accident that the kinds of limitations gold imposes on the extension of money, credit, and re serves is just what the world is cry ing for today in light of thei'dollar glut." As a reserve currency, the dollar was supposed to be as good as gold. But monetary authorities never stopped to ask "what makes gold so good?" The answer is that gold is limited - the very point for which it was condemned. The refusal of government lead ers to adhere to the rules of the gold standard and th~ir desire to create a monetary system based on their own arbitrary rules of whim and decree, failed as it has always failed. Once again, history has proved that a mixture of govern ment whim with the laws of eco nomics is not a prescription to cure world problems: it has always been and will always be a formula for world chaos.

u.s.balance of payments problems . ... U.S. balance of payments deficits began in the early 1950's and have not ceased to this day. The cause of these incessant deficits can be traced to monetary and trade deci sions made at the inception of Bretton Woods and reinforced throughout its existence. The first straw .... When it was de cided that the U.S. was to act as wor ld banker and benefactor to those countries in need of help after World War II, it is doubtful that anyone really believed the U.S. would profit as world banker. On the contrary, the consensus was that war-torn nations needed more money than they could afford to pay back. It was argued that the 1973 BRETTON WOODS: 1944-1971 303 U.S. could afford to (and therefore should) extend foreign aid (gifts), loans at below market rates of in terest (gifts), and military protec tion (gifts), to those countries in need. What must be remembered is the precedent for this decision: the U.S. was committed to protect and finance the western world by virtue of its great strength and an ever expanding stream of dollars.

It was assumed that this money would return to the U.S. via import demand, and in fact, during the years 1946 to 1949 most of it did, resulting in fantastic U.S. sur pluses. On selling one's cake and wanting it too . ... But during the years 1950 to 1957, a turn of events took place. Europe by design curtailed'its al ready abundant imports and con centrated on replenishing its na tional reserves. With conscious in tent, the U.S. continued to supply the world with dollars through de liberate balance of payments defi cits to accommodate Europe's de mand for reserve replenishment. The refusal of the foreign govern ments to allow their citizens to use their constantly rising dollar sur pluses for U.S. goods (by imposing trade restrictions) led to the dollar glut of the 1960's. The blame for the chronic sur pluses of foreign governments and chronic deficits of the U.S. must be shared. While the U.S. can be blamed for financial irresponsi bility, the surplus countries must be blamed for economic irrespon sibility. The U.S. could have stop ped its deficits, but surplus-ridden countries could have stopped penal izing their citizens and discour aging them from importing. In stead, they decided to increase dollar reserves (dollars that for the most part were given or loaned to them) and to either exchange them for gold or hold them in the form of interest-bearing notes and ac counts.

By accumulating excessive amounts of dollars that they re fused to use, surplus countries helped foster U.S. deficits: some nations' chronic surpluses must mean that other nations are run ning deficits. The irony of the de cision to run an intentional chronic surplus is that the purpose of selling goods is to gain satisfaction as an eventual consumer. The drive for both surplus reserves and sur plus exports, and the refusal to con sume goods with the money re ceived, implies that a nation ex pects to sell a good and somehow derive satisfaction from it after it's gone. The illusion of th.e last straw ..•.The increasing demand for dollars led the U.S. government and the Fed304 THE FREEMAN May eral Reserve System to increase the amount of dollars and thus to de preciate the purchasing power of the dollar. As confidence disap peared in the dollar's ability to continue its role as a reserve cur rency, "hot money" flurries soon appeared. Thus, by the late 60's and early 70's, an enormous amount of dollars accumulated against a dwindling supply of U.S. gold. This caused both "runs" on the U.S. gold stock and "flights" from the dollar into stronger or undervalued cur rencies.

This speculative capital outflow caused the U.S. balance of pay ments deficit to increase in a pyra miding fashion. Finally, the con spicuously low amount of U.S. gold reserves, the disparity between currencies and interest rates, and a dwindling U.S. trade surplus, aroused a well-founded suspicion that the dollar might be devalued - and that other, stronger curren cies might appreciate in value. This justifiable suspicion then caused even greater U.S. capital outflows which led to even greater U.S. deficits. This was the "straw that broke the camel's back." But it was the haystack of straws be fore it, beginning with the first straw - Le., the first U.S. inflation financed gift abroad - that inexo rably led to the progression of U.S. balance of payments deficits, inter national monetary chaos, and the disintegration of the Bretton Woods system. The high price of gifts . ... When the U.S. embarked on a policy of infla tion-financed world loans and gifts, it surrendered all hopes of attain ing a balance of payments equili brium for itself or for the world.

Between the years 1946 and 1969, the U.S. as world banker extended some $83 billion in grants and loans. Since 1958 some $95 billion has left the country. Most of these dollars were nonmarket transac tions motivated by political and military considerations. While many economists believe it is necessary for the U.S. to run trade surpluses to correct its bal ance of payments deficits, to ex pect normal exports to rise to the level of these abnormal capital outflows only makes sense if one stands on one's head - it is not a logical position to take. These grants should never have been given to foreign nations. It was an economically unsound move and the grants were extended at the expense of the American tax payers. Further, any additional loans and gifts made by the U.S. to satisfy nations who demand "free" military protection, such as Europe and Japan have been demanding for years, or "reparations" such as those now being demanded by North and South Vietnam, will 1973 BRETTON WOODS: 1944-1971 305 only lead to further capital out flows ... and this at a time when the world is plagued by deprecia ting dollar reserves and continuing U.S. deficits - the very cause of the international monetary crises which led to the demise of Bretton Woods.

Those who argu~ that the U.S. balance of payments deficits were caused by insufficient trade sur pluses blind themselves to the fact that the U.S. has been running continuous trade surpluses for al most a century. They refuse to place the blame for U.S. balance of payments deficits where it be longs: on the U.S. government's inflationary policies of giveaway finance. On domestic dreams and international nightmares . ...The notion that gov ernments can divorce domestic in flation from international econ omics is fallacious. There is no domestic-international dichotomy in economic theory. There is a causal relationship between alleco nomic activity, thus there can be no international immunity from un sound domestic policies and no do mestic immunity from unsound in ternational policies. To the degree that nations prac tice sound domestic economic and monetary policies, the result will be stable economic progress in both the domestic and international economies. To the degree that do mestic policies are unsound, distor tions will occur that will be de stabilizing and inhibit economic progress both domestically and in ternationally - the results being counter-productive in both areas.

Bretton Woods was set up to ac commodate various nations' domes tic dreams. The dreams of postwar prosperi ty were financed by infla tionary schemes that were incom patible with any sound· interna tional monetary standard. The Bretton Woods agreement estab lished the contradictory system of fixed exchange rates with a built-in devaluation mechanism, in order to avert the monetary repercus sions of not adhering to the ex change rates they fixed. The fram ers of Bretton Woods knew that governments had no intention of preserving the value of their cur rencies, that, in fact, they planned to deficit spend and inflate in order to pay for their domestic economic programs. No international monetary sys tem - not the gold standard nor any form of standardless fiat sys tem, nor any combination thereof - can insure stability given un sound domestic policies. The funda mental economic issue today is not the kind of international monetary system that will replace the Bret ton Woods system, but whether the domestic policies of the nations in306 THE FREEMAN May volved will permit any interna tional monetary system to last. The precondition of any lasting mone tary system is that it has integrity.

A monetary system that has in tegri ty means a monetary system that is protected from government created inflation, Le., arbitrary and artificial increases in the supply of money and credit. It is a moral indictment against today's political leaders and the public at large that the chances for a monetary system that has integ rity are almost nonexistent. For before a nation can have a mone tary system of integrity, it must end all policies of inflationary fi nance. And this means that all those dreams a nation cannot afford must end. The public has bought the politi cian's claim that they can get some thing for nothing; that all a governmentneed do is print up money to pay for programs that satisfy national dreams. But there is no such thing as a free lunch - some one must inevitably pay the price of that lunch. And so it is with domestic dreams. The price for indulging in do mestic dreams .. through govern ment "something for nothing" pro grams is domestic inflation and international monetary crises with all their tragic and disruptive consequences.

If domestic dreams of nations today are pursued by resorting to the insidious schemes of inflation ary finance, they will inevitably become the international night mares of tomorrow. This was the lesson learned from the Bretton Woods system. May it rest in peace! ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Unstable Currencies WHEN NATIONS are on a gold standard a fixed rate of exchange is both possible and desirable. When each currency is anchored to gold, all currencies are necessarily anchored to each other. Each currency unit can then be expressed as a precise ratio of another. It can be freely and safely converted into it. But when each country is on its own paper standard its currency can have no fixed value in relation to other currencies. It can be given the appearance of such a fixed value only by making it a crime to buy or sell it at any other rate. But this attempt to maintain by coercion the appearance of stability where no stability exists merely makes the economic consequences incomparably worse.

HENRY HAZLITT, Will Dollar$ Sa'V~ the World?

.. .... .. ' ROBERT E. HOOD .. , . , " ~ . ·SEEDSOF OPPRESSION INSTEAD of my reaching directly into your pocket for some worthy cause of my choice, suppose I first muster a majority to gain legal sanction for my ambitions. Thus are clearly criminal acts draped in a mantle of benevolence. , Such is essentially the process in volved whenever government is al lowed to concern itself with redis tribution of wealth programs such as welfare, subsidized housing, job training, ad infinitum. The will of some must be subjugated to the will of the majority and their prop erty expropriated to satisfy the whims of that majority. This, by some rather irrational semantical juggling, has come to be known as Progressive legisla tion. If our goal is to be a totali tarian socialist state then it is in deed progressive in the literal sense of the word, but to the best The Honorable Robert E. Hood of Laconia is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

of my knowledge we are still at least paying lip service to freedom in this country. "Well surely," comes the rejoin der, "government has a responsibil ity to care for those who are truly in need - if only we could stop the abuses." In a free society govern ment does not have that responsi bility, and never did; and as long as it involves itself in so-called so cial legislation there will be abuses and there will be waste and over staffing. These problems are an in herent and inexorable part of its involvement. Before you conjure up visions of the sick and elderly dropping in the streets and public works trucks making the rounds each morning to pick up the bodies and deposit them in common paupers' graves, please remind yourself that almost all of this "progressive" legislation has evolved only in very recent years. Prior to our "enlighten ment" we depended on private 307 308 THE FREEMAN May charities and on individual respon sibility, and we still do in many areas that have not as yet come under the benevolent eye of bu reaucrats. How far would I get if I took my tin cup in hand today and went door to door in an attempt to raise money for AFDC mothers?

However, if government was not involved in this area, I am certain that no children would starve or want for clothing. Churches and private charities would readily fill the gap and there would be no abuse. What a terribly malevolent view of mankind one must have to as sume that the coercive power of government must be applied in or der to alleviate human suffering. Democratic Illusions How has this sovereign status of the majority come about? Perhaps the main reason could be that many of us are under the impression that America is a democracy. Had the founding fathers established a pure democracy, the history of this country would have been relegated to a rather tempestuous and brief period at the close of the eigh teenth century. Pure democracy mob rule, in simpler terms - is per haps the least stable form of gov ernment .ever devised. America is a constitutional re public and it is the Constitution which draws the line on democracy.

We might be described as a repre sentative democracy but only with in the limits provided by our Con stitution. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted in defense of a sov ereign majority as saying, "The will of the majority is in all cases to prevail." He did indeed say it but the statement is taken out of context. Jefferson immediately added, "- that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." So it would seem that the rights of majorities must be severely limited if a free society is to en dure; sovereignty lies with each individual rather than in any col'lective form. It is the sovereign right of each individual to life, lib erty, and property that must in deed be inalienable. It necessarily follows then that no individual, no mob, no collective, and no govern ment has a moral claim against the property of anyone, no matter how lofty the intent. The proper func tion of government in a free soci ety is limited to the defense and protection of the inalienable rights of each citizen ; governments may be instituted for no other purpose without inevitably becoming op pressive. ~ HI FREDERIC BASTIAT "Explain to me the functioning and the effects of protec tionism."

"That is not so easy. Before considering the more compli cated cases, one should study the simpler ones." "Take the simplest case you wish." "You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a board when he had no saw?" "Yes. He cut down a tree; then, by trimming the trunk, first on one side and then on the other, with his axe, he re duced it to the thickness of a plank." 309 310 THE FREEMAN May "And that cost him a great deal of labor?" "Two full weeks. " "And what did he live on duringthat time?" "On his provisions." "And what happened to the axe?" "It became very dull as a result." "Quite right. But perhaps you do not know this: just as he was about to strike the first blow with his axe, Robinson Crusoe noticed a plank cast up on the beach by the waves." "Oh, what a lucky acc.ident ! He ran to pick it up?" "That was his first impulse; butthen he stopped and rea soned as follows: " 'If I go to get that plank, it will cost me only the exertion of carrying it, and the time needed to go down to the beach and climb back up the cliff.

" 'But if I make a plank with my axe, first of all, I shall be assuring myself two weeks' labor; then, my axe will become dull, which will provide me with the job of sharpening it; and I shall consume my provisions, making a third source of employment, since I shall have to replace them. Now, labor is wealth. It is clear that I shall only be hurting my own in terests if I go down to the beach to pick up that piece of drift wood. It is vital for me to protect my personal labor, and, now that I think of it, I can even create additional labor for myself by going down and kicking that plank right back into the sea!' " "What an absurd line of reasoning!" "That may be. It is nontheless the same line of reasoning that is adopted by every nation that protects itself by inter dicting the entry of foreign goods. It kicks back the plank that is offered it in exchange for a little labor, in order to give itself more labor. There is no labor, even including that of the customs official, in which it does not see some profit. It is represented by the pains Robinson Crusoe took to return to the sea the present it was offering him. Consider the nation as a collective entity, and you will not find an iota of differ ence between its line of reasoning and that of Robinson Crusoe."

"Did he not see that he could devote the time he could have saved to making something else? "What else ?" "As long as a person. has wants to satisfy and time at his 1973 SOMETHING ELSE 311 disposal, he always has something to do. I am not obliged to specify the kind of work he could undertake to do." "I can certainly specify precisely the kind that probably escaped his attention." "And I maintain, for my part, that, with incredible blind ness, he confused labor with its result, the end with the means, and I am going to prove it to you.... " "You do not have to. The fact still remains that this is an illustration of the system of restriction or interdiction in its simplest form. If it seems absurd to you in this form, it iB be cause the two functions of producer and consumer are here combined in the same individual." "Let us therefore proceed to a more complicated case." "Gladly. Some time later, after Robinson had met Friday, they pooled their resources and began to cooperate in com mon enterprises. In the morning, they hunted for six hours and brought back four baskets of game. In the evening, they worked in the garden for six hours and obtained four baskets of vegetables.

"One day a longboat landed on the Isle of Despair. A hand some foreigner disembarked and was admitted to the table of our two recluses. He tasted and highly praised the products of the garden, and, before taking leave of his hosts, he ad dressed them in these words: " 'Generous islanders, I dwell in a land where game is much more plentiful than it is here, but where horticulture is un known. It will be easy for me to bring you four baskets of game every evening if you will give me in exchange only two baskets of vegetables.' "At these words, Robinson and Friday withdrew to confer, and the debate they had is too interesting for me not to re port it here in full. "Friday: Friend, what do you think of it? "Robinson: If we accept, we are ruined. "F. : Are you quite sure of that? Let us reckon up what it comes to. "R.: It has all been reckoned up, and there can be no doubt about the outcome. This competition will simply mean the end of our hunting industry.

"F. :" What difference does that make if we have the game? "R. : You are just theorizing! It will no longer be the prod uct of our labor.

312 THE FREEMAN May "F.: No. matter, since in order to get it we shall have to part with some vegetables! "R. : Then what shall we gain? "F.: The four baskets of game cost us six hours of labor. The foreigner gives them to us in exchange for two baskets of vegetables, which take us only three hours to produce. Therefore, this puts three hours at our disposal. "R. : You ought rather to say that they are subtracted from our productive activity. That is the exact amount of our loss. Labor is wealth, and if we lose one-fourth of our working time, we shall be one-fourth less wealthy. "F.: Friend, you are making an enormous mistake. We shall have the same amount of game, the same quantity of vegetables, and - into the bargain - three more hours at our disposal. That is what I call progress, or there is no such thing in this world. "R. : You are talking in generalities! What shall we do with these three hours?

"F. : We shall do something else. "R.: Ah! I have you there. You are unable to mention any thing in particular. Something else, something else - that is very easy to say. "F.: We can fish; we can decorate our cabin; we can read the Bible. "R.: Utopia! Who knows which of these things we shall do, or whether we shall do any of them? "F.: Well, if we have no wants to satisfy, we shall take a rest. Is not rest good for something? "R. : But when people lie around doing nothing, they die of hunger. "F.: My friend, you are caught in a vicious circle. I am talking about a kind of rest that will subtract nothing from our supply of game and vegetables. You keep forgetting that by means of our foreign trade, nine hours of labor will pro vide us with as much food as twelve do today. "R.: It is very clear that you were not brought up in Europe. Had you ever read the Moniteur industriel, it would have taught you this: 'All time saved is a dead loss. What counts is not consumption, but production. All that we con sume, if it is not the direct product of our labor, counts for nothing. Do you want to know whether you are rich? Do not measure the extent of your satisfactions, but of your exer1973 SOMETHING ELSE 313 tion.' This is what the Moniteur industriel would have taught you. As for myself, being no theorist, all I see is the loss of our hunting.

"F.: What an extraordinary inversion of ideas! But.... "R. : But me no buts. Moreover, there are political reasons for rejecting the selfish offers of the perfidious foreigner. "F. : Political reasons! HR.: Yes. First, he is making us these offers only because they are advantageous to him. "F.: So much the better, since they are so for us too. "R. : Then, by this traffic, we shall make ourselves depend ent upon him. "F.: And he will make himself dependent on us. We shall have need of his game; and he, of our vegetables; and we shall all live in great friendship. HR.: You are just following some abstract system! Do you want me to shut you up for good? "F.: Go on and try. I am still waiting for a good reason. "R.: Suppose the foreigner learns to cultivate a garden, and that his island is more fertile than ours. Do you see the consequence? "F.: Yes. Our relations with the foreigner will be severed.

He will no longer take our vegetables, since he will have them at home with less labor. He will no longer bring us game, since we shall have nothing to give him in exchange, and we shall then be in precisely the same situation that you want us to be in today. "R.: Improvident savage! You do not see that after de stroying our hunting industry by flooding us with game, he will destroy our gardening industry by flooding us with vegetables. "F.: But this will happen orily so long as we shall be in a position to give him something else, that is to say, so long as we shall be able to find something el,se to produce with a sav ing in labor for ourselves. "R.: Something else, something else! You always come back to that. You are up in the clouds, my friend; there is nothing practical in your ideas. "The dispute went on for a long time and left each one, as often happens, unchanged in his convictions. However, since Robinson had great influence over Friday, he made his view prevail; and when the foreigner came to learn how his offer had been received, Robinson said to him: 314 THE FREEMAN May " 'Foreigner, in order for us to accept your proposal, we must be very sure about two things: " 'First, that game is not more plentiful on your island than on ours; for we want to fight only on equal terms.

" 'Second, that you will lose by this bargain. For, as in every exchange there is necessarily a gainer and a loser, we should be victimized if you were not the loser. What do you say?' " 'Nothing,' said the foreigner. And, bursting into laughter, he re-embarked in his longboat." ~ For further discussion of the Bastiat philosophy of free trade see: The Tariff Idea by W. M. Curtiss 80 pages $1.00 Also, for a better understanding of the close relationship between protectionism and inflation, see: What You Should Know About Inflation by Henry Hazlitt 152 pages $.95 What Has Governm"ent Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard 49 pages $1.25 All available from THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION Irvington-an-Hudson, New York 10533 A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN Ho", to Start Your (ltv,. School Way back at the beginning of the Sixties, before the U.S. started its descent into the maelstrom, I did a series on education for the Wall Street Journal. I considered myself a good anti-Statist then, but I made an exception (Leonard Read would call it philosophical "leaking") for the institution of the public school.

This country had accepted "free" public education ever since the Eighteen Forties, and the idea seemed inextricably imbedded in our strangely mixed culture. I kept saying to myself that lots of good people had come out of the public high school and that was all right as long as there were a few private schools around to provide competi tion. In the course of writing my se ries I encountered Carl Hansen, head of the Washington, D.C., pub lic school system. He had a grand educational revolution - in reality, a counterrevolution - going. Children in his schools were getting their reading by phonics. Spanish was taught in the third grade. In structors could come into the Han sen system without taking the full complement of those ridiculous "methodology" courses that the teachers' colleges considered neces sary to "progressive" education. Hansen had one school-the Ami don School-that was a jewel. Any one, whether black or white, could enroll in it if transportation could be worked out and if he or she could keep grades up to snuff. Needless to say, Hansen believed in a "track"

system that would permit bright students to go ahead at their own swifter pace. Hansen convinced me at the time that a good man could do much to purge the public school system of the. "progressive" malaise. But Robert Love out in Wichita, Kan sas, knew better. At about the time I was seeing a savior in Carl Han315 THE FREEMAN May sen, Mr. Love was taking his three children, Randy, Robert, and Re becca, out of the public schools of Wichita. The kids, as he says, weren't learning anything, and Randy, the oldest, had become ter ribly confused when his fourth grade teacher made an example of him because he chose to exempt himself from a "voluntary" pro gram. Mr. Love and a few other disgusted parents had to pioneer their own private school, which is now known as the Wichita Colle giate School. Between 1967 and 1970 Wichita Collegiate graduated fifty students, forty-eight of whom were in college as of the Spring of 1971. Fifteen of those graduates were semi-finalists in the National Merit Scholarship competition, and three of them were finalists.

Meanwhile, Carl Hansen had long since departed from Washing ton. The "track" system had been abolished in D.C. schools, and medi ocrity had returned. The fault was not Carl Hansen's; he was and is a first-rate educator. The point is that running a counterrevolution in the public school system is bound to come to grief. The bureaucrats don't want it, and they are in con trol. The Story of Wichita Collegiate For the benefit of parents who are fed up with all the things that afflict public education, from busing to the "look-say" method of teaching reading, Mr. Love has put the story of Wichita Collegiate into a fascinating "do it yourself" book called How To Start Your Own School (Macmillan, $5.95). Wichita Collegiate has never receiyed a pen ny of public tax money, and it does not rely on fund-raising campaigns or special donations. Its philosophy is . "full cost," meaning that it charges enough in tuition to pay its bills. It doesn't believe in hiring a loL of "coordinators" and trouble shooters; the headmaster is the ad ministration, and if the parents don't like the instruction they com plain directly to the teachers. There is no tenure at Wichita Collegiate; if a teacher can't satisfy the stu dents, the parents, and the people who do the grading on the college boards, he either has to improve his record or go. Collegiate's idea is to hire fewer faculty members at higher salaries to do more work, which runs 180 degrees counter to Parkinson's Law. The teachers are not required to have "methodology"

certificates from schools of educa tion; as long as they know their own subjects, and have the ability to interest their students, they can command top salaries. To get the most out of its plant, Collegiate has gone over to the tri mester system. Some faculty mem bers work for the school year round, doing carpentry, painting, 1973 HOW TO START YOUR OWN SCHOOL 317 landscaping and repair work in July and August, in addition to teaching summer school. Full-Cost Athletics There is an athletic program at Collegiate, but the parents pay for it. It costs $30 to be on the football squad. The school shares its Olym pic swimming pool (it has an inex pensive plastic bubble top) with a local swim club. The father of a boy who Scores the winning basket in a close basketball game "has to buy the next set of bleachers." The baseball diamonds are used jointly with the Wichita YMCA. Collegiate has good teams, but, as Mr. Love puts it, "the parents who really want team sports will support the program and let the school get on with education."

In return for scholarship assist ance Collegiate expects students and "in some cases the parents" to do work around the school. Mothers drive the buses. Collegiate once had a professional librarian, but it discovered that mothers of children on scholarships could do a perfectly competent job of run ning the library. So the money the school once paid out as a librarian's salary now goes, indirectly, into scholarships. Mr. Love's book sticks mainly to the Collegiate story, and it is the better for that. But it offers some generalized advice to parents who may be thinking of starting private schools in other towns. Any two teachers, says Mr. Love, can set up a preschool and kindergarten. If the business goes well, and six more willing teachers and a secre tary can be found, it is not difficult to expand the school to one carry ing on through the sixth grade. The need for a headmaster does not arise until the school adds upper grades. As for finances, the parents will have to cover the costs in tui tion fees if they can't find bene factors. One way of raising capital for buildings is to sell shares to the parents, who can resell them after their children have graduated. In any case, the costs do not have to be exorbitant if the Collegiate tight-budget practices are followed.

New Private Schools Samuel L. Blumenfeld's How To Start Your Own Private School And Why You Need One (Arling ton, $9.95) offers a wide-ranging corroboration of everything Mr. Love has to say. Mr. Blumenfeld makes the point that Horace Mann, who saddled the U.S. with "free" compulsory public education, got his. idea from the schools of Prus sia. Horace Mann considered State run schools to be "democratic." He also believed in phrenology. He didn't live long enough to see what Prussian "democracy" did to Eur ope in World War I (the Kaiser's 318 THE FREEMAN May war) and World War II (Hitler's holocaust) . Much of Mr. Blumenfeld's book is devoted to a survey of the new private schools that are springing up in the South. Despite the wide spread feeling in the North that such schools as Prince Edward Academy in Farmville, Virginia, and Montgomery Academy in Montgomery, Alabama, are "segre gation schools," these new private ventures are, in Mr. Blumenfeld's opinion, legitimate efforts on the part of southern parents to save their children from getting inferior educations. Busing, says Mr. Blu menfeld, may turn out to be a great blessing; it has rehabilitated the idea of a free market in education as nothing else could.

w WHAT YOU CAN DO by Lemuel R. Boulware (San Diego, Calif. 92109, Box 9622: Loeffler & Co., Inc., 1973) 192 pp., single copies $1.35. (Discounts on quantities.) Reviewed by Henry Hazlitt THE FULL TITLE of this book is What You Can Do About Infla tion, Unemployment, Productivity, Profit, and Collective Bargaining. It lives up to that title. It is a clarion call to action. It reminds the reader that he is not merely someone with a seat in the spec tator stands; that what is being done daily by officeholders in Washington and in the labor unions vitally affects his interests; that in some respects economic conditions· in this country are get ting worse almost daily; that one of the chief reasons for this is that most of us do not realize that it is our ox that is being gored; that the majority of business leaders have themselves to blame for either not understanding :what is going on, or for lacking the init iative or courage to speak out in their own defense.

Mr. Boulware begins by point ing out that all 200 million of us, whether we realize it or not, have a direct or an indirect stake in the continuous prosperity. of Ameri can business. First, he estimates, even allowing for duplication there must be at least 50,000,000 of us who are direct or indirect owners of our 1,500,000 businesses. There are 31,000,000 known owners of stock in corporations,listed on the exchanges, and obviously more than 10,000,000 owners of our 10,000,000 unincorporated busi nesses. There are 25,000,000 sav ings accounts, millions more de positors in checking accounts, 28,000,000 participants in private pension funds~ 130,000,000 insur ance policy holders, and so on, all 1973 OTHER BOOKS 319 of which are at least indirect in vestors in American business. Finally, of course, there are some 87,000,000 men and women in the civilian labor force, whose pay and continued employment are directly dependent on the contin ued prosperity and profits of busi ness.

Yet here we (come to an incredi ble paradox. While the whole econ omy depends on the continuance of profit, while profits are the driving force to production and creation, politically "profit" has become a dirty word. Sometimes the necessity of profit is reluctantly conceded. But only of an undefined· "fair" profit. And from the daily denunciations of politicians and labor leaders we are left to gather that profits are chronically not fair but "excess ive" and "exorbitant." The public is appallingly ignor ant of the facts. A survey con ducted by McGraw-HilI's Opinion Research Corporation found that the median guess of the American people is that even after taxes manufacturing companies make 28 cents on every dollar of sales. This is seven times the actual figure. In 1970, American companies made an average after-tax profit of just 4 cents on every dollar· of sales. The thinness of this margin is illustrated in another way. Of the amount available for distribution as between the employees of the corporations and the owners, the workers, year in and year out, get about ~even-eighths and the owners only one-eighth. In 1970, the employees of the corporations got nine-tenths and the owners one-tenth. This is just the oppo site of what most Americans be lieve the average distribution to be. Moreover, about half this profit is not paid out in dividends but is reinvested in the business to in crease productivity, employment, and real wage-rates.

The greater part of Mr. Boul ware's book is devoted to educat ing the average citizen in the economic facts of today's world. He points out that our chronic infla tion is caused solely by the gov ernment's own policy in printing more paper money faster than matching goods and values can be produced. He shows that unem ployment is created whenever union-pressure forces wage-rates above what productivity· can justi fy or the market can support. This in turn brings more pressure on the government to print more money to raise prices to make the higher wage-rates payable. As the former vice-president in charge of labor relations for Gen eral Electric, Mr. Boulware writes, of course, with special authority on so-called collective bargaining. This he finds today to have become 320 THE FREEMAN May "not free, not collective and, in fact, too one-sided to be any real bargaining at all." Why do all these destructive practices and policies prevail? Be cause they are politically the most acceptable. Mr. Boulware uses the word "political" throughout his book in the narrow sense of "what is bad for, but will look good to, the constituents involved." Bad policies look good to them because they are ignorant and confused.

It is Mr. Boulware's driving pas sion to remove this ignorance and confusion, and to give those busi nessmen and economists who do know better the courage to speak out. This is a what-to and a how-to handbook. I know of no more use ful. or necessary pamphlet in our present political and economic crisis. ~ HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 tt1e Freeman VOL. 23, NO.6. JUNE 1973 Liberty and Public Opinion Perry E. Gresham 323 How to stem the modern tide of interest-group interventionism and recover the liberty and virtue of the capitalist public philosophy that characterized the flowering of America. Free Enterprise:a Definition Earl Zarbin 334 Not what the government obliges us to do, but what happens if government is properly limited-and man is free. Can We Keep Free Enterprise? Henry Hallitt 339 An expert on the nature and practice of freedom outlines the most important challenge of our lives.

"Permissiveness"or Liberty? Robert C. Wilson 349 Unless men are wards of the state, government has no power to be "permissive." Competition-What and When W. A. Paton 353 Concerning the nature of competition and the fallacies and misunderstandings that gathered around it. Sisyphus Leonard E. Read 366 A sisyphist: anyone who deliberately magnifies the effort required for a desired result. The Reformationand Economic DevelopmentToday Edward Coleson 368 A study of the record of industrial development from a Christian point of view. Book Reviews: 377 "The Conquest of Poverty" by Henry Hazlitt "The Foundations of Morality" by Henry Hazlitt Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON-ON·HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy. 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article. from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "The Reformation and Economic Development Today."

and Public Opinion PERRY E. GRESHAM THE PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY which characterized America during its most creative period had many di verse and varied sources and trib utaries. When Thomas Jefferson presented to an assembly of his countrymen those memorable words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are en dowed by their Creator with cer tain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he was borrowing from John Locke. Jef ferson had taken certain liberties, for Locke said- "Life, liberty, and property." This was somewhat more precise. "Property" is an essential and integral element of the American Dream, the concept and institution which allowed the dream to be formulated into a Dr. Gresham is President Emeritus and Chair man of the Board, Bethany College, Bethany, West Virginia. compelling capitalistic public phi losophy. Individual liberty was tempered by inner moral respon sibilities which inspired free men and women to swear allegiance to God and country, and then proceed to implement these oaths by sacri fice of "life, fortune, or sacred honor" if necessary. Both liberty and virtue undergirded the capi talistic public philosophy which characterized the flowering of America.

While the founding fathers and succeeding generations differed among themselves to the point of heat, fire, and occasional violence, an underlying common purpose gave a sense of direction and a vision of destiny which powered the Western expansion and devel oped a "Nation under God with liberty and Justice" for most ev erybody. This Weltanschauung de ri ved from remote. times and places. John Milton's A reopagitica 323 324 THE FREEMAN June was basic to the right to publish; Adam Smith's Wealth of Na,tions contributed such fundamental ideas as the division of labor and the free market; John Locke and the French Encyclopedists contrib uted to the politics and government which issued therefrom; Mande ville's The Grumbling Hive was modified by the more cautious and systematic John Stuart Mill to form the concept of the free in dividual as the unit of society; John Calvin and the Puritans had witnessed to the Apostles and Prophets so eloquently that their echos were still heard in Boston, Richmond, and Philadelphia.

Life, Liberty, Property The right to life meant more than mere survival; it implied that each person is manager of his own life and is, therefore, the slave of neither the state nor of any other person or collection thereof. As a unique and autonomous individ ual, each could realize his best self in proportion to his ability, his aspirations, and his diligence. The basic unit of society was an indi vidual person who could feel joy and sorrow, wonder at the uni verse around him, think about the nature and destiny of man on this little planet, and freely participate in the government to which he gave his consent. The right to liberty carried overtones of the Graeco-Roman concept of free men in contradis tinction to bond men. The Ameri can free man was no slave of the state, the trade union, the associ ation, nor of any man or group of men. That glorious free spirit was perfectly illustrated by a wise Texas pioneer named Ligon who said, "I am a member of the Dem ocratic party, but I don't belong to it." Individual and private judg ment is one of man's most cher ished values - unless he has been beguiled into the faceless collec tivist crowd.

Freedom to choose his own way of life and to exercise his own utility schedule were as much the right of each founding father as was his celebrated right to create a new form of government free from foreign domination. The Yankee did not tell the Virginian what he could buy, sell, or wear, and the Planter knew better than to attempt any thought control over the New Englander. Liberty meant freedom to initiate, acquire, sell, enter into contracts, and to exercise his right to freedom of speech, press, or assembly. He felt free to hire, fire, change jobs, leave the country, or grow a long and beautiful beard at will. The right to property implied a free market. A free man could trade, work, manufacture, buy or sell at will as long as force or 1973 LIBERTY AND PUBLIC OPINION 325 fraud was not involved. He could save some of his money to buy tools, land, hire help or build a plant and thereby extend the pow er of his productive capacities as well as those of his fellows. This opened the way to the miraculous division of labor whereby each in his own way could contribute to ward the development of a vast network of communication and transportation which, in turn, made this nation possible. New cities developed - not blighted and fearful jungles, but beautiful ci ties wherein each did his own thing without recourse to the ha tred and violence which now threaten each urban dweller and leave the lonely streets deserted because of fear.

Differences there were, and laws were necessary, but the common sense of decency and fair play ob tained in sufficient strength to re strain the greed and aggressive ness of man. The strength of public approval for industry, hon esty, frugality, and moral recti tude joined with the universal public disapproval of rapacity, lawlessness, violence, and misbe havior to save us from the gross evils which now threaten our very existence as a nation. Even the outlaws of the Old West soon yielded to that supreme control of human behavior called public opinion. The concept of property became, with the benefit of its religious heritage, a doctrine of stewardship wherein the owner was really act ing as a trustee for the Creator. The Vanderbilts, Carnegies, and Goulds felt responsible to man and God for the administration of wealth for the good of man. Char ity was born, not of theW elfare State which destroys charity by reliance on coercion but of the thrust of obligation which derives from freedom and from a sense of property held in trust.

A National Interest I have mentioned that the cap italist philosophy assumed certain common ends and purposes for the people of our nascent nation. The Constitution opens with the dec laration of a free people seeking to establish justice, preserve free dom, provide for the common de fense, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare. Honest, but differing, men con tended valiantly over State's rights, public improvements, in ternational involvements, and hard money, but the overarching loyalty to the country was never in ques tion. Free men were free to be wrong as well as right; and the best interest of each citizen turned out to be the best interest of every citizen. In rare cases, public opin ion, and, occasionally, the law in326 THE FREEMAN June tervened in such matters as the defense of the realm. The prevailing public philoso phy, however, was not without fault. From the standpoint of suc cessful operation, history shows no more effective framework for progress, yet that very idea of progress marked the period with Utopian expectations that were beyond the realm of possible achievement. The perfectibility of man was assumed in the face of historical evidence to the contrary.

Education was regarded as the touchstone that could transform stupidity into knowledge and ig norant immorality into informed virtue. Only in recent times have we faced up to the facts of human limitation and the illusion of prog ress in morality, intelligence, and art. The obvious progress in tech nology, together with our aston ishing success in achieving afflu ence, misled our fathers into great expectations which history could only deny. The Current Public Philosophy We lack a coherent and work able public philosophy in America today. Such as we have can best be described as Interest-Group In terventionism. The individual has lost his identity to his interest group. We speak now of the mi norities, the unions, the business and trade associations, the parties, the South, the intellectuals, the hard hats, the professions, but not of the individual people who are endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and property. This groupism has been internalized with the result that a person will vote against his own interest or his own judgment in order to be long to the group. The groups have learned the art of discipline, .

and such pejorative words as "Scab", "Uncle Tom", "Reac tionary", or "Chauvinist" soon bring the errant member back into the interest group. Those who defend Interest Group Interventionism assume that countervailing group power will bring about an appropriate balance so that the public will be served even though each group is out for itself alone. Adam Smith saw what he called "an invisible hand" that caused good to redound to society while each individual sought his own ends. This ap peared to work as long as there was an over arching public philos ophy which enabled the free mar ket to perform its miraculous function. To posit, however, "an invisible hand" that would derive public good from interest-group power is wishful fiction. The in terest group with the most clout predominates, and the public be damned. Consider, for example, the ignored claims of the public 1973 LIBERTY AND PUBLIC OPINION 327 on striking teachers, or the public need for access when a militant youth group· mounts a paralyzing demonstration.

The Road to Violence The loudly proclaimed objective of equality turns out to be rhetoric when the group interest is in volved. Group against opposing group is a kind of warfare which can resort to violence. Consider, for example, the radical racists both black and white - or the rad ical union and the goon squads of the recent past. The human group is of such a nature that it leads its constituent members into fan tastic expectations and unreason able demands. An otherwise thoughtful and sensible group member may be blind to the na ture of his interest group action. Casey Stengel, with more than us ual insight and candor said: "All I want is a fair advantage." This is the attitude of the average in terest group. So pervasive is this chummy philosophy that our laws are writ ten for interest groups and our government administers the laws with the interest group in mind. The Department of Labor, for in stance, has become a servant of the unions, the Department of Agriculture works for the agri cultural interests, and the Depart ment of Commerce represents the trade associations. The net effect of the interest-group philosophy is contempt for law which dares to oppose the group interest.

Radical youth have no reluc tance to violate the laws they dis like. The violator who burns his draft card or burns an ROTC building is more hero than law breaker to his crowd. Looting, rioting, even killing are justified and praised by the gang. Unions who feel their interests are vio lated feel free to break laws, or heads if necessary, to gain their ends. The radical blacks have come to regard policemen as pigs and many laws of the land as racist. Those who resisted the war in Indochina gloried in stealing doc uments, aiding the enemy, evading the draft, and disrupting society. The agencies which mirror public opinion such as the media, the academic people, and the public figures including some govern ment officials have, on occasion, condoned and even praised such contempt for the law. War Against Business Interest-Group Interventionism has mounted the most amazing war against business. From quite different backgrounds, Mises and Schumpeter predicted the assault.

Many business leaders have capit ulated and thereby contributed to the predicament. The politicians 328 THE FREEMAN June have ganged up on the business community for the obvious reason that there are more votes with the opposition; the young have called business a rat race and concluded that even if you win it you are still a rat; the consumerists are often more interested in punitive action against business than in public protection; radical ecolo gists care less for clean air, water, and unspoiled nature than they care for aggression against the business community; even the un ions whose very life depends on successful companies are out to destroy, with political help, the very industries which sustain them. Businessmen have lost the self esteem that makes the risks and hardships of business and finan cial responsibility worth the can dle. The president of a vast cor poration must slink into his barri caded office from the back way and say as little as possible about his work and his interests lest the ubiqui tous enemy find new oppor tunities for attack. Some execu tives have joined the assault and are lined up with the enemy in order to buy a little public favor with the leftwing establishment and, perhaps, to pick up a few bucks at the expense of their more valiant colleagues.

The worker stands to lose even more by the Interest-Group war against business. Absenteeism, a major threat to the American econ omy, is a greater threat to the true interest of the worker even though his group folklore· prompts him to think of it as his own right and a good way to get back at the com pany. Shoddy products and the loss of markets, both foreign and do mestic, can only mean disaster for labor. The peer group which once ostracized an irresponsible worker now defends him and even ap plauds his disregard of schedules and assignments. Pride in work manship, once a major satisfac tion to an employee, is now held in cynical contempt by some who carp of exploitation and alienation. The Worker's True Interest The true interest of a worker is a prosperous company of which he can be proud, one which can afford to pay him well and treat him with considerable respect as an essential colleague. Such a worker is proud of his product which can compete with anything in the world. Yet the gang philosophy has threat ened his job security by ill-con ceived laws. It has taught him to think of work as a necessary evil, his company as an enemy, his job as a right of access to fabulous pay - with no responsibility for qual ity and quantity in production.

The American worker is ex ploited by the public philosophy 1973 LIBERTY AND PUBLIC OPINION 329 and not so much by the corpora tion or by capital as he has been led to believe. The New Left ridi cules him as a dope to believe in his country, and the left-leaning young call him a "Hard Hat" with supercilious contempt. The poli ticians offer him anything to buy his vote, and then give him only bad legislation which worsens his predicament. The strong and in dependent American worker seems unaware of the Interest-Group philosophy that is socializing his property, curtailing his liberty, and destroying his dignity. The current public philosophy tends toward socialist economics, collectivist and egalitarian politics, government intervention, feeling rather than reason in the arts and public concerns., change rather than stability, sentimental identity with the underprivileged at home and abroad, sympathy for the left, and antipathyforthe right.

The Class Struggle The Utopian expectations in spired by the going viewpoint are quite beyond human possibility if we can trust history. No civili zation has ever achieved equality; but even if it were possible it would not be satisfactory, for those who feel disadvantaged seek domination rather than equal stat us. Not everyone can belong to the ruling class, for position and preference require the obverse - sub ordination. Gilbert and Sullivan ef fectively lampooned the preten sions of such Utopian expectations with the humorous failure of an attempt to make the butler into the Lord High Butler and the coachman into the Lord High Coachman. The consequence of a successful revolution would not be the "classless society" but a new and different ruling class, with in ferior status and subordination for the rest. Much of the joy of the new ruling class would be the op portunity to beat up and put down the old ruling class. Envy, hate, and aggression are the psycho logical matrix of the class struggle.

Interest-Group Interventionism is not working and will not work because it is based on too many false assumptions. It lacks the common purpose and teamwork es sential to a going and coherent so ciety. Socializing the industries tends to reduce, rather than en hance, the standard of Iiving. No country can defend itself without patriotism. No society can survive unless its people can become inured to the fact that many must accept and enjoy subordinate positions. Without reasonable equality of op portunity and equal justice under the law, no country can survive. No interest group can arrogate to itself control of the' body politic without the dissolution of the 330 THE FREEMAN June country - unless that group be comes the government as happened in Russia and China. Even then, freedom is lost for all but the rul ing clique. Toward the Recovery of a Workable Public Philosophy The ancient ideal of the rule of law rather than the rule of men is still valid even though the rush to pass interest-group legislation has perverted the concept. The rule of law as conceived by Plato, Solon, and Edward Coke implied that laws should be minimal rather than end lessly proliferating as they are today. The laws, moreover, must be enforceable and enforced or they are not laws at all. The ridicu lous attempts at the prohibition of alcoholic beverages as conceived by Volstead and passed by the Con gress are examples. Any law, more over, should be written precisely so that interpretation is easy and negotiation unnecessary. Good laws are even-handed and fair to everybody, and should be enforced on all parties alike. The wheeling and dealing of government regula tory agencies who strive for con sent decrees through muddled and ambiguous legislation is a trav esty on justice and an invitation to fraud.

Our system appears to suffer from excessive special interest group legislation. This results in a hopeless jungle of class-oriented laws, vaguely written, subject to administrative bargaining and dealing, rather than simple clarity and enforcement. We have laws for the veterans, the farmers, the unions, the builders, the railroads, the motor companies, the colleges, and almost any other interest group that comes to the mind and attention of some eager legislator. The country would be better served by legislative sessions ded icated to the repeal of the super lative laws rather than the relent less creation of new ones. It is the shame of our age that a legisla ture takes pride in the number of bills it has passed to clutter the books and reduce human freedom. Laws to protect life, liberty, prop erty, and laws to provide for the security and defense of the realm are essential and few. The legal corpus, like university catalogues, needs a thorough wringing out.

Avoid Needless Laws In our charming little college town, we once had a bright and scholarly mayor who persuaded the town council to pass a law that no dog should bark or make any men acing noise. The dogs, unfortu nately, could not read, and the growls continued. The state and Federal laws are more sophisticat- , ed but therefore more threatening to the common interest. A review 1973 LIBERTY AND PUBLIC OPINION 331 of the special-interest legislation passed in the last decade would suggest real danger to the Repub lic. Such laws are intended to bring advantage to a few at the expense of many, and are, more over, frequently unenforceable on a just and equitable basis. The re sult is administrative law with re lianceon negotiation and compro mise; nobody knows what is truly legitimate and nobody feels secure. Such problems as obtained in our jury system and in our courts are beyond the scope of this paper, but the laws of the land can be effec tive only to the extent that they are accepted and obeyed. Society could not operate if force were re (fuired against many persons to compel obedience. The glory of Britain at the peak of her influ ence was the respect for law which was apparent in each citizen, along with the atmosphere of public ex pectations which inspired this re spect. Centuries earlier, Plato had Socrates expound this very prin ciple and epitomize it in the max im: "The kingly man is a Iiving law." Enforcement is essential, but it is for the few offenders. The vast majority must love and live the law.

Be An Individual An honorable and effective pub lic philosophy can be recovered if enough people think, care, and join in the affirmation of a systematic public opinion which honors life, liberty, and property. Be an individual, and the group loses a pawn. The collective mind obtains only when the individual mind abdi cates. Be free in thought, feeling, and action, and a one-man counter revolution begins. A noble capitalist is the best argument against communism. Thomas Carlyle was on target when he said: "Be ;honest, and there will be one less scoundrel in the world." Philosophy, public or private, begins in wonder and continues in the love of wisdom. It soon devel ops into a formulation of a view point. Clearing the muddle out of one's head and thinking for one self is a delight worthy to be prized. A review of the American past seems to one old philosophy teach er to indicate that we have been blessed by the most effective and defensible public philosophy known to man. Our experiments in social ism, interventionism, statism, and interest-group legislation, with as tonishing disregard for the most reliable and convincing evidence, have almost destroyed the goals, teamwork, and safety of our cher ished land. Those of us who prize the rights to life,"liberty, and prop332 THE FREEMAN June erty need to get our facts together and our theory organized so that we can make a case for the capi talist public philosophy before it is too late. America need not decline and fall just because Rome did.

Each and every informed and ar ticulate exponent of freedom is a vote for "a new birth of freedom." I have been amazed at how con vincing and unanswerable are the arguments for liberty in human affairs. I have heard Mises, Fried man, Rogge, Wright, and Hayek stand before throngs of students and faculty members with the chal lenge for anyone to name a period in world history in which the peo ple enjoyed a high standard of liv ing under any except a free mar ket economy. Never have I heard a successful refutation of liberty, nor even a convincing example to the contrary. Beyond economics, however, the case for the initia tive of free people is even more impressive. With truth and history on the side of freedom, argument in its behalf is pleasant and rewarding. As a lifelong student of ideas, I am perplexed and troubled by my academic colleagues who are en thralled by the specious but super ficially plausible arguments of the socialists. The patent mistakes of the Marxian Utopian expectation of a classless society, along with the mistaken assumption that corrupting power rests with private ownership rather than with the commissariat, are illustrative.

Become an expert in freedom philosophy, and have fun! The Ideal Is Practical, Despite Problems The problems of society are nev er solved; they are only resolved. No system ever works as well as its proponents claim. Even the halcyon days of American capital ism were fraught with occasions of license, rapacity, greed, envy, and fraud. If my case for Peoples' Capitalism seems too good to be true, you can rest assured that the faults of the system made it at home in the real world of people. When the late Will Rogers was asked, "What is wrong with the world ?" he answered - "Mostly just folks!" You cannot have a perfect society with imperfect peo ple. But a tolerable society it was, and that society could be recov ered. Our present predicament has become almost intolerable, with urban jungles, greedy and unfair demands, superarrogations of pow er in the hands of the State, wide spread nihilism, recourse to vio lence, contempt for law, and public approval of uncivil and even crimi nal behavior. We call not for Uto pia, hut only for a public philos ophy which can release the free spiri t, restrain the evil in man, 1973 LIBERTY AND PUBLIC OPINION 333 and allow private interest to re dound to public benefit.

If I am charged with describing the public philosophy in terms of the ideal, I accept the charge, but only in part. I have described it, rather, in terms of the possible. I feel warm identity with my de lightful philosopher colleague, the late T. V. Smith, who said: "Don't let the best become the enemy of the good I" Plato defended his ideal city state in the Republic as not in actual existence, but "a pattern laid up in heaven." The pos sible public philosophy I have pro posed has existed in the history of this country, and it could bere covered with many improvements if enough of us think, speak, write, and act with the persuasive elo quence and example of ourcoura geous founding fathers. Liberty is difficult to achieve, difficult to maintain, and difficult to recover, but the pursuit of it is the first responsibility of an in formed American citizen. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY My Creed I DO NOT CHOOSE to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon - if I can. I seek opportunity - not secur ity. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the cal culated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the chal lenges of life to the guaranteed· existence; the thrill of fulfilment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dig nity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. AU this is what it :means to be an American. DEAN ALFANGE My BELIEF as a newspaperman is that freedom of the press, along with all of the other freedoms we are supposed to enjoy, cannot exist permanently in anything other than a society whose economic system is based on freedom. This means I support free enterprise. But what is free enterprise? Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary says free enterprise is "freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without in terference by government beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the na tional economy in balance."

Mr. Zarbin is an assistant city editor at the Arizona Republic in Phoenix, Arizona. 334 FREE ENTERPRISE: adefinition EARL ZARBIN I disagree with the definition. It says that private business should be regulated for two rea sons. The first of these is "to pro tect public interest" and the sec ond is to keep "the national econ omy in balance." What is meant by the "public interest"? If the public interest means that government should make its presence known so that robbers, thieves, burglars, and other cheats won't interfere with the peaceful activities of people as they go about their business, then I'm all for government. If the public interest means that government should bring about the peaceful settlement of con tractual disputes in a court sys tem, again I'm for government.

1973 FREE ENTERPRISE: A DEFINITION 335 But if it means, as it has come to mean, that government should determine the wages that should be paid workers, that government should determine the prices of goods and services, that govern ment should set profits, that gov ernment should create and enforce special favors for certain busi nesses, industries, and other groups, then I'm totally opposed to government involvement in the "public interest." Yet, that's what the public interest has come to mean today. The public interest now means whatever the men in power and authority want it to mean. One day in January it was in the pub lic interest to regulate almost all wages, prices, and profits; the next day it was in the public in terest to abandon almost all of these controls. Who can say what the politicians in Washington will decide is in the public interest to morrow? And four years from now, if the Democratic Party suc ceeds to the presidency, will the public interest be different than it is with a president from the Re publican Party?

The Freedom to Choose You'll notice, I 'hope, that the things I believe are in the public interest - protecting people from any who would steal from them and resolving disagreements in the courts - are intended to pre serve the freedom of everyone to act peaceably in his own behalf. On the other hand, the things of which I disapprove - govern ment regulation of wages, prices, and profits - interfere with the freedom of peaceful people to de cide their own business. Individ ual choices and judgments have been replaced by people in govern ment who think they are better able to make such decisions. Of course, I rej ect such notions, be cause no one is better able to de cide what is best for each of us than is the individual himself. The second reason why private business should be regulated, ac cording to Webster's definition, is to "keep the national economy in balance." By what authority was the Federal government given the job of keeping the national econ omy in balance? Is there some statement to this effect in the Constitution? Of course not. And what does "balance" mean? If the economy is in balance today, will it not be in balance tomorrow when a new set of politicians come to power?

Government has no more moral or legal authority to "keep the na tional economy in balance" than it has to act in the "public in terest," beyond protecting life, liberty, and property. Keeping the national economy in balance and 336 THE FREEMAN June determining the public interest, beyond protecting peaceable citi zens, are assumptions of author ity never intended for the Fed eral government by the men who founded this nation. So far as I am concerned, the intention of the Founding Fathers was to provide an opportunity for maximum individual freedom and enterprise through protecting l~fe, liberty, and property. It was left to each person to decide for him self how he was to use his free dom, the sole restraint being that he not harm anyone else. That, I assume, includes not polluting the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food we eat. In a Competitive System? Now let's take a look at the first part of Webster's definition, that part which says that free enter prise is "freedom of private busi ness to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system ... "

I don't like the way that is stated. The use of the word "in" - lin a competitive system' - sug gests to me that someone specifi cally designed "a competitive sys tem" in which everyone must op erate. It can be said that the writers of the Constitution did es tablish "a competitive system" by their failure to give government a role in the organization of pro duction and the distribution of goods and services. But what I think the Constitution does, in stead, is to establish the condi tions for personal freedom - which includes economic freedom. The Constitution does not de cree the manner in which business is to be conducted. The Constitu tion does not decree a competitive system as such. Rather, the Con stitution allows the people to make their own choices about how they will employ their labor. And a competitive system evolved out of their freedom of choice to com pete with one another.

If the people wanted, it would have been their right, as it is to day, to organize their agricultural and tndustrial activities on a com munal basis. They need not have engaged in competition at all. They might have decided that being their brother's keeper - that di viding what they produced into equal shares for all, regardless of their efforts - is what they want ed. Some few of them even tried this, just as we have some few trying it today. But they tried it in freedom. They tried it as a matter of the right to decide for themselves. Those who decided against the communal existence had to accept the challenge of the only available alternative: compet ing in the market place against all others who go there. That's why I can't accept that 1973 FREE ENTERPRISE: A DEFINITION 337 free enterprise is "freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system . . ." If the people, in their freedom, had chosen not to compete, they didn't have to. If the people, in their freedom, had chosen to divide equally what they produced, the word profit might convey a meaning different than it does today. If the people, in their freedom, had chosen not to compete, we might think today more in terms of communal busi ness than of private business.

forced into Socialism Perhaps there are exceptions, but for most people I doubt that they voluntarily go into communal or socialist businesses. In coun tries like Russia, China, Cuba, and Czechoslovakia, the people are forced into socialist enterprises by their governments. If these peoples were given their freedom, I have no doubt that they would quickly return to private business and that the productivity of their nations would quicken. They would return to private business and competition, because this is the way of human nature. Given their freedom, people will work to improve their personal situations. In doing this, so long as what they do is peaceful, they cannot help at the same time improving the conditions of everyone else. Competition, or a competitive system, is the result of freedom; no government has to decree it. It evolves of its own accord in the nature of men and women and what they do when they feel se cure in their lives, their liberty, and their property.

Now I am ready to offer my own definition of free enterprise. I believe free enterprise is the name given to an economic sys tem that developed naturally out of the freedom of individuals to decide for themselves how to use their time and resources. In that economic system, the means of financing, designing, producing, exchanging, delivering, and serv icing products are always subject to change, with the character of any change depending solely upon the ingenuity of the owners of the means of production. In free en terprise, government's role should be limited to policing the market place. Entry into the market place should be unrestricted. Govern ment should not be in the busi ness of granting favors to any one, such as tax breaks, subsidies, tariffs, franchises, and monopo lies. A Hodgepodge of Intervention From what I have said, it should be very plain that we do not have free enterprise in these United States. Our economic sys338 THE FREEMAN June tern is a hodgepodge of govern ment rules and regulations which benefit some people at the expense of others.

If government regulates our economic life, there is nothing to prevent it from regulating every other area of our existence. Eco nomic activity, basically, consists of the things that people do to stay alive. Economic freedom means the right that each of us should have to decide how he is going to earn his daily bread. The only restriction, as I said before, is that one not interfere with the rights of others. If our economic system is not based on freedom, if we are re strained in our economic activities to what government directs or per mits us to do, then we are not free. If we criticize, government might one day cut off our job, or we might be sent to a mental in stitution for rehabilitation, or we might be sentenced to a slave-la bor camp. In these United States govern ment has come to control, through the passage of laws and through the decrees of various regulatory bodies, the economic decisions that should be left to the owners of private property. Besides this, through the power to tax, govern ment can destroy any business or enterprise.

The Press Is Vulnerable Freedom of the press is espe cially vulnerable.N 0 publisher can exist unless he is a successful businessman, or unless someone is subsidizing him. In either case, he can publish only as long as he pleases the people paying the bills. Free speech is more difficult to destroy or deny, because speech is just that. But press freedom de pends upon the printed word, which means paper, ink, and print ing presses. All of these are prod ucts of economic acti vity and, as a consequence, so is freedom of the press. If our economic system were based on freedom, which means free enterprise, we could be cer tain that we always would have freedom of the press. But if we persist in making government our master, the day will come when government will control us in ev erything except our private thoughts. I) IDEAS ON LIBERTY James Madison MEASURES are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.

From The Federalist Papers #10 HENRY HAZLITT ____ FREE ENTERPRISE? NINE-TENTHS of what is written today on economic questions is either an implied or explicit at tack on capitalism. The attacks are occasionally answered. But none of the answers, even when they are heard, are ever accepted as conclusive. The attacks keep com ing, keep multiplying. You cannot pick up your daily newspaper with out encountering half a dozen. The sporadic answers are lost in the torrent of accusation. The charges or implied charges outnumber the rebuttals ten to one. What is wrong? Does capital ism, after all, have an indefens ible case? Have its champions been not only hopelessly outnumbered but hopelessly outargued? We can hardly think so if we re call only a few of the great minds that have undertaken the task of defense, directly or indirectly, in the past - Hume, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Bastiat, Senior, Boehm-Bawerk, John Bates Clark; or of the fine minds that have un dertaken it in our day - Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Hans Sennholz, Israel Kirzner, David McCord Wright, and so many others.

What, then, is wrong? I venture to suggest that no defense of capHenry Hazlitt is well known to Freeman readers as economist, author, columnist, editor, lecturer, and practitioner of freedom. 339 340 THE FREEMAN June italism, no matter how brilliant or thorough, will ever be generally accepted as definitive. The attacks on capitalism stem from at least five main impulses or propensities, all of which will probably be with us permanently, because they seem to be inherent in our nature. They are: (1) genuine compassion at the sight of individual misfortune; (2) impatience for a cure; (3) envy; (4) the propensity to think only of the intended or immediate results of any proposed govern ment intervention and to overlook the secondary or long-term re sults; and (5) the propensity to compare any actual state of af fairs, and its inevitable defects, with some hypothetical ideal. These five drives or tendencies blend and overlap. Let us look at them .in order, beginning with compassion. Most of us, at the sight of extreme poverty, are moved to want to do something to relieve it - or to get others to re lieve it. And we are so impatient to see the poverty relieved as soon as possible that, no matter how forbidding the dimensions of the problem, we are tempted to think it will yield to some simple, di rect, and easy solution.

The Role of Envy Let us look now at the role of envy. Few of us are completely free from it. It seems to be part of man's nature never to be satisfied as long as he sees other people better off than himself. Few of us, moreover, are willing to accept the better fortune of others as the re sult of greater effort or gifts on their part. Weare more likely to attribute it at best to "luck" if not to "the system." In any case, the pressure to pull down the rich seems stronger and more persis tent in most democracies than the prompting to raise the poor. Envy reveals itself daily in po litical speeches and in our laws. It plays a definite role in the popu larity of the graduated income tax, which is firmly established in nearly every country today, though it violates every canon of equity. As J. R. McCulloch put it in the 1830's: "The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all individuals the same pro portion of their inc'ome or of their property, you are at sea without rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice or folly you may not commit."

McCulloch's prediction has been borne out by events. Historically, almost every time there has been a revision of income-tax rates the progression has become steeper. When the graduated income tax was first adopted in the United States in 1913, the top rate was 7 per cent. Some thirty years later it had risen to 91 per cent. In 1973 CAN WE KEEP FREE ENTERPRISE? 341 Great Britain the top rate went from 8:tA, to 971j2 per cent in a similar period. It has been re peatedly demonstrated li that these confiscatory rates yield negligible revenues. The reduction of real in come that they cause is certainly greater than the revenue they yield. In brief, they have hurt even the taxpayers in the lower brackets. Yet envy has played a crucial role in keeping the progressive income tax. The. bulk of the tax payers accept far higher rates of taxation than they would if the rates were uniform; for the tax payers in each tax bracket console themselves with the thought that their wealthier neighbors must be paying a far higher rate. Thus though about two-thirds (65.5 per cent) of the income tax is paid (1969) by those with. adjusted gross incomes of $20,000 or less, there is an almost universal illu 'sion that the real burden of the tax is falling on the very rich.

But perhaps the greatest reason why governments. again and again abandon the principles of free en terprise is mere shortsightedness. They attempt to cure some sup posed economic evil directly by some simple measure, and com pletely fail to foresee or even to ask what the secondary or long term consequences of that mea sure will be. Tampering with Money From time immemorial, when ever governments have felt that their country was insufficiently wealthy, or when trade was stag nant or unemployment rife, the' 'theory has arisen that the funda mental trouble was a "shortage of money." After the invention of the printing press, when a govern ment could stamp a slip of paper with any denomination or issue notes without limit, any imagin able increase in the money supply became possible. What was not understood was that any stimulative effect was temporary, and purchased at ex cessi ve cost. If the boom was ob tained by an overexpansion of bank credit, it was bound to be followed by a recession or crisis when the new credit was paid off.

If the boom was obtained by print ing more government fiat money, it temporarily made some people richer only at the cost of making other people (in real terms) poorer. When the supply of money is in creased the purchasing power of each unit must correspondingly fall. In the long run, nothing whatever is gained by increasing the issuance of paper money. Prices of goods tend, other things equal, to rise proportionately with the increase in money supply. If the stock of money is doubled, it can in the long run purchase no 342 THE FREEMAN June more goods and services than the smaller stock of money would have done. And yet the government of nearly every country in the world today is busily increasing the is suance of paper money, partly if not entirely because of its belief that it is "relieving the shortage of money" and "promoting faster economic growth." This illusion is intensified by the habit of count ing the currency unit as if its purchasing power were constant.

In 1971 there was a great out burst of hurrahs because the GNP (gross national product) had at last surpassed the magic figure of a trillion dollars. (It reached $1,046 billion.) It was forgotten that if the putative GNP of 1971 had been stated in terms of dol lars at their purchasing power in 1958 this 1971 GNP would have come to only $740 billion, and if stated in terms of the dollar's pur chasing power in 1939 would have come to only $320 billion. Yet monetary expansion is ev erywhere today - in every coun try and in the International Mon etary Fund with its SDR's - the official policy. Its inevitable effect is rising prices. But rising prices are not popular. Therefore gov ernments forbid prices to rise. And this price control has the enormous political advantage of deflecting attention away from the government's own responsibility for creating inflation, and by im plication puts the blame for rising prices on lhe greed of producers and sellers.

Price Control The record of price controls goes as far back as human his tory. They were imposed by the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. They were decreed by Hammurabi, king of Babylon, in the eighteenth century B. C. They were tried in ancient Athens. In 301 A. D., the Roman Em peror Diocletian issued his fa mous edict fixing prices for near ly eight hundred different items, and punishing violation with death. Out of fear, nothing was offered for sale and the scarcity grew far worse. After a dozen years and many executions, the law was repealed. In Britain, Henry III tried to regulate the price of wheat and bread in 1202. Antwerp enacted price-fixing in 1585, a measure which some historians believe brought about its downfall. Price fixing laws enforced by the guillo tine were also imposed during the French Revolution, though the soaring prices were caused by the revolutionary government's own policy in issuing enormous amounts of paper currency.

Yet from all this dismal his1973 CAN WE KEEP FREE ENTERPRISE? 343 tory the governments of today have learned absolutely nothing. They continue to overissue paper money to stimulate employment and "economic growth"; and then they vainly try to prevent the in evitable soaring prices with ukas es ordering everybody to hold prices down. Harmful Intervention But though price-fixing laws are always futile, this does not mean that they are harmless. They can do immensely more economic damage than the inflation itself. They are harmful in proportion as the legal price-ceilings are be low what unhampered market prices would be, in proportion to the length of time the price con troIs remain in effect, and in pro portion to the strictness with which they are enforced. For if the legal price for any commodity, whether it is bread or shoes, is held by edict substan tially below what the free market price would be, the low fixed price must overencourage the demand for it, discourage its production, and bring about a shortage. The profit margin in making or sell ing it will be too small as com pared with the profit margin in prod ucing or selling something else.

In addition to causing scarci ties of some commodities, and bottlenecks in output, price-control must eventually distort and unbal ance the whole structure of pro duction. For not only the absolute quantities, but the proportions in which the tens of thousands of different goods and services are produced, are determined in a free market by the relative supply and demand, the relative money prices, and the relative costs of produc tion of commodities A, B, C, and N. Market prices have work to do. They are signals to both producers and consumers. They tell where the shortages and surpluses are. They tell which commodities are going to be more profitable to pro duce and which less. To remove or destroy or forbid these signals must discoordinate and discourage production. Selective Controls - No Stopping Place General price controls are com paratively rare. Governments more often prefer to put a ceiling on one particular price. A favorite scapegoat since World War I has been the rent of apartments and houses.

Rent controls, once imposed, are sometimes continued for a generation or more. When they are imposed, as they nearly always are, in a period of inflation, the frozen rents year by year become less and less realistic. The long344 THE FREEMAN June term effect is that the landlords have neither the incentive nor the funds to keep the rental apart ments .or houses in decent repair, let alone to improve them. Losses often force owners to abandon their properties entirely. Private builders, fearing the same fate, hesitate to erect new rental hous ing. Slums proliferate, a short age of housing develops, and the majority of tenants, in whose sup posed interest the rent control was imposed in the first place, become worse off than ever. Perhaps the oldest and most widespread form of price control in the world is control of interest rates. In ancient China, India, and Rome, and nearly everywhere throughout the Middle Ages, all interest was called "usury", and prohibited altogether. This made economic progress all but impos sible. Later, the taking of interest was permitted, but fixed legal ceilings were imposed. These held back economic progress but did not, like total prohibition, prevent it entirely.

Yet political hostility to higher than-customary interest rates nev er ceases. Today, bureaucrats com bat such "exorbitant" rates more often by denunciation than by edict. The favorite government method today for keeping interest rates down is to have the mone tary managers flood the market with new loanable funds. This may succeed for a time, but the long-run effect of overissuance of money and credit is to arouse fears among businessmen that in flation and rising prices will con tinue.So lenders, to protect them selves against an expected fall in the future purchasing power of their dollars, add a "price premi um". This makes the gross market rate of interest higher than ever. The propensity of politicians to learn nothing about economics is illustrated once again in the laws governing foreign trade. The classical economists of the eigh teenth century utterly demolished the arguments for protectionism.

They showed that the long-run effect of protecti ve tariff sand other barriers could only be to make production more inefficient, to make consumers pay more and to slow down economic progress. Yet protectionism is nearly as rampant as it was before 1776, when The Wealth of Nationswas published. The Conquest of Poverty In the same way, all the popular political measures to reduce or relieve poverty are more distin guished for their age than for their effectiveness. The major effect of minimum wage laws is to create unemploy ment, chiefly among the unskilled 1973 CAN WE KEEP FREE ENTERPRISE? 345 workers that the law is designed to help. We cannot make a. work er's services worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. We merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and op portunities would permit him to earn, while we deprive the com munity of the moderate services he is capable of rendering. We drive him on relief.

And by driving more people on relief by minimum-wage laws on the one hand, while on the other hand enticing more and more peo ple to get on relief by constantly increasing the amounts we offer them, we encourage the runaway growth of relief rolls. Now, as a way to "cure" this growth, re formers come forward to propose a guaranteed annual income or a "negative income tax." The dis tinguishing feature of these hand outs is that they are to be given automatically, without a. means test, and regardless of whether or not the recipient chooses to work. The result could only beenor mously to increase the number of idle, and correspondingly to in crease the tax burden on those who work. We can always have as much unemployment as we are willing to pay for. At bottom, almost every govern ment "anti-poverty" measure in history has consisted of seizing part of the earnings or savings of Peter to support Paul. Its inevit able long-run result is to under mine the' incentives of both Peter and Paul to work or to save.

What is overlooked in aU these government interventions is the miracle of the market - the amaz ing way in which free enterprise maximizes the incentives to pro duction, to work, innovation, ef ficiency, saving, and investment, and graduates both its penalties and rewards with such accuracy as to tend to bring about the pro duction of the tens of thousands of wanted goods and services in the proportions in which they 'are most demanded by consumers. Only free private enterprise, in fact, can solve what economists call this problem of economic cal culation. The Problem of Calculation Socialism is incapable of solv ing the problem. The bureaucratic managers of nationalized indus tries may be conscientious, God fearing men; but as they have no fear of suffering personal losses through error or inefficiency, and no hope of gaining personal prof its through cost-cutting or daring innovation, they are bound, at best, to become safe routineers, and to tolerate a torpid inef ficiency.

But this is the smallest part of 346 THE FREEMAN June the problem. For a complete so cialism would be without the guide of the market, without the guide of money prices or of costs in terms of money. The bureau cratic managers of the socialist economy would not know which iterns they were producing at a social profit and which at a social loss. Nor would they know how much to try to produce of each item or service, or how to mak.e sure that the production of tens of thousands of different commod ities was synchronized or coordi nated. They could, of course (as the"y sometimes have), assign ar bitrary prices to raw materials and to the various finished items. But they would still not know how much or whether the book keeping profits or losses shown re flected real profits or losses. In short, they would be unable to solve the problem of economic calculation.· They would be work ing in the dark.

The directors of a socialist econ omy would have to fix wages arbi trarily, and if these did not draw the right number of competent workers into making the various things the directors wanted pro duced, and in the quantities they wanted them to be produced, they would have to use coercion, forc ibly assign workers to particular jobs, and direct the economy from the center, in a military kind of organization. This militarization and regimentation of work is what, in fact, Cuba, Russia, and Red China have resorted to. Rising Expectations We come finally to the fifth reason that I offered at the begin ning for the chronic hostility to free enterprise. This is the tend ency to compare any actual state of affairs, and its inevitable de fects, with some hypothetical ideal; to compare whatever is with some imagined paradise that might be. In spite of the prodig ious and accelerative advances that a dominantly private enterprise economy has made in the last two "centuries, and even in the last two decades, these advances can always be shown to have fallen short of some imaginable state of affairs that might be even better."

It may be true, for example, tha t money wages in the United States have increased fivefold, and even after all allowance has been made for rising living costs, that real wages have more than doubled in the last generation. But why haven't they tripled? It may be true that the number of the "poor", by the Federal bureau crats' yardstick, fell from 20 per cent of the population in 1962 (when the estimate was first made) to 13 per .cent in 1970. But why should there be any poor peo1973 CAN WE KEEP FREE ENTERPRISE? 347 pIe left at all? It may be true that the employees of the corporations already get seven-eighths of the entire sum available for distribu tion between them and the stock holders. But why don't the work ers get the whole of it? And so on and so on. The very success of the system has encouraged constantly rising expectations and demands - ex pectations and demands that keep racing ahead of what even the best imaginable system could achieve.

The struggle to secure what we now know as capitalism - Le., un hampered markets and private ownership of the means of pro duction - was long and arduous. It has proved an inestimable boon to mankind. Yet if this system is to be saved from willful destruc tion, the task of the incredibly few who seem to understand how and why it works is endless. They cannot afford to rest their case on any defense of free enterprise, or any exposure of socialism or other false remedies, that they or their predecessors may have made in the past. There have been some magnificent defenses over the past two centuries, from Adam Smith to Bastiat, and from Boehm Bawerk to Mises and Hayek. But they are not enough. Every day capitalism faces some new accu sation, or one that parades as new. Eternal Vigilance Truth Needs Repeating In brief, ignorance, shortsight edness, envy, impatience, good in tentions, and a utopian idealism combine to engender an endless barrage of charges against "the system" - which means against free enterprise. And so the return fire, if free enterprise is to be preserved, must also be endless.

I find I have only been apply ing to one particular field an ex hortation that Goethe once applied to all fields of knowledge. In 1828 he wrote in a letter to Eckermann: "The truth must be repeated again and again, because error is constantly being preached round about us. And not only by isolated individuals, but by the majority. In the newspapers and encyclo pedias, in the schools and uni versities' everywhere error is dominant, securely and comfort ably ensconced in public opinion which is on its side." Yet above all in political and economic thought today, the need to keep repeating the truth has assumed an unprecedented ur gency. What is under constant and mounting attack is capitalism - which means free enterprise which means economic freedom which means, in fact, the whole of human freedom. For as Alex ander Hamilton warned: "Power 348 THE FREEMAN June ~over a man's subsistence is power over his will."

What is threatened, in fact, is no less than our present civiliza tion itself; for it is capitalism that has made possible the enorm ous advances not only in provid ing the necessities and amenities of life, but in science, technology, and knowledge of all kinds, upon which that civilization rests. All those who understand this have the duty to explain and de fend the system. And to do so, if necessary, over and over again. This duty does not fall exclu sively on professional economists. It falls on each of us who real izes the untold benefits of free en terpriseand the present threat of its destruction to expound his con victions within the sphere of his own influence, as well as to sup port others who are expounding like convictions. Each of us is as free to practice what he preaches as to preach what he practices. The opportunity is as great as the challenge. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Reprints available in attractive pamphlet: 4 copies $1.00; 25 copies or more, 15 cents each.

The Elite Under Capitalism THERE IS, in a free society, no other means to avoid the evils re sulting from one's fellows' bad judgment than to induce them to alter their ways of life voluntarily. Where there is freedom, this is the task incumhent upon the elite. Men are unequal and the inherent inferiority of the many mani fests itself also in the manner in which they enjoy the affluence capitalism hestows upon them. It would he a hoon for mankind, say many authors, if the common man would spend less time and money for the satisfaction of vulgar appetites and more for higher and nobler gratifications. But should not the distinguished critics rather blame themselves than the masses? Why did they, whom fate and nature have blessed with moral and intellectual eminence, not better succeed in persuading the masses of· inferior people to drop their vulgar tastes and habits? If something is wrong with the behavior of the many, the fault rests no more with the inferi ority of the masses than with the inability or unwillingness of the elite to induce all other people to accept their own higher stand ards of value. The serious crisis of our civilization is caused not only hy the shortcomings of the masses. It is no less the effect of a failure of the elite.

LUDWIG VON MISES r "Permissiveness"orLiberty? ROBERT C. WILSON TRADITIONALLY, there has been one principle with which men have been able to judge lawmaking since the advent of liberalism (in the original sense of that word). It was -the principle enshrined in the American constitution and emu lated, in part or in whole, by all nations seeking to follow Amer ica's revolutionary lead. It was the principle that guided men like Wil liam Graham Sumner, Stephen J. Field and Herbert Spencer in their respecti ve intellectual arenas. It was a principle simultaneously le gal, political and philosophic - the principle of liberty. Although still the best and only real guide to such subsidiary con cepts as justice and legality, lib erty is no longer the yardstick against which law is measured. Other concepts have replaced it: Mr. Wilson is a student of the freedom phi losophy and a freelance writer in Etobicoke, Ontario.

the "public interest," the "general welfare," and a range-of-the-mo ment pragmatism designed to fit such goals. These may seem like esoteric and ethereal changes. But they filter down to - and confuse - the layman in such concepts as "permissiveness." Eminent economists have de cried the forcing of military and political labels on the market econ omy - "robber barons," "trade wars," andthe like. We should sim ilarly object to a spurious analogy with the art of child-rearing (of all things!). Permissiveness and its opposite, discipline, are terms describing a parent-child relation;. ship. They have no place in a dis cussion of the free market. They do however take on some importance in the economic and legal morass of welfarism, social ism, any breed of statism in pro portion to the degree of power it exerts. Why? 349 350 THE FREEMAN June "Parens Patriae ll Western law treats the state as a protector of liberty and arbiter of justice. But this is not the only conceivable relation of the state to its citizens. "From Roman law comes the idea that in some cir cumstances the state should relate to the citizens as the parent to his child," a doctrine known as "par ens patriae."!

This is not a liberal or liberta rian policy. "Under the doctrine of parens patriae, certain types of so cial relations are exclud'ed from those governed by Anglo-Ameri can, democratic principle. Fur ther, it is recognized as legitimate that, in some circumstances, people may be treated as stupid children, and the government as their wise parent. The exemption of some men, and some governmental func tions, from even minimal stand ards of competence and responsi bility threatens to undermine tra ditional English and American political institutions. Yet, without them, there can be no open society, and no personal liberty. In brief, to whatever extent we bestow the power of parens patriae on the government, to that extent we grant it despotic powers. Nor can we expect that such powers, once granted to specific agencies, will 1 Thomas S. Szasz, Law, Liberty and Psychiatry (New York : Macmillan, 1963), p. 151.

remain localized. On the contrary, the process will spread, and unless halted, will envelop the state."2 Interventionism Yet it is precisely this parens patriae relationship that interven tionism creates. When the state seeks to feed, clothe, house or otherwise satisfy the desires of its citizens by legislative fiat - what relationship can it be assuming save that of the prosperous and benevolent parent? But, as Dr. Szasz notes, with the parental gift comes parental dis cipline. We may still profess pained amusement when (for instance) the Soviet Union, as it did recent ly, bans bridge clubs as "immoral" and restricts bridge-playing to "consenting adults in private." We should remember however that this kind of schoolteacher mentality is nothing more than parens patriae - and that the banning of bridge clubs is a grotesque minor symp tom of the disease that bans pri vate enterprise.

Parens patriae is a concept that Anglo-American law has not fully accepted. Parens patriae and the Constitution are not at all com fortable together. But the ideals and assumptions of laymen have changed to such an extent that "permissiveness" is allowed to be come a national issue. 2 Ibid.

1973 "PERMISSIVENESS"· OR LIBERTY? 351 Special Privileges "Permissiveness" assumes pa rens patriae. "Permissiveness" can only ob tain if the state is an omnipotent granter of permission to its chil dren, the citizens. One consequence of this partic ularly universal assumption is that moral issues are argued in legal terms. The mentality of the bu reaucrat has been characterized as a belief that "whatever is not il legal, should be compulsory." We run into variations on this theme practically every day. "Have you heard about the Amish children," goes a typical question, "taken off to public schools against the wishes of their parents ?" "Yes," the libertarian. answers, "and I disapprove." "Oh ? You mean you're against education ?" - and so on. The layman con siders it paradoxical to support ed ucation but oppose forced educa tion, to oppose pornography and censorship simultaneously, to op pose drug .abuse vehemently but to advocate repeal of the laws. (1 choose these issues simply because they are the ones to which the "permissiveness" question is usu ally applied, not because they are in any way central to libertarian ism.) In short, it is considered paradoxical for the libertarian to uphold the freedom to make mis takes.

This is where "permissiveness" intrudes. The "permissive" law maker would sanction such vices as drinking, pornography and the rest of the current issues. The "disciplinary" legislator would do away with those indulgences of which' he disapproves. In either case, the r'ig ht of the state to grant permission is considered obvious and a priori. Thus the advocate of limited government can be made to sound more libertine than liber tarian - as if opposing prohibition and advocating drunkenness were one' and the same thing. Given this confusion of moral and legal values, some might still be prompted to ask: Is the free market morally "permissive"? Does it encourage licentiousness and avarice or rather the more tra ditional values? Market Neutrality Enemies of the market system attribute its productive power to the petty materialism of prod uc ers, and condemn it for catering to the "base" desires of consumers.

The answer has been made that, on the contrary, capitalism and the free market "reward" only pro ductive activity and not the unpro ductive vices. Either way, it should be obvious that capitalism qua eco nomic system is based on produc352 THE FREEMAN June ing marketable items, and this marketability depends on the value judgments of the buyers. If there is a market for pornography, it is not the fault of pornographers "coercing" the public. "Mankind does not drink alcohol because there are breweries, distilleries and vineyards; men brew beer, dis still spirits, and grow grapes be cause of the demand for alcoholic drinks. The capitalist who owns shares in breweries and distilleries would have preferred shares in publishing firms for devotional books, had the demand been for spiritual and not spiritous sus tenance."3 Since the free market may only serve and does not dic tate personal values - since it can in no way duplicate the ·legal state of affairs we call parens patriae then not even in this realm can the word "permissiveness" have any application.

Misplaced faith Perhaps we should have more confidence in mankind and less faith in the benevolence of omni potent legislators. Free men may make mistakes, and bear the brunt of the consequences, but this is no mark against them. Free men have also been competent to build the huge and complex industrial civili3 Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (Lon don: Jonathan Cape, New Edition, 1951), p.446. zation that bureaucrats seek to control. The truth is that individ ual men are much better able to judge their own interests than lawmakers, whose decrees must be tailored to fit everyone equally. "Laissez-faire means: let the in dividual citizen, the much talked about common man, choose and act and do not force him to yield to a dictator."4 If we consider a given man's actions immoral (and so long as he is not initiating force or fraud) we may tell him so; we should not consider it our duty to "protect" him or his cus tomers at the point of a gun. Per haps the best way for a liber tarian to illustrate moral virtues is by living them.

At any rate, it would be .poor policy to accept the implicit doc trine of parens patriae. The free market is not "permissive" be cause it has no permission to grant; sovereignty is in the hands of the individual. Questions of moral judgment do not become matters of government policy. We are either free men or wards of the Parent State, one or the other. The two are not com patible. But if we must choose, let us do so openly; not under the smuggled implications of a word like "permissiveness." ~ 4 Ludwig von Mises, Planning for Freedom (South Holland, Illinois: Liber tarian Press, 1962), p. 49.

w. A. PATON AN ECONOMY dominated by indi vidual initiative and private en terprise, as opposed to one con trolled and directed by some form of government, may be character ized broadly as a tripod, with sup porting legs or pillars as follows: 1. Sound money mechanism. 2. Flow of risk capital. 3. Competitive markets. And the structure will collapse if anyone of these basic props is cut down, eliminated, either by a single stroke or by being rotted away. Lenin is reputed to have said that a sure way to destroy capitalism, without firing a shot, is to debauch the currency. He might equally well have pointed out that one way to establish sow. A. Paton is Professor Emeritus of Account ing. and of Economics, University of Michigan. He 1S author (or co-author) of a score of books and many articles, largely in the field of ac counting. Since his retirement at Michigan he ~~s continued his writing and lecturing a~tiv lties and has done part-time teaching at a dozen colleges and universities, in ten states.

cialism is to create a climate which discourages private capital forma tion, especially the crucial layer of risk or venture funds. It may also be insisted that private en terprise will topple, will be trans formed into some form of statism, if the condition of effective com petition in the market network is not maintained. This statement, of course, does nothing more than suggest some fundamental features of the "free", noncollectivist, economic order,. but this will suffice for my limited purpose. The objective here is to discuss briefly the third leg of the stool, the factor of com petition, particularly with a view to punching some holes in the cur tain of confusion and misunder standing shrouding the subject a condition rampant among the rank-and-file, scarcely less in evi dence in managerial and financial circles, and by no means absent 353 354 THE FREEMAN June from the textbooks of the profes sors of economics and the ex pressed views of other groups sup posed to be well informed.

Competition Defined Catering to Customers To begin with I'll attempt to define market competition in a broad sense. CompeNtion is the pressure present in the market which induces producers - all along the economic pipeline, from the initial stages to delivery of the ultimate commodity or service - to endea,vor to meet the ex pressed needs and desires of cus tomers, and as efficiently as pos sible. Put a bit more tersely: Com petition is the force responsible for the urge to serve customers well. In explaining and applying this definition the first step is to note the use of the terms "pressure" and "force" and the absence of any reference to price. This omis sion is not intended to belittle the price-making process and the im portance of competition in this process. But in my view the under lying factor, the primal condition, is an active desire to attract bus iness, a recognition of the need to cater to customers to maintain - and expand - the volume of out put, whatever that may be. And there is widespread failure, nota bly among critics of market activities and results, to appreciate this point.

The urge to serve customers well is not confined to price levels and movements as such, as is so often ass umed. Changes in the physical characteristics of the product, modifications of delivery and post-deli very services, im provement in personal qualities and behavior of producer's staff, particularly at points of order taking and sale, variations in ar rangements regarding payment by the buyer - these are all avenues of influence to customer attitude and behavior. In the retail market, for example, many persons may prefer a clean, orderly store, with pleasant and accommodating per sonnel, to a dingy dis'count loft, with an indifferent attendant, even if the physical product de sired, and available at both places, is a standard make and model of an electric shaver. Some buyers may even enj oy walking on a carpet with a heavy nap, as they move about examining the avail able merchandise.

Beyond doubt, pleasing and con venient packaging and attractive display of goods have an impor tant impact on customers. And why not? Some people object to efforts such as those mentioned to "lure" patrons, but I don't go along with the idea that there is anything wrong with catering to 1973 COMPETITION - WHAT AND WHEN 355 the buyer's inhereut desires and inclinations. The fact that the waitresses are carefully selected and well trained, and provide ex ceptionally courteous and efficient service, is one of the reasons why I usually take my away-from home meals at Bill Knapp's. In short, in private enterprise it should be acknowledged that the customer is king. Product Description Another way of indicating the nature and importance of the tend ency to cater to customers is via careful identification and classi fication of economic goods. A par ticular product, even in the case of commodities, is not merely an arrangement of molecules; it is rather an overall package of phys ical content and related condi tions. Thus a pound of coffee on the retail market, for example, is not just a pound of coffee. The economic product involved varies with the raw materials used, the methods of treatment or manu facture, the package employed, the circumstances of delivery, and other associated conditions. To push the point a little further, a jar of coffee of a particular brand and size, selected by the house wife from a shelf in the superC)market, paid for in cash after standing in line for a varying time, and transported by the buyer to her home, is not the same economic good as a physically equivalent jar left on her door step at a satisfactory hour and for which payment is made after receiving the monthly statement from the grocery store.

Closely defined as suggested, the array of distinctive economic goods available on the market, especially at the final consumer level, constitutes an almost end less list. This fact is widely ne glected in discussions of the state of competitive pressure, especially among those calling for more gov ernment interference in the mar ket process. Effective Competition I particularly want to stress in this piece the need to recognize that effective competition is im perfect competition. Even in so phisticated discussions of the na ture of competitive pressure, and its impact on the market, this point is often neglected or in adequately presented. There is no such thing as instantaneous, ato mistic, "perfect" competition in any market, and we can be thank ful for this. In the first place may be noted the matter of practical details with respect to products and prices. It presumably costs more to transport a Hershey chocolate bar from Pennsylvania to Cali356 THE FREEMAN June fornia than it does to ship it to New York, but it doesn't follow that it would be good sense to try to establish a different price in each of these market areas. There is more material in a large-size pair of socks than in a small-size pair of the same style and quality, but I've never heard of a customer complaining because all the sizes have the same selling price. In contrast the price of the package of corn flakes or other cereal will vary with the amount of the con tents and the· price 9f a carton of "large" eggs is more than that of the "medium" size. In general, it is safe to say, practices such as these are not objectionable, and do not indicate absence of ade quate competitive pressure. It may also be urged that customer re action can be relied upon to bring about prompt modification of un reasonable pricing procedures and schedules.

Much more significant is the necessity for time lags in the processes of product improve ment, price adj ustments, and other changes. It is a blessing, rather than something to be de plored, that making even small changes in business operating methods can't be effected instan taneously throughout the whole structure of production and dis tribution. If the person or firm with a new discovery or idea, major or minor, knew that the instant the improvement was in troduced on the market, or prep arations to introduce it were be gun, everyone else in the field, including newcomers, would im mediately match such action, the incentive to change, development, advance, would largely or entirely disappear. It is the hope of get ting a head-start, gaining an ad vantage with buyers, at least tem porarily, that provides the princi pal spur to the ingenious, the resourceful, the innovative. And, to repeat, this is a blessing, not a bane; it deserves to be encour aged, not curbed.

The condition essential to tech nological progress, and greater output of economic goods, is a climate that provides rewards for the go-getters, the hustlers, the sprinkling of those with new ideas about methods and an urge to promote more efficient operation and improved utilization of avail able resources. When there is no such climate, when interference with initiative, drive, and yearn ing for improvement reaches the saturation point, the march to greater production per capita, to higher living standards, will grind to a halt. One of the major weak nesses in prevailing attitudes is preoccupation with the condition of the weakling, the underdog, and increasing forgetfulness of 1973 COMPETITION - WHAT AND WHEN 357 the important role of the talented, the energetic, the inventive. Cod dling the inefficient and curbing the hustlers is the sure road to a stifling of progress, and an im proved economic condition for all hands, and especially those for whom there is currently such great concern.

Rivalry Among Producers In the above observations no specific reference has been made to rivalry among producers for customer favor. This condition is generally regarded as the very heart of competitive pressure the primary factor that induces sellers to try to serve customers well, either through price adjust ment or in some other manner. I go along with this to a degree. Beyond doubt the presence of other sellers in the market place, actively seeking customer orders, is a major ingredient in the mix of conditions impelling product modification and improvement (in the broad sense already ex plained), and efficient operation as a means to matching or beat ing the prices at which rivals are offering comparable goods. In this connection the pressure of the potenbial competitor should not be overlooked. Where a pro ducer is temporarily without ac tive rivals, but there are no seri ous obstacles to the entry of others into the field, the welfare of the customer - with respect to product quality, price, and so on - may continue to be the dominat ing consideration.

It is perhaps somewhat objec tionable to stretch the term "com petition" to cover other influences than market rivalry that provide protection to customers, that en courage seller subservience to the buyer. But that there are such influences can be readily demon strated, although there is a wide spread tendency to forget this side of the coin. In other words, in a free market the urge to serve the customer well is not solely the result of pressure ex erted by either active or potential rivals. This aspect of market ac tivity may be regarded as a sup plement to competition in the narrower sense, of substantial significance, and deserving more attention than it receives in dis cussions of price-making and seller-buyer relationships and be havior. Single-Producer Situation Demand Elasticity That the producer will be sensi tive to customer needs and atti tudes even in the ahsence of both active and potential rivals in his specific field can be made clear by postulating a situation of this type. Such a producer must still 358 THE FREEMAN June face the fact that the demand for his particular product will almost certainly be elastic. Especially nowadays, with markets loaded with a tremendous range of goods with minor variations in service ability, the customer can reduce or discontinue his purchases of a particular product without great hardship or even inconvenience.

Thus he is protected from bad treatment by the ease with which he can modify his buying prac tices - and the typical producer of some distinctive commodity or service is very much aware of this possibility, and acts accordingly. Just t~y to think of a product at the ultimate consumer level that is so essential to the buyer's welfare that he must have it re gardless of price or attendant con ditions. It is difficult to find good examples, especially if we confine attention to the output of private enterprise. Even in the case of the public utilities, so-called, such as telephone service and electric power, the customer is by no means helpless, aside from the efforts of regulatory agencies. The householder or other consum er of energy, for example, can readily shift from electricity to gas or vice versa, (to say nothing of oil and coal), for at least a portion of his needs. Where elasticity of demand de pends entirely on the possibility of substitution it is not unreason able to say that the producer finds himself confronted by rivals for the customer's buying power, even if rivals are not at the moment offering an identical product on the market. However, it is im portant to note that demand for most specific products is inherent ly elastic to a degree. If plane fares soar the customer may de cide to do less traveling, by air or otherwise. If the price of tele phone service advances sharply the householder with two or more phones may decide to curtail his expenditures for such service by having one or more instruments removed, and he also may restrict the number and duration of long distance calls to children, grand children, and others. The buyer of electric illumination may also readily contract his use of this product by turning off some lights and using smaller bulbs. The plain fact is that we don't have to con sume a particular level - to say nothing of an expanding amount - of most of the array of specific goods and services making up the present-day standard of living. In the absence of actual coercion by some government agency, or a gang of thugs or racketeers, the customer still is sovereign - and without need of aid from govern ment, or consumer advocates and other busybodies.

1973 COMPETITION - WHAT AND WHEN 359 What About Monopoly? Those favoring increasing in terference by government agencies with the activities of sellers and buyers, throughout the economy, and especially in the area of con sumer goods and the retail mar ket, will of course reject the posi tion that the customer is usually able to protect himself from ex ploitation, assuming that he is not subject to intimidation or down right dictation. They allege that producers will enter into agree ments and combine forces to build monopolistic market positions, and that action by government is essential to resist such develop ments, and break up trusts and other combinations, including huge corporations formed through mergers. They point to the long history of Federal antimonopoly legislation, and enforcement pro cedure through the courts and other arms of government, and assume that without these efforts an unbearable structure of mono polistic control of the market ap paratus would have been achieved.

In short, the position is taken that a healthy state of market competition is impossible without government intervention. This is a big subject, and must be dealt with here very briefly. In my judgment a careful exam ina tion of the historical picture and the current state of affairs will disclose that the most deadly influence tending to destroy the effectiveness of the market, and stifle the pressures and factors that afford protection to the buy er, at all market levels, is govern r-nent interference. Indeed, there is good reason for regarding gov ernment as the major culprit, the villain in the woodpile, in foster ing, directly or indirectly, mono polistic conditions that have been sustained .and seriously harmful. On the current scene, many will agree, the tremendous power wielded by labor unions in the market for personal services, rests in large part on enactments of Congress and the procedures of enforcing agencies, plus failure of the police power to curb intimi dation and violence, including wanton property destruction and physical injury - and even death to individuals with the temerity to resist the labor bosses.

It may also be urged that the tide of intervention that has been flowing over our markets like lava, all in the name of protecting buy ers and preserving competition, has discouraged producers from catering to customer desires and making prompt modifications and changes in technology and prod ucts in response to changing con ditions. In the case of the railroad industry, certainly, now flat on its back, stupid and slow regula360 THE FREEMAN June tory action has been an important factor in checking or preventing timely modernization of plant and equipment, prompt price adjust ments, downward as well as up ward, and changes in service schedules and operating methods. Then, more recently, came the crippling impact of vast expendi tures on highway construction, at taxpayers' expense, to facilitate the growth of transportation by motor vehicles. Close scrutiny of the course of "antitrust" legislation and en forcement efforts shows that this continuing crusade to preserve and strengthen competi tive· pres sure in the market structure has not been a success, viewed as a whole. Courts and other enforce ment agencies have shown little awareness of the meaning of com petition, and the related market conditions that serve to keep pro ducers on their toes in the effort to attract customers and expand volume of output. There has been a tendency to assume that uni form prices in a given market area indicate a noncompetitive condi tion, despite the fact that such pricing will surely result from keen and persistent competitive pressure. That it may not be prac ticable to change prices every day, or even every week or month in some fields, is often over looked.

There has been little evidence of an understanding of the plain truth that rivalry among a few large producers can be as vigor ous, and as conducive to customer welfare, as the competitive pres sure engende'red in a field where many are contending for buyer favor. There has been an appall ing lack of understanding of the relation of the operating cost of a particular producer to the com petitive market price of the product. The impact of the long delays in reaching and implementing legal decisions has been harassing and stifling. And decisions in many cases have been impractical to the point of absurdity. For example, when a court orders that company X must "divest itself" of company Y five or six years after the operations and financial structures of the two concerns have been integrated, the decision is hardly short of outlandish in its neglect of economic reality and damaging consequences. Such de cisions are on the same level as would be an annulment of a mar riage after several children have been born to the couple.

In sum, there is reasonable ground for concluding that if gov ernment would follow a hands-off policy, stop the persistent and increasing intervention in the market processes, there would be little need to worry about mono1973 COMPETITION - WHAT AND WHEN 361 polistic tendencies. Left alone, a free market will discipline itself, provide corrective measures in the normal reactions of buyers and sellers. The proper function of government is to prevent intim idation and violence, to protect participants in the economic proc ess from racketeers,· mobsters, and thugs, not to take control away from the producers and consum ers, the· buyers and sellers. Mistaken Views of Market Rivalry The belief that unless the con dition of competition is enforced by government the market struc ture will become monopolistic is not the only mistaken conception that is widely held. Frequently encountered is the notion that market rivalry is inherently bad, cruel, destructive. The history of the free market, it is pointed out, is Iittered with the. wreckage of business firms - especially the "little fellows" - that have failed in the struggle for survival against their strong and ruthless rivals. This attitude is under standable; most of us have in our bones a bit of sympathy for the weak and inefficient. But calling for abatement of rivalry in the economic process is to argue against increasing output of eco nomic goods and a higher stan dard of Iiving.

Market rivalry is rugged, but it is not destructive when broad ly considered. The pressure of rivalry isa major spur to effi ciency, to improvement, in serv ing the consumer - the ultimate goal of all economic activity. True, there are likely to be losers in the competition for the customer's favor, but there is the offsetting factor that laggards are often greatly stimulated by the perform ance of the front runners. Exam ples of this abound in business experience. The management of a particular enterprise, indeed, of ten has reason to be thankful for the pressure toward improvement in methods and products required to meet competition. The view that the free market is a chaotic and noncooperative activity may also be mentioned. Actually the truly free and keenly competitive market is a model of sensitive adaptation, automatical ly, to the ebb and flow of the atti tudes, needs, and varying circum stances of the participants. It is anything but chaotic. And its intricate maze of relationships betweep. producers and customers presents the most remarkable ex ample of cooperation, without coercive direction or control, to be found in human affairs.

Consumerism - Harmful Products Earlier in these comments· I've stressed the importance of cus362 THE FREEMAN June tomer reaction on the market place as a factor in pressuring the producer, the seller, in the direc tion of serving the customer well, even in the extreme case of the absence of a condition of immedi ate or potential rivalry for the buyer's favor. And in line with this position I've expressed con cern over the rising tide of in tervention in the consumer's con duct, ostensibly in his behalf. This "consumerism" movement deserves some further attention, as it represents a serious threat to the maintenance of a competi tive market structure, especially when it takes the form of a great expansion of governmental regula tion and interference. The very essence of a free econ omy, with effective markets, is the right of both buyers and sellers to make decisions, to choose courses of action. The degree to which this right is impaired, is restricted, measures the distance an economy has moved into the socialist morass. Socialism is nothing more nor less than a system under which the state makes the choices rather than the individual participants in the economic process, at both the pro ducing and consuming levels. By the term "state" in this connec tion I have in mind government in all its manifestations - boards, bureaus, commissions, and so on - including cases where the ulti mate power rests in a single des pot, or a small coterie.

I reject outright the conception that the customer - including the ultimate consumer - is a boob, in capable of deciding what to do with his income or other available funds. True, many of us may make careless and unwise decisions at times. If, for example, a particu lar individual impulsively buys a silk shirt for himself when his children are badly in need of more milk the neighbors may re gard this action unfavorably and their critical attitude may be amply justified. But what is the alternative to letting the individ ual buyer assume responsibility? Is there good ground for expect ing that a government board or other agency, with coercive power, will do better than .the typical market participant? An arm of government is made up of human beings, very likely not superior in wisdom and foresight to the aver age member of the governed group - even if good intentions and lack of political motivation are as sumed. Moreover, to come to a decision having substantial merit in the particular case the coercive agency must become familiar with the specific circumstances - and this takes time.

Both historical and current ex perience indicate plainly that the 1973 COMPETITION - WHAT AND WHEN 363 individual participant in the eco nomic process can generally be assumed to be more fully ac quainted with his economic needs and circumstances than an out side agency can be, even after thorough investigation. More over, the individual can act promptly before conditions are modified, whereas there is certain to be delay in reaching and im plementing a determination by a governmental body. The case for substituting government decision making for consumer sovereignty has no solid foundation. There remains the question of how to deal with harmful prod ucts. As we all know, producers may cater to the desire of some individuals to consume dangerous drugs, for example, and may even undertake to stimulate the volume of demand for such drugs. In this connection I think it should be admitted that there is a role for the policeman in the economic process, even where the free mar ket is dominant. But it is a strictly limited role. If it were possible for the adult alcoholic or the drug addict to go off in a corner and destroy himself at his own gait without trespassing on the rights of dependents or anyone else, I would personally be quite willing to see him take such action. But this is far from the actual case.

Take a look, for example, at the frightful carnage on the highways that careful studies show to be attributable to drinking drivers. Here is a clear need for the inter vention of some coercive power, and it is rather astonishing that so little is being done about this outrage. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of the merit of much of the interference with the market by the Food and Drug Adminis tration. Of course nearly every natural or manufactured product is toxic to somebody in some cir cumstances. I've known several people who couldn't tolerate straw berries but this would hardly war rant putting into effect a maze of regulations regarding the grow ing, marketing, and use of such berries. Rivalry among sellers and the reactions of customers are in general a better market regulator than any government agency. Two Other Misunderstandings Regarding labor To conclude these reflections I want to call attention to two other areas where lack of clear thinking is - unfortunately - widespread and damaging.

A serious misunderstanding is partly responsible for the develop ment of monopolistic, noncompet itive conditions in the labor mar ket. Human beings, so the story goes, should not be regarded as 364 THE FREEMAN June commodities, to be priced on the market place like sacks of po tatoes. Instead, there must be established a structure of protec tion for workers composed of strong union organizations on the one hand (to implement collective bargaining, and with power to strike and shut down plants and entire enterprises), and govern ment legislation and enforcement agencies on the other (to provide minimum wage laws, set safety standards, prevent collusion among employers, insure the rights of unions to call strikes and set up picket lines, and so on). All those who don't approve of slavery will of course go along with the view that people are not marketable commodities, but it must be insisted that personal services of all kinds that are re quired in the productive process are economic goods, subj ect to demand and supply influences.

It may also be urged that an important under lying force in pre venting worker exploitation is rivalry among buyers for the service he is able to furnish. Buy ers of services are no less keen in their bidding for a particular kind of service than they are in bidding for a desired physical commodity. There is much evi dence that this force still operates with substantial effect in labor markets, with respect to all grades and types of personal service, despite governmental interference and the coercions represented in prevailing union tactics. In saying this I'm not forgetting the case of the community with only one manufacturing plant and the need for worker mobility. Another major misunderstand ing, widespread in industry, is the notion that workers (people fur nishing personal service, from the top brass to the men on the as sembly line) and the capital fur nishers (those providing the funds to endow the enterprise with the necessary plant facilities and other resources) have con flicting interests, are rivals in sharing the fruits of the economic process. Actually the welfare of the employees of a business is closely linked with and dependent upon that of the owners or other investors. Viewed broadly, as h~s often been pointed out, wage rates tend to vary with the supply of "tools" (capital facilities of all kinds) per man; in other words wages will be high where capital is plentiful and technology ad vanced, and relatively low where there is plenty of labor but equip ment is primitive and limited. As a general truth this can hardly be challenged.

