the

FreemanVOL. 18, NO.8. AUGUST 1968

The War on Poverty: ACritical View Edmund A. Opitz 451An analysis of the problem of poverty over the centuries and the cure effectedthrough freedom.

The Collapse of Self Leonard E. Read 462Concerning the preservation of one of the most precious of man's possessions:self-responsibility.

The Rise and Fall of England:6. The Moral Base Clarence B. Carson 467

Especially covering the Puritan influence and the effect of the evangelicalProtestant movement.

Where Burglars Get Better Break than Businessmen Lowell B. Mason 478Federal agencies can take a tougher stand on businessmen than the courts do oncriminals when fixing their sentence.

Where in the World? Ralph Bradford 484One's own country may well be the best place in the world for him to live - if hewill uphold and strengthen the good while correcting what displeases him.

Advance to the Rear David Skidmore 494The so-called new forms of Ilsocial" legislation are but throwbacks toward serfdomand slavery.

Separation of Powers and the Labor Act:2. "Expertise," Separation of Powers, and Due Process Sylvester Petro 497

Neither the President nor an administrative agency can better represent the publicin matters of policy than can Congress.

The Right to LifeThe real issue underlying the troublesome problems we face.

Book Reviews"Accent on the Right" by Leonard E. Read

Jerome Tuccille 507

509

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

the

FreemanA MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY

IRVINGTON·ON·HUDSON, NEW YORK TEL.: (914) 591·7230

LEONARD E. READ

PAUL L. POIROT

President, Foundation forEconomic Education

Managing Editor

THE F R E E MAN 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 government~

Any interested person may receive its publicationsfor 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 $10,000-as the meansof maintaining and extending the Foundation's work.

Copyright, 1968, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed in

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

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

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, except

"The Rise and Fall of England" and "Where Burglars Get Better Brea~

than Businessmen."

The Waron PovertyA CRITICAL VIEW

EDMUND A. OPITZ

MOST PEOPLE who have lived onthis planet have been desperatelypoor, and most societies even to­day are by no means affluent.Never before in history has a so­ciety entertained the hope thatpoverty might be eliminated; sucha notion in any other society butmid-twentieth century Americawould be put in the same categoryas perpetual motion. Only in a na­tion where unparalleled prosperitywas the rule could people regardpoverty as the exception. No othersociety has ever been wealthyenough to even think of launchingwhat we call a War on Poverty. Ishall ask you to keep this thoughtin mind as I submit the programto critical analysis.

All men· of goodwill can meeton the common ground of sharedgoals. The common aim of liberalsand conservatives alike is to en­hance the economic well-being· of

The Reverend Mr. Opitz of the Foundationstaff is active as a lecturer and seminar leader.

all men. We all want to see othermen better off; better fed, betterhoused, better clothed, better edu­cated, healthier and with bettermedical care, more recreation andmore leisure. There is little dis­agreement as to goals such asthese; the continuing debate be,;.tween liberals and conservatives isnot over ends; it is over means.We differ as to the means we mustemploy if we are to attain the endswe say we want to reach.

The Great Society has a readyanswer to all such problems: Passa law. The typical liberal of ourtime has unlimited faith in legis­lation designed to redistributewealth and income: Taxes for all,subsidies for some. Is there aslum? Replace it with a govern­ment housing project. Is there a"depressed area"? Build a "de­fense plant" there. Is X industryin trouble? Give it a subsidy.Does the economy need a shot inthe arm? Hand out a veterans'

452 THE FREEMAN August

bonus. And so on and so on; thelist is endless. Each of the items,however, has something in com­mon with all the others; each oneproposes to correct an economicproblem by political action. Inshort, the liberal invokes govern­mental action to achieve economicgoals.

Emphasis on Production

Now, the natural way to goabout achieving the economic endsof higher all round living stand­ards - one would suppose - is byemploying economic means andbecoming more productive. It isonly in a productive, prosperouseconomy that share-the-wealthprograms make any sense at all;and it is only by expanding themethods which explain our pres­ent prosperity that the less pros­perous can hope to improve theircircumstances. Otherwise, the sit­uation might shift into reverse; ifwe employ the wrong methods forgetting rid of poverty, we mightfind that we have eliminated pros­perity instead!

Government is not an economicinstitution; governmental actionas such does not produce food,clothing, or shelter. The provision­ing of men's material needs in­volves economic action, with gov­ernment standing by to protectthe producer and keep the traderoutes open. Government has no

economic goods of its own, so anywealth it bestows on this or thatperson must first be taken fromthe people who produced it. If gov­ernment gives Peter a dollar, itmust first deprive Paul of a por­tion of his earnings. The natureof political action is such that gov­ernment cannot possibly be usedas a lever to raise the generallevel of economic, physical, andintellectual wen-being. If govern­mental action does increase theincome of one segment of thepopulation, it is only by disad­vantaging other sectors of societyin a kind of seesaw action. If,therefore, our concern is to up­grade the general welfare - theoverall well-being of aU citizens­we must rely on economic ratherthan political means; that is, wemust rely on men and women in amarket economy, working com­petitively, with government actingas umpire seeing to it that therules of the game are not beingviolated.

Let us try to get this matter ofpoverty into perspective. Most ofus have had some encounter withpoverty. Our memories go back tothe stock market crash of October,1929, and to the Great Depressionof the nineteen thirties. Most ofus experienced poverty in our ownfamilies or, at any rate, in ourneighborhoods. In the nineteenthirties there were millions of men

1968 THE WAR ON POVERTY: A CRITICAL VIEW 453

without jobs, through no fault oftheir own. As a consequence ofw'idespread unemployment, manyAmerican families had to scrimpin order to get along. They pulledin their belts and ate less wellthan they would have liked; somewore cast-off clothing; houseswent unbuilt or unrepaired. Peo­ple did without, and America wentthrough the wringer. But duringthis same period - the nineteenthirties - more than five millionpeople died of starvation in theUkraine; nothing like this hap­pened in America. America hasnever had a famine, not even dur­ing the Great Depression of thenineteen thirties. The mass star­vation in the Ukraine was of adifferent order of magnitude fromthe hardship endured by the peo­ple of America during the GreatDepression.

Twenty-five years ago I steppedoff a troopship in Bombay. Wewere surrounded by beggars. Aswarm of little boys were divinginto Bombay Harbor for pennies;loincloth-clad stevedores-scrawnyIittle men - began to unload theship. Several of us hired a taxi'which drove us around this exoticand teeming city. Returning tothe ship late that evening, wedrove through miles of city streetsand saw hundreds of thousands ofBombay citizens sleeping side byside on the sidewalks. These peo-

pIe were not simply ill-fed and ill­clothed; they literally had nohousing! This ,vas poverty of anintensity so great that, by com­parison, the poor in Americancities or the impoverished in therural areas of the South, even dur­ing the depths of the Great De­pression, would seem affluent bycomparison. There is affluence inIndia as well as an enormousamount of poverty, but the poorin America live at a level whichwould put them among the af­fluent in India - or Africa, orChina, or in many parts of Eu­rope.

Pinning Down the Definition:

Poverty Is Relative

I draw these comparisons onlyto sugg~st that we are badly inneed of a definition of our majorterm, poverty. We live in a gen­eration which prides itself on itsexpertise in semantics. The seman­ticist has taught us to look forthe referent. A piece of steel, thesemanticists point out, is not apiece of steel merely. We mustspecify steel of a certain carboncontent, with certain dimensions,at a certain temperature, and ata given time. A piece of steel n01wwill be a blob of rust a centuryfrom now, so the time element isimportant. The Office of EconomicOpportunity acknowledges theproblem in a sense, by offering us

454 THE FREEMAN August

an arbitrary definition of poverty.A couple without dependents, weare told, with an income of threethousand dollars a year, is livingat the poverty line. But in 1936one of the early New Dealers, aneconomist named Mordecai Eze­kiel, wrote a book entitled Twenty­Five Hundred Dollars a Year. Anannual income of two thousand fivehundred was held up then as aneconomic target for America. The·book was regarded as utopian, asa wild prophecy of the level ofprosperity to which Americansmight aspire. And now an annualincome 20 per cent above this iscalled the poverty line!

Now, prosperity is not measuredby numbers of dollars alone; pros­perity depends upon the prices ofthe things these dollars are usedto buy. And, as everyone knows,the government has inflated ourdollars to the point where eachone is now worth about 39 percent of what it was worth thirtyyears ago. The dollar today buys- on the average - what 39¢would buy in the period just be­fore World War II. Three thou­sand dollars does not buy much in1968. A couple which earns onlythree thousand dollars a year aredeclared by the national govern­ment to be existing on the raggededge of poverty. But what is thevery first thing this governmentdoes to them? It steps over and

exacts more than three hundreddollars from them in taxes. Thisaction violates what Tolstoy de­clared to be our first duty towardthe poor. We should, he said, getoff their backs!

I do not believe that all thingsare relative, but I do believe thatsome things are relative; andwhat we call poverty is one ofthem. A thirteenth century Eng­lish serf Iiving in Northumber­land was desperately poor - notrelative to other serfs living inNorthumberland or Wessex, butrelative to hisNorman overlord.And that Norman baron lackedthe amenities we deem necessary,and which are today enj oyed byall but a fraction of Americancitizens.

A Wave of Immigration

America has, until recent years,been looked up to by the world'speople as the land of· opportunity.Immigrants by the millions cameto these shores in the period 1820­1930, in order to be free of therestraints they suffered from inother parts of the world. Theysought a land where they mightworship freely; a land where thebarriers of class and caste werelargely nonexistent; a land wherea man might rise by his own ef­forts. What were these people do­ing here during these decades?They were farming, manufactur-

1968 THE WAR ON POVERTY: A CRITICAL VIEW 455

ing, pushing west, building rail­roads across the continent, sup­plementing their diet by fishingand hunting, finding a new way oflife, and so on. These people wereproducing food, clothing, shelter,and the amenities at an accelerat­ing rate, and by so doing theywere fighting poverty. They wereovercoming poverty by their pro­ductivity - and poverty can be re­duced in no other way - only byproduction. The general level ofeconomic well-being in Americarose decade by decade. Many peo­ple went from rags to riches;but even those whose ascent wasnot so dramatic did share in thegeneral prosperity. I am criticalof much that went on in nine­teenth century America, but let'sat least give the period its due.These people fought and largelywon what might be called thegreat war on poverty. A whole so­ciety came to enjoy a level of af­fluence hitherto "beyond thedreams of avarice."

Americans continued to expandtheir productive capacity so thatby mid-twentieth century we havesent our surpluses around theglobe in various foreign aid prQ­grams. Despite the fact thatAmerica has given more than 122billion dollars worth of goods tovarious nations since the endof World War II, Americansstillenjoy a personal level· of

prosperity far above that of mostother people. America's greatnessis not,· of course, to be measuredby monetary income and materialwell-being; but it is interesting tonote how well Americans havedone economically with the re­sources available to them. TheUnited States is only one-sixteenthof the land surface of the world,and Americans are only aboutone-fifteenth of the world's popu­lation. Nevertheless, Americansown three-quarters of all the auto­mobiles in the world, one-half ofall the telephones, one-half of allthe radios, three-quarters of allthe television sets. Americans con­sume about two-thirds of all thepetroleum products in the world,one-half of all the coffee, two­thirds of all the silk. An Ameri­can factory worker can buy foursuits of clothes with a month'swages; his counterpart in a totali­tarian country can buy half a suitwith a month's wages. An Ameri­can can buy six pairs· of shoeswith the results of a week's work;his totalitarian counterpart canbuy one shoe. These figures proveonly one thing. They demonstratewith what dramatic success Amer­icans have waged the great war onpoverty.

We had become so prosperousby the mid-nineteen fifties thatthis fact was cause for alarm­in the eyes of· some .people. For

456 THE FREEMAN August

example, the National Council ofChurches convened a study con­ference in Pittsburgh in 1956, onthe general theme: "The ChristianConscience and an Economy ofAbundance."

"Can we stand abundance ?"asks a brochure which came outof this Pittsburgh meeting. "Thehuman race has had long experi­ence and a fine tradition in sur­viving adversity. But now we facea task for which we have littleexperience, the task of survivingprosperity." Among the confer­ence resources was a booklet byLeland Gordon and Reinhold Nie­buhr giving "information and ~n­

sights on the economic and reli­gious aspects of mounting pros­perity in the U.S.A." In 1958,John Kenneth Galbraith providedthe phrase we were looking for tocharacterize the era when he en­titled his book The Affluent So­ciety. The man in the streetphrased it somewhat differently:"We never had it so good," hesaid.

The prosperity enjoyed by thebulk of Americans during themid-twentieth century does notmean that American society neg­lected those who did not share inthe general prosperity. In 1963,the then Secretary of Health, Edu­cation, and Welfare observed that42 Federal programs have "a di­rect application to poverty." In

addition, every local community'had its locally based welfare proj­ects and so did every state. Ac­cording to the Social Security Bul­letin for November, 1963, wewere spending in excess of forty­four billion dollars a year on wel­fare and welfare-type programs.Then, in 1964, Congress passedthe Economic Opportunity Actand a one billion dollar War onPoverty was announced with greatfanfare.

How the Great War Was Won

Now the very fact that we havea so-called War on Poverty is it­self eloquent testimony to thegeneral affluence of our society. Ina society where almost everyone ispoor - and this has been the con­dition of almost every human so­ciety of the past and it continuesto be the condition of most peoplein other parts of the globe today- talk of eliminating poverty is apipe dream. It is only in Americathat the idea of ridding ourselvesof the last vestiges of povertywould occur to anyone. So success­fully have we waged the great waron poverty that we entertain thenotion that in a piece of furtherlegislation we can eliminate whatmight be called residual poverty.

It goes without saying that be­fore we can share our prosperitywe must be relatively prosperous.Thus, it is imperative that we ex-

1968 THE WAR ON POVERTY: A CRITICAL VIEW 457

plain the que'stion: How did weachieve that level of prosperitywhich makes it possible for us toentertain the notion of eliminatingpoverty altogether? The averageAmerican is somewhat taller thanhis ancestor of a century ago, andsomewhat heavier; he has had alonger period of schooling. Butour prosperity gains are not to beaccounted for by the fact that thetwentieth century American isbigger, stronger, and smarterthan his nineteenth century coun­terpart. Does he work longer thanhis forebear of a century ago?No, to the contrary, the workweek has been cut almost in halfin the past hundred years. Theanswer lies in better tools andmore of them. The average Ameri­can worker of today has at his dis­posal far more and better ma­chinery than any other worker inhistory, and as a result the Amer­ican worker is the most produc­tive worker of all times. In Amer­ica machines do more than 90 percent of the physical work. Toolsand machines are called capital,and it is the immense amount ofcapital invested per worker inAmerica which accounts for theAmerican's productivity. In theaverage manufacturing plant thereis more than $21,000 invested perworker. In the automobile indus­try the figure rises to $25,000 in­vested per worker in machines

and tools; in chemicals the invest­ment is $45,000 per worker; andin petroleum the figure skyrocketsto $141,000 of invested capital. Asociety becomes more prosperous- the material well-being of peo..pIe increases - when people areencouraged to save, when earningsare protected, and when thesesavings are invested in tools andmachines. At the present momentin America about $21,000 worthof tools and machines - on theaverage - are put at the disposalof each man who works in a fac­tory. As a consequence, the aver­age American worker producesmore efficiently than his counter­part in other nations, and moregoods are available for everyone.Because he produces more hiswages are higher; his wages risein lock step with his increasedproductivity. This was how thegreat war on poverty was won.

