Skip to main content

Full text of "Faith of our fathers"

See other formats 


©ur  fatbcre^ 


Edited  by  Mary  Sennholz 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers 


Edited  by 
Mary  Sennholz 


The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  Inc. 
Irvington-on-Hudson,  New  York 


SE  PROKIBS 

8l«fcrayQr  y/o   ^-rg'tr.or  sste  libro. 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers 

Copyright  ©  1997  by  The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education 

All  rights  reserved.  No  part  of  this  book  may  be  reproduced  or  trans- 
mitted in  any  form  or  by  any  means,  electronic  or  mechanical,  includ- 
ing photocopying,  recording  or  by  any  information  storage  and 
retrieval  systems  without  permission  in  writing  from  the  publisher, 
except  by  a  reviewer  who  may  quote  brief  passages  in  a  review. 

The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  Inc. 
30  South  Broadway 
Irvington-on-Hudson,  NY  10533 


Publisher's  Cataloging  in  Publication 
(Prepared  by  Quality  Books^  Inc) 

Faith  of  our  fathers  /  edited  by  Mary  Sennholz. 
p.  cm. 
Includes  index. 


ISBN:  1-57246-063-6  .  i  A  >^  i  T  i  V* 


1.  United  States— History.     2.  United  States— Politics  and 
government.     3.  United  States— Civilization.     4.  Conduct  of  life. 
I.  Sennholz,  Mary,  1913- 

E156.F35    1997  973 

QB197-40315 


Library  of  Congress  Catalog  Card  Number:  97-60345 

Front  cover:  Christ  Church,  as  seen  from  South  Street,  Philadelphia. 
Cover  design  by  Beth  R.  Bowlby 
Manufactured  in  the  United  States  of  America 


74 


Table  of  Contents 


o> -^J-o^ 


Introduction  1 

I.  The  Spirit  of  '76 

The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic 

Clarence  B.  Carson  7 

Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli 

John  Wesley  Young  25 

George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order 

Clarence  B.  Carson  40 

John  Witherspoon:  "Animated  Son  of  Liberty" 

Robert  A.  Peterson  52 

Education  in  Colonial  America 

Robert  A.  Peterson  61 

Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  '76 

Wesley  H.  Hillendahl  11 

Faith  of  Our  Fathers 

Clarence  B.  Carson  98 


IL  A  Biblical  View 

Jeremiah's  Job 
Gary  North 

Ezekiel's  Job 

Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

The  Road  to  Jericho 
Hal  Watkins 


113 
120 
132 


111 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government 

James  C.  Patrick  136 

A  Judeo-Christian  Foundation 

Hans  F.  Sennholz  152 

III.  The  Rights  of  Man 

Freedom,  MoraUty,  and  Education 

George  C.  Roche  III  161 

Morals  and  Liberty 

R  A.  Harper  175 

The  Idea  of  Equality 

Jarret  B.  Wollstein  198 

Justice  and  Freedom 

Leslie  Snyder  207 

On  Liberty  and  Liberation 

Bruce  D.  Porter  220 

The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom 

Benjamin  A.  Rogge  229 

The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the 
American  Heritage 
Paul  L.  Adams  242 

IV.  The  Crisis  of  Our  Age 

Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market 

Ken  S.  Ewert  257 

The  Psychology  of  Cultism 

Ben  Barker  274 

The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die 

John  K.  Williams  284 


IV 


A  Moral  Order 

Edmund  A.  Opitz  304 

Freedom  and  Majority  Rule 

Edmund  A.  Opitz  321 

You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man 

Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr.  338 

The  Roots  of  "  Anticapitalism" 

Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn  352 

Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of 
the  Problem? 
Calvin  D.  Linton  365 

Index  383 


Introduction 


Man  does  not  seek  society  for  its  own  sake,  but  that  he 
may  benefit  from  the  company  of  his  fellow  man.  He 
yearns  for  comfort,  protection,  and  productivity,  which 
safeguard  his  life  and  promote  his  happiness.  He  lives  and 
thrives  in  society,  and  is  incapable  of  living  alone.  Man 
gives  order  and  structure  to  society  by  way  of  a  constitution 
or  agreement  in  convention,  custom,  and  tradition,  thereby 
touching  upon  the  manner  in  which  he  lives. 

A  constitution  comprises  the  fundamental  principles  of 
government  of  a  country,  either  implicitly  in  its  laws  and 
customs,  as  in  Great  Britain,  or  in  one  or  several  fundamen- 
tal documents,  as  in  the  United  States.  Written  in  1787  and 
ratified  in  1789,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
the  first  written  constitution  which  became  a  model  for 
many  subsequent  constitutional  documents  written  since 
then. 

Several  of  the  essays  collected  in  this  anthology  search 
for  the  opinions,  doctrines,  and  values  of  the  men  who 
wrote  the  Constitution.  They  dwell  on  two  particular  pre- 
cepts and  self-evident  truths  that  guided  the  Founding 
Fathers.  There  was  the  theory  of  the  social  contract  as 
developed  by  John  Locke  in  the  seventeenth  century.  It 
became  the  basis  of  the  idea  that  government  must  reflect 
the  will  of  all  the  people  and  their  natural  rights,  which  in 
turn  became  the  ideological  justification  for  both  the  Amer- 
ican and  the  French  revolutions. 

The  Founding  Fathers  were  united  in  the  belief  that 
preservation  of  certain  natural  rights  was  an  essential  part 


2  /  Mary  Sennholz 

of  the  social  contract,  and  that  "consent  of  the  governed" 
was  fundamental  to  any  exercise  of  political  power.  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  enumerated  the  king's  viola- 
tions of  the  rights  of  the  colonists.  It  presented  not  only  a 
justification  for  the  revolution  but  also  a  unique  statement 
of  general  principles  and  an  abstract  theory  of  government. 
Based  on  the  belief  in  natural  rights,  the  opening  paragraph 
asserts  the  fundamental  American  ideal  of  government: 
"We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are 
created  equal,  and  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  unalienable  Rights,  that  among  them  are  Life, 
Liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  Happiness.  That  to  secure  these 
rights.  Governments  are  instituted  among  Men,  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 

God-given  natural  rights  were  the  guiding  light  of  the 
Founding  Fathers.  The  stirring  closing  paragraph  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  was  not  only  the  formal  pro- 
nouncement of  independence  but  also  a  powerful  appeal  to 
the  Creator  of  all  rights:  "We,  therefore,  the  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  General  Congress, 
Assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world 
for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the  Name,  and  by 
authority  of  the  good  People  of  these  Colonies,  solemnly 
publish  and  declare,  that  these  United  Colonies  are  and  of 
Right  ought  to  be  free  and  independent  States."  In  the  final 
sentence  of  defiance  they  appealed  to  the  Almighty  for  His 
protection:  "And  for  the  support  of  this  declaration,  with  a 
firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  divine  Providence,  we 
mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  Lives,  our  Fortunes  and 
our  Sacred  Honor." 

To  the  Founding  Fathers,  the  God  of  nature  and  the  God 
of  Scripture  was  the  same  God.  Surely,  there  were  differ- 
ences in  the  understanding  of  natural  law  and  the  interpre- 


Introduction  /  3 

tation  of  revealed  law,  but  the  differences  did  not  raise  a 
doubt  on  the  common  bond,  the  Judeo-Christian  faith.  It 
was  the  spiritual  and  moral  foundation  on  which  America 
was  built.  To  the  Founding  Fathers  the  world  was  ordered 
well.  They  looked  upon  the  future  of  their  country  with 
confidence  and  in  the  knowledge  that,  in  the  end,  all  things 
would  work  together  in  freedom.  The  Reverend  Frederick 
Faber  later  could  write: 

Faith  of  our  fathers,  God's  great  power 

Shall  win  all  nations  unto  thee 
And  through  the  truth  that  comes  from  God 

Mankind  shall  then  be  truly  free. 

Throughout  the  nineteenth  century  this  optimism 
slowly  gave  way  to  alien  philosophies  that  are  highly  criti- 
cal of  all  ramifications  of  freedom  and  that  were  to  become 
the  guidepost  for  most  Americans.  Positivism,  a  philosoph- 
ical doctrine  that  denies  the  validity  of  first  principles, 
teaches  that  such  principles  are  unfathomable  and  that  the 
only  knowledge  is  scientific  knowledge.  If  there  are  no  first 
principles,  there  can  be  no  economic  principles.  In  order  to 
prevent  confusion  and  chaos,  man  obviously  needs  direc- 
tion, command,  and  instruction  by  authority.  This  is  why 
many  Americans,  especially  those  who  profess  to  be  ratio- 
nal and  scientific,  keep  the  company  of  central  planners 
calling  on  legislators,  regulators,  judges,  and  policemen  to 
retrieve  order  out  of  chaos. 

Other  Americans  unwittingly  embrace  the  philosophy 
of  materialism  which  explains  all  political,  social,  and  eco- 
nomic phenomena  as  entirely  dependent  on  matter,  beyond 
which  nothing  needs  to  be  explained.  Modern  communism 
is  based  on  it,  socialist  doctrines  are  derived  from  it,  and 


4  /  Mary  Sennholz 

political  interventionism  builds  on  it.  The  sociological  doc- 
trine of  class  struggle,  the  economic  doctrines  of  labor  the- 
ory of  value,  of  labor  exploitation,  business  concentration, 
and  monopolization  are  popular  offshoots.  Countless  labor 
laws  and  regulations  spring  from  it. 

Several  essays  in  this  anthology  point  at  the  sway  of 
positivistic  and  materialistic  doctrines  as  the  ideological 
causes  of  the  crisis  of  our  age.  In  his  essay  on  "The  Psychol- 
ogy of  Cultism,"  Dr.  Ben  Barker  describes  some  of  the 
symptoms  of  the  crisis:  "There  is  no  prayer  in  the  schools 
and  unionized,  socialist  teachers  insidiously  program  our 
youth.  Mindless  violence  and  senseless  trivia  beam  at  us 
from  our  television,  our  newspapers  are  full  of  lies  and 
scantily  clad  females  posing  for  underwear  ads.  Heroin  is 
the  opiate  of  the  ghetto,  alcohol  of  the  middle  class  com- 
munity, and  cocaine  of  the  wealthy.  Valium,  which  we  sup- 
ply, is  abused  by  all  social  classes." 

The  moral  precepts  and  the  self-evident  truths  that 
guided  our  Founding  Fathers  may  not  be  fashionable  in  our 
time,  but  they  are  as  inescapable  and  inexorable  as  they 
have  been  throughout  the  ages.  We  are  free  to  ignore  and 
disobey  them,  but  we  cannot  escape  the  rising  price  we 
must  pay  for  defying  them. 

February  1997  Mary  Sennholz 


I.  THE  SPIRIT  OF  76 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic 
Clarence  B.  Carson 


Scribes  are  quite  often  merciless  tyrants  in  dealing  with 
characters  out  of  the  past,  spearing  them  with  an  assort- 
ment of  verbs  and  freezing  them  in  predetermined  cate- 
gories with  their  adjectives,  much  as  a  butterfly  collector 
does  with  his  helpless  insects.  There  is  no  surer  way  to  shat- 
ter the  integrity  of  an  individual  or  to  distort  a  historical 
epoch  ihan  by  the  indiscriminate  use  of  categories.  No  man 
of  wit  is  likely  to  believe  that  a  category  comprehends  him, 
even  when  it  is  well  chosen.  But  when  categories  drawn 
from  other  times  and  places  are  imposed  upon  men  and 
events  which  are  foreign  to  them,  the  result  can  only  be  to 
confuse  the  subject  under  discussion. 