Put somewhat differently, this means that the workers (the per sonal service suppliers) should 1973 COMPETITION - WHAT AND WHEN 365 favor a climate fostering saving and capital accumulation, and hence a level of earning rates for those furnishing funds that will be attractive. The individual worker is in competition, in a sense, with his fellow workers, and thus may well be in favor of a low birth rate and restricted immigration, while at the same time supporting the view that cap ital should command as high a return as the forces of a free, competitive market will afford. The workers and the capital fur nishers are not in contention, or opposition, but are joining hands, so to speak, to make the wheels of business turn rapidly and effi ciently. This does not, of course, gainsay the fact that technological development and advance may cause inconvenience and need for retraining on the part of particu lar groups and classes of those supplying personal services. It also does not deny that the result for investors will vary from losses to occasional exceptional rewards for particular business entities in varying circumstances and inter vals of time.

In my classes I was fond of illustrating this point by imagin ing that the president of a small company, sitting in his office one morning, hears a timid knock on his door. The caller is one of the lowest ranking employees in the factory, and he stands hesitatingly in the doorway, twirling his cap in embarrassment. "Come in, Joe," said the president heartily, "What can I do for you?" Joe was still nervous but finally came out with it. "Sir, I saw in the paper last night that our directors have de cided to cut the quarterly divi dend to the stockholders, and it worried me. Are you sure, sir, that this is necessary? Are we doing all we can for our invest ors?" Without letting my imagi nation carry me further, I might note that probably the president of any company would be so startled by such an experience that he would be in danger of a heart attack. But I submit that Joe was on the right track, and behaving in a rational manner, in accordance with the basic self interest of a worker out in the company plant. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Reflections on the Revolution in France THEY have found their punishment in their success. Laws over turned; tribunals subverted; industry without vigor; commerce expiring; the revenue unpaid; yet the people impoverished.

EDMUND BURKE LEONARD E. READ SISYPHUS in Greek mythology was condemned, as a punishment for his wickedness in this life, to roll a stone from the bottom to the top of a hill. Whenever the stone reached the top it rolled down again. Thus, his task was never ending. The wickedness of Sisyphus was not a case of politico-economic in trigue. But Frederic Bastiat, the eminent French economist, philos opher, and statesman of well over a century ago, dubbed all people sisyphists who, by restrictive measures, tend to make the tasks of life unending. Let us peek into the nature and extent of present-day sisyphists if only to create a desire among ourselves to reread some of the works of the great Bastiat and again to profit by his clarity of thought and simplicity of expres366 sion. 1 His fascinating parables could hardly have been more ap propriate in his time than in ours. The progress of human beings from a state of general impover ishment toward one of relative abundance is impeded by a series of obstaC'les. People who really serve society contribute to the ov ercoming of these obstacles, there by creating abundance. Is it not precisely this kind of service whereby we may judge whether a business or a labor union or a gov ernment policy or official is social or antisocial?

People who perpetuate obstacles in order to maintain conditions of scarcity in their own line of pro1 See especially The Law, Economic Sophisms, Economic Harmonies and Se lected Essays on Political Economy by Frederic Bastiat (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: The Foundation for Economic Ed ucation, Inc.).

1973 SISYPHUS 367 duction, thus keeping their efforts profitable at the expense of others, and who make the task of achiev ing abundance an endless one are, in Bastiat's estimation, s,isyphists. "There isn't work enough in our line for all you fellows wanting in. Keep out! By closed shops, closed unions, and closed associations we can create prosperity for our selves and make our tasks in these enterprises unending." Selfish sisyphists! "Slow down on this job, fel lows, and take more vacations, so our work will last longer." Lazy sisyphists! "Competition is ruining our business. Let's put a stop to it and keep prices up by embargoes and trade barriers. If these don't work we have political power enough to get legislation that will impose discriminatory taxes on our competitors. And failing this we can always command a govern ment subsidy for ourselves." Power-crazed sisyphists! "Let's have Federal aid for projects to which we are unwil ling to devote our own resources."

Wasteful sisyphists! "Let us have national unem ployment compensation so, even if we do no work, we can get paid anyway." Money-mad sisyphists! "Let us have wage, price, pro duction, and exchange controls eliminate market pricing as a guide to production and consump tion - so that all may labor for ever at posts assigned by govern ment." Slavish sisyphists! Enough of this. Each of us should make it his game to spot these persons who would magnify the effort required for a given result. They are to be found every where - on the farms, in pulpits and classrooms, in labor unions, in private offices, in governments and, alas, too often in the mirror. They are the friends of scarcity and the enemies of abundance. Antisocial sisyphists! Let's make sisyphism a part of our mythology instead of our na tional policy! ~ IDEAS ON LSP LIBERTY To Each, His Own My FAITH in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own lies at the founda tion of the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the principle to communities of men as well as to individuals. I so extend it be cause it is politically wise, as well as naturally just: politically wise in saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN Speech at Peoria, Ill., Oct. 16, 1854 . ;._','.~;,.. TheReformationand, , .:: ,"%,:,,",:'.:f,";.,)'l~",,,,,:,~.,.;i~~K~·,"(!·-$1· 'l"-c ' • ._ ,1 "",~j',#-,'1?' c._' '4'Economlc ,>t~,:c",·;\;0~' <"Development'z~ ,,,,"',.",-,,,,,."'""~""";""""''\'''''':'':'-'''~''';i' ",'';jf''':>';,'",/c.*•.c,.-;i.,.".:[Q,QClY EDWARD COLEsON' ".. ",:::'.' In 1943 Bengal and Calcutta suffered another ghastly famine, just as they have for millennia. One report stated: "All over the province rice was dear and life \vas cheap."l The starving col lapsed and died in the streets, while the bloated dogs feasted on their corpses and dragged their bones about the city. Certainly the age-old problem of too many peo ple and too little food was aggra vated by the fact that there "was a war on" just beyond their bor ders in Burma, the Japanese inva sion of Southeast Asia. However, the chronic problem of human need in India which had become acute in this hour of crisis proDr. Coleson is Professor of Social Science at Spring Arbor College in Michigan. This ar~ tide is reprinted by permission from the Spring 1972 volume of Fides et Historia, journal of The Conference on Faith and His~ tory, and copyright by them.

368 vided a startling contrast with another nation also on the door step of war, Switzerland, that oasis of peace and prosperity in the midst of a devastated and im poverished Europe. It is custom ary to imagine that India must have many times more people per unit of area than almost any other country on earth but, according to the 1946 'edition of Goode's Atlas, Switzerland in that year had about 268 people per square mile and India a mere 215.2 An even more startling contrast grows out of a comparison be tween West Germany and India over the last quarter century. By May of 1945 Germany had been utterly defeated in a total war "unconditional surrender" - and her cities were deserts of ashes and rubble. Germany was no doubt poorer than India in the 1973 THE REFORMATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TODAY 369 spring of 1945 and had twice the population density, 433 per square mile. Yet the Germans rather quickly recovered - the startling "Economic Miracle" - and India has remained poor. Unless one in sists that· "East is East and West is West" and hency no compari sons or explanations are possible, he is haunted by the question why some starve and others pros per, or at least survive, in the midst of adversity.

Conquering Starvation A Recent Accomplishment Actually, the startling difference in living standards between the "haves" and "have-nots" is a rather recent phenomenon. Eur ope once had its famines, and bad ones too. According to one au thority, the British Isles had 201 famines between A. D. 10 and 1846.3 A recent writer has even suggested that in certain French parishes which he studied in de tail, the death rate was propor tional to the price of grain back nearly three centuries ago. 4 Yet, there have been no great famines in the West since the Irish Potato Famine except in Russia in the 1920's and 30's and during the wars. Even in the midst of the Great Depression the "Arkies" and the "Okies" did not leave a trail of bones from the "Dust Bowl" to California as might have happened in some parts of the world even today. Still, the tide has turned in the favor of the Western World quite recently. In 1770 a bushel of wheat cost a British laborer the equiva lent of five days' pay.r> It came as a surprise to me to learn in West Africa a few years ago that a bushel of rice cost the natives about a week's wages. They were still at the stage my ancestors were two centuries ago. The Afri cans also have a "hungry season,"

that time of short rations after the seed is planted and before the new crop is ready for harvest. When the Psalmist speaks of the sower going forth weeping, "bear ing precious seed" (Psalms 126 :6), it is so much rhetoric to us, but still harsh reality to multi plied millions al"ound the earth; these people are quite literally planting what they need for sup per. For some reason, the econ omies of the West have been able, at least temporarily, to supply the masses with an unbelievably high standard of Iiving as compared with the rest of the world and our own ancestors too. One of the most urgent tasks today is to try to understand why this has hap pened and whether prosperity can be exported to the "have-nots" around the world. This needs to be done for humanitarian reasons as well as for self-protection.

370 THE FREEMAN June The Weber Thesis of Western Development Among the theories which have been suggested to explain the re cent good fortune of Western man, probably none has attained the popularity of the so-called "Weber thesis." As everyone knows, Weber considered Western progress to be a sort of economic by-product of the Reformation, particularly the teachings of John Calvin. While I have been deeply interested in this problem for a long time, perhaps in part as a result of having lived in a bush village in a daub-and wattle house with a thatched roof, surrounded by abject poverty, and also in part as a result of having done an economic development study for my doctorate, I must confess that part of the Weber controversy anne>ys me. While I have read a consider able amount on both sides of the question, I must admit that I do not care if Weber dotted all his "i's" and crossed all his "t's" cor rectly or not. Nor am I concerned if it can be proven that Roman Catholics also exhibited those economic virtues and followed those policies which are supposed to be uniquely Calvinist. I am not even deeply disturbed if some un kind writer suggests that the Re formers became popular preachers because they told the people to do what they had been doing and would continue to do, with or without ecclesiastical sanction. I am deeply concerned with keep ing our facts straight, to the ex tent that we are able, because I do feel that history has real value as a guide in decision-making to day. I have felt, however, that the investment in the Weber contro versy has passed the point of diminishing returns, as the econ omist would say, some while ago.

The Conditions of Progress The need is to proceed to the larger question of what conditions are necessary for prosperity and what, if anything, religion has to contribute toward making prog ress possible. While there has been a strong reaction against Western materialism, if one takes the loud protests of the recent past at all seriously, still there is value in studying how to promote pros perity - if eating is better than going hungry. The fact that Amer icans in their blindness and greed have overdone a "good thing" too often, does not prove that the op posite extreme is any better. Fur thermore, it seems to me that the Reformers could provide wisdom that would help Christians regain a sane point of view in· the midst of affluence and global need, if they will but listen. Those who have visited the backward areas, where beggars 1973 THE REFORMATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TODAY 371 pursue the tourist relentlessly and where multitudes are perpetually on the verge of starvation, quickly learn that things are quite dif ferent from the way they are back home. One of the most obvious differences is the attitude toward work. This is more than natural laziness or the apathy that comes from malnutrition and a super abundance of body parasites. The aversion to work is deeply in grained in the native culture and is most difficult to dislodge. Conse quently, modern attempts at eco nomic development often intensify problems. For instance, an educa tional report of the British Co lonial Office a few years ago quoted an "enlightened" chief as saying: "If universal primary edu cation were introduced at once, Sierra Leone would be dead in a year - we would starve."6 Even a modicum of book learning takes the recipient thereof out of the laboring class without qualifying him for any type of professional work.

Closely related to the antipathy toward work which is tied to status is the familiar guild or union pressure on workmen to do less than their best. Weber men tions this as the principal cause of the persecution of Methodist laborers a couple of centuries ago. 7 One can concede that em ployers have driven their workers shamefully when they had them at their mercy without condoning peer pressure for inefficiency, evi dently common then and now. Slow Accumulation of Tools Anyone familiar with the his tory of the Industrial Revolution knows the long and seemingly hopeless struggle to perfect better tools in the face of bitter worker opposition. Evidently the Western nations came quite close to re maining in their poverty and wretchedness even as large num bers in the backward areas still are today. When I view' the hun gry multitudes across the world today, do I say that "but for the grace of God, there go I"? Need less to say, the "have-nots" could use some of the Western attitude toward work, whether it is Cal vinist, Catholic or cultural in ori gin. Of course, the Japanese have a "work ethic" of considerable antiquity, a point Kurt Samuel son makes good use of in his "Cri tique of Max Weber ."8 Needless to say, this must be without ben efit of Calvin.

It is hard for us, coming from the West, to understand how com pletely "backwardness" is built into some native cultures. J. S. Fenton, an authority on Sierra Leone native law, wrote several years ago how the enterprising individual was repressed and ev372 THE FREEMAN June eryone was kept at the same dead level of grinding poverty. Said Fenton: The enterprise and success of a person causes him to be envied and it is whispered that he must have "boa medicine," the "medicine" of success, but also a medicine which can injure his neighbors. A noise . . . is heard from time to time, and perhaps one or two children die. The prospering man is then informed against as pos sessing boa medicine .... Once he has been called a boa-man he might as well leave the chiefdom .... 9 It is interesting to note in this connection that Andrei Amalrik, who questions whether the Soviet Union will survive until 1984, re marks that the Russion peasant wants no one living better than he does although "the fact that many live worse is willingly ac cepted."lo Whatever the problem of the Russians, the West Afri cans have another deterrent to capital accumulation: if an enter prising farmer grows an extra bushel of rice to tide his family over the "hungry season," his rel atives will all move in on him when their meager stock of food is depleted. After a few days of feasting, they can then go hungry together. Little wonder that those who hope to accomplish something frequently "get lost" and start over so far from home that their relatives cannot find them. Need less to say, the "haves" frequently do no better than the "have-nots,"

once they manage to accumulate a fortune. They usually "consume it upon their own lusts" or hide it in a secret account in a Swiss bank. In the meantime, their na tion is starved for capital. In view of the instability of their coun tries, the urge to live it up-"to eat and drink for tomorrow we die" -or "squirrel it away" in some country they hope they can trust, is understandable but regrettable. It certainly does not make for progress at home. Obviously, what has been called the "Protestant Ethic" would be a great asset to these people. The Case of Country X Take some backward .country, on the doorstep of the U.S. or halfway around the world, and see what could be done to promote prosperity. Nation X is incredibly poor. It may be a "beggar sitting on a bench of gold" or just a beg gar squatting in the dust; the re source base, while helpful, seems not to insure prosperity. Switzer land has little and has done well; many other countries seem to have great potential, but remain poor and backward. In country X the average annual income is less than a hundred dollars - not a hundred a Vveek but for -a full year. The 1973 THE REFORMATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TODAY 373 people are poor beyond our imagi nation, they are malnourished, and their health services are ex ceedingly meager. The country has stagnated and will no doubt continue to remain so.

Now, suppose some great prophet should arise and capture the hearts and loyalties of the people. Suppose in addition to get ting them to repent of their sins and live a life of moral rectitude, that he should convince them that they should do a good day's work, whether anyone was watching or not (because, of course, God sees everywhere and He will not ex cuse the slothful worker). Sup pose men of means within the country began to feel responsible for the proper use of their mate rial blessings (Christian steward ship) and began investing wisely and well in business ventures at home rather than squandering their money or exporting their wealth to places that do not really need it. Suppose the government became more stable, and honest too, so men could begin to count on tomorrow and even decades hence. A Climate of Growth Now, if I had a million dollars, I would go and invest it in X as would a host of others. If the for eign investors were Christian or even had good sense, they would try to do the right thing by the people, knowing that while one can get by with exploitation in the short run, that in the long run the policy is self-defeating.

Also if Americans just happened to want to do something to help them and themselves, they might let their bargain goods into the U.S. and sell them machine tools. With such a combination - a dili gent and honest people, a respon sible business community and gov ernment, a ready foreign market close at hand and abundant capital - progress would be explosive, an other economic miracle. Actually, of course, X is not like this and, barring a miracle of grace, it will not become so. The mass of the people are lazy thieves, the government is run by a bunch of thugs and whatever business exists there is out to "get" everyone else before others get them. Weber was right: capi talists did not invent greed, but tamed this destructive impulse. ll No foreigner in his right mind would invest there because the government would nationalize his business as soon as it became profitable. It is a tragedy that interna tional investment has become such a problem in the modern era. A recent writer, much frustrated with the poverty and malnutrition so prevalent over too much of the 374 THE FREEMAN June earth today, complained that the wealthy nations were only invest ing $6 billion a year in the devel opment of their poor neighbors while they should be putting in at least $15 billion. 12 According to Richard Nixon, writing more than a dozen years ago, the United States would have invested $30 billion abroad in 1958 instead of the trifling $4 billion we did lend, if we had been investing at the rate proportionately that the Brit ish did in 1910. 13 As long as the British invested wisely, this was a revolving fund that could con tinue over the years. Think what a similar American program could do today to hasten economic de velopment across the earth and create jobs at home too.

Back to the Moral Problem Unfortunately, there are few decent places in the world to in vest anymore - which brings' us right back to the moral question again. If we could just get the man straightened out-his morals, his thinking and his institutions progress would be possible. Piety is no substitute for technology, but we can handle the engineering details today if the moral condi tions are favorable. This has al ways been an important factor. It is well to remember that Cal vin and the reformers were not promoting economic development schemes. They sought first the Kingdom, and the economic fringe benefits were added unto them. Perhaps the most hotly debated subject in Christian circles today in this country is whether capital ism or the welfare state is the embodiment of virtue, the ethical and moral system. The contro versy has produced a sizable and growing literature. It is interest ing to note in this connection that some writers trace Christian so cialism,14 not capitalism, back to John Calvin, which alters the Weber thesis considerably. Of course, Calvin is accused of pro moting both democracy and totali tarianism also. 15 Perhaps he did not consciously promote any of these systems.

With all due respect to Calvin, a more important question is what the Bible teaches. It seems to me that the Word of God does not specifically endorse any human system or give a "blueprint" for any political arrangement, but it does lay down fundamental prin ciples by which men and nations will be judged. These God-given principles necessarily have far reaching social, political, and eco nomic implications. But with Emil Brunner I would insi~t that all we can hope for is the "best make shift" by which we may attempt to approximate the Christian idea1.16 1973 THE REFORMATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TODAY 375 Let us explore one of these "makeshifts." An Austrian writer who classifies himself as a social ist, Karl Polanyi, praises the nine teenth century with its "Hundred Years' Peace" in Europe (1815 1914).17 He then tells us that the civilization of that era was based on the balance of power, the gold standard, the market economy, and limited government. After telling us that these arrange ments produced a century of peace, "a phenomenon unheard of in the annals of Western civiliza tion" and also "an unheard of ma terial welfare," he concludes that the "self-adjusting market . . .

would have physically destroyed man and transformed his sur roundings into a wilderness." It is unfortunate that a "make shift" so attractive in the short run should have such dire long range consequences. Perhaps a second look is needed. Obviously, Polanyi is describing anarchy, a system without rational or moral checks on human excesses - not Calvin or even Adam Smith, but Darwin and the "survival of the fittest." It is possible to assume that accounting is epistemology (what is profitable is good), but the Reformers did not hold this view nor did the founders of eco nomics. In 1765 Blackstone wrote that the laws of men should con form to that Higher Law, "dictated by God Himself; "18 and in 1776 Adam Smith concluded that just as long as a man "does not violate the laws of justice, [he] is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way .... "19 This means, for example, that I have a God-given right to grow all the wheat, corn and cows I can on my farm but not poppies for opium.

Mistaken Practices I would not care to try to de fend the American Farm Program of the last generation before the Judge of all the earth. Would you? L. Dudley Stamp, a distinguished British land-use expert who de livered a series of lectures at In diana University several years ago, chided Americans on their low agricultural productivity and suggested that the world could support ten billion people or about three times the present total, if we just did as .well as we now know. 20 Another Englishman, Colin Clark, places the capacity of the earth at twenty-eight billion, assuming present technology and the efficiency of the people of the Netherlands. 21 If everyone did half as well as the Dutch or even a quarter, it should be possible to feed earth's peoples and still sta bilize populations short of dis aster. Of course, both are assum ing full production and open mar376 THE FREEMAN June kets, a policy quite familiar to the Victorians but well-nigh for gotten today.

While I would not care to at tempt to defend all the old capi talists did either, they did a few things right, as the following quo tation from the Spectator, pub lished in 1882, suggests: Britain as a whole was never more tranquil and happy. No class is at war with society or the government; there is no disaffection anywhere, the Treasury is fairly full, the accumu lations of capital are vast. 22 Just as an interesting experi ment, substitute "today" and "the U.S.A." for "1882" and "Britain" in the above quotation. Perhaps the capitalist "makeshift" was not so bad after all. ~ • FOOTNOTES • 1 John Frederick Muehl, "Famine Is Like This," Reader's Digest (April, 1946), pp. 19-21. 2 J. Paul Goode, School Atlas (Chi cago: Rand McNally, 1946), p. 175. 3 Warren S. Thompson, Population Problems (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1942), p. 51. 4 E. A. Wrigley, Population and His tory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), p.66.

5 John Chamberlain, The Roots of Capitalism (Princeton: D. Van Nos trand Company, 1959), p. 123. 6 African Education: A Study of Educational Policy and Practice in British Tropical Africa, the Nuffield Founda tion and the Colonial Office (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 24. 7 Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Tal cott Parsons (New York: Scribner's, 1958), p. 63. 8 Kurt Samuelson, Religion and Eco nomic Action (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), p. vii. 9 J. S. Fenton, Outline of Sierra Leone Native Law (Freetown: Govern ment Printer, 1933), p. 17. 10 Andrei Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 81. 11 Weber, pp. 17,56-57. l:! Jose de Castro, The Black Book of Hunger (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), p.49. 13 Richard M. Nixon, The Challenges We Face (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 73. 14 Robert W. Green, ed., Protestant ism and Capitalism (Boston: D. C.

Heath, 1959), pp. 26, 44. 15 Robert M. Kingdon and Robert D. Linder, eds., Calvin and Calvinism: Sources of Democracy? (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1970), pp. 1-15. IH Emil Brunner, Christianity and Civilization (London: Nisbet and Com pany, 1949), II, 95. 17 Karl Polanyi, The Great Transfor mation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1944), pp.3-5. 18 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Rees Welsh and Company, Lewis' edi tion, 1902), I, 31. 19 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Na tions (Modern Library Edition), p. 651. 20 L. Dudley Stamp, Land for Tomor row (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1952), pp. 214-219. 21 Arthur McCormack, ed., Christian Responsibility and World Poverty (Lon don: Burns and Oats, 1963), p. 135. 22 Albert H. Hobbs, "Welfarism and Orwell's Reversal," Intercollegiate Re view (Spring, 1970), p.107.

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN The message of Henry Hazli tt' s The Conquest of Poverty (Arling ton House, $8.95) is that his sub ject could have been dealt with in the past tense if it weren't for the pernicious doctrine that "the State knows best." Alas! the tend ency to hand problems of income "distribution" over to politicians whose only real skill is the ac cumulation of votes has prevented the West from utilizing the great productive strength that is to be found in the principle of volun tary association. So the "cure" for poverty is still in the future. Just how far are we from get ting "government" off our backs? Mr. Hazlitt is not a total pessi mist; he believes in the power of "education." Mere verbal demon stration, however, is not an infal lible schoolteacher; the collabora tion of events is needed to make "education" effective. Fortu nately, events are coming to Mr.

377 Hazlitt's aid; what he was saying twenty years ago about the falla cies of Statism is becoming hind sight as it is repeated by other and less prescient men who now stand appalled at what inflation, a government-created phenome non, is doing to compound our troubles. Since poverty is a relative thing (some people are always going to be poorer than others), Mr. Haz Iitt has had his difficulties with the conventional definitions. Value judgments are -involved. It is wrong to define poverty, as one "authority" does, as the condition affecting "any family with an in come less than one-half that of the median family." If such a defi nition were to be accepted it would mean that the percentage of "the poor" would never de crease until all incomes were equalized. The bottom "fourth" of a nation might be sufficiently fed 378 THE FREEMAN June to remain healthy and still be can didates for soaring relief if any such defini tion were to be per petuated. What Mr. Hazlitt pro poses is that the "subsistence level" must provide our working definition of the poverty line. Any attempt to provide relief for able bodied adults beyond subsistence must take money away from pro duction and so render society poorer on the whole.

Capitalism, in league with tech nological ingenuity, is what de livered the "West" from the spec tre of Malthusian doom. Before the industrial revolution, soaring populations pressed inexorably on the means of subsistence. But when the Manchester factories in England began to soak up the idled poor from the countryside and make the importation of cheap wheat a possibility, Malthus was discredited as a prophet for his own Britain. As things turned out, the ingenuity that capitalism unleashed was reflected in the birth statistics: "middle class" people who did not need big families in order to provide themselves with field hands found ways of limiting their children. The combination of smaller families and a more skillful application of science to agriculture itself ended the prob lem of famine in the "West." We were on our wa.y toward limiting poverty to the chronically incapacitated without saddling the productive system with high taxes and the inefficiency that always follows from government inter ference or takeover.

'Combing through the r~cords of antiquity, Mr. Hazlitt notes what "the New Deal in Old Rome" did to enervate our first great universal empire. Between State supported slavery, high taxes, the multiplying relief of "bread and circuses," and the final imposition of price controls, Roman produc tive efficiency simply vanished. In Britain, there was a saving real ism about the original application of the "poor laws." But in 1795 the Berkshire magistrates, meet ing at Speenhamland, decided to supplement wages in accordance with the price of bread. This placed everybody in the country side on a' "guaranteed minimum." The rise in the cost of relief was geometric. In order to put people back to work and unleash the in dustrial revolution Britain had to amend the poor law in 1834. Pity for' the pauper had to be recon ciled with pity for the laborer, the investor and the taxpayer, as Nassau Senior pointed out. So England came to accept the work house, a place that would guaran tee a pauper enough to live on without making idleness suffi ciently attractive to undermine such desirable characteristics as 1973 THE CONQUEST OF POVERTY 379 frugality, industry and ambition.

The rise of affluence, however, dulled the common sense of the British people, and the Speenham land mentality returned as the sentimentalists, following the rec ommenda tions of the radicals (Beatrice Webb, Prime Minister David Lloyd George), were se duced into accepting the idea of the Welfare State. With the Beveridge Plan (cradle to grave protection) , the "difficult problem" raised by Nassau Senior in 1834 posed its dilemma all over again. How, under State Welfarism, can one "afford to the poorer classes adequate relief without material inj ury to their diligence or their providence." Mr. Hazlitt rather doubts that the problem can ever be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. He recognizes that it would be "po litically impossible" to get the State totally out of the welfare business. But he sees some hope in the educative value of events. Back in the late Forties and early Fifties Mr. Hazlitt warned that if Washington were to extend ex travagant relief to other nations in the form of Marshall Plan and "Point Four" giveaways, it would not "save the world." Govern ment-to-government loans, he said at the time, would be squandered by political bureaucracies, and capital for free productive enterprise would thereby be dimin ished. Mr. Hazlitt was considered hard-hearted by the "liberals" of the Fifties and Sixties, but com mon sense is now coming to his support. The dollars that we have given away for international re lief now haunt us as the balance of-payments statistics turn against us.

Similarly, the inflation that has been caused by "welfare gone wild" is provoking the middle classes, including the blacks who have risen in the world, to cast a cold eye on unbalanced budgets and extravagant programs for such things as urban renewal and various make-work projects. It may take the final "inflation crisis" to bring us to our senses. But Mr. Hazlitt, after waiting some twenty years, may find that it is at last possible to teach peo ple "economics in one lesson," to quote from his bestselling book of that title. The real solution to the problem of poverty does not lie in any government relief system, or in any endeavor to "redistribute" wealth or income. It lies, says Mr. Hazlitt, in increased produc tion. One increases production by making investments in more ef ficient tools. The free-swinging enterpriser, using capitalist sav ings, is the true hero of the "war on poverty."

380 THE FREEMAN June How long will it be before our "intellectuals" begin to see through fallacies that are as old as the economics of the Emperor Diocletian? I would feel better about the prospects if such books as The Conquest of Poverty were to be reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Sunday book section. This is not likely to happen tomorrow. But "events" will continue to call the turn. What Mr. Hazlitt has to say about the need to free the pro ducing interests of a nation is bound to take hold as our infla tionary crisis deepens. The politicos are already trying to limit upward revisions of the minim urn wage by making special exceptions for job-seeking adoles cents. Common sense does break through. And even some of the big unions, the steel union, for example, are now doubting the ef fectiveness of wage increases that run beyond productivity. If the unions ever get the idea, can the "intellectuals" remain far behind?

Mr. Hazlitt may yet become a prophet with honor in his own country. ~ THE FOUNDATIONS OF MO RALITY, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1972), 398 pp., $12.00. Reviewer: Bettina Bien Greaves THE MANY contradictions among different philosophical theories have caused much confusion over the years. Unfortunately, too few teachers and textbooks explain the basic principles that could help students discriminate intelligently among them and understand the ethical code which fosters free dom, morality and social coopera tion. Thus, Henry Hazlitt deserves special credit for bringing logic and clarity to the subject. His book, The Founda,tions of Moral ity, was first published in 1964. After having been out of print for several years, it is again available thanks to Nash and the Institute for Humane Studies. The author is primarily an econ omist, a student of human action. As a result, he is a strong advo cate of individual freedom and re sponsibility. He has long been a close personal friend and associate of Professor Ludwig von Mises, the "dean" of free market econom ics, to whom he acknowledges a great intellectual indebtedness.

With this background, he is well qualified to discuss the ethics of social cooperation. His many years of "apprenticeship" as essayist, 1973 OTHER BOOKS 381 book reviewer and columnist (New York Times, Wall ,Street Journal, Newsweek, The Freeman, National Review and many others) prepared him well for explaining complex matters simply. The read er may wish to pause, ponder and reflect from time to time on the ideas and concepts presented, but the author's reasoning is clear, his prose unambiguous and most chapters delightfully short. Mr. Hazlitt's position is that "the interests of the individual and the interests of society," when "rightly understood" are in har mony, not conflict. His goal in writing this book was "to present a 'unified theory' of law, morals and manners" which could be log ically explained and defended in the light of modern economics and the principles of' jurisprudence.

This reviewer believes most read ers will agree that Mr. Hazli tt succeeded.· He has marshalled the ideas of many philosophers and analyzed them with careful logic. He has explained many of the con tradictions among them, thus dis posing of much confusion. He has formulated a consistent moral phi losophy based on an understand ing .of the ethical principles, so frequently ignored in today's "per missive" climate, which promote peaceful social .cooperation and free enterprise production. Mr. Hazlitt points out that our complex market economy requires peaceful and voluntary social co operation. The preservation of the market is essential for large scale production and thus for the very survival of most of us. Therefore, social cooperation is the very most important means available to in dividuals for attaining their vari ous personal ends. This means that social cooperation is also at the same time a well worthwhile goal.

Let Mr. Hazlitt speak for himself. For each of us social cooperation is of course not the ultimate end but a means. . . . But it is a means so central, so universal, so indispen sable to the realization of practically all our other ends, that there is little harm in regarding it as an end-in itself, and even in treating it as if it were the goal of ethics. In fact, precisely because none of us knows exactly what would give most satis~ faction or happiness to others, the best test of our actions or rules of action is the extent to which they promote a social cooperation that best enables each of us to pursue his own ends. Without social cooperation modern man could not achieve the harest fraction of the ends and satisfac tions that he has achieved with it. The very subsistence of the immense majority of us depends upon it. The system of philosophy out lined in the book is a form of util itarianism, "insofar as it holds that actions or rules of action are 382 THE FREEMAN June to be judged by their consequences and their tendency to promote hu man happiness." However, Mr.

Hazlitt prefers a shorter term, "utilism," or perhaps "rule util ism" to stress the importance of adhering consistently to general rules. He suggests also two other possible names - "mutualism" or "cooperatism" - which he thinks more adequately reflect the central role of social cooperation in the ethical system described. The criterion for judging the consistency or inconsistency ofa specific rule or action with this ethical system is always whether or not it promotes social coopera tion. Mr. Hazlitt reasons from the thesis that social cooperation is of benefit to everyone. Even those who might at times like to lie, cheat, rob or kill for personal short-run gain can usually be per suaded of the longer-run advan tages of social cooperation, Le., of refraining from lying, cheating, robbing or stealing. Even the most self-centered indi vidual, in fact, needing not only to be protected against the aggression of others, but wanting the active co operation of others, finds it to his interest to defend and uphold a set of moral (as well as legal) rules that forbid breaking promises, cheating, stealing, assault, and murder, and in addition a set of moral rules that en join cooperation, helpfulness, and kindness ....

The predominant moral code in a society is compared with lan guage or "common law." Society does not impose a moral code on the individual. It is a set of rules, hammered out bit by bit over many centuries: [O]ur moral rules are continu ously framed and modified. They are not framed by some abstract and dis embodied collectivity called "society" and then imposed on an "individual" who is in some way separate from society. We impose them (by praise and censure, approbation and disap probation, promise and warning, re ward and punishment) on each other, and most of us consciously or un consciously accept them for our selves .... This moral code grew up sponta neously, like language, religion, man ners, law. It is the product of the experience of immemorial genera tions, of the interrelations of mil lions of people and the if\terplay of millions of minds. The morality of common sense is a sort of common law, with an indefinitely wider juris diction .than ordinary common .law, and based on a practically infinite number of particular cases. . . .

[T]he traditional moral rules ... crystallize the experience and moral wisdom of the race. But what about religion, you say? Doesn't a moral code have to rest on a religious basis? The fundamental thesis of this book, 1973 OTHER BOOKS 383 as noted, is that· reason and logic are sufficient to explain and de fend the code of ethics which fos ters and preserves social coopera tion. Yet, the author does not ig nore religion. He calls attention to similarities among the world's great religions and the contradic tions in some of them. Religion and morality reinforce one an other very often, he says, although not always and not necessarily. Here is his description of their relationship: In human history religion· and mo rality are like two streams that sometimes run parallel, sometimes merge, sometimes separate, some times seem independent and some times interdependent. But morality is .older than any living religion and probably older than all religion. . ..

[W]hile religious faith is not indis pensable [to the moral code] ... , it must be recognized in the present state of civilization as a powerful force in securing the ohservance that exists .... The most powerful religious belief supporting morality, however, seems to me ... the belief in a God who sees and knows our every action, our every impulse and our every thought, who judges us with exact justice, and who, whether or not He rewards us for our good deeds and punishes us for our evil ones, approves of our good deeds and disapproves of our evil ones.... Yet it is not the function of the moral philosopher, as such, to pro claim the truth of this religious faith or to try to maintain it. His func tion is, rather, to insist on the ra tional basis of all morality, to point out that it does not need any super natural assumptions, and to show that the rules of morality are or ought to be those rules of conduct that tend most to increase human cooperation, happiness and well-be ing in this our present life.

Mr. Hazlitt discusses many per plexing ideas and concepts such as natural rights, natural law, jus tice, selfishness,. altruism, right, wrong, truth, honesty, duty, moral obligation, free will vs. determin ism, politeness, "white lies." Any one who has speculated on these problems without reaching satis factory conclusions, as has this reviewer, will no doubt find his analyses and comments both stim ulating and enlightening. The book contains numerous quotations from the works of early and recent philosophers, which the author always analyzes for their consistency with social co operation. Except for a few tech nical philosophical terms - such as tautology (repetition of the same idea in different words), eudaemonism (the doctrine that happiness is the final goal of all human action) and teleotic (an adjective derived from the Greek meaning end, design, purpose or final cause) - readers should not 384 THE FREEMAN June find anything in the book really difficult to understand. As they follow the author's line of thought, they will discover that reason and logic come to the defense of moral ity; order and a common sense ethical code evolve from philosoph ical chaos.

Mr. Hazlitt has long been a noted free market economist - one of the very best. His introductory Economic'S In One Lesson is a long-time best seller. The Failure of the "New Economics," a care ful critique of Keynes, is a real contribution to economic theory. With the publication of The Foundations of Morality in 1964, he added another very important feather to his cap as a moral philosopher. It is good to have it in print again. To summarize, the author ex plains again and again, in the course of the book under review, that the rules of ethics are neither arbitrary nor illogical. They are not mere matters of opinion. They are workable, acceptable, moral rules developed over long periods of time. They must be adhered to consistently and may not be will fully violated without detriment to social cooperation. In this age of permissiveness, when everyone is encouraged "to do his own thing" and few see any urgency in, respecting the rights of others, it is a rare philosopher who rec ognizes that the consistent ad herence to a set of ethical rules promotes social cooperation and benefits everyone in society. Per haps a free market economist, whose very field of study encom passes the role of social coopera tion, is the most appropriate per son to explain the logic of this position. This book should live through the centuries. , HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 each$2.50 the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.7. JULY 1973 American RevolutionUnique 9 Vincent A. Drosdik, III 387 Not the fighting, but the idea of personal freedom and limited government, made it unique.

InequalityEnshrined Leonard E. Read 389 Concerning the philosophical and economic case for inequality and freedom. The Real American Revolution George Charles Roche, III 395 A faith in free enterprise and free men, a faith based on a fundamental belief in God. Our DisorderedLives Edmund A. Opitz 399 When a nation goes astray, the corrective is to be sought within the individual. SocializedError Paul L. Poirot 407 Unless we learn to tolerate the minor mistakes men make, we'll be plagued by the major mistake of totalitarian government. The Need for Toleranceand Humility Donald E. Weast 411 An appeal for the restoration of intellectual virtues in academic life. WeatherForecastfor 1984! Governmentintervention results in terrible weather. Andrew V. Santangini 421 Givingand ReceivingWith Respect Anne Wortham 422 A case study ·of voluntary charity in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect for life and property.

The Family R. J. Rushdoony 429 strong families are essential to a strong society. Yet, the family is under attack and a process of erosion is evident. Closingthe GenerationGap V. Orval Watts 433 Each individual must learn good conduct. It is not inborn or given to us by others. Book Reviews: 440 IIUni·on Power and the Public Interest" by Emerson P. Schmidt "History of the Canadian National Railways" by G. R. stevens liThe Case for American Medicine" by Harry Schwartz liThe Essential von Mises" by Murray N. Rothbard Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY • IRVINGTON·ON·HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE FREEMAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,000-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "The Family."

VINCENT A .. DROSDIK, III THIS YEAR marks the 197th anni versary of the signing of the· Dec laration of Independence. The War for Independence began officially on July 4, 1776. The war had been fought for more than a year up to that point. The famous battles at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, Fort Ticonderoga and Bunker Hill in 1775 preceded the signing of the historic document by the Second Continental Congress in Philadel phia., The events of 1775-1781 are called the War for Independence, but also the American Revolution. But was it a revolution? I may be nitpicking, but this is an important point. The real revoSP4 Vincent A. Drosdik, III is editor of a weekly newspaper published for personnel of the U. S. Army in Berlin, The Berlin Observer, in which this editorial first appeared. American Revolution Unique lution was a long process of change in the ideas and ideals on the part of the American people, the set tlers from the Old World. The rev olution was this idea: that each person is a sovereign individual, with certain inalienable, God-giv en rights, and that the purpose of government is not to dispense rights, but to protect them. Gov ernment would be the servant, not the master of the people.

Among these rights are those to life, liberty and property. One by one, specific liberties were fought for and secured during the colo nial period. The freedom of the press was recognized in the fa mous Peter Zenger case in New York in 1735. Freedom of religion and conscience was one of the ma jor reasons for the settling of our country, and by the time of the Declaration it was fairly well es387 388 THE FREEMAN July tablished. It was formalized In the Bill of Rights and the various sta tes as they ended the practice of official state religious establish ments. Other freedoms and rights were reaffirmed and protected in the years before independence - the rights to bear arms, to own· prop erty, to have a. fair trial by jury, to representative government, the right to be left alone. When Parliament and the King stepped beyond their rightful pow ers, the colonists cried that their rights as Englishmen were being violated. The Navigation Acts, which restricted freedom of trade; the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on the colonies without their approval or consultation; and other usurpations of power, all enumerated in the Declaration, eventually got to the unbearable point. The Americans then de clared independence from tyranny, "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world in the Rectitude of our Intentions."

The American "Revolutionary" War was the most famous and sparked many others in the two centuries since then. The French Revolution only 13 years later, while often compared with the American, was different in nature and results. The American found ing fathers succeeded in restricting the War for Independence to simply a revolt against English authority. But in many revolutions since our own, especially the French Revolution, the course of throw ing off the old government led to people throwing off the entire old order, tradition, moral restraints, and so forth - a revolt against ev erything. This led to anarchy, and then to dictatorship, as people de manded law and order before free dom. This is the uniqueness of the American Revolution and War for Independence - it did not degen erate into dictatorship and suc ceeded, after a stormy Articles of Confederation period, in establish ing a republi.cprotecting rights to a degree never before attained.

For the American Revolution to be successful and alive today, we must pay the price of "eternal vigilance." The ideals of the Rev olution, as embodied in the Dec laration of Independence, must. be alive in our hearts for that Revo lution to be alive and well. If we sleep and forget our heritage, we will lose our freedoms and ·liber-· ties, and perhaps even our inde pendence. Because there are those in the world today who are all too eager to enslave us and who are not asleep, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. ~ Inequality Enshrined It is not true that equality is the law of nature: nature has made nothing equal. - Marquis de Vanvenargues LEONARD E. READ BOOKS, speeches, expressed yearn ings - past and present - have much to say in favor· of equality,· and they promote a demand for it. We are equal in the eyes. of God, they say; we· are equal before the law; we are born equal, have equal rights, are entitled to equal pay, on and on. While numerous philos ophers and statesmen have recog nized how all-pervading inequal ity is, few have enshrined it, that is, portrayed inequality as a high ly desirable state of affairs. In equality exists, unfortunately!

I have just had a change of mind: inequality exists, fortu nately! In a recent book I wrote: . . . the authors of the Declaration took the rational step of seating the Creator as the single point of ref erence, thereby making all men pre cisely as equal before the civil law as all men are equal before the Cre ator. \Ve have here a semantic trap in which most of us - myself in cluded - have become ensnared. Once we accept the idea that all men are equal before God, we are more than likely to think of equality as the major purpose of human effort and a condition to be sought, as nearly as possible, in all worldly relationships. This is a dangerous notion, completely at odds with reality. As I now see it, men are no more equal before God than they are equal in this earthly life. Judas was not the equal of Peter! To contend otherwise is to condemn God as nearsighted. What this af firmation is intended to convey, really, is that all men are subject to the Universal Laws indiscrimi nately; there are no favorites; there is a common across-the board justicB. With this in mind, merely reflect on the distinction between common justice and 389 390 THE FREEMAN JaLy equality. They are by no means synonymous.

Inequality prevails among men. One is a teetotaler, another an al coholic. Joe is a genius at this, Bob at that. This man peers through a telescope to fathom the heavens; another through a microscope to probe the infinitesimal. As F. A. Hayek has concluded in The Constitut1ion of Liberty: Fro·m the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be in equality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time. A Common Justice The ideal civil law, like the laws of God or Natural Law, is unbi ased as to who or what we are. But we are not equal in the "eyes" of the civil law anymore than we are equal in the "eyes" of the Ten Commandments. These laws are blind; they have no eyes to see us.

Civil laws, as the Universal Laws - if intelligently drawn - are in discriminate; they confer no spe cial privilege on anyone; th~y are but codes - blind to the thousand and one ways we rank ourselves - their hallmark being a common justice. If we wish to say that these codes are equally as fair to you dS to me, all well and good. This kind of wording, however, merely as serts that we are - one as much as another - beneficiaries of fair ness and justice. By employing the right words, we avoid the notiol of human equality and the mis chievous deductions that grow from such a common, semantic error. I am agreeing with an ob servation by George Horne: Among the sources of those in numerable calamities which from age to age have overwhelmed mankind, may be reckoned as one of the prin cipal, the abuse of words. What about the popular claim that we are born equal? We are no more equal at birth than at death; no more equal in the fetus than in the grave. "Nature has made nothing equal," including all forms of nonlife or life, human or otherwise.!

We have equal rights ! Valid? In a way, provided "rights" are properly defined and circum scribed. Any person, regardless of race, creed, color, or whatever, has 1 See You Are Extraordinary by Roger J. Williams (New York: Random House, 1967) .

1973 INEQUALITY ENSHRINED 391 as much right to life, livelihood, liberty as any other - provided his actions are peaceful, that is, non coercive. Observe that when thus circumscribed, the equal-rights concept makes no claim on any other person; it is, instead, an ap peal to reason, morality, justice. It has no more muscle, no more teeth to it, than an aspiration. It is righteous and, for this reason, utterly harmless. I stress "harmless" simply be cause most people put no such boundaries on "equal rights." Blind to the rational limitations of this concept, they are carried away with "equality" and demand equal pay, rights to a job, to "a decent standard of living," to a "fair" wage or price. They put quotas, embargoes, tariffs on goods, meaning that they think of themselves as having a right to your and my trade. It is impos sible to list the instances in which people have slumped so far in their thinking that, today, mere wishes are thought of as rights. 2 Take note of the fact that all of these demands for equality, be yond the rational boundary, make a claim on others. No longer harmless, they are harmful, de2 See "When Wishes Become Rights"

in my book, Deeper Than You Think (Irvington-on-Hudson, N. Y.: Founda tion for Economic Education, Inc., 1967), pp. 98-107. structive. They rob selected Peter to pay collective Paul-feathering the nests of some at the expense of others. Noncoercive? To the contrary, each and everyone of these rests on raw coercion - the application of police force. Name an exception! The notion of equality is one of the mistaken features of our folklore, but so much lip service is given to it that the thought of inequality as a desirable condition is, at first blush, shocking. How could any sane person favor in equality! Is it because he has no compassion, no thought for his fellowmen? To the contrary, I would argue. Inequality in Nature Man in his quest for perfection - for a growth in awareness, per ception, consciousness - can make headway only to the extent that he perceives and abides by the Universal Laws. Conceded, our awareness of these Laws is in finitesimal; we know but very few of them. There is one, how ever, about which there can be no question: inequaHty! "Nature has made nothing equal."

No two atoms, molecules, snow flakes, planets, stars, galaxies are ever identical. No two persons are equal; indeed, no individual in any given moment of time is equal to himself in the previous 392 THE FREEMAN July moment. Imagine - a million new red blood cells every second! All is radiant energy, in one form or another; all is in motion from imperceptible slowness to the speed of light. Is this as it should be? My answer is "yes," for this is the way it is - like it or not. I like it! None Like Socrates A further demonstration that this thesis is a "switch" for me: I recently wrote a brief essay, "How To Be Like Socrates." One friend wrote, "I don't want to be like Socrates." I got a chuckle, but not the point - until later. Suppose - I thought to myself - everyone were like Socrates. We would all be on· the street asking each other a series of easily an swered questions that inevitably lead the answerer to a logical con clusion foreseen by the questioner.

Everybody would be slovenly, ugly, and wise. Noone would be raising food, or building homes, or making planes, stoves, pots, pans. Indeed, were all like Socra tes, there would not be a person on this earth. Likeness? Equality? Let us be done with this careless phrasing - this abuse of words -:- and the destructive thoughts to which it leads! "Free and equal" is an oft heard expression, suggesting that freedom and equality are as in separable as Siamese twins. Actu ally, they are mutually antagon istic. The equality idea - equal pay and so on - rests on the an tithesis of freedom: raw coercion. It is just as impossible to be free when equality is politically manip ulated as it is impossible to be equal. Free and unequal-freedom and inequality - are what go hand in hand. The essence of individuality is uniqueness: inequality in skills, talents, knowledge, aspirations. This is merely an acknowledgment of a Universal Law. Obviously, we must be free to produce, to ex change, to travel or we perish as surely as if all were like you or me or Socrates.

Exploiting Our Differences We come, finally, to the economic case for inequality. Not our like nesses, but our differences, give rise to the division of labor and the complex market processes of production and trade. We have al ready mentioned, and can. see all about us, that in a given field of activity one person is more skilled - more productive - than another. So, it is to our advantage to spe cialize and to trade with other specialists. This is not to say that each of us must be equally skilled as a specialist in order for him to gain 1973 INEQUALITY ENSHRINED 393 the advantages of trade. The more skilled one becomes at his spe cialty, the greater his incentive to hire or trade with others to carry out certain tasks for him, even though he can cook meals or scrub floors better than can the person he hires for such tasks. It is to his comparative advantage to con centrate his efforts on the single skill for which consumers· offer him the greatest reward. By thus serving others - and becoming ever more skilled and outstanding (unequal) in the process - he best serves his own interest.

A moment's reflection reveals that this comparative advantage in trading, which rewards the most renowned specialist, also re wards in similar fashion every other party to such trade, down to the very least-skilled partici pant in the market. This is not to say that their gains would be equal; only that each gains from the trade more goods and services than otherwise would have been his. And what is true here of trade between individuals in a given na tion is also true of international trade. However wealthy or poor and skilled or unskilled the re spective traders, each finds a com parative advantage in trading if it is voluntary. Not only does this blessing of inequality flow from the mental or physical skills of traders; it also pertains to the capital, the tools of the trade, the savings and investments by individuals. The specialist who saves and develops tools becomes ever more special ized and efficient. And it is to the advantage of every participant in the market to encourage the saver and investor by respecting and protecting his property - even though the result is greater in equality of wealth than before.

Otherwise, there soon would be no incentive for anyone to save or invest in the tools of production, the facilities of trade. So, if a people would avoid fall ing to a low level of sameness and bare subsistence, the procedure is to cultivate and accentuate their differences in skills and in private ownership and use of property these being the requisites for a flourishing and beneficial trade. And let us bear in mind that exchange (other than primi tive barter) depends on an honest, trustworthy, circulating medium; this is an absolute - money of in tegrity. Freedom in monetary matters means no political manip ulation of our medium of exchange. That, in brief, is the economic case for inequality.3 Sadly, the misunderstanding and misappli3 A more detailed treatment of these arguments may be found in pages 836 847 of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

394 THE FREEMAN July cation of the concept of "equality" 3,ffords a major explanation for the leveling programs - egalitari anism - going on in the world today: communism, socialism, state welfarism, interventionism, and the like. So, I take my stand for inequality. Let us then enshrine inequality Equality versus Liberty by acknowledging and embracing this fact of Nature - inequality and, also, its working handmaiden: human freedom. Allow no inter ference with creative activities, which is to say, permit anyone to do anything he chooses so long as it is peaceful. A fair field and no favor! , IDEAS ON LIBERTY IT IS equality of freedom and independence that gives unto man his opportunity to be rich or poor or to be good or had. Equality of men leaves no choice, because if all men are equal by nature or inherently, there can be no differences and no distinctions. All have an equal right to stand at the judgment bars of God and man - but all are not entitled to the same judgment. Virtue and depravity are not entitled to the same rewards on earth or in Heaven.

It is inequality that gives enlargement to .1'eligion, to intellect, to energy, to virtue, to love, and to wealth. Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity. Equality of wealth makes all men poor. Equality of religion destroys all creeds. Equality of energy renders all men sluggards. Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of Heaven. Equality of love stultifies every manly passion, destroys every family altar, and mongrelizes the races of men. Equality homogenizes so that cream does not rise to the top. It puts the eagle in the hen house so that he may no longer soar. R. CARTER PITTMAN GEORtlF (·HARLES ROCHE III FOR A MOMENT,come with me in to the American past, to a period in which our forefathers changed the history of the world. Some times we think that 1776 was the starting date for our Revolution; actually the real revolution had already been brewing a century and a half before 1776.

Fully 150 years before the American Revolution, our colonial ancestors had enjoyed a large measure of self-government. From the first, the American colonial experience had drawn heavily up on the traditional liberties of the British.subject, upon the heritage of Magna Charta and centuries of common law, stressing property rights and the guarantees of in dividual freedom. Dr. Roche is President of Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan. This article is from his remarks on April 26, 1973 at the American Patriot Award Ceremony, a First Bicentennial Salute by the Pittsburgh Committee of '76 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. American Revolution By the 18th century, however, the British were pursuing a new goal. A new economic idea, mer cantilism, had gained dominance in British thinking. King George III and his advisers had accepted the idea of what today would be called the planned economy, the mistaken belief that the individual could not be trusted to discharge his own responsibilities. Large amounts of government planning and control were to be used to regulate society and manipulate the individual.

Today the same idea masquer ades under many names: Com munism, Socialism, the Welfare State - all systems of coercion having in common a basic-distrust of individual freedom and respon sibility. By the concluding third of the 18th century, the American people were running out of patience with 395 396 THE FREEMAN July this growing governmental inter ference in their affairs. In the summer of 1776, a man named Thomas Jefferson retired to the upstairs bedroom of a bricklayer's home in Philadelphia, where he penned a short document which was destined to write a new chap ter in human history. In that document, the Declaration of In':' dependence, Americans served no tice that they would no longer tolerate governmental interference with their lives and property. The Declaration charged King George III with various abuses of political power against the colo nists. But the document was not merely a bill of indictment against George III - it was serving notice, for 1776, for 1976, and for as long as the American Republic endures, that the American people will never tolerate centralized bureau cratic control of their lives.

A Jurisdiction Foreign to Our Constitution Consider for a moment the lan guage of the Declaration of Inde pendence: He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. He has combined with others to subject us to a juris diction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws. In those ringing words we hear the determination of a nation of free men to protect their heritage of liberty and to fight for that heri tage when it is threatened. Actually, Tom Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence are only one-half of the revolutionary story in that exciting summer of 1776. That san~e summer, a book was published thousands of miles from the American colonies, a book which was destined to have a profound effect on the real American Revolution. The author was a Professor of Moral Philoso phy at the University of Glasgow, a man named Adam Smith; and the book was entitled The Wealth of Na,tions. Smith was not an economist. There were no such things as economists in the 18th century. The world was a brighter and happier place.

Smi th was a moral philosopher. And as a moral philosopher he perceived a truth which escapes all too many of us today. Men must be free to make their own decisions. If they are not, a moral paralysis soon sets in. Free choice is a prerequisite for a working moral framework. Building on that premise, Adam Smith examined mercantil ism in England and discovered that this early form of the plan ned economy was denying men free choice and thus was dis1973 THE REAL AMERICAN REVOLUTION 397 torting British society. Economic harm was also being done by the new system. Scarce capital re sources were being channeled into less productive areas; individual creativity and productivity were being stifled. In short, Smith dis covered that mercantilism was strangling the very economic growth that the planned economy had set out to achieve. Smith also speculated that free men, men in charge of their own lives, would "be productive and ef fective, both for themselves and for society as a whole. His book was destined to have a greater impact than he could ever have guessed.

A Model lor Nations Eleven years after the publica tion of the Declaration of Inde pendence and The Wealth of Na tions, our Founding Fathers met once again, this time to draft a constitution charting the course for a new nation. The resulting document has since served as a model for the entire world. The fifty-five leaders of American so ciety who met to write our Con stitution were motivated primarily by two ideas: the Tom Jefferson limited government idea and the Adam Smith-free enterprise idea. The Constitution of the United States is in a sense the most revo lutionary of all documents. It is premised upon the truly radical idea that men should be left largely free to pursue their own affairs. For the first time in the history of the world, a major na tion was attempting an experi ment in freedom. The real American Revolution began at that moment. In free dom, America rushed forward to produce more material wealth than had any previous social order. More important, that wealth found its way into the hands of more common men, more ordinary citizens, than had ever before been the case in the entire history of the world. America became vastly powerful, while the American citi zen became the most prosperous and the most free man on the face of the earth.

Freedom worked well for Amer ica. Freedom worked well because free men are more productive than slaves. Freedom worked well because our Founding Fathers knew that political power must be kept with in strict limits. They knew that most of the decisions made in a healthy society must be made by individuals, by families, by volun tary associations of free men. Abbve all, our Founding Fa thers knew, as the Declaration of Independence announced to the world, that "Men are endowed by 398 THE FREEMAN July their Creator with certain inalien able rights." Since men are endowed "by their Creator" with these rights, it fol lows that God and not government is sovereign, and therefore that government must be without au thority to interfere with "certain inalienable· rights," such as self government and sustenance; that is, the right to freedom, and the right to property as a means of making that freedom meaningful.

America has prospered when it followed its faith in free enter prise and free men, a faith based upon a fundamental belief in God. Today we are beset with problems on every hand, problems caused in large part because our faith in free men sometimes falters. All too often we seem to believe today that we can turn our problems over to government, that we can find someone else to deal with our responsibilities. America .is not going to fail. There are no vast, impersonal forces of history about to. engulf us. This nation of courageous in dividuals, this nation of free men, has always been able to handle the problems which arise. We can do so again - if we are true to our selves, true to our magnificent heritage, true to the basic Ameri can faith in free men and the faith in God which is the ultimate cornerstone of our system. I ask you to join with me in asking God to grant this nation the continued blessing of individ ual liberty and the courage to ful fill our individual responsibilities as free men and loyal American citizens. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY Self-Government I COULD NOT OMIT to urge on every man to remember that self government politically can only be successful if it is accompanied by self-government personally; that there must be government somewhere; and that, if indeed the people are to be the sovereigns, they must exercise their sovereignty over themselves individually, as well as over themselves in the aggregate - regulating their own lives, resisting their own temptations, subduing their own passions, and voluntarily imposing upon themselves some measure of that restraint and discipline which, under other systems, is supplied from armories of arbitrary power.

ROBERT c. WINTHROP, American Statesman (1809-1894) EDMUND A. OPITZ OUR disORdEREdlivEs THE COLONISTShad won a war and, desiring to set up a republican form of government, they installed a Constitution designed to limit the public authority and thus maximize personal liberty. Now that they were free, what did these early Americans do with their newly won liberty? For one thing, they worked. They had to provide their own food, clothing and shelter, so work was a neces sity of survival. Moreover, these people remembered the poverty enThe Reverend Mr. Opitz is a member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Educa tion, a seminar lecturer, and author of the book, Religion and Capitalism: Allies Not Enemies. dured by their ancestors in Europe and how life was demeaned there by.Now that these Americans were free to enjoy the fruits of their toil they became more productive, and with the gradual increase of wealth came a new sense of human dignity which accompanies modest econ omic success. The Puritan Ethic was sound when it endorsed work, thrift and frugality. This ethic fit ted in well with the burgeoning in terest in the new science of econ omics, masterfully set forth in 1776 by Adam Smith. It is significant that more than twenty five hundred copies of Wealth of Nations were sold in this country within five years of its appearance. Obviously, 399 400 THE FREEMAN July the book addressed itself to a real need.

Economic activity is fundamen tal to human existence. A Robinson Crusoe could get along without politicking, but if he did not work he would die of hunger and expo sure. Emerging from economic ac tivity are the concepts of rights to property and claims to service around which many political battles are fought. Economics, on the sur face, deals with prices, production, and the operations of the market as determined by the buying habits of everyone of us. In reality, how ever, economics is concerned with the conservation and stewardship of the earth's scarce goods; human energy, time, material resources and natural forces. These goods-in-short-supply are our birthright as creatures of this planet. Use them wisely, as natural piety dictates and common sense confirms - that is providently and economically - and human well-be ing is the result. Ignore the reali ties in this area, as we have done in our time, and a host of evils fol low. We might be able to live with economic ills if we didn't think we . could cure them with political nos trums, but our political efforts aimed at mopping up the conse quences of economic mistakes head us in the direction of the Total State. Every collectivist ideology from the welfare state id~a to totali tarian communism - is strung on a framework of economic error.

People are prisoners of their be liefs, and so long as they cherish a wrong understanding of econom ics they will be appealed to by one form of collectivism or another. But when they embrace sound econ omics, collectivism will cease to be a menace. Man's Nature All creatures take the world pretty much as they find it, save man. Man alone has the gifts which enable him to entertain an idea and then transform his environment in accordance with it. He is equipped with needs which the world as it is cannot satisfy. Thus he is com pelled to alter and rearrange the natural order by employing his energy on raw materials so as to put them into consumable form. Be fore he can do much of anything else, man must manufacture, grow, and transport. His creaturely needs man shares with the animals, but he alone employs economic means to satisfy them. This is anenor mous leap upward, for by relying on the economic means man be comes so efficient at satisfying his bodily hungers that he gains a measure of independence from them. And when they are assuaged, he feels the tug of hungers no ani mal ever feels: for truth, for beauty, for meaning, for God.

1973 OUR DISORDEREDLIVES 401 Whatever may be man)s capaci ties in the upper reaches of his na ture - to think, dream, pray, or create - it is certain that he will attain to none of these unless he survives. And he cannot survive for long unless he engages in economic activity. At the lowest level, econ omic action achieves merely econ omic ends: food, clothing, and shelter. But when these matters are efficiently in hand, economic action is a means to all our ends, not only to more refined economic goods but to the highest goods· of the mind and spirit. Add flying buttresses and spires to four walls and a roof, and a mere shelter for the body de velops into a cathedral to house the spiri t of man. Economics is not one means among many, Hayek has pointed out, it is the means to all our ends. Material Progress The freer a nation's economy the more prosperous are its citizens. The wealth of Uncle Sam became the envy of the world. America's greatness is not, of course, to be measured by monetary income and material well-being; but it is inter esting to note how well Americans have done economically with the resources available to them.

The United States is only one sixteenth of the land surface of the world, and Americans are only about one-fifteenth of the world's population. Nevertheless, Ameri cans own three-quarters of all the television sets. Americans consume about two-thirds of all the petro leum products in the world, one half of all the coffee, two-thirds of all the silk. An American factory worker can buy four suits of clothes with a month's wages; his counter part in a totalitarian country can buy half a suit with a month's wages. An American can buy six pairs of shoes with the results of a week's work; his totalitarian coun terpart can buy one shoe. These figures prove only one thing. They demonstrate with what dramatic success Americans have waged the great war on poverty. There was general progress dur ing the nineteenth century; the American Dream appeared to be in the process of realization. The War Between the States shed brothers' blood and dealt the nation a stag gering blow, but the country's spiritual and political leadership had enough vitality to begin the long job of putting the pieces to gether again. There were several periods of economic dislocation during the nineteenth century, but the masses of Americans tightened their belts and took the hardships in stride. The prevailing mood, as the nation entered the twentieth century was optimistic, but this mood was badly shaken by World War 1. There was a lot of cynicism 402 THE FREEMAN July in the literature of the twenties and a few voices began to propa gandize for the Planned State.

Then came the shattering experi ence of the' Great Depression and large numbers of Americans lost faith in themselves and in their in stitutions. They felt powerless be fore the forces leading them toward the war they entered in 1941. Given their "druthers," most people choose freedom; they would have settled - anytime during the 1929-1941 period - for a resump tion of the old ways and the pros pect of a steady job. But there was almost no one to tell them that econ omic stagnation and war are not market place phenomena; these are consequences of political interfer ence with the free market. The economy which collapsed in 1929 and continued stricken during the thirties was a politically rigged economy; it bore little resemblance to the classical model of the free market! The Voice of Socialism This message was drowned out in the thirties by the confident, strident voices of Socialists, Com munists and Social Planners. The prescriptions of these folk were heeded, in large measure, and their remedies applied. The walfare state was given carte blanche in the nineteen-thirties· and has had the field virtually to itself for the past forty years. What are the conse quences? Examine any sector of the nation you choose and the sur vey turns up a shambles. Dissen sion tears apart our churche~; in fluential church bodies support revolution ; churchmen embrace one weird theology after another. On the campuses there is not only a breakdown of educational theory, there are student riots, burnings and bombings. Never have Ameri cans been so divided against each other; never has America stood so low in the eyes of the world.

It is an ominous portent for a nation when significant numbers of its people carry the political dia logue out into the street, forsaking the painstaking, two-way process of argumentation and discussion for the more spectacular device of demonstration. Thus the marches, the sit-ins, kneel-ins, pray-ins, wade-ins, and the like. Public order exists only because the overwhelm ing majority of people voluntarily obey the rules of the game. The law does not create public order; law is the creature of that order. Order creates an instrument, the law, to punish those occasional breaches of propriety which occur because men are not angels. No society comes into existence, nor can a society en dure, unless most of the people can be trusted most of the time to play fair and deal justly with their fel lows.

1973 OUR DISORDERED LIVES 403 Every free society develops its customary style of political life as a reflection of its peculiar ethos and, according to its own lights, gives to every faction in the society a voice to match its merits. A free society devises political machinery for the orderly succession in office, and cannot long endure chaos in this sphere. Not a Tyrant's Rule Our situation in 1973 is not like that of a conquered country, pinned down by a tyrant's heel. A sup pressed people is denied access to the political levers by whichorderly changes in society are effected. They cannot plead their case across the abyss which separates them from their conquerors, and thus they are impelled to protest by. ac tionswhich smack of guerrilla warfare. How different here! The channels of political communica tion in the United States were never more open than today, but never has the country witnessed more protest. marches, demonstra tions, and riots. The ends the dem onstrators .hope to accomplish by taking to the streets-recognition, economic improvement - were not being thwarted by the strongest political currents flowing during the past generation; to the con trary, new ground was being gained with each passing year, and the trend was continuing. There was undeniable progress, but it was not being accomplished fast enough by regular political means, seconded by moral and educational movements; so they took to the streets to speed up the action.

Then there are the cop-outs, the denizens of the counter-culture, the drug people, the vagabonds, the ex perimenters with new life styles. What went wrong? What will bring us back into the mainstream of the American tradition? The Decline of Religion The past two centuries -' the pe riod during which the American ex periment got started, rose to heights of prosperity, then lost its sense of direction -coincides with the general decline of religious be lief. The decline. I refer to is not something to be gleaned from sta tistics. There are millions of peo ple who attend church every Sun day; there are a great many devout Christians and pious Jews in Eu rope and America; there are philos ophers who can demonstrate by close reasoning that God is; and there is in the average man a sense that he is taking part in events of a more than mundane significance. But the God reached at the conclu sion of a chain of reasoning is not the same God as The One in Whom our being is rooted - although it is with the philosopher's God that the recovery of religious faith must be404 THE FREEMAN July gin. Hold fast to that which can be proved; then faith, when it comes, is a gift of grace.

While religion has gotten onto rather shaky ground in modern times, the philosophy of Material ism has gained ascendency almost everywhere. It is the typical faith of the laboratory and the market place. Science has taken on a magic radiance during the past two cen turies, appearing to deliver what religion had only promised; and the world view dictated by science was widely assumed to be Material ism. Scientists, for the purposes of their work, visualized the universe as an intricate, interlocking piece of clockwork. Every event is the ef fect of a mechanical cause, and a thing is "understood" when broken down and analyzed into its antece dents. Science takes on messianic significance in what Karl Marx re ferred to as his "Scientific Social ism," and the philosophy of "dialec tic Materialism on which commu nism is based rigorously excludes God and regards religion as the enemy.

Religion was a compelling force in the formation of American ideals and institutions. From the religi ous heritage of Christendom came our understanding of human na ture and destiny - the belief that God has called men to His service while in the body to perform their duties as citizens, their tasks as employers and employees, as well as in their homes, their churches, and their play. The central doctrine of our political theory is the idea that each person possesses inher ent, God-given rights, whose pro tection is government's primary job. But if man is not a created being, if man instead is simply the end product of material and social forces - as the strict environmen talists believe - then there is not a spark of the divine within him. If there is no God there are no God given rights in a person, which all other persons are bound to respect. And if there are no rights natural to man as such, then men will not strive to limit government to the public domain. To the contrary, the powers and functions of govern ment 'will be extended and some men will come to regard other men simply as objects to be manipu lated: "We who wield power will create the environment to mould men to our specifications and thus bring a new humanity into being."

At the first Creation God made man in His own image; the second Creation proposes to improve .on the first! The philosophy of Materialism cannot allow the idea of inherent rights, nor does it countenance the idea of a soul, or mind, as a genuine reality. Materialism is the theory that bits of matter alone are ulti1973 OUR DISORDERED LIVES 405 mately real, and when one reflects on this position it is evident that Materialism is self-refuting. If only matter is real, the theory that only matter is unreal is fanciful! A theory, or an id~a, or a belief is certainly nonmaterial; and the fact that we can have an idea of matter demonstrates that there is more to the universe than matter! The Reality of Ideas Ideas are real! An idea does not occupy space, nor is it in time; it will not submit to chemical analy sis, nor can it be weighed or meas ured. But it begs the question to assume that these are the only tests for genuine reality. If we deny reality to an idea or a thought, then neither can we vouch for the truth of an idea or thought. The Materialist actually denies the va lidity of thought when he doubts the reality of an idea; and, to be candid, he must admit that he can not trust the reasoning which pur ports to lead him to Materialism!

The tragedy is that religion has weakly succumbed to this ideology, and the idea of rights derived from the Creator has been replaced by the notion of privileges granted by the State. This has had a pro foundly disturbing effect on Ameri can political institutions. The second ill consequence fol lowing upon the decay of religious belief affects the individual person by diminishing his life goals. It is the Christian position that man is made to serve a transcendent end, in other words, to seek first the Kingdom. The ancient promise is that if we put this first thing in first place the other necessary things will come in sequence. But under the rule of Materialism men are limited to the pursuit of earthly goals which, in practice, boil down to two; the pursuit of power and and the pursuit of wealth. The relentless pursuit of power destroys the idea of limited, Con stitutional government; the ruth less pursuit of wealth destroys the market economy. If a people ack nowledge the Ten Commandments, seek freedom and justice, practice love of God and of neighbor, and then employ a modicum of intelli gence in their economic and politi cal arrangements, they will restrain government and release productive energy; they will have a free and productive commonwealth on these terms, and on no others. For it is almost a truism that disorder in so ciety is but a reflection of disorder in the souls of men. Earmarks of to day's inner disorder are widespread uncertainty about the meaning of life, loss of proper goals, confusion as to what it all signifies, a loss of hope, and an enfeeblement of reso lution.

As the religious man under stands the universe, this natural 406 THE FREEMAN July world is grounded in a spiritual reality, which we cannot sense, but whose reality may be corroborated by intuition, reason, or revelation. When man loses contact with this divine order he will "transfer his loyalty to worldly objects, and a part of him will be crippled. as a result. The. full embodiment of the Gospel vision is beyond the capacity of any generation of men. But the City of Man may be a proving ground for the City of God, and a portion of that vision has worked its way into the law, customs and conventions of Christendom. This ideal once inspired our free insti tutions, and its original inspiration can be rekindled. Until that re kindling occurs the promise of America remains unfulfilled. What 'slife's Meaning? Each of us is thrust into life and saddled with the task of discover ing what this life of ours is all about. The first thing we discover is that the life-meaning we seek is not something which will simply drift toward us while we passively wait; we have to work for it. It is only as active participants in life that we begin to discover clues as to the meaning of our earthly pil grimage.

The full meaning is, of course, denied us. Mortal man, with his finite understanding, can do no more here than "see as through a glass darkly." But the part we can and do see. is at least enough so that we know what our next step should be. Take the right step and it leads to another. Look back over our trail and a definite pattern is decipherable. We human beings did not invent ourselves. Our fumbling efforts to discover the laws of our being the rules for our proper operation - contribute toward making human life the painful thing it is. But this pain of ours is a peculiar pain; joy is mingled with the pain - the joy that comes from knowing that each one of us participates in the very process of creation itself. Every other creature but man obeys the Laws of God, which are the Laws of Life, willy-nilly - almost me chanically. But God solicits the co operation of man. We have free will, and we may refuse to cooper ate; or, we may exercise our power of choice and thus begin to realize the tr~mendous potential that lies latent in each one of us.

Life challenges us to grow, and it provides abundant occasions and opportunities to test our nerve. Every test is just a little beyond our capacity; so, in one sense, we fail. But in the very act of striving lies our success, for new powers emerge out of our· shortcomings; and the hardships we overcome on each level of life spur us to rise higher.

PAUL L. POIROT To SEE a grown man make a child ish mistake is embarrassing, even if he is the sole victim and mis leads or harms no one else in the process. Nor does one enjoy see ing two or more responsible adults collaborating to be wrong at their own expense. Yet, one observes errors all about him every day of his life; and his problem is to tol erate such behavior and to learn from it. Otherwise, one finds him self trying alone, or conspiring, to forcibly prevent others from mak ing their own mistakes. Unfortunately, in a highly in dustrialized trading economy such as ours, ·it seems increasingly dif ficult to be mi,staken only at one's own expense. A man mistakes a red light for a green and harms someone else in the process. His raucous hi-fi set disturbs his neighbors. His inefficient garbage disposal is an eyesore, or worse, to the community. The weeds on / / / / / I<§' // <i}~ his vacant lot happen to be mari juana. His factory belches smoke.

His cropping practices aggravate floods - or dust storms. Now, it is especially annoying to see anyone making mistakes that are harmful not only to him self but to other quite innocent persons as well. Most of us can find considerable justification for bringing a bit of force to bear against such disturbers of the peace. Yet, in the process of ap plying that force, we may be com mitting the worst mistake of all: the socialization of error - com pelling everyone in the society to share the cost of the reform we advocate. Such is the anomaly of free dom. On the one hand, it allows more and more of us to live longer lives of greater comfort and ease. At the same time, it brings us closer to one another and makes each of us in his specialty more 407 408 THE FREEMAN July dependent on the other specialists with whom he trades goods and services. The open frontiers of land and air and water disappear.

More and more of the bounties of Nature, once free for the taking, are drawn into the category of scarce economic resources which are worth owning and command a price in the market. Effects of Crowding As industrialized people become more and more crowded together in their increased affluence, per sonal mistakes not only become more obvious to others and more annoying but also tend more and more to trespass upon the prop erty and to jeopardize the liberties and the lives of others. The lim ited rules of law and order ap plicable to the open range and frontier life seem inadequate to cover the increasing frictions of crowded urban living. In their dis tress at some of these noxious fruits of affluence and progress, many persons hasten to the con clusion that "there ought to be a la.w" - a bit of coercion to prevent the individual from making his own mistakes. And the result of this expanded sphere of govern mental intervention and control is that everyone is compelled to help pay for mistakes that were none of his own doing. Here are a few samples of popular reform measures for which the taxpayer is held accountable: • government schools with compul sory attendance on the theory that this will teach the individual to make fewer mistakes.

• government systems of transpor tation on the theory that this will facilitate the desired movement of goods and services and people. • government health and welfare programs on the theory that this will enable and encourage indi viduals to lead happier and more useful lives. • government parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities on the theory that these will lead to more constructive uses of leisure. • government communication facili ties on the theory that people will thereby be better informed and more understanding of the views and the problems of others. • government supplied water, fuel, power, and other utilities on the theory that this will promote the fare. • government regulation and control of wages, prices, rents, interest rates, advertising, purity and quality of products, competitive practices, working conditions, in surance, banking, and numerous other aspects of business on the 1973 SOCIALIZEDERROR 409 theory that voluntary traders are unfit judges of fairness and equity.

• government privileges to labor, agriculture, industry, professional groups, and similar minorities on the theory of equality after the law. • government aid to other govern ments on the theory that this will improve the American image abroad and stimulate exports. • government printing of legal tender notes on the theory that traders otherwise might waste their time panning gold. The foregoing list illustrates but by no means exhausts the ways in which mistakes are so cialized in the name of preventing personal errors of judgment and action. This is not to question the desirability of and the need for education, transportation, health care, recreation, communication, water, fuel, electricity, insurance, banking, business integrity, char ity at home and abroad, and above all, an honest medium of ex change. Nor is it to question the need for government to protect the Iives and the property of peaceful citizens against fraud and violence. What is debatable. is the use of governmental coercion to displace the market as the con verter of scarce and valuable re sources to the most efficient serv ice of peaceful human desires.

The Role of Private Property The multiplication of people and their desires accentuates the demand upon available resources, calling for the enclosure of what was once the commons. In other words, there is an increased role for private ownership and an added importance of property rights to bring clean air, pure water, and increasingly scarce re sources of all types under the in fluence of voluntary supply and demand in the open market. The mistake in this connection is the unwarranted assumption that new or additional laws are needed to do the job. Or, worse yet, the assumption that the in creasing scarcity of a resource, relative to the demand for it, justifies bringing all available supplies under government owner ship or control. In other words, if air or water or land or oil or any other resource seems to be in rela tively short supply, then national ize the supply and treat it as if it were a free good or costless in the market as far as the consumer is concerned; the cost is there, all the same, but is to be charged to taxpayers in general rather than directly to each consumer. Thus, the consumption of the scarce re source is subsidized and encour aged, whereas the producer of that resource is discouraged through total or partial confiscation of his 410 THE FREEMAN July property. That is the general na ture .of the mistake: the resort to coercive measures in the attempt to do a job which can only be ac complished through the peaceful procedures of the market.

How Market System Functions to Avoid Waste The market recognizes the need and provides handsome rewards for specialists in the production and conservation and use of scarce resources. If there were no moral or other justification for private property, the foregoing alone would be ample and sufficient rea son for it - the avoidance of waste. This is the same reason for all specialization and all exchange. And the lack of respect for private property is the basic reason why compulsory socialism is bound to fail - why it can neither detect waste nor avoid it, however harsh be the treatment of individuals. Instead of allowing persons to specialize as producers or savers or responsible users of scarce and limited resources in market fash ion, socialism in effect compels everyone to serve as teacher, mail carrier, transporter, physician, supplier of utilities, lawyer, in surer, banker, philanthropist, and printer of fiat money. What waste of human talent, to say nothing of the other scarce resources squan dered in such warlike processes!

This is the great mistake we make when we. refuse to tolerate the errors of self-responsible individ uals and socialize such errors in stead. If it is education we desire, let us look to specialists in the open market rather than to the coercive process by which the policeman is to make every taxpayer a teacher. Perhaps some of the specialists will make mistakes; but such er rors, primarily at the individual's own expense, are far more toler able than when socialized. In similar fashion, the market may be trusted to provide the best transportation, communication, recreation, business service of all types, chari ties, and even the best money that can be had within the limits of available resources and human understanding. Among fal lible men, we may expect some mistakes. Perhaps we can learn to tolerate them, for there is no other chance to be free. ~ The Need forToleranc 1 Robert A. Nisbet, "Conflicting Aca demic Loyalties", in Improving College Teaching, Calvin B. T. Lee, Editor, (American Council on Education, Wash ington, D. C., 1967), pp. 12-13.

secular world of sports (where questions are being raised con cerning the value of winning), to the sacred world of religion (where questions of relevance have become a source of bitter debate), one struggles to discern whether a common ethic exists. There was once a university in the heart of America where all life seemed to be in harmony with its surroundings. The university lay in a verdant grove of academe; autonomous, self-perpetuating, and buoy ant.ln the spring black and white clouds of commencement robes sig naled the end of another properous year of learning; a year in which professors had taught and students had listened. Then a strange blight crept over the university, and everything began to change. Some evil spell had settled on the academy. Everywhere there was the shadow of death. There was a strange stillness in the classroom. Teachers no longer taught; students no longer listened. The professors,for example, where had they gone? Many people spoke of them, puzzled and dis turbed. Classrooms once vibrant with dialogue were now dull with apathy. The campus, once green, was now arid with alienation or else afire with revolt. No. witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The professors had done it themselves!1 DONALD E. WEAST.

The Restoration of Intellectual Virtues in Academic Life Dr. Weast is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha County Campus. As SOCIETIES become more complex - as the population grows, as the statuses and roles multiply, as the exposure to conflicting ideologies increases -there seems to be wan ing agreement over the validity and propriety of abstract values and norms. Such is the case with American institutions. From the 411 412 THE FREEMAN July The institution in American so ciety which appears to be the epitome of the present bewilder ment is the university. Witness the contradictory attitudes and be havior which not only exist in aca demic life, but are considered beneficial by their various repre sentatives: From so-called "teach ins" where speakers plead that others "see the light" so that the "correct" actions will be taken, to those whose idea of teaching leads them to reject va~ious forms of political proselytizing; from pro fessors who insist that students have a right to "relevant" courses to those who question the mean ing and dimensions of the term "relevance"; from those who agree that government has no place in academic life and that therefore R. O. T. C. should be abolished, to the insistence by the same people that Pea~e Corps and Draft Counseling courses have a proper place on the campus.

A Perplexing Contradiction Why such contradictory be havior not only occurs but is ra tionalized at great length by lead ers in the academic world as being part of "education" is, to say the least, perplexing. Perhaps Irving Kristol provides at least a partial answer by his observation that, "when an institution no longer knows what it is doing, it starts trying to do everything."2 Grant ing the accuracy of this pessimis tic insight, it may be useful, nev ertheless, to develop models of what education ought to be; other wise there is little prospect of ever realizing a coherent educa tional system. As a step in this direction, I will attempt to clarify what I see as one of the essential purposes of education, explore some of the necessary conditions for its fulfillment, and illustrate how these conditions are often violated by those who transmit "education" - the professors. A statement from the Harvard Report, "General Education in a Free Society," provides a point of departure.

Education is not merely the im parting of knowledge but the culti vation of certain aptitudes and atti tudes in the mind of the young ... These abilities, in our opinion, are: To think effectively, to communicate thought, to make relevant judgments, to discriminate among values. 8 It may be inferred from this statement that one of the essential purposes of the university is the 2 Irving Kristol, "What Business is the University in?" New York Times Magazine, (March 22, 1970), p. 30. 3 William H. Burton, Roland B. Kim ball and Richard L. Wing, Education for Effective Thinking (New York: Apple ton-Century Crofts, Inc. 1960), Preface, p.v.

1973 THE NEED FOR TOLERANCE AND HUMILITY 413 cultivation of the individual mind - a mind which is committed to the sea,rch for and the transmission of true knowledge. 4 It is this prin ciple which. gives credence to the institution of learning - in spite of its diverse curricula and indi vidualisticpractitioners. It is this principle which validates the "community of scholars" concept. The very existenc~ of the uni versity reveals the recognition that a cultivated mind is not ob tained automatically, but requires intensive intellectual training. 5 This involves, of course, such things as "sound training in the fundamental ways of thinking" represented by the various disci plines and "the ability to handle and apply complex ideas, to make use of a wide range of accurate knowledge, and to command the means of effective expression."6 It is my judgment, however, that this training will be undermined, or 4 The reason for emphasizing the word "search" is to recognize not only the fallibility of human thought, but to underscore what science has taught us: what is deemed true today, may be false tomorrow.

5 I do not mean to suggest that the actual training the individual receives in the university necessarily leads to a cul tivated mind. Nor do I suggest that the university is the only setting in which intellectual growth can be achieved. I do assert, however, that the university should be devoted to this cause. 6 Arthur Bestor, The Restoration of Learning, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1956, pp. 7-8. will be, at best, superficial unless certain attitudes prevail in the hearts and minds of those charged with doing this training - the pro fessors. That is, it is imperative that professors show by word and deed their commitment to virtues which are the life-blood of the cul tivated mind: tolerance and hu mility.7 To Develop an Open Mind By tolerance I am not referring to the narrow and topical applica tion of racial tolerance, but to a commitment to having an open, re ceptive mind. Whatever the issue is about, no matter how contrary the view may be to one's own (or no matter how favorable), the commitment of the professor must be to discovering, through the painstaking use of intellectual skills, whether and to what extent it is true or false.

It is extremely difficult to de velop an open mind. One of the reasons for this may be that our parents, and paradoxically, even our professors have failed to dem onstrate, by their own actions, the virtue of this goal. Given the na7 These are not the only crucial vir tues in this regard. Among others are suspension of judgment and curiosity. At least in a superficial sense, these at titudes are part of the academic folk lore. As an illustration of their impor tance for effective thinking see Burton et aI, op. cit. pp. 34-45.

414 THE FREEMAN July ture of their non-academic roles, the behavior of parents can be easily understood if not excused. But this is obviously not the case with professors. What are some indicators that some professors have failed to be models of tolerance? A~ far as their actual classroom perform ance is concerned, it is very diffi cult to obtain reliable information; it is a time-honored tradition that "outside observers" are only wel come by invitation. Students, of course, may cite instances of pro fessors failing to give balanced presentations of highly contro versial issues (controversial in the sense that reputable scholars do not agree) or of their failing to give serious consideration to the questions and opposing views of their students. But though these charges may indeed be true their validity rests on the integrity of the student as well· as on his com petence to make such judgments. s Fortunately, we do not have to rely on classroom· evidence. In re cent years there have been occa sions outside the classroom· in which some professors have failed 8 1 do not mean to imply that being a student necessarily means that the per son lacks integrity or competence., In deed, in this regard, I have known stu dents who outshine some professors. The point is that observer reports of this type are fraught with possibilities for error.

to grasp the opportunity to show their students, as well as the gen eral public, the virtue of tolerance. Their behavior at some of the teachins· on Vietnam provides a striking example. A professor of sociology observed one of these TeachIns . at the University of Wisconsin and made the following report: The professors who spoke were al most completely biased. They did nothing to restrain and much to en courage the hissing, groaning, and jeering that immediately greeted any assertion or question suggesting de viation from their own views. They engaged in question-begging witti cisms - "The Lingo of The N eo Jingoes", one professor titled his talk. They permitted the display and dis tribution of inflammatory photo graphs, literature, and signs in the classrooms. They scheduled the TeachIn amid a week-long round of placard-toting, petition-waving, vigil keeping activities 'To end the war in Vietnam' all to be climaxed by a 'March on Washington.'9 It is crucial to understand that the central issue here is not that some professors have violated the rights of others to speak freely.

To emphasize this is to miss the significant intellectual issue: hiss9 Michael Hakeem, "Rusk Should Ig nore 'Teachin' Professors", Letter to The Editor, Wisconsin State Journal, May 13, 1965.

1973 THE NEED FOR TOLERANCEAND HUMILITY 415 ing, groaning, jeering,or walking out on guest speakers are a repu diation of thought and thus make a mockery of the "house of intel lect."lo 8iased Presentations Another way professors demon strate their intolerance of oppos ing views is, ironically, through their tolerance of· one-sided pre sentations. It is intellectually de fensible to argue for a certain point of view, say, concerning the causes of poverty, or crime, or war. It is then up to the minds of others to assess whether the argu ment can withstand the applica tion of rigorous, disciplined think ing. But if, for example, students are constantly subjected to one sided views concerning subjects which abound in controversy among experts and are not even exposed to the opposing views in an objective, scholarly fashion, the professor is, unwittingly or not, supporting the norm of indoctri nation.

This was a key argument I presented in opposing the format 10 Of course it is not a sign of anti intellectualism if a person refrains from attending an event because it has little or no educational value. Indeed, it may be the sign of intellectualism of the highest order for a person not to take the time to hear bias-ridden speeches. (On the other hand, the intellectual might well attend in order to study an other specimen of propaganda.) of the University Forum on my own campus last year. This forum, entitled: "University Forum on Social Change," presented a series of speakers who were chosen be cause of their political ideologies. Moreover, instead of seeing to it that diverse ideologies were given equal representation, one-sided views prevailed. Finally, and most importantly, this course was given for academic credit. Now, of course, every professor and ad ministrator should have realized the implication this has forthe in tellectual integrity of any of the courses in the curriculum. The idea of granting academic credit is based, at bottom, on the prem ise that the student is being ex posed to and learning from a pro fessor who is deemed qualified be cause of his a·cademic· credentials.

If this is not the case, why give academic credit? Why have disci plines? Graduate school programs? Degrees? Professors? Techniques of Propaganda I might well· assign my students to hear one-sided speeches all year in order to provide them with ex amples of how ideologues use vari ous techniques of propaganda in order to. win converts. Thus, they may be instructed to look for and report on examples of connotative speech geared to arouse the audi ence to the "right" response, for 416 THE FREEMAN July the appeals to numbers and au thority, for the failure to acknowl edge the conflicting views of rep utable scholars, for the failure to acknowledge basic assumptions, for the begging of questions, for making generalizations from in sufficient evidence, and so on. Through such assignments, the students would be trained to de velop their minds so that they would be able to make decisions for themselves. These carefully conducted procedures would be in keeping with the educational phi losophy which holds that a basic function of the professor is to en hance the intellectual power of his students. It recognizes that the acquisition of such power does not occur by the simple exposure to various ideologies. Rather, it as sumes that the development of ef fective thinking is a most difficult task. It assumes that the mind cannot grow under all conditions, but must be carefully nurtured.

This is a basic reason for insist ing on vigorous standards in pro fessional disciplines and academic courses. To assume that students already have the tools necessary for clear and responsible think ing, and therefore can protect themselves from being misled when confronted with a series of "stimulating" speeches, is to sug gest the irrelevance of the pro fessor. Freedom Violated There are those who will hold that the demand for high stand ards in an academic course contra dicts the virtue of tolerance in that it"infringes on the freedom of teachers, students and, in the case cited above, the speakers as well. I can respond to this no better than to quote the words of the his torian Arthur Bestor: To insist that instruction must meet the exacting standards of schol arship is not to infringe upon free dom of teaching. Such infringements occur when pressure groups - wheth er reactionary or radical - force the schools to conform to their precon ceived ideas, to limit the curriculum, to censor textbooks, or to forbid the teaching of controversial subjects.

Scientists and scholars must vigor ously resist such efforts to impose upon the schools any narrow dogma in politics, economics, religion, or science, for learning itself is thereby threatened with destruction. They must also resist anti-intellectualism in the schools themselves, for if free dom of thinking and respect for in tellectual effort are undermined there, it will be easy for demagogues to convince a larger public that in tellectual effort is of little value in any case, and that freedom of thought is not worth preserving. ll There are even some professors who not only do not see anything wrong with indoctrination but 11 Arthur Bestor, op. cit., p. 9.

1973 THE NEED FOR TOLERANCE AND HUMILITY 417 openly espouse it. To illustrate, Professor George Adams, a self proclaimed radical teacher at the Wisconsin State University at Whitewater apparently sees noth ing wrong in using the classroom as a setting for attacking the status quo. But whether the radical criti cism is from the point of view of Marxism (Lukacs), women's libera tion (Millett), Anarchy (Goodman), or Black Power (Thelwell), its pur pose is always the same - to subvert [my italics] the existent bourgeois culture.l 2 It is important to stress that Mr. Adams is not simply calling for the presentation of "radical views" to the students. If this were the case, it would hardly be new. Indeed the university has fought long and hard for the right of scholars to present controver sial material to their students. Mr. Adams is calling for some thing else: The use of the class room to indoctrinate students to the professor's own political ide ology.

To argue that this open espou sal of indoctrination is rare on campus is to miss its real sig nificance. The fact that it occurs at all, without a corresponding sense of bewilderment, alarm, and 12 George B. Adams, "Radical Teach ers," Letter to The Editor, Change, Jan. Feb., 1971, p. 5. outrage by the faculty as a whole, indicates not only the lack of any real commitment to the open, re ceptive mind that is guided, never theless, by the highest standards of scholarship, but the degree to which the university has become a normless institution. The Virtue of Humility Closely related to the virtue of tolerance, and possibly a condition which must precede it, is intellec tual humility. It is the attitude which makes us acutely aware of the limitations of our own minds, limited not only by the available resources of the brain, but the ig norance of or failure to compre hend what other minds have dis covered.

To proclaim the virtue of hu mility is not to suggest that the tongue must forever be silent that true knowledge is an illusion and that therefore one man's per ception of it is as good as an other's. To assert such things is to reach the end of reason and to exalt the god of absurdity. In such a state, surely, all. conversation, from the problem-solving of the coffee klatch to the painstaking analyses of the seminar becomes redundant. We might as well moan and arm wrestle. No, the virtue of humility does not imply all of this. But it does demand that the knowledge the 418 THE FREEMAN July professor offers to the public is presented with full awareness of the mistakes of the past and the possibility for errors in the pres ent. It demands that he not at tempt to coerce others, either physically .or through some psy chological device, to accept his views. It demands that he refrain from making claims on controver sial issues without demonstrating how his intellectual skills led him to accept one point of view rather than another.

It is not a significant test of humility when a professor ac knowledges in an abstract sense that he does not know it all, that what he perceives to be the truth may turn out to be false, that his enthusiasm for a certain point of view is tempered not only by the recognition of his own fallibility but by the knowledge that sincere and reputable scholars disagree with him. The test comes when the professor is confronted with the task of responding to a social crisis - to a problem that height ens the emotions of the public. Will he practice the virtue of hu mility at this moment or not? If not, it shows the superficiality of his commitment to the abstract principle of intellectual humility, and at the same time indicates the priority he gives to an ideological position or to the whims and emo tions of the moment. There are signs that some pro fessors are either unaware of, fail to see its importance, or simply and arrogantly scoff at the virtue of humility. Ironically, these signs seem· to be pronounced in times of social crisis. It is during these times when various professors demonstrate that they are no dif ferent than the public which they claim to be teaching. Like the most avid partisan of some special in' terest group, these professors clamor that others "see the light"

and follow their lead. In Times of Crisis It is the time that petitions and resolutions begin to circulate, when placards and bumper stickers become more evident, when car toons and editorials appear on of fice doors. To illustrate: A resolu tion was introduced and supported by a number of professors at a University of Wisconsin-Waukesha faculty· meeting which read in part that the faculty "condemns the U.S. invasion of Cambodia." A petition was circulated on campus and signed by some professors which included the phrase that the "National Guard are the hired killers of the U.S. government." Cartoons and editorials have ap peared on office doors which de pict various public figures as he roes or villains - from idolizing Daniel Berrigan as a paragon of 1973 THE NEED FOR TOLERANCE AND HUMILITY 419 virtue to presenting Richard Nixon as a symbol of sin. It would be a serious error to criticize these faculty members on ideological grounds - that is, to condemn their actions because they reflect antagonistic views. Such a criticism is merely political and self-serving. As a consequence it fails to provide an intellectual ra tionale for condemning such tac tics per se. Thus, if a resolution were proposed hailing the U.S. in volvement in Cambodia, if a pe tition were circulated which praised the National Guard in its handling of the Kent State Affair or if cartoons were to appear equating Father Berrigan with the devil and Nixon with the savior, we would be left with the same problem. The significant criticism to make of professors who do these things is that knowingly or unknowingly (I'm not sure which is worse) they are proclaiming that the techniques of the Madi son Avenue huckster, whose effec tiveness is related to the unthink ing reactions of the masses, have a proper place in an institution of higher learning; that to oversim plify, to mislead, to appeal to emo tions, to give only one side - to violate the most fundamental ele ments of scholarship - is all right, as long as it promotes the "cor rect" view. This is the end for minds that are bankrupt, as far as intellectual humility is con cerned.

The Need to Explain Now it may be true that the U.S. invasion of Cambodia was wrong for various reasons, that the description of the National Guard as "hired killers" is accu rate and not misleading, that Father Berrigan is a virtuous man and that Richard Nixon is not. But it is a gross act of arrogance to imply that such things are self evident - that a simple proclama tion from a professor's pen will do. The virtue of humility does not suggest silence, but it does call for demonstrability. It implies that if the professor has some knowledge to offer mankind on pressing mat ters he cannot rely on his status, but must demonstrate how he came to these conclusions, by what processes of thought and by what kinds of evidence. To ask this of a professor is to ask him to be no more than what he claims to be: an educator. To fail to ask - to see nothing wrong or indeed to see something noble in these simplis tic resolutions, petitions, cartoons, and the like - is to discredit the ideal of scholarship and perpetu ate one of its most deadly enemies: intellectual arrogance.

It may be argued at this point, and rightly so, that this long dis course on tolerance and humility 420 THE FREEMAN July is not warranted. It is an old re frain. Moreover, like so many eth ical appeals, whether voiced from the pulpit or the political forum, this call to high principles in aca demic life is rationalized away or soon forgotten as we go about our daily chores. I have no illusions about the matter. But, unless one rejects the contention that ideas have consequences, it is necessary to reaffirm those things which can help to restore to the university the integrity that it once had. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY Freedom of Opinion FIRST, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, ineffi cacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or per sonal experience. JOHN STUART MILL, On Liberty ANDREW v. SANTANGINI \ 1// ~.,,-. (i (i; ~ / ~ Weather Forecast ( ,~~ for 1984! (rf( ~,,) ~J ~ r By curious coincidence, the weather seems to be the worst where government most intervenes to promote the welfare of the people. For instance: • Cuba, where there is a shortage of sugar.

• Russia, where there is a shortage of wheat. • India and China, where shortages are chronic and five-year plans are forever be ing frustrated by unpredictable weather. • The United States, where more and more disaster areas are left in the wake oj flooding and drought and freezing and storms. As intervention increases throughout the world, we may be sure that the weather every where will be quite terrible. Mr. Santangini is Vice President of Financial Service Corporation of America and lives in Montgomery, Alabama. 421 ANNE WORTHAM Giving and Receiving with Respect AMERICANS have always helped each other and the spirit of charity continues to prevail. But even as it does, there are those benefactors and beneficiaries who abuse the responsibilities inher ent in the lending and receiving of help. The motives of goodwill and justice have been removed from the relationships between individ uals well off and those in need.

Disclaimed as something suspect by many, charity has been largely replaced by administered reform. It has been turned into a tool of appeasement for the givers, and the receivers look upon it as the spoils of social pressure. Intellec tual and political reformers argue for the acceptance of a philosophy of social welfare "based on need Following graduation from Tuskegee Institute, Miss Wortham served a term in the Peace Corps and has worked since as an informa tion research specialist in communications and educational policy. 422 as the sole criterion" - welfare as a matter of entitlement.! This idea of giving in response to the demands of potential re cipients or under political and so cial duress wasn't always so preva lent in our society. There was a time· when voluntary charity was deemed proper - a measure of re spect between giver and receiver. Those in need usually deserved the assistance they received and those who gave were determined in their efforts to see that their giving did not become a crutch. This was gen erally true whether the giving and receiving of help was between pioneer neighbors or between wealthy philanthropists and the "disadvantaged."

Through their philanthropy not to mention their accumulation of capital, their entrepreneurship and technical ingenuity - Ameri can businessmen have probably 1973 GIVING AND RECEIVING WITH RESPECT 423 contributed more than any other private sector of Americans to the prosperity of those who could not have done so themselves. Yet they are least appreciated for the vol untary aid they have given untold millions. An indication of how little many of today's young peo ple know of the good done by busi nessmen is seen in a national study of more than 54,000 college bound black high school students published by the National Scholar ship Service and Fund for Ne,gro Students in 1972. A majority of the respondents reported that they felt that military figures, actors or entertainers, athletes and busi nessmen (in that order) contrib uted the least to society.2 It is ironic that many of the colleges and universities these young peo ple now attend could not exist ex cept for the enormous financial support they receive from busi nessmen.

Much has been written on the subject of philanthropy and char ity, but not often is the subject treated from a view held in com mon by both benefactor and bene ficiary. However, in the case of wealthy .benefactor Andrew Car negie and Booker T'. Washington, ex-slave beneficiary in behalf of black students, a common view was held; and perhaps their atti tude toward their relationship was just as important as the relationship itself proved to be. There is a great deal of insight to be gained from the views of Car negie and Washington on the matter of philanthrophy. Carnegie, the Benefactor In 1900 Andrew Carnegie wrote an essay in which he stated: "A man's first dutyis to make a com petence and be independent. But his whole duty does not end here ... It is his duty to contribute to the general good of the com munity in which he lives . . . To try to make the world in some way better than you found it, is to have a noble motive in life."3 For the businessman this could be expressed best by plowing his wealth back into society. In sup port of this belief Carnegie. had donated $350 million to various projects by the time of his death in 1919.

John Hope Franklin, historian of the American Negro, believed that while men like Carnegie were interested in stimulating the pub lic to recognize certain existent needs as yet unfelt by society, they also hoped to encourage the principle of self-help that would benefit their capitalist goals. Their interests in the post-Civil War South, for instance, were as much to train a working force to sup port the industries they brought to the Southern economy as they 424 THE FREEMAN July were to improve the black and white Southern citizenry. According to Franklin, the char i ty of businessmen also stemmed from their sense of noblesse ob lige. Comparing wealthy indus trialists with a feudal aristocracy, he wrote: "[They] had a feeling of duty toward those whose profit from the economic order was not so obvious."4 Ludwig von Mises refutes this characterization of industrialists, saying: "The wealth of an aris tocrat is not a market phenome non ; it does not originate from supplying the consumers and can not be withdrawn or even affected by any action on the part of the public. It stems from conquest or from largess on the part of a con querer."5 As he points out repeatedly in his essays, Carnegie knew full well that his role as a business man was a market phenomenon.

His wealth was not the spoils of the conquest of men, but made possible by his conquest of na ture. However, his status in the market was always dependent on the consumers' vote of confidence. And to maintain a creditable status, his economic obligation was to produce those goods and services that satisfied what the masses perceived their needs to be. This is a far cry from feudal aristocracy. Condifions of Freedom No producer can profit except that he meets the demands of a willing buyer. As voluntary ex change of one's property is the rule of the free market, so should the respect of the property be the rule of humanitarian endeavors between individuals. One man's poverty does not entitle him to the wealth of another; neither does one man's wealth obligate him to another's poverty. However tempting it may be, it is very difficult to conclude from Carnegie's writing that his phi lanthropy was motivated by a Rense of guilt for his success. Nei ther did he give his wealth as a peace-offering to the masses who had not fared as well in the mar ket place. Carnegie was not an apologist. In answer to critics of wealth, he said: "Not evil, but good, has come to the race from the accumulation of wealth by those who· have had the ability and energy to produce it."6 Unlike many of today's giants of industry, Carnegie felt entitled to his wealth and power. As his defense he offered the principle of property rights: " . . . upon the sacredness of property civilization itself depends - the right of the laborer to his hundred dollars in the savings bank, and equally the legal right of the millionaire to his millions." He believed that 1973 GIVING AND RECEIVING WITH RESPECT 425 "the best fruit of society was pro duced from the soil of Individual ism, Private Property, the Law of Accumulation of Wealth, and the Law of Competition."7 He believed that the only way to be assured of saving free enterprise was to instill the principles of self-help in the masses who constituted his customers.

Neither was there any thought of using philanthropy as a tool of oppression as has been suggested. s If anything, Carnegie and others wanted to lift the rest of human ity to their own level of thought and performance. Notes On A Beneficiary Nowhere in the chronicle of his fund-raising campaign for his school, Tuskegee Institute, did Booker T. Washington even be gin to imply that he felt the rich owed their wealth to the members of his race or that they had a moral obligation to help Negroes per se. He was as hardheaded in his asking as his donors were in their giving. Washington believed very much as Carnegie did that "... In be stowing charity, the main con sideration should be to help those who will help themselves; to pro vide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never do all. Neither the individ ual nor the race is improved by almsgiving."9 It took ten years of work be fore Washington was able to se cure Carnegie's interest and help.

During their first meeting, Car negie seemed to take no interest at all in Washington's schooL De termined to show the industrialist that Tuskegee was worthy of his aid, Washington waited until after ten years of hard work before he wrote to Carnegie in 1901 re questing a sum of $20,000 to build a library. In a very concise letter, he outlined how the money would be used: "[it] would not only sup ply the building but the erection of the building would give a large number of students an opportun ity to learn the building trades, and the students would use the money paid them to keep them selves in school. . . ."10 Carnegie. sent the following re ply to Washington: "I will be very glad to pay the bills for the library building as they are incurred, to the extent of twenty thousand dol lars, and I am glad of this oppor tunity to show the interest I have in your noble work."ll During the years of Washing ton's fund-raising some narrow minded people accused him of beg ging-of seeking alms. But Wash ington knew well the manner of 426 THE FREEMAN July men he dealth with. They were not the kind of men who looked kindly toward begging. In reac tion to those who called him a beggar, he wrote the following: . . . I have· usually proceeded on the principle that persons who pos sess sense enough to earn money have sense enough to know how to give it away, and that the mere making known of the facts regarding Tuske gee, and especially the facts regard ing the work of graduates, has been more effective than outright begging.