Progress through Freedom

This result has been obtainedwithin the free economy, or thefree market, as it is sometimescalled. The free society is onewhich gives the individual citizenelbowroom by limiting govern­ment by constitutional, legal, andmoral restraints. The idea is toretain a protected private domain,vithin which people may freelychoose and freely pursue theirpersonal goals - just so long as

458 THE FREEMAN August

their actions injure no one else.In such a society the economy willbe free, and as a result of eco­nomic freedom it will attain tomaximum prosperity. But no mat­ter how prosperous a society be­comes, wants and demands will in­crease faster than material goodscan be produced.

Henry David Thoreau remarkedthat he was rich in the number ofthings he could do. without; butthis is not the modern temper.The mood of our time is reflectedin Samuel Gompers' response tothe question, "What does laborwant1" "More," was his reply.There is a Parkinson's Law in op­eration here: The higher the gen­eral level of prosperity, the morekeenly do we feel the naggingwants and demands for even morethings. The general principle is:Human wants and demands al­ways outrun the means of satis­fying them. This is a fact of ourhuman situation as such, and weneed to discipline our emotionsinto line with reality.

These emotions are easily ex­ploited by demagogues who sug­gest that mankind might move in­to a utopia of abundance, exceptthat wicked men bar the way andkeep us poor. The coordinator ofthe National Council of Churches'Anti-Poverty Task Force, for ex­ample, makes the assertion that"Poverty would not continue to

exist if those in power did notfeel it was good for them." Sucha sentiment as this is a gratuitousinsult aimed at dissenters; butmoreover, it is a silly sentiment.We live in a commercial and man­ufacturing culture, and mass pro­duction is the rule. Mass produc­tion cannot continue unless thereis mass consumption, and themasses of men cannot consumethe output of our factories unlessthey possess purchasing power.To suggest that those who havegoods and services to sell have aninterest in keeping their custom­ers too poor to buy is nonsense. Ina free economy, everyone has astake in the economic well-beingof every other person.

liThe Science of Scarcity"

Economics has been called thescience of scarcity, but as theword "scarcity" is used in eco­nomics it is a technical term. Letme try to explain. If we are toproperly evaluate the war on pov­ertY,we must keep in mind thatthere is on this planet a built-inshortage of the things men wantand need. To qualify as an eco­nomic good a thing must exhibittwo characteristics. It must, in thefirst place, be wanted; and, in thesecond place, it must be scarce.Everyone of us wants air, butair is not an economic good be­cause each of us can breathe all

1968 THE WAR ON POVERTY: A CRITICAL VIEW 459

the air he desires and there's stilla lot left over for everyone else.Ordinary air is not a scarce good,but conditioned air is anothermatter. Air that has been cooledor heated has had work performedon it and it is in relatively shortsupply; there's not enough of itto go around and, therefore, wehave to pay for it; we have togive up something else in order toobtain air that is heated or cooled.The second feature of an economicgood is its scarcity. Now, beri­beri is a scarce thing in this partof the world, but it is not an eco­nomic good because no one wantsit.

Economics is indeed the scienceof scarcity, but it's important torealize that the scarcity we aretalking about in this context is arelative scarcity. In the economicsense, there is scarcity at everylevel of prosperity. Whenever wedrive in city traffic, or look vainlyfor a place to park, we are hardlyin a mood to accept the economictruism that automobiles arescarce. But, of course, they are,relative to our wishes. Who wouldnot .want to replace his presentcar or cars with a Rolls Royce forSundays and holidays, plus anAston Martin for running around?

The economic equation can neverbe solved; to the end of time therewill be a scarcity of goods, andunfulfilled wants. There will never

be a moment when everyone willhave all he wants. "Economics,"in the words of Wilhelm Ropke,"should be an anti-ideological, an­ti-utopian, disillusioning science."And indeed it is. The candid econ­omist is a man who comes beforehis fellows with the bad news thatthe human race will never haveenough. Organize and reorganizesociety from now till doomsdayand we'll still be trying to copewith scarcity.

The point needs to be stressed:Scarcity now and forever, no mat­ter how high we jack the societyabove the subsistence level. Pov~

erty, in other words, is not anentity like smallpox, say, or polio.By research, and by investing agreat deal of money, time, andbrains, we have wiped out severaldiseases which once plagued thehuman race. There is no analogyhere to the situation we confrontas regards poverty. No matter howfar a society climbs up the ladderof prosperity there will alwaysbe a bottom 20 per cent; somefolks will always be better offthan others..A college presidentsays that they carefully screenthe students entering his institu­tion, and during the four years ofcollege the students are exposedto the best teachers around. Butdespite all their efforts, 50 percent of the students graduate inthe bottom half of their class!

460 THE FREEMAN August

Every society, no matter how pros­perous, will still be trying to copewith vestigial poverty - eventhough the people comprising thisresidue of poverty are affluent bycomparison with the masses ofAsia.

Poverty through Intervention

Scarcity, as I have said, is inthe nature of things, but thereis also artificially induced scarc­ity. There has be.en less of insti­tutionally generated and sanc­tioned scarcity in America thanelsewhere, but there has alwaysbeen a certain percentage of ourpoverty artificially created by un­wise and unwarranted politicalinterventions. If government didnot do so much to hurt people,there would be less excuse for itsclumsy efforts to help them. Letme briefly cite several examples:The farm program costs about 7billion dollars a year. This hurtsmainly the masses of moderateand low income people who arefirst taxed to pay for the program,and then are hit again by thehigher prices they are forced topay for food - which is a farlarger item in the budget of thepoor (in proportion) than it is inthe budget of the rich. The moneytaken from these people is givento farmers who use it to buyequipment and fertilizer to growmore food for which there is no

market so that government canstore it or give it to people whoare hurt by receiving it.

Look at the damage done by theUrban Renewal Program. Mysource here is the study by Pro­fessor Martin Anderson, spon­sored by the Joint Center for Ur­ban Studies of M.LT. and Har­vard, published as The FederalBulldozer. In the decade underexamination, Professor Andersonfound - among other things - thatthe Urban Renewal Program hasdemolished about 120,000 dwellingunits with a median rental valueof $40 per month. During thesame period, some 25 to 30 thou­sand dwelling units have beenbuilt with a median rental valueof $180 dollars per month. Thepoor have been evicted from theircrowded and unsatisfactory hous­ing into housing that is even lesssatisfactory and more crowded.The people who can afford to pay$180 a month are enjoying subsi­dized housing at public expense.During the period when UrbanRenewal has shown a net loss of90,000 housing units, what hasprivate enterprise been doing?Something like 18,000,000 housingunits have been constructed in theprivate sector of the economy!

Then there are minimum wagelaws. Liberal and conservativeeconomists see virtually eye to eyeon this point; they agree that min-

1968 THE WAR ON POVERTY: A CRITICAL VIEW 461

imum wage laws throw men outof work - especially teenagers andespecially Negroes. After 1956,when the minimum was raisedfrom 75¢ to $1.00 the nonwhiteteenage unemployment rose from7 per cent to 24 per cent whilewhite teenage unemployment wentfrom 6 per cent to 14 per cent.It is easy to understand why.Wages are a cost of doing busi­ness, and if something begins tocost more, we start using less ofit-other things being equal. Whenlabor costs more per worker,fewer workers will be used. Somemarginal plants will shut downaltogether.

Similar reasoning applies tomonopoly labor unions. The aimof these unions is to raise wagesabove the market level; and ifthey succeed in so doing, a num­ber of workers are thereby disem­ployed. Former Senator PaulDouglas wrote his book on wagetheory in 1934, demonstratingthat if wages are artificially raised1 per cent by union pressure onemployers, between 2 and 3 percent of the work force will losetheir jobs. Unemployment is in­stitutionalized.

Then there is the matter of in­vestment. The welfare state's pat­tern of taxation drains off moneythat other,vise would flow intocapital investment, with the resultthat we have fewer tools and ma-

chines than otherwise would bethe case, and are that much lessproductive in consequence. Beingless productive, we are poorer thanwe need to be. It boils down tothe truism that we can conquerpoverty only by production, withthe corollary that every restrainton production sabotages the realwar on poverty. Nor is there anypolitical alchemy which can trans­mute diminished production intoincreased consumption.

The fact of the matter is thatthe restrictive political practicesof today - which bear such labelsas Liberalism, Collectivism, andthe Great Society - are the conse­quence of wrong-headed theoriesof yesteryear and last century. Weembraced unsound ideas and en­gage in uneconomic practices as aconsequence. The late Lord Keynessaid it well:

Practical men, who believe them­selves to be quite exempt from anyintellectual influences, are usuallythe slaves of some defunct economist.Madmen in authority, who hearvoices in the air, are distilling theirfrenzy from some academic scribblerof a few years back. I am sure thatthe power of vested interests isvastly exaggerated compared withthe gradual encroachment of ideas.

It is ideas which rule the world,for good or ill, and in this strug­gle none of us is a mere specta­tor. ~

LEONARD E. READ

WHAT a thought-provoking title,"The Undiscovered Self" P For itimplies a dark continent in themind awaiting exploration, andsuggests that the discovery anddevelopment of the inner life isthe only way to lengthen the per­imeter of all that man can callreality. The expanding universe,in this sense, is but the measureof man's expanding mind. Only amoment ago, in evolutionary time,this orb of ours was thought to beflat. The expanding self - increas­ing awareness - not only is re­sponsible for that correction butaccounts for the appearance ofthe electron, countless galaxies,and numberless other wondersthat recently have come within the

1 The Undiscovered Self by Dr. CarlGustav Jung (New York: The NewAmerican Library of World Literature.A Mentor Book).

462

range of man's concept of all thatis real. And the end will never bein sight!

Nor need we confine our ob­servations on the significance ofthe expanding self to the physicaluniverse. As the inner life is moresuccessfully explored, spiritualqualities are increasingly pe'r­ceived, embraced, and experienced:creativity, inventiveness, piety,love, justice,· charity, integrity, amoral nature.

We conclude, therefore, thatman's destiny, earthly goals, pur­poses, aspirations - properly fo­cused - are linked inextricably tca deeper understanding and mean·ing of expanding selfhood.

And, by the same token, we carinfer that any abandonment ojselfhood is dehumanizing; it ifdevolutionary as distinguishe(from evolutionary; it is collapse

1968 THE COLLAPSE OF SELF 468

The collapse .has numerous man­ifestations: strikes; riots; masshysteria; political chicanery; li­centiousness in the name of art,music, poetry; in a word, publicbawdiness; in classrooms and pul­pits alike the pursuit of excellenceis more pardoned than praised.The signs, to say the least, areominous.

It is, thus, of the utmost im­portance that we try to pinpointthe cause of this dwindling self­respect for, as I see it, this is thetaproot of the deplorable effectswe observe.

The mere phrasing of the col­lapse or decline as "the loss ofself-respect" comes close to sug­gesting what the cause really is:a ntarked removal of responsibil­ity for self. And while the individ­ual who is forced to relinquishresponsibility may take comfortin the fact that he did not divesthimself voluntarily, the end result- coercively taken or willinglygiven - is no Tesponsibility forself. Next to life itself, self-res­ponsibility is the most preciouspossession one can lose, and itmatters not how he loses it.

Talents to Be Tested

Before discussing the carelessand lackadaisical attitude towardself-responsibility, let's review itsimportance. For, unless an in­dividual is aware of its deep mean-

ing, he will regard it lightly andwill not cling to it as one of themost priceless of all possessions.

Frederic Bastiat sets the stagefor my thesis: "We hold fromGod the gift which includes allothers. This gift is life - physical,intellectual, and moral life. Butlife cannot maintain itself alone.The Creator of life has entrustedus with the responsibility of pre­serving, developing, and perfect­ing it. In order that we may ac­complish this, He has provided uswith a collection of marvelousfaculties."2

Marvelous potential facultieswould be more to my liking. Afaculty is marvelous only whenthere is some attempt to realizeits potentiality. There is nothingmarvelous about the faculty ofsight if one will not· see, or of in­sight if one lets it lie forever dor­mant. The "marvelous" qualityrises and falls with the develop­ment or atrophy of faculties. Putour faculties to use and they de­velop; neglect to use them andthey decline.

Tie the arm to one's side and it\vithers; cease exercising the mindfor a prolonged period and think­ing can no more be recovered thanspoiled fruit can regain its fresh­ness. It is use, practice, exercise

2 The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Ir­vington-on-Hudson, N. Y.: The Founda­tion for Economic Education, Inc.), p. 5.

464 THE FREEMAN August

that gives muscle to the faculties,all faculties - intellectual and spir­itual as well as physical.

Observe a person in extremedifficulty - over his head in water,financial problems, or whatever.Except in rare instances, he'llfrantically hope for someone torescue him. But what happenswhen no helper is to be found? Hefinds only himself; he's on his ownresponsibility; it's sink or swim,as we say. And nine times out often he'll work his way out of themess he's in. Faculties, if not toofar gone, rusty though they maybe, will rise to the occasion; creak­ily they'll begin to function.

Responsibility for self not onlyrescues the faculties from non­use and atrophy but serves to re­new, invigorate, and expand them;these faculties are the very es­sence of self, that is, of one's life.Further, self-responsibility has nosubstitute; it is the mainspring ofthe generative process.

Any individual who intelligentlyinterprets and identifies his high­est self-interest - the growth orhatching of faculties - and thenclearly perceives the role self-re­sponsibility plays in achieving thisobjective, must cherish, prize, andcling to its retention. Toward thisright of being responsible for selfhe has a defiant possessiveness; itis among the last of all rights hewill permit others to take from

him - next to life itself. And theidea of voluntarily transferringone's self-responsibility to some­one else is unthinkable. How couldanyone call such a thought hisown?

Shedding Responsibility

But what, actually, is the situa­tion? Millions of citizens are do­ing all within their power to ridthemselves of responsibility forself as if it were a dreaded burden.They implore government to be re­sponsible for their prosperity,their welfare, their security, eventheir children.3 They voluntarilydrift - nay, militantly march­toward total irresponsibility.

And on the other side of thecoin are the governmental powerseekers - all too ready to accom­modate. Members of the hierarchywho devoutly wish to assume re­sponsibility for the people's livesand livelihoods - with the people's

3 The child is but the extension of par­ental responsibility. So far as responsi­bility is concerned, parent and child be­gin as one and the same. Ideally, parentalresponsibility is relinquished as the off­spring acquires responsibility for self;self-responsibility thus suffers no loss.But, to an alarming extent, this propertransition is ignored. Instead, the re­sponsibility for children - education, forinstance - is more and more turned overto government, an apparatus incapableof transferring the responsibility it hasassumed to the child. It is this parentalirresponsibility which accounts, in nosmall measure, for the juvenile delin­quency we observe all about us.

1968 THE COLLAPSE OF SELF 465

money! - are greeted less withresistance than with eager accept­ance. Laws are then written to en­force compliance; that is, govern­ment forcibly takes the responsi­bility for problems, as much fromthose who oppose as from thosewho applaud the transfer of re­sponsibility.

Together - those who eagerlyshed responsibility and those whoas avidly assume it for others­they present not only a collapse ofself but a landslide to tyranny.