Some  twentieth-century  historians  have  done  just  this 
to  American  history  of  the  late  eighteenth  century.  They 
have  called  Americans  of  the  time  by  names,  some  of  which 
were  unknown  to  them  and  others  which  they  would  have 
disavowed;  they  have  categorized  them  as  revolutionaries 
or  reactionaries,  democrats  or  aristocrats,  nationalists  or 
states'  righters,  liberals  or  conservatives,  and  other  such 
categories.  They  have  tried  to  thrust  the  events  into  revolu- 
tionary and  "social"  revolutionary  categories,  categories 
drawn  from  other  revolutions  and  other  circumstances.  It  is 


Dr.  Carson  has  written  and  taught  extensively,  specializing  in 
American  intellectual  history.  This  article  appeared  in  the  September 
1972  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


8  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

a  journalistic  habit  into  which  many  historians  have  fallen 
to  attribute  an  absoluteness  to  the  views  and  thrusts  of  men 
which  violates  both  what  they  intend  and  do.  Debates, 
even  great  historical  debates,  can  be  quite  misleading.  Men 
often  advance  positions  with  more  certainty  than  they  feel, 
appear  to  be  unalterable  in  their  determination,  yet  may 
shortly  yield  to  the  other  side  with  good  humor  when  they 
have  lost.  Some  historians  appear  to  have  no  difficulty 
whatever  in  discovering  men's  motives,  but  the  fact  is  that 
we  are  not  privy  to  their  motives. 

The  subject  to  be  treated  below  is  the  reforms  and  inno- 
vations made  by  Americans  mostly  in  the  decade  after  the 
declaring  of  independence.  The  above  prelude  was  made 
necessary  because  the  present  writer  both  wishes  to  make 
known  the  fact  that  he  is  familiar  with  the  crosscurrents  of 
interpretation  of  these  years  by  twentieth-century  histori- 
ans and  to  disavow  many  of  the  categories  that  have  been 
used.  After  the  Americans  broke  from  England  they  did 
make  some  changes;  they  did  sometimes  differ  among 
themselves  as  to  what  the  direction  of  change  should  be; 
but  there  is  no  need  to  question  their  motives  or  any  solid 
basis  for  saying  for  certain  what  they  were.  Above  all,  there 
is  no  need  to  push  this  one  into  that  category  and  that  one 
into  this,  with  the  category  being  excessively  large  for  the 
matter  at  issue  and  much  too  confining  for  the  man  over 
any  period  of  time.  More  rubbish  has  been  written  about 
the  class  positions  and  interests  of  the  men  of  these  times 
than  any  other  in  American  history,  so  far  as  I  can  make  out. 
The  present  writer  has  neither  the  space  nor  inclination  to 
spend  energy  upon  trying  to  refute  what  has  not  been  well 
established,  in  any  case. 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  9 
The  Main  Thrust  of  Changes 

What  is  established  is  that  there  were  some  changes 
made  during  these  years.  The  main  thrust  of  these  changes 
is  the  freeing  of  the  individual:  freeing  him  from  foreign 
domination,  from  various  government  compulsions,  from 
class  prescriptions,  and  for  greater  control  of  his  own 
affairs.  And,  in  conjunction  with  these,  there  was  an  effort 
to  erect  safeguards  around  him  that  would  protect  him  in 
the  exercise  of  his  rights.  The  thrust  to  do  these  things  was 
made  along  several  different  paths,  and  each  of  these  is 
worth  some  attention. 

A  primary  aim  of  the  Americans  was  independence. 
They  wanted  to  be  independent  of  England,  of  course;  that 
was  what  the  war  was  fought  about.  Many  Americans  had 
come  to  believe  that  they  could  only  have  the  requisite  con- 
trol of  their  affairs  by  separating  from  the  mother  country. 
This  was  achieved,  of  course,  by  terms  of  the  Treaty  of 
Paris.  But  Americans  longed  also  to  be  independent  of 
European  entanglements.  Time  after  time,  during  the  colo- 
nial period,  Americans  had  been  drawn  into  wars  that  orig- 
inated in  Europe  but  spread  to  the  New  World.  Americans 
wanted  to  be  free  of  the  dynastic  quarrels,  the  imperial 
ambitions,  and  the  trade  wars  which  rended  Europe  and 
shook  much  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  To  many  Americans, 
Europe  was  the  symbol  and  embodiment  of  corruption, 
decadence,  and  foreclosed  opportunity.  To  be  independent 
of  Europe  was,  in  the  final  analysis,  to  be  free  to  follow 
courses  which  had  not  yet,  at  any  rate,  proven  to  be  so 
laden  with  disaster. 

Independence  did  not  mean,  nor  should  it  be  taken  to 


10  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

connote,  the  rejection  of  either  the  English  or  European  her- 
itage. Indeed,  there  was  little  irrational  rejection  of  either 
heritage  that  comes  to  mind.  Though  Americans  rejected 
European  aristocracy  they  did  not,  for  that  reason,  change 
names  of  places  in  this  country  derived  from  aristocrats. 

Perhaps,  the  most  extensive  thrust  of  this  period  was  to 
the  freeing  of  the  individual  from  government  compulsion. 
Libertarian  sentiment  had  been  maturing  for  some  consid- 
erable while  in  America;  it  was  fostered  both  by  legal 
trends  and  religious  and  other  intellectual  development. 
Once  the  break  from  England  came,  Americans  used  the 
occasion  to  cut  away  a  body  of  restraints  no  longer  in 
accord  with  their  outlook. 

Religious  Liberty 

Religious  liberty  was  widely  secured  within  a  decade  or 
so  of  the  break  from  England.  Much  of  it  came  by  way  of 
the  disestablishment  of  churches.  The  establishment  most 
readily  dispensed  with  was  that  of  the  Church  of  England. 
While  the  Church  of  England  was  established  throughout 
the  South  as  well  as  in  New  York,  it  was  not  very  popular; 
many  of  its  clergy  remained  loyal  to  England,  and  adher- 
ents of  it  were  outnumbered  by  dissenters  in  most  states.  Its 
disestablishment  was  made  even  easier  because  it  was  a 
national  church;  membership  in  it  was  tied  to  loyalty  to  the 
king  of  England.  The  Church  of  England  was  everywhere 
speedily  disestablished.  But  these  actions  were  not  simply 
prompted  by  convenience,  for  there  was  increasing  belief  in 
religious  liberty.  Several  states  had  no  established  churches: 
namely.  New  Jersey,  Rhode  Island,  Pennsylvania,  and 
Delaware.  But  they  used  the  opportunity  afforded  by  inde- 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  11 

pendence  to  remove  or  reduce  restrictions.  Some  of  the  dis- 
abilities of  Roman  Catholics  were  cut  away. 

The  established  Congregational  church  was  maintained 
for  several  decades  longer  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
cmd  New  Hampshire.  There  was,  however,  some  liberaliza- 
tion in  these  states.  The  Massachusetts  constitution  of  1780 
affirmed  that  every  man  had  the  right  to  worship  in  his 
own  way,  that  no  church  should  be  subordinated  to  any 
other,  and  that  tax  moneys  could  be  used  to  support  minis- 
ters other  than  Congregationalists.  However,  church  atten- 
dance was  required  still,  and  ministers  were  supported 
from  taxes.^  "New  Hampshire  followed  in  the  steps  of 
Massachusetts,  but  Connecticut  held  out  much  longer 
against  what  its  citizens  regarded  as  the  forces  of  iniquity. 
They  allowed  dissenters  to  escape  payment  of  taxes  to  the 
established  church  if  they  presented  the  clerk  of  the  local 
church  with  a  certificate  of  church  attendance  signed  by  an 
officer  of  the  dissenter's  own  church."^ 

The  constitutions  of  New  Jersey,  Georgia,  North  and 
South  Carolina,  Delaware,  and  Pennsylvania  "explicitly 
provided  that  no  man  should  be  obliged  to  pay  any  church 
rate  or  attend  any  religious  service  save  according  to  his 
own  free  and  unhampered  will."^  But  Virginia  made  the 
greatest  effort  to  assure  religious  liberty.  This  might  have 
been  a  reaction  to  the  fact  that  Virginia  had  the  longest 
establishment  and  one  of  the  most  rigorous.  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, James  Madison,  and  George  Mason  were  leading 
advocates  of  religious  liberty,  but  they  did  not  succeed  in 
getting  their  ideas  into  law  until  1786.  This  was  done  by  the 
Virginia  Statute  of  Religious  Freedom,  which  proclaimed 
religious  liberty  a  natural  right.  An  impressive  preface 
states  the  case: 


12  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

Whereas,  Almighty  God  hath  created  the  mind 
free;  that  all  attempts  to  influence  it  by  temporal 
punishments  or  burthens,  or  by  civil  incapacitations, 
tend  only  to  beget  habits  of  hypocrisy  and  mean- 
ness, and  are  a  departure  from  the  plan  of  the  Holy 
author  of  our  religion 

The  legally  effective  portion  of  the  statute  reads  this 
way: 

That  no  man  shall  be  compelled  to  frequent  or 
support  any  religious  worship,  place,  or  ministry 
whatsoever,  nor  shall  be  enforced,  restrained, 
molested,  or  burthened  in  his  body  or  goods,  nor 
shall  otherwise  suffer  on  account  of  his  religious 
opinions  or  beliefs;  but  that  all  men  shall  be  free  to 
profess,  and  by  argument  to  maintain,  their  opinion 
in  matters  of  religion,  and  that  the  same  shall  in  no 
wise  diminish,  enlarge,  or  affect  their  civil  capaci- 
ties.^ 

This  was  the  beginning  of  religious  liberty  in  America. 

Freeing  the  Slaves 

The  movement  for  freeing  the  slaves  reached  a  peak  in 
the  1780s  which  it  would  not  soon  attain  again.  Even  before 
the  break  from  England,  the  slave  trade  was  acquiring  a 
bad  reputation  in  America,  but  such  efforts  as  were  made  to 
restrict  it  were  negated  by  the  mother  country.  Fiske  says, 
'The  success  of  the  American  Revolution  made  it  possible 
for  the  different  states  to  take  measures  for  the  gradual  abo- 
lition of  slavery  and  the  immediate  abolition  of  the  foreign 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  13 

slave-trade."^  Nor  was  sentiment  against  slavery  restricted 
to  states  in  which  there  were  few  slaves.  Some  of  the  out- 
standing leaders  from  the  South  during  this  period,  most  of 
them  slaveholders,  spoke  out  against  slavery.  Henry  Lau- 
rens, a  leader  in  South  Carolina,  wrote  in  1776:  "You  know 
my  Dear  Sir.  I  abhor  slavery  . . .  — in  former  days  there  was 
no  combatting  the  prejudices  of  Men  supported  by  Interest, 
the  day  I  hope  is  approaching  when  from  principles  of  grat- 
itude as  well  [as]  justice  every  Man  will  strive  to  be  fore- 
most in  shewing  his  readiness  to  comply  with  the  Golden 

Rule "^  Thomas  Jefferson  argued  in  his  Notes  on  the  State 

of  Virginia  that  slavery  had  a  bad  influence  on  the  manners 
and  morals  of  the  white  people  as  well  as  its  devastating 
effects  on  the  Negroes.  He  longed  for  and  hoped  to  see  the 
day  when  all  slaves  would  be  emancipated.  He  warned  his 
countrymen  of  the  impending  impact  on  them  if  this  were 
not  done:  "And  can  the  liberties  of  a  nation  be  thought  se- 
cure when  we  have  removed  their  only  firm  basis,  a  con- 
viction in  the  minds  of  the  people  that  these  liberties  are  the 
gift  of  God?  That  they  are  not  to  be  violated  but  with  his 
wrath?  Indeed  I  tremble  for  my  country,"  he  said,  "when  I 
reflect  that  God  is  just;  that  his  justice  cannot  sleep  forever. 