I think that the presentation of the facts, on a high, dignified plane, is all the begging most rich people care for.l 2 Like Washington, Carnegie· be lieved that one should give to only the causes he deemed worthy. "... It is better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drun ken and the unworthy," wrote Carnegie. 13 Washington was fully aware of the significance of the assistance he received. Unlike many critics of businessmen, he understood and respected the source of wealth and the men who produced it. His praise of his benefactors for their gifts was not tainted by any con demnation of the wealth that made those gifts possible. He was keenly aware of a potential benefactor's option to refuse his re quest, understanding that the prime business of the business men was business: My experience in getting money for Tuskegee has taught me to have no patience with those people who are always condemning the rich be cause they are rich, and because they do not give more to objects of char ity ... Those who are guilty of such sweeping criticism do not know how many people would be made poor, and how much suffering would re sult, if wealthy people were to part at once with any large proportion of their wealth in a way [as] to disor ganize and cripple great business en terprises. 14 Perhaps Washington understood better than many of his· benefac tors that their primary role as businessmen was to make a profit, and not to give it away. He cer tainly did not expect them to sacrifice their economic role in the market to serve his needs - how ever noble they might have been.

A Voluntary Response Rather than in response to so cial pressure or political coercion, Carnegie chose to share his wealth because he felt a moral obligation to do so. Whether one agrees with his ethics is not the issue here. The point is that the idea of hav ing a social responsibility origi1973 GIVING AND RECEIVING WITH RESPECT 427 nated with the businessmen them selves. It was a time during which the businessman suffered a min imal amount of duress from polit ical quarters and was .looked upon favorably by most people. Being left alone to produce, his personal sense of good will moti vated him to go beyond what was his eco nomic role in the community. The degree to which business men were free to function on their own terms in an unregulated mar ket corresponds to the degree of their willingness and ability to give assistance to others. Dr. Frederick Patterson of the United Negro College Fund points this out in a speech discussing the plight of the private Negro col lege - a maj or beneficiary of wealthy businessmen and philan thropic organizations. Patterson noted that, "These colleges 'thrived' during a period when large fortunes were not unusual and taxes were comparably low.

"In the late 20's, as taxation be gan to increase - and particularly in the 30's under the Roosevelt Administration - a substantial de crease took place in the funds available to the private colleges for Negro youth. "The steadily worsening effort in fund-raising by the individual private college had reached a low point of diminishing returns by 1940.... "15 It is no mere coincidence that at a time when our economy is being interfered with by the Fed eral government and the demand for social welfare is increasing, black colleges, museums and li braries all over the country are in dire economic straits, unable to enlist the amount of economic as sistance from the private sector that they have enjoyed in the past. A man owes no man his prop erty, but if he gives his wealth of his own free will, and does so with the scrutiny of men like Car negie, it is likely that his sincerity will be appreciated and regard for him held high by the recipient.

Washington set down his impres sion of the industrial benefactors to his school, and he found them to be "some of the best people in the world."16 A Form of Blackmail If we do not hear much of this kind of praise from those who are beneficiaries of the businessman's philanthropy, perhaps it is be cause the giver and the receiver has each allowed his individual responsibility to shrink and be re placed by social and political blackmail. When the distinction between benefactor and benefi ciary is removed, the dignity of both is short-circuited and what ever respect they might have had for themselves and each other is 428 THE FREEMAN July dissolved into a murky inter change of insincerity and deceit. The man who is in a position to aid others must not forget that, in the words of W. A. Paton, "ev ery man deserves the precious op portunity to assume responsibility for his own course, whether he is swimming courageously upstream or paddling lazily, with plenty of company, in the other direction."17 So too has each beneficiary a responsibility toward those who are his benefactors, and it is to denounce all efforts by govern ment, intellectuals and pressure groups to deny a man his right to give or refuse assistance - to say "Yes" or "No" as his con science dictates. "The element which gives meaning to charity,"

wrote Russell J. Clinchy, "is per sonal consideration and responsi bility but that element is lost when the edicts of the state are substituted for the voluntary de cisions of persons. The means have destroyed the ends."IS This is the esence of the two sides of volun tary charity as it ought to exist. ~ • FOOTNOTES • 1 See Improving the Public Welfare System, The Committee for Economic Development, New York, April, 1970. 2 A National Profile of Black Youth: The Class of 1971, National Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students, New York, 1972. 3 Carnegie, Andrew, "Thrift As A Duty," The Empire of Business, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., 1913, p. 80. 4 Franklin, John Hope, From Slavery to Freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956, p. 38l. 5 Mises, Ludwig von, The AntiCapi talistic Mentality, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1956, p. 6. 6 Carnegie, Andrew, The Gospel of Wealth, A Carnegie Reprint, Carnegie Corporation of New York, p. 5.

7 Ibid., p. 6. 8 In her article, "Notes Toward a Process of Afro-American Education," (Harvard Educational Review, August, 1972), Dr. Thomasyne L. Wilson says the following: "It is time to remind ourselves that even when Anglos waxed philan thropic in the 1870's, they (and we) per ceived Afro-American education as some thing for 'special people,' instituted to keep us in our places at the bottom of the social scale ... At best, [education] was a tool to remake Afro-Americans in the images of Anglos." 9 Carnegie, Ope cit., p. 15. 10 Washington, Booker T., Up From Slavery, New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1970, p. 135. 11 Ibid., p. 135. 12 Ibid., p. 129. 13 Carnegie, Ope cit., p. 14. 14 Washington, Ope cit., p. 128. 15 Patterson, Frederick D., "The Black College: In Conflict and Challenge," Con tact Magazine, 3 :16, October, 1971. 16 Washington, Ope cit., p. 130. 17 Paton, W. A., "Let's First Mend Tommy's Trousers," Essays on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, 12 :426-27, 1965.

18 Clinchy, Russell J., "Charity: Bib lical and Political," Essays on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, 1: 159-60, 1952.

The Family R. J. RUSHDOONY THE FAMILY has been under major attack in the modern world from a number of sources, and more than one scholar has predicted the death ·of the family as Christian civilization has known it. These predictions represent not only wishful thinking but a militant hostility to the family. In order to understand the motivation for these attacks, it is necessary to recognize the social significance of the family. The Reverep.d Mr. Rushdoony is President of Cha1cedon, an educational organization dedi cated to furthering Christian research and writ ing. He is author of numerous books and a frequent speaker on college campuses. This article is reprinted by permission from Applied Christianity, December, copyright, 1972. The family in Biblical law, and in Western society since Justinian, has been the custodian of the most important things in any society: children, property and inheritance.

In Biblical law, the family alone is the custodian and controller of all three, and its social powers as a result are very great. Control over children, property and inher itance means a control over the future. As a result, every institution which dreams of power begins im mediately to attack the family be cause of its monopolistic powers in these areas. It attacks also the basic legal reform and revolution insti tuted by Justinian and Theo429 430 THE FREEMAN July dora in the sixth century. This legal revolution, which brought civil law' into conformity with Biblical law, was responsible for shifting the foundations of soci ety from the state to .the family. There were· five aspects to this legal reform with respect to the family. 1. Only heterosexual rela tions in marriage were made le gally allowable. All other sexual relations were made subject to criminal charges. 2. This law was made applicable to all classes, so that the same standard of family life and sex was mandatory for all classes and professions, and all acts to the contrary were criminal.

3. All illicit sexuality was made punishable by corporal punish ment, imprisonment,or banish ment. 4. No legal contract could be made regarding non-family sex, Le., with a mistress, concubine, prostitute, procurer, nor anyone else, and to secure such a contract made the inciting party an acces sory to a crime. 5. The family was defined as the .legitimate and nor mal way of life and status. In the medieval church, there was both an emphasis on the Christian family and a deprecia tion of it in favor of the primacy of the church. With the Reforma tion, and especially with Puritan ism, the family regained primacy, and even Rome followed suit. March 19 was now stressed (St. Joseph's Day), and the cult of the foster-father of Jesus was made, beginning in the 16th cen tury, a counter-development to the new vitality of family life in Protestant countries. Enter - The State There is no true understanding of the struggle for power in the modern world without an aware ness of these facts. The family, re-shaped in Western civilization to conform to Biblical law, was now the dominant power. By means of its control of children and their education, it defined the future. Capture of the control of children and their education thus becam~ an imperative for any so cial agency seeking to ga.in power.

The earlier power of the church was now replaced by the greater power of the modern state and its schools, instruments ably designed for social control and the disinte gration of the family and its power. In the Bible, property is im mune to taxation and seizure, and both offenses were regarded with horror (1 Sam. 8 :10-18; I Kings 21). The state now began to tax property and to assert again the old pagan power of eminent do main. Finally, the state, by means of the inheritance tax, declared itself to be the first heir, i.e., the firstborn in terms of Biblical law, 1973 THE FAMILY 431 in every familY,and it began to destroy the independent power of the family by confiscatory taxes. Not surprisingly, but rather, logically, Marx saw the theologi cal foundations of the family's strength. He attacked the Holy Family, the Trinity, as the foun dation of the earthly family, and Engels saw the family of Biblical law as the source of capitalism and property. Anti-familistic thinking governed socialist theo reticians. H. G. Wells, a Fabian Socialist, called for "the libera tion of individual sexual conduct from social reproach and from legal controls and penalties." He held to "the absolute right of so ciety to intervene directly [where] the e~istence of children is in volved."

James Bryant Conant, former president of Harvard, U.S. High Commissioner in West Germany after World War II, scientist, and investigator in education for the Carnegie Foundation, saw the family as the roadblock to democ racy. In one of his reports on edu cation, Conant wrote: Wherever the institution of the family is still a powerful force, as it is in this country, surely inequality of opportunity is automatically, and often unconsciously, a basic principle of the nation; the more favored par ents endeavor to obtain even greater favors for their children. Therefore, when we Americans proclaim an ad herence to the doctrine of equality of opportunity, we face the necessity for a perpetual compromise. Now it seems to me important to recognize both the inevitable conflict and the continuing nature of the compro mise. Democracy is the goal. How· can democracy hope to succeed if an aristocratic institution like the family, where every parent seeks the best for his children, is al lowed to survive? Clearly, it must go! Earlier John Dewey had held that orthodox Christianity had to go because it is incompatible with democracy. By seperating "the saved and the lost", heaven and hell, good and evil, orthodox Chris tianity is radically anti-democratic and is committed to a "spiritual aristocracy". "I cannot understand how any realization of the demo cratic ideal as a vital moral and spiritual ideal in human affairs is possible without surrender of the conception of the basic division to which supernatural Christianity is committed."

The Suicide of Culture The family's autonomy and power are thus under attack and in process of erosion. Statist edu cation is anti-familist to the core; modern legal· "reforms" have as their purpose the elimination of Biblical premises from the law.

432 THE FREEMAN July This is often openly stated. In Sweden, for example, a govern ment legal expert, Professor Alvar Nelson, has declared, "our aim is to remove all traces of Church morality from legislation." Because of the deliberate neg lect of the meaning of the family in society, the average man thinks of marriage purely as a regular ized sexual relationship which perhaps contributes to the mental stability of the children born of the union. He has no awareness of the fact that basic social power and planning, in terms of Biblical law and the conforming of West ern law to this Scriptural stand ard after Justinian, resides in the family. To surrender this power over children, property, and in heritance to the state, as has steadily been done, is for man to surrender his essential powers and freedom to the state. The nemesis of every attempt to undermine the family is the suicide of· the culture which at tempts it. Greek, Roman, and other cultures, while far below the Biblical standard in their concepts of the family, still had familistic eras. With their decay, society de cayed and collapsed.

A Brighter Side This is no cause for pessimism, however, but rather for optimism. The approaching collapse of the age of humanism and the state will see the strong revival of familism, and the United States is already giving evidence of this. Basic to that revival of the fam ily's integrity and power is a theo logical and legal reformation. There must be an awareness of the legal centrality of the family, its theological importance, and its far-reaching significance as a so cial institution. Under God, the family is a monopoly, having exclusive pow ers in certain areas. The state is in process of attempting to seize that monopoly for itself. The proven ability of the family to be the responsible agency, when it is first responsible to God, in the areas of children, property, and inheritance is the mainspring of Western civilization and its ad vances. On the other hand, our grow ing social crisis is the product of the state's incompetence in these realms. The impotence of the state is increasingly apparent in its in abili ty to cope with the problems it has created.

The times are thus exciting and alive with challenge; it is a time of decision and a turning point in history. Our future will be· family oriented, and it will be dominated by those who prepare for it. , MAN is not a creature of in stinct. In that regard, he differs in a revolutionary way from every other living creature. He is not born with instincts, like those of the birds and bees, which fit him for survival, to say nothing of gaining lasting satisfactions or happiness. Therefore, he must learn from the accumulated wisdom of his fel lows most of the ways of acting that enable him to survive, and he must get much of this knowledge and numberless skills and habits in infancy and childhood. Yet, all his life, he needs the help of his fellows in learning how to cope with his ever-changing world. As the saying goes, "Fools learn by experience, wise men learn by the experience of others."

Or, "Experience keeps a dear Dr. Watts is Director of Economic Education, Northwood Institute, a business-oriented col lege with campuses at Midland, Michigan; West Baden, Indiana; Cedar Hill, Texas; and Monterey, California. [costly] school, but fools will learn in no other." In short, man is not "naturally good." Each new individual must learn good conduct. It is not in born or given to us by others. Like all living things, normal humans have an urge to survive and multiply. Humans have also an urge to live better - more abundantly, more wisely, securely, with less pain and discomfort, and enjoying more satisfactions of in increasing variety. Therefore, man finds some con duct "good," depending on whether it brings him more satisfactions than dissatisfactions; and he has an inborn desire to do that which he believes will give him the great est net total of satisfactions. In this sense, he is "naturally good."

That is, life gives to him a desire to live better. But desire for satisfactions is very different from knowledge and 433 434 THE FREEMAN July ability to get them. I repeat, good conduct, whether knowledge or practice of it, is never given to humans at birth, and we cannot get it by gift after birth. Therefore, man must LEARN good conduct. And he must learn it in a lif etime that he will find is all too short for learning all he wants and needs for a good life. Learning Is Hard Work Now this learning process takes hard work on the part of both learners and mentors - parents, playmates, co-workers, employers, friends, hired teachers, and even casual acquaintances. It is work because the effort must continue far beyond the point of immediate enjoyment. In other words, it can not remain on the level of play that is, activity indulged in for its own sake or for immediate pleasures. Because such work is irksome, learning involves stress, strain, pressures. These give rise to te dium, discomfort, fatigue -eye strain, backaches, headaches, stomach aches, giving up parties and other entertainments and forms of escapism.

These discomforts, in turn, give rise to complaints and protests, and search for escape, especially on the part of the immature who have most to learn (including im mature parents, teachers, employers, and others who seek to in struct) . For it is too often for gotten that .good manners, good morals, and even good mental hy giene often require great restraint in expressions of displeasure and reactions to discomfort-Sigmund Freud and his disciples to the contrary, notwithstanding. Student Protests Will Never Cease It should not surprise us, there fore, that earliest writings record the complaints, even the despair, of parents, teachers, and philos ophers about the bad manners, laziness, uncouth dress, and gen eral worthlessness of the youth of their times. And sometimes the subsequent history of the state or nation showed that there was more than usual justification for these complaints, as, perhaps, in the time of Socrates and Plato.

We know little about the feel ings of the young of past eras their aspirations, their complaints about the shortcomings of parents and teachers, and their protests against the pressures for con formity to the standards set by their elders. They could rarely afford, as young people now can afford, the means of recording their opinions~ But we do have enough evidence in the words of the writers in the past to be assured that not all of the young accepted correction and 1973 CLOSING THE GENERATION GAP 435 study assignments with due meek ness. Some, no doubt, were quite docile (a word that means "teach able"); others .were dropouts; and in between these extremes we would find every degree of docility or intractability, of industry or sloth. And often, then as now, pro tests probably brought about changes, both good and bad, in the methods and courses of in struction. (In the third and fourth centuries, the State-supported schools in Imperial Rome degen erated in ways now to be observed in tax-supported schools and uni versities in the United States and other countries.) This "generation gap," there fore, has always been and must always be. It is the gap between, on the one hand, those with more experience and wisdom, and on the other hand, the as-yet untutored, who are more or less able and will ing to learn. Even in the animal world we find evidence of an un comfortable generation gap when a mother bear or lion cuffs a heed less, slow, reckless, or too obstrep-' erous cub.

In humans, because the gap is so very great and getting ev& wider, it takes strenuous effort, I repeat, to close this ever-present "generation gap" in every home, school, club, gang, golf links, bridge party, bowling alley, tennis court, football field, and workshop. And the effort must be a strenu ous one on both sides of the gap, as individuals strive to close it. Learning Requires Good Manners - and So Does Teaching Efforts to close the gaps in learning then, take patience, per sistence, willingness to forgive and forget blunders, effort to un derstand one another's words, aims, and problems. The work also requires good manners, which are means of showing consideration for others, interest in their feelings and opin ions, gratitude, appreciation, and desire for cooperation. Finally, learning requires im proving morals, which include good manners and much more honesty and honor, dependability, truthfulness with courtesy and with relevance, frankness without malice, industry in countless lines of activity, and continuing con cern for the long-run, indirect re sults of one's words and deeds.

Good manners, of course, shade into good morals. Why this is so, and why knowing, mature persons show so much sensitivity and concern in regard to what we may think of as "mere" manners be come clearer when we realize what "good maners" are. In essence, they are ways of letting other peo ple know that we care about them.

436 THE FREEMAN July They are ways of showing con sideration for their feelings, in terests, and opinions, ways of showing· friendliness and a desire for cooperation. We demonstrate them in ap propriate facial expressions, such as a friendly smile of greeting or a look of concern when a friend tells of his misfortune. Good man ners may· be a tone of voice show ing warmth, interest, sympathy, and friendliness. They appear in our choice of words and gestures; in personal cleanliness and sani tary habits; in dress and hair styles which are distinctive in ways which other people consider to be "in good taste"; and in forms of conduct too numerous to mention, from holding open a door for another person to stopping a car at crosswalks for pedestrians. Good manners also include self restraint in all of these respects - avoiding flat, complaining tones of voice; avoiding words and ges tures that annoy, insult, depress, or denigrate others; avoiding pub lic displays of strong emotions; and avoiding actions which other persons consider annoying (e.g., noisy parties) or obscene.

Progress in Manners and Morals Some "good manners" are tribal or national customs, rather than universal: for example, kinds of eating utensils and ways of using them, ways of eating or drinking, dress and hair styles, and modes of greeting. Yet it is nonetheless necessary f or members of these tribes and nations, and for their guests, to learn and follow these local cus toms if they wish to show respect for the residents' opinions and to win the friendliness and coopera tion they need to survive and to avoid unpleasantness among those groups. Many young people today, hav ing discovered that what is con sidered good manners differs greatly from place to place, have unwisely concluded that good man ners may become largely matters of individual choice. They may even think that they help to bring about this freer and happier day by flouting local conventions and customs. This is another factor aggra vating the "generation gap," one that English tutors recognized centuries ago in preparing their students for foreign travel by warning them, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

True, manners and customs are changing everyw her~ - we hope for the better. There is evidence, I believe, that certain elements in good manners are going to be come more universally accepted and necessary for coping with life's problems "'- for example, 1973 CLOSING· THE GENERATION GAP 437 higher levels of personal clean liness and neatness, a pleasant smile, a friendly greeting, a warm voice, avoiding excesses in public displays of emotion, refraining from Iittering streets and public places, avoiding air pollution with tobacco smoke (some airplanes now segregate smokers), temper ance and sobriety in all things, due attention to fashion and "style," and expressions of grat itude for favors and kindnesses. A Never-Ending Struggle for Self-Improvement Similarly, certain forms of con duct which we call "moral" be cause they are even more impor tant for long-run welfare - or are believed to be so - will remain valid as long as humans want something theYJlon't have or some thing better than they now have and gain the wisdom necessary to achieve their goals.

For, in order to get more or in some way to better ourselves, we must have more honesty, more dependability, more truthfulness, more regard for the feelings and aspirations of other persons, and more willingness to invest time and energy for long-run gains. And we must have this moral progress everywhere if we are to have continuing progress any 'where - in Soviet Russia and mainland China, for example, as well as in the United States and Canada. These gains will not come· mere ly by wishing or hoping for them. They will come only as more and more individuals, everywhere, learn to look further ahead, un derstand more fully the results of their conduct, and show more pa tient determination in their strug gles for self-improvement and in discharge of the obligations neces sary to win and keep the needed cooperation of their fellows. This involves widening the "generation gap" between adult and infant or child, between men tor and student, as well as the gap between mature and immature adults. To close this widening gap, as individuals in each generation must do, we must release the in structional procedures from the cramping confines of bureaucratic contro1.

And perhaps even before this release may take place, we must somehow gain far more general recognition and acceptance of the responsibility of each individual of every age and occupation for dedicated effort in lifelong edu cation in the broadest sense of that much-abused word. A Retreat from Learning Unfortunately, age does not al ways bring· wisdom. Neither do academic degrees and titles. A 438 THE FREEMAN July teacher schooled in ancient myths may be a blind leader of the blind. The historian who is ignorant. of economics, for example, is likely to be a poor guide to an under standing of history; an economist who knows little history may en dorse policies which repeated trials in the past have proven disastrous ..A teacher of philosophy may so enjoy baiting his students by playing the role of "devil's advocate" that he promotes con fusion and distrust of reason rather than a desire for truth or love of wisdom.

Teachers lacking in courage and scruples often pander to their student's prejudices, indolence, and desire to escape the burdens of responsibility. Demagogy is as rif e in many classrooms as in po litical assemblies. In particular, the modern estab lished schools are doing to educa tion what established churches do to religion. The Founding Fathers of this country sought to outlaw "established" (religion, that is, the use of tax funds to support relig ious efforts. They had found by experience - what experience has demonstrated again and again in other lands - that tax support sapped the clergy of enthusiasm, initiative, and responsibility, so that the American people had lost much of their former interest and faith in religion. State-Established Schools Now schools and universities supported by taxes and populated by conscripted students are dis playing the same defects, for the same reasons, that were evident in the established churches. In stead of helping to close the pe rennial generation gap, tax-sup ported educators and their grad uates too often operate to widen it. Because they believe that par ents and students cannot be indi vidually responsible for education, they develop a chronic skepticism of freedom and individual respon sibility in every field of human endeavor.

Therefore, they fail to develop in their students a sense of per sonal responsibility. Instead, they teach that "society," or "govern ment," of "the establishment" is responsible for both the individ ual's problems and the solutions. They inculcate distrust and scorn for the achievements of free men and inspire a nihilistic urge to sabotage and destroy what free men have achieved. Thus. too often,. they make the immaturity of their students a chronic con dition. Truly, as many observers are now pointing out, this creates a gap, not so much between genera tions, as between the builders and the destroyers of civilization. This teaching of irresponsibility 1973 CLOSING THE GENERATION GAP 439 and subversion _of free institutions is a betrayal of trust by those who profess superior knowledge and wisdom. It is not new in world history, but we have been experi encing in recent decades a virulent recrudescence of this "treason of the intellectuals," worldwide.

We must recognize and expose this retreat from learning for what it is if human progress is to continue. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Artificial Distinctions IT IS to he regretted that the rich and powerful too often hend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not he, produced hy human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection hy law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humhle members of soci~ty - the farmers, mechanics, and laborers - who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

From ANDREW .JACKSON'S Veto of the Charter of the Bank of the United States, July 10, 1832.

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN The Public Interest At most of the recent Mont Pelerin Society conferences a battle royal has taken place between the Friedmanites, who insist that infla tion is a purely monetary phenom enon, and the wage-push critics, who discover the prime villain in the monopolistic labor union. The two sides rather miss each others' points. Obviously Milton Friedman and Enoch Powell are right when they say that there could be no in flation without an increase in the money supply. Since it is govern ment that controls the currency, the villains come clear: the politi cians and the bosses of the Federal Reserve are to blame for their profligate public spending and their pusillanimous refusal to ride herd on the availability of credit. 440 But the wage-push is. there, too: wages are a cost, and costs must be recovered in prices. If the monopolistic labor union can ex tort a beyond-productivity wage increase, the same politico who lacks the nerve to veto high public spending will hardly have the for titude to tell the unions that they must accept a penalty in jobless ness for pricing themselves out of the market. Friedman and the wage-pushite actually have the same Statist villain, but each per sists in emphasizing a different activity of that villain. Friedman says the politico shouldn't go hog wild on inflationary welfare state spending in the first place. The wage-pushite would agree that wel farism is bad .. But he insists that 1973 UNIO~ POWER AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST 441 the villain really sends the infla tion racing when, fearful of mass unemployment, he forces a second ary flushing of the money supply in order to let the customer pay a wage-inflated price.

The Friedmani tes and the wage pushites need a moderator, and where could they find a better one than Emerson P. Schmidt, whose Union Power and the Public Inter est (Nash, $10) combs over all phases of a complicated subject? Schmidt begins by noting that the aim of most union leaders is to take labor out of competition. This has been done in both craft and mass production industries by laws that exempt the working man (de fined as something more than a commodity or a factor) from the Sherman Antitrust Act. The ex empted working man achieved a very special favoritism in the de pressed Thirties, when the Wag ner Act, seeking to "equalize" his power vis-a-vis the big corpora tion, in reality stacked the process of collective bargaining in his fa vor. The right to strike was never intended to justify the use of goons and dynamiters, but a so ciety that is far gone in permis siveness does so little to prevent violence on the picket line that businessmen have been thoroughly intimidated. They don't dare to keep factories open for those brave souls who are willing to work after union "enforcers" have appeared on the scene with their brass knuckle tactics. So the "bargain ing" usually ends with acquies cence to union demands.

Abuse of Special Privilege As a result of legal exemption fronl the antitrust laws and the general permissiveness of society, the unions are in a position to push extortionate policies no matter what the level of inflationary pub lic spending. Having made this point clear by his analysis of the "wage-lag myth," Dr. Schmidt is in a position to arbitrate between the Friedmanites and those who insist on the wage-push theory of inflation. When Friedman argues that he knows of no instance in history where inflation was not preceded by a substantial expan sion in the money stock in excess of production, Schmidt says "few scholars would disagree." He also accepts Friedman's contention that an abatement of inflation invari ably follows when the money stock is brought under control. None theless, Gottfried Haberler's amendment to the Friedman posi tion has impressed Dr. Schmidt. Haberler agrees that "inflation is basically a monetary phenomenon,"

and that it must be fought by Friedmanite means. But, so Haber ler adds, the wage-push is a reality on top of the monetary inflation, 442 THE FREEMAN July and if union power is not reduced "all the other measures suggested for fighting inflation would be in vain." Dr. Schmidt notes the propen sity of economists to change posi tions' but the "law of cost" ("the price of a commodity tends to equal its cost") necessarily dic tates such changes when monopo listic unions become extortionate. Schmidt quotes Dr. Edward H. Chamberlin as saying that both monetary expansion (creating "de mand-pull") and monopolistic wage bargaining (wage-push) can exist simultaneously. "Both are possible and neither excludes the other," says Chamberlin. It is not a mat ter of "either-or." To which Hab erler adds that there is a mone tary element in both demand-pull and wage-push inflation. The only difference is in the timing: for "demand-pull," the flushing of the money supply comes first, for "wage-push" it comes after the monetary authorities have, out of fear of unemployment, decided to "create enough money to permit the rise in prices that is compat ible with the rise in wages."

Dr. Schmidt's chapter on "Mone tary and Fiscal Policies Versus the Wage Push" should end all the arguments between the Friedman ites and the wage-pushites. The "freedom philosophy" economists are not in any significant disagreement about fundamentals. The bridge to concord is supplied by Haberler in his observation about the timing of the monetary ele ment in the two types of inflation. Faulty Attitude toward Work Dr. Schmidt thinks the unions' misuse of their inordinate power is due to a most defective view of man's attitude toward work. The average union boss rejects the idea that there can be real on-the job satisfactions, such as ego needs, the desire to grow and cre ate and to achieve a well-rounded experience. Samuel Gompers once defined union policy as "more," which has been altered in recent years to "more for less." The pes simistic view of work dominates the union agendas. Professor Douglas McGregor of MIT calls the pessimistic view "Theory X."

The other view, which concen trates on job satisfactions and op portunities, is "Theory Y." The trouble with Theory X is that it actually leads to getting less for less instead of more for less. The arithmetic is obvious: when production is diminished by more paid holidays, paid vacations, sick leave, paid personal-birthday time off, paid time for jury duty, for funerals, for the day before or after a holiday, there is less for the totality of the working force to share. In slacking off on pro1973 UNION POWER AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST 443 ductivity while hourly wages go up, the worker cheats himself. He also cheats the totality of the working force when he com pels his political representatives to raise the minimum wage. The "aristocrats" of labor don't need the minimum wage anyway. But those at the other end of the scale - the untrained apprentice, the eighteen-year-old black from the slum - can't find jobs when the minimum wage is high. It does not pay an employer to hire and train a man at a wage price that cannot be recovered in the mar ketplace.

Dr. Schmidt thinks that undue union power must be dispersed. He advocates changes in our basic la bor law that would permit local wage settlements, and asks for a discontinuance of the annual wage increase. But, first, the intellec tual climate must be changed, which is another story. ~ History of the Canadian National Railways by G. R. Stevens (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973) 523 pp., $12.95. Rev'iewed by Joseph M. Canfield Railway history is generally con sidered a highly specialized sub ject and of no general interest. Most works fall into either of two categories. First, the economic study, of interest only to the statistically minded. Second, there is the hobbyist study which goes into details interesting only to a dedicated collector of switch keys or railroad tickets like myself. However, anyone who wishes to be informed about the work ings of the economy in which he lives should know more-about rail roads. They are absolutely essen tial to the economy and its func tioning. Macmillan has started a series called "Railroads in Amer ica." The first two volumes avoid the extremes mentioned - they are designed for the general reader. The human side of rail roading is present and provides light touches which keep up the interest. But a reader can get a clear view of the importance of railways to a developed or a devel oping economy. For that reason, readers of The Freeman should be aware of the series.

History of the Canadian Na tional Railways by G. R. Stevens, 444 THE FREEMAN July second in the series, relates a story which confirms the validity of Clarence Carson's thesis in Throttling the Railroads - that government land grants and sub sidies for railways are upsetting and wrong. In Canada, they were disastrous. The Canadian National Rail ,-,rays came into being as an entity simply because expansion of rail ways, encouraged by subsidies (both cash and land) failed. 'The failure resulted in confiscation by the Canadian Government, of Britain's largest single private overseas investment, the Grand Trunk Railway. Its stock, valued at $629,950,532 was declared worthless by that act. The first step on the slide was taken by Sir Wilfred Laurier, Prime Minister. He wanted to fill the prairies of Canada with set tlers, thus binding the Provinces into a Canadian nation. The set tlers surged into an area virtu ally devoid of railways. Eastern Canada wouldn't agree to public funds for new railways. British capitalists wouldn't invest. To forestall construction of a branch of an American railroad into the area, Laurier did get a subsidy for a Canadian Pacific branch through Crows Nest Pass. In re turn, the Railway agreed to low rates on grain eastbound from the prairies to the ports. And those "Crows Nest Pass" rates of 1897 on grain hold today for the Ca nadian Pacific and also for other railways undreamed of and un built in 1897, in defiance of mar-' ket factors and economic reality.

The Canadian Pacific Railway, after this one flirtation with sub sidy, went its own way as a pri vate enterprise transport com pany. But many farmers did not like the Canadian Pacific. Capital izing on this feeling, Mackenzie and Mann, .Contractors, started building lines into the area of new settlement, with government subsidy. They were welcomed with open arms - until they tried to set realistic freight rates for their Canadian Northern Railway. From 1903 until the collapse of the Canadian' Northern in 1917 and of the Grand Trunk in 1919, and their incorporation into the Canadian National Railways, there was a mad sequence of political ma neuvers; building of needless rail ways, many in previously unex plored territory; interest charges mounting to astronomical figures; managerial stupidity. Millions and millions of dollars of private· in vestments were wiped out (or confiscated). The Canadian tax payers were placed under growing burdens which they have carried ever since. A review cannot con vey the story. The book must be read to see the demoralizing effect 1973 OTHER BOOKS 445 the open government purse had on managers, contractors and di rectors. The denouement was in credible. The moral qualities which we consider inherent in our Anglo Saxon tradition seemed to have evaporated at Crows Nest Pass.

The years since the Canadian government took over the railways have been remarkable for two men, Sir Henry Thornton and Donald Gordon. Both men tried (and were substantially success ful) running the railways as much like a privately owned sys tem as was possible. And consid ering the property they headed and the problems they faced, each did, in his own time, a remark able job. But it is a sad comment on the supposed democratic proc ess to read of the abuse and false hood heaped on Thornton and Gor don for doing well a job that poli tics had made almost impossible in the first place - another in stance of the political corruption that generally follows government interference in economic life. A closing note: In the face of all the government activity, the Canadian Pacific Railway is today virtually the last bastion of pri vate enterprise railway in the world. It has at times had govern ment help, but has generally paid its own way and paid its stock holders in the process. It has always received more attention from historians. A study was issued about two years ago, one is planned for this series and still another study is in preparation on the opera tion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In contrast, the Canadian National story, told by Mr. Stevens, should be noted as a. warning on the role of govern ment and the consequences thereof.

* * * * * The first volume of the Macmillan series is the History of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad by Dr. Maury Klein (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972) - $10.95. Throttling the Railroads by Clar ence B. Carson is available from The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533 at $4.00 clothbound or $2.00 in paperback. ~ THE CASE FOR AMERICAN MEDICINE by Harry Schwartz (N. Y.: David McKay Co., Inc., 1972).240 pp., $6.95. Reviewed by Allan C. Brownfeld RECENTLY there has been a mount ing attack upon the American sys tem of private medical practice. While many Americans have ac cepted at face value the idea that there is, in some sense, a "health care crisis" in the United States, a few have sought to look at the facts. One of these is Harry Schwartz, the distinguished corre446 THE FREEMAN July spondent of The New York Times. In his volume, The Case For American Medicine, Schwartz dis cusses in detail each of the charg es leveled against the American medical system.

Responding to critics who say tha t Americans are less healthy than they were twenty years ago, Schwartz provides some illuminat ing data. On the average, an American baby born in 1971 could expect to Iive 11.4 years longer than an American baby born in 1930. Concerning infant mortality, he notes that in 1930, 64.6 Ameri can babies out of every 1,000 live births died before the age of one year. In 1950, the toll had been cut to less than half and in 1970 it was significantly lower than in 1950, an improvement that trans lated into the survival of 35,000 babies who would have died in 1970 if there had been no progress in the past twenty years. While doctors are frequently charged with profiteering, the data in this book shows that physicians' fees actually increased slightly less rapidly between 1965 and 1967 than average hourly compen sation in the total pri vate economy of the country. They rose more slowly than hourly earnings of construction workers and local transit workers, and slightly more rapidly than wages of printers and truck drivers.

Showing the failure of govern ment involvement in medicine, Schwartz discusses in detail the blunders made by the Medicare and Medicaid systems - the man ner in which they have increased demand without increasing sup ply, leading to an increase in costs. If there is, in any sense, a "crisis" in medical care today it is one which has been brought about by government involvement in this field. The author quotes Dr. Sidney Garfield, founder of the Kaiser Permanente prepaid grou p medi cal plan: "The cause of today's nledical care crisis has been the inexorable spread of free care. The effect is an expanded and al tered demand that is incompatible with the existing sick-care deliv ery system - wasting its medical manpower and threatening the quality and economics of the serv ice it renders . . . The result should not be surprising to any one. Picture what would happen to air transportation if fares were eliminated and travel became a right. What chance would you have of getting any place if you really needed to? Even the highly automated telephone service would be staggered by removal of fees; necessary calls would become prac tically impossible. The change from fee to free would disrupt any system, no matter how well or1973 OTHER BOOKS 447 ganized, and this is particularly true of medicine with its highly personalized sick-care service."

To those who would like to sub stitute a system of socialized med icine for our current system of private practice, Harry Schwartz urges a careful look at countries such as Great Britain and Sweden. While visiting in Stockholm, the author was told, "Don't get sick in Sweden. You have never seen such impersonal care and such long waits in your life. Every time you go to the clinic, you see a differ ent doctor. And if you're hospital ized and are seen by a physician three times in one day, it will al most certainly be three different doctors." The experience in socialized sys tems shows clearly that increasing demand by making medical care a "free" commodity simply makes it impossible to obtain for those really in need - and dramatically increases the real cost, expressed in higher taxes, as well. The health problems we see around us, states the author, are usually not the fault of our med ical system, but are factors of our society and economy . We ride in cars when we should bicycle or walk. We overeat. We smoke too many cigarettes. Then we blame the medical system for our self inflicted difficulties.

To reorganize what is probably the most effective and efficient medical system in the world makes little sense - it ignores the fact that medical service, because it is both wanted and scarce, is an eco nomic good and that the market is the best device for conserving and allocating such goods. Harry Schwartz has made an impressive case for continuing to permit the market to work in this area. ~ THE ESSENTIAL VON MISES by Murray N. Rothbard (Lansing, Mich. 48904, Box 836: Oakley R. Bramble, 1973) 62 pp., single cop ies $l. Reviewed by Henry Hazlitt Two FESTSCHRIFTS have been is sued in honor of the great econ omist Ludwig von Mises, now in his ninety-second year. The first, On Freedom and Free Enterprise, edited by Mary Sennholz, appeared in 1956, and contained essays by nineteen distinguished scholars. The second appeared in 1971, on the occasion of Mises' ninetieth birthday of that year. It was in two volumes, published by the In stitute for Humane Studies at Menlo Park, California, and car ried essays by no fewer than 66 contributors from 17 countries.

Both publications contained many fine essays. In addition, there have been other tributes to the achievements of Ludwig von 448 THE FREEMAN July Mises. But no one has yet done what Murray N. Rothbard has so brilliantly succeeded in doing in this little tribute of about 11,000 words. He has given us, in a brief but remarkably comprehensive form, an outline of Dr. Mises' out standing contributions to the sci ences of human action. Biography, history, exposition and criticism are superbly interwoven. Dr. Rothbard begins with the birth of Mises in 1881 in Lem berg, reminds us that Mises grew up during the high tide of the "Austrian School" of economics, describes what this was, contrasts it with the classical Ricardian eco nomics that it displaced, explains what Carl Menger and Boehm Bawerk, Mises' teacher, had al ready contributed,and then, point by point, tells us how Mises pushed beyond this: his unification of monetary theory with the 'Aus trian analysis, his new theory of business cycles, his demonstration that socialism was not a viable system because it could not solve the problem of economic calcula tion, his great contributions to methodology, and a score of other illuminations to be found especi ally in his three masterpieces, The Theory of Money and Credit, So cialism: An Economic and Socio logical Analysis, and Human Ac tion.

Rothbard's pamphlet is a beautiful exposition of Mises' thought and an admirable introduction to his writings. It is ,more than that. It is a compact history of eco nomics since the 1880's; it pays tribute to others who made con tributions; and it briefly indicates the fallacies in such fashionable diversions as Keynesianism, insti tutionalism, econometrics, and mathematical economics. But with all the territory that it covers, it never loses sight of Mises the man, reacting "to the darkening world around him with a lifetime of high courage and personal integrity," never bending to the winds of change, never swerving a single iota from pur suing and propounding the truth as he saw it, and never complain ing about the shameful neglect of his contributions by the bulk of the academic world. Rothbard concludes by quoting a tribute from the eminent French economist Jacques Rueff: "Ludwig von Mises has safe guarded the foundations of a ra tional economic science .... By his teachings he has sown the seeds of a regeneration which will bear fruit as soon as men once more begin to prefer theories that are true to theories that are pleasing.

When that day comes, all econ omists will recognize that Mises merits their admiration and grat itude." , the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.8. AUGUST 1973 The Purpose of Traffic laws M. C. Shumiatcher 451 Bad driving is a reflection of declining standards of excellence in all aspects of our lives, as laws displace personal responsibility. The Energy Crisis Robert G. Anderson 460 Not the changing conditions of supply and demand, but the increasing governmental controls give rise to "shortages." The Confession of Error leonard E. Read 468 The confession of an error to all who may have been influenced by it is essential to its correction. How NOT to Advocate a Gold Sta,ndard Paul Stevens 471 Concerning some inconsistencies among proponents of monetary stability and market principles. Complications Brian Summers 483 Change is inevitable, and the market enables men to adjust if not hampered by coercive intervention.

No-Fault Insurance Means No Moral Responsibility Ridgway K. Foley, Jr. 486 A closer look at some of the moral and legal implications of the "no-fault" philosophy. Book Reviews: 507 "Who's Listening?" by Leonard E. Read "The Rise of Radicalism" by Eugene Methvin Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON·ON·HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591·7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor· THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, .nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are· in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,000-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The. Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN Is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "How Not to Advocate a Gold Standard."

The Purposeof TrafficLaws M .C. SHUMIATCHER LIBERTY is the freedom of the in dividual - of every person - to make full use of his faculties and move where he wishes, when he wishes, how he wishes - so long as he does not harm other persons when he does so. This principle is more clearly understandable in the case of our use of motor vehicles than almost anywhere else. On the Sahara Desert or on your own farm or on the Arctic Tundra, you may drive a vehicle as, how, and where you please without regard for anyone else. You are free to maim, wound or destroy yourself if you want to. But what of others? Here, the law enters upon its appropriate role. The legisla tor sometimes be lieves that he has absolute power Dr. Shumiatcher is a prominent lawyer in Regina, Saskatchewan, well known as a lec turer, writer, defender of freedom. This· arti cle is from remarks before a recent Traffic Safety Workshop sponsored by the Saskatch ewan Safety Council.

over our persons and property. This is not so. The existence of persons and property antedated the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to concern himself with the safety of per sons and property against the as saults of aggressors. The function of law is not to regulate our con sciences, our work, our trade, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our talents or our plea sures. The true function of law is to protect the free exercise of my rights in each of these areas against infringement by any other person, and to prevent me from interfering with the free exercise of the same rights by others. Since law requires the support of force to achieve this object, its lawful domain is properly confined to those areas where the use of force is necessary. Each person has the right to use force for law ful self-defense. Therefore, collec tive force, which is only the or451 452 THE FREEMAN August ganized combination of the indi viduals' force in any society, may be lawfully used for the same pur pose, that is to say, for the de fense of the law-abiding citizen against the attacks or depreda tions of the law-breakers. The question of how far the law is able to go in any particular field de serves the careful consideration of the philosophy behind the role of the law. It requires that we con sider the purpose for which the mandatory injunction to perform or refrain from performing a par ticular act exists and the conse quences which flow from that re quirement.

Let us take the case for and against mandatory seat-belts. After all, a seat-belt is something which is designed ·principally to protect the driver of a vehicle against his own errors or faults. Assuming the purpose of the seat belt is to protect the user alone, as I believe the case to be, then why should the law require an in dividual to take steps which he, in his own judgment, good or bad, decides he ought not to take. In my view, it is not for the law to compel an individual to save either his neck or his property. If indi viduals are left to their own de vices and find that they suffer as a result of the laws of nature rather than the laws of men for acting foolishly, I believe that ultimately the message will get through to them; they will learn the error of their ways and act more provi dently in the future. Has Education a Role? Education, of course, can be a short cut to learning. It is old hat to say that the public needs more ed uca tion concerning safety.

Everyone seeks more money to educate persons on every conceiv able subject from basket weaving to nuclear fission to safety in an automobile. The faith which so many place in the miracle of edu cation can be compared only with medieval man's faith in the con cept of salvation and a life ever lasting. That was an age in which it was believed that faith would create a better and a more moral human being. Education has usurped this role and for at least two genera tions, we have come to believe that if only people were better edu cated, if only they knew more and studied more and if only they </ learned more of the facts of the world about them, they would be come better, more moral human beings. War and conflict would disappear from our society and we would forever live in peace and harmony with our fellow man. Of course, we know that this is not so. Never before in the his tory of the Western world have so 1973 THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC LAWS 453 many billions of money been spent in erecting the great temples ded icated to education in which mod ern man worships. The result has been not to produce graduates from our schools and universities morally superior to others, or bet ter human beings or more peaceful citizens. Quite the contrary. There is less concern for morality today, less genuine understanding of man's nature, and less peace in our homes, our cities and our so ciety generally, than ever before, whatever the educational attain ment of the public might be. To regard education as somehow pointing the way to a new mil lenium - a more reasoned attitude among individuals or a better mannered performance by drivers upon the highway - is to pin one's hopes on a hollow dream.

If education will not secure bet ter manners on the highways, then will slogans do it? It's all very well to buy and paste those bumper stickers that say, "The life you save may be your own" or "Defensive driving is the thing." But I suggest that these mean virtually nothing. What really matters is what goes on in the mind of the individual driver and what choices he makes. We Love our Cars to Death Perhaps the truth is that peo ple do not really wish to avoid death on the highways at all. In the preface to his play, Man and Superman, George Bernard Shaw suggests that man is really in love with death. He says that man spends more thought in learning how to kill, how to destroy, how to maim and wound, how to fash ion the lethal instruments of war, than he ever spent in producing or saving life. If this be so, it is little wonder that the gruesome photographs that regularly appear in the media depicting death and de struction on the highways seem to do little more than titilate the sense of morbidity. Neither they, nor the regular statistical reports of carnage by motorcar succeed in convincing drivers to show greater consideration for other users of the highway neighbor hood, or· to grow more wary of the perils that haunt it.

We know, from those clever peo ple who collect statistics and as semble them in ways that are de signed to impress or shock their readers, that Canada scores high in motor car accidents. In 1969, with 8,100,000 vehicles on the road, there were 5,696 deaths, or 27.0 deaths per hundred thousand of population. The only really in dustrialized country that racked up a higher score were our friends and cousins to the south in the United States. They were just 454 THE FREEMAN August half a point ahead of us at 27.5 deaths per hundred thousand of population. Australia was pretty high also, at 21 deaths per hun dred thousand; but countries like the United Kingdom stood at only 13.6 deaths and France - where I was always of the opinion that the wildest drivers in the world were to be found - showed only 11.3 deaths per hundred thousand of population. But what of the number of deaths per hundred thousand vehi cles on the highway? After all, population is not the important factor here. India has a very large population but very few motor vehicles; Saudi Arabia has a large population with relatively few . vehicles but a very large number of accidents - mostly with Cadil lacs - so that the population and the death .figures in a place like India or Saudi Arabia would not tell us very much about our own situation. In 1969, we witnessed 70.3 deaths per hundred thousand vehicles in Canada. Although the United States death rate from au tomobile accidents is almost iden tical with that of Canada upon a per capita basis, there were only 55 deaths per hundred thousand vehicles in that country, compared with our 70. The United Kingdom had 59 deaths per hundred thou sand vehicles, and France pro duced only 6 deaths per hundred thousand vehicles as compared with Canada's 70!

In the light of these figures, and having heard all of the pleas for an active educational program and all of the appeals for safety precautions on our highways, do we think· that anything will really be altered by these programs? I have the impression that the mes sage thus far has been that if we would only have fewer accidents we would be much better off. What of our Standards of Performance? If we really wish to improve the dismal record of performance on the highways of this country, it seems to me that we must examine our conduct and our performance and our habits there from the same point of view that we ought to be examining our activities in other fields - in the trades and occupations in which we engage, in our business practices and in our professions, and indeed, in our sports and our recreational activi ties. The standards which we have set for ourselves .in this country in each of these fields .have fallen abysmally low. For we have aban doned our search for excellence in our trades and occupations. What has become of our fine craftsmen of yesterday? Our workers in wood and silver and precious metal; our builders, our mechanics, our 1973 THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC LAWS 455 plumbers; those who produce the goods and offer their services to the public to meet· human needs?

What has become of their stand ards? How much can we rely upon their craftsmanship? How much are they concerned with quality? Driving is an occupation like other occupations, and indeed it is the full-time job of the taxi driver, the bus driver, the long distance trucker. What are their standards of performance? And to this question, I think our ex perience and observation must tell us that, as in other fields, they are declining. For we are rapidly abandoning our search for excel lence in our trades and our pro fessions, and those who once prided themselves for their ca pacity to produce at the highest level now have given over their efforts to other goals. The name of the game today appears to be to do the least to get the most. To give as little and to take as much as possible, and ex cellence and quality be damned. You might consider applying that slogan and those words to driving on the highway. Take as much as you can and give as little as you can - and the other fellow be damned.

Compulsion Produces Mediocrity What is most interesting to me is that, as the standards of personal excellence decline, we find that governments at every level, federal, provincial and municipal, are moving to fix the standards for the activities of men and women engaging in their busi nesses and professions with the naive expectation that this will improve human performance. Everything, from minimum wage laws to the manner in which doc tors are required to make their reports in quintuplicate for medi care commissions, is coming to be governed by laws and regulations. The result, of course, is inevita ble. Where the big stick is wielded, and government fixes minimum standards, these eventually become the maximum standards, and all who are forced to adhere to them are repelled by the concept tha t their performance is determined, not by the individual's capacity or motivation, but by the sanc tions of force.

The burdens and responsibili ties that normally rest upon the individual to perfect his tech niques and to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and to produce a result in which he him self takes pride because of his craftsmanship and knowledge, these are being assumed by the state which claims a 'peculiarly omniscient capacity in the field. Government now undertakes to fix standards, to penalize those who 456 THE FREEMAN August do not measure up to them, and to make certain that each citizen gets "full value for hisnioney." But I never knew a government that was able to fix a leaky faucet, or cut ahead of hair, or grow a stalk of wheat, or milk a cow or repair a broken watch. And what is more, it seems to me that when the state holds the big stick over the individual and tells him what he mayor may not do, the result is bound to be fear, and then hos tility, and finally the kind of resig nation which convinces the indi vidual that if the only recognition he is to receive for a job well done is to avoid the penalties of the law, then whatever he will pro duce will be a model of mediocrity.

The state, in all its guises, is progressively removing the incen tives from individuals to do diffi cult jobs well. Incentives to achieve are being removed by the imposition of inordinately high taxes. On the other hand, rewards are being accorded to those who do little or nothing in a produc tive way. Uselessness, neglect, carelessness, ineptitude, sloth these are being rewarded by poIi cies geared to pay money, grant concessions and distribute praise to those who claim it as their right to take whatever they want by political blackmail if possible, and by force and violence if necessary. The welfare state dictates that no longer is achievement the passkey to reward; no longer is compe tence, or excellence or skill of any real consequence. Is it any wonder, then, that there should be a fall ing away from those high stand ards upon which a worthwhile society must depend? In the fields of recreation and sports, Canada is fast becoming a nation of cynical spectators, more interested in the spectacle of violence than in the skills of the game, be it played on the football field or on the ice.

You see, the characteristics\.that we demonstrate in our work and at our professions, in our games and sports and as spectators, are carried by us into the highways of··our land and over all the by ways of our lives. Compulsory Insurance The craftsman who isn't much interested in exceIience on his bench, is likely to be equally dis interested in excellence or profi ciency or care or good manners as a driver of an automobile. There are fewer craftsmen today because machines take care of the needs of most of us. The man today is rare who feels the responsibility of producing a product with which he can himself identify, because it is his own. So it is that the se urity that a welfare-oriented so ciety provides its citizens by way 1973 THE PURPOSE OF TRAF~IC LAWS 457 of protection removes the respon sibility of that individual for his own care and well-being. Compul sory state automobile insurance may well be an application of this same principle, leading people to say, "What difference does it make if I crumple a fender or get into trouble on the highway? It really doesn't matter. I have a govern ment package policy and I only pay $25, or $200 at the very most, and the rest of the damage I do will be looked after by the govern ment. Why should I worry?"

Protecting citizens against their own folly and stupidity condones ignorance and encourages care lessness. I am not opposed to in surance, but I am against com pulsory insurance which places no burden or onus upon the individual himself to secure it. If a man car ries insurance because the state compels him to do so, he carries it because he is told to carry it. But if he carries insurance be cause he thinks enough about the importance of his own safety and welfare and the life and safety of others as well, then he has par ticipated in the act of protecting both himself and others. He has taken the first step to take care. That step is capable of leading to other steps - to considering the dangers of high speed, the perils of heavy traffic, the consequences of drinking and driving. It will move him to consider others and to expect others to consider him. He will do so not because he is compelled to do so but because he wants to and knows why - because he has ceased to be an automaton and has become a thinking human being.

It has been said that the English defeated the Spanish Armada in Elizabeth's time, not on the sea, but on the playing fields of Eton. Whether this be true or false, the fact is that a sense of decency and fair play and of ordinary good manners are essential to any ac tivity in which men and women engage in any number. It is a lack of the ordinary sense of fair play and an ignorance of good manners that, more than any other things, are responsible for catas trophe on our roads and highways. Even lack of skill can be compen sated for by good manners. These are personal qualities. They can not be legislated. On the contrary, paraphrasing Gresham's Law that bad money drives good money out of the market, so it is my firm be lief that lega,l coercion to do good drives human desires to act fairly out of the social equation. Those traits that are causing the loss ,of lives and property on the highways today are the same traits that are making of this great country of ours a place gov erned by the platitudinous, one 458 THE FREEMAN August abandoned to the mediocre and geared to the performance and ability of the lowest common de nominator.

Needed: IIManners in the Motor Car N We are, most of us, bad drivers. We do not regard it as our duty to improve our skills. We do not take pride in our performance. We, do not consider it necessary or even desirable to play the game on the highways. Certainly, though we know a little about table manners, we still have very little interest in road manners. It is high time, I think, that a Dorothy Dix or an Emily Post add to their books on etiquette a chapter or two on "Manners in the Motor Car" - not only when parked, but when mobile. These are not matters for the law to deal with. So many people entertain the greatest expectations from the mere passage of a law. Laws are printed on paper and bound in books. They may even be read and sometimes studied and memorized. But they do not drive motor cars. It is people who drive. It is they and only they who are or can be responsible. Unless we are willing to withdraw the pro tection and the support, the direc tion and the compulsion to which laws are expected to give effect, we as individuals will be reluctant to assume our personal responsibilities. For what we are witnes sing on our highways today is an abandonment of standards of ex cellence and the renunciation of personal responsibility. This, after all, is only a reflection of the hu man scene in almost every other place in the land today.

Ours the Responsibility Why has Mr. Ralph Nader be come so popular in these times? It is because he chooses to say that motor car accidents are happen ing, not because of you or of me, because of our limitations, our ignorance, our ineptitude and our lack of skill. No, it is none of these. It is General Motors and Ford Motor Company and other big corporations who are really responsible for death and carnage on the highways. So Nader likes to make us believe. It is very much like the current attack on the cor porate welfare bums that we have been hearing so lugubriously launched by socialist candidates in the current Federal election. It is well to remember that the statists of whatever complexion have al ways sought out a plausible victim for the public to hate. It is great to reform the whole world so long as one does not have to reform himself. That's why it is always so popular to find a scapegoat, as Ralph Nader has done in the case of motor car accidents. Of course 1973 THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC LAWS 459 there are automobile mechanical defects which cause accidents, but I would like to suggest to you, to paraphrase Shakespeare, that The Fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars (or in the Plymouths, Buicks or Fords) but in ourselves, that we are underlings.

If it is to be found anywhere, responsibility must be found pre cisely there - in ourselves. I have said earlier that the ques tion of improved manners on the highway is not a question for the law. We have a plethora of laws, and a dearth of manners. The Saskatchewan Vehicles Act is two and a half times as thick today as it was twenty years ago and the number of accidents and deaths has increased at five times the rate at which the pages of high way legislation has grown. But there are some things that the law cannot do and that Parliament .can not do. It cannot create a great painter or a fine carpenter or a good tailor or a skillful gardener or a first class driver. Not by an act of Parliament nor by any num ber of acts of Parliament can this be done. What laws can do, however - or perhaps I should say what the ab sence or the repeal of laws can do - is to revive the natural system of rewards for performing excel lently, and of penalties for per forming negligently or for not performing at all. Unless we are will..

ing to withdraw the protection and the support of those who fail to learn to work or to act credit ably, there will be no reason why anyone should acquire any knowl edge or exert any effort to perform any act with skill or competence. We are witnessing on our high ways in Canada the abandonment of standards and the renunciation of both excellence and personal responsibility. This, unfortunate ly, is a reflection of the whole hu man scene in Canada in this day. I suggest one of the reasons for this is that we have too many laws. Who is worried about traffic laws today? We have so many laws, that as Lord Darling said, "Men would be great criminals did they need as many laws as they make." I am convinced that we really do not need all of those laws. Rather we need men and women who, as individuals, recognize their own personal responsibility to themselves and for themselves. When this is recognized, we shall be more concerned with our own personal cond uct than with the modern fetish to do good for oth ers, or to pretend that our real concern is with that anonymous amorphous distant undemanding body of beings we are pleased to call "humanity." ~ The THE DOOMSDAY CULTISTS of the rnature economy seem to be at it again. These omnipresent talismen of doom, so ea.ger to have us re turn to a pre-industrial society of agrarian primitivism, have found new fodder for their propaganda campaign.

The incentive for their most re cent burst of gloom has been the scare value of the current "energy crisis." Responding to publicized shortages in the energy field, cer tain ecologists insist we are ex ploiting our resources so rapidly that shortly there will be nothing remaining. Future generations, we are told, will surely perish unless something is done. Such pessimism has been fueled by the confusion surrounding the rather unorthodox behavior of firms which are admonishing cusMr. Anderson recently joined the staff of The Foundation for Economic Education as Executive Secretary and Director of Semi nars, following several years of college teach ing of economics and business management. 460 Crisis ROBERT G. ANDERSON tomers for excessive use of their services. Instead of seeking new customers to consume more of their services, there now is a con certed effort toward encouraging nonconsumption.

This is, to say the least, a radi cal departure from traditional marketing practices. Yet, witness the electric utility company urging customers to "turn off the lights," and the natural gas company re fusing to service new customers and reminding old ones to "turn down the thermostats." More re cently the petroleum companies, acting under orders from the Fed eral Oil Policy Committee, have adopted "voluntary-allocation plans," resulting in limiting cus tomer purchases of gasoline and early closings of retail gasoline stations. Further complicating the crisis are those ecologists, who, seeing a growing problem of pollution, hamper and harass all efforts to 1973 THE ENERGY CRISIS 461 expand supplies of energy, and plead for restrictions on the use of existing energy resources. Indeed it would seem that the enemy is the consumer, whose ex cessive wants have finally exceeded all normal limits and have threat ened to deplete a precious national inheritance. Unless these consum ers are somehow convinced to temper their consumption, there is the danger that such shortages will occur as to spell final disaster for the lot of us.

Volunteer - or Else! Numerous remedies are being advanced as popular solutions to, this crisis. The efforts by utility and petroleum companies to re strict sales voluntarily is lauded as being in "the public interest," for it is placing civic duty above mere profit-making. Through "ed ucating" the consumer to consume less, it is believed, the demand for energy resources can be lessened. Should such efforts fail, the ul timate remedy suggested is direct government regulation of con sumption by bureaucratic ration ing. Such an alternative is not idle theorizing. The Federal Govern ment has made it clear that if "voluntary" methods fail, it in tends to move in. Confronted with a picture of indivduals glutting themselves on scarce economic re sources and ravaging the earth of all its riches, there appears to be no alternative but to turn to col lective, forceful action, complete with penalties for transgressions.

The state at this point is seen as the only means available to force an adjustment to the reality of scarcity rather than endless abundance. Once again we see the threat of government intervention in order to remedy the ill effects of an ear lier government interference. The so-called "energy crisis" is a direct consequence of earlier government intrusions into the free market pricing process. To expect any good to come from further govern ment intervention at this point is to believe that a person just run down by a truck would get relief if the truck backed over him again. Market economics has always recognized the problem of scar city. Indeed, it is the sole basis for the science of economics. An individual's capacity to want is in satiable, but possessing only a limited ability to fulfill his wants, the individual is never able to sat isfy all of them. Clearly, choices must be made and resources allo cated toward the accomplishment of those chosen ends. The p,rocess by which this is done is the con cern of economics.

While a market system of eco nomic organization cannot elimi nate the problem of scarcity, it 462 THE FREEMAN August has demonstrated its superiority over all other systems of economic organization in reducing the de gree of re1ative scarci ty. The emergence of a social division of labor and concomitant price sys tem has resulted in attaining the highest degree of efficiency in al locating resources toward the sat isfaction of human wants. WitHin the framework of a market-structured society the allo cation of economic goods is accom plished through prices established by the actions of buyers and sel lers. This interaction between sup ply and demand is never static, and thus there is a continually changing price structure. As gre,ater quantities are demanded or supplies dwindle, prices tend to rise; conversely, prices tend to fall when lesser quantities are de manded or when supplies· increase.

Free market prices are constantly adj usting in order to bring toward equilibri urn these opposing forces of supply and demand. It is these free market prices that direct the actions of buyers and sellers. As long as buyers and sellers are free to act, as long as the price mechanism is unin hibited, economic goods will be al located in a fashion that will al ways assure their availability to anyone wishing to enter the mar keto Supply will always tend toward equilibrium with demand. Serving Willing Buyers This phenomenon of an equilib rium price, of course, has not eliminated the problem of scarcity. Instead, it can only assure that scarce goods will always be avail able to willing buyers. Prices serve as a means for allocating these scarce resources to those buyers who value them more highly than do others. The justice of the free market lies in the fact that the most efficient sellers will prevail in supplying scarce resources to the buyers who most urgently seek these resources over all other po tential buyers. Such a system is in a continual state of flux as new buyers and new sellers supplant one another and cause prices to correspondingly rise and fall.

The present "energy crisis" stems not from a problem of eco nomic scarcity, but instead from nonmarket forces which are inter fering with free market prices, and thus causing shortages to de velop. The problem of economic scarcity is present in nearly every situation of our lives. We are not in an "energy crisis" now because energy is scarce, but rather be cause there is a "shortage" of it. Shortages are inconceivable in a free market structure; but they do occur whenever free market methods are abandoned. The competitive actions of buy ers and sellers in a free market 1973 THE ENERGY CRISIS 463 system precludes any threat of shortages. The very essence of price allocation negates the devel opment of shortages. A greater relative scarcity of a good in a free market situation will inevita bly lead to higher prices as buyers bid against one another for the shrinking supply. For shortages to occur, some 'nonmarket force must be introduced to create the disequilibri urn.

The "energy crisis" is an ex ample of such interference. Of course energy resources are scarce; that is conceded. They al ways have been, and they always will be scarce. But the current shortages in the market have led many people to believe that we have encountered something worse than scarcity; all of a sudden there is a specter of a well running dry. Misunderstanding the Causes Popular remedies being sug gested are further confused by a misunderstanding of the causes of the problem. Certain forces which have contributed to an increase in the relative scarcity of energy, and other forces which have con tributed to an increased demand for energy, are now being blamed for causing the shortages of en ergy resources. Such is not the case, for under conditions of an unhampered market these forces would be reflected in a changing price structure. On.ly direct inter ference with free price movements can cause the shortages.

A leading example of a force not responsible for causing the energy shortage, but certainly a factor affecting its supply and de mand, is radical ecology.! Ecology is frequently blamed as the pri mary cause of the "energy crisis." As proponents for the preserva tion of natural resources, the ecol ogists have in many instances been successful in curtailing supplies of energy resources by hampering the construction of new oil refineries, electric generating plants, drilling operations, and pipe lines. Their efforts at preserving resources in their natural state, by harassment of utilities and petroleum com panies, have undoubtedly re stricted present supplies. Ironic ally, their success in forcing auto mobile manufacturers to equip engines with emission-control de vices has greatly increased the· de mand for gasoline. (Presently these devices consume an addi tional three million gallons of gas oline daily.) While a paradox can readily be seen between their efforts at pres ervation on the one hand, and the wasteful results of their efforts regarding pollution on the other 1 "A Conservationist Looks at Free dom," Leonard E. Read, The Freeman, November, 1970. 464 THE FREEMAN August hand, the fact remains that their actions cannot be held accountable for the current energy shortage.

It is certainly valid to observe tha t to the degree they have cur tailed supplies and have increased the consumption of energy, they have been a factor in causing the prices of energy resources to rise. But ecologists can no more hamper price movements than can any other private individuals. In the same context, forces such as import quotas, declining ex ploration, production controls on producing wells, tax depletion al lowances,' agreements between re fineries and dealers, and even pos sible secret cartels have been advanced as the causes of our pres ent crisis. Valid charges or not, any or all of these factors can affect only the quantities of en ergy resources supplied, and thus the ultimate market price. None of them, any more than the ecolo gist, can cause market disequili brium in the form of shortages. Shortages from Price-Fixing Shortages are a result of price fixing by government interference in the market place. Specifically, the government, through both di rect and indirect methods, has been successful in preventing the prices for energy resources to rise.

The developing energy shortage has been growing for a long period of time in the utility indus tries. The reason is obvious when we realize that direct price regu lation by government has existed far longer in this area of our en ergy resources than within the petroleum industry. State public utility commissions, the Federal Power Commission, and other government regulatory commissions have direct authority over rates charged for energy by electric power and natural gas companies. Unfortunately, these commissions mistakenly assumed low rates to be in the best inter ests of consumers of energy re sources. Under the misguided no tion that low prices for energy rather than equilibrium prices benefited the consumer, little at tention was given to the develop ing disequilibrium between energy supplies and energy demanded. For many years the disequili brium has been absorbed in the capital structures of utility com panies. This consumption of ac cumulated capital, with its ensu ing financial weakening of the utility companies, gradually af fected their capacity and willing ness to attract capital forexpan sion of their energy resources.

Production of energy became mar ginal, if not entirely uneconomic. At the same time, demand for energy at the low rates continued to expand until the inevitable dis1973 THE ENERGY CRISIS 465 equilibrium developed. Energy was being supplied in shorter quanti ties than were being demanded. Since additional quantities could not be supplied without incurring losses (at the low rates imposed on utility companies by the gov ernment commissions), these com panies had no recourse but to deny service and to urge less use by their customers. The failure of the utility indus try to meet the full market demand for energy requirements had a "spill-over" effect on the petroleum industry. Customers, fearful that electrical power and natural gas supplies would be unavailable to them, sought greater quantities of fuel oil from the petroleum in dustry to meet their energy re quirements. Two Blows at Once Unfortunately, this increased demand upon the petroleum indus try occurred at a time when price controls on their industry had just been introduced. While the method of price regulation has been less direct than that experienced in the utility industry, the problems created are similar.

After many years of a govern ment-imposed inflation of our money supply and resulting higher and higher prices, a government program of price controls was in evitably adopted. Abandoning all economic reasoning, the govern ment established a "freeze" on prices of most goods and services, including petroleum products. Throughout the various "phases" of the price-control program, pe troleum prices have not been able to reflect the changing forces of supply and demand affecting them. Few industries failed to feel the pressures of the government price freeze; but the petroleum indus try, along with other capital-inten sive industries, felt the heaviest pressure. Inflation always inflicts the severest damage on industries with a heavy capital investment in their productive processes. The capacity of such capital-in tensive industries to calculate their economic costs is seriously hamp ered by inflation. Furthermore, the erosion of capital resources by in flation discourages future produc tive efforts by such industries. Ac curate economic calculation be comes nearly impossible.

Thus, a government-imposed price freeze on the heels of a gov ernment-engineered inflation made a petroleum shortage inevitable. A . combination of factors pressuring for an upward movement of prices only worsened the disequilibrium: the peculiarly sensitive financial position of the industry to infla tionary pressures; ecological forc es affecting their capacity to in crease supplies while at the same 466 THE }4'REEMAN August time increasing the consumption of the product; and heavier con sumption on account of a diversion of demand from the natural gas and electric power industries. Obviously, had petroleum prices been completely free to respond to these changing facts and condi tions there would be no threat of shortages. However, the petroleum industry like the utility industry, having lost its entrepreneurial freedom to resolve the disequilib rium through the price mechan ism, found itself pleading with its customers to "not buy."

The IISo/u tion ll Is the Problem The real cause for concern at this point is not the "energy crisis" so much as it is the solution the government will undertake to "solve" the problem of the short ages. Rather than admit the fail ure of government price interfer ence and allow the free market to once again achieve equilibrium be tween supply and demand, the gov ernment more likely will propose the adoption of rationing. The allure of rationing seems to be based on an egalitarian ideal which rej ects the price system as a discriminatory relic of economic inequality, and thus not suitable as a means for the just allocation of resources. Regrettably, this egali tarian doctrine attracts many supporters and is one of the leading threats to the survival of in dividual liberty. The concept of rationing is predicated on an archaic and to tally refuted objective theory of value, yet its philosophical appeal has had an overwhelming influence in our political a.ffairs. The notion that an equal distribution of goods to individuals will provide equal utility is a. complete denial of mod ern theory of subjective value; but government rationing still in sists on the allocation of resources in this fashion.

If selective rationing of energy resources should materialize, the consequences are quite predicta ble. The decline of profit margins will result in a capital shift awa.y from such industries, and this will lead to additional shrinkage of supplies. Since ca.pital always moves away from low-profit indus tries and into higher-profit indus tries, future production of energy resources must decline. The low prices imposed by government edict will ultimately be meaning less as, finally, no supplies will be produced at all by private com panies. The historical response to this development has always been the same. Whenever governments have finally succeeded in making a pro ductive service completely uneco nomic for private enterprise, they assume the function for them1973 THE ENERGY CRISIS 467 selves and nationalize the indus try. (This "final solution," it might be pointed out, not only fails to solve the problem of scar city but tends rather to intensify it.) Lool< to the Marl<et The appropriate alternative to our energy crisis is. to return to free market principles. The con sequences will not be pleasant, for the most probable result will be higher prices for energy resources than exist today.

Recent price movements in those few goods that have not been cov ered by the freeze give us a good contrast to the situation with re spect to the controlled goods. For example, we have ~een as much as a fourfold increase in the prices of some agricultural products in the past yea.r because of inflation and other changes in the supply and demand picture. While such price rises have been a cause of much consternation to consumers, they have not resulted in short ages and subsequent rationing. Should supplies of these agricul tural products now increase (as well they might, because of their profitabili ty), or if demand de clines (because of consumer re sistance to the high prices), then prices will again fall in a reflec tion of market actions of buyers and sellers. While the government planners recognized the presence of these ma.rket forces in agricultural prod ucts and exempted them from di rect controls, they failed to recog nize that these same forces are at play with all economic goods and services. Instead, believing that prices of manufactured goods are somehow "administered" and im mune from the economic laws of supply and demand, the govern ment imposed the price "freeze"

upon them. As must always happen with an abandonment of economic reality, the edicts of government are fall ing victim to inexorable economic law. The ever-changing forces of supply and demand, continuing an upward pressure on the prices of energy resources, are making the "frozen prices" a relic of economic history. The growing disequilib rium between the government manipulated prices and the actual forces of supply and demand pre cipitates the inevitable shortage. If this "energy crisis" is to be resolved, there is only one alterna tive. We must return the alloca tion of scarce resources to the market. Freedom in the market place, so that the economic struc turing of society is in the hands of individuals acting as their own free agents, is the only "final solu tion." Under such a system,. the crisis of shortages is unknown. I) The MANY PEOPLE, I suspect, would rather entitle this piece, "the error of confession" than "the confes sion of error."

My thesis is that error can and should play a profound role in man's advancement toward wis dom. The~e are two doors through which the fallible individual must pass before he can behold the light of truth. The first is the discern ment (}f error; the second is the confession of the error, not only to self but to anyone influenced by his error, whether that influence extend to one or to a· few or to millions of persons. Rarely does the individual err in solitude; most of one's mistakes have a social im pact, may indeed bring harm· to others as well as to himself. So, one is socially obligated to confess as well as to correct his errors. A personal experience may help illustrate my point. In 1945 I was given the assignment of choosing 468 LEONARD E. READ two speakers to present opposing views on the U.S. foreign aid pro gram. I chose J. Reuben Clark, J f., President of the Church. of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose point of view coincided with mine.

The most prestigious individual I could nominate for the other side of the argument was Lord John Maynard Keynes, then on an offi cial visit to the United States. When I called on him to invite his participation, he replied, "I shall not accept your invitation, and for two reasons. First, I shall not be in this country at the. time of your meeting. And if I were here I would not accept. My mission is to obtain the British loan. Were I to stand before your audience and say what I now think, which is what I would do, I would· disparge my mission." Lord Keynes, it seemed, had changed his mind about govern ment spending. He confessed this 1973 THE CONFESSION OF ERROR 469 to himself and to me but, so far as I know, not a word of his changed position reached the hun dreds of millions who came within his orbit of enormous influence. Had he publicly confessed his error (he passed away nine months later) the reckless spending poli cies of nations all over the world might have been halted. He dis cerned his error which is the first step. But he never took the second step; he failed to make public his confession, and the light of truth did not shine forth. Lord Keynes opened but one of the two doors; and the rest of us are now the poorer for his failure to open and pass through that second door to truth.!

I would not single out the late Lord Keynes as alone in this fault. His case is simply a magnified, and thus easily observed, example of the thing I am talking about. The same inability or unwilling ness to confess error plagues most of us. Keynes' leverage over events was so great for at least two rea sons: (1) he was a prestigious professor of economics at Cam bridge University and a titled nobleman, and (2) .his error is one that all· politicians, here or else where, ardently want to believe: 1 For an enlightening account of Lord Keynes' sound money theories be fore he went "Keynesian," see "Infla tion" by John Maynard Keynes (The Freeman, April 1956). that politicians can spend the peo ple's money on anything that suits their fancy and, by so doing, as sure prosperity to the victims. Had a commoner - one without degrees and a title - made such a silly pro posal he would have been "laughed out of court."

Why the reluctance to confess error openly? Doubtless, there are more reasons than we know. Take a politician - one gaining office by promising, if elected, to do this or that for his constituents, perhaps a higher minimum wage or any of thousands of "benefits" at tax payer's expense. Later, the light dawns and he sees the error of his ways. Confess this mistake to his constituents ? Not likely! He would never be returned to office, his political power at an end. More often than not such a fateful pros pect destroys any desire or incen tive to confess error. But no one can confess an error until he sees it for what it is; and self-blindness is a trait as com mon among the electorate as among the elected. Once an error is believed and embraced as right, it is absorbed into the tissues, so to speak; it becomes a part of one's being. An immunity develops and explanations of the fallacy are warded off, not heard. Only con firmations of the error are re ceived and they become supporting evidence.· Most of us simply can470 THE FREEMAN August not stand the thought of being wrong, at least not to the point of openly confessing an error.

Often the explanation of our error is made by a political op ponent or by one having a faith or general philosophy we do not ap prove, that is, by our "enemies" persons we abhor or, at least, do not like. The very source is enough to close our eyes and mind; we will have none of it! Indeed, this lack of catholicity on the part of anyone tends to confirm him in the rightness of his mistaken views. Small chance of confessing errors thus buried in rancor! The fact that society, today, is in one of those devolutionary swings - common to history - and that countless people are propos ing remedies -of every variety and without success, suggests that the right answer has not yet been found. I venture to say that the remedy is simple; indeed, if it is not sim ple, in all probability it is not right. The first step is to remove all ob structions to the discernment of error; and the second is to confess the mistake openly. How wonder fully different would be the so cietal situation were a consider able number of us to open these two doors. It seems obvious to me that this is the way and the only way to wisdom, truth, light!

A considerable number! Yes, but a number of individuals, one by one. After all, it is not society that acts; it is only discrete hu man beings. There is no point in dwelling further on removing the obstruc tions to the discernment of error. Count him out who cannot rid himself of prej udice, bias, egotism, know-it-all-ness. Include only those who welcome exposure of error, regardless of source. The door most of us have had no practice in opening is the second: open confession of discerned error, not only to self but to all who have come under the harmful influence of the mistake. By "open confes sion," I am not referring to any maudlin wailing. Rather, I am talking about a clear explanation of one's new insight - the truth that displaces the error he had es poused and inflicted on others as well. There are two points to keep in mind. First, if the purpose of life is to grow in awareness, percep tion, consciousness, the refusal to confess error is to strangle growth; it is to nail one's self down to mediocrity, along with others under influence of one's errors. Be free!

Second, confession not only is good for the soul; it also turns out to be a joyous experience, as is any freedom from inhibitions. To prove it, try it! ~ How to Advocate a Standard PAUL STEVENS THERE ARE TWO POINTS on which probably all advocates of a gold standard agree. They are: (1) that the U.S. government should legalize gold, and (2) that govern ment should not prevent its citi zens from using gold as money if they voluntarily contract to do so. This means that banks desiring to store gold, print gold bonds, or print notes against gold should not be prevented from doing so. It means that buyers and sellers should not be prevented from con tracting in gold for the exchange of goods. These are certainly proper goals for advocates of a gold standard to pursue. Yet achviement of these goals is being undermined by statements containing a host of errors, inconsistencies, and con tradictions about gold - statements made by those very individual~ who are attempting to focus attenMr. Stevens is a freelance writer who special izes in the field of economics.

tion on gold and the virtues of a gold standard. A bad argument advocating a return to the gold standard can be more harmful to the case for gold than no argument at all. One source of such arguments is that many gold advocates look at gold through the eyes of an in vestor rather than the· eyes of an economist. Consequently, short term, superficial and sometimes misleading interest in gold is be ing encouraged at the expense of long-term education and consistent economic theory. This approach must ultimately be counter-pro ductive and self-defeating. The market is being saturated with lit erature containing misconceptions and inexact or incorrect terminol ogy. This has led to anti-gold posi tions (Le., positions inconsistent with capitalism and a free mar ket) , most of which can be traced to poorly defined concepts, discus sions drawn out of context, and misidentified cause/effect relation471 472 THE FREEMAN August ships. The following arguments, terms, and positions regarding gold, its present role in interna tional monetary matters and its proposed role in future interna tional monetary reform, have pre· sented a recurring yet self -defeat ing "defense" of gold and the gold standard.

The "Intrinsic Worth" Argument It has been said that gold has "intrinsic worth." This argument represents a theory of economics inconsistent with the free market and consequently with the gold standard. The intrinsic theory of value holds that worth or value is con tained within an object. It holds that economic goods possess .value inherently, innately, despite the market, despite supply and de mand, i.e., in spite of men's val ues, choices, and actions. Free market economists reject this argument. rf'hey hold that no man can jump outside the market and declare what a particular com modity is "worth"; that all com modities are subject to the laws of supply and demand; that in economiGs there is no such thing as "intrinsic worth", only market worth. "Worth" means "value" and value presupposes a valuer. As men's values differ and change, market values change. As supply and demand conditions change, the exchange ratios of commodities relative to one another change.

Gold is not exempt from these economic laws, and yet gold is oft en treated as if it were. By using such unscientific terms as "intrin sic worth," the gold advocate can only hurt his own case - and he has. The inability of many gold advocates to objectively answer the question, "why gold?" has led to the misunderstanding of gold and to such popular terms as "gold, the mystic metal." Gold would not be called "mys tic" if it were understood. And understanding begins with defin ing one's terms. It is only through invalid concepts such as "intrin sic worth" that absurd terms such as "mystic metal" can gain popu 1arity. The "Store of Value" Argument The argument that gold is a "store of value" is often used as a substitute for the "intrinsic worth" argument. Unless precisely qualified, the term can lead to the same errors, fallacies, and falla cious theories of the "intrinsic worth" argument. Thus, it may lead to a misunderstanding of the nature of money and of a proper theory of value.

"Store of value" is a term often used by those who argue that gold will always represent a constant 1973 HOW NOT TO ADVOCATEA GOLD STANDARD 473 value, Le., that gold is a "fixed yardstick" representing constant purchasing power. Implicit in this argument, once again, is· the idea that gold is intrinsically valuable - immune from the laws of the market. Not so. The possibilities of gold strikes, gold shortages, fiat money inflation, depression and deflation, fluctuation of industrial demand, the relative market value of other commodities, and the dif fering knowledge, values, and ex pectations of men - all these fac tors have the potential of increas ing or decreasing the value of gold for other men. Does this mean that under a gold standard the "price index" and the value of money will fluc tuate? It certainly does. But this is precisely the beauty of the free market and the case for freedom that prices are allowed to fluctuate freely, thereby corresponding to the constantly changing and di verse values of free men. The ad vocates of a free market are not Utopians - they are realists who recognize that· there are no guar antees 'of economic security in this wor ld; they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions - and to accept the verdict of a free market.

The advocates of a free market are not willing to trade their free dom for security. The "store of value" argument offers men just such a trade. While a gold stand ard does offer men more stability of value than any other free mone tary system, it does not offer men a constant value. There is no harm in stating that gold is a store of value so long as one knows and states exactly what is meant by the term - i.e., that gold has stability of value and represents perhaps the best monetary method of sav ing. In a free society, one is cer tainly free to store that which one values, so long as it is understood that the value of one's savings is not immune from the influence of the market. Thus, within the con text of a free mar ket, th'e only legitimate meaning of "store of value" is, "a commodity which is most marketable. and therefore best facilitates the exchange of goods and services."

Gold "Price" Predictions One way pro-gold advocates have been trying to attract attention to gold is by arousing investor inter est through predictions of a high er gold "price." General estimates of prices are not by themselves harmful. For example, it was a reasonable assumption that, after having been artificially held down for forty years, the "price" of gold would increase. But specific price predictions are indirectly harmful to the case for gold. The case for gold is subsumed 474 THE FREEMAN AUgU8t under the broader case for the free market. The advocates of free market economics and those econ omists concerned with economic theory take pride in the rigorous logic and objectivity of the case for the free market. But this pride is being undercut by illogical and visionary price predictions. The "price" of gold is determined by the values of those participating in the gold market. No man on earth, no group of mathematicians (no matter how many charts and graphs they employ), no computer on earth, is capable of knowing the values of all consumers and sup pliers within the market. (Russia has been trying for years to COT rectly anticipate general consumer demands and has failed.) There fore, to try to precisely predict something as specific as a price is impossible. The fact is, men's val ues are constantly changing, just as the factors of supply, demand) and cost are changing. Men cannot have precise, prior knowledge of prices, and by pretending to can only confuse and undercut the en tire concept and basis of free mar ket economic theory.

There is no place for crystal balls in science - and that includes the science of economics. Those attempting to attract attention to gold by making precise price pre dictions are contradicting and ob scuring the meaning of the free market and therefore undercut ting the case for a gold standard. The ilLegal Tender" Argument Many advocates of gold argue that if gold were made legal tender, not only would individuals be allowed to own and use gold as money, but this would necessarily lead to a gold standard. What is forgotten is that this country's legal tender laws are precisely what prevent citizens from using gold as money today. Legal tender laws established the legal preGe dent of coercive government mo nopoly over the issuance and use of Federal Reserve Notes. The free market economist does not contend that gold must be money. He contends only that money must be market-originated.

The case for the gold standard is part of the broader case for com modity money. Consistent advo cates of the gold standard hold that gold possesses those: qualities and characteristics most conducive to the function of a medium of ex change, but they do not say that gold will forever be suitable as money. Neither do they hold that gold must be-accepted as money whether men want to accept it or not. They do not ask for the police powers of state to enforce their idea of what money should be. Thus, they oppose legal tender laws.

1973 HOW NOT TO ADVOCATE A GOLD STANDARD 475 Further, legal tender laws are not necessary. All tha t is neces sary is that men possess the right of contract. For· example, if a man contracts to pay one hundred ounces of gold to another man who agrees to accept this sum in pay ment' the courts need only recog nize what has been chosen as money, and assure that the obliga tion be discharged. Legal tender laws are not what is needed to return to a gold standard. On the contrary, they are one of the major factors today preventing the world from return ing to gold. The 1I0ffidai Price of Gold ll Fetish Many advocates of gold argue that an "official price" of gold is both necessary and desirable. This posi tion accepts the premise of opponents of the gold standard: that legal tender laws should be established allowing governments to legally fix and regulate the value of money. The free market posi tion rejects this premise. It holds that the medium of exchange should be market-originated and market-regulated - not govern ment-originated and government regulated. This means that the value of money should be deter mined on the free market - not dictated by government decree.

At this point, the "official price" advocate usually says, "But if the price of gold isn't fixed, then no one will know what money is worth." And in the sense of hav ing precise, prior knowledge of gold's exchange value, this is true - just as it is true for all other commodity exchange-values. It is interesting to note that those who argue both that gold should be fixed in value and that gold is a constant store of value, hold a contradictory position in which one claim offsets the other. If gold is already a constant store of value, why should its "price" be fixed? And if it is necessary and desirable to fix the "price" of gold, then how can it be argued that gold has an intrinsically con stant value? One need not fix that which is constant, and that which one does fix cannot be defined as constant. Such inconsistency per vades pro-gold literature today. In fact, what is being advocated is that gold should be a "fixed yardstick" - a constant "store of value" - by government directive, rather than a stable store of value by market "directive." Govern ment determination to fix the pur chasing power of the monetary unit ignores, contradicts and de nies the law of the market.

Under a gold standard, no "offi cial price" of gold would exist, hence no official store of value. But this does not mean that gold offers no stability of value. On the 476 THE FREEMAN August contrary, gold has been chosen by men as a medium of exchange for over 2,500 years precisely because of its stability of value. But mar ket-determined stability must be distinguished from government "guaranteed" constancy. A "guar anteed" value is neither necessary nor possible. All that is necessary is that those who print paper claims against gold specify the quantity of gold their paper claims represent and that they adhere to their promise to pay by not un dermining their ability to convert their claims into gold - i.e., that they do not fraudulently increase their note issuance. The result would be a mild fluctuation of gold in relation to other commodities and monies. Further, to advocate "pegging"

gold to a given number of dollars would only amount to a fiction in today's inflationary climate, just as it would be a fiction to fix the price of any commodity. The free market must be allowed to deter mine the value .of gold and all money substitutes, just as it de termines the value of any and all commodities - by supply, con sumer demand, and the cost of prod uction. Just as there is no validity to the case for price con trols, there is no validity to the case for exchange controls. If men want security of pur chasing power, they need not and should not look for government guaranteed "security"; they can easily obtain security through the free market by including in all con tracts that purchases, repayments, and the like .be made in money adjusted to compensate for any changes in the value of money. Futures markets can be, and have been, established in any commod ity, money, or money substitute that men show a desire to partici pate in. Yet rarely have men sought a guaranteed protection against loss.

Those who argue for an "offi cial price" of gold can only hurt the case for a free market and therefore a gold standard. Price controls contradict a free market and therefore should be avoided. This includes control of all prices, including the "price" of money. Price controls have always been counter-productive and self-defeat ing. Worse, they establish the principle of government-provided "security" at the expense of indi vidual freedom. To argue that an "official price" of gold is necessary and desirable is to argue that the free market is not. The Devaluation Syndrome The argument that there must be and/or should be a major deval uation of the dollar is an offsboot of the "official price" argument. It accepts all the premises of that 1973 HOW NOT TO ADVOCATEA GOLD STANDARD 477 argument and therefore makes the same mistakes. But there are fur ther implications of this argument that must be examined.

First, devaluation means a re• turn to a monetary system of fixed exchange rates at a time when in flation makes it impossible to fix the value of anything, let alone the value of money. Bretton Woods is an eloquent example of what hap pens, given fixed exchange rates together with inflationary policies. It is not good enough to say, "Well, we shouldn't have inflation. Fixed exchange rates would work if gov ernment stopped printing money and adhered to the value of the monetary unit." The fact is that we do have inflation and may con tinue to have inflation for many years to come. The devaluation ar gument drops the matter out of context and reverses cause and effect by demanding a system of stable money and prices at a time when there is no reason to assume that this kind of stability is pos sible to the world. Second, the .devaluation argu ment delegates to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the power to establish an international monetary system by law. Implicit in the devaluation argument is acceptance of the unfounded as sumption offered. by the IMF, that this time the devaluation and ex change rate realignment will be final. Many advocates of a gold standard unwittingly accept this assumption and thus believe that the way to achieve a gold standard is through a major .devaluation which would re-establish a con vertible gold dollar. This, they be lieve, is the way to eliminate in flation.

But in fact just the opposite is true. It is not a gold standard that will lead to the elimination of in flation; it is the elimination of inflation that will lead to a gold standard. To attempt to maintain an international gold standard through the IMF is impossible, given today's political context we would only end up "going off gold" again with gold getting the blame for the resulting crisis. AI low individual gold ownership and allow the use of gold and an inter national gold standard will natu rally evolve - when and only when government monetary policy be comes noninflationary. Until then, gold and exchange rates of na tional monies should be left free to seek their own levels. Fixed exchange rates will never (and should never) result from a formal international organization such as the IMF. The stability of exchange rates will be the result, not of government price-fixing, but of noninflationary adherence to the value of money - Le., the elimination of legal sanctions that 478 THE FREEMAN August permit any government agency or bank to fraudulently increase ·the money supply.

Under a gold standard in which all nations deal in weights of gold, exchange rates would necessarily be fixed by relative weight - not by law. No formal international monetary system would he neces sary and no nation would be forced into, or prevented from, us ing other monies such as silver, paper, and so forth. A gold stand ard does not require exchange rates fixed by law. It assumes only that exchange rates will be fixed as a result of adherence to the definition of money. This means that if a monetary unit is defined as one ounce of gold, it will nec essarily exchange for other mone tary units at a precise ratio - un less the monetary unit is debased and misrepresented. Thus there is no need for a for mal, Le., legal, international mone tary system. All that is needed is the free market. The way back to a gold standard is not backward toward the Bretton Woods system, but forward toward a noninfla tionary system of freely self-ad justing exchange rates in terms of currencies and gold.

Third, the argument for deval uation is inconsistent with and contradicts another main argu ment propagated today by gold advocates: that the world is headed for runaway inflation and/or depression and deflation. If it can be reasonably assumed that prices may skyrocket or plunge, as most gold advocates contend, what sense does it make to advocate raising the "price" of gold and fixing ex change rates? If it is anticipated that prices will fluctuate dramati cally, exchange rates need to be as flexible as possible to adjust quick ly to men's changing economic eval uations, to price-cost factors; and to supply and demand conditions. It makes no sense at all to advocate fixing the "price" of gold, exchange rates (or anything else ) when ex pectations are that prices will rise or fall dramatically. Such price controls are doomed to failure and can only result in dangerous eco nomic and monetary distortions that will ultimately lead to the restriction of trade and to a lower standard of living for individuals.

The IIStop Printing Moneyll Argument Inflation is the fraudulent in crease in the supply of money and credit. It is both immoral and im practical to inflate. Eventually in flation might be outlawed, but not today-and not overnight. Both rational economic analysis and his tory verify the disastrous conse quences possible given a dramatic increase or decrease in the nation's money stock. In today's context, when the 1973 HOW NOT TO ADVOCATE A GOLD STANDARD 479 whole of the American banking system and economy is geared to ward inflationary finance, it is to no one's short-term or long-term interest to advocate that govern ment should immediately stop printing money or that the infla tionary arm of government - the Federal Reserye Board - should be abolished. For, taken literally, these well-meaning intentions could result in a nightmare of eco nomic turmoil. Rather, it should be stressed that the supply of fiat money should be slowly reduced and sta bilized to correspond to increases in the gold supply, and that struc tural changes within the banking system should take place to facili tate elimination of .the artificial and arbitrary nature of note issu ance. This would reduce inflation and go a long way toward estab lishing the proper direction nec essary for a return to gold.

The case against inflation can never be stated too often and its importance to a sound monetary system can never be overempha sized. Clearly the battle against inflation must be won before the return to a gold standard can be secure. But neither can the im portance and necessity of a grad ual return to gold be overempha sized. Inflation certainly is immoral and economically impractical - but so is any proposal that aims to un leash unnecessary hardship on citi zens in the name of "morality" and "practicality." The road back to a gold standard will be long and hard, but the road should be made as smooth as possible by intelli gent guidance. Thus, advocates of a return to the gold standard should make clear their inten tions: they advocate a reduction in the fraudulent increase of the money supply - which means a reduction to the point at which this increase is based on the pro duction of a particular commodity - which means gradual departure from a government-regulated money supply and gradual return to a market-regulated money sup ply.

The "Demonetization" Threat To demonetize usually/means to remove a particular for¢ of money from circulation. In i this sense, gold has been demonetized in the U.S. for forty years. But this is not what many opponents of gold mean when they say gold should be "demonetized." They believe that, internationally, the official role of gold should be reduced and finally eliminated among govern ments; and that, nationally, gold should circulate like any other commodity. Gold advocates usually denounce this "intent to demone tize" as an attempt to undermine 480 THE FREEMAN August the principle of the gold standard in order to more effectively pursue inflationary policies. This certainly may be the intention, but in to day's context "demonetization" could be a very good thing for gold advocates and a very bad thing for the opponents of gold. Consider the following facts: (1) Gold cannot by itself pre vent inflation. If policy makers are determined to inflate, they will do so with or without gold. For the most part, the degree of inflation will depend on the lack of knowl edge or irrationality of policy mak ers and can only be combated by the knowledge and rationality of a nation's citizens.

(2) Gold has been used by gov ernments primarily to give an un warranted status and credibility to their fiat money - a status and credibility that could not be main tained if gold were "demonetized" and allowed to circulate alongside the depreciating money of govern ment. (3) If it is true that today's governments are notoriously poor money managers, why entrust them with the. maj ori ty .of the world's gold? Would it not be put to better use managed by indi viduals? Today we are farther from a gold standard than at any other time in our history. Policy makers have had decades to propagate their anti-gold theories. Most Americans have never owned gold. Thus, most Americans do not know why it should be money. It should be clear that men who do not know why gold should be money, will not demand it as such. Just as no government can prevent private ownership of gold if a ma jority of its citizens demand it, no minority group (such as the pres ent advocates of gold) can force government or citizens to return to gold if they do not desire to.

The road back to a gold stan dard is an educational one; and it may take us as many decades to return to gold as it took to aban don it. With governments as the major holders of gold in the world today, citizens derive little or none of the benefits of gold. This pre vents the kind of self-education that might occur given popular ex posure to gold. Rather .than cam paigning against "demonetization" of gold, or for legal tender gold legislation, gold advocates should seek repeal of legal tender restric tions on the use of gold in payment of private debts. In today's context, "demonetiza tion" means to return gold to indi viduals. At a time when all the evi dence points to the mismanage ment of gold by governments, when it is plain that governments are llsing gold to their citizens' disadvantage, when there is no 1973 HOW NOT TO ADVOCATE A GOLD STANDARD 481 reason to assume that policy mak ers desire or know how to return to a gold standard, why advocate a government program to return to gold? Government will be the last to realize the virtue and im portance of gold as money.

Gold has no business being in the possession of such so-called money managers. Let governments have their fiat money and receive the full responsibility and blame for their note depreciation; let individuals regain governments' gold and rediscover the benefits of gold; make the policy makers' phrase, "gold is a barbarous relic," a government position; let both gold and fiat money circulate among men and we'll then see who possesses, determines, and controls money - individuals or govern ments. "Demonetization" is no threat to Americans. Gold advocates should not fear it - they should demand it. The quickest and surest way back to a gold standard is not through the wasteland of govern ment channels, but through pri vate channels. A gold standard will evolve naturally when men are allowed to freely own and use gold, and when men desire to own and use gold as money. On Context, Cause and Effect It is important that one recog nize just how far the educational process of this country must go before a return to the gold stan dard is possible. The gold standard requires monetary stability which means that all those government domestic programs now popularly advocated, and financed through inflation, must be opposed by the majority of U.S. citizens. Further, a gold standard requires economic stability, which means all of the malinvestments, overconsumption and misallocation of resources that have resulted from years of artifi cial, government-made "booms"

and led to a multitude of economic distortions, must take their toll. This means that the anticipation of recessions, depressions, infla tion or deflation must be behind Americans and reasonable expec tations of economic stability and real growth clearly in sight. This kind of stability is a long way off - yet this is the kind of stability necessary before a gold standard can be established as a lasting monetary system. The gold stand ard could never last long without confidence in future monetary and economic stability. If those pres ently advocating gold ownership and the ownership of other invest ment hedges are doing so because they are convinced that the world is headed for great monetary and economic instability, they should be equally convinced that it still is far too soon to be advocating a 482 THE FREEMAN August full return to the gold standard. Even. more premature is the at tempt to submit specific proposals of exactly how to return to the gold, standard. This problem must be seen in context. Even assuming that men desire to return to gold, any specific plans for implement ing a return to gold will depend greatly on such factors as inter national monetary arrangements and conditions, domestic monetary and economic conditions, and the legal, financial and structural con ditions of the banking system.

These conditions change. Thus, a good proposal today may be sadly lacking a year from now. Until fundamental political changes oc cur in this country, it is unreason able for anyone to assume he must address himself to the question of specifically how to return to a gold standard. Rather, one should concern him self with eliminating those laws which are preventing men from using gold as money and attacking those policies which encourage gov ernment inflation. The legalization of gold and its use as money, an end to legal tender laws, the freedom of individuals to mint coins, and the elimination of laws that prevent banks from existing independently of the Federal Reserve System all these are valid interim measures one can advocate. But the problem of how to return to a gold standard will be solved, for the most part, through solving more fundamental problems. A full gold standard cannot re turn until economic stability re turns; we cannot return to eco nomic stability until we return to monetary stability. Monetary sta bility cannot be secured until the source, nature and immorality of inflation is exposed to and under stood by Americans. But the evils of inflation cannot be understood until individuals grasp the mean ing of money and the nature of property rights. And property rights will not be secured without a full understanding and defense of individual rights. Thus, nothing less than a return to laissez-faire capitalism and a free market will insure a return to and defense of the gold standard. Therefore, a massive and extensive educational task on the virtues of capitalism confronts all those who desire to effectively fight for a gold stand ard.

Men will want to return to gold only when they rediscover what money is, and men will not re discover what money is until they understand why what they have is not money. ~ BRIAN SUMMERS ONE of the notions commonly held by critics of the free enterprise system is that the more complex an economy becomes, the more government intervention is need ed. If this assertion, which sounds perfectly natural to many people, is in fact true, then economic free dom in America is a relic of a sim pler past. Let us examine this no tion by considering what it means for an economy to be "compli cated." Let us begin by considering a free enterprise system. In such an economy capital is privately owned and the government re stricts itself to protecting people from humanly initiated force and fraud. In this atmosphere of lais sez faire, capitalists compete with Mr. Summers is writing his Ph.D. thesis in mathematics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

one another for the consumer's dollar. A businessman cannot stand still for long in such a sit uation because the competition is always innovating. Innovation! This is the key to success i.n a free enterprise economy. The men who come up with and implement bet ter ideas are the men who will show profits on their capital in vestments. Thus, every day entre preneurs complicate things by marketing new products and mod ifications of old products. Who de cides which entrepreneurs will succeed and which will fail? Who decrees that capital will constantly flow toward the men with better ideas? The consumers! They are the ones who, acting in their own interests, determine the capital ist's fate by purchasing his prod ucts or passing them by. Thus do competing businessmen 483 484 THE FREEMAN August complicate the consumer's life by marketing an ever-increasing va riety of products. It may take a little longer to walk through a modern shopping center than an old-time general store, but the consumer definitely benefits from the increased assortment of goods from which to freely choose. In fact, the free market is, if any thing, more valuable to today's consumer than to his forebears.

After all, the greater the selection from which to choose, the more valuable does freedom of choice become. Progress and Change In their eagerness to market new products, capitalists have not only complicated consumers' lives, but they have also complicated their own. They have increasingly turned to technology, specializa tion, division of labor, and trade to produce their goods. The com plex economic relationships that arise are naturally best worked out by the people directly in volved. They have the best under standing of their own problems, and they have the greatest incen tive for efficiency. It is, after all, their capital that is at stake. The complications that arise in a free enterprise system result from entrepreneurs' desire to bet ter serve consumers and thereby earn a return on their time, effort, and capital investment. These complications are thus, directly or indirectly, beneficial to the buy ing public.

There are, however, poli tico economic complications that prove detrimental to the consuming pub lic. They appear when an economy moves away from laissez faire, as the American economy has done. These complications are, in fact, the very same government inter ventions that are supposed to "cure" an economy of its com plexity! As an example of how govern rnent interventions complicate rather than simplify economic af fairs, let us consider a man in the construction business. In addition to all his other concerns, he must contend with such interventions as building codes, zoning ordi nances, eminent domain, inflation (due to legal tender laws and Fed eral deficits), wage and price con trols, rent controls, credit reg ulations, inv,estment regulations, hiring "guidelines," laws that pro hibit the hiring of nonunion work ers (and the resulting strikes, slowdowns, featherbedding, in creased labor costs, and sudden shortages of materials), minimum wage laws, overtime laws, licens ing laws, blue laws, numerous taxe~ and quasi-taxes (income taxes, profits taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, social security 1973 COMPLICATIONS 485 taxes, unemployment compensa tion taxes, workmen's compensa tion insurance premiums, disabil ity insurance premiums, etc.), the mountain of paper work that the government requires of all busi nessmen and so on and on. All these complications hinder the businessman and thus create costs that must eventually be borne by the buying public.

Not only do government inter ventions create obstacles that the businessman must try to over come, but they further complicate his plans by being in a constant state of flux~ In making his cal culations, the businessman must try to predict which way the laws will turn. Unfortunately, this is The Freedom To Fail often very difficult, if not impos sible, for not only must the entre preneur deal with legislatively enacted (amended, repealed) laws, but he must also contend with ar bitrary ad hoc administrative edicts. He never knows when the President (governor, mayor) will complicate his plans with a sur prise executive order such as a sudden imposition (modification, removal) of wage and price con trols. Economic complications do not call for more government inter vention. Rather, they call for in creased freedom in which to work out the complex relationships that naturally arise in an advanced economy.

IDEAS ON LIBERTY BECAUSE FAILURE is repugnant to a welfare-oriented society, we see continued efforts made to put a floor under everything. This includes a spreading attempt to bolster up faltering busi ness firms or even whole areas or industries by government grants, loans, subsidies, defense contracts, and the like. Ironically, the greatest danger to our economic system today lies not in a direct attack on profits, but in a well,-meaning effort to insure everyone against failure. To put it bluntly, this means subsidizing inefficiency; it is the antithesis of the effective opera tion of the profit motive. Weare in danger of losing one of our greatest freedoms: the freedom to fail. Profit and loss are two sides of the same coin; take away one side and you take away the whole coin. Our great est economic asset is the right to invest private capital in the hope of making a profit, but at the risk of losing our shirt.

GEORGE CLINE SMITH ,;'i:,~J--? No-Fault Insurance ,~l .:_~ ;~'U ~::~ral Responsibility \:,ft-c:==:,,~... RIDGWAY K. FOLEY, JR. LEGAL SYSTEMS derived from the Anglo-American tradition histor ically impose liability upon a civil wrongdoer in a manner consistent with the premise that each man, being a morally responsible agent, carries with him the obligation to endure the consequences of his own choices and conduct. In legal parlance, a "tort" consists, of a civil wrong done by one man (or association of men) to another, either intentionally or negligently. Thus, if I strike you with my fist (battery) or run over your foot unintentionally with my automo bile (negligence), the law decrees that I should reimburse you, to the extent of your injury, in mon ey damages because I was deter mined, by judge or jury, 1 to be at fault and responsible for my acts. This system, which has worked Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., a partner in Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, practices law in Portland, Oregon. Portions of this article appeared under the title "The Doc trine of Fault: The Foundation of Ex Delicto Jurisprudence" in 36 Ins. Counsel Journal (No.3) 338-346 (July 1969).

