THE FREEMAN DECEMBER 1967

Vol. 17, No. 12

J;' It is not sufficient that the prom­

ises of collectivism are recognized as

false, says Professor Carson; the cul­

prits must be called to account and

their bankruptcy fully registered

............ p. 707

J;' The best cure against coveting the

property of others, advises Leonard

Read, is to see and count one's own

blessings p. 716

~ George de Huszar turns to the hu­

manities for a broadening of the case

for liberty beyond the strictly eco-

nomic appeal p. 719

J;' John Nelson, Professor of Phi­

losophy at the University of Colorado,

would remove the coercion from uni­

versity and secondary education in

order to upgrade the quality . p. 724

J;' And in the same let's-be-practical

vein, America's master accountant

and economist, W. A. Paton, calls for

a careful balancing of the cultural and

the vocational p. 732

~ Nonmolestation is perhaps the

key word in Dean Russell's explana­

tion of our interdependence and free-

dom p. 738

V" Dean Lipton isn't a dean either,

but he pins down a couple of trouble­

some words - rights and equality­

which are frequently misused .. p. 752

V" John Chamberlain's book of the

month .is The War We Are In: The

Last Decade and the Next by James

Burnham p. 757

J;' Sorry, that's all for this year, and

all neatly indexed by Miss Bien of

FEE p. 761

Anyone wishing to communicate with authors may sendfirst-class mail in care of THE FREEMAN for forwarding.

DECEMBER 1967

LEONARD E. READ

PAUL L. POIROT

Vol. 17, No. 12

President, Foundation forEconomic Education

Managing Edito1'

THE FREEMAN is published monthly by theFoundation for Economic Education, Inc., a non­political, nonprofit educational champion of privateproperty, the free market, the profit and loss system,and limited goYernment, founded in 1946, with officesat Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. Tel.: (914) 591­

7230.Any interested person may receive its publications

for the asking. The costs of Foundation projects andservices, including THE FREEMAN, are met throughvoluntary donations. Total expenses average $12.00 ayear per person on the mailing list. Donations are in­vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the meansof maintaining and extending the Foundation's work.

Copyright, 1967, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in

U.S.A. Additional copies, postpaid, to one address: Single copy, 50 centsj

3 for $1.00j 10 for $2.50j 25 or more, 20 cents each.

Any current article will be supplied in reprint form upon sufficient de·

mand to cover printing costs. Permission is hereby granted to reprint

any article from this issue, providing customary credit is given.

THE

BANKRUPTCYOF

" LIB ERA LIS M ••

CLARENCE B. CARSON

A CLEVER man can survive andeven appear to prosper for awhileon very limited resources. He can

., live on borrowed money, shiftingfrom creditor to creditor as billscome due, going ever deeper intodebt. Promises flow from him, andplans for recouping his fortunesand producing great wealth. Manywill extend credit to him, for heputs up a good front, weaves fas­cinating justifications for his fail­ures, and paints seductive word­pictures of his prospects. Therecomes a time, however, in the af­fairs of the cleverest of such menwhen their confidence game nolonger works its magic. A "credi­bility gap" appears; the promises,instead of attracting further cred-

Dr. Carson is Professor of American Historyat Grove City College, Pennsylvania.

it, have all become notes fallin~

due. Notes are presented for pay­ment; credit is not extended; thedebts cannot be paid. When thathappens, a man is bankrupt. Anyresources he has are taken fromhim to satisfy, as far as they will,the claims of his creditors.

There is every reason to believethat Americans, as creditors, havebeen seduced for many years bythe promises of men with few re­sources but quick wits, ready jus­tifications of failures, and prolificpromises of future returns fromtheir policies. These people go bythe name of "liberals." The estatein which they reside-their fund ofideas - they call "IiberaIism."They have claimed the title to thisestate for so long that most Amer­icans believe them. There is little

707

708 THE FREEMAN December

point here in disputing their claim,though their fund of ideas mightbetter be called by such names asutopianism, collectivism, reform­ism, meliorism, or even socialism.What matters is that we all rec­ognize the subject of discussion.For this purpose, let them havethe title they want: Liberalism.

At any rate, they have promisedfreely a great variety of blessingsthat would befall the Americanpeople if we would give themcredit, and then extend it, and ex­tend it, and extend it. For decades,Americans have acted as if theybelieved the promises; credit hasbeen extended time and again.Their promises might be expectedto attract men of good will any­where. They have ranged from aprojected world-wide good to bene­fits for men in their most intimateaffairs. The promises have beenimaginative, detailed, universal,varied, and almost innumerable.

Endless and Empty Promises

The "liberals" have promisedworld peace through internationalorganization (first the League ofNations and then the United Na­tions), a modus vivendi with com­munists through concessions, thegood will of all nations that wouldresult from foreign aid programs,recovery from depression by in­flation, a balanced budget with in­creased taxes, a balanced budget

through reduced taxes, the solu­tion of the farm problem by gov­ernment programs, the solution tocrime and delinquency throughhousing programs and aid to thepoor, security in old age by way ofsocial security taxes, quality edu­cation as a result of higher taxes,peaceful labor relations by way ofgovernment empowerment of laborunions, the rescue of small busi­ness by antitrust action, the reviv­al of cities by pouring govern­ment credit and money into them,an end to monetary problems bya Federal Reserve System, bettertransportation service at lowerprices by government regulation,the restoration of a "balance" be­tween rural and urban inhabitantsby farm subsidies, and so on, al­most endlessly.

All the while, "liberals" haveboasted that they were pragma­tists, that they were interestedonly in results, that they testedprograms by their workability.This is a most interesting claim,because, as we shall see, programsthat have not worked have beenexpanded rather than abandoned.This pragmatic claim is one thatshould be expected in a confidencegame. The man seeking credit willwish to assure his potential credi­tor that he, too, is a businessman,that results alone count with him,that he will oversee carefullyevery aspect of his undertaking

1967 THE BANKRUPTCY OF "LIBERALISM" 709

and subject it to the most criticaltests. Only when he is thus as­sured will the businessman extendcredit. There may be nothing moreto this, however, than verbal as­surances.

There is a sense, of course, inwhich the borrower who will neverrepay is a pragmatist. He is prag­matic in that he judges his pro­gram of appeal for credit onwhether he gets it or not. To theprofessional borrower, if he getscredit, his appeal worked; if theloan is denied, it did not. In likemanner, the politician who getselected to office concIudes that hispromises worked, though the sub­stantial programs he proposedmay have been miserable failures.In this sense, there should be nodoubt that many "liberals" arepragmatists.

Foreign and Domestic Failures

Evidence mounts higher withthe passage of time that the "lib­eral" programs do not work, thathowever. much credit generousAmericans extend, it only bringsappeals for more time and largeramounts of money. Decades of ex­periments with reformist pro­grams have brought results quitedifferent from those promised.Vaunted international organiza­tions have not brought peace andbrotherhood to the world. Thiscentury has witnessed already two

horrendous world wars and, on asmaller scale, perpetual wars andrumors of wars over much of theearth. The United Nations is to­day a Tower of Babel on the EastRiver where delegates of the na­tions of the earth gather towrangle over whether to take upsome question or other and, ifthey ever agree to do that, toquarrel over the agenda, the pro­cedures to be followed, and whothe villains of the piece may be.Major disturbances are placed offlimits from their concern and in­consequential matters are the sub­ject of bootless resolutions.

Concessions to communists havenot resulted in a modus vivendibetwixt us and them. On the con­trary, such concessions haveserved time and again as oppor­tunities for them to spread theirideas and extend their power. Dip­lomatic recognition of the SovietUnion by the United States in the1930's did not result in a mellow­ing of communists. On the con­trary, it gave the government ofthe Soviet Union a means of bring­ing in more spies and organizingand controlling clandestine activ­ities more effectively. Conces­sions, aid, even outright capitula­tion to the demands and require­ments of Russian Communistsduring World War II did nottransform them into warm friendsemanating good will. On the con-

710 THE FREEMAN December

trary, Stalin used the concession­ary mood as an opportunity to ex­tend Soviet power into easternEurope and Asia. Nor have laterconcessions produced useful re­sults. The Soviet Union and othercommunist countries currently areextending aid and comfort toAmerica's enemies on the battle­field.

Foreign aid has hardly pro­duced a world filled with nationsfriendly to the United States andeager to help us in whatever exi­gency arises. On the contrary,France, a beneficiary of Americanaid going back to World War I, isvigorously following policies anti­thetical to those of the UnitedStates. India has a consistent rec­ord of biting the hand that feedsit. Yugoslavia has hardly been wonover from communism by Ameri­can bounty. Many small countriesuse the occasion of American aidto make even more bellicose de­mands. In the American strugglewith the Viet Cong, most of thosewith whom there are alliances canoffer only carping criticism ofAmerican policy and practice. Itmay be that much of this failurestems from the ambiguous charac­ter of the aid in the first place,but this cannot alter the fact of thefailure of the programs to producethe desired results.

The domestic programs of the"liberals" have met with similar

failures over the years. Millionsupon millions of people have leftthe farms in the wake of govern­ment programs which were sup­posed to make farming attractive.Surpluses accumulate of farmproducts priced above the market,while the prices of food and cloth­ing rise, and more and more farm­ers find it difficult to make endsmeet. Federal housing and urbandevelopment projects have suc­ceeded thus far in making thehearts of many cities intolerableplaces in which to live and aggra­vating the lot of the poor. TheFederal Reserve System was invigorous operation when theUnited States suffered the worstdepression in history. Small busi­nessmen find it ever more difficult .'to survive because of the obstaclesthrown in their way by govern­ment rather than by large cor­porations. Taxation for social se­curity makes it increasingly diffi­cult for wage earners to providefor their own retirement and med­ical care. And those who rely upona social security "fund" for thesepurposes should know that thereis no real fund, only the chancefor Congressional appropriationswhen one reaches an age or condi­tion to receive benefits.

Problems Aggravated

The "liberal" programs havefailed more dramatically than the

1967 THE BANKRUPTCY OF "LIBERALISM" 711

above would suggest. They havefailed to diminish crime and de­linquency, to bring peace in laborrelations, to stop the clamor ofthe poor and dissident, or to main­tain fundamental order in theland. "Liberal" efforts to wipe outcrime by spending billions tochange the environment have beenconfronted by increasing crimeand delinquency, violence on citystreets, and more and more dangerto life and property in America.Billions for education go in somepart to give aid and comfort toimpudent and arrogant beatniks,hippies, and whatever the un­washed may call themselves. Riot­ing and looting in city after cityhave followed government pro-

" grams supposed to aid just thesepeople. Labor strife is spreadingfrom industrial workers to fire­men, police, and school teachers.Demonstrators arise over anycause, or none at all, to disruptservices, to hurl insults at publicofficials, to belabor Congress, topicket the White House, to stoprent payments, to force entranceof Negroes into suburban com­munities, or to prevent the ship­ment of munitions to Vietnam.Rapists and murderers, turnedloose by courts enamored withtechnicalities, return to commitatrocities upon innocent citizens.

The fund of ideas of the "lib­erals" has run dry, though excuses

still pour forth from them andtheir apologists. In the face offailure, they can only call for moreof the same that has produced thefailure in the first place. A manstanding on the verge of bank­ruptcy will plead with his credi­tors to make yet another ex­tension of the loan. His projectwill be successful yet, if he canonly pour more money into it. Soit is with the "liberals." The prob­lems, they say, are very complexand it will take many more yearsto solve them. Much larger appro­priations must be made in orderto lick particularly tenacious prob­lems.

The Socialist FormulaAffords No Way Out

Deeper than this, there are in­creasing signs of paralysis of willand failure of nerve by the LiberalEstablishment, as M. StantonEvans has called it. This is notnew, but it is becoming more wide­spread. It has been apparent formany years now that the farmprogram was a failure, but "lib­erals" have been unable even toconfess their error or to abandonthe programs. The failure of for­eign aid has hardly diminishedtheir cry for more for the future.That communists have not beenpacified by concessions becomesthe "liberal's" case for furtherconcessions. Looting and pillage

712 THE FREEMAN December

are greeted by calls for more far­reaching aid to the inner cities.Those in power can hardly musterthe courage to deal with lootingand pillage in the only way thathas ever been effective - that is,by shooting looters until they stop."Liberals" can neither pursuewars to a victorious conclusionnor withdraw. They can neitherconsent to vigorous punishmentof criminals nor to the guilt ofthose who commit crimes. Theycan neither payoff the nationaldebt nor even balance the budget.

In short, the "liberals" cannotcope with the situations whichthey have largely created. Theycannot cope with them because alleffective means of dealing withthem are precluded by their fundof ideas. Their ideas call for peacethrough international organiza­tion, for accommodation with com­munists and dialogue to be openedup between East and West, fordeficit spending to increase pros­perity, for government regulationand control of the economy, forthe curing of crime by improvingthe environment, for belief in theguilt of society rather than of in­dividual criminals, continuousopen-mindedness to all opinionshowever novel they may be. Theseassumptions must be abandonedor greatly modified if governmentis to become effective once againand if men are to have a better

than even chance to deal with theirown difficulties.

