The Freeman 1972 - fee.org · Free Enterprise and the Russians Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 461 A survey of the prospects for a return toward freedom in the USSR. The Founding of the

tile

FreemanVOL. 22, NO.8· AUGUST 1972

Are We Marxians Now? Hans F. Sennholz 45,1How Marxian views affect American attitudes regarding class conflict, monopoly,and international affairs.

Free Enterprise and the Russians Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 461A survey of the prospects for a return toward freedom in the USSR.

The Founding of the American Republic:13. l'he American Triumph Clarence B. Carson 471

The military victory and the peaceful triumph of freedom that followed.

Energy: the Ultimate Raw Material James Wei 486An outstanding Chemical Engineer distinguishes fact from fiction in the continuingsearch for a clean and adequate energy supply. -

The Natural History of Governmental Intervention Milton Friedman 497How one intervention leads to another, with effects the opposite of the good in-tentions.

Abortion: aMetaphysical Approach Thomas L. Joh'nson 498Concerning the life process and the stage at which a cell becomes a human being.

Book Reviews: 506"To Free or Freeze" by Leonard E. Read"What, How, for Whom: The Decisions of Economic Organization" by Henry N. Sanborn"Imputed Rights" by Robert V. Andelson

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

tile

FreemanA MONTHLY JOURNAL OF IDEAS ON LIBERTY

IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, N. Y. 10533 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 in

vited in any amount-$5.00 to $10,OOO-as the meansof maintaining and extending the Foundation's work.

Copyright, 1972, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Printed

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

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

THE FREEMAN is available on microfilm from Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106.

Some articles available as reprints at cost; state quantity desired. Per

mission granted to reprint any article from this issue, with appropriate

credit, except "The Founding of the American Republic," and "Energy:

the Ultimate Raw MateriaL"

HANS F. SENNHOLZ

_-..AREWEMARXIANS • NOW~__

IDEAS are the forces that lift ordestroy civilization. They bringpeace and prosperity, or breedwars and revolutions. Ideas shapeour laws and institutions, and govern individual action and socialrelations. No wall or boundary canforcibly retain an idea. It sweepsaround the earth like a storm thatspares nobody. Ideas are strongerthan bombs and missiles, they aremightier than an armada withmegatons of explosives.

The philosophical, social andeconomic ideas of Karl Marx havebeen more influential than thoseof all other socialists. They havehad, and continue to have, a profound impact not only on the livesof billions of people living in communist and socialist societies who

Dr. Sennholz heads the Department of Economics at Grove City College and is a notedwriter and lecturer on monetary and economicprinciples and practices.

worship him as their apostle andmaster, but also on the thoughtsand policies of all others. Surely,no one would label the Americansociety as "Marxian,'~ or describeour social and economic policies as"Marx inspired." There are veryfew Americans who would courageously confess allegiance to thedoctrines of Marx. And yet, serious contemplation cannot escapethe conclusion that contemporaryAmerican thought on some threemajor issues - the conflict of interests in society, the concentra.:.tion of business, and our outlookon the world - bears a startlingresemblance to the doctrines ofKarl Marx.

At this place we need not investigate why and how this similaritycame about, nor ascertain thechannels of education and communication that facilitated thesway of Marxian ideas. In fact,

451

452 THE FREEMAN August

in order to demonstrate the resemblance of contemporarythought to Marxian doctrines weneed not even prove that KarlMarx was the original author ofprevailing American thought.After all, there were many otheroriginators of socialism whose intellectual interdependence is difficult to record.

Economic Conflict

Most Americans seem to agreewith the Marxian doctrine of political, social and economic conflict.Their traditional belief in a harmony of interest has gradually givenway to trust in conflict and force.Americans now agree with Marxthat social groups pursue conflicting interests that are reflected inantagonistic political and economicprograms. Where in the past theyhad relied on individual initiativeand action, they now depend oncollective measures through legislation or regulation, or collectiveprograms for political and economic pressure groups· or businessand labor organizations. He whostands alone today without theshelter and security afforded byhis interest lobby or union is arare exception.

In every session of Congresshundreds of new laws are passedthat aim to confer rights and privileges on some groups while restricting those of others, or grant

property and income to some atthe expense of others. The politicalprocess has become a wrestlingmatch between ever-changing alliances of pressure groups fightingover economic privileges and benefits. Just listen to· the daily newscasts. Most of the reports, whethernational or local, deal with themost noisy manifestations of thiscollective conflict.

Karl Marx was a forcefulspokesman of the conflict and exploitation doctrine. Even in theUnited States, this bulwark of thefree world, the doctrine has swayedpublic opinion. It makes its appearance in the popular notion thatthe unhampered capitalistic economy delivers the wage earners tothe discretion and power ofwealthy industrialists. The individual worker is said to be helpless and in need of legal protection in his bargaining with management whose primary concernsare power and profit. The unbridled market system with itsprofit motive and unhamperedcompetition as it prevailed in thiscountry before World War I iscondemned for having inflictedhardship and deprivation on manygenerations of workers. Such notions, which are popular versionsof the exploitation theory, haveinvaded our colleges and universities, indeed all channels of education and communication. They

1972 ARE WE MARXIANS NOW? 453

have radically changed our political parties and our churches. Theyhave given rise to a gigantic laborunion movement and to the "NewDeal" in social and economic matters. In fact, the exploitationtheory determines our basic "economic" policies at all levels ofgovernment.

Labor Policy

The ever-growing mass of laborlegislation is one of the fruits ofthe exploitation theory. Its advocates credit modern social policyfor having reduced the work weekto 48, 44, and 40 hours, or· evenless. They applaud labor legislation for having eliminatedwomen's and children's labor. Andthey ascribe the present rate ofwages to the minimum wage ratesset by authoritative intervention.Indeed, practically all labor fmprovements are credited to sociallegislation and labor union intervention.

Compulsory social insurance, including unemployment assistance,Medicare and Medicaid, stem fromthe same intellectual roots. Capitalism is said to be incapable ofgiving sustenance to· the unemployed, sick, or aged laborers.Therefore, social policy must assure decent living conditions to anever-larger part of the population.

Also, modern taxation reflectsour adoption of the exploitation

theory. Most taxes aim not only atraising revenue but also at correcting or alleviating the alleged evilsof our economic system. Sometaxes aim at a "redistribution" ofwealth and income. Confiscatoryrates are imposed on entrepreneursand capitalists whose income andcapital are thus transformed intogoods for consumption by the "underprivileged." Other taxes aim atchanging business customs andconduct or at regulating productionand trade. All presidentialcandidates promise more of thesame.

Our labor unions derive theirvery justification for existencefrom the exploitation doctrine.Few Americans would disclaimthe boast of union leaders thattheir unions have raised, and stillare raising, wages for all workersthrough association and collectivebargaining. American public opinion believes that recent history hasproved the beneficial nature oftrade unionism without whichworkers would be subjugated tothe greed and arbitrariness oftheir employers. Because of thecommon fear of labor exploitation,the people suffer strikes or threatsof strikes, union coercion and violence, and endless agitation of hateand envy by labor leaders againstthe wicked selfishness of exploiters.To many millions of Americans,membership in a labor union is an


important social duty and strikea holy task.

Clash of the Generations

In recent years the conflict doctrine has been broadened to coveryet another area: the relations between different generations. Itthereby succeeded in pitting millions of American youth againsttheir elders in a so-called "generation gap." Numerous studentorganizations of the "New Left"are attacking the "establishment"that represents the older generation with arguments that aretaken without much change fromthe armory of Marx. The era ofcampus violence was ushered inby the Students for a DemocraticSociety (SDS), a quasi-Marxianclass organization. It was followedby such groups as the ProgressiveLabor Party, the Weathermen, theYoung Workers LiberationLeague, the Young Socialist Alliance, the National Peace ActionCoalition, the New AmericanMovement, and many others. Although the members of such militant groups comprise only smallminorities of students, it appearsthat many millions of young people agree with the radicals on theexistence of conflict.· If there iscollective conflict in our social andeconomic spheres, why shouldthere be peace and harmony between the establishment and its

opposition, between the older generation and youth?

Racial Conflict

One of the ugliest manifestations of the conflict doctrine isfound in our race relations. Weare told again and again that itis our capitalistic system that imposes conditions of hardship upona minority of its citizens, and thatfinally the angriest of them havebeen driven to assault the exploitation order. We are accused ofwicked standards' of white morality and capitalist middle-class behavior that condemns the riotingand looting but lacks human concern for millions of deprived Negroes in our midst.

A .solution to the growing problems of racial strife is sought inever-costlier government programs, in more public welfare andpublic care. While Newark wasburning, and as twenty-sevenAmericans were losing their livesthere, the Federal Governmenttried to rush through Congress 8

bill to provide $20 million a yealfor two years to exterminate thErats that infest the city slums. Iiwas suggested that eradicatin~

rats would ultimately help to pre·vent the racial riots, as it woul(indicate to the rioters that some,body really cares.

One may agree with the militan"Civil Rights" leaders that, fo:


the first time in American history,political and social conditions areripe for open rebellion and revolution. But our explanation differsfundamentally from theirs. Theteachings of conflict and socialism,which for a long time were limitedto white pressure groups, havefinally reached millions of Negroes. In their incredible blindness our political leaders eagerlysow dissatisfaction and make reckless promises of redistributionwhile condemning the privateproperty order - openly encouraging Negro protests against thatorder. It is collectivism, not capitalism, which breeds insurrectionand revolution.

Sexual Conflict

In the United States the conflict doctrine finally was extendedto cover sexual relations. Therecan be little doubt that women'sliberation has become a major andmilitant movement.

In some of its aspects the movement is hardly new. More than50 years ago it led to the 19thConstitutional Amendment thatgave American women the rightto vote. But in recent years, especially since the appearance ofSimone de Beauvoir's The Sec'ondSex and Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, it acquired thefamiliar symptoms of conflict andconfrontation. Some of its radical

spokesmen sound like the otherconflict champions although theysubstitute sex for race, class, orgeneration. Their charges are almost identical: the capitalisticsystem breeds exploitation andslavery and therefore should beabolished. Economic freedommeans freedom for men only, butexploitation and dependence forwomen. Therefore, it must giveway to the political process, tolegislation and regulation, inshort, to a new order.

Concentrations and Monopolies

Although most Americans woulddisclaim any sympathy for KarlMarx and his teachings, they seemto be in full agreement with himnot only on his doctrine of conflict of interest and class strugglebut also on his theory of industrialconcentration and monopoly.

In Das Kapital Karl Marx proclaimed the inevitable coming ofsocialism on grounds that capitalism causes a gradual pauperization of the working classes. Theexploitation profits, which businessmen pocket by means of theemployment contract, are investedin an ever-growing apparatus ofproduction, today called automation, which in turn creates a growing .army of unemployed and underemployed paupers.

In the decades that followed thepublication of Das Kapital, it

456 THE FREEMAN Au,gust

proved to be most difficult to inculcate this doctrine in the mindsof American workers. Every year,wages rose and conditions improved on account of expandingcapital investments and rising labor productivity. In fact, thestandards of living of Americanworking people rose to levels thatare unprecedented in human history. And with the rise in laborproductivity and wage rates, theconditions of health, life expectancy, education, recreation, andleisure improved immeasurably.

A more plausible theory onwhich the doctrine of inevitabilityof socialism could be based hadto be found. Today, communistpro1Jaganda, whether in the formof arrogant prognostications thatour. grandchildren will live undercommunism or as blaring newscasts by Radio Moscow, proclaimsthe coming of socialism ongrounds that capitalism is degenerating to dire monopolism. Whatever capitalism may have achievedin the past, its dreadful degeneration gives rise to vast concentrations of wealth matched bydismal poverty, automation andunemployment, and other discrepancies and imbalances. Prosperityunder capitalism, we are told, isonly short-lived and must soongive way to monopolistic exploitation, depression, and unemployment.

Many Americans are increasingly receptive to this doctrine.Certainly the Founding Fatherswere aware of the inherent dangers of monopoly. Thomas Jefferson had even advocated a Constitutional amendment outlawingmonopolies. But the FoundingFathers were also fully awarethat governments were spawningthe monopolies. Some three hundred years of European mercantilistic monopolistic policy hadtaught them that the governmentissue of licenses, franchises, regulations, and controls gives riseto monopolistic restrictions andeconomic maladjustments.

The forces of Competition

Under the influence of Europeansocialistic thought and Marxianindoctrination, this causal connection between government andmonopoly has been gradually forgotten. Instead, many Americanf:are now led to believe that thecapitalistic market economy breed~

monopolies, and that "big busi·ness" tends to degenerate to mo,nopoly. In reality, the unhamperecmarket economy, through the op,eration of free competition, pre,vents anyone businessman froncharging monopolistic prices. Eve]if one should be the only produce:in the field, potential competitionthe competition of substitutes, an4the elasticity of demand, preven


him from exploiting the situation.Potential competition exists in

all fields of production and commerce which everyone is legallyfree to enter. Most corporationsare searching continuously fornew lines and items of production. They are eager to invadeany field in which business earnings are unusually high. The invasion of another field by a corporation may involve no morethan a single retooling or reorganization that is achieved in afew weeks or months. Or,brandnew facilities may be employedfor an invasion. Thus, one producer, whether he is a monopolist,duopolist, or a competitor amongmany, always faces the potentialcompetition of all other producers.

But even if American enterprises failed tq compete with eachother and potential competitionfailed to exert a restraining influence on monopolists - which isa most unrealistic assumption the people would escape monopolistic prices through recourse tosubstitutes. .In many fields thecompetition of substitutes is moreimportant than that of competing enterprises. In· the manufacture of clothing, for instance, adozen different materials vie witheach other for the consumer's dollar. The .monopolist of anyonematerial is powerless because monopolistic pricing would induce

consumers to switch immediatelyto other materials. The manufacturers of suspenders compete notonly with each other and withpotential competitors, but alsowith the producers of belts. Inthe transportation industry therailroads compete with trucks,cars, airplanes, pipelines, andships.

Elasticity of Demand

The existence of substitutesmakes for demand elasticitywhich, in turn, makes monopolisticpricing unprofitable; for higherproduct prices would greatly curtail product demand, and thussales and income of the monopolist. Therefore, he again must actas if he were a competitor amongmany.

All producers, in fact, competewith all other producers for theconsumer's dollars. The manufacturer of television sets competeswith the manufacturer of freezersand refrigerators. If the monopolist .of one commodity - say, television sets - should raise his price,the consumer may forego the purchase of a new set and buy instead a second-hand set or a refrigerator. We consumers do notallocate our income to the satisfaction of categories of wants butto that of specific wants yieldingthe greatest net addition to ourwell-being. This addition, in turn,


is determined by the urgency ofour wants and by the cost ofsatisfaction.