"7 

Some  states  began  to  act  almost  as  soon  as  the  opportu- 
nity arose.  In  1776,  Delaware  prohibited  the  importation  of 
slaves  and  removed  all  restraints  on  their  manumission. 
Virginia  stopped  slave  imports  in  1778;  Maryland  adopted 
a  similar  measure  in  1783.  Both  states  now  allowed  manu- 
nussion  at  the  behest  of  the  owner.  In  1780,  Pennsylvania 
not  only  prohibited  further  importation  of  slaves  but  also 
provided  that  after  that  date  all  children  born  of  slaves 
should  be  free.  Similar  enactments  were  made  in  the  early 
1780s  in  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island. 


14  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

In  Massachusetts,  the  supreme  court  decided  that  on  the 
basis  of  the  constitution  of  1780  slavery  was  aboUshed  in 
that  province.  Even  North  Carolina  moved  to  discourage 
the  slave  trade  in  1786  by  taxing  heavily  such  slaves  as  were 
imported  after  that  time.  In  order  to  protect  free  Negroes, 
Virginia  made  it  a  crime  punishable  by  death  for  anyone 
found  guilty  of  selling  a  freed  Negro  into  slavery.^ 

How  far  sentiment  against  slavery  had  gone  may  well 
be  best  indicated  by  the  Northwest  Ordinance  (1787),  an  act 
of  all  the  states,  as  it  were,  in  Congress  assembled.  The  act 
provided:  "There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  in  the  said  territory,  otherwise  than  in  the  pun- 
ishment of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly 

convicted "  This  article  was  passed,  according  to  one  of 

its  proponents,  without  opposition.^ 

Individual  Liberties 

The  bills  of  rights  drawn  and  adopted  in  the  various 
states  contained  provisions  intended  to  assure  individual 
liberties.  These  bills  of  rights  were  usually  drawn  and 
adopted  along  with  constitutions  but  were  frequently  sepa- 
rate documents.  They  were  usually  cast  in  the  language  of 
natural  rights  theory.  For  example.  Article  I  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Declaration  of  Rights  states: 

All  men  are  bom  free  and  equal,  and  have  cer- 
tain natural,  essential,  and  unalienable  rights; 
among  which  may  be  reckoned  the  right  of  enjoying 
and  defending  their  lives  and  liberties;  that  of 
acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property;  in 
fine,  that  of  seeking  and  obtaining  their  safety  and 
happiness.^^ 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  15 

Virginia  was  the  first  state  to  draw  both  a  constitution 
and  a  bill  of  rights.  Actually,  Virginia's  Bill  of  Rights  was 
adopted  June  12, 1776,  while  the  would-be  state  was  still  a 
colony.  It  was  the  work  primarily  of  George  Mason,  was  cir- 
culated among  the  states,  and  became  a  model  for  such 
instruments. 

The  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights  guaranteed  trial  by  jury  in 
both  criminal  and  civil  cases,  prohibited  excessive  bail  and 
fines,  declared  general  warrants  to  be  oppressive,  and 
acknowledged  freedom  of  the  press.  The  protections  of  a 
person  accused  of  a  crime  were  spelled  out: 

That  in  all  capital  or  criminal  prosecutions  a  man 
hath  a  right  to  demand  the  cause  and  nature  of  his 
accusation,  to  be  confronted  with  the  accusers  and 
witnesses,  to  call  for  evidence  in  his  favour,  and  to  a 
sf)eedy  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  his  vicinage, 
without  whose  unanimous  consent  he  cannot  be 
found  guilty;  nor  can  he  be  compelled  to  give  evi- 
dence against  himself;  that  no  man  may  be  deprived 
of  his  liberty,  except  by  the  law  of  the  land  or  the 
judgment  of  his  peers. 

The  only  specific  protection  of  property,  other  than  the  pro- 
vision for  jury  trial  in  civil  cases,  was  the  requirement  that 
men  "cannot  be  taxed  or  deprived  of  their  property  for 
publick  uses,  without  their  own  consent,  or  that  of  their 
representatives  so  elected. . .  ."^^ 

The  Massachusetts  Declaration  of  Rights  of  1780,  the 
work  mainly  of  John  Adams,  was  considerably  more  thor- 
ough. In  regard  to  property,  it  said:  "No  part  of  the  property 
of  any  individual  can,  with  justice,  be  taken  from  him,  or 
applied  to  public  uses,  without  his  consent,  or  that  of  the 


16  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

representative  body  of  the  people.  .  .  .  And  whenever  the 
public  exigencies  require  that  the  property  of  any  individ- 
ual should  be  appropriated  to  public  uses,  he  shall  receive 
a  reasonable  compensation  therefor."^^  Other  rights  were 
alluded  to  than  those  mentioned  in  the  Virginia  Bill:  free- 
dom from  unreasonable  searches,  the  right  to  bear  arms, 
the  right  of  peaceful  assembly,  the  prohibition  of  ex  post 
facto  laws,  the  prohibition  of  attainders  by  the  legislature, 
as  well  as  most  of  those  covered  in  Virginia. 

Northwest  Ordinance 

The  Northwest  Ordinance  sums  up,  in  Article  II,  what 
may  well  be  considered  a  contemporary  consensus  of  the 
protections  of  the  rights  of  the  people  most  needed: 

The  inhabitants  of  the  said  territory  shall  always 
be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  writs  of  habeas  cor- 
pus, and  of  the  trial  by  jury;  of  a  proportionate  repre- 
sentation of  the  people  in  the  legislature,  and  judicial 
proceedings  according  to  the  course  of  the  common 
law.  All  persons  shall  be  bailable,  unless  for  capital 
offences,  where  the  proof  shall  be  evident  or  the  pre- 
sumption great.  All  fines  shall  be  moderate;  and  no 
cruel  or  unusual  punishment  shall  be  inflicted.  No 
man  shall  be  deprived  of  his  liberty  or  property,  but 
by  the  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  the  law  of  the  land; 
and  should  the  public  exigencies  make  it  necessary, 
for  the  common  preservation,  to  take  any  person's 
property,  or  to  demand  his  particular  services,  full 
compensation  shall  be  made  for  the  same.  And,  in 
the  just  preservation  of  rights  and  property,  it  is 
understood  and  declared,  that  no  law  ought  ever  to 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  17 

be  made,  or  have  force  in  the  said  territory,  that 
shall,  in  any  manner  whatever,  interfere  or  affect  pri- 
vate contracts  or  engagements,  bona  fide,  and  with- 
out fraud,  previously  formed. ^^ 

Some  recent  writers  have  claimed  that  the  Founders  dis- 
tinguished between  "human  rights"  and  property  rights  in 
favor  of  "human  rights."  It  should  be  clear  from  the  above 
that  no  such  distinction  can  be  discerned,  nor  has  the  pre- 
sent writer  ever  seen  a  quotation  from  the  original  that 
could  reasonably  be  construed  to  show  that  the  Founders 
made  any  such  distinction. 

Property  was,  however,  freed  from  various  feudal 
restraints  during  this  period  and  made  more  fully  the  pos- 
session of  the  individual  holding  title  to  it.  The  most  gen- 
eral encumbrance  on  property  ownership  was  the 
quitrent — a  jDeriodical  payment  due  to  king  or  proprietor 
on  land,  a  payment  that  originated  in  the  late  Middle  Ages 
as  money  payments  displaced  personal  servitude.  Such 
claims  were  speedily  extinguished  following  the  break 
from  England,  and  land  thereafter  was  held  in  "fee  simple." 
Such  royal  prerogatives  as  the  right  of  the  monarch  to  white 
pines  on  private  land  were,  of  course,  nullified.  States  abol- 
ished entail,  also,  a  move  which  enhanced  the  authority  of 
the  owner  to  dispose  of  his  lands. 

V\rith  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  whole  edifice 
of  mercantilism  as  imposed  from  England  was  swept  away. 
One  historian  describes  the  impact  of  this  as  follows:  "As  a 
result  of  the  American  Revolution,  freedom  of  enterprise,  that 
is,  the  equal  opportunity  of  any  individual  to  engage  in  any 
economic  activity  he  chooses  in  order  to  amass  wealth,  and  to 
hold  onto  his  wealth  or  dispose  of  it  as  he  pleases,  became  a 
living  reality  in  America  to  a  greater  degree  than  before."^^ 


18  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 
Abolition  of  Classes 

Another  sort  of  innovation  may  be  described  as  anti- 
class  in  its  character.  Fixed  classes  are  supported  and  main- 
tained by  government  where  they  exist.  Americans  of  this 
period  wanted  to  remove  government  support  of  classes 
and  prevent  the  growth  of  special  privileges  by  which 
classes  are  shaped.  Some  of  the  actions  already  described 
were,  in  part,  anti-class  measures.  For  example,  the  estab- 
lished Church  of  England  was  hierarchical  and,  in  England 
particularly,  a  major  support  of  class  arrangements.  Its 
disestablishment  in  America  struck  at  the  root  of  govern- 
ment support  of  class  structures.  Entailment  was  a  means 
of  perpetuating  great  estates,  just  as  quitrents  were  devices 
for  maintaining  aristocracies.  Other  actions  were  taken  that 
were  even  more  pointedly  aimed  at  removing  government 
from  its  role  as  class  perpetuator. 

One  of  these  was  the  abolition  of  primogeniture.  Primo- 
geniture was  the  rule  that  the  estate  of  one  who  died  with- 
out a  will  should  go  either  whole  or  in  larger  part  to  the 
eldest  son.  States  abolished  this  rule  and  adopted  the  prac- 
tice of  dividing  the  estate  equally  among  the  children  when 
the  father  died  intestate.  The  tendency  of  this  was  for  great 
estates  to  be  broken  up  from  time  to  time. 