Awaiting Foreclosure

In the loose sense of the word,then, "liberalism" is bankrupt. Ithas been in the ascendant formany years now. It has had ampleopportunity to try its ideas. Theyhave been tried again and again,to no avail. It is devoid - bankrupt- of new ideas to deal with thesituation that confronts America.I t is short - bankrupt - in pro­grams to meet the crises that loomin America. For example, itsleaders can neither bring them­selves to remove the privileges oforganized labor nor to administereven the laws that exist for hold­ing it in check. The War on Pov­erty or Great Society of PresidentJohnson is only a warmed overversion of the New Deal - butwithout a depression to whet peo­ples' appetites. "Liberalism" isparalyzed - bankrupt - by its com­mitment to programs that havebeen going on for decades. It isincapable of innovating. It canonly press on half-heartedly to theenactment of new sumptuary laws(vis a vis cigarette smoking orsafety features of automobiles orthe inspection of meat), to specialenactments of the legislature toput strikers back to work, to newcontrols upon enterprise, and soon, and on.

1967 THE BANKRUPTCY OF ilLIBERALISM" 713

In the technical sense, "liberal­ism" is not yet bankrupt. Bank­ruptcy only occurs when a man isconfronted with bills that he can­not pay, when he is forced to ad­mit that he cannot meet his ob­ligations or fulfill his promises.(There is also voluntary bank-ruptcy which occurs when a mansimply states that he cannot meethis obligations, though his credi­tors have not yet foreclosed.)"Liberalism" is not yet bankruptin this sense. It is still in the as­cendant, politically. It is still mak­ing successful appeals for the ex­tension of credit from the people,as it were. The national debt"limit" is still being raised, andappropriations are still being madefor a vast assortment of programs.So long as this continues, "liberal­ism" remains in business.

Creditors Have the Option

Bankruptcy is not automatic. Itdoes not come simply because proj­ects fail or because a promotergoes deeper and deeper into debt.In short, a debtor may ruin bothhimself and his creditors. If theywill allow him, he can drag themdown with him. Bankruptcy is aproceeding by which a halt iscalled to the whole process. Credi­tors decide that they will throwno more good money after bad,that they will give up on the debt­or and recoup as much as they

can from such resources as re­main.

It is the same with "liberalism."There is no automatic point atwhich "liberals" must or will pro­claim their insolvency. The Amer­ican people, as creditors, have theoption of continuing to extendcredit, to plunge themselves finallyinto bankruptcy along with the"liberals." They can acquiesce, orstand by inactive, while the budgetis unbalanced year after year andthe national debt mounts and thevalue of money declines, while for­eign war continues with no con­clusion in sight and presumptuousdiplomats to the United Nationscontinue to whittle away at na­tional sovereignty, while regula­tion destroys business after busi­ness, while the streets of cities andtowns become unsafe, while loot­ers, pillagers, and murderers preyupon Americans until the final dis­order has engulfed us all in a newDark Ages. Whole peoples have,in times past, been pulled downinto the same state of moral andintellectual bankruptcy as theirleaders.

Someone Must Talce Action

The present mode of temporiz­ing with "liberalism" practiced bymost politicians, even those whooppose it as a direction, will notbring it to bankruptcy in time toforestall the bankruptcy of the

714 THE FREEMAN December

American people. It does no goodto insist that the debt "limit" beraised only by $6 billion this yearinstead of $10 billion or that thebudget be unbalanced by only $4billion instead of $16 billion. Alittle more bombing in North Viet­nam is unlikely to bring the warto a successful conclusion. Theman on the verge of bankruptcywill take whatever credit is ex­tended and continue to make hisunproductive schemes seem towork.

Demand Payment

"Liberalism's" bankruptcy willonly be proclaimed when credit isshut off, when the bills are pre­sented for payment, when thepromissory notes are called. The"liberals" must be held to an ac­counting. They must be presentedwith their cumulative promisesover the years, and be shown thatone after another their programshave failed. They must be shownthat when they have taken actionit has produced such and suchresults.

More, for bankruptcy to be pro­claimed, for the choice to be made,men must stand for political officewho will promise not to temporizewith the "liberal" programs andwho will keep that promise whenelected. They must say that thebudget will be balanced, that theinflation will cease, that the debt

will be funded (however painfulthis may be), that wars will befought to conclusion, that enter­prise will be freed from bondage,that union violence and threat ofviolence will cease, that criminalswill be apprehended, that rioterswill be shot, that insurrection andsedition will be dealt with harshly,that order will be maintained andliberty restored to America.

Such stands will not be easy totake and maintain. "Liberalism"dominates the major media ofcommunication. Anyone who in­sists upon the principles of free­dom can expect a full measure ofvillification and denunciation. Hewill find himself and his ideas heldup to the most searching scrutinyby newspaper reporters and com­mentators. As a reward for allthis, he may very well be rejectedby the American people and neveragain appointed or elected tooffice. Yet, if "liberalism" is to bethrown into the bankruptcy uponwhich it totters today, such stanp.smust be made. Credit must be cutoff from the "liberals," lest theAmerican people be pulled down­ward into ruin as well.

A Time of Testingfor Politicians and Voters

The test of the politician comeswhen he confronts the issue oftaking a stand on principle orcontinuing to drift with the tide.

1967 THE BANKRUPTCY OF "LIBERALISM" 715

The test of voters comes whenthey are confronted with a choiceof politicians, some of whom taketheir stand on principle, whileothers continue promising them.arvels that will be accomplishedby following the "liberal" pre­scriptions yet another mile. Theacid test for bankruptcy occurswhen the creditors decide whetherto extend credit one more time orto demand payment. The Americanpeople have been the long suffer­ing creditors of "liberalism." Forfour decades they have extendedcredit time after time, for one un-

balanced budget after another, forever higher taxes (local, state, andnational), with accelerations inthe depreciation of the currency.For their efforts, they have un­fulfilled promises, depleted purses,and spreading disorder, nationaland international. Their choice iseither to proclaim the bankruptcyof "liberalism" or to be draggeddown with it. The evidence is inthat "liberalism" is bankrupt inall but name. The way Americanschoose, when and where they havethe opportunity, will tell whetherthey, too, are bankrupt. •

George Washington

OF ALL the dispositions and habits which lead to political pros­

perity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vainwould that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor

to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest

props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician,equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.A volume could not trace all their connections with private and

public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is security for prop­

erty, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligationdesert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in

courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition

that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may

be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of

peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect

that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religiousprinciple.

LEONARD E. READ

t'.Je C utle and Cute

of Covetoulnell

WHILE MANY PEOPLE deplore cov­etousness, few will compare it tomurder, theft, adultery as an evil.Nor will they think of it as havingany bearing on our current polit­ico-economic problems. This wrongassessment ma.y be due to the factthat "Thou shalt not covet" bringsup the rear of the Mosaic thou­shalt-nots.

I suspect that the ordering ofthe Commandments had nothingto do with a sin-grading scheme.Only one- of the ten had obviouspriority and it became the FirstCommandment. The other ninewere listed, perhaps, as they cameto mind. And covetousness, moresubtle and an afterthought, con­cludes the- list. But on reflection,covetousness is as deadly as anyof the other sins - indeed, it tendsto induce the others.

Covetousness or envy generatesa destructive radiation with ill ef­fect on all it touches.

Psychosomatic illnesses can betraced as much to envy as to hate,anger, worry, despondency.

716

But consider the social implica­tions, the effects of envy onothers. At first blush, the richman appears not to be harmed be­cause a.nother covets his wealth.Envy, however, is not a benign,dormant element of the psyche; ithas the same intensive force asrage, and a great deal of wisdomis required to put it down. Whereunderstanding and self-control arewholly lacking, the weakling willresort to thievery, embezzlement,piracy, even murder, to gratifyhis envy and "get his share."

Though weakness of characterafflicts all of us to some extent,only a few are so lacking in re­straining forces as to personallyemploy naked force, such as thiev­ery, to realize the objects of envy.Fear of apprehension and repri­sal tends to hold such open-facedevil in check.

However, if the evil act can bescreened, if the sense of personalguilt and responsibility can besufficiently submerged, that is, ifself-delusion can be effected, grat-

1967 THE CURSE AND CURE OF COVETOUSNESS 717

ification of covetousness will bepursued by the "best people."

Hiding in Anonymity

The way is an open secret:achieve anonymity in a mob, com­mittee, organization, society, orhide behind legality or majorityvote.

With the fear of exposure re­moved, millions of Americansfeather their own nests at the ex­pense of others, and on a scalenever imagined by thieves, pi­rates, or embezzlers. Our "bestpeople," including the highly "ed­ucated," gratify their envy withno qualms whatsoever. But theirsalved conscience in no way less­ens the evil of covetousness; quite

" the contrary, it emphasizes to ushow powerfully this evil operatesat the politico-economic level. Thissubtle evil is indeed the genesis ofmore obvious sins.

We should also note the extentto which this "guiltless" taking ofproperty by coercion is rational­ized. Accomplices, bearing suchtitles as philosophers and econo­mists, rise to the occasion; theyexplain how the popular depreda­tions are good for everyone, evenfor those looted. Thus, we find thatcovetousness, unchecked in the in­dividual, lies at the root of the de­cline and fall of nations and civili­zations.

In considering the effect on the

one who covets, we must be care­ful not to confuse the taking ofanother's property with the takingunto oneself of a higher level ofintelligence and morality exempli­fied by another. The former isdepredation, harmful to both selfand the other; the latter is emu­lation, helpful to all concerned.

As contrasted with the emula­tion of virtues, which takes noth­ing from but adds to the welfareof others, envy is nothing morethan an avaricious greed topossess what exclusively belongsto others. Envy is a lust of theflesh as opposed to an elevation ofthe spirit. The Hindus saw itclearly for what it really is: "Sinis not the violation of a law or aconvention but . . . ignorance . . .which seeks its own private gainat the expense of others...."1

William Penn grasped the point:"Covetousness is the greatest ofMonsters, as well as the root of allEvil."

Thwarting One's Purpose

As a person cannot be in twoplaces at the same time, so is itimpossible for the eye to be castcovetously at the material posses­sions of others and cast aspiringlyat one's own creativity. Thus, envyleaves unattended the human be-

1 From The Bhagavadgita (Transla­tion by S. Radhakrishnan. New York:Harper & Brothers, 1948), p. 224.

718 THE FREEMAN December

ing's upgrading; it is a positivedistraction from the "hatching"process - Creation's Purpose. It'seither hatch or rot, as with anegg; envy leaves the soul, the spir­it, the intellect, the psyche to rot,and there can be no greater evilthan this.

Count Your Blessings'

When it is clear that covetous­ness thwarts Creation's Purposeand, thus, man's destiny - thatamong the cardinal sins none isgreater - it surely behooves eachof us to find a way to rid our­selves of this evil.

I believe the way is simple toproclaim: Count your blessings!

Any person who is not aware ofcountless blessings, regardless ofhow low or high his estate, willbe no more aware of his blessingsshould his envy be gratified.Awareness of blessings is a stateof consciousness and is not neces­sarily related to abundance andaffluence. He who is rich in world­ly goods but unaware of his bless­ings is poor, and probably covet­ous; he who is poor in worldlygoods but aware of his blessingsis rich, and assuredly withoutenvy.

How easy the advice: Countyour blessings! But what aboutthe person unaware of his bless­ings? As well advise him to ac­quire wisdom, for wisdom is

awareness. Some individuals areaware of no blessings, others of afew, still others of numerousblessings. Yet, no one is more thanslightly aware, just as no one ismore than slightly wise.

Exactly how unaware we are ofour blessings can be seen by com­mitting them to paper - actuallycounting. While they are in in­finite supply, observe how few arerecognized. Now, throw the listaway; for these must be alive eachand every day in the conscious­ness, not stored on paper, notmechanically canned.

Try again, later: this is an ex­ercise that one should never aban­don. The list is longer? Note, also,how much greater the wisdom is.Conscious effort, really trying,constantly pressing against theunknown for more light is the na­ture of this discipline.

As progress is made in anawareness of our blessings, weare struck by how greatly theyoutnumber our woes and troubles.In a state of unawareness, thewoes loom enormous, and we tendto covetousness; in awareness thewoes are but trifles, and the covet­ousness fades away.

What a remarkable cure forcovetousness! While the cure ridsus of our woes, it also puts us onthe road to social felicity; and afurther dividend is wisdom. ~

Individual Liberty

and "The Humanities"

GEORGE B. DE HUSZAR

THE LIBERTARIAN POSITION mus­ters strong support in the dis­ciplines of economics and politicalscience, but libertarian scholar­ship has neglected the realms ofart, literature, and philosophy.

< Further study of the humanitiesand their disciplines would roundout the case for personal freedom.Eliseo Vivas was saying the samewhen he wrote in the ChicagoTribune Magazine of December 5,1965: "We've had first-rate polit­ical and economic thinking fromvon Mises, Hayek, and MiltonFriedman, but none in other fields.There has been no major philo­sophical mind to emerge - thesame for theologians.... Two ofthe great values which we've lostsight of are the tragic and heroicdimensions of human existence.

George B. de Huszar is the author and editorof over a dozen books which have been pub­lished in the United States, Latin America,Europe, and Asia.

There is no more room for themin our society - yet they are essen­tial components . . . the old senseof mystery and the sacred" havebecome secondary.

While on the one hand, philo­sophical and literary works wouldprovide humane support for free­dom and individuality, on theother, they would encourage teach­ers and students in the humani­ties to get interested in them.