Strikes, riots, and other provoc­ative demonstrations are but theactions of a people bereft of self­respect. These millions are nolonger anchored to responsible be­havior; they have cast themselvesadrift, their trade union or thegovernment or some other "bene­factor" assuming the responsi­bility for their lives. The disci­plined behavior required for socialfelicity, which responsibility forself imposes, is so lacking that theysuffer no obvious penalties fortheir follies. To absolve human be­ings of this corrective force is topopulate the world with peoplerecklessly on the loose, every baseemotion released, vent given to theworst in men.

Individuals responsible for selfare rarely found in mobs. Theyconcern themselves, rather, withspouses, children, perhaps aged orhelpless relatives and friends-

others who are less fortunate thanthemselves. Above all else, theypay attention to an emerging, ex­panding selfhood. In a word,there's work to do - no time oreven inclination to indulge in ac­tions unrelated thereto.

Paternalistic Government

So, when lamenting the currenttrends, point the finger of blamewhere it belongs, at The Establish­ment, namely, at the preponderantthinking of our day: the mischie­vous notion that it is the role ofgovernment to look after "its peo­ple."4 Point the finger, also, at thedwindling respect for our mostpriceless right: the right to lookout for ourselves..

Observe that the finger of blamepoints at the mischievous notionof paternalism and the loss of self­respect - not at discrete individ­uals. Without question, we make agrave error when we try to shamepersons because they espouse ideaswhich we believe to be false. Onecan take no credit for this tactic;it is as shallow as, indeed, it isidentical to, name-calling. Suchpersonal affronts generate only re­sentment; under this kind of fire,these human targets of our criti-

4 Many of the persons who deploreriots are those who support one or an­other Federal handout - fl'ee lunches,Medicare, subsidies, the Gateway Arch,you name it -little realizing that theirtype of action set the riots in motion.

466 THE FREEMAN August

cisms rise to their own defenseand are thereby hardened in theirways. Utter silence is preferableto this.

We should, instead, work at theimpersonal level, which meanscoming to grips with the ideas atissue. All of us share in commona feeling of gratitude toward thosewho keep us from making fools ofourselves. That it's the functionof government to look out for "itspeople" is no more valid than theancient belief that the earth isflat. Were we adequately to workat the intellectual level, the formernotion would no more be upheld

than the latter, and for the samereason: its invalidity!

It is clear that expanding self­hood is possible only in a state offreedom. And it is equally clearthat freedom is out of the ques­tion among an irresponsible peo­ple, seemingly a vicious circle. Yet,this circle can be broken, the col­lapse ended, and a reversal begunby little more than a recognitionthat self-responsibility is the mas­ter key. Man then may see thathis earthly purpose is not to be award of the government but hisown man, under God - self-respect­ing and self-responsible. ~

A Harmony of Interests

THE SOCIALISTS believe that men's interests are essentially an­tagonistic. The economists believe in the natural harmony, orrather in the necessary and progressive harmonization, of men'sinterests. This is the whole difference....

To be sure, if men's interests are naturally antagonistic, wemust trample underfoot justice, liberty, and equality before thelaw. We must remake the world, or, as they say, reconstitutesociety, according to one of the numerous plans that they neverstop inventing. For self-interest, a disorganizing principle, theremust be substituted legal, imposed, involuntary, forced sel/­sacrifice - in a word, organized plunder; and as this new prin­ciple can only arouse infinite aversion and resistance, an attemptwill be made at first to get it accepted under the deceptive nameof fraternity, after which the law, which is force, will be invoked.

FREDERIC BASTIAT, Justice and Fraternity (1848)

CLARENCE B. CARSON

f1£uglaub

6. THE MORAL BASE

THERE ,vas more to England's riseto greatness and leadership ofcivilization than the establishmentof liberty. It has been made clearthat this rise was preceded andaccompanied by the laying of polit­ical foundations for liberty - bythe separation and counterbalanc­ing of power, by substantive limi­tations on power, by the wide­spread veneration of and intellec­tual support for liberty, and bylegal efforts to secure liberty andproperty. But liberty only releasesthe energies of a people; it doesnot direct and control them topositive ends of achievement. Ed-

Dr. Carson, Professor of History at Grove CityCollege, Pennsylvania, will be remembered forhis earlier FREEMAN series, The FatefulTurn, The American Tradition, and TheFlight from Reality.

mund Burke pointed out regardingthe supposed establishment ofliberty in France during theFrench Revolution that if peopleare to be free to do as they please,"we ought to see what it willplease them to do before we riskcongratulations...."

Of course, Burke knew that lib­erty does not consist in simply do­ing what one pleases. It is onlypossible when men are constrainedto behave in ways that will notintrude upon the equal liberty ofothers as well. But his point iswell taken, even so. Liberty is onlyconducive to greatness when apeople are under the sway of anoble vision of the purpose of life,when they are motivated to theconstructive employment of their

468 THE FREEMAN August

faculties, when they are inwardlyconstrained to peaceful pursuits,and when they generally abide oftheir own will by certain highprinciples. In short, liberty pro­vides the opportunity, but positiveachievement proceeds from anethos, an ethic, a morality, a reli­gious or spiritual base.

So it was for the English, atany rate. In the broadest sense,the ethos which gave meaning tothe lives of Englishmen, impelledthem to their accomplishments,and provided the moral code forindividuals to control themselvescame from Christianity. Christi­anity is an unusual fusion of Oldand New Testament teachings.From the Old Testament particu­larly comes the high moral codefor conduct conducive to peacefulliving in this world. The Decaloguereduces this code to a few simplecommandments. The last five ofthese command a strong and ex­plicit respect for life and property:

You shall not kill.You shall not commit adultery.You shall not steal.You shall not bear false witness

against your neighbor.You .shall not covet....1

The New Testament goes be­yond these to place great emphasisupon inward purity of heart, of

1 Exodus 20: 13-17 (RSV).

motive, and of desire. Both Oldand New Testament show man asinherently bent to sinfulness, asnaturally alienated from God, asprone to serving the things ofthis world rather than doing thewill of God. Both evoke in sensi­tive souls a sense of tension be­tween man as he is and man ashe should be - a tension in thebroadest sense between This WorIdand the Next. The Counsel of Per­fection, taught by Christ, revealedsuch an exacting level of behavioras good and virtuous that livingup to it would be entirely beyondthe natural capacities of man.

Norms of Christian Living

Christianity not only revealedand held up perfect and impecca­ble norms for human conduct butalso offered a means of redemptionfor sinful man. More, Salvationwas not only made available butalso almost irresi.stibly attractive- a pearl beyond price. This is notthe place to enter upon a discussionof the mysteries of religion, how­ever, even if the writer were com­petent to do so. The bearing ofthese matters upon history isgreat, nonetheless. The fact isthat Christianity, in providing away for the redemption of indi­viduals, did not remove the ten­sion between This World and theNext; if anything, for the verysensitive it heightened it. A man

1968 THE MORAL BASE 469

still had to live out his years inthis Vale of Tears. He still hadto inhabit the flesh, be subject toits temptations and resist them,live in relationships with othermen, and live in an abiding con­sciousness of how far from theways of God are the ways of theworld. The gift of salvation car­ried with it the freely incurredobligation to observe the moralnorms.

There developed within Christi­anity, then, a particular attitudetoward this world. It was, in thetraditional language, a snare, adelusion, a place of temptation, at,var with the spirit, temporary,destined for destruction, and soon. What posture a Christian wasto take toward this world was amatter that engaged the intellectsof the greatest thinkers and theheroic efforts at exemplification ofmany of the saints. The positionstaken ranged all the way from therare one of pantheism to completerejection of, say, a Simeon ofStylites.

There have been, however, twomain postures taken by Christianstoward this world, that of RomanCatholics and that of Protestants.England was under the sway ofRoman Catholicism for nearly athousand years, from the Synodof vVhitby in 664 until the Act ofSupremacy in 1534. England's timeof greatness and world leadership

came under the Protestant im­petus, but the importance of thiswill be clearer by examining firstthe Catholic posture toward thisworld.

Catholic Practices

Actually, there are two posturesimplicit in Catholic practice re­garding this world. There is onefor those of a strong religiousbent - for the unusually sensitivesouls - and another for the gen­erality of men. The generality ofmen must perforce live in the wayof the world, and they will do so,in any case. They must marry andgive in marriage, go into the mar­ketplace and trade, produce andconsume, make war and maintainlaw and order, use that force andthose means necessary to keepthings running. Since they liveand participate in the way of theworld, they are subject to thegreat temptations there and arelikely ever and again to fall intogrievously sinful actions and hab­its. For such men to be redeemedthey must benefit from unearnedGrace. On the other hand, thoseof deep and abiding religious in­clinations may withdraw from theworld-spiritually-to live in con­vents and monasteries. They re­nounce the world to live unto God.By living apart from the rest ofthe world, by living under rigorousdiscipline and observing a regular

470 THE FREEMAN August

order of devotion, these may beable even to store up Grace thatmay benefit the generality of men.The social import of all this isthat those of a deeply religiousand devout nature were set apartfor religious devotion rather thandirecting their energies towardthis world, so to speak.

The Church of England

Very shortly after the breakwith the Roman church, the mon­asteries and nunneries were sup­pressed in England. Their landsand properties were taken fromthem, and they had to seek othermeans of livelihood and to makethemselves useful in the world.The Church of England was soonset on its course which it has gen­erally tried to follow throughoutits history, a course which wouldprovide a middle way betweenthat of the Roman Catholic onthe one hand and that of otherProtestants on the other. Likeother Protestants, Anglicans wouldallow their clergy to marry andwould have a reduction of thesacraments. Like the Roman Cath­olics, they would continue the prac­tice of episcopal succession and begoverned by an hierarchy, amongother things. Like any compro­mise, however, it did not entirelysatisfy a considerable number ofpeople.

Mainly, the Anglican church did

not satisfy those' with unusual re­ligious zeal. It largely denied themonastic outlet for those of suchan inclination and did not replacethis with any great moral fervordirected toward life in this world.It is not to deny that the Anglicanchurch has provided religious sol­ace to its communicants, nor todeny that it has numbered amongits clergy men of great intellectand religious steadfastness, topoint up what was largely lackingfrom its make-up. The truth is,however, that the Anglican churchhas not generally played up thetension between This World andthe Next. It has obviously been asupport of the powers that be inThis World. It has discouragedany great degree of zeal whichmight disturb existing arrange­ments or lead to transformations.

Evangelical Protestantism

The moral base and animatingdrive from Christianity which wasso important for England's riseand greatness came mainly fromevangelical Protestantism, then,even to an influence on the Angli­can church itself. There were twogreat waves of evangelical Protes­tant fervor to sweep over England,accompanied by several rivulets.The first of these was brought bythe Puritans, the second by JohnWesley and Methodism. The Puri­tan impact reached its peak in the

1968 THE MORAL BASE 471

middle of the seventeenth century.The second wave came in the lat­ter part of the eighteenth eenturyand continued on into the nine­teenth century until it could besaid that the evangelical Protes­tant outlook held sway in England.

The contrast between the Puri­tan attitude toward this world andthat of Roman Catholics is greatindeed. The Puritans were capableof the most vivid language to de­scribe the sinfulness of this world.To their spokesmen, this worldwas indeed a snare and delusion,and the Christian a pilgrim and astranger in it. On every hand,man was beset by temptationswhich he was unable of himselfto overcome. Life was conceivedas a great struggle between thecommands to righteousness of Godand the bent of man to pursue hisown fleshly way. Yet the Puritandid not in the least approve ofefforts to withdraw from theworld. That we should live outour time in the midst of the temp­tations of this world was a partof the plan of God for man. Towithdraw would be to run away.Christians were called instead,they held, to plunge into the af­fairs of this ,vorld with zeal, toshow forth the character of theirfaith by the performance of theirtasks here.

One historian of English Puri­tanism has described their atti-

tude toward life in this world inthe following fashion:

... The preachers endeavored byprecept and example to show howthe elect, while living according tothe code of saintliness, must usetheir gifts and opportunities in thislife. The Puritan code was muchmore than a table of prohibitions.It was the program of an active,not a monastic or contemplative,life. . . . The saint had no reason tofear the world or run away from it.Rather he must go forth into it anddo the will of God there.2

The Puritan Posture

The Puritan posture toward thisworld comes out clearly in the doc­trine of The Calling. To RomanCatholics, the clergy, monks, andnuns were supposed to have a spe­cial calling or vocation. To thePuritans, by contrast, an thosechosen by God (elected) werecalled to whatever their earthlyundertakings might be. John Cot­ton, an English Puritan ,vho mi­grated to America, set forth thisdoctrine very explicitly. He said,"First: faith draws the heart ofa Christian to Iive in some war­rantable calling. As soon as evera man begins to look towards Godand the ways of His grace, he willnot rest till he finds out some war­rantable calling and employment."

2 William Haller, The Rise of Puri­tanism (New York: Columbia Univer­sity Press, 1938), p. 123.

472 THE FREEMAN August

He makes it clear that a warrant­able calling may be any lawful em­ployment so long as it serves thepublic as well as the individualinvolved and that it be such anundertaking as an individual isled to by his talents, interest, andthe counsel of others. Cotton sumsup his message in this way:

I t is an use of instruction to everyChristian soul that desires to walkby faith in his calling: if thouwouldst live a lively life and havethy soul and body prosper in thycalling, labor then to get into a goodcalling and therein live to the goodof others. Take up no calling butthat thou hast understanding in,and never take it unless thou mayesthave it by lawful and just means.And when thou hast it, serve Godin thy calling, and do it with cheer­fulness and faithfulness and anheavenly mind. And in difficultiesand dangers, cast thy cares andfears upon God, and see if he willnot bear them for thee; and framethy heart to this heavenly modera­tion in all successes to sanctify God'sname. And if the hour and powerof darkness come, that thou beestto resign up thy calling, let it beenough that conscience may witnessto thee that thou hast not soughtthyself nor this world, but hastwrought the Lord's works. Thoumayest then have comfort in it,both before God and men.3

3 Perry Miller, ed., The AmericanPuritans (Garden City: Doubleday,1956), pp. 173-82.

The Puritan, then, was supposedto go about the affairs of theworkaday world ,vith a zeal en­livened by his religious faith. Hewas to show forth the characterof his faith by the quality of hiswork. The virtues he particularlyadmired were such as might welllead to success in an earthly call­ing: industry, sobriety, diligence,honesty, and s.teadfastness. Puri­tans did, indeed, throw them­selves into the affairs of theworkaday world with an almostunprecedented zeal, for the pur­pose, in purest doctrine, of glori­fying God and keeping themselvespure against the Day of Judg­nlent, though many of them maywell have become enamored of themeans and forgotten the end.

Alter the Restoration

The great age of the Puritans,vas the seventeenth century. InEngland their ranks numberedsuch stalwarts as John Milton,Oliver Cromwell, Edmund Spen­ser, John Bunyan, among others.The Puritan experiments duringthe Interregnum (1649-1660),however, left a bad taste for theirfaith in the mouths of many E'ng­lishmen, and the following of thePuritan faith waned after that.Puritans were never again to oc­cupy so prominent a positionamong the English. With their de­cline came also a decline generally

1968 THE MORAL BASE 473

of the nonconformist or evan­gelical Protestant appeal for agood many years.