This consideration of some fundamental principles of marketeconomics runs counter to the interpretations offered by Marxianpropaganda and, unfortunately,also by many fellow Americans.Our statist politicians and antitrust bureaucrats partially embrace the Marxian explanations.They subscribe to the theory thatour capitalist system breeds monopolies. But then they part withRadio Moscow by proclaimingtheir desire to save this monopolybreeding system from its own destruction. They propose to controlthe monopolies through government action. Almost every daynow, the Antitrust Division of theDepartment of Justice chargessome businessmen with monopolistic conspiracy. These charges, being made in the limelight of worldwide publicity, poison the politicalatmosphere and create a badlydistorted picture of our enterpriseeconomy. In fact, the AntitrustDivision is one of the most efficient arms of socialist propaganda.

Anticolonialism

Many Americans also agree withthe Marx-Lenin doctrines of colonialism and imperialism. In thename of national sovereignty andanticolonialism the United States

Government has promoted nationalism and socialism in all cornersof the world. It has exerted itsgreat influence toward the reduction of European influence andpossessions in Asia, Africa, andLatin America. We urged theDutch to leave Indonesia, we applauded the French retreat fromIndochina, we blatantly demandedBritish and French withdrawalfrom the Suez Canal, we urgedthe Belgians to leave the Congo,and the French to surrenderNorth Africa, we censured Portugal for her African possessionsand imposed sanctions on Rhodesia.

The Western retreat from Suezto Panama, from Indonesia to Algeria, from the Congo to Moroccoevidences an ominous weakness ofWestern civilization. Blinded bysocialistic doctrines and prejudices, our statesmen hail retreatas progress and defeat as victory.Their world view is perverted byconceptions of "capitalist colonialism," which are derived from theteachings of Marx and Lenin.Echoing the communist leaders intheir attacks on the West, theylevel the charge that Europeancolonialism has kept the economically backward nations subjugatedfor centuries.

This misconception of historyflows from a bad distortion offacts. The European colonies wereacquired during the age of mer-


cantilism and nationalism. Thespirit of capitalism with its concern for individual freedom andprivate property, which shapedBritish foreign policie·s during thenineteenth century, completelytransformed colonial possessions.The British overseas settlers became virtually independent - enjoying a dominion status. All otherterritories dependent on Britishrule were governed according to"open-door" principles. The British Empire was R'vast free-tradearea in which the government undertook only to maintain law andorder.

Laissez Faire

Capitalism is the system of individual freedom and private property in production as well as consumption. In both domestic andforeign affairs it implies laissezfaire, which means free trade andan open-door policy that welcomeseveryone and discriminates againstno one. The exploitation of colonialpossessions is inconsistent withthe concepts of competitive private enterprise and voluntary exchange. An American or European business that invests its capital in an underdeveloped countrydoes not exploit the natives. Capital investments anywhere raiselabor productivity and consequently wages. The United Fruit Company, for instance, did not en-

slave the people of Latin Americaby creating plantations in wilderness. On the contrary, it raisednative productivity and improvedworking conditions.

And yet, most Americans areconvinced that European colonialism is responsible for world poverty and upheaval. Why elsewould the U.S. Government havehelped to liquidate European influence in all corners of the worldand sanction and support revolutionary movements? Even today itstrongly opposes the white administrations of Portuguese Africa,Rhodesia and South Africa. ManyAmericans even approve of theconfiscation or nationalization ofprivate enterprises by the governments of newly independent countries. They agree with the Marxians the world over that. a sovereign state can legally seize andconfiscate any foreign enterprisein disregard of valid contractsand agreements. This is why thenew states in Africa and Asia canseize and destroy huge Europeaninvestments with impunity. AndFidel Castro could seize more thanone billion dollars of Americaninvestments.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most Americanswere conscious of the naturalrights of individuals, and therefore believed in an idea of statesovereignty that was severely lim-


ited by inalienable personal rights.State sovereignty was encompassedby the individual rights to life,liberty, and property. This concept of limited state sovereignty,which true friends of freedomcontinue to embrace, denies theright of any government to seizeor nationalize any enterprise without the owner's consent.

Are we Marxians now? MostAmericans will indignantly answer this question in the negative.After all, they neither condonedictatorship with its one-party

system nor the ruthless suppression of dissent and brutal treatment of dissenters, which characterize all communist countries.They are "civilized" and thereforeabhor all manifestations of inhumanity. But unfortunately, manyAmericans unwittingly share important philosophical, sociological,and economic beliefs with Marxians the world over. These beliefsgive rise to policies that pleasethe Marxians. Ultimately, they willbreed the very political and economic tyranny which Americansso abhor. fJ

IDEAS ON

LIBERTY

A Useful Product

THE BUSINESS GENIUS who makes and markets a useful product

and furnishes employment at good wages to hundreds of fathers,

serves his community more usefully than a councilman who votes

the appropriation of public funds to build playgrounds.

Without the steady production of wealth, the makers of public

budgets would be helpless. For this reason the man richly endowed

with business sense serves his fellow men best if he continues at

his desk to the end of his days.

This line of thought does not win easy acceptance because it is

only within recent generations that the social significance of busi

ness prosperity has been properly valued. It is now becoming

more generally recognized that a nation cannot have too many

competent businessmen. Prosperity is more a matter of men than

natural resources. Poverty and ignorance have cursed and hum

bled mankind from the beginning. Intelligent direction of business

will eliminate both.From The William Feather Magazine, April, 1972

WINSTON CHURCHILL used to saythat Russia is a riddle wrapped inan enigma within a mystery. Butto him who has studied that country, its history, religion, language,mentality, the truth will come moreeasily; the many widespread dangerous cliches will dissolve beforQhis mental eye.

One of the most co:n;mon ofthese cliches is to the effect thatthe Russians are "by nature" collectivists, that their souls are aching for tyranny, all of whichmakes them so susceptible to Communism. Did not the large mass ofthe Russian people consist ofserfs? The truth however is different. In old Russia, in contrastto America, slavery had never been

Dr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn is a European scholar,linguist, world traveler, and lecturer. Of hismany published works, perhaps the best knownin America are Liberty or Equality? and TheTimeless Christian.

ERIK VON KUEHNELT-LEDDIHN

institutionalized; the majority ofthe farming class had consisted offree people. As a matter of fact,serfdom as an institution had onlyexisted in central and westernRussia, but not in the far north,in the south, in the eastern partof the country, and certainly notin Siberia. (The Cossacks livednotoriously a very free life.)

It is true that in large areas, asa result of the abolition of serfdomin 1861, the peasants were givenland collectively which resulted ina very poor agriculture with recurrent famines; but Stolypin, the"arch-reactionary" Minister of theInterior, disestablished the collective holdings, the M irs, early inthis century. The subsequent individual farming, together with asecond agrarian reform, initiatedthe rapid development of Russianagriculture with the ambitious

461


peasants, the kulaks, leading thenation to a new agrarian wealth.(The final goal of the gradual reform was to have only 11 per centof the arable area covered withlarge estates by 1930.) By 1916only 23 per cent of the usable landwas in the hands of big landowners, whereas in Britain thisshare was 55 per cent! And weought to add to this that Russianever had a ruling nobility. OldRussian titles mean a great dealmore in Hollywood than they evermeant in Russia. Social arrogance,as we know it in the West, wasunknown there; it came into beingonly in recent decades as a resultof Marxist indoctrination with theaccent on class consciousness. Hewho knows the USSR or reads contemporary Russian plays andnovels is fully aware of this ratherdepressing fact.

Russians, indeed, are by naturegreat individualists; they alwaysconstituted a nation of eminentindependent thinkers, poets, scientists, philosophers, artists, musicians, mathematicians and soforth. Edward Crankshaw explained in a brilliant article in International Affairs (October,1945) how precisely due to herpeople's individualism a purelyparliamentary democracy for Russia is out of the question - nowand forever. This might soundparadoxical to American ears but

Harold Laski had previouslypointed out to us that representative democracy, in order to beworkable, has to rest on two premises: a two-party system and, moreimportantly, a common frameworkof reference, a common language,the thing which Walter Lippmanncalled a "Public Philosophy." Sucha common framework has neverexisted in eastern or southernEurope where, for a variety ofreasons, intellectual individualityand not a sentimental communityspirit always prevailed. All ofwhich moved the classic Britishliberal Walter Bagehot to the conclusion that democracy needs arather "stupid people" (Letterson the French Coup-d'-Etat, 1852) .The Russians, in other words, aretoo bright for their own good.They will always have a government-from-above which can bespiritual or materialistic, liberalor tyrannic, benevolent or malignant. Self-government in Russiacan only be local and limited.

Degrees of Government Intervention

In the various forms of society,government and economics are admittedly interdependent, but notin a crudely automatic way. Thereare provider states which are notsocialistic, there existed liberal aswell as communist monarchies(the Empire of the Incas) andtotalitarian democracies. Spain,

1972 FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE RUSSIANS 463

for instance, has a rather limitedpolitical freedom but a great dealof economic liberty. Brazil has amilitary dictatorship but its economy rests on free enterprise. Continental Europe before 1848 hada free market economy under royalabsolutism. But the USSR boastsa democratic label and has practically no freedom, neither economic, nor intellectual, nor religious. It knows not even the freedom of residence.

Old Imperial ("Czarist") Russia, however, had a far-reachingeconomic freedom. Of course, wealways ought to distinguish Russia before the liberation of theserfs from the Russia between1861 and the issuing of the Constitution (1905), and the latterfrom the liberal monarchy between1905 and the Revolution. The freedom of expression during this"terminal" period was nearly complete. In 1912 the Pravda" foundedin broad daylight, violentlyattacked the government. Therewere, moreover, Bolshevik delegates in the Duma (Diet), but noAnarchists ("Social Revolutionaries"), a party which indeed represented total individualism, butalso murder and arson. (It wasbanned by law, but Kerenski secretly adhered to it). As a matterof fact, the government favoredthe Social Democrats, with theirmenshevik and ',:~olshevik wings,

over the Anarchists, the latterclaiming not Marx, but Bakunin(a nobleman) and Prince Kropotkin, who died in 1921, as theirfounding· fathers and spokesmen.(Incidentally, the great bolshevikleaders beginning with Lenin werefrequently members of the nobility.)

Progress through freedom

It was thanks to economic freedom that Russian industry, thoughlate getting started, enjoyed afabulous development in the quarter century before the Red Revolution. The annual increase of Russia's industrial output and capacityin those years was far larger thanthat of any other modern nation,including that of the UnitedStates. Evidence may be found, ofall places, in the Illustrated History of the Russian Revolution(New York, 1928), a Communistpublication. Obviously, Russianlabor, largely lacking skills, discipline, and the famous "Protestant work ethics," could not bewell paid any more than in anyother "emerging nation" in thefirst phase of industrializationwhen heavy investments are necessary and the purchasing powerof the masses is still exceedinglylow. The new class of Russian entrepreneurs, needless to say, werenot members of the old upper layers, but homines novi - industri-


ous blacksmiths, bright peasantboys, aggressive skilled workerswith foreign experience. Smallamounts of capital allowed miracles to be worked, and soonRussia became Europe's "EasternAmerica," brimming with HoratioAlger stories.

One has to admit, however, thatthe newly rich often displayedtheir freshly acquired wealth inrather crude fashion. Thus, todaya foreign embassy in Moscow ishoused in the palace of a sugarking's mistress - but this particular millionaire was the son of aserf. Yet, we may be sure that hisincome, if .spread· evenly amonghis workers, would not materiallyhave improved their lot, whichsurely worsened after 1917.

At the outbreak of World WarII the wages paid to workers werelower than before the Revolution.One has only to read the splendidwork of Manya Gordon, WorkersBefore arnd After Lenin (NewYork, 1940), to get the relevantdata. Of course, the illusion thata radical redistribution of incomefundamentally improves the Iivingstandards of the lowest classes isstill general among loose-thinkingsociologists. Socialism also feedson this erroneous belief. It is,however, the bigger cake, not thereslicing, which improves the lotof the many. And the bigger cakerequires. wise reinvestments, good

management, and a high ethicalconcept of work.

With the Communist Revolution, Russian industry and agriculture took a nose dive. Thepeasant class, at first, did not· resist Communism, because the remainder of the large and mediumestates was distributed amongthem. Lenin also permitted duringseveral years a minor trade whichquickly started to bloom. These,even to Lenin's mind, were onlytemporary concessions. Stalinliquidated not only the "NewEconomic Policy" (NEP) but alsothe independent peasantry. Firstthe kulaks were expropriated andpartly exterminated; then·the restwere crushed and collectivized.The Five-Year-Plans were put intoaction. Since then, a dark nighthad settled over the Russianeconomy.

A Low Standard of Living

Today, we might get impressive(but who knows how. accurate?)statistics about production but wedo know that East German aid tothe space program has been substantial. We also k'now that machinery imported from Czechoslovakia and Hungary abounds inthe USSR, but we fully realizethat the living standards of themasses, including the professionalclass (other than a tiny top sector), are truly miserable. Assum-

1972 FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE RUSSIANS 465

ing that the rouble is US $1.20,the salaries and wages for workers, doctors, factory directors arenot so terribly bad by West.;.European standards. But let usremember that the rouble can bebought in Vienna or Zurich for19 cents, and this gives us a farmore accurate picture of conditions in.side the Soviet Union.

One must admit that medicalservices (of a modest nature) aregratuitous. Also, :rents are verylow, but not so if we consider themin relation to space; then, indeed,they are very high. Only university professors, members of theAcademy of Sciences, directors ofleading theaters, writers, primaballerinas, and certain very highlyplaced civil servants live well; butwe should not believe that therebythey are all "bought" and reallybelieve in Communism. The purelymanagerial class is not at all welloff. A factory director usuallycould not feed his family. His wifewould have to work as well. Yet,socially speaking, he would arrogantly look down on teachers,engineers and so forth. Status andincome are by no means identical.

The "Theory of Convergence"

Curiously enough, there is inthe Western world, and especiallyin the United States, a ratherwidely-held belief that the radicaldifferences in social structure and

economics between East and Westare gradually disappearing, thatthe West is becoming more andmore "socialistic" and the SovietBloc more and more "capitalistic,"thus eventually ensuring peace.This is the famous "theory ofconvergence", a very soothingtheory indeed. Andrei Amalrik,the brilliant (and again jailed)author of Will the Soviet UnionSurvive Until 1984? has rightlyridiculed this notion because heknows only too well that practically aU Russians are absolutists,that institutions in the East arenot bent but broken, that dogmatism and revolution, not relativism and evolution, dominateEastern life. English-speaking nations, to the contrary, are enamored of the notion of evolution,of nice, little, painless, gradualchanges. In addition, they mistakewelfarism for socialism. The lattermeans the ownership of the meansof production by the state. Ofcourse, in practice all socialistcountries are "welfarist" (andstand for the Provider State), butnot all Provider States are socialistic. (In Sweden 90 per cent ofeconomic resources are still privately owned, though this mightchange in the near future. Ofcourse, "welfarism" in the Western world is on the rise, but thisitself will never close the gap between East and West.) Even the


undeniable convergence betweenRussia and Red China does notparticularly make for peace.