An indirect, noneconomic andnonpolitical approach which makeslittle explicit reference to contem­porary socio-economic-political ar­guments may be the best way toteach such basic values as dedica­tion to freedom and individuality.The humanities are acceptable tomany teachers and students other­wise reluctant to embrace the lib­ertarian position. An approachthrough the humanities wouldmake an impact in the realm of

719

720 THE FREEMAN December

ideas rather than explicitly argu­ing in favor of freedom and in­dividualism and explicitly criticiz­ing socialism and communism.

As F. A. Hayek pointed out inThe Road to Serfdom (p. 13) basicindividualism goes back furtherthan the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies and has broad philosoph­ical and literary foundations.Making the case for freedom andindividuality in terms of the hu­mane studies would show thesebroad philosophical and literarybases to teachers and students.

Surface Symptoms

Politics forms the outside skinof the social organism; therefore,political manifestations are oftenbut symptoms. To understand thedisease, a deeper insight is re­quired. To comprehend the funda­mental problems of freedom andindividuality, it is necessary to gobeneath the surface and analyzephilosophical and cultural issues.The unorthodox perceptions ofphilosophy, literature, and artshould not be dismissed as flightsof eccentric fancy. On the con­trary, they make possible the ex­plorations which provide deeperinsights into the nature of free­dom and individuality, such ex­plorations as those by Cervantes,Kierkegaard, and Dostoevsky. Hasanyone explored the fundamentalpsychological causes and implica-

tions of collectivism more effec­tively than Nietzsche, or more per­ceptively questioned the value andlimitation of civilization and prog­ress than Rimbaud and Gauguin,or seen more clearly into commu­nism than Heine?

"The Coldest of All Monsters"

Jakob Burckhardt stated thatNietzsche's books had increased"independence in the world." Stef­an Zweig thought that "freedomis Nietzsche's ultimate signifi­cance" and entitled one of hischapters on Nietzsche as "TheTeacher of Freedom." Nietzschehimself called the state the coldestof all monsters. He said that so­cialism is "the tyranny of themeanest and most brainless" andthen made the following propheticstatement in the nineteenth cen­tury:

" ... Socialism is on the whole a hope­lessly bitter affair: and there is noth­ing more amusing than to observe thediscord between the poisonous anddesperate faces of present-day so­cialism - and what wretched andnonsensical feelings does not theirstyle reveal to us! - and the childishlamblike happiness of their hopes anddesires. Nevertheless, in many placesin Europe, there may be violent hand­to-hand struggles and irruptions ontheir account: the coming century islikely to be convulsed in more thanone spot, and the Paris Commune,which finds defenders- and advocates

1967 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND "THE HUMANITIES" 721

even in Germany, will seem to havebeen but a slight indigestion com­pared with what is to come."

Heine was similarly prophetic.In 1842 he wrote: "The future hasan odour as of Russian leather,blood, blasphemy, and much beat­ing with the knout. I advise ourdescendants to come into theworld with thick skins." In hisConfessions Heine said: "I wasoppressed by a. certain worldly ap­prehension which I could not over­come, for I saw that atheism hadentered into a more or less secretcompact with the most terriblynaked, quite fig-leafless, commu­nistic communism."

What is needed is the openingup of material which remainslargely outside the interest ofmany social scientists, to raisenew questions, and to suggest newmethods. As matters stand today,many who are deeply committed tothe analysis of freedom and indi­viduality unfortunately find it dif­ficult to recognize the relevance ofthe humanities to their concerns.They should be provided with new"weapons" and new "ammuni­tion."

A Monopoly of Culture

"Liberals" have appropriatednot only concern for the people'swelfare but also for culture. TheEditor of the University Observer(Winter, 1947, p. 29) stated that

"liberals are always troubled whenthey find that a political reaction­ary is a man of vision whose in­tellectual or artistic work demandsrespect.... According to the lib­eral creed, those who are on theside of man's political progressshould also be the most gifted,while the enemies of progressshould turn out to have little tosay; by rights, they should be un­creative." Thus "liberals" deni­grate "reactionary" thinkers, orclaim great figures of the humani­ties as being their own, or usethem in an illegitimate manner.But many great figures in the hu­manities should be identified withthe side where they properly be­long - genuine concern with free­dom and individuality. The fate ofKierkegaard is an example. KarlLowith in From Hegel to Nietz­sche falsely asserted that "Marxdestroyed the bourgeois-capitalis­tic, and Kierkegaard the bour­geois-Christian world." What hasbecome "existentialism" in recentGerman thought, as exemplified byTillich, is mainly a form of so­cialism. What has become "exis­tentialism" in recent Frenchthought, as exemplified by Sartre,is to a large extent Marxism. Re­cently a course has been offeredin New York City entitled "Marx­ist Existentialism."

It often occurs that everybodysits on each other's lap and no-

722 THE FREEMAN December

body sits on the chair. As hasbeen said, man's mind is moregregarious than his body. The ob­session .with "dialogue" makes itdifficult to develop private views.Yet, only persons with privateviews can be impervious to thedeeper aspects of collectivism aswell as to its most obvious andovert manifestations. Mass organ­izations bombard us from everyangle with slogans ·and cliches tounite us for collective action. Wesuccumb to habitual forms· ofthinking and the prevalence offads and fashions in the intellec­tual world. All these discourageadherence to one's own view, crit­ical mentality, individuality, andthe inwardness· of man. In con­trast, all that is personal and pri­vate -literary insight, artistictaste, religious dedication - is toa large extent noncommunicable;they separate men and make eachmore aware of his uniqueness andwhat makes him different, andthus hinder the march of collectiv­ism in the philosophic and socialsense. Without such defenses, eachperson is vulnerable to collectiv­ism.

Primacy of the Individual

A fundamental thesis of the hu­manities approach is the primacyof the individual not only in theusual and obvious sense but alsoin the sense that the more unique

a .person is the more valuable heis.· This can be demonstrated mosteffectively by the humane studies,though it has not been done suf­ficiently. Richard M. Weaver hasexpressed pessimism about thefate of the humanities in view ofthe fact that the nonaverage,whatis best in man, is suppressed bytoday's humanists. ("The Human­ities in a Century of the· CommonMan," New Individualist Review,III, 1964).

The daemonic and evil forces inthe nature of man, the recognitionof which is essential to any seriousdiscussion, can also be·best shownthrough the humanities. Those whooperate within the fashionablefra~ework of Comte, St. Simon,Marx, Darwin, Freud, Dewey, thebehavioral sciences, and so on, willbe forever incapable of under­standing the basic issues involvedin. the struggle between individ­ualism and collectivism. They willnot comprehend many thingswhich are not in their philosophybut exist on earth. But, perhaps itis a mistake to spend too muchtime criticizing this fashionableframework. It is more urgent torise above this embattled terrainand discuss matters on a higherplane, genuinely humane.

It is necessary to resist scien­tism which to a large extent ismaterialistic and to demonstratethat man is a "spiritual" being,

1967 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND "THE HUMANITIES" 723

good or bad and capable of both,and that he does not exist in theworld in the sense that rocks andother things do. Once more thiscan be most effectively donethrough the humanities which re­veal the meaning of "philosophy."

The children· of philosophy havegrown up and have establishedhomes of their own. Philosophyhas become fragmentized; it hasbeen divided into logic, which isoften reduced to mathematics orthe science of language;· meta­physics which is often reduced tophysics; ethics, which is often re­duced to anthropology; aesthetics,which is often reduced to psychol­ogy. Much that was once consid­ered philosophy is today part .ofthe empire of science. The battle

against materialism can be bestundertaken by reaffirming when­ever possible the value of "spirit­ual" ends; we need to recover theoriginal meaning of "philosophy"now hidden behind the imperial­ism of science.

Thus, we may look to the hu­manities and their disciplines toaccomplish the following: (1)promotion of the idea of freedomand individuality by using an in­direct approach; (2) enhancementof the libertarian position by theprestige of philosophy, literature,and art; (3) reaching individualsinterested in such matters, manyof whom would not otherwise beattracted to the libertarian view­pcint. •

Signs of Civilization

THOUGH OUR CIVILIZATION is the result of a cumulation of individ­ual knowledge, it is not by the explicit or conscious combinationof all this knowledge in any individual brain, but by its embodi­ment in symbols which· we use without understanding them, inhabits and institutions, tools, and concepts, that man in society isconstantly able to profit from a body of knowledge neither he norany other man completely possesses. Many of the greatest thingsman has achieved are not the result of consciously directedthought, and still less the product of a deliberately co-ordinatedeffort of many individuals, but of a process in which the individ­ual plays a part which he can never fully understand. They aregreater than any individual precisely because they result fromthe combination of knowledge more extensive than a single mindcan master.

F. A. HA Y E K, The Counter-Revolution of Science

THE. UniversityAND Secondary

EducationJOHN O. NELSON

IN DISCUSSING university and sec­ondary education we are treadingupon holy ground. Weare expectedto tread with prayerful reverence.To be sure, we may condemn whatuniversities and secondary educa­tion in fact are, but only in orderto promote a more sublime (or ex­pensive) picture of what theyshould be. The university and theseconda.ry school have become ob­jects of testy veneration and sternworship. An intellectual, political,and moral execution greets, withan almost sure predictability, theheretic who refuses to genuflectbefore them. Even those who, likeRussell Kirk and the editorialwriter of Barron's, argue merelyfor the superiority of private overpublic education are likely to re­ceive a few admonishing strokes

Dr. Nelson is Professor of Philosophy at theUniversity of Colorado where he has taughtsince 1950. Articles and papers by him haveappeared in numerous scholarly journals andbooks in the United States and abroad.

724

on their back.1 Small heresies,after all, can lead to large ones,and large ones to the largest­the very rejection of formal edu­cation itself, private or public.

I suppose that, like a templepriest, I have been an "insider"too long to be awed either by theidols within the shrine or my fel­low priests. In any ca.se, I meanhere to part company with theuniversal worship of formal edu­cation.2 Thus, I shall not ask,

1 See, Russell Kirk, "From the Acad­emy," The National Review, Sept. 19,1967, p. 1021; "Harmful Monopoly,"Barron's, Sept. 11, 1967, p. 1.

2 I shall not include in the present ref­erence primary education, or educationin the mere acquisition of the skills of"reading, writing, and arithmetic." Pri­mary education - and particularly, uni­versal, compulsory primary education­merits a separate study. It will be seen,for example, that the objections we ad­vance against university and secondaryschooling do not apply to primary educa­tion, not even universal, compulsory pri­mary education (although other objec­tions do).

1967 THE UNIVERSITY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 725

"How can secondary educationbetter serve the university?" or"How can universities and sec­ondary schools be improved tobetter fit the young for life?" Ishall, instead, attack the commonpresupposition of these questionsand others like them. It will suf­fice for this purpose to examinethe last of the two questions Ihave hypothetically posed.

The question, "How can uni­versities and secondary schools beimproved to better fit the youngfor life?" presupposes that uni­versities and secondary schools fityoung persons for life. Now I donot wish to claim that universityand secondary schooling unfit allpersons for life. I am ready toagree that they do not unfit, forinstance, the theoretical physicistfor his life; or the savant in an­cient languages for his; or theyoung aristocrat for his; or thepriest for his. I do, however, wantto claim that they unfit young per­sons for life by and large.

Different Ways 01 Lile

What criteria can we employfor deciding whether universityand secondary schooling fit or un­fit a person for life? For one thingwe can ask whether the personhimself fits a university and sec­ondary education and vice versa.We might plausibly argue here:by its very nature, a university or

secondary education molds a per­son in such-and-such patterns; aperson has or has not the potentialto be molded in certain patterns.Returning to a previous analogy,we might compare a university orhigh school to a seminary for thepriesthood. In the seminary amental, spiritual, and physical in­doctrination is imposed whose em­phasis is on abstract studies andspeculations, asceticism, and med­itation. The student who devotessix or seven years to this disci­pline and does so successfullyemerges in the priestly mold: de­voted now by habit to abstractstudies and speculations, asceti­cism, and meditation. It is a well­known fact that most persons arenot fit for the priesthood. Theylack the physical, mental, andspiritual attributes that are re­quired. Thus, were large numbersof our young population compelledto enter the priesthood and topass through seminaries, we couldexpect to find a large portion ofthe population composed of indi­viduals who were not doing andbeing what they were suited to beand do.

Now the university by its verynature - and formal education ingeneral - imposes a mold that,though not so narrow in its defini­tion as the mold imposed by a re­ligious seminary, is still fairlynarrow. Emphasis is placed upon

726 THE FREEMAN December

abstract studies of one kind or an­other; on verbal acquisitions ofone kind or another; in short, onthe more purely symbolic activi­ties and enterprises of men. Eyes,minds, hands, and hearts are cor­respondingly turned toward thesymbolic sphere; Le., paper workof one sort or another, abstractobjects, abstract controversy, theo­rizing, and the like, and awayfrom the practical sphere; Le.,physical labor, crafts, domesticwork, and the· concrete activitiesof business, such as making aprofit, sales-clerking, stevedoring,bargaining, and so on. They areturned toward the one sphere andaway from the other in two im­portant ways. One is perfectly ob­vious. When young persons under­go training in the disciplines ofAcademe for from twelve to six­teen years, day after day, tenmonths a year, what abilities theymay have in the symbolic sphereare sharpened and strengthened,but what abilities they may havein the practical sphere are dulledand atrophied by disuse.