Various  sorts  of  provisions  were  made  in  state  constitu- 
tions to  prevent  the  growth  of  aristocratic  privileges.  For 
example,  the  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights  had  this  provision: 

That  no  man,  or  set  of  men,  are  entitled  to  exclu- 
sive or  separate  emoluments  or  privileges  from  the 
community,  but  in  consideration  of  publick  services; 
which,  not  being  descendible,  neither  ought  the  offices 
of  magistrate,  legislator  or  judge  to  be  hereditary.^^ 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  19 
The  Massachusetts  Declaration  held: 

No  man,  nor  corporation,  or  association  of  men, 
have  any  other  title  to  obtain  advantages,  or  particu- 
lar and  exclusive  privileges,  distinct  from  those  of 
the  community,  than  what  arises  from  the  consider- 
ation of  services  rendered  to  the  public;  and  this  title 
being  in  nature  neither  hereditary,  nor  transmissible 
to  children,  or  descendants,  or  relations  by  blood; 
the  idea  of  a  man  bom  a  magistrate,  lawgiver,  or 
judge,  is  absurd  and  unnatural.^^ 

The  animus  against  titles  of  nobility  found  expression 
sometimes.  So  strong  was  the  animus  against  hereditary 
positions  that  the  Society  of  Cincinnati,  a  voluntary  as- 
sociation of  officers  who  had  served  in  the  War  for  Inde- 
pendence, found  it  expedient  to  abandon  the  rule  that 
membership  could  be  inherited  to  allay  the  indignation 
against  them.  Frequent  elections  and  restrictions  on  the 
amount  of  time  one  could  serve  in  office  were  efforts  to  pre- 
vent the  emergence  of  a  ruling  class,  at  least  in  part. 

The  kind  of  equality  sought  by  prohibitions  against 
govemmentally  fostered  classes  was  equality  before  the 
law.  So  far  as  any  other  equality  was  concerned,  American 
opinion  of  the  time  accepted  differences  in  wealth  and 
social  station  as  inevitable  and  desirable  results  of  differ- 
ences in  ability  and  effort.  Undoubtedly,  there  were  those  in 
that  day  who  would  have  liked  to  have  some  portions  of 
the  wealth  and  estates  of  others — who  coveted  what  was 
not  theirs — as  there  are  in  any  day,  but  they  were  either 
inarticulate  or  ashamed  to  profess  their  views.  Some  histo- 
rians have  made  much  ado  about  the  confiscation  and  sale 
of  Loyalist  estates  during  the  war.  This  is  treated  as  if  it 


20  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

were  a  redistributionist  scheme,  and  there  is  an  attempt  to 
give  factual  support  to  this  notion  by  pointing  out  that 
large  estates  were  sometimes  broken  up  before  they  were 
offered  for  sale.  This  did  sometimes  happen,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  was  done  with  any  motive  of  equalizing  hold- 
ings. Small  parcels  attract  more  bidders  than  large  ones; 
hence,  the  price  attained  for  large  estates  was  likely  to  be 
increased  by  dividing  them  up.  Moreover,  large  estates 
were  sometimes  formed  or  added  to  by  buying  several 
parcels.^'' 

Limitations  on  Government 

There  were  some  general  changes  in  governments  dur- 
ing this  period,  changes  in  degree  from  what  they  had  been 
under  British  rule.  The  main  tendency  was  to  make  the 
state  governments  more  dependent  upon  the  popular  will 
than  they  had  been  during  the  colonial  period.  The  new 
state  constitutions  required  that  all  state  officers  either  be 
chosen  by  the  electorate  or  appointed  by  those  who  had. 

The  main  impetus  behind  making  governments  depend 
more  closely  on  the  electorate  was  a  profound  fear  of  gov- 
ernment. This  distrust  of  government  was  most  clearly 
shown  in  the  distrust  of  governors  and  courts,  those  parts 
of  the  government  that  had  not  been  popularly  chosen  dur- 
ing the  colonial  period.  The  colonists  feared  the  legisla- 
tures, too,  or  so  the  limitations  on  them  would  indicate,  but 
out  of  their  colonial  experience,  they  feared  them  less  than 
the  other  branches.  In  point  of  fact,  Americans  relied  rather 
heavily  on  a  narrow  and  provincial  colonial  experience  in 
making  their  first  constitutions.  Probably,  Massachusetts 
and  New  York  should  be  excepted  from  these  strictures. 

The  office  of  governor — or  whatever  the  executive 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Rqyuhlic  /  21 

might  be  called,  for  some  states  abandoned  briefly  that 
colonial  title — was  stripped  of  much  of  the  power  and  most 
of  the  independence  enjoyed  by  colonial  chief  executives. 
Colonial  governors  had  usually  possessed  an  absolute  veto 
over  legislation.  The  new  executives  were  stripped  of  the 
veto  power  in  all  but  two  of  the  states — Massachusetts  and 
New  York — ,  and  in  these  the  power  was  somewhat  weak- 
ened, hi  all  the  states  but  New  York  the  legislatures  or  the 
constitutions  governed  the  assembling  and  dispersal  of  the 
legislative  branch.  In  eight  of  the  states,  the  chief  executive 
was  elected  by  the  legislature,  and  he  was  made,  thereby, 
greatly  dependent  upon  it.  His  tenure  of  office  was  usually 
quite  brief.  In  nine  states,  it  was  only  twelve  months,  and 
nowhere  was  it  for  a  longer  period  than  three  years.  To  pre- 
vent the  growth  of  personal  power  in  the  hands  of  the  gov- 
ernor, most  state  constitutions  limited  the  number  of  terms 
he  could  serve  in  a  given  period.^^ 

Courts  and  Legislatures 

The  courts  generally  were  made  more  dependent  on 
legislatures  than  they  had  been  formerly.  The  Pennsylvania 
constitution  described  the  relationship  this  way:  "The 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  judicature  shall  have  fixed 
salaries,  be  commissioned  for  seven  years  only,  though 
capable  of  reappointment  at  the  end  of  that  term,  but 
removable  for  misbehavior  at  any  time  by  the  general 
assembly. . .  ."^^  Even  so,  the  principle  of  separation  of  pow- 
ers generally  prevailed  as  between  the  courts  and  the  legis- 
lature more  fully  than  between  governors  and  legislatures. 

The  legislatures  were  subject  to  frequent  elections,  a 
device  for  making  them  closely  dependent  upon  the  elec- 
torate. In  ten  of  the  states  the  lower  house  was  subject  to 


22  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

annual  elections;  in  two  states  their  terms  were  only  for 
six  months.  The  members  of  the  upper  house  usually  had 
somewhat  longer  terms,  but  one  state  did  not  even  have 
an  upper  house.^^  Even  so,  the  powers  of  the  legislatures 
were  quite  extensive.  Thomas  Jefferson  complained  that 
in  Virginia: 

All  the  powers  of  government,  legislative,  execu- 
tive, and  judiciary,  result  to  the  legislative  body.  .  .  . 
An  elective  despotism  was  not  the  government  we 
fought  for,  but  one  which  should  not  only  be 
founded  on  free  principles,  but  in  which  the  powers 
of  government  should  be  so  divided  and  balanced 
among  several  bodies  of  magistracy,  as  that  no  one 
could  transcend  their  legal  limits,  without  being 
effectually  checked  and  restrained  by  the  others.^^ 

What  had  been  generally  done  was  this:  Americans  in 
establishing  their  state  governments  had  sought  to  check 
them  by  the  electorate  rather  more  than  by  an  internal  bal- 
ance of  powers.  The  people  could,  however,  use  their  in- 
fluence to  abet  arbitrary  government  as  well  as  to  check  it. 

There  was  also  some  extension  of  the  franchise  during 
this  period.  In  addition,  several  legislatures  were  reappor- 
tioned to  give  inhabitants  in  the  backcountry  a  more  nearly 
proportionate  voice  in  government.  One  of  the  trends,  in 
this  connection,  was  the  movement  of  state  capitals  inland 
from  the  coast  to  make  them  more  accessible  to  the  back- 
country. 

Most  of  these  were  changes  of  degree  rather  than  of 
kind.  To  call  them  revolutionary,  as  some  twentieth-century 
historians  have,  is  a  distortion  of  what  happened  and  a 
stretching  of  the  meaning  of  revolution  beyond  reasonable 


The  Founding  of  the  American  Republic  /  23 

confines.  Insofar  as  they  were  changes  from  what  had  pre- 
vailed, they  were  culminations  of  trends  long  afoot.  Ameri- 
cans had  been  tending  toward  religious  liberty  in  practice 
long  before  they  established  it  in  fundamental  law.  They 
had  been  evading,  so  far  as  they  could,  quitrents,  primo- 
geniture, and  entail.  Their  new  governmental  structures 
embodied  much  of  what  they  had  been  contending  with 
the  British  for.  Bills  of  rights,  bicameral  legislatures,  and 
weak  executives,  were  built  on  the  British  model.  The 
assault  on  special  privilege  did  run  contrary  to  recent 
British  practice  to  some  extent,  but  it  was  quite  in  accord 
with  what  Americans  had  been  doing  almost  since  they 
had  reached  the  New  World.  If  in  their  early  enthusiasms  in 
government  building  they  did  not  attend  to  a  broader  expe- 
rience than  their  colonial  one,  this  did  not  make  their  acts 
revolutionary,  only  precipitate.  They  were  clear  enough 
that  they  wanted  to  protect  the  individual  from  govern- 
ment in  the  enjoyment  of  his  rights;  they  did  not  at  first 
realize  how  much  more  this  took  than  felicitously  phrased 
declarations.  Weak  governments  do  not  make  liberty  and 
property  secure;  that  is  the  office  of  powerful  governments 
internally  restrained.  Many  Americans  were  to  learn  this 
lesson,  and  that  rather  quickly  But  just  as  their  first  ex- 
f>eriments  were  not  revolutionary  in  character,  no  more 
were  tlieir  later  alterations  a  counterrevolution. 


1.  See  Merrill  Jensen,  The  New  Nation  (New  York:  Vintage  Books, 
1950),  p.  132. 

2.  Ibid.,  p.  133. 

3.  John  Fiske,  The  Critical  Period  of  American  History  (Boston: 
Houghton  Mifflin,  1916),  p.  78. 

4.  Jack  P.  Greene,  ed..  Colonies  to  Nation  (New  York:  McGraw-Hill, 
1%7),  pp.  390-391. 


24  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

5.  Fiske,  op.  cit.,  p.  71. 

6.  Greene,  op.  cit,  p.  397. 

7.  Ibid.,  p.  398. 

8.  See  Fiske,  op.  cit,  pp.  74-75. 

9.  See  Robert  A.  Rutland,  The  Birth  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  (New  York: 
Collier,  1962),  p.  109. 

10.  Henry  S.  Commager,  ed..  Documents  of  American  History,  I  (New 
York:  Appleton-Century-Crofts,  1962,  7th  ed.),  p.  107. 

11.  Ihid.,  p.  104. 

12.  Ihid.,  p.  108. 

13.  Greene,  op.  cit,  pp.  472-473. 

14.  Dumas  Malone  and  Basil  Rauch,  Empire  for  Liberty,  I  (New  York: 
Appleton-Century-Crofts,  1960),  p.  196. 

15.  Commager,  op.  cit.,  p.  103. 

16.  Ihid.,  p.  108. 

17.  See  Frederick  B.  Tolles,  ''A  Re-evaluation  of  the  Revolution  as  a 
Social  Movement,''  George  A.  Billias,  ed..  The  American  Revolution  (New 
York:  Holt,  Rinehart  and  Winston,  1970,  2nd  ed.),  pp.  66-67. 

18.  See  Richard  Hofstadter,  et  al..  The  United  States  (Englewood 
Cliffs,  N.J.:  Prentice  Hall,  1967,  2nd  ed.),  p.  160. 