The only socialist country inEurope which has made ideological compromises on the economicfront is Yugoslavia, which fromthe Muscovite point of view is aheretical outsider. It still has afree peasantry and small privateenterprises with up to fifteen employees. But the future of Yugoslavia nationally and economicallyis dim. Economically, this is thecase because free enterprise is asystem which walks on long legsand socialism on short legs. Whathappens if one leg is long and theother one short? Such an economywill be prone to fall on its nose.And besides Yugoslavia, onlyPoland has, a non-collectivizedpeasantry.

No More Private Enterprises

When I first visited the USSRin 1930 at the age of twenty, Iwas even then struck by the factthat the only surviving free entrepreneurs were the watch-repairmen, the bootblacks, cobblers anda few tailors. I saw no privatestores left. At my later visit in1963, "socialization" was total andcomplete. Bootblacks received asalary and that was it. As far asthe Soviets were concerned, therewas and there still is no sign ofan economic "convergence". (There

is, however, a fair amount of neoStalinism in the domains of intellectual and religious life). It is

, true that there are a few economic theorists (like Liberman)who, though not dreaming of arenewal of private enterprise, areattracted by the idea of competition. But it is impossible to seehow one could have genuine competition when the economy iscen~

trally planned and rests squarelyon state monopolies (draggingalong totally uneconomic industrial enterprises) .

A return to private enterpriseand private ownership is, aboveall, ideologically out of the question. It is significant that themicro-elite with their very substantial incomes squander themalmost planlessly because theycannot buy anything of permanentvalue - real estate, houses, precious metals, bonds with a fixedvalue. The datcha (country house)which, after a fashion, they "own"stands on state ground and couldbe "removed" any time. Theyspend vast sums on good food,expensive drinks, pictures (alsofrom officially proscribed painters)and - perhaps the only genuinepiece of real estate - on pompousmausoleums in exclusive cemeterysections. There won't be and therecannot be in this domain a genuine change, because communism'smost fundamental dogma is state

1972 FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE. RUSSIANS 467

ownership of the means of production, and the Kremlin's. crucialstrategy is the utter material dependence of its subjects upon thestate. (That the state one niceday should wither away, nobodywhile of sound mind takes seriously.)

Is there a hankering of the Russion people for personal independence and private enterprise? Agenuine yearning? Or is the Russian underground opposition merely hostile to the most tyrannicalaspects of the present government while accepting in its hearta socialist order? There isa widespread belief in the West (inAmerica, probably, more than inEurope) that the memory of personal property and free enterprisein the USSR is dead as a doornail and that what the Russianstoday desire is merely a bit moreprivacy, freedom of expression,and a chance to read flashy American periodicals. By and large thisview is not true to fact. To thecontrary, the critique of the totalitarian excesses of the regimeis more and more being supplantedwith a mounting protest againstthe system itself. The once someekly expressed preference fora "genuine Marxism-Leninism" toStalinism or Neo-Stalinism is increasingly replaced with violentattacks against Marxism. I thinkthere would be an even more gen-

eral attack in the undergroundpublications against all forms ofsocialism if there were a betterunderstanding of the nature andpossibility of private enterpriseon a large scale.

A Cruel System of Controls

In the mid-nineteen-thirties aHungarian Communist writer.Erwin Sinko, settled for morethan a year in Moscow. In hisbrilliant account of that periodpublished in German, Der Romarneines Romans (Cologne, 1962 and1967), he provides us with a greatmany interesting observations andinsights. (Sinko died as a Titoistin Yugoslavia only a few yearsago). He was in the USSR at thebeginning of the Big Purges butshamefacedly admits that he wasnot aware of them.

He saw that the USSR was producing goods far more expensivelythan Western Europe (largely onaccount of poor work ethics andthe frightening bureaucracy) andquotes his Jewish landlord to theeffect that he would never becomea Bolshevik because Socialism isintrinsically cruel. He also offersus a wonderful, lively portrait ofa cobbler who then still was ableto pur,sue his humble trade on astreet corner almost literallycrushed by taxes designed to ruinhis business. But the man held outheroically to keep his precarious


freedom and independence. Stubbornly he refused to join the stateowned shoe repair workshops.

Today, needless to say, nothingof the sort would be tolerated fora moment. All that remains ofprivate enterprise is the gray market for agricultural products provisioned from the small personalplots of the farmers (always subject to recall and cancellation), avery limited market without whichthe Soviet population would havedied of starvation years ago.(The misery of a peasantry constituting over 30 per cent of thetotal population of the country,which in spite of excellent soils isunable to feed the USSR properly,is really the scandal of the century.)

Socialism Easy to Explain

During my stay in the USSR Ioften talked with people abouttheir country's economic problems.Thanks to a variety of sources(among which Western radio sta-tions figure prominently) themasses of the Russians do realizethat our living standards aremuch higher than theirs and manyof them, in a way, are puzzled bythis state of affairs. "Here," theysaid, "everything is carefully calculated and planned in advance,and you in the West are subjectto the chaos of a free competitiveenterprise. How then is it possi-

ble that you are so much better offthan we are?" This surprise issimply due to the fact that Socialism is what Tocqueville called une!ausse idee claire, a false, butclear idea.

One can explain socialism toanybody in ten minutes, givinghim the essence of that doctrinein a nutshell. Free enterprise,which is far more progressive andsophisticated, needs a great dealmore time and effort for its exposition. (Socialism, one oughtnever to forget, exists in many aprimitive society with very littlestress placed on human personalityand therefore it appeals so strongly to people in the Third World.)

Of course, the value of smallpersonal enterprise was quicklygrasped by my interlocutors. "Butdo you think it to be just if asingle person has millions of roubles or owns a huge factory employing hundreds of workersthey would then be at his mercy,wouldn't they?" Such argumentsarise because among the Sovietcitizens there no longer exists thememory of a free laboring class(or of collective bargaining) .

The real surprise to most of myacquaintances came when I toldthem about the workings of astock company. "Yes, fine, but whois permitted to buy these stocks?What party affiliation must hehave?" The idea that simply any-

19'72 FREE ENTERPRISE AND THE RUSSIANS 469

•

body can buy stocks and thus geta share in the enterprise came asan added shock, but once a manpointed an accusing finger at meand said: "What you tell us can'tbe true arid I'll tell you why. Ifyour representation is correct thena worker could buy shares of hisown factory and get the dividendsof his own labor and thus becomeemployer and employee in oneperson - the boss of his manager- and that's patently impossible."When I explained to him that itwas quite feasible and occasionallydoes happen, everybody was nonplussed and one person declaredthat such state of affairs was"exceedingly democratic" (whichin a certain way it is).

Signs of Opposition

Yet "capitalist thinking," without the slightest chance of beingadopted by the government, isgaining growing adherence in opposition circles. The excellentwork by Cornelia 1. Gerstenmaier,Die Stimme der Stummen (whichwill soon be published in theUnited States) shows a realchange of mind. The author, whois a serious German scholar andhas spent considerable time inRussia, is the daughter of a former chairman of the Bonn Diet. Shehad and still has access to thetyped and retyped publications ofwhat one jokingly calls Samizdat,

the "Self-Publishing Company".There she tells us, among others, ofthe famous programmatic pamphlet of Alekseyev and Zorin, "TimeDoes Not Wait," where these twoauthors - the pseudonyms cover atechnologist and an educator - inform us that "the deadly grip ofthe government on economics mustcome to an end." A manifesto ofthe so-called "Democratic Movement of Russia, the Ukraine andthe Baltic Nations" - this labelitself tells a story! - insists thatstate, group, and private enterprises ought to get the samerights in managing the means ofproduction.

Growing Appreciation for Freedom

Probably the most moving document in this book is that byBoris Talantov, an outstandingunderground leader who early thisyear died in a Kirov (Vyatka)prison. Talantov was a laymanand a mathematician but the scionof a family of priests. Himself aprofoundly religious person, he denounced the Moscow Patriarchatefor collaborating in an abject waywith the Soviet government, anaccusation widely printed in theWest and forcefully repeated byAlexander Solzhenitsyn in an openletter. (Archbishop Nikodim - amost disreputable character as wecan see from Andre Martin's bookon religion in Russia - thereupon

470 THE FREEMAN Au.gust

declared that Talantov "never existed" but had been invented byanti-Soviet propaganda.)

The testimony of Talantov is allthe more valuable because religious groups in the Old World (under monastic influence) have traditionally shown very little interest in the burning question ofprivate property and free enterprise. But Talantov, in whom wehave to see primarily a religiousmartyr of the Eastern Church, asthe author of a widely circulatedpamphlet entitled, "The Communist Party of the Soviet Union asRuling Class in Soviet Society,"knew the real nature of the evil.Here he gave us a precise analysiswhy there can be no freedom, norespect for the dignity of the person in a socialist system. He evenstrongly emphasized the economicsuperiority of free enterprise overstate capitalism. The latter insuresthe total enslavement of the working class and, incidentally, also theeconomic enforcement of atheismby a methodic discriminationagainst religious workers. Private

Service

enterprise, Talantov insisted, notonly guarantees a minimum offreedom, but also produces goodsof greater quality with fewereconomic inputs.

Has the Russian undergroundembraced Adam Smith? It wouldbe premature to answer this question in the affirmative. It is certain, however, that a chance forsound economic thinking exists,not, of course, within the Sovietgovernment, but among its internal enemies who are all verymuch aware of the West's material superiority. As a matter offact, religious, political and economic truth in the Soviet Unionis engaged in a heroic uphill fight;whe:weas in the West, truth, dueto mental sloth, envy, jealousy,and the masochistic denigrationof one's own traditions, is slippingand sliding, is obscured and forgotton. Under these circumstancesit would be a real shame for us,who had all the breaks, if theLight again would be coming fromthe East. t)

IDEAS ON

LIBERTY

WHOEVER could make two ears of corn, or two blades of grass, togrow upon a spot of ground where only one· grew before, woulddeserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to hiscountry than the whole race of politicians put together.

JONATHAN SWIFT

CLARENCE B. CARSON

THE

FOUNDING

OF

THE

AMERICAN

REPUBLIC

13The American

Triumph

THAT THE AMERICANS were eventually.triumphant in the War forIndependence is a matter of record. The triumph was military,diplomatic, and big with portentfor the future of republics. Thatthe triumph could have come earlier, could have been more decisive,and could have involved the UnitedStates in fewer entanglements, isspeculation. George Washingtonthought that the victory could havecome much sooner. In his circularletter to the governors of the statesin 1783, he declared that if he hadsufficient space he "could demonstrate to every mind open to conviction, that in less time, and withmuch less expense than has beenincurred, the war might have beenbrought to the same happy conclusion, if the resources of thecontinent could have been properlydrawn forth. ! ••"1 Speculation isnot history of course, but it doessometimes help to shed light onhistory. The prolongation of thewar due to the failure to musterAmerican resources effectivelybrought in its train a host ofconsequences, some of which entangled America with Europeanpowers at just that time whenthey were effecting their independence of England.

Dr. Carson shortly will join the faculty of Hillsdale College in Michigan as Chairman of theDepartment of History. He is a noted lecturerand author, his latest book entitled ThrottlinAthe Railroads.

.1'71


The scope of the war was greatly broadened from 1778 onward.It spread and extended over muchof the North American continent.There was extensive fighting inthe Ohio valley, in Georgia and theCarolinas (fighting which involvedLoyalists on a considerable' scale,and heightened domestic animosities), in western New York, aswell as elsewhere. Those who fol19w only George Washington'sarmy during the course' of thewar lose sight of the vast amountof territory being contended for.The war became, also, a world warbefore it was over. France enteredthe fray against Britain in 1778,Spain in 1779, and Holland in1780, though the last two were notallied with the United States. Inaddition, there was a naval Leagueof Armed Neutrality of other European powers organized againstBritain.

American diplomats went toEurope seeking allies, munitions,and, above all, loans, to bolstersagging finances. European monarchs were hardly devoted to theidea of the rise of a republic inAmerica or its independence(though some Frenchmen were) ;most of them did have axes togrind with Britain. Moreover,there was territory they would liketo acquire or protect, and tradethey would like to gain for theirships and ports. The aborning

United States was caught up tosome extent in the cross currentsof the conflicting interests of European powers. Some Americansnotably Silas Deane, Arthur Lee,Benjamin Franklin, John Adams,and John Jay - experienced themachinations of European diplomats at first hand, an experiencewhich confirmed most of them intheir beliefs about the corruptionof the Old World. However, America came out of all this much better than might have been expected.

Changed British Strategy

Despite the French alliance andthe portending entry of other European powers into the conflict,the American military positiondid not generally improve forsome while. British strategy didchange from what it had been upto 1778. During the early part ofthe war, Britain had focused themajor military effort on the Middle States and their seaport cities.This approach was largely abandoned after Saratoga. Though theBritish continued to hold NewYork City and to concentrate themajor army there, as thingsturned out this was a defensiveposition from 1778 until the endof the war.

British strategists at homepushed for the concentration of offensive measures in the South.Having failed in their efforts to

1972 THE AMERICAN TRIUMPH 473

conquer America by attacking atthe points of the concentration ofstrength, they advocated attacking at the weakest point. Thisstrategy had much to commend it.After all, the key to the effectivecontrol over much of what hadbeen English· America was Virginia. Virginia was the most populous of the states, the oldest ofthe colonies, the one in which theAnglican religion had been longest established, the producer ofmuch that was most wanted byBritish merchants for world trade,and the hub of the Southern wheel.If Britain could control Virginiaand the lower South, plus Canada,it might still dominate the vastea5tern Mississippi valley region.Virginia already laid claim tomuch of the territory west of theAlleghenies; the conquest· of Virginia might vouchsafe it to Britain. The approach to Virginiamight be made from the lowerSouth which was the weakest linkin the colonial chain. Georgia wasthe least populous of the states,and a considerable portion of thepopulation of South Carolina wasslave. North Carolina was knownto have an important Loyalist contingent.

Savannah fell to British forcesin December of 1778, and early thenext year they took over· the restof Georgia and installed a· Loyalgovernment. But the British sta-

tioned in Georgia had little success during the next year withtheir forays into South Carolina;the force sent there was not adequate to such a campaign. Earlyin 1780, however, General Clinton,who had been reluctant to undertake the Southern campaign, fin.ally did so; he was able to takeCharleston May 12, 1780 with avastly superior military and navalforce. Clinton returned to NewYork, entrusting the Southerncampaign now to Lord Cornwallis.Cornwallis was probably the ablestfield commander the British everhad in America. He was daring,courageous, beloved of· his men,could win battles when the oddswere against him by audacioustactics, ana. did win many battles.In fact, he won most of the battlesand lost the war.