Unfit for Production

The other is not so obvious butis, perhaps, even more consequen­tial. The very insistence of par­ents, elders, and communitiesthat young persons devote theirenergies and minds twelve to six­teen years, nine to ten months of

the year, eight hours a day, to thedisciplines and objects of formalschooling carries with it an im­plicit evaluation. It carries with itthe implicit idea that one's inter­ests and efforts should be devotedto the disciplines and objects ofAcademe rather than the discip­lines and objects of business,farming, physical labor, and thelike. For, why else would so muchof one's life and efforts be re­quired to be spent in the fields· ofacademic labor as compared to thetime and effort spent in the prac­tical sphere? But this "should"implies, further, that academiclabor is somehow more worthythan business and other practicallabor; indeed, even that the latteris somehow unworthy or even con­temptible. Thus, the person whoemerges from a university or highschool, culminating from twelveto sixteen years of academic train­ing, will naturally entertain theprejudice that he ought to value(whether he in fact does or not)the disciplines and objects of Aca­deme and that he ought to dis­value (whether he in fact doesor not) the disciplines and objectsof the practical sphere.

The natures of most persons,however, are not cut of abstract,scholarly cloth. What, then, is theoutcome if vast numbers of theyoung are adjured and indirectlyforced to attend universities, and

1967 THE UNIVERSITY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 727

almost the entire population ofthe young is directly forced to at­tend schools devoted to the pre­liminaries of university educa­tion? We can expect to find, andwe do find, a large percentage ofyoung persons who have beentrained mentally, physically, andemotionally to do and be whatthey are not suited to do or be.More tragic, though, these youngpersons have learned in the proc­ess, or will have learned, to con­sider as alien or even contempti­ble those very things that most ofthem were naturally suited to beand do. We might expect. such in­dividuals typically to be resentful,frustrated, destructive - likePlato's stinged drones, a bane toboth themselves and others. Andtypically they are.

Serving One's Time in School

Exactly what percentage ornumber of students suffers or hassuffered in this way from the im­positions of secondary and univer­sity education I do not know. I donot know whether, indeed, any re­liable figures on their number ex­ist. But as I have already indi­cated,. the number is enormous.Unimpeachable doctrine would say,for example, that a person who isdoing and being what he is fittedto do and be displays interest andexcitement in what he is doing;the person who is doing and being

what he is not fitted to do or bedisplays and senses alienation. Toput it bluntly: the usual studentis alienated.

I am not, incidentally, referringhere to what is currently called"student alienation" in the pressand magazines. What the pressand magazines call "student alien­ation" is nothing of the sort. It is,rather, the camouflaged thrust ofa small student and faculty seg­ment of Academe to win controlof the educational system. Its truename is "student power," and"student power" can best be un­derstood as simply another of themany pincer-movements presentlybeing launched by predatory so­cialists ("civil-rights" would be an­other; Federal anti-riot legislationstill another) to complete the com­munization of the United States.

The pretended "student aliena­tion" of predatory socialism ischaracterized by the dispropor­tionate amount of publicity andpretentious analysis it receives inthe news media and the volume ofself-righteous noise it generates.Genuine student alienation is sel­dom publicized, though frequentlycommented on by teachers. It ischaracterized, not by speechmak­ing, but apathy. The truly alien­ated student is the student whomerely goes through the motionsof attending class, taking tests,reading texts. He is like the army

728 THE FREEMAN December

draftee: a prisoner merely serv­ing out his time. He has no realconcern with the abstract objectsof Academe. And his name is le­gion.

An Army of Bureaucrats

I have described one respect inwhich the university and secon­dary school by and large unfit, in­stead of fit, young persons forlife. This has had to do with theindividual as such. There is stillanother, and no less consequential,respect in which formal educa­tion unfits, rather than fits, youngpersons for life. Ignoring thenature of this or that particu­1ar individual, we might considerthe nature of any advanced econ­omy. An advanced economy restsupon capitalization; capitalizationrests upon a production of com­modities that exceeds consump­tion; and such production finallyrests upon a tradition and prac­tice of intent physical labor, bothskilled and unskilled, upon factorylabor, farm labor, business laborand business enterprise, and uponthe invention of goods and serv­ices. Lives must be devoted tothese forms of labor and enter­prise, the lives of intelligent andemotionally satisfied persons, orthere must result economic break­down and decline.

But as we have seen, the formaleducational system by and large

unfits persons, mentally, physi­cally, and emotionally, for theseall-important. forms of practicallabor and enterprise. It pre­pares persons for lives devoted topaper work and theory. But evenan advanced economy has only somuch use for scribes and theore­ticians. Where, then, can thepaper-minded and theory-mindedgraduates of the high school anduniversity find both useful andsatisfying employment? In a word,the great majority cannot. At best,they can find simply what mimicssuch employment. That is, theycan be employed in governmentbureaucracy (and very many are)or they can be plowed back intothe educational system, in themanner of Ponzi's famous pyram­idal fraud (and very many are).

Neither bureaucracies, how­ever, nor bloated educational sys­tems add a tittle of substance toan economy. They both drain awaythe fruits of productive labor andfinally the laborers themselves.Thus the university - along withits handmaiden, secondary educa­tion - by and large unfits per­sons for life not only by moldingthem to ambitions and trainingthat do not fit their real talentsand capacities, but also by fittingthem for occupations that have, onthe whole, no justifiable role toplay in the economy. The economycalls for business labor and enter-

1967 THE UNIVERSITY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 729

prise, farm labor and enterprise,factory labor and enterprise; thehigh school and university con­sume hordes of potential business­men, farmers, and workers, andspew out in return bureaucraticscribes and theoretical ne'er-do­·wells.

Prelude to Tyranny

This conversion of potentialentrepreneurs and entrepreneurialworkers into termites (bureau­cratic scribes) and stinged drones(theoretical ne'er-do-wells) canterminate only in totalitarian tyr­anny. Consider, for instance, thefollowing excerpt from an edi­torial in a recent issue of a farmjournal: "We may have to draftfarmers some day, if an attitudeexpressed in a recent Universityof Illinois survey becomes wide­spread. It showed that 95 per centof nearly 3,000 rural high schooljuniors and seniors want no partof farming as their life's work."3It is hardly necessary to point outthe connection between these em­pirical statistics and our theoreti­cal projections. What theory tellsus must occur is, in concrete fact,occurring. It might be added, more­over, that the attitude referredto in the editorial is making itselffelt not only in farming but inbusiness enterprise of all sorts,

3 The Kansas Farmer-Stockman,August, 1967, p. 4.

in the region of domestic help, inevery kind of work.

When the present explosion ofsecondary and university educa­tion has had its full impact, notonly will a farm-draft be neces­sary to replenish the labor siph­oned off from the vital areas ofthe economy by higher educationand its psychological influencesbut a general ,vork-draft. This"draft for a great society" (onecan already foresee its name) willpredictably fail in its economicobjectives. The shadow of its fail­ure has already been cast forsome fifty years by the economicfailures of state-slavery in Russia,or what is aptly called in thepages of Marxism "scientific so­cialism." Economic failure willpredictably beget more govern­ment regulation and coercion; thelatter, more failure; and so on.Thus, paradoxically, from thosevery institutions that prate mostloudly of freedom - the universityand the high school - will emerge,and is emerging, not freedom buttotal serfdom.

C·entral Planning No Solution

I have so far painted a verydark and foreboding picture of thehandiwork of the university andthe secondary school in the UnitedStates. Now, let me present apossible exit from the grim con­clusions I have· been forced to

730 THE FREEMAN December

draw. This exit depends on thepossibility of universities and sec­ondary schools fitting, instead ofunfitting, young persons for life inthe two respects that I have beendiscussing - at least, by and large,and at least in the case of thosematriculating in either. But howcan this twofold end be achieved?

Certainly it cannot be achievedin the way that the socialist, eitherscientific or utopian, will suggest.If "scientific," he will suggest thatgovernment planning and regula­tion determine in one way or an­other who is to be trained for fac­tory work, who for farm work,and who for theoretical work. En­trance and residence in a univer­sity and high school will be sub­sumed under this coercive pro­gramming. Presumably, under itsfine milling and grinding, thosewho are by nature farmers will beallotted to farming, those who areby nature theoretical physicists totheoretical physics, and the rightnumbers of each to maximally sat­isfy the needs of the economy.

Remove the Coercion and

Trust Competitive Schooling

But state planning and coercionhave proved to be an economicfailure wherever tried, and theo­retic consideration shows theymust. I shall not repeat on the lastscore the findings of Mises, Roth­bard, and others. They are easily

accessible. And they are conclu­sive.4 It suffices to point out that,this being so, state regulation ofadmission to universities and highschools and state planning of cur­ricula cannot solve the problemswe have been discussing, sincethese problems are basically eco­nomic in character. And for thesame reason, the utopian socialistcan offer no solution. He may sug­gest, for example, free and unlim­ited entrance and residence in uni­versities and high schools. Butwho is to supply the housing,classrooms, bread, wine, and teach­ers for these high-living inhabit­ants of Academe? The utopiansocialist invariably fails to tell us.He waves the wand of his feverishimagination and like a madmanthinks the imaginary banquetsand ivory towers that then springinto being have real substance.

The vexing human and economicproblems that university and sec­ondary education present can beresolved, however, in the follow­ing very simple and noncoerciveway. We need merely require thatall tax-support be withdrawn fromboth; ·that compulsory school at­tendance, child labor laws, mini­mum-wage laws, coercive union­ism, the military draft, and theother artificial instruments, de-

4 See for example, Murray N. Roth­bard, Man, Economy, a,nd State (NewYork: D. Van Nostrand, 1962), Vol. 1 &2, pp. 765 if.

1967 THE UNIVERSITY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 731

veloped and sustained throughgovernment, which isolate educa­tion from the competition of anopen market, be abolished or re­pealed. This being done, all sec­ondary and university educationwould be placed upon an equalfooting of trade with the otherproducts and services of men, tocompete with them a.ccording tosupply and demand and the freewills of men. Universities and sec­ondary schools would then take on

all the various shapes and pur­poses that the market would callfor and sustain; they would beattended hy and large only bythose fitted for the schooling pro­vided ; and they would by andlarge fit those who matriculatedfor the lives they were best fittedto live. Competition on the openmarket and economic supply anddemand would see to this, andwould see to it with incorruptiblehonesty. ~

The Case for the Private School

MANY AMERICAN PARENTS feel rightly that they, and not the

state, should be responsible for what their children become; that

education should be divorced from political control; and that

those who prefer private instruction for their children should

not be taxed for the upkeep of facilities which they did not choose

nor curricula to which they do not want them exposed. There is

a growing feeling that top administration and control of govern­

ment school systems are too remote and too difficult to influence,

that parents are mere robots in a machine that leaves little

individual choice. There is some resentment that families should

be taxed to "educate" the ineducable until adulthood when there

is neither the capacity nor desire among these "children" nor

their parents for further instruction.GEORGE s. SCHUYLER

Some

Reflections

ON Education

w. A. PATON

THE EDUCATION of the individual,in a broad sense, consists of theimpact on his mind of the entirestream of phenomena encounteredduring his lifetime, including the1'esulting reflection and pondering.Formal education - training inschools and other institutions de­voted in some degree to teachingand learning - is only one sectorof the whole process, and presum­ably not the most important ele­ment in many cases. Nowadays al­most everybody goes to schooluntil the age of fifteen or sixteen,at least, and college training, in­eluding a substantial amount ofgraduate work, has become theregular route to entry into the ma­jor professional fields and the ex­ecutive levels in business.

To note that education can be-

Dr. Paton is Professor Emeritus of Account­ing and of Economics, University of Michi­gan, and is known throughout the world forhis outstanding work in these fields. His com­ments here are excerpts from an article inThe Accounting Review, January, 1967.

732

and has often been - acquiredwithout schooling is not equiva­lent to suggesting that peopleshould stay clear of schools. Hav­ing been connected with forma!education for more than a halfcentury, I am unwilling to go thatfar. But I feel that we shouldavoid the conclusion that going tocollege assures intellectual growthand a successful life. The collegedegree may help to open the doorto a job upon graduation, but itdoesn't guarantee that the gradu­ate has the stuff essential to goodperformance.

It follows that a school shouldbe regarded as a specialized un­dertaking, not as the embodimentof all human experience a.nd ac­tivity in miniature. In other words,a school should concentrate on thetraining and learning that can beaccomplished more speedily andeffectively in an institutional set­ting than through general day-by-

1967 SOME REFLECTIONS ON EDUCATION 733

day experience, at home or on thejob or while spending time other­wise. Moreover, the school shouldnot only restrict its efforts tofields which lend themselves to at­tack in classroom and laboratorybut should give primary attentionto subjects that are acknowledgedto be especially significant andworthwhile. Even in these high­spending days no school has un­limited resources, and hence thereis need for care and good j udg­ment in determining the natureand scope of an institution's ac­tivities.

The tendency to try to coverthe whole waterfront, to includein the curriculum all sorts ofcourses for which no solid justifi­cation can be found, is one of theexplanations of the sorry showingmade by many present-day schoolsat both college and precollegelevels. Somewhat related is thedisposition to expand, proliferate,splinter the offerings in areas bothworthwhile and questionable.

Curricula Criteria

Even if the generalization be ac­cepted that the role of the schoolis limited, there remains ampleroom for debate as to the subjectsto be included in a school programand the time and effort to be de­voted to each. In making a starton the task of setting standardsfor selecting subjects to be taught,

it may be helpful to take note ofsome broad principles. A reviewof the mental activities of the hu­man animal suggests a possiblegrouping under two main heads.