Historians are generally agreed,too, that there was a general let­down in morality after the Res­toration (1660) and extendingwell into the eighteenth century.In the first half 01' so of the eight­eenth century the upper classeswere reputed to be much given towine drinking and gaming. "Theytell me," George III once said toLord Chancellor Northington,"that you love a glass of wine."The reply was, "Those who haveinformed your Majesty have doneme a great injustice; they shouldhave said a bottle." Gout was acommon disease, reputed to be theresult of drinking huge quantitiesof cheap port. Gin could be hadcheaply, and many of the pOQrdrowned their sorrows in it, ac­cording to report. Industry andsobriety were not yet well estab­lished in England.

Whitefield and Wesley

Evangelical Protestantism be­gan to make a comeback in theeighteenth century. With it camea renewed religious zeal and arevival of what was, in manyrespects, the Puritan posture to­ward this world. Several denomi­nations and sects played a partin this: Congregationalists, Bap­tists, and Quakers; but the most

prominent role was played by JohnWesley and the Methodists. Therewere two leading figures in a re­vivalist movement which was un­derway in the 1730's and 1740's:George Whitefield and John We1s­ley. Whitefield was the first to taketo open-air preaching - that is,preaching to throngs of peoplewho gathered in an open space.His preaching was characterizedby much enthusiasm and a power­ful emotional appeal. John Wesleywas to adopt this as his methodtoo, and over a long career wasto address such crowds on manyoccasions.

Of the influence of Wesley andWhitefield upon their time, aswell as upon later generations,there should be no doubt. Onehistorian says that their work"brought about the regenerationof a living faith in England. Theyappealed to the vast mass of theircountrymen who had, most ofthem, either never been inside' achurch in their lives, or, if theyhad, were untouched by the formalservices they found there - thepoor, the degraded, no less thanthe honest working folk, repelledby the cold, lifeless, and perfunc­tory ministrations of the' bene­ficed cle'rgy."4

Wesley and Whitefield preached

4 Basil Williams, The Whig Suprema­cy (London: Oxford University Press,1939), pp. 96-97.

474 THE FREEMAN August

salvation by faith and personalpiety. Though they frequently ad­dressed the poor, they were nei­ther radicals nor revolutionaries.Their message was directed to in­dividuals, not to classes. So far asWesley was concerned with thematerial conditions under whichpeople lived, he bade them to im­prove by their own efforts. More,he bade them to be diligent intheir earthly affairs:

The generality of Christians afterusing some prayer, usually applythemselves to the business of theircalling. Every man that has anypretence to be a Christian, will notfail to do this: seeing it is impos­sible that an idle man can be a goodman: sloth being inconsistent withreligion. But with what view? Forwhat end do you undertake and fol­low your worldly business? "To pro­vide things necessary for myselfand my family." It is a good answer,as far as it goes; but it does not gofar enough. For a Turk or a heathengoes so far; does his work for thevery same ends. But a Christian maygo abundantly farther: his end inall his labour is, to please God; todo not his own will, but the will ofhim that sent him into the world;for this very purpose, to do the willof God on earth, as angels do inheaven.5

5 Herbert Welch, comp., Selectionsfrom the Writings of John Wesley (New

York: Methodist Book Concern, 1918),

pp. 97-98.

Christian VirtuesThe Doctrine of the Calling was

revived in Methodist teachings. Itwill be worthwhile, too, to go overthose virtues that Wesley account­ed worthy of a Christian:

... Do you love, honour, and obeyyour father and mother, and helpthem to the utmost of your power?Do you honour and obey all in au­thority? all you governors, spirit­ual pastors, and masters? Do youbehave lowly and reverently to allyour betters? Do you hurt nobody,by word or deed? Are you true andjust in all your dealings? Do youtake care to pay whatever you owe?Do you feel no malice, or envy, orrevenge, no hatred or bitterness toany man? . . . Do you speak thetruth from your heart to all men,and that in tenderness and love? ...Do you keep your body in sobriety,temperance, and chastity, as know­ing it is the temple of the HolyGhost. . .? Have you learned, inevery state wherein you are, there­with to be content? Do you labourto get your own living, abhorringidleness as you abhor hell-fire? Thedevil tempts other men; but an idleman tempts the devil. An idle man'sbrain is the devil's shop, where heis continually working mischief. Areyou not slothful in business? What­ever your hand finds to do, do youdo it with your might? And do youdo all as unto the Lord, as a sac­rifice unto God, acceptable in Chris1Jesus?6

6 Ibid., pp. 308-09.

1968 THE MORAL BASE 475

The teachings of Wesley andothers like him, says one historian,brought solace to those poor hud­dled in their misery in new fac­tory towns in the late eighteenthcentury and eventually "helped tomake them the deeply religiousand self-respecting people whichthe lower middle class of factoryworkers and shopkeepers of themanufacturing areas had becomeby the nineteenth century."7

John Wesley was an ordainedAnglican clergyman and remainedone throughout his life. He pro­fessed much love and venerationfor the "mother church." Yetafter his death the Methodists be­came a separate denomination.Even so, the impact upon theAnglican church remained great.By the late eighteenth centurythere were many of an evangelicaltemperament within the estab­lished church, and they taughtdoctrines similar to those of Wes­ley. As one writer puts it, "Likethe Methodists, the evangelicalswithin the Church of Englandwere firm supporters of the socialorder. Reformation of manners,not reformation of social evils,was their main concern; and tomost of them righteousness andradicalism seemed to go ill to­gether."8

7 Williams, op cit., p. 97.8 Derek Jarrett, Britain: 1688-1815

(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965),pp. 358-59.

Another historian says of theimpact of the evangelicals withinthe Church of England, "Althoughthis movement had passed itsclimax in 1815, it still representedthe most active section of thechurch. The leaders set a patternof strict and pious life.... Theymaintained a serious and unself­ish attitude towards public af­fairs. They used their wealth con­scientiously, and, on the whole, togood and noble purpose."9

Victorian Morality

In the first half of the nine­teenth century, the evangelical de­nominations grew greatly in num­bers and influence. "The numberof Congregationalist chapels in­creased three and a half times be­tween 1801 and 1851; the numberof Baptist meeting places multi­plied fourfold; and the number ofMethodist halls multiplied morethan fourteen times during theseyears.... Revival meetings on theAmerican model were popularamong many nonconformists, andthe evangelically minded 'LowChurch' remained a prominentfacet of Anglicanism."lo A reli­gious census in 1851 indicated

9 Llewellyn Woodward, The Age ofReform (London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1962, 2nd ed.), p. 504.

10 Walter L. Arnstein, Britain: Yes­terday and Today (Boston: D. C. Heath,1966), p. 80.

476 THE FREEMAN August

that of approximately 18 millionpeople some 7 minion were regu­lar churchgoers.

The influence of the evangeli­cal Protestant ethic reached itspeak in the nineteenth century.I t eventuated in the dominance ofwhat has been termed Victorianmorality. One historian describesVictorian morality "as a set ofideals about efficiency and thrift,seriousness of character, respect­ability, and self-help.... Themaxim 'honesty is the best policy'was to serve not merely as a slo­gan but as an accepted and demon­strable truth.... Bankruptcy wasregarded not merely as a financialbut as a moral disgrace. Moralityin government was given similar,perhaps even greater stress...."11

Bible-reading in the Home,Sermonizing in the Church

By truncating a sentence by G.M. Young, historian of the Vic­torian Age, the relation of evan­gelicalism to this morality can bestated: "Victorian history is thestory of the English mind employ­ing the energy imparted by Evan­gelical conviction...."12 He saysthat "Evangelicalism had imposedon society, even on classes whichwere indifferent to its religious

11 Ibid., p. 77.

12 G. M. Young, Victorian England:Portrait of an Age (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1936), p. 5.

basis and unaffected by its eco­nomic appeal, its code of Sabbathobservance, responsibility, andphilanthropy; of discipline in thehome, regularity in affairs; it hadcreated a most effective techniqueof agitation...."13 Or again, "Tobe serious, to redeem the time, toabstain from gambling, to remem­ber the Sabbath day to keep itholy, to limit the gratification ofthe senses to the pleasures of atable lawfully earned and the em­braces of a wife lawfully wedded.• • ."14 The testimony of yet an­other historian wiII drive the pointhome:

No interpretation of mid-Victori­anism would be sound which did notplace religious faith and observancein the very centre of the picture.The most generally accepted andpractised form of Christianity atthe time was that which may bebroadly called evangelicalism, withits emphasis upon moral conductas the test of the good Christian....Its basis was biblical. Bible-readingin the home was as popular assermonizing in church. Its highestvirtue was self-improvement. Itsemphasis lay not on sacraments orritual, but on organized prayer andpreaching, and on the strict observ­ance of Sunday... .Ii)

13 Ibid., p. 5.

14 Ibid., p. 2.15 David Thomson, England in the

Nineteenth Century (Baltimore: Pen~

guin Books, 1950), p. 107.

1968 THE MORAL BASE 477

The moral base for the rise andgreatness of England, then, wasto be found mainly in a Chris­tianity as it was interpreted andexemplified by evangelical Protes­tants. Men did not, of course, pro­fess Christianity that Englandmight be great or even, ideally,that they might be successful asindividuals in acquiring worldlygoods. Protestant Christianityspoke its message to the individualsoul in its yearning toward Godand eternity. If they did putspiritual things first, they weretold, then they might have earthlygoods in plenty. We cannot know,of course, how far and to whatextent men did indeed put spirit­ual things first. What we can becertain of is that they had im­bibed an outlook toward this worldand were taught a morality whichdid make for material success andgreatness.

The Freeing of Human Energy

The energies of Englishmen setfree by liberty were controlled anddirected toward positive accom­plishment by an ethos which heldthat any lawful undertaking, be itever so humble, was a calling ofGod to a Christian engaged in it.The way in which he performedhis work would be a sign of his

election and the state of his soul.Careful workmanship, diligence inlabor, charitable benevolence, re­spect for other men in what wastheirs was deeply ingrained in thisoutlook. In a sense, this outlookdid make of all of life and everyundertaking a kind of spiritualexercise, and of the whole world amonastery. To put it another way,all legitimate human effort waspervaded with spiritual overtonesand meaning. Even that part oflife that has to do with materialthings, their production,acquisi­tion, and disposal was given spirit­ual import. Not because of theimportance of material things butbecause of the transcendent im­portance of the immortal soulwhich was engaged with them fora little while, and in the mannerof its engagement showed forthits faith.

The drive which carried theEnglish to their peak of achieve­ment, then, had a profound basis.The morality by which they wereconstrained in the conduct of theiraffairs was equally deeply based.From about the middle of theeighteenth century onward theEnglish began their surge togreatness. The base from whichthey moved has now been ex­plored. ~

The next article in this series will pertain to "The Industrial Surge."

WHERE BURGLARS GET BETTER BREAKTHAN BUSINESSMEN

LoWELL B. MASON

MILLIONS of law-abiding business­men are now subject to treatmentthe U. S. Supreme Court has ruledunla\vful when applied to commoncriminals.

The courts, cheered on by lib­erals everywhere, have moved dra­matically and forcefully in recentyears to safeguard individualrights. But the plight of the busi­nessman in his relations with Fed­eral administrative agencies, whichregulate most of interstate com­merce in America, has been over­looked.

Supreme Court decisions holdthat police and prosecutors are notallowed to put defendants to inqui­sition. The accused also must beadvised that they need not confessand that counsel will be providedfor them if they want it.

Many other provisions long havebeen part and parcel of what isgenerally referred to as due proc­ess - such as:• All men are presumed innocentuntil proven guilty by a greaterweight of the evidence.• The officer ,vho prosecutes a

Lowell B. Mason is a former member of theFederal Trade Commission, a lawyer, a vig­orous defender of individual liberties, and acolorful author and speaker. He has served inboth the legislature and executive branchesand at national, state, and local levels ofgovernment. He is author of the new book,The Bull on the Bench.

© 1968, Nation's Business-the Chamberof Commerce of the United States. Reprintedby permission from the February issue.

case cannot be the same man whosits in judgment nor can he im­pose the punishment, if any.

There is no doubt that the re­cent Supreme Court interpreta­tions of our Bill of Rights inclinemany thoughtful citizens to thegrowing opinion that the rights oflaw-abiding citizens have been sub­ordinated to those of criminals.

All of this criticism could beavoided if the Supreme Courttreated burglars the same way ittreats the American businessman.Most of the safeguards to overlyspeedy justice are avoided whendealing with businessmen chargedwith violating Federal laws regu­lating interstate commerce.

Why should burglars and othercriminals, who pay no taxes ontheir estimated $40 billion annualtake, get better treatment thanbusinessmen who are the govern­ment's main source of income?

Why should the many business­men who come under the jurisdic­tion of administrative law acceptthe special strictures this law ap­plies exclusively to them?

Certainly they do, with consid­erable docility.

A successful businessman fol­lows established rules of conduct.He pays his bills, honors his con­tracts, and obeys the law whetherhe likes its provisions or not, else

A1"70

480 THE FREEMAN August

he soon finds himself outside thepale. He accepts the fact that forover a half century the establishedI'ole of administrative law allowsthe score of Federal regulatoryagencies which prosecute him tojudge him also.

This may disturb him at first,but he is somewhat reassuredwhen he goes to trial to hear theprosecutors refer to themselves asa quasi-judicial court. It seems tohim he is in front of a court. Ithas all the appearances of one.

The commissioners of Federalregulatory agencies sit on a highbench just like judges. Everybodyarises when they enter the room.Witnesses are sworn; decorum anddignity are the order of the day.But the businessman will find outthere is a great difference betweenthe quasi-judicial treatment hegets and the real judicial treat­ment accorded a burglar.

Burglars Get Better Break

To illustrate, take two cases:One involving a businessman andone a burglar. Assume both areguilty or assume both are notguilty. Weare not concerned withwhat they did, but with how andwhy two widely divergent methodsare used in dealing with these twosuspects. rrhere is a tender set oflaws for burglars and a tough setfor businessmen.

In other words, the government

practices what it does not preach.It practices discrimination. Andin this case, it is against the ma­jority - not the minority. We hearmuch these days about de' factodiscrimination - favoritism notrecognized by law, but neverthe­less practiced. The discriminationagainst businessmen is not onlyde facto, it is also de jure. It isrecognized and enforced by law.

For businessmen there is nofreedom from inquisition, a pre­sumption of innocence until theyare proved guilty by a preponder­ance of evidence, a trial before animpartial judge and a jury.

If a burglar got the same treat­ment the businessman gets, hishouse could be searched regularly.The function of prosecutor, judge,and jury could be consolidated inthe hands of one agency.

The commissioners of some Fed­eral agencies, who devote their ef­forts to rooting out bad commer­cial practices, believe they havebecome so expert that when abusinessman comes to trial beforethem, it is not necessary to wastetime proving his guilt by a great­er weight of the evidence. Thecommissioners, having originallyprepared the charges against him,apparently instinctively sensewhether or not the man is guilty.All that the administrative lawrequires is for them to put someevidence in the record or, if there

1968 WHERE BURGLARS GET BETTER BREAK THAN BUSINESSMEN 481

is no evidence, at least some in­ferences upon which guilt mayrest, and the Supreme Court willnot interfere with their judgment.

FTC in Action

Let me give an actual casewhich was tried when I sat on theFederal Trade Commission.