For the remainder of 1780,Cornwallis see-sawed" back andforth between South and NorthCarolina with his army. Virtuallythe whole Patriot army in thatregion had been surrendered atCharleston, necessitating the assembly of a new force in the deepSouth. Congress sent General Horatio Gates, the victorious commander at Saratoga, southwardwith a core of Continentals to dothe job. As it turned out, his victory at Saratoga had given General Gates a much greater reputation than he deserved. Cornwallis

474 THE FREEMAN Au.gust

routed his army at Camden inAugust; Gates fled the scene ofbattle on the fastest horse hecould command, and was sixtymiles away before he consideredit safe to stop. His army was scattered, and his reputation wasruined.

Nathanael Greene assumedcommand of the Patriot forces inthe Carolinas late in the year,and· he proved worthy of the calling. He was as successful at maneuvering as his mentor, GeorgeWashington, but Cornwallis didnot tarry overlong to test his talents. Instead, Cornwallis movednorthward into Virginia in 1781,while Greene drove southward into South Carolina. In the courseof the year he was so successfulagainst British posts that theyheld only Charleston by the end ofthe year. Indeed, a pattern emergedin the South similar to the oneelsewhere on the continent. TheBritish frequently won the pitchedbattles, but once the main armymoved on, the post left behindsoon fell to Patriot forces.

During the late spring and intothe summer of 1781 Cornwallisrampaged across Virginia with amuch larger army than the Americans could muster in that state.When the American forces wereincreased, Cornwallis decided toestablish a base accessible to thesea. He decided upon Yorktown

which is located on the peninsula between the York and Jamesrivers. He set up camp there inearly August.

Showdown at Yorktown

Virginians had for some timebeen pleading with Washington tocome with his army to save hishome state. However, Washington was confronting the largestBritish army in America in NewYork; victory over it would mostlikely be decisive; he wanted onlythe help of the French fleet toundertake it, and the French fleetwas rarely available to him. However, he determined upon concentrating his effort against Cornwallis at Yorktown when theFrench agreed to aid him. Washington's Continentals were now reinforced by a major French armyunder the command of the Comtede Rochambeau. Washington tookpains to tie Clinton's army downin New York both by leaving asizable detachment behind and bygetting misleading information tohim.

The attacking army usually hasa plan which, if it' works, shouldbring victory, much as each playby the offense in football is conceived to make a, touchdown - ifit works. In battle, the aim is tobring such force to bear at selected points that it may be expectedto break up the opposing army.


Timing and coordination are therequisite conditions and are themost difficult to achieve. Washington's plan depended upon muchg~eater coordination of a varietyof elements than would commonlybe involved. He had to move anarmy several hundred miles, mostof them going over land. Hisheavy artillery was dispatched bysea, but its arrival was dependenton the dispersal of the Britishnavy. The French navy had to beavailable at the right time or Cornwallis might be reinforced or hisarmy transported elsewhere.

For once, all went well for thecombined American and Frenchundertaking. Clinton kept hisarmy in New York; Admiral deGrasse, the French naval commander, turned up with the fleet atthe right time, and lured the British navy out to sea after havingsuccessfully engaged it in action.Cornwallis stayed where he· was,cut off by sea from retreat. TheContinentals and the French werejoined by the militia to make aformidably superior force underWashington. Cornwallis did notdeign to attempt daring maneuvers to break out in these circumstances; after only a brief. tryagainst the forces, which did noteven bring most of his army intoplay, he surrendered his army intact. The memorable date was October 19, 1781.

Yorktown was the great victoryof the American War for Independence. It had all, or almost all,of the right ingredients. Washington was in commandof the victorious; after so many years of perseverance in the face of the odds,his hour had come. That Cornwallis should have been the Britishcommander defeated was as itshould be, too, for no other British commander had routed somany American armies. Even thesurrender was dramatically conducted, though Cornwallis sent asubaltern to do the dishonors.With the French lined up on oneside and the Americans on theother, the .British marched between them to the tune of "TheWorld Turned Upside Down" tothe place where they laid downtheir arms. The British turnedtheir eyes toward the French, as ifin contempt of the Americans.They· were roundly jeered by theAmericans who waited to do so,wisely, until the British hadthrown down their arms. Thusended the last great. battle of thewar.

There had· been and· were to beAmerican victories elsewhere,some' with great portent for thefuture, though none so dramaticor decisive for victory in the waras that at Yorktown. Neither theBritish nor Americans had entirelyneglected the western and south.-


ern frontiers. The British attempted to dominate the land beyond themountains largely with the aid ofthe Indians. However, in 1778 and1779 George Rogers Clark of Virginia broke the back of this dominance. Of Clark's victory at Vincennes in 1779, a military historian has said: "His march acrossflooded Illinois may not comparefor hardship with Arnold's longjourney through the Maine wilderness in 1775, yet the issue washappier, the victory complete andsignificant. British power in theWest was broken, and despite thefailure to take Detroit, Clarkhelped make it possible for thevast area to be included within theboundaries of the United States ofAmerica at the peace treaty."2Less grand in its dimensions butequally important for a smallerarea, Georgia was reconquered bythe Patriots in 1782, the culmination of a long series of exploitsby General Anthony Wayne.

Much went on during the Warfor Independence besides militaryand naval battles, of course. Norwas the American triumph, in thefinal analysis, simply a militarytriumph. What Americans woulddo with their independence wassurely more important than whether they would have it. One thingAmericans were determined not tohave for very long was arbitrarygovernment. They thought that

the way to avoid this was to havea written constitution. When Richard Henry Lee made a motion forindependence in the Second Continental Congress in June of 1776,he included with his resolution aproposal that some plan of confederation be devised. Such a plan tobe acceptable, of course, wouldhave to be of the nature of a constitution. A committee was appointed to attend to this even before independence had been formally declareu. A few days after theadoption of the Declaration, thecommittee presented what werecalled Articles of Confederation tothe Congress. They were drafted,in the main, by John Dickinson.

Congress did not move with suchdispatch to approve them, however, nor the states to their ratification. Some debate was wedgedin from time to time between themore pressing items of businesswhich confronted the Congress.The Articles of Confederationwere finally adopted by Congressin 1777 and sent along in duecourse for the states to ratify.Most of the states acted withinthe next fourteen months, butMaryland withheld ratification forseveral years'. The main issue waswestern lands, particularly the extensive claims of Virginia beyondthe mountains. Virginia. wouldhave been huge in comparisonwith the other states if it had con-


sisted only of the present states ofVirginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, which it did; but that parent state laid claim to vast territory in the Ohio valley as well.Agreements of the states involvedto yield up their western claimsbrought Maryland into the fold onMarch 1, 1781.

On the occasion, the Pennsylvania, Packet editorialized in thisjubilant fashion:

This great event, which will confound our enemies, fortify us againsttheir arts of seduction, and frustratetheir plans of division, was announced to the public at twelveo'clock under the discharge of theartillery on the land, and the cannonof the shipping in the Delaware. Thebells were rung, and every manifestation of joy shown on the occasion....3

Truth to tell, however, it had takenmore than half as long to get theArticles adopted as they wouldserve as the foundation for a union.

The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederationwere born of the necessity for thestates to unite in order to carryon war against Britain and weregiven their content by the reactionto the increasing use of Britishpower which occasioned the war.While men recognized the need forunited action against a commonenemy they were most reluctant to

locate much power in a centralgovernment - or, if Madison wasright in his later analysis, even toestablish such a government.

There was considerable ambiguity as to the status of the statesand of the union from the outset.That ambiguity was a productboth of history and the desires ofthe people. On the one hand, thecolonies had never been unitedwith one another before 1776except by their allegiance to theking of England, which tended toseparate them from one anotherrather than to link them together.On the other hand, they acted together both in their resistance toBritish impositions and eventuallyin separating from England. Therewas no point in time when thestates were independent and sovereign on their own. As John Fiskesaid: "It is ... clear that in thevery act of· severing their connection with England these commonwealths entered into some sort ofunion which was incompatiblewith their absolute sovereigntytaken severalIy."4

Yet, the term "state" was earlyused to apply to most -of them, andthe- name has stuck (in generalusage even when the "state" involved is actually. styled a "commonwealth"). The most commonmeaning attached to "state" inpolitical theory and usage is this:"the body politic as organized for


supreme civil rule and government." A "state" is also usuallyreferred to as sovereign and independent.

The Articles of Confederationdid attempt to clear up any confusion in status; the question wasformally resolved in favor of statesovereignty. The union establishedunder the Articles was styled aconfederation. In common usage, aconfederation is an alliance orleague among sovereign states.The articles appeared to affirmthat this was to be the case. Article II says, "Each State retainsits sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, j urisdiction and right, which is notby this confederation expresslydelegated to the United States, inCongress assembled." What is implied here is a division of powers:some to be retained and exercisedby the states individually, othersto be conferred upon the confederation to be exercised jointly. Butonce such powers were conferred,the states would lose their absolute sovereignty. Could some plannot be devised whereby the statescould retain their sovereignty individually, yet act together incommon concerns? The Articlesof Confederation attempted to dothis.

What was tried was to make theCongress continually and completely dependent upon the states.

Congress was denied· the power oftaxation, nor did it have any enforcement machinery of its own,Le., it had neither constabularynor courts. Moreover, the representatives to the Congress wereto be chosen by or under the direction of the state legislatures.Each state was to have only onevote in the Congress, though astate might have from two toseven delegates. Care was takenthat the members of Congress didnot gain personal power. This wasguarded against by havingmembers subject to recall by the statesat any time and prohibiting thatany person serve more than threeyears in any six year period. Thepicture that emerges from this isof the states resolutely clinging totheir power.

With the above restrictions upon it, Congress was ostensiblygranted extensive authority. Itwas empowered to make war andpeace, send and receive ambassadors and ministers, emit bills ofcredit, borrow money, make treaties. and alliances, establish a postoffice, settle various kinds of disputes arising among the states,appoint high ranking military andall naval officers, :fix the' value ofcoins, regulate weights and measures, and. manage Indian affairswhere a state was not directlyinvolved. Further to cement theunion, the Articles provided that


each state was to give full faithand credit to the acts of the others and that citizens of any statecould naove frona state to state.

The Articles also limited statepower in a variety of ways. Stateswere prohibited to carryon diplonaatic relations with other countries or enter into treaties or alliances with them without the consent of Congress. Ina similarfashion, states were forbidden toform alliances or confederationswith one another. States were limited in the military or naval forcesthey could have and restricted intheir war-making powers to defensive action.

Although the Articles of Confederation were soon to be adjudged inadequate to the needs ofunion - and a further critique ofthem is made in a subsequentchapter -, they are nonethelessimportant for reasons in additionto the fact that they served brieflyas a basis of governing the UnitedStates. First of all, the Articleswere the first United States constitution. They were influential inthe drawing of the Constitution of1787; some of the language wastaken verbatina into the· later document. They provided for a limited government with specifiedpowers, probably the naost inaportant principle of the Constitution.And, the Articles attempted todivide and separate powers anaong

two different levels of government,a principle which the ·biter document incorporated much naore effectively. The Articles of Confederation signify the triumph oflimited constitutional governmentin America,even though they werea. groping toward and a demonstrably insufficient realization ofit.

The Treaty of Paris, J783

The greatest achievement underthe Articles of Confederation wasthe Treaty of Paris of 1783. Byits terms the thirteen states notonly attained their independencebut also acquired an empire beyond the mountains. The acquisition of this vast domain was probably the greatest diplomatictriumph in American history.That a people who had won sofew battles, who had such a weakcentral government, who had never managed to bring naany oftheir resources to bear in theprosecution of the war effort, whowere so dependent on the aid ofother countries, should have suchsuccess at the peace table requiresa little explanation.

The American success washelped by the precarious situation of the English. Britainwanted an end to the war, buther leaders were eager to preventgains by European powers. LordNorth's governnaent fell in early


1782 in the most humiliating manner. A motion carried to make ita crime to advance the notion thatthe colonies could be restored bywar. Lord North was replaced bythe Earl of Rockingham, "the oldWhig and repealer of the StampAct," who "was recalled to presideover a government committed tothe abandonment of the formerAmerican colonies in revolt andto the liquidation of the world warin progress."5 He died shortly, andwas replaced by Lord Shelburnewho was, if anything, more favorably disposed -to the Americansthan Rockingham.

France had already renouncedany claim to any territory on thecontinent of North America in theFranco-American Alliance of 1778.Even so, France was not eager tosee Canada become a part of theUnited States. Moreover, Francewas allied with Spain and was, inthis way, entangled with Spanishterritorial ambitions. As if thiswere not enough, Congress instructed its peace commission tofollow the guidance of the Frenchin the treaty making.

It was left to the peace commission either to utilize to Americanadvantage the animosities, jealousies, and rivalries of Europeanpowers or to have American ambitions subordinated to them. Itwas in the hands, then, of Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and

John Adams. A hostess thinkingin terms of compatible guestsprobably would not have invitedthese three at the same time. Jayand Adams could get along wellenough together. Both men weredistrustful of European diplomats; they considered them corrupt and devious. Jay's recentexperiences in Spain had fortifiedhim in this opinion. John Adamswas a Yankee - an Americ~n-,

and proud of it. Truly one of thegreat men among the Founders,Adams' greatness was circumscribed by a temperament whichtended to alienate others and aphysique more suited to a mortician than a statesman. It washis fate to labor ever in the shadeof men whose most lauded attainments he would hardly have considered· worthy of his best efforts.He lacked Franklin's resiliency,Washington's commanding presence, Hamilton's dynamic drive,and Jefferson's knack for illuminating philosophical p<?sitions withunforgettable prose. Yet, greatman he was, his constancy to theAmerican cause was as enduringas Washington's, and his sacrifices for it were rarely exceeded.What he lacked as a diplomat hemade up for with his commitmentto his country. Benjamin Franklinwas - well, Benjamin Franklin:diplomat par excellence, homelyeconomist, scientist and inventor,


and international bon vivant. Agood diplomat is one who yieldseverything to the other party except the substance for which theyare contending. For much of hislife Franklin had devoted himselfto the austere task of learning toget his way by subterfuge. Hisyears in Paris were a fitting epitome to a long life. These threematched and overmatched the bestEurope could send against them.