In the first place there is theprocess of observing and sizing upthe phenomena encountered. Watcha small youngster and you'll notethat he is busy looking the sceneover and doing some appraisingof what he observes (including, ofcourse, hearing and feeling aswell as seeing under the term ob­servation). In the second placethere is the process of transmit­ting or communicating impres­sions, views, and desires to others,beginning with parents and othermembers of the family.

In other words, the individual'smental activity boils down to: (1)a.bsorbing, appraising, pondering,pigeonholing; (2) purposeful ar­raying and communicating. Or toput the point very tersely: brain­work consists at bottom of (1)measuring and (2) reporting.Needless to say, this stab at un­derlying classification is subject toplenty of objections, but this istrue of all taxonomic efforts, in allfields, even at the dichotomy level.(This comment, incidentally,brings to mind another twofolddivision of the thinking process:(1) brea.kdown or analysis and(2) synthesis.)

Applying the basic criteria in-

734 THE FREEMAN December

dicated, it is evident that thetraditional three R's come outwell. Reading and 'riting are ma­jor means of absorbing and trans­mitting, and 'rithmetic is indis­pensable to measurement. Writingin the calligraphic sense is not tobe disdained; achieving a goodhand is worthwhile, like learningto spell accurately, and a host ofother accomplishments. But writ­ing ability in the sense of first­class composition is a more rareand much more significant attain­ment. If I were faced with theproblem of selecting the outstand­ing subject deserving rigorous andcontinuing attention in the schoolsystem, in preparation for a use­ful career, I would not pick phys­ics or accounting but would givethe edge to English composition.In professional work of all kindsthe ability to write well (reflect­ing the ability to think well) is ofparamount importance.

In stressing writing I am notforgetting the great importanceof being able to speak well, and Ibelieve that a college or universitycurriculum may properly includesome courses in this field. I amalso not forgetting that readingability is the underlying talent,and that without at least fair read­ing skill it is difficult to make realheadway in any direction in theformal educational system. Exten­sive reading of good writing, of

course, is a great aid in buildinga vocabulary and developing theability to write.

Vocational vs. Cultural

An example of the human habitof setting up contrasts and con­troversies where .there is no basicclash, plus the exaggeration ofsuch differences as maY,be present,is the long-standing discussion ofthe relative merits of vocationaland cultural studies and pursuits.Without fully understanding whatthey have been aiming at,manyteachers and school administratorshave been clamoring for more em­phasis on the cultural as opposedto the vocational or career-build­ing approach in setting up collegeprograms. "Let's develop a socialconsciousness," "Let's learn to begood citizens," "Let's broaden ourunderstanding" - such are the slo­gans of this group. Above all, sothey say, "Let's avoid the merebread-and-butter courses."

This kind of talk is pure tommy­rot. When is a person going to getready to be productive if not dur­ing his school days, now length­ened into a long stretch of years,a substantial slice of an entire lifespan? I would not advise anyyoung man to go to college unlesshis primary objective is to preparehimself for some profession orfield of endeavor, unless he hopesthat the college training will help

1967 SOME REFLECTIONS ON EDUCATION 735

him to get hold of a rung of acareer ladder. (This doesn't neces­sarily mean that he need makea final choice of a vocation he­fore entering college, or even thatthe .matter has to be settled duringthe first year or two; there's some­thing to be said for retainingflexibility, and having more thana single string to one's bow.)

Learn .the Native Language

8efore Dabbling in Others

But there is more to the story.Upon analysis and appraisal of theso-called cultural courses one findslittle support for their preten­sions. Foreign language study isgenerally regarded as an outstand­ing part of the cultural curricu­1um' and some schools require allstudents to take one, two, or moreyears of work in this field. In somecases, indeed, this is the only uni­versal subject requirement. Whatare the results for the mine-runstudent: a bare smattering ofknowledge of a language in whichhe will never become proficientand which he will never use. Inputtering, halfheartedly, throughone or two years of classes in aforeign language, the time andeffort of the student are largelywasted. The futility of suchcourses is especially clear in thecase of students inadequatelytrained in English - who havetrouble composing a postcard to

mother - and this means the greatmajority.

For heaven's sake, let's try todo som~thing to equip students intheir native language, and meansof communication, instead of side­tracking them into a feeble intro­duction to another language. I amnot objecting, of course, to seri­ous, intensive study of a foreignlanguage with the end in view ofmastering the language and mak­ing use of this equipment in acareer in foreign .service or else­where.

This brings me to the mainpoint. A thoroughgoing course inphysics, chemistry, or accounting- to mention only a few possibili­ties - which opens doors to pro­fessional activity and a good liv­ing upon graduation, obviouslyhas more genuine cultural valuethan a superficial attack on a for­eign language that leads nowhere.

There is no good reason for la­beling an interesting, vigorous,significant subject "noncultural"because it has a vocational aspect.It is not at aU difficult to select afour-year program of collegecourses rich in Kultur, in the bestsense, as well as valuable from aprofessional career standpoint. Acourse doesn't have to be imprac­tical to be eminently worthwhile.

Breadth of training has someappeal and merit, but breadth thatamounts to shallowness, with no

736 THE FREEMAN December

depth anywhere, is not a suitablegoal of educational effort. Jack-of­all-trades but master of none re­mains a dubious calling.

Student Aptitudes and Attitudes

Today's college students in themass are less able and less studi­ous than those of fifty years ago.Growth of the view that everybodyshould go to college, fortified bythe widespread and very silly no­tion that all of us have the samepackage of native abilities andthat all our limitations are of en­vironmental origin, is partly re­sponsible for this condition. An­other factor is the softening ofprecollege training to the pointwhere even the most backwardstudents are pushed along gradeby grade at the elementary leveland generally don't find it verydifficult to obtain a high-schooldiploma. The result is the flood­ing of colleges with students lack­ing the inherent mental equip­ment to handle staple college sub­jects effectively, as well as stu­dents of ability who have neverbeen called upon to exert them­selves scholastically and hence findit difficult to make a decent show­ing in college. In this situation itbecomes increasingly hard tomaintain traditional standards, tosay nothing of strengthening suchstandards.

Affected by the watered-down

training experienced in precollegeschool days, and infected more orless with the spreading sentimentto the effect that everyone has aright to share in the pie regardlessof contribution or effort, the atti­tudes of many college studentshave become very trying to theserious teacher. Indifference tothe point of impudence seems to beon the increase in college class­rooms. "Here I am, and what areyou going to do about it" seemsto be implied by the slouchy pos­tures and yawning unshaven facesnow confronting instructors in in­creasing numbers. (The tendencytoward indifference, it must be ad­mitted, is often aggravated by aboring, ineffective performance onthe part of the instructor.)

A student's attitude, beyonddoubt, has an important bearingon his performance and successthroughout his school experience.Ability is important, but abilitynot accompanied by gumption anddrive is likely to go to waste. Thechap with fair ability who staysin there pitching may do better inthe long run than the person withsuperior talent but lacking in de­termination and staying power.The teacher may have little spark,and the subject may not be ex­citing, but usually a bit of juicecan be squeezed out of the orangeby the reasonably capable studentif he really tries.

1967' SOME REFLECTIONS ON EDUCATION 737

The squandering of severalyears in college by persons whowill not profit from the experiencebecause of lack of ability or otherdeficiencies should not be encour­aged. Aside from the funds wastedis the resulting serious loss of man­power. There is also the fact thatthe squandered years may wellcrystallize the personal deficienciesand decrease the potential of thestudent when he finally does try togo to work.

Perhaps mention should be made

here of the beatniks and trouble­makers who are infesting collegecampuses in increasing numbersthese days. On this subject it ismy feeling that although cleanli­ness may not be next to godliness,there is still something to be saidfor good appearance and deport­ment. I see no reason for spendinga lot of money, furnished by tax­payers or otherwise, to provide fa­cilities for the bums - real or imi­tation - to strut their stuff. ~

Reprints available, 3 cents each.

Values in the Classroom

IF A LIST of the most inspiring and influential teachers of the past

could be drawn up, it might well show the majority were men who

were strongly and even passionately committed to certain values

and who communicated these values both in the classroom and out­

side it. Education is, after all, not a one-sided process aimed ex­

clusively at the communication of facts and the development of

skill in correct reasoning. Education of the whole man is also

moral, that is, it involves the inculcation of values. To abdicate

this responsibility in the name of a spurious scientific objectivity

is to create a moral vacuum in the minds and hearts of our youth.PATRICK M. BOARMAN

F R E E DO M D EP END SON

DEAN RUSSELL

My GRANDFATHER fought for free­dom while he continued to ownslaves. His concept of freedompermitted him to direct and con­trol the activities of other men.And when he was denied the legalright to take for his own use thefruits of other people's labor, hewas honestly convinced that hisfreedom had been curtailed tosome extent.

An absurd concept of· freedom?Well, he was no different in thisrespect from Jefferson, Washing­ton, Patrick Henry, and othersof our Founding Fathers. It is

Dr. Russell, long-time member of the staff ofthe Foundation for Economic Education, nowheads the Department of Economics at ArtesiaCollege, New Mexico.

This article was previously published as apamphlet by the Foundation in 1953, but re­cent manifestations of violence throughout thenation and the world - even by teachers­suggest the need to refer again to the funda­mentals of freedom Dr. Russell espouses.

738

true that they had developed abetter understanding of freedomthan had any political group be­fore them, and I respect themhighly for their revolutionary andmagnificent concepts of inalien­able rights which come from Godinstead of· government. But evenso, they still believed that libertypermits some men to use violenceto control the actions and· to ownthe production of other men. OurForefathers believed, of course,that these controls over other menshould be permitted only if theywere sanctioned by a governmentbased on the democratic or repub­lican processes. But while reject­ing the concept of hereditary rul­ers, they did not entirely rejectthe "Old World" idea that it ispermissible for some persons touse the powers of government to

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 739

aid them in controlling the ac­tions and disposing of the produc­tion of other persons.

A discredited idea of freedom?Well, that same concept of free­dom is still widely held through­out the United States today. Thereasons advanced to defend thefact that some men have the au­thority to control the productiveactions of other men have changed.And the modern way of takingand distributing the fruits ofother people's labor is seldomcalled slavery. But the legal rightof some men to control the pro­ductive activities of other mencontinues to exist as before. Andthe present-day tax of more than80 per cent of some persons' in­comes is probably a far greaterpercentage of their productionthan was ever withheld from anyslave.

Might or Right

Is this present-day taking ofother people's production legal? Itis. But so was outright slaveryonce legal! Did that make itright? Let us hope that we Ameri­cans never delude ourselves intothe belief that right is properlydetermined by a show of hands.For if we do, we are lost.

The extent and type of the legalcontrols over persons, and the de­gree of the taking of other peo­pIe's production, have varied

greatly throughout the history ofthe United States. But the over­whelming majority of the Ameri­can people have always believedthat freedom includes the right ofsome persons to use the legal au­thority of government to controlthe productive efforts and incomesof other persons.

Abraham Lincoln recognizedthis dilemma in 1864 when hestated: "The world has never hada good definition of the word lib­erty, and the American people,just now, are much in want of one.We all declare for liberty, but inusing the same word we do not allmean the same thing. With somethe word liberty may mean foreach man to do ashe pleases withhimself, and the product of hislabor; while with others the sameword may mean for some men todo as they please with other men,and the product of other men's la­bor. Here are two, not only dif­ferent, but incompatible things,called by the same name-liberty."

Both Lincoln and Jefferson Da­vis announced themselves for free­dom. So did Stalin and Hitler. Sodo you and I and almost everyoneelse. And I have no reason todoubt that each is sincerely infavor of freedom-his concept offreedom.

Just as I hope you will givecareful consideration to my ideason freedom, just so will I be most

740 THE FREEMAN Decembe'r

pleased to give careful considera­tion to yours. For unless there isa common understanding of themeaning of freedom, we will con­tinue to fight each other in itsname.

Individual Freedom

It seems to me that much of theconfusion over the meaning ofliberty and freedom begins withan incomplete or inadequate ex­planation of what the phrase "in­dividual freedom" really refers to.

While human freedom neces­sarily concerns the individual, itdoes so only in the sense thatfreedom always refers to a rela­tionship or condition betu'een twoor more persons. While it is nec­essarily always individuals whounderstand, practice, and advancefreedom, the concept applies onlywhen there is some sort of con­tact between two or more of them.The idea of freedom would be use­less to a person isolated foreverfrom any contact with any otherperson. Contrasted with the ideasof food and shelter - which canbe applied to one person alone­the idea of human freedom has nomeaning except in society.

Reference to the concept offreedom, then, always applies to acondition or relationship betweentwo or more persons. Just what isthat relationship? Certainly itwould be nonsensical to describe

freedom as a relationship of vio­lence, where some persons aretrying to impose their wills uponother persons. Probably the bestword to describe that condition istyranny.

Freedom Defined

Freedom is a relationship orcondition of nonmolestation. Theword "molestation" is here usedto include murder, defamation ofcharacter, theft, libel, fraud, vio­lence or the threat of violence, orany other act of aggression byone person against another per­son's life, liberty, good name, orproperty. And the fact that themolestation may be legal- slav­ery, restrictions against trade,compulsory unionism, and so on­does not deny that freedom is in­fringed.

Since freedom describes a rela­tionship of nonmolestation be­tween persons, it is misleading tospeak of freedom as though it ap­plies to one person alone. This ismisleading because it is incom­plete; because it refers to onlypart of a necessary relationship;because it tends to obscure thefact that one or more other per­sons are necessarily involved.