486 well historically, becomes senseless if men are viewed as creatures not exhibiting the ability to choose, if man is not a purposive, acting being. In invidious ways, the civil law reflects the statist tendency generally permeating so ciety. This essay proposes to ex pose one aspect of this illiberal trend. Introduction: Voluntary Means of Risk Distribution Considering man's almost in finite capacity to inflict devastat ing civil injury upon his fellows, with catastrophic results to the" victims and to the tortfeasor's (negligent actor's) pocketbook, it should come as no surprise that civilization has witnessed a pro fusion of risk distribution plans and techniques. Private insurance forms the most common and ac ceptable plan, from the point of view of a voluntarist society. For a stated premium, XYZ Insurance Company contracts with actor A 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 487 that if A carelessly injures an other individual while operating A's automobile, or any other mo tor vehicle, within a given period of time, XYZ will not only defend any lawsuits commenced by the injured party against A but also will pay any money judgment the victim might recover from A up to a stated limit. The type and terms of these contracts in a free society find limits only in the imagination of mankind. The XYZ Insurance Company stays in busi ness and makes a profit by choos ing its risks carefully, by prompt and fair administration of claims, and by institution of safe driver campaigns and periodic vehicle in spections. A gives up part of his stored-up value (capital) to XYZ in exchange for the promise of the latter to distribute the risk of A's momentary inadvertence among others in society. The victim ap preciates the scheme for he is much less likely to come up with an uncollectible judgment against an insurance carrier compared to an individual actor whose assets may be limited.

1. Incipient Revolution in Automobile Insurance and Tort Law These myriad private insurance plans serve a free society well. As in other enterprises, state inter vention disrupts the logic and symmetry of liberty and causes dislocation of resources. In the negligence tort insurance field, state dislocation appears most often in the form of state-man dated insurance plans where (1) - every actor is required to carry liability insurance and (2) every policy is required to contain cer tain governmentally imposed pro visions. Such policies are often termed "no-fault" insurance or "basic protection" plans. Society cannot rationally de mand that every citizen carry in surance. The typical rationale as serts protection of potential vic tims as a reason. Yet destruction of freedom represents too high a price to pay for potentialities which may never come to pass. If an actor wishes to self-insure his own conduct, he ought not be de nied this choice.

Likewise, the state should not fit each insurance policy issued onto a Procrustean bed. The beauty of private risk distribu tion, from its onset at Lloyds Cof fee House in London, rests in its infinite variety and man's ability to tailor coverage to the needs of the day. Policies impelled by the state must be ge'ared necessarily to the lowest common denomina tor, disparaging insured and vic tim alike. The actor loses because his freedom flies away and he holds a mandated policy not nec essarily representative of his 488 THE FREEMAN August needs and wants, for which he pays a premium beyond that re quired by the free market. The victim loses. because· he often finds tortfeasors covered only to the statutory minimum limits, limits which may not fully recompense him for his injuries. The last decade bears witness to increased attempts to initiate compulsory automobile liability insurance on either state or fed eral governmental levels under the euphemism of "no-fault" insur ance. The term misleads. These plans - none of the proponents seem able to agree with one an other as to names, nature, or con tent - represent an immoral and coercive inroad into one of the few remaining citadels of free choice. The plans, by whatever label, are no responsibility insur ance plans and should not he dig nified by any more prestigious label.

Because of the hodgepodge of proffered plans, "no-fault" offers a difficult test of definitional and analytical ability. Simplified, the system would require each indi vidual to carry liability insurance which would reimburse the in sured in the event of injury by another up to a specified amount for out-of-pocket .expenses (e.g., medical bills, drugs, lost wages) and (under some plans) a limited specified amount for "pain and suffering" and future loss. No re covery could be effected from the negligent actor, no matter how heinous or careless his conduct, no matter how much harm he in flicted; tort actions against a wrongdoer would be abolished. Un der the present system, the tort victim may recover both his out of-pocket losses and his general damages (pain and suffering, fu tureloss) without limit from one who causes him harm. 2. Inappropriate Reasons Advanced for "No-Fault" This essay focuses upon the myriad "no-fault" plans offered but the focus rests upon one as pect most often ignored - the phil osophical or moral reason dispar aging this intrusion into personal freedom. Nevertheless, at the gen esis it seems appropriate to devote cursory attention to some of the reasons most commonly advanced in support of "no-fault" insurance plans. 2 (A) Unclog the Court: Propo nents of no-fault argue that auto mobile injury litigation clogs the courts, resulting in unconscion able delays, and that a new and speedy system is required. This claim lacks veracity. Overcrowding generally results from inefficient administration of justice, lazy judges, delaying counsel, and the great volume of nonautomobile 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 489 claims including Workmen's Com pensation appeals, criminal cases and the like. About 90 per cent of all automobile claims are settled without suit and less than 2 per cent proceed to verdict; approxi mately 15 per cent of the court's time is concerned with vehicle liti gation. 3 Antitrust cases and pro tracted criminal proceedings eat up much greater amounts of jurid ical time. Moreover, substitution of no-fault does not guarantee the end of controversy - victims will still contest about existence and extent of coverage, much as has occurred in Workmen's Compen sation litigation 4 in the past half century. Compensation proceed ings are normally contested out side the regular court system (with only appeals to the courts remaining) but the iceberg below the waterline manifests a plethora of hearing officers, evaluators, and investigative personnel, quite as tedious, slow, and cumbersome a system as the worst courts of gen eral jurisdiction. One need only look to Multnomah County, Ore gon, serving a metropolitan area of approximately one million per sons, to put the lie to this argu ment: the average length of time between filing a case and time of trial rarely exceeds 4 or 5 months.

Speedy justice can be done with out jarring the system or de nigrating indi vidual liberty. (B) InsuranC1e Rates Must Be Reduced: Proponents claim that rising insurance premiums can be lowered by no-fault plans. Since cost increases largely reflect a gov ernmental increase in the money supply and increased jury awards which reflect, in turn, the infla tionary trend, this reason lacks merit. Furthermore, states with modi fied no-fault plans experie.nce no dramatic cost reduction. Massa chusetts, the first state to adopt such a scheme, "has suffered a severe economic recession as a re sult of this socialization of auto mobile liability insurance" accord ing to Kathleen Ryan Dacey, As sistant District Attorney for Suf folk County. 5 Moreover, the Mas sach usetts experience demon stra tes once again that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch": the burden has been shifted and costs continue to sky rocket concomitant with increased losses .and governmentally spon sored inflation. Losses may be shifted between kinds of insurance carriers (e.g., from auto liability insurers to health and accident in surers) but someone pays the piper under no-fault. 6 (C) ~Pault System Discriminates Between Victims: ProP9nents con tend that in roughly equivalent cases, some claimants recover sub stantial payments, while others re490 THE FREEMAN August ceive little or nothing. Yet this fact, if true, does not justify trash-canning a system which re spects moral choice and has worked well for decades. The entire prem ise of this argument fails for, properly viewed, the cases cannot be roughly equivalent or they would have been treated as such.

The parties, or the judge, or the jury, decided that case A deserved one treatment and case B deserved another. The charm of a flexible system lies in its adaptability and the fact that it works well in a majority of situations. (D) The La,wyers Get Rich in the Fault System: Proponents claim that most claimants' cases in the fault milieu proceed under a contingent fee arrangement where the lawyer takes a percent age of the award if successful and nothing if the case is lost. Actu ally, the plaintiff's lawyer may suffer an out-of-pocket loss when he ~dvances costs for deposition reporters and expert witnesses for an impecunious client. 7 More saliently, the-contingent fee system effectively opens the door for claimants to participate in the system even if they lack funds. Absent such a plan, some injured persons would be forced to deal with their adversaries sans lawyers. Here, they diffuse the risk of loss by employing a professional who takes part of the risk. And, almost every lawyer around (and there are a great many around these days) would be more than happy to accept em ployment in bodily inj ury cases on a straight-time basis where the client pays the lawyer, win or lose, on an hourly' basis for the time actually expended on his behalf.

(E) Is the Fault System Ineffi cient? Proponents argue that the inefficiency and high overhead of the fault sytem costs too much, and too little of the claim dollar filters down for the victim. In the first place, the same can be said for much more complex kinds of legal claims: security law violations, professional malprac tice, products liability claims. Why single out automobile bodily in jury claims for different tre'at ment? In the second place, recorded history does not provide a single example of a governmental insti tution which operated a more effi cient and less costly operation than a private concern; there is no need to expect lightning to strike the automobile insurance field. Recur to Workmen's Com pensation claims: any fair anal ysis over the years will reveal that the overhead has not decreased with the imposition of the'govern ment system.

1973 NO-F'AULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 491 3. Advantage of the Present System. 8 An individual may seek insur ance or not as he sees fit. No-fault would negate this freedom of choice. An injured party may recover for his or her total loss - for all expenses, for p,ermanent injuries, for disfigurement, for grief. No fault would impose a rigid and limi ted recovery. Fault concepts recompense all persons whether employed or not. One who is not working may re cover little or nothing under many no-fault plans; the retiree, the housewife, the college student, all are penalized. The current system tends to charge premiums and distribute risk based on likelihood of harm. No-fault not only encourages bad driving and negligent conduct but also shifts the bad driver's cost to the good driver. It discrimi nates against commercial vehicle owners, against the lower salaried persons who cannot afford max imum insurance coverage, and against those producers who earn more than the maximum. In short, it discriminates against all who fail to fit Procrustes' bed.

Today, one can present his claim in court, favored with a constitu tional right to trial by jury. N0 fault would take away the right to have one's peers decide blame worthiness. 4. Retention of the Fault Concept A Nloral Reason The reasons advanced for no fault will not withstand rigorous scrutiny. A system which has withstood the test of time, one which serves a civilization well in most cases, should not be summar ily discarded. Yet beyond these rea.sonsexists a much more com pelling rationale impelling reten tion of the present system of per sonal responsibility - a moral rea son which supplies the justifica tion for placing the burden upon the a.ctor. The .remainder of this article considers various aspects of this rationale. As discussed at the outset, a plethora of currently emerging plans seek to revolutionize the set tlement of automobile accident claims and, incidentally, to ravage traditional tort concepts. These suggestions vary in detail but are linked by two comluon denomina tors: a drastic alteration of tort law by substitution of liability without fault (enterprise liabil ity) , and imposition of new, in voluntary methods of doing busi ness upon the insurance industry.

While the panoply proffered by the theorists of change contain many prop'osals which are beyond the scope of this paper (alteration of the doctrine of contributory negligence, change of the collat eral source rule, compulsory "ba492 THE FREEMAN August sic protection" insurance with op tional overlays for additional pro tection are common incidents) literature in the field abounds for the interested reader. 9 5. Check Your Premises: Beware 01 Professors Bearing Plans The concept of fault must be retained; it would be folly to alter the foundations of our tort sys tem. The attack levied is nothing less than an assault upon the fund amental axioms of individual lib erty. The fault system ultimately rests upon the tenet. of individual responsibility for personal action. If an individual is capable of self determination, and is limited only by his finiteness and the conse quences of his own volition, then it follows that the results of hu man conduct must be visited upon the actor. If one fails to conduct his activities carefully, and as a result injures another, the negli gent actor should reimburse the victim for his loss.

These, then are the premises of the fault system of ex delicto jur isprudence : man is a thinking, acting, creative being. lO Since no sound basis exists to exalt one man's judgment over that of an other where the choice pertains to the affairs of the latter, fairness and common sense demand that, as far as possible, each person be allowed to determine his own des tiny. To this end, man reaches his highest level of creativity and pro ductivity when his creative proc esses are unhampered by external restraints imposed by other men, acting singly or cooperatively. The free man, however, must bear the burden of his liberty, by ac cepting the legal, as well as the axiological, burden for his con duct. Self-determination requires self-restraint and personal re sponsibili ty.ll Oddly, the casualty insurance industry itself is rent asunder by countervailing tenets and inharmo nious plans for change, specifi cally in the field of automobile lia bility insurance prot~ction.l2 Elim ination of the fault concept and substitution of compulsory state sanctioned insurance will destroy an industry which must ultimate ly thrive or wither upon the basic precepts of private property, lim ited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. A voluntarist system permits the in surer to utilize its ingenuity in private risk diffusion by encour aging tailored coverage to fit spe cific individual needs.

6. Limitations Inherent and Apparent Two inquiries stand forth: (1) Does any justification exist for treating aut'omobile accident claims differently from other civil 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 493 injury claims? (2) Would removal of the fault doctrine also obviate deterrence to irresponsible con duct? Empirical justification was sought for support or assault on these propositions. The undertak ing proved fruitless, although there is general evidence available that legal sanctions do affect hu man behavior in the "desired" (coerced) direction.l 3 One search es in vain for reports, studies, charts, graphs, statistics or anal yses which "prove" that sanctions under the fault system deter mis conduct or that automobile acci dent cases merit disparate treat ment from other accidents. Moreover, a review of the lead ing proponents of enterprise lia bility and "basic insurance pro tection" reveals a similar lack of usable empirical 'data; the advo cates of change are no better pre pared to support their contentions than are defenders of the faith.

As a result, each advocate must assert his proposition and curry support by arguments. Included in the rationale are deductions ema nating from assumed empirical proof of the underlying pillars of both doctrine and anti -doctrine. For example, Flemming James, Jr 0' denigrates personal blame worthiness in the field of acci dents. 14 However, the psychologi cal studies cited in support of his grandiose comments are limited in value, diluted by age, and subject to criticism as to their underlying premises. 15 In final analysis, the issues pre sented may not lend themselves to "proof" under our present state of knowledge. But that does not in hibit a choice, for the opposing arguments can be analyzed with a view to determine which empirical assumptions most nearly accord with reality .16 7. Differential Treatment Justified? No sound reason exists for frag menting tort law into accident categories.

If negligence "torts" are pos.. ited as conduct of the same generic type, then no logical reason ap pears for segregation and discrim ination between the negligent au tomobile operator and the negli gent homeowner who fails to main tain his back steps. Certainly, as Prosser has indi cated' definition and classification of "torts" is not so simple; in deed, it might be less complicated to compartmentalize the various torts as fields of law instead of parts of the same field.17 Notwith standing this insight, there is no substantial difference between negligence torts; there is no valid reason to distinguish between neg ligent operation of an automobile, negligent omission to repair the 494 THE FREEMAN August back steps, and negligent ignition of a neighbor's hay field. If there is no substantial dis tinction between various kinds of negligent conduct, then each tort feasor should be treated identi cally, and not favored or disfa vored merely because he happens to drive an automobile. Equal treatment of tortfeasors and vic tims in negligence cas.es is de manded if the statement "we are a government of laws, not of men"

is more than a mere shibboleth, and if "equal protection of the laws" possesses any substantive meaning. From the victim's perspective, there is nothing inherently differ ent whether he is injured by auto, by tripping down some stairs, or by a negligently caused conflagra tion. If a tortfeasor's conduct is no more nor less reprehensible and the opportunity for harm to the victim is substantially identical, no logical reason appears for dis criminatory treatment. No reason exists supporting dif ferentiation between automobile accidents and other claims. There is no difference meriting diverse treatment from the perspective of victim or· tortfeasor ..Indeed, it seems unjust and nonegalitarian to accord different sanctions un der different rules based only on the instrumentality of the acci dent. Nonetheless, there have been proponents of separatism. The ad vocates of the Keeton-O'Connell type plans, in various guises, fit this mold. One of the more candid writers is Professor Flemming, who advocates retention of the present system for the "residuary area of inj ury incidental to ordi nary, commonplace activities."ls In this posture he aligns himself with Professor Ehrenzweig, who favors continued conventional neg ligence rules for "backyard cases"

involving little people.19 No attempt will be made at this juncture to delineate the various social insurance plans, since each varies with the program of the au thor . Generally, the avant-ga,rde tendency is to carve out particu lar areas for specific rules, and to leave a residual area for the "little people" to be governed by "con ventional" (semantically unclear) negligence concepts. Among the areas most commonly segregated for special attention are automo bile accident claims and product liability actions. What basis exists for specify ing that products liability or au tomobile ,accident claims shall con stitute the areas for blanket "com pensation without fault" treat ment? In all substantial premises, the justification is identical to the rationale of "enterprise liability." The arguments advanced (includ1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 495 ing appropriate variations) are nothing less than the juridical equivalent of the fuzzy political thinking which dominates statist political philosophies.

In brief, the enterprise liability proponents suggest that in speci fied categories (e.g., auto accident and products liability) the victim is unable to protect himself (a questionable premise considering the availability of individual insur ance plans 20 and the ability of the individual to avoid dangerous situ ations), and the enterprise inevi...; tably takes its toll of human sacri fices; therefore, having made the determination that it is a socially utilitarian enterprise with bene fits accruing to the enterprise and "society," the enterprise or so ciety (Le., "the not-at-fault por tions of society who pay taxes") should foot the bill for the unfor tunate victim. Large enterprises are able to diffuse losses into rela tively palatable chunks, through liability insurance or because of mere size. The cost is allocated to the overhead of the business (but the advocates forget conveniently that the ultimate payment is made by the consumer). The innocent victim 21 may have to seek welfare or leave his family destitute through no fault of his own unless the enterprise or society pays him.

Isn't it better that someone else (or many someone elses) pick up $5 (or $50, or $5,000) to amelio rate his loss? Let's all distribute the risk (let's all soak the rich). The mind boggles at the falla cies of enterprise liability. A com plete dissection of' the deception requires effort beyond the tem poral and spatial limitations of the treatise. 22 Some of the more flagrant trickeries in "enterprise liability" are obvious: (1) Is the victim "innocent"? Is it not just as likely that in a given number of cases the injured party is at least partially at fault? Perhaps he was participating in a dangerous but socially useful ac tivity too; shouldn't he pay for his loss because it is part of his "over head" and should be economically allocated? In only a few cases are we able to make the-assumption that the claimant is truly inno cent; only in these cases is the term "victim" semantically valid.

In the disputed case, this very value judgment may only occur after the fact of··trial. (2) If the loss is to be diffused, who decides the mode of diffusion? The Court? The legislature? The payor or the recipient? Who has the moral right to decide that C should pay A's loss: A, B, or C? or ABC? (Notice that ABC can outvote C.) (3) Is it true that those who benefit from an industry would bear the loss under any or all of 496 THE FREEMAN August the plans suggested for risk dif fusion? It is much more likely, given the current scheme of things, that the individuals who bear the loss will be people who have little or no contact with the particular industry, who are fault less in their own conduct, who merely wish to be left alone, and who happen to possess the re sources to pay the tab (and lack effective elective voice to prevent plunder of their property). The looter philosophy fails to discern this particular evil which is ap parent and inherent in any kind of risk adjusting or social engi neering.

Underlying all statist postulates and proposals is the arrogant as sumption that A can better live B's life for B than B can, and the concon1itant disregard for the fact that the user benefits most from increased productivity and effi cient use of natural resources. (4) Is it not more consonant with freedom, with the maximiza tion of individual choice and in dividual responsibility, to permit variation according to individual tastes? There are available or possible, in infinite variety, pri vate insurance plans for personal private protection of the "vic tim."23 He can bond with others and seek protection from a group insurer (e.g., major medical cov erage, accident and health insurance, disability coverage, income replacement insurance); he can secure private indi vid ual health, accident, disability, life and other types of coverage in infinite com binations and kinds. If insurance is not presently available in the desired form, it can be created in a free society. If protection of the individual and his family are im portant, shouldn't the individual protect his own instead of seeking state-imposed protection? The sole reason for exhorting state activity in any case is simply monetary (cost shifting) : A wants the state to act so that A (or B for whom A is concerned) need not pay the cost; instead C will pay most of the cost. It is unj ust to penalize the provident; a free system al lows free choice to insure or not to insure. Under a compulsory system, payment by the provident tends to benefit the improvident, or those persons who choose not to commit part of their assets to protective devices.

(5) Enterprise liability conve nietly overlooks economic reality. As a major premise, the advocates assert that the entrepreneur gains a profit from his enterprise and must pay for the human loss fac tor involved. A profit motive per se is not evil. The individual en gaged in the industry and the consuming public also gain from the enterprise, often more than 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 497 the entrepreneur. Any other con clusion is either intellectually dis honest or dismally stupid. There is a certain risk in just living and there is no reason to diffuse that risk. The end result of a nation alization scheme would be a dis tinctly lowered standard of living which would adversely affect the "innocent victims" in their roles as consumer, employee, and in habitant of the country.24. The fault system does not guar antee compensation to all accident victims; it was never intended to effect that result. Each citizen must bear the risk of some loss, without shifting it to third par ties. Man can properly diffuse losses by contract or voluntary engagement; he ought not be able to mulct his blameless neighbor unless that neighbor specifically caused the consequences by soci ally undesirable actions.

The success of the segregation attempt in singling out automo bile accident claims for basic· ("so cialistic" or "nationally imposed") protection, must rise or fall upon the enterprise liability concept in one of its guises. Enterprise lia bility does not accord with good morals, and fails to consider rele vant empirical assumptions which can be perceived by any observant individual possessing a modicum of common sense. Hence, the doc trine is empty. The retention of a traditional negligence system of identical sub stance for all types of claims is recommended primarily by the egali tarian concept that each per son engaging in substantially similar conduct should, for rea sons of justice, be treated simi 1arly. No sound reason exists to deviate from this norm. 8. The Deterrent Factor Fault-based tort liability deters dangerous, irresponsible and so cially undesirable conduct. Adop tion of a basic protection plan for automobile claims will delete the fault factor from this segment of tort law. Obviation of the fault concept will thereby attenuate or wholly destroy the deterrent fac tor. Deterrence is an admirable and valid goal of civil jurispru dence and should not be destroyed.

These assertions, in simple terms, state the fundamental premises of the traditional tort doctrine. If each statement is true, then it follows that the basic protection automobile insurance plans should be dismissed out of hand. Each premise has been chal lenged by articulate purveyors of the liability-without-fault doctrine. Deterrence has been downgraded or ignored as a reason for impos ing responsibility upon an indi vidual for his conduct.

498 THE FREEMAN August First, what is the position of the advocate of the fault system, stated in simple terms? It is truly no more than an a prio1'li tenet that reward and punishment meted out by a system of liability based upon fault serve (1) to deter the careless actor from acting care lessly again, and (2) to exemplify the pain attendant to carelessness so as to deter others within the ambit of knowledge from doing the same or similar act. 25 If I know that it is foolhardy to drive an automobile through the streets of a metropolitan area during business hours at 80 miles an hour, and if I further know that in so conducting myself I hold in my hands the lives and properties of others, as a moral man I may channel my conduct, thwart my own desires and slow my speed to a reasonable pace. But moral suasion may not be enough. If I further know that I am responsible to other parties whose lives, liberties and proper ties are damaged or destroyed by my unreasonable conduct, and that the law will sanction their claims against me, hopefully I will be persuaded to act more prudently.

Moreover, my neighbor, who might like to join in a race through the center of town, will also be dissuaded of the wisdom of such an endeavor if he sees that I am forced to pay a strict penalty to a person who is in jured by my misbehavior. In order for deterrence to work satisfactorily, it is necessary (1) that the standard be clearly speci fied, if not at the penumbra then at least at the core, and (2) that the penalty be sufficiently severe in contradistinction to the pleasure thwarted so that the ordinary hu man actor be disimbued with so cially irresponsible action. Two further implicit criteria exist, fun damental to all legal order: (3) the conduct deterred must be truly socially irresponsible and danger ous to the activities and lives of other persons - whimsical and use less laws are rarely obeyed, and disregard for law flows naturally from an overabundance of. regula tions; a few laws, reasonably based and strictly enforced, are generally sufficient for the order ing of society; (4) the standard to be obeyed must be known. 26 At present, no studies have been uncovered which factually prove or disprove the primary premise approving the value of deterrence.

Little empirical data exists sup porting abstract propositions. Moreover, any test, survey, or sta tistic would be subject to criti cism as to, inter alia, sampling technique and coverage. The second premise appears sat isfied. Admittedly, the third prem ise (a proliferation of laws) has 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 499 been savaged. Sufficient knowledge of the standard exists to satisfy the fourth premise. As to the first premise, it may be posited generally that it is just that the penalty extracted from the tortfeasor equal the amount of money necessary to compensate the injured party for his dam ages. The penalty in this respect does not appear untoward and should be sufficient in the ordi nary instance to deter. In criminal law, deterrence is not achieved by $50 fines.27 But in civil law, where the actor knows that if his fault causes harm he is liable to the ex tent of the loss (a sliding scale based upon the foreseeable conse quences of his conduct) he is more likely to take adequate precau tions. The standard of conduct to which the actor is held may be subject to some salutary chal lenge, but it encompasses the only workable and just criterion avail able, given the existent state of man's knowledge.

Previous allusion has been made to the difficulty of marshalling sci entific support for a moral con cept. 28 Whether or not the fault doctrine provides a direct deter rent effect is a matter of much speculation but little proof. 29 While an individual may not necessarily become a more pru dent driver solely because he fears the consequences of h.is negligence, he often purchases insurance' to protect himself against the con tingency of a loss or laws uit. By this type of purchase, drivers vol untarily provide, a pool out of which an inj ured party can re cover. This type of compensation fund, more consonant with the scheme of freedom, exists with out the coercive force of the state's further meddling in man's affairs (as would neecssarily occur in the basic protection cabal). Initially, the proponents of the doctrine of basic protection or lia bility without fault ignore the fact that their type of insurance protection could be purchased by any ready buyer in an open mar ket without state compulsion. Cov erage could be tailored to indi vidual needs. 30 Harper and James devote con siderable time to the problem; in fact, their eleventh chapter is en titled "The Accident Problem and Its Solution."31 Without benefit of citation or proof, they charge that the traditional fault system causes court congestion. 32 It is unfair and invalid to assign the fault concept in automobile claims as the cause of court congestion. 33 Accident proneness also has been proved to the satisfaction of Harper and James. 34 In other words, a. few individuals tend to have a. higher percentage of acci500 THE FREEMAN August dents than random sampling would demand. In brief, the authors con clude that there are many indi vidual causes of accidents, e.g., stress, fatigue, mental or physi cal inabili ty to reach a careful standard, which are not subject to the deterrent effect of juridical penalties. Once again this conten tion lacks proof and validity. Rea son suggests contrary assumptions and arguments, and empirical proof is nonexistent. 35 Further, the proponents of lia bility without fault are fond of asserting that the fault doctrine worked well in the early nineteenth century and fit the concept of in dividualistic morality, as if this concept were unfitted for 1973, and as if the two centuries dif fered so greatly in this regard. 36 Advocates of liability without fault assault deterrence on several counts.

First, it is urged that the ob jective standard of the reasonably prudent individual has attenuated the deterrent factor. 37 Many peo ple are assertedly incapable of achieving the status of the "rea sonable man" ; yet the law calls upon them to act in a manner for eign to their physical, physiologi cal and mental abilities. Applica tion of a subjective standard might deter, but one is undeterred if he is held to a standard with which he· cannot comply. The appropriate rebuttal to this argument is to examine the valid ity of its premises. Accuracy may exist in a small number of cases. But no one can prove or disprove the ability or inability of the vast majority of the American popula tion to achieve an objective stand ard of care. The standard is a fluid and shifting one. And does not Professor J ames miss the point, that the ameliorative effects of the fact finder upon one who "cannot" reach the standard ef fectively obviate this argument?

Second, Professor James con tends that legal fault has already been diluted, and the deterrent factor lessened by the very nature of the jury system. 38 This, too, is an unprovable proposition. It pre supposes that juries always as sume that defendants in automo bile liability cases are insured, that the insurance exists for the purpose of compensating the vic tim, and therefore the standard of fault is meaningless. 39 The as sumption lacks both support and validity. Acceptance of the prop osition requires a determination that jurors willfully violate their oath; no practicing lawyer be lieves that this occurs often. Third, it is claimed that the de terrent effect of fault has been severely diluted by the advent of the vicarious liability.40 Those who 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 501 pay are not the tortfeasors; in stead they are the owner of the business, the employer of the neg ligent servant, or the insurance company which bargains to pro tect the harm-causing driver. To deter A, A must be punished if he does not act in accord with the standards, and A is hardly pun ished if B pays for A's conduct.

The argument appeals super ficially.41 However, the assertion oversimplifies the fact. The reali ties of excess insurance problems which face the practicing attorney belie the validity of the contention. For example, in Oregon, minimum insurance limits have long been $5,000 each person, $10,000 each accident; in 1968 they were raised to $10,000 each person, $20,000 each accident. Yet many serious accident cases are filed each year where the prayer far exceeds min imum limits although many driv ers purchase only that required coverage. Certainly there is an ex posure to harm and a penalty to the "true tortfeasor" where the prayer or the recovery, or both, exceed available insurance pro tection. If nothing more, there are additional costs and fees incurred by the driver who secures inde pendent legal counsel to protect his uninsured interest. Moreover, automobile insurance rates are partially based upon driving records and prior adherence to standards of care. The careless driver will pay a premium proportionately higher than the careful driver in most cases under the fault system. Merit driving rating plans applied by many in dustries deter, as does the specter of the assigned-risk pool. Even so strong an advocate of enterprise liability as John G. Flemming rec ognizes the existence of this type of deterrent. 42 He admits that premiums based upon accident rates may well deter, the same as potential loss of assets, loss of driving or automobile privileges, and the suggestions of the acci dent-prevention teams sent forth by insurance companies.

Moreover, inconvenience deters. The allegedly negligent driver is greatly inconvenienced when he is sued, even if the prayer is less than his policy limits, because the tortfeasor must be a named party to the action, he may be deposed, and he may spend days in court in the uncomfortable position of party and witness. As a conse quence, he will lose free time or wages, and all in all will find his daily routine disrupted. Allied with this last argument is the contention that, like vicari ous liability, the advent of wide spread liability insurance has weakened the deterrent factor be cause the true tortfeasor does not bear the risk of loss. The forego502 THE FREEMAN August ing rebuttal applies with equal fervor here. Furthermore, it is un acceptable to assume that normal individuals alter driving patterns from good to wicked because they contract with a third party to pass on the financial burden.

Fourth, proponents of the "non deterrence" position assert "enter prise liability" arguments to ad vance their position. 43 For ex ample, both James and Calabresi contend that appropriate econom ic resource allocation demands that the industry bear the cost of harm as a portion of overhead. This sophist argument fails upon analysis of the maj or premises: the enterprise does not cause the harm - human actors cause the harm because of their conduct, their failure to act reasonably. The resource allocation assertion begs the question and assumes validity of social engineering. Moreover, it is unmeritorious to say that victims of strict liability are "ill-equipped" to protect them selves. 44 Who can better determine the desirability of a specific course of conduct than the· actor? Fifth, the liability-without-fault claque claims, curiously, that the fault system is ineffectual because there is no necessary relation be tween the extent of fault and the extent of· loss.45 This contention really is not a nondeterrent argu ment (unless it is intended to mean that one will think the law unj ust and therefore not be de terred if he is forced to pay a large amount for a sman fault) ; actually it is an axiological argu ment, and a faulty one' at that.

The fault doctrine can be defend ed on the basic tenet that it is just that a person bear the conse quences of his own acts; no more, no less. Oddly enough, the authors of the Keeton-O'Connell plan are not so likely to dismiss deterrence' with a mere passing glance. In stead they tend to follow Profes sor Calabresi's distinction be tween general and specific deter rence. 46 Keeton, however, feels that deterrence is diluted because most people will not admit fault, even to themselves. 47 The practic ing lawyer perceives a contrary tendency; many people, because of the sympathetic nature of human character, admit fault where none really exists. The theoretical bases of the en tire subject of deterrence are ana lyzed by Glanville Williams. 48 Al though he contends that the de terrent theory does not provide a perfect rationale for a fault-based tort concept,49 Williams recognizes the existence of deterrence as at least a partial pre,mise. For ex ample, he contends that employers 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 503 now take numerous precautions for employee safety unknown pri or to the Factory Acts. 50 Is this not a type of deterrence?

9. Liability Without Fault Means Liability Without Responsibility Fault is fundamental to free dom. Retention of traditional jur isprudential concepts exhorts man to be more ordered, more careful of his voluntary actions, and to regard his neighbor when plan ning conduct. Imposition of indi vidual responsibility upon the actor to pay the price of careless conduct tends to demand compli ance with reasonable rules of care and thus promote harmony in a crowded world. No reason exists to fragment tort law and discrim inate against the automobile ac cident case. Acceptance of liabil ity without fault in the arena of automobile accident litigation can cure no evil - only produce more ills. ~ • FOOTNOTES • 1 The administration of common jus tice - the settlement of civil disputes between members of society - forms one of the restricted areas where the state may act justly, where governmental coercive force may be properly applied.

For a discussion of the appropriate forms and uses of law consonant with a liber tarian society see, Foley, Ridgway K., Jr., "Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law" 21 Freeman No.6, 357-378 (June 1971), and 7 Will. L. J. 396-418 (Dec. 1971) . 2 Several of these reasons appear in different guises and, where appropriate, commen t will be directed to them again la ter in this article. 3 Obviously, these figures will vary from county to county. See, Hodash, Frederic, "Auto Com pensation Plans and the Claims Man," 549 Insurance L. J. 816 (1968) Experi ence with maritime and employment compensation schemes reveals no real benefit to the victim nor corresponding reduction in overhead and none is to be anticipated in the automobile accident arena. A general critique of specific basic protection shortcomings may be found in Knepper, William E., "Alimony for Accident Victims?" 15 Def. L. J. 513 (1966). See also DRI News Release Janu ary 9, 1969: "DRI urges investigation of lost savings claims by no-fault pro ponents."

4 Workmen's Compensation Law off ers a statist species of liability without fault. A workman injured on the job must be paid a limited amount for lost wages, medical expenses, and any per manent or temporary disability by his employer (or the employer's insurer) without regard to fault causing the acci dent. Even if the employee foolishly causes his own injury, his employer suff ers the ultimate loss. 5 See 18 American Bar News No.3, p. 7 (March 1973). See also Trial Magazine (April 1972). 6 No comprehensive treatment of the Massachusetts rule is intended; that state is selected merely because it pro vided the harbinger of no-fault plans. 7 For a critique of no-fault from the plaintiffs' bar, see "No-Fault Insurance - A Primer," American Trial Lawyers Association, Cambridge, Massachusetts; this brochure answers the several argu ments advanced in favor of no-fault in summary fashion.

The defense bar has also published a monograph which considers several of the problems in modern tort law and recommends reforms. See, "Responsible 504 THE FREEMAN August Reform - An Update" (The Defense Re search Institute, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis consin) Vol. 1972 (No.3). While not directly concerned with no-fault insur ance, this treatise offers some interesting comments relating to the questions posed here. 8 Reasons for the retention of fault in our juridical system are touched upon only cursorily in the text. They may be classified as axiological, praxeological, economic, political, pragmatic, and his torical. Perhaps the most cogent ration ale is essentially philosophic or moral. See, e.g., Williams, Glanville, "The Aims of the Law of Tort," 4 Current Leg. Prob. 137 (1951) passim. It is note worthy that one of the severest critics of the traditional system admits that the concept worked well in the nineteenth century, but is somehow inexplicably un suited for today. See, James, Flemming, Jr., "An Evaluation of the Fault Con cept," 32 Tenn. L. Rev., 394 et seq. (1965).

Perhaps Professor James is a victim of the "golden century syndrome" which erroneously presupposes a perfect con dition of liberty existent in the Jack sonian United States. See Note 1, op. cit. 9 Few controversies have provided such a fertile field, attracting all manner of commentators. A mere bibliography would overextend this treatise. The effi cient force, if not the harbinger of basic protectionism, is the work of Pro fessors Keeton and O'Connell, which reached its apex in Keeton, Robert E. & O'Connell, Jeffrey, Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim, (Little, Brown & Com pany, 1965). No enduring critique is in tended of the Keeton-O'Connell plan or, indeed, of any of the several other ha rangues which alternately mock or plag iarize "basic protection." Different posi tions are displayed in such articles as: Knepper, William E., "Alimony for Acci dent Victims?" 15 Def. L. J. 513 (1966); Hold, William E., "Critique of Basic Pro tection for the Traffic Victim - The Kee ton-O'Connell Proposal," 541 Insurance Law Journal 73 (Feb. 1968); Kluwin, John A., "Analysis of Criticisms of the Fault System" 534 Insurance Law Journal 389 (July 1967); and Vondra, M.

Lyn, "A Revised Plan for Protective Automobile Insurance," 553 Insurance Law Journal 7 (Jan. 1969). Numerous articles have appeared in the American Bar Association Journal, e.g., "New Hope for Concensus in the Automobile Injury Impasse," 52 A.B.A.J. 533 (1966); "Con trol of the Drinking Driver: Science Challenges Legal Creativity," 54 A.B.A.J. 555 (1968); "Basic Protection: A Rebut tal to Its Critics," 53 A.B.A.J. 633 (1967); "Basic Protection and Court Congestion," 53 A.B.A.J. 926 (1966). See also, Keeton, Robert E. & O'Con nell, Jeffrey, "Alternative Paths To ward Nonfault Automobile Insurance," 585 Insurance Law Journal 517 (Oct. 1971), Quinn, Neil K. & Allen, Fredrick W., "Analysis of the Illinois Plan: Pro vision, Practice and Problem," 588 In surance Law Journal (Jan. 1972) ; Korn blum, Guy 0., "No-Fault Automobile In surance - Comparison of the State Plans and the Uniform Act," 8 The Forum 175 (No.2, Winter 1972); Rokes, Willis Park, No-Fault Insurance (Insurance Press, Inc., Santa Monica, California 1971).

An interesting series of articles ap pears in the August 1968 issue of the In surance Law Journal: Blum, Walter T. & Kalven, Harry, Jr., "A Stopgap Plan for Compensating Auto Accident Vic tims," 547 Insurance L. J. 661 (August 1968); Pretze, Paul W., "The Adversary System is Challenged," 547 Insurance L. J. 671 (Aug. 1968); and Logan, Ben H., "Insure the Driver," 547 Insurance L. J. 682 (Aug. 1968). This list is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive; it is in tended to display several points of de parture which, together with the specific citations herein, will provide an over view of the issues raised and answers offered. 10 See, e.g., von Mises, Ludwig, Hu man Action (3d rev. ed., Henry Regnery Company, 1966) passim. 11 See my article, Note 1, op. cit.; see also Foley, Ridgway K., Jr., "The Ra tionale for Liberty" 23 Freeman No.4, 1973 NO-FAULT INSURANCE MEANS NO MORAL RESPONSIBILITY 505 222-229 (April 1973), wherein these premises are discussed and amplified.

12 See, e.g., "American Insurance As sociation Proposes No-Fault Auto Cov erages," 69 Best's Insurance News (Property-Liability Edition No.8) 10 et. seq. (December 1968). Compare, Kem per, James S., Jr., "Automobile Insur ance: The Politics of Surrender" (Kem per Institute Reports 1968) and Wise, Paul S., "Automobile Insurance: Which Road Toward Reform?" (American Mu tual Insurance Alliance 1968). 13 See particularly, Barmach and Payne, "The Lackland Accident Counter measures Experiment," Accident Re search 665 (1964, Haddon, et al), and the California Department of Motor Vehicles 1965 "Report on the Relationship be tween Concurrent Accidents and Cita tions." Compare Brainard, "The Psycho logical Aspects of Highway Safety," Trial 55 (Aug.jSeptember 1968). 14 See, 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, 752, et seq., § 12.4; see also, James, op. cit., Note 8 at p. 397. 15 These reveries might be challenged as to breadth of study, form of inquiry, and mode of analysis. The potential of statistical error and the chance of misin terpretation of empirical data always be sets this character of undertaking. The problem of the inherent research bias is considered in Hold, William T., "Critique of Basic Protection for the Traffic Vic tim - The Keeton-O'Connell Proposal,"

541 Insurance Law Journal 73, 80 (Feb. 1968) . 16 This admission is far removed from a capitulation on the fundamental issue of fault versus liability without fault, since the limitations inhere primarily in the "deterrence" aspect of the problem. Even absent a deterrent effect, the fault doctrine is justified on other bases not subject to these shortcomings. See Sec tion 3 and Note 8, supra. 17See, e.g., Prosser, Torts (3d ed 1964) p. 1, et seq., § 1. 18 See Flemming, John G., "The Role of Negligence in Modern Tort Law," 53 Va. L. Rev. 815, 849 (1967). 19 Comment, "Loss-Shifting and Quasi Negligence: A New Interpretation of the Palsgraf Case," 8 U. Chi. L. Rev. 729 (1941) . 20 Brainard, Calvin H., "A No-Fault Catechism: Ten Basic Questions Raised and Answered," 583 Insurance Law Jour nal 317, 318 (June 1972), points out that no-fault really is first-party coverage, an ancient concept. Of course, it loses much flavor when the state mandates the par ticular insurance plan.

21 Note the assumptions and the calcu lated use of the emotive term. 22 A cursory attempt (in slightly dif ferent context) to expose the specious thinking underlying this concept appears in Foley, Ridgway K., Jr., "A Survey of the Maritime Doctrine of Seaworthiness," 46 Or. L. Rev. 369, particularly 397-399, 419-420 (1967). 23 See Note 20, op. cit. 24 Perhaps the pertinent question is, what will the looters do when there is no one left to loot? 25 See general studies in Note 13, supra. Part of the underlying attack lev ied against the existent system is a tacit or explicit belief that "fault" is an "im possible" concept. If the critics are cor rect, then the precept should be discarded but if it is merely difficult of application, then by all means let us retain fault and labor to improve our system. Fault is alive and well. As found by arbitrators (judges or juries acting as fact-finders), fault is a community value judgment as to the propriety or impro priety of conduct and evaluation of the loss caused A by B for which B should recompense A.

26 See Williams, Glanville, "The Aims of the Law of Tort," 4 Current Leg. Prob. 137, 150 (1951). 27 Witness the proliferation of prosti tution and gambling. 28 Blum, Walter T. and Kalven, Harry, Jr., "Public Law Perspectives on a Pri vate Law Problem." 31 U. Chi. L. Rev. 641, 646 (1964); Blum, Walter T. and 506 THE FREEMAN August Kalven, Harry, Jr., "The Empty Cabinet of Dr. Calabresi," 34 U. Chi. L. Rev. 239, 270 (1967). 29 See Notes 14 and 15, supra, and ac companying text. 30 Some of the fuzzy thinking pene trating this position and obscuring realty is discussed, supra, Section 7. See Also Note 20, op. cit. 31 See 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, 729 et seq., § 11, et seq. 32 I b'id., at page 734. 33 An excellent example of an uncon gested court in a metropolitan area is Multnomah County, Oregon, serving a metropolitan population approximating 1 million persons. The average lapse be tween filing of the complaint and trial date approximates 4 to 5 months in the court of general jurisdiction; the federal district court in this district is likewise current. In fact, our federal judges are frequen tly called to other parts of the country to bring their dockets current.

Perhaps there would be less court con gestion if bench and bar worked together to alleviate the true causes thereof. The "court congestion" assertion has been overstated; automobile accident liti gation has not increased apace with the urbanization of society. Defense counsel have gathered statistics derogating the argument to its rightful place in the juridical ash heap. See, e.g., statistics collected by the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel. 34 Ibid., § 11.4. 35 Ibid., Footnote 35 (pp. 741...742) summarizes an interesting exchange be tween Professor Jaffe and Professor J ames on the moral aspect of James' po sition. Prosser does not go into the detail found in Harper & James; he baldly as serts: "The idea of punishment, or of discour aging other offenses, usually does not enter into tort law, except insofar as it may lead the courts to weight the scales somewhat in favor of the plaintiff's· in terest in determining that a tort has been committed in the first place. * * *."

Prosser, Torts (3d ed) 9 § 2. In discussing the factors which affect tort liability, ibid. 16, et seq., § 4, Prosser does examine the moral aspect of the de fendant's conduct and speaks in terms of prevention and punishment. He defers to Glanville Williams on the subject of de terrence.Ibid. p. 23, n. 73 (see, infra). 36 See, e.g., Flemming James, Jr., "An Evaluation of the Fault Concept" 32 Tenn. L. Rev. at 394 (1965). See note 4, supra. 37 Ibid., 32 Tenn. L. Rev. at 395-396. 38 Ibid., at 397. 39 Ibid., at 396. 40 Ibid., at 395-396. 41 The writer believes the untoward extension of vicarious liability (liability of A for consequences of B's acts) is poorly conceived, but defense or attack on that system exceeds the scope of this article. 42 John G. Flemming, "The Role of Negligence in Modern Tort Law," 53 Va. L. Rev. 815, 825 et seq. (1967) Professor Robert C. Cranston (University of Mich igan Law School) suggests that the strongest deterrent effects of civil liabil ity are discernible in the operation of the automobile insurance system.

43 Gp. cit., Note 35, supra, at 400; see also Calabresi, op. cit., passim,. see Sec tion 7, supra. 44 See Flemming, op. cit., Note 42 at 822. 45 See, e.g., Flemming, op. cit. Note 42 at 832. 46 Calabresi, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 713 et seq. See Robert E. Keeton "Is There a Place for Negligence in Modern Tort Law?" 53 V. L. Rev. 886, 888 et seq. (1967). 47 See, e.g., Keeton, ibid., 890 et seq. 48 Williams, Glanville "The Aims of the Law of Tort," supra,4 Current Leg. Prob. 137 (1951). 49 Ibid., at 146. 50 Ibid., at 149. The assertion is ac cepted as valid, arguendo. The causal re lationship between Factory Acts and im proved safety practices may not be ac curate.

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK I STARTED reading Leonard Read's Who's Listening? (Foundation for Economic Education, $4.00 cloth, $2.50 paper) in the middle of the Watergate uproar, when any men tion of listening suggested tele phones, not face-to-face conversa tion. Watergate was, of course, a seeming irrelevance, but could I help it that Mr. Read got me to thinking about it in the light of what he calls the "freedom philos ophy"? Suddenly, while meditat ing on Mr. Read's formulation of a Law of Readiness, it popped in to my quite ready mind that a tapped telephone is an adulterated good, an interference with free market choice that is all the worse when government, whose agents should be· busy protecting the con sumers of telephone service against crooks who would invade their privacy, is the prime culprit in the tapping. It is this sort of illumination that Mr. Read provokes. He would JOHN CHAMBERLAIN I be the first to admit that he stands on the shoulders of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Carl Menger and other great economic thinkers of the past, but he performs his own unique role in moving the thinking of his intellectual heroes beyond economics into general philosophy.

Take the Read Law of Readi ness, for example. He disclaims that the discovery of the Law is original with him. And, indeed, the Law is implicit in Bastiat's famous passage about the ability of the principle of free exchange to supply a million people in Paris with the necessities and amenities of life without anybody planning and directing everything from a central conning tower. Bastiat talks about "this secret power" that brings supply and demand in to a relationship without arbitrary decision by bureaucrats or elected officials. He marvels that the light of self-interest, when left free of 507 508 THE FREEMAN August hindrance, could bring what is necessary each day to a gigantic market without either choking it or leaving it undersupplied. A mysterious Law of Readiness seemed to be at work, although Bastiat didn't frame it quite that way. It is Leonard Read who has given the law its proper name.

Like the Law of Gravity, it can be worked with without being quit~ understood. Readiness comes from a condition of inner and outer freedom. It might be phrased as the Law of Openness. If nobody stands in the way, someone, some where, will spring into action to satisfy a want. This is fundamen tal to understanding economic ac ion. But, as Read defines his Law of Readiness, it is also fundamen tal to the flow of ideas from mind to mind. Persons Not Vilified It is precisely because he is so certain that his ideas will reach others who are ready for them that Mr. Read preserves his al most preternatural calm. Read will attack the generality of men who want to lord it over others, but he doesn't single out any particular individual as a rascal. He attacks "flight plans" that depend on co ercion somewhere down the line, such as taxing our grandchildren to pay for our own contemporary frivolities, but he doesn't name the coercers. He doesn't. deride or vilify. Partly his method derives from his habit of humility, but there is more to it than that. He finds that anger or belittling gets peopleJs backs up. They flare out in self-defense - and in doing that they cease to listen. The Law of Readiness does not work for a man who has been hurt or embit tered by a jibe or a nasty epithet.

Since he believes that Society is comprised of "I's" and You's," Mr. Read doesn't believe theTe is such a thing as "social" justice. Justice can't be rendered to class es or groups in general, but only to each person in particular. "To each his own." It cannot be called justice to the individual if a man's substance is to be seized to pass on to other individuals who de mand rights as a "class." "Social justice" involves depriving others to gain one's own ends. It depends on legalized plunder. Organized Thievery So Mr. Read, without ever at tacking the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, gets his point across that welfare is organ ized thievery. In 1971 the Federal government spent $92 billion on "social welfare." This had nothing to do with private or voluntary charity; it was $92 billion taken out of the hides of people by the compulsion of taxation or the 1973 WHO'S LISTENING? 509 cheating involved in inflation. The believers in social welfare and so cial justice would argue· that mod ern complexities require coercive redistribution of wealth, but the world was just about as "modern"

in 1960 as it is now. How does one explain, then, our population could get along on $24 billion in "social welfare" in 1960 as compared to $92 billion in 1971? Social welfare expenditures are actually twenty nine times as high in dollar fig ures today as thirty-six years ago. Adj usted for the decline in the dollar's purchasing power, the fig ure would show only a sixfold in crease. The need to make such an adjustment is ill; itself a criticism of our policies. Mr. Read does not make a direct correlation between the rise in welfare expenditures and the debasement of the curren cy, but he hints at the connection when he says that if the trend in expenditures continues the dollar, sooner or later, will become worth less. And then what will HEW be able to use for money? One wishes, somewhat forlornly, that our politicians would ponder the Read Law of Readiness. Here we are on the brink of an energy shortage that has everybody yell ing for the government to do something! The trouble is that government has already done too much. It has controlled the price of natural gas, thus discouraging investment that might have gone into discovery and exploitation of new sources. It has frowned on oil imports, with the result that we have no deep-water unloading arrangements for the big new tankers. It has permitted a stupid law to keep oil' companies from building a trans-Alaska pipeline that would cut our dependence on Arab oil in half. It has not per mitted the construction of atomic energy plants. It has let the ecolo gists run rampant, forcing envi ronmental protection laws that have doubled the consumption of gas in the newest cars without really helping the atmosphere. (If you burn more gas, you auto matically get more pollution.) What Might Have Been If the Law of Readiness had been allowed to operate, plants and pipelines would have been built, spigots for deep-water tank ers would have been placed twenty miles offshore with connecting pipes running to new refineries on the mainland, and the Alaskan pipeline would have been in opera tion a couple, of years ago. Mean while, if the environment had suf fered, we would have learned something about cleaning it up.

The entrepreneurs were ready to dig up the necessary capital for new ventures, and the customers were waiting for cheaper prices.

510 THE FREEMAN August But, alas, our negative attitude brought the crisis upon ourselves. We can blame the politicians, and they should be blamed for not hav ing any sensei of statesmanship. But we should also blame our selves for electing them to office in the first place, and for not solv ing our problems without running to government. Leonard Read's book invites hundreds of applications of its basic thinking to contemporary problems. Mr. Read does not be lieve in singling out and scolding people who may be presumed re sponsible for creating the prob lems, but he surely can't object to analysis that might cause an oc casional villain to identify himself as such. When he likens the "pro moters" of such public works as The Gateway Arch, Urban Renew al, or moonshots" to the "mon archs of ancient Egypt," who used "slave labor" to build the pyra mids, he may not be naming names. But some people are sure to recognize themselves as the in dicated Pharoahs, which could be the beginning of wisdom for them.

~ THE RISE OF RADICALISM by Eugene Methvin (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1973) 584 pp., $11.95 Reviewed by: Allan C. Brownfeld FOR TOO LONG we have tended to group political philosophies and movements on a scale running from right to left; Communism on the outer fringe of the left with Nazism and Fascism at the ex treme right. The fact is that these move ments have far more in common than they do in disagreement. All three - Communism, Nazism, and Fascism - believe that it is possi ble for man, whom they hold to be perfectible, to create a perfect world. All three oppose the concept of God, or a force beyond man, and place man in the ultimate position of Creator. Since man is perfectible and man is also a God, there is no reason why a heaven on earth cannot be created. In what can only be described as an encyclopedic review of radi cal movements from the incep tion of the progenitor of them all, the French Revolution, until to day, Eugene Methvin, a member of the editorial staff of The Reader's Digest and a close observer of the subject about which he has writ ten, places these movements in the perspective of history and traces them to their philosophical root.

1973 OTHER BOOKS 511 Discussing the utopian fallacy which underlies modern radical ism, Methvin points out that, "Man has created centaurs, unicorns, satyrs, and mermaids - but he has never seen. one. And he has cre ated the post-revolutionary utopia. But he has never seen one of those either. Yet in its nnme he hns committed horrendous crimes." The radical - from Robespierre, to Lenin, to Hitler, to the variety at work today - sets out to de stroy the existing world order and remake it to his own plan. "If hu manity does not conform," the author points out, "then so much the worse for humanity - he will crush it ... This breed of radical turns all men into puppets for his own pleasure and gratification. And like all burners of heretics, he will destroy any sovereign .soul who dares breathe free." Compulsive utopians, when they get serious about politics, inevit ably deal with reality the way Procrustes, the legendary cruel robber-giant of Attica dealt with his victims. Procrustes would lure travelers to his home and when they would lie down on his bed, he lopped off as much of their limbs as was required to make their length equal that of his bed; or if they were too short, he stretched them. Hence, the word "procrus tean" has come to stand for the trait of reducing events of reality to fit preconceived forms of force or mutilation.

The Fascist and Nazi move ments which came to power in Italy and Germany came from per cisely the same radical root as did the Communist movement which gained power in the Soviet Union - and shared the same hostility to capitalism and to the concept of private property. Methvin notes that Mussolini, at the time of his switch from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914, "... was backing up to the point from which Karl Marx departed in the fall of 1843 when, as a young messianic phi losopher . . . he decided 'the pro letariat' would be the horse the intellectual could ride to glory. Mussolini, from the same point, decided that the 20th century re quired a revaluation and new con clusion: the revolutionary radical must ride the nationalist masses and build nationalist 'conscious ness' - instead. Again, no change in objectives, merely in propa ganda, myths and slogans. He simply substituted the myth of national solidarity for the myth of proletarian solidarity."

Mussolini made· a virtue of hav ing no program. Throughout his ascent to power, he experimented with slogans, always seeking the combination that would work. Ac cording to the author, "He fore shadowed the American SDS radi512 THE FREEMAN August cal Mark Rudd's famous 1968 an swer: 'First we will make a revo lution; then we will find out what for'." Mussolini in 1922 answered "Our program is simple: we wish to govern Italy. They ask us for programs, but there are already too many. It is not programs that are wanting for the salvation of Italy, but men and will power." The appeal used by Hitler in Germany was similar. "Hitler," notes Methvin, "used the slogan 'the broad masses' as frequently as orthodox Marxists referred to 'the working class.' This was his target audience - the same as Lenin defined in his basic works on propaganda and organization: 'All classes, every droplet of dis content.' "

Hitler and the Communists felt an affinity because, like them, he was a revolutionary. Methvin notes that, "No self-styled 'leftist' would have trouble accepting his views of revolution." The two revolu tionary movements - Communism and Nazism - drew on the same reservoirs of recruits. Reminiscing in 1941, Hitler recalled the famed Coburg street fight of Oc tober, 1922 in which he and 800 storm troopers routed the Com munists: "Later on the Reds we had beaten up became our best supporters. When' the Falange im prisons its opponents, it's commit ting the gravest of faults. Wasn't my party at the time of which I'm speaking composed of 90 per cent leftwing elements?" "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism," Hi tIer declared, "than separates us from it. There is, above all, revolutionary feeling . . . The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade-union boss will never be a National Socialist, but the Communist always will."

For both Nazism and Commu nism, it was the "bourgeoisie" which constituted the enemy. Those who believe the roots of so called "left" and "right" wing rev olutionary movements are anti thetical would do well to read Eu gene Methvin's book. They would learn a far different story. ~ the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.9. SEPTEMBER 1973 No Shortage of Gold Hans F. Sennholz 515 When money is politically managed instead of market-determined, the result is inflation and economic chaos. Down with NationalPriorities Let each pursue happiness in his own way at his own risk. Arthur S. Mode 523 Portraitof an Evil Man The world-impact of Karl Marx and his message. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 525 Hobson'sChoice Edward Y. Breese 533 Not the head politician but the individual citizen determines the nature of the economy and body politic. Th'e Limits of Credulity Roger Donway 537 An analysis of the dilemma of revisionist historians in their attempt to justify postwar foreign policy.

If I Were King To even Wish for power over others makes one a slave. Competition:Classroom Theory vs. Business Reality If consumers had no choice, anyone could manage a business. AWeary Dista,nce By the sweat of one's brow does his garden grow. Was Plato a Collectivist? Plato outgrew his youthful dreams of communal living. Economicsand the Press Why the press must be free of subsidies. Leonard E. Read Mark Peterson R. W. Demers John J. Roberts Brian Summers 547 550 555 557 564 Imitation R. J. Rushdoony 566 Imitation of the idle rich, while despising productivity and abundance, is a form of mass suicide. Book Review: "Eyewitness to History" by Isaac Don Levine Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding. 573 the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON·ON·HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government.

Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each. THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "Imitation."

HANS F. SENNHOLZ ~$HORTAGE MANY ECONOMISTS seem to agree on the virtues of the gold stand ard. It limits the power of govern ments or banks to create excessive amounts of paper currency and bank deposits, that is, to cause in flation. And it affords an interna tional standard with stable pat terns of exchange rates that en courage international trade and investments. But the same econo mists usually reject it without much hesitation because of its as sumed disadvantages. The gold standard, they say, does not allow sufficient flexibility in the supply of money. The quan tity of newly mined gold is not closely rela ted to the growing needs of the world economy. If it had not been for the use of paper money, a serious shortage of monDr. Sennholz heads the Department of Eco nomics at Grove City College arid is a noted writer and recturer on monetary and economic affairs. ey would have developed and eco nomic progress would have been impeded. The gold standard, they say, also makes it difficult for a single country to isolate its econ omy from depression or inflation in the rest of the world. It does not permit exchange rate changes and resists government controls over international trade and pay ments.

It is true, the gold standard makes it difficult to isolate one country from another. After all, the common currency that is gold would invite exchanges of goods and services and thus thwart an isolationist policy. For this rea son, completely regimented econo mies cannot possibly tolerate the gold standard that springs from economic freedom and inherently resists regimentation. It is true, the gold standard also exposes all countries that adhere to it to im ported· inflations and depressions. 515 516 THE FREEMAN September But as the chances of any gold in flationand depression that would follow such an inflation - are ex tremely .small, the danger of con tagion is equally small. It is small er by far than with the floating fiat standard that suffers frequent disruptions and uncertainties, or with the dollar-exchange standard that actually has inundated the world with inflation and credit expansion.

It must also be admitted that the gold standard is inconsistent with government controls over in ternational trade and payment. But we should like to question the objection that the newly mined gold is not closely related to the growing needs of business and that a serious shortage of money would have developed without the issue of paper money. In fact, this popular objection to the gold standard is rooted in several an cient errors that live on in spite of the refutations by economists. Gold in· History There is no shortage of gold today and there has been no such shortage in the past. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the needs of business will ever require more gold than is presently available. Gold has been an item of wealth and a medium of exchange in all of the great civilizations. Through out history men have toiled for this enduring metal and used it in economic exchanges. It has been estimated that most of the gold won from the earth during the last 10,000 years, perhaps from the be ginning of man, can still be ac counted for in man's vaults today, and in ornaments, jewelry, and other artifacts throughout the world. No other possession of man has been so jealously guarded as gold. And yet, we are to believe that today we are suffering from a serious shortage of gold and there fore must be content with fiat money.

Economic policies are the prod uct of economic ideas. This is true also in the sphere of monetary pol icies and the organization of the monetary system. The advocates of government paper and foes of gold are motivated by the age-old notion that the monetary system in scope and elasticity has to be tailored to the monetary needs of business. They believe that these needs exceed the available supply of gold, which deprives it of any monetary usefulness and thus makes it a relic of the distant past. The Monetary Needs of Business With most contemporary econo mists, the notion of the monetary requirements of business implies the need for an institution, organ ization, or authority that will de1973 NO SHORTAGE OF GOLD 517 termine and provide the require ments. It ultimately implies that· the government must either estab lish such an institution or provide the required money itself. These writers, in fact, accept without further thought government con trol over the people's money. To day, all but a few economists read ily accept the apparent axiom that it is the function of the govern ment to issue money and regulate its value. Like the great classical economists, they blindly trust in the monetary integrity and trust worthiness of government and the body politic. But while we can un derstand the faith of Hume, Thornton, and Ricardo, we are at a loss to explain the confidence of our contemporaries. We under stand Ricardo when ~e proclaimed tha t "In a free society, with an enlightened legislature, the power of issuing paper money, under the requisite checks of convertibility at the will of the holder, might be safely lodged in the hands of com missioners . . ."1 The English economists had reason to be proud of their political and economic achievements and confident in the world's future in liberty. However, it is more difficult to understand 1 Ricardo, David. Principles of Politi cal Economy and Taxation in "The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo,"

ed. by Piero Sraffa, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1951, p. 362. any such naive confidence today. After half a century of monetary depreciation and economic insta bility, still to accept the dogma that it is the proper function of government to issue money and regulate its value, reflects a high degree of insensibility to our mon etary plight. A Persistent Fallacy And yet, the world of contem porary American economics blind ly accepts the dogma. It is true, we may witness heated debates between the Monetarists and Keynesians about the proper rate of currency expansion by govern ment, or the proper monetary /fis cal mix of Federal policy. But when their squabbles occasionally subside they all agree on "the dis advantages" of the gold standard and the desirability of fiat cur rency. They vehemently deny the only alternative: monetary free dom and a genuine free market. The money supply needs no reg ulation; it can be left to the free market in which individuals de termine the demand for and sup ply of money. A person wants to keep a certain store of purchasing power, a margin of wealth in the form of money. It does not matter to him whether this wealth is rep resented by a few large units of money or by numerous smaller units with the same total purchas518 THE FREEMAN September ing power. And he is not inter ested in an increase in the number of units if such an increase con stitutes no addition to his wealth.

This is not to deny that people frequently complain about their "lack of money" or their "need for more money." What they mean, of course, is additional wealth, not merely more monetary units with smaller purchasing power. But this popular mode of expression probably has contributed to the spread of erroneous notions ac cording to which monetary expan sion is identical with additional wealth. Our present policies of in flation seem to draw public sup port from this primitive confu sion. ~ore than 200 years ago John Law was victim of this confusion when he stated· that "a larger quantity (of money) employs more people than a smaller one. And a limited quantity can employ only a proportionate number." It also made Benj amin Franklin denounce the "want of money in a country" as "discouraging laboring and handicraft from coming to settle in it." And it made Alexander Hamilton advocate currency ex pansion for the development of the "vast tracts of waste land."

But only additional real capital in the shape of plants and equipment can employ additional people at unchanged wage rates, or develop new tracts of land. It is true, even without additional capital, a mar ket economy readily adj usts to ad ditions in the labor supply until every worker who seeks employ ment is fully employed. But in this process of adj ustment wage rates must decline on account of the decling marginal productivity of labor. Monetary expansion tends to hide this wage reduction as it tends to support nominal wages, or even may raise them, while real wages decline. The "full-employment" econo mists, such as Lord Keynes and his followers, recommend mone tary expansion because of this very wage reduction. They correct ly realize that institutional rnalad justments may prevent a neces sary readjustment and thus cause chronic unemployment. The labor unions may enforce wage rates that are higher than the market rates, which inevitably leads to unemployment. Or political expe dience may call for the enactment of minimum wage legislation that causes mass unemployment. Under such conditions the full-employ ment economists recommend mon etary expansion as a face-saving device for both the labor govern ment and labor unions. But while it alleviates the unemployment, it causes a new set of ominous ef fects. It originates the economic boom that will be followed by an1973 NO SHORTAGE OF GOLD 519 other recession. It benefits the debtors at the expense of the cred itors. And while it depreciates the currency, it causes maladjustment and capital consumption and de stroys individual thrift and self reliance.

Consequences of Depreciation In fact, the effects of currency depreciation, no matter how ex pedient such a policy may be, are worse than the restrictive effects of labor legislation and union pol icies. Furthermore, monetary ex pansion as a face-saving device sooner or later must come to an end. If not soon abandoned by a courageous administration, it will destroy the currency. If it is aban doned in time, the maladj ust ments and restrictive effects of labor legislation and union policies will then be fully visible. No matter how ominous and ul timately disastrous this array of consequences of currency expan sion may be, it is immensely popu lar with shortsighted and poorly informed people. After all, cur rency expansion at first generates an economic boom; it benefits the large class of debtors; it causes a sensation of ease and affluence; it is a face-saving device for popular but harmful labor policies; and last but not least, it affords gov ernment and its army of politi cians and bureaucrats more revenue and power than they would enjoy without inflation. But all these effects that may explain the popularity of currency expansion do not prove the necessity of ex panding the stock of money for any objective reason. In fact, an increase in the money supply con. fers no soc,ial benefits whatsoever.

It merely redistributes income and wealth, disrupts and misguides economic production and, as such, constitutes a powerful weapon of conflict within society. In a free market economy, it is utterly irrelevant what the total stock of money should be. Any given quantity renders the full services and yields the maximum utility of a medium of exchange. No additional utility can be de rived from additions to the quan tity of money. When the stock is relatively large, the purchasing power of the individual units of money will be relatively small. And when the stock is small, the purchasing power of the individ ual units will be relatively large. No wealth can be created and no economic growth can be achieved by changing the quantity of the medium of exchange. It is so ob vious, and yet so obscured by the specious reasoning of special in terest spokesmen, that the print ing of another ton of paper money does not create new wealth. It merely wastes valuable paper re520 THE FREEMAN September sources and generates the redis tributive effects mentioned above.

Money is only a medium of ex change. To add additional media merely tends to reduce their ex change value, their purchasing power. Only the production of ad ditional consumer goods and capi tal goods enhances the wealth and income of society. For this reason, some economists consider the mining of gold a sheer waste of capital and labor. Man is bur rowing the ground in search of gold, they say, merely to hide it again in a vault underground. And since gold is a very expensive medium of exchange, why should it not be replaced with a cheaper medium, such as paper money? If gold were to serve merely as medi urn of exchange, new mining would indeed be superfluous. But it is also a commodity that is used in countless different ways. Its mining, therefore, does enrich so ciety in the form of ornaments, dental uses, industrial products, and the like. Gold mining is as useful as any other mining that serves to satisfy human wants.

The Law of Costs·Applies to Money Actually, the great expense of gold mining and processing as sures the limitation of its quan tity and therefore its value. Both gold and paper money are subject to the "law of costs," which explains why gold has remained so valuable over the millenia and why the value of paper money always falls to the level of costs of the paper. This law, which is so well established in economic literature, states that in the long run the market price of freely reproduc ible goods tends to equal the costs of production. For if the market price should rise considerably above cost, production of the goods becomes profitable, which invites additional production. When more goods are produced and offered on the market, their price begins to fall in accordance with the law of demand and supply. Conversely, if the market price should fall below cost and inflict losses on manufac turers, production is restricted or abandoned. Thus, the supply in the market is decreased, which tends to raise the price again in conformity with the law of supply and demand. Of course, the law of costs does not conflict with the basic principle of value and price.

Their determination originates in the consumers' subjective valua tions of finished products. The law of costs obviously is applicable to gold. When its ex change value rises, mining be comes more profitable, which will encourage the search for gold and invite mining of ore that hereto fore was unprofitable because of low gold. content or other high 1973 NO SHORTAGEOF GOLD 521 mining costs. When additional quantities of gold are offered on the market, its exchange value or purchasing power tends to decline in accordance with the la.w of sup ply and demand. Conversely, when its exchange value falls, the op posite effects tend to ensue, thus discouraging further mining. A Delayed Reaction That paper money is subject to the law of costs is vehemently de nied by all who favor such money. After all, they retort, the profit motive does not apply to its pro duction and management. Its ex change value may be kept far above its cost of manufacture through wise restraint and man agement by monetary authorities.

It must be admitted that the law of costs works slowly on money, more slowly indeed than on other goods. It may take sev eral decades before the paper money exchange value falls to the level of manufacturing costs. After all, the fall is rather considerable, from the value of gold - for which the paper money first substitutes - to that of the printing paper. Few other commodities ever ex perience such a large discrepancy between market value and manu facturing costs when the law of costs begins to work. But this original discrepancy does not re fute the applicability of the law; it meTely offers a.n explanation for the length of time needed for the price-cost adj ustment. It must also be admitted that a certain measure of restraint pre vents an immediate fall of the paper money value to the level of manufacturing costs. Popular op position prevents the monetary authorities from multiplying the quantity of paper issue too rapid ly, which would depreciate its value at intolerable rates and lead to an early disintegration of the exchange economy.·In a democratic society these monetary authorities and their political employers would soon be removed from office and be replaced by others promising more restraint.

But no matter who manages the fiat money, the law of costs is working quietly and continuously. After all, the manufacturers do profit from a gradual expansion of the money supply. The profit mo tive is as applicable to money as it is to all other goods. The only difference between the manufac turer of fiat money and that of other goods is the monopolistic position of the former and the normally competitive limitations of the latter. Who would contend that the incomes and fortunes of central bankers and the jobs of many thousands of their employ ees do not provide a powerful mo tive for currency expansion? To 522 THE FREEMAN September stabilize the stock of money is to deny them position and power and thus income and wealth. Political Motivation The profit motive for fiat money expansion is even stronger with the administration in power and thousands of politicians seeking the votes of their electorates. Elec tion to high political office usually assures great personal fortune, prestige, and power, and success ful politicians quickly rise from rags to riches. But in order to be elected in a redistributive conflict society, commonly called the wel fare society, the candidate for po litical office is tempted to promise his electorate any conceivable ben efit. It is true, he may at first pro pose to tax the rich members of his society whose few votes may be ignored. But when their in comes and fortunes no longer yield the additional revenue needed for costly handouts, called social ben efits, the welfare politician resorts to deficit spending. That is to say, he calls for currency expansion that facilitates the government ex penditures that hopefully win the vote and support of his electorate and thus assure his election. When seen in this light, the profit motive is surely applicable to the manu facture of paper money.

Or, the politicians in power con duct full-employment policies through easy money and credit expansion. In search of the pop ular boom that would assure their re-election, they spend and inflate and thus set into operation the law of costs. Who would believe that such, policies are not moti vated by the personal gains that accrue to the politicians in power? But this profit motive must be sharply distinguished from that in the competitive exchange econ omy. When encompassed by com petition, the motive is a powerful driving force for the best possible service to the ultimate bosses, the consumers. It raises output and income and leads to capital forma tion and high standards of living. But in the case of the monopolistic manufacture of paper money by government authorities, the profit motive finds expression in cur rency expansion, which is infla tion. In the end, when the law of costs has completely prevailed and the exchange value of money equals the cost of paper manu facture, not only the fiat money is destroyed but also the indi vidual-enterprise private-property order. For inflation not only bears bitter economic fruits but also has evil social, political, and moral consequences. f) Down With National Priorities ARTHURS. MODE THERE IS a great deal of talk about "reordering our national priorities," and insistence that the public must speak up and be heard.

Seldom identified is the fact that the concept of "national priori ties" refers to objects of govern ment spending. Seldom noted is the fact that consumers, acting privately in a free market place, always have had a choice of pri orities. Whenever a person chooses product A over product B, he is ordering his priorities. Only busy bodies try to tell their friends what the latter's priorities - tastes values, preferences - should be: Therefore, the whole notio"n of setting "national priorities" re duces us, in effect, to a nation of busybodies. The concept of "national pri orities" implies that a choice ex ists between governmental funcDr. Mode is an M.D. in Stamford, Connecticut. tions of unequal importance. When government is restricted to its proper functions - the police func tion, the judicial function, and providing for the defense of the country - there can be no question of "priorities." Each of these functions is equally necessary if the preservation of individual rights is to be more than a slo gan. The army, the police, and the courts are all equally indispensa ble for such protection. To ask citizens to compare in importance these three functions with other government activities - for exam ple, the police function versus the development of a mass transit system - is to miss the difference between the essential and the non essent~al, between jobs that must be done by government to carry out its purpose and jobs that could just as well be done by private enterprise, with no loss of individual rights (with a gain in fact).

Note that the need for police judicial, and military services is' by the nature of the adversary: limited. But when the government is funding a whole raft of eco nomic, social, educative, and health programs, where the goals are al ways, by their nature, unlimited and nebulous (for example, "a decent life for every American"), there can never be enough re sources available to fund all of 523 524 THE FREEMAN September them as much as their backers would like, so some have to be funded less than others. But by what standard should the "mores" be selected? Answer: there can be no reasonable standard for select ing one over the other, because there is no common denominator by which to measure the relative values of such diverse endeavors as, say, cancer research and the Tennessee Valley Authority. So, arbitrary standards must be used. One way of picking priorities is to have an autocratic leader, but Americans have traditionally shunned overt totalitarians. A var iation of autocracy is unlimited majority rule - democracy - with dictatorial powers wielded by "the 51 per cent" rather than by the individual leader. Again, Ameri cans tradi tionally have had too much respect for the rights of the minority to permit unlimited ma jority rule. Another way of se lecting is by continual tests of strength between vying special in terest groups. This is what we have now. Less politely, we have gang warfare between different groups, each with a vested in terest in government funds. Med ical researchers lament when "their" funds are threatened. Wel fare rights groups lament any diminution of "their" funds. And so it goes. Of course, they do more than lament: they issue frightening forecasts, demonstrate, occupy buildings, start legal suits, and the like. In time, the politically strongest groups get their desires met first. This necessarily leaves many other groups (or nonor ganized individuals) with their desires for public funds unmet.

Therefore, the initial idea of giv ing the entire public a voice in setting "national priorities" is doomed to defeat. Some voices will be heeded, others will not. This is inevitable under our present system. Therefore, I say: down with "national priorities"; up with in dividual priorities! In the free and competitive market place, all voices can be heard. Each citizen arranges his own preferences, but not his neighbor's. Noone has his choices overridden by stronger political pressure groups. For in stance, a worker who wants to buy an automobile doesn't have to cancel his order because the mass transit lobby convinced legislators to make mass transit a "national priority," resulting in higher taxes that left the worker with insuf ficient funds to buy the car. In that case, the government can devote itself wholly to its three essential functions. It can serve simply as an umbrella, protecting us from the reign of force and fraud, as each of us pursues his own brand of happiness. , ERIK VON KUEHNELT-LEDDIHN IN THE "German Democratic Re public" they tell the story about a weary old man who tries to gain entrance into the Red Paradise. A Communist Archangel holds him up at the gate and severely cross questions him: "Where were you born?"

"In an ancient bishopric." "What was your citizenship?" "Prussian." "Who was your father?" "A wealthy lawyer." "What was your faith?" "I converted to Christianity." "Not very good. Married? Who was your wife?" "The daughter of an aristocratic Prussian officer and the sister of a Royal Prussian Minister of the Interior who persecuted the So cialists." Dr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn is a European scholar, linguist, world traveler, and lecturer. Sched uled for early 1974 release by Arlington House is his latest book, Leftism: From de Sade to Marcuse. "Awful. And where did you live mostly?" "In London." "Hm, the colonialist capital of capitalism. Who was your best friend ?" "A manufacturer from the Ruhr Valley." "Did you like workers?" "N"ot in the least. Kept them at arm's length. Despised them." "What did you think about Jews ?" "I called them a money-crazy race and hoped that they would vanish from the Earth."

"And what about the Slavs?" "I despised the Russians." "You must be a fascist! You even dare to ask for admission to the Red Paradise - you must be crazy! By the way, what's your name?" "Karl Marx." Man, indeed, is a very strange animal. This has been proved in 525 526 THE FREEMAN September many ways, but especially by the Marx-renaissance of recent dec ades. And yet the ideas of this odd and by no means constructive thinker are responsible all over the world for rivers of blood and oceans of tears. There can be no doubt that without the Commu nist challenge National Socialism, its competitor, would never have succeeded. Hitler boasted' to Rauschning that he was the real executor of Marxism (though "minus its Jewish-Talmudic spir it"); thus the macabre death dance of our civilzation in the past fifty years is due to that scurril ous, evil and unhappy man who spent half his life copying endless passages from books in the Brit ish Museum Library's reading room. Yet, with the exception of numerous pamphlets and the first volume of a book, he left nothing but badly assembled, unpublish able manuscripts and a mountain of notes. It was his friend Fried rich Engels who, with the most laborious efforts, had to bring them into shape.

New Interest from the Left This Marx-renaissance is due largely, but not solely, to the rise of the New Left which argues that the dear old man had been thoroughly misunderstood by the barbaric Russians. Also a number of men and women would be horrifled to be called Socialists or Communists but still have a soft spot in their hearts for a man who "at least was filled with compas sion for the poor and was an ad mirable father and a tender hus band." Surely, Marx was a com plex and contradictory person, and the renewed attention paid to him has produced a number of German books analyzing this most fatal figure of our times. Destructive ideas almost unavoidably derive from a destructive and - in this case - rather repulsive person. Karl Marx was born in Trier, of Jewish parents, in 1818. Only a few years earlier this Catholic bishopric was forcibly incorpo rated into the Kingdom of Prussia and-Karl Marx's father embraced the Lutheran faith of the Prus sian occupants. The children and the rather reluctant mother were baptized by a Prussian army chap lain only at a later date. The deism of Enlightenment was the true faith of Heinrich Marx who, however, was a cultured man and a devoted father. Young Karl fin ished high school-college with fly ing colors at the age of seventeen and set out to study law which he shortly abandoned for philosophy, eyeing the possibility of an aca demic career. He first matricu lated in Bonn, then in Berlin where he fell under the spell of the Heg elians. He received his Ph.D. from 1973 PORTRAIT OF AN EVIL MAN 527 the University of Jena, but re nounced the idea of becoming a professor. He also gave up writ ing his self-centered poetry and his dream of running a theatrical review. He then married into the Prussian nobility and established himself as a. freelance writer in Paris where he soon clashed with the more humanitarian French so cialists. He moved to Cologne, then returned to Paris and, finally expelled from Belgium as an ene my of the established order - he took a permanent abode in London where, with interruptions, he re mained until his death in 1883.

So much for the facts of his life. Within the last decade three books have been published in Ger man analyzing Marx psycholog ically. These tomes are very dif ferent in scope but they hardly vary in their judgments. The au thors belong to no "school" in particular, but all are serious stu dents of our "hero's" works and personal history. These books are Marx, by Werner Blumenberg, a small, but exceedingly readable paperback (1962), Karl Marx, Die Revolutioniire Konjession by Ernst Kux (1967) and Karl Marx, Eine Psychographie by Arnold Kunzli (1966). The last two have not been published in the United States and whoever is acquainted with the tremendous difficulties encountered by translations of learned books in the United States will not be surprised. The reasons for this state of affairs are not solely of a financial nature. This article is partly based on the work of these authors.

A Generation Gap Let us return to the personnli ty of the founder of socialism and communism. Even as a young man Marx does not appear to have been attractive. As a student he is lib erally provided with money by his affluent father, and spends his an nuity of 700 Thalers - a nice mid dle class income would then be around 300 Thalers - in a manner still unexplained. In spite of his love for Jenny von Westphalen he is an unhappy, "torn" person and writes in these terms to his father. Heinrich Marx ticks him off: "To be quite frank, I hate this mod ern expression - 'torn - used by weaklings .if they are disgusted with life merely because they can not get without effort beautifully furnished palaces, elegant carri ages, and millions in the bank." And in another letter the old gentleman, knowing his son only too well, tells him that he suspects his heart. not to have the saIne qualities as his mind. "If your heart is not pure and human, if it becomes alienated by an evil genius ... my life's great hope will be dashed."

528 THE FREEMAN September Karl Marx was impatient. In this connection it is worthwhile to have a look at his doctoral dis sertation on Epicurus, the .ma terialistic Greek philosopher who, as the founder of Epicureanism, made sensual pleasures the main purpose of life. Here Marx quoted several lines from Aeschylus in which Prometheus rants against the gods and ridicules the idea of being an obedient son to Father Zeus. The figure of Prometheus was, indeed, as Kux and KUnzli demonstrate one of the guiding stars. in Marx's life. The revolt against God (and the gods), the rebellion against the entire exist ing order, all quite natural in youth, remained his leitmot1iv un til his death. Marx, as our authors insist, never really grew up. His entire relationship to other peo ple continued to be juvenile, if not infantile. Marx's basic vision was that of a humanity freed from all oppres sion, repression and controls and thus open to an egotistic "self realization" - primarily of an ar tistic order. There was, as he be lieved, a Raphael, a Michelangelo, a Shakespeare, a Bach in every man. This great liberation, how ever, could only be achieved by the rule, the dictatorship of the poorest and most tyrannized peo ple, the working class. These were the ones, he thought, who could be indoctrinated to destroy the existing order entirely - and then to build a new one. They were ordained "by history" to carry out his murderous dreams.

The trouble was that he had no knowledge of the mind and men tality of the workers nor any af fection for them. He only knew "statistically" about their situa tion, their living conditions; and these were humble, inevitably so, because at the beginning of any industrialization (be it capitalis tic or socialistic) the purchasing power of the masses is still low and the costs of saving and in vesting (Le. the buying of expen sive machinery) are bound to be very high. In the period of early capitalism the manufacturers, con trary to a widespread legend, lived rather puritanically and were by no means bent on luxury. But none of this endeared the workers to Marx in any way. He had only words of contempt for them, ex cept as they might be mobilized against the "bourgeois" society which Marx so hated. Glaring Inconsistencies Despite his entirely "bourgeois" background this is the way his lifelong opposition against his family, above all against his par ents, took shape-. Interestingly enough, Marx's anti-middle-class complex was not accompanied by 1973 PORTRAIT OF AN EVIL MAN 529 any marked loathing for the aris tocracy to which his wife be longed. He probably preferred her father to his own. The young lead er of the German Worker's Move ment directed his wife to have her calling cards printed: "Jenny Marx, nee baronne de Westphalen."

He also sported a most feudal looking monocle and was a real snob. His two closest friends be longed to the hated grande bour geois'ie: Friedrich Engels, the Presbyterian textile manufactur er; and August Philips, a Dutch banker, a Calvinist of Jewish ori gin who was his maternal cousin. Apart from these two, Marx had no real friends. Budding friendships he destroyed almost automatically through his petti ness, his envy, his rancor and his urge to domineer. He was one of the greatest haters in modern his tory, and one of the reasons why he never really got ahead in his basic work was his endless hostile pamphleteering. If he felt slighted by anybody, if he saw in some writer a possible competitor, if an innocent author had written about a theme of interest to Marx but with conclusions differing from his, Marx immediately dropped every serious research object, sat down and wrote a vitriolic reply or an entire pamphlet. He had the most poisonous pen under the sun and used the most unfair personal arguments. Even as a scholar he "never could refrain from going off on a tangent. He sometimes cop ied half a book which had nothing to do with his main subject; hence the mountains of undecipherable notes and casual remarks on small slips.

A Vindictive Nature He was a brilliant talker who dominated conversations with his caustic remarks. A Prussian lieu tenant named Techow, a convert to socialism, after visiting Marx said in a letter that he would be ready to sacrifice everything for him "if only his heart were re motely as good as his mind." Marx, needless to say, vilified al most everybody within his reach and despised especially the Ger man refugees, the 48-ers, in whose company he had to live most of the time. (Significantly enough, he had hardly any contacts with genuine Englishmen who probably could not stand his manners and mannerisms.) Marx had nothing but contempt for women in gen eral and never engaged in genuine conversations with his wife who was decidedly an intelligent and sensitive woman with a good edu cational background. Part of Marx's worst ire was directed against the Jews. In this he was not in the least inhibited by his Jewish descent. His hatred 530 THE FREEMAN September for Jews had certain religious as pects but was primarily a racism of the most wicked sort.

No, Marx certainly was not a "good man". In his memoirs, Carl Schurz, the German democratic revolutionary, who later became a U. S. Senator, has given us his impressions of Marx: "The stocky, heavily built man with his broad forehead, his pitch black hair and full beard, attracted general at tention ... What Marx said was indeed substantial, logical and clear. But never did I meet a man of such offensive arrogance in his demeanor. No opinion deviating in principle from his own would be given the slightest considera tion. Anybody who contradicted him was treated with barely veiled contempt~ Every argument which he happened to dislike was an swered either with biting mock ery about such pitiful display of ignorance, or with defamatory suspicions as to the motives of the interpellant. I still well remember the sneering tone with which he spat out the word bourgeoisie. And as bourgeois, that is to say as an example of a profound intellectual and moral depravity, he denounced everybody who dared to contradict his views."

Arnold Ruge, a well-known Ger man essayist, with whom Marx collaborated in Paris in a literary venture and who soon fell out with him, wrote to Frobel (nephew of the famous educator of the same name ) that "gnashing his teeth and with a grin Marx would slaughter all those who got in the way of this new Babeuf. He al ways thinks about this feast which he cannot celebrate." Heinrich Heine, who also quickly learned to dislike Karl Marx, called him a "godless self-god." Unkempt and Undisciplined Karl Marx was in no wayan at tracti ve man; he had no hidden charms. A Prussian detective, sent to London in order to find out what this intellectual wire-puller of Socialism was like, informed his government that Marx was leading "the true life of a gypsy. To wash, to comb his hair or to change his underwear are rare oc currences with him ... if he can, he gets drunk ... he might sleep dur ing the day and stay up all night ...

he doesn't care whether people come or leave ... if you enter his home you have to get used to the smoke of tobacco and the coal in the open fireplace with the result that it takes some time until you can see properly the objects in the rooms." Gainful work was alien to him and when he landed a part-time job as the· correspondent for the New York Tribune (under Charles A. Dana, an early American social1973 PORTRAITOF AN EVIL MAN 531 ist) , it was his friend Engels who had to write most of the articles during the first year. Marx could have earned money by·giving lan guage lessons, but he refused this and continued to sponge on Eng els, who really made Marx. (Once Marx, as a true socialist, tried to gamble at the London Stock Ex change, but failed.) Engels was his "angel" from every imagin able point of view. A Most Unhappy Family The sufferings of the Marx family, and especially of poor faithful Jenny, are difficult to de scribe. Though they did have a housekeeper and though Friedrich Engels spent in the course of the years at least 4000 Pounds on Karl Marx, they lived in abject misery.

The death of one child, a boy, is directly attributable to poverty and neglect. Family life must have been absolutely terrible, but Marx could not be moved - neither by entreaties, nor by tears, nor by cries of despair. For two chapters of Das Kapital he needed fourteen years. No wonder that only the first volume was published during his lifetime and that it was Engels' headache to assemble and to rewrite the rest, so that - as one author suggested - we should speak of Engelsism rather than of Marxism. Yet it would be a mis take to think that Marx suffered silently and proudly. By no means! In· his letters and in his conversa tions he never failed to complain and to lament. He had a colossal amount not only of self-hatred, but also of self-pity, but no human feelings for others, least of all for his wife whose health he had ruined completely. Marx liked his daughters. These were - intellectually, linguistic ally, artistically - extremely gifted girls, but the spiritual background of the family had an adverse in fluence on them. Marx was a fana tical atheist, a disciple of Feuer bach who thus succinctly formu lated his views: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst - Man is what he eats." And in an early poem Marx had declared: "And we are mon keys of an icy god." Jenny, too, had completely lost her childhood faith and her sufferings had made her practically despondent toward the end of her life. She was older than her husband and preceded him in death.

The oldest of his daughters, also named Jenny, the most beloved by the father, died of cancer at the age of thirty-nine. Karl Marx sur vived her only by two months. Laura, for reasons unknown, com mitted suicide together with her husband later in their lives. The French Socialist Party was stunned; at their grave one of the speakers was a Russian refugee, 532 THE FREEMAN September Vladimir Ilyitch Ulyanov, better known under his pen-name: Lenin. y ears later, each time he looked up from his desk in the Kremlin study (now transferred to the Lenin Museum in Moscow) he saw on his desk not a crucifix, an ikon or a picture of his wife, but the statuette of a reddish ape with an evil grin. "We monkeys of an icy god!" Eleanor, the third daughter, a quite hysterical child and later a passionate socialist and feminist, admitted that she "saw nothing worth living for." She also com mitted suicide. Still, in her fare well letter to her nephew Jean Longuet, she exhorted him, above all, to be worthy of his grand father.

Who can explain the influence of this queer and sinister man on the world? Undoubtedly he was talented in many ways, but there is nothing truly valuable about his extremely nega tive, nay, even absurd message. However, history is not reasonable. Mankind is not either. Surely, all the prophecies of Marx in the economic and his torical field have proved wrong. His philosophical insights are totally obsolete. They are not even worth refutation except, maybe, as an exercise for high school stu dents or college undergraduates. They are, above all, proved to be wrong empirically. But what does it matter? Material victories or publicity triumphs are one thing, truth or goodness very different ones. The Children of Darkness have always been more clever than the Children of Light. Socialism, moreover, has always been a "clear, but false idea." A free market economy, on the other hand, is far more complex and cannot be explained in a nutshell.

In the political arena it competes poorly with the notion of collective ownership and central planning until the latter's bankruptcy is proved in practice. The ideas of the hate-swollen bookworm in the library reading room can only be shown up in life. Here the method of trial and error, however, has its terrible pitfalls. To experience Marxism entails a captivity from which, as we know, escape is not so simple. The poor East Euro peans realize all this only too well. More than a hundred years ago the German classic poet and writer Jean Paul wrote that "In every century the Almighty sends us an evil genius in order to tempt us." In the case of Marx the temptation is still with us, but as far as the perceptive observer can see, in spite of the renewed interest in the "Red Prussian,'" it is now slowly, slowly subsiding. ~ IN SPITE of all the hopes and the fears, the planning and the hard work, the promises and rationali zations - it really doesn't matter who they call the winner in N0 vember of a Presidential election year.

This isn't an attempt to be cyn ical about the reliability or the intent of party platforms or cam paign promises. We're used to tak ing these with tongue in cheek. We don't really expect a winning candidate to do what he said he would do. This time though, let's assume that A and B held radically differ ent views and that both men hon estly believe what they say and are determined and dedicated to make those views a part of our domestic and foreign policies. Go even a step further and as sume that each candidate has man aged to convert to his views a conMr. Breese has taught Industrial Manage ment at Georgia Tech and headed the De partment of Humanities at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Institute in Florida. At present he is a freelance writer. siderable segment of the people who voted for him. He has, then, a following of true believers in the general public, including some politicians, some very capable men, and some zealots.

When the dust clears in Novem ber, our man A is on his way to the White House; and B, who held totally different views on practi cally all issues, is out. Why, then, do I say that the voters have had Hobson's Choice? A government-any government -- can be called a "body politic." Like the physical body, it has a head, brain, heart, circulatory sys tem, arms and legs, internal organs and so on right down to cells and atoms. In our case the head can be the President, the blood which nourishes the body is the flow of tax money in and out, and so right down to a buck private in the army, a sweeper in the Treasury build ing, or a trusty in one of our Fed eral Prisons. The trouble, when it comes to "reform" or even a simple change, is that the body politic resembles 533 534 THE FREEMAN September in fact the body physical in that the head does not really control very much, in either case. Decide that you would like to be two inches taller, for instance, or have brown eyes instead of blue, and you'll see what I mean.

Uncontrolled Bureaucracy The body politic is like that. Call the President and his personal ap pointees at top level the head and its effective span of control extends barely as far as the chin. Down at the extremities - hands and feet - the bureaucracy goes on behaving exactly as it always has done no matter who sits in the White House. The head of the independent ex ecutive agency gets his top level directive and files it neatly. He may even pay it a fair measure of lip service. Out in the field offices throughout the fifty states the staff pays little or no attention. Each office goes on building itself up (in the face, let's say, of a di rective to economize) because that's what it considers to be its purpose. In practice, a Presidential Di rective is like a brick dropped into a barrel of molasses. By the time it gets toward the bottom, it moves slowly and disturbs very little.

So, there isn't really anything significant to either cheer or deplore after the votes are counted. Does that mean there's no hope at all of changing things and real ly getting at some of the major problems we face today? Of course not. It just means we have to change our notions about how to go about it. Instead of thinking we can elect a "Leader" who can or will do the job for us, we have to start tackling the problems on an individual basis, at the level where each of us has an effective span of control. Instead of looking to govern ment for a capsule solution to in flation, each man and woman can start a personal program of living within his means and without a subsidy at taxpayer expense. Instead of deploring corruption in high places, I can start practic ing personal honesty and integrity in my own life. On the surface, of course, the people in high places today find themselves immune to any effec tive control by us. They control courts and legislatures and make the laws to suit themselves. It looks like a sure thing - but it isn't. When enough people put a high priority value on integrity, the whole system of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" breaks down.

Not even the "body politic" it self is immortal or invulnerable, despite surface appearances. Like the body physical it is subject to 1973 HOBSON'S CHOICE 535 and under the control of natural laws. Like certain of the seem ingly invincible dinosaurs, it can grow too big to function. Like a victim of malaria, it can be brought down by mosquito bites. There are those who claim that the Roman empire fell because the humble mosquito destroyed its sys tem of agriculture through weak ening and killing off the slave gangs on the latifundia. Let's look at that again. The empire of the Caesars and the le gions brought down by a mos quito? Yes - because the mosquito changed the economy of the em pire adversely, and the State was actually an economic rather than a political creation. The "body pol itic" should have been called a "body economic" all along. Tolstoy said much the same thing in different words in his War and Peace when he told us that the great political figures of history have not led - but only ridden the crests of waves which they did not and could not control.

This is and has to be just as true in our day as in those of Ha drian or Napoleon. The government - that is, the formal, legal government and the bureaucracy - will essentially be controlled not by itself but by the economic system of which it is a part. The operations of a free economy will set viable prices for goods an.d services, if it is allowed to op erate. In all the history of control or socialism of any sort, a work able substitute for market pricing has never been found, for even a short period. The system of control of the economy by a government or au thority has a built-in self-destruct. The larger the social (or political) unit and the more involved and advanced the technology, the more quickly and surely will the self destruct begin to operate. On the other hand, the control of the government is determined inevitably by the nature of the economy in which it operates. A study of the records of social his tory will show that this has been so from the earliest t~mes - and there is no reason to think the rule has been suspended.

Just as a free economy sets up an economic competition leading to the advancement of the fittest individuals, firms, technologies, and market entrepreneurs and cre ates a maximum opportunity for the individual-so also it has al ways created a political climate in which only the simplest and most efficient systems of government can survive. So, the comparative absence of political controls among the set tlers of America and the limitless opportunity provided by a wide 536 THE FREEMAN September open continent bred first a May flower Compact and then societies of economically free and politic ally independent men who inevit ably wrote the American Consti tution. A Vote for freedom In our own days, then, there is still a way that you and I can cast a meaningful vote in the shaping of our own lives and the govern ments - local, state and national within which we live. It is a very important vote - a very real vote - and if cast by enough of us in our own lives and businesses or professions it will accomplish ev erything we desire.

This is to opt for a free rather than a regula ted economy, and to embody these principles in our thoughts, our actions, and in the examples we set to those about us. Here is a mandate of the people which no bureaucracy can long ig nore or effectively sabotage. Control does not come from the top - which is why the election of even the best of political leaders (or, fortunately, of even the worst of the lot) can really change very little. I'm not saying here that we should not vote or take an active part as individuals in the func tioning of that body politic of which we find ourselves a part. Of course, that is important. We must realize, however, that the final de terminant will be economic rather than political. I;:n the ,economic field each one of us has a "span of control" in the 'way in which he makes and spend'S his income. In even the mosteontroUed economy, the in dividual-as a consumer - has some choice and some effective control. Add together all those in dividual control spans and the re suIt must be an irresistible eco nomic - and political - force.

In the balloting booth we may indeed have been offered only Hob son's Choice. As I've pointed out, this can be so even when the men we elect honestly agree with our ideas and try to put them into action. In the-market place, however, you a,nd I - everyone of us - has an entirely different sort of vote, not to be cast just once every four years. This is a vote that has to be cast every day, sometimes many times a day. It's effect may be slow and cumulative rather than dramatic and sudden - but it is nonetheless sure. When enough of us live and be lieve and think and act as free men, we will have the sort of gov ernment which free men can and will produce. A tyrannous govern ment cannot survive the associa tion of free men in a free econ omy. , The Limitsof ROGER DONW AY TWENTY YEARS AGO, most people would probably have identified the following quotations as descrip tions of the Soviet Union: "a vast power that requires total world integration not on the basis of equality but of domination" "pur suing a policy that had now be come a denial of the spirit of man"

"taking its place as one of the great and hated oppressor na tions." But of course these are not descriptions of the Soviet Union; they are supposed to be descriptions of the United States. Nor are they taken from Albanian tabloids; they are from popular college texts, written by scholars, published by reputable houses. These are the revisionist his torians, and they have succeeded where their students failed: they have brought home the war, both Mr. Donway, a recent graduate of Brown Uni versity, continues to deal as a free lance stu dent and writer with the social implications of certain philosophical issues. Vietnam and its Cold War con text. Our enemies (before we de clared them friends) used to say that America was compelled by economic necessity to move abroad as an imperial power, dominating, subjugating, repressing. Today, that is the going word at Ameri can colleges. . . . during the postwar era the government and key sectors of pri vate capital adopted a common, com plementary strategy that led to state aid to American capitalism not only to maintain and extend its prosperity into the postwar era, hut not the least also to preserve the larger global political-economic structure within which long-term capitalist interests and power might function.

So say the revisionists Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, who obviously re vise history more easily than they revise their sentences. Collectors of Bright New Ideas will recognize the imprint of the 537 538 THE FREEMAN September Antique Left everywhere on these fresh-thinking historians: the Kolkos' indictment is a particu larization of an argument pushed sixty years ago by the Marxists; in The Roots of War, RichardJ. Barnet rehearses the Lenin-Kaut sky debate to determine the degree of necessity in capitalist imperi alism; William Appleman. Wil liams, sometimes called the dean of this historical school, asserts that America's foreign policy has proved Marx correct; David Hor owitz, an editor of Ramparts, pub lished excerpts of his book Corpo rations and the Cold War with Paul Sweezy, among the oldest of the old, old guard, a self-pro claimed Marxist, and the Sweezy of Sweezy v. New Hampshire fame; Sweezy's magazine, Month ly Review, also ran a ten page puff of Gabriel Kolko's Roots of Amer iC'an Foreign Policy and Politics of Wa,r; We Can Be Friends, often cited as the beginning of cold-war revisionism, was written by Carl Marzani, convicted in 1947 for denying prewar affiliations with the Communist Party; Rexford Tugwell is included in the ranks for his book A Chronicle of Jeop ardy; and so on. When Norman Mailer asked Dotson Rader where the New Leftists would end, Ra der said in despair "We are going to end like Gus Hall." In origi nali ty, at least, they already are Gus Hall, and so are their aca demic compradors.

Not that there is anything wrong with old ideas. They just are not new ideas. It would be more honest if the Left admitted, what seems to be true, that it perseveres like the Church, saying what it has always said. There is, after all, a kind of nobility in standing by traditional notions, just as there is a kind of boldness in advancing outrageous hypoth eses. But for the Left to trot out seedy cliches as the latest in dar ing suggestions is simply hypo critical. Whatever else, the staunchest defender of the Apos tle's Creed never called himself in novative for reciting it. Revisionism Like Inflation Always More This wave-of-the-future image probably reached its limit with Walter LaFeber's flight into apoc alyptic literature. In "The Im pact of Revisionism," LaFeber went beyond past and present to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And finally this historiography will move into and beyond revision ism as present middle-of-the-roaders accept revisionism in many of its parts, thus allowing the present re visionists . . . to become more re visionist in their view of history.

1973 THE LIMITS OF CREDULITY 539 Unfortunately, LaFeber may be correct. In The New Yark Times Magazine (April 29, 1973), Gaddis Smith portrayed an early revision ist, D. F. Fleming, as having set forth the new moderate position, "a vast improvement over the closed-minded chauvinism of the orthodox position." To be sure, Smith contrasts Fleming's view with the more recent, excessive left-revisionism of Kolko, but that was to be expected on LaFeber's analysis: the liberals will always come a discreet three steps behind (twelve years, in this case), but they will come: they must be "with it," even when it means revolu tion; they must "swing," even when it means the' gibbet. To take another case: in a 1966 letter to the N ew York Review of Books, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., said "Surely the time has come to blow the whistle before the cur rent outburst of revisionism re garding the origins of the Cold War goes much further." But only a year later, he put together the following sentence: "For revision ism is an essential part of the process by which history, through the posing of new problems,and the investigation of new possibil ities,· enlarges its perspectives and enriches its insights." Such liberal reappraisals are a telling victory for revisionism, which in point of fact breaks about as much fresh ground as the Council of Trent.

(Revisionist doctrines on imperi alism go back, through the Marx ists, to J. A. Hobson's Imperial ism, A Study, published in 1902. Or they may be said to go back a bit further: in a burst of histor ical appropriateness, Hobson got many of hig economic ideas from an acquaintance named Mum mery.) A Generation Gap With liberal backing, the dogma of capitalist imperialism, though it is not getting any younger, is getting some of the young; not entirely to the pleasure of older, or more orthodox, advocates. After decades of shelving their under consumed ideas, these uncompro mising ideological retailers had perhaps begun to think of them selves more as curators; they look askance at their brash parvenu customers, so lacking in an appre ciation of well-made theories. Writing in Soc'ial Policy, Harry Magdoff grumbled that "... some popularizers on the Left formulate the issue purely in terms of 'eco nomic necessity' - as if every po litical and military action were in response to an immediate econom ic need, or a telephone call from a corporation executive." Mr. Mag doff is criticizing the heresy of replacing class analysis with elit ist analysis, an old bane.