Even before negotiations gotunder way, informal French andSpanish proposals had beenbrought to Jay's attention whichwould have turned the territorysouth of the Ohio over to Spainand allowed _B.ritain to keep theterritory north of the Ohio. "Ifthis French proposal, which sopleased the Spaniards, had beenadopted, the United States wouldnot have secured from Great Britain title to the region now composing the present states of Ohio,Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and wouldhave lost to Spain the westernpart of Kentucky and Tennessee,Mississippi, and part of Louisiana,along with most of Alabama."6 Inview of the fact that Spain wantedGibraltar from Britain and Britain wanted to hold on to Florida,the above dispositions might havebeen made if all interested·partieshad gathered around a table tonegotiate or if France had been

allowed the role of arbitrator.This did not happen. The Amer

icans ignored the instructions ofCongress to defer to France, negotiated a settlement with Britain,and saw to it that this settlementwas subsequently made a part ofthe overall treaty. They werefaithful to the terms of alliancewith France, for this was not aseparate peace, but they undoubtedly exceeded the bounds Congresshad set for them.

In the treaty, the United Statesgot all the territory west to theMississippi river, south to the31st parallel, and north to a linebisecting the Great Lakes, orsouth of Ca"nada. The British alsoconceded that the people of theUnited States could use the NorthAtlantic fisheries. The independence of the states was affirmed,hostilities were to cease, and Britain agreed to remove .her armedforces from the United States"with all convenient speed."

There were some concessionsmade by the United States. Bothsides agreed that creditors of either country should have no obstacles put in the way of collectingdebts owed them by citizens of theother. Most of the creditors involved were British. Congress wasto recommend to the states thatthe rights and property of Loyalists be restored, and the treatyprovided that the persecution of


Loyalists should end. Britain andthe United States agreed to thefree navigation of the Mississippi,but Spain, the other country withterritory on it, did not join in theagreement.

The Treaty of Paris was trulyan American triumph. GeorgeWashington described its portentin these words: "The citizens ofAmerica, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole lordsand proprietors of a vast tract ofcontinent,comprehending all thevarious soils and climates of theworld, and abounding with all thenecessaries and conveniences oflife, are now, by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledgedto be possessed of absolute freedom and independence."7 Somedecades ago, an American historian declared: "On the part of theAmericans the treaty of Paris wasone of the most brilliant triumphsin the whole history of moderndiplomacy."8 A more recent diplomatic historian has seconded thisopinion: "The greatest victory inthe annals of American diplomacywas won at the outset by Franklin, Jay, and Adams."9

Disbanding the Troops

The greatest triumph of all,however, requires an appreciationof what might have been but wasnot to stand out in relief. Themost critical moment for the suc-

cess of the American Revolutionalmost certainly came in 1783. Itwas at about the time of the British withdrawal of forces from theeast coast. The Continental army,what remained of it in campsalong with what might have beensummoned again into service, wasnow the only considerable force inthe United States. This was themoment for~a military coup' d'eta,t,if there was to be one, the momentwhen the American Revolutionmight have followed the course ofso many others. Nor was the provocation lacking.. The military hadbeen sorely neglected during thelong years of war. Now that thevictory had been won, the armywas invited to disband and itsmembers return home without being paid what had so long beenpromised.

George Washington was almostcertainly the key to what wouldand did happen at this criticaljuncture. His prestige had grownduring the years of his command,until at the end of the war he wasthe pre-eminent American. Hiscritics had harmed only themselves; they were chipping atgranite with teaspoons. He wasapproached more than once withthe idea, that he take over thecountry. There is no evidence thathe ever seriously contemplatedsuch a course. On the contrary,he rebuked those who hinted at


such things, and persisted in doing his duty as he saw it. Hisduty as he saw it was, havingfinished his military task to laydown his sword, following thepath he had ever trod of subordination to the civil authorities, andreturn to his peaceful pursuits atMount Vernon. His every utterance confirmed, too, that in thiscase duty was happily joined tohis heart's desire, for he longedfor the leisure to pursue. his private affairs. Moreover, the manner in which he conducted himselfin his resignation and retirementshould leave no reasonable doubtas to his sincerity. A little retelling of some of the events of hislast months of service will underscore the point.

Two events of early 1783 indicate that there was danger of amilitary revolt. The first of theseis the one known as the NewburghAddress, which was a letter sentaround to Washington's officersexhorting them to take mattersinto their own hitnds to get whatthey thought they I deserved. Washington ordered his officers assembled and to be presided over byGeneral Horatio Gates who, it isbelieved, had a hand in the Address. When they were assembled,Washington ~ame into the roomand asked to be allowed to say afew words to them. He told themthat he knew well how much they

had suffered and could sympathizewith their wish to be rewarded.But he bade them to keep theirfaith in and with Congress. Hehad with him a letter from a member of Congress which he thoughtmight help to restore their faithif he read from it. But when heopened it up to read, he had difficulty making out some of thewords. He took out his eyeglassesand put them on - he had notworn them in public before -, andlooking up from the letter, hesaid: "I have grown gray in yourservice,' and now find myself growing blind." It is said that the eyesof those gathered round filled withtears, for they knew how sturdilyhe had borne so much for so manyyears. It was hardly necessary forhim to finish what he had to say.Once Washington withdrew, theofficers adopted a resolution affirming their confidence in Congress and declared that they rejected "with disdain the infamousproposals contained in a late anonymous address to them."lO Ofless potential for mischief was anevent in June, though it does showwhat might have been. Fewer thana hundred soldiers of the· Pennsylvania Line regiment descended onCongress at Philadelpnia andthreatened them in such a waythat Congress retired to hold itsdelibe·rations at Princeton. Washington sent troops to put down this


little uprising in Pennsylvania.The last major contingent of

British forces departed from NewYork City in early December of1783. Just prior to their takingleave the Continental troops movedinto the city to see that everythingwent off in an orderly way. It wasan occasion for great rejoicing asthe Continentals marched in, forthe British had occupied the cityfor more than seven years. A spectator wrote: "We had been accustomed for a long time to militarydisplay in all the finish and fineryof garrison life; the troops justleaving us were as if equipped forshow, and with their scarlet uniforms and burnished arms, madea brilliant display; the troops thatmarched in, on the contrary, wereill-clad and weather beaten, andmade a forlo~n appearance; butthen they were our troops, and asI looked at them and thought uponall they had done and suffered forus, my heart and eyes were full,and I admired and gloried in themthe more, because they wereweather beaten and forlorn."ll

The time had at last come forGeorge Washington to take leaveof the army he had served foreight and a half years. He notifiedthe officers that he would bid themfarewell at Fraunces' Tavern atnoon of the day of departure. Allwho could make it gathered there.It was a moving occasion. Wash-

ington was so filled with emotionthat he could hardly speak. "Witha heart full of love and gratitude,"he said, "I now take my leave ofyou. I most devoutly wish thatyour later days may be as prosperous and happy as your former oneshave been glorious and honorable."So saying, he asked that each ofthem would come by to shake hishand, since he feared he wouldnot be able to make it around tothem. General Henry Knox, whohad served him faithfully for somany years, came fir~t; Washington was so overcome that a· handshake would not do. He embracedhim as both of them wept. "Oncedone, this had of course to be donewith all from Steuben to theyoungest officer. With streamingeyes, they came to him, receivedthe embrace, and passed on."12

Washington hoped to make ithome to Virginia by Christmaswhen he set out from New York.But there were many festive occasions to be attended along theway, and he had business to dofirst. He journeyed to Philadelphiato turn in his accounts. Then hewent on to Annapolis to resign hiscommission before Congress.

This he did just after twelveo'clock on December 23rd. Thegalleries were packed for the occasion, though many members ofCongress were ahsent at this time.As the ceremony began, Washing-


ton's biographer says that "a hushof high expectance prevailed."Washington began his address:"Mr. President: The great eventson which my resignation dependedhaving at length taken place ; Ihave now the honor of offeringmy sincere Congratulations toCongress and of presenting myself before them to surrender intotheir hands the trust committedto me, and to claim the indulgenceof retiring from the service of mycountry."13

It was a solemn and affecting spectacle.... The spectators all wept, andthere was hardly a member of Congress who did not drop tears. TheGeneral's hand which held the address shook as he read it. When hespoke of the officers who had composed his family, and recommendedthose who had continued in it to thepresent moment to the favorable notice of Congress he was obliged tosupport the paper with both hands.But when he commended the interests of his dearest country to almighty God ... his voice faltered andsunk, and the whole house felt hisagitations.

When Washington regained hiscomposure, he concluded strongly:

Having now finished the work assigned me I retire from the greattheatre of action, and bidding anaffectionate farewell to this august

body under whose orders I have solong acted I here offer my commission and take my leave of all theemployments of public life.14

As soon as the ceremony wasover, Washington set out forMount Vernon, and by hard riding was able to make it home tospend Christmas day with hiswife and grandchildren. TheAmerican Cincinnatus had returned to his plow. ~

• FOOTNOTES •1 Jack P. Greene, ed., Colonies to Na

tion (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967), p.443.

2 Howard H. Peckham, The War forIndependence (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1958), pp. 109-10.

3 Quoted in Merrill Jensen, The NewNation (New York: Vintage Books,1950), pp. 26-27.

4 John Fiske, The Critical Period ofAmerican History (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), p. 91.

5 Dan Lacy, The Meaning of the American Revolution (New York: New American Library, 1964), p. 191.

6 Samuel F. Bemis, The Diplomacy ofthe American Revolution (Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1957), p. 219.

7 Greene,op. cit., p. 437.8 Fiske, op. cit., p. 34.9 Bemis, op. cit., p. 256.10 Fiske, op. cit., p. 111.11 Quoted in Douglas S. Freeman,

Washington, abridged by Richard Harwell (New York: Scribner's, 1968), p. 506.

12 Ibid., p. 507.13 Ibid., p. 509.14 Quoted in Samuel E. Morison, The

Oxford History of the American People(New York: Oxford University Press,1965), p. 269.

Next:· Freeing the Individual.

JAMES WEI

James Wei assumed The Allan P. Colburn Chairof Chemical Engineering at Delaware in 1971,following a distinguished career in industry. Hereceived the B.S. from Georgia Tech and theM.S. and Ph.D. at MIT. At Mobil Oil, he advanced from Research Chemical Engineer toSenior Scientist and concurrently held VisitingProfessorships at Princeton and Cal Tech. Uponcompletion of Harvard's Advanced ManagementProgram in 1969 he returned to Mobil as Manager of Analysis. Prof. Wei received the ACSAward in Petroleum Chemistry in 1966 andthe AIChE Professional Progress Award. He isa consulting editor for McGraw Hill and a member of CHEMTECH's Executive Board. Prof.Wei is best known for his work in kinetics,catalysis, and mathematical analysis, but hisrecent attention has been focused on creating achemical engineering courSe for freshmen.

This article is slightly condensed and reprinted by permission from the March 1972 issue ofChemical TechnoloAJ'.

ENERGY:THE CIVILIZATION and way of lifewe know are supported by a steadysupply of low cost raw materialsdrawn from farms and forests,from the mines and wells, andfrom the air and water. In historywhen the supply of a raw materialruns low and when there is no substitute in sight, people wonderwhether civilization can survive.William Crooks observed in 1898that intensive farming dependedon the nitrate mines in Chile, andtheir eventual exhaustion wouldbring world wide famine.1 This didnot take place as the great chemist, Haber, and the chemical engineer, Bosch, rose to the challengeand solved the problem of nitrogenfixation via ammonia synthesisfrom air and water.

As the skills of chemists andchemical engineers gradually increase, almost any natural rawmaterial can be synthesized or replaced. Outside of hydrogen, thechemical elements are hardly ever

the Ultimate RawMaterial__

lost from planet earth.2 There isno such thing as "nonrenewableminerals" even though -rich deposits are exhaustible. Everythingthat is "used up" is still with us,but in altered and diluted form.In this closed system of earth, wecan and will recycle everything.Given enough energy, or thermodynamic free energy, we can separate and· concentrate any materials and recombine them chemically to form synthetic raw material.

All of the precious material contained in the refuse. of our civilization collects on our lands,floats in our air, or runs off intothe oceans. They can all be recovered with sufficient expenditure ofenergy. From the ocean we are already recovering freshwater, magnesiurn, bromine - it would beeven easier if we could develop· organisms that concentrate some elements. Thus we realize that energy is the ultimate raw material

which can be used to make food,water, other raw material- aswell· as warming and cooling ourhomes and operating all our machinery.

Energy Uses in'the Pas,t

The United States has alwaysbeen blessed with an abundance ofcheap energy to augment humanand animal muscle: from the swiftflowing rivers providing waterpower, and great forests providing fire wood, down to the moderncoal mines and oil gas fields. Today, this underpinning of our entire economy and way of life consumes only 3 per cent of our grossnational product. Energy costforms only 31j2 per cent of the costof average industrial products,ranging from 8 per cent for chemicals to 0.3 per cent for apparelmanufacturing.3 The consumercost of energy can be divided intothree shares: production cost under the supervision of engineers,


transportation and distributioncosts under the supervision ofmarketers, and federal and localtaxes. Table 1 gives the approximate current prices. Only a smallpart of the cost of refined fuel isin the province of engineers.4 ,5,6

Table 1. Current energy costsProduction Consumer

cost cost

Gasoline, regular 12 36¢/gallon

Natural gas 16 148¢/thousand cu ft

Fuel oil, No.2 11 20¢/gallon

Electricity 0.7 2.8¢/kWh

Consumer cost = production cost + distribution and transportation cost + federal and localtax.

VVe use a great deal of energybecause it is very cheap. Our taxlaws are already designed to makeenergy more expensive. For instance, automotive transportationrequires three ingredients: vehicle,fuel, and road. The last item belongs to the public sector and isfinanced mostly from taxes collected from fuel. The excise and salestax on a vehicle is less than 10per cent of the manufactured cost,but on gasoline it equals manufactured cost.7 Despite this fact, thec~pital and maintenance cost of apiece of energy-using equipmentis usually 15 to 20 times the annualcost of fuel, for automobiles,air conditioners, and electric power plants.5, 7 As long as fuel is

cheap and equipment dear, weburn fuel up prodigiously. VVhenprices go up, we complain but goon burning without a pause. Pastinvestment in equipment is veryexpensive and cannot be changedreadily. VVhen copper is expensive,we can shift to aluminum; whenbutlers are too expensive wephase them out; but when energyis more expensive, we have neitheralternative nor can we do without.If it were not for the fact thatengineers continue to improveequipment to save fuel, our use ofenergy would be even more prodigious. For instance, in 1925 it took25,000 Btu to make a kVVh of electricity but today it takes only9,000 Btu.8

Historically, the principal determinants of energy use havebeen number of people and scale ofaffluence.9 Figure 1 shows the percapita gross national product ofvarious nations against per capitaenergy use in 1961.10 It can passas a fairly straight line, the richerone is, the more energy he burnsup. If you look at such curveslong enough, you can begin to seean S-curve. As you get richer youwill buy more information andservice, which require less energy than hardware. U.S. commercial energy use is about 120 timesthe human intake of food energy;while in India it is about 3 times- for all manufacturing, farming,

19'72

200

::I 150~

CCI....cenc

:=! 100ea...os.eau-CD=->- 50en-CDC.....