Yet, the idea of freedom is al­most always used in the sense thatone individual can be free andhave his freedom, even though hemay be exercising legal authority

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 741

over the productive activities andincomes of others - up to and in­cluding complete slavery. Thatseems to me an unfortunate con­cept of freedom. But such has al­ways been the popular conceptand still is.

Unrestrained Freedom

When I speak of freedom, Imean a condition of mutual non­molestation, with no person mo­lesting any other person. Underthat concept, I fully endorse "un­restrained freedom" - a societybased on the idea that no one hasthe right to molest anyone else; asociety wherein everyone is legallyforbidden to molest anyone else.

Now, I am aware that many mil­lions of persons within our so­ciety do not share my faith in theprinciple of mutual nonmolesta­tion. And there seems little like­lihood that the various types anddegrees of molestation which nowexist will disappear over night.But regardless of what others sayor do, it is obvious that those ofus who believe in mutual non­molestation must take the firstand necessary step toward it bypersonally following the idea ofno molestation against others.There is no other way for free­dom to begin except through itspractice by individuals who un­derstand what it is.

When Hitler spoke of freedom,

he merely meant a condition inwhich no one molested him. Hisconcept actually required thatsome of the German people molestothers of the German people. Theonly condition that freedom de­scribed to Hitler was one whereinhe could do as he pleased. To him,freedom was strictly a one-waystreet.

You shouldn't be surprised atHitler's concept of freedom. Hedidn't invent it and he had nomonopoly upon it. It was, and is,held almost universally. As statedabove, our Forefathers fought anddied for freedom. And they weresincere about it. Yet, they didthis while they themselves con­tinued to violate freedom by con­trolling the productive activitiesand incomes of other persons.

The vast majority of our cur­rent state and Federal officials be­lieve sincerely in what they un­derstand as freedom. Yet, so far asI know, few if any of them fullyaccept the idea of freedom as areciprocal relationship of nonmo­lestation among persons. On thecontrary, most of them look uponfreedom as a condition whereinsome persons are obligated to mo­lest other persons. The candidatesof all political parties in our lastelections said they believed sin­cerely in freedom. Yet almost allof them endorsed specific issuesthat undeniably molest persons by

742 THE FREEMAN December

forcing some to· conform to theviewpoints and ideas of others.

Liberty and License

Our legislators are honorablemen. They are sincerely trying todo what they consider to be a nec­essary and not-always-pleasantjob. But I wonder if many of themare not confusing liberty and Ii­cense.

In order better to understandthe reason for this possible con­fusion, let us consider the follow­ing example: A person uses hiso,vn honestly acquired money tobuild a house for $10,000. In theprocess, he molests no person orgroup of persons - neither de­fames them, defrauds them,breaks his voluntary contractswith them, nor uses violence orthe threat of violence againstthem.

Upon completion of the house,the owner decides to offer it forrent. For a reason known only tohimself, he sets a rental price of$500 a month. At that price, thehouse stays vacant - even thoughthere may be many persons whowould like to live in the house ata rental price which would pay theowner a four or six or eight percent return on his investment.

Would not the word "freedom"be the proper term to describesuch a condition of nonmolestationwherein no person would be using

violence or the threat of violenceto impose his will or viewpointupon any other person?· Since noone would be forced to buy and noone would be forced to sell, wouldthat not be freedom?

Most of our governmental offi­cials, backed by the vast majorityof the American people, wouldsurely reply to that question some­what as follows: "No! You havedescribed a condition of licensewherein the people would berobbed and exploited or forced toremain in substandard housing,wherein freedom would be de­stroyed. In order to restore free­dom, we would have to molest suchunreasonable property owners tomake sure they conform to our ideaof a proper price."

And so it would go as it almostalways has. During the days ofNRA, a merchant was accused oflicense if he sold below the gov­ernment-set price. During the daysof OPS, he was accused of licenseif he sold above the government­set price. Under "Fair Trade"laws, he is accused of license ifhe sells either above or below aprice which is approved and en­forced by government.

Freedom - a condition of non­molestation in the market placeand every\vhere else - is oftencalled license! While license - acondition wherein some personsmolest other persons - is all too

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 743

frequently called freedom! Thepopular concept of freedom has al­'ways described a condition in so­ciety wherein some persons uselegal violence or the threat of legalviolence to compel other personsto conform to their wishes. Thedegree of molestation has variedfrom time to time and from gov­ernment to government. But at notime under any government hasthe popular concept of freedomever been used to describe eitheran actual or potential condition ofnonmolestation among persons.

A Mutual Concept

Freedom is destroyed betweentwo persons to whatever extenteither one· uses violence or thethreat of violence to impose· hiswill or viewpoint upon the other.Regardless of who is the aggres­sor and who is the victim - orwhether the violence is legal orillegal - freedom is still infringed.

If you have rendered me help­less by throwing me to the groundand sitting on top of me, every­one understands clearly that myfreedom has been severely cur­tailed. But what is not generallyunderstood is. that your freedomis also curtailed as long as youmust spend your time and effort tohold me down. You thereby re­strict your own progress and im­provement just as you do mine.

Freedom is a reciprocal rela-

tionship based on voluntary agree­ments and actions. This applies inall human relationships, eventhough they· are seldom as clearand dramatic as person-to-personviolence. The only real possibilityfor complete freedom for yourselfas an individual is for you to re­frain from initiating violence orthe threat of violence against any­one else. This is the vital firststep toward a condition of mutualnonmolestation - a step that anyone of us can take as soon as heis ready.

"But," someone may ask,. "sinceI am holding you down by my ownfree will, how can it possibly besaid that I am thereby interferingwith my own freedom? I am do­ing exactly what 1 want to do!"

Maybe so. But if the man on topunderstood the full significance ofsuch a course of action, he wouldnot deliberately follow it or usethe word freedom to describe it.

The reality of this thesis that noperson can really have completefreedom for himself while he isimposing his will - legally or ille­gally - upon the creative activitiesor incomes of others may possiblybe more easily understood ifap­proached from another angle.!

1 While examples given herein dealprimarily with material prosperity, thisis not to. say that economic well-beingis the most important aspect of freedom.Actually, it is a by-product of something

744 THE FREEMAN December

If all persons in the world ex­cept you were suddenly to die, it ismost unlikely that you 'would liveout your normal span of life asyou would want to do. That is truebecause the increased materialprosperity resulting from speciali­zation and division of labor hasencouraged you to depend uponother persons for the things youwant and need - the things youwant to do. Imagine what wouldhappen to you if you had to buildyour o\vn house from virgin tim­ber with no axe or saw or nails,raise your own food without hoeor plow or seeds, be your own sur­geon without instruments or medi­cines, construct every itern ofyour own electric system withouttools of any kind, and so on andso on. You would soon perish.

If half the people in the UnitedStates were suddenly to die, youwould, for the same reason, nolonger be able to do many of thethings you have been doing and\vish to continue to do. And al­though it is difficult to trace di­rectly, the same sort of thing hap­pens when even one productiveperson dies. This fact is easier tovisualize if you think in terms ofthe "key man" of whatever busi­ness you are most interested in.

more important. The examples dealmostly wi th production because it is gen­erally familiar and appears to be themost restricted freedom of all.

The Result 01 ControlsNow let us transfer this same

idea over to the concepts of con­trols and slavery instead of death.If the records of history are to begiven any value at all, they offerconclusive proof that the slavedoesn't produce as much as the per­son who is working of his own freewill. Nor can the slave contributeas much to one's spiritual and men­tal development as he could if he,vere released from the physicalcontroIs over him.

If all mankind were enslaved orcontrolled by one person or a smallgroup of persons, literally millionsof people would starve to death asa result of the tremendous decreasein production that would automati­cally follo,v. 2 The rest would sinkslowly back into darkness and sav­agery. Yet, the people who hold thepopular, one-sided concept of free­dom will still say that the slavemaster at least would have his "in­dividual" freedom under those cir­cumstances because no one wouldbe controlling him!

It is true that the slave mastermight be able to confiscate a largeshare of the available productionfor himself at the expense of oth­ers. But, with the exception of afew brilliant fanatics who honestlybelieve that slavery is the best pos-

2 The truth of this fact is proved byboth the ancient and modern histories ofvarious European and Asiatic nations.

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 745

sible form of society, slaves seldomproduce literature or printingpresses or new methods for in­creasing production and distribut­ing it more widely. The man whoseactivities are directed by violenceor the threat of violence doesn't or­dinarily invent and increase theproduction of television sets, bettersurgical instruments and medi­cines, great sermons and studiesin philosophy, and such. The slavemaster cannot take for his own useand advancement that which hasnot been invented or produced! Hemight honestly believe that he him­self has complete freedom, but thedecreased rate of development-oreven the degeneracy-of his moral,mental, social, and physical well­being would offer conclusive proofof the shortcomings of such a con­cept of freedom.

If only half of all mankind wereenslaved, this same thing wouldhappen to the slave master in someproportion. If a person uses vio­lence or the threat of violence-le­gal or illegal-to control the produc­tive activities or income of evenone person, he himself will therebysuffer diminishing opportunitiesfor the development of his own po­tentialities. And most unfortunateof all, his action against freedomalso does great harm to many in­nocent bystanders who desire tolive in peace with their fellow men.

Suppose that someone had tried

to control the creative activities ofan individual like Edison, or Aqui­nas, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare,or a hundred other producers invarious fields that come readily tomind. The opportunities for peace­ful pursuit of the things you nowdo and wish to continue to do-thereal meaning of freedom - wouldhave been decreased immeasurablyif the activities and incomes ofthose individuals had been con­trolled by some outside authority,vith the power to direct and re­strain them completely. Unfortu­nately, there were some controlsupon the creative activities and in­comes of those persons. Thus itseems reasonably certain that youand I today are missing many op­portunities ,vhich would have beenavailable to us if those men had en­joyed complete freedom - if theyhad lived in a society organized ac­cording to the idea of mutual non­molestation.

Future Leaders

The present and future produc­tive leaders of mankind are now be­ing severely controlled, directed,and restricted by governmental au­thority. And it is being done be­cause most of us honestly butmistakenly believe that freedomdemands that some men control thecreative activities and incomes ofother men! The vast majority ofthe world's people still sincerely be-

746 THE FREEMAN December

lieve that they themselves can havecomplete freedom even though theyuse violence or the threat of vio­lence to. direct· the activities. andcontrol the incomes of others! Theydo not accept the idea that freedomis a mutual relationship of non­molestation among persons.

Now someone may say: "This isall very well in theory, but there isno possible way of measuring whatmight have been or, in this case,even what might be. I still can't seespecifically how I lose any of myfreedom merely because some per­son. in this or some other countrymight be controlled by his own gov­ernment."

Communist Freedom

Well, let's apply the test to thecommunist nations of today. Sev­eral hundred millions of individualRussians, Chinese, and others areforbidden to trade with you or tovisit you or to exchange ideas withyou or to worship with you. Ourperiodicals and newspapers devotemuch space to the telling of howthose persons have lost most oftheir freedom.

But what has this to do with yourfreedom? Well, can you visit withthose individual Russians and tradewith them or exchange ideas withthem or worship with. them? No,you have lost a great deal of yourown freedom even though you maynot .be aware of it. If any person

anywhere in the world is deprivedof his freedom to trade or to com­municate with you, automaticallyyou thereby lose your freedom ofopportunity to trade or to com­municate with him. That fact is asundeniable as two plus two equalsfour.

A Comparison

Legalized violence is already be­ing used to deprive a~most half ofthe world's people of their freedomof opportunity to trade or to wor­ship or to communicate or to visitor to exchange ideas with you. Tovisualize how this affects· your ownfreedom, just imagine what wouldhappen to you if the other half ofthe world's people were also de­prived of their freedom to have anycontact with you. Under those con­ditions, you would soon die fromlack of food or shelter or clothingor medical attention, or from sheerboredom or frustration. Yet, thepersons who hold the popular ideathat freedom can be applied to oneperson alone would still say youwould remain free because no onewould be molesting you! Such aconcept of freedom would appearto be the sheerest nonsense.

It is true that we Americans en­joy more freedom-less legal and il­legal molestation - than the peo­ple of any other nation. But no per­son in America is completely freeas long as violence-under the power

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 747

ofgovernment or otherwise-is usedto restrict or to control or to directthe activities or income of even onepeaceful person. To whatever ex­tent any person is forbidden totrade or to exchange ideas withyou, to the same extent you arethereby deprived of the opportunityto trade or to exchange ideas withhim.

To repeat, freedom is a relation­ship of mutual nonmolestationamong persons. Yet, the over­whelming majority of the world'speople have always thought of free­dom as being the legal right ofsome persons to impose their willsand viewpoints upon other persons.And they still do. Let us examinea few popular examples of this athome and abroad.

Houses and Subsidies

When the Russian governmentbuilds houses for some persons atthe expense of other persons, it al­ways does it in the good name offreedom. But it cannot logically becalled freedom because the processof governmental housing describesa relationship among persons\vherein some persons are undenia­bly molesting other persons againsttheir wills at some point within theprocess.

When the English governmentgrants subsidies to certain manu­facturers or farmers or other fa­vored groups, it claims to be ad-

vancing freedom for the Englishpeople. Actually, complete freedomceases to exist anlong the personsinvolved when government rewardssome persons at the .expense ofother persons.