There was a businessman whomthe commissioners suspected wasinjuring some of his customers bygiving quantity discounts toothers. So a complaint was filedagainst him. At his trial, testi­mony was sought from those whowere injured. FTC personnel trav­eled all over the United States andcouldn't get a single customer tosay he was injured.

If the agency had been ordinaryprosecutors and had to try thatcase before a judge and jury, itwould have lost. But being quasi­judicial, FTC just inferred thecustomers were injured, and foundthe man guilty right away. Hevias mad, of course, and appealedour decision. But when a quasi­judicial commission says a man ishurt - he is hurt.

This conclusion the SupremeCourt heartily approved on thegrounds that either all the wit­nesses were too dumb to knowthey were hurt or were not smartenough to object-and besides, whyshould the court question the j udg­ment of a bunch of experts like

Federal Trade Commissioners?I've always been proud of my

decision in the case. I votedagainst the order.

FTC expertise has reached suchoccult dimensions that even if thedefendant had done no wrong atthe time we sued him, if we pre­dicted his acts might develop evilslater on, we issued an orderagainst him anyway.

Just think of all the robberiesand murders that could be pre­vented if a combination policeman­prosecutor-judge were endowed bystatute with the same wisdom andauthority. Then they could lockup everybody who had "the ten­dency and capacity" to do evil.

But these plenary powers applyonly against businessmen. If a wit­ness is not a businessman but acommunist, and his organizationis on trial before another quasi­judicial court (the Subversive Ac­tivities Control Board), the stat­ute strictly forbids a finding ofguilt unless there is a preponder­ance of evidence to support it.

Legal Counsel Barred

One Supreme Court decisionpoints out that, under the authori­ty of an Ohio statute, a business­man being questioned regardingincidents damaging to the econ­on1Y in a general administrativeinquiry is not even allo\ved to havehis lawyer present.

482 THE FREEMAN August

If this businessman had beenaccused of a criminal act, an ar­resting officer would have to cau­tion: "You don't have to say any­thing or answer any of my ques­tions if you don't want to. We'lllet you have a phone so you cancall your lawyer or a friend orrelative. If you can't afford a law­yer, one will be furnished to youif you want one."

And what about inquisition inAmerica?

Federal agencies that regulatebusinessmen have power to requirethem to file answers to specificquestions, as to their work, busi­ness, conduct, and practices.

They have far more power thanthe courts possess. These Federalpolicemen can not only investigate,but even snoop and harass.

Here's what the Supreme Courtsaid about them in the MortonSalt Co. case:

"It [the Federal agency] has apower of inquisition, if one choosesto call it that, which is not derivedfrom the judicial function....

Even if one were to regard therequest for information in this caseas caused by nothing more than of­ficial curiosity, nevertheless, law en­forcing agencies have a legitimateright to satisfy themselves that cor­porate behavior is consistent withthe law and the public interest.

"Official curiosity" can cover alot of territory.

And if conducted by a state of­ficial or anyone he designates todo the job, an investigation maybe in secret. All friends, relatives,and defendant's attorneys arestrictly excluded, for as the fiveto four majority of the SupremeCourt said: Advisers to a witnessmight encumber the "proceedingso as to make it unworkable or un­wieldy," and "the presence of law­yers is deemed not conductive tothe economical and thorough as­certainment of the facts."

As students of history remem­ber, there was an alarming rise inthe French crime rate before theFrench Revolution, just as thereis here in America today. M. Se­guier, a chief prosecutor underLouis XVI, demanded many of thesame shortcuts to speedy convic­tions that are being urged today.He got them. Later on the samesort of instant justice was glee­fully applied to send Louis and hiscohorts to the guillotine.

Will Court Relent?

But does history have to repeatitself?

While, I predict, we'll nevertreat burglars as badly as we dobusinessmen, what are the chancesof government treating business­men as politely as it does burglars?

I'm not too optimistic aboutthis, though recent decisions in­dicate the· Supreme Court is get-

1968 WHERE BURGLARS GET BETTER BREAK THAN BUSINESSMEN 483

ting fed up with wearing twofaces - one for burglars - one forbusinessmen.

Here's what these decisions wereall about.

Everybody knows a burglar'shome has always been his castle.If government agents wanted tobreak in and look under his bed,they first got a warrant to do so.This was because the Constitutionsays anyone suspected of burglarycan't be forced to convict himself.

But ordinary citizens?They weren't suspected of any­

thing, so it was all right for agentsto wander through their bedrooms,parlors, and baths without messingaround with warrants. All theagent had to do was bang on thedoor and yell, "Hey, you I Lemmein I"

Now the Supreme Court says,"N0 more discrimination. When itcomes to a man's home - treat himjust as nice as you do burglars."

But one swallow doesn't make asummer.

What about the other judicialdiscriminations against the busi­ness community? What about in­quisition? What about quasi­judicial officials prosecuting theirown cases, then sitting in judg­ment on their own prosecutions?

Sixty years of legal custom havesanctified it.

For 11 of those years, as a Fed­eral Trade Commissioner, my col-

leagues and I investigated thou­sands of charges against business­men. When we determined therewas "reason to believe" the lawsof the marketplace were violated,we filed complaints against them.

Then hastily donning our judge'srobes behind the bench (figura.­tively speaking) we solemnlymarched into our courtroom. Seat­ing ourselves on our high benchand looking benignly down on thehapless culprits, we would say,"Now tell us what this case is allabout."

Some bureaucrats (who wouldhave been glad to see me off theCommission) thought I should re­sign in protest against this directrepudiation of the American con­cept of separation of powers. Ri­diculous - I had no truck with of­ficials who resigned in protest aslong as there was any chance tomake known their beliefs.

Thanks to President Truman, Ihad this chance. My dissents, dur­ing these 11 years, brought more'fruit to freedom than if I hadsulked outside the tent.

There's still a long road totravel. But while there's lif.e,there's hope.

Who knows?Maybe some day government

will treat businessmen with thesame consideration it gives burg­lars. +

RALPH BRADFORD

WHERE IN THE WORLD would Irather live, than in the UnitedStates of America? This is a ques­tion that I have been asking my­self rather frequently of late; andI always come up with the sameanswer: Nowhere!

I have asked it also of a goodmany much-traveled friends whoare of conservative persuasion,like me; and after an initial star­tled look that fades fast intothoughtfulness, they invariablygive me the same reply: Nowhere.

There is something significantin this, for the world has manybeautiful and interesting places.It has heen my own privilege inthe past dozen years or so to visit42 countries of this wobbly world,some of them several times. Near­ly all offered features that I liked:

Mr. Bradford is well known as a writer, speak­er, and business organization consultant. Henow lives in Ocala, Florida.

...tOA

the people, the climate, the scen­ery, the music, the language, thefood - something good. There ishardly a land I have visited thatdoes not occupy a warm corner inmy memory. I think of them often.

England - vast, noisy London,the smoky midlands, the lovelylakes, the fine people. Scotland­the ruined abbeys, the Trossachs,and especially the Castle gloomingover the reeking chimney pots of"Edinbur-r-ry" in a misty twi­light. Italy - not the highly organ­ized Tourist Trap, but the ruggedhome of a fascinating people.Greece ... palimpsest of the ages.Thailand, country of fabricated,fragile beauty. Argentina, south­ern twin of the United States.Chile, the Italy of the New World.- You name it, and I'll love it ...for some fondly rememberedthing: a white cone of mountainrising from a misty lake - like

1968 WHERE IN THE WORLD? 485

Osorno ... or Fuji; a sea-piercedgorge, like the Kotar Gulf of Yugo­slavia; the mighty gash of theCorinth Canal; a glimpse of theCorcovado Christ looming throughthe clouds high over Rio; a fisher­man's dinner beside the Tagus inLisbon; a surprising bit of wine,like the Tsara of Baalbek or theresin-flavored Retsin of Argolis;or maybe a simple act of humankindness - as when the youngScotch woman who shared ourcompartment south to Keswick,seeing that we were much bur­dened with baggage and no por­ters at hand, left her baby on theseat and came trudging down thecorridor after us, lugging one ofour heavy bags!

Yes, always there is some goodor beautiful or gracious thing toremember. Always, or nearly al­ways, I would like to go back.

But to live? Which countrywould I choose above my own?And the ans\ver is: none. Liter­ally, none. Partly, I suppose, thisis due to the love, the accustomed­to-your-face feeling that we allhave for our native place. We aresomewhat like O. Henry's Cosmop­olite, who was largely and mag­nificently tolerant of the wholeworld - until somebody happenedto disparage the two-by-four vil­lage in which he had lived as aboy.

But aside from such geographic

preferences and nostalgic preju­dices (I ask myself, and of late Iask my friends) - aside from allthat, think it over carefully, andsay which country you would pre­fer to the United States as a placein which to live. I have yet to findan American who said he wouldchoose to live elsewhere. I knowthere are such, expatriates bychoice, for one reason or anotherthat seems good to them - but Ihave never met them.

A Disturbing Trend

The occasion for these musingsis this: For a good many years Ihave been concerned with the di­rection my country is going. Likemany other Americans, I havebeen opposed on principle to theidea of a deficit economy, not he­cause I worry about an occasionalyear in the red (which is ordinaryexperience in business and even inprivate, domestic life) but be­cause I have seen the devastationthat can be wrought by an ex­tended application of the fatuousspend-borrow-and-never-pay aber­ration. It is easy to list a numberof modern nations whose middleclass - the saving and investingelement that provides much of thecapital for industrial and otherdevelopment - has been sold intoloss and bankruptcy by that fatalphilosophy. When I see my nationheaded the same way, I protest, I

486 THE FREEMAN August

cry out, I argue- I even denounce.I get all hot under the collar! Andso do a lot of other people whoshare my conservative views onthe philosophical, as well as thefiscal, need for solvency in ournational affairs. And we get allthe hotter when left-wing devoteesof progress-through-inflation ac­cuse us of being "concerned onlywith money" - as though we hadneither fiscal sense, political wis­dom, nor social vision!

As a result, we become easytargets for the scornful shafts ofthe disciples of debt, compulsion,and superstatism, who call them­selves "liberals." They accuse usof wanting a "static" economy, oflooking backward, and especiallyof being always against things,never for anything. All this, ofcourse, is a lot of nonsense. Wehave a positive,not a negative,program. We are for a number ofthings that are fundamental tothe long-term welfare and safetyof all the people. We want theeconomy to be active and healthy;we want production and employ­ment; we want everybody to earnand save and invest and enjoy se­curity and comfort. We want theAmerican dream, as expressed inthe American Constitution, to befully realized in the prosperity,the freedom, and the progress ofthe American people. We believethat the Constitution provides both

the safeguards and the opportuni­ties for such progress; but if, inour developing society, conditionsarise that were not foreseeablewhen the Constitution was writ­ten, then we want the Constitu­tion amended by the process pro­vided, and not nullified by bureau­cratic manipulation or set asideby judicial dictate.

The Need for Law and Order

We believe that ,vhen Congresswas empowered to coin money and"regulate the value thereof," itwas intended that the value ofthat money should be protectedand maintained, and not dimin­ished or destroyed, and that it isthe present duty of Congress tothwart, rather than aid and abet,those policies and persons that aresystematically undermining thestrength of our currency, andthereby lessening the security ofour people.

We believe that "law and order"is something more than a phrase.Life and liberty can be realizedand protected only in a societythat has adopted rules for its con­duct, and for the conduct of thepeople who are members of thatsociety and live under its form ofgovernment. We are not interestedin punishment or retribution asends· in themselves. We are con­tent, indeed, we desire, that jus­tice shall be tempered with mercy

1968 WHERE IN THE WORLD? 487

- a humane concept that is prettywell guaranteed by our jury sys­tem. Few indeed are those wholook upon law enforcement as amere matter of vengeance. But nosociety can long continue unlessits laws are enforced; the alterna­tive is anarchy and the destruc­tion of social and political valuesthat have been the foundation ofthat society. Therefore, when wesee the laws openly disobeyed inthe name of "protest"; when zeal­ots for this or that cause announcethat they will determine for them­selves which laws they will obeyand which ones they will flout;when we see riot, arson, and mur­der condoned and even defendedby high officials of our govern­ment, we are appalled, we areangered - and we are frightened.

When we read that a Justice ofthe Supreme Court, attending aprocommunist conference, com­pared the Bolshevik revolution of1917 with the American Revolu­tion of 1776 and advocated "force­ful revolution" as the only way tocorrect the "intolerable condi­tions" under which he said 85 percent of the world's people live­when we read such things we areoutraged - and again, we arefrightened. When we read that theHigh Court, in decision after de­cision, seems to show greater con­cern for the legal rights of admit­ted criminals than it does for the

rights of their victims; when wesee the Attorney General of theUnited States, our highest law en­forcement officer, go on nationaltelevision to let the world of riotand arson know that he favors a"soft line" in dealing with theirdepredations-then, however muchwe may favor and support the hu­man and civil rights which therioters are pretending to espouse,we begin to ask ourselves what isultimately going to happen whenthe law is so weakly regarded andso feebly enforced by those whoare hired and paid and sworn todefend it?

Evil Must Be Opposed

When year after year goes bywith no effective action on thepart of government officials tobring expenditures into balancewith receipts; when there is a con­stant proliferation of the. Federalbureaucracy, always at the ex­pense and seldom to the benefit orservice of the taxpayer; when wesee the idea of compulsion becom­ing more and more the main re­liance (in everything but law en­forcement, that is) of the con­trolling political methodology;when we learn to our dismay thatnearly 48,000,000 people are nowthe recipients of regular monthlychecks from the state and nationalgovernments - confronted with allthis, what choice have we but to

488 THE FREEMAN August

be negative? How can we avoidbeing "against" such things?

What we are for is a great andgrowing and free society in whichevery citizen shall have opportun­ity for the highest degree that hecan attain of comfort and security.What we are against are thepolicies and projects and practicesthat weaken, that jeopardize, andthat may destroy that society. Andsince such destructive policies arebeing constantly advanced andcleverly promoted, it follows thatthere is a lot to be against.

And we owe nobody an apologyfor being "against" such things.Indeed, the outcry that conserva­tives are always against and neverfor things is a rather slick deviceof the radical Left. Unfortunately,many conservatives have let them­selves be bamboozled by it. They,too, often say, "Yes - that's avery bad thing - but we can't sayso. We mustn't be negative!" Tobe negative has come to be a kindof public relations sin. It soundsbetter to be "for" things; it seemspositive and affirmative - andthese, in current semantics, are"good" words. By an extension ofthis never-be-negative logic, if youwere to learn that I planned toburglarize your house, youshouldn't do anything so negativeas to notify the police and getme into the clutches of the law.Dear me, no - that would mean

you were against something! Itwould be negative! Your properprocedure would be either to keepstill, or else to offer a positivealternate suggestion - such asthat I should rob your neighbor'shouse, instead. Or better yet, thatI should rob a bank, which mighthelp in effecting a much-neededredistribution of the money whichthe bank had (no doubt, wickedly)amassed!

Reviewing the Ideal

So much for a few of the thingswe are against. So much for thecentral vision that we are for.And so much, in brief and perhapsinadequate declaration, for thereasons that impel us to our faith,and to our espousal of what webelieve are the necessary condi­tions for freedom and progress.