19.  Greene,  op.  cit.,  p.  343. 

20.  Hofstadter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  159-160. 

21.  Quoted  in  Nelson  M.  Blake,  A  History  of  American  Life  and 
Thought  (New  York:  McGraw-Hill,  1963),  p.  100. 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli 
John  Wesley  Young 


An  abiding  problem  in  political  thought,  one  that  has 
vexed  the  soul  of  many  a  philosopher  and  statesman,  is  the 
problem  of  how  to  establish  and  keep  order  in  society. 
Without  order,  without  accepted  standards  of  civility  and 
right  conduct,  a  nation  will  lack  peace,  justice,  and  prosper- 
ity. Without  order  it  will  sink  backward  into  barbarism  and 
brute  existence. 

The  problem  of  order  is  especially  complex  for  peoples 
who  live  under  representative  governments.  Dictators  can 
brandish  the  bayonet  and  the  bludgeon  to  restrain  and 
humble  their  subjects,  but  on  what  can  republics  depend? 
How  can  a  self-governing  citizenry,  the  repositories  of 
political  sovereignty  in  a  free  society,  rule  themselves  equi- 
tably and  with  dignity?  How  can  they  live  together  in  lib- 
erty without  soon  abusing  that  liberty  and  butchering  one 
another  like  savages? 

The  answer  is  that  to  balance  the  blessings  of  order  and 
liberty,  republics  must  depend  upon  the  virtue  of  the  peo- 
ple themselves.  But  how  to  plant  in  the  breasts  of  the  peo- 
ple those  good  old  republican  virtues — honesty,  frugality, 
temperance,  self-sacrifice,  and  vigilance  against  tyranny — 
without  which  they  will  descend  into  anarchy  and  ulti- 


John  Wesley  Young,  an  educator,  wrote  this  article  for  the  July  1977 
issue  of  The  Freeman. 

25 


26  /  John  Wesley  Young 

mate  despotism,  the  victims  of  an  enterprising  Napoleon 
or  Caesar? 

There  is  one  medium,  important  above  all  others,  for 
transmitting  virtue  to  republican  populaces:  religion.  As 
Washington  stated  in  his  Farewell  Address,  "Of  all  the  dis- 
positions and  habits  which  lead  to  political  prosperity,  reli- 
gion and  morality  are  indispensable  supports."  But  that 
suggests  yet  another  question:  What  should  be  the  legal 
relation  of  religion  to  government  in  a  republic?  Broadly 
speaking,  among  republicans  there  are  two  schools  of 
thought  on  the  subject. 

Two  Points  of  View 

One  school,  a  comparatively  recent  development  in 
political  thought,  contends  that  the  best  approach  to  reli- 
gion in  republics  is  simply  to  make  government  leave  it 
alone.  To  entangle  church  with  state,  it  is  argued,  will 
surely  corrupt  both.  The  church  best  serves  society  when  it 
is  free  from  interference  by  civil  government. 

The  other  school,  a  much  older  one,  advocates  using  the 
authority  of  republican  government  to  foster  and  maintain 
religion — that  is,  to  "establish"  it,  either  through  outright 
legal  recognition  and  subsidization,  or  through  less  com- 
prehensive forms  of  assistance,  such  as  Sabbath  laws  or 
religious  tests  for  public  office.  Since  virtue  is  necessary  to 
the  prosperity  and  progress  of  a  republic,  and  religion  is 
necessary  to  virtue,  we  ought — or  so  the  reasoning  goes — 
to  use  the  power  of  government  to  promote  religion  among 
the  citizens. 

To  many  spokesmen  for  this  school  it  does  not  seem  to 
matter  so  much  which  religion  or  which  form  of  Christianity 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  17 

is  promoted  as  that  the  religion  should  help  produce  duti- 
ful and  patriotic  men  and  women. 

Consider  the  views  of  one  of  these  spokesmen,  Niccolo 
Machiavelli  of  Florence  (1469-1527).  Better  known  for 
having  authored  The  Prince,  a  kind  of  handbook  for  intel- 
ligent tyrants,  Machiavelli,  in  a  puzzling  and  perverse 
way,  was  actually  an  ardent  apologist  for  popular  govern- 
ment. His  study  of  ancient  history  convinced  Machiavelli 
that,  as  he  writes  in  his  Discourses  on  the  First  Ten  Books  of 
Titus  Livius,  "the  observance  of  divine  institutions  is  the 
cause  of  the  greatness  of  republics."  Neglect  such  obser- 
vance, Machiavelli  warns,  and  a  republic  perishes.  "For 
where  the  fear  of  God  is  wanting,  there  the  country  will 
come  to  ruin,  unless  it  be  sustained  by  the  fear  of  the 
prince,  which  may  temporarily  supply  the  want  of  reli- 
gion/'^ In  that  case,  of  course,  a  republic  ceases  to  be  a 
republic.  Religion,  then,  is  essential  to  republics  because  it 
gives  them  cohesion  and  durability.  The  best  republicans 
are  pious  republicans. 

So  far,  so  fine.  But  interestingly  enough,  Machiavelli  sin- 
gles out  for  praise  the  legendary  Sabine  king,  Numa  Pom- 
pilius,  who  took  the  early  Romans,  "a  very  savage  people" 
and  taught  them  habits  of  obedience  by  using  religion  as  a 
social  cement.  Indeed,  Machiavelli  attributes  more  histori- 
cal importance  to  Numa  than  to  Romulus,  Rome's  founder; 
for  Numa's  invention  of  religious  forms  made  possible  the 
rise  of  Rome  to  republican  greatness.^ 

And  just  how  did  Numa  use  religion  as  a  social  cement? 
Machiavelli  doesn't  say  in  great  detail,  but  we  learn  from 
Plutarch,  an  ancient  Greek  historian,  that  Numa  filled  the 
imaginations  of  Romans  "with  religious  terrors,  professing 
that  strange  apparitions  had  been  seen,  and  dreadful  voices 


28  /  John  Wesley  Young 

heard;  thus  subduing  and  humbling  their  minds  by  a  sense 
of  supernatural  fears."^ 

In  other  words,  Numa  exploited  the  superstitions  of  a 
primitive  people.  Machiavelli  himself  notes  approvingly 
that,  throughout  the  period  of  the  Republic,  religious  sanc- 
tions were  sometimes  used  with  great  effect  to  inspire,  dis- 
cipline and  direct  the  Roman  armies  "on  the  eve  of  battle 
with  that  confidence  which  is  the  surest  guaranty  of  vic- 
tory/'^ For  example,  during  the  long  siege  of  the  city  of  Veil 
in  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  when  the  Roman  troops  grew 
weary  and  threatened  to  quit  the  campaign,  their  generals 
told  them  that  some  of  the  sacred  oracles  had  forecast  the 
fall  of  the  city  when  Lake  Albano,  in  central  Italy,  should 
overflow  its  banks,  as  in  fact  it  had  recently  done.  Actually 
the  oracles  had  made  no  such  forecast;  but  the  Roman  reg- 
ulars did  not  know  that.  Their  resolve  to  fight  on  revived 
and  toughened,  and  finally  they  seized  the  city.^ 

Its  Use  to  the  State 

Observe  that  Machiavelli's  concern  is  not  for  the  truth  of 
the  sacred  "prophecy,"  which  he  well  knows  was  a  fraud, 
but  rather  for  its  effect  on  the  army,  its  utility  to  the  Roman 
state.  It  spurred  the  soldiers'  spirits,  brought  about  the 
defeat  of  an  enemy,  and  hence  helped  to  make  the  world 
safe  for  Roman  republicanism.  It  worked;  therefore  it  was 
good. 

And  therefore  everything  that  tends  to  favor  religion 
(even  though  it  were  believed  to  be  false)  should  be 
received  and  availed  of  to  strengthen  it.  .  .  .  Such 
was,  in  fact,  the  practice  observed  by  sagacious  men 
[in  antiquity];  which  has  given  rise  to  the  belief  in 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  29 

the  miracles  that  are  celebrated  in  religions,  however 
false  they  may  be.  For  the  sagacious  rulers  have 
given  these  miracles  increased  importance,  no  mat- 
ter whence  or  how  they  originated;  and  their  author- 
ity afterwards  gave  them  credence  with  the  people. 
Rome  had  many  such  miracles ^ 

Machiavelli  thinks  that  even  in  modem  times  men,  how- 
ever sophisticated,  can  be  led  to  believe  in  sham  miracles 
and  supernatural  manifestations.  As  proof  he  points  to  Flo- 
rence, the  cultured  Italian  city  where,  for  a  short  time  in  the 
late  fifteenth  century,  many  normally  staid  and  stolid  peo- 
ple were  mesmerized  by  the  preaching  of  Savonarola,  the 
fire-breathing  Dominican  reformer  who  claimed  to  have 
conversed  with  God.'^ 

Now  the  trouble  with  this  utilitarian  approach  to  the 
problem  of  order,  religion  and  republican  virtue  is  just 
that — its  utilitarianism.  Besides  its  utter  contempt  for  truth- 
fulness, the  spirit  of  it  is  decidedly  unrepublican.  For  in 
picking  out  the  Roman  solution  to  the  problem,  Machiavelli 
has  not  picked  out  a  peculiarly  republican  solution.  Roman 
religion,  in  fact,  was  no  different  in  its  essential  relation  to 
the  state  from  the  religions  of  Egypt,  the  Mesopotamian 
kingdoms,  the  Seleucid  Empire,  or  any  other  ancient  autoc- 
racy. It,  too,  like  the  other  religions,  proceeded  downward 
from  the  leaders  to  the  masses.  Often  the  leaders  employed 
it  as  a  propaganda  tool,  a  device  for  duping  the  multitude. 

Machiavelli  does  not  dwell,  for  instance,  on  the  excep- 
tionally cynical  use  made  of  religion  in  the  later  Roman 
Republic,  especially  during  the  civil  wars  that  climaxed 
with  Julius  Caesar's  dictatorship.  Religion  became  in  great 
degree  the  instrument  of  oligarchs  and  demagogues.  Many 
important  Roman  statesmen  of  the  period — Servilius,  Lep- 


30  /  John  Wesley  Young 

idus,  Pompey,  Cicero,  and  Caesar  himself,  among  others — 
were  also  priests  of  the  state  religion,  and  they  manipulated 
that  religion  in  order  to  reinforce  their  grip  on  the  govern- 
ment.^ It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  this  sort  of  practice  with  the 
power  of  free  choice  implicit  in  republicanism. 

But  in  vain  would  anyone  raise  that  objection  to  Machi- 
avelli.  For  he  wants  utilitarian  religion — ^not  quite  in  the 
form  into  which  it  degenerated  in  Rome,  perhaps,  but  at 
any  rate  an  established  religion,  a  religion  that  is  only  an 
arm  or  extension  of  the  state,  a  religion  that  teaches  the 
martial  virtues.  This  explains  Machiavelli's  personal  hostil- 
ity to  Christianity  as  he  perceives  it  to  be  lived  by  men  of 
his  age.  Because  of  its  other-worldliness,  he  feels,  Chris- 
tianity has  made  them  too  effeminate,  too  indifferent  to 
their  country's  liberty,  too  apt  "to  suffer  than  to  achieve 
great  deeds."^  He  doesn't  care  a  jot  whether  religion  edifies 
or  uplifts  individuals,  so  long  as  it  buoys  the  state. 