It may be alleged that while asubsidy decreases the freedom ofthe persons from· whom the moneyis taken, surely it doesn't decreasethe freedom of the persons who getit. This is the ever-popular "RobinHood" concept of freedom-a per­son can be "free" even though heexists by doing violence to others.The person who accepts that idea offreedom can sincerely advocatecomplete government ownershipand control in the name of freedom.A.nd it is worth noting that the ad­vocate of government ownership­whatever the degree - is alwayshappy to specify who shall do thetaking, whom it shall be takenfrom, and who shall be rewardedwith the confiscated production.

Controls and Democracy

When the government of Argen­tina initiates price controls, wagecontrols, rent controls, tariffs, gov­ernment-owned hydroelectric proj­ects' and other similar compulsivedevices, it claims to be doing thesethings to preserve freedom. Andapparently the vast majority of Ar­gentineans believe it. Yet, in eachinstance, some persons obviouslyare using violence or the threat of

748 THE FREEMAN December

violence to impose their wills uponother persons who believe differ­ently. That process should not bedescribed as freedom. And the factthat the molestation is legal has nobearing upon the fact that freedomhas thereby been decreased.

When our own government takesour money from us against ourwills and gives it to Tito, Franco,Peron-Germany, Italy, Japan, andother nations-our officials sincer­ely believe that they are doing it topreserve peace and freedom. Yet,this entire process is based on vio­lence or the threat of violenceagainst our own citizens. In mostinstances, we are compelled to dowhat few of us would do with ourown resources if we were free todecide for ourselves directly. Thisis the exact reverse of a conditionof nonmolestation among persons.Such a transaction, founded uponviolence, should never be calledfreedom.

It is true that our officials wereduly elected by the people. But sowere slaveholding officials! Didthat fact change slavery into free­dom? Directly or indirectly, theAmerican people have the legalright to vote for either a policy ofmolestation or a policy of non­molestation. An examination of therecord shows quite clearly that thevote is almost always for a pro­gram of molestation. The variouscampaign platforms differ only in

the degree of molestation and whichgroup is to be molested and whichgroup is to be in charge of doingthe molesting.

Self-Defense

But what about self-defense?Admitting that freedom is de­creased between them when oneperson molests another, what is theinnocent victim of the lost freedomto do?

First, the person who fully un­derstands freedom will never know­ingly abolish or diminish it. Thatis, he will never knowingly initiateor advocate any action or law thatimposes his ideas or viewpointsupon any other person against thatperson's will.

Any person who is aware that heis the victim of molestation will al­ways use whatever measures hedeems best and most suitable togain freedom. This is an instinc­tive reaction; for, obviously, noperson wishes to be molestedagainst his will. If he understandsfreedom, he himself will neverknowingly be the aggressor. Butwhether he understands it or not,he will at least strive for a con­dition of minimum molestationagainst himself.

The means he uses to gain thisend may be persuasion, argument,prayer, nonresistance, noncoopera­tion, guile, counterviolence, poli­tics, or whatever. Most probably it

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 749

will be a combination of several ofthese and similar measures, de­pending on circumstances and hisunderstanding of moral principles.

Means to an End

My goal is freedom-a conditionof nonmolestation among persons.To the best of my ability, I willstrive toward that goal. I will usethe means which seem to me to beboth morally right and tacticallyeffective.

For example, I would prefer topersuade the would-be murderer tolet me live. But if that doesn'twork, I believe that I am morallyright and tactically correct in us­ing counterviolence to defend my­self against him. And that is prob­ably what I will do if the occasionshould ever arise.

I believe that I am morally rightand tactically correct when I chooseto join my fellow men of a like mindin resisting aggression from thegangster at home or the maraudingarmy from abroad-so long as weourselves don't deny our own prin­ciple by using violence or the threatof violence upon our peacefulneighbors who do not choose tojoin us; so long as we confine ouractions to defense against a directa,nd unquestionable threat to ourlives, liberty, or property. I believethat this can be accomplished moreeffectively by voluntary and coor­dinated group action than by in-

voluntary group action or isolatedindividual action. I believe that itis morally right and tactically cor­rect to advocate and support a gov­ernment dedicated to the proposi­tion of preserving freedom-a so­ciety wherein no person is per­mitted to molest any other person;a society wherein every person islegally forbidden to molest anyother person. And, of course, I be­lieve it is morally right and tac­tically correct for society's polit­ical agent to use the necessary de­gree of legal counterviolence re­quired to stop any person frommolesting any other person. Itseems to me that the sole purposeof government - the social agencyof coercion - should be to defendequally all of its citizens againstwhoever molests them.

A Doubt

Thus do I advocate and supportthe use of purely defensive violenceas an integral and necessary meanstoward the preservation of max­imum freedom in a world wheremany persons are not yet willingto live in peace with their fellowmen. But it should be noted that Ihave no way of knowing with ab­solute certainty that my endorse­ment of even defensive violence isthe best principle to follow. I nowbelieve it is. But when I study thelives of Christ, Gandhi, and otherswho seemed to endorse a policy of

750 THE FREEMAN December

turning the other cheek and of notusing violence even for defense, Iprefer not to become too dogmaticon the subject. Their moral policiesappear to have been quite effective.

Whether or not I am justified inmy endorsement of defensive vio­lence, this much is certain: I can­not logically claim to favor freedomwhen I am initiating violence orthe threat of violence - legal or il­legal-to force any person to con­form to my ideas, beliefs, or view­points. Thus, come what may, I willnever knowingly and deliberatelyinitiate violence against my fellowman. I have too much respect forhim (and for myself) to do such athing.

If what my neighbor is doingwith himself and his own propertyappears wrong or illogical to me,then it would seem certain that'what I am doing with myself andmy property appears equally wrongor illogical to him. Thus we havethe choice between neither one'smolesting the other, or fighting itout to determine who shall conformto whom. I choose to follow thecourse- of freedom, to take the firstand necessary and logical step to­ward a relationship of mutual non­molestation.

An Epilogue:

Let Us Not Despair

Here follows what seems to mea most encouraging thought for

those among us who despair ofliberty.

Freedom will never disappearcompletely and forever - in Rus­sia or anywhere else. The popular,one-way, "individualistic" conceptof freedom will at least serve toprevent that. Since no personwants others to molest him, al­most every person will rebelagainst molestation somewherealong the line, even though hemay foolishly continue to molestothers while he is rebelling againstthose who are molesting him.

At one time or another, the peo­ple of all nations have rebelledagainst excessive molestation fromtheir own governments. This is astrue of the United States as it isof Russia.

These rebellions sometimesbring an increased degree of free­dom - that is, a decre-ased degreeof molestation - for a while. Thenthe rebels, not fully understand­ing that freedom is a condition ofreciprocal nonmolestation, seeminevitably to begin to initiate thesame sort of laws against whichthey themselves rebelled.

They rebel against a tea tax,and then put a tax on tea! Theyrebel against price controls, tar­iffs, and other restraints on trade;then they re-establish price con­trols, tariffs, and the various otherrestraints on trade! They rebelagainst the idea of government-

1967 MY FREEDOM DEPENDS ON YOURS 751

granted special privileges to cer­tain persons and groups, and thendemand special privileges fromgovernment for themselves andtheir particular groups! They re­bel against Siberia for politicalprisoners, and then send politicalprisoners to Siberia !They rebelagainst the Bastille, and then putthe guillotine in its place!

Even so, the ideas of humanfreedom which have been loosedthroughout the world during thepast 500 years are now too· strongto be completely lost again. Whilethe trend of the past 50 yearshas been toward more governmentand less freedom, there is no rea­son to assume this· will continueforever.

Peace and Freedom Depend

on Individual Determination

In order for the highest ideasand ideals of mankind to prevailgenerally, it seems obvious that acondition of peace and freedom isrequired - a society wherein noperson molests any other person;a society wherein no person pre­vents any other person from de­veloping his creative potentialitiesto the fullest extent of his under­standing and ability.

This desirable state of affairswill not occur all at once. It willgrow only as freedom is under­stood and as faith in it is restored.If one person decides today to

practice freedom, the evolutionaryprocess in human relationshipswill move forward one more step.That is the only possible path tofreedom - a peaceful change inthought and understanding andaction among individual· persons.

Anyone can begin the practiceof freedom whenever he choosesto do so. It is easy, and one neednot wait upon other persons toagree before he begins. No com­mittee resolutions or elections orlaws are needed for a person tobegin the practice of freedom. Oneneed merely resolve not to imposehis will - legally or illegally ­upon his peaceful fellow men intheir religions, their economic the­ories, their attitudes, their morals,their mores, or whatever. Andthen start to practice it.

Set an Example

But suppose that "scoundrelnext door" takes advantage ofyour faith in freedom and beginsmolesting peaceful you ? Well, youwill discover two things: First,your neighbor is just as convincedthat you won't voluntarily "do theright thing" as you are convincedthat he won't voluntarily "do theright thing." Second, when yourwords and your actions have con­vinced your neighbor that youhave no designs upon him or his,he will admire you so much thathe will eventually ask you ques-

752 THE FREEMAN December

tions to find out how you got thatway - and then he is ready to hearout your ideas on freedom. Aclear and simple and consistentexplanation from you may causehim also to practice freedom­that is, to stop advocating lawsto force other people to do whathe believes they should do.

Might there not be exceptions?Probably so. But it isn't too im­portant. If a person is busily en-

gaged in minding his own busi­ness instead of imposing his ideasand viewpoints upon others, he'will be pleasantly surprised at theincrease in his own spiritual andphysical and material well-being.In addition, if he recognizes amoral obligation to be a goodneighbor and citizen, this per­sonal practice of freedom wouldalso seem to be the most effectiveapproach to that desirable goal. ~

ATale ofTWO WORDS

DEAN LIPTON

How FUTILE are words amongthose who do not understand theirmeaning!

"We all declare for liberty," saidLincoln, "but in using the sameword we do not all mean the samething." Nor do we all mean thesame thing by our words for thosetwo important aspects of liberty:rights and equality.

A hundred and thirty odd yearsago young Benjamin Disraeli was

Mr. Lipton of San Francisco has been a news­paperman and Army Historian whose articleshave appeared in numerous magazines.

standing for Parliament. Thisgrandson of a Venetian Jew wouldone day become Prime Minister ofQueen Victoria's England. Butthat was far in the future, and hisimmediate task was to defeat aliberal opponent. He told the solidcountry folk of his constituency:"I prefer the liberties we now en­joy to the liberalism they profess,and find something better thanthe Rights of lVlan in the Rightsof Englishmen."

There were, of course, many inDisraeli's day as there are today

1967 A TALE OF TWO WORDS 753

to see in these words a lack ofcompassion; here was a youngman obviously unconcerned withthe rights of anyone but an Eng­lishman. Anyone referring in ourtime to the "rights of English­men" (or of Americans) surelywould be denounced for negatingor downgrading the rights of less­developed peoples of Asia or Africaor South America.

What Disraeli Knew

Now, none of this would betrue. To begin with, Disraeli­more than most men - knew themeaning of words. He knew andunderstood the ideas inherent inthe history of his Jewish ancestorsand also was well versed in thehistory and traditions of Anglo­Saxon England. Aside from hispolitical ambitions, he was awriter of brilliant, witty, and in­cisive political and social novelswhich explored the foibles, weak­nesses, and strengths of the so­ciety and politics of the Englandof his time.

Although Disraeli doubtlesswould have favored extending the"rights of man" to men every­where, he knew that this wouldmean little until all men agreedon what those rights were. To aZulu chief in Africa, who couldorder a thousand men to leap overa cliff to demonstrate his power,the phrase would have a meaning

not understood by Disraeli's con­stituents. Nor would it have meantthe same thing to a French revo­lutionary leader like Robespierreor St. Just, who wrote about the"rights of man" with one handwhile signing his daily quota ofwarrants for the execution of"enemies of the state" with theother.

Every dictator or king or em­peror professes to rule for thebenefit of the people. For instance,"divine right of kings" meant tothe people of medieval Europe thatthe king was ordained by God toprotect their rights and thus pos­sessed a divine right to rule. Thatfew kings ever concerned them­selves with the rights of theirsubjects is quite another matter.History, of course, records thatthe kingly attitude usually rangedfrom negligence and carelessnessto the most callous brutality. Still,the theory was the "rights ofman," in a different costume.

All of this, Disraeli knew. So itwas natural that he preferred the"Rights of Englishmen" to the"Rights of Man." He was takingnothing away from the savagepower of a Zulu chief or a revo­lutionary leader or an advocate ofabsolute monarchy or dictator­ship. Nothing he could say wouldinfluence them. But he knew thatthe "Rights of Man" was too gen­eral and meant too much to mean

754 THE FREEMAN December

anything. On the other hand, the"Rights of Englishmen" was aspecific term, tied to the historyof a single people.

Magna Charta - J2 J5

What, then, did it mean? Toanyone conversant with Englishhistory, its meaning was clear. AnEnglishman's rights had beenwrested from King John by theBarons on a memorable June dayin 1215 at Runnymede when theyforced him to sign the MagnaCharta. True, these were rights atfirst to be granted the nobilityversus the crown. Yet, in the en­suing centuries, they were broad­ened to more nearly encompass allEnglishmen.

Even as civilized a nation asFrance had no history of success­ful parliamentarian struggleagainst the ruling monarch. Butthe England of that day couldlook back to a Parliament that hadrevolted against Charles I, de­manding the right to tax as therepresentatives of the people, andinsisting that this was the people'sright, and not the right of theroyal house.