But there is a danger in suchadvocacy. We hear much thesedays of alienation, the scholar'sterm for a sense of rejection, ofnot belonging. We, too, we whowarn of danger, are threatenedwith a kind of alienation - of sep­aration from the dream, from thepolitical and socio-economic struc­ture, that is our nation! Whenwe see so much that may injure,and that is injuring, that nation,so much that we know is wrongand dangerous, we are apt, allunconsciously and without intent,to make a fatal substitution - the

1968 WHERE IN THE WORLD? 489

thing contained for the container;the bad policies about our countryfor the country itself. "They" aredoing so many things that areeconomically dangerous and mor­ally indefensible that in our com­plete withdrawal from them weare in danger of separating our­selves, imaginatively, from thephysical territory, the politicalgovernment, the economic struc­ture and the social concept that isthe United States of America. Andthis would be suicidal - for us, Imean; for it would convert usinto emotionally stateless. persons;and without the spur of patriotism-though it is no longer fashion­able, and in some quarters is con­sidered bad taste to use the word- without its stimulus our lives,and especially our efforts to pre­serve freedom, would have littlepurpose.

After all, why do we concernourselves over inflation, or crime,or injustice, or bureaucracy ram­pant, or the trend toward compul­sion and the lessening of freedom?Is it because we love liberty? Yes,of course - but it is also becausewe love our country! Oh, we areno longer mere jingoistic patriots.We are capable of self-analysisand self-criticism. We do notthink our country has always beenflawless. Our statesmen have madegrave blunders. Our policies haveoften been unwise. We have been,

on the whole, a somewhat violentpeople. In common with other in­dustrial nations, we went throughour period of exploitation. Weknow all that. But we know, too,that our transgressions have beenno worse than those of contem­porary nations. Like most of them,the American people and theAmerican State were the productof the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, with all that this im­plies in the way of nobility - andvenality. We can lay the recordof our country alongside that ofany other great power, confidentthat we shall come off well in thecomparison. If this is not a basisfor pride, neither is it an occasionfor shame; and our current criticsin England, France, and Germany,not to mention Sweden and Switz­erland, may please take notice.

So Much to Approve

But at the mere suggestion ofour "alienation" from the UnitedStates, theoretical speculationabruptly ceases and we face facts:One, we are inseparable from theUnited States, physically and emo­tionally. Two, we wouldn't liveelse,vhere if we could. Three,squirm and wriggle as we mayover admitting to emotionalism,we love our country! And we loveit, aside from habit and the com­pulsion of instinctive filial devo­tion, because it is still, despite all

490 THE FREEMAN August

we have done to stifle initiative,the land of opportunity. With allthe ridiculous and hampering re­strictions we have placed in the wayof individual growth and develop­ment, it is still the land of thefree.

The picture of America, aspresented to the world and to usAmericans, by the press, televi­sion, books, the theater and themovies, has been a sadly distortedone. If you read current best­selling books or look at top-ratedmovies, you will get the impres­sion of an America of free love,sex deviation, self-indulgence, andviolence. If you follow TV newsreleases you see only violence­mobs, marches, "protests," riots,arson, looting. But these thingsare not normal. The very fact thatthey are not normal is what, un­der the code of the newsmen,makes them newsworthy!

The Path to Progress

Consider riots. (And let it behere recorded that the writer ofthis article is a supporter of therights of all minorities, and isagainst discrimination because ofrace or religion. He is also a long­time advocate of slum elimination,both as a humanitarian measureand a social and economic neces­sity.) Well, the riots have beenbad and bloody. But what is theobverse of their gloomy medallion?

On the one hand, you see fire,smashed windows, looted stores,flaming Molotov cocktails, screamsof hatred - a grim and ghastly pic­ture. That is the dark side - theside that is flaunted to the world.But in all the cities where racialrioting occurred, not more than afew thousand persons took part.The participating \vhites, ofcourse, were negligible in relationto the total white population. Butwhat of the Negroes '! Surely notmore than twenty thousand, alltogether. A large number of riot­ers? Yes - but there are twentytnillion Negroes in this country!

There is no doubt that theyhave a grievance against theAmerican society. They have beendiscriminated against, mistreated,degraded. This we know, as theydo. But they also know that thewhite-dominated society that haswronged them is making a sincereeffort to redress that grievance.And of the 20 million Negroes,despite their frustrations, prob­ably less than one-half of one percent have taken any part in riots.The others, conscious that Amer­ica has not been fair to them,realize, nevertheless, that theirbest hope is with this country.They, too, in spite of all, love it.It is their country, too. They wantno part of senseless violence. Andthis is one of the good thingsabout America.

1968 WHERE IN THE WORLD? 491

Over-publicized Hippies

A minor occasion for dissatis­faction with the American sceneas currently presented has beenthe advent of the so-called hippies,and especially the spate of maw­kish stuff that has been writtenabout them. Seldom have so fewhad so much written about themby so many, and rarely have suchefforts been made to magnify theminuscule and glamorize the un­savory. They have been portrayedas heralds of a new religious con­cept, symbols of a divine dis­content. Seeing them, and readingabout them, one grows a littlesick. Is this America? It can't be- and yet this is being hailed as"the hippie generation."

What nonsense! By their ownwildest claims, the hippies num­ber not more than 200,000 of allkinds. But the age group - the"generation" - to which they be­long numbers over 15,000,000! Athing wrong with America is thateven one per cent of our youthare socially maladjusted, or incor­rigible, or hooked on drugs - orjust plain silly. But the other sideof the coin, the thing that isright about America, is that 99per cent of our young people arenot that way.

Of course, some of them invitecriticism, too. That young peopleshould take a keen and criticalinterest in the educational insti-

tutions they attend is well andgood. It is their future that is in­volved, and their opinions shouldbe heard. But when they followmob tactics, halt classes thatothers wish to attend, seize build­ings, destroy property - then theyhave forfeited any right to con­sideration.

This spring we had the spec­tacle of Columbia University be­ing forcibly taken over by a smallgroup of illegal entrants. Afterthat act of vandalism, the issueswhich the students and theirfriends claimed to represent be­came irrelevant. They were super­seded by a new issue - the main­tenance of authority and the ob­servance of the law. If the stu­dents had been ten times right,they had no license to become law­breakers.

The trend toward hooliganismin colleges, very marked in thepast year or two, is one of thethings that is wrong with Amer­ica. But here, too, there is abright side - a right side. It isfound in the fact that these stu­dent mob actions are nearly al­'ways perpetrated by a small, mi­nority group. At the Universityof Denver (where prompt andcourageous action by the schoolauthorities put an end to theattempted seizure) only 40 stu­dents were reportedly involved. AtColumbia something less than 700

THE FREEMAN492

joined the mobsters, while over17,000 refused to have anythingto do with it. The ratio in theBerkeley insurrection was aboutthe same. The law-abiders, therespecters of authority, far out­numbered the mobsters. There isalways more good than bad.

But at this point it may beobjected that the great majorityshould "do something about it."I t may be asked, "Why do theyallow a handful of their numbersto get away with such outrages?"But what should they do - becomelawbreakers themselves, and en­gage in bloody battle with theoffenders? They have a right toassume that the discipline of theschool will be asserted and main­tained by the school authorities,and that criminal acts will bedealt with by the police. The onlyway they could rout the law­breakers would be to become law­breakers themselves. No - they arecorrect on both counts, first, in notjoining the rioters, and second, innot starting riots of their own tosuppress the other rioters.

The Challenge

All these contrasts of what'swrong and what's right with ourcountry present part of the chal­lenge we must face-"we," in termsof this article, being those who,under various names (conserva­tives, libertarians, constitution-

August

aIists, traditionalists) want to ad­vance and protect the .interest ofthe American people by emphasison solvency, safety, and self-reli­ance, rather than on debt, eco­nomic adventurism, and socialisticintervention.

Our job, while not hesitatingto expose the bad, is to offer thepositive alternative of proclaim­ing, and trying to preserve andextend, the good. The miracle ofmodern times is not only our highlevels of production, employment,and earnings, .not only our eco­nomic and social achievements,but also and primarily the factthat our economy has had thestamina to withstand and survivethe handicaps of debt, taxation,and restrictiveness that have beenplaced upon it in the name ofprogress. Our power to create, andproduce, and distribute, and con­sume, though shackled needlessly,is of enormous consequence. Whenthis is coupled with widespreadacademic training and high intel­ligence, plus the willingness towork, a very tough mechanismfor survival is provided. Our jobis to teach the possibility of thatsurvival, even against the odds weourselves, we Americans, haveimposed. Our job also is to pro­claim and explain the reasons forour great achievements, even aswe carryon the battle to removeconditions that are a constant

1968 WHERE IN THE WORLD? 493

long-range brake upon the con­tinuance of those achievements.

And especiaJly we need to holdfast one central conviction that iseasily demonstrable - namely, thatthe United States is incomparablythe earth's greatest nation, richin freedom, opportunity, and ac­complishment - and that our aim,our dedication, is to keep it thatway!

We do not look backward. Welook forward - with apprehension,yes; but also with confidence. Weknow what great things have beenachieved by self-reliant people inthe past; and we also know thatit is precisely such self-reliantpeople who are continuing to builda great society here in our Amer­ica.

There are those who wouldshackle that society with debt,taxes, inflation, and the restraintsof supergovernmentalism. These

we must resist with the power ofopposing ideas, because they arenegative thinkers, with their eyesfixed upon the outmoded statismof the seventeenth century. Theyare the backward-lookers, whomust be taught the lessons offreedom. We must counter theirnegativism, not with counsels ofdespair nor the pessimism ofdoom-saying, but with the aggres­sive faith of those who are deeplyconvinced that freedom, given achance, will work!

And if at times we grow de­spondent and wonder if the gameis worth the candle, we can re­kindle the lamp of our belief byasking ourselves. . . .

Where in the world would Irather live than in the UnitedStates of America? .....

. . . . and getting the answer:NOWHEREl ~

Civil Liberty

THE NOTION of civil liberty which we have inherited is that of

a status created for the individual by laws and institutions, the

effect of which is that each man is guaranteed the use of all hisown powers exclusively for his own welfare. It is not at all amatter of elections, or universal suffrage, or democracy.

WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER

What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (1883)

ADVANC~

To The Rear

IF THE TITLE of this article seemsself-contradictory, it is in keepingwith the political and economiclanguage of the times. Such is thepresent state of semantic confu­sion that even the most devoutatheist would be sorely tempted toaccept a literal interpretation ofthe story of the tower of Babel.The problem may be seen in otherareas perhaps, but nowhere withmore disastrous results than inthe conflict between individualismand collectivism.

Thos.e who advocate varyingdegrees of collectivism are labeled,in the news media and in every­day speech, as "liberal," "radical,"or "progressive," all of which im­ply eagerness to change. From thelabels often applied to the increas­ingly socialistic trend in our

Mr. Skidmore is a free-lance writer in Spring­field, Missouri.

AnA

DAVID SKIDMORE

"mixed economy," one might con­clude that it is something new andbeneficial for freedom loverseverywhere. Alas, such is not thecase. The direction in which mostof our "social" legislation is carry­ing us, is not forward, but back.If we attempt to follow the "lib­eral" road far enough, we shall beattempting to go back to the daysof serfdom and outright slavery.

Perhaps it seems unfair to saythat the ideals of collectivism areidentical to those of slavery. Ihave drawn this conclusion, how­ever, not from the statements ofits opponents, but from those ofits supporters.

Consider, for example, the slo­gan of socialists (and of many"liberals") the world over: "Fromeach according to his ability, andto each according to his need."How would this slogan, as a policy,

1968 ADVANCE TO THE REAR 495

differ from slavery? The fruit ofa slave's labor is taken from himaccording to his ability, as judgedby his master, and refusal or fail­ure to produce for the master ac­cording to his need (again decidedby the master) results in punish­ment for the slave.

Socialism demands a system ofpunishments, but not rewards,since rewarding effort does nottake "from each according to hisability." True, some socialist na­tions do reward superior produc­tion in specific areas, but eventhese are only sporadic attemptsto imitate the "evils" of capital­ism. The second part of the slo­gan, "From each according to hisability and to each according tohis need," assumes that the slav­ery implied in the first part willproduce enough to satisfy allneeds. The periodic famines in thecommunist countries indicate thatthis assumption is tragicallywrong.

Social legislation is often por­trayed as a boon to mankindwhereby the means of productionare taken from the hands of capi­talistic "robber barons" and placedunder central control for the goodof all. Here again, our languageshows signs of serious deteriora­tion. Those advocating centralizedcontrol of the means of produc­tion are called "progressive" and"liberal," although they recom-

mend, implicitly if not explicitly,a return to the times when peoplewere considered primarily as re­sources.

What, exactly, are the means ofproduction for human beings? Afactory produces, but the build­ing and operation thereof requirea process of thought. The opera­tion of a farm, a mine, a fishery,or an oil field requires systematic,rational, intellectual procedures.The basic human means of produc­tion, upon which all other humanmeans of production depend, isthe mind. The collectivist demandfor centralized control of themeans of production, is a demandfor control of the human mind.The war on private property is inreality an attempt to destroy thedistinction between people andproperty.

Those who advocate individualinitiative, the free market, and ingeneral, the radically unconven­tional notion that Man, the indi­vidual, belongs to himself as anindividual, are labeled - and toooften accept the slander - as "re­actionary," "anachronistic," or lessseverely, "conservative." Admit­tedly, the last epithet is not in­variably derogatory, althoughlately it has come to suggest anidolater of the Status Quo. Theothers, however, would seem toimply that competitive enterpriseis an attempted return to a bygone

496 THE FREEMAN July

era of "robber barons" which isbetter for.gotten.

The opposite is true. Competi­tive enterprise or capitalism is theone economic system which is notdominated by coercion or beggary,but by voluntary production andvoluntary exchange. The elementof choice which distinguishes afree society from an unfree oneis an individual phenomenonrather than a collective one; aslave by majority rule is still aslave, and no less so because slavesmay constitute a majority. Thedistinguishing characteristics ofcapitalism are free trade and itsprerequisite, private property.

Although there are various waysby which you or I can take ad­vantage of the efforts of another,they all fall into one of two cate-

gories; we can gain at his expense,or we can gain, but not at his ex­pense. Obviously, if we rob or de­fraud him, our gain is his loss.Likewise, if we beg from him, ourgain is his loss, even though it isvoluntarily accepted. Only if wetrade is our gain also his gain.Trade, however, must be volun­tary; when forced, it becomes justanother form of robbery.

Competitive enterprise is basedupon free trade, and is thereforethe one economic system whichdoes not require victirns. This, theself-named "liberals" would haveus believe, is an attempted returnto a cruel, tyrannical past. I sub­mit that the "wave of the future,"if freedom is to have a future, iscapitalism. ~

Conflicting Policies

POLICIES of interventionism and socialism tend to immobilize thepopulation and capital of the world, thus bringing about or main­taining the world divergencies of productivity, of wealth and in­come. A government that nationalizes efficient industries produc­ing for the world market and then mismanages them not ·onlyhurts the interests of its own people but also those of other nationsliving in a world community.

These international conflicts are inherent in the system of inter­ventionism and socialism and cannot be solved unless the systemsthemselves are abolished. The principles of national welfare asconceived by our progressive planners conflict with the principlesof international cooperation and division of production.

HANS F. SENN HOLZ, How Can Europe Survive?