Religion  as  a  Social  Cement 

Without  doubt  the  Machiavellian  position  is  an  extreme 
one.  And  yet  it  is  true  that  after  Machiavelli's  death,  and 
well  into  the  modem  era,  most  republicans  continued  to 
treat  religion,  the  Christian  religion  included,  as  a  social 
cement  more  than  a  "sovereign  balm"  for  the  soul.  They 
may  have  lacked  Machiavelli's  cynicism,  they  may  even 
have  been  devout  believers,  but  in  the  matter  of  religion's 
relation  to  republican  government  they  were  still  Machi- 
avellians after  a  fashion. 

Think  of  any  famous  republican  political  philosopher 
prior  to  about  1780,  and  almost  certainly  he  will  have  advo- 
cated in  some  sense  the  mixing  of  politics  with  formal  reli- 
gion. He  may,  like  the  Genevese  Rousseau  or  the  English- 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  31 

man  James  Harrington,  have  favored  toleration  for  most 
dissenting  sects,  but  he  could  not  have  brought  himself  to 
call  for  complete  severance  of  church  from  state.^^  He  could 
not  have  visualized  full  religious  liberty — an  almost 
untried  freedom  until  the  eighteenth  century — invigorat- 
ing a  republic.  To  abandon  men  wholly  to  their  private 
judgment  in  religion,  his  instincts  would  have  told  him, 
would  kindle  social  chaos  and  destroy  the  state,  no  matter 
how  well-ordered  and  free  its  purely  political  institutions 
might  be.  Remove  the  official  religious  props  and  any  pop- 
ular government  would  crash  down  like  the  house  of 
Dagon. 

Not  for  more  than  two  centuries  after  Machiavelli  did 
any  prominent  republican  sally  forth  to  assault  such  ideas. 
Significantly,  the  definitive  refutation  of  Machiavelli  came, 
not  from  the  continent  of  Europe,  but  from  the  New  World, 
from  the  pen  of  James  Madison,  quite  possibly  the  pro- 
foundest  political  thinker  who  ever  lived. 

Spiritual  Crisis  in  1780s 

A  bit  of  historical  background  is  necessary.  In  the  early 
1780s  the  thirteen  newly  confederated  republics  of  America 
were  faced  with  a  spiritual  crisis  no  less  grave  than  the 
political  crisis  which  had  forced  them,  in  1776,  to  cut  their 
connection  with  the  British  Empire.  As  so  often  happens  in 
the  midst  of  war  and  in  its  aftermath,  America  suffered  a 
sort  of  moral  depression.  This  is  an  often-overlooked  aspect 
of  our  Revolutionary  history,  but  it  was  much  commented- 
on  by  contemporaries. 

Political  and  moral  corruption  were  reportedly  prolifer- 
ating and  threatening  to  unfit  the  people  for  republican 
freedom.  Newspapers  bemoaned  the  evaporation  of  virtue 


32  /  John  Wesley  Young 

because  of  "the  visible  declension  of  religion, ...  the  rapid 
progress  of  licentious  manners,  and  open  profanity."^^  Cler- 
gymen warned  of  impending  divine  judgment  upon  an 
impenitent  people,  but  they  were  plainly  not  the  only  ones 
alarmed.  "Justice  &  Virtue,"  wrote  George  Mason  to  Patrick 
Henry  in  May  1783,  "are  the  vital  Principles  of  republican 
Government;  but  among  us,  a  Depravity  of  Manners  & 
Morals  prevails,  to  the  Destruction  of  all  Confidence 
between  Man  &  Man."^^  Mason  wondered  if  America's 
independence  would  prove  a  blessing  or  a  curse. 

What  would  the  new  republican  governments  do,  in 
these  circumstances,  to  retrieve  the  disappearing  virtue  of 
the  people? 

For  a  time  they  yielded,  or  seemed  to  yield,  to  the  utili- 
tarian temptation.  To  cite  the  most  notable  example.  Article 
II  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Constitution,  drawn  up  in 
1780,  granted  freedom  of  worship  "in  the  manner  and  sea- 
son most  agreeable  to  the  dictates  of  [the  citizen's]  own 
conscience";  but  the  very  next  article,  declaring  that  "the 
happiness  of  a  people,  and  the  good  order  and  preservation 
of  civil  government,  essentially  depend  upon  piety,  religion 
and  morality,"  empowered  the  state  legislature  to  require 
local  governments  and  "religious  societies"  to  provide  for 
"public  worship  of  GOD,  and  for  the  support  and  mainte- 
nance of  public  protestant  teachers  of  piety,  religion  and 
morality,  in  all  cases  where  such  provision  shall  not  be 
made  voluntarily"^^  In  other  words,  the  Massachusetts 
constitution-makers  were  harnessing  religion — in  this  in- 
stance "protestant"  religion — to  the  state. 

Virginia  Considers  Tax  Support  of  Teachers 

Similarly,  in  1784,  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Virginia 
General  Assembly  calling  for  an  annual  tax  assessment  to 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  33 

support  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion  in  "the  general 
diffusion  of  Christian  knowledge/'  knowledge  which 
would  help  "preserve  the  peace  of  society/'^^  With  appar- 
ent impartiality  the  bill  would  have  permitted  each  tax- 
payer to  designate  which  Christian  denomination  his  tax 
contribution  would  go  to.  Along  with  many  Presbyteri- 
ans and  the  recently  disestablished  Episcopal  Church, 
honest  republicans  like  Patrick  Henry,  George  Washing- 
ton, John  Marshall,  and  Richard  Henry  Lee  supported  the 
measure. 

Legislative  opponents  of  the  assessment,  among  them 
James  Madison,  managed  to  postpone  for  almost  one  year  a 
final  vote  on  the  bill.  Meanwhile  they  launched  a  campaign 
to  work  up  opposition  to  it  from  the  grassroots.  The  big  gun 
in  their  arsenal  of  intellectual  weapons  was  a  pamphlet  by 
Madison,  "A  Memorial  and  Remonstrance  Against  Reli- 
gious Assessments."^^ 

In  the  numerous  collections  of  American  historical  doc- 
uments, Madison's  pamphlet  does  not  appear  nearly  as 
often  as  Thomas  Jefferson's  more  eloquent  Statute  for  Reli- 
gious Freedom,  but  Madison's  is  in  truth  the  superior 
statement  on  religious  rights.  It  should  be  read  in  its 
entirety,  but  for  our  purposes  we  may  draw  out  of  it  that 
thread  of  thought  which  refutes  the  Machiavellian  thesis. 
Without  referring  directly  to  the  Florentine,  Madison 
demolishes  with  impeccable  logic  the  old  Machiavellian 
argument  that  established  religion  is  necessary  to  sound 
civil  government. 

To  begin  with,  civil  society,  according  to  Madison,  is  not 
the  highest  good.  Other  things  take  precedence  over  it.  A 
man's  duty  to  his  Creator,  for  example,  is  prior  to  any  duty 
to  society.  Government,  even  with  the  force  of  majority 
opinion  pressed  behind  it,  must  not  encroach  upon  man's 
natural  right  to  worship  the  Almighty  as  conscience  obliges 


34  /  John  Wesley  Young 

him.  Obedience  belongs  first  to  God,  the  "Universal  Sover- 
eign." Civil  obligations  come  second. 

A  Power  to  be  Feared 

Notice  here  that  Madison  has  stood  Machiavelli  on  his 
head.  The  Florentine  republican  makes  the  stability  of  pop- 
ular government  an  end  in  itself,  with  individual  rights  tac- 
itly subordinated  to  that  end.  But  to  the  Virginian  any  truly 
popular  government  will  respect  popular  rights,  especially 
the  right  of  free  worship.  This  conviction  of  Madison  neces- 
sarily determines  his  attitude  to  established  religion. 
Because  he  would  protect  men's  rights  and  their  power  of 
free  choice,  he  must  oppose  the  slightest  suggestion  of 
enforced  conformity  to  a  particular  religious  system.  Chris- 
tian or  non-Christian,  even  if  the  state  needs  the  underpin- 
ning of  virtue  that  religion  provides. 

After  all,  if  the  state  has  power  to  grant  recognition  to  a 
religion,  it  has  also  the  power  to  suppress  other  religions 
and  religious  opinions.  And  that  is  more  power  than  can 
safely  be  entrusted  to  it,  power  enough  to  pervert  the  ends 
for  which  genuinely  republican  government  is  instituted. 

As  to  one  of  the  arguments  put  forth  by  the  friends  of 
establishment,  that  it  is  needed  to  help  religion — this,  says 
Madison,  is  unhistorical  nonsense.  Consider  the  history  of 
the  Christian  church.  At  what  point  in  its  development  was 
Christianity  at  its  purest  and  most  vigorous — before  or 
after  Constantine?  In  fact  it  flourished  in  "the  ages  prior  to 
its  incorporation  with  Civil  policy,"  and  this  in  spite  of 
prodigious  resistance  to  its  growth. 

On  the  other  hand,  fifteen  centuries  of  establishment 
have  very  nearly  emaciated  Christianity  in  those  countries 
where  one  or  another  version  of  it  has  received  official 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  35 

sanction.  And  if  enacted,  the  Virginia  assessment  bill— 
which  Madison  regards  as  in  effect  an  establishment  of  reli- 
gion—would actually  obstruct  the  progress  of  Christianity. 
It  would  make  Virginia  little  different  from  those  heathen 
countries  that  seek  to  shut  out  the  light  of  Christian  revela- 
tion, for  "instead  of  levelling  as  far  as  possible,  every  obsta- 
cle to  the  victorious  progress  of  truth,  the  Bill  with  an  igno- 
ble and  unchristian  timidity  would  circumscribe  it,  with  a 
wall  of  defence,  against  the  encroachments  of  error."  That 
wall  would  frighten  away  potential  converts  to  Christian- 
ity. Benefit  religion?  Establishment  destroys  it. 

Prelude  to  Tyranny 

Now  if  religion  is  better  off  without  direct  government 
support,  then  government  itself  need  not  rest  on  an  official 
religious  foundation.  For  if  government  is  helped  by 
healthy  religion,  and  if  religion  is  healthiest  when  unbri- 
dled by  the  state,  then  government  ought  for  its  own  sake 
to  leave  it  be.  It  should  not,  in  Madison's  words,  "employ 
Religion  as  an  engine  of  Civil  policy."  To  do  so  would  be 
"an  unhallowed  perversion  of  the  means  of  salvation." 

In  fine,  legal  establishments  of  religion  plunge  a  people 
into  spiritual  or  political  tyranny.  "In  no  instance  have  they 
been  seen  the  guardians  of  the  liberties  of  the  people."  A 
just  government  (and  to  Madison  "just"  means  republican} 
"will  be  best  supported  by  protecting  every  citizen  in  the 
enjoyment  of  his  Religion  with  the  same  equal  hand  which 
protects  his  person  and  his  property;  by  neither  invading 
the  equal  rights  of  any  Sect,  nor  suffering  any  Sect  to  invade 
those  of  another." 

It  is  important  to  grasp  what  Madison  is  saying  here.  He 
is  saying  that  republican  government  does  itself  a  favor 


36  /  John  Wesley  Young 

when  it  relaxes  the  political  control  of  religion  in  society — 
an  assertion  that  would  have  shocked  Machiavelli,  if  any- 
thing could.  Government  interference  will  destroy  genuine 
religion  and  thereby  thwart  the  supposed  purpose  for 
interfering  in  the  first  place,  which  is  to  aid  religion  and 
thus  republican  government.  But  relax  the  controls  and 
religion  can  prosper;  and,  as  Machiavelli  himself  would 
say,  when  religion  prospers  the  state  prospers. 