540 THE FREEMAN September The young, generally less rig orous, seem drawn to elitist theo ries, whether revisionist, liberal, or ultramontane. Perhaps it is be cause elitist analyses can serve as a surrogate for soap operas and fan magazines; they carry the same catharsis of shock and in dignation, the same formula of who -was - seen-doing-what-with whom.C. Wright Mills made a discreet attempt at slaking this desire with The Power Elite (and was chided for it by Paul Sweezy.) But it is the new reporter-histor ians who bode to make a true genre of elitism. Academic anal yses of presidential politics were left in the library dust by Theo dore White's The Making of -the President. David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest showed a similar flare for the insider's anecdote that tells while it sells. And in the Spring, 1973, issue of Foreign Policy, Godfrey Hodgson published an article called "The Establishment," which threatens to reduce even the tone of the en terprise to the level of the gossip column, with lines like "When I talked to him recently in the Ford Foundation's strangely Piranesian headquarters on 42nd Street. "

People and Plots Proper revisionists, of course, are supposed to shun such super ficial historiography. Writers who stress personal associations give the impression that the world is run to suit the whims of a small group of men, whether the favored group is the Council on Foreign Relations, the defense complex, or the prestigious New York law firms. And the more personally en twined they picture their ruling clique, the more its own eccentric assumptions appear to replace ob jective forces as the basis for ac tion. That is why Sweezy char acterizes elitist theories as "his torical voluntarism." By the time one reaches David Halberstam's Great Groton Conspiracy, talk of necessity in America's foreign policy is completely implausible; it's all the fault of that damned school motto. Revisionists reject such tight little-world views. ". . . the im pressions of old school days wear off," says Kolka, "and the respon sibilities of men are measured in the present rather than the past."

After all, the anti determinism of elitist analyses. might tempt one to the clearly counterrevolution ary notion that "all" we need is a group of leaders with different ideas. It is this illusion of the "acci dental" quality of the role of the United States in Vietnam and else where that has led over the past years to a kind of specious liberal ism which believes one simply re1973 THE LIMITS OF CREDULITY 541 places individuals in office with other men, such as a Kennedy or McCarthy ... A leftist who was that soft on de terminism might find himself de nounced as a meliorist like Karl Kautsky, or even as a hired coolie of the pen. Ideological Coordination The "proper" theory of histor ical causality is less direct, almost Malebranchian. Washington, we are told, does not take orders from Wall Street, and certainly Wall Street does not take orders from Washington. "There is no conflict .of interest because the welfare of government and business is, in the largest sense, identical." The har mony of business and politics re sults from ideological coordina tion, not personal subordination.

Association is the product, not the cause, of their harmony. The head of the octopus is not a capitalist, but capitalism itself; businessmen and politicians are, to steal a phrase from Ogden Nash, simply the arms that do the legwork. But despite this sensitivity to elitist voluntarism, the revision ists insist on calling themselves a school of anti determinists. In his introduction to The Origins of the Cold War, Thomas Paterson says "Most revisionists deny that the Cold War was inevitable, and stress alternatives." This is para doxical, but easily proved. The Cold War resulted largely from the class-serving desires of Amer ican leaders; had they sought other ends, things would have been otherwise; for instance, had they sought an accommodation with Russia, they could have had an accommodation with Russia. What we are not reminded of, in this context, is the revisionists' belief that, given its social struc ture, America could not have had leaders who would have willed an other course. The leaders' desires were given by the nature of the economy.

The theory, then, is rather anal ogous to Jonathan Edwards's the ory of determinism. Edwards's dictum was that we can do what we will, but we cannot will what we will; only grace can change the nature of our desires. Similarly, revisionists seem to hold that America's postwar leaders could have done whatever they wanted, but they could not want whatever they wa.nted, at least as a class. The counterpart of Edwards's dictum may be Lenin's cryptic re mark that a capitalist country could be non-imperialist only if it were not capitalist. A nation's ob j ecti ves can be changed only' by the converting grace of revolu tion or radical alteration, "by de priving [the existing system] of 542 THE FREEMAN September access to power and levers for controlling society," in Kolko's words. With that a.s the professorial note, it is not surprising that the cry from the ranks is "Ecrasez l'infame," now enunciated with that cocksure whine that is the laryngeal affliction of the New Left. But they have jumped to their conclusion. All we have been told so far is that the leaders of the social system are those who agree with its principles, which is surely one of sociology's minor surprises. That these leaders should attempt to preserve the system is also less than startling.

The connection that must be made is: how did the goal of preserving a capitalist society lead to imperi alism? Few listeners, it seems, stay to question or even notice the arguments offered on this central point. In better days, they would have been beneath notice. The Economics of Trade As it turns out, this whole gro tesquerie of America's need for expansion hangs on two· slender lines of argument, dealing with the economics of importing and exporting. Of these, the argument from imports is probably the less persuasive today. We are in no mood to hear about the sins of the buyer. We can admit that a total embargo on raw materials would plunge the quality of American life - what would one do without one's morning coffee - but after all we do pay for the stuff (twenty cents a cup; no refills), and if the bean does not get its cut, well, that is the bean's lookout. The argument from exports bet ter symbolizes the revisionists' "cosmic inversion," (to use Hilaire Belloc's phrase), for here they take what appears to be charity and convert it into imperialism.

The argument begins by observing that (1) Ame1"ic'awas booming a,t the end of the war. In 1945, our industrial plant was 65 per cent larger than it had been in 1939, and our gross national product was 100 per cent larger, in con stant dollars. Revisionists conclude that the productive capacity of the United States had grown unpro ductively large, and consequently, in the postwar years, that insti tutionalized form of misery which is capitalism would pour forth more than it knew what to do with. Then (2) exports had been and would be essential to maintaining this boom. After all, a fair amount of this growth had come in re sponse to economic demand from foreign governments involved in the war; the home market might not be able to purchase all the goods that they had bought. There were, yes, the extra savings that 1973 THE LIMITS OF CREDULITY 543 Americans had accumulated dur ing the war when there was little better to do with money, but this would not long take up the slack.

The only solution was to sell abroad. (Often cited as the post war goal was the 1944 figure of 14 billion dollars in exports, more than four times the 1939 figure. Less often cited is the 11 billion dollar chunk of that 14 billion which was shipped under Lend Lease. Since most Lend-Lease was never repaid, this casts some doubt on the truly foreign origins of the wartime demand.) Prime revisionist text on ex ports comes from Will Clayton, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and, we are re minded with a.rched eyebrows, a millionaire. He declared, at a For eign Trade Convention, no less: "We need markets - big markets - around the world in which to buy and sell." A somewhat Cham ber-of-Commerce remark, one might think, especially under the circumstances, but with elocution ary tra.ining, it can be given an air of rapacity. The more common sense interpretation was given to it by Clayton's Deputy, Professor Edward S. Mason of Harvard, when I talked to him recently at his strangely unpiranesian office in Cambridge: "Certainly, the U.S. wanted to re-establish trad ing relationships. But I never heard that we needed desperately to have the European market for our exports."

International Pump-Priming If one did assume the necessity for exports, though, one faced the fact that (3) foreign countries by themselves could not afford to buy American goods. Until their econ omies were rebuilt, they would have Iittle to offer us in trade. The answer conceived was (4) the United States had to loan these governments money. Thus in the first stage, they would buy Ameri can capital goods and agricultural commodities; and once restored they would produce goods to trade for ours, and so maintain our ex ports on the long run. As the heart of an argument de signed to show the imperialist tendencies of capitalism, steps (3) and (4) have rather missed their calling. Quite simply, the loans constituted an international pump priming scheme; they were a bit of inflation designed to link up America's surplus capital goods with Europe's idle labor. Apart from any dispute over the useful ness of pump-priming, we can at least agree that it is not capitalist.

Indeed, the attempt is made to pin opposition to pump-priming on capitalists as a. badge of their simple-mindedness. In a Playboy interview (June, 1968), Professor 544 THE FREEMAN September Galbraith said that Henry Hazlitt, a leading capitalist economist, had over looked "the very elementary point" that pump-priming is car ried out in a situation of idle capi tal and idle labor. For the record, Mr. Hazlitt considers pump-prim ing under exactly these conditions in his book The Fa,ilure of the "New Economics." He finds it un necessary, uncertain, dangerous, and unjust. But capitalist or no, this sce nario for international pump priming contained a further con dition: the United States had to be assured that once it gave for eigners the ability to buy our goods, their governments would give them permission to buy our goods. Cost was no obj ect in de veloping trade, so long as trade did develop, but we were not about to cast our seed money on the ground. In other words, (5) the scheme would work only if debtor governm.ents moved toward a lrois sez-faire, or at least pro-Ameri can, sta,nce,. and to this end our diplomacy was directed.

Thus far the argument can be put together from statements made by members of the Truman Administration. (Though the im portance of the plan has been dis puted by Alfred E. Eckes, Jr., in The Journal of American History, March, 1973.) For the rest, revi sionists merely point out that since we urgently needed coun tries to move to the right, (6) America, had to oppose the as sumption of power by leftist ele ments,. in Conta,li.nm,ent and Change, Carl Oglesby says we needed "access and no revolution in order to have high production." This meant encouraging rightist governments to suppress leftist movements, and thus were we forced by the capitalist system to play a repressive role, directly or through surrogates. Finally, in order to make this politically pal atable, we had to push the fiction that the left was not popular and democratic, but Russian-inspired and totalitarian. This posture nat urally exacerbated relations with the Soviet Union and the Euro pean Left generally.

Like the old Marxist argument, the essential reasoning of the six points can be analyzed in a basic two-step: does the capitalist sys tem produce general surpluses; and what does the capitalist sys tem do when confronted with a surplus? On the first point, revisionists seem little inclined to argue; they prefer to quote testimony or make assertions. For instance, W. A. Williams cites Dean Acheson's re mark: "You don't have a problem of production .... The important thing is markets. We have got to see that what the country pro1973 THE LIMITS OF CREDULITY 545 duces is used and sold." Even less willing to offer evidence, Carl Oglesby says "Our economic sys tem functions in a state of dis equilibri urn. The better it works, the greater the surplus." Capitalist OverProduction To find a genuine argument con necting capitalism and excess pro duction, one must turn to the hard, ingenuous Left, which argues as follows: Since a capitalist's status depends on the amount of capital under his control, he engages in production without reference to the possibility of finding a market.

Paul Sweezy says: Here, then, we can see the ele nlents of what Marx in one place calls "the fundamental contradic tion" of capitalism: production en tirely lacks an objective unless it is directed towards a definite goal in consumption, but capitalism at tempts to expand production with out any reference to the consumption which alone can give it meaning. Obviously, this is not an argument one would want to trot out unless absolutely required to do so; in fact, it is simply an assertion of mania, not worth discussing. It appears, therefore, that the postwar situation is a special gift to the revisionists. The large ex pansion in investment was not the product of irrationality in the business community; it was the product of our effort to win the war. It could hardly be called mal investment, but the plant devel oped (revisionists say) would pro duce more than available markets could consume. It looks as if the revisionists can get their first premise, of an investment beyond demand, without resorting to fool ish psychological theories about the business mentality.

As often happens, though, the evidence adduced by the revision ists (more testimony) proves ex actly the opposite of the conclu sion they want. When Vinson, Clayton, Wallace, and so on, went before committees to support the so-called British loan, they did in deed tell Congressmen that they were looking at the loan's effect on the economy, were much inter ested in it, never let it out of sight. But the effect they were looking at was ~ot the alleviation of surplus; it was the exacerba tion of scarcity. When they actu ally confronted the swollen war time plant, the problem was that it was not big enough for peace time demand. A few, but very few, fields were mentioned at that time as having surplus, and even these references seem blatantly political. When Sec retary Vinson mentioned cotton as being among the goods Britain would want, Senator Bankhead of 546 THE FREEMAN September Alabama asked narrowly if he meant cotton goods or raw cotton.

Another question as to what Brit ain would buy drew the answer "You could be sure of some tobac co," which sounds much like "You could be sure of some pork-bar rel." When used honestly the argu ment from overproduction was based on expectations about the economy, which puts us right back to the argument about the biases of capitalism. Since revisionists have little heart for arguing that point, there remains only the second question: what, under capitalism, would one do with a surplus? The revision ists' answer, that the government would force it down the throats of unwilling consumers, is simply not economics; it is pandering: I dreamed of oppression in my black pajamas. I presume that the capi talist answer is well known: if a businessman produces more of a good than he can sell (sayan Ed sel), the capitalist response is to point out that he has produced more of the good than he can sell.

He can try to increase his sales by advertising to high Heaven; he can try to sell abroad; he can take a loss and cut production; all that is capitaHst. One thing he cannot do is involve the government in restructuring his market. That is just typical liberal intervention ism. Revisionists may reply that it happens in America, which is true, but if it happened in Wil liam Graham Sumner's home town the point would be irrelevant. Others, such as Richard J. Barnet, may try to call it "state capital ism," but the phrase conveys little, since it is a contradiction in terms. This is the pattern: on the rare occasions that revisionists do des cryan evil, they are not looking at capitalism; they are staring straight at the denaturing ele ments of our mixed economy. The evil is blamed on capitalism (it's a capitalist system isn't it); the solution is more intervention, leading to more evils. And the momentum develops. Which is per haps the element of truth in La Feber's analysis: if a liberal will not rethink, he must revise, more and more. If he does rethink, he must rethink his leitmotif "We cannot go back;" he may even have to discover the historical irony, that when we went past cap italism we were going in reverse.

No man is wise enough, nor good enough, to be trusted with unlimited powers. - Caleb C. Colton IF I WERE KING LEONARD E. READ To IMAGINE I were king is pure fiction, merely suggestive, for my first act would be to abdicate. Kingship is not my cup of tea. Perhaps a better caricature of omnipotence would be a genie as the actress in the TV show, "I Dream of Jeannie." She simply folds her arms, makes a wish, and blinks her eyes. Presto !The wish instantly becomes the reality. The question I am pondering is this: If I possessed such power, would I use it to rid the world of all I believe to be evil? For in stance, what of these few specifics 3,mong the thousand and one forms of human behavior I deplore: 1-War,murder, thievery, slavery? 2. - Dictatorial know-i t-all ness? 3 - Medicare, "social security," and similar welfare pro gram~? 4 - Control of prices by gov ernment and of wages by labor unions?

5 - Government in such busi ness as mail delivery and education? I have listed these samplings in the reverse order of their popu larity or public acceptance. Nearly everyone deplores war, murder, thievery, human slavery. There is a common desire to be rid of these evils. But note how the popular attitude changes as we move down the list: common acceptance in stead of rejection by the time we have reached "social security." The point is this: I would be applauded were I to use my magic 547 548 THE FREEMAN September power to do away with murder, but roundly condemned were I to eliminate government "education," though the latter seems unprinci pled and impractical to me. The Principle of Universality On what forms of behavior, then, would I fold my arms, make a wish, and blink my eyes ? Not one, not even murder! I aspire exclusively to those forms of power which I readily concede to all other human beings.

What may they be? The power to exercise and improve my own fac ulties, to grow intellectually, mor ally, spiritually. What power will I, not willingly concede to any other person and - by the same token - refuse to use myself? The power to interfere with or to con trol in any respect the creative activities of anyone, whoever or wherever he may be. The lack of such power simply leaves me in my place, makes a noninterfering citizen of me, forces me to attend to my own business. Suppose I could eliminate mur der and all else which seems evil to me through a simple wish. In that case, according to my princi ple of universality, I would have to concede that identical power of legerdemain to everyone else. What would be the result? Everyone would direct his magic against his pet dislikes. So certain are millions of people about their panaceas for a perfect world, and so varying are their nostrums, that every societal in stitution would be erased from the face of the earth! Not only would murder, wars, thievery, slavery be at an end, but so would everything else-mail delivery, private or public; education, pri vate or public; business, private or public; churches, catholic or protestant. Certainly, man and all his institutions would disappear - perhaps the entire planet!

Coercion Rampant Return to mankind as he now exists and to the world as it is with no genies among us. But if that power were possessed, would it be used? Yes, and by millions of people. How can one be so certain of this? By observing what these millions do in the absence of this magic power: they resort to coercion to get their way! Un able to reform others by a blink of the eyes, they try to implant their "wisdom" by physical force - "Do as we say, or else!" They seize the police power of government and use it to serve their devious and contradictory ends - frus trated genies with guns! If these coercionists could work their will upon others by blinking their eyes, would they do so? Of course, and with the aforemen1973 IF I WERE KING 549 tioned disastrous results. To the extent that they get their way by coercion, to that same extent is disaster inflicted upon mankind, as we can readily observe all about us.

The Power of Good Example Those who condemn the use of coercion must be cautious lest they condemn themselves in the process, so general is the domi neering trait. One meets these persons on every hand and in all walks of life. Ever so many would rule our lives if they could; all they lack is the political power. I have learned not to argue with these self-designated miracle workers; I just don't drink tea with them. As to those who have gained power and do in fact control our lives, what can one do in opposi tion beyond setting a better ex ample? You and I can try to un derstand and explain why we would not wave either the magic wand or the policeman's club. We can demonstrate why it is both immoral and impractical to even hope for a free lunch or to wish that others might be carbon copies of ourselves. For anyone to hold such power over others, as I see it, is an absolute contradiction of the Cosmic Plan.

If we want "two chickens in every pot," we must learn to raise more and better chickens with less effort. Similarly, with all the goods, services, and ideas we desire. Learn to overcome by excelling, this being -the sole means to individual growth. If another's way of life is superior to mine, let him demonstrate it to the point where I can grasp the truth he perceives. Let him ex plain in terms I can understand. By so doing, he grows - and per haps I will. But· to coercively im pose his way upon me is to stunt both his growth and mine. This attempt at lording it over others is characteristic of little folks foolishly trying to play God. I share this conclusion from the Journal I ntime of Amiel: I have never been able to see any necessity for imposing myself upon others. And so, if I were king, I would renounce the throne. This would free me from the baleful supersti tion that mine is a "Divine Right"

to rule and, at the same time, leave others free to live their own lives. , COMPETITION: Classroom Theory vs. Business Reality MARK PETERSON PUNITIVE ANTITRUST. Overregula tion of business. The "break-up GM" and "break-up-IBM" syn drome. Deep-rooted suspicion of business. All this and more are in a large way traceable to Eco. 101, the undergraduate course in mi croeconomics, including basic com petition and price theory. I submit that a key reason why competition is so widely misun derstood is because of the way it is generally taught in colleges and universities. In my judgment, the essential source of the confusion between theory and reality is a static view of a dynamic world: the model of "perfect competition" and its re lated model of "pure competition." Perhaps nothing in our social realm is perfect or pure, of course, but most academic economists still Mr. Peterson is a graduate student in eco nomics. He also has served as a summer re search assistant at the Federal Reserve Board.

550 use perfect competition as a static yardstick with which to measure dynamic competition in the real world. For example, Nobel Prize win ner Paul A. Samuelson in the eighth edition of his bestselling textbook, Economics, states: "The competitive model [of perfect competition] is extremely impor tant in providing a bench mark for appraising the efficiency of an economic system." He adds: "Once the rules of per fect competition are left behind, there is no Invisible Hand prin ciple which sets up a presumption that the working out of laissez faire is likely to be in the direc tion of satisfying wants most ef ficiently." The standard treatment of per fect competition by Professor Samuelson and other textbook writers usually sets up four re quirements: 1973 COMPETITION: THEORY VS. REALITY 551 1. Perfect knowledge of market conditions and instantaneous re source mobility (a requirement usually dropped as obviously un attainable and thereby resulting in "pure competition" - and it is pure competition to which Samuel son refers when he treats "perfect competi tion") 2. A large number of sellers in an industry (so large that none supposedly has any influence on price) 3. A standardized or "nondif ferentiated" product throughout an industry (thus, no brand names nor advertising) 4. Free entry (meaning rela tively costless admission of a new operating company into an estab lished industry) Having thus defined perfect competition, Eco. 101 textbooks generally describe the other mod els of lesser competition in terms of their failure to meet these four requirements. Thus "monopolistic competition" is basically pure com petition without the standardiza tion requirement met. Also, "oli gopoly" (from the Greek, meaning "few sellers") is basically pure competition without the many sell ers requirement met.

Naturally, the polar opposite of perfect competition is monopoly in ·Eco. 101 textbooks. Monopoly is said to consist of one seller selling a unique product (the product has to be unique because there is only one seller). And it also is said to be "protected" by high costs of entry, of which more later. The Number-of-Sellers Requirement So much for the textbook treat ment of perfect competition and its corollaries. Sadly, the treat ment is not just an ivory tower matter. Consider, for example, the num ber of sellers requirement as it is applied outside the classroom. This requirement is. largely the focus of modern antitrust policy. Indeed, Chief Justice Earl War ren stated in the landmark Brown Shoe decision (1962): "It is competition, notcompeti tors, which the [Clayton] Act pro tects. But we cannot fail to recog nize Congress' desire to promote competition through the protec tion of viable, small, locally-owned businesses. Congress appreciated that occasional higher costs and prices might result from the main tenance of fragmented industries and markets. It resolved these competing considerations in favor of decentralization."

Thus, modern antitrust policy, borrowing from classroom theory, prefers to maintain a relatively large number of sellers even at the expense of efficiency. This conflict between numbers and efficiency points up the essen552 THE FREEMAN September tial weakness of the number of sellers requirement under pure competition: Little is said about the determinants of the number of sellers. But consumer sovereignty, management ability, and econo mies of scale are important fac tors affecting the number of sel lers. The presence of few sellers may well be a sign of significant efficiency benefits for the consumer from mass production, mass dis tribution, and mass research. For example, the auto indus try, called an "oligopoly" in vir tually all textbooks, is actually quite competitive, despite the pres ence of a few domestic producers - GM, Ford, Chrysler, and AMC. In the early years of the twentieth century, there were literally hun dreds of small sellers. But the consumer - through Henry Ford - drove out many sellers, as Ford steadily reduced his costs through mass production techniques and dramatically lowered his price.

Surely this was competition, and the most basic kind - price com petition. Alas, however, Henry Ford would today probably be consid ered an imperfect competitor by most students taking Eco. 10l. Now he would also be faced by a gamut of antitrust suits, both public and private (from competi tors), much as is IBM today. Apart from efficiency considerations, other factors, which are omitted by the numbers require ment, enter into actual competi tion - Le., dynamic competition. For example, there are also un countable potential sellers not quite able to enter an industry entrepreneurs, usually in related industries, who are waiting for a rise in demand, a technological breakthrough, or some ineptitude on the part of the existing sup pliers, before joining the estab lished sellers. Rohr, an aerospace producer supplying San Fran cisco's BART rapid transit sys tem, is a case in point of a poten tial seller converting into an ac tual.

Competition is Market-Wide, Not Conlined to a Given Industry Another example of an omission in perfect competition theory is competition among individual in dustries. Interindustry competi tion exists because for any prod uct there is usually a range of substitutes. To his credit, Samuel son explains that pure competi tion theory excludes competition between industries such as steel and aluminum. Perhaps this omission by per fect competition theoreticians can be explained as the confusion of an industry for a market. The point of view of an "industry" is generally that of the seller; the 1973 COMPETITION: THEORY VS. REALITY 553 point of view of a "market" is generally that of the buyer. But the consumer, not the pro ducer" is sovereign. In the market place, it is the consumer's view that prevails. The buyer's market perspective includes a full range of choices available to him in all competing industries (and even in noncompeting industries in the sense that all industries compete for the consumer's dollar). Wit ness, for example, the demise of the once blue-chip streetcar indus try, which fell prey to the motor car, i.e., to the sovereignty of the consumer.

Or consider a personal example. Not long ago I had to get from Newark, New Jersey to Washing ton, D.C. I considered three op tions: driving a rented car, taking the air shuttle, or riding the Met roliner. To me, the sovereign con sumer, the three were very much in competition-interindusty com petition. This is but another ex ample of how in the eye of the con sumer a market inevitably trans cends an industry or even several industries. The forgotten Consumer But under the doctrine of per fect competition inherent in mod ern applied antitrust policy, the consumer plays second fiddle to the Justice Department. The consum er, for example, built up IBM, democratically; now the Justice Department seeks to tear it down, arbi trarily. Thus, the number of sellers re quirement in perfect competition variously conflicts with actual dy namic competition. The other re quirements do, too. Product dif ferentiation, for instance, is con sidered wasteful by many econo mists. They deplore the cornuco pia of choices available to the con sumer, although they might incon sistently deplore the lack of choice in, say, some development housing.

Here, again, theory is at odds with reality. A producer who strives for product innovation for quality competition, as opposed to price competition - is branded as an imperfect competitor. But are not attempts to improve prod ucts salutary? Many economists may not like quality competition, but consumers do. Take King Gil lette and his revolutionary safety razor of a half century ago, for instance. Here, technology and quality competition seemingly launched a "monopoly." But did it? Further, is it feasible for an economist of the imperfect compe tition school to enter the market place himself, so to speak, and de clare with all the weight of his academic credentials. that this product or that is or is not waste ful? Is it really in this economist's 554 THE FREEMAN September domain to pass a scholarly opinion on whether, say, the deodorant soaps of today, or even the tailfins of the 1950's, constitute "waste 1"

The individual consumer can bet ter decide such questions, for only the consumer knows exactly what he or she wants. (And this propo sition holds true for the sovereign corporate consumer as well - e.g., General Motors is a consumer of U.S. Steel and vice versa.) The requirement of free entry also does not correspond with com petition in the real world. Any en try involves cost, of course, as does all economic activity. But to posit a model of perfect competi tion in which the costs of entry are very low,·runs against common sense. According to this low-cost argu ment, economies of scale create a protectionist "barrier to entry" because of the heavy investment involved. Thus, mass production is doubly evil in the eyes of perfect competition: it reduces the num ber of sellers, and creates barriers to entry. But the contribution of economies of scale to lower prices tends to be played down, along with the fact that many firms with economies of scale can be overtaken (such as Ford by Gen eral Motors in the 1920's and Sperry Rand by IBM in the 1950's) .

Another example of a barrier to entry cited by quite a few econo mists is advertising. These econ omists pick on advertising - apart from its "wastefulness" - because new entrants must pay more in advertising costs than established sellers. True, but they must do so in order to win the consumer's ac ceptance. For new entrants, adver tising is frequently a vital means of gaining acceptance. Restric tions on advertising, which are recommended by some economists, would hurt new entrants and po tential competitors. Thus, all the requirements of perfect competition have severe shortcomings. In a word, all these requirements and their regula tory and other repercussions re flect a concept of competition that is essentially static. But actual competition is dy namic, not static. The dynamics include the reduction of costs by mass production techniques and new technology, the competition from substitute products, the com petition from potential sellers, and the incentive of sellers to improve their products - all under the most dynamic factor of all, the watch ful eye and hard decision of the consumer, individual and corpo rate.

In sum, the conflict between classroom theory and business re ality in our understanding of com petition is anything but academic. ~ R. W. DEMERS THE MAN with the hoe slowly straightened his arched back. Tak ing the straw hat from his head, he wiped away the beads of sweat from his forehead with the back of his dusty hand. Slowly he moved out of the heat of the sun into the shade of a great maple tree growing between his garden fence and a country road. As he stood in the comforting cool, surveying the lush, green, orderly rows of his garden, a neighbor, driving by, pulled up close to the fence and also took note of the neat, and abun dantly fruitful garden. He turned to the man in the cool shade and nodding his head with fine approval toward the garden, he said with profound authority: "Yes sir, a mighty fine garden, you sure are a lucky man!" The gardener replaced his straw hat, lifted his hoe, and with a singular, "Yup!" moved Mr. Demers is a vocational counselor in Veneta, Oregon.

Distance back out into the hot sun as the dust from the departing auto drifted over the green crops. Because he was the man with the hoe, he had long since learned that it is futile to respond to such a comment; 'tis better to quietly re turn to that which he knows is more than "luck." Webster refers to lucky as : "happening by chance." The neigh bor's observation and subsequent statement are representative of a dangerous half-truth so prevalent these days. Perhaps he knows what many know who have no particular acquaintance with gardening: that the weather, the helpful or harm ful climate, is pretty much beyond man's control. Therefore, when he notices verdant crops, neat, order ly rows. abundant healthy growth, all representative of a bountiful harvest, he seizes upon this "ele ment of chance" and utters his half truth. The most important factor, 555 556 THE FREEMAN September which he has failed to grasp, has to do with the knowledge, industry, and application the gardener must put forth, and without which, good or bad weather notwithstanding, the crop would be a failure.

Orestes A. Brownson, in The American Republic in 1866, said the same thing, but in a little dif ferent way which broadens the per spective: Conception is always easier than its realization, and between the design and its execution there is always a weary distance. Remaining with the garden a little longer - little effort is ex pended as the garden is planned by the warm hearth during the cold winter months which precede the new birth of spring. But then the plot must b~ laid out, the soil fertilized and tilled, the seed sown and carefully watered, the weeds pulled again and.again, before the plan for the garden moves toward fulfillment. Meanwhile, time and energy, knowhow and tender care, and patience have come to repre sent "a weary distance." What does "a weary distance" mean? It means an extended period of time during which there has been an exhaustive expenditure of vigor, endurance, and freshness, an intensive acquisition and application of knowhow, and a diligent exercise of responsibility.

Leaving behind now the garden green, and considering in greater depth what makes "a weary dis tance," it is easy to see that here lies, seldom used and rusting away, a most successful formula. Despite this age of flip marriage and frequent divorce it seems ap propriate to seriously consider a more compatible marriage between "conception" (a general idea) and "realization" (the real accomplish ment) , between the idea man - the stem-winder - and the fellow who "gets the job done." Instead of continued subscrip tion to expediency, and obeisance to the false notion of the "easy way", there needs to be a recom mitment to the full assumption of responsibility, which inevitably means some element of sacrifice blended with just plain hard work. Continued infatuation with "chance" and "wishing will make it so" will mean continued failures. The present harvest of unchecked inflation, which is robbing every one - most shamefully the very young and the very old - is the direct result of the refusal to take the route of "a weary distance."

It is in this regard, that, as a peo ple, we need a baptism of common honesty. I) WasPlatoa COL VIST IDEAS have consequences, the late Richard Weaver was fond of re minding us; it is an argument dear to the heart of every student of liberty. And no ideas have so permeated Western intellectual history as have those of Plato. Indeed, the whole history of West ern thought, as Alfred North Whitehead suggested a few years ago, may be seen as a series of footnotes to Plato. It is, consequently, much to the embarrassment of many individ ualists that Plato is frequently claimed by collectivists as one of their own. The claim is doubly discomforting because individual ists are inclined to give much weight in their world-views to the place of tradition and ideas. Dr. Roberts teaches English literature in Boys' High School of The Westminster Schools, Atlanta, Georgia. JOHN J. ROBERTS The simple truth is that indi vidualists yield Plato to the col lectivist ranks all too acquies cently. The Plato known to most men, of course, is the author of the Republic, with his utopian pro posals for a strictly regulated so ciety under the benevolent mailed fist of a single philosopher-king.

The society depicted in this book is truly a far different thing from that envisioned by lovers of in dividual liberty. Such liberty is sacrificed in the Republic, as in every slave society since, for the sake of an alleged greater com munal welfare. But there is another Plato, less well known. The Republic was a comparatively early work; Plato's growth was hardly arrested at this stage. Perhaps his last completed work is the Seventh Letter, in cer tain ways a much more significant 557 558, THE FREEMAN September document than even the Republic. This epistle was written in 353 352 B.C., when Plato was about 75 years old, to the relatives and comrades of his own friend and former pupil, Dion of Syracuse. The letter, in reply to a request for aid in avenging the assassina tion of Dion, is an extended apologia pro vita sua, a spiritual autobiography in which the old man, now only five or six years from death, surveys in retrospect his long life.

"In my youth," the letter re lates, "I went through the same experiences as many other men. I fancied that if, early in life, I be came my own master, I should at once embark on a political career."I Circumstances Change Plans These aspirations were frus trated, largely by circumstances beyond Plato's control. The golden age of Pericles had passed; Plato grew up during the twin disasters of the Peloponnesian Wars and the collapse of the Athenian Em pire. These dual catastrophes re sulted in bitter power struggles between democrats and oligarchs in Athens, culminating in the year of anarchy, 404-403 B.C. Plato's family, on both paternal 1 I quote throughout from the text in the Great Books edition (Chicago: En cyclopedia Britannica, 1952). and maternal sides, was aristo cratic, and naturally aligned itself with the old Athenian Right Wing. This group, which included Plato's uncle Charmides and his cousin Critias, succeeded in establishing the Tyranny of the Thirty in 404.

"They at once invited me to share in their doings, as some thing to which I had a claim," Plato remembered in the Seventh Letter. "The effect on me was not surprising in the case of a young man. I considered that they would, of course, so ~anage the State as to bring men out of a bad way of life into a good one. So I watched them very closely to see what they would do." Plato was only twenty-four when his education in the ways of the world began. For the oligarchy did not - "of course" .- bring good government to Athens. Among other outrages, it attempted to implicate Socrates in a murder. Plato, who had been a friend if not actually a student of the aged teacher, was shocked and sur prised. The oligarchy was soon after wards overthrown by a democratic counterrevolution, and again Plato felt his personal ambitions rise. "And once more," he recollected, "though with more hesitation, I began to be moved by the desire to take part in public and politi cal affairs."

1973 WAS PLATO A COLLECTIVIST? 559 But he soon discovered that democratic despotism was not sig nificantly different from oligarchic despotism. The new regime itself not only went after Socrates, but convicted him in what has become the world's most infamous trial. Socrates died in 399. "As I followed these incidents and the men engaged in public affairs," Plato remembered, "the laws too and the customs, the more closely I examined them and the farther I advanced in life, the more difficult it seemed to me to handle public affairs aright." Signs of Maturity The young man with all the an swers clearly was maturing into his share of common sense. He was also having second thoughts about the practical chances of a political career at this time. "Though at first I had been full of a strong impulse towards po litical life," the Seventh Letter continues, "my head finally began to swim; and, though I did not stop looking to see if there was any likelihood of improvement in these symptoms and in the gen eral course of public life, I post poned action till a suitable oppor tunity should arise."

With a certain touching naivete, perhaps characteristic of the ex tremes of idealism and cynicism to which youth is prey, Plato now turned against both democracy and aristocracy. He concluded grandly "with regard to all exist ing communities, that they were one and all misgoverned." The only salvation, he deduced, was for power to rest in the hands of a wise dictator: "Therefore, I said, there will be no cessation of evils for the sons of men, till either those who are pursuing a right and true philosophy receive sovereign power in the States, or those in power in the States by some dispensation of providence become true philosophers." While Plato was indulging him self in such speculations, the polit ical temperature in Athens was steadily rising. Not being utterly without discretion, Plato recog nized that the time was ripe for some traveling. He left on an ex tensive grand tour which kept him away from Athens for more than a decade.

At some point in this wander ing, he arrived in Sicily, where he had audience with Dionysius the Elder, tyrant of Syracuse, and dis covered in the dictator's brother in-law, Dion, a ready disciple. Plato as Teacher In 387 B.C. Plato returned to Athens, where he found the polit ical climate still unfavorable. The bane of all professional educators is that jibe, "Those who can, do; 560 THE FREEMAN September those who can't, teach." Plato him self, finding it impossible to enter politics, turned to teaching the subject to others. His suburban school in the grove of Academos heavily emphasized political and juridical theory. Moreover, his students went forth throughout the Mediterranea,n world as advisors to rulers; Plu tarch, among his other consider able labors, compiled an impres sive list of the political advisors trained by Plato - including Aris totle himself, who brought up the man later known as Alexander the Great. Shortly after founding the Academy, Plato also began com mitting to paper his dreams of the philosopher-king he had not yet found in real life. The Republic was finally finished around 375 B.C.

Then, in 367, a curious thing happened. That was Plato's sixti eth year; it was also, incidentally, the year Aristotle came to the Academy as a pupil. In this year, Dion sent word to Plato that Dio nysius the Elder had died and was being succeeded by his son, who could use a philosopher's guidance. The Lure of Politics All the pent-up idealism and lust for personal political involve ment in the sixty-year-old Plato responded to Dion's invitation. In the Seventh Letter, Plato recalled having thought to himself that "if ever anyone was to try to carry out in practice my ideas about laws and constitutions, now was the time for making the attempt; for if only I could fully convince one man, I should have secured thereby the accomplishment of all good things." Unfortunately, Dionysius the Younger proved to be no more at tracted to the virtues of philoso pher-kingship than are most ty rants. In fact, Plato had been his guest at court only some four months when Dion was banished; the young tyrant had Plato him self put under a kind of house ar rest. The aging philosopher even tually manag'ed to return to Athens, but only after consider able personal danger.

And here emerges a thing truly amazing: a few years later, in 361 B.C., Plato made yet another quix otic voyage to Syracuse! Dio nysi us had been importuning the sage to return, and Dion, although in exile, added his pleadings; both men assured Plato that Dionysius had undergone a change of heart and was now truly anxious to learn the life of philosophy. Plato's longing to believe this dubious tale was obviously rooted deeply, for he rationalized away his reservations, forsook his wits, and packed his grip. "I myself had a lurking feeling 1973 WAS PLATO A COLLECTIVIST? 561 that there was nothing surprising in the fact that a young man, quick to learn, hearing talk of the great truths of philosophy, should feel a craving for the higher life," is the rather lame excuse offered in the Seventh Letter. "So blind folding myself with this reflection, I set out, with many fears and with no very favourable anticipa tions, as was natural enough."

The next sentence is revealing and sufficient: "I had the good fortune to return safely .... " N ev er again did Plato attempt any active political role. Realism in the "Laws" To measure the extent of Plato's disillusionment with dictatorship as well as with oligarchy and de mocracy, it is instructive to turn to the Laws. He began work on this major project around 360 B.C., interrupted it to write his Seventh Letter, and was engaged on the final revisiQn when he died in 348 or 347. In the Laws, Plato is no longer concerned with designing an ideal state. He now seeks to frame a constitution applicable to any so ciety of ordinary Greeks in the middle of the fourth century be fore Christ. The philosopher-king of the earlier Republic' is nowhere to be found here'. In the Laws, Plato dis misses government by personal direction of a benevolent despot as simply not practical. The condi tions of actual life rule out the possibility of anyone fallible man combining in himself all the' vir tues requisite to a genuine philos opher-king. Instead, the state's best hope lies in a mixed constitu tion, balancing in a golden mean the opposite but equally necessary principles of popular control and personal authority ("democracy"

and "monarchy," in Plato's termi nology) .2 Economically, the system of the Laws also differs considerably from that of the Republic. Plato now dismisses his earlier commu nism, on the same grounds as he does dictatorship: it simply is not practical. Socialism may be the most desirable of all utopian goals, he says, but it just will not work in the real world. 3 The father of Western thought has here, in his old age, achieved a blend of com mon sense and uncommon wisdom, unfortunately not ubiquitous among subsequent generations. Age and Experience But in another and even more important respect have age and ex perience modified the young man's utopian idealism. Plato's thought began with the desire to reinstate 2 See especially Laws, III, 693-694. 3 Laws, V, 739-740.

562 THE FREEMAN September the totalitarian ethic of the old Greek city-state, and a political career seemed the natural corol lary of such a macrosocietal prem ise. However, he came to recog nize that the philosopher is a man doomed to failure in the practical world. Plato's own bitter experi ence is not unique, of course, and he must often have recalled the fate of his friend Socrates. Even today, we still mock as the arche type of the impractical intellectual the Greek Thales, who tumbled into a well because he was gazing up at the stars. 4 "This is a j est which is equally applicable to all philosophers," Socrates says of Thales. And yet only the philosopher - the lover of wisdom - is truly a free man. 5 Ridiculed and rej ected by the world he would save, the wise man must at last, in that magnificent phrase of Socrates from the end of the Republic, fall back upon "the city which is within him"

(IX, 591). It is a much-vexed issue to what degree Plato used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own views in the dialogues, but at this point we seem to have the words of the older man. It is clear, at least, that Plato's initial disappointment at 4 The story is reported by Socrates in the Theaetetus, 174. 5 See Socrates' justly famous argu ment in the Theaetetus, 173-176. his own political impotence was not sufficient to prevent his Sicil ian journeys after the Republ'ic was completed. Content to Cultivate His Own Garden But it is equally clear that the observations of Socrates at the end of Book IX of the Republic could just as well have been spoken by the Plato. who returned from the final Sicilian trip. Jesus was later to note that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country; likewise, Socrates cyni cally held that a wise man cannot succeed as a statesman, at least "not in the land of his birth,"

except by the improbability of divine intervention. He will be a statesman only in that heavenly city of Ideas or Forms, Socrates insisted, and whether such a city "exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter; for he will live after the manner of that city, having nothing to,. do with any other" (IX, 592). Plato came at last to the con viction of Socrates that the wise man will above all cultivate his own garden, restricting his teach ing efforts to selected individuals around him who will then go out to other individuals, including, hopefully, kings and rulers. This ultima te concern with the indi vidual is not devoid of social im1973 WAS PLATO A COLLECTIVIST? 563 plications, of course, as Plato makes clear in both the Seventh Letter and the Laws. The State must have good laws, both writ ten and unwritten, but the best laws ever devised will not prove effective if the State is not peo pled with an aristocracy of good men. The individual ethos is of supreme importance; the just so ciety is impossible without it.

At the risk of some simplification, we may say that the differ ence between the early Plato of the Republic and the older Plato of the Seventh Letter and the Laws is the difference between the collectivist and the, individual ist. If modern statists isolate and elevate the collectivist biases of the Republic? certainly students of liberty may study with profit and claim with pride the older, wiser Plato. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY The Man versus The State BEYOND the regulative apparatus, such as in our own society is re quired for carrying on national defence and maintaining public order and personal safety, there must, under the regime of social .. ism, be a regulative apparatus everywhere controlling all kinds of production and distribution, and everywhere apportioning the share of products of each kind required for each locality, each working establishment, each individual. Under our existing vol untary cooperation, with its free contracts and its competition, production and distribution need no official oversight. Demand and supply, and the desire of each man to gain a living by supply ing the needs of his fellows, spontaneously evolve that wonderful system whereby a great city has its food daily brought round to all doors or stored at adjacent shops; has clothing for its citizens everywhere at hand in multitudinous varieties; has its houses and furniture and fuel ready made or stocked in ,each locality ....

And throughout the kingdom, production as well as distribution is similarly carried on with the smallest amount of superintend ence which proves efficient; while the quantities of the numerous commodities required daily in each locality are adjusted without any other agency than the pursuit of profit. HERBERT SPENCER $ •. ' ECa/flJM/CSandthePRESS BRIAN SUMMERS MOST PEOPLE agree that a free press is a vital component of a humane society. Yet many of these same people assert that the free enterprise system is not only su perfluous to achieving and main taining a humane society, but is, in fact, the one great obstacle to its fruition. That is, they believe that freedom of the press can somehow be preserved while eco nomic freedom is being destroyed. Let us give this matter a little thought. A good place to begin is the question of property . Who is to own the printing presses, build ings that house the presses, and land on which the buildings are situated? If the institution of pri vate property is abolished, then Mr. Summers is a graduate student in mathe matics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

564 they must be owned by the state. H uman nature being what it is, it is extremely doubtful that gov ernment presses in government buildings on government land would print much copy that dis pleased the government. This alone is probably enough to ensure that publications like Pravda will never be anything other than state propaganda sheets. Even if a socialistic govern ment decided that publishers are somehow different from every body else and granted them the exclusive right to own property, this would by no means guarantee journalistic independence. Where are the publishers to get their supplies? Who is to manufacture and distribute the newsprint, ink, spare parts, and all the other paraphernalia needed to keep the presses running? As publishers in 1973 ECONOMICS AND THE PRESS 565 Chile have recently found, govern ment control of these supplies can be an effective lever against dis sent.

As these examples show, con stitutional guarantees of press freedom can prove meaningless if the state has some control over the economic factors of publica tion. To pursue the matter further, let us consider the publisher's sources of revenue. If he does not want to find himself beholden to the state, his sources had best not include the government. In capi talistic countries the two main sources are private in nature: sales and advertising. In fact, some publications are free - they exist entirely on their advertising revenues. Without such privately financed advertising, numerous in dependent journalistic voices would be stilled. In socialist countries there is little need for advertising because there is little or no competition. The government manufactures the only products being offered on the market, aside from whatever imports it may permit. Being a monopolist, the state has little or no reason to place advertisements.

If the government does buy ad vertising space, publishers are well aware of where the money comes from. Even in a mixed economy, such as we have in the United States, government advertising can have a chilling effect on journalistic in dependence. Many newspapers op erate on the border between profit and loss. To more than one small paper a contract for legal adver tising for the county has meant the difference between red and black ink. The free enterprise system is important to the publisher for more than just maintaining his journalistic integrity. Even if he maintains his integrity, he must still deal with a problem facing all entrepreneurs: staying in busi ness. Government interventions in the economy often make this prob lem insurmountable. To cite just three examples, the publisher must contend with government in flation of the money supply, rising taxes, and laws that prohibit the hiring of nonunion workers. The last have been particularly dam aging, for they have not only in creased overhead, but they have also led to lengthy strikes that have temporarily, and sometimes permanently, put newspapers out of business.

As even this cursory examina tion reveals, freedom of the press, which so many Americans hold as sacred, is not an isolated freedom. Rather, it is based on the economic freedoms which many Americans, particularly members of the press, view with disdain. ~ R. J. RUSHDOONY THOMAS A KEMPIS (1379-1471) wrote a devotional manual entitled On the Following (or Imitation) of Christ, said by some to be, after the Bible, the most widely read book in history. The title sums up the maj or cultural goal in the his tory of Western civilization, the attempt to create a social order in terms of Christ and. Scripture. With the Renaissance, and then with the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, another cul tural goal came into existence, the imitation of the non-working rich, royalty, or nobility. The object of envy and imitation became the idle classes, men beyond work, men who could live in contempt of monetary considerations, morality, and law. The rake and the dandy became heroes; they seemed to Rev. Rushdoony is President of Chalcedon, an educational organization dedicated to furthering Christian research and writing. He is author of numerous books and a frequent campus lecturer. This article is reprinted by permission from Chalcedon Report, May, 1973.

566 live a life without reckoning, and without a day of economic or re ligious judgment. The beginning of the era of revolutions did not lead to a pro letarianization of culture. Instead, the new classes in power began to imitate the vices of the old aristoc racy and to flaunt their contempt of economics and religion as a means of proving that they had arrived. In France, from Louis XIV on, the court was marked by gambling on a massive scale, and sexual immorality. Nineteenth cen tury France saw the new classes imitate royalty, and courtesans tri umphed as never before. In Red China, the elite communist cadres put the old war lords to shame with their more systematic ex ploitation of women, their use of power to promote their idle fan cies, and their childish and sense less pride. Each new generation of leaders has imitated the older idle rich 1973 IMITATION 567 and have built houses, not in terms of convenience and utility, but as imitation palaces, and furnishings still are prized because they echo the ornate vulgarity of the Bour bon styles. The "proletarian art"

of Marxist countries is officially required to imitate the older styles of royal Europe in the name of so calist realism, whereas non-Marx ist art despises the same tradition in art because the middle classes borrowed and used it for a time. Modern art strives instead for a new elitism which is non-utili tarian in a radical sense. The Training of Gentlemen In education, the goal on the part of the traditional scholar is the training of gentlemen. Witon ski thus deplores the instrumen talism of American universities, where, "Instead of studying, say, Latin poetry, a student can study urban race relations, an instru mental course that will be of little use to him in the real world." (Peter Witonski: What Went Wrong With AmeriCian Education, p. 112. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1973.) But of what "use" is Latin poetry "in the real world"? Witonski's idea of a lib eral education is hopelessly obso lete. A liberal education is an edu cation in the art of freedom, of be ing a free man (lib er meaning free), and Witonski, as an Oxford and Harvard scholar, has a view of freedom which is irrelevant to our world, and, in its own way, al most as worthless as courses in hotel management. The scholar as a member of the idle class, a man who is rather than does, is mean ingless increasingly. The scholar who does seeks to imitate the "so cial relevancy" of agitators. The academic scholar thus has .been unable to define himself in our era because he lacks a faith which makes for valid definition. This underscores his increasing irrele vance to the future in any con structi ve sense.

The styles of men and women in the age of aristocracy stressed clothing which made people useless for work. Women emphasized this by their hair-styles, shoes, and finger-nails: they were beyond work. The goal of most moderns is the same non-utilitarianism and the same lust for an aristocratic idleness. The hippies have also manifested the same contempt for the :world of work: they drop out of study' and work. They empha size hand crafts and aristocratic arts as alone relevant to their cul tural goals. "The Puritan work ethic", as the antithesis of this imitation of the non-working or idle rich, has been especially under attack. In the 1920's, as a boy in Detroit, one of the most remarkable facts 568 THE FREEMAN September was the pride of workers in auto mobile factories: they urged friends to take the guided tour through, for example, the Ford plant, to see the assembly line. In stead of boredom, there was a de light in the high volume of pro duction and a boastfulness about what their work was doing to change the world. The reason for this attitude was the "Puritan work ethic." The increasing signs of boredom today mark not only the automobile workers but white collar workers, executives, intel lectuals, and, men in every area of work. The reason is a change of faith, the growth of a delight in idleness rather than work. Increas ingly, men no longer live to work, but work in order to be able to play. The Playboy dream is to cul tivate the appearance of being a member of the idle rich from col lege days on.

The idle rich were a reality, but always a sign of approaching death and collapse. The nobility of France, for· example, became idle and useless when Louis XIV re quired their presence at court and stripped them of power to prevent revolts. As a growing bureaucracy took over, the monarchs them selves became idle and finally ir relevant. Today, because of the proletarianization of the dream of idleness, men of all classes are de termined to make themselves irrelevant and to commit cultural suicide. Imitating the Idleness, Not the Greatness, 01 the Rich The hatred of capitalism is largely inspired by the old dream of imitating the nobility and roy alty, not in their greatness, but in their decadence. The life style of the future requires, we are told, living in terms of fun and games. We are asked to despise mass pro duction in favor of handcrafts, 'and to love the new morality rather than to obey God.

The rich have always been with us, as have the poor. The lines, his torically, have been very sharply drawn. To the horror of the no bility, the Industrial Revolution not only created a new rich class, the industrialists and merchants, but it made good living cheap enough for the middle and lower classes. Capitalism undermined the old aristocracy and dramatically benefited the masses. As Hazlitt notes, "Before the Industrial Rev olution the prevailing trades ca tered almost exclusively to the wants of the well-t'o-do. But mass production could succeed only by catering to the needs of the masses." (Henry Hazlitt: The Conquest of Poverty, p. 54. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1973.) The result was the rapid rise in the standard of living 1973 IMITATION 569 among all peoples in Western Europe. A savage counter-attack came from the two major branches of the old aristocracy, the lords and the intellectuals. A series of "in vestigations" were launched in England to dredge up every case of capitalistic exploitation in order to build a case against the new class. Since no class is exempt from sin, such examples were found and publicized by both the lords and also by the intellectuals.

(See F. A. Hayek, editor: Capi tal'ism and the Historians. The University of Chicago Press, 1954.) Socialists and aristocrats made common cause in their hatred of the levelling influence of the free market. Karl Marx, by virtue of being an intellectual, en tered the ranks of the aristocracy and married into the nobility. In The Communist Manifesto, he echoed the aristocratic hatred of the Industrial Revolution while ad mitting its revolutionary impact on the world. Marx charged, "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic rela tions. It has pitilessly torn a sunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superi ors', and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment' ." The bourgeoisie had replaced the old aristocracy, with its junior members, the intellectu als, with a new upper class, the producers, and Marx could not for give them for that offense. While ready to admit the remarkable ef fects of industrialism, he took of fense at its bypassing of the in tellectual. He countered with an Hegelian dream in which the se duced masses, rej oicing in the new affluence, were offered even more affluence if only they followed the intellectuals as their philosopher kings. One point Marx saw clearly.

Power had belonged to the royalty and landed nobility, because, in the old order,. they largely controlled property. This old aristocracy had made room for the intellectual; a Ph.D. had standing as a junior member of the aristocracy, and, if he were a Goethe or a Voltaire, with or without a degree he was an uncrowned king. That eminence had been shattered. Capitalistic production had created new and cheap property, good property, and even landed property was being taken over by the middle and lower classes with their new wealth. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx declared, "The distinguishing fea ture of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. . . . In this sense, the theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: 570 THE FREEMAN September Abolition of private property .... Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power." Once a feudal aristocracy had controlled this so cial power, property. Marx now proposed that a new feudal aris tocracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the intellectual elite, control this social power. The Marxist "revolution" was the ulti mate in counter-revolutionary thinking: it was aimed at undoing the effects of the Industrial Revo lution.

Sabotaging Production In a variety of ways, the New Left continues in this reactionary, counter-revolutionary tradition. "Detroit" is a symbol of the hated mass producer. Production has pol luted the world, the ecology people hold, ignorant of the greater pol lution which preceded the Indus trial Revolution, or of the times when the rivers of Europe were dead streams in a way beyond our present knowledge. The goal of the New Left is to sabotage the great seducer of the common man, pro duction. Instead of realistic at tempts at dealing with pollution, the "eco-freaks", the New Leftist exploiters of ecology and conserva tion, concentrate instead on des troying production. Through legis lation and sabotage, production is hampered. Oil shortages are one result. The oil reserves in America alone are enormous, despite the statements to the contrary, but drilling is restricted, and new re fineries are not built because of re strictions. Offshore drilling has a remarkable record of safety; the Santa Barbara incident had over tones of sabotage. Today, guards are necessary 'on offshore installa tions to prevent sabotage by groups who want to create de struction in order to make prod uc tion anathema. It is the mark of the New Leftist aristocracy to despise mass production in the name of the masses, to hate an abundance which enables "the com mon man" to have as much as an intellectual. One well-paid univer sity professor climaxed and con cluded a long tirade against capi talism by declaring, "Do you real ize that my plumber makes more money than I do?" This was the ultimate insult: the free market economy had given a pIumber more money than a professor! The professor's contempt of capital istic materialism had a material istic ring. In every age, dispropor tions have existed such as the pro fessor cited, and in every society.

They are not corrected by envy and mass suicide. We see also a horror of abun dance in the New Left and a desire to destroy abundance. The delight of the New Left in handcrafts is revealing . What they produce is 1973 IMITATION 571 sometimes good, sometimes crude and childish, but, in either case, it has for them the virtue of being a scarce product. Scarcity is prized and abundance is despised. There is a contempt in every area of the common and the abundant. For ex ample, to have a lovely flower or shrub in one's garden which grows and blooms readily is somehow despised and frowned upon. The idea is to coax growth out of something which does not do well in that locale. Achievement is not seen as beauty but as scarcity and exclusiveness. For many, a flower is not beautiful if it is common. In my university days, I heard professors on a few occasions ridi cule the Californian's affection for his state flower, the poppy. In those days, tens of thousands of acres were covered with poppies every spring. Since then, cultiva tion and the extension of farming into new areas has caused the poppy to recede. A student has told me that he has heard profes sors denounce the destruction of the California poppy by the exten sion of farming. This is typical: abundance is despised, and scar city is prized, because only the elite can afford the scarce item.

To cite one more example among many, styles reflect the same hatred of that which all men can enjoy and the same lust for the aristocratic. The aristocratic in this definition is not the superior but rather the exclusive and the scarce. Whether the style is in dress or in a fad, as long as it is the mark of the avant garde, ev erybody is ready to imi tate and adopt it. The imitation of the idle rich, the jet set or any other group, is a major passion. Is it chic to see a certain pornographic film, to favor homosexuals, or to adopt a style? Then all climb aboard the bandwagon of liberal or radical chic, hippy chic, or what have you. However, when it be comes popular, it perishes. Is ev erybody doing it? Then forget it. The imitation or the following of Christ had as its goal life. The imitation of the ideal of the idle rich, of aristocracy as imagined in the modern era, has as its goal ir relevance.

The privileged groups of the monarchist era in France had as their social goals and principles four things. First, they believed in inequality, however much they idolized Rousseau and his gospel of equality. It was an article of faith with them that some men are more equal than others. Second, they believed in the autonomy of the aristocracy; they were exempt, or should be, from the laws which bind common men. Third, they were "different" and hence could not be included in the body politic in the· same way as other men.

572 THE FREEMAN September Fourth, even though they· had little power, they regarded the ex ercise of state power as their natural right. It is this heritage which the intellectuals and the New Left (as well as the Old Left) have largely adopted. It is a policy of studied irrelevance, and its only real power is, not to produce, but to destroy. Another factor which has since been added is madness. The extent to which madness is a theme of importance in modern culture is rarely appreciated. Before Freud, the cultivation of new and aristo cratic mental illnesses was already prominent. Psychoanalysis became an "inthing" for a time for the self-styled elite. In fiction, televi sion, and motion pictures, the sub j ect of madness is a common one, and an appealing one to many. Mental illness is in fact systema tically courted as a liberating process by sensitivity and encoun ter groups, and industry for a time recently worked to cultivate mental illness as though it offered a way to a higher status and health. This cultivation of mental illness is still a "growth indus try", typical of the new, non-pro ductive growth "industries" of our time. Gene Church and Conrad D.

Carnes, in The Pit, A Group En counter Defiled (New York: Outer bridge & Layard, 1972), gives us an account of the kinds of depravity cultivated in the attempts to gain leadership and aristocracy through induced madness. An age which despises produc tion and abundance and pursues scarcity, idleness, and irrelevance will certainly gain all these things, and will destroy itself in the proc ess. Scarcity is ahead, and irrele vance, and death as well. The age of the state, the world of human istic man, is committing suicide. We will be hurt in that process, but it is also a forerunner of our deliverance. More than ever, we must work to re-establish our roots in the Biblical faith and order, to establish new schools and institutions to rebuild society. In 1961, in the concluding para graph of my book, Intellectual Schizophrenia, Culture, and Edu cation, I wrote: "The end of an age is always a time of turmoil, war, economic catastrophe, cyni cism, lawlessness, and distress. But it is also an era of heightened challenge and crea tivity, and of intense vitality. And because of the intensification of issues, and their worldwide scope, never has an era faced a more demanding and exciting crisis. This then above all else is the great and glorious era to live in, a time of opportunity, one requiring fresh and vigorous thinking, indeed a glorious time to be alive." More than ever, this is true today. I A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN Eyewitness to History: Isaac Don Levine, who describes himself as a "mutualist" (meaning that, like Leonard Read, he believes in "anything that's peaceful"), has for many years been our most vig orous and competent authority on the machinations of the Commu nists. You would think that he would be full of honors for his many services to freedom, but the strange thing is that he still suffers from being ahead of popular opin ion in his efforts to arouse a sleep ing Republic to various totalitarian menaces. His fascinating autobi ography, Eyewitness to History: Memoirs and Reflections of a For eign Correspondent for Half a Cen tury (Hawthorn, $10), is a com pendium of journalistic "firsts"

that few people accepted as truth at the moment, even though events have invariably sustained the Le vine point of view. When Don Levine was growing up in Czarist Russia before World War I, he was conscious that there was aNew World on the far side of the globe where "live and let live" was the rule and the doctrine of mass terror was unknown. His father wanted to give him an ortho dox Hebrew education, but he per sisted in imagining that the Dnie per River was Mark Twain's Mis sissippi. He read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn in Russian trans lations, along with Fenimore Coop er's The Last of the Mohicans, and when, on the occasion of Mark Twain's death in 1910, a local paper printed a dispatch about the erec tion of a statue to Twain on the river bluffs at Hannibal, Missouri, Don asked the editor if he would like an eyewitness report of the statue's unveiling. When the editor expressed amusement, the young Don took it as encouragement. Accepting the editor's interest as evidence of a bona fide assignment, Don sur prised his skeptical friends by get..

ing a passport, which was not an 573 574 THE FREEMAN September easy thing to do. He arrived in New York in October of 1911, intent on shaking the mud of the Dnieper River banks from his boots in fa vor of real Mississippi mud. In pursuit of his dream he wound up in Kansas City, where the mud was Missouri mud. Intent on making himself as much of a native as pos sible, Don entered a high school in the most exclusive residential area of the city. He was going to be a midwest American, and nothing else. Came the Revolution The Russian Revolution inter vened. The trouble with Don Levine was that he knew Russian,and there was a journalistic market for informed articles on what was hap pening as Kerensky rose and fell and the Bolsheviks made their bid to take over. Don translated some Russian handbills for Garet Gar rett, then the managing editor of the New York Tribune, and they turned out to be the first news bul letins of the Revolution. This curi ~ ous news beat made Don an expert, and it wasn't long before the boy who had wanted above all to be a midwest American found himself back in Russia, working for Victor Lawson, the publisher of the Chi cago Daily News.

Don Levine was never taken in by the Bolsheviks, which meant that he had "liberal" America to fight. On the other hand, he didn't make the journalistic mistake of thinking Lenin and Trotsky were in danger of defeat by the White Russians and Admiral Kolchak. Cleaving to the truth, Don de scribed Trotsky, for example, as a great actor in a live drama, but no hero or genius. Lenin, to Don, had a closed and unoriginal mind and did nothing to change the inner character of the State. And when Don Levine wrote the first extend ed biography of Stalin, he saw him as a Tammany Hall figure, a "boss" without idealistic features. (This was before the big trials and purg es of the Nineteen Thirties had re vealed the real bloodiness of the Stalin character.) Out of phase with the Western "liberals" who insisted on seeing the Russian "experiment" even un der Stalin as something holy, Don Levine remained a minority voice among the intellectuals of the Twenties and the Thirties. His pat tern, which was that of the youth who insisted on pointing out that the naked emperor was indeed nak ed, was set, and it was perhaps a foregone conclusion that he would be unable to get President Frank lin D. Roosevelt to listen to Whi t taker Chambers's revelations about the extent of Soviet spy infiltra tions at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Levine met Chambers-or "Carl,"

1973 EYEWITNESS TO HISTORY 575 as he had been known when he was a Communist courier - through Herbert Solow, a specialist in So viet intrigue who later became a most gifted editor of Fortune mag azine. It took a good deal of doing to get Chambers together with As sistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle, who was willing to guaran tee, at least implicitly a promise of immunity from prosecution to an ex-spy who could furnish evidence that would benefit the country. Chambers was a most reluctant wit ness (he had no vindictive spirit against Alger Hiss), but he told enough about the spy rings work ing in Washington to frighten Berle. When the information went to the White House, however, Roosevelt scoffed at it. So nothing happened for seven long years until the House Committee on Un-Amer ican Activities, reacting to the Cold War, started digging into the sub ject of Soviet penetration of the Washington bureaucracies.

Insights and Revelations The Chambers story is a high spot in Don Levine's book, but it is only one of a number of revelations that correct the historical record of our times. Don Levine ferreted out more facts bearing on the as sassination of Leon Trotsky than anybody else was able to dig out. He had interesting contacts with Albert Einstein, who was willing to help him when it came to expos ing the Nazis but who timidly froze up when asked to apply an anti totalitarian· standard to the machi nations of the Communist Party. He investigated the slaughter of the Romanoff royal family, giving us unforgettable pictures of what happened both before and during the hail of bullets that cut down Czar Nicholas, Czarina Alexandra and their five children in the cellar at Ekaterinburg. With his knowledge of the ter rorist mind and tradition, Don Levine was probably the first jour nalist to grasp the meaning of Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of President Kennedy. Oswald brought the Che Guevara-Maoist terror to American soil, where it was to rage throughout the later Nineteen Sixties, resulting in the murders of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy and in the dis ruption of universities all over the country.

No Compromise with Communism, But a Balance of Powers Levine's final chapter shows him going against the prevailing hopes of detente with the Communists. The conflict between tyranny and freedom won't end, he says, until there is a world of free men ev erywhere. But he sees "a road to safety for the United States and the rest of the free world" in the 576 THE FREEMAN September contest between Moscow and Pe king for the domination of Asia. He has listened respectfully to ref ugees from the Chinese interior province of Sinkiang who say, "The salvation of the free world lies in the continuance and acceleration of the Sino-Soviet conflict." He wor ries a bit about a possible J apa nese-Chinese entente in Asia and an embryonic Russo-German rapprochement in Europe. He hopes these won't be allowed to sprout, for if they do it is bound to aug ment the burden of the arms race the U.S. must carry.

Therefore, Levine suggests, the U.S. should strengthen ties with West Germany and Japan, leaving Russia and Red China to their own devices. HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDA nON FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 the Freeman VOL. 23, NO. 10 • OCTOBER 1973 Is Escape from the PovertyTrap Possible? Bertel M. Sparks 579 The blessings of freedom are possible to those not bound by the burdens and temptations of the welfare state. The American Dream John E. Nestler 593 When principles give way to materialism, the dream becomes a nightmare. Challengesof the CommunicationsExplosion Philip Lesly 598 Examining new patterns in our human climate that challenge our stability and progress. Appeal to the Intellect Leonard E. Read 609 If we would attract, we must appeal to the best, not the worst, in ourselves and in others. Who Profitsfrom East-WestTra.de? Eugene Guccione 612 The record of successful market exchange with socialists is very discouraging - to non-social ists.

The Marketl or the Welfare State Paul L. Poirot 621 • How the market and its money system serve especially the laboring poor. Capitalismand Morality Edward Coleson 625 The bad reputation of the market economy cannot be justified from the record. Book Reviews: 634 "The Western Marxists" by Neil Mcinnes "The Morals of Markets" by H. B. Acton "Passing of the Modern Age" by John Lukacs Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON,.ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591,7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. copyright, 1973, The foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "Capitalism. and Morality."

IN PRESENT-DAY America one can not listen to either radio or tele vision for long without being told about somebody being in a poverty trap. According to the usual script, not only is somebody in that unfortunate trap, but he is so held there that escape is impos sible without outside help. And of course the viewer or listener is looked upon as an appropriate source for that help. In so far as these commercials are expressions of sympathy and concern 'for the welfare of. fellow human beings, they are to be com mended. But the more thoughtful viewer or listener cannot avoid looking beyond the immediate emergency and inquiring into the meaning of the word "poverty" and the word "trap" and all the other trimmings and emotion-la den words that go with such pleas. He is moved to ask such questions Bertel M.Sparks is professor of Law at Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina.

Is Escapefrom the PovertyTrap Possiblef as what is a poverty trap, who sets the trap, and why isn't the culprit arrested and brought to justice? Inquiries such as these might lead to some surprising embarrass ments. Webster defines a trap as, "Something by which or in which one is unsuspectingly caught, in jured, [or] led astray .... " The same source defines poverty as, "Any deficiency in what is desired or desirable or in what constitutes adequacy." Maybe these two defi nitions can be put together to give some rational meaning to the ex pression, "poverty trap." When that is done, a poverty trap ap pears to be a condition of defi ciency in which one is unsuspect ingly caught. Like all efforts to re duce ideas or concepts to words, that definition is less than perfect. But it does set forth a framework within which one may at least con sider the question, "Is escape from the poverty trap possible?"

Within that framework the ques579 580 THE FREEMAN October tion becomes, "Is it possible to escape from this condition of de ficiency in which one is unsus pectingly caught?" Here again the thoughtful inquirer is likely to want further clarification. He will want to know what kind of defi ciency or what kind of poverty. He will realize that there are such things as poverty of thought, pov erty of soul, and many others, any one of which could occupy a life time of study. But it seems rea sonably clear that the poverty be ing discussed in the ever-present radio and television commercials is economic poverty and that the deficiency is a deficiency of ma terial well-being. Even within that limited context, poverty is still a relative term. It is a deficiency of what is desired or desirable. And what is desired by one person might be abhored by another. In a sense every human being is in poverty because no one has every thing he desires. The unsatisfied desire, however, is itself desir able in that it is often the cata lyst for increased production.

Relative Affluence But these insatiable desires are not the things that come to mind when one is talking about an es cape from the poverty trap. Some element other than desire alone must be considered. It is a known fact that material well-being is not evenly distributed. In one histori cal setting the general level of well-being is likely to be quite dif ferent from what it is in a differ ent period. In any given society it might be substantially different from what it is in another society within the same historical period. And even within a society that is restricted and confined to one mo ment of time and to a very small area of the earth's surface, there are always· some individuals who are blessed with far more of this world's goods than are other indi viduals. If escape from the pov erty trap means anything at all, it must have something to do with movement from among the least well-to-do toward those on a higher plane in a material sense. With that understanding, the question, "Is escape from the poverty trap possible?", can be restated as .

follows: Can an individual caught on the lower levels of economic well-being move from that posi tion toward the upper levels within his own society, and can one society which is presently on the lower levels of human existence move itself as a society toward the moreaffiuent societies of the earth? There are at least two ways of approaching this question. There is the philosophical approach and the experience approach. The philosophical ap proach usually means that the 1973 IS ESCAPE FROM THE POVERTY TRAP POSSIBLE? 581 members of a group undertake to think about the problem, pool their individual opinions, and agree upon a common answer before any action is started. The weakness of this method is that it tends to ig nore the lessons of experience. If the present generation were the only people ever to inhabit the earth and if every person now liv ing had from the date of his birth to the present always been in the same relative position with re gard to his material well-being, the philosophical process might possibly be a suitable way to be gin. Rational thought honestly ex ercised might point the way to ward a solution. But this absence of experience does not exist. The human race actually has a few thousand years of recorded his tory to examine and it might be worthwhile to look at the record.

Have any societies or any indi viduals ever escaped from poverty, and, if they did, how did they do it? The best abstract thought of which the human mind is capable is likely to look pale against so much as a· small segment of that record of experience. An Early Example If an underdeveloped country is needed as an exhibit for study, there could hardly be found a bet ter example than the United States. Have a look at that nation's beginnings. See its inhabi tants as a small band of foreign ers on a rocky, unimproved, hos tile shore where there were no houses, no factories, no drug stores, and not even any neon signs to brighten up the horizon. Were they in poverty ? Was there a way of escape? The known fact is that they did escape. Within a short time that unwelcome hoard of intruders had grown into one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Even before their first one-half century of na tionhood had been completed, the country was characterized by a visiting Frenchman as being a land without paupers.! And by the 1970's it could be said that al though they occupied only one sixteenth of the land surface of the world and constituted only about one-fifteenth of the world's population, they were enjoying about three-fourths of the world's television sets and consuming about two-thirds of its petroleum products, one-half of its coffee, and two-thirds of its silk. 2 One wonders what the visiting French man of the Nineteenth Century might say if he could pay a return visit. At the very least, an under developed country did escape the 1 Tocqueville, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, Vol. 1,235 (Arlington House).

2 Opitz, Our Disordered Lives, 23 THE FREEMAN 399, 401 (July, 1973).

582 THE FREEMAN October poverty trap without the benefit of foreign aid. The Key? How did it happen? Why did people leave the older, the more developed and the more affluent nations of Europe in order to get here? What is more important, why was this the place and the time where there developed the highest level of material well-be ing the world has ever known? Why didn't that development take place somewhere else or at some other time? And before offering the easy response that it was our fabulous natural resources that made the difference, it is suggest ed that the reader first review his geography a little. This might lead to no small degree of wonder as .to why the affluent society didn't develop in South America rather than North America. Why didn't it happen. in Africa? Why didn't it happen in India? These questions cannot be answered or explained in terms of the presence or absence of natural resources.

There has to be another reason. Is it possible that there was something about the goals that brought the Seventeenth Century settlers to these shores that ac counts for their unparalleled eco nomic progress after they ar rived? Most of them came here to escape oppression of one kind or another in the old country. Some times it was religious oppression; sometimes it was political oppres sion. In either event, that very op pression gave them a yearning for freedom that would not die. It was tha t yearning combined with a confidence in their own worth as persons that shaped their destiny and marked them as new creatures by the time they left the ships that brought them here. That con fidence in their own worth as per sons sometimes made Americans unattractive, both to the outside world and to each other; but it also gave them an unconquerable spirit which did not allow room for. fear of the impossible. A search for the source of that con fidence leads to the conclusion that it was, in no small degree, a prod uct of their religious faith.

Throughout Tocqueville's writ ings on American DerrLocracy he placed surprising emphasis on the extent to which religion was the driving force in the development of free institutions in this coun try. If that is true, even in part, it is fair to ask what kind of re ligion? It was a religious experi ence that was just emerging from the period of the .reformation which had placed new emphasis upon the dignity and worth of each individual. The offspring of such an experience could no .longer look to government as a source of 1973 IS ESCAPE FROM THE POVERTY TRAP POSSIBLE? 583 either human rights or material well-being. They were too proud for that. They considered them selves endowed by.a divine creator with certain inalienable rights which no human agency could either give or take away. That was their secret. With that confi dence in individual worth and dig nity, there could be no conflict be tween devout religious faith and the practical work essential to ma terial progress. Even the ships on which these early settlers were transported to the New World were launched by profit-seeking joint stock companies. And they carried with them the dreams of the merchants seeking adventure and a new source of trade no less than the dreams of others seeking religious freedom.

A Nobility of Work The settlers brought with them a new nobility. It was a nobility of work. They left countries where those of the upper social strata did not often work with their hands. They tended to remain aloof, to live in the better houses, and to depend upon· others for most of their material support. Some of that sort were included among our early colonists. They identified themselves as "gentle men." They usually defined gen tlemen as men who abstained from physical labor. But whether they arrived in the rocky hills of New England or in the humid valleys of the Delaware and the James Rivers, they found that that phil osophy didn't work. It was abhor rent to both the physical surround ings and the new doctrine that each individual was responsible f0r his own welfare. In a· land where there were no homes, ITO machinery, no factories, and no roads, there was no room for one class to Iive at the expense of another. The force of necessity dictated that each man was en titled to all the fruits of his own labor and nothing more. A gentle man became one who could stand on his own feet, develop a trade, and earn his own living. He knew that he was not a worm to be trampled upon by some "upper class" but he also knew that he was not a god controlling the Iives or the wills of other human be ings. It became fashionable for gentlemen to till .the soil and to get their hands dirty. That is the philosophy that laid the founda tion for an industrial empire that was to become the number one wonder of the world. It was a philosophy within which escape from the poverty trap was not only possible; it was inevitable.

But that philosophy has not al ways prevailed. There have been departures. There were experi ments with public relief through 584 THE FREEMAN Octobercommunal living right at the out set in both Jamestown and Plym outh. Both experiments failed. Governor Thomas Dale soon dis covered that "martial law did not grow corn" in Virginia and Gov ernor Bradford later learned the same lesson in Plymouth. Gov ernor Dale has been criticized for his apparently harsh edict that those who did not work could not eat. But those who do the criticiz ing have probably overlooked the fact that Governor Dale was sim ply quoting from the author of the famous essay on love of the Christian New Testament. St. Paul had offered the same rule of conduct to the citizens of Thes salonica centuries before. 3 And why should such a rule have come from the pen of the same writer who could say that if you have not charity you are noth ing?4 Again it was an essential part of the dignity of the individ uaL It was recognizing an in herent human value in the labor of the man or woman who pro duced the food as well as in the pleasure of the one who was to eat it. Didn't the producers have dignity? Were they not entitled to the integrity of their own bodies?

And did not that include the fruits of their own labor? There is a distinction between a voluntary 3 II THESS. 3: 10. 4 I COR. 13:2. act of compassion and being the victim of a forced taking. A doctrine that everyone is en titled to the fruit of his own labor calls for a recognition of private property. And if pri vate property is to ripen into specialization and division of labor, there must be freedom of exchange. But neither private property nor freedom of exchange are possible without limited government. There must be government to protect against intruders and that government must be limited to prevent the government itself from becoming an intruder. A limited govern ment then is one that is strong within its proper sphere but is restricted in its power to venture beyond tha t sphere. The proper sphere includes such functions as maintaining order, enforcing con tracts, and punishing dishonesty, cheating, stealing, and violence. It does not include dictating to indi viduals the kinds of employment in which they shall engage, the kinds of houses in which they shall live, or the prices they choose to place upon either their labor or its product.

Things Began to Happen Once these principles were .firm Iy established in the new country, the lack of material prosperity ceased to be a problem. As each human being set about to pursue 1973 IS ESCAPE FROM THE POVERTY TRAP POSSIBLE? 585 his own safety, security, and hap piness in his own way, things be gan to happen. Crude huts became comfortable homes, wilderness trails became highways, and im possible forests became fertile fields. A War of Independence was fought and won against odds that seemedt impossible and which no am,o:unt. of military logic can explain. E'ven as the new country ma tured, additional settlers contin ued to arrive by the millions. The significant thing about these new settlers was that they were free people who were voluntarily leav ing the older and more firmly es tablished communities of Europe to move to a new and a strange land. The countries they left might have had. tyrannical. governments and the citizens themselves might have been an oppressed people, but they were free in that their choice to come here was of their own making. They chose to come even though the choice usually meant a sacrifice of a high order. It meant abandonmentof friends, relatives, and a known way of life. It often meant giving up several years of hard-earned savings to pay for their transportation and for the privilege of arriving penniless in an unknown country. Why did they do it? Was it still the appeal of freedom that had tempted the first arrivals? Was it the attraction of the high level of economic prosperity which the fact of free dom generates? Can the two be separated?

No One Told Them In any event they came to an und'erdeveloped country that hadn't been told it couldn't absorb underdeveloped people. They were received and they were absorbed and Nineteenth Century United States presented to the world the most fantastic industrial growth the world has ever witnessed. The fact that the American society as a society moved constantly upward toward higher and higher levels of economic well-being is too well known to require comment. As viewed from the Twentieth Cen tury heights of comfort and lux ury, that earlier period might ap pear less than ideal. But compared with what had gone before, the steadily improving quality of life dazzles the imagination. The dawn-to-dusk drudgery of the farm was being abandoned for the comparatively easier life of the ten-or even twelve-hour day of easier work, higher pay, and more comfortable living to be found in the cities. And that work day (un reasonably long by current stand ards but short by the standards of the era in which it was instituted) was gradually shortened as the in vention of newer and better tools 586 THE FREEMAN October multiplied and the resulting in crease in the productive capacity of each worker made the shorter day possible. At the same time Cyrus McCormick, John Deere, and others were getting newer and better tools out to the farm to reduce the amount of labor re quired for the production of food there. Escape from the poverty trap, whether on the farm or at the factory, was commonplace. As better machinery and better tools were. developed, the hours of hu man labor required to produce the necessities of life were constantly reduced. Time to produce luxury items and time to enjoy such items after they were produced were being realized. The poverty level, for those who might have thought in such terms, was continuously redefined upward; and with each new definition, a whole nation con tinued to rise above it.. So rapid was the economic growth that the individuals on the very lowest level of material existence at any particular time were almost in variably abundantly affluent as compared with their counterparts of a decade earlier.

Mobility Within Nor was the escape of a society from poverty the end of the story. There was constant movement of individuals within that society. The poorest did not remain at the bottom nor did the wealthiest re main at the top. The financial magnates at any given moment were often individuals who had begun their lives at the very bot tom of the economic ladder and only occasionally were corporate presidents the inheritors of great wealth. It was a free society where free people were permitted to en joy the fruit of their own labor. In such a society the only way one can benefit himself is by serving others. He must offer for sale goods or services which others want and for which others are willing to pay. And in such a soci ety the route upward is necessar ily open to all comers, the newly arriving immigrants no less than the American born. It was open to the newcomer who had nothing to offer except a willingness and a capacity to serve. Youth who were reaching adult years in the Ap palachian hills without ever hav ing owned a toothbrush or en joyed a balanced diet for so much as a single day were migrating to the industrial centers of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by the thousands to become affluent home owners and often the new managers of substantial business enterprises that were just being born. The "hopelessly deprived" of New York's lower east side who had never known any playground except a street were clawing their 1973 IS ESCAPE FROM THE POVERTY TRAP POSSIBLE? 587 way to the top of the financial world or becoming the major po litical figures of the Empire State.

They were esca ping the poverty trap - if there was one. Andrew Carnegie A Scottish immigrant family that arrived in 1848 included a thirteen-year-old boy who was de prived of a high school education when it became necessary for him to take a job as a bobbin boy in a cotton factory in order to help support the family. Even' with that handicap, he found a way to go to night school, learned certain secretarial skills, became a tele graph operator, and from there moved to a job as secretary to the president of the Pennsylvania Railroad. That would seem to be enough for one of such humble origins. But it was not enough for Andrew Carnegie. He soon found himself superintendent of the rail road's Western division, eventu ally entered the steel business, and became the founder of United States Steel Corporation. The mir acle of the free market was being demonstrated. The rise of one man was giving the nation an im proved product at a lower cost and supplying the needed founda tion for numerous allied indus tries ranging all the way from railroads and automobiles to table ware and garden tools. At the same time millions were being em ployed at wages undreamed of a generation earlier.

But the skeptic still asks, can it be done in a mature industrial so ciety? Can it be done where in dustrial empires are already well established and the magnates of great wealth are already secure in their positions? The logical an swer is that in a free society there is no such thing as financial se curity. The wealthy can remain wealthy only so long as their for tunes are wisely invested in the production of goods other citizens want. But an even better answer is, look at the record. Fortunes have continued to rise· from the least promising beginnings. Lena Himmelstein Who would have anticipated that the sixteen-year-old· Russian immigrant named Lena Hinlmel stein who debarked in Ne\v York in 1896 would ever be more than a burden to her newly adopted land? Orphaned as a" baby in Lithuania, she was not excessively educated and did not speak English. Her passage to the United States had been paid for by relatives \vho were already here and who antici pated her becoming· the bride of their son. When Lena met the prospective groom, she abandoned that idea rather hurriedly. She found a job in the garnlent indus588 TJiE "FREEMAN October try where she began at $1 per week. Four years later she had left her job, had become a bride, then a mother, and then a widow with a son less than one year of age. Her prospects did not look good. Her maternal obligations made return to her old job out of the question. Tax-supported day care centers had not been invent ed. She remembered that in the garment industry she had learned to sew. She pawned a pair of ear rings, the only item of value she had from her deceased husband, made a down payment on a sewing machine, and began taking in con tract jobs as she could get them at her small New York apartment.

Much of her sewing in those days wa'S done with her infant son on her knee. But she did earn a liv ing and by the time of her death in 1951 her venture had grown in to a multi-million dollar industry with a chain of retail outlets ex tending throughout most of the United States. Lena Himmelstein is known to the clothing trade as Lane Bryant. She escaped from the poverty trap. Tom Murray But is the escape route still open in the final half of the Twen tieth Century? It was open to Tom Murray when he :;lrrived in this country as an Irish immigrant just one year before Lena Himmelstein's death. It was his luck to find a job as a bellboy in a Detroit hotel where he soon found himself manager of the same establish ment. The hotel business was enough for Tom until he read an announcement from the United States Postmaster General that junk mail and third-class mail were dragging down postal in come to such an extent that rates for these classes would have to be increased by one-third. He had doubts as to whether such an in crease was really necessary and he couldn't help wondering what might happen if a private indus try suddenly announced a thirty three per cent price increase. How many Representatives and Sena tors would hurt themselves falling over each other to see which one would become chairman of the ap propriate investigating commit- ~ tee? A little private investigating by Tom revealed that while the United States Government main tained a monopoly on the delivery of first-class mail, the third-class and junk varieties were open to private competition if anyone chose to enter the field. With $500 in borrowed capital, Tom entered in February, 1968. He delivered the mail at only 60% of the Fed eral rate, made a profit, and in 1971 grossed $10,000,000 and was still expanding as rapidly as new delivery machinery could be put 1973 IS ESCAPE FROM THE POVERTY TRAP POSSIBLE? 589 into place. He was also reaching out for contracts in foreign coun tries and was saying that he would not be satisfied until he was de livering third-class and junk mail to Moscow.5 He just might do it.

Tom Murray rose above the pov erty level. Hundreds of others are still doing the same thing every year. But Tom and others of his generation are encountering diffi culties not faced by those of the Nineteenth Century. Government regulations have multiplied. New infringements on personal free dom have appeared on the Amer ican scene. Governmentally im posed restraints on the release of creative human energy are provid ing the real substance of whatever poverty trap exists for either the society as a whole or the individ ual within that society. As one speculates and wonders about the future of America, he might do well to speculate and wonder about what might have happened if present-day restraints had pre vailed in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. What would Lena Himmelstein have done if, as a widowed mother, she had been given an apartment in a public housing project and had been told that if her income 5 For more information on the Post Office and certain other related problems see Crane, What's Going On?, 1 IMPRIMIS 1-4 (No.2, July, 1972, Hillsdale College).

rose above a certain level, she would have to vacate? As her in come approached that level, would she have dared the risk of allow ing herself to earn too much? In domitable little woman that she was, she might have accepted the challenge. And she might not. Even if she had, what would she have done if, when preparing to hire that first employee, she had learned that on each payday she would be compelled to withhold two different kinds of taxes from the employee's wages and hand both sums over to the Federal gov ernment for whom she would also be required to keep accurate finan cial records available for official inspection? Would that have been too much for a foreign-born, "dis advantaged" person who was too timid to ask for a correction in the spelling of her own name when a bank clerk made a mistake?6 Questions such as these tend to suggest that the poverty trap has tightened considerably since Lena Himmelstein got her start.

And what choice might Andrew 6 The name of the young widow's de ceased husband was David Bryant. When she was ready to open her first bank ac count, she found the bank's marble lobby a bit awesome for one of her humility. Apparently her hand shook as she signed the deposit slip. The bank clerk misread it as "Lane"and opened the account in that form. Rather than complain about the error, she allowed her business name to remain Lane Bryant.

590 THE FREEMAN October Carnegie have made if movement from bobbin boy to telegraph op erator had brought with it a suf ficient increase in pay to terminate the receipt of food stamps by the family his income was helping support? Could he have afforded the transition? Would he have been willing to receive an income that would, not only terminate welfare benefits for his family, but would just barely bring him into the category of those paying taxes to help support his contem poraries who were content to re main bobbin boys? These are questions that must be faced by the prospective Andrew Carnegies and Lena Himmelsteins of the Twentieth Century. And they are not easy. They are stultifying, dis couraging questions for all who are close to that hairline division between the recipients of tax-sup ported benefits and those who are called upon to supply the benefits. Only those who have been criti cally close to one side or the other of that line can grasp the full meaning of the risk involved in its crossing. Those who are only slightly above· the line are strong ly tempted to give up the struggle as they see their neighbors on the other side who are avoiding all economic responsibility. and still living on substantially the same level as the workers. And those below the line find that the very laws that are designed for their benefit have become the binding cords holding them down. They are being dared to even try to im prove themselves.

Never Say Die When an individual accepts de feat in his efforts to improve him self, not only does he lose· his dig nity as a human being, but society itself is deprived of the potential value of that individual as a pro ducer. Likewise, the· individual who remains a producer, although from purely selfish motives, can not help benefiting the society in which he lives. Whether it is An drew Carnegie, Lena Himmel stein, Tom Murray, or anyone of hundreds of others who could be named, their personal triumphs over poverty do not tell the whole story. The significant part of the story is that as they helped them selves, they carried thousands or even millions along with them into areas of improved standards of living for all. In a free society it cannot be otherwise. Let it be re peated that the harsh rule of the free market is that no one can serve himself without serving others. That service manifests it self both in an increase in the supply of goods and in better in comes for the personnel partici pating in the production. The en trepreneur can increase in wealth 1973 IS ESCAPE FROM THE POVERTY TRAP POSSIBLE? 591 only when he provides a good or a service others want at a price they are willing to pay. As he does that, more goods and services are pro duced and more workers are need ed. Every new machine that can take over tasks previously per formed by human labor creates newdemnnds for still n{!w{!r prod ucts that will provide greater com fort or leisure or will relieve some form of human drudgery or suf fering.

Increasing Obstacles Escape from the poverty trap is still possible. The experience of Tom Murray demonstrates that. But ft'" is not easy; it never has been. If it is more difficult now than it was in an earlier day, it might be wise to ask what things have changed. The most signifi cant change appears to be a con stant increase in governmentally imposed restraints on the release of creative human energy. The fact that the substance of poverty is a scarcity of goods is all but forgotten. Whether it is the Square Deal, the New Freedom, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Federalism, the New Fron tier, the Great Society, or the New Republicanism, the central theme seems to be an attack on the pro ducer. In this attack the identity of the producer has been ignored. He has been assumed to be a person of· great wealth. Sometimes he is. More often he is one with a potential for becoming wealthy if allowed the freedom to produce the goods and services other peo ple want. Quite often he is the farmer of modest means in the Appalachian hill country who is still trying to grow corn while paying taxes to provide payments to his neighbor who has already given up the struggle and put his land into the soil bank. He is the coal miner who, when his mine closed, moved a short distance to an industrial city where he could get a job in order to pay taxes to provide welfare benefits for his fellow miner who elected not to move. He is the janitor in a New York City apartment house who has been offered a job as building superintendent but knows that if he accepts the promotion he will lose his own claim to live in subsi dized housing provided by tax payers for "low income" families.

He is a college student who spends his summer as a laborer with a construction crew and then re turns to college to find that his tuition has been increased in order to provide a scholarship for his fellow student who chose to spend the summer on a pleasure cruise in the Mediterranean and is now broke. He is the independent gro cer on Bleecker Street who felt so oppressed by the extensive busi592 THE FREEMAN October ness records he was compelled to maintain for the Internal Revenue Service that he chose to close his store and take a job as cashier in a dime store on Sixth Avenue. He is the Texas poultry farmer who. felt compelled to destroy 20,000 baby chickens when a government regulation told ·him he would not be permitted to sell them as broil ers at a price sufficient to cover the cost of feeding them. Somewhere among these produc ers there just might be found a dollar-per-week employee in the garment industry who has the po tential for introducing a whole new concept in ladies garments, a bobbin boy who will one day be a Emotion vs. Reason builder of heavy industry, or a bellboy who has dreams of operat ing an international mail service.

Why penalize these people? And why penalize a whole society by depriving it of the goods that might otherwise be produced? If citizens are being held in a "pov erty trap," that is to say, in a con dition of deficiency in which they are unsuspectingly caught, why not loosen the condition and allow them to escape? And if the "con dition" happens to be a maze of laws and regulations which, al though designed to help the en tra pped persons, actually operates to their detriment, maybe just identifying the trap will hasten their release. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY PEOPLE who would be among the first to deny that prosperity could be brought about by artificially boosting prices, people who would be among the first to point out that minimum price laws might be most harmful to the very industries they were designed to help, will nevertheless advocate minimum wage laws, and de nounce opponents of them, without misgivings.

HENRY HAZLITT. Economics in One Les80n JOHN E. NESTLER THE AMERICAN DREAM. The term has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? At one time, people were proud to be lieve in it, Horatio Alger was a national hero, Europeans dreamed of the day when they could mi grate to the land of opportunity. But now the American Dream is no longer a subject of admiration. Instead, the use of the term is con fined to satiric remarks, those who believe in it are considered naive, and to be proud of it is proof of romantic sentimentality. I believe this change to be due to a metamorphosis of the Ameri can Dream itself - this as a result of a change in the American men tality. A few decades ago, the Ameri can Dream was synonymous with opportunity: opportunity to en deavor after "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This oppor tunity was social, economic, and Mr. Nestler is a pre-med student at Haverford College, Pennsylvania, majoring in Chemistry and German, but much interested in politics and philosophy.

spiritual. As I well know from my own family, Hungarian refugees who immigrated after World War II, America was seen as the land where you could make a decent living by the sweat of your brow, where no one would tell you how and for whom to vote, and where your religious and moral beliefs could enjoy open profession. It was precisely for this reason that Friedrich von Gentz, the eighteenth-century German philos opher, in his pamphlet comparing the French and American revolu tions, granted the American Rev olution validity, but not the French. 1 The American Revolu1 See Friedrich von Gentz's Uber den Ursprung und Charakter des Krieges gegen die franzosische Revolution and other works. Stefan Possony has added an appendix to Gentz's work in which he also compares the Russian Revolution to those of Amer ica and France. He concludes that the Russian Revolution was invalid for the same reason the French Revolution was invalid - it did not dispel the evils it arose against, it merely substituted new evils.

593 594 THE FREEMAN October tion succeeded in replacing tyran ny with a free and moral system of government. The French Revo lution merely followed the path of previous revolutions which, as Bernard Shaw observed, "have never lightened the burden of tyr anny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder." Caution! I do not know whether I would have supported the American Revo lution. Being a traditionalist, I would have been cautious and wary of sudden change; but, then, so were the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Few of them truly welcomed the revolution - the Thomas Paines were the exception, not the rule. But I like to think that I would have possessed the discerning eye of an Edmund Burke, who, as had Gentz, forcefully denounced the French Revolution but gave his fullfledged support to the Ameri can Revolution. The cries of "lais sez-faire" which resounded when Frenchmen stormed the Bastille found a home, not in France, but across the ocean.

The American Dream was im bued with the concept of the in dividual: each man would reap the fruits of his own labor. America was the land of the rugged indi vidual, who carved out his life with his own hands and accounted to no one but himself for his failures. This is not to say that America was regarded as a land of permis siveness; to the contrary, only a blunt mind would equate freedom with license. Rather, America was regarded as the personification of those ideals of freedom which lay in the hearts of most men. Today, In Contrast Let us compare this view of the American Dream with that of to day. Whereas the American Dream \vas once equated with certain prin ciples of freedom, it is now equated with things. The American Dream has undergone a metamorphosis from principles to materialism. Decades ago, a man would have said he wanted a day's wages for a day's work. Wasn't that material ism? No, because what was being emphasized was that each man, as a free and individual agent, has the right to as much as the market will pay for his efforts. Today, a man would say merely that he has a right to live comfortably; the fact that comfort must be earned is ignored; the question of whether the person is deserving of comfort never arises.

I am reminded of the welfare recipient on the David Susskind Show a few years ago, who de manded that she receive a more substantial Christmas welfare bo nus. When asked why she held this 1973 THE AMERICAN DREAM 595 opInIon, she replied: "Because I have a right to a color T.V. set and things like other people. I am a hu man being, too, you know." This at titude has permeated our society: things are what is important, prin ciples are not. When people are concerned more with the attainment of things than with the maintenance of principles, it is a sign of moral decay. And it is through such decay that loss of freedom occurs. This metamorphosis of the hu man spirit did not come about un foreseen. Although he was not writing specifically about America, Jose Ortega y Gasset, in his The Revolt of the Masses , clearly de lineated the process by which the individual would eventually be sac rificed to the mass-man; the mass man thereby destroying that which made possible his very existence.

In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses today toward the civilization by which they are supported. 2 Respect for the rights of the in dividual has been the foundation 2 Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, CW. W. Norton & Co.. Inc.), 1932,p.60. for America's greatness; it was the reason for the immigration to America from all around the world. It is precisely this respect which has deteriorated as a result of the efforts of the mass-man in Amer ica, this laying the groundwork for a totalitarian welfare state. The fact that individualism was once revered and welfare abhorred does not mean that people were heartless and unconcerned about one another - this being the pic ture most often presented by our liberal media. In fact, there were more private charitable organiza tions before the advent of the wel fare state than since. A more per sonal concern existed among men, because an individual was free to aid another individual if he wished to. That was charity in the true Christian sense.

No Longer by Choice Nowadays, we are forced to con tribute to the welfare of others, whether we wish to or not, whether others are deserving or not. That is said to be true humanity. But, as suming for the moment that it is humane to aid others (which, of course, does not hold true for the indiscriminate distribution of aid), is a person humane or vir tuous if he so acts only when forced at gun-point? Obviously not. Yet, that is the welfare state we "philosophically" admire, the one 596 THE FREEMAN October that coerces every individual to sacrifice his own interests and in discriminately aid others. It is not charity I oppose, but robbery. Let me try to make my position clear. I do believe in the viability of the free market and in the right of men to govern themselves, but I do not believe every man always is moral or that the free market would solve all human ills. Freedom entails responsibilities, and too few of us are willing to assume responsibility. Fortunately, tradi tion forms the basis for laws and provides us with guidelines, al though imperfect, on what is cor rect human conduct.

For example, I will defend any man's right to express his opin ions, but I will not allow anyone to utter obscenities to my sister. I would call on the police to appre hend such an individual. I believe there is a difference between right and wrong, and defend or excuse no man's persistence in the latter. Such problems as what is meant by freedom of speech do not dis turb me. As a conservative, I view human nature as tainted, prone to error. In fact, too often have I seen libertarianism used as an ex cuse for libertinism. Therefore, I disagree with those who offer un limited and unprincipled liberty as the ultimate solution, for I view such a belief as Utopianism. No system can compensate for man's inherent defects. The Totalitarian State A recent article by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in National Re view B points out, for example, that what "Hitler aimed at was 'a century of the common man' in the sense in which Henry A. Wallace used the term in the 1940s." Here we may substitute mass-man for common man - a frequent misuse of terms. Hitler implemented this plan not through a military coup but through "Germanic democ racy."

The totalitarian welfare state is emerging in America, through democratic means, just as it emerged in Hitler Germany. The individual is no longer sacrosanct, and Ortega's prediction of the sac rifice of the individual to the mass-man seems more realistic every day. National Socialism and Commu nism are alike in that both sys tems are socialistic; that is, both systems regard the individual as a pawn for manipulation for "the greater good of the community." It was this concept of socialism that was responsible for Tocque ville's vision of the coming of "democratic totalitarianism." (I 3 Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "From the Continent" in National Review, July 20, 1973, p. 790.

1973 THE AMERICAN DREAM 597 America has already changed, and this change is noticeable in the metamorphosis of the Ameri can Dream. The individual's free will is reduced by taking away the opportunities for exercising indi vidual and voluntary decisions. This is immoral, and contrary to Christian precepts. This change is not causeless it is the result of moral deteriora tion, of the mass-man's turning the concepts of good and evil to his own purpose. The mass-man prefers materialism over prin ciples, and the American Dream Crowd Culture reflects the efforts to enforce this preference. Yet, we must not despair, the situation is far from hopeless. The solution is to assert the old prin ciples, our concepts of right and wrong, our belief in the inalien able freedom and liberty of the individual. Then, the American Dream will regain its former iden tity, and America will remain the best of all possible lands, admired by all the world. But this will come about only with the active participation of us all, and by the grace of God.

IDEAS ON LIBERTY By THE MERE FACT that he forms part of an organized crowd, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization. Iso lated, he may be a cultivated individual; in a crowd, he is a bar barian - that is, a creature acting by instinct. He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity, and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings, whom he further tends to re semble by the facility with which he allows himself to be im pressed by words and images - which would be entirely without action on each of the isolated individuals composing the crowd and to be induced to commit acts contrary to his most obvious interests and his best-known habits. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will. GUSTAVE LE BON, The Crowd Challenges ofthe Communications Explosion PHILIP LESL Y ALMOST EVERYONE is aware that there has been an explosion of communications in recent years.

But while billions have been spent exploring outer space,· the invisi ble virus and the ocean bottom, little perceptive study has been given to what that communica tions explosion has meant to the institutions that are the living tissues of civilization. Almost all the premises and practices for dealing with the hu man climate have been trans formed in the past few years. So it seems pertinent to ask, What are some of the new patterns in our human climate that challenge our stability and progress? • Our population is now seg mented in many ways. It is diPhilip Lesly, president of The Philip Lesly Company, Chicago, is a leading public relations counsel and an authority on public relations and public affairs. Outstanding among his sev eral publications is Lesly's Public Relations Handbook (Prentice Hall, 1971). 598 vided almost evenly between those who have been trained through written media and those who are visually oriented. It is fragmented by the growing specialization in all career fields. It is split be tween those who seek achievement and those who seek escape. It is segmented between white and col ored, between the affluent and the poor, between the educated effete and the hard hat ethnics, and, yes, between men and women.

• Rather than finding conflict an occasional aberration to be overcome, now antagonisms are built into our society and are permanent. • Almost unnoticed, the liberal ethic that insists on maintaining the innocence of any individual until he has been proven guilty is also insisting that every organiza tion must be presumed guilty un1973 CHALLENGES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS EXPLOSION 599 til it has proved its innocence. • We have a whole mosaic of new life styles, new values, diver gent morals and a wide spectrum of viewpoints on all questions. Where one or two elements in our equation used to be changing at any Hme, now virtually all thQ factors are changing at the same time and affecting each other even as they change. Where our concept of purpose used to be one-dimensional, we now must recognize that nothing can succeed except through the systems approach of coordinating many simultaneous factors.

The old wisdom that when we seek to communicate with the pub lic we must try to lead our target becomes banal when it is not only difficult to tell the course of the target but even what the target will be the next time we look. We must see the full mosaic of the world we must cope with ... recognize that events follow a chain reaction ... and realize that the important move - the one that will really determine the results of our communications efforts is the move after the move after this one. As in chess, the amateur sees one move at a time; the master is planning many moves ahead. • Our people have come to take for granted the massive multipli cation of results made possible by computers and automation in rou tine paper work and factories. Now they have transferred these expectations of mass results to fields where hum,an factors, that cannot be multiplied, are involved, such as in education and h~~lth care.

• We now have a majority of ~ our population that has not developed an immunity to frustra tion, as all previous generations did, by having to face severe re strictions on its dreams and aspi rations almost from birth. Millions grow to adulthood before they en counter the frustrating reality of a world that, until a generation ago, contained far more frustra tions of desires than fulfillments. So when they faced restrictions on their urges and dreams of Utopia, they lashed out at what ever symbol seemed to stand in their way - parents, college presi dents, the government, or "the es tablishment." It is not a coinci dence that the cooling off of the violence and anarchism coincided with the recent recession, as well as with the winding down of the war in Vietnam. For the first time the reality of limits imposed by the world became clear to millions of people. But the conditions that created the aggressiveness are still 600 THE FREEMAN October present and could break out in some new direction at any time.

• Millions of people have now been educated to think they should have a special role in our society. Colleges have been holding out de grees as the key to freedom from routine roles in life and as the marks of leadership ... even while they propound the doctrine of equality for everyone. Only a few can find the kind of influence that they were led to expect, and are disillusioned when the world does not bow to their wisdom. Those who have been led to ex pect great things then seek to justify themselves. They have the time, the inclination and the op portunity to attack the structure they feel is unfair to them. It is ironic that the increased leisure and affluence that the system makes available enables them to increase their attacks on the system. • As a result, we are creating ... as a by-product of the develop ment of our people far more rap idly than the society can absorb their expectations ... a many pronged assault on our social structure. We now have many groups whose primary outlook on life is to force major changes.

Among the media, in our colleges, among social workers, many government agencies and other groups, it is presumed that the member's worth will be measured by how much he can poke holes in the way things have been. In these areas, one often is assumed to be a failure if he or she merely con tributes to the stability of 'Our system. ,Another strong trend arISIng out of the widespread free time and affluence now available is the sharp and varied changes in life styles. It is another irony that one of the great charges against our system is that it reduces each person's ability to fulfill himself as an individual ... and yet al most everyone now has far more choices for what he does with his life and how he spends a maj or part of his time than most people have ever had. The great diversity of life styles - ranging from de vout fundamentalist religion to pure Communism in remote living centers - further fragments the purposefulness and cohesion of our society.

The impetus for most· of the changing currents has come from our youth. Although we cannot predict what the new pressures of youth will be, we can be reason ably sure they will not be the same as they are today or have been. The focus of youth agitation has shifted approximately every two years since 1960: From activ1973 CHALLENGES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS EXPLOSION 601 ism for Negroes to freedom from authority to the Vietnam war to "the system" to ecology to the "Jesus revolution" and now to personal fulfillment. Every thrust of the youth culture is vitiated as soon as it is "in" long enough to be identified with one age group. About the only sure thing about the thrust of youth activism is that it will be different in a couple of years. • Every message directed to every audience is unique in its time and impact. The individual is different from the frame of mind he was in when some previ ous message was aimed at him.