ENERGY: THE ULTIMATE RAW MATERIAL

1000 2000Gross national productper capita (dollars)

Figure 1. Nations GNP and energy use, 1961

489

3000

and transport. Figure 2 shows thehistorical U.S. GNP growth inconstant 1958 dollars (where theeffect of inflation is taken out)and energy consumption in Quads(a Quad is a quadrillion Btu, or amillion times a billion BtU).l1 Itappears that of late, energygrowth lags a little behind GNPgrowth. An increase inafHuencewithout corresponding increase in

energy use has never beenachieved in the past and is difficultto see in the future.

There may be frivolous uses ofenergy, such as the electric toothbrush; but the bulk is necessaryto our way of life: home firesshould be kept warm, people haveto get to werk, f00d must be delivered, and the wheels of industryhave to turn. The pattern of


sources and uses of energy today,together with a government forecast for the year 2000, is given inTable 2.12 Oil and gas have been

Table 2. U.S. sources and uses ofenergy as % of total

Projected1970 2000

SOURCESOil 43 32Gas 31 26Coal 21 16Hydro 4 3Nuclear 1 23

USESResidence-

commerce 22 13Transportation 25 13Industry 31 20Electricity

generation 22 44

capturing markets steadily fromcoal for the last thirty years, sincethey are cleaner, more convenientand cheaper. Nuclear power willrise to capture markets from oiland gas in the future. In the useside, electricity generation hasbeen the fastest growing segmentand will continue to be.

The Two New Crises

In recent years, the e~ergy usesuddenly faces two new crises:shortage and environment. Hardlya day goes by without a black eyefor energy in the mass media:Delmarva Power and Light refusing new customers in natural gas,a blackout in the eastern seaboard,birds dying in oil spilled at SantaBarbara, opposition to strip mining in West Virginia, scientists pre-

dieting that the polar ice cap willmelt and flood coastal cities due toaccumulation of carbon dioxide inair, scientists predicting combustion dusts will block out sun lightand cause a new ice age, and aWall Street Journal article declaring that planet Earth is approaching an· energy ceiling .13,14

A year ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan asked, "When would this insane increase in energy use stop?"It may seem that the only way outis to use less energy in the future,save the irreplaceable resourcesfor our grandchildren, and repairthe damaged environment.

I would like to advance thethesis that there is no inevitablecollision course between more energy use and better environment:a cleaner environment would meanmuch more use of energy. Themain flaw of ecologists prophesying doom is their failure to appreciate the ingenuity of scientistsand engineers in inventing technological alternatives.

A cleaner automobile meansmore use· of fuel, to produce hotter'and cleaner exhaust and to overcome pressure drop in afterburners. Taking lead out of gasolinewould mean a lower compressionratio and less efficient engine,which means more fuel. Cleanersmoke stacks in power plants meaneither cleaner fuel by more refining of oil and coal, or stack gas

1972 ENERGY: THE ULTIMATE RAW MATERIAL 491

1400 140

1200 120c:a 1000 100Lnen~ =0- 800 80

...,..... co0 cen 600 60 ~=.S! ...

"Ccam 400 40 =d

200 20

0 01920 1940 1960 1980

Figure 2. U.S. energy use and gross national product

scrubbing and dust removal, allrequiring more energy. The Biological Oxygen Demand of wastedischarged into rivers and lakesby residential-industrial-agricultural activities would require moresewage treatment and passage ofmore oxygen into water, whichmeans more energy. The recyclingof solid wastes means more energyuse. Provided that society willface the facts and give engineersthe resources and time, all thepollutants can be reduced to anyrequired level by sufficient expenditure of energy - and a necessaryincrease in prices, which will decline as experience grows.

At the end, energy is used toremove all other pollutants and a

vast quantity of waste heat becomes the ultimate pollutant. Sofar, this is a local dispersal problem rather than a global problem.The fishes are hot in the outlet ofa power plant, and New York Cityis three degrees hotter than thecountryside in the winter. But theman-made waste heat rejection iscurrently only 50 ppm of theearth's heat budget, or the quantity of solar radiation that theearth receives and sends back intospace.15

The supply of some forms ofenergy is short and prices are increasing. The oil price increase isdue to the demands of oil export-_ing countries in the Middle East,Libya, and Venezuela, plus a short-


age of tankers; the natural gasshortage is due to industry's unwillingness to explore and to laypipelines under the low existinggovernmeJt regulated prices; thecoal shortage is due to earlier forecasts of its demise, and consequentunderinvestment in opening newmines and manufacturing railwayhopper cars; the nuclear powershortage is due to unforeseen difficulties in construction. All of theseare short-term problems, many dueto past underinvestment in research and development and plants,that can be solved later.

The costs of mining and extraction of a fuel is divided into twoparts: the technology cost andrent.16 The technology costs aremanaged by the geologists and engineers in exploration and drillingholes - these costs reflect thebounty of earth and our presentstate of technology, and cannot bechanged except by innovations intechnology or by new discoveries.The rent cost includes royalty andbonuses to the land owners, production and severance taxes, Federal income taxes, and windfallsfor the lucky wildcatters - thiscost is negotiable and representsthe bargaining position of variousparties and can be changed suddenly. We read that in the PersianGulf, the technology cost of a barrel of oil is only 10 cents, but therent cost is $1.60 and going up.

Despite the engineers' effort to cutcost every year, the rent costs cango up much faster. To affluent nations such as Japan and the U.S.,this cost increase is an unwelcomeburden but, to less developed nations such as India, this cost increase is a serious blow.

The Arabs have more than twothirds of the free world oil; canthey obtain indefinite increases inprices? We know that NorthAmerica contains vast fuel resources in coal, oil shale, and tarsand - many times greater thanall the oil in the Middle East. Laboratory and pilot plant runs showthat they can be turned into oiland gas. Given enough money andtime to do research and development, chemists and engineers willfind out how this could be done ingreat scales economically, andwithout damage to environment.Present guesses on synthetic crudeoil prices are in the range of $4-$6a barrel from these solid fuels,while small projects such as theSun Oil process in tar sand in Alberta is almost competitive atpresent prices.17 These vast resources can form a price ceilingon oil and other energy sources formany years to come. The publicand our government need to learnthe facts, debate the issues, andpass rules on their exploitation.We do not yet know how to do themining-extracting-refining in the


ogenic cables that are super-conducting. I am afraid that after theengineers have d~ne their jobs welland ·technology costs are cut, thedominant cost in electricity transmission will turn out to he a rentcost again, paid to land owners toacquire the right of way.

Radiation hazards 'in nuclearplants can be minimized to anydesired level by spending moremoney. The final' radioactive hotwastes are· being stored in cavesnow. Eventually, they will be disposed of by some other means,such as being sent into the sun byrockets. The sun is exceedinglyradioactive now - a little bit morewon't hurt. It can be our ultimategarbalge dump.1s

When it comes to transportation, oil is the dominant fuel. Outside of a few electric trains andbicycles, almost everything elsemoves by oil on the land, in thesea, or in the air. Its dominance isdue to its ease in use as a liquid,as well as high power density andlow cost. Nature appears to havearrived at the same solution fortransportation fuel much earlier.When nature prepares somethingfor a long journey, such as awalnut for dispersion, a cocoanut forocean voyage, a salmon travelingupstream to spawn, or a goose migrating to South America, thebody carbohydrates are convertedinto lipid or fat. 19 These fats dif-

0.69

0.46

$4/barrel

$10/ton

Electricity

Gasoline

No.6 fuel oil(1% S)

Bituminous coal

No.6 fuel oil(High S) $2.50/barrel 0.43

Natural gas 40¢/thousand CF 0.40

East Coast wholesale, without tax

The approximate current wholesale prices of the more importantfuels are shown in Table 3.4 Theclean and convenient natural gasseems underpriced in this table.Lower sulfur fuel oils are naturally more expensive than high sulfur fuel oils. Electricity is thecleanest to the consumer, totallyavailable to do useful work, andthe most expensive.

Future Energy Uses

The large-scale generation ofelectricity at remotely located nuclear plants and the burning ofcoal at the mine mouth would remove much danger and pollutionfrom population centers. (Distancecertainly lends enchantment here.)The increased cost of electricitytransmission could be decreasedby new developments, such as cry-

most economical manner, and without damage to the environment. Ifengineers are given the job andthe resources, they will rise to theoccasion.

Table 3. Fuel prices

Equivalent costUnit cost $/million Btu

O.B¢/kWh 2.34

12¢/gallon 1.00


vice, but rather low in capacity.The flywheel was tried in buses inSwitzerland and is capable of tremendous improvements. One canconceive of a rotor with an exceedingly high speed of revolution,kept inside a high vacuum to minimize friction, and made of composite material of carbon filamentsin epoxy resin to withstand thetremendous centrifugal forces.

There is a great technologicalinnovation on the way that cangreatly influence the future pattern of population distributionand transportation needs: the videophone. People live in great metropolitan regions for the ease ofcontacting many other people andto use common facilities. Thesegreat concentrations lead to crowded cities and tremendous transportation problems. With a technically advanced videophone, one canhave vivid and direct communications without leaving his home.Managers and white-collar workers, scientists and artists can liveanywhere they choose and do alltheir work at home and by videophone; housewives can shop byvideophone; students can talk totheir professors by videophone.There is no need for people to gettogether except when they wantto have fun together. People wouldonly travel for pleasure then. Thiscould result in a great dispersionof people back to the countryside.

3852008540

1

Chemicalenergykcal/g

11.09.35.24.84.14.1

Table 4. Energy density in storage

Electricmechanical

energy watthr/lb (20%

heatefficiency)

1,150

550510

GasolineLipid

MethanolAmmonia

CarbohydrateProtein

Sodium-sulfurbatteryConceptual super flywheelLead acid batterySuper fly wheelRubber band

For intercity traffic on land, andfor long distance travel in the airor in the seas, it is difficult to seehow oil can be replaced. For center city stop-and-go traffic, itwould be well to switch to vehicleswith stored energy that is lessheat generating. The rubber bandis an obvious energy storage de-

fer from petroleum only by thepresence of a little oxygen. In fact,some geochemists believe that petroleum originates in animal fatburied in the rocks for eons, andthat the oxygen is removed by catalytic action of bacteria or of clay.Table 4 gives the comparative power density of a number of fuelsand batteries.7 It may be a bit unfair to compare gasoline to a battery in power density, since thebattery carries both fuel and oxidizer, but the oxidizer of gasolineis ubiquitous air that is alwaysavailable except in space and under water.


Future Supply of Energy

The recoverable resources ofenergy in the world are quitelarge. The solid fuels are muchgreater in quantity than the liquidand gaseous petroleums, based ona study by Hubbert.2o We knowthey are available, but we do notyet have the technology or agreedupon ground rules for their exploitation. Before these tremendous resources can .be touched,there must be research and development, environmental regulations,and ownership and profit rules established.

For the nuclear fuels, a dependence on uranium oxide· oresof $10/lb would mean a ratherlimited future in comparison withcoal. There may be much moreuraniurn to be discovered. If weare willing to pay more, we canuse a great deal of low gradeuranium. Future energy supplieswill be pJentifulbut not necessarily cheap.

The truly overwhelming solarenergy is the ultimate energysource when all else is gone. Thisprognostication was recently. enunciated by Gaucher,21 and Glaser22

has proposed a conceptual· schemefor using solar energy. He envisioned synchronous satellites thatconstantly hover overhead at orbits 22,000 miles away, with solarcells 25 square miles in area. Theelectricity collected from the sun

is beamed to earth at a safe intensity on microwave and collectedon giant antennas. This is available night and day, and goesthrough mist and driving rainwith less than 5 per cent absorption loss. This idea is not far fromtoday's technological capabilities.

For a trial balance, let the worldenergy demand increase by 4 percent a year, compounded, based onmodest population-GNP growth.With fossil fuel alone, we may bein trouble after 2050; addingcheap uranium, we are in troubleafter 2070. After 2100, man-madeenergy release is 1 per cent of natural solar influx and the wasteheat disposal problems have to besolved.

Summary

There is no inevitable collisioncourse between high energy useand good environment. The publicshould be informed that there aretechnological alternatives. We readthat after 150 years of fog,whensulfur-containing coal is replacedby clean natural gas, winter sunshine is returning to London.

Scientists and engineers cansolve nearly' all environmentalproblems when they are given thetask, the resources and the time.Any combustion waste can becleaned up; radioactive wastes canbe sent into the sun; phosphatescan be removed by tertiary sewage


treatments; hot fishes near powerplants can be saved by dry aircooling towers; solid wastes canbe reduced to ashes, and the remains recovered and recycled.Many of these solutions are withintoday's technological capabilities.Weare only holding back to seewhich is the best solution, and whoshould pay, before vast investmentprograms begin. Even the wasteheat disposal problem for earthmay eventually succumb to the ingenuities of our scientists and engineers, just as the spectre ofworld famine forecast by WilliamCrooks was dispelled by Haber andBosch.

All of this may not be cheap,and the cost of using energy mayhave to go up. But let us tell everyone that a clean and adequate energy supply can be managed if wegive chemists and chemical engineers a chance. But w~ must planahead. ~

- Footnotes -1 Kobe, K. A., Inorganic Process Indus

tries (Macmillan, New York, N.Y., 1948),p.230.

2 Jeans, James The Dynamical Theoryof Gases (Dover, New York, N.Y.), 1954,p.342.

3 Leontief, W. W., "The Structure ofthe U.S. Economy," Sci. Amer., p. 25,April 1965.

4 Oil Gas J., p. 100, March 1, 1971;Energy News, 1 (10), March 15, 1971.

5 Elec. World, March 15, 1971.6 My utility bill at Princeton, N.J.7 The Autqmobile and Air Pollution, a

report of the Panel on Electrically Powered Vehicles, U.S. Department of Com-

merce, Oct. 1967, pp. 49-99.8 Schurr, S. H., and Netschert, B. C.,

Energy in the American Economy 18501975 (Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore,Md., 1960) , p. 728.

9 Landsberg, H. H., and Schurr, S. H.,Energy in the United States (RandomHouse, New York, N.Y., 1968).

10 Singer, S. F., "Human Energy Production as a Process in the Biosphere,"Sci. Amer., p. 175, September 1970.

11 Dole, H. M., American's EnergyNeeds and Resources, speech by the Assistant Secretary of Interior at StanfordUniversity, January 12, 1971.