Separation of Powers

and the Labor Act

11. "EXPERTISE," SEPARATION OF POWERS,and DUE PROCESS

SYLVESTER PETRO

IT IS sometimes said that, what­ever their constitutional defects,quasi-judicial administrative tri­bunals are vital to good govern­ment because of the complexitiesof the modern world. One used tohear, too, that such tribunals arenecessary in order to get speedyjustice and broad-minded, flexible,sophisticated decisions. Lately,with the NLRB and other admin­istrative agencies demonstrating atruly remarkable talent for delayand for hide-bound mechanical de­cisions,3G one does not hear the

36 For footnotes, see page 506.

Dr. Petro is Professor of Law at New YorkUniversity School of Law. He has writtenseveral books, including The Labor Policy ofthe Free Society (1957) and Power Un­limited: The Corruption of Union Leadership( 1959), and is a noted lecturer and con­tributor to magazines.

latter encomium of administrativeagencies so much. But "expertise,"one still hears, is as necessary ingovernment as it is in the othervital aspects of advanced, intri­cate, delicately interdependent con­temporary society.

According to this view it is un­realistic and "reactionary" to ex­pect the regular courts either topossess, to develop, or consistentlyto exercise the requisite expertisein so specialized and complicateda field as, for example, labor rela­tions. There, a tribunal manned byexperts is needed. One does notask a general handyman to build orrepair a computer. In the same\vay, a judge of general jurisdic­tion cannot be expected to perform,veIl in the complex, specialized

497

498 THE FREEMAN August

area of labor relations. There, aspecialized expert tribunal suchas the National Labor RelationsBoard must do the job.

It will be observed that this ra­tionale is built around twoassumptions: (1) that labor re­lations are a distinct, inordinatelycomplex field; (2) that a speciallyqualified agency is thus requiredto administer them.

It is true that the employer-em­ployee relationship is distinctfrom such other relationships ashusband-wife, parent-child, buyer­seller, contractor-subcontractor,government-person, and teacher­student. It is not self-evident, how­ever, that the employer-employee(or union-employee or union-em­ployer) relationship is either moresensitive, more complicated, ormore critically a matter of publicinterest than those and other hu­man relationships. Society is asensitive complex of human rela­tionships; all human relationshipsare relatively subtle and compli­cated. It is not possible to main­tain a priori that labor relationsare more so. Such an assertionhas to be proved. Noone has everdone so- probably because itwould be impossible to do so.

Complexity Requires Freedom

Even if it were conceded forthe sake of argument that laborrelations are exceptionally sensi-

tive and complex, it would not fol­low that - the nation's fundamen­tal policies being what they are­a specialized agency of govern­ment. is necessary. The fundamen­tal policies of this nation call forthe administration of labor rela­tions mainly by employers and em­ployees and, to some small degree,by trade unions and arbitrators.The more complex relationshipsbecome, indeed, the more neces­sary does it become to leave to in­dividuals the freedom to adjusttheir own relationships. The effectof thoroughgoing regulation ofcomplex relationships is only frus­tration for both the regulatingbody and the persons regulated.Regulating an infant is relativelyeasy; the child grows more diffi­cult; the teenager almost impos­sible - all because the relationshipshave grown more complex. It is thenature and supreme advantage ofa free society, as distinct from acommand or totalit.arian society,to leave the conduct of all humanrelations essentially to the personsimmediately involved, or to theiragents, subject only to generalrules, equally applied.

Congress has followed thispolicy in the Labor Act. It hasnever empowered the Labor Boardto administer labor relations (al­though that agency has frequentlyhad to be .reminded by the Su­preme Court, by the U.S. Courts

1968 "EXPERTISE," SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND DUE PROCESS 499

of Appeals, and by Congress ofthe limited reach of its commis­sion). Congress has empoweredthe Labor Board and its GeneralCounsel to administer the N a­tional Labor Relations Act, notthe labor relations of the country.

No Need for Monopoly

The General Counsel's functionsare mainly to decide which chargesshould be prosecuted and then toprosecute them. The functions ofthe Labor Board and its subordi­nates are (1) to conduct hear­ings; (2) to interpret and drawconclusions from written and oralevidence; (3) to apply Congress'law to the facts found in accord­ance with congressional intent;and (4) to issue appropriateorders.

No one has ever advanced aconvincing reason for giving aprosecutional monopoly to a law­yer entitled "General Counsel ofthe National Labor RelationsBoard" as against vesting thispower, say, in the Department ofJustice. Moreover, no one has ex­plained why either policy or jus­tice in labor law is served by de­nying private parties - employees,employers, or union officials - thepower to prosecute their own caseswhich private parties are ac­corded under the antitrust laws.Noone has even attempted tojustify this - again probably be-

cause it would be impossible to doso.

On the contrary, the GeneralCounsel's prosecutional monopolyworks against both policy andjustice. Denying persons the rightto a day in court more markedlydenies justice than does a denialof due process. It is a denial ofall process. This denial cannot bejustified on "policy grounds,"either, for its effect has been andmust continue to be to inhibit andfrustrate the development of laborlaw.

As matters now stand, only suchdevelopments occur as the Gen­eral Counsel wishes; dozens. of de­cisions could be cited to the effectthat there is no appeal from arefusal by the General Counsel toissue a complaint. Without in anyway impugning the good faith ofthe General Counsel, it remainsself-·evident that he and his limitedpersonnel cannot possibly equalthe range, the vigor, and the liti­gational fertility of the nation atlarge. Even if it be conceded - asI do, at least for the sake of argu­ment - that the General Counsel'sstaff includes la.wyers as learnedand as clever as those in privatepractice, the fact remains that thelatter are more numerous andmore zealous to serve their clients.The General Counsel's prosecu­tional monopoly should obviouslybe withdrawn.

500 THE FREEMAN August

Expertise in What?

If it is difficult to understandwhy the General Counsel shouldhave a prosecutional monopoly, itis at least equally unobvious thathuman beings who become mem­bers of the National Labor Rela­tions Board are more qualified toperform the judicial functionswhich Congress created in the Na­tional Labor Relations Act thanare the men who occupy the Fed­·eral bench. Conducting hearings,ruling on sufficiency of complaintsand answers, admitting or exclud­ing evidence, evaluating testi­mony, interpreting documents,drawing inferences, arriving atconclusions of fact and of law,fashioning appropriate orders­these are all activities requiringa certain level of competence,training, and experience. The"man in the street" is not likelyto carry out these functions verywell without special training andexperience.

The question, however, is notwhether the NLRB is more quali­fied than the man in the street tocarry out these functions. For thepurposes of this investigation intothe separation of powers, the mainquestion must be whether Con­gress has a reasonable basis fordelegating judicial powers to anadministrative agency, ratherthan to the judges of the Federalbench. Admitting that "expertise"

is a good thing, we must then ask:expertise in what? If it is exper­tise in legal administration - inthe arts and skills of judging­prima facie, at least, one wouldthink that career-judges are thetrue experts.

In a period when principledanalysis counted for more than itdoes in these "pragmatic" days, itwould have been enough to pointout that the members of the Na­tional Labor Relations Board areappointed for limited terms of of­fice. That fact would alone serveto disqualify them for the exer­cise of any part, however small,of the judicial power of the UnitedStates. For the Constitution in­sists that the judicial power ofthe United States be exercisedonly by men appointed to the Fed­eral bench for life.

The times being what they are,the analysis must extend beyondand behind the Constitutionalstandard, even though in doing soit will only confirm the acutenessand the wisdom of that standard.Two integrated inquiries suggestthemselves: (1) Are Board mem­bers and their subordinates betterqualified than Federal judges tocarry out the judicial functionscreated by the Labor Act? (2)Are the Congressional policies em­bodied in the Labor Act likely tobe accepted with better grace andmore faithfully effectuated by the

1968 "EXPERTISE," SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND DUE PROCESS 501

Labor Board or by the Federalcourts?

The Judicial Temperament

No extensive "empirical re­search" is necessary in order toestablish that the Labor Boardmembers and their subordinatesbegin their careers with no sig­nificant training or experientialadvantage over the men who areappointed to the Federal bench.As a matter of fact, the only rele­vant specialist training for thefunctions under consideration islegal training. All Federal judgesnowadays, so far as I have beenable to discover, are legallytrained. Most Labor Board mem­bers and personnel have likewisehad legal training, although somehave not. There is a stand-offhere, and I doubt whether it couldbe resolved by reviewing the law­school records compiled by thejudges and the Board people re­spectively.

As far as experience is con­cerned, it is quite probable thatLabor Board personnel, if onlyfor being younger on the whole,have had less general experienceat the beginning of their Boardcareers than the Federal judges(who come mainly to office afteryears of practice) have had in thebeginning of their judicial careers.On the other hand, Labor Boardpersonnel, since their efforts are

confined to the labor law field,tend to build a concentrated andextensive experience in labor lawmuch more quickly than the Fed­eral judges are ever likely to ac­quire.

Careless thinking might leadone to conclude from the forego­ing that the Labor Board peoplesoon acquire a significant advan­tage, even if they do not beginwith one. More careful considera­tion leads to a diff·erent conclu­sion, however.

Of course, a person specializingin labor law is likely to knowmore about that subject than theperson who does not specialize init. No court of general jurisdic­tion will ever be able to match aspecialized court in the masteryof the minute detail of the sub­stantive law in which the latterspecializes.

It is a serious mistake, however,to regard this as a significantpoint. What we desire primarilyin judges is not exhaustive mas­tery of the substantive details ofany particular field of law. It isthe job of the opposing lawyers tobring all the relevant law and doc­trine to the court's attention.

A solid grasp of basic principlesof law in the various fields is morethan enough such equipment· forany j udge. What a democratic so­ciety wants essentially from itsj udges, however, is a complex of

502 THE FREEMAN August

other qualities. It requires what isperhaps best comprehended with­in the term "judicial tempera­ment": a strong but open mind; ahabit of reserving judgment tillall the facts are in and disinterest­edly evaluated; a willingness tolisten - really listen - to argu­ment; patience; respect for theopinions of other judges; a goodlogical mind which will adequatelydistinguish the relevant from theirrelevant facts and the cogentfrom the illogical arguments; aninclination to start out every casebelieving that the facts, the law,and the arguments- not the iden­tity of the parties - should de­termine the decision. There is nobasis for the belief that NLRBmembers, trial examiners, or otherBoard personnel rank higher thanthe Federal judges on this all-im­portant standard of judicial tem­perament. Quite the contrary.

In a representative government,there is one more supremely de­sirable judicial quality. If repre­sentative government is to func­tion properly, the judges must besatisfied to leave the policy-mak­ing to .the legislature; they mustbe committed to interpreting andapplying the statutes which thelegislature has passed, not to com­peting with the legislature as alawmaking, policy-making organof government. For neither judgesnor administrators can ever repre-

sent the nation and its people inthe way that Senators and mem­bers of the House of Representa­tives do. It is physically impos­sible for judges and administra­tors to constitute themselves thedeliberative and consultative mi­crocosm of the nation which theHouse and the Senate do withouteven thinking about it.

Leave Policy to Congress

When judicial officers take on alegislative role, they make a messall around. They produce neithergood legislation nor good deci­sions. Litigation, the courtroom,and the judicial opinion are func­tionally neither adapted nor adapt­able to either gathering the senseof the whole community or ex­pressing it in legislative form. Onthe other hand, litigation, thecourtroom, and the judicial opin­ion are the best means thus fardevised for applying establishedlaw and policy to the facts of theindividual dispute which everycase or controversy involves.

This is why it is good for legis­latures to stick to legislating andfor judges to stickto judging. Itmay be all right for legislaturesto care little about the facts ofparticular cases when they arecontemplating general legislation.But the judicial officer who failsto attend excruciatingly to thefacts of the particular case he is

1968 "EXPERTISE," SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND DUE PROCESS 503

deciding, on the contrary, is fund­amentally and dangerously untrueto his function and duty.

One of the characteristic .de­fects of the NLRB is that it iscontinually forcing the facts to fitits predetermined policies. Insteadof fitting Congress's law to thefacts as they exist, the Board per­sistently manhandles the facts sothat they will produce the resultsit wants. The Board wants everyemployee in the nation to wear aunion label. If Congress says thatemployees need wear a union labelonly when it fits them, the Boarddoes what it can to make a fit. Ifthe facts don't fit, the Board willmake them fit. If there are no ma­terial facts at all, the Board willfrequently use adjectives to makeup the deficiency. Thus in RiversMfg. Co., the trial examiner de­livered himself of the followingcomments: "In this setting of in­tensive and extensive [sic] inter­ference, restraint and coercion,the Respondent terminated the em­ployment of nine employees . . .known by management to be unionadherents.... The evidence sus­taining General Counsel's allega­tions that these October 2 dis­charges were designed to discour­age further self-organization isoverwhelming."37

After a painstaking examina­tion of the entire record, CircuitJudge O'Sullivan concluded that

the trial examiner's characteriza­tions were not only exaggerationsbut "without foundation." "Aright to infer," he said, "is not aright to create."38

The point is that it is unrealis­tic to expect patient, painstakinganalysis of fact and application ofexisting law from committed ide­ologues; for they are interestedmore in molding the world to theirdesires than in doing justice inthe immediate dispute. The ·close­ly related point is that such ide­ologues cannot be expected to sub­ordinate their policy wishes tothose of the legislature. Hence, ifCongress wishes its policies togovern the country, it must insistupon judges who are willing toconfine themselves to judging andto leave the policy-making to Con­gress.

The Representative Function

Some will perhaps challengethis view of the necessity of Con­gressional policy-making suprem­acy. We have heard a great dealof talk in recent years, for ex­ample, about the superior repre­sentative qualities of the presi­dency. However, disinterestedanalysis of the relevant facts mustquickly dismiss such talk. As re­markable as the Presidents of thiscountry have been, it is impossiblefor anyone man - even before be­ing elected President - to equal

504 THE FREEMAN August

Congress' representative capacity.And it is simply absurd to ex­pect him to sustain a broadlyrepresentative character after hetakes up the consuming burdensof office. Noone man can evenmeet and know as many people inas many places as five or six hun­dred Congressmen and Senatorscan. Still less can he reconcilewithin himself the kind of con­sensus or compromise which ispossible in a multitudinous con­sultative assembly originating inall the geographically distinctareas of which the country iscomposed.

If the President wished realisti­cally to gather the consensus ofthe whole country on all issues, hewould as a pracUcal matter haveavailable to him no better mechan­ism for doing so than the one al­ready available in the House andthe Senate. There is really a verypeculiar meaning in the assertionthat the President represents thewhole country better than Con­gress does. Persons using suchlanguage mean that they havebeen able to convince the Presi­dent of the worth of their pro­posal while Congress has re­mained unmoved. But when Con­gress remains unmoved - it beingthe genuine representative of thewhole country - the meaning isthat the whole country is not readyto endorse, as the President may

be for his own reasons, the desiresof the pressure group involved.

No Job for the President

Many Presidents have agonizedover the "loneliness" of their posi­tion. This phenomenon, grownmore frequent of late, is of poten­tially great significance to anystudy of the Separation of Powers.The lament grows out of the con­dition of executive power which,presumably, the person who gainsthe presidency has more or lessactively sought. Executive respon­sibility must ultimately be con­centrated in one person. In thiscountry, with government grownso great, presidential responsibil­ity absorbs as much time and en­ergy as the incumbent is willingand able to give it. An executivedecision always has to be made,one way or another, clean-cut orambiguous. There is no way in theworld for the President to sharehis responsibility in the way thatSenators and Representatives notonly can do - but must.

