The Ludwig von Mises Institute presents The Libertarian Tradition, an audio series with Jeff Rigenbach.
R.C. Hoyles was born Raymond Cyrus Hoyles, 132 years ago this month, on November 24, 1878, in Alliance, Ohio,
A small town of a little more than 4,000 people, about 20 miles northeast of Canton and about
30 miles southeast of Akron.
He grew up on a prosperous farm a short distance outside town and first went to school in what
he himself later characterized as a little red schoolhouse.
There, he said many years later, the most important thing he was taught was that the
or a majority of citizens, had the right to use taxation to support the public school system.
Hoyles found, he said, that while his school texts exposed the political error of the divine
right of kings, they never explained the error in the divine right of the majority.
They simply substituted the divine right of the majority for the divine right of kings.
And they taught that the government or the local school district, if the majority so
Of course, as I've stressed, Hoyles didn't think all these things while he was still a student in the Little Red Schoolhouse.
at least not in so many words such thoughts would occur to him only later
when he was looking back at the events of his early life meanwhile he graduated
from the Little Red Schoolhouse attended the local high school graduated from
there as well and enrolled in yet another local school an institution owned
and operated by the Methodist Church under the name Mount Union College it is
It's appropriate, I think, to pause for a moment at this point in the story to reflect
on what the fact of R.C. Hoyles being a college student at all in the late 1890s tells us
about the socioeconomic class in which he was brought up.
It is worth remembering that, as one unsigned but very accurate online account of the relevant
history puts it, in the first decade of the 20th century most American children attended
schools for no more than a few years, and from their limited education, they and their
parents were often content if they acquired only the most rudimentary literacy and numeracy
skills.
It is worth remembering that, in the words of yet another unsigned online account, higher
education at the end of the 19th century remained primarily a preserve of the elite.
For most Americans, that didn't change until World War II, with the passage of the Serviceman's
Readjustment Act of 1944, popularly known as the GI Bill.
In 1900, about 2% of the college-age population enrolled in higher education.
As late as 1947, three years after the passage of the GI Bill, only about 5% of Americans,
One American in 20 held a four-year college degree. What we're used to today is very
different. Today, two-thirds of the college-age population in this country is in college,
at least part-time. And a little more than a quarter of the adult population, one American
in four, holds a four-year degree. Though his family was prosperous, Hoyles felt
he should work to help put himself through Mount Union College.
So he took a weekend job selling subscriptions to his older brother's newspaper, The Alliance
Review, while he studied electrical engineering during the week.
When graduation day dawned, however, Hoyles awoke to discover that he'd begun to find
the newspaper business more interesting than engineering.
So he never wound up working even a single day as an engineer.
Instead, he stayed on in his older brother's employ, working not only as a subscription salesman, but also as a printer, as a bookkeeper, and eventually as business manager.
By 1905, when he was still only 26 years old, he had become his older brother's partner, having acquired a one-third interest in the paper.
For the next 14 years, the Hoyles brothers worked on growing their little paper.
Then, in 1919, they began acquiring other nearby small-town publications, first the Lorraine Times Herald, then, two years later, in 1921, the Mansfield News.
R.C. Hoyles knew all the ins and outs of the business well enough by then to serve as publisher, first of the Lorraine newspaper, and then of the Mansfield newspaper.
By now, R.C. Hoyles was in his forties, and had begun, perhaps somewhat belatedly, to think in a broad theoretical way about politics and society,
and about the role a newspaper could play in a community if it were committed to some sort of principled vision of the ideal society.
He had come to believe that, as he put it many years later, what this country needs as much as anything else
are newspapers that believe in moral principles and have enough courage to express these
principles and point out practices and beliefs that violate moral principles.
A newspaper that only tries to run editorials and columnists and news items that are popular
is of mighty little value to its readers.
Moreover, Hoyles argued, a newspaper that is afraid of losing subscribers because of
of Principles is of little value to itself or anyone else.
It might make dollars, but its publisher loses his own self-respect, his own soul.
Hoyles believed that there were more crusading newspapers in years gone by than there are
today.