But Disraeli also would haveknown that while these "Rights"extended to most Englishmen,they by no means extended to allof them; history in its boundlessinconsistency had placed certainpolitical restrictions on English

Catholics and Jews. Disraeli,whose father was a convert to theChurch of England, could avoidthose restrictions; but most Jewsand Catholics could not. One ofDisraeli's historic functions wouldbe to help make these rights uni­form, to aid in the fight to applythem to all Englishmen.

In the Name of Equality

\Vithin the category of rights,another word which has rung downthe historical corridors is "equal­ity." We are destined in our timeto hear much more of it. This wordhas struck a chord in the imagina­tions and has been used by allkinds of men from the most ad­mirable to the most vicious. TheChinese Communists proclaimed itas their legions poured throughthe mountain passes to slaughterpeaceful Tibetan villagers. Peace­ful men have urged it upon theirneighbors, and violent men haveshouted it as they squeezed thetriggers of scatter guns. Nearlyeighty years ago, socialistically­inclined Edward Bellamy wroteabout a utopian society of the fu­ture in a novel entitled LookingBackward. And the word he choseas title for its sequel, written nineyears later, was Equality.

The meaning of the same 'wordto different men can best bejudged by comparing the ideas oftwo historically important figures:

1967 A TALE OF TWO WORDS 755

the Virginia aristocrat, ThomasJ efferson, and the French lawyer­turned-revolutionary, Maxmilliende Robespierre. What did "equal­ity" mean to each of them? It wasa word they both liked and oftenused. But a glance at the sloganscommonly associated with theirnames will show that they weretalking and writing about twodifferent things.

Thomas Jefferson, a brilliantstylist but not always a clearwriter, wrote in the Declarationof Independence: "All men arecreated equal."

The French Revolutionary slo­gan promoted by Robespierre andhis followers was: "Liberty,Equality, Fraternity."

However, Jefferson then wenton to point out that all men werecreated equal in the exercise ofcertain rights: Life, Liberty, thePursuit of Happiness. Govern­ments, in his words, were insti­tuted to protect those rights; byimplication, that was where gov­ernment's legitimate function be­gan and ended. Quite obviously,he did not believe that all menwere equal. The logic of Jeffer­son's position was that men wereborn with differing strengths andweaknesses, and that even in suchexternal conditions as materialwell-being, some were born luckierthan others. Equality, in thissense, is concerned with the rights

of people, and not with people persee They are equal because theserights belong to all men, not justto some of them.

Fraternal EqualityUnder the Guillotine

The equalitarian concept inher­ited from the French Revolution­from men like Roryaspierre - isdifferent in kind as well as degree.This equality is fraternal, and"fraternity" in the trinitarian slo­gan of the French Revolutionistsbecame a meaningless extra word.It meant what it said: All menare equal. This is meaningless be­cause it is untrue. Men are notequal. Some are born with greaterintelligence than others. Somehave mechanical aptitudes whileothers have verbal aptitudes. Thesimple fact is that the son of aSoviet commissar is born luckierthan the son of a Mongolian herds­man.

Now, if anyone had the choiceunder which system of equality tolive, he would do well to considera fascinating historical contradic­tion. Contrary to what one mightsuppose, the lives and liberties ofmen have been far more securewhere their individual inequali­ties have been admitted and wherethey were "equal" only insofar asthey were subject to the law. Take,for instance, a farmer in Vir­ginia during colonial revolutionary

756 THE FREEMAN December

times when Thomas Jefferson wasgovernor of the state and measurehis lot against that of a peasantduring the time of Robespierre.The farmer may not have been theintellectual equal of Jefferson. Hemay have lacked many of thematerial comforts that Jeffersonhad taken for granted since birth.However, in the exercis€ of hisnatural rights, he was Jefferson'sequal; and with all of the powersof his office, Jefferson could donothing to diminish those rightsin the slightest degree.

The French peasant was toldagain and again by the leaders ofthe state that he was the equalof any man. There were no ranksand no titles. He was plain CitizenPeasant to all who knew him. AndRobespierre was plain CitizenRobespierre to everyone from hisclosest associates down to theleast significant man among Paris'huddled masses. But what did thisequality mean in practice? CitizenPeasant could be dragged fromhis home and family, thrown into

a crowded cell, charged with avague and specious crime "againstthe state," and tried before a per­emptory court of zealots. Convic­tion was almost certain. Execu­tion in barbaric manner wasequally certain.

No, men are not equal. Nor doall men mean the same thing whenthey declare their equality andclaim their rights. For our ownunderstanding of these words, letus hearken to that earlier docu­ment, which Jefferson doubtlesshad in mind. The Virginia Bill ofRights, published June 12, 1776,clearly and bluntly says: "... allmen are by nature equally freeand independent, and have certaininherent rights, of which, whenthey enter into a state of society,they cannot by any compact de­prive or divest their posterity;namely, the enjoyment of life andliberty, with means of acquiringand possessing property, and pur­suing and obtaining happiness andsafety." ~

De-fuse the Bomb

THOSE who are concerned over a population explosion of too many

people for the amount of food they will produce, are projecting

the present results of our welfare state into the future and are

ignoring the limitless potential of free enterprise.

PAUL L. FISHER

Redondo Beach, California

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN

lite lltird World War

JAMES BURNHAM has been talkingsense about the Cold War for twodecades and more. As his The WarWe Are In: The Last Decade andthe Next (Arlington House, $6.00)proves, he has not always been pes­simistic about the chances of theWest. This book consists for themost part of selections from hisNational Review column whichruns from fortnight to fortnightunder the general heading of "TheThird World War," but he hasadded several interpretive essaysand a final chapter on "The Decadeto Come." Since he views the worldstruggle as a contest of wills thathas yet to be settled, he is not reallysaying that the West is hell-bent onself-destruction as the title of oneof his recent books-The Suicide ofthe West-would seem to imply. IfBurnham is always braced againstseeing things in a rosy light, he isstill optimist enough to know thatthings may turn out better if youare resolved to go down fighting.

The essential feature of Burn­ham's thinking is his belief thatcommunist policy, far from beinga riddle inside an enigma wrappedin a mystery, is perfectly clear. Alltrue Marxist-Leninists, he says, be­lieve that capitalism is doomed andthat it is the duty of communistsof whatever persuasion to give thetottering structure of the West apush whenever it is safe to do so.Communists may bicker amongthemselves, and behave in "poly­centric" fashion even to the pointof seeming to be nothing more thangood nationalists, but communistcountries have not yet engaged insuch suicidal struggles as broughtcapitalist Europe to the verge ofdissolution in 1914-18 and 1939-45.vVhen the United States, whichboth Moscow and Peking regardas their prime enemy, finds itselfin trouble (as in the DominicanRepublic, Cuba, and Vietnam),communists of all persuasionsform an effective "united front

757

758 THE FREEMAN Decembe-r

from below" to back whatever Left­ist faction is fighting us.

Burnham has had his manifolddisappointments in the journalisticbattle which he continues to wagewith unabated dedication. He hadhoped that the European CommonMarket would somehow broadeninto an Atlantic World CommonMarket. He had hoped that theFrench would find some way ofkeeping Algeria inside a greaterFrench Republic. He was appalledwhen Eisenhower and Dulles letthe English, the French, and theIsraelis down in the first Suezcrisis, and predicted, quite rightly,that other Middle Eastern andAfrican troubles would flow fromthe failure of the West to act as aunit to keep the Mediterranean­Red Sea artery open on its ownterms. Looking back on the Bay ofPigs in Cuba and the aborted Hun­gari'an Revolution of 1956, Burn­ham is. haunted by the "might­have-beens." But still he hopes thatthe tide will be turned, possibly byU.S. fortitude in "holding the pass"in Southeast Asia.

Bumbling Brinkmanship

Burnham is particularly goodwhen he discusses the "evasion for­mulas" that are forever bemusingwestern statesmen. In 1917 theWest thought that Lenin was too"crackpot" to make his BolshevikRevolution stick. But the "crack-

pots" defeated western interven­tionists and consolidated their rule.In the thirties the Popular Frontwith the communists was going tokeep Hitler from going to war. Butthe Popular Front somehow endedup by being replaced by the Hit­ler-Stalin Pact. The rise of Stalinwas supposed to betoken the endof Trotsky's theory of the Perma­nent Revolution. But Stalin's "so­cialism in one country" did notpreclude the success of Mao Tse­tung's revolution in China, or theseizure, by the Red Army, of theBaltic States and the countries thatbecame the "captive nations" ofEastern Europe.

In China they spoke of Mao's"Jeffersonian agrarianism," butMao eventually blossomed forth asthe philosopher of the guerilla en­circlement of capitalism via seizureof "rural" Asia, Africa, and LatinAmerica. The Red Chinese "Jeffer­sonian agrarians" fought us to astandstill in Korea, and are nowbusy reassuring Ho Chi Minh inNorth Vietnam that they supporthim in his refusal to reach anycompromise with the "imperial­ists" short of complete evacuationof South Vietnam by U.S. troops.The communists have evensmashed the Monroe Doctrine,gaining immunity for Castro inCuba in return for their with­drawal of offensive atomic mis­siles.

1967 THE THIRD WORLD WAR 759

This, as Burnham says, is "therecord" of the past. As for the fu­ture, Burnham is perfectly surethat de Gaulle will never succeedin putting together a "Europe ofthe fatherlands" stretching from"the Atlantic to the Urals." Sucha Europe would inevitably be dom­inated by the Soviets, who have anatomic arsenal. As for the emer­gence of a third power in "littleEurope," it is blocked by deGaulle's animus against politicalintegration.

International PoliciesBurnham has traveled exten­

sively in Africa and southern Asia,and he has observed that the popu­lations of the underdeveloped coun­tries keep on rising faster than thefood supply. He fears that the"Third World" of the old colonialareas must choose between therival "neo-colonialisms" of theWest and the Communist East ifthey want military security, in­vestment, and technical assistance.As applied to the policies of theWest, he does not use the adjective"neo-colonial" in any pejorativesense. He thinks that Africa andAsia will get a better break fromthe West than from the CommunistEast for several reasons. First ofall, the West is willing to acceptthe formal independence and au­tonomy of its ,old colonies. Sec­ondly, its economic aid is likely to

be more efficient, particularly if itis left to free enterprise. Third, itssea and air power is more mobilethan any force which the Sovietsand the Red Chinese would be ableto deploy to protect a country farfrom Russia or Red China.

Burnham is perfectly willing toagree with George Kennan that the"blocs" have been loosened, thatTitoism has resulted in "polycen­trism," that the Moscow commu­nists and the Peking communistshave split, that the East Europeancountries are straining for free­dom from Muscovite leadingstrings, and'that nationalism is themain propelling force in most ofthe newly emergent "Third World."But, unlike Kennan, he thinks thebest way to take advantage of com­munist troubles is to keep the pres­sure on. If the Soviets are beingassailed from within by their intel­lectuals, why should we strengthenthe hands of the ruling clique thatwould repress those intellectuals?If Red China is on the verge ofchaos, why should we give the Mao­ist tyrants the endorsement of in­viting them into the UN?

"If," says Burnham in a force­ful conclusion, "if our experts andpolicy-makers devoted one-tenththe attention and energy" to ex­acerbating the struggle betweenfactions within the communistworld that they now "lavish onpolycentrism and Sino-Soviet di-

760 THE FREEMAN December

alectics, they might discover lev­ers which, properly handled, couldbring down the communist enter­prise." Burnham has had a goodrecord of spotting such levers inthe past, only to see his advice ig­nored. The publication of his TheWar We Are In: The Last Decadeand the Next is in itself a "lever,"provided that it can be gotten intoenough hands. ~

~ THE RECONSTRUCTIONAMENDMENTS' DEBATES,Virginia Commission on Constitu­tional Government, Richmond, Vir­ginia, 1967, 764 pp., $4.50 ($3.00paperbound) .

Reviewed by George Charles Roche III.

FROM TIME TO TIME, the VirginiaCommission on Constitutional Gov­ernment makes available valuablematerials pertinent to the subjectof American federalism, states'rights, and related problems. TheReconstruction Amendments' De­bates is a significant addition tothat literature. As the Commissionmakes clear in its introduction, thethirteenth, fourteenth, and fif­teenth Amendments to the Consti­tution today provide the basis forapproximately one half of the con­stitutional law litigation reachingthe United States Supreme Court.Such matters as school desegrega-

tion, legislative reapportionment,voting rights, restrictions on statecriminal procedure, and restraintsupon the economic self-control ofthe states fall into this category.

Some 20,000 pages of debatesand committee reports serve as thebasis for this compilation. The vol­ume is indexed by subject and bylegal cases, and also contains a bi­ographical index of House and Sen­ate participants in the debateswhich led to the Amendments. Ev­ery page specifies the session ofCongress, the dates and the orig­inal page numbers of the Congres­sional Globe from which the ma­terial was drawn, as well as thenames of the speakers and thetopics under discussion.

The ReconstructionAmendments'Debates should have great utilityfor all libraries as well as for allthose whose professions or interesttouch upon the relationship be­tween state and national govern­ment. An understanding of theoriginal attitudes and opinions ofthose drafting the legislation, setin its historical perspective, issurely an indispensable aid in un­derstanding the complex intergov­ernmental problems of our time.Copies may be procured from theVirginia Commission on Constitu­tional Government, 1116 NinthStreet Office Building, Richmond,Virginia, 23219. ~