This is not to say that Senatorsand Congressmen do not have tomake "lonely" and difficult deci­sions with respect to their ownpersonal choice of action. Of coursethey do, as all human beings must.But it is in the nature of legisla­tion in a representative govern­ment that the responsibility forevery legislative act is a well-di-

1968 "EXPERTISE," SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND DUE PROCESS 505

vided and broadly shared responsi­bility, arrived at deliberately­with each Congressman or Senatorin a position to be fairly confidentthat his vote either reflects themajority sentiment of his constit­uency or at least does not violatethat sentiment sufficiently to losehim his office. It is physically im­possible for a single person overany sustained period, however deli­cately tuned his antennae, to main­tain such rapport with the wholenation, especially when he hasheavy executive responsibilities todispatch. He can take only oneposition on an issue at a time.That is the ineluctable consequenceof being a single human being.Five hundred or so elected repre­sentatives can take five hundredpositions, and each, theoretically,may be satisfying his duty to hisown constituency.

The merit of representative gov­ernment in the form establishedby the Constitution of the UnitedStates lies mainly in its realisticresponse to such practical consid­erations. No better way to run acountry in accordance with thedominant wishes of the communityhas as yet been discovered.

The Labor Soard Out of Order

If it is true that the President- the outstanding politician of thecountry (I use the word with nopejorative intent) - cannot repre-

sent the sum of the country's pol­icy wishes as well as the Congressdoes overall, it would seem to gowithout saying that no bureaucrat,no administrative agency, no judgeor body of judges can do so. Thisis why, in a country which pridesitself upon being a representativegovernment, it is supremely desir­able that anyone exercising judi­cial power be content to leave thepolicy- and lawmaking to Con­gress. For the alternative involvesthe abandonment of representa­tive government and a substitu­tion in its place of rule by the oneor the few. In Aristotle's termi­nology, the commonwealth givesway to democracy, and democracyto tyranny.

If judicial temperament and awillingness to leave policy-makingto the legislature are the two basicand reciprocal requirements for aproper exercise of judicial power,it is difficult to see how LaborBoard members and personnelqualify better than do Federaljudges. On the contrary, a Federaljudgeship is far more likely tosecure those qualities than is anadministrative appointment. Con­sideration of our second basicquestion will further illuminatethis matter.

That question is whether theCongressional policies embodied inthe Labor Act, and with them thesupremacy of legislative policy-

506 THE FREEMAN August

making, are likely to be better en­forced and preserved by the LaborBoard or by the Federal courts.

I happen to believe that, overthe years, decisions of incompar­ably higher quality, greater fair­ness, and more cogency have beenproduced· by the United StatesCourts of Appeals than by the Na­tional Labor Relations Board.39

But it is not enough simply toregister the opinion that betterdecisions have come from thecourts than from the Board. I as­sume that the reader is interestedin looking into the question wheth­er there is something inherent inthe character of Federal j udge­ships or Board memberships on

the basis of which a fair predic­tion about the future conduct ofthe respective incumbents can bemade.

Human beings, customarily withlegal training, man both the Fed­eral courts and the NLRB. Wemust assume, if we are to avoidinterminable and inconclusive per­sonality comparisons, that agencymembers and judges begin withequal moral and intellectual char­acteristics. The question then fo­cuses on the respective institu­tional settings and the probableeffects of those settings on theperformance of their judicial du­ties. This will be the subject of aconcluding article in this series. ~

FOOTNOTES

36 It took the NLRB fifteen years tobring the Mastro Plastics case to a con­clusion. Cf. NLRB v. Mastro PlasticsCorp., 354 F. 2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965). Theexcuse proferred by this "expert" agency:a shortage of competent personnel.

31 Quoted in Rivers Mfg. Co. v. NLRB,55 CCH Lab. Cas. ff 11902 at pages 18977­78 (6th Cir.1967).

38 Ibid. at pages 18977, 18978.

39 I have undertaken a comparison ofthe court decisions cited in note 12 with

the NLRB decisions which they reviewed,and have been greatly impressed with theacumen, the intellectual flexibility, andthe large-mindedness of the judges ascompared with the contrary characteris­tics in the NLRB decisions or trial-ex­aminer reports. But for the reviewingpower of the Federal courts, I am con­vinced that we should be experiencingin labor law today a succession of trav­esties of justice such as has not beenseen heretofore in either England orAmerica.

THE

RIGHTTO

LIFEJEROME TUCCILLE

Is THE WAR in Vietnam the majorissue confronting us here inAmerica today? Or is it perhapsthe malignant spread of crime andviolence in our streets? Thenagain, maybe it's the race ques­tion? - or the growing concernover an urbanized society? - orbirth control? - or abortion re­form? - or education?

The true answer lies at the rootof all these issues. For the aboveare merely the symptoms, the ef­fects' the natural by-products of adeeper fundamental issue whichlies at the heart of virtually everymalady that faces us today. Thisroot cause can be stated conciselyin a single phrase: the deteriora­tion of individual freedom.

Either an individual born intosociety has the right to his o,vnlife, or he does not.

Either he has the right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of hap­piness, or he does not.

Mr. Tuccille is a free-lance writer in NewYork City.

Either this fundamental rightis his by nature, by the very factof his existence, or it is an arbi­trary gift which can be grantedto him by society, or revoked bythat society according to the whimof the moment.

Either an individual's life be­longs to himself alone, or it is anobject of public domain which canbe manipulated by and sacrificedto any group that puts a claimupon it.

It is my assertion here thatthere can be no such thing as civilrights, or human rights, or econ­omic rights, or any other kind of"rights" unless there is first andforemost an understanding of thetrue nature of individual rights.Unless we understand and affirmthe principle that each and everyindividual is born a free agentinto society, that this freedom isa natural right and is not grantedto us by governmental decree, andthat this basic right entitles theindividual to use his life as hesees fit, to aim it in ,vhatever di­rection his reason and ethicaljudgment advises him to - as longas he does not interfere with thesame right of his fellow humanbeings - there can be no suchthing as peace on earth, no suchthing as respect for law, no suchthing as racial justice, no suchthing as harmony in our cities, nosuch thing as satisfactory educa-

508 THE FREEMAN August

tion, no such thing as morality inour personal lives (for moralitypresupposes freedom of choice).Unless each and every individualis free to direct his own life, freeto make the decisions that arenecessary for his own welfare andsurvival, none of us is totallyfree.

It is important to rememberthat, for every individual whoserights are sacrificed for the "gen­eral welfare," there is someone atthe receiving end of each coercivesacrifice - someone is collectingsacrificial offerings dictated by thestate. And just as the state- maydemand that one individual besacrificed today for another, so to­morrow it may change the rulesand today's recipient may becometomorrow's victim.

There can be no such thing aspeace on earth as long as the stateis permitted to draft its citizensfrom private life into the ranks ofan internationalist police force.

There can be no such thing asorder in our streets as long aspeople do not recognize and re­spect the right of other individu­als to own and maintain property,to walk the streets without threatof physical attack - in short, aslong as people do not respect theright to life itself.

There can be no such thing asracial justice as long as we insiston categorizing individuals as

members of a particular collective- as Jew, as Negro, as Wasp, andso on ad infinitum - rather thanjudging a person according to hisworth as an individual.

There can be no such thing as"decent education" as long as thestate is free to authorize a publiccurriculum, and then make everycitizen support it through taxesregardless of whether or not hebelieves in it and wants to makeuse of it for his own children.

There can be no such thing asfreedom of religion as long as par­ticular religious sects organizelobbies to pressure for govern­mental favors, thus dissolving thebarrier between church and statewhich was the direct cause of re­ligious freedom in the first place.

There can be no such thing asmorality, itself, unless each in­dividual is free to make decisionsthat affect his own personal life­indeed, the most personal elementsof his life.

The most important issue con­fronting us here in America today- across the entire face of theearth for that matter - is the at­tack by the collective mentality onthe freedom of the individual. Itis an attack on the right to life it­self, and only by recognizing· thi~fact and meeting it head on wi!:we achieve the freedom and jus·tice that is so dearly cherished b)all rational men. ~

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN

ACCENTon the RIGHT

KARL RADEK, after the umpteenthcommunist mistake in the SovietRussia of the nineteen twenties,said to journalist Ernestine Evansthat "there must be something tothis Marxism, for we're stillalive." What Radek missed was thefact that the power of the com­munist bureaucracy had beensaved by a strategic retreat to vol­untary features with the New Eco­nomic Policy, which, for a crucialspan of time, let the peasants pro­duce as they pleased.

Communism is always beingsaved by retreats which deny itsown premise. Staying close tohome, Leonard Read applies thisinsight to our own variety of col­lectivism. His Accent on the Right(Foundation for Economic Edu­cation, $2 cloth, $1.25 paper)should be a convincing answer tothe many Fabian Radeks amongus who attribute the economicstrength of the United States to

government interventions, whichis equivalent to saying that thebrake is what makes the automo­bile move.

To the Fabian Radeks, LeonardRead says, in effect: "There mustbe something to this voluntarism,for we're still much more alivethan they are in Moscow and Pe­king." True, we are always doingviolence to the rule that affluencederives from liberty. At one pointin his book Mr. Read lists some ofthe prohibitions on our freedom ofchoice. We pay farmers for notgrowing peanuts and cotton. Wesupport socialist governments, inYugoslavia and elsewhere. We taketax money from the people in or­der to put a man on the moon. Wesubsidize below-cost pricing in lotsof things, and pay for the subsi­dies by funny-money shenanigansthat inflate the prices of every­thing else. We "renew" slum areas,driving the poor people out to cre-

510 THE FREEMAN August

ate new slums on the other side oftown. We keep businesses fromhiring apprentices and from put­ting teen-agers to work by our in­sistence on a minimum wage law.We refuse to let private enterprisedeliver first-class mail. We evenprevent people from going out ofbusiness if they happen to be hav­ing trouble with union labor.

first, Identify the Problem

Mr. Read is unflinchingly honestwhen it comes to recognizing thehobble's on our freedom of choice.But he is not one for maintaininga defeatist posture. "Find thewrong," he says, "and there's theright" - meaning, of course, thatthe identification of sin alwayssuggests its opposite in somethingbetter. Despite "profuse expendi­ture, heavy taxation, absurd com­mercial restrictions, corrupt tri­bunals, disastrous wars, seditions,persecutions, conflagrations, inun­dations" - the quotation is· fromLord Macaulay, who wrote in 1839- we do not seem to be "able todestroy capital so fast as the ex­ertions of private citizens havebeen able to create it." Or, asLeonard Read adds, quoting someBrazilian entrepreneurs, "We getthings done while the politicianssleep."

Our inventiveness and ability tospecialize have, ever since the timeof Adam Smith, always managed

to race far ahe'ad of the restraintson willing exchange. Regress hasnot been able to keep pace withprogress. So Leonard Read con­tinues to count his blessings. Heis, as Ayn Rand would probablysay disapprovingly, something of amystic. But only to the extent thathe sees Creation going on aroundhim as the world changes and mu­tations occur. Mr. Read likes thefree market, in goods, services, theexchange of ideas, ideals, knowl­edge, wisdom, information, faiths,doctrinal concepts, discoveries, in­ventions, and intuit~ons- becauseit is in harmony with "Creation:Capital C." Competition, in short,is in the grain of things.

Government-Induced Poverty

Leonard Read doesn't listenmuch to politicians, for he consid­ers it a delusion to expect that gov­ernment can end poverty. Govern­ment has nothing to hand out ex­cept what it garnishees from tax­payers. Obviously, says Mr. Read,this subtracts from private owner­ship and is a dead-end road. Sav­ings are drained from those whohave, which is not conducive tothe capital formation on whichproduction - and even taxation­rests.

The alleviation of poverty, asMr. Read says, is a· by-product ofprivate ownership and the freemarket. Conversely, it should be

1968 ACCENT ON THE RIGHT 511

stated that poverty is a by-productof government intervention. Themigration of the Negro poor whohave been pouring into the de­serted inner core areas of ourcities is a government-created phe­nomenon. It all began in the nine­teen thirties, with the best inten­tions in the world. The big think­ers of the day decided that toomuch cotton was being raised. Sowe had politically decreed acreagereduction, plus subsidies to ownersfor the land that was taken out ofuse for the "soil bank" and such.The bigger farmers who got mostof the subsidy money poured someof it into fertilizers which en­abled them to grow more cottonon less land. And, with the restof the subsidy money, they wentin for the new planting and har­vesting equipment that enablesthem to dispense with the Negrocotton chopper.

No doubt the mechanization offarming would have conle anyway.But the process was acceleratedby the politicians. And the Negropoor, displaced all at once,havenot had the time or the opportun­ity to make an orderly transitionto new ways of life.

Technological Impact

We see something similar hap­pening in California. To get rid ofMexican labor, the government hasput hobbles on the so-called bra-

ceros who used to cross the borderfrom Sonora, Chihuahua, andLower California to pick tomatoes.The idea was to make room forAmericans as field hands on theCalifornia ranches. But the Ameri­cans, for one reason or another,failed to come out from the citiesto take the jobs. Unable to gettheir tomatoes picked, the Cali­fornia farmers put in a hurry callto the inventors and the agricul­tural cross-breeders. Within anamazingly short time the cross­breeders had perfected a tomatoplant which bears fruit that ripensall at the same time. And the in­ventors came up with a machineto pick the fruit of the new plant.Result of the whole process: Thepoor Mexicans have been deprivedof the opportunity to get capitalinsufficient amounts to buy landof their own below the border.And the Americans who were ex­pected to take the place of theMexicans in the fields are still liv­ing on relief in the skid rows ofLos Angeles, San Francisco, andother West Coast cities.

Mr. Read, who believes in thenecessity of mobility, would havea hard time explaining our policyto the Mexican government, whichhas been surprisingly silent on thesubject of the hobbles we haveplaced on bracero labor. If I werethe President of Mexico, I wouldbe hopping mad. Not only do we

512 THE FREEMAN August

create poverty by government in­terventions at home, we also ex­port poverty to our neighbors.

Luckily for Mexico, she can ab­sorb the blow. The reason: TheMexican middle classes have beencreating capital faster than the

politicians, many of whom still paylip service to the "revolution,"have been able to drain it"away bytaxation. The Mexicans might echoMr. Read's Brazilian friends: "Weget things done while the politi­cians sleep." +

History of Intervention

THE HISTORY of government limitation of price seems to teach

one clear lesson: that in attempting to ease the burdens of the

people in a time of high prices by artificially setting a limit to

them, the people are not relieved but only exchange one set of ills

for another which is greater. Among these ills are (1) the with.

holding of goods from the market, because consumers being in

the majority, price fixing is usually in their interest; (2) the

dividing of the community into two hostile camps, one only of

which considers that the government acts in its interest; (3) the

practical difficulties of enforcing such limitation in prices which

in the very nature of the case requires the cooperation of both

producer and consumer to make it effective....

From an address by MARY G. LACY, Librarianof the Bureau of Agricultural Economics(U. S. Department of Agriculture), deliveredbefore the Agricultural History Society onMarch 16, 1922.