Today, too many newspapers are afraid of offending somebody and losing a dollar by taking an
unpopular position.
The result is that they cease to be of much use in their community as far as getting people
to better understand human relations that will promote goodwill, peace and prosperity.
And not only that, but a newspaper that is afraid to discuss things that are sacred cows
to the majority will be afraid to handle news stories that might cost it advertising or
subscriptions.
Increasingly though, Hoyle saw the editorial page as the true heart of a newspaper.
A newspaper's editorial page was, he said, a daily schoolroom made available to its subscribers,
irrespective of whether they were rich or poor, young or old, and without the duress
of taxes nor the compulsion of forced attendance.
His older brother Frank did not see things this way.
He was one of those newspaper publishers who was afraid of offending somebody and losing
a dollar by taking an unpopular position.
So after nearly 20 years in business together, the brothers agreed to go their separate ways.
Frank kept their original paper, the Alliance Review, R.C. took the Lorraine Times Herald
and the Mansfield News.
But it wasn't long before R.C. learned that running a newspaper his way could be risky
way beyond the mere risk of offending somebody or losing a dollar.
As Wendy McElroy tells the story in a recent article on Hoyles for the Future of Freedom
from Foundations Freedom Daily, The Herald, the Hoyle's paper in Lorraine, had exposed
the fraudulent awarding of a paving contract to a Cleveland company despite the presence
of a lower bid.
Public pressure resulted in the lower bids being accepted.
The enraged owner of the Cleveland company purchased rival papers in both Lorraine and
Mansfield in order to run R.C. out of business.
The attempt failed, and the conflict blazed on.
Now let Carl Wattner take up the story.
He reports in a 1986 article on R.C. that mysteriously, not long afterward, the front
porch of the Hoyle's home was destroyed by an explosion, Hoyle's car was subsequently
found to be wired with dynamite, which fortunately failed to detonate, and another dud bomb was
was discovered in the office of the Mansfield News.
Mysteriously, the perpetrators of these bombings were never identified, much less apprehended or prosecuted.
But R.C. got the message loud and clear.
He sold the papers in Mansfield and Lorraine and moved his family to Southern California.
After a decent interval, during which time he researched the market,
what was available, what he could ascertain about his probable chances of success, and so forth,
With, he bought a daily called the Santa Ana Register.
This was in 1935, when R.C. Hoyles was 56 years old and Santa Ana, California was a
sleepy farm town of around 30,000 people about 35 miles southeast of Los Angeles.
By now, R.C. had pretty well worked out his social and political philosophy.
That is, he had pretty well worked out the moral principles he wanted his newspapers
The most harmful error most honest people make, he wrote in an editorial in the Santa
Ana Register, is the belief that a group or a government can do things that would be harmful
and wicked if done by an individual, and produce results that are not harmful, unjust and wicked.
It is the belief that a number of people doing a thing that is wrong for an individual to
do can make it right and just.
Hoyles believed that governments derived their just powers from the consent of the individual,
and that the government had no right to do anything that each and every individual did
not have the right to do.
It would, for example, be wrong for an individual to spell out rules according to which other
Other individuals were to run their businesses, and then seize any business people who didn't
follow those rules and lock them in cages.
No individual has a right to do that, which, to Hoyles, meant that no government had a
right to do that either.
It would be wrong for an individual to insist that anyone seeking to follow a particular
trade or profession must first pay him for a license to do so.
Therefore, according to Hoyles, it would be wrong for any government to do the same thing.
It would be wrong for an individual to lock other people in cages for reading or publishing
books or for selling or using drugs, of which he didn't approve.
Therefore, according to Hoyles, it would be wrong for any government to do the same.
It would be wrong for an individual to force his neighbors to pay for schools or anything
Nothing else they didn't want and preferred not to pay for.
Therefore, according to Hoyles, it would be wrong for any government to do the same.
As Hoyles himself put it, any time a man has to pay for something he does not want because
of the initiating of force by the government, he is, to that degree, a slave.