Madison's  fellow  Virginians  sided  with  him  in  the 
debate  against  Machiavelli,  for  popular  pressure  brought 
on  defeat  of  the  assessment  measure.  But  when  the  General 
Assembly  proceeded  to  enact  in  1786  Jefferson's  bill  for 
complete  religious  liberty,  lamentations  went  up  elsewhere, 
especially  over  New  England.  By  disestablishing  religion, 
declared  one  northern  critic,  the  Virginia  legislators  have 
crushed  "the  most  powerful  seeds  of  that  very  virtue  it 
must  be  supposed  they  wish  to  see  flourish  in  the  state  they 
represent."^^ 

But  had  they?  Years  later,  when  a  correspondent  asked 
Madison  about  the  state  of  religion  and  morals  in  Virginia, 
Madison  replied  that,  contrary  to  some  reports,  religion 
had  not  been  blown  to  pieces  by  disestablishment.  The 
number  of  denominations  had  multiplied  and,  despite  fail- 
ure of  the  assessment  bill  to  pass,  knowledge  of  the  Christ- 
ian religion  had  increased: 

Religious  instruction  is  now  diffused  throughout  the 
community  by  preachers  of  every  sect  with  almost 
equal  zeal.  .  .  .  The  qualifications  of  the  preachers, 
too  among  the  new  sects  where  there  was  the  great- 
est deficiency,  are  understood  to  be  improving.  .  .  . 
The  civil  government,  though  bereft  of  everything 
like  an  associated  hierarchy,  possesses  the  requisite 
stability  and  performs  its  functions  with  complete 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  37 

success;  whilst  the  number,  the  industry,  and  the 
morality  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  devotion  of  the 
people  have  been  manifestly  increased  by  the  total 
separation  of  the  church  from  the  state.^^ 

A  prejudiced  appraisal?  Possibly  But  such  evidence  as 
survives  seems  to  support  Madison.  We  know,  for  instance, 
that  among  Baptists  in  the  James  River  settlements  there 
commenced  in  1785,  the  year  of  the  assessment's  defeat,  a 
revival  that  lasted  well  into  the  1790s  and  spread  through- 
out Virginia  to  other  dissenting  sects.  Even  the  old  Angli- 
can-Episcopal Church  appears  to  have  profited  in  the  long 
run  from  disestablishment.^^ 

Nor  did  the  nation  in  general  fail  to  profit  from  Vir- 
ginia's experience.  Largely  at  Madison's  instigation,  reli- 
gious liberty  became  a  constitutional  (and  republican)  prin- 
ciple with  passage  of  the  First  Amendment,  so  that 
Tocqueville,  the  astute  French  observer  who  visited  Amer- 
ica in  the  1830s,  could  write: 

For  most  people  in  the  United  States  religion,  too,  is 
republican,  for  the  truths  of  the  other  world  are  held 
subject  to  private  judgment,  just  as  in  politics  the 
care  for  men's  temporal  interests  is  left  to  the  good 
sense  of  all.  Each  man  is  allowed  to  choose  freely  the 
path  that  will  lead  him  to  heaven,  just  as  the  law  rec- 
ognizes each  citizen's  right  to  choose  his  own  gov- 
ernment.^^ 

Such  freedom,  Tocqueville  believed,  had  animated  religion 
in  America,  causing  it  to  hold  "quiet  sway"  over  the  coun- 
try while  in  Europe  the  progress  of  secular  social  revolution 
was  sweeping  away  established  churches  in  its  fury. 


38  /  John  Wesley  Young 
Unanswered  Questions 

All  this  doesn't  answer  the  question  of  what  happens  to 
republican  virtue  when  religion  decays  of  its  own  accord, 
when  republican  Christians,  for  instance,  lose  their  "first 
love"  and  lapse  into  vice  and  folly.  Nor  does  it  answer  a  sec- 
ond question  implied,  perhaps,  in  the  first:  Does  history 
turn  in  cycles,  making  the  rise  and  decline  of  religion,  and 
hence  of  republican  government,  inevitable?  Personally 
this  writer  sees  few  things  inevitable  in  a  world  where  the 
great  conditioning  reality  is  man's  freedom  of  will.  But  let 
the  philosophers  grapple  with  that  one. 

The  truth  that  Madison  taught  us,  the  thing  which 
ought  by  now  to  be  burned  into  our  brains,  is  that  republi- 
can government  can  do  nothing  to  help  religion  except  to 
guard  jealously  the  freedom  of  religion.  And,  in  the  final 
analysis,  as  Madison  showed,  that  is  much.  Whatever 
becomes  of  the  American  Republic  in  the  years  ahead,  let  us 
do  our  best  to  see  that  Madison's  answer  to  Machiavelli  is 
never  forgotten. 

1.  Machiavelli,  Discourses,  in  The  Prince  and  the  Discourses  (New 
York:  Modem  Library,  1940),  p.  148. 

2.  Ibid.,  pp.  145-148. 

3.  Plutarch  's  Lives,  trans.  John  Dryden,  rev.  A.  H.  Clough,  5  vols. 
(Boston:  Little,  Brown  and  Co.,  1910),  1:137. 

4.  Discourses,  p.  158. 

5.  Ibid.,  pp.  153-154. 

6.  Ibid.,  p.  150. 

7.  Ibid.,  pp.  148-149. 

8.  See  Lily  Ross  Taylor,  Party  Politics  in  the  Age  of  Caesar  (Berkeley 
and  Los  Angeles:  University  of  California  Press,  1%1),  pp.  76-97. 

9.  Discourses,  p.  285. 

10.  See,  e.g.,  Rousseau's  chapter  "Concerning  Civil  Religion"  in  The 
Social  Contract,  trans.  Willmoore  Kendall  (Chicago:  Henry  Regnery  Co., 


Madison's  Answer  to  Machiavelli  /  39 

1954),  pp.  148-162.  On  Harrington  see  Perez  Zagorin,  A  History  of  Polit- 
ical Thought  in  the  English  Revolution  (London:  Routledge  and  Kegan 
Paul  1954),  p.  141. 

11.  Charleston  S.C.  and  American  Gazette,  21  January  1779,  quoted  in 
Gordon  S.  Wood,  The  Creation  of  the  American  Republic,  1776-1787 
(Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North  Carolina  Press,  1969),  p.  417. 

12.  Mason  to  Patrick  Henry,  6  May  1783,  in  The  Papers  of  George 
Mason,  Robert  A.  Rutland,  ed.,  3  vols.  (Chapel  Hill:  University  of  North 
Carolina  Press,  1970),  2:770. 

13.  The  Massachusetts  Constitution  of  1780,  in  The  Popular  Sources 
of  Authority,  ed.  Oscar  and  Mary  Handlin  (Cambridge:  Harvard  Uni- 
versity Press,  Belknap  Press,  1966),  pp.  442-443. 

14.  Charles  F.  James,  Documentary  History  of  the  Struggle  for  Religious 
Liberty  in  Virginia  (New  York:  Da  Capo  Press,  1971),  p.  129.  On  the  reli- 
gious controversy  in  Virginia  see  John  M.  Mecklin,  The  Story  of  American 
Dissent  (New  York:  Harcourt,  Brace  and  Co.,  1934),  pp.  264-283. 

15.  For  full  text  see  The  Complete  Madison,  Saul  K.  Padover,  ed.  (New 
York:  Harper  and  Brothers,  1953),  pp.  299-306. 

16.  [John  Swanwick],  Considerations  on  an  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  Vir- 
ginia, Entitled  an  Act  for  the  Establishment  of  Religious  Freedom  (Philadel- 
phia, 1786),  p.  6,  quoted  in  Wood,  Creation  of  the  American  Republic,  p. 
427n. 

17.  Madison  to  Robert  Walsh,  2  March  1819,  in  The  Writings  of  James 
Madison,  ed.  Gaillard  Hunt,  9  vols.  (New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons, 
1908),  8:430-432.  Spelling  and  punctuation  updated  here. 

18.  See  James,  Documentary  History,  pp.  147-149;  William  Henry 
Foote,  Sketches  of  Virginia,  new  ed.  (Richmond,  Va.:  John  Knox  Press, 
1966),  pp.  348,  412-429;  George  MacLaren  Brydon,  Virginia's  Mother 
Church,  2  vols.  (Philadelphia:  Church  Historical  Society,  1952), 
2:506-507. 

19.  Tocqueville,  Democracy  in  America,  J.  P.  Mayer,  ed.;  George 
Lawrence,  trans.  (Garden  City,  N.Y.:  Doubleday  Anchor  Books,  1969), 
p.  397.  For  a  classic  essay  on  separation  of  church  and  state,  and  how 
that  principle  prospered  American  government  and  religion  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Republic,  see  ibid.,  pp.  294-301. 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order 
Clarence  B.  Carson 


There  are  truths  to  which  the  passage  of  time  and  the 
gaining  of  new  experience  add  luster  and  vitality.  So  it  has 
been,  for  me  at  least,  with  those  contained  in  Washington's 
Farewell  Address.  With  each  new  reading  of  it,  I  have  been 
impressed  anew  with  the  relevance  of  so  much  that  he  had 
to  say  to  our  own  time.  Often,  too,  I  discover  some  new 
theme  or  emphasis  that  I  had  not  been  aware  of  earlier. 
Undoubtedly,  these  different  impressions  arise  in  part  from 
the  richness  of  the  material  but  also  may  be  conditioned  by 
my  particular  interests  at  a  given  time.  At  any  rate,  the 
theme  of  liberty  and  order  stood  out  for  me  in  my  latest 
reading  of  the  Farewell  Address.  It  seemed  to  me  that  all 
the  parts  fitted  together  into  a  whole  within  the  framework 
of  this  theme. 

Before  getting  into  that,  however,  it  may  be  of  some  aid 
to  place  the  address  in  a  much  broader  historical  frame. 
Some  observations  about  liberty  and  order  more  generally 
will  help  to  set  the  stage  for  his  remarks. 

Thoughtful  men  may  differ  about  the  desirability  of  lib- 
erty, but  they  rarely  do  about  the  necessity  for  order.  Also, 
nations,  kingdoms,  and  empires  have  differed  much  more 
over  the  extent  of  liberty  within  them  than  of  the  degree  of 
order,  over  long  periods  of  time  anyway.  They  have  ranged 
from  the  most  compulsive  tyrannies  to  ones  in  which 


This  essay  appeared  in  the  February  1983  issue  of  The  Freeman. 

40 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order  /  41 

considerable  liberty  prevails.  By  contrast,  all  governments 
are  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent  devoted  to  maintaining 
order.  But  there  are  great  differences  of  belief,  persuasion, 
and  practice  as  to  how  order  is  to  be  maintained  and  the 
proper  role  of  government  in  doing  so.  It  is  the  differences 
on  this  that  largely  determine  the  extent  of  liberty  in  a  coun- 
try. 