And the importance to him of each message is a vital factor. So it is not possible to predict the response to any message on the basis of what the response has been to any previous message. A notable example was the reaction to President Nixon's announce ment of his trip to China. There was no possibility of predicting the response by looking at opinion polls of previous responses of the public on even somewhat related matters. • For communication to take place, the audience must be in what can be called a "posture of receptivity." This receptivity com bines the background and heritage of the individual with his predis position toward the source. That means that when an organization's actions and statements have de veloped a high degree of good will, every other message from that source will receive much more ac ceptability. • There is a "threshold of con sciousness" that must be passed before an idea becomes a factor in any attitude. Every idea or image of a person or organization that does "arrive" in the public con sciousness has passed through the massive barriers that people have erected.

• In today's highly complex and diverse world, it is necessary to use a "multiple-channel approach" in projecting an idea to the public. There is no one or a few media that can achieve this penetration. It is necessary to surround the audience with the concept to make it become part of its mental framework. The more closely a communica tion is beamed to a specific audi ence, the more likely it is to be received and accepted. The early reaction to events or communications may disguise their actual effects. Great pub licity and furor may seem to create public opinion because of their immediacy, visibility and force.

602 THE FREEMAN October But often there is a reaction against that furor that becomes the permanent effect. Much of the public desire to cool off the racial issues has been due to reaction against the trumpeted violence of the Black Panthers a couple of years a.go. More and more, as our organ izations become bigger and more diversified, they are politically hamstrung internally, sometimes to the point of immobilization. Yet the problems of the human climate are external and must be ap proached forthrightly. The prevalent feeling is that the period of multiple assaults on our institutions is a phase we are go ing through. Actually, there is reason to feel that it is building up inevi tably and will continue to grow. Our society, by holding out the magic that a college education is supposed to bestow, is mass pro ducing dissidents. And even when they attain any of their objec tives, they are not likely to fade away but will go on to seek new and more demanding causes.

The multiplicity of causes is al ready bringing militants into con flict with each other. The gross overexpectations that have been built up are often aimed at oppos ing goals such as providing aU needs and comforts for everyone at low cost and d~voting massive resources to environment, employing the unqualified at high cost and other expensive goals. The position of many organiza tional leaders today is anomalous. The managers of American insti tutions and enterprises are ad mired all over the world as mag nificently trained and disciplined for .operating complex organiza tions. An executive train·ed at a good graduate school has, by his original personality and the dis ciplined training he has received, been indoctrinated with the im portance of the. facts, the tangi bles, the measurable. He is told that it is fuzzy minded to con sider what can't be included in the equation, that can't be computer ized or brought down to the bot tom line. The managers of America are masterful in coping with the tangibles of their opera tions - budgets, personnel require ments, materials, facilities and so on.

Dealing with Intangibles Now these managers are faced increasingly with problems that are intangible - mostly based on human attitudes and not on the measurable, the predictable, the factors that can be included in computerized evaluations. The problems deal with the attitudes of youth, contributors, activist groups, employees, potential em ployees, minority organizations, 1973 CHALLENGES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS EXPLOSION 603 government agencies, legislators and others. There are a number of emerg ing conditions that confront those who need to communicate with the American public: 1. This is an age of action and visibility, requiring that we deal with problems in depth and yet immediately. 2. Organization and corporate leaders who are accustomed to de termining events are now faced most of the time with coping with events. Many of them are· not pre pared for such a diametrical shift. They want to impose their dis ciplined methods on the human climate. They expect predictabil ity and measurability from com munications efforts; just as they do in finance, production, pur chasing, bookkeeping and other areas.

3. Those people who are trained to withhold judgment until the facts are in ... to give prece dence to reason over passion . . . to base their case on merits rather than on emotions, are the most vulnerable to activist dissent. A high level of professionalism leads professors, lawyers, physicians, clergymen and others to abhor public combat. In an age of activism and visibility, the profession with high standards, that deplores aggres sive appeal for support and pre fers to work in dignified silence, is a sitting duck. Academicians, la.wyers and doctors, who scorn efforts to capture favorable at tention, face being swept into sub jugation by the nature of our times. 4. The explosion of instant and visible communication has not only made a now society, but has made visibility the factor that determines what occurs in it. Re peatedly we find th~t it is not the facts of a situation but what it seems to people that becomes the real reality. When the television screen shows police using force on milling youth, the public concludes that the police attacked the crowd.

When millions see only disheveled and obscene youth marching on campuses, it concludes that the whole young generation is like that. 5. People have seen massive ad vances made in those aspects of our system where technology is the key. Automation, using elec tronic techniques, has multipled the output of our industrial cornu copia. Computers handle masses of information and records that would inundate human capacities. But people expect the same multi604 THE FREEMAN October plications of capabilities where human capacities are still the key. The process of teaching cannot be revolutionized by installing auto mated equipment. Health care cannot be turned over to great programmed machines, but still depends on the skills and dedica tion of highly trained people. How often we have heard, "If we can put it man on the moon, we can solve our problems here on earth by applying the same effort and dedication." But our scientists knew exactly where the moon would be on July 20, 1969. All factors could be fed into their considerations with a certainty they had a fixed target. But all human problems are in a constant state of change and of interaction with each other. The only cer tainty is that conditions ten years hence will not be just as we visu alize them when we set our targets.

6. All the currents of passion and emotion and illogic, as well as reason, make it vital for every group to cope with the climate of attitudes. Yet almost every group is still concentrating on its tra ditional concerns. Business de votes most of its attention to pro duction, finance and marketing while its existence is being under mined on the issues of consumer ism, minority hiring, preservation of the environment, invasion of management functions by lahar and government, the reluctance of bright young people to work in large companies, and other forces that are all in the minds of men. Doctors continue to focus on car ing for patients - while groups and government clamor for "re structuring" the health care sys tem, drafting doctors for areas that lack them, and other issues that are forces in the minds of men. The colleges, despite their traumatic tumult of recent years, are still essentially concerned with courses, faculty and research while student groups and govern ment assault them to revolution ize not only their structures and functions but their very reasons for being.

All these professions labor con scientiously in their vineyards. But the climate of attitudes that will determine whether they will be able to function at all-and on whose terms - is being developed by the outside forces that shape public attitudes in an electronic age of action and visibility. 7. The battlefield for the human climate is the communications media and no aspect of our society has changed more than the media. Only a few years ago a few magazines and a few major news papers constituted the important 1973 CHALLENGES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS EXPLOSION 605 communications network. Today we have an explosion of media hundreds of magazines, newspa pers, television, radio, books, jour naIs, newsletters, sound tapes. No subject short of a catastrophe now can claim the attention of more than a portion of the public. There is bitter competition for space in any of the media. The competition among ideas has ex panded manyfold. A new genera tion of journalists is attuned to "involvement," by which they mean changing the world instead of reporting on it. The multipli cation of media creates competi tivepressures to grasp for at tention. In this climate, the re porter who produces a sensation is rewarded; the one who comes in with a solid but unspectacular report finds it hard to be appreci ated. A media man who doesn't find a riot or crisis he can cover is tempted to wish for one.

8. The epitome of what may be the greatest of all the revolutions now facing us is that there are two electronic revolutions going on at the same time. One is the electronic revolution of TV - in stant emotion and involvement ... putting emphasis on "human feel ings" and quick solutions ... op posing the "inhumanity" of slow moving mechanisms and institu tions. The other is the electronic revolution of management of in formation and of systems - ex emplified by the computer. It stresses facts, organization, hard reality, elimination of the nui sance variables. Our youth are creatures of the TV revolution. Our institutions, with their libraries and their fruit of generations of thought and weighing of ideas, typify management by facts and data. Our institutions are based on rules and standards, like com puters; TV is based on emotion. Our institutions are based on his tory and tradition; TV on im mediacy and novelty.

Required to Affect Public Attitudes In light of the emerging prob lems and changing condi tions, what are the requirements for anyone who needs to affect public attitudes? 1. He or she must become a very broad-gauged person. He must know the best thought in the social sciences and in mass com munications by living with the best books, journals, seminars and especially the best people. 2. He must learn to see the whole picture in which his organi zation functions, including the whole scope of our society. He must kno\v and understand where the various-wheels mesh, where the trends are going, where the 606 THE FREEMAN October interrelationships between groups take effect. 3. He must think and work ahead - trying to command the future human climate rather than being swept along by it. 4. He must master the skills and kn~wledge involved in effec tive mass communication today, or hire that mastery.

Guidelines to Influence Opinion There are a number of guide lines for anyone seeking to influ ence public opinion on behalf of an organization today: 1. He should recognize that the internal politics in the organiza tion are a basic problem. They can immobilize an organization and prevent effective functioning. It is important to separate decision making and functioning in the human climate areas from the in ternal machinations of the organ ization. 2. Administrators must recog nize that in our present social climate, communication is no long er a prerogative of management; it is the essence of management. Communication determines wheth er anything really happens and what the consequences will be. 3. In our fast-moving times, any reading based on what people used to think or even what they think now is likely to be out-of date by the. time any new action or communication can take effect.

To base plans and communica tions on what has gone before, or even what is occurring now, is to base one's future on reaction rather than action. 4. Every organization must help create the climate in which it will function, rather than let that cli mate develop and then try to cope with it. Initiative in communica tion is increasingly important. 5. The publics that must be reached by communications should be clearly defined. The process of segmentation means that what will evoke a response from one group will fail with some and per haps repel others. Each communi cations activity must reach specific publics in ways that can gain their interest and motivate their support. 6. Involvement and face-to-face interchange with as many publics as possible is important for three reasons: • It is the surest way to get a feel for how they really think and how they respond to what is said. • It is demonstrable evidence of real concern for them and their needs.

• It is visible - not the visibil ity of being on television in thousands of homes at once, but still visibility that repre sents reality.

1973 CHALLENGES OF THE COMMUNICATIONS EXPLOSION 607 7. With today's suspicious pub lic, the impression of secretive ness automatically breeds distrust. If there seems to be refusal to interchange communications with the public, there is likely to be a gap in credibility and confidence. 8. Today's American has an al most arrogant sense of his own importance and interests, and re sents what seem to be efforts to use him rather than to serve him. Whatever is said must be couched in the self-interest of the audience rather than in a way that s/eeks to sell a viewpoint. 9. It is far more effective to in oculate the publics in advance against the virulence of criticism that may come - by establishing confidence and understanding than to try to overcome the rav ages of these attacks after they have occurred. 10. Of all the factors involved in sound communication that leads thought and gets things done, time is probably the most vital. Careful contemplation and long consideration are luxuries of the past. The critics live in the real-time world of the television camera and the dramatic event. In an age of instant communication, often a few minutes are critical.

11. The new media-activist pat tern is the "smart bomb" of hu man affairs. It seeks out targets that were formerly hidden or operated with a low profile. In this era of activism, visibility and pervasive media, the institution that seeks to sit things out with its head down is likely to be a sitting duck. 12. The visible and the active should be stressed. Ideas and facts are important, but it is how they are packaged that determines their effectiveness. Today the overwhelming force for influenc ing attitudes is the visible media: dramatic events, television, mo tion pictures, audio-visual tech niques, and face·,to-face inter changes. 13. It is more vital than ever that only the best possible skills in communication be relied on for sensing the climate of atti tudes, for planning and for execu tion. With the overwhelming com plexity and severity of the chal lenges, the standard skills are most likely to fail and only the extraordinary skills to succeed.

The challenges of the communi cations explosion and the multiple revolutions in our society create heightened needs for persons dis ciplined in the skills of responsible public relations. There is growing awareness among administrators that the real problems of all institutions are in the attitudes of people the human climate in \vhich the institution must function. Many 608 THE FREEMAN October thoughtful managers recognize that they have not been trained to be sensitive enough to the human climate or to have the expertness to deal with it unaided. The hu man patterns are becoming more complicated rapidly. They are harder to understand and deal with. They demand greater ex pertness and experience. Com munications sense and skills, which have always been vital and have always been scarce, are be coming more vital and scarcer still. At its best, public relations is a bridge to change. It is a means to adjust to new attitudes that have been caused by change. It is Look to the People a means of stimulating attitudes in order to create change.

It helps an organization see the whole of our society together, rather than from one intensified viewpoint. It provides judgment, creativity and skills in accommo dating groups to each other, based on wide and diverse experien<;e. Like all other great changes, the shifts in our human climate and the pattern of commun,ica tions that shapes it present great challenges to those who strive for a wholesome and productive so ciety. Understanding the new dy namics and utilizing the best knowledge and skills, however, can help master these challenges like all others. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY WHEN THE PEOPLE rise enmass in behalf of the Union and the liberties of this country, truly may it be said, "The gates of hell cannot prevail against them." In all trying positions in which I shall be placed, my reliance will be upon you and the people of the United States; and I wish you to remember, now and forever, that it is your business and not mine; that if the union of these states and the liberties of this people shall be lost, it is but little to any one man of fifty-two years of age, but a great deal to the thirty millions of people who inhabit these United States, and to their posterity in all coming time. It is your business to rise up and pre serve the Union and liberty for yourselves, and not for me. I ap peal to you again to constantly bear in mind that not with poli ticians, not with Presidents, not with office seekers, but with you, is the question: Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generations?

ABRAHAM LINCOLN February 11, 1861 Appealto the Intellect LEONARD E. READ Every man she" uses its lamps, that '6$ shining, and learn their{w'ay'~' THERE ARE a thousand and one faults responsible for the sorry lack of moral and intellectual prog ress we decry; even more serious are the evils which cause the dev olutionary plunge so apparent to any discerning eye. No one will ever spot all the errors; but let each one that is spotted be held to the light that others may recognize it. Here is an error that has been bothering me, at once enormous and malicious, a fault so common that it appears, on the surface, to be a virtue. What might this be? It is the tendency to appeal not to the potential intelligence of others but, rather, to play upon, to take advantage of, their weaknesses. The fact that one's potential-the undeveloped capacity in each of us - is incomparably greater than his intelligence may explain the deplorable tendency here in ques tion. For, unless one acts as wise ly and conscientiously as he can, the road of least resistance must lead to decadence.

To illustrate: Sales researchers have discovered that a price of $4.95, for instance, gives the im pression to most people that the item is more in the $4 than $5 range. While nearly everyone be lieves with Ben Franklin that "a penny saved is a penny earned," it is not necessarily a mark offru gality to spend 99 nickels to save one. It may be false economy and bad arithmetic. But such weak nesses are exploited. This explains why an item may be priced at $99.99 - 9,999 cents - rather than $100. "Why," I asked a passenger 609 610 THE FREEMAN October agent in an airport lounge, "do you advertise a trip to Hawaii for $159.95? Why not $160?" At least he was honest with me: "It fools people; that figure makes it look like a bargain." However, I must not leave the impression that this appeal to ignorance rather than to intelligence is a practice peculiar to business. We find it featureed in every field of human activity.

Political Promises Appeals to weakness are the stock in trade of politicians. What will the people fall for? If it is something-for-nothing, then political platforms will promise delivery. So-called teachers, economists, clergymen by the tens of thou sands stoop as often to such cheap tricks as do labor unions, cham bers of commerce, PTA's, and countless other organizations. Find out what weak and thought less people will demand, support, cheer, follow - be .it consumerism or socialism - and "away we go." Further, those who deplore this appeal to ignorance are well ad vised to look in the mirror. Any such widespread error tends to "rub off" on everyone. Is there an identifiable form of immunity to this malady? Yes; merely observe if integrity prevails. If one is saying or writing only that which his highest conscience dictates as truth, then, definitely, he is ap pealing to strength or intellect rather than to weakness. Why this claim?

When one acts with integrity, his eye is not cast on cheers, ap plause, fame, fortune, profits, and other worldly emoluments. In stead, the pursuit of truth and its accurate reporting commands the individual's attention. Is this to wave aside the things of this world? Hardly! Seek ye first Truth and Righteousness, and these things shall be added unto you. To Reverse the Trend How, then, are we to reverse course and be rid of this mischiev ous habit of appealing to. weak ness? The answer: appeal to intel lect. No matter with whom one is communicating - whether a custo mer, student, voter, employee, spouse, child, or other - assume his intelligence. How? By making certain that every utterance written or oral - accurately re flects the truth as one sees it. And watch the recipient of the mes sage rise to the challenge. To ex pect and believe in another's intel ligence has a drawing power, an attractive or magnetic effect.

To test this conclusion, simply ask yourself: When do I best re~ spond? When someone assumes I am stupid and tries to "pull the 1973 APPEAL TO THE INTELLECT 611 wool over my eyes," or when he assumes I am as bright as can be? As the famous psychiatrist, Dr. Fritz Kunkel observed: "Immense hidden powers lurk in the uncon scious of the most common man - indeed, of all people without exception." Tap these immense hidden powers by an appeal to in tellect. Let integrity feature one's every word and deed. "What? You expect me to give up the practices that are keeping me in business or in office?" Frankly, I do. I expect better of those who are now or who have been appealing to weakness. But when a switch is made, if at all, it Knowledge and Learning will be in response to explanations and demonstrations by a few that an appeal to intellect is the way best to serve one's self-interest. Noone can prosper for long materially, intellectually, morally, spiri tually - in a society based on appeals to weakness, be the ap peals intentional or not.

Always address our appeals to the other person's intellect. For all you or I know, his hidden or latent powers may be greater than yours or mine. In any case, we will have tried our best, not our worst and, by so doing, will have helped ourselves. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY THE INTELLECT, which has been disciplined to the perfection of its powers, which knows, and thinks while it knows, which has learned to leaven the dense mass of facts and events with the elastic force of reason, such an intellect cannot be partial, can not be exclusive, cannot be impetuous, cannot be at a loss, can not but be patient, collected, and majestically calm, because it discerns the end in every beginning, the origin in every end, the law in every interruption, the limit in each delay; because it ever knows where it stands, and how its path lies from one point to another. CARDIN AL JOHN HENRY NEWMAN The Idea of a University Who Profits from East-West Trade?

EUGENE GUCCIONE 612 BEFORE answering the question raised in the title, let's briefly consider how East-West trade is viewed within the entire US polit ical spectrum. Essentially, there are four major schools of thought: 1. The Peaceful-Coexistence School. Advocates of this school call themselves free-traders and hold to the premise that: (a) trade benefits all parties involved, hence it is the best tool to achieve peace; (b) US trade barriers should be removed, and the quicker the better; and (c) negotiations, cultural exchanges, and political compromise should be used exten sively. Critics of this school say that: (a) Russia - which has a crying need for American technology and Mr. Guccione, a chemical engineer, is senior editor of Engineering & Mining Journal, and a director of the Committee for Monetary Re search and Education.

1973 WHO PROFITS FROM EAST-WEST TRADE? 613 capital - would benefit far more from increased trade than the US ; (b) Russia confiscated US prop erty and pirated American knowhow in the 1920's and 1930's, nev er repaid the $ll-billion loan of the 1940's, stole US atomic secrets, looted Eastern Europe and en slaved it, and provoked the US in Korea, Cuba and elsewhere in the 1950's and 1960's - hence, US trade barriers are necessary de fenses; (c) negotiations, cultural exchanges, and compromises are useless as long as Russia uses trade as a weapon in its expan sionistic foreign policy. 2. The Flexible School. Holders of this position differentiate be tween Russia and Eastern Euro pean countries, saying that Russia should be isolated and contained, whereas the Eastern European countries should receive US trade and help whenever they show signs of growing tired of Russian domi nation.

Critics say that the Flexible school cannot "contain" Russia be cause the Soviets would be able to obtain Western technology indi rectly through the Eastern satel lites - and that the Flexible policy lacks a plan for helping Eastern European countries when they are most sorely in need of help, such as Hungary in 1956 and Czecho slovakia in 1968. 3. The Militant School. Support ers, worried by Marxist theories of the historical inevitability of Communism's victory, maintain that East-West trade is unthink able and that Communism must be wiped out. Critics identify the Militant School as negative because it is against rather than for something, and say that it does not have the power to achieve positive solutions and can lead to disastrous con frontations. 4. The Leave-It-Alone School. Proponents view Communism as a parasite that will die if deprived of its hosts (the West); there fore, it is not necessary to fight it (as the Militants suggest) nor to live with it (as the Peaceful sug gest) in order to be rid of it but merely to "leave it alone" by halting all trade and severing all connecti ons.

Declaimers say that this policy is impractical and would be inef fective as the US could not con vince all nations of the Free World to stop trading with Com munist nations. The Libertarian Position Another position - which, so far, has no influence whatever is that advanced by the Liber tarian School. It rejects all the four major approaches to East614 THE FREEMAN October West trade because it finds them incompatible with the concept of freedom. For example, according to libertarians, the Peaceful-Co existence school (which today has the greatest influence in Washing ton) sweeps under the rug the fact that the kind of "free trade" it advocates is in effect a coercive activity because financed via US government guarantees and US Export-Import Bank credits and giveaways - and, as such, is ulti mately financed by the US tax payer whenever Communist na tions default on their debts.

Essentially, libertarians are sympathetic to the Leave-It-Alone school - but with an important ex ception: they would never forbid trade with the Communists or anyone else. Since freedom implies responsibility for one's own ac tions, so goes the libertarian argu ment, anyone should be free to en gage in trade with Russia and other Communist nations at h,is O1lJn risk. For instance, if a US corpora tion such as the XYZ Chemical Company wants to build a textile plant in Siberia, then the XYZ people should have every right to do so with their own money and resources - but certainly not by soliciting special guarantees from the US government against Com munist expropriation, or by help ing their Communist client to finance the venture through US Ex port-Import Bank credits. I am a libertarian. And I be lieve that any other approach to East-West trade is doomed: the burden of all the mistakes that occur ,will ultimately be borne, as it always has, by the US taxpayer.

This is not a prediction but a statement of fact based on histor ical events, the most recent of which is that horror known as the "Soviet grain deal." Who Profited from the Grain Deal? Even a cursory look at the Soviet grain deal will go a long way in demolishing the view widely shared by many American bankers, businessmen and govern ment officials - that a great. in crease in East-West trade paves the road to increased understand ing between the two superpowers, to relaxation of tensions, to enor mous economic benefits, growing cooperation in international affairs, peaceful coexistence, and a litany of other alleged benefits. Briefly, here's a synopsis of the grain deal: During the trade talks in early 1972, the major objective of US government officials was to obtain a Soviet commitment to purchase "surplus" American grain. To help finance the $750-million purchase, our government went to the extent of providing the Russians with a 1973 WHO PROFITS FROM EAST-WEST TRADE? 615 $500-million credit through the Commodity Credit Corporation.

In late Mayor early June 1972, the Kremlin found out that the Russian grain harvest would be disastrous. Immediately, Soviet buyers crept into the US and secretly bought at low prices all the American grain they could. Throughout the entire 1972 sum mer, US government officials, un aware of the extent of Russian purchases, blissfully encouraged the sale of "surplus" grain by maintaining grain prices artifi cially low through payment of some $300 million of subsidies to exporters. It was after these Soviet pur chases were consummated that the grain short~ge suddenly appeared and wheat prices jumped by more than 50 per cent. To trace just one of the conse quences, let's see the effect on meat prices. US livestock and chicken raisers were now faced with an unprece dented increase in feed costs. Not surprisingly, meat prices went up. (There were other factors in volved, however.) As consumers screamed to high heaven, the gov ernment extended price controls on meat. With the exception of sundry politicians and pseudo economists, every thinking person knows that fixing prices below the market level will cause shortages, and that price controls immeasur ably wo!sen the supply situation: marginal producers will go out of business. Noone can make a living selling below cost - and that in cludes chicken raisers.

"I don't mind hard work, but I hate paying for the privilege," is the comment of a farmer who had to slaughter his chicks to avoid bankruptcy. The US-Soviet grain deal was "... a colossal American grain give away to the Soviet Union, the in flationary effects of which have already cost this country hundreds of millions and perhaps even bil lions of dollars." This is a quote from the July 26, 1973, lead edi torial in The New York Times. The Brezhnev Overture Thanks to several decades of in creasing governmen tal meddling in the economy - a meddling re cently quickened by "jawboning," "voluntary guidelines," "monetary fine-tuning," "progressive fiscal policies," "freezes" and "phases," not to mention all the impediments and obstacles that government bu reaucrats and armies of environ mentalists and ecologists have im posed on mineral exploration and development - Americans are now beginning to feel th'e pinch of raw material and fuel shortages.

The Russians, on the other hand, for the first time in their 616 THE FREEMAN October history, are claiming their self sufficiency and speak of exploiting their natural resources for the ex port market. Though probably exaggerated for propaganda purposes, the nat ural resources of the~Soviet Union are enormous. But they are virtu ally untapped. The reason: the Soviets do not possess either suf ficient development capital or the technology needed to convert their natural resources into values. On June 24 this year, Leonid Brezhnev appeared on American TV and made the same pitch that every Russian leader - from Peter the Great and Catherine, to Lenin and Khrushchev - has been mak ing for centuries: Give us your knowhow and in vestment capital in exchange for our raw materials, and we'll both prosper. Generously sprinkled with pleas for peaceful coexistence, the Brezhnev overture sounded irre sistible for many reasons, some of which are more important than others. I will mention what I think is the most crucial one: our need for fuel.

The Soviets' Bait Is Oil. and Gas The US energy crisis is getting worse. We import every day 6 mil lion barrels of oil which costs us some $7 billion per year. Unless the US develops its domestic resources, we wtll have to import some 20 million barrels of oil per day by 1985 at an annual cost of $29 billion. And that is just to keep things as they are, never mind growth or progress. The estimate, moreover, is based on the optimistic assumption that the dollar will retain its current value in 1985. Unfortunately, the dollar, after 60 years of regulation by the Federal Reserve System, is just another fiat currency, i.e., incon vertible, and quickly depreciating in the world monetary markets. Earlier this year, I edited a book, Mineral Resources and the Economy of the USSR (McGraw Hill), authored by Alexander Sutulov, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah. In his book, Sutulov notes that current oil and gas developments in west ern Siberia are indeed impressive.

Although development work began only a few years ago, Siberian oil production reached the 85-million ton level last year. And by 1975, oil and natural gas production will reach 125 million tons, fully one half the present output of Saudi Arabia, says Sutulov. During the 1972 trade talks, Peter G. Peterson, then US Sec retary of Commerce, stressed that American-Soviet joint ventures in fossil fuels were "potentially the single most important .product" of the negotiations. Generally, Soviet 1973 WHO PROFITS FROM EAST-WEST TRADE? 617 proposals envisioned first the con tribution of American investment capital - made available through government-guaranteed US loans - with which the Russians would buy American equipment and knowhow; then, during the time that the Kremlin would settle its debts with Uncle Sam, the partici pating American firms would re ceive as payment for their contri butions a commensurate portion of the mineral commodities and fuels produced at the newly built Soviet facilities. Thereafter, the Soviets would entertain entering long-term supply contracts with the US.

At present two maj or deals are under discussion involving Siberi an natural gas: EI Paso Natural Gas is considering the construc tion of cryogenic plants in the Far Eastern Soviet ports to liquefy natural gas for import to the US West Coast; and Tenneco, Texas Eastern Transmission, and Brown and Root are negotiating a similar deal for gas export to the East Coast. Earlier this year, inciden tally, the Soviet government and Occidental Petroleum completed a $10-billion deal involving the sup ply of chemical plants (by Occi dental) in exchange for fertilizers and natural gas exports from Russia. It is by making many more deals of this sort, according to Morgan Guaranty Trust, one of the larg est US banks, that ". . . the US could reap considerable economic benefits. Over the first few years ... US exports to the Soviet Union seem likely to grow much more rapidly than imports. This would be a plus both in terms of creating more jobs and helping the balance of payments. In the longer run, drawing on Soviet energy and raw material resources could alleviate some of this country's supply problems." (from The Morgan Guaranty Survey, Sept. '72, p. 11).

Such cheerful optimism is fueled by the desire of various US businessmen who want their "fair share" of the COMECON market's foreign trade. (COMECON is the acronym for the Council of Mu tual Economic Aid, whose mem bers are: the Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.) COME CON's 1971 aggregate Gross Na tional Product was about $725 billion, and its world trade about $19 billion - of which more than $12 billion was conducted with eight non-Communist nations of Western Europe. By contrast, the US share was a mere $384 million in exports and $233 million in im ports - totaling less than 1 per cent of all US world trade. Will there be a boom in East West trade? The answer, accord ing to all the business executives 618 THE FREEMAN October and economists I have talked with, is unmistakably negative. Let's see why. Geography Is a Negative Factor "When those 'fair-sharing' US businessmen say there's a market in COMECON, they should ask themselves: a market for what and for whom? Our potential par ticipation in that market isn't go ing to be as fantastic as the pie in-the-sky predictions of vocifer ous East-West trade supporters,"

notes Raymond J. Kenard, former president of Power Gas Corpora tion of America and now a chem ical consultant in international trade. "Let's forget about Russia for the moment," says Kenard. "Eastern and Western Europe are contiguous geographic land-areas, and this facilitates deliveries enor mously. It's not so when you have to make a transoceanic shipment from the US. The freight situa tion alone would be ruinous." Philosophical Differences Do Matter "Even if Congress were to re peal all the tariff barriers to Rus sian goods, as Brezhnev would like, and even if the Kremlin were to settle the Soviet Jew emigration issue to our full satisfaction, I don't think there will be any ap preciable increase in trade between the US and Russia," says Norman A. Bailey, president of Bailey, Tondu, Warwich and Company, a New York investment banking house. Bailey, who is also professor of political science at the City Uni versity of New York, explains that should American exporters be finally freed of all controIs, they would still have difficulties in selling unless US imports in creased. But Eastern European goods would have to be competitive in price and quality to succeed in the US. To do that, Eastern Eu rope would have to become con sumer-oriented and be free to move in response to market needs.

In effect, this would result in the establishment of a free market, Le., some form of capitalism, " ... and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Russians to let that happen," concludes Bailey. Thus, to the dismay of prag matists, even when viewed from a strictly commercial context,. the subject of East-West trade ulti mately bogs down in ideology and philosophy. Charity Begins at Home "If any major investment has to be made for mineral exploration and development, it should be done right here, starting with the oil and gas fields of Alaska, and the coal deposits of Wyoming, Utah and other Western states," says Felix E. Wormser, a mining con1973 WHO PROFITS FROM EAST-WEST TRADE? 619 sultant, formerly Assistant Secre tary of the Interior under Presi dent Eisenhower. "It's true that we have an en ergy crisis, but the cause of that crisis is neither geological nor technological. For instance, we have more than 3,000 billion tons of coal reserves. That's enough to last for the next 2,000 years at our current consumption rate,"

notes Wormser, pointing out that we know how much of our fuel resources are recoverable and at what cost. "But we don't have that type of information about Russian coal or any of their other re sources - which, at present, are no more than a geological poten tial that must still be realized." According to Wormser, the cause of the US energy crisis is political: "Our oil and gas re serves have been dwindling be cause for years we haven't had either the capital or the incentive to do the kind of domestic explora tion and development work that we once did and that today, thanks to inflexible government regula tions and the demands of environ mentalists, we are prevented from doing." In the considered editorial opin ion of The Neiw York Times, Americans would be well-advised to respond with "a ruthless skep ticism about all Soviet business proposals . . . Documentation of Moscow's grain coup must stand as warning to the American tax payer against the commission of similar errors by American busi nessmen and the Government of ficials now being asked by the Kremlin to pay for Siberia's fu ture development."

Formidable Financial Obstacles Financially, no trade is possible without a stable and acceptable medium of exchange. Unfortun ately, the dollar now lacks stabili ty, and the ruble lacks convertibil ity. Even if the US could restore equilibrium in its balance of payments, and thus stabilize the dollar, "... the de-facto incon vertibility of the Russian ruble in terms of Western currencies and the Russian lack of liquidity pose other formidable obstacles to trade," says economist Patrick M. Boarman, director of research at the Center for International Busi ness, Los Angeles. Pointing out that the United States is now suffering the worst inflation in its history, Boarman notes that "... inflation isn't cured by expanding and extending credit to the Russians or anyone else," and that the largesse of the US Export-Import Bank and various private US banks borders on "mindlessness and irresponsi bility."

There is no benefit, either short620 THE FREEMAN October term or long-term, in our trade with Russia, says Boarman. "Any payoff in raw material imports is very iffy because it will take years before Russian resources can be developed for the export market. As to the short-term payoff, it would actually be negative: since the Russians need our money to buy our technology, all we'd be getting from them are non negotiable Soviet IOU's that, as such, will not improve one iota our balance-of-payment situation but will instead add more fuel to our already acute inflation." W hat the Record Shows In retrospect, the historical pat tern of trade· with the Soviet Union shows that "Bolshevik planned industry feeds on the in dustrial freedom of the rest of the world. It would long ago have died a natural death, had it not been for the repeated injections of life blood that are still being pumped into it," says German historian Werner Keller.

For instance, "In 1920, Lenin averted economic collapse by dan gling the bait of 'concessions' (that is, legalized monopolies) to Western capitalists in exchange for development capital and tech nical knowhow," reports Norman Bailey, the New York banker. "Throughout the 1920's American and European firms played an enormous - although unacknowl edged and, as it turned out, large ly unpaid - role in the construc tion of Russian basic industries." Russia went into a self-imposed isolation during the 1930's. "And the Soviets steered their economy into such a mess that, when Hitler invaded Russia, the Soviets came back to us again for help," ob serves Patrick Boarman, referring to the $11-billion Lend-Lease agreement of 1941. The settlement of the Lend-Lease, incidentally, is very illuminating: although the US wrote off the bulk of that Soviet debt after World War II and asked only for a $2.5 billion settlement to pay for civilian sup plies, the Soviet Union finally of fered to settle all debts for $300 million in 1960, when negotiations broke down. Last year, the US re sumed negotiations - and, this time, asked only for $800 million.

The Russians balked: they are willing to repay $300 million - at 2 per cent interest over 30 years. Today, more than ever, Russia needs Western technology and cap ital, says Boarman, "and we, more than ever need reliable sources of fuel and raw materials. But we shouldn't be satisfied with mere promises before we rescue again the Russian economy from the consequences of Soviet misman agement."

The Market PAUL L. POIROT THE open market is a highly vul nerable institution, for it rests primarily upon faith that each individual may dispose as he chooses of whatever is his own and that he will not coerce, de fraud, or otherwise forcefully in terfere with other peaceful per sons. In air terminals one may note signs to this effect: "Paying Pas sengers Only Beyond this Point." In other words, the object is to exclude free riders, stowaways, bunko artists, saboteurs, hijack ers, or worse. Passengers and bag gage may be screened against weapons. The open market is some thing like that - wide open to all willing sellers and buyers, but hopefully closed to anyone who would exercise coercion to gain something for nothing. " Note carefully, however, the price of admission to the open market. It is not free - that is, the goods and services are not free for the taking; they are eco nomic resources, which are scarce and valuable enough to be worth owning. In other words, the price of admission to the open market is the ownership of something customers are willing to buy or recei ve in exchange.

Alongside the gate to the open market, however, is another en trance which many have found en ticing. Behind it lies the Welfare State and the allure of something for nothing. The owner of any scarce and valuable resource is always in a serious minority situation, pos sessing what so many others would enjoy having; they can easily 621 622 THE FREEMAN October muster an overwhelming majority to take his property if he doesn't give it to them. And this is pre cisely the manner in which the larder of the Welfare State is stocked. Organized interest groups prevail upon the tax collector to take some or all of the property from those who would enter the market, th us providing the goodies dispensed to welfare clients. Superficial observation of those entering the gates of the market indicates that many are coming empty-handed, with no property to trade. But closer inspection re veals that what such a person brings are his hands - his labor always scarce and always valuable, property which he can trade for the things more valuable to him than his leisure.

Marketing One's Labor The nature of human labor does present marketing problems. Its value is quite variable, it lacks uniformity, it is perishable, not easily transported or stored. These shortcomings are especially con spicuous in international trade where citizenship requirements, immigation restrictions, language differences, racial prej udices, and national customs more or less close the market to foreign labor ers. Furthermore, there are vast differences in the skill various laborers bring to a particular job - or the skill required for the job. One man's labor mayor may not substitute satisfactorily for that of another - or it may serve in one situation but not in others. So, what the laborer especially among market participants ur gently requires is a reliable medi um of exchange, a wage paid in money that can readily be traded to satisfy his wants - even across national boundaries. Yet, so un certain and variable are the qual ities of labor that a viable market economy begins to evolve only as men develop tools and skills and become specialists in various pro ductive activities and occupations.

This increases the incentive for exchange, and increasing special ization and trade increases the need for money, that is, for a commodity more acceptable in trade than are most other goods or services. Thus do market activ ities lead to the development and use of money, because it facilitates trade. And chief among the bene ficiaries of a market-originated monetary system are the laboring poor who have nothing to sell but their services. With money, they can pull supplies through barriers which they could not negotiate in person. Thus is a man's range of choice expanded, thus are multi plied his opportunities for self improvement - all within the con1973 THE MARKET, OR THE WELFARE STATE 623 text of the open market and its monetary system. IIRising Expectations/l This growing affluence, of course, has not escaped notice by the seeker of something for noth ing. His increasing envy is some times referred to as "rising ex pectations." Pressure upon the tax collector to "soak the rich"

builds to the point of soaking ev ery participant in the market, ev ery owner of property, including the laboring poor. There is no better illustration of this ten dency than the regressive income tax collected in the name of so cial security. Every employee en gaged in "covered employment" which includes almost every job and every worker - is subject to a tax of 11.7 per cent on the first $12,600 of his annual earnings. (That higher base takes effect January 1, 1974.) Earnings above that anl0unt are exempt from the social security tax - which means that the effective tax rate for a wage earner in the $25,000 bracket is only half the rate for a worker earning the minimum or less. What the tax collector withdraws from the wage earner in the mar ket is then siphoned into the cof fers of the Welfare State. Thus is the worker tempted to leave the market promptly at age 65. There is another law which bars from the market any laborer un willing to earn, or incapable of earning, the "minimum wage."

The coercive activities of labor unions also have the effect of clos ing the market. But there shall be no attempt here to explore in de tail the countless ramifications and manifestations of governmen tal intervention parading as wel farism. 1 The one further aspect that should be mentioned again, and further examined, pertains to what the government has done to our money. We have seen how important it is to all traders, and especially to the seller of his own labor and skill, to have a market-originated and market-regulated medium of exchange. But the trader's pur pose and use for money is by no means the same as that of the per son who wants to regulate and control how other people are to live and act. The tax collector has no intention of earning the prop erty he takes from the market. His object is something for noth ing; and in monetary matters the most instant process is to create a fiat money and declare it "legal tender" in place of the money chosen by traders.

Perhaps the best definition of a 1 For further treatment of the matter see two books by Henry Hazlitt: Man vs. the Welfare State (New Rochelle: Arling ton House, 1969), and The Conquest of PoveTty (Arlington House, 1973).

624 THE FREEMAN October trader is "one who is gainfully employed." One simply does not voluntarily trade unless he sees gain for himself in the trans action, especially so if he is to re ceive money in exchange, whether it be in cash or as credit. So, the trader wants money that will either advance in purchasing pow er or at least hold its own while in his possession. But in any transaction involving credit, the debtor would be delighted to pay later in depreciated legal tender. So the deficit-backed dollars pumped into the market by the Federal government seem for a time to be sheer debtor's delight, affording something for nothing. However, bad debtors drive cred itors from the market. Who wants to try to trade with a dead beat? As Gresham expressed it: "Bad money drives out good." In other words, fiat money tends to dry up the market - first at the level of international trade (our govern ment can not force foreigners to accept our legal tender) and even tually domestic trade as well.

Traders retreat to barter, and further back toward self-subsist ence. And those who stand most to lose from the closing of the market are the laboring poor. Un able to sell their services, they are reduced to serfdom or slavery. There comes a time when a man must stand - alone, if necessary in defense of the open market and the trader's opportunity to be gainfully employed. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY Revolt Against Nothingness THE GREAT TASK of the present age, in the field of morality, is to convince common men (uncommon men never fell into the snare) of the inane foolishness which envelops this urge to revolt, and make them see the cheap facility, the meanness of it; even though we freely admit that most of the things revolted against deserve to be buried away. The only true revolt is creation - the revolt against nothingness. Lucifer is the patron saint of mere nega tivistic revolt. JOSE ORTEGA Y GASSET Mission of the University Enw ARD COLESON ~~~s~C~~ and MORALITY "NOTHING is more unpopular today than the free market economy, Le.

capitalism. Everything that is con sidered unsatisfactory in present day conditions is charged to capi talism." Thus wrote Ludwig von Mises in 1947.1 But the bad repu tation of capitalism is of long standing. John Ruskin denounced Adam Smith as "... the half-breed and half-witted Scotchman who taught the deliberate blasphemy: 'Thou shalt hate the Lord, thy God, damn his law, and covet thy neigh bor's goods.'''2 Marxists and Fa bian Socialists have built up a large library of anticapitalist prop aganda over the years. In times of economic crisis the Dr. Coleson is Professor of Social Science at Spring Arbor College in Michigan. This article is from an address delivered July 3, 1973, at the Summer Institute at Hillsdale College. opposition to capitalism becomes even more pronounced. During the Great Depression in a book co-au thored by a number of prominent churchmen, we were told: "The whole future of Christian societies depends on whether Christianity, or rather Christians, decisively leave off supporting capitalism and social injustice .... "3 Such pro nouncements could be cited almost without number. In the recent past it was assumed that the more ortho dox and evangelical wing of the Christian movement was more kindly disposed toward capitalism, and there is statistical evidence to support this view; but now a group of exceedingly vocal evan gelicals have appeared who de nounce this traditional economic and political conservatism as un christian.

625 626 THE FREEMAN October It would appear to me that one of our most urgent tasks is to try to understand this bitter animos ity against capitalism by men of intelligence, social concern, and even Christian faith. Certainly, part of these socialistic and. com munistic dissenters have a vested interest in the destruction of capi talism and our nation too. Yet many are· honest men of good will who oppose a market economy be cause they fail to understand it. No Pre-Industrial Utopia In point of time, the first fallacy to contend with is the pre-capital ist state of society. It is easy to dream up an idyllic and utopian age when unspoiled peasants lived life to the full close to nature, a medieval version of Rousseau's "Noble Savage" in a primitive paradise. Actually, Hobbes' insis tence that life in a state of nature was "nasty, brutish and short" is closer to the truth. Adam Smith mentions that in his time, "It is not uncommon . . . in the High lands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive."4 Remember, this was as recent as two centuries ago.

Another writer tells us "that the deaths in all medieval towns large ly exceeded the births, so that the towns only survived by constant recruitment from the country .... "5 Famines were frequent and severe. More recently, E. A. Wrigley claims that in certain French par ishes, which he studied in detail, the death rate was proportional to the price of grain back nearly three centuries ago. 6 And pollution - you should have seen and smelt it - back when everything was thrown into the streets. The pre industrial state of affairs was no paradise, even if conditions did not improve as fast as they should have as we moved into the modern period. The contention that every thing was lovely until the vicious capitalist played the serpent to that Eden is not supported by the facts of history. Another notion is that life was relatively simple in the pre-capi talistic social and political order.

The reasoning is as follows: life was simpler in the 1890's than it is today and - by an extension of the same logic - it must have been even more simple in the 1690's or 1590's. Wrong again. Life was rel atively simple in the late Victorian period as a few surviving oldsters still remember; but the 1690's were as much like today as a pre ind ustrial society could be. As one example, in France "it took more than two thousand pages to print the rules established for the textile industry between 1666 and 1730."7 Punishment for breaking these regulations was severe. Multitudes of people died for economic of1973 CAPITALISM AND MORALITY 627 fenses that ought never to have been considered crimes. And, re member, all of this happened be fore the Industrial Revolution made life complicated - or so we are told. It should be obvious that this complexity grew, not out of the necessities of the situation what did they need of thousands of pages of textile "codes" in the days of hand weavers - but out of a philosophy of government. As has been said, the men of that age "displayed a marked belief in the efficacy of government to achieve any and all desired· ends by means of legislation."8 How modern!

Adam Smith and the Rule of Law Another common idea is that Adam Smith was an anarchist. Nowadays if one admits that he believes in free enterprise, he is often reminded that we must have government. There are many an archists in our midst today and it appears their numbers are increas ing - perhaps a reaction to the ex cesses of statism - but anarchy is not a necessary alternative to total government control. Smith dis tinguished between what he called "the laws of justice" and the inane attempts of various pressure groups to rig the market in favor of their petty interests. 9 To Smith the task of government was the administration of justice, not the job of running everybody's business. He also thought the govern ment .should protect the nation from foreign invasion and main tain "certain public works and cer tain public institutions" for the general welfare, apparently serv ices hard to charge for, such as the use of a lighthouse or the street and sidewalk in front of your house. It is obvious that Smith believed in government, but thought, like Thomas Jefferson, that it should be a "simple, frugal affair." Many people today are turning again to those two classics of 1776, The Wealth of Nations and the "Declaration of Indepen dence." Let's hope that limited government is coming back in fashion.

Capitalism and Greed Another common fallacy is the idea that Adam Smith sanctified greed, that free enterprise is bru tal- "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost." Again, this has been a common view, held by both capitalists and socialists. However, this was not Smith's version of capitalism. This misconception has no doubt been the most damaging to free enter prise of all the accusations leveled against the system: both Chris tians and humanitarians denounce it as evil and vicious. Henry Thom as Buckle, an English historian of the last century, made an interest628 THE FREEMAN October ing observation on this problem. He pointed out that in his earlier book, The Theory of Moral Senti ments, Smith emphasized sym pathy, and then seventeen years later he published The WeaUh of Nations dedicated to the proposi tion that "... the great moving power of all men, all interests and all classes, in all ages and in all countries, is selfishness." This is the common view, except that most people do not know about his ear lier devotion to compassion. Buckle described what appeared to be a dramatic change in Smith's out look: In this way Adam Smith complete ly changes the premises he had as sumed in his earlier work. Here, he makes men naturally selfish; former ly, he had made them naturally sym pathetic. Here, he represents them pursuing wealth for sordid objects....

It now appears that benevolence and affection have no influence over our actions. Indeed, Adam Smith will hardly admit humanity into his theory of motives.lO Since Buckle considered The Wealth of Nations as "probably the most important book which has ever been written," he seems to have had no prej udice against its author. He explains the apparent inconsistency, the obvious shift in philosophical position, by saying that Smith was investigating both sides of the same problem, that the books were "compensatory rather than hostile," that one supplement ed the other, that we all have a streak of sympathy and also of selfishness in our make up. What ever Smith's intent, the image of greed has come through to the general public. However, I suspect that the people who talk the loud est about the problem have never read The W ealth of Nations. One of our contemporaries, Richard C. Cornuelle, has also tried to resolve the dilemma. He begins with Mandeville's familiar Fable of the Bees, published in 1705, a satire written to prove "Private Vices make Public Bene fits," as the subtitle tells us. The question was whether the individ ual man's greed did or did not pro mote the general welfare by in creasing economic activity and hence the standard of living for everybody. The older view was that no one could gain except at other people's loss, that we can only enrich ourselves by impov erishing others. As Cornuelle tells us, Mandeville merely stated the "pri vate vices - public benefits" dilemma.

It was left to Adam Smith to resolve it. In his monumental Wealth of Na tions, he told the world clearly and comprehensively what made com merce work. There is an astonished 1973 CAPITALISM AND MORALITY 629 tone in his work, as if he could hardly believe his own discoveries .... 1l Smith had discovered to his amazement that the true long range self-interest of each individ ual was compatible with everyone else's welfare, that what was good for one was best for all. If this is true, there is no necessary conflict between Adam Smith's earlier philosophical system founded on sympathy and the alleged greed. of The Wealth of Nations. As Smith said, the businessman in seeking his own interest is "led by an in visible hand" to promote the gen eral welfare, "an end which was no part of his intention."12 This is an attractive idea: what is good for the farmer is good for the con sumer, what is good for labor is good for management, what is good for Russia, Red China, Cuba, and our more friendly neighbors is good for the United States and vice versa. This sounds great, but is it true?

If we assume that what is good for each is good for all, the next question is whether we will auto matically know what is right and spontaneously do it. Of course, we need to differentiate between blind greed and enlightened self interest, but even then there is little historical evidence to support the view that we will necessarily know the right and do it. Unfortunately, there was a tendency after the .publication of The Wealth of Nations to assume that if businessmen "did what came naturally" that the consequences would surely be good. ,It should be remembered that about the time Adam Smith was born Newton captured the popular imagination with his famous solu tion of the riddle of the universe, the so-called "Newtonian synthe sis" of the astronomy and physics since 1543, the work of Coperni cus, Kepler and Galileo. As a con sequence, it became the fashion to look for mechanical laws of human behavior, of society, of govern ment and of the life of man in every dimension. Men had become machines. Malthus' famous essay of 1798 warned that population would automatically outrun any possible increase in the supply of food so that no improvement in the human condition would be pos sible.Little wonder that he and his good friend Ricardo earned for economics the nickname, that "dis mal sci ence."

English Reform and Free Trade If a few intellectuals were pre pared to let Nature take its course back then, the "do-nothing" social policy so often associated in the popular view with laissez faire, certainly there was no lack of re form efforts before and after 1800.

630 THE FREEMAN October It was during these decades that William Wilberforce and the Clap ham Sect were laboring mightily for the abolition of slavery. It was really not a good time to push re for~ either, since the French Rev olution began in 1789 and the world was not done with Napoleon until after Waterloo in 1815. While the conflict was not continuous for this quarter of a century, wars and rumors of wars were the rule. In spite of the turmoil, Wilber force and his associates got the English share of the slave trade (the transportation of slaves from Africa to the Americas) outlawed in 1807. After the Napoleonic . Wars the British government and the Royal Navy worked diligently to suppress the commerce in slaves altogether and pressured other governments into cooperating. After the Civil War, with its Emancipation Proclamation plus the abolition of slavery in the Latin American nations to the south of us about the same time, it appeared that the future of human freedom was secure. Re form had paid off.

During the long decades of the struggle against slavery there were those who argued eloquently that the best thing to do about slavery was to ignore the problem; maybe it would go away of itself. Indeed, it may seem a paradox that Englishmen who were going laissez faire in economics should at the same time have been work ing diligently to suppress slavery far from their shores and in lands where they had no jurisdiction. It would have seemed logical for them to have tended to their own business, the job of making money, and to have let slavery "wi ther away." This is an exceedingly impor tant point. The English reformers of the early and middle nineteenth century were not anarchists. They believed in freedom under law God's Law - and since slavery was clearly contrary to God's Law, they were working for its aboli tion. It would certainly be a revo lution today if all laws and politi cal arrangements that had no moral justification should be abol ished. Perhaps we have grown too tolerant of the powers that be.

The Nazi and Communist oppres sion of the last half century has shown that power corrupts, that progress is not inevitable, and that freedom is not automatic. The great English reform effort of the last century is misunder stood and largely forgotten, yet their accomplishments were enor mous. Wilberforce and his associ ates accomplished, more of a con structive nature than any reform movement in history.la It was out of this context that Victorian free trade and free enterprise came, 1973 CAPITALISM AND MORALITY 631 and the leaders of the movement which made it happen were devout Christians who regarded their campaign as a holy crusade. Be fore free trade became a popular issue, the British had abolished plantation slavery in their colonies (Wilberforce died as the abolition bill was being debated in Parlia ment in 1833, but lived long enough to know it would pass) ; to many Englishmen free trade and free enterprise were just the· next logical national objectives. In one of the first lectures delivered un der the auspices of the fledgling free trade movement " ... it was stated that the organization was established on the same righteous principle as the Anti-Slavery So ciety." 14 Although everyone recog nized that these were economic questions, the posture of righteousness and reform was main tained throughout the campaign.

Repeal of the Corn Laws The focus of the economic re formers' attention was· the "Brit ish farm program," the famous Corn Laws, a complicated system of tariffs which was devised to keep out foreign grain until do mesticprices became prohibitive. To Richard Cobden, John· Bright, and other members of the Anti Corn Law League, this practice of keeping food needlessly scarce and expensive was criminal and wicked, and no amount of legislation would make it moral. Even that distinguished reformer Lord Ash ley, the seventh Earl of Shaftes bury, a landed aristocrat who had nothing to gain and perhaps much to lose if English markets were flooded with America's agricul tural abundance, voted for free trade in food because it was right. By contrast, those of us who re member .forty years of Federal farm programs since Henry Wal lace "plowed under cotton and killed little pigs" in the spring of 1933, recall little attempt to ap proach the problem ethically. Such was not the thinking of the early Victorians. A great conference of the clergy was held at Manchester and many ministers began to preach that the corn laws were "anti-scriptural and anti-religious, opposed to the law of God." The League produced and distributed many tons of propaganda leaflets.

It has even been claimed "that there was not one literate person in all of Great Britain who had not read of the League and its work by the end of 1844,"15 a degree of saturation it would be hard to achieve even today. This enormous effort paid off. By 1846, the League succeeded in abolishing the hated Corn Laws, and a flood of cheap grain from America inundated the British (and later Western European mar632 THE FREEMAN October kets) and provided the common working man with a decent diet at a reasonable price. In the next few years the British abolished their remaining tariffs, which their neighbors tended to do also. The stage was set for the enormous growth of world trade in the late Victorian period, a burst of cre ative activity which promoted prosperity and economic develop ment around the world and in the United States too. Their faith in freedom was not ill-founded. The English free traders were opti mists who "were much embar rassed . . . by the dismal parts of the dismal science," as expounded a generation earlier by Malthus and Ricardo. They "avidly seized upon the purified version of eco nomics presented by the French man, Frederic Bastiat."16 These men believed that progress and peace were the fruits of a proper economic policy, and in the short run, at least, this seemed to be the case. Those in our midst who are oppressed and depressed by the strife, turmoil, and seemingly permanent poverty of vast areas of the world today, would do well to study the Victorian example.

Then and Now Certainly, these men and their times make an interesting topic for study, particularly the' con trasts between then and today. As one author says" . in the early nineteenth century the upper mid dle-class elite believed in piety, re form of Church and State, moral action and laissez-faire econom ics." 17 When comparing their day and their reform. efforts with our own, the historian of the fu ture will, if he is fair, say of them, "Never did so few accom'.. plish so much with so little." Of our massive multi-billion-dollar at tempts at remaking the world in our own time he must say, "Never did so many accomplish so little with so much." Perhaps capitalism has much more to offer than we have realized for a long, long time. With socialist schemes collapsing all about us, it is time that we try to understand how it worked. Faith and Freedom It is easy to dismiss favorable comments on Victorian economic policy as p~ocapitalist propaganda, and there is some of that along with a flood of the socialist vari ety. One of the most glowing evaluations of free trade and free enterprise that I have ever seen was written by an Austrian social ist, Karl Polanyi, a few years ago.

He tells us that "the self-regulat ing market . . . produced an un heard-of material welfare."lR As if this were not a sufficient achieve ment, he says, "The nineteenth century produced a phenomenon 1973 CAPITALISM AND MORALITY 633 unheard of in the annals of West ern civilization, namely, a hun dred's years' peace - 1815-1914," from Waterloo to the "Guns of August" in 1914. (I should hasten to add that he is aware of the Crimean War and the Franco Prussian conflict but he regards them as fairly minor disturbances. The Civil War, of course, was in America, not Europe.) After this panegyric on capital ism, a tribute as much in superla tives as Hazlitt or von Mises might manage in their most enthusiastic moments, Polanyi then warns us that the market economy" ... would have physically destroyed man and transformed his surroundings into a wilderness." What frightens him about freedom is what people might do, and have done, when you turn them loose. When one ponders the history of freedom from the days of the Roman Republic to the present, he realizes that Polanyi's fears.are not unfounded.

In ,other words, there is only free dom over time for highly respon sible and moral people .. Free mar kets and free governments must be based on solid ethical foundations, a point that Edmund Burke saw clearly in the early days of the French Revolution: Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposi tion to put moral chains upon their own appetites ... society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters. ~ • FOOTNOTES • 1 Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, p.17. ~ Robert B. Downs, Books that Changed the World, p. 43. 3 Christian Message for the World To day. E. Stanley Jones and nine other churchmen are listed as the authors. The quotation from Chapter II, page 45, was apparently written by Basil Mathews.

4 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Modern Library edition), p. 79. 5 Warren S. Thompson, Population Problems, p. 73. 6 E. A. Wrigley, Population and His tory, p. 66. 7 John Chamberlain, The Roots of Cap italism, p. 20. 8 John M. Ferguson, Landmarks of Economic Thought, p. 36. 9 Smith, p. 651. 10 Henry Thomas Buckle, History of Civilization in England, Vol. II, pp. 340 354. 11 Richard C. Cornuelle, Reclaiming the American Dream, pp. 47-48. 12 Smith, p. 423. 13 Earle E. Cairns, Saints and Society, p.43. 14 George Barnett Smith, The Life and Speeches of the Right Hon. John Bright, M.P., Vol. I, p. 133. 15 Dean Russell, Frederic Bastiat: Ideas and Influence, p. 66. 16 Ibid., p. 69. 17 Robert Langbaum, The Victorian Age, p. 9. 18 Karl Polanyi, The Great Transfor mation, pp. 3-5.

A REVIEWER1S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN The Western Marxists KARL MARX thought he had "de mystified" Hegel, that cloudy Ger man philosopher who saw the man ifestation of Spirit working through thesis, antithesis and syn thesis to produce the ideal of the Prussian State. Marx dispensed with the idea of Spirit, but he kept his belief in the thesis-anti thesis synthesis triad. Pumping his own content into the words, Marx made capitalism his "thesis." Labor, or the proletariat became the "antith esis," with a new "synthesis" Communism - postulated as the final end to the Hegelian process. The whole schematization was absurd, as Max Eastman pointed out some thirty years ago. Society, or Western society at any rate, cannot be poured into any monist mold. It consists of many "theses" - the family, the churches, politi cal parties, clubs and associations of all sorts, businesses, trade unions, interest groups, foundations, even anarchic individuals. They pursue many ends. The big, buzz ing confusion works by a series of perpetual accommodation, with scores of new "syntheses" corning into being every day. The Marxist "revisionists" caught a glimpse of this, and the socialist Second In ternational was compelled by the statistics of middle class growth to postpone the date of the revolu tionary "final struggle" to an ever receding future date.

Marxism Won't Die So Marxian "scientific" social ism, which stood Hegel on his head, was discredited as pseudo-science. But the Marxist cult refused to die. In a brilliant book called The West ern Marxists (Library Press, $8.95), Neil McInnes, the Paris editor of Barron's, has explored what he calls "the remystification"

1973 THE WESTERN MARXISTS 635 of Marx. His scholarship does much to explain what happened to the radical movements of the nineteen sixties, a period in which the young often seemed to be rebelling with out plan, or philosophy, or justifi cation by resort to tradition of any kind. The Sixties bypassed the ma ture Marx by seizing on the youth ful Marx's idea of "alienation" to explain a need for revolt. A man named Marcuse was behind much of the rebellion. He was a refugee from Germany, and naturally he had. philosophic antecedents. Who were they? Neil McInnes names them. One of the antecedents was the French syndicalist, Georges Sorel. A Bergsonian, Sorel did not believe in any of the Marxian "laws of mo tion." Sorel was a free-willer who thought man could make almost any sort of history. Myths were important to move men to action. They didn't have to be "scientifi cally" true to be useful. One of the Sorelian myths was the "general strike." If he could persuade enough people to believe in its eff icacy, he might topple capitalism overnight.

Lenin's Rise to Power Lenin himself, a "Western Marx ist" by courtesy of the fact that he lived for most of his adult life "un der Western eyes" (Conrad's phrase) in Switzerland, was something· of a Sorelian. When he re turned to Russia in the Kaiser's sealed car he didn't wait for any capitalist "thesis" to raise up its proletarian "antithesis." Instead, he seized the leadership of disen chanted peasants and demobilized and deserting troops to grab the levers of government. Marx had not considered that a Communist revolution could come in such a rural State as Russia. Lenin still insisted he was a Marxist. But he had done his own rereading of Hegel, which prompts Neil McIn nes to consider Leninism as part of the "remystification" process. (The "mystery" was later dispelled by Stalin, whose crude materialism began with bank robbery and end ed with mass murders as instru ments of policy.) Lenin always paid lip service to the. "working class." Actually, he believed in professional revolu tionaries. Once the Bolshevik pro fessionals had won in Russia, how ever, Lenin put economics back in to the picture. Work had to be done, even though it is always done bad ly under socialism.

Other "Western Marxists" who turned to "myth" in the Sorelian manner w~re, as McInnes names them, Antonio Gramsci of Italy (Mussolini beat him to the Sorelian punch and put him in jail), Georg Lukacs of Hungary, and the Ger man Rosa Luxemburg. Since both 636 THE FREEMAN October' Gramsci and Lukacs had to ac commodate their return-to-Hegel thinking to getting along with of ficial Communist Party doctrine, I have great difficultiy in following their turns and tergiversations as outlined by Neil McInnes. Hegel, taken by himself, is doubletalk, but when Marxists who don't really be lieve in Marx as a "scientist" try to reconcile the needs of party discipline to the needs of excercis ing originality it becomes triple talk. The triple-talk, however, is historically important: it affected the young Marcuse, who brought it to America, and it emerged as "instant revolutionism" in Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Frantz Fan on, Regis Debray, Rudi Dutschke, Daniel Cohn-Bendt, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, Stoke ley Carmi chael and such "academics" as C.

Wright Mills and Noam Chomsky. Changing the Establishment What distinguishes the younger "Western Marxists" is their the ory that society is a total "estab lishment" that must be changed all at once. But how do you do this when "labor," or the "prole tariat," is making the highest wages ever? Marcuse has denied that labor can be the leader in any revolutionary overturn under mod ern capitalist conditions: the work ing man has been "bought out." So we have the "instant revolutionary" trust in the young (see' such books ,at The Greeing of America), the blacks and the poor, all of whom seem to be letting Marcuse down these days as the Vietnam War recedes into the distance and the campuses return to a study of other things beside the art of in surrection. When ideas get a re-run, says McInnes, they often emerge as grotesquerie. Hegel and the young Marx of the "alienation" period turn up as Zen Marxism, Pop Marxism, existentialist Marxism, and Flower Children estheticism.

The "Western Marxists" are long on what they dislike (they object not only to capitalism but to any and all manifestations of indus trialism, the Soviet Union in cluded). Georg Lukacs, who looms particularly large in Mr. McInnes's chronicle, wanted a Communism that would liberate humanity from the very necessity of depedence' on economics. His main interest, aside from revolution, was esthetic criticism, and his idea of Utopia, one gathers, was a community of scholars who would be miracu lously freed from the necessity of digging and delving. The secret aristocratic bias of many of Mr. McInnes's "Western Marxists" is evident; they would have been quite at home in ancient Athens with slaves to do their work. The constructive message of Mr.

1973 THE WESTERN MARXISTS 637 McInnes's book might be summed up as "beware of the thinker who insists that society is a totality that must be changed as a unit." In the first place, society is a rag ged, fluid, ever-changing affair. Secondly, any successful unitary coup must result in total repres sion. Communism and/or Fascism, what is the difference? • THE MORALS OF MARKETS by H. B. Acton (London: Longman Group Limited, 1971) 104 pages, £1.75. Reviewed by M. L. Zupan PROFESSOR ACTON has gone a long half way toward providing a moral defense for the competitive market system. For although he does not here offer a positive thesis as such, he effectively demolishes the major historical and prevailing contemporary criticisms of free enterprise. To accomplish this he relies, not on a detailed analysis of the eco nomic advantages of freedom in transactions - which few deny but on moral philosophy, in which he is well versed. Most of the criti cisms of the market economy have been moral judgments, and the only effective way to deal with them is on their own terms, which Acton has done.

From Plato to the present day there has bee'll a "continuing chorus of disapprobation" of the economic order, with the Eigh teenth Century classical liberals' defense of it providing "only a brief interlude." Professor Acton catalogs the major forms the criti cism has taken: (1) that the profit moti ve makes selfishness and greed into virtue·s; (2) that com petition engenders strife whereas cooperation and public service are better ways to carryon men's af fairs; (3) that competition leads to monopoly, thus the original freedom is subverted to tyranny; (4) that the goal of production, Le., satisfaction of needs, is lost sight of in the impersonality of the market place; and (5) that competitive economies are neces sarily chaotic and unjust whereas planned societies bring order and fairness. Acton spends a chapter on each of these accusations, drawing on the actual works of their propon ents from Carlyle and Ruskin to Hobson, Tawney and Galbraith.

He is not concerned with showing that the virtues of foresight, hon esty and reliability fostered by the free market and the practices of exchange, bargaining and com petition required for its operation are more worthwhile than the virtues and advantages claimed for socialism - self-sacrifice, co638 THE FREEMAN October operation, generosity. Rather, he discusses the appropriate spheres of action and shows that the vir tues attributed to the two systems are compatible in men's lives. But socialism contains other elements which are incompatible with the tenets and virtues of the free system. In his excellent chap ter on egalitarian collectivism and distributive justice he concludes that any attempt to merge these with a free enterprise system must lead to the imposition of a state morality "from which independent thought and action have been un wittingly excluded." Along the way we are treated to his sensible approach to some of the opponents' bugaboos, e.g., mo nopoly and advertising, and his unsympathetic opinion of trade unions, government subsidies to struggling ("publicly needed") in dustries, and taxation to support public relief (which he believes leads to the view that such services are a right).

Professor Acton does little more than clear the ground for a de fense of the free market, but we are given some clues as to how such a defense ought to proceed: competitive markets are not ends in themselves, but are right for society because they "give more scope for intellectual and moral excellence." Thus, he is in line with the Socratic/Aristotelian notion that freedom is good for man not in and of itself, but as the only means by which man might achieve his own excellence. This is a book which in the midst of the perennial outcries against laissez-faire provides a refreshing and impressive alterna tive. It is quite readable and, al though based on sound philosophy, requires no special knowledge in that or in economics. ~ PASSING OF THE MODERN AGE by John Lukacs (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 222 pp., $7.95 cloth, $2.25 paper. Reviewer: Haven Bradford Gow PROFESSOR LUKACS examines the era which began four to five hun dred years ago, commonly called the Modern Age, in contrast with the Middle Ages and Anbiquity.

Decline of the West was for Oswald Spengler a philosophical speculation, but the sense of an age on the wane is now based on everyday experience. For at the same time that Western man has attained Olympian heights in sci ence, technology and material prosperity, there is, paradoxically, loss of faith in the civilization which has produced these accom plishments.

1973 OTHER BOOKS 639 Among the signs of the erosion of faith, the author discusses the purposelessness of society; the faithlessness of religion; the mu tation of morality; the fiction of prosperity; the decay of science; the destruction of nature. Because of the limitations of space, this review focuses on the last three. By the "decay of science," Pro fessor Lukacs refers to the wide spread acceptance of the scientific world view to the exclusion of all others, and to the extension of the methodology of the natural sci ences into the humanities and social sciences. He strongly sug gests an intimate connection be tween the decay of science and the destruction of nature. For when the scientific world view and the methodology of the natural sci ences are deemed sacred, there are pernicious consequences not only in the epistemological order, but in the real world as well. The scientific world view empha sizes man in sharp contrast with physical nature. Unlike the wiser view of St. Thomas - the view which holds that while man is distinct from nature because he possesses rationality and a soul, he also has a body and is a part of nature - the scientific world view claims that man exists in total independence from nature, and that man therefore can (with impunity) manipulate and rape nature to suit his desires and needs. The result is the destruc tion of nature which Lukacs writes about.

Clear ly, we have heard from too many "doomsday prophets" re garding environmental decay, but Professor Lukacs is of a different breed. He has a valid point to make and his closely-reasoned analysis explodes several myths. For instance: Few people recognize that the de struction of nature has been pro ceeding fastest in those regions of the earth where the growth of popu lation has been the slowest (in West ern Europe and in the urban regions of the United States) .... Then there is the paradox of prosperity. The people of the Western world, the author tells us, are better off.materially than ever before; but these same people· are unhappy, frustrated, discontented. Why? Mainly, the author contends, because we have been trying to cure a spiritual malaise with po litical nostrums. For many years our politicians and intellectuals have inundated us with political and economic remedies for condi tions which really reflect dis orders of the spirit. The planners have mistaken the proximate an swer to an economic problem for the ultimate solution for every issue of life. They have led us to 640 THE FREEMAN October believe that, if we would just in crease economic planning· and the GNP and material benefits to those living in the Western world, happiness and peace of mind would surely ensue. But in sober truth, spiritual disorder - confusion as to the meaning and purpose of life - demands a religious solution.

It goes without saying that financial resources are extremely important (we need only to ask the man with heavy medical bills), and such material satisfactions as color television sets, electric tooth brushes, automobiles and expen sive cigars are nice to have; but things of this sort cannot ade quately minister to the intense de mands of the human spirit. Thus, at the end of the Modern Age, we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: "people are prosperous as never before, [but] immense numbers of them are unhappy and confused. Millions of people are now aware, often painfully, that they do not live by bread alone." t) HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-aN-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10SH the Freeman VOL. 23, NO. 11 • NOVEMBER 1973 PoliticalCorruption Alla,n C. Brownfeld 643 One result of all-powerful government and centralized power.

Health Care, Human Rights and GovernmentIntervention Garvan F. Kuskey, DDS 648 A critical appraisal of the efforts to nationalize medical and dental services. Let EducationGo Commercial Thomas L. Johnson 655 Exploring the market possibilities of resolving some of the problems of schools. Welfare as aRight RidgwayK. Foley, Jr. 663 If it is a right, rather than a privilege, someone must be bound to deliver. Dear America: An open letter from a young American. Howard D. Aley 672 How to stop Inflation leonardE. Read 674 Take from government the power to create money and hand out special privileges. The Right to Be Wrong-and the Obligationto Be Right CharlesR. LaDow 680 To the right of free speech is forever attached the obiigation to be right. Freedom/Responsibility-theQuest for Individual Dignity Robert G. Bearce 685 Only through self-improvement may one proceed toward a better world. The Cry for Freedom Is the Screa.m of Nature Th'omas F. O'Connell 691 However frustrating the search for freedom, it must go on.

Book Reviews: 699 "The lady and the Tycoon: letters Between Rose Wilder lane and Jasper Crane" edited by Roger Lea MacBride "The Political Illusion" by Jacques Ellul Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEL.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,000-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "Health Care, Human Rights and Government Intervention" and "The Cry for Freedom Is the Scream of Nature."

One Result of All-Powerful Government and Centralized Power ALLAN C. BROWNFELD PEOPLE throughout the country are asking themselves the ques tion: "Why are so many men in so many high places in Washington involved in so much corruption?" They observe huge cash payments, unreported, being made to national political campaigns and wonder why so many businessmen feel the need to involve themselves in pol itics. Unfortunately, the answers we receive to such questions miss the point entirely . We are told, in response, that we need more hon est men in government, or stricter laws, or more Congressional con trol. It may be true that we need more honest men in Washington, for politics, as President Eisen hower once reflected, "is too im portant for the politicians." It may Mr. Brownfeld of Alexandria, Virginia is a free lance author, editor, and lecturer especially in terested in political science.

also be true that we need stricter laws and additional control by the Congress. But the simple reason why so many businessmen are in volved in politics is that politics is so involved in business. If govern ment did not have the power to set wages and prices, no one would feel the need to bribe anyone for a favorable ruling. If government did not have huge contracts to be stow in a multiplicity of fields, no one would need to payoff poli ticians for a piece of the action. If government did not provide itself with the power to regulate, in the name of "safety" or "ecology" or whatever, no one would feel the need to bribe anyone for or against a particular ruling. It is inevitable, as government becomes more and more powerful and controls more and more as pects of our lives, that Americans will seek to influence that govern643 644 THE FREEMAN November ment through campaign contribu tions and other forms of reward.

It is similarly inevitable that men in political life, with such enorm ous power at their disposal, will be tempted to accept such bribery. Changing the men and keeping the system as it is will change very little. Earlier Scandals The trend toward government control of the nation's economy goes back to the latter part of the nineteenth century. Discussing the age of the "Robber Barons," Gus tavus Myers, in his book, History Of The Great American Fortunes, places great stress upon the low level of political morality which was evidenced in the rush to ac commodate the highest bidder from the business community. De scribing the situation in New York State, Myers charges that, "Laws were sold at Albany to the highest bidder." In an article prompted by the Credit Mobilier scandal, E. L. God kin, editor of the Nation, warned that the only lasting answer to bribery and corruption would be an end to the power of congress men to bestow great privileges upon private individuals or corpo rations. Godkin wrote: "The rem edy is simple. The Government must get out of the 'protective' business and the 'subsidy' business and the 'improvement' business and the 'development' business. It must let trade and commerce, and manufactures, and steamboats and railroads, and telegraphs alone. It cannot touch them without breed ing corruption."

The Bewildered Society Discussing the tendency at this time to look at the scandals of the past - and present - and conclude from them that what we need is more and not less governmental authority, George Roche III, in his volume, The Bewildered Soc1iety, notes that, "Advocates of central ized authority and economic con trol in the twentieth century look back to the so-called era of Recon struction and big business to point out its evils with great glee and to suggest that those evils are a prima facie case for the necessity of more political control of busi ness. The very reverse is actually the case ... All of the significant scandals of the nineteenth century were closely connected with the exercise of political power." Dr. Roche points out that, "... there evolved the dichotomy which saw businessmen preaching laissez faire doctrine for everyone else, while asking for government as sistance in their own· particular case."

The recent revelations with re gard to the Nixon Administration 1973 POLITICAL CORRUPTION 645 - the Vesco funds, the contribu tion from the milk producers, the airlines, and so forth - are simply part of the ongoing reality of cor ruption in a society where gov ernment becomes the arbiter of all things. Similarly, the use of the Internal Revenue Service by those in power to punish opponents is only additional proof that those who argued that the power to tax is the power to destroy were' quite right. To Restore Integrity, Limit Government's Power If Americans seek to restore honesty and integrity to govern ment, the first step in the proper direction would be to begin divest ing government of its power over the nation's economy, its schools, and its farms. A government which did not have favors to be stow would not be a recipient of secret cash contributions. Politi cians, without life and death pow er to wield, could more easily maintain their honesty and in tegrity.

If the Watergate hearings have an additional long-range lesson for the American people, it may be the fact that the dire warnings over the years by distinguished states men and scholars about the danger of an all-powerful executive were quite correct. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison declared that, "In fram ing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." During the years when, under the New Deal leadership of Frank lin Roosevelt, the role of the ex ecutive was increasing in scope and was less and less subject to control by either the legislative or judicial branches of government, it was conservative Republicans such as Senator Robert Taft of Ohio who warned of the dangers of executive power. Discussing the manner in which we went to war in Korea, without a Congressional declaration, Sen ator Taft stated that, "If in the great field of foreign policy the President has the arbitrary and unlimited powers he now claims, then there is an end to freedom in the United States not only in the foreign field but in the great realm of domestic activity which neces sarily follows any foreign commit ments."

During those years, it was the liberal Democrats who supported executive power, who opposed measures such as the Bricker Amendment which sought to limit it, and downgraded the role of the Congress.

646 THE FREEMAN November How Did It Happen? Now, with Watergate and the spectacle of nonelected and am bitious men charged with illegal and unethical activities, many Americans wonder how it is that the executive branch came to pos sess so much power and to view itself as above and beyond the law. Ironically, the liberals, whose poli cies have led to this state of af fairs, are most aghast; while many conservatives, who always recognized the danger of arbitrary executive power, now tend to apol ogize for it, for it is being wielded by their own party. The noted historian, Daniel M. Boorstin, states that one of the most important lessons to be learned from Watergate relates to the growth of the government's executive branch: "There are hundreds of people who write on White Houl!e sta tionery. This is a new phenome non. In fact, it's a phenomenon which has astonished, and prop erly astonished, some senators who asked the counsellor to the Presi dent if he ever saw the President and he said he didn't. And I think there are something like 40 per sons who bear some title such as counsellor to the President or as sistant to the President or some thing of that sort. Now this is a relatively new phenomenon: the opportunity for the President to get out of touch with the people who speak in his name."

American political philosophy has always held that the legis la- . tive branch was to be the supreme branch of government. Philosopher John Locke, who profoundly af fected the thinking of the Found ing Fathers, is emphatic on the position of the legislative branch. In his Second Treatise he writes that, "There can be but one su preme power, which is the legisla tive, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate." Departure from Tradition Presidential dominance, which has been growing since the days of the New Deal, is inconsistent with the American political tradi tion. If men such as those involved in today's Watergate scandal, who are not elected by the people and cannot be voted out of office by the people, are unchecked in their ex ercise of power, the concept of representative and limited govern ment is seriously challenged. It is unfortunate that principle seems to play such an ambiguous role in American politics. The men who most feared executive power when the other party wielded it, are now becoming comfortable with it. Similarly, those who wel comed it when it was in their own hands, are now suspicious of it.

This, of course, becomes argument 1973 POLITICAL CORRUPTION 647 from mere circumstance, and not from principle. The American peo ple deserve something better from their elected officials. If we learn from Watergate to be suspicious of centralized power, whether in the hands of Demo crats or Republicans, we will have learned an important lesson. Dur ing the colonial period, the anti Federalists, men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, op posed the ratification of the Con stitution because they believed that even that limited and limiting document provided for too strong an executive. "Did we fight King George III only to have an elected king?" they would ask. Their question still bears asking, for we in America do not want an elected king, but an executive to carry out the laws passed by the Congress. Hopefully, Watergate will mark the end of the trend toward cen tralized power started in the New Deal. If it does, all of us will benefi~ ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY No Change By Usurpation IT IS important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its admin istration to confine themselves within their respective constitu tional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroach ment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.· The necessity of recip rocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Consititution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation: for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weap on by which free governments are destroyed.

GEORGE WASHINGTON'S Farewell Addres8 SEVENTEEN YEARS ago the Aus trian economist Ludwig von Mises observed that the people of the United States enjoyed the highest standard of living of any people in the world; but only because the United States government em barked much later than the gov ernments in other parts of the world upon the policy of obstruct ing human enterprise and endeav or.1 The dismal results of govern ment intervention in the areas of agriculture, education, employ ment, housing, urban renewal, mail carriage, and transportation, to na.me but a few, are a matter of record.2.3.4.5.6.7.8Today it appears that the U.S. government is on the verge of a massive intervention into the practice of dentistry and medicine, because of an alleged Garvan F. Kuskey, DDS, has offices in Santa Barbara, California. His article is reprinted by permission from the Journal of the Cali fornia Dental Association, July, 1973.

648 GARVAN F. KUSKEY, DDS "health crisis" in America. This impending action, which has the blessing of both political parties 1 Ludwig von Mises, The AntiCapital istic Mentality, (New York, Van Nos trand Reinhold Company, 1956), p.v. 2 Clarence B. Carson, The War on the Poor, (New Rochelle, N. Y., Arlington House, 1969), pp. 13-24, 69-116, 128-129, pp. 186ff. 3 R. W. Grant, The Case Against Public Education, (Washington, D.C., Free Cam pus News, Vol. 1, No.1, 1969), p. 2. 4 Roger A. Freeman, Dead End in American Education, (National Review, Vol. XXI, No.1), pp. 22-24. 5 See Henry Hazlitt, Man VB. the Wel fare State, (New Rochelle, N. Y., Arling ton House, 1969) for a comprehensive overview, in layman's language, of the en tire gamut of destructive government in tervention into the economy. 6 Martin Anderson, The Federal Bull dozer, (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), pp. 52-70, 229.

7 Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy, (Menlo Park, California, Institute for Humane Studies, 1970), pp. 19-59. 8 William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam, The Monopoly Man, (New Rochelle, N. Y., Arlington House, 1970), pp. 11-31.

1973 HEALTH CARE, HUMAN RIGHT~ AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION 649 as well as elements in the ADA and AMA, has been given the name "National Health Insurance," a political euphemism for socialized medicine. When exposed to the ample body of evidence which· documents the fact that no such crisis exists 9 supporters of government medi cine generally point out that there are, nonetheless, still those who are not benefiting from our health care system. For examp1e, in our own area of dentistry we are told py our liberal and con servative colleagues alike of the millions of cavities that are going unfilled in the mouths of the de prived and disadvantaged. The fact that there are also millions of unfilled cavities in the mouths of affluent suburbanites does not give them pause; we are still told that our free-enterprise system of health care, good as it is, must be changed, even drastically, in order that the medically indigent receive the care to which they are eni titled. (For example, 95 per cent of all dentists examined in the oral health screening panel by Dr.

Sherwin Z. Rosen at the October 1972 ADA convention in San Francisco had dental disease; 60 per cent had periodontitis. This 9 Marvin H. Edwards, Hazardous To Your Health; A New Look at the "Health Care Crisis" in America, (New Rochelle, N. Y., Arlington House, 1972), pp. 37-128. unusually high incidence of path ology can hardly be attributed to lack of education or financial re sources. What it does tend to con firm is that many Americans, rich and poor, educated and uneducat ed, choose to allocate their time and resources to activities other than achieving proper oral health. A government program of either treatment or education is unlikely to alter this situation. - JADA 86:743, April 1973). Foreign Experience At this point discussions of so cialized medicine usually devolve into pragmatic considerations of whether or not this or that pro gram of government health care will work .. From the abundant evi dence available which describes the experience in other countries which have adopted various plans of socialized medicine, it would appear that government medicine in any form is more costly than privately rendered care, is ineffi cient in its delivery, and often militates against the very persons it is designed to help.lo.ll We com mit a serious error, however, if we focus all of our attention upon these pragmatic considerations without first determining whether or not it is possible for a person 10 Edwards, op. cit., pp. 135-230.

11 Neil McInnes: Sweden's Bitter Pill, (Barron's, 26 June 1972), p. 9.

650 THE FREEMAN November to actually possess a right to health care (or, as it is often more skillfully stated, a right to ac'cess to health care). Before discussing health care "rights" it is necessary to first examine the philosophic underpin nings of the concept of rights it self. Exactly what constitutes a human right? Does a right come into existence because a legisla ture proclaims it? Can a president create human rights? Or a "ma jority"? To answer these ques tions we must begin our logical progression from the irrefutable premise that man ex'ists. Since man exists as a living being, it can be apodictically stated that a human individual's most funda mental right is the right to his own life. From the time of the Greek philosophers to the present no one has stated this fact more concisely than the British political philosopher Auberon Herbert: "The great natural fact of each person being born in possession of a separate mind and separate body implies ownership of .such mind and body by each person, and rights of direction over such mind and body; it will be found on examination that no other de duction is reasonable." Elabo rating on this point, Herbert devastates the argument that "so ciety," the State, or anyone else has a valid claim on one's person: "If there is one thing on which we can safely build, it is the great natural fact that each human be ing forms with his or her body and mind a separate entity from which we must conclude that the entities belong to themselves and not to each other. As I have said, no other deduction is pos sible. If the entities do not belong to themselves, then we are reduced to the most absurd conclusion: A or B cannot own himself; but he can own, or part own, C or D."12 The Right to Produce The right to one's own life im plies a major corollary: the right to engage in the production of values which will sustain that life. 13 . 14 These values are accord ingly the exclusive property of the individual who produces them. If an individual's property is seized from him by force (or threat of force), his right to his property does not transfer to the robber.

This fact is not altered whether the robber is acting alone or is a member of a gang of robbers. Even if a majority of individuals in a given geographic area sanc12 Auberon Herbert, in Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, (Los Angeles, Nash Publishing, 1970), p.159. 13 Gottfried Dietze, In Defense of Property, (Baltimore, The Johns Hop kins Press, 1963), p. 49. 14 Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 176ff.

1973 HEALTH CARE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION 651 tions the robbery, the owner has not lost his right to his property.15 We can therefore posit that the right to one's own life, as well as the corollary rights thereof, ac crue to each individual quite in dependent of the will of legisla tures, presidents, or majorities. Rights, of course, cannot exist in conflict. Thus the right to use or dispose of one's property implies a mandate to refrain from physi cal interference, or the threat thereof, with another individual's right to use or dispose of his prop erty. A Right to Health Care? On the basis of the foregoing we can now examine whether a right to health care can exist. Health care is a service provided by doctors and others to people who wish to purchase it. A person in need of health care (or, for that matter, food, clothing, housing, transportation, or recreation) does indeed possess a right to seek to enter into a bilaterally voluntary exchange with a health care pro15 It is interesting to note that if we bestow the name of a government taxing authority (Le., "the School Board" or "the County Tax Collector") upon the gang of robbers, the nature of the act of theft is not at all altered, nor does the proper owner of the seized property lose his right to it. See also Robert LeFevre, The Philosophy of Ownership, (Santa Ana, Rampart College Press, 1971), pp.

23-42. vider (or grocer, clothier, builder, auto dealer, or travel agent). But the mere existence of a need for a service or good does not imply a right to it. In current political parlance, the "right" to health care has come to mean the right to health care at the expense of someone other than the rec'ipient of the service. There are four ways this can oc cur: 1) by the doctor voluntarily giving his services to the patient; 2) by a charitable individual or organization voluntarily donating the cost of the patient's treat ment; 3) by the patient or his agent physically coercing the doc tor into providing the service; or 4) by the patient purchasing the 'service with funds seized from others in the form of taxes. It should be immediately apparent that while the first two examples constitute morally proper trans· actions, the latter two constitute blatant abrogations of genuine rights: either the doctor owns his own life or the patient owns it; and, as in the fourth case, either the individual taxpayers own their own lives, or the patient owns them. The absurdity of a person in need of health care owning a part of a doctor's life, or a part of anyone else's life, has been well demonstrated by Herbert.

To claim, then, that medical care is a right - that a man has a right 652 THE FREEMAN November to be cared for by somebody else - raises the question: What of that other somebody's rights? Since rights cannot exist in con flict, we can arri ve at no other logical conclusion: There exists no such thing as a right to health care. What Can Be Done Once we have disabused our selves of such fallacies as the ex istence of a U.S. "health care crisis," the "right" to health care, or the ability of the government to deliver what the private sector cannot, we can get on with the business of trying to solve those medical and dental problems that are soluble at all. For example, ap proxima tely two-thirds of Ameri can mortalities other than those attributable to the senile cessation of body functions are due to dis eases known to be caused or ex acerbated by such factors of per sonal choice as alcohol, tobacco, or overeating; or due to accidents. 16 What government program, short of outright imprisonment, could change this?

Those who advocate NHI fre16 Department of HEW, Public Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States 1968, Vol. II. Mortality. Part A, (Rockville, Md. National Center for Health Statistics, 1972), pp. 1-6, 1-7. First pointed out by Robert M. Sade, Medical Care as a Right: A Refutation, New Eng. J. Med. 285; 1288-1292, Dec. 2, 1971. quently attempt to buttress their position by pointing at the catas trophic illness that bankrupts a family; or the seemingly unre solvable "lifeboat" situation wherein a mythical doctor in a sparsely populated rural county demands an outrageous fee to save the young widow's life. Although it is often assumed that only the governnlent can resolve these classical health dilemmas, this as sumption is clearly in error. For example, it is an accepted norm in our society to insure one's house against fire; does not common sense dictate a similar practice with regard to one's own health?

Catastrophic health insurance is readily available for the daily price of a package of cigarettes. 17 For the family that is so destitute that it cannot afford even the most modest health insurance premium, there exist in the U.S. today an abundance of private charitable organizations which offer all forms of succor, including health care, to the poor .18 It is worthy of note that they exist in spite of confisca17 A guaranteed renewable, $2500 de ductible, no maximum limit catastrophic health insurance policy for a family of four, for example, is available at a premi um of 40¢ per day. See Robert J. Myers and E. Paul Barnhart, Catastrophic In surance, (Private Practice, Vol. 4, No. 10, October 1972) ,pp. 23-42. 18 See RichardCornuelle, Reclaiming the American Dream, (New York, Ran dom House, 1966). Cornuelle is chairman of a private charitable foundation. .

1973 HEALTH CARE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION 653 tory taxation on the private in comes that provide the bulk of their support. The "lifeboat" health situations are in actuality so rare that they cannot be used with any statistical validity in justifying a change in our present system of health care delivery. Government-Caused Problems Many of the ills that affect the health of the average American are due to poor diet and inade quate housing; not faulty health care. Those doctors who are will ing to go beyond the confines of their clinical practices to relieve the distress of the medically indi gent should examine the extent to which poverty - and the conse quent inability to purchase suffi cient health care, or the inability to live in a healthier environment - is the direct result of prior gov ernment intervention into the economy. Carson, Hazlitt, Ander son, and others 19 ,20 describe at length how many of the "disad vantaged" in our society are made so because government minimum wage laws have forcibly disem19 Yale Biozen, Ghetto Economics, (Reaso1t Magazine, Vol. 3, No.8: Novem ber 1971},pp. 8-12.

20 Dr.. F. A. Harper, chairman of the ;lnstitnte'F,or. Humane-Studies: .peTsonal communication of November 20, 1972, re la:~ing to cost of ,government as apart of 'each{1oUar of personal income spent: 43 per cent as of '1972. ployed them; how workers, par ticularly minority group members, are excluded from the labor mar ket by government-protected labor unions; how wouldbe entrepre neurs with little capital are de nied entrance to many areas of business by expensive government licensing and government-created monopolies; how many of the poor are torn out of their modest homes and pushed into unhealthy slums to make room for the plush shop ping malls, luxury highrise apart ments, and freeways of govern ment "urban renewal" projects; how inadequate diets are in part the result of government taxes which comprise almost half of the purchase price of food. It flies in the face ,of reason to suggest that medical indigency induced by pre vious government interventions in to the economy be ameliorated by further government intrusion which will of itself additionally pauperize those who are ta}~ed to pay for the new health programs.

Summary and Conclusions While there are indeed some Americans who are not in a finan cial position to fully utilize all of the benefits of our free-enterprise health care system, this in no way indicates the existence ,of a "health care crisis"in this ,country .. T:heir ,ability topurchase.,health care 'wouldbe gre'atly cimproved,how654 THE FREEMAN November ever, if they could obtain relief from the onerous burden of gov ernment taxation they are endur ing. The establishment of a system of socialized medicine is justified by its advocates because they feel some Americans have a "right" to health care at the expense of others. Some feel that the govern ment could provide better health care than do private practitioners and private hospitals. Such justi fication is clearly in error, since there exists no such thing as a "right" to health care, nor is there a shred of evidence to indicate that the government could per form any better in the area of health care than it has in the areas of housing, education, agri culture, and other areas where its failures have been monumental.

In fact, government Medicare and Medicaid programs are among the principal reasons for today's ris ing health care costs and clogged health facilities. Since a medical millenium is an impossibility under any eco nomic system, there will always be that small number of individ uals who are unable to obtain the full services of the health care system. It is understandable, com mendable, and in the American tradition to want to extend a help ing hand to them. But does not prudence, as well as compassion for the overwhelming majority who fall within the existing sys tem, demand that the rational critic of U.~. health care spend his time trying to improve our system, rather than trying to im pose a radical change such as National Health Insurance would bring? If the government succeeds in fastening socialized medicine upon the people of the United States, the quality and quantity of our health care will certainly decline.

This will give future historians the unpleasant task of reporting that von Mises' observation of 1956 had become invalid: that the U.S. government, at least in terms of health care, had succeeded in adjusting the U.S. standard of living downward to match that of the rest of the world. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY The AntiCapitalistic Mentality THE PEOPLE of the United States are more prosperous than the inhabitants of all other countries because their government em barked later than the governments in other parts of the world upon the policy of obstructing business. LUDWIG VON MISES Go Commercial I THOMAS L. JOHNSON The fundamental problem in education is not an educa tional problem at all: it is a social one. It consists in the establishment of a new and better relationship between the two great sections of society - children and adults. - Maria Montessori "NOT TOO many of us realize how bad American schools are from the point of view of humanity, respect, trust, or dignity," stated Charles E. Brown, once the Su perintendent of the Newton, Mas sachusetts schools. "The values they transmit are the values of docility, passivity, conformity, and lack of trust," adds Charles E.

Silberman, author of Crisis in the Classroom. This damning view of the role of schools in society is echoed by many thousands of con cerned Americans who also recog nize the many tragic circum stances that exist in schools. Some of them are attempting to offer solutions to the myriad problems. Unfortunately, one rarely if ever Dr. Johnson is Professor of Biology at Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. He is the author of The Declaration of Edu cational Independence. hears the suggestion that the an swer to the educational dilemma or "crisis" might well be found if the schools were to be dissolved and replaced by educational busi nesses, that is, businesses that op erate like other enterprises in a competitive and open manner with the intention of satisfying custom ers. Most people, even staunch capitalists, consider education to be some special endeavor not to be perverted by the business world and thus pooh-pooh any suggestion of educational enterprises.

"It is time for our schools to get themselves, or us to get them, out of the jail business," wrote John Holt in The Underachieving School. The fact that schools are operated as "jails," \vhich do not function to please customers but to satisfy those in charge, is very 655 656 THE FREEMAN November likely the explanation of the vast number of problems that permeate all levels of education, both private and public. But how will the elimination of schools and their replacement with businesses of education solve all those problems that one is always hearing about? What of the in evitable question of discipline, of truancy, of cheating, of grades and degrees? How would such problems as teacher and student boredom and apathy be alleviated? And then there's the dropout problem. What could happen in educa tional businesses to remove the always present conflict between teachers and students which re sults in little or no learning? How could one eliminate the unnatural competition among students (who compete for grades and pleasing the teachers, and rarely for knowl edge), the rigid and outdated cur riculum, the physical mistreatment of students by teachers and ad ministrators (where corporal pun ishment is permitted) , or the whole concept and practice of hav ing to fulfill specific requirements in order to even enter certain schools?

What of the question of in competent teachers, or the matter of the physical damage to schools carried out by frustrated and an gered students (millions of dollars are spent each year by school sys tems in major American cities to pay for the replacement of broken school windows)? Or what of the need to eliminate a negative ap proach to learning which now ex ists in schools and the introduc tion of techniques allowing for individualized instruction? And then there is the vastly important matter of economics, of the financ ing of education, which has pro voked much concern and heated debate in numerous communities across the nation. (According to a recently published Copley News Service release, "the yearly bill for education in America is now running at around $85 billion. Al lowing for inflation, that is double what it was a decade ago.") Could educational businesses solve these and many other con cerns which have caused such a flood of outrage from students, teachers, (particularly new young teachers who really want to teach, but find most of their time occu pied with paper work and disci plining students), parents, poli ticians, and many other thoughtful individuals? Let us examine this question and see.

Discipline The chronic, all-pervading, and seemingly insoluble problem that besets mainly primary and second ary schools is that of discipline1973 LET EDUCATION GO COMMERCIAL 657 how to keep order in the class rooms, hallways, cafeteria, and the like. One might even say that the matter of discipline is the bane of all administrators and teachers, as well as students. But then how could it be otherwise, considering the way in which schools operate? Just suppose that we adults were required, by law, to attend an institution five or six hours a day and to perform certain tasks or learn specific information for which we might have little or no interest. Suppose that we had to follow unquestioningly the com mands of those in charge, and knew that if we should decide to complain too vigorously about any thing that we would probably be punished physically or penalized scholastically - that our very fu ture might be placed in jeopardy if we should speak out too often.

And how would we like it if in this institution we had to keep silent most of the time, move from one place to another only when bells rang, and receive written permission to go almost anywhere in the building if this varied the slightest from our regular sched ule? And how would we feel if we knew that almost all of our actions were being watched, not only in the classroom, but by hall moni tors (guards), and that if we tried to escape from this institution we could be picked up by the police and returned, or if we refused to go back or continued to escape, we could be sent to prison (another type of prison, that is) ? Not only would we adults, realiz ing that our very rights were at stake, create a constant discipline problem under these circum stances; we probably would be en raged enough to engage in a full fledged revolution. Well, students have to put up with precisely these conditions in schools, and it is amazing that they have not done more than just attempt to assert their rights occasionally and there by create discipline problems.

Now what would happen to dis cipline if schools were abandoned and we instead turned to busi nesses of education? The problem of maintaining order and obedi ence would, for all intents and purposes, vanish. Since a business cannot force customers to use its services and cannot require its cli entele to buy specific items, it can not usurp the basic right of each individual: the right of free choice. Educational enterprises would only be able to offer certain courses of instruction and hope that the prospective customers, mainly young people, would find these of sufficient value to volun tarily purchase them. Students would only sign up for those classes that they really desired, 658 THE FREEMAN November and could drop out of any they found not to be of value. In such circumstances, classes would contain mainly students who desire instruction in a particular subject - who, out of interest (which is the only valid motivation for learning), really want to learn what is being taught. In such a class, the likelihood that anyone would cause disruption is slim; if someone did, it probably would be the other customers, the students, who would demand that the culprit pipe down or leave. The interested students would not wish to lose even a bit of the instruc tion for which they, or their par ents, had paid and which they desired to learn.

Boredom Boredom is the inevitable car dinal element present in any en vironment where individual in terest and choice are either limited or absent, and where everyone is trying to force someone else to do something that he doesn't want to do - where everything is done by permission ("Teacher, may I ...") and not by right, and where much of the time is spent doing busy or make-work just to fill the num ber of minutes in a class period. But businesses cannot afford to bore their customers; if they do, they go out of business. Boredom would become a thing of the past in education if students were free to choose only those subjects which they wished to study, when they wished to study them, and were free to drop out of a class if they found it to be of no value or of no interest at that particular time. It is the trapping of students in classrooms that results in bore dom, unrest, frustration and anger (that leads to drug-taking and the destruction of property). Educa tional businesses, wishing to please both customers and em ployees (teachers), would have no desire to create circumstances that would be damaging to all parties concerned - no desire to bore anyone.

Grades and Degrees One hears a great deal about these outmoded tools of the educa tional institution, and some schools have even tried to eliminate them, without success. No matter what variation on a theme is utilized - whether it be written teacher evaluations, or pass and fail grades or the full scale of number or letter grades, or whether the in stitution grants diplomas, certifi cates, degrees or just overall evalu ations of students - it is the edu cational institutions and teachers that are evaluating the customers, and not vice versa. Therein lies the problem, and the reason why schools can operate as prisons.

1973 LET EDUCATION GO COMMERCIAL 659 How many students would con tinue to attend schools as they are now operated (unless forced to do so by either their parents or by compulsory education laws) if grades and degrees were eliminat ed? How many parents would con tinue to put up with the tragic circumstances which they know their children are exposed to in schools if they did not think that it was an absolute necessity for their offspring to have a diploma or degree in order to survive at a decent level in society? But the grades and degrees that hold the entire operation of the schools in tact would· be absent from educa tional businesses. A business cannot certificate an indi vid ual to a particular place in society. It cannot act as a screen ing agency, allowing some to pro gress and others to stand still, fall back, or fail. A true business only has the right to sell goods or serv ices for which there is a demand, and to prosper or fail according to how well it is able to satisfy its customers.

Businesses of education would not offer to sell degrees, diplomas, or certificates, but only instruc tion, and any evaluation of the cus tomer (student) that might trans pire would be at the request of the customer, without fear of punish ment or failure. After all, busi nesses must please customers, not intimidate them. True businesses of education would be ones in which the customers evaluated the teachers and the overall operation of the institution, to determine if customers are getting their mon ey's worth for the service, instruc tion, they are purchasing - not the other way around, as is now the case. And when individuals went job-hunting, it would be the em ployers who would, at that time, evaluate prospective employees rather than accept a scholastic certification as to what an individ ual knows. Other Problems But what about all of the other problems that beset the realm of education? Would they also disap pear if schools were displaced by businesses of education?

Cheating certainly would. If a student is not working for a grade or a degree, or does not have to please the teacher, but is only striving for knowledge of interest to him, what possible reason would he have for cheating? And what possible type of competition could exist in such a setting except that of a healthy and natural competi tion; a competition among stu dents for knowledge, for under standing, for truth. The conflict that now exists be tween student and teacher (as al ways exists between prisoner and 660 THE FREEMAN November guard) would also disappear, for in a business situation the teacher would attempt to please the cus tomer by offering valuable instruc tion, and the student would coop erate with the instructor in order to learn. Instead of being in con flict, they would be working to gether to achieve mutually desir able goals, as is always the case in a free enterprise setting.

Certainly, the outdated and rigid curriculums that now are forced upon students by schools, via state and local boards of education, would have to be set aside if schools were replaced by educa tional businesses. After all, cus tomers will only purchase that which they desire. In a business environment, course offerings would be constantly changing and would be continually updated. And there would be no holding back on the use of technological advances to offer individualized instruction whenever this seemed appropriate to the course. Innovation is the hallmark of a free market, and stagnation a main feature of an authoritarian, bureaucratic sys tem. And what of all those entrance requirements? Does one find spe cial requirements for shopping at the supermarket, department store or laundry? Of course not. These businesses are out to attract cus tomers, not to limit their buying the goods and services that are for sale. Educational businesses would surely operate in like manner.

Also, anyone, regardless of age, could purchase instruction in a course and not have to worry about first having gotten a grade school, high school, or college education in order to be qualified for en trance. Thus, real equality of op portunity in education would fin ally come into existence. Eliminated would be the dropout problem that now plagues so many school systems. A free enterprise approach calls for dropping in, not out. It also calls for the treating of customers with respect and courtesy. It would be difficult in deed to imagine a businessman inflicting corporal punishment on his customers; it simply would not occur. "We aim to please" is, and must be, the businessman's motto. As for incompetent teachers, they would soon be weeded out of the business of education; as their lack of ability became known, few if any customers would voluntarily sign up for their classes. Only the best would survive in educational businesses, the same as in any business setting.

Financing Finally, what about the matter of money? What of the economics of the educational world? Schools, 1973 LET EDUCATION GO COMMERCIAL 661 which operate like giant bureauc racies with their administrators increasing like rabbits - with as sistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, coordinators of this or that, along with scores of secretaries and clerks, all at handsome salaries - and whose customers must attend under force of the law, have little or no inter est in economy. The only concern is to determine how much more the school board dare ask of taxpayers for next year's budget. But businesses of education could not operate in this manner. They would have to obtain their funds from individual willing cus tomers, just as other businesses do. And because it has been dem onstrated that the rate of learning increases tremendously when in terest is the driving factor, rather than coercion, only a fraction (probably less than half) of the time now devoted to studies in schools would be needed to learn an equivalent amount in a busi ness situation - thus, a tremen dous saving in energy and money.

Also, competition is extensive in a business environment, and costs are inevitably lowered as a result of open competition, thereby al lowing even the poorest families to afford the costs involved in giving their children an education in basic subjects. With educational businesses, customers would only be purchas ing just what they want - what they are interested in-rather than being forced to sit in class rooms throughout the day. Thus, many of the current costs of edu cation would disappear. Only in a free market setting does one find economic efficiency. There are those who would argue that all of the problems which are associated with educa tion cannot really be, resolved be cause of the nature of the circum stances; because, they claim, the child is simply not able to make sound judgments and therefore cannot be allowed freedom of choice in matters mental. But any one who has carefully observed the child will have discovered that a youth of 5 or 6 years of age has a keen sense of judgment - he knows when his teacher is help ful or not, when he is learning or not, and he most definitely is aware of what he is interested in knowing at that particular time.