Unsurprisingly, R.C. also described himself as against all taxes.
After all, it would be wrong for an individual to, as he put it, arbitrarily confiscate a
man's property and call it a tax.
It was, then, equally wrong for a government to do the same.
I do not believe, he said, that multiplying a wrong by any number makes it right.
This was the philosophy that informed the editorial pages of all newspapers owned by
by R. C. Hoyles from the mid-1930s to the time of his death, just short of his 92nd
birthday in 1970.
It might be argued that there has been some backsliding since then.
I can testify that by the time I joined the staff of the Santa Ana Register as an editorial
writer and columnist in the mid-1980s, a little more than 15 years after R. C.'s passing,
the libertarian influence seemed to be weakening somewhat.
Our publisher, the husband of one of R.C.'s granddaughters, felt comfortable having as
his daily editorial cartoonist an outspoken conservative who thought libertarians were
crazy.
That same publisher was comfortable having as his editorial and opinion pages editor
a man who freelanced for the National Review and had earlier left the register for a few
years to work for the Washington Times before coming back to take control of the editorial
on the whole, I felt at the time, our publisher wanted the register to be libertarian only
as long as that didn't entail shocking or offending his friends, local businessmen and
their wives, at the local country club.
It's true, he did approve adding me, a known firebrand, to the editorial board of the paper,
despite knowing, he must have known, that he wasn't going to be able to rely on me to
to kowtow to the delicate sensibilities of conservatives.
But I didn't last long at the Register, less than a year.
There are doubtless those who know and understand far more about all this than I do.
During my time at the Register, the news columns of the paper were purely conventional, like
those of any other major metropolitan daily that served a mainly suburban readership.
Like those of Newsday, let us say.
Reporters weren't expected to be libertarian in their thinking, or even to know what libertarianism
was.
But in R.C.'s day, his libertarianism definitely influenced the paper's coverage of the news
as well as its editorial stance.
R.C. wouldn't tolerate news stories that referred to the public schools, for example.
His reporters were required to refer to them as government schools.
R.C. himself preferred the phrase gun-run schools and used it liberally on the editorial
page.
Such policies won him a certain amount of ridicule from mainstream journalists.
Time magazine described him on one occasion as the weird Uncle Harold of the newspaper
business.
But R.C. went on doing things his way, and his company prospered.
By 1970, the year of his death, it had grown to 16 dailies scattered over seven states.
By 1986, when I joined the staff at the Santa Ana Register, it had been renamed the Orange
County Register and was the 25th largest newspaper in the United States with a paid daily circulation
of more than 300,000.
Freedom Newspapers, as R.C. had decided to call his firm, owned around 30 papers by the
in the mid-1980s, with a combined circulation of about a million.
In the 1990s, when the company began acquiring magazines and TV stations as well as newspapers,
it changed its name to Freedom Communications.
R.C. Hoyles was a multimillionaire by the time he died, but he lived modestly and gave
much of his money away.
He was among those who provided seed money so Leonard Reed could start FEE, the Foundation
for Economic Education in 1946. He provided ongoing financial support not only to Fee,
but also to the Institute for Humane Studies and to Robert Lefebvre's Freedom School.
He bought 100 copies of Isabel Patterson's 1943 book, The God of the Machine, to distribute
to his friends and business associates. He paid all expenses to bring Ludwig von Mises
During his lifetime, R.C. Hoyles fought for many unpopular causes—for abolition of taxation,
for abolition of the public schools, for shutting down the concentration camps in which Japanese
Americans were imprisoned during World War II, and for repeal of any and all laws that
emerged from the assumption that it could be right for government to do something it
would be wrong for any individual to do.
He even fought for replacement of tax-funded police departments with what Carl Wattner
Kirzner calls a free enterprise association or a defensive voluntary association that
would sell protection of life and property much like an insurance company.
And thanks to his generosity and his long-term commitment to freedom, he is among those we
all have to thank for the fact that, as we were growing up, there was a libertarian movement
already in place to receive us in the event that we should come to see things as R.C.
This is Jeff Rigenbach.