12 Mills, G. A., Johnson, H. R., andPerry, H., "Fuels Management in an Environmental Age," Environ. Sci. Technol., p. 30, January 1971.

13 Ehrlich, P. R., and Ehrlich, A. H.,Population, Resources, Environment (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif., 1970) ,Chap. 4 and 6.

14 Welles, J. G., "Will the Earth Reachan Energy Ceiling 1" Wall Street Journal, January 6, 1971.

15 Landsberg, H. E., "Manmade Climatic Changes," Science, 170, 1265,(1970); Environmental Quality, a reportby the Council on Environmental Quality, August 1970, Chap. V.

16 Adelman, M., "The World Oil Outlook" in Natural Resources and International Development (Johns HopkinsPress, Baltimore, Md., 1964).

17 Strom, A. H., and Eddinger, R. T.,Chem. Eng. Progr. 67 (3), (1971).

18 Gordon, T. J., remark at a conference at the Institute of Man and Science,Rensselaerville, N.Y., 1969.

19 White, A., Handler, P., and Smith,E. L., Principles of Biochemistry, (McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 1964), p. 282.

20 Hubbert, M. King, "Energy Resources," in Resources and Man, by thecommittee on resources and man, National Academy of Science-National Research Council (Freeman, San Francisco,Calif., 1969).

21 Gaucher, L., Chem. Technol., March1971, 153.

22 Glaser, P., Chem. Technol., October1971, 606.

The Natural History of Governmental InterventionMARY PETERSON persuasively illustrates for seven selectedagencies what might be called the ,natural history of governmental intervention into economic affairs: A real or fanciedevil leads to demands to "do something about it"; a political coalition forms consisting of sincere high-minded reformers and equally sincere interested parties; the incompatible objectives of the members of the coalition (e.g., lowprices to consumers and high prices to producers) areglossed over by fine rhetoric about "the public interest,""fair competition," and the like; the coalition succeeds ingetting Congress (or a state legislature) to pass a law; thepreamble to the law entombs the rhetoric and the body ofthe law grants power to governmental officials to "do something"; the high-minded reformers experience a glow' oftriumph and turn their attention to new causes; the interested parties go to work to make sure that the power is usedfor their benefit and generally succeed; success breeds itsproblems, requiring the scope of intervention to broaden;bureaucracy takes its toll so that even the initial specialinterests no longer benefit; ultimately, the effects are preciselythe opposite of the noble objectives of the high-mindedreformers without achieving the more mundane objectivesofthespecial interests; yetthe activity is sofirmlyestablishedand so many vested interests are connected with it that repeal of the initial legislation .is nearly inconceivable; instead,new governmental legislation is called for to cope with theproblems produced by the old; and a new cycle begins.

From Milton Friedman's Introduction to TheRegulated Consumer by Mary Bennett Peterson (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1971).

ABORT~ON~

a Metaphysical Approach

THOMAS L. JOHNSON

THE ISSUE of abortion has occupied the minds of humans for aslong as civilized society has existed. There have been times whenabortion was legally condoned andsocially accepted, and other periods of mankind's history whenthis practice was outlawed andconsidered to be a criminal act.Today, at a point in time whenthe rights of individuals are beingattacked, ignored or destroyed, weare again witnessing a resurgenceof the debate on abortion, andwithin the past few years, thepassage of laws which remove

Dr.. Johnson is Associate Professor of Biologyand Professor of Chordate Embryology atMary Washington College of the University ofVirginia.

49H

most or all restrictions whichhave, in the previous history ofthis nation, protected the individual rights of the most vulnerable,defenseless and innocent of humanbeings: the unborn child.

The abortion controversy is notjust another dispute causing people to occupy opposing intellectualand legal camps. It is not a subject that can be equated in importance with other national concerns. Abortion is an. issue whichmust be recognized as one of themost, if not the most importantargument of our times, for it dealswith an attack on the fundamentalright of all humans: the right tolife. When this right, upon whichall other rights depend, can be set

1972 ABORTION: A METAPHYSICAL APPROACH 499

aside; when, at the whim of anadult, a new human life can bedestroyed simply because anotherhuman does not wish to allow thislife to continue; when it is decidedthat one stage of human life is ofno real value - that its existenceis an inconvenience to others andcan thus be terminated - mankindloses its most precious value.Once the absolute value of eachindividual to his own life vanishes,existence no longer remains as aright, but becomes a privilege tobe granted or denied by those inauthoritative positions, by majority vote, or by the caprice of anunreasoning mother.

The Nature of Existence

There is but one approach thatcan be taken in dealing with thesubject of abortion - the metaphysical approach. Metaphysics isa branch of philosophy which involves the attempt to understandthe nature of existence, to explainand scientifically analyze naturalphenomena, both in the animateand inanimate realms. Since abortion is dealing with the destruction of the human embryo orfetus, it is necessary to examinethe biological nature of these entities and apply this informationto another division of philosophy-Ethics -in the attempt to determine the correct behavior of mentoward these intrauterine stages.

Among those who advocate abortion, who state that a womanshould be able to terminate apregnancy simply because she desires to do so, there are two significant groups. One group statesthat the entity within the uterinecavity is not a living human being, that the embryo or fetus issimply a cluster of multiplyingcells that could be considered asa part of the mother's body. Theother group considers the embryoor fetus to be human, but arguesthat there is a conflict between therights of the mother and those ofthe unborn child. That the mothermust have full control over herbody, and that if she is denied thisright she will fall victim to therights of the unborn.

The Essentials of Reproduction

Among Vertebrates

What is the actual nature of theintrauterine stages and does areal conflict exist between themother and the unborn? In orderto answer these questions it willbe necessary to briefly analyze theknown essentials of reproduction,particularly those factors whichapply to vertebrates, of which thehuman is the most advanced form,and correlate this knowledge withthe issue of the rights of the embryo or fetus, and the mother.

Sexual reproduction - reproduction accomplished by means of the


production of sperms and eggs,and their subsequent fusion - ischaracteristic of most forms oflife, and is the only method ofreproduction possessed by numerous animal groups (for example,all vertebrates). Once a matureanimal produces the sex cells, theyare released from the organs inwhich they formed (the testis orovary) and usually pass into ductsleading to the outside of the organism. Either the sperms andeggs are released into water, atwhich time fertilization occursimmediately, or sperm cells areintroduced into the female tractand fertilization will eventuallytake place within the body of thefemale. The essential point is, thatat the time of fusion of sex cells,a new generation of a species isproduced.

Within each cell of an animalthere are DWO sets of chromosomes(filaments containing genes).When the sex ceUs are formed,each sperm or egg contains onlyone set of chromosomes, but whena sperm fuses with an egg the fullcomplement of chromosomal pairsis re-established. It is at thispoint, at the time of the formation of the zygote (the cell formedby .the fusion of the sperm andegg) that a new organism comesinto existence.

In human reproduction, thesperm fertilizes the egg in the

upper portion of the oviduct. Anew human life thus begins itsexistence in the cavity of the oviduct, and since it takes severaldays for the new organism toreach the uterus, it is already anembryo by the time it enters thatorgan.

The Point of Separation

One frequently hears the argument that the zygote, embryo orfetus is a part of the mother'sbody over which she must havecontrol. Without question, this isnot the case. Once sperms andeggs are discharged from the sexorgans, they are no longer a partof the organism which producedthem. These highly specializedcells, which have been producedby a special form of cell division(meiosis - other body cells areformed by the process of mitosis),are of no value to the organismwhich formed them (as regardsthe maintenance of its own life)- thus they either degenerate orthey are released from the sexorgans and pas~ into a tube ontheir way out of the body. Ultimately a small fraction of thesediscarded sex cells will fuse. Under no circumstances could oneconsider mature released sex cells,or any subsequent organism resulting from the fusion of thesecells, asa part of the individualwhich generated them.


(Although the human embryoattaches itself to the wall of theuterus in order to gain neededsubstances from the mother forits growth and development, itdoes not fuse with this organ butremains as a distinct new life existing within the cavity of themother's reproductive tract.)

Human life therefore has itsbeginning (is viable) at a point intime when the necessary geneticinformation, half coming from thefather and the other half from themother, is brought together by thefusion of the released sperm andegg to form the single-celled zygote. This individual organismcannot be a part of the mother(it has an entirely different setof chromosomes), but is a separate and unique human life.

All Vertebrate Life Begins in an

Aquatic Environment

There is another important, butgenerally overlooked, .aspect of thedevelopment of vertebrates whichis germane to the discussion ofabortion and which would shedlight on the nature of the intrauterine embryo or fetus. It is awell known biological fact that allvertebrate life must begin in anaquatic environment. Fishes andamphibians generally release thesex cells into a body of water andthe zygotes and embryos developthere. In .the land vertebrates,

which do not deposit their eggsinto water, a sac forms aroundthe embryo which fills with fluid.Consequently, each vertebrate, including the human, must spendthe first developmental phase ofits life in a water medium, andit i.s only after the new organismhas achieved the necessary physical development (not accomplished by fishes and some amphibians), that it is able to continueits life in a gaseous environment.

(Even if humans should achievethe technological ability to raisewhat science fiction writers havecalled "bottle babies," these "bottles" would be filled with fluid. Itis only because the human organism begins its life, not in a glasscontainer· in which one could observe the rapidly changing newlife, but in a dark cavity out ofsight, that older humans find itpossible to pretend that theseyounger humans are not living orare not human. If the growth ofthe unborn child were to be observed by the mother, the issueof abortion would most likelynever have become a matter ofworld-wide concern, for what psychologically healthy mother, seeing the unborn child within herself, would choose to destroy it.)

Metaphysically, by its nature,every new human life must spendthe first months of its existence inan aquatic environment, within


the amniotic sac, if it is ever toexperience a later stage of humanexistence. No human life has everbypassed this requirement, or everwill - at least not for many millions of years, if then, consideringthe present rate of evolution. Every new human life must also havefirst been a zygote, then an embryo and finally a fetus before itis prepared to live outside thefluid medium. To contend that human life is only human at thetime of birth, that the intrauterine entity is not an actual, butonly a potential human being, isuntenable.

If Not a Human Being,Then What Is It?

For those who insist that human life begins only at birth, thequestion that must be asked is:What is this entity developingwithin the uterus if not an actualhuman being? Is it possible thatby some magic, at the time ofbirth, that this alleged potentialbeing is somehow, within a matterof minutes, transformed into anactual human being? To rationalindividuals, in possession of scientific facts, the answer is incontrovertible. Both the unborn childand the new born child is an actualhuman being, and at the time ofbirth, the child is merely movingfrom one required environment(aquatic) to a new required en-

vironment (gaseous) so that itcan continue to develop into thesucceeding stages of its life untilit eventually ends its existence atthe time of death.

The biological facts relating tothe reproductive process and thefirst stages of human life havebeen established. It is now necessary to relate this knowledge tothe issue of rights.

Those that contend that the intrauterine being is not humanhave no problem in their attemptto settle a controversy over rights,f or if this living "thing" is nothuman, it can possess no rights.Since it is a well substantiatedfact that the zygote, embryo orfetus is a human being, their argument becomes meaningless andrequires no further discussion.

Those who contend that a human life is existing within themother during the period of pregnancy do ascribe rights to thisnew human life, but it is arguedthat the rights of the mother takeprecedence over those of the unborn child and thus she- has, orshould have, the legal and moralright to terminate the life of thisnew individual at any, or certainlimited, stages of its existence.This latter position requires asuccinct examination.

A woman must have full controlover her own body at all times.She must be free to take any ac-


tion which is deemed necessaryto sustain her life. For instance,if it can be medically determinedthat carrying her unborn child toterm would probably result in herdeath, she cannot be expected orrequired to sacrifice her adult independent life for the life of animmature, dependent offspring.(Actually, in many such cases,both the mother and the fetuscould die, resulting in the loss oftwo lives, instead of just one.)Since medical science' has advancedto a point at which such life anddeath situations rarely occur, theargument in favor of abortion inorder to preserve the life of themother has only limited application. Although this is the case,the legal code should specificallygrant abortion if the mother's lifeis seriously jeopardized, which ithas done throughout the historyof this nation.

Mitigating Circumstances

Are there other circumstancesthat might arise which would, orcould, legally and morally permitan expectant mother to undergoan abortion? The answer is yesin cases of legally proven (whichis sometimes difficult), unwillfullyengaged in acts of rape or incest.When an individual does not commit an act of his own free will, he(or she) cannot be held responsible for the consequences of this

act. Although this is true, it doesnot alter the fact that a new lifeis existing and that it will bedestroyed if aborted. The most humane response to such a circumstance would be to encourage theexpectant mother to carry thechild to term, but no one couldrequire this of the victim.

There are' some who insist thatabortion should be allowed forother medical reasons - in the caseof diseased or malformed fetuses.But what individual physician, orboard of physicians, or legislativebody has the ability to determinewhat diseased condition or whatdeformity could warrant killingthe unborn (or the born)? Nosuch judgment is possible, eitherfor the intrauterine or extrauterine human.

"Handbook on Abortion"

Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Willke, intheir recently released book, Handbook On Abortion, emphasize thispoint when they write: "This pricetag of comfort or utilitarian usefulness, called euthanasia whenapplied to incurably ill post-bornhumans, applies equally well tothe pre-born human who is alsojudged to be so deformed or mentally deficient that he too shouldnot be permitted to live. This criterion and value judgment whichpermits humans to continue tolive only because they are useful


and independent is an utterly barbaric concept. Once life has aprice tag on it and is no longeran absolute right, then all life isendangered, all life is only worththe current price tag placed uponit by society, the state, the masterrace, or those in positions ofpower."!

Having full control over herown body (having self-determination) is an absolute right of eachwoman, but having full controlover another's body, over the bodyof a new life developing withinher reproductive system is not,and never could be her prerogative. A woman must have the rightto prevent conception - to determine herself if she wishes to have,or not have, a child - to obtaincontraceptive information and materials - but she must also bearthe responsibility for sustainingthe life of a newly formed humanif she willfully engages in intercourse which results in pregnancy.

(It should be noted that certaincontraceptives do not prevent conception, but preclude the implantation of the embryo in the wall ofthe uterus. The use of such contraceptives should be condemned, for

1 Handbook On Abortion is a well reasoned and scientifically accurate workcovering all of the primary and secondaryissues concerning abortion. It is availablein paperback for $.95, plus postage, fromHiltz Publishing Co., 6304 Hamilton Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45224.

they bring about the destructionof very young lives rather thanprevent their coming into existence.)