Judgment is not only his capa bility, but his right, and if this be denied the child, by placing him in an authoritarian school where he is obliged not to judge and choose, but obey, he must experi ence serious harm. As Maria Mon tessori points out: "It is easy to substitute our will for that of the child by means of suggestion or coercion; but when we have done 662 THE FREEMAN November this we have robbed him of his greatest right, the right to con struct his own personality. If the child is constantly acting at the command of the teacher, or at her suggestion, his own psychic ac tivity may fade away and disap pear under the stronger will of another; the personality may be come broken and depressed; and abnormal developments will begin to appear." (Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work by E. M. Standing) Perhaps the most succinct and revealing indictment of schools was expressed by Charles E. Sil berman in his extensively re searched book, Crisis in the Class r'oom: It is not possible to spend any prolonged period visiting public school classrooms without being ap palled by the mutilation visible every where - mutilation of spontaneity, of joy in learning, of pleasure in crea t ing, of sense of self.' The public schools - those "killers of the dream,"

to appropriate a phrase of Lillian Smith's - are the kind of institution one cannot really dislike until one gets to know them well. Because adults take the schools so much for granted, they fail to appreciate what grim, joyless places most American schools are, how oppressive and petty are the rules by which they are gov erned, how intellectually sterile and esthetically barren the atmosphere, what an appalling lack of civility obtains on the part of teachers and principals, what contempt they un consciously display for children as children. Must we continue this mutila tion, or could we perhaps find a solution to this dilemma by trying something new? No matter how much money is pumped into the educational system, or how many new programs are devised and tried out on the students, the prob lems that are centuries old con tinue to exist. Would it be taking too much of a chance to try a new approach, one which involves free dom and mutual respect rather than force and the obliteration of rights?

Why not let education go com mercial? Why not try the free enterprise approach which has made this nation the greatest in the world? If the business environ ment could sustain our rights as free citizens and give us a bounty of goods and services undreamed of by most people of the world, just imagine what this. same en vironment could do for the child and the development of his mind. We might yet achieve that much sought, but always elusive goal the American Dream - if we would only displace the scholastic pris ons, the schools (those "killers of the dream"); if we would only free the children.

__Welfareasa Right RIDGWAY K. FOLEY, JR. "WELFARE is a right, not a privi lege" is a popular cliche which calls for an immediate and force ful rejoinder. Despite the obvious error latent in the phrase, this declaration assails us daily from myriad sources in varying guises. The National Welfare Rights Or ganization made the statement in its clearest form but similar ut terances emanate from groups claiming that child care, food stamps, and all manner of hand outs exist as a matter of right. Reason permits penetration of myths and fallacies; and defini tion of terms, illuminating the problem, constitutes the first step toward reason. Welfare Like other open-textured words, "welfare" possesses a variety of meanings. Like other terms utHMr. Foley, a partner in Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, practices law in Portland, Oregon. ized in the political arena, it is subject to corruption by both friend and foe.

Recur to Webster, the common authority. The primary meaning assigned to "welfare" encompasses "the state of faring or doing well, thriving or successful progress in life: a state characterized especi ally by good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"! Dr. Sisson offers the following syn onyms which reflect a similar un derstanding: "aid; future; good; happiness; health; progress; pros perity; sele; success; weal; well being."2 Thus, the traditional meaning assigned to the term con jures up thoughts of goodness, happiness, prosperity and well-be ing. 1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged, G & C Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass, 1966) 2594. 2 Sisson, F. A., Sisson's Synonyms (Parker Publishing Company, Inc., West Nyack, New York, 1966) 678. 663 664 THE FREEMAN November Webster's secondary definition illustrates the gradual erosion of the word as it becomes political ized: "Of, relating to; or con cerned with welfare and especially with improvement of the welfare of social groups (as children, workers, or underprivileged or disabled persons)" (emphasis sup plied). Thus, we move from a definition which described a de sirable state of affairs (one which might be somewhat difficult to achieve) to a corrupted definition manifesting concern with improve ment or imposition of that state, apparently by the actions of men.

Clearly, those who urge that "welfare is a right, not a privi lege" do not by that statement mean that happiness, prosperity, well-being or good fortune consti tute fundamental, unassailable rights - or do they? The emasculation of the word becomes complete when we review Webster's definition of "welfare state," for here we discover that the polemical wordsmiths have journeyed from a descriptive meaning to an extensive one, an urge to action: A social system based upon the as sumption by a political state of pri mary responsibility for the individual and social welfare of its citizens usu ally by the enactment of specific pub lic policies (as health and unemployment insurance, minimum wages and prices, and subsidies to agriculture, housing, and other segments of the economy) and their implementation directly by governmental agencies. Instead of describing an ideal, those who use the word now seek to impose their views of the ideal upon others by coercion. Notice that each and every example in the dictionary definition of "wel fare state" involves government coercion of the individual, a mulct ing of his free choice. No longer is he able to seek his own destiny - his own way to good fortune, well-being, prosperity and happi ness; instead some other individ ual or group arrogates the author ity to decide for him what he wants or needs to secure euphoria.

Thus has the definition moved from traditional description to methodology, and a false meth odology at that! In its primary sense, "welfare" remains open-textured; any in divid ual can discern for himself what constitutes happiness, pros perity and well-being; these goals vary from person to person. In the secondary sense, "welfare" as sumes knowledge on the part of someone of what constitutes hap piness, prosperity, and well-being for all others within a group, class, or society. Properly analyzed, then, the de1973 WELFARE AS A RIGHT 665 clarant of the cliche means that government interventions in the economy benefiting some individ uals and groups at the expense of others is a right, not a privilege. Boldly stated, this utterance seems questionable; as we shall see, after a brief analysis of the concepts of "right" and "privilege," it actu ally borders on sham. What is a Right?

"Right" refers to another of those baffling terms which, seem ingly clear in application, flit about like a noisy ghost when one seeks a precise definition. It is a word of many shadings of mean ing, none of them exact; a perusal of Webster's reveals one page of fine print devoted to the term; re course to a jural lexicographer of fers three pages of definition. 3 Part of the confusion arises from the human tendency to use the same words at different times in different contexts to mean dif ferent things. Thus, a speaker may initially use the word "right" to mean any obligation legally en forceable by one man against an other and yet, on another occa sion, utter the same word as mean ing a seminal power inherent in an individual just because he is a 3 Black's Law Dictionary (4th edi tion, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn., 1951) 1486-1488. human being, notwithstanding (or sometimes, in spite of) the coer cion of organized government.

Black's Law Dictionary exhibits this particular befuddlement: ... a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one per'son and incident upon another. "Rights" are defined generally as "powers of free action." And the primal rights per taining to man are undoubtedly en joyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law. But leaving the abstract moral sphere, and giving to the term a juristic con tent, a "right" is well defined as a "capacity residing in one man of con trolling, with the assent and assis tance of the state, the action of others." (p. 1486) Further blurring the identity, some append the adjective "nat ural" to "right," when utilizing it in its fundamental moral mean ing: Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend· upon personality, as distin guished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized soci ety; (p.1487) Let us isolate and comment up on the essential meaning of a "right." It is something funda mental, inherent in man's person 666 THE FREEMAN November merely because he is a person. It cannot be justly disparaged by an other man or group of men; it exists beyond the reach of man kind and emanates from the Es sence of the Universe. It deals with free action, with voluntary use of faculties in all fields of en deavor.

Properly construed, a right ex ists without law, without the sanc tion of a legal system - once one assumes the necessity of a juridi cal unit to establish rights, he must also posit that that same body may lim,it or destroy those identical rights. Consider reality: if the right of free speech, free press, and free association, guar anteed by the First and Four teenth Amendments to the United States Constitution do not inhere in mankind but exist only because of some writing on a crumbling document, the guarantees mean little: in periods of stress, martial law may be impaired by the same authority which produced the Con stitution, allegedly justifying the "temporary" removal or restric tion of those rights. Contrary to Black's definition, a right need not favor one person to the detriment of another. Prop erly analyzed, the existence of rights in one man benefits all man kind. Man should be free to choose his own destiny in all enterprises.

The sole justifiable limitation on this liberty rests in the injunction that no man shall use his powers to coerce or deny an equal free dom in all other human beings. My freedom diminishes to the ex tent that I do not possess the right to murder my neighbor; his liber ty likewise lessens because he may not lawfully take my life. But to ascribe to rights the attribute that the existence of a right in A diminishes the corresponding right in B fails to ring true. A's right to order his life does not conflict with B's equal, reciprocal right (except in the limited sense that neither may coerce or defraud the other) ; indeed, a vast multitude of actors, each seeking their own ends, effectively pro duce material well-being (or wel fare in one sense) beyond the wildest imaginations of the utop ian planner. My right to produce shoes does not infringe upon my neighbor's right to produce shoes in competition with me ; we each create value; that value is meas ured by the choice of others who wish to purchase shoes, exercis ing their respective rights to choose.

A fundamental right must pre exist a jural system, but it may exist contemporaneously with such a system. The appropriate inter rela tionship between essential rights and the jural system ap pears in the Jeffersonian phrase, 1973 WELFARE AS A RIGHT 667 "That to secure these rights, gov ernments are instituted among men."4 Rights inhere in man be cause he is a human being en dowed with such powers by his nature and by the principles which govern the universe. The sole legitimate function of that or ganized force we call the state, or government, is to secure-protect against invasion - these rights in every individual. The result: each man remains free to follow the dictates of his conscience and to seek his own destiny. Privilege Contrasted Analysis of the concept of "priv ilege" indicates that such an as sertion means something quite different than a fundamental right; indeed, the word partakes of the veiled meaning of right de pendent upon legal sanction for its continued existence: A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An ex ceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A right, power, franchise or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law.5 In short, a privilege denotes a 4 Declaration of Independence, United States of America.

5 Black's op cit, p. 1359. special power, favor or advantage granted. by law to one individual or group, conferring particular rights upon the recipient to his benefit and to the concurrent detri ment of others in society. Unlike a fundamental right, the existence of which benefits not only the holder but also all others in soci ety, a privilege favors one and de means another, all backed by the coercion of the state. Monopolies and subsidies offer common examples of privileges. The state grants a monopoly fran chise to ABC Power Company, ex cluding all others who wish to generate, transmit, and distribute electric power in a given terri tory, and exacting tribute in re turn by means of restrictions on freedom of choice (e.g., excise taxes, franchise taxes, limitations on hiring and personnel policies, rate tariffs). ABC Power Com pany receives a privilege - one for which it pays dearly in real terms.

Again, Farmer Brown and Busi nessman Smith glean gifts of money from the national govern ment for permitting land to stay fallow or for producing certain machine tools. Since government creates nothing, the funds trans ferred to Farmer Brown and Busi nessman Smith derive from other individual value-creators in soci ety; the funds change hands by means of coercion; the creator of 668 THE FREEMAN November value is taxed by the state so as to support Smith and Brown, and he acquiesces only· because he does not wish to be killed, maimed or jailed by the collective force of society. These simple examples of priv ilege disclose another differenti ating aspect from right: a privi lege cannot exist without an un derlying jural system since, by postulate, a privilege takes from one and gives to another by force and thereby wholly depends upon the law for its sanction. Furthermore, privileges do not connote "powers of free action"

for they inhibit the freedom of the disadvantaged person or group. Unlike fundamental rights, privileges, being dependent upon government, may be altered, changed, or obliterated by the granting authority. In sum, privi leges lack the enduring qualities of rights. Consider The Phrase: Is Welfare A Right Or A Privilege? Armed with this linguistic anal ysis, let us now consider the utter ance, "welfare is a right, not a privilege." What does the decla rant mean? He or she can only mean that a system of government and law which supplies advan tages, subsidies, and favors to one segment of society (the "disad vantaged," whoever they are at that moment) endows the recipi ent class with a fundamental pow er to receive this largess, a power which preexists and supersedes the state, even though these dona tions unduly hamper the freedom of choice of other individuals in that society. Can a rational man truly accept the position that the state should coerce and defraud citizens of value they have created so as to benefit other, less productive crea tures? Even assuming that the state has the power to bestow exacted value upon selected mem bers of society (less a substantial handling charge, of course), how can intelligent people really be lieve that the ability to receive such benevolence not only pre-ex ists the state but also stands be yond the reach of popular termina tion? What the proponents of the cliche truly propose is a system whereby benefits, once granted, can never be diminished or termi nated. Most aid programs never cease, but the voluntarist retains the fond hope that someday, some how, libertarian legislators will dismantle at least some of the cumbersome, expensive and free dom-throttling machinery of the state. No objective observer can accept the proposition that once a program designed to promote the real or imagined well-being _of one person becomes law, that law for1973 WELFARE AS A RIGHT 669 ever freezes into the system be yond the possibility of change.

Yet, apparently that is the expec tation of those who cry, "welfare is a right, not a privilege." Realistically viewed, the shib boleth asks mankind to weld into a juristic and socio-economic sys tem the concept that "might makes right." Reduced to its bare bones, the phrase means that some group should gain at the expense of others, and that the st'ate should not only effect that gain by use of its collective force but also supply some sort of moral sanction for its own activities as well as those of the beseeching donees. Simply stated, the welfarists assert that they are entitled, because of abil ity, talent or some other inherent attributes, to the fruits of the la~ bor of their neighbors at a partic ular point in time and that once they start receiving these advan tages, no one should ever interfere with the steady flow of coerced goods into their coffers. They pos sess the power to mulct others but they deny an equal reciprocal pow er to others to protect themselves, and they possess the additional audacity to demand that their victims acquiesce in the looting because the conduct, while repre 4ensible to most of us, deserves the armor of moral propriety!

Contrary to the fallacy implicit in the phrase, power and coercion do not constitute moral absolutes in our universe. You may steal my goods, or destroy your neighbor you have that power. Existence of power does not equate with what is right, just, and proper. Might does not make right. Man' 5 Capacity for Sympathy Clarify the analysis. Noone rails against the unfortunate members of society who are disad vantaged by accident, illness, trag edy, or station in life. Sympathy exists as a natural and desirable attribute of man. Each of us fe_els sympathy and empathy for those less fortunate: the widow raising young children, the blind man, the crippled veteran, the homeless al coholic. In some instances, tragedy visits those who do not seem to deserve that fate; in other cases, man acts in such a way as to 8n courage his own problems. :3t:i, in either event, most humau beings feel a very real sorrow and com passion for their beleaguered neighbors.

Because of this natural capacity for sympathy, most of us are in terested in the well-being, happi ness, and prosperity of others in society; to that extent, we favor their welfare. But it is a far cry from this position to condone gifts of assistance to these sympathetic creatures when the gifts are rav aged from other people who cre670 THE FREEMAN November ated value and whose only crime consists of the desire to keep what they created. Who knows whether those despoiled could have put their property to better use than the donees? Who among us pos sesses the god-like faculty for making this kind of arrogant val ue judgment? Perhaps welfare subsidizes a needy one-legged vet eran, but the tax which pays the subsidy is exacted from a hard working woman in poor health who valiantly strives to save some 'of her earnings for early retire ment so she can live the rest of her labored days in comfort and perhaps stretch the pleas~rable portions of her life out by weeks, months, or years. Which of us pos sesses the omniscience to foresee and fit each life together to achieve perfect harmony and justice in the balance? And who among us truly desires and possesses the capacity for making such awful judg ments? Not I.

The Needy Veteran versus the Spoiled Brat But to make the point more lu cidly, let us posit the welfare re cipient as a bedridden veteran, crippled and blinded, unable to se cure gainful employment through no fault of his own with three motherless infants to rear. Pre suppose that the recipient's sub sidyemanates directly from the pockets of a ne'er-do-well scion of a millionaire who has never done a lick of work in his life, whose sole career appears to consist of drinking, wenching, and riding trail bikes in sylvan glens. Al most all of us would sympathize with the condition of the disabled veteran; many of us would gladly donate from our meagre store of value so that he might live a more prosperous and happy life - and we would do so voluntarily sans coercive government. Moreover, many of us would say that the spoiled brat of the rich man led a worthless life and ought to sup port the poor veteran. But even this supposed situation should not sway us from our firm' resolve never to deprive our neighbor of his equal and reciprocal rights.

Even in such a stark setting, not one of us, not even the poor vet eran, possesses a right to coerce or defraud the rich young man of his life, his liberty, or his prop erty. He may merit our disap proval; we may wish not to asso ciate with him; but we must ever quell the urge to victimize him, for in the instant that we attempt to justify our sacking of his free dom we sow the seed which will devour our own liberty. If one man may be mulcted, all may be despoiled - the bars are down. Remember one point well: co ercion cannot right a wrong or 1973 WELFARE AS A RIGHT 671 correct an ill; it can only com pound injustice. Voluntary action may cure all defects in society, at least those which can be aided by finite man. Voluntary action will feed the hungry, cloth the ragged, comfort the fatherless, and attend the sick - all without forceful in tervention. Noone contests the well-meaning goals of the welfar ist, for all men of good will desire happiness and prosperity for their neighbors. But clarity requires intent - an intent to give and de sire to receive. True charity can not be coerced. Thus, while I may share the goals of the welfarist, be it fair employment, fair wages, good health, long life, or general happiness, I engage in no charity when I pass a law commanding each member of society to pay It Is More Blessed part of his property to those laud able ends. Only when I voluntar ily give to a worthwhile cause do I engage in charity, for coercion destroys true charity.

Some proponents of welfare aver that recipients are demeaned by handouts, and that donees need dignity. All persons require dig nity; few like to take unearned property from others. But a /co erci ve mask cannot alter reality, and all the disguises in the world cannot change a handout into a right. Perhaps lessened dignity will induce more recipients to be come prod ucti ve again; certainly the "morality of force" amounts to no morality at all, and welfare cannot be considered a right by thinking men. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY GIVE A MAN a handout today - and tomorrow he'll probably be back for another. Create a job for a man today - and tomorrow he will pay his own way, his falnily's way, a part of the cost of his government, and may be able himself to help the needy. A job calls forth initiative and bolsters self-respect. A handout diminishes both. The person who invests in an enterprise that provides jobs performs a humanitarian act. To the Biblical counsel that it is more blessed to give than to receive, therefore, might be added the advice that it is more blessed to invest than to give.

JAMES C. PATRICK An open letter from a young American . .. DEAR AMERICA: I AM YOUR SON; but you do not know me (except as 290-54 0981). I am a man, now. I am a man able to see with my own eyes what in my heart I believe is good, and what I fear is evil. I am proud to be a part of you. I thank God every day that the accident of birth made me one of your sons. But because of my love for you, I am afraid. I am morbidly afraid that the corruption of greed and ig norance will destroy all that you and I stand for. As long as I can remember, you impressed upon me the blessings of property rights; but now there are others who decide how much of what I earn is mine, and how much is theirs, even before I see it. Not that I don't want to share. They won't let me! They say they "share" it for me - thus denying me the self-respect one feels in helping another on his own. My good will is made mandatory. They tell me it is my obligation to let them give of me, to the "deserving."

Time and again you told me that to strive for perfection is the ultimate goal. You encouraged me always to reach higher; yet, when I aspire, I am shunned. I attempt my best, and the labels I receive are "reactionary" and "establishment." I am admonished to underproduce, lest others' lack of initiative become apparent. I lose more than I gain when I work extra hours which force me into a "higher bracket." Time and again you have told me that I must have pride in my work; but many of my fellow men find it less profitable to work than to be idle. Your schools have attempted to teach me that "self" is un importan t and wrong ; that the good of the "people" is the highest priority; that there are no absolutes, and therefore no real ownership; and that "equality" alone remains. 672 1973 DEAR AMERICA: 673 Time and again you told me that a law is a law - the same for everyone. One breaks the law, one goes to jail. If one feels the law to be unjust, one tries to change it within the system, and by doing so, demonstrates one's faith in it. Yet, only yesterday, men broke the law and ran away, shouting such epithets as "fascist state," and "imperialistic," and branding me "nationalistic" and idealistic. Today, they call you "home,"

and me "brother." They want to come back as if nothing had happened. They tell me this is their "right." Other nations have damned us, threatened us, and fought us. Their basic creed included, and still entails, the ideal of a world dominated by communism, resulting in the destruction of democracy . Yet, we are becoming increasingly open to these countries. While communist guns are killing men who are defending their democratic nations, our leaders are so cializing and trying to buy their friendship. Please do not misunderstand. I am not condemning you. I would remain silent if I did not care. I love you, America. You and I must become the best we possibly can. I do not want us to" be tramped on, lied to, and squeezed dry by lazy, greedy nondoers who claim it is our obligation to stagnate at their inferior levels. God bless you, America. Be never less than the Land of the Free; the land of promise and opportunity; not a deserted island of mediocrity.

Let me be the best man I can. Let me produce to my limit, for my benefit, and in turn for yours. I am a man, now. I see the evil and the good. I see both the deadly shadow of "social obligation" and the brilliant hope of individual freedom; and in turn the promise of moral responsibility. I am an American, today, tomorrow, and forever. Your son, JJowarJ::D. A!e'J 290-54-0981 r I Mr. Aley of Youngstown is Publications Director of Ohio Young Americans for Freedom.

LEONARD E. READ INFLATION To know truly is to know by causes. - Francis Bacon How TO STOP INFLATION? Remove the cause! Stopping inflation is as simple and as difficult as that. Everyone says he's against infla tion; yet, what do we find? Nearly everyone overlooking the sole remedy and, instead, conjuring up schemes to soften inflation's dis astrous effects. Interestingly, all schemes or nostrums which ignore the cause, if and when adopted, sink us ever deeper into the mire. As if inflation weren't bad enough, most proffered "cures" would worsen the situation! Many years ago a professor of economics told a group of us about his experiences at the University of Heidelberg during the German inflation. Faculty members were paid once a month. As the infla tion began to gallop, they were paid twice a month, then each 674 week, then each day. Finally, they were paid in the morning, rushing the checks home to their Frauen before going to their classrooms.

Why? Prices were multiplying many times each day, so shop in the morning! There came a time - August 1923 - when 100 billion marks would not buy a loaf of bread. What was this professor's rec ommendation to those in our group who foresaw similar prob lems in our own country? His ad vice was to outproduce inflation! Imagine a professor. of economics not understanding that all produc tion creates its own purchasing power! A few thoughts inspired by the professor's naive thinking : Pro duction involves the efficient com bination and use of scarce re1973 HOW TO STOP INFLATION 675 sources, in the process paying for each resource a price high enough to pull it away from other owners and other uses. To produce more housing, for instance, involves paying higher wages, higher prices for lumber, hardware, ma sonry, and the like, to attract those scarce resources from other uses. Meanwhile, each supplier of such resources has the additional income to spend, a process some times expressed as Say's Law: "Production creates its own pur chasing power."

The truth is that inflation does not result from the lack of hous ing or other goods or services. It is nothing more nor less than the printing of what the government has declared to be legal tender, that is, printing ever-increasing quantities of fiat money. Unless house-building or other produc tive activities stop those printing presses - an absurdity - then try ing to outproduce inflation is as futile as trying to out-run one's own shadow. So the professor's cure is on a level with most reme dies now being dinned into our ears. Trying to Live with It It is not that the inventors of these schemes agree with infla tion. Quite the contrary! Rather, it is that they see no way to be rid of it; inflation is here to stayeven worsen - thus, why not find a way to prosper and thrive in a monetary holocaust! The fact that this requires nonexistent skills in legerdemain deters them not. Two such schemes recently came to my attention. The first proposes that all contracts - loans, for in stance - be repaid (legally en forced) in dollars of the same pur chasing value as when contracted.

If the value of the dollar should decline at the rate of 15 per cent a year, then a 10-year loan of a thousand dollars would be repaid in the amount of more than $5,000, plus interest. Even in the face of the current inflationary pattern, what bor rower would be willing to sign such a contract? Only the person who cannot see "beyond the end of his nose." There would be little if any futures trading; indeed, contractual relations would all but cease, production would decline at a frightening rate. Further, there is nothing in this scheme to halt the outpouring of fiat money; it would go on its merry way and, because of the fall off in produc tion, the dollar would buy far less than were the scheme never adopted. Approval? Indeed, not! The other scheme requires that all business ventures be compelled to adopt the "profitsharing" pro cedure - employees as well as en trepreneurs sharing in the gains.

676 THE FREEMAN November This is inspired by some remark able successes such as Lincoln Electric of Cleveland. The assump tion is that if Jim Lincoln could, by this arrangement, earn a great deal for himself, pay higher wages than others, and undersell all of his competitors, so could everyone else - hundreds of thousands of businessmen from hamburger stand owners to General Motors. Simply pass a law and make every entrepreneur operate like Mr. Lincoln! Overlooked is the fact that only one Jim Lincoln ever existed. There are no two entrepreneurs who operate their businesses alike, nor could they do so if they tried. Each is novel to some extent; and consumers - that's all of us - are thus advantaged. Any profitsharing arrangement should, in all fairness, be also a loss-sharing arrangement. But most wage earners would shy away from any employer who re quired employees to share any losses his business might incur.

Why? Tens of thousands of busi nesses fail annually, as everyone knows. Were profitsharing made com pulsory for everyone, production would dramatically decline, just as in the first scheme. There would be other results, no less disastrous. Outproducing inflation or ful filling contracts at a constant purchasing power or forcing every business to engage in profitshar ing are no more than "pipe dreams." Adoption need not be feared. These schemes merely illustrate how people avoid pin pointing the cause of inflation and, thus, propose remedies which com pound the problem. Price Control and Rationing However, what do we find in the day-to-day world of "practical" politics? The worst of all possible schemes: price control and ration ing as edicts by the Federal gov ernment and wage controls in the hands of labor unions. Below market prices and above-market wages! Inflation is not ques tioned; we have instead only futile attempts to escape the effects, which make the effects increas ingly disastrous. In what way?

Production is both diminished and distorted. Figuring out how to out-scheme the political schemers takes the place of discovering how best to satisfy consumer prefer ences. Schemers with political and coerci ve power make schemers of everyone of us they overpower. To illustrate: By reason of gov ernmental intervention, the supply of gas and oil is curbed and the demand increased. What to do? Ration the fuel! To the station at tendant say, "Fill 'er up." "Sorry, only $3 worth to a person." So the 1973 HOW TO STOP INFLATION 677 car owner takes what he can get and goes to another station repeat ing, "Fill 'er up." Gas wasted go ing from station to station! Even tually, all the gas is gone, but con sumers still have "gas money" burning holes in their pockets. The best way to ration gas or any other scarce resource is to let the price rise to a point where the supply is sufficient to meet the demand.

We need only come to our senses to stop inflation; nothing is re quired beyond discovering its cause and then being rid of it. The cause? Overextended government. To repeat what many of us have written over and over again: when the costs of government rise be yond the point where it is no longer politically expedient to de fray the costs by direct tax levies, governments all over the world resort to an expansion of paper money - inflation - as a means of making up the difference. Infla tion dilutes and depreciates the medi um of exchange as a means of syphoning private property into the coffers of government.t Here we have the cause, so simple to see through. But being rid of the cause is not simple. Why the difficulty? The difficulty is rooted in an 1 For a more complete explanation of the cause, see my pamphlet, "The Es sence of Americanism." Copy on request. unintelligent interpretation of self-interest. 'Today, all of us with out exception are feeding more or less at the Federal trough. True, there are a few who are forcefed, not dipping into the trough will ingly. Finding it necessary to live in the world as it is, they partici pate in the deficit-burdened, so cialistic mail system - to name but one of many examples. But most citizens today - a number per ilously approaching 100 per cent - mistakenly feel that they have a vested interest in the continu ance of one or more, if not all, Federal "programs" that go to make up the deficits that can be met only by inflation: fiat money made possible by legal tender laws.

Various Vested Interests Perhaps this citizen only wishes to be paid for not farming, an other to receive social security or Medicare, still others to be pro tected against competition, or to have their education subsidized, or a Gateway Arch for their home town, or whatever. It would take a book just to list the titles of all the Federal handouts and discrim inatory edicts. 2 Anyway, count the persons you know who completely 2 See Encyclopedia of U.S. Govern ment Benefits, a tome of more than 1,000 pages with over 10,000 "benefits." (Union City, N.J.: Wm. H. Wise and Co., Inc., 1965.) 678 THE FREEMAN November ignore the "gravy train," who would concede nothing to govern ment beyond a peace-keeping, justice-dispensing agency of so ciety, who are free from the feel ing that they have a vested interest in this or that deficit creating, political gimmick. They are "as rare as hens' teeth!"

If an individual could perfectly identify how his self-interest is best served, he would be all-wise. However, I am not alluding to perfect wisdom but to that level of intelligence any adolescent should possess. Most youngsters know that their self-interest is not advanced by stealing -living off the fruits of the labor of others coercively exacted. They would not regard face-to-face thievery as in their own interest. And there are thousands of high school students who are bright enough to see that there is no distinction be tween pointing the gun oneself and getting the Federal govern ment to do the "stick-up." The loot would be ill-gained in either case. Self-interest is not served by either method. One need not be overly brilliant to see this. Yet, what do we find? Millions upon millions identifying self interest with legal plunder! The more political largess they can get - regardless of the force used the better. It is not that these people, many of whom are college graduates, could not rise above this infantile level of thinking; they could if they would, but they don't. Further, these millions do not see how their self-interest is subverted rather than served by this socialistic plundering, and they cannot be expected to under stand why inflation is not also identified with their self-interest.

They see inflation, if they see at all, as the means of filling the thousands of troughs from which they feed without either thought or effort. They love the role of parasites! Given these millions who thoughtlessly behave this way, plus the political exploiters of nonsense, the situation, on the surface at least, looks hopeless. Stopping inflation appears to be impossible, and certainly this would be the case were it a num bers problem. But, thank heavens, it never has been a numbers prob lem, is not now, nor will it ever be. It is strictly a matter of in spired and intelligent leadership. A Natural Aristocracy Statesmen - in and out of office - are more and more in evidence, persons who think for themselves and stand forthright for their enlightened convictions. These few - thousands, of course - un derstand that self-interest is to be identified with individuals in the 1973 HOW TO STOP INFLATION 679 role of hosts - producers, not para sites. They also know that infla tion is deadly - for parasites can not exist without hosts. As the troughs empty, attrition increases, especially among the parasites.

As this natural aristocracy comprised of men of virtue and talents - approaches the pink of condition, rises to the top in think ing how self-interest is best served, the nonsense is stopped dead, then subsides ! Your role and mine? Try one's best to be this kind of an exemplary aristo crat. This, I submit, is the sole formula to stop inflation. , IDEAS ON $ LIBERTY Fiat Money Inflation in France OUT OF THE INFLATION of prices grew a speculating class; and, in the complete uncertainty as to the future, all business became a game of chance, and all businessmen, gamblers. In city centers came a quick growth of stockjobbers and speculators; and these set a debasing fashion in business which spread to the remotest parts of the country. Instead of satisfaction with legitimate profits, came a passion for inordinate gains. Then, too, as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. So came upon the nation the obliteration of thrift. In this mania for yielding to present enjoyment rather than providing for future comfort were the seeds of new growths of wretchedness: luxury, senseless and extravagant, set in. This, too, spread as a fashion. To feed it, there came cheatery in the nation at large and corruption among officials and persons holding trusts. While men set such fashions in private and official busi ness, women set fashions of extravagance in dress and living that added to the incentives to corruption ....

Thus was the history of France logically developed in obedience to natural laws; such has, to a greater or lesser degree, always been the result of irredeemable paper .... ANDREW DICKSON WHITE The Rightto BeWong and the Obligationto Be Right CHARLESR. LADow IT IS DIFFICU~T to remember the time when most of us were reached by one newspaper a day, perhaps one radio newscast, and when public opinion polls were infre. quently promulgated and ana lyzed. However, we hardly have to go back thirty years to find the time when such 'conditions pre vailed. In the short intervening period we have come to be bat tered, on a twenty-four hour schedule, with opinion-making news and punditry including sta tistically analyzed samples of pub lic opinion, brought up to date by the day. Man has progressed materially by stand,ardization of parts and functions and it is not too hard to understand the standardization of ideas which has been the product of the mechanization of the mass media. It is likewise possible to see why media-men react to critics of their product much as motorMr. LaDow, of San Diego, recently retired as a teacher of social studies in high school.

680 makers have reacted to Ralph Nader. After all, haven't they simply followed the demands of the market? Should they pay at tention to the Hooper ratings and public polls; or let a few high brow critics bend the policies of their firms? Being the latest comer to the communication scene, television has been the chief beneficiary of bitter criticism. Its well-noted ad vantage in courting an audience by picture (even color), as well as sound and words, should not blind critics to similar developments in radio and the press. Licensing policies in the former of these, and the rising costs of entry in either, have led to the development of networks and chains and, in turn, to greater standardization of product in stations and news papers. Indeed, the entire publishing business has been totally altered by the exigencies of manufacture and dedication to the mass mar1973 THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG-AND THE OBLIGATION TO BE RIGHT 681 ket in a grossly similar manner.

While there are minority book and magazine publishers who cater to scattered intellectual demands, the vast majority of print is devoted to the ephemeral democratic stand ard: statistically sampled public taste. William James had presci ence of this in 1910, when he dreaded the day when America might fall under the spell of "the 10 cent magazine." (That was be fore inflation!) In quite recent times, \he late Joseph Wood Krutch, in a charming essay, en titled No Essays - Please!, enter tained a more knowledgeable gen eration by showing how Time and Life generated copy and, with gentlemanly good humor, what had happened to such once-great magazines as A tlantic Monthly. Wrong at One's Own Risk It is always tempting to nail down one's points with the crudest and most obvious of examples. It is difficult to nail down this ex ample, because there are no extant public opinion tables for 1492.

However, there is strong second ary evidence that the majority of persons in Columbus' day believed the earth to be flat. Columbus dif fered with that opinion and was ready to risk his life and fortunes on his assumption of the earth's sphericity. According to public opinion, Columbus was wrong. However, the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution suggests that he had "the right to be wrong" - at least so long as he didn't force anyone to agree with him. If Voltaire really said, "I dis approve of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," those of us acquainted with Voltaire's works will know it was Columbus' form of free speech he so favored rather than the "free speech" often claimed for terrorists and criminals today. For, in any society worth in habiting, every right involves re sponsibility and responsibility means obligation. The right to use the public highways involves the obligation to keep to one's own side of the road, with chaos and death the only alternative. Colum bus had the "right to be wrong,"

according to public opinion; but he had the obligation to prove himself right at his own risk, and of those who voluntarily joined him, without in any way involv ing those who disagreed and with out overturning society. • Columbus' right to free speech only existed so far as he did not use or advocate force in proposing his theory and proj ected explora tion. His obligation to be right was implicit in his duty to protect the lives and property of his fel low mariners and the investment and prestige of the Spanish crown.

682 , THE FREEMAN November Any other view of such matters would be clearly disruptive of any viable society. Men cannot live to gether successfully without a good measure of mutual trust and for bearance. There is certainly no dearth of argument in America today in fa vor of "free speech." In common parlance, jt has become the near est to an absolute principle, in our Constitution, making the First Amendment even superior in re gard to the shibboleth of "equal ity." We have reached the absurd point where burning down an op position headquarters can be equated wih free speech and where any means of chicanery or force may be tolerated in gaining or disseminating information or opinion. Innuendo, and even out right falsehood, have equal stand ing to honestly spoken truth, where, as Hitler once suggested, the biggest lie may be the most palatable public information. Flouting Social Custom It seems to be generally over looked, or forgotten, that abso lute freedom of expression has al ways been in question by the very best minds and that that question able ideal has never been sup ported by any society which ever existed. Samuel Johnson said: "Every man has a physical right to think as he pleases; for it cannot be discovered how he thinks.

He has not a moral right, for he ought to inform himself, and think justly. But, Sir, no member of a society has a right to teach any doctrine contrary to what the so ciety holds to be true ..." What our society holds to be true has been eroded -by permissiveness; but, however, attenuated, sanc tions are still inveighed, both le gally and morally, against those who break the remaining taboos. Even our widely revered Marxist philosopher, Dr. Marcuse, has made it perfectly clear that, if he had the power, he would shut up the opposition. All radical and "progressive" elements, who most loudly proclaim "Freedom of Speech," are the first to shout down, or attack physically, any vo cal opposition. Meanwhile, as we nurse a childish faith in the magic of free expression, the majority of the earth's citizens, including our worst enemies, exist totally without that amenity. The worldwide and historical lesson which we should be getting is that freedom of speech is no exception to the rule: No right can long survive without its con comitant responsibilities. Milton's A reopagitica and our Jeffersonian First Amendment were the prod ucts of morally educated men: men who deeply felt the obligation to be right. Like Dr. Johnson, 1973 THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG - AND THE OBLIGATION TO BE RIGHT 683 they recognized the duty to "in form (themselves) , and think justly." To men of such mind and spirit, the hubris of an attorney like Kunstler would be unthink able. Free speech is the fruit of humane civilization. Primitive savagery, however intellectualized, can never create it, or sustain it.

Attached to the right of free speech is forever attached the ob ligation to be right. True, man is a frail creature, apt to be wrong. Also, to be right is a most difficult feat: one which leads many to the extremes of de spair or arrogance. Nevertheless, this obligation is faced by each of us from the first breath of life, which, if not properly taken, leads to suffocation. Each day we make many decisions, like crossing the street, or taking to the woods, wherein lie mortal chances of de feat, dishonor, or destruction. Our security, and that of society and humanity, is dependent on the cor rectness of decisions. Unlike most living things, man is largely be reft of instincts; so his continued existence is largely based on in herited lore} the funded experience of history. When, in his opinion, a man's obligation to be right is outweighed by his right to be wrong, that man is close to ex tinction. So it is with a society.

We would not dream of submit ting a navigational plan for the astronauts toa public poll for correction. It would not occur to us to send a watch toa plumber for repair, or invite the milkman to remove our appendix. Then, why should we make obeisance to a common denominator in· in structing and entertaining the hu man mind? The human mind is infinitely variable and any cross section, of taste or capacity, is sure to leave out of concern the vast majority of variables. At any rate, do not the media and press have an obligation to improve pub lic taste and capacities? It seems manifestly one-sided that so many agencies are applying themselves to protect the consumer of food, drugs, or material goods, while scarcely anyone pays responsible attention to the mass consumption of the mind. Gossip, innuendo, and even palpable falsehood are ac corded equal representation with the truth. The exaltation of statistical public opinion is an outgrowth of the dogma of pure democracy. It is part and parcel of the notion that a majority vote is the final answer to any dispute. This not only negates the religious view that "One, with God, is a major ity," ignores Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence which termed men "equal and in dependent," and evades the divi sion of powers and differences of 684 THE FREEMAN November education and abilities; but it also invites the absurd assumption that all knowledge is a matter of opin ion. Most of our erratic, and often disastrous, behavior as a nation today stems from attempts to im pose the dogma of pure democracy upon the constructive forms of our Constitutional Republic. In this, we· ignore the clearcut lessons of history, reaching back to ancient Athens and Rome. We have turned Alcuin's remark to Charlemagne that "The voice of the people is the voice of God" into a material istic parody.

In our halls of government and in the public media; the amount and quality of intellectual "shoot ing-from-the-hip" is appalling. Be cause of the inevitably loaded nature of polls, one is fortunately able to believe that the real ma jority would· not, if properly reached, agree with such shenani gans. However, even though, as Lincoln said, ". . . you can't fool all of the people all the time," he also said, "... you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time." Since the day of "snake oil" salesman, false adver tisers and charlatans have found these latter categories adequate to their purposes. They can, in any event, count on the commonness of a short span of attention and a short memory to save them from the majority. But, they can not release themselves from the moral obligation to "inform (them selves) and think justly." And, even if bereft of civilized morals, they should be able to obey na hIre's injunction: "A bird should not befoul its own nest."

Attacks on the Government of the United States, "giving aid and comfort to their enemies," have become commonplace. Deadly at tacks are made on the firms and industries, freedom of enterprise, and the sanctity of property and privacy, which have made this na tion a haven for the beleaguered everywhere. Such things happen and are accepted blandly, and even supported, by officials sworn to up hold these institutions and by those whose calling is to inform the public of the true state of af fairs and uphold propriety of opinion. Beyond this, anyone who points out that such things are happening is labeled a' "kook," or "a crazy," or a victim of paranoia. Presumably, only those who are busily dismantling all the mores and institutions of this nation, without even any clearcut alterna tive, are sane and properly "ad justed" individuals. Well, they had better be right; for, if not, they have clearly exhausted their "right to be wrong" - as far as anyone in our history has done so. I) the Quest for IndividualDignity ..

I .. I ROBERT G. BEARCE So blood flowed in rivers down the gutters of the Place de la Concorde from la Guillotine. Liberte ... Egalite ... Fraternite ... Ah, but in the end, murder, drunken mobs with heads on pikes, lawlessness, frenzied promiscuity, anarchy turned out to be not freedom - but chaos.! BUCHENWALD . . . the Place de la Concorde ... Auschwitz ... Si berian labor camps. The mention of such names and places causes indignation from free and civilized men. The tragic irony, however, is that both the guillotine of the French Revolution and the com munist labor camp of today were erected ostensibly "for the good of humanity" or the "general good." Robespierre and Marat were will ing to sacrifice fellow Frenchmen on the guillotine in order to create a society of "liberty, equality, and fraternity." Hitler would purify the human race by genocide, while the Marxist theoretician liquidates in the name of an ideal, classless society.

Individuals who value their freedom ought to apply some in depth, radical thought to the Mr. Bearce is a freelance writer in Houston, Texas. causes of tyranny. Simply associ ating authoritarianism with "evil" and "wicked" dictators is a super ficial. analysis. We must first com prehend what motivates the twist ed idealism; secondly, we should recognize this mentality before it degenerates into the pseudo-right eousness responsible for the mod ern Buchenwald or communist la bor camp. The cause of regimentation and dictatorships can be traced to one of two outlooks on man's inherent nature. Men are motivated by their fundamental belief as to what governs man's essential char acter and behavior. Depending upon what they believe in this matter, men create (or impose) their social, political, and econom ic institutions. These institutions 1 Dr. Peter Marshall in John Doe, Disciple (McGraw Hill: 1963).

685 686 THE FREEMAN November are correspondingly tyrannical or free. Victims of Outside forces The first viewpoint on human nature assumes that mankind is the victim of outside forces. Sup posedly, man is inherently virtu ous; he is capable of perfection. He is a creature - righteous at the core - but corrupted by external forces. The cause of his envy, jealousy, and bad behavior, then, is attributed not to the individual but to faulty political, social, and economic structures around him. Correct or abolish these and man kind will evolve into the perfect being he was meant to be. Many of the philosophical un dertones of the French Revolution reflect this belief that man by na ture is good - an outlook early propounded by the French philos opher, Rousseau. 2 The politician or philosopher motivated by this tangent of rea soning demonstrates a vibrant but deceptive humanitarianism. His outlook appears benevolent and righteous. His rhetoric - if not his reasoning - rings with a true compassion for humanity. His views are well received . . . under standably so.

2 Aspects of the French Revolution by Alfred Cobban, page 163. (Alfred Cob ban: 1968), published by George Bra ziller, Inc.: New York. Man has the tendency to over look his faults, even to excuse and deny them. When individuals are convinced through paternalistic sophistry that they are not re sponsible for their own welfare ... their failures ... their own mis deeds, they willingly accept both false diagnoses and false cure,s for the world's ills. These cure-alls prescribed by the theoretically minded are collectivist/statist tyrannical by their very nature. Since the individual is suppos edly nothing really more than a helpless, innocent victim of ad verse conditions, he must only sub mit to the wiser men who pro ceed to design and reorder his life for him. The result is inevitable coercion . . . regimentation . . . and tyranny. Writing during the mid-nineteenth century, Frederic Bastiat aptly described the threat to individual freedom and dignity: It must be admitted that the tend ency of the human race toward lib erty is largely thwarte.d, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire - learned from the teachings of antiquity that our writers on public affairs have in common: they desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regu late it according to their fancy. While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen1973 FREEDOM/RESPONSIBILITY - THE QUEST FOR INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY 687 turies. They think only of subje'cting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. s Few men, though, like Bastiat detect this deceptive humanitar ian mentality which cements the stepping stones toward absolut ism. One zealous proponent of the "human-molding" philosophy was considered by some of his con temporaries of being so virtuous that he was called Incorruptible.

Consider the following sincere confession from this man: There exists a deep feeling, tender, compelling, irresistible, the torment and delight of generous hearts, a pro found hatred of tyranny, a compas sionate concern for the oppressed, a sacred love of one's country, a more sublime and sacred love for human ity, without which a great revolution is no more than a sudden crime that destroys another crime; there exists this selfless ambition to found the first republic in the world; this ego ism of men uplifted who find a di vine pleasure in the peace of a clear conscience and in the enchanting spectacle of happiness of all. You feel this in that moment which burns in your souls; I feel it in mine. 4 3 The Law by Frederic Basti,at, pages 51-52. Translated by Dean Russell. 4 From Six Summers in Paris by John Fisher, page 162. (Harper and Row: 1966). Humanitarian with Guillotine Maximilien Robespierre, the In..

corruptible, spoke the above in a speech before the National Con vention in July, 1794, at the height of the Reign of Terror under the French Revolution. To be sure, Robespierre decried tyranny, ex pressed his love for humanity, and cherished a fervent patriotism for France, yet this same virtuous hu manitarian represented an author itarian government that witnessed perhaps as many as 2,800 victims for the guillotine in Paris alone. Secret police and "vigilance" committees terrorized the French populace - this while Robespierre envisioned a perfected, blissful France and while he experienced that "egoism of men uplifted who find a divine pleasure in the peace of a clear conscience and in the enchanting spectacle of happiness of all!" Today there are men within relatively free nations who would legislate and eventually enslave for the "good of society." The paradox is that the mentality which clamors most ardently for humanity, "the disadvantaged,"

and the "common man" is the men tality which ultimately degrades the individual mind, body, and spirit. Rebuking the social re former of his own day, Frederic Bastiat pleaded for the integrity of the individual: 688 THE FREEMAN November Please remember sometimes that this· clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves. 5 Individuals not only have the faculty to think and act for them selves, they have the responsibil ity to do so. When they abandon that responsibility or when they are deprived of it by paternalism, they eventually learn that "the good of society" is personal en slavement.The extreme vision aries of the French Revolution used the power of the State to bring their notions of "the good of society" into reality - a reality of reigning terror.

Few men having democratic and humanitarian beliefs in our pres ent age feel any kinship with hu manitarians in the past who have prepared the ground for authori tarian governments. Parallels, however, exist between events of the French Revolution and the temperament of our own day. Power such as that held by the French Revolutionary regimes is the power presumedly to legislate away social and economic ills via 5 The Law, page 48. government spending. Such finan cial muscle .in the arm of a pater nalistic government deteriorates into deficit spending and inflation. Planned Chaos Price-fixing depreciation of the currency food shortages ... rationing hoarding ... control of foreign trade - to what period or nation do these economic phenomena apply? Revolutionary France? 6 Twentieth-century America? They apply to that stage of any country's life when govern ment irresponsibility and regi mentation destroy the free inter course of voluntary action.

As the political leaders of Rev olutionary France contemplated their self-inflicted problems of food shortages and inflation, they prescribed successively greater doses of coercion in order to save their new society of "liberty, equality, and fraternity." The Law of the Maximum carried with it the penalty of death for those citizens who ignored the divinely inspired features of the legisla tion. No such drastic measure as the Law of the Maximum now con fronts the individual. Still, his 6 See Fiat Money Inflation in France by Andrew Dickson White for an excel lent analysis of the economic aspect of the French Revolution. (Foundation For Economic Education: 1965).

1973 FREEDOM/RESPONSIBILITY - THE QUEST FOR INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY 689 freedom to arrange his economic life as he pleases is deteriorating, as various "New Shakes" . . . "New Deals" ... "New Horizons" . . . "New Frontiers" . . . and "New Promises" gradually pave the way toward a totally regi mented society. Modern Manifestations The spirit of altruism and hu manitarianism that proclaimed freedom, brotherhood, and pros perity during the French Revolu tion can be felt to a certain degree even today. Only When A Man Has Freedom From Hunger Can He Hunger For Freedom could easily have been one of the more sophisticated slogans of the Pari sian mobs marching on the Bas tille or King Louis' palace at Ver sailles. That bold declaration, how ever, was used recently by young people on a cross-country march demonstrating their concern for hunger in present-day America. Certainly no justice is done equating the demagoguery of French Revolutionary mobs with the simplistic sloganing of modern young folk. However, the assertion Only When A Man Has Freedom From Hunger Can He Hunger For Freedom does reflect a hazy, naive idealism - an idealism that fos ters the growth of government philanthropy.

Such a slogan reflects a shortsighted humanitarianism that gradually corrupts a nation's tem perament, conscience, and institu tions. It is this subtle and gradual erosion that individuals in a free society fail to comprehend. They fail to see the correlation between the social reformer's distorted con ception of human nature and his political! economic manipula tions which lead to tyranny and the guillotine. Freedom and Responsibility Only as individuals accept in dividual freedom and personal ac countability for their lives will they withstand the meddling of the social theorist. Man is an ac countable, self-determining being. He has within him the potential for self-improvement. Any striv ing toward perfection, though, should be left to the initiative and energy of the individual ... not to the work of self~appointed plan ners. Only by accepting self -responsi bility can the individual learn by his mistakes and shortcomings. He is capable of deliberate, willful mis behavior just as he is capable of striving for all that is just, right eous, and honorable. When the in dividual begins the road of self betterment he is rewarded with personal confidence and dignity.

Man realizes his potential for integrity when he lives within an 690 THE FREEMAN November atmosphere of freedom. If he is deprived of the right to make choices ... of ordering his life as he pleases within the confines of other men's rights ... he is robbed of his chances for achieving in dividual dignity. W. A. Paton has wisely observed in this respect that "every man deserves the pre cious opportunity to assume re sponsibility for his own course, whether he is swimming coura geously upstream or paddling laz ily, with plenty of company, in the other direction."7 This is the tolerance required of the individual if he is to be free. This freedom, though, car ries with it an aspect of risk. When freedom and responsibility are rejected by too many individ uals, those paddling downstream become a massive onslaught, not only obstructing the few coura geous upstreamers, but actually forcing the upstreamers down stream amid the onslaught. The anarchy, human degradation, and 4 eventual tyranny of the French Revolution will then be repeated.

t) 7 Paton, W. A., "Let's First Mend Tommy's Trousers," Essays on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, 12 :426-427, 1965. IDEAS ON LIBERTY Intelligence and Character THE PATTERN of a man's life is determined by his intelligence, and by the motives, impulses and disciplines which, taken together, we call character. Both intelligence and character are educable. The difference between educated and uneducated character is as great as between educated and uneducated intelligence. A person may be highly educated in intelligence and yet be con trolled by gross motives and impulses. For an educational pro gram to concern itself solely or chiefly with training the intelli gence will result in distorted and inadequate personality. Knowledge is powerless by itself. Unless driven by nlotive it is inert. It is the part of intelligence to inform and guide n10tives, incentive, and conviction, while it is the function of these qualities, to which we give the name character, to give life and power to intelligence. Only in the union and nlutual developnlent of intelli gence and character can the possibilities of life be realized.

ARTHUR E. MORGAN, Antioch Review, March 15, 1945 THOMAS FREDERICK O'CONNELL ~lThe Cry for Freedom ~fhes Isere Otnofty. OfUre FROM HELPLESSNESS in infancy, man works toward intellectual ful fillment and 'personal freedom, finds himself confused as he pur sues his dreams, and in his emo tional confusion he questions his own reasoning capacity, his will, and even life itself. Going full cycle, he arrives at an adult stage when he feels as powerless as an infant. Seeking truth, man finds false hood. Seeking goodness he finds evil. Seeking beauty he finds ugli ness. Seeking contentment he finds frustration. Seeking peace he finds war. Seeking love he finds hate. Seeking friends he finds enemies. Expecting the best he finds the Mr. O'Connell, experienced in public relations and trade association activities, refers to him self as a "compulsive writer." worst. Yet when he expects the worst he frequently comes face to face with the best. In search of answers he finds only additional questions.

The man in search of himself wants more than merely to be' con ceived, born, live, and die. He does not live for survival alone. The bare essentials of life do not ful fill his restless spirit. He wants more. In his passion for more he finds that when he gets what he wants it fails to satisfy him. When he relieves himself of a worry, he immedia tely finds a new one to dwell on; and when he achieves a goal, he soon replaces it with an other. Man is not even content with contentment. It bores him. This restless striving not only ac companies our nature, it reflects 691 692 THE FREEMAN November the essence of our nature, and is tied in with the will to live. When our foot moves toward the ant he scurries to escape the shadow that signals his extinc tion. So too with man, and more so. Man not only reacts to specific threats of death; he even fears death when it does not directly threaten him. We possess the-urge to-live in the highest degree, and yet we also have within us a po tential for self-destruction which is not evident in lower creatures.

Rather than just live and die we play at living and gamble with dying. The Options Available, Including Suicide We sometimes forget the extent of our freedom. We may choose to live or choose to die or accept a living death. We are free in spite of limitations placed on us by gov ernment or business or other ex ternal sources. Even a slave is free to think individual thoughts, and even a slave is free to choose whether or not he wishes to con tinue to live in his subservient condition. Suicide may seem like no choice at all for most of us, but when life seems intolerable some men do exercise their ultimate al ternative and terminate their own existences. Suicide is an extreme but valid example of free will,but a more widespread example is the urge to live. Because most of us treasure life with all its difficul ties, we feel that men who lose hope and commit suicide are de mented. We would rather choose life with all its contradictions than choose the other alternative.

The urge to live implies free dom on the natural level. Our be lief in the necessity of freedom is exemplified in a negative way in our treatment of criminals. We relieve criminals of their freedom. We fear imprisonment because we fear the explicit loss of our free dom, but our less obvious contact with freedom can lead us into slavery if we take it too much for granted. If we allow government to chip away at our freedom we may experience a rude future awakening which brings home the shocking reality that what we be lieved was a massive iceberg of freedom has been reduced to the size of an ice cube in a cocktail glass. The maintenance of free dom demands constant vigilance. The man who forgets that he is free soon finds himself a slave. Freedom is one of those ideals that we never achieve fully, yet if we only come close it is worth the effort. Anomalies of freedom In· our desire to find ofr·eedom we often lose it. The man wnogoes into business for himself in 'order 1973 THE CRY FOR FREEDOM IS THE SCREAM OF NATURE 693 to be free soon learns that clients can be as tyrannical as bosses.

The-man who wants the freedom of leading rather than following soon learns that leaders are in many ways as servile as their fol lowers. The quest for freedom usually ends in compromise. We are apt to confuse the appearance of freedom with the actuality of it because freedom is as much a state of mind as it is a state of actual existence. Does a man ex ercise his freedom by wearing long hair and avoiding baths? To equate freedom with externals such as hair and clothing is as much a mistake for the rebel as it is for the middle class citizen. Both fall into the category of con formists. The free man is frustrated by both middle class conformity and rebel conformity. He does not look to the group for his freedom; he looks within himself. The man "Nho values his individual freedom knows that the group protesting in the name of personal freedom is apt to indulge itself in new forms of group tyranny if it achieves any measure of power.

Given enough power, a crusading group will switch from a cry for freedom toa demand for con formity. The free man does not lightly surrender his personal freedom to any group because he ·knows that groups are simply gatherings of rational-emotional humans like himself, with poten tial for both gqod and evil. Leaders Tend to Extremes The leaders of any emotional movement or crusade are usually extremists by nature. They tend to be slaves to their own fixations and their aim in life is not so much to live freely according to the highest dictates of their own natures, but to inflict their con fused ideas of righteousness on other men. We should be wary of the loud man who promises us freedom. His idea of freedom may resemble our idea of slavery. Freedom involves conscience, and conscience is strictly an in dividual matter. "Conscience is the soul of freedom," said Thomas Merton, "its eyes, its energy, its life. Without conscience, freedom never knows what to do with it self. And a rational being who does not know what to do with himself finds the tedium of life unbearable. He is literally bored to death." The man who disregards conscience in his search for free dom will also disregard it when he attains his goal. His so-called freedom will become licentiousness aimed at appeasing and easing his own boredom. An extremist who achieves his goal does not sud denly· stop being an extremist; he simply substitutes one set of am694 THE FREEMAN November bitions for another. Extremists are not as interested in freedom as they are in power. Their prime motivating force is personal am bition at the expense of their fol lowers. The extremist in search of power usually claims that there are simple answers for complex problems. In so doing he displays his basic ignorance of the con tradictory nature of humanity.

There are no simple answers to complex life problems. Seeds of Prejudice The civil rights movement is im paled on the horns of a dilemma. The minority which tries to mix itself into the so-called melting pot of society spawns prejudice, and the minority which insists on separatism triggers prej udice. Minority man is compromised by his ·own minority status. In his search for freedom he threatens larger minorities who are still in secure, and in his bid for advance ment he lays himself open to back lash prejudice rising out of the ir rational fears of ignorant men. If minority man utilizes violence as a tool to draw attention to his problems, he not only draws atten tion, he sparks repression. When carried to extremes, violent protest is inevitably self-destructive. Respect for oneself and for one's fellow man are not likely to be achieved through violent disregard for the lives and rights of others.

The violent protester thrashes out at what he considers to be his enemy, but his enemy is not a specific group of men; it is hu man nature itself. Minority man's desire for freedom conflicts with majority man's urge to be su perior. Minority man himself, once he attains a higher status, will perversely ignore the rights of the next group of underdogs. The plight of minorities in states governed by majorities is a frus trating one, but the transition from slavery to toleration to brotherhood has never been easy. It has always been a battle fought on the battlefield of contradiction and paradox. The restless urge to improve one's lot is as normal as the urge to live, but in a disorderly world where truth is true only sometimes and men are as emo tional as they are rational, high expectations tend to breed intense aggravations. Man Must Seek Freedom Minority man's outcry for free dom is not a question with no answer. The cry for freedom is the scream of nature, and a minority man's most tragic contradiction would be to stifle the shouting of his soul. He must seek freedom, but freedom is so contradictory that when it seems to be a.t hand it will slip away, and when it 1973 THE CRY FOR FREEDOM IS THE SCREAM OF NATURE 695 seems to be slipping away it will beat hand. The elusive ideal that we call freedom is similar to the ideal of happiness and content ment. The achievement of one kind of freedom usually brings with· it a new kind of slavery. For every gain, we must accept some kind of loss. In the ranks of persecuted men, there often exists a freedom to laugh for the sake of laughing, sing for the sake of singing, and love for the sake of loving. Such freedom strangely diminishes when persecution ceases. In the ranks of free appearing men, who seem on the surface to be achiev ing the better things of life, there often exists a lack of humor and spontaneity. In his pursuit of cul ture the free man has a tendency to make himself a slave to group opinions. Under a free exterior we can find a slave mentality, and under a servile exterior we can find mental freedom. The ideal combination would be a blend of internal and external freedom.

The key to freedom is the word "voluntary." The man who is free is tuned in to the wave length of his own nature. He operates ac cording to his conscience, and al though he respects his fellow man, he does not ask other men to resolve his dilemmas. His own solutions may create more dilem mas ad infinitum, but it is better to have one's own choices backfire than to be misled by other men. The important thing is not to re linquish the freedom to make per sonal choices. Men who make their own choices seldom lack self-re spect. The man who respects him self and believes in the need for personal freedom has no undue fear of other men attempting to reach his level of humanity. Even though he is aware of the contra dictions of freedom, he respects the desire of other men to be free . . . even if their newfound free dom makes slaves out of them. Free or Equal The desire to be free is some times confused with the desire to be equal. Spinoza said, "He who seeks equality between unequals seeks an absurdity." Such a re mark need not be classified as cynical. If we treasure our indi viduality we should be prepared to accept our inequality. Voltaire, in attempting to arrive at an ap propriate notion of equality, said, "Those who say that all men are equal speak the greatest truth if they mean that all men have an equal right to liberty, to the pos session of their goods, and to the protection of the laws." Voltaire considered equality "natural when it is limited to rights, unnatural when it attempts to level goods and powers." The liberty that Vol taire referred to is the freedom to 696 THE FREEMAN' November live according to one's nature as long as the-rights of others are respected. Voltaire was enough of a realist to see that an attempt for total equality would be an im possible and inhuman ideal.

We will never achieve equality among men because we are a col lection of human individuals who vary greatly from one another and will continue to do so. We are hard put to find our own rational or emotional twin because each of us has a distinct nature distin guishable from that of any other human on this planet. To cheer for individual liberty and free dom and then demand equality is a gross contradiction. In our world we find similarities and likenesses but we do not find total identities and total equalities. Our notion of equality is similar to our notion of perfection. It is a notion and nothing more. To equate people or things with one another is a con tradictory pursuit. Since we can not actually be one another, we must be content to recognize our diff erences and respect them rather than attempt to subdue them. The essence of our individ ual humanity lies in our differ ences.

Inequalities Abound Life is filled with inequalities. From youth we are aware that our own particular body has a certain size and a limited strength. We are aware of our own rational and emotional characteristics and how they differ from the attributes of others. The wise man accepts his strengths and weaknesses and tries to live accordingly. Only the fool claims that he is equal to all other men, and the man who makes such a ridiculous claim is bound to end up destroying himself be cause he is trying to apply abso lute standards to a relative world. To achieve total equality with an other man is to actually become that man, but the fact of our in dividuality precludes total identity with others. Our individuality not only begets inequality, it demands it. If we have confused the idea of equality with the notion of free dom it is time for us to clarify our thoughts. The ideal of equality breeds frustration among those who recognize the many inequali ties which exist in the society of mankind. The unequal man who demands equality will always have his demands ignored by other im perfect, unequal men. To strive for relative freedom makes sense, but to talk of equality as if it could actually occur is a waste of words.

Demands for perfection only re sult in rejection. The free man is not concerned with equality. In his conscientious pursuit of what is good and proper 1973 THE CRY FOR FREEDOM IS THE SCREAM OF NATURE 697 for his own nature he operates as an individua1. Men who think in terms of equality also think in terms of conformity. When we use the word "equaUty" we should stress the spiritual idealism built into the word and forget the em phasis on materialistic equality. Equality and freedom on a spirit ual level are natural to man, but the goal of materialistic equality is more apt to lead to slavery than to indi vidual freedom. Self-Respect and Self-Reliance When a man desires only to live according to the highest dictates of his nature, he is demonstrating his belief that he is a free human being. When others would arbi trarily deny him of his right to live his own way, they tread on his natural rights. The gravest error minority man can make is to sub mit to the whims and fancies of the oppressive majority. Submis sion lends credence to the ma jority's belief in its own right eousness, and is likely to lead to subjugation. Men who believe in personal freedom must stubbornly persist in their search for individ ual freedom, because if they give up the fight they will have to sur render a large portion of their souls. The soul, once shattered, is difficult to piece together again.

Along with the shattering of a soul goes a loss of self-respect, and self-respect is the prime req uisite for the man who would de sire to become free. One of the major problems of many civil rights movements is that individual pride among mem bers of oppressed groups has shrunk to such a minimal size that it requires much time and effort to re-establish it. Another prob lem is that civil rights leaders do not necessarily reflect the desires of their own people when they de mand unobtainable ideals. To aim for the unattainable perfection and expect to get it is naive. On the other hand, to demand the im possible in. order to achieve the possible may be monumentally shrewd. Most leaders are not monumentally shrewd. They are simply men like the rest of us with more push than the rest of us. When we listen to the vocal out pourings of self-appointed leaders we must always remain aware that if the truth is only true some times, it is true even less often when it emanates from the mouths of men in power positions. Men in both minority and majority power positions are often more concerned with power than with truth.

If we cannot rely on men in power, on whom can we rely? Ul timately we must rely on our selves. Whether we talk of free dom or morality or political ar rangements or education or the 698 THE FREEMAN November problems of our heavily populated world we must always come back to ourselves. We are individual humans who think, and in our thinking capacity lies our salva tion. It is only when we stop think ing for ourselves that we truly lose our freedom. We should not try to think for one another. We should only encourage one another to be free in our thinking and liv ing. To live we need no great abundance of material items. We could do without our cars and our television sets and our appliances if we were to adopt a different set of spiritual and human values. But we do need food, clothing, shelter, and hopefully some love. Freedom is not to be found in the amassing of material possessions.

It is not to be found in the reduc tion of man to a number or an average or a statistic. Nor is to be found when man considers himself no more than a tool in the indus trial process. It is found in self respect and respect for others. Hope for the future If there is to be a future society in which we will be able to retain our individual freedom to live ac cording to our natures, and in which we will be able to experi ence lives fit for humans, it will not be in a society which substi tutes group opinions for divine ideals. Although spiritual ideals seem to be out of fashion in our times, it is far more human to live in a contradictory pursuit of what seems impossible than to settle for the meaningless attainment of the possible. Materialistic values change with each new fad. When man's pursuit of personal pleasure replaces his pursuit of eternity he parts with his own self-respect and becomes the slave of other men. We need not fear economic enslavement or political enslave ment as much as enslavement of the mind. We must resist the lure of the myths of security and equal ity. We must preserve our own individuality and assist others to do likewise. It is not an easy task, this preservation of the individual personality, but it is up to each and everyone of us to chart his own course through the maze we call life. We have no need to be equal with one another, but we do need to be free in our thoughts and actions. The man who swaps his freedom for conformist se curity is a loser. The pain and dis comfort which accompany free dom are nothing compared to the torture which follows the selling of one's soul. When a man gives up his individual soul he becomes nothing; and there is no pain more severe than the awareness that one has voluntarily become a cipher. ® A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN ....;..,...

"""'<;'~ "<:::... ;./,/' "\"""'''' ./..::/" .:~ e Tyeo6~·· " ".", i, '-'"'""""'"H'::; ""'~'-" _ l Theiocl}e\J nd ii,,> \\ '\,\ No SINGLE person starts a move ment. In the late Nineteen Thir ties, when the so-called intellectu als were moving in droves to the Left, there were still a few strag gling advocates of what Leonard Read speaks of as the "freedom philosophy." The stragglers, how ever, weren't very clear about fun damentals. To indulge in some personal reminiscence, I was impressed with Albert Jay Nock's Our En emy, The State but troubled by Nock's Single Tax panacea, which would have made the State our universal landlord. The anti-Com munists - Eugene Lyons, Ben Stolberg and others in the group that asked for asylum for Leon Trotsky on a purely civil liber tarian basis - were fighting an obvious enemy, but they didn't have any positive theory of indi vidual freedom. Out on the West Coast Leonard Read was reading Bastiat and organizing something called Pamphleteers, Inc., but he was practically unknown on the Eastern seaboard.

It was a strange, confusing time. The New Deal had flopped; if unemployment was coming to an end it was because war indus tries were starting up. As Ran dolph Bourne had put it, war was "the health of the State," proving the futility of expecting govern ment to run a peacetime economy. I don't know how it was with others, but it took two books by women, each published in 1943, to put my own groping thoughts about the inequity of government enterprise into focus. The first book was Isabel Paterson's The God of the Machine; the second was Rose Wilder Lane's The Dis covery of Freedom. In their dif ferent ways Mrs. Paterson and Mrs. Lane analyzed the relations between individual rights and the 699 700 THE FREEMAN November release of energy. Tracing the "long circuit of energy" from its origins in free individual choice to its institutional embodiment in voluntary assocations of one sort or another, the two women arrived at an identical conclusion: only under a Madisonian checks-and balances system, with government limited to defense, police power and courts-of-justice functions, could humanity thrive.

The odd thing about it was that the two women were not friends; Isabel Paterson could not forgive Rose Wilder Lane for having been a socialist in the days when Jack London was helping to organize the Intercollegiate Socialist Soci ety. This was Isabel's mistake: she could not see that some people have to learn from experience, as Mrs. Lane learned when she ob served, from close up, what Fabi anism and its harsher brother, Leninist Bolshevism, had done to stop the flow of energy in Europe and countries of the East. Signifi cantly, both Mrs. Paterson and Mrs. Lane had grown up on the American frontier, where free dom was most uninhibited. They should have been friends. Working from Principle When Rose Wilder Lane really latched on to a principle, she lived it. Although she insisted that she never did things out of a desire to be of "service" (she hated pro"" fessional Do-Gooders because they usually worked with extorted "other people's money"), she could be a twelve - hour - a -day letter wri ter in behalf of spreading her philosophy. In the Thirties she gave up writing her bestselling fiction because she objected to pay ing income taxes to finance com pulsory social security and the various bureaucracies of the Roos eveltian Welfare State. Her tor rential energies were spent on raising her own food on a few acres outside of Danbury, Connec ticut (she refused to have any thing to do with ration cards dur ing the war), and on defending and amplifying the "freedom phi losophy" in her correspondence with numerous people.

There must be hundreds of Rose Wilder Lane letters in vari ous files. Roger Lea MacBride has limited his selection for The Lady and the Tycoon (Caxton Printers, $5.95) to the "best of letters be tween Rose Wilder Lane and Jasper Crane." There are 387 pages of these, which is surely enough to present an entirely rep resentative sample of Mrs. Lane's thinking over a quarter of a cen tury. Jasper Crane, the "tycoon" to whom Mrs. Lane addressed her thoughts about freedom, had map ped out a "freedom philosophy"

1973 THE LADY AND THE TYCOON 701 for himself partly by long and arduous thinking about his ex perience in industry (he was a Du Pont Company executive) and partly by his reading, which ex tended from Biblical studies to the papers of James Madison. He was a most understanding corre spondent whose short commenda tions and ripostes brought out the most able sort of exposition from Mrs. Lane. The fact that he hap pened to be a tycoon (meaning a monied industrialist) meant little to Mrs. Lane, who didn't think movements thrived on money. The Fabians and early socialists had worked best when lean and hun gry. She liked Jasper Crane be cause he was an activist who agreed with her that all too many Big Businessmen had no sense of the philosophical underpinnings of their own originally free system. Organizational Activity Rose Wilder Lane had no belief in organizations as such; she felt in her bones that the end of the Twentieth Century would see a great renascence of individualist thinking simply because dedicated young people had begun to see through the pretensions of the Welfare State. She was not, however, wholly consistent in her attitude toward organizations.

Many of her letters to Jasper Crane were devoted to thinking about ways and means of making the Mont Pelerin Society more effective, which meant that she approved of its founding in the first place. Reading this selection from the Lane - Crane correspondence, one gets a very real sense of how the opposition to State intervention ism of all sorts has grown from practically nothing in 1943 to be come a most impressive movement in the early Nineteen Seventies. Where once there were two wom en writing books, a handful of Vienna school economists (Von Mises and his followers) teaching in odd corners of our educational system, and a Leonard Read with the idea of the Foundation for Economic Education at the back of his head, there are now a score of freedom publications (The Free man, Human Events, National Re v,iew, New Guard, The Alter native, Modern Age, et cetera), a plethora of "conservative"

(meaning old-fashioned liberal) newspaper columnists, good schools (Hillsdale and Rockford College, to name a couple), flourishing so cieties (Mont Pelerin, the Phila delphia Society), foundations (FEE itself, the Institute for Humane Studies, et cetera) and a scattered but effective base in the older university world (the Hoov er Institution at Stanford, for ex ample) .

702 THE FREEMAN November The Eternal Optimist Rose Wilder Lane, the eternal optimist, kept pointing out the growth of understanding about liberty to Jasper Crane, who was inclined on occasion to lament the difficulties encountered by liber tarians. Speaking of my own The Roots of Capitalism, Mr. Crane told Rose Lane that I did it "with quite inadequate monetary re ward." I earned enough from it to finance the period engaged in its researching and writing, which means that I got an education for free from doing it, a quite ade quate compensation. My only wish is that someone would keep the book in print without worrying about paying royalties until the cost of a new edition had been en tirely absorbed. No mystic, Mrs. Lane felt that moral law existed in the grain of God's universe on the same plane as the "natural" laws of physics, chemistry and astronomy. As she saw it, one gets one's comeup pance for murder or theft even as one is hurt if he or she steps out of a second-story window. By the same token societies get their comeuppance when they depart from the "natural" laws that gov ern the release of human energy.

Everything in Rose Wilder Lane's world moved toward consistency, which is what makes her letters a most treasured experience to read. ~ THE POLITICAL ILLUSION by Jacques Ellul (New York: Vintage Books, 1972, 258 pp. $1.95) Reviewed by Haven Bradford Gow THIS is not a witty or eloquent work, but it certainly is a book which contains much wisdom. The author, Jacques Ellul, is an emi nent French social philosopher, currently professor of law and his tory at the University of Bor deaux. He is the author of a num ber of seminal works, among which are The Technological Society and False Presence of the Kingdom. The Technological Society, the author's best-known work, is an examination of the technical view of life - modern man's obsession with means, with techniques, espe cially in the political order. This preoccupation with techniques in the political sphere is alarming, warns Ellul, for then moral and even personal considerations are shunted aside; and such values as freedom and justice are subordi nated to the val~e of "efficiency."

False Presence of the Kingdon~ is an angry discussion of the polit icization of the Church. It is not the function of the Church to formulate grandiose social, eco nomic and political programs to achieve The Great Society, Ellul declares, but increasing numbers of church leaders have come to believe that "politics constitutes a 1973 OTHER BOOKS 703 sort of ultimate issue." For them, "Politics becomes a test of the sin cerity of one's faith. The political order takes on such importance that all teaching seems to con verge on this entrance into poli tics . . . The political issue be comes ultimate to such an extent that persons and churches are judged in terms of political cri teria." Like the previous work, The Politic'al Illusion concerns the re lation of the religious to the social and political orders. But more than that, it deals with contemporary man's idolization of politics, and his conversion of all questions into political questions. "It is no longer true," Ellul tells us, "that the bet ter part of all questions facing a society is not political. And even if a question is in no way political, it becomes political and looks to the state for an answer. It is wrong to say that politics is every thing, but it is a fact that in our society everything has become po litical. ... "

The evidences of our political obsession are everywhere around us, contends Ellul, and we only have to reflect upon our common experience to know that this is so. For example, there is an increas ing tendency to view events and persons exclusi vely in terms of politics; to place everything in the hands of the state; to appeal to the state in all circumstances; to subordinate the dilemmas of the indi vid ual to those of the group; to believe that everyone is quali fied to deal with political affairs. All these, the author tells us, re veal modern man's obsession with politics and the widespread ac ceptance of "the political illusion." There are three aspects to this illusion. The first concerns control of the state. The author observes that, despite what those living in a democracy have been led to be lieve, "the people" do not really control the state by their ballots. While "the people" control to a certain extent who is on top of the pyramid, they do not in fact con trol the state, for their elected representatives cannot effectively deal with the behemoth under them. Even when the leaders at the top are changed, there is little chance for reform, since the lead ers are slaves to political pressure groups, the bureaucracy, and the technical experts they employ.

The second aspect concerns pop ular participation and the notion that, though they do not control the state, "the people" neverthe less participate substantially in its doings. This is just another illu sion, says Ellul, for even as their ballots cannot control the course of events, the organizations of "the people" - for example, parties and trade unions - do not channel 704 THE FREEMAN November popular desires so as to make them effective. Why? Because these or ganizations demand men at the top who are professional politi cians whose main and probably only concern is to attain and con serve power against rivals in their own and in other camps. The final aspect involves the be lief that ultimately all problems are reducible to the political order, and therefore demand purely po litical "solutions." This doctrine, contends the author, has contrib uted to the growth of the state, its powers of organization, and its re sponsibilities. Not only is govern mental action" being applied in in creasing numbers of realms, but the means through which the state can act are growing too. All this seems to go hand in hand with in evitable centralization and with the total organization of society in the hands of the state.

The perennial problems of the human condition are, at bottom, moral and religious; the crisis we face in the West is of the spirit, and it is a crisis which for better or worse is beyond the competence of politics to deal with. It is our good fortune to have the likes of Jacques Ellul around to remind us that when we disregard that truth, when we mistakenly assume that political remedies can resolve wha t really are disorders of the spirit demanding religious solu tions, the tragic and inevitable re sult is not heaven-on-earth, but rather hell. HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR EC()NOt\~IC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEV\' YORK 10533 the Freeman VOL. 23, NO. 12 • DECEMBER 1973 Two Experiences Herbertv. Prochnow 707 In viewing the ruins of earlier civilizations, what may we say of our own? Mr. Mencken on Liberty George H. Douglas 709 A refreshing review of a past master in his suspicion of political reformers.

Time-LapseThinking The results tomorrow depend on what we do today. Leona,rd E. Read 719 Rx for PoliticalPeace: AQuiet InternalRevolution Ridgway K. Foley, Jr. 722 Instead of violence to improve others, let each peacefully attend to his own upgrading. The Free-Far-AllSociety No society can long survive as a constant free-for-all. Gary North 731 ProfitSharing Paul L. Poirot 734 Profits are the rewards to entrepreneurs who best serve customers; in any profitsharing plan, beware of coercive intervention. Am I Responsiblefor What Others Think? Whose responsibility is it to defend your freedom? Salute to Von Mises A tribute to lithe greatest economistof his generation." Book Reviews: "The Rebirth of Liberty" by Clarence B. Carson "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls "The Strike-Threat System" by W. H.Hutt Index for 1973 Judy Hammersmark Henry Hazlitt 740 744 748 761 Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may send first-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

the Freeman A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY IRVINGTON·ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 TEl.: (914) 591-7230 LEONARD E. READ PAUL L. POIROT President, Foundation for Economic Education Managing Editor THE F R E E MAN is published monthly by the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non political, nonprofit, educational champion of private property, the free market, the profit and loss system, < and limited government. Any interested person may receive its publications for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects and ~ services, including THE FREEMAN, are met through voluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 a year per person on the mailing list. Donations are in- , vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the means of maintaining and extending the Foundation's work. Copyright, 1973, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 cents; 3 for $1.00; 10 for $2.50; 25 or more, 20 cents each.

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate credit, except "Salute to Von Mises."

Two Experiences ON THE TOP of a great hill, the Acropolis, in the center of· Athens, there stand the proud columns of the ruins of the Parthenon, one of the most magnificent and inspir ing architectural works man has ever created. Late one afternoon, Mrs. Prochnow and I were climb ing those long stone and gravel )_ steps that lead up to the Parthe non, iIi order to see the golden rays of the setting sun fall on those majestic ruins. A large unit of the American fleet was in Greek and Turkish waters. Two American marines on shore leave were walking with us, and .as we climbed the stairs one marine said to the other, "I sup pose the day will come when others will walk up the stone steps -' Dr. Prochnow of Evanston, Illinois, is a former professor, government official, and banker and is well known as an author and lecturer on political and economic affairs. HERBERT V. PROCHNOW to the ruins of the White House, and they will say as they look at the ruins, 'This was a great civili zation before it fell.' "

On another occasion, we went by automobile the short distance from Beirut to the little city of Byblos. This city is one of the old est in the world. There the ruins of many early civilizations are now exposed by the excavations of the archeologists. One can stand and look down through seven thou sand years of history. One civili zation was built on top of the ruins of the last. The floor of a home of one civilization may be seen only a foot above the floor of a home in a preceding civilization. There one sees the Stone Age, the civiliza tions of the Egyptians, Phoeni cians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Arabs, Romans, Crusad ers and Turks. One after another, through seven thousand years, 707 708 THE FREEMAN December great empires and great nations rose and then fell from power. It is a sobering thought. Through the centuries great em pires have risen and fallen - Spain and Portugal in the Western Hemisphere; the Netherlands in the Far East; France in Indo China. In this generation we have witnessed the decline in power of the British empire, upon which it was said, with understandable pride, that the sun had never set.

Now another power - the United States - is striding majestically across the horizon of world affairs. Its armies, its planes, its ships, its money, its merchandise, and its in dustrial genius are moving to the remote parts of the world. In a world where two-thirds of the peo ple earn less than one· hundred dollars a year we are far richer than any nation in history has ever been. The call of economic comfort is loud. Leisure becomes more attractive than labor. Spend ing becomes more alluring than saving. Lest we forget: every great nation which has risen to power has declined. Confronted with the challenge today of major world problems, we must remain strong, and we must hold fast in our minds and hearts to those great ideals and eternal values up on which our freedom and even survival may ultimately rest. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY The Crisis of Social Security IT HAS BEEN WELL SAID that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them. The difference is that, while in former times the social evils were gradually disappearing with the growth of wealth, the remedies we have ~ introduced are beginning to threaten the continuance of that growth of wealth on which all future improvement depends .... ~ Though we may have speeded up a little the conquest of want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness, we may in the future do worse even in that struggle when the chief dangers will come from inflation, paralyzing taxation, coercive labor unions, an ever increasing dominance of government in education, and a I social service bureaucracy with far-reaching arbitrary powers - dangers from which the individual cannot escape by his own ~ efforts and which the momentum of the overextended machinery of government is likely to increase rather than mitigate.

F. A. HA YEK, The Constitution of Liberty Mr.Mencken on GEORGEH. DOUGLAS IN 1925, Henry L. Mencken wrote to his English friend and biogra pher, Ernest Boyd, "So far as I can make out, I believe in only one thing: liberty." To be sure, Menck en believed in a number of other things as well-all quite fervently - but there can be little doubt that his ideas on liberty are among his best and most interesting contri butions to American literature. For the ,most part, too, they are as pertinent and penetrating as they were during Mencken's hey day of the 1920s. This does not mean to suggest that Mencken has been influential asa writer on liberty. Indeed, Dr. Douglas is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Illinois, Urbana. American intellectuals tend to re ject Mencken's ideas entirely be cause of their decidedly Tory coloring, and insist that he is valu able today simply as a humorist, a wit, a satirist of the American life of his own time. And, to be sure, he was a brilliant stylist who could pin down the kinks and oddities of American social life with an almost deadly precision. But the brilliance of Mencken is due in no small measure to the brilliance of his ideas, and if he is one of our best essayists - perhaps even, as Robert Frost insisted, our very best - it is because his ideas con tinue to have weight and signifi cance.

Mencken began his national ca reer as a literary critic, and his 709 710 THE FREEMAN December contributions to The Sma,rt Set, of which he was co-editor with George Jean Nathan between 1914 and 1923, fail to reveal more than the general drift of his political ideas. But during this same period Mencken came to see that his true vocation was as asocial and poli tical critic, and in 1924 he estab lished The American Mercury with that vocation in the forefront of his mind. Mencken had come to believe that the clue to the social ills in American life was to be found in the political domain, and he became convinced that Ameri cans had turned their backs on their country's. founding princi ples and abandoned the early American love of liberty. A Republic America, Mencken often pointed out, was established as a Repub lic, not a Democracy. The purpose of the American Revolution, as opposed to the French Revolution of a few years later, was to estab lish civil liberty, not rule by the masses. The founding fathers, the drafters of the Constitution, were in no wise convinced that the peo ple in the aggregate were suited to rule, and they built into our system of .government what they hoped were safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority, after all, could be just as bad as any other kind of tyranny. In any case, it was an important part of Menck en's thinking that we must not confuse the theory and nature of democracy with the theory and na ture of liberty - a very common mental abberation in our history.

Democracy is a theory about sov ereignty, that is, a theory about who ought to rule. Its first princi ple is that all men are equal. Its second principle is that the power to rule belongs to a majority of the equal and undifferentiated hu man units. Democracy thus is a theory which asserts that the demos ought to rule. Therefore it is contrasted with autocracy, theocracy, aristocracy and other theories of who ought to rule. The first principle of liberty, on the other hand, is that there is no one who, of right, ought to rule. The theory of liberty is ~ot a theory of sovereignty at all. The early Americans were anxious to resist sovereignty, to resist au thority, and they were no more anxious to submit to the rule of their neighbors than they were to the rule of the English king and his appointed officials. In Mencken's thinking, America got off to a very strong start among the nations of the world because its revolution was unlike any of the other revolutions known to the modern world. Its main in tention was to secure independ1973 MR. MENCKEN ON LIBERTY 711 ence and self-reliance. None of the other so-called revolutions had that as their end. Most of the others, when subjected to careful scrutiny, are seen to be cast in the mold of the French Revolution.

They are what· Mencken calls re volts of the mob. And revolts of the mob are not struggles for lib erty but struggles for ham and cabbage. When the mob revolts it is simply because it wants to grab more of something for itself. "When it wins, its first act is to destroy every form of freedom that is not wholly directed to that end. And its second is to butcher all professional libertarians. If Thomas Jefferson had been living in Paris in 1793 he would have made an even narrower escape from the guillotine than Thomas Paine made."! A Unique Revolution The American revolution was not a revolution of the mob, said Mencken, and the philosophical ideals of liberty that stood behind it bear little relationship to the political ideals which were to de velop in America in the next two centuries. It is· true that for long after the .revolution the people continued to mouth phrases which seem to suggest a continuing· be.;.

lief in liberty. But the present-day American esteems what Mencken calls "false forms of liberty, for example, the right to choose be tween two mountebanks." In short, he has erroneously come to believe that liberty is somehow bound up with the magic of the franchise, with the right of the public to vote and choose among candidates in a popularity contest. The American democrat of more recent vintage is fretfully anxious to go about the act of choosing his statesman, to identify a hero from amongst the crowd, and then turn the running of the government over to him. The early republicans wanted government of. the people, which means not what it means today, freedom to pull a lever, but rather a form of government where people bear the responsi bility of government. The trouble is that the respon sibility of government is harsh and demanding, and the people want to be relieved of it. Liberty requires two qualities which the masses simply don't possess: it requires courage, that is, the will ingness to fight for one's rights, and it requires endurance. The man who loves liberty must be able to bear it. Unfortunately, the pursuit of liberty is difficult, stren uous, and mostly the people have no stomach for it.

Liberty means self-reliance, it means resolution, it means enter prise, it means the capacity for doing 712 THE FREEMAN December without. The free man is one who has won a small and precarious territory from the great mob of his inferiors, and is prepared and ready to defend it and make it support him. All around him are enemies, and where he stands there is no friend. He can hope for little help from men of his own kind, for they have battles of their own to fight. He has made him self a sort of God in his little world, and he must face the responsibilities of a god, and the dreadful loneli ness. 2 Liberty. Requires Effort Liberty, as Nietzsche used to re mark, is too cold to be borne. It is hard, it requires effort - effort that the average man wants to shun. In the modern life there are few willing to endure the burdens of liberty. These burdens "make him uncomfortable, they alarm him; they fill him with a great loneliness. There is no high ad venturousness in him, but only fear. He not only doesn't long for liberty; he is quite unable to stand it. What he longs for is some thing wholly different, to wit, se curity. He needs protection. He is afraid of getting hurt."3 What we ·look for nowadays' from the government is comfort, security - things ·which under a system of liberty are not given but won. Accordingly, from the days of the early republic, when the government was considered at best to be a necessary evil, we have expanded the role of government in our life to grotesque proportions, and we tend to look on it as the great provider, not only in the ma terial sense, but in most spiritual ways as well-we look to the gov ernment to provide moral guid ance, we look to it as an agency of reform, we look to it for firm reso lution of all the problems and sor rows of the world. It was always something of a mystery and a puz zle to Mencken to discover how Americans, who, from the earliest times, and even throughout most of the nineteenth century, were suspicious of the authority of gov ernment, came to swallow with great docility the role of a big and powerful central government of proportions that would have seemed nightmarish, and even in sane, to a Washington or a Jef ferson.

Part of the answer to this mys tery is that a good many notions about government that persist are part of the heritage of thousands of years of absolutism, going back to ancient times where political leaders managed to convince the hordes that the state was an ex tension of the Godhead. Statecraft ever since has attempted to foist on the people a concept from those "black days of absolutism" that should have been tossed overboard with the notion of the divine right of kings, a concept, to wit, 1973 MR. MENCKEN ON LIBERTY 713 that government is something that is superior to and quite distinct from all other human institutions - that is, in its essence not a mere organi zation of ordinary men, like the Ku Klux Klan, the United States Steel Corporation or Columbia University, but a transcendental organism com posed of aloof and impersonal pow ers, devoid wholly of self-interest and not to be measured by merely human standards. . . . This concept, I need not argue, is full of error. The gov ernment at Washington is no more im personal than the cloak and suit business is impersonal. It is oper ated by precisely the same sort of men, and to almost the same ends.

When we say that it has decided to do this or that, that it proposes or aspires to do this or that - usually to the great cost and inconvenience of nine-tenths of us - we simply say that a definite man or group of men has decided to do it, or proposes or aspires to do it; and when we ex amine this group of men realistically we almost invariably find that it is composed of individuals who are not only not superior to the general, but plainly and depressingly inferior, both in common sense and common decency - that the act of government we are called upon to ratify and sub mit to is, in its essence, no more than an act of self-interest by men who, if no mythical authority stood be hind them, would have a hard time of ?.t surviving in the struggle for existence. 4 Needless to say, the founding fathers were under no illusions that governments were something other than governments of falli ble and occasionally corrupt hu ma~ beings, and they did their best to save the country from the unseemly proliferation of govern mental power. But still it is not easy to understand how it was that the very people who only two cen turies ago were determined to fight for liberty grew to one of the most over governed and over regulated peoples in the history of the world. (Mencken found Amer icans to be the most regimented people in the world except the Chinese.) In way of historical background, Mencken pointed out that not only in the early days, but throughout nearly all of the nine teenth century, most Americans resisted this development, and were aware, as twentieth century man is not, that government is invariably a government of men men looking for something.

In fact, as the nineteenth cen tury progressed, the American politician had not yet found the way to implant the delusion that the government was other than a concatenation of human wants and an exploitation of some individuals by others. Mencken noted that for fifty years after the inauguration of the spoils system under Jack son (the spoils system, ironically, was supposed to be itself a re form) the people generally held 714 THE FREEMAN December office seekers and office holders in very low esteem. "The job holder, once theoretically a freeman dis charging a lofty and necessary duty, was seen clearly to be no more than a rat devouring the communal corn." In the late nine teenth century the widely held view of the government and of politicians was not very far re moved from those gloomy prophe sies of Henry Adams which pre dicted that the United States would boil away in corruption.

When an English speaker ad dressed the students at a fashion able women's college during the 1870s and suggested that all of the ladies gathered there must be from the best of homes - the off spring of congressmen, and such like - h~ was greeted with peals of laughter. The public had few illusions about congressmen in the 1870s, and even fewer about job holders. Political Corruption and Civil Service Reform Naturally, such a situation couldn't be long tolerated, and the way out of this particular kind of governmental disrepute was through· Civil Service Reform. The civil servant was whitewaShed in the last decades of the nineteenth century and the public's distrust of him subsided. The only diffi cultywas that while Civil Service Reform was able to placate the public it was a sorry downfall for the politician. The job holder be came a mere slave, a bookkeeper. "His pay and emoluments were cut down and his labors were in creased. Once the proudest and most envied citizen of the Repub lic, free to oppress all other citi zens to the limit of their endur ance, he became at one stroke a serf groaning in a pen, with a pistol pointed at his head."5 Of course this dismal situation couldn't be endured for long either, "else politics would have tumbled into chaos and govern ment would have lost its basic character; nay, its very life." The public servant could no more re main a plodding bookkeeper or clerk than he could a leech or pec ulator. If politicians are not be lieved in, if the work has no stat ure or dignity, then it obviously can't continue to exist; no one will be drawn to governmental work.

The light and deliverance came in the twentieth century. The office holder no longer needed to be either an absconder or a drone, he could become, under newly fair and promising skies, a reformer, a doer of good, an expert in right thinking. Politics has survived in marvelous good health in our cen tury because it has managed to "suck reform into the govern mental orbit." The main business 1973 MR. MENCKEN ON LIBERTY 715 of the government is now reform, good works, uplift. And, unfortu nately, such activities are almost invincible, their Achilles' heel nearly impossible of detection. Now, the civil servant is not only secure in .a well-paid government job, but he offers himself to the world as "a prophet of the new enlightenment, a priest at a glit tering and immense shrine." How can anyone in good conscience take out after him as one could after the old-time office holder? In the days of the spoils system one could say of the office holder that although he had done his share in electing the ticket, he was obvi 0usly a loafer and deserved no place at the public trough.

But what answer is to be made to his heir and assign, the evangelist of Service, the prophet of Vision? He doesn't start off with a bald demand for a job; he starts off with a Mes sage. He has discovered the long sought cure for all the sorrows of the world; he has the infallible scheme for putting down injustice, misery, ignorance, suffering, sin; his appeal is not to the rules of a sinister and discreditable game, but to the burst ing heart of humanity, the noblest and loftiest sentiments of man. His job is never in the foreground; it is concealed in his Vision. To get at the former one must dispose of the lat ter. Well, who is to do it? What true born American will volunteer for the cynical office? Half are too idiotic and the rest are too cowardly. It takes courage to flaunt and make a mock of Vision - and where is· cour age?6 Something to Sell The bureaucrat twentieth cen tury style thus has something im portant and valuable to sell. He is either an expert or a man with a vision - more likely both.

He is the fellow who enforces the Volstead Act, the Mann Act, all the endless laws for putting down sin. He is the bright evangelist who tours the country teaching mothers how to have babies, spreading the latest in ventions in pedagogy, road-making, the export trade, hog-raising and vegetable-canning, waging an eternal war upon illiteracy, hookworm, the white slave trade, patent medicines, the foot and mouth disease, cholera infantum, adultery, rum. He is, quite often as not, female; he is a lady Ph.D., cocksure, bellicose, very well paid.7 The government thus becomes little more than a perpetuator of safe, convenient, and stereotyped ideas. The lady Ph.D. who dis penses information on infant care from some government office dis penses her wisdom not only with a sense of mission but from a posi tion of almost unbelievable au thority - the kind of authority once delegated only to archbishops.

The public naturally believes that 716 THE FREEMAN December the lady Ph.D. reformer is not only knowledgeable in the ex treme, but, because she is working for the government, disin.terested as well. Government becomes in our time a mother lode of techno logical expertise and assumes oracular authority on the base of it - the very kind of oracular au thority liberty-loving people would insist upon doing without. Needless to say, Mencken re jects both of these assumptions about modern civil servants - that they are knowledgeable and that they are disinterested. Both are mistaken for the same reason. Government bureaucracies are nothing other than individual power and pressure groups, like similar power and pressure groups in the private sector of society, similarly seeking to push them selves above the others in impor tance and authority. If you have a Bureau of Narcotics, let us say, the people who run it are going to be subject to a struggle for power among competing agencies and competing viewpoints, and will tend to develop a missionary zeal, a pathological belief in the im portance of "narcotics work."

They become intoxicated, so to speak, with the value of this nar cotics work, and can in no way de tach themselves from their mis sionary zeal, and can thus exer cise no independent judgment on their own activities, which is the same as saying that they are cer tain not to act intelligently on all matters of their own concern. To act intelligently one must be able to criticize one's own doings. Thus, when they pull for more and more power and recognition, we are foolish if we allow ourselves to be deluded into seeing it all as a search for truth and virtue; it is no more a search for truth and. virtue than we could expect from the advertising department of a used car dealership. Warring Factions In short, what we get from a government bureaucracy is what we get from any other special-in terest group - at worst, falsehood and deceit, at best, platitudes and half-truths. Actually, because of the multitude of reform or uplift factions in government in its twentieth century democratic form, what we get may actually be worse - it approaches a kind of mental unbalance or insanity since the various power groups cannot be easily reconciled; they tend to struggle and war against one an other for hegemony. Let us con sider an example from our own time rather than Mencken's. Since the appearance in the 1960s and 1970s of the ecology reform move ment it is only natural that cer tain factions of the government 1973 MR. MENCKEN ON LIBERTY 717 should take up the crusade to clean up the .environment. How ever, cleaning up the environment is expensive and is bound to come into conflict with other branches of the government committed to stemming the tide of inflation.

What happens when two such factions meet in a collision course, as they are assuredly bound to do? How is it possible, for example, to reconcile the desire to conserve petroleum when the anti-pollution devices on automobiles bring about shocking increases in the con sumption of gasoline? Of course these various demands result in conflict, a conflict which will invari ably be carried on not in intelli gent discourse but in a shouting or clamoring contest of a kind that is inevitable in a democracy, where the weaponry of the power groups is the weaponry of slogans, half-truths, simplistic formulas the winner being the side which for the moment can successfully enflame the passions of the multi tudes and cater to their immediate desires. Even if it were theoretically possible to keep all the power cen ters of a democracy in check it be comes increasingly difficult to do so practically because in our time bureaucracy, agencies of govern ment, have so proliferated that their very enormity prevents them from being held in check. There is no evidence in the twentieth cen tury that any sector of the gov ernment has decreased in size, or, at least, no evidence that any bu reau, department or office has will ingly and without a struggle given up its authority and prerogatives.

Every year some new area of re form can be expected to arise, but none of the" old ones die. We now have agencies to police the safety in automobile manufacture, none of which existed in 1925 and were not percei ved to be necessary. Similarly, we continue to have an unwieldy Agricultural Extension Service with an army of county agents prepared to advise the struggling farmer how to operate his tiny family farm at a profit at a time when the only farmers left are businessmen farmers who op erate large farm corporations for big profits and know more about farm business and operation than the government agent himself. Why, then, can't we get the county agricultural agent to vanish into the mist of history ? Well, obvi 0usly' because he has tenure, a strong grip on his position, he is secure in it and has no intention of giving it up without a struggle. So it is with every branch of government. Far from being im personal and toplofty as the pub lic believes, every office holder has a very personal and private reason for being. Thus we are completely 718 THE FREEMAN December deluded when we believe that pub lic servants are motivated by the common weal or the common good.

"These men, ·in point of fact, are seldom if ever moved by anything rationally describable as public spirit; there is actually no more public spirit among them than among so many burglars or street walkers. Their purpose, first, last, and all· the time, is to promote their private advantage, and to that end, and that end alone, they exercise all the vast powers that are in their hands."8 (Always keep in mind that Mencken is not only talking about pecuniary in terest; vested interests in ideas ca.nbe no less corrupting.) Mencken's view of life under a democracy is thus a rather bleak and pessimistic one. He thinks that democratic man, in forsaking the ideals and duties of civil lib erty, has committed himself to a kind of authoritarianism that is not really very different from that offered by the more outwardly au thoritarian or totalitarian regimes of the world. He was also pessi mistic in that he believed the present evangelical, Puritanical, reform-laden, expert-oriented form of government cannot be easily re versed, and he harbored no hope that it is possible to return to early American republicanism. But at times he was inclined to believe that democracy is a self-limiting disease, and that it is just possible that the disease may one day remit.

Mencken himself was a jovial and good-hearted man and he did point out that it is possible to of fer one simple consolation to those who live in a democracy. Demo cratic government is a good form of national entertainment. The government pitches from one out landish scandal or frenzy to an other, and most of these can be the source of some amusement to the intelligent man. "Politics un der a democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The states man becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting 'Fe, Fi, Fo. Fum.'''9 It all rnakes a good show, and the show may lighten the heart, ex cept in those hours when one can not stifle the nostalgic dreams of what America might have been. ~ • Footnotes • 1 Henry L. Mencken, Notes on Democ racy, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926, p.44. 2 Ibid., p. 45.

3 Ibid., p. 49. 4 Henry L. Mencken, Prejudices, Fourth Series, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1924, pp. 223-24. !'j Ibid., pp. 230-31. 6 Ibid., pp. 233-34. 7 Ibid., p. 232. 8 Ibid., pp. 224-25. 9 Notes on Democracy, po 22.

LEONARD E. READ Time-Lapse Thinking Economics . . . is the science of tracing the effects of some proposed or existing! policy not only on some special interest in the short ruh, but on the general interest in the long run. - Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson MOST politico-economic policies in our time are in response to the de mands of this or that special in terest or pressure group, while the general interest is ignored. Fur ther, the long-run effect is over looked in order that short-run "gains" may be achieved. This is the road to disaster, and no turn about is possible short of a greater reliance on time-lapse thinking. Let Walt Disney's demonstration explain what I mean by time-lapse thinking. Disney planted a rose seedling and made a motion picture of its growth, flicking a single frame every day or so until the plant was mature and the rose had bloomed. When he showed this film on a screen at sixteen frames per second, we then witnessed the whole beautiful phenomenon - the unfolding of a rosebud - in a minute or two. Disney's time-lapse photography enabled us to experi ence an improvement in frequency perception; that is, the viewers were able to see the long-run ef~ fects of short-run causes. This is why I suggest the urgency of some time-lapse thinking.

While time-lapse photography and time-lapse thinking are simi lar in tha t each collapses time, there is an important difference. The former reduces the time be tween causes and effects that have already taken place; the latter re quires that time be collapsed as related to future effects of pres ent causes. True, no person has a crystal ball, nor could he read it if he had one. Yet, I believe there is a way of foreseeing what ef fects certain actions will have. Carry this belief a step further. The easiest and ·perhaps the only 719 720 THE FREEMAN December way to be certain that a short-run action is a gain or loss is to dis cover what its long-run effects will be. Why? ,There is no such thing as a short-run gain that is not also a long-run gain, and vice versa. As Emerson wrote, "The end pre-ex ists in the means." It is axiomatic that constructive service of the in dividual's purposes or of the gen eral interest can never emerge from destructive means. Thus, collapse time, resort to time-lapse thinking, to evaluate day-to-day actions.

No Future in It To illustrate: Is thievery a short-run gain for the thief? Most thieves think it is or they would not steal. Having a stunted per ception, they fail to realize that the loss in life-values far exceeds the gain in loot. Were the thief capable of time-lapse thinking, he would clearly see that a popula tion of thieves would perish. The long-run effect would be disas trous; therefore, the short-run action - the means - is disastrous and evil. Direct theft is practiced by com paratively few of the total popu lation. Most people find it unnec essary to do time-lapse thinking to put thievery in its proper place. However, millions of these same people not only condone but par ticipate in legal plunder, that is, they urge government to do the looting for them. They see nothing wrong with this; indeed, they re gard the loot as a gain. Perhaps the only way for them to set their thinking straight is a resort to time-lapse thinking.

In a nutshell, let these millions project their practices into the fu ture - everyone doing what the few are now doing, that is, every one being paid for not working. Clearly, were there no work there would be no loot to take, nothing to plunder. As with thievery, all would perish. By the simple de vice of collapsing time, the future effect of their present actions would become obvious. Thus, liv ing off others is not even a short run gain. A few paltry dollars at the price of surrendering respon sibility for self - the very essence of being - amounts to an enor mous net loss. A TotaJ Loss Many farmers get paid for not farming and regard the payments as gains. Apply this political nos trum to all productive activity, not only getting paid for not farming but getting paid for not generat ing electricity, not drilling for and refining oil, not making clothes ' and autos, and so on. Project such practices into the future and ob serve the self-evident consequences.

Time-lapse thinking will reveal 1973 TIME-LAPSE THINKING 721 the fallacy; it will serve as an eye opener, a needed shock treatment. All losses now! Reflect on the businessmen who seek political protection against competi tion, domestic as well as foreign. Assume the universality of this craving for short-run "gains" and then assess the fu ture. What would be the economic picture? What would it look like? Ancient feudalism or medieval mercantilism or modern commu nism! No need for more illustrations; a thousand and one could be cited. Time-lapse thinking not only is invaluable in deciding on sound economic policy but can be used to arrive at the correctness of pres ent actions in all fields - education, religion, politics, or what ever. From such thinking stems this helpful conclusion: fret not for the morrow, only for today. Why? Be cause the morrow is a life-style edifice structured from today's ac tions. Wrote Addison: "This is the world of seeds, of causes, and of tendencies; the other is the world of harvests and results and of per fected and eternal consequences."

Th us, if today's actions are as right as one can m~ke them, then the morrow is as good as it can be. My gratitude to Henry Hazlitt for his philosophy, and to Walt Disney for his technology. I have merely strung their pearls of wis dom on a single thread. I iDEAS ON LIBERTY Overlooking Secondary Consequences IN ADDITION to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences. In this lies almost the whole difference between good economics and bad. HENRY HAZLITT, Economies in One Lesson \ for POLITICALPEACE: RIDGWAY K. FOLEY, JR.

THE MYTH that the United States enjoys a consensus sheltering its public men from violence during the electoral process shattered a decade ago in Dallas, Texas, when President John F. Kennedy fell under a hail of gunfire. Prior to that onslaught, the nation smugly prided itself on a distinction from violent neighbors where political disputes find settlement in fire power and plastic explosives. Yet in late November, 1963, a sad dened and shocked nation gnashed its collective teeth and searched its collective souls for an explanation. The succeeding years witnessed no slackening of excesses. A litany serves only to emphasize the dark and the macabre. Such diverse public personages as Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Rev. Martin Mr. Foley, a partner in Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, practices law in Portland, Oregon. 722 Luther King, and Governor George C. Wallace have crumpled at the hands of equally diverse as sailants who, for varying shadowy motivations, have determined that the nation (or their concept there of) will best survive without their particular target. Add to this spectacle a host of attempts upon the Iives of less well-known offi cials and a truly grievous problem confronts the perceptive observer and disturbs those who advocate the peaceful life.

The fable of unprecedented freedom from violence in the do mestic politics of the United States suffers the malaise of dis harmony with empirical fact. For starters, Presidents Lincoln, Gar field, and McKinley died violently in office, and numerous other chief executives, including both Presi dents Roosevelt, provided targets for assassins. Murder of lesser officials pocks our history. While 1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 723 the first one hundred seventy-five years of our Republic did not com pletely resemble the reign of Lu cretia Borgia, neither did it match the folktale of an extended peace. Perhaps the nation avoided the number of confrontations, kidnap pings, and murders which per meated elections in Latin Ameri can nations, but its smugness ignored the existence of a very real problem. A Plethora of Theories Analysts have advanced various theories concerning the causes of attempts upon the lives of politi cal men and potential cures for this miasma.

One school of thought explains we live in a violent age. Yet in truth, man has never been fully insulated from coercion practiced by his predatory neighbors. Al though it may be destructive of our dreams, no one has witnessed Utopia. Another school of thought, hav ing recently discovered that not all men produce equally, attributes political violence to unrest bred by poverty. ThiR answer ignores the fact that the "poverty classes" consti tute the real beneficiaries of the voluntary exchange market sys tem. What passes for poverty in present-day America only slightly resembles the short, cluttered and brutish life in other nations and in other times. By this measure, if poverty breeds unrest and poli tical violence, the present-day United States should bear witness to a peaceable life. Indeed, poverty seems notably absent from the lives of the best-known political assassins of recent vintage.

A third voice suggests that easy access to firearms results in harm to political men, and advocates im plementation of strict "gun con trol" laws. These theorists over look the fact that inanimate ob j ects are never controlled - gun control really means people con trol. FirearII1 control resides a short step away from other, more dis turbing, types of controls nor mally associated with a totalitar ian society. Furthermore, advocates of gun control cannot assure us that political bloodshed will cease if their views receive implementation. While the best known political crimes of recent date have involved the use of fire arms, reason does not restrict the terrorist to this means. Indeed, the use of explosives might not only accomplish the identical task but also slay numerous other per sons who fortuitously happen to be in the vicinity. More perti nently, the criminally inclined seem unlikely to register their weapons, or to comply with other 724 THE FREEMAN December prophylactic norms; indeed, we can mainly count on them to se cure guns illicitly when no one else discovers a source.

A fourth observer suggests stricter application of the crimi nal laws and, with varying de grees of reason and irrationality, the cry for "law and order" peals across the land. Stripped of excess verbiage, purveyors of this con cept (which often amounts to a thinly veiled attack on the entire court system), suggest harsh penalties for those convicted of crime, more restrictive appellate procedures, and -minimal empha sis upon the rights of an accused as embodied in the Federal Bill of Rights. Yet destruction of the rights of the criminally accused may result in final analysis in de struction of the ···.liberties belong ing to all of us. A fifth suggestion advocates in creased protection for political figures in their public appear ances. History demonstrates that even a monumental undertaking, such as protection for the Presi dent of the United States, cannot guarantee success. How much greater the cost in energy and re sources and how much greater the likelihood of failure if the com munity attempts to protect eac'h public figure from all conceivable man ..inflicted harm! If society cannot afford to safeguard each politician fully, how shall we choose which ones will be pro tected and which ones will be left to the mercies of attack?

Furthermore, .this assertion suffers from a more fundamental malaise: ultimate protection for the political man further removes and insulates him from society at a time when too great a wall exists between electorate and represent ative. First, time and again, par ticularly at the local level, effec tive political campaigning demands maximum personal con frontation. More and more office seekers are ringing doorbells and haunting supermarkets, bringing their case to the constituency. Few are likely to forego what they believe to be a potent electoral tool for the sake of protection. Second, individuals in society feel a consuming and increasing sense of alienation from the political processes, a frustration and con tempt for government and its ap paratus. Greater insulation can only heighten this discontent. Prescription for Political Peace: A Silent Internal Revolution An antidote exists for the viru lent strain of political slaughter rampant this past decade: indi vidual freedom and a personal re commitment on the part of each of us to a belief in the sanctity of life. Each of the theories encoun1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 725 tered heretofore offers assistance in this endeavor, yet each suffers from inherent limitations. I pro pose that violence will diminish if we limit political force to the ad ministration of common justice, the prevention of external aggres sion, and the sanctioning of in ternal uses of force and fraud, and if each of us, citizen and politician alike, will rededicate his life to this libertarian principle.

Man, a questing, acting, pur posive being, is capable of volun tary association to improve his lot and that of his neighbors. He is likewise capable of banding to gether with his fellows to inhibit the voluntary action of other indi viduals. He is finite and mortal, capable of outward improvement but incapable of perfection be cause of his finiteness. He is set apart from other creatures by his ability to choose: to observe, mea sure, test, evaluate, and select from alternatives. Because of his finity and imperfection, man's nature possesses a dark side, a predilection to violence, a tend ency which must be externally or internally stifled ere society de generate into civil chaos. The anarchist and the liber tarian possess common grounds, but they split asunder regarding the propensity of man to violence. For example, one thoughtful edi torial recently asserted: Since any individual is utterly in capable of preventing another person from killing him, if the other person is really determined and is willing to bide his time, and since governments have proved themselves incapable of providing such protection, the only real protection we know of exists in the principle of nonprovocation: that is, in trying to so live one's life that no one will want to harm us.

And that, may we further suggest, means relying on the voluntary mar ket place, rather than government force. But, it also means mor~. It means that, through a process of re-educa tion, the peoples of the-world must be shown that the people of a coun try and their government are not the same thing. So long as the faulty idea is generally held that peaceful people on the one hand, and' their squabbling, bickering bureaucrats on the other, are one and the same en tity, atrocities against peaceful, un offending people, such as happened at Munich, will occur again and again. If we want peace, if we want se curity from aggression, to the great est degree possible in an imperfect world, we must break the mental chain that binds us to bickering governments and to the consequences of THEIR actions. Since that chain exists in the mind, it is in the mind where it will have to be broken; with ideas, never with force.

Let us, individual to individual, proClaim to the world that "Freedom is self control. No more. No less." No Arab grasping this truth could 726 THE FREEMAN December have acted as did the terrorists at Munich.! The concept of nonprovocation 2 utterly fails in the presence of a terrorist or a bully - ask anyone who hae tried to reason with such people - for man's shadowy na ture may overcome. The ana.rchist tenet crumbles under the philosophical hammer of Dr. Ludwig von Mises in "A Perfect System of Government" who succinctly puts the case: Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes Homo sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social 1 Grove, Cecil, "Let Us Break the Chain,"Colorado Springs Gazette Tele graph (September 14, 1972).

2 See also, regarding nonprovocation and the market response to violence, LeFevre, Robert, "Deducing to Morality," Ramparts College Newsletter (Santa Ana, California, December, 1972) stating the anarcho-capitalist view, see further, his provocative article "Justice on Trial," Reason (Vol. 3, No. 11) February 1972, page 18. apparatus of coercion and oppres sion. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Gov ernment and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d' etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimina tion of man's innate impulse to vio lence, only by the recourse to vio lence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent. 3 On the other hand, the statist who looks to the government as the source of all problem-solving wisdom likewise misapprehends man's true nature. Like the an archist, he views man as perfect ible, as able to create Utopia or Heaven on Earth, if only the mass will emulate the social engineer.

Yet the statist exhibits a certain ambivalence for he treats the average individual as unable to know his own mind - a consumer cannot rationally choose which brand of soup or soap to buy yet when that same average in dividual comes to the polling place, he is suddenly qualified to choose the social architect who 3 Mises, Ludwig von, "A Perfect Sys tem of Government," The Ultimate Foun dation of Economic Science (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1962) pages 94-101; reprinted in 22 The Freeman No. 12 (Foundation for Economic Educa tion, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, December 1972) 747-752, at pp. 749-750.

1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 727 will lead him from the wilderness. Of course, the statist never con cedes that the leader derives from the mass and partakes of the iden tical finity and fallibility with his peers. Because finite man possesses a violent nature, his appetite for violence must be curbed by the state. To this extent the answer of those who favor strict criminal law enforcement as a response to political violence appears meri torious, just as are the paeans of the apologists of the "violent age" argument, which recognize that a stated number of frustrated indi viduals will give vent to their dis trust by violent action. Yet the very real frustration with political life and the beings which inhabit that world deserves consideration, for in that frustration and discon tent may repose a partial reason for cruel attacks on political men. The solution: neutralize that frus tration by restricting political ac tion to its proper sphere: preven tion and punishment of force and fraud, provision for the common defense and establishment of a system of justice whereby dis putes may be fairly adjudicated.

Leave the management of the rest of men's lives to each individual, giving free reign to creative pow ers in any direction chosen by free people seeking their own destiny. The twofold result: (1)an outpouring of creative energy, unpre dictable in direction but in final analysis bound to produce the goods and services most .desired by mankind, and (2) a release of tension and an inhibiting of the darker side of man as each person recognizes that he is no longer a mere pawn in the hands of su perior forces lacking rights and control over his life, but rather possesses the ultimate obligation responsibly to live his own life and to seek his own ends. Concomitant with the latter result: a recogni tion that force or the destructive use of energy will not effectively gain desired ends and perception that free men can best secure their goals by willing exchange and peaceful human actions. Wanted: A Reverence for Life Respect for human life under girds the freedom ideal. The lib ertarian concept of freedom de rives from the belief that each in dividual has the right to self-de termine his existence, to the ex tent permitted by his finite nature, absent any man-concocted re straints,4 save those necessary to assure an equal right to every other person. Each man forms ·an 4 See Read, Leonard E., "Justice Versus Social Justice," Who's Listening? (The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1973) 93 et seq. from whom I have borrowed this phrase.

728 THE FREEMAN December end in himself, not an object to be used or engineered by other be ings possessing a monopoly of force. It is the acme of arrogance to suggest that A is better suited by nature, talent, or motivation to live B's life for him in even the most minute particulars. From this fundamental right we can discern the transcendent rights of liberty and property: a man can not chart his life's course if he is not free to choose among the wid est range of alternatives, and if he is not free to keep, donate, ex change or destroy the value (prop erty) which he has created or ac quired from others in willing ex change. Contemporary society not only witnesses a gradual erosion of this reverence for life but also partici pates in that destruction. Elected representatives seriously consid ered legislation permitting what is euphemistically termed eutha nasia or "mercy killing ."5 The right to life certainly encompasses the right of the individual to cling to, or to terminate, his own earth ly existence; it cannot logically include the right to .destroy an other human being. 6 Again, the judiciary has exhib ited a singular ambivalence to ward human life in recent years.

How can one square the right to abort a human life 7 with the dec laration that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual pun ishment in contravention of the eighth and fourteenth amend ments ?8 Political men must thus bear partial responsibility for their own condition. True, rational be ings cannot justifiably destroy the life of a political figure. Never theless, when the victim partici pates in a system which denigrates human life, chains men to unwise policies, and panders to their base desires, he cannot escape the nat ural consequences of his acts, con sequences which include the like lihood that some of his victims men robbed of their liberty and essential humanity - will react violently toward his person. Thus a presidential candidate who supi"i The Oregon Legislative Assembly de bated this measure: See (Oregon) Senate Bill 179 (1973) enacting a "Voluntary Euthanasia Act."

() Destroyers of life often overlook the axiom that each choice made by man in his lifetime is a moral choice, and that the actor must bear full responsibility for the consequences of his choices. He can not improve his lot by the alibi that he acted under "legal sanction" or as part of a claque - moral principles break but do not bend, and evil is not less evil when performed by an association. See Harper, F. A. "Morals and Liberty," 21 The Freeman No.7 (Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, July 1971) 426,430. 7 See Roe v. Wade, U.S.,93 S.Ct. 705, 35L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). 8 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33L.Ed.2d 346 (1972).

,1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 729 ports the continuance of a system of conscription which recruits men to die in battle, a congressman who votes for looting the populace by subsidizing one group at the expense of another, or a senator who campaigns on divisive emo tions in his community to secure election should not exhibit sur prise when an assailant from the mass haunts them. That Internal Revolution A revolution need not be coer cive or violent; the most effective ones take place in the hearts and minds of mankind, slowly, almost tediously, but with certainty. Each of us, statesman and citi zen alike, must partake in this quiet personal rededication to the principle of the sanctity of life and the postulate of freedom. Each must accept the fact that he bears full responsibility for the mora] consequences of his choices. The statesman must respect the citi zen's need for full responsibility for his life; the citizen must re spect the statesman, who comes from the populace, as entitled to equivalent treatment.

How to effect this revolution from within forms a salient in quiry.9 Generally, man may induce action by other men through two means: force and persuasion. The free man must discard force as a respectable alternative inasmuch as it denies the essence of the freedom philosophy.lO I cannot force free choice upon you, for your liberty lies in choosing. It is a contradiction in terms to "force people to be free." Likewise, I cannot deny you the opportunity to assassinate a political figure by prior restraint consonant with a respect for individual liberty. I can only persuade you not to per form such a deed. If persuasion provides the key, how can anyone of us effectively dissuade our fellow men from mis deeds? One can seldom substan tially persuade another without two-way communication; the lis tener must desire to hear and must want to take action. Other wise, according to the homily, "good advice falls on deaf ears."

Preaching, ranting, raving, offer small effect. The answer - light a candle in yourself. Act a~ a free man, respectful of human life and 9 A comprehensive analysis of the methodology of freedom reaches far be yond the scope of this essay which, by its nature, must be restricted to the most conclusory of statements. For those in terested in the most exciting in-depth analysis of liberty's mode of growth, I respectfully suggest the writings of Leon ard E. Read, e.g., Read, Leonard E., Talk ing to Myself (Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 1970) 9 et seq. 10 See Read, Leonard E., Let Freedom Reign (The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 1960) 78-86. See also Note 6 op cit.

730 THE J.1'REEMAN December dignity in a world of Illiberal darkness. Few of us truly conduct ourselves in harmony with these principles. We may utter the ap propriate cliche and think the proper thoughts, but our actions belie our words and manifest a disrespect for the essence of life in others. ll If your actions are meritorious, they will be emulated by others who see your light. A slow and laborious process? To be sure, but it harmonizes with the principle underlying action respect for the individual and his capacity to choose. Instead of con centrating on improvement of others, each of us must engage in that silent little revolution within, dedicating his life to improvement of self and understanding of man's amazing gift of free action and its concomitant responsibility. To the extent that each person in society achieves the ends sought in his personal revolution, limited only by his finiteness, political men will achieve personal safety. , 11 I discard my principles and demon strate my disrespect for the right to life of my fellow man on every occasion when I seek to do good for him, or for someone else, with the property of my neighbor (without his consent), no matter how gracious or pure my motives. Likewise, I disparage the right to life of my colleague when I attempt to coercively order his life for his own good. These simple little predations, while possibly less odious than the felonious taking of life, in fact offer small copies of the same germ which in fects the thinking of the political assas sin. Remember Emerson's dictum: The end preexists in the means. It applies here, as elsewhere. See Read, Leonard E., Let Freedom Reign, Note 10, op cit, 78-86; Harper, Note 6, op cit.

IDEAS ON LIBERTY The Value of Freedom THROUGHOUT HISTORY orators and poets have extolled liberty, but no one has told us why liberty is so important. Our attitude towards such matters should depend on whether we consider civil ization as fixed or as advancing .... In an advancing society, any restriction on liberty reduces the number of things tried and so reduces the rate of progress. In such a society freedom of action is granted to the individual, not because it gives him greater sat isfaction but because if allowed to go his own way, he will on the average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give. H. B. PHILLIPS, "On the Nature of Progress"

GARY NORTH FREE-FOR-ALL: what an image! It brings forth memories of child hood, with a mass of children run ning, yelling, leaping on top of each other - a chaotic mass of hu manity, with "every kid for him self." Or it appears in the average American's mind as a barroom brawl, with slugging drunks, broken chairs and tables, bodies flying through the air. How many B-grade Westerns or 1944 military musicals have included in the sec ond reel a fight between two guys in a bar, and as soon as three punches have been exchanged, fifty-four other men are slugging it out with each other in a mind less pandemonium? Such nonsense may be all right for children or· the fantasies of Dr. North, economist, lecturer, author, cur rently is an associate of Chalcedon, an educa tional organization dedicated to Christian re search and writing. His latest book is An In troduction to Christian Economics, Craig Press, 1973.

the late, late show, but how many of us would actually like to live our lives in a constant free-for all? Not many, I suspect. Endless lawless chaos, endless pokes in the nose: it is not a pleasant prospect. Such a world would make it ex tremely difficult for men to plan, labor, produce, trade, or bring progress into the world. Leisure would disappea.r. In fact, the only way a free-for-all can exist, even for short periods of time, is for someone to subsidize it. It is no surprise that the free-for-all is associated with bawling children and brawling drunks. They are the only ones who can afford it. No society could long survive as a con stant free-for-all. Yet how many people today seem to regard the economy as a free-for-all? The ancient slogan of the socialists has been that na ture is wholly abundant, but arti ficial human institutions and eco731 732 THE FREEMAN De'cember nomic arrangements thwart the operation of nature's bounty. Pro duction is "normal"; distribution is fouled. Therefore, all we need to do is tear down the artificial bar riers to wealth. This was the vi sion of Marx and Engels, and it is alive and well in every society on earth, in spite of the fact that it is not always associated with Marx and Engels. 1 Marx and Engels did not invent the slogan; it has been around for as long as men have tried to appropriate the fruits of each other's labor.

limitations of Nature The premise is fallacious. Na ture has limited capabilities for production. If we have learned nothing else from the ecology movement, we should have learned this. Nature's productive power is a thin veneer; most of nature's energy is expended in merely re placing what dies, day to day. It is man, with his wonderful gift of reason, which makes nature flour ish. Man creates wealth, and this process is not free (gratuitous). It takes an expenditure of energy, capital, and time to make nature give up her fruits for the pur poses of mankind. The problem is not distribution; the problem is always production. Production 1 See my study of early Marxism, Marx's Religion of Revolution (Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig Press, 1968). creates its own distribution; dis tribution does not create produc tion. (The widespread distribution of nothing spreads mighty thin.) It is because the premise of so cialist redistribution is fallacious that a society of "free-for-all"

economic goods would become one enormous free-for-all. Economic goods are scarce, that is, at zero price there is greater demand for them than supply of them. Prices are the sure indication of just how far we are from a free-for-all economy. Prices allow us to plan, evaluate our costs, make clear and responsible choices. They restrain our demands on nature and on each other. If there is anything in creation that is unlimited, it is our demands; everything else is re stricted. So we live in a world of scarcity. But if we should try to abandon free pricing as our tool of allocation, what will replace it? State planning agencies ? Votes? Guns? Fists? We would have our selves a free-for-all in more ways than one. It would be every man for himself, like fifteen pups on an eight-nippled mother. We would be placing an economic pre mium on brawling instead of co operation. Productivity, already limited, would fall even more. And nature, already overtaxed, would be exploited unmercifully - after all, if nature is totally abundant, men should force her to give up 1973 THE FREE-FOR-ALL SOCIETY 733 her wealth. (Which is why the Soviet Union has such a disastrous pollution problem: Marshall Gold man, The Spo'ils of Progress, M.LT. Press, 1972.) Divided We Fdll Those who insist on voting themselves a piece of another's pie are thereby affirming their commitment to a free-far-all so ciety. Minimum wage laws, price supports, graduated income taxa tion (sadly called "progressive"), tariffs, government-guaranteed loans, regulated industries: the list goes on and on. With every piece of new legislation, the brawling increases, as more people jump into the fray.

We can legislate ourselves into a free-for-all world. I would pre fer to pay my money and take my choice. At least in these circum stances, what I see is what I get. In a free-for-all, one seldom gets even this much. What you don't see is what you get, such as a fist in the ear. Those who are produc tive tend to do poorly in slug fests, and those who are expert brawlers usually are not very effi cient producers. A world of pro duction can afford a few brawls, but a world of constant brawling starves. , IDEAS ON LIBERTY Capitalism KARL MARX completely rejected the only 'economic system on earth under which it is possible for the workers themselves to own, to control, and to manage directly the facilities of pro duction. And shocking as the news may be to the disciples of Marx, that system is capitalism! Here in America, ownership of our biggest and most important industries is sold daily, in little pieces, on the stock market. It is constantly changing hands; and if the workers of this country truly wish to own the tools of production, they can do so very simply.

They do not have to seize the government by force of arms. They do not even have to win an election. An in the world they have to do is to buy, in the open market, the capital stock of the corporation they want to own - just as millions of other Ameri cans have been doing for many decades. BEN J AMIN F. FAIRLESS, The Great Mistake of Karl Marx SO MYSTERIOUS is the process of profitably producing and market ing anything - say, a pair of shoes - that many persons are willing to believe it is accomplished by ex ploiting the customers, or the hired laborers, or perhaps both. In that case, their reactions may run in all directions but tend. to fol low three main channels: 1. Profits should be shared with employees. 2. Consumers should organize as a cooperative in order' to share the profits a,mong themselves. 3. The government can do it cheaper bec'ause it doesn't have to make a profit. Actually, these are not three separate alternatives to the free market - the profit and loss ar rangement under open competi tion and voluntary exchange; they 734 I SHARING PAUL L. POIROT are but three different aspects of compulsory collectivism.

To demonstrate why that is so requires careful analysis and un derstanding of the profit and loss features of the market process. And we start with the fact that numerous individuals are compet ing for possession and use of scarce and valuable resources. There simply isn't enough of any economic good or service to cover all the uses anyone might desire. So the problem is to use these resources as efficiently as possible, avoiding waste, and letting the willing customers judge what is efficiency and what is waste. If the customer is to be the judge, this means that no seller can know precisely in advance what a given item may bring in the market. If he is a grower of potatoes, for instance, he knows 1973 PROFIT SHARING 735 there will be the costs of owning or renting a plot of land, a supply of seed potatoes, of fertilizer, of tools and labor for planting and cultivating and harvesting and preparing the potatoes for market.

But he doesn't know precisely in advance the amount of each of these costs. He doesn't know what the weather will be; or how much of what quality crop the harvest may yield; or what customers will be willing to pay, for his potatoes in particular or for potatoes gen erally, at any given time during the marketing season. In other words, he is an entrepreneur, bid ding for scarce and valuable re sotirces for conversion to a prod uct which he hopes customers will want at a price high enough to cover all costs,· including his own labor and other investment, and still leave him a profit. If not, his is the loss. In other words, profit is the re ward willing customers· accord an entrepreneur who efficiently uses scarce resources to satisfy their wants .. And the amount of the profit, or loss, is never known un til after the fact - .after all the results of the production and mar keting operation are complete, having been carried out in open competition with the producers and consumers of all other goods and services.

A moment's reflection must reveal how nebulous and uncertain a thing is entrepreneurial profit as thus identified. It reflects a man's superior skill at seeing and exploiting new or better oppor tunities to utilize resources to serve consumers - seeing a need and doing a job faster and better than others! For the moment com petitors discover the opportunity and exploit it to any great extent, then the margin for profit will largely have disappeared. Then, perhaps one or a few of the most efficient competitors may still earn a. profit; but most will only re cover costs; and more and more will be driven by competition into the loss column or toward other lines of production. Thus is the opportunity for profit closed al most as rapidly as it appears in a competitive market situation; and in general it seerns safe to say that more productive business activity merely breaks even (cov..; ers costs) or results in loss than yields an entrepreneurial profit.

What Kind 01 Profit? Let it be clearly understood that we are not discussing here the terms profit or loss as customarily used in business accounting and measured by "the bottom line." What the XYZ Company reports as "profit" or "income after taxes" might possibly be made up in part of true entrepreneurial profit; but 736 THE FREEMAN December it most certainly consists in large measure of interest, for out of that "income after taxes" must come any return on a stockholder's investment. If he doesn't recover the going rate of interest - either in dividends or in added value of his share - his investment has yielded a loss in the sense that he might better have invested else where. So, when the idea of "profit sharing" is proposed, the thought ful proponent surely can not be thinking of sharing the interest portion of returns to investors. If they can't earn interest, they'll abandon that investment and seek another repository for their sav ings - with the result that the employee's job disappears to the extent that he takes a share of the return that should have gone to the investors who provided the savings (the tools) upon which the job depends. Nor is this a con sequence of some arbitrary deci sion rendered by a greedy capital ist - his determination to grind poor workers to the bone. On the contrary, the decision is rendered by consumers and their purchases - or their refusal to buy.

When all the facts are in, the consumers will have made known to the entrepreneur what pro:fit~ if any, his efforts have yielded. He will have been free to ignore the market, of course. He could have borrowed funds at twice the market rate of interest if he wanted to. Likewise, he could have paid two or three times the market wage rate to workmen. But it seems inconceivable that he could behave so magnanimous ly for very long· without seriously depleting his personal savings and setting the stage for competitors to drive him out of business. "Good guys" aren't all that pop ular; consumers pay willingly for efficiency, but have to be coerced into paying for anything else. Incentive Pay The proposal to share profits with employees is often justified on grounds of the extra productiv ity men generate as a result of "incentive pay." That is a cogent argument; payment of workers on a piece-work basis was being practiced successfully long before "profit sharing" came into vogue.

Indeed, this is the principle under which the "cottage industries" operated at the beginning of the industrial revolution, various jobs being "farmed out" for comple tion in the worker's home at so much per unit of product. In a sense, the worker in that case is his own entrepreneur; the more he produces, the more he earns. However, as production methods become more sophisticated, with more complicated and more expen1973 PROFIT SHARING 737 sive machines and assembly-line operations, cottage industries give way to the factory system and a tendency to pay workers by the hour rather than by the piece. Labor unions have encouraged the trend away from payment on a piece-work basis or incentive pay ments in general, despite protes tations that union demands can and should be met out of company profits. As previously suggested, where several companies have entered into competition in a given indus try, producing the same or similar products, the likelihood is that only Company A - or a compara tive few of those companies - will show any entrepreneurial profits that conceivably could be shared with workers or customers or in vestors. The greater number of competitors will barely yield the going market rate of return on investment, or even show a loss.

(Bear in mind that one can never be certain just what portion of a company's "income after taxes" is strictly entrepreneurial profit and what portion is a necessary return to investors to induce them to leave their capital in that busi ness.) But if Company A is in a posi tion to offer its workers a profit sharing plan, then immediately the other competing companies would have to grant comparable wage increases or stand to lose employees to Company A. Obvi ously, some of the other compa nies would be driven out of busi ness. The question then arises: Is Company A in a position to take on an uncertain number of additional employees and still of fer its profitsharing plan? If not, what becomes of those unemployed workers, except that they must tend to drive wage rates down ward as they seek other jobs? What Should Be the Price? So, let us return to the basic premise of the market process: that numerous individuals are competing for possession and use of valuable resources. And the ob ject is to determine how scarce and how valuable! Wha.t should be the price that most accurately re flects the supply-demand situation, leaving the ultimate choice to the consumer? In other words, we're discussing the role of business in a system of voluntary exchange, as distinguished from government regulation and control - compul sory collectivism.

Without market pricing, there is no reliable system of economic calculation or business accounting, no way for competitors to know how well each is doing. For in stance, reconsider the potato grower. How is he to know whether to use more land, or more 738 THE FREEMAN December seed and. fertilizer and tender lov ing care per acre, to produce po tatoes most economically? He looks to the market prices of these various productive resources to help him to a decision - and per haps prays for rain and a good crop. Or, suppose a person is seeking a job. He will be interested in knowing what other workers are earning in that job or in similar lines of work. And, of course, pro spective employers are continuously checking to see what wage rates are being paid by other employers for comparable jobs. Neither the prospective employee nor the pro spective employer really wants to wait until the end of the year or the end of a season when profits might be known - to find out what wage rate should have been paid.

Each prefers to know what the market rate is as of now, a figure that enables him to say yes or no, to do business or -not. Will the job pay $3.00 an hour, or is it to be $2.50 now and a chance for a share of profits later - if the project shows a profit? What wages are other employers paying? How many other workers are on a cash wage, and how many are willing to wait for a share of profits? What is the market situa tion? What is the going price for labor? The fact is that the profit sharing system affords no way to know the market price, no method of economic calculation or busi ness accounting, no reasonable basis for reaching a business deci sion. And this is true, not only of profit sharing with employees, but also of the consumer cooperative idea of profit sharing. Either way, were the .practice made universal, the market would be unable to provide a firm price structure that could .be used for business accounting and upon which busi ness decisions could be based.

From that predicament, it would be a very short step for some to press the conclusion that the gov ernment should make that deci sion - manage· the business whether or not it could show a profit. The problem is that there is no way to show a profit, or to know the cost, or to find any other basis for a business· judgment, if the market is not allowed to per form its vital function of price determination. Sharing with Government Until now, we have been dis cussing the profitsharing idea as proposed or applied within the so-called private sector - sharing with employees, or consumers, or investors. But as intimated ear lier, these are merely phases of or steps toward government man agementand control of business 1973 PROFIT SHARING 739 compulsory collectivism. Another way to look at it is from the view point of "pr'ofit sha,ring" with gov ernment - and this is the real problem.

The trend is well established. Businesses must pay income taxes graduated to fall most heavily on any company that appears to be operating profitably. "Excess pro fits" are subject to special taxa tion. And graduated personal in come taxes are designed to sop up any profit that otherwise might have leaked out of the business into the pocket of some individual. Meanwhile, various governmental relief and welfare programs op erate to reward those individuals and business ventures that the market had designated as losers or failures because of their ineffi cient and wasteful performance. Beyond all those tax and wel fare interventions with business activities and market pricing is the most serious political disrup tion of all: government designa tion of what traders may use as "legal tender," the manipulation and control of money and credit-in a word, inflation. This is the ulti mate in "profit sharing," the proc ess by which governments claim title to scarce and valuable re sources in defiance of all attempts by the market to channel the own ership and control of scarce re sources into the hands of the most efficient users, the successful in novators and entrepreneurs, the ones who best serve the choices and desires of consumers. By its control of money and credit and its inflationary policies, the Fed eral government effectively closes the market and defeats the market function of price determination.

Inflation disrupts the means of business accounting and economic calculation to the point that con scientious entrepreneurs are led into serious malinvestment and waste of scarce resources. When entrepreneurs are thus condi tioned to rely upon government intervention for their opportuni ties to earn a profit, the market economy is foreclosed and the people doomed to serfdom under socialism. What hope is there to avoid this course toward certain disas ter? It depends on the willingness of individuals to understand that traders know best what they want to use as money, that "legal ten der" laws hamper the market de termination of prices, and that any form of profit sharing which rewards failure rather than suc cessful business practice is license . rather than liberty. Unless con sumers are permitted to decide how much entrepreneurial profit goes to whom, there can be no free and prosperous common wealth. I) ~: (\~ '* I ~.~ ., ~ .~.. Am I ResponsIblefor ; .. .

M \1\ ~~ "WhatOthers Think? ~~ JUDY HAMMERSMARK I REMEMBER a line: in a famous Western movie, where the hero confronts the villain: "I am not responsible for what you think." Somehow, those words made an indelible impression; "I am not responsible for what others think," became ingrained as part of my philosophy. I was convinced that others' misconceptions were none of my business, none of my doing or responsibility. As an American housewife, I cook, clean, tend children, prepare my family's meals. But I am more than a machine. As I go about my work, I think, formulate opinions about everyday and national and world affairs. Often, I think my reasoning is superior to that of men elected to Congress, those who are selected to be leaders. Common sense tells me when they are in error. Should I call atten tion to it? Mrs. Hammersmark is an Oregon housewife and freelance writer. Many of my friends and neigh bors (even members of my fam ily) who are benefiters of free enterprise have little understand ing or appreciation of our system.

Many bitterly condemn free en terprise. "Socialism," they say, "is inevitable, the wave of the future." Is it? Is it actually superior to our way? Why then, I wonder, must we forever bail out the vic tims of socialism, as most recently in Russia and Red China when our country "sold" them millions of bushels of grains. Socialistic countries find it difficult to even feed their own. Because of modern technology (the offspring of free enterprise) I am able to accomplish things a woman in a communist country would never dream of. Her spare moments are in the service of the state, reading only those books ap proved by her government, daring never to voice opinions contrary 1973 AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OTHERS THINK? 741 to those upheld by her "leaders." Freed by my conveniences, my dishwasher, my fully automatic washer and dryer, I am writing this. My spare time is spent in pursuit of my own happiness: reading, writing, marketing and selling the product of my leisure.

This makes me an entrepreneur. I have a vital concern, therefore, in preserving free enterprise, which honors my creativity, my happi ness. It becomes my concern when neighbors (through misunder standing) vote against freedom. And since the majority rules, it becomes a duty to persuade others to act upon the principles of free dom. Self-Defense Is not self-preservation one of man's valid instincts? Have I not an obligation as well as a right to try to persuade friends and fam ily to accept my way of thinking? It is extremely difficult for me, an ordinary housewife, to con vince others, to present my ideas logically and persuasively. "Who does she think she is?" is a common reaction. For example, my father-in-law is a carpenter of the old school. Born and re~red in Norway, he learned his trade from highly skilled craftsmen. His talent is much in demand, and he is fit and capable of continuing work. But at age 65, he became eligible for social security. Now, he is limited in the number of hours he can work, the amount of income he can make, without endangering his government allotment. Conse quently, he spends many idle hours, rej ecting the generous bids of those who would like to buy his services.

Exposing fallacies and social istic error is difficult, especially to members of my own family. Yet, if I would proclaim the merits of free enterprise, I must demon strate to my father-in-law the myth of social security. "Yes, but without social secur ity, millions would starve." Would they? Many Americans recall the days before the passage of the Social Security Act, and it was in deed an era different from today. Families we.re closer knit, and neighbors cared about one an other. Men and women remained prod ucti ve as long as they were able to work. They kept busy and happy, and they saved for theIr retirement. I would guess that more old people now go hungry, with social security, than went hungry then without it. Many old sters have developed the attitude, "Ah, I'll let Uncle Sam take care of me. No sense trying to save." And many youngsters conclude, "To heck with grandpa - he's got plenty to live on. Social security, 742 THE FREEMAN December you know!" Consequently, many of our aged are forgotten, alone, living off inadequate government funds.

Another fallacy came to my at tention in conversation with a teacher friend. "Children," she stated, "are mostly unteachable." Instead of laying blame on manda tory government schooling she of fered this solution: All parents ought to enroll their children in state day care centers by the age of two. Children would then be handled by competent experts, freed from bumbling, often inex pert parents, eliminating all be havior problems, thereby making this teacher's job easier. What's Right With America? My last 4th of July was a spirit less affair with friends and relatives who spent the day de claiming our American ways and building up the opposition. Mis conceptions abounded. "Russia," one noted, "seldom has any crime. Not like we do in the United States." "And they don't have problems with young people, not like we do," another joined in. "You never hear of a Russian teenager smoking pot or taking L.S.D.," someone added. "And they don't have the unwed-mother problem or the venereal disease that we do."

My home town has given up the tradition of a parade and fire works. Not one firecracker inter rupted the humdrum conversation. Everyone seemed to have forgot ten that the 4th of July had a meaning, and that it was Inde pendence Day. My family on this day was a prime example of complacency, fat and satisfied - eager for the lux uries afforded by a free economy, but just as eager to accept the guaranteed life. I remembered the 4th of Julys of my childhood. They were something! Patriotic speeches, watermelon, fireworks, flags everywhere. But not any more. "Would it be too corny," I thought, "to mention that our Founding Fathers believed that people might govern themselves?" They made only one guarantee and that was freedom. And along with that went something called individual responsibility - the right to pick and choose, good or evil, the right to try and to succeed if one should. In those days, you built your own house (there was no government housing), you planted your own crops (or you didn't eat). Welfare? Social secur ity? Those things were not prom ised in the Constitution. Those who refused to work might starve; but those who could not work were cared for by loving friends, the 1973 AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OTHERS THINK? 743 type of charity that came from the heart. It was an age of spir itedness.

I am their "little girl," a grand daughter, a wife, a mother, a washer of dishes, a changer of The Sense of Duty Done diapers. But more important, I am an American. Although my voice is weak, often faltering, I stand up. All eyes are turned to me. And I am shaking. "Now just a minute," I begin ... ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY IDEAS ON LIBERTY I HONOR ANY MAN who in the conscious discharge of his duty dares to stand alone; the world, with ignorant, intolerable judgment, may condemn; the countenances of relatives may be averted, and the hearts of friends grow cold; but the sense of duty done shall be sweeter than the applause of the world, the countenances of relatives or the heart of friends. CHARLES SUMNER Laws Follow Beliefs THE GOVERNMENT of the United States (or of France or Russia or any other nation over a significant period of time) will be and do whatever most of the voters want or will tolerate. No mechan istic scheme or written document can ever for long prevent the effective minority (usually called the majority) of the people from doing whatever it is they want to do.

Thus, whenever the majority (that is, the effective minority) of the American people accept again the general philosophy that inspired the Constitution, we will return to the Constitution; not before. For while laws may reflect what people believe, it is the beliefs, not the laws as such, that generally determine their actions. DEAN RUSSELL HENRY HAZLITT .SQlu~e ~o Von Mises SEPTEMBER 29, 1973, marked the 92nd birthday of Ludwig von Mises, the greatest analytical econ omist of his generation. He has also been one of this century's ablest champions of private enter prise and the free market. Those 92 years have been amaz ingly fruitful. In conferring its Distinguished Fellow award in 1969, the American Economic As sociation credited Mises as the au thor of 19 volumes if one counts only first editions, but of 46 if one counts all revised editions and for eign translations. In his late years other honors have come to Mises. He was made an honorary doctor of laws at Grove City College in 1957, an honorary doctor of laws at New York University in 1963, an hon orary doctor of political science at the University of Freiburg in 1964. In addition, two Festschriften were devoted to him-On Freedom and Free Enterprise in 1956, con taining essays in his honor from Mr. Hazlitt's guest editorial commentary is re printed here by courtesy of Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, Oct. 1, 1973.

744 19 writers, and Toward Liberty, a two-volume work published in 1971 on the occasion of his 90th birthday, with contributions from 66 writers. But such honors, even taken as a whole, seem scarcely proportion ate to his achievements. If ever a man deserved the Nobel Prize in economics, it is Mises. But in the few years of its existence, that award has gone to a handful of so called "mathematical economists" - in large part, one suspects, be cause only a parade· of unintel ligible mathematical equations im presses the laymen responsible for finding laureates as being truly "scientific," and perhaps because granting it· to economists primar ily for their mathematical ability relieves the donors from seeming to take sides in the central polit ical and economic issues of our time - the free market vs. govern ment controls and "planning," cap italism versus socialism, human liberty versus dictatorship.

Ludwig von Mises was born on September 29, 1881,. in Lemburg, then part of the Austro-Hungar1973 SALUTE TO VON MISES 745 ian Empire. He entered the Uni versity of Vienna in 1900, studied under the great Eugen von Bohm Bawerk, and a.cquired his doctor ate in law and economics in 1906. In 1909, he became economic ad viser to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, a post he held till 1934. In 1913, following the publica tion of his Theory of Money and Credit the preceding year, he was appointed professor of economics at the University of Vienna, a prestigious but unpaid post that he also held for 20 years. His fa mous seminar in Vienna attracted and inspired, among others, such brilliant students as F. A. Hayek, Gottfried Haberler and Fritz Machlup. In 1934, foreseeing the likeU hood that Hitler would seize Aus tria, Mises left, advising his stu dents to do the same. He first be came professor of international economic relations at the Gradu 3,te Institute of International Studies in Geneva. In 1940, he came to the United States.

Mises was already the author of more than half a dozen books, in cluding three masterpieces, but only one of these, Soc'ialism: An Ec'Onomic and Sociological Analy s'is, had been translated into Eng lish. So Mises was practically un known here, and, as the fashion able economic ideology then was Keynesianism and its New Deal offspring, he was shrugged off as a rea.ctionary. Gaining an academic appoint ment proved difficult. Turning to books, he wrote Omnipotent Gov ernment, a history and analysis of the collapse of German liberalism and the rise of nationalism and Nazism. It was not unti11945 that he became a Visiting Professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration of New York Uni versity, a post he held until 1969. His body of work is large and impressive. But we can confine ourselves here to considering two of his three masterpieces - The Theory of Money and Credit, which first appeared in German in 1912; Socialism, originally in German in 1922; and Human Ac'tion., which grew out of a first German version appearing in 1940.

Mises' contributions tomone tary theory have been too numer ous to list completely. For one thing, he succeeded in integrating the theory of money with the great body of general economic theory. Before him general economic the ory and the theory of money were kept in separate containers, almost as if they were unrelated. Mises also saw the fallacies in the proposals of the so-called mon etarists, that "the price level" could or should be stabilized by government managers who in creased the quantity of money by 746 THE FREEMAN December a certain percentage every year. He saw that inflation cannot be automatically controlled - that be cause of its changing effects on expectations, an increase in the quantity of money, in its early stages, tends to increase prices less than proportionally; in its later stages, more than propor tionally. Mises also rej ected the simplis tic concept of "the price level." He pointed out that increases in the quantity of money do not raise all . prices proportionately; the new money goes to specific persons or industries, raising their prices and incomes first. The effect of infla tion is always to redistribute wealth and income in ways that distort incentives and production, create obvious injustices, and en kindle social discontent.

Moreover, Mises presented in this book, for the first time, at least the rudiments of a satisfac tory explanation of the business cycle. He showed that boom and bust were by no means inherent in capitalism, as the Marxists in sisted, but that they did tend to be inherent in the monetary and credit practices prevailing up to that tilme (and largely since). The fractional bank-reserve system, and the support furnished by cen tral banks, tend to promote the overexpansion of money and cred it. This raises prices and artificially lowers interest rates, thus giving rise to unsound investment. Finally, for an assortment of rea sons, the inverted pyramid of credit shrinks or collapses and brings on panic or depression. Mises' Soc:ialism is an economic classic written in our time. It is the most devastating analysis of socialism ever penned. It exam ines that philosophy from almost every possible aspect-its doctrine of violence, as well as that of the collective ownership of the means of production; its ideal of equal ity; its proposed solution to the problem of production and distri bution; its probable operation un der both static and dynamic con ditions; its national and interna tional consequences.

This is by far the ablest and most damaging refutation of so cialism since Eugen von Bohm Bawerk published his memorable Karl Marx and the Close of His System in 1898. It is more. Bohm Bawerk confined himself mainly to an examination of Marx's technical economics. Mises scrutinized so cialism in all its ugly aspects. His outstanding contribution was to point out that socialism must fail because it is incapable by its very nature of solving "the problem of economic calculation." A socialist government does not know how to distribute its labor, capital, land and other factors of 1973 SALUTE TO VON MISES 747 production to the best advantage. Since it does not know which com modities are being produced at a social profit and which at a social loss, it does not know how much of each commodity or service to plan for. In short, the greatest difficulty to the realization of socialism, in Mises' view, is intellectual. It is not a mere matter of goodwill, or of willingness to cooperate ener getically without personal reward.

"Even angels, if they were en dowed only with human reason, could not form a socialistic com munity." Capitalism solves this problem of economic calculation through money prices and money costs of both consumers' and pro ducers' goods, which are fixed by competition in the open market. On the basis of this single achievement, the late Oscar Lange, a Marxist economist who later be came a member of the Polish Po litburo, once proposed that future socialists erect a statue to Ludwig von Mises. Said Lange: "It was his powerful challenge that forced the socialists to recognize the im portance of an adequate system of economic accounting to guide the allocation of resources in a social ist economy." Lange was at least brought to recognize the existence of the problem and thought he had solved it. In fact, the only way that socialists can solve it is by adopting the principles of capitalism.

Because it illustrates not only the cogency of his logic, but also the depth of his feeling, the power of his intellectual leadership, and the uncanny foresight with which he judged the course of events more than 40 years ago, I cannot forbear from quoting a passage from the last page of Mises' S0 cialism: "Everyone carries a part of so ciety on his shoulders; .no one· is relieved of his share of responsi bility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards de struction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intel lectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the inter ests of everyone hang on the re sult. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historic struggle, the decisive bat tle into which our epoch has plunged us." As the eminent French econo mist Jacques Rueff once put it: "Those who have heard him have often been astonished at being led by his cogency of reasoning to places whither they, in their all too-human timorousness, had nev er dared to go." , Dr. Mises died October 10, 1973.

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN IN 1976, which is practically upon us, we'll be listening to all those bicentennial orations about the founding of our Glorious Repub lic. The whole business promises to be an orgy of hypocrisy. The' politicians making some of the speeches will be fresh from legis lative halls where the debates concern such things as price con trols, land use acts, the dangers of sticking with a voluntary army, the need for more inflationary spending, the iniquity of capital gains even when reckoned in infla tionary dollars, the necessity of taking money from the states be fore giving it back as revenue sharing, and the granting of power to quite unscientific men to tell us how many units of Vitamin A and 748 Vitamin D we may swallow at breakfast. There is a distinct possibility that the situation will call for a wake more than for a celebration. But there are some people around who still know what our forebears fought for in 1776, and what they intended when they wrote the Con stitution and the Bill of Rights.

One of these people is Clarence B. Carson, whose The Rebirth of L'iberty: the Founding of the American Republic 1760-1800 (Ar lington House, $8.95) reminds us in quiet accents that it was the idea of limited government, not abstract democracy, that moved our ancestors to take the field against King George III and to write a basic document designed 1973 THE REBIRTH OF LIBERTY 749 to keep unchecked majority rule from overriding inalienable in dividual rights. Dr. Carson's book, which will be familiar to readers who have fol lowed some of its separate sections in The Freeman, differs somewhat from such well-known works as John Fiske's The Critical Period of American History and Clinton Rossiter's Seedtime of the Repub lie. Where Fiske was mainly con cerned with how the idea of a fed eral republic took hold of the minds of men during the "an archy" of the Articles of Confed eration years, and where Rossiter sought to explain the development of certain pre-Revolutionary War thought-processes that tried to combine pragmatism with ideal ism, morality, individualism and conservatism (they don't always go together) , Carson takes a wider cut.

An Epic Span He sees the period extending from 1760 to 1800 as an epic span. Before 1760 the separate Ameri can colonies had little to do with each other. Internal travel was dif ficult save by water, and the rivers, other than the Delaware, did not connect one important center with another. The traditions were different: some colonies were proprietary, some had charters. Massachusetts leaned toward theocratic government, Virginia was Church of England, the Pennsylvanians, many of whom were Quakers who followed the Inner Light, were hospitable to various sects, Mary land was a haven for Catholics. New York, of course, was Dutch, and it was the Swedes who brought the log cabin to Delaware. The trade routes ran across the Atlantic, not from colony to colony, and the trade itself was shaped to suit the ends of British mercan tile philosophy. Dr. Carson makes the point that it was not mercan tilism itself, hateful though it was, that roused the Americans; it was the idea of taxing them to support Crown monopolies and favored industries that were in trouble be cause mercantilism resulted in wars that had devastating com mercial results. It was not until the British Parliament abandoned its old precedent and began to tax the colonists without consulting them that America started on the road to rebellion.

Dr. Carson is careful to describe the American Revolution as some thing quite different from the type of overturn that came in with the storming of the Bastille in Paris. Most Americans had always thought of themselves as English men, and therefore entitled to all the immemorial rights stemming from Magna Carta and the devel opment of the English common law. They read Coke and Black750 THE FREEMAN December stone and philosopher John Locke and considered themselves co equals with all those Englishmen who had stayed at home. They had had their own experience of local government. Their allegiance was to the British King, not to the House of Commons, which, after all, was merely the local govern ment of a distant island. When King George III let them down by permitting his Parlia ment to impose taxes on them without representation, it was a sign that the British Crown had itself become revolutionary. So, as Peter Drucker observed some twenty-five years ago, 1776 sig nalled, not revolution, but a coun terrevolution seeking a return to a conservative (or classically lib eral) tradition. It was only after King George III and his ministers turned the "lobsterbacks" on the good people of Boston that Ameri can patriots began thinking of complete independence. Even then the idea of cutting the old ties came hard.

Unexpected Help The colonists did not win their war unaided. They tried to finance it in the worst possible way, by printing scads of paper currency that gave rise to the saying "it's not worth a Continental." The ter rain itself saved General Wash ington's ragged musketeers: British armies couldn't round up the necessary transport to meet the Americans in the farming back country. The Americans won by hanging on until the French en tered the war and sent a fleet to help bottle up Lord Cornwallis's troops in Yorktown. Britain had to sue for peace in order to free herself to confront European reali ties: it was becoming too costly to take on France and Spain as well as the rebellious colonists. Then the strangest thing hap pened: after fighting a war that could have been ended several years earlier if the horrifying in flation hadn't prevented General Washington from mobilizing the resources of the continent, the Americans proceeded to win a big victory at the peace table. Neither France 'nor Spain wished to see the British keep the territory that stretched from the Alleghenies to the Mississippi. Nor did the Brit ish wish to concede the so-called Northwest Territory to any con tinental European power. So, by adroit maneuvering, the American plenipotentiaries, Ben Franklin, John Jay and John Adams, man aged to keep what is now our Mid dle West (along with Mississippi, Tennessee and western Kentucky) for the young nation.

Discounting what happened after the Spanish-American War, and the land-grabbing that gave 1973 THE REBIRTH OF LIBERTY 751 us California, New Mexico and Arizona, the performance of Franklin, Jay and Adams is just about the only instance of success ful postwar statesmanship in our history. If we had only had Frank lin and his mates at Versailles and Yalta, the Twentieth Century would surely have been different. Limited Government After the peace of 1783 came the great weakness. The Founders remedied that by making an assi duous study of history and arriv ing at the conclusion that limited government, not raw majority rule, was needed to put free men to work establishing businesses, hacking farms out of the wilder ness, sending traders to India and the China Sea, and putting steam boats on the Hudson and the Dela ware. The American Dream was made possible because a few good and capable men had clung to the idea of liberty for the individual through a long period of trial.

Two centuries later we seem ready to throw it all away. Instead of limited government, we have centralized all sorts of power in Washington, D.C. Maybe Dr. Car son's book will help our modern Jamie Madisons and John Adamses stem the tide by abolishing "con trols" and stopping inflationary government spending by 1976. But don't bet on it. What we need is to get Dr. Carson's thinking into our schools, and with "public educa tion" being financed from Wash ington how are we to bring any such thing about? ~ A THEORY OF JUSTICE by John Rawls (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971) 607 pp., $15.00. Reviewed by : John Hospers IT IS NOT OFTEN that a book of ab stract philosophy is reviewed at length by virtually every philo sophical journal in the English speaking world, not to mention journals in sociology and polit ical science as well as the popular press. A Theory of Justice by Pro fessor John Rawls, chairman of Harvard's Philosophy Department, has received more pages of re views, probably, than any book of philosophy since Wittgenstein's 752 THE FREEMAN December Philosophical Investigations in 1952. Though it is 600 pages long and far from a model of style or clari ty, it has been heaped with praises from fellow philosophers and social scientists, and bids fair to represent "the wave of the fu ture" in the area of political phi losophy. The criticisms that have been made of it have been largely such as only fellow-philosophers can understand; for example, points in logic having to do with his mode of reasoning. But the premises from which he reasons have been much less questioned, and the consequences of Rawls' ideal of the just society if it were put into practice have been hardly considered at all. In these remarks I wish to emphasize these aspects of Rawls' theory.

What, according to Rawls, are the features of a just society? How will it be set up, and what factors will determine the distribution of the various goods that people de sire? Rawls' answer is that right choices on all these issues are the choices a person would make if he were impartial; a~d the test of im partiality is what he would choose if he were shielded behind "the veil of ignorance" of his future situation in that society. The Veil of Ignorance Imagine a group of people new ly landed on an island and about to frame a constitution and other rules regulating their behavior in relation to one another. Those who are engineers, let us say, would want to have high pay for engi neers, and farmers would agitate for legislation to aid farmers; peo ple of talent and imagination would wish a society that reward ed the talented and the imagina tive, while those without talent would want to make sure that they could live off welfare checks paid for by people more talented than themselves. But now suppose, Rawls suggests, that no one knows what his role will be in the new society; he doesn't know whether he will be a farmer, a shopkeeper, or a scientist; he doesn't know whether he will be an employer or an employee, and so on; so he won't vote for conditions which favor one group against another, for fear that he would turn out to belong to one of the unfavored groups.

"But suppose he is a creative person, surely he'll favor the cre ative people more than the rest." To circumvent such objections, Rawls makes his hypothetical in dividuals ignorant, not only of their particular role in society, but of their temperament, their age, their sex, even of the era in history in which they will live (else they might favor one era against another). If you don't 1973 OTHER BOOKS 753 know whether you will be male or female, you will not favor discrim ination against women on the one hand or special favors for women on the other. If you don't know whether you will be black or white, you will not favor any kind of racism, lest you turn out to be among the persecuted group. Mak ing YOUl,' choices from behind the veil of ignorance, before you know -any of the relevant facts about your own future situation, will ensure that you will not vote for favoritism to, nor discrimina tion against, any of these various groups. The "veil of ignorance" is a device intended to ensure impar tiality of judgment in planning a political-social order.

A Mild Form of Socialism Assuming everyone to be im partial along the lines just de scribed, what kind of a society would each citizen, possessed of rationality and a knowledge of all the alternatives, but ignorant of all the particular facts about him self and his situation, choose as the just society? Roughly speak ing, Rawls' just society turns out to conform to the ideals of a mod erately left-leaning member of the Democratic Party. Thus, there are certain "primary social goods" that every human being should have and no one should be deprived of: "rights and liberties, opportunities and pow ers, income and wealth" (p. 92). That these various factors could work heavily against one another is a problem not squarely faced in the book; for example, if everyone is to receive a basic income from the state, aren't the liberties and opportunities of those who have to support them severely curtailed?

Indeed, it would seem that the "rights and liberties" are to be very restricted indeed, so much so that some of them, which many Americans· believe to be of para mount importance in the life of our republic, will be virtually eroded away. For example, Rawls favors government ownership of some (but not all) of the means of production: the free market, he believes, is not just, and requires intervention by the state to cor rect it. Nor is he opposed to heavy taxation to support the indigent, and a large government bureauc racy over whose decisions one has no control. But what does this do to the freedom to make one's own choic es (and undergo the consequences thereof), and the right to retain the fruits of one's labor? If the state can expropriate the fruits of one's labor, for example, to the ex tent of 80 per cent tax on income, and use it for its own purposes which may be opposed to the pur poses of those who have earned 754 THE FREEMAN December the money, one is in bondage· to the state as truly, though not .quite as· totally, as the ancient slave was to his master. A state that preserves your life but makes you work for it nine months out of every twelve is one that has de prived you of the rights to de termine by your own choices the greater part of the course of your life. Rawls is noba complete egali tarian, but he sets alarmingly few limi ts to the expropria tive power of the state - with consequences for human liberty that lead us straight into 1984.

Welfarism Rawls would have "the least ad vantaged" in a society receive a basic stipend from the state. Though it is barely mentioned, it is clear from whence this money is to come: the unproductive are to be supported at the expense of the productive, which inevitably means that there will be more and more unproductive, increasing in proportion to the degree that par asitism is made more attractive than productivity. In other words, we have Peter being robbed to pay Paul, via the political author ity - and again the disturbing question arises as to what this does to the rights of the workers and producers. In any case, the obvious ques tion one wants to raise in this connection, in order to make a moral assessment of the situation, and which Rawls nowhere raises, is: Why are they unproductive, that is, in need· of support by others? Here is a man who is sick and cannot work; here is a man who refuses to work although suit able jobs are available. They are both economically "disadvan taged," one through no fault of his own and the other because of his own conscious choice. Are they both to be treated alike, that is, supported by the state via taxa tion? Presumably Rawls' answer is yes, since they both lack in come, though for different reasons.

On this point the political theor ists of the twentieth century have not taken Herbert Spencer's ad vice to heart, assuming as they do ... that Government should step in whenever anything is not going right. It takes for granted, first that all suffering ought to be prevented, which is not true; much of the suf fering is curative, and prevention of it is prevention of a remedy. In the second place, it takes for granted that every evil can be re moved; the truth being that, with the existing defects of human nature, many evils can only be thrust out of one place or form into another place or form - often being increased by the change. The exclamation also implies the unhestitating belief ... that evils of 1973 OTHER BOOKS 755 all kinds should be dealt with by the State. There does not occur the in quiry whether there are at work other agencies capable of dealing with evils, and whether the evils in ques tion may not be among those which are best dealt with by other agen cies. And obviously, the more numer ous governmental interventions be come, the more confirmed does this habit of thought grow, and the more loud and perpetual the demands for intervention. (The Man versus the State, 1884; reprinted Caxton Printers, 1940, pp. 34-35.) If one is to discuss justice, one should surely take into considera tion such observations and distinc tions as Spencer makes. But Rawls, like most writers on politi cal philosophy in our own centp.ry, fails to do so.

Inequalities Justified Rawls is not an egalitarian; he holds that inequalities in income are justified as long as they in crease (or do not decrease) the economic benefits to "the least advantaged" (disadvantaged for whatever reason). Suppose that the distribution of goods in a society (which for the sake of simplicity we shall take to consist of five persons only) is 6-6-4-4-4. Now an invention comes along which will enormously increase the standard of Iiving, so that the re sulting distribution becomes 50 50-40-40-3. Would it be justified? No, presumably the invention would have to be suppressed in spite of the great rise in the standard of living of almost every one, because one person in the society is slightly worse off be cause of it. For example, the automobile is invented, thousands of people are employed in the new industry, the public is happy to have rapid and inexpensi ve transportation via Model T Fords, and everyone is benefited except the manufacturer of buggy-whips, who once did a land-office business but is now out of work because of the new inven tion. Perhaps Rawls would say that the innovation is all right provided that the former buggy whip-maker is supported on public relief. But even very handsome relief payments are not likely to equal the amount of money he was formerly making in manufactur ing and selling buggy-whips. So he is genuinely a loser by the new technology. But even if his income is now 3 instead of his former 4 or 6, it would seem that Rawls would prohibit the new techno logical advance on the ground that at least one person, the buggy whip-maker, was worse off than before the innovation occurred. I submit that if this is really his requirement, no major innovation would ever have occurred, from the dawn of history to the present, 756 THE FREEMAN December no matter how great its benefit to mankind, since there is always someone somewhere who is worse off because of it.

The Problem of Production In general, Rawls - along with most other political philosophers of the twentieth century (e.g. Professor Nicholas Rescher in his two recent books, Distr,ibutive Justice and Welfare) -says a great deal about the distribution of goods and very little about how these goods are to get produced. The more you penalize productive people for their productivity, the less motivated they will be to pro duce, and the lower the standard of living is likely to become; why produce if one will only be taxed to death for conferring productive benefits upon the rest of society? This tendency to seize the goods of some in order to provide un earned goods for others (usually in order to buy votes), a tendency which grows with each election year, until (as its final outcome) everyone is in a state of splendidly equalized destitution, has been a main source of the decay of many past civilizations, and as far as I can see it would kill Rawls' civili zation too ; at least he takes no great precaution against it. [Cf., Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (New York: Putnam, 1943), the chapter entitled "The Humanitarian with the Guillo tine"; F. A. Hayek, The Constitu tion of Liberty (University of Chicago Press, 1960), esp. Chap ters 10-13 ; John Hospers, Liber tarianism (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing Co., 1971), esp. Chap ters 6 and 7; Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York, Macmillan, 1973), Chapter 8.] Schemes of Redistribution The complex schemes of distri bution one finds in Rawls, Rescher, and others would be appropriate in only one context - that of a man who has earned his own money and is trying to decide how he shall apportion it, for example, in his will: shall he give it to all his children equally, or more to this one because he is more de serving and less to that one be cause he is a spendthrift, and more perhaps to this son who al though not more deserving is pa ralyzed and can't fend for him self? Such a man might profit from reading Rawls and Rescher on how he could most justly dis pense his bounty to others. But in the usual Rescherian context, that of the bureaucrat employed by the state, who sits in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare deciding how he shall spend money which has been taken (via the 1973 OTHER BOOKS 757 coercive machinery of the state) from some, in order to be allotted to others in accordance with his whims or the latest directive from his superiors, the thing becomes an Orwellian nightmare. The only advice to such a person would be: "Stop the robbery - the money isn't yours to spend in the first place. Give it back to the people from whom it has been stolen!"

Justice Between Generations According to Rawls, there should also be "justice between generations" (pp. 293-98) ; no one generation should be preferred to ·any other. For example, the people in one generation should not use up all the sources of energy if this means that subsequent genera tions will have to do with less. Admittedly this is very difficult to determine: we may save on some resource now, only to find that the sacrifice was useless because in the next generation some new source of energy is found which was not even thought of now. Rawls' "equality between generations" thesis prompts me to make a suggestion consequent upon the above: if, in the present generation, you take away from class A and give it to class B, the incentive of class A will be reduced, their morale will deteriorate and the productivity of class A will be hampered; and there will be noth ing left to A to give to the mem bers of class B - with the result that "splendidly equalized desti tution" will already have been achieved by the next generation!

Now, since justice, Rawls insists, is neutral as between generations, what about that next generation? Is it justly deprived and rendered poverty-stricken because of the lack of productivity bequeathed it by the present generation? It would seem that the features of Rawls' semi-statist political sys tem, which is supposed to protect the next generation against the depredations of the present one, are more likely to ensure instead the deterioration of living stand ards via the gradual Sovietiza tion of society by the time the next generation arrives. Affluence Needed The state-supported schemes of distribution of wealth, designed to make Rawls' society approach (though not reach) a state of com plete economic equality are, as Rawls himself admits, possible only in a fairly affluent society. In a society in which' no one can exist much above starvation level, even by grubbing for a living fif teen hours a day (as among some African tribes), no such system of publicly-sustained beneficence 758 THE FREEMAN December would be possible, since such ben eficence can come only from a sur plus of production, and when there is no surplus there is nothing to be beneficent with. Indeed, it seems clear to more than one ob server of history that civiliza tion has risen to its present level of affluence only by ignoring many of Rawls' requirements for a just society.

But what is one to say of a plan for society that may work (tem porarily - until its built-in sops to egalitarianism kill it), once one has climbed up to the roof, so to speak, but cannot be used as a ladder for getting up to the roof, for the excellent reason that then one would never get there? The society Rawls envisions, so lib erally sprinkled with the seeds of totalitarianism, so careless of the right to the fruits of one's labor that these fruits would be seized from him and left to the wasteful distribution schemes of power hungry bureaucrats, is not one that a person, who wants to en sure his own long-term survival as a human being enjoying the continued benefits of civilization, would ever choose "from behind the veil of ignorance." Professor Hospers of the University of Southern California School of Philosophy, is the author of Libertarianism: a Political Philosophy for Tomorrow, reviewed in the March 1972 FREE MAN.

~ THE STRIKE-THREAT SyS TEM: THE ECONOMIC CONSE QUENCES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING by W. H. Hutt (New Rochelle, N. Y.: Arlington House, 1973, 290 pp.) $11.95 Reviewed by: Robert G. Anderson ANOTHER economic fallacy has been effectively refuted by the scholarly analysis of W. H. Hutt in his most recent book. The false belief that unions exercising the threat of strikes upon employers improve the welfare of labor is analyzed thoroughly and the con clusion is obvious: the effect of wage rates determined under labor union pressure is to dis tort society's production structure while it causes no redistribution wha~ soever in favor of the poorer classes as such .... the system has all along been reducing the flow of real wages and the average of real wage rates. (pp.6-7) While the book primarily con cerns itself with the economic con sequences of the strike-threat in our labor market, it presents an equally devastating argument for the superiority of the free market in the determination of the wage rates of labor.

The book shows: t~at what we call "the market" pro VIdes the only conceivable means of 1973 OTHER BOOKS 759 achieving either orderliness and the elimination of coercive action in the process of human cooperation, or re sults which are regarded intuitively as "just" by the overwhelming con sensus among free peoples. (p. 13) At first this may all seem to be simply a restatement of free mar ket arguments. However, Hutt's thesis does not concede the "right to strike," a matter on which most free market proponents are willing to yield. Hutt argues: To forbid strikes and boycotts would not be to restrain any basic human right. Every person would remain free to refuse to sell his assets, his products, and his services, when the refusal is not a breach of contract. That is, a person would retain his un restrained right to prefer (a) to be employed by another, (b) to work on his own account, or (c) to enjoy lei sure instead of pecuniary remunera tion. But this right cannot be ap pealed to as justification for the con certed or the simultaneous refusal of a group of persons to continue to work in an industry, in a firm, or in a key position in an industry or firm.

(p. 53) The Hutt argument against the mass withdrawal of all workers is convincing. However, while he clearly demonstrates that such ac tion can result only in a loss of welfare to the members of society, the dilemma arises in matters of implementation. Any "anti-strike" laws would be contrary to the ten ets of the free market philosophy unless a clear breach of contract can be demonstrated. In refuting John Stuart Mill's argument about the futility of striking, Hutt argues that strikes often do pay. But they "pay," I would argue, because laws protect ing property are not enforced. The growth of the strike-threat system has come about because laws favoring unions have been implemented, and laws protecting persons and property have not been enforced. The strike-threat is clearly the product of a collectivist mental ity, and in all probability would be nonexistent in an ideal free society. However, if individuals wish to pursue an action detri mental to their welfare (the con certed or the simultaneous refusal of a group of persons to continue to work in an industry), their freedom in pursuing such folly must be defended. Professor Hutt argues otherwise, and after a thorough reading of The Strike Threat System, the reader should draw his own conclusions.

The analyses of labor's past and labor's share are extensively dealt with by Hutt. He lays to rest the popular notion that unions were once beneficial, showing that 760 THE FREEMAN December unions have always inflicted inj us tices and disrupted production. His chapters on the impact of unions on the total labor market are in valuable to the critic of union his tory. One thing for certain, this book most certainly will become a classic for students of the free market philosophy examining the labor market. At long last a satisfactory volume exists for teaching the free market theory of labor eco nomics. We all owe Professor Hutt our gratitude for filling this void in economic literature. , HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS $2.50 each ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 THE FREEMAN - Volume 23, January-December1973 Prepared by BETTINA BIEN GREAVES of the Foundation staff NOTE: In page references, the number preceding the colon designates the month, those follow ing refer to pages. All articles have at least three entries-author, subject, and title-except in a few cases when title clearly indicates subject matter. Books reviewed are listed on page 768.

A ACADEMIC freedom Need for tolerance and humility, The (Weast) 7:411-420 ADVERTISING COInpetition: cla.ssroom theory vs. business reality (Peterson) 9: 550-554 Does Madison Avenue rule our lives? (Mahoney) 4:230-232 ALEY, Howard D. Dear America: an open letter from a young American. 11: 672-673 AM I responsible for what others think? (Hammersmark) 12: 740-743 AMERICAN dream, The (Nestler) 10 :593-597 AMERICAN Republic, founding of. See Carson AMERICAN Revolution unique (Drosdik) 7:387-388 ANARCHY, violence/chaos Free-for-all society, The (North) 12:731-733 Rx for political peace (Foley) 12:722-730 AN ATOMY of consumerism, The (Brunk) 3: 78-84 ANDERSON, Robert G. Energy crisis, The. 8: 460-467 See also Book reviews (Hutt) APPEAL to the intellect (Read) 10:609-611 AUTOMOBILES and individual responsibility No-fault insurance means no moral responsibility (Foley) 8: 486-506 Purpose of traffic laws, The (Shumiatcher) 8:451-459 B BASTIAT, Frederic Something else. 5: 309-314 BATTEN, C. R.

Natural controls, The. 3: 140-142 BEARCE, Robert G. Freedom/responsibility-the quest for individual dignity. 11: 685-690 BEFORE we burn it down! (Wells) 1:25-30 BRADFORD, Ralph Freedom ... what is that? 3: 131-139 BREESE, Edward Y. Hobson's choice. 9: 533-536 BRETTON Woods: 1944-1971 (Stevens) 5: 296-306 BRODIN, Eric Is Red China an economic paper tiger? 3: 143-146 BROWNFELD, Allan C. Political corruption: one result of all-powerful government and centralized power. 11; 643-647 See also Book reviews (Devine; Huntford; Methvin; Schwartz) BRUNK, Max E. Anatomy of consumerism, The. 2: 78-84 BURKE, Edmund - ideas of Edmund Burke on inflation and despotism (North) 2: 117-124 Loving one's country (Gow) 3: 155-156 C CAN we keep free enterprise? (Hazlitt) 6:339-348 CANFIELD, Joseph M. See Book reviews (Stevens) CAPITALISM. and morality (Coleson) 10 :625-633 CARSON, Clarence B. Founding of the American Republic, The (18) Bill of Rights, The. 1:31-44 (19) Establishing the government.

2:85-98 (20) Steering a course for the nation. 3: 165-182 (21) Beacon of liberty, The. 4:195-206 CHAFF about wheat (Rickenbacker) 2: 114-116 CHALLENGES of the communications explosion (Lesly) 10: 598-608 CHAMBERLAIN , John. See Book reviews CHARITY, private/voluntary Giving and receiving with respect (Wortham) 7: 422-428 Welfare as a right (Foley) 11: 663-671 CHILD/children, welfare of Family, The (Rushdoony) 7:429-432 Let education go commercial ( Johnson) 11: 655-662 CHIN A, Red, an economic paper tiger? (Brodin) 3:143-146 CIVILIZA TIONS, ancient and modern Freedom ... what is that? (Bradford) 3:131-139 Two experiences (Prochnow) 12: 707-708 Was Plato a collectivist? (Roberts) 9: 557-563 761 762 THE FREEMAN December CLOSING the generation gap (Watts) 7:433-439 COLESON, Edward Capitalism and morality. 10:625-633 Reformation and eCOI;'omic development today, The. 6:368-376 COLLEGE/university education Competition: classroom theory vs. business reality (Peterson) 9: 550-564 Giving and receiving with respect (Wortham) 7:422-428 Need for tolerance and humility, The (Weast) 7:411-420 Northwood idea, The (Watts) 3: 157-164 COL V ARD, Ray L.

Valueless education. 1: 15-24 COMMUNICATIONS explosion, challenges of (Lesly) 10:598-608 COMMUNISM Before we burn it down! (Wells) 1:25-30 Industrialism: friend or foe? (Watts) 4:211-217 Is Red China an economic paper tiger? (Brodin) 3:143-146 Portrait of an evil man (Kuehnelt-Leddihn) 9 :525-532 See also Marx; Socialism COMPETITION: classroom theory vs. business reality (Peterson) 9:550-554 COMPETITION - what and when (Paton) 6:353-365 COMPLICA TIONS (Summers) 8: 483-485 CONFESSION of error, The (Read) 8:468-470 CONFUCIUS - quoted Premises of freedom, The (Dozer) 1:3-10 CONSUMER sovereignty, consumerism Anatomy of consumerism, The (Brunk) 2: 78-84 Competition: classroom theory vs. business reality (Peterson) 9: 550-554 Competition - what and when (Paton) 6: 353-365 Does Madison Avenue rule our lives? (Mahoney) 4: 230-232 Profitsharing (Poirot) 12: 734-739 CONTROLLING pollution (Sennholz) 2:67-77 COONEY, Ronald F.

Evolution and liberty. 5:290-295 Herbert Spencer: apostle of freedom. 1 :54-60 CRY for freedom is the scream of nature, The. (O'Connell) 11: 691-698 D DEAR America: an open letter from a young American (Aley) 11: 672-673 DEMERS, R. W. Passing parade, The. 5: 288-289 Weary distance, A. 9:555-556 DEMOCRACY /majoritarianism Family, The (Rushdoony) 7:429-432 Mr. Mencken on liberty (Douglas) 12:709-718 DIETZE, Gottfried., See Book reviews (Leibholz-Bonhoeffer) DOES Madison Avenue rule our lives? (Mahoney) 4:230-232 DONWAY, Roger Limits of credulity, The. 9:537-546 DOUGLAS, George H. Mr. Mencken on liberty. 12: 709-718 DOWN with national priorities (Mode) 9:523:524 DOZER, Donald M. Premises of freedom, The. 1: 3-10 DROSDIK, Vincent A. III American Revolution unique. 7: 387-388 DRUG legislation - mainline to disaster (Patton) 1: 45-53 E ECONOMIC depression, boom/bust cycle Making of an international monetary crisis, The (Stevens) 4: 233-251 ECONOMIC production/development Capitalism and morality (Coleson) 10: 625-633 Industrialism: friend or foe? (Watts) 4:211-217 Reformation and economic development today, The (Coleson) 6:368-376 ECONOMICS and the press (Summers) 9 :564-565 EDUCATION, libertarian Can we keep free enterprise? (Hazlitt) 6: 339-348 Myth of the perfect solution, The (Foley) 2:105-114 Right congregation, wrong sermon (J. C. Sparks) 4:218-221 EDUCA TION /schooling, government vs.

private Closing the generation gap (Watts) 7: 433-439 Family, The (Rushdoony) 7:429-432 Let education go commercial (Johnson) 11 :655-662 Valueless education (Colvard) 1: 15-24 See also College/university ENERGY crisis, The (Anderson) 8: 460-467 ENERGY in the U. S. Natural controls, The (Batten) 3:140-142 Who profits from East-West trade? (Guccione) 10:612-620 1973 INDEX 763 ENTREPRENEUR, role of Complications (Summers) 8: 483-485 Profitsharing (Poirot) 12: 734-739 ENVY, consequences of Can we keep free enterprise? (Hazlitt) 6: 339-348 Imitation (Rushdoony) 9:566-572 ERROR, confession of, The (Read) 8:468-470 EUROPEAN communities and the free economy, The (Powell) 5:259-268 EVOLUTION and liberty (Cooney) 5: 290-295 F FAMILY, The (Rushdoony) 7:429-432 FOLEY, Ridgway K., Jr. Myth of the perfect solution, The. 2: 105-114 No-fault insurance means no moral responsibility, 8: 486-506 Rationale for liberty, A. 4: 222-229 Rx for political peace: a quiet internal revolution. 12: 722-730 Welfare as a right. 11 :663-671 FOUNDING of the American Republic, The.

See Carson FREE enterprise: a definition (Zarbin) 6:334-338 FREE enterprise, free market Can we keep free enterprise? (Hazlitt) 6 :339-348 Capitalism and morality (Coleson) 10: 625-633 Industrialism: friend or foe? (Watts) 4:211-217 Market, The - or the welfare state (Poirot) 10:621-624 Northwood idea, The (Watts) 3: 157-164 Passing parade, The (Demers) 5: 288-289 Reformation and economic development today, The (Coleson) 6: 368-376 Socialized error ( Poirot) 7: 407-410 FREE-for-all society, The (North) 12: 731-733 FREEDOM Industrialism: friend or foe? (Watts) 4: 211-217 Mr. Mencken on liberty (Douglas) 12:709-718 Premises of freedom, The (Dozer) 1: 3-10 Rationale for liberty, A (Foley) 4:222-229 See also Liberalism/liberty FREEDOM is an uninsurable risk (Poirot) 5:269-274 FREEDOM/responsibility - the quest for individual dignity (Bearce) 11: 685-690 FREEDOM .. , what is that? (Bradford) 3: 131-139 FREEDOM of press/speech/thought Cry of freedom is the scream of nature, The (O'Connell) 11:691-698 Economics and the press (Summers) 9: 564-565 Free enterprise: a definition (Zarbin) 6 :334-338 Right to be wrong, The - and the obligation to be right (LaDow) 11: 680-684 FRIEDMAN, Milton - ideas of No shortage of gold (Sennholz) 9 :515-522 G GENERATION gap, closing the (Watts) 7:433-439 GIVING and receiving with respect (Wortham) 7:422-428 GOLD, gold standard. See Money GOVERNMENT intervention/regulation/ Control Anatomy of consumerism (Brunk) 2:78-84 Can we keep free enterprise? (Hazlitt) 6: 339-348 Complications (Summers) 8: 483-485 Controlling pollution (Sennholz) 2: 67-77 Energy crisis, The (Anderson) 8: 460-467 European communities and the free economy, The (Powell) 5:259-268 Free enterprise: a definition (Zarbin) 6:334-338 Political corruption (Brownfeld) 11: 643-647 Socialized error (Poirot) 7: 407-41 0 Weather forecast for 19841 (Santangini) 7:421 GOVERNMENT, role of Herbert Spencer: apostle of freedom ( Cooney) 1: 54-60 Myth of the perfect solution, The (Foley) 2: 105-114 Rx for political peace: a quiet internal revolution (Foley) 12: 722-730 Was Plato a collectivist? (Roberts) 9: 557-563 See also Carson GOW, Haven Bradford Loving one's country. '3: 155-156 See also Book reviews (Ellul; Lukacs) GREAVES, Bettina Bien. See Book reviews (Hazlitt) GRESHAM, Perry E.

Liberty and public opinion. 6: 323-333 GUCCIONE, Eugene Who profits from East-West trade? 10: 612-620 H HAMMERSMARK, Judy Am I responsible for what others think? 12:740-743 764 THE FREEMAN December HAZLITT,Henry Can we keep free enterprise? 6: 339-348 Pros and cons of socialism, The. 3: 148-154 Salute to von Mises. 12:744-747 See also Book reviews (Boulware; Harrington; Mises; Rothbard) HEALTH care, human rights and government intervention (Kuskey) 11: 648-654 HERBERT, Auberon - ideas of Health care, human rights and government intervention (Kuskey) 11:648-654 HERCULEAN task, A (Mahaffy) 1:11-14 HISTORY, historiography, revisionism Limits of credulity, The (Donway) 9:537-546 HOBSON'S choice (Breese) 9:533-536 HOOD, Robert E. Seeds of oppression. 5: 307-308 HOSPERS, John. See Book reviews (Rawls) HOW NOT to advocate a gold standard (Stevens) 8: 471-482 HOW to stop inflation (Read) 11:674-679 IDEAS/ideologies and public OpInIOn Challenges of the communications explosion (Lesly) 10: 598-608 Freedom/responsibility-the quest for individual dignity (Bearce) 11: 685-690 Imitation (Rushdoony) 9:566-572 Liberty and public opinion (Gresham) 6: 323-333 Need for tolerance and humility, The (Weast) 7:411-420 Our disordered lives (Opitz) 7: 399-406 Pilot errors (Read) 4: 207-21 0 Right to be wrong, The - and the obligation to be right (LaDow) 11: 680-684 Sheltering ideologies (Read) 2: 99-104 IF I were king (Read) 9: 547-549 "I'M for the achiever" (Upton) 3: 147 IMITATION (Rushdoony) 9:566-572 INDIVIDU AL freedom Cry for freedom is the scream of nature, The (O'Connell) 11: 691-698 Down with national priorities (Mode) 9: 523-524 Freedom/responsibility - the quest for individual dignity (Bearce) 11: 685-690 Hobson's choice (Breese) 9:533-536 Inequality enshrined (Read) 7: 389-394 Premises of freedom, The (Dozer) 1: 3-10 Real American Revolution, The (Roche) 7 :395-398 Salute to von Mises (Hazlitt) 12:744-747 See also Freedom; Responsibility; Self -relian ce INDIVIDUAL, rights of Health care, human rights and government intervention (Kuskey) 11: 648-654 Right to be wrong, The - and the obligation to be right (LaDow) 11:680-684 Rx for political peace: a quiet internal revolution (Foley) 12: 722-730 Welfare as a right (Foley) 11: 663-671 INDUSTRIALISM: friend or foe? (Watts) 4:211-217 INEQUALITY enshrined (Read) 7:389-394 INSURANCE, principles of Freedom is an uninsurable risk (Poirot) 5: 269-274 No-fault insurance means no moral responsibility (Foley) 8: 486-506 INTELLECT, appeal to (Read) 10:609-611 IS escape from the poverty trap possible?

(B. M. Sparks) 10:579-592 IS Red China an economic paper tiger? (Brodin) 3:143-146 J JOHNSON, Thomas L. Let education go commercial. 11: 655-662 K KEYNES - ideas of Confession of error, The (Read) 8:468-470 No shortage of gold (Sennholz) 9:515-522 KUEHNELT-LEDDIHN, Erik von Portrait of an evil man. 9: 525-532 KUSKEY, Garvan F. Health care, human rights and government intervention. 11: 648-654 L LaDOW, Charles R. Right to be wrong, The - and the obligation to be right. 11: 680-684 LAND, government ownership and zoning Controlling pollution (Sennholz) 2: 67-77 LESLY, Philip Challenges of the communications explosion. 10: 598-608 LET education go commercial (Johnson) 11: 655-662 LIBERALISM/liberty Herbert Spencer: apostle of freedom ( Cooney) 1: 54-60 "Permissiveness" or liberty? (Wilson) 6: 349-352 Stubborn facts and hard heads (Opitz) 5:275-287 See also Freedom LIBERTY and public opinion (Gresham) 6: 323-333 LIMITS of credulity, The (Donway) 9: 537-546 LOVING one's country (Gow) 3: 155-156 1973 INDEX 765 M MAHAFFY, Francis E.

Herculean task, A. 1: 11-14 MAHONEY, Dennis H. Does Madison Avenue rule our lives? 4 :230-232 MAKING of an international monetary crisis, The (Stevens) 4: 233-251 MARKET, The - or the welfare state (Poirot) 10: 621-624 MARX, Karl-ideas of Free-for-all society, The (North) 12:731-733 Limits of credulity, The (Donway) 9 :537-546 Portrait of an evil man (Kuehnelt-Leddihn) 9: 525-532 Pros and cons of socialism, The (Hazlitt) 3: 148-154 MEDICINE/medicare/medicaid Health care, human rights and government intervention (Kuskey) 11: 648-654 MENCKEN (Mr.) on liberty (Douglas) 12: 709-718 MISES, Ludwig von - ideas of Pros and cons of socialism (Hazlitt) 3: 148-154 Salute to ... (Hazlitt) 12:744-747 MODE, Arthur S. Down with national priorities. 9: 523-524 MONEY, credit and the gold standard Bretton Woods: 1944-1971 ( Stevens) 5 :296-306 Can we keep free enterprise? (Hazlitt) 6: 339-348 Edmund Burke on inflation and despotism (North) 2:117-124 How NOT to advocate a gold standard (Stevens) 8:471-482 How to stop inflation (Read) 11: 674-679 Making of an international monetary crisis, The (Stevens) 4: 233-251 Market, The -or the welfare state (Poirot) 10: 621-624 No shortage of gold (Sennholz) 9:515-522 Salute to von Mises (Hazlitt) 12:744-747 MORAL/ religious principles Capitalism and morality (Coleson) 10 :625-633 Closing the generation gap (Watts) 7: 433-439 Family, The (Rushdoony) 7:429-432 Loving one's country (Gow) 3: 155-156 Northwood idea, The (Watts) 3:157-164 Our disordered lives (Optiz ) 7: 399-406 Reformation and economic development today, The (Coleson) 6:368-376 Stubborn facts and hard heads (Optiz) 5 :275-287 MORALITY, decline of American dream, The (Nestler) 10:593-597 Drug legislation - mainline to disaster (Patton) 1: 45-53 Imitation (Rushdoony) 9: 566-572 No-fault insurance means no moral responsibility (Foley) 8:486-506 Political corruption (Brownfeld) 11:643-647 MYTH of the perfect solution, The (Foley) 2: 105-114 N NATIONAL priorities, down with (Mode) 9: 523-524 NATURAL controls, The (Batten) 3: 140-142 NATURAL law/order Evolution and liberty (Cooney) 5: 290-295 Stubborn facts and hard heads (Opitz) 5 :275-287 NEED for tolerance and humility, The (Weast) 7:411-420 NEGROES, education of Giving and receiving with respect ( Wortham) 7: 422-428 NESTLER, John E.

American dream, The. 10: 593-007 NO-FA ULT insurance means no moral responsibility (Foley) 8:486-506 NO shortage of gold (Sennholz) 9:515-522 NORTH, Gary Edmund Burke on inflation and despotism. 2:117-124 Free-for-all society, The. 12: 731-733 NORTHWOOD idea, The (Watts) 3:157-164 o O'CONNELL, Thomas Frederick Cry for freedom is the scream of nature, The. 11: 691-698 OPITZ, Edmund A. Our disordered lives. 7: 399-406 Stubborn facts and hard heads. 5: 275-287 OUR disordered lives (Opitz) 7:399-406 P PASSING parade, The (Demers) 5:288-289 PATON, W. A. Competition - what and when. 6: 353-365 PATTON, Robert Drug legislation - mainline to disaster. 1 :45-53 "PERMISSIVENESS" or liberty? (Wilson) 6: 349-352 PETERSON, Mark Competition: classroom theory vs. business reality. 9: 550-554 PILOT errors (Read) 4:207-210 PLA TO - life and ideas of Was Plato a collectivist? (Roberts) 9: 557-563 766 THE FREEMAN December POIROT, Paul L.

Freedom is an uninsurable risk. 5: 269-274 Market, The - or the welfare state. 10: 621-624 Profitsharing. 12: 734-739 Socialized error. 7 :407-410 See also Book reviews (Overesch) POLITICAL action/power/privilege Appeal to the intellect (Read) 10:609-611 Hobson's choice (Breese) 9:533-536 How to stop inflation (Read) 11:674-679 Liberty and public opinion (Gresham) 6: 323-333 Mr. Mencken on liberty (Douglas) 12:709-718 Pilot errors (Read) 4:207-210 Sheltering ideologies (Read) 2:99-104 Sisyphus (Read) 6:366-367 Socialized error (Poirot) 7: 407-410 Time-lapse thinking (Read) 12:719-721 Welfare as a right (Foley) 10:663-671 See also Government intervention POLITICAL assassination Rx for political peace: a quiet internal revolution (Foley) 12:722-730 POLITICAL corruption: one result of all-powerful government and centralized power ( Bl'ownfeld) 11: 643-647 POLL UTION and the environment Controlling pollution (Sennholz) 2 :67-77 Energy crisis, The (Anderson) 8: 460-467 PORTRAIT of an evil man (Kuehnelt Leddihn) 9: 525,;,532 POVERTY trap, is escape possible'?

(B. M. Sparks) 10: 579-592 POWELL, J.Enoch European communities and the free economy, The. 5: 259-268 PREMISES of freedom, The (Dozer) 1:3-10 PRICES/pricing and government interference Can we keep free enterprise'? (Hazlitt) 6: 339-348 Energy crisis, The (Anderson) 8: 460-467 Profitsharing (Poirot) 12: 734-739 PRIV A TE property Controlling pollution (Sennholz) 2: 67-77 Family, The (Rushdoony) 7:429-432 Socialized error ( Poirot) 7: 407-410 PROCHNOW, Herbert V. Two experiences. 12: 707-708 PRO FITsharing (Poirot) 12: 734-739 PROFITsharing How to stop inflation (Read) 11: 674-679 PROS and cons of socialism, The (Hazlitt) 3: 148-154 PUBLIC opinion/relations. See Ideas PURPOSE of traffic laws, The (Shumiatcher) 8:451-459 R RATIONALE for liberty (Foley) 4:222-229 READ, Leonard E. Appeal to the intellect. 10: 609-611 Confession of error, The. 8:468-470 How to stop inflation. 11: 674-679 If I were king. 9:547-549 Inequality enshrined. 7: 389-394 Pilot errors. 4: 207-210 Sheltering ideologies. 2: 99-104 Sisyphus. 6: 366-367 Time-lapse thinking. 12: 719-721 REAL American Revolution, The (Roche) 7: 395-398 REFORMATION and economic development today, The (Coleson) 6:368-376 RESPONSIBILITY, individual Am I responsible for what others think?

(Hammersmark) 12: 740-743 Herculean task, A (Mahaffy) 1: 11-14 No-fault insurance means no moral responsibility (Foley) 8: 486-506 Purpose of traffic laws, The (Shumiatcher) 8: 451-459 See also Individual freedom; Self-reliance RICK EN BACKER, WilliamF. Chaff about wheat. 2: 114-116 RIGHT congregation, wrong sermon (J. C. Sparks) 4: 218-221 RIGHT to be wrong, The - and the obligation to be right (LaDow) 11: 680-684 ROBERTS, John J. Was Plato a collectivist? 9:557-563 ROCHE, George Charles III Real American Revolution, The. 7: 395-398 RUSHDOONY, R. J. Family, The. 7: 429-432 Imitation. 9: 566-572 RUSSIA, trade with Chaff about wheat (Rickenbacker) 2: 114-116 Who profits from East-West trade? (Guccione) 10: 612-620 RX for political peace: a quiet internal revolution (Foley) 12: 722-730 5 SALUTE to von Mises (Hazlitt) 12:744-747 SAMUELSON, Paul A. - ideas of Competition: classroom theory vs. business reality (Peterson) 9: 550-554 SANTANGINI, Andrew V.

Weather forecast for 1984! 7: 421 SEEDS of oppression (Hood) 5:307-308 SELF -reliance/ respect/ improvemen t Closing the generation gap (Watts) 7 :433-439 Cry for freedom is the scream of nature, The (O'Connell) 11: 691-698 1973 INDEX 767 Dear America: (Aley) 11: 672-673 If I were king (Read) 9:547-549 "I'm for the achiever" (Upton) 3:147 Is escape from the poverty trap possible? (B. M. Sparks) 10: 579-592 Premises of freedom, The (Dozer) 1: 3-10 Weary distance, A (Demers) 9: 555-556 SENNHOLZ, Hans F. Controlling pollution. 2:67-77 No shortage of gold. 9:515-522 SHELTERING ideolo·gies (Read) 2:99-104 SHUMIATCHER, M. C. Purpose of traffic laws, The. 8: 451-459 SISYPHUS (Read) 6:366-367 SMITH, Adam - ideas of Capitalism and morality ( Coleson) 10: 625-633 Real American Revolution, The ( Roche) 7:395-398 SOCIAL Security Freedom is an uninsurable risk (Poirot) 5 :269-274 Market, The - or the welfare state (Poirot) 10:621-624 SOCIALISM Salute to von Mises (Hazlitt) 12:744-747 Socialism, pros and cons of (Hazlitt) 3: 148-154 Valueless education (Colvard) 1: 15-24 See also Communism SOCIALIZED error' (Poirot) 7:407-410 SOMETHING else (Bastiat) 5:309-314 SPARKS, Bertel M.

Is escape from the poverty trap possible? 10: 579-592 SPARKS, John C. Right congregation, wrong sermon. 4 :218-221 SPENCER, Herbert: apostle of freedom ( Cooney) 1: 54-60 STEVENS, Paul Bretton Woods: 1944-1971. 5:296-306 How NOT to advocate· a gold standard. 8:471-482 Making of an international monetary crisis, The. 4:233-251 STUBBORN facts and hard heads (Opitz) 5:275-287 SUMMERS, Brian Complications. 8: 483-485 Economics and the press. 9: 564-565 SUMNER. 'William Graham - ideas of Evolution and liberty (Cooney) 5: 290-295 T THORNTON, Robert M. See Book reviews (Ward) TIME-lapse thinking (Read) 12:719-721 TRADE, international Chaff about wheat (Rickenbacker) 2: 114-116 European communities and the free economy, The (Powell) 5:259-268 Is Red China an economic paper tiger? (Brodin) 3:143-146 Limits of credulity, The (Donway) 9: 537-546 Something else (Bastiat) 5:309-314 Who profits from East-West trade?

(Guccione) 10:612-620 TRANSPORTATION Controlling pollution (Sennholz) 2: 67-77 No-fault insurance means no moral responsibility (Foley) 8: 486-506 Passing parade, The (Demers) 5: 288-289 Purpose of traffic laws, The (Shumiatcher) 8:451-459 TRUTH/honesty /integrity Appeal to the, intellect (Read) 10:609-611 Need for tolerance and humility (Weast) 7:411-420 TWO experiences (Prochnow) 12:707-708 u U. S. Constitution, principles of Myth of the perfect solution, The (Foley) 2:105-114 See also Carson U. S. history American Revolution unique (Drosdik) 7: 387-388 Is escape from the poverty trap possible? (B. M. Sparks) 10:579-592 Mr. Mencken on liberty (Douglas) 12:709-718 Real American Revolution, The (Roche) 7: 395-398 See also Carson UPTON, Miller "I'm for the achiever." 3:147 v VAL UELESS education (Colvard) 1: 15-24 w WAR/peace Right congregation, wrong sermon (J. C. Sparks) 4:218-221 W AS Plato a collectivist? (Roberts) 9: 557-563 WATERGATE Political corruption (Brownfeld) 11:643-647 WATTS, V, Orval Closing the generation gap. 7: 433-439 Industrialism: friend or foe? 4:211-217 Northwood idea, The. 3:157-164 WEARY distance, A (Demers) 9: 555-556 768 THE FREEMAN December WEAST, Donald E.

Need for tolerance and humiiity, The: the restoration of intellectual virtues in academic life. 7: 411-420 WEATHER forecast for 1984! (Santangini) 7:421 WELF ARE as a right (Foley) 11: 663-671 WELF ARE state philosophy American dream, The (Nestler) 10: 593-597 Herculean task, A (Mahaffy) 1:11-14 "Permissiveness" or liberty'? (Wilson) 6: 349-352 Seeds of oppression (Hood) 5: 307-308 Market, The - or the welfare state (Poirot) 10:621-624 WELLS, E. F. Before we burn it down! 1: 25-30 WHEAT, chaff about (Rickenbacker) 2:114-116 WHO profits from East-West trade'? (Guccione) 10:612-620 WILSON, Robert C. "Permissiveness" or liberty'? 6: 349-352 WORTHAM, Anne Giving and receiving with respeet. 7: 422-428 z ZARBIN, Earl Free enterprise: a definition. 6: 334-338 ZUPAN, M.L. See Book reviews (Acton) BOOK REVIEWS (Reviewer's name in parentheses) ACTON, H. B. The morals of markets (Zupan) 10:637-638 BLUMENFELD, Samuel L. How to start your own private school - and why you need one (Chamberlain) 5:317-318 BOUL WARE, Lemuel R. What YOU can do (Hazlitt) 5:318-320 CARSON, Clarence B. The rebirth of liberty (Chamberlain) 12:748-751 CRANE, Jasper. See MacBride DEVINE, Donald J. The political culture of the United States (Brownfeld) 3: 188-190 ELL UL, Jacques. The political illusion (Gow) 11:702-704 HARRINGTON, Michael. Socialism (Hazlitt) 3: 148-154 HAZLITT, Henry. The conquest of poverty (Chamberlain) 6: 377-380 ----. The foundations of morality (Greaves) 6:380-384 HUNT FORD, Roland. The new totalitarians (Brownfeld) 3:186-188 HUTT, W. H. The strike-threat system (Anderson) 12:758-760 LANE, Rose Wilder. See MacBride LEIBHOLZ-BONHOEFFER, Sabine. The Bonhoeffers: portrait of a family (Dietze) 3: 190-192 LEVINE, Isaac Don. Eyewitness to history (Chamberlain) 9:573-576 LOVE, Robert. How to start your own school (Chamberlain) 5:315-318 LUKACS., John. Passing of the modern age (Gow) 10:638-640 MacBRIDE, Roger Lea, editor. The lady and the tycoon: letters of Rose Wilder Lane and Jasper Crane (Chamberlain) 11: 699-702 MADDOX, John. The doomsday syndrome (Chamberlain) 3:183-186 McINNES, Neil. The western Marxists (Chamberlain) 10: 634-637 METHVIN, Eugene. The rise of radicalism (Brownfeld) 8: 510-512 MISES, Ludwig von. Socialism: an economic and sociological analysis (Hazlitt) 3:148-154 NOCK, Albert Jay, editor. See Ward OVERESCH, Frederic W. Foundation for protest ( Poirot) 4: 256 RAWLS, John. A theory of justice (Hospers) 12: 751-758 READ, Leonard E. Who's listening'?, (Chamberlain) 8:507-510 ROTHBARD, Murray N. The essential von Mises (Hazlitt) 7:447-448 SCHMIDT, Emerson P. Union power and the public interest (Chamberlain) 7: 440-443 SCHWARTZ, Harry. The case for American medicine (Brownfeld) 7:445-447 SIEGAN, Bernard H. Land use without zoning (Chamberlain) 4: 252-255 STEVENS, G. R. History of the Canadian National Railways (Canfield) 7:443-445 ULAM, Adam. The fall of the American university (Chamberlain) 1: 61-64 WARD, Artemus. Selected works of Artemus Ward, Edited, with introduction by Albert J. Nock (Thornton) 4:255-256 WILLIAMS, Duncan. Trousered apes (Chamberlain) 2:125-128

About this edition

This EPUB was produced automatically from the PDF named below. The text is the publisher's; the layout was reflowed for screen reading, so page breaks, line breaks and hyphenation differ from the original.

Title: The Freeman 1973

Author: Foundation for Economic Education

First published: 1950

Series: The Freeman, volume 23

Source file: The Freeman 1973.pdf

Source page: https://freecapitalists.org/books/the-freeman-1973/

Converted: 2026-08-09 by The Liberty Archive (freecapitalists.org), converter v6

Table of Contents

The Freeman 1973

- The Premises of Freedom; D. Dozer
- A Herculean Task; F. E. Mahaffy
- Valuelss Education; R. Colvard
- Before We Burn it Down; E. F. Wells

- The Founding of the American Republic 19; C. Carson

- Drug Legislation; R. Patton
- Apostle of Freedom; R. Cooney
- Book Reviews

February

- Controlling Pollution; H. Sennholz

- The Anatomy of Consumerism; M. E. Brunk

- The Founding of the American Rebpublic 19; C. Carson

- Sheltering Ideologies; L.E. Read

- The Myth of the Perfect Solution; R. Foley, Jr.

- Chaff About Wheat; W. Rickenbacker

- Edmund Burke on Inflation and Despotism; G. North

- Book Reviews

March

- Freedom...What is That? R. Bradford

- The Natural Controls; C.R. Batten

- Is Red China an Economic Paper Tiger? E. Brodin

- The Pros and Cons of Socialism; H. Hazlitt
- Loving One's Country; H. B. Gow
- The Northwood Idea; V. O. Watts

- The Founding of the American Republic 10; C. Carson

- Book Reviews

April

- The Founding of the American Republic 21; C. Carson

- Pilot Errors; L.E. Read

- Industrialism; V. O. Watts

- Right Congregation, Wrong Sermon; J.C. Sparks

- A Rationale for Liberty; R. Foley, Jr.

- Does Madison Avenue Rule Our Lives? D. Mahoney

- The Making of an International Monetary Crisis; P. Stevens

- Book Reviews

May

- The European Communities and the Free Economy; J. E. Powell

- Freedom is an uninsurable risk; P.L. Poirot
- Stubborn Facts and Hard Heads; E. Opitz
- The Passing Parade; R.W. Demers
- Evolution and Liberty; R. Cooney
- Bretton Woods, 1944-1971; P. Stevens
- Seeds of Opression; R. Hood
- Something Else; F. Bastiat
- Book Reviews

June

- Liberty and Public Opinioin; P. Gresham
- Free Enterprise: a definition; E. Zarbin
- Can We Keep Free Enterprise; H. Hazlitt
- Permissiveness or Liberty; R. Wilson
- Competition; W. A. Paton
- Sisyphus; L.E. Read

- The Reformation and Economic Development Today; E. Coleson

- Book Reviews

July

- American Revolution Unique; V. Drosdik, III

- Inequality Enshrined; L.E. Read

- The Real American Revolution; G. C. Roche, III

- Our Disordered Lives; E. Opitz
- Socialized Error; P.L. Poirot
- The Need for Tolerance; D. Weast

- Giving and Receiving with Respect; A. Wortham

- The Family; R.J. Rushdoony
- Closing the Generation Gap; V. O. Watts
- Book Reviews

August

- The Purpose of Traffic Laws; M.C. Schumiatcher

- The Energy Crisis; R. Anderson

- The Confession of Error; L. E. Read

- How Not to Advocate a Gold Standard; P. Standard

- Complications; B. Summers

- No Fault Insurance Means No Moral Responsibility; R. Foley, Jr.

- Book Reviews

September

- No Shortage of Gold; H. Sennholz

- Down With National Priorities; A. Mode

- Portrait an Evil Man; E. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

- Hobson's Choice; E. Breese
- The Limits of Credulity; R. Donway
- If I Were King; L. E. Read
- Competition; M. Peterson
- A Weary Distance; R. W. Demers
- Was Plato Collectivist? J. Roberts
- Economics and the Press; B. Summers
- Imitation; R. J. Rushdoony
- Book Reviews

October

- Is Escape from the Poverty Trap Possible? B. Sparks

- The American Dream; J. Nestler

- Challenges of the Communications Explosion; P. Lesly

- Appeal to the Intellect; L.E. Read

- Who Profits from East-West Trade? E. Guccione

- The Market or the Welfare State; P. L. Poirot

- Capitalism and Morality; E. Coleson

- Book Reviews

November

- Political Corruption; A. Brownfeld

- Health Care, Human Rights and Government Intervention; G. Kuskey

- Let Education Go Commercial; T. Johnson
- Welfare as a Right; R. Foley, Jr.
- How To Stop Inflation; L.E. Read
- The Right to Be Wrong; C. R LaDow
- Freedom/Responsibility; R. Bearce

- The Cry for Freedom is the Scream of Nature; T. F. O'Connell

- Book Reviews

December

- Two Experiences; H. Prochnow
- Mr. Mencken on Liberty; G. H. Douglas
- Time Lapse Thinking; L.E. Read
- Rx for Political Peace; R. Foley, Jr.
- The Free for all Society; G. North
- Profit Sharing; P.L. Poirot

- Am I Responsible for What Others Think; J. Hammersmark

- Salute to Von Mises; H. Hazlitt

- Book Reviews

Index
Book Reviews
About this edition