A Collectivist View: TheIndividual Is Expendable

Consider the political philosophy, and the attitude toward individual rights, of those groupswhich are the most outspoken supporters of abortion - those concerned with environmental pollution, the population explosion andthe "liberation" of women. Eachof these groups espouses a collectivist view of life and considersthe individual human to be expendable or enslavable as themeans of achieving their ends.They are outspoken lobbyists backing legislation granting the agency of force, the government, theauthority to establish a myriad ofprograms which they considernecessary to achieve their aims,and they completely ignore thefact that it is other human livesthat will be sacrificed in this attempt to carry out their masterplan for society. The sacrifice ofthe unborn is just one other aspectof their social engineering whichis completely compatible with theirview of man - the view that theindividual is nothing; the collective is all.

There is no conflict of rightsbetween the expectant mother and


the unborn child. Both she and thenew life within her have the rightto life, a right which must be possessed by all humans at all stagesof their life. And since it is thefunction of government to protectthe rights of all humans, from thebeginning of life to its end, it isright for the government to proscribe the killing of the unborn bymeans of abortion - except to savethe life of the mother or in instances where a woman's self-determination was obliterated, as inthe case of forced rape or incest.

In her brilliant essay, "Man'sRights," Ayn Rand states: "There

are no 'rights' of special groups,there are no 'rights of farmers,of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old,of the young, of the unborn.' Thereare only the Rights of Mum-rightspossessed by every individual manand by all men as individuals."The unborn child is a new individual having the same rights asall other individuals, and, as withall humans, regardless of their ageor station in life, possesses themost basic of all rights, the rightwithout which all other rightswould cease to exist, the right. tolife. t)

When A New Life Begins

There is perhaps no phenomenon in the field of biologythat touches so many fundamental questions as the union of the germ cells in the act of fertilization; in thissupreme event all the strands of the webs of two livesare gathered in one knot, from which they diverge againand are rewoven in a new individual life-history.... Theelements that unite are single cells, each on the point ofdeath; but by their union a rejuvenated individual isformed, which constitutes a link in the eternal procession of life.

F. R. LILLIE, Problems of Fertilization

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN

SEVERAL YEARS BACK I used toencounter people who spoke of"Leonard Read's freedom philosophy." Now I run into those whosimply say "the freedom philosophy." Leonard Read must be doingsomething right to find his recipesbecoming the common property ofcooks and diners who no longerthink of crediting the pioneeringchef.

Mr. Read, of course, woulddeny that he is an originator. Inhis new book, To Free or Freeze:That is the Question (Foundationfor .Economic Education, $3 cloth,$2 paper), he remarks that "practically every idea we espouse andpass off as our own is unknowinglytaken from others." Even so, Ifind Mr. Read an original in theway he combines his ideas and hismethods.

506

Where else in the country willyou find a man who really believesthat the way to reform others is toreform yourself in hopes that theexample will lead to self-discoveryalong similar lines in whoevercares to listen? Max Eastman, thecrusader who became more contemplative in later life, used to refer to Mr. Read's Foundation forEconomic Education as "the monastery," which I am sure Mr. Readwould take -as a compliment. Afterall, it was the monastery that keptthe lamps of learning burningthrough the Dark Ages. "FEE,"says Mr. Read in his essay, "Speakfor Yourself, John," "is not an institutional spokesman nor an organization trying to 'reach' anyone. Rather, ours is, one might say,no more than an agency offeringsuch services as you may think of

1972 TO FREE OR FREEZE 507

value in your own search and personal growth.... Instead of playing the utterly futile game of trying to 'reach' others, we can concentrate on getting enough intoour own mentalities and improving our services to the point whereothers will reach for us."

Emphasis on the Individual

In keeping with his pHgrim'saccent on first principles, Mr. Readdispenses with the "scientific" jargon which tries to make politicaleconomy over into a predictivenatural science like Newtonianphysics. To Mr. Read, everythinggoes back to the individual (no twopeople are alike!) whose free willand unforeseeable subjective valuations put an aberrant factor intoevery economic equation. It is obvious that economics does not become a statistical subject untilafter the fact of choice. The wholequestion of choice leads from considerations of GNP and chatterabout "parameters," whatever theyare, to moral philosophy, with itsconcern for right and wrong. Mr.Read wants to think about goodand evil, not about the technicalquestions that lead to so muchmanipulation of individuals asthough they were pawns.~ in somedictator's game of chess. '

The good, to Mr. Read, is anything that adds to the sum ofcreativity. Force must sometimes

be used to keep one man from injuring another, but this does notalter the truth that what Mr. Readcalls "viewpoints, evaluations, inventions, insights, intuitive flashes,think-of-that's" do not thrive ina world of controls and government seizures. When force, goingbeyond the police power, is usedto transfer wealth, it hurts thesum total of creativity by enfeebling the injured person and encouraging laziness in the supposedbeneficiary. Contemplation of thenature of force leads Mr. Readback to the State-as-night-watchman and away from the modernheresy of the State-as-quarterback. The State's proper businessis protection against such thingsas fraud, the spread of disease,and attack from abroad.

Actions Have Consequences

Mr. Read does not believe incrystal balls. But he does believein "ifs." For example, if we persist in our present course of priceand wage fixing, or "incomes policy," the "if" will lead to· morescarcities. Scarcities under conditions of continuing price control,will lead to rationing, to be followed in turn by black markets.The fabric of law will suffer, andthe accompanying growth of cynicism will make for increased violence. To control the violence, thegovernment will have to use


strong-arm means. And, to administer the strong-arm medicine, atough guy will have to take over.As Hayek said long ago, the goons,in a world of controls, rise to thetop.

Now, Mr. Read is not sayingthat the U.S. is bound to persistin its present foolish course; thepoliticians may come to theirsenses when they discover that inflation (a matter of the moneyand-credit supply) cannot bestopped by price and wage boardsissuing their ukases. All Mr. Readis uttering is a little "if." Thefuture is not to be glimpsed inany crystal ball for the simplereason that it depends on what isbeing done by "our actions now."Change in these actions naturallychanges the "if."

A Vicious Circle of Subsidies

The other day I listened to aplausible plea for State subsidyto the arts. Taken on its ownterms, the argument seemed tome at least morally irrefutable.We have had inflation, whichmeans that people have beenrobbed of· the purchasing powerthey might have spent on goingto plays, or on buying books orvisiting museums. As a matter ofretributive justice, why shouldn'tthe State return some of the stolenpurchasing power to the art-lovingindividual? I put this question to

Mr. Read. "The trouble," he said,"is that the money is no longerthere. There's nothing to be returned."

Of course, there is money therefor the arts - and for a millionother things - on a short-termbasis, provided we are willing tolet our children pay the bills.Meanwhile, the quarrel betweenhundreds of separate pressuregroups, each intent on retributivejustice, puts an intolerable strainon government, which cannot hopeto conjure up the necessary "just"payments out of a top-heavy taxstructure and more inflation. WhatMr. Read was really saying isthat "pretty soon the resourceswon't be there." This is somethingthat our politicians, along withthe people who prod them, havenot yet faced.

The Victims of "Help"

Mr. Read, "bonded to conscience," wonders how we are to reverse the drift that is taking oursociety to "all-out" statism. As afirst order of business he insiststhat those who would stop thedownward plunge must "developthe quality of personal incorruptibility." Politically speaking, the"incorruptible" man should "nevergive approval to a law that 'helps'anyone."

This is hard doctrine for themodern age, which· believes in so-

1972 TO FREE OR FREEZE 509

called ~~positive" action by theState. But Mr. Read says that"pity, unless spiced with commonsense, is what's heartless." Providing people with "governmentalfeeding stations" kindles the viceof avarice. Beyond that, it tendsto render people helpless by atrophying their faculties. "Helpingpeople to become helpless,'" saysMr. Read, "is no act of kindness."

If you look at what is takingplace in the political and socialarenas, it might seem that Mr.Read and his "saving remnant"are hopelessly out of fashion. Nevertheless, "the freedom philosophy" has many' more adherentsthan it had in the Nineteen Forties, .when I first heard Mr.' Readtalk about tapping the emergentenergy of the ind'ividual. At longlast the intellectual currents arenot all going the same way, whichgives us ground for hope thatwe'll be free before we freeze.

~ WHAT, HOW, FOR WHOM: TheDecisions of Economic Organization by Henry N. Sanborn (Box8466, Baltimore, Md.: CotterBarnard, 1972, 356 pp., $5.20)

Reviewed by Gary North

FIVE YEARS AGO, supporters of thefree market who wanted a textbook for an introductory course atthe college' level in economics had

Allen and Alchian's UniversityEconomics as the one reasonableselection. Now we have ThomasSowell's Economics, a reprint ofRothbard's Man, Economy andState, and Prof. Sanborn's newbook. Things are looking up.

Sanborn teaches at TowsonState College in Baltimore. Hisperspective is Chicago oriented,i.e., he follows Milton Friedmanon monetary theory, George Stigler on antitrust laws, and positivists in general on methodology. Herefers constantly to the MV = PTmonetary equation, and from thishe concludes that a steady increaseof the money supply by .the government will eliminate serious depressions. A teacher would be wiseto assign Rothbard's What HasGovernment Done to Our Money?along with Sanborn's book.

Generally he favors the marketas a means of both human freedomand efficiency. He also avoids theuse of the "indifference curve" approach which has done so much toconfuse a generation of students.He writes in a folksy, nonpretentious. style, which is probably thebest reason for the book's superiority. His footnotes are not burdened with citations from obscureprofessional journals, but aregraphic and illustrative, usingsuch sources as· the Wall StreetJournal, New York Times, Newsweek, Barron's. The inclusion of


cartoons also makes it lively; theirimpact may remain when the memory of marginal cost curves haglong faded.

This would be an ideal book fora one semester course, especiallyfor nonmajors. It should also be asource of classroom controversy.For example, on page 299, hesimultaneously praises militaryconscription laws and calls for theabolition of laws against prostitution and narcotics. His basicallypragmatic approach mars the finalchapter especially, where he callsfor various. kinds of governmentintervention to eliminate minor defects of the market system("neighborhood effects," naturalmonopoly), but on the whole thesedeviations are few. The first halfof the book is exceptionally good.The one major flaw is his explanation of profits: he accepts the entrepreneurial theory of Frank H.Knight (and Mises), only to abandon it in later pages for a "returnon company inputs" theory whichis distressingly vague, for goodreason. If this is cleared up inlater editions, it will be a verygood introductory textbook.

~ IMPUTED RIGHTS by Robert v.Andelson (Athens: University ofGeorgia Press, 1971, 153 pp. $6.00)

Reviewed by Edmund A. Opitz

IN VIEW of the central importanceof the idea of rights to the philosophy of liberty it is astonishingthat books dealing with the subjectare so few. Professor Andelson'sformidable little volume standsvirtually alone; interest in theidea, either for its own sake or forits significance in our history, hasinspired few researchers and writers. There are other puzzling questions. The doctrine of individualrights is an idea of the first magnitude, to be ranked alongside theidea of gravity or the theory ofrelativity. Why, if the idea is soimportant, did it take Westerncivilization more than two thousand years to grasp it? Why hasno other civilization even comeclose? Why, having once embracedthe idea of rights, did we abandonit in a fraction of the time it tookthe West to gain it? And afterhaving largely let go of the substance, why do we so patheticallycherish the label of "rights" thatwe now paste on patents of privilege granted by the state!

Things were different in theeighteenth century. Men of thatera echoed Locke when they talkedabout the right to life, liberty, and

1972 OTHER BOOKS 511

property. What began with Lockeas a philosophical speculationworked its way into men's bonesand became something they couldalmost taste. Conditions in theAmerican colonies gave eaeh manunaccustomed liberty to live hislife and be responsible for theproperty he produced. And therewere, in addition, religious convictions about a protected, privatedomain in each individual whoseinvasion would violate the sacredprerogatives of the person. Monarchy broke itself against theseconvictions, which in turn werestrong enough to generate theideal of a government institutedsolely to secure these rights. It isto the idea of rights in this tradition that Dr. Andelson addresseshimself, and in a closely reasoned,gracefully written book, he vindicates this idea in a masterful way.

Briefly surveying the history ofhis subject, the author finds threedistinct theories of human rights,as analyzed in .terms of ground,end, and regulating principle. Hefinds strong reasons for rejectingthe radical-humanist and utilitarian arguments for rights andplaces himself in the metaphysicaltradition which "derives rightsfrom man's place in a purposiveorder." The book's frame of reference is theological; it is an examination of "the nature of man inthe light of the distinctive end for

which he was created." A societywhich maximizes personal libertyfor all and jealously guards individual rights provides the contextin which men and women may bestfulfill their earthly purposes andachieve their transcendent goals.The first half of the book lays thetheoretical groundwork for whatthe author terms "a, rationalizedsoeial structure deduced fromChristian premises," and it is apleasure to watch a carefully articulated argument unfold. Theauthor's orientation is broadlyCalvinistic, and he views man as"fallen." That is to say, man's nature is out of joint; so an empirical examination of human natureas it is does not disclose any suchthing as "rights" organic to manas such. But human nature is morethan natural, which is to say thatrights are imputed to man by hisMaker. Even those who do not accept the author's theology will findthis a meaty discussion.

So much for the theoreticalgroundwork; now for the practicalapplication. Professor Andelsonproves to be tough-minded and cogent· as he tests his philosophy ofpersonal rights against a numberof vexed issues. Guided by "theevidence of social data. and therules of logical consistency," theauthor proceeds to spell out insome detail that "structure of mutual noninterference which pro-


vides the only rational criterionfor adj udicating competing claimsto personal fulfillment." There isno room in Professor Andelson'sphilosophy for government welfareprograms: H ••• the alleviation ofmisery is not, as such, a right, andought not, as such, be coercivelyenforced. For the use of coercion,other than to guarantee rights, isan infringement upon righ¥s . . ."Beyond this, he would not countenance any effort to legislate morals; conduct which merely offendssensibilities and is not clearly predatory is no concern of the law.The author champions the right ofprivate association (and dissociation) and thus comes into conflictwith aspects of current civil rights

legislation. The law should enforcecontracts and protect rightfulproperty. The laborer is not a commodity, the author affirms, but"his labor is. the commodity parexcellence" - a position at variance with monopoly unionism. Andas for the United Nations, its absurd Declaration of Human Rights"is proof of its untrustworthinessto wield supreme authority."

This brief resume· of some ofthe issues may convey the notionthat Dr. Andelson is forthright tothe point of abrasiveness. Correct!The reviewer dissents vigorouslyfrom several of the opinions expressed but applauds the candorwhich makes this a cleansing bookand an important one. ,

HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX

FREEMAN BINDERS

$2.50 each

ORDER FROM : THE FOUNDATION fOR ECONOMIC EDUCATIONIRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533

Documents

The Freeman 1972 - fee.org · Free Enterprise and the Russians Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn 461 A survey of the prospects for a return toward freedom in the USSR. The Founding of the