There  have  been,  and  are,  countries  in  which  those  in 
power  believe  that  government  must  act  to  impose  order  in 
every  nook  and  cranny  of  society.  The  active  principle  in 
this,  if  principle  it  be,  is  that  if  government  does  not  impose 
order  then  disorder  and  chaos  will  prevail.  Thomas 
Hobbes,  English  philosopher  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
expressed  this  view  with  clarity  and  force.  He  declared  that 
if  men  were  permitted  to  act  according  "to  their  particular 
judgments  and  particular  appetites,  they  can  expect 
thereby  no  defense,  nor  protection  against  a  common 
enemy,  nor  against  the  injuries  of  one  another."  There  must 
be  a  power  over  them,  he  said,  and  the  way  to  get  that 
power  is  "to  confer  all  their  power  and  strength  upon  one 
man,  or  upon  one  assembly  of  men,  that  may  reduce  all 

their  wills  . . .  unto  one  will For  by  this  authority,  given 

him  by  every  particular  man  in  the  commonwealth,  he  hath 
the  use  of  so  much  power  and  strength  conferred  on  him, 
that  by  terror  thereof,  he  is  enabled  to  perform  the  wills  of 
them  all. . . ." 

A  view  similar  to  this  of  what  was  necessary  to  order 
and  how  it  could  be  achieved,  as  well  as  the  role  of  govern- 
ment in  it,  was  widespread  in  Europe  in  the  seventeenth 
century.  It  was  an  age  of  royal  absolutism,  of  claims  about 
the  Divine  right  of  kings,  and  of  the  assertion  of  govern- 
ment power  to  direct  the  lives  of  peoples.  England  had  an 
established  church;  no  others  were  tolerated.  All  were 


42  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

required  to  attend  its  services,  contribute  to  its  support,  and 
have  most  of  the  great  events  of  life  celebrated  or  recorded 
in  it.  The  church  officials  censored  publications,  licensed 
schools,  and  kept  watch  over  the  doings  of  the  people. 

Mercantilism 

Economic  life  was  circumscribed  and  controlled  by  the 
government  under  a  system  most  commonly  known  as 
mercantilism.  The  government  controlled  exports  and  im- 
ports, gave  subsidies,  bounties,  and  grants  to  encourage 
certain  undertakings,  prohibited  others,  gave  patents,  char- 
ters, and  other  forms  of  monopolies  to  individuals  and 
companies,  enforced  craft  regulations,  and  maintained 
much  power  over  the  lands  of  the  realm.  Harsh  penalties 
were  imposed  for  every  sort  of  offense  from  blasphemy  to 
treason.  Evidence  abounded  that  government  was  making 
massive  efforts  to  impose  order.  As  for  liberties,  they  had 
most  commonly  to  be  asserted  against  the  grain  of  the  pre- 
vailing system. 

So,  too,  in  the  twentieth  century,  the  dominant  view  of 
those  in  power  in  many  lands  is  that  government  must 
impose  an  all-encompassing  order  upon  the  peoples  under 
its  sway.  At  its  farthest  reaches,  this  view  achieves  its 
fruition  in  the  totalitarian  state,  with  its  direct  control  over 
all  the  media  of  communication,  every  aspect  of  the  econ- 
omy, over  education,  over  such  religion  as  is  permitted, 
over  work  and  over  play. 

In  other  lands,  where  this  bent  toward  state-compelled 
order  has  been  moderated  thus  far — has  been  kept  from 
going  so  far — it  evinces  itself  in  government  intervention  in 
the  economy,  the  thrust  of  regulation  into  many  realms,  in 
redistribution  of  the  wealth,  in  controls  over  education. 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order  /  43 

medicine,  charity,  and  hundreds  of  other  areas.  The  ideol- 
ogies supf)orting  this  pervasive  government  power  differ 
in  many  particular  respects  from  those  that  supported  sev- 
enteenth-century government  power,  but  the  notion  that 
government  must  impose  an  order  else  chaos  and  disorder 
will  prevail  is  common  to  both.  Extensive  liberty  can  hardly 
be  reconciled  with  such  compulsive  orders. 

That  George  Washington  held  a  view  on  how  to  main- 
tain order  and  the  proper  role  of  government  in  sharp  con- 
trast to  those  described  above  is  manifest  in  his  life  and 
works.  Moreover,  a  seismic  change  in  outlook,  both  in  Eng- 
land and  America  and  over  much  of  Europe,  had  taken 
place  between  the  time  when  Hobbes  had  penned  his  Levia- 
than and  the  founding  of  the  United  States.  A  major  aspect 
of  that  change  was  a  shift  from  the  emphasis  upon  a  gov- 
ernment order  imposed  on  men  toward  individual  liberty 
2md  responsibility.  The  shift  sparked  in  many  Americans  an 
awareness  of  the  danger  of  government  both  to  liberty  and 
to  order.  At  the  root  of  this  shift  was  a  different  conception 
of  the  origin  and  nature  of  order. 

Belief  in  a  Natural  Order 

George  Washington  and  his  contemporaries  were 
imbued  with  a  strong  belief  in  a  natural  order.  Order,  in 
their  view,  was  not  something  that  could  be  arbitrarily  con- 
trived and  imf)osed  by  man.  The  foundations  of  order,  they 
held,  are  in  the  frame  of  the  universe,  in  the  laws  that  gov- 
ern it,  in  the  nature  of  man  and  his  faculty  of  reason,  and  in 
the  principles  of  relationships  by  which  constructive  activi- 
ties can  take  place.  At  best,  men  can  only  act  in  accord  with 
and  imitate  the  order  that  is  given. 

The  belief  in  a  natural  law  and  natural  order  was  not 


44  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

new  to  the  eighteenth  century,  of  course;  it  had  been  around 
since  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  at  least.  But  it  had 
come  to  the  forefront  in  the  century  before  the  founding  of 
the  United  States  as  a  result  both  of  vigorous  efforts  to 
revive  it  and  of  many  scientific  and  philosophical  formula- 
tions of  it. 

Newton  had  persuasively  set  forth  in  mathematical 
terms  the  laws  governing  the  course  of  the  heavenly  bod- 
ies. Thinkers  were  getting  impressive  results  in  their 
searches  for  the  laws  and  principles  governing  all  sorts  of 
relationships.  What  struck  so  many  in  that  age  was  the  idea 
of  proportion,  balance,  harmony,  and  order  resident  in  the 
natural  tendencies  of  the  world  about  them.  Most  mar- 
velous of  all,  at  least  to  many,  this  order  was  consonant 
with  human  liberty.  Rather  than  frustrating  man  in  the  use 
of  his  faculties  for  his  benefit  (and  for  the  commonweal  as 
well),  the  natural  order  provided  means  for  him  to  do  so 
most  effectively.  The  foundations  of  liberty  in  this  belief  in 
a  natural  order  were  in  the  natural  rights  doctrine. 

In  his  Farewell  Address,  Washington  did  not  expand 
upon  or  elaborate  on  the  theme  of  liberty.  Although  the 
word  "liberty"  occurs  several  times  in  the  document,  it 
plays  mainly  a  supportive  role  in  what  he  has  to  say.  The 
attachment  to  liberty  is  assumed,  a  given  if  you  will,  upon 
which  to  hinge  his  arguments.  Washington  said  as  much 
himself:  "Interwoven  as  is  the  love  of  liberty  with  every  lig- 
ament of  your  hearts,  no  recommendation  of  mine  is  neces- 
sary to  fortify  or  confirm  the  attachment."  But,  he  says, 
from  first  one  angle  then  another,  if  you  would  have  liberty 
you  must  support  those  things  on  which  it  depends. 

For  example,  in  recommending  a  united  support  for  the 
general  government,  he  declared:  "This  Government,  the 
off-spring  of  our  own  choice,  .  .  .  adopted  upon  full  inves- 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order  /  45 

tigation  and  mature  deliberation,  completely  free  in  its 
principles,  in  the  distribution  of  its  powers,  uniting  security 
with  energy,  and  containing  within  itself  a  provision  for  its 
own  amendment,  has  a  just  claim  to  your  confidence  and 
support."  To  clinch  the  argument,  he  says  that  these  "are 
duties  enjoined  by  the  fundamental  maxims  of  true  lib- 
erty." In  arguing  against  the  involvement  of  Americans  in 
foreign  intrigues,  he  says  that  by  doing  so  "they  will  avoid 
the  necessity  of  those  overgrown  military  establishments 
which,  under  any  form  of  government,  are  inauspicious  to 
liberty. . . ." 

A  Sense  of  Order 

The  word  "liberty"  occurs  frequently  throughout  the 
address,  but  by  my  fairly  careful  count  the  word  "order" 
occurs  only  once.  Even  that  instance  is  insignificant,  how- 
ever, for  the  word  is  used  in  a  phrase,  as  "in  order  to"  do 
something  or  other.  It  occurs  at  one  other  point  as  part  of 
the  word  "disorders,"  which,  while  more  significant,  is 
hardly  proof  of  a  theme.  Yet  a  sense  of  order  pervades  the 
whole  document.  It  is  there  in  the  cadences  of  the  sen- 
tences, in  the  matching  of  phrase  with  phrase,  in  the  bal- 
ance of  one  tendency  against  another,  in  the  thrust  toward 
discovering  a  common  bond  by  piling  up  references  to  par- 
ticular interests.  It  is  clear,  if  one  reads  between  the  lines, 
that  there  is  an  order  for  men's  lives,  an  order  for  nations, 
an  order  for  relations  among  nations,  an  order  by  which 
parts  belong  to  a  whole,  and  an  order  by  which  balance  and 
harmony  can  be  maintained.  Government  is  not  the  origin 
of  this  order,  but  it  is  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  it, 
even  as  it  is  ever  a  potential  threat  to  it.  Government  is 
made  necessary  by  the  bent  in  man  to  disrupt  order. 


46  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

The  two  main  sources  of  disorder  to  which  Washington 
alludes  are  these.  First,  there  are  those  passions  in  men 
which  incline  them  to  pursue  their  own  particular  and  par- 
tisan designs  at  the  expense  of  the  well-being  of  others. 
Washington  called  it  the  spirit  of  party,  but  we  might 
understand  it  better  as  partisanship  for  causes.  (He  had  in 
mind  the  dangers  of  this  to  the  stability  of  government,  but 
it  does  no  violence  to  his  idea  to  apply  it  to  individuals  as 
well  as  groups.)  "This  spirit,"  he  said,  "unfortunately,  is 
inseparable  from  our  nature,  having  its  roots  in  the 
strongest  passions  of  the  human  mind."  Among  the  dan- 
gers of  these  partisan  passions,  he  declared,  are  these:  "It 
serves  always  to  distract  the  public  councils  and  enfeeble 
the  public  administration.  It  agitates  the  community  with 
ill-founded  jealousies  and  false  alarms;  kindles  the  animos- 
ity of  one  part  against  another;  foments  occasionally  riot 
and  insurrection.  It  opens  the  door  to  foreign  influence  and 
corruption. . . .  Thus  the  policy  and  will  of  one  country  are 
subjected  to  the  policy  and  will  of  another." 

The  other  source  of  disorder,  to  which  Washington 
alludes,  is  "that  love  of  power  and  proneness  to  abuse  it 
which  predominates  in  the  human  heart.  .  .  ."  It  is  this 
power  hunger  which  makes  government  dangerous,  for  it 
prompts  those  who  govern  to  overstep  the  bounds  of  their 
authority.  "The  spirit  of  encroachment,"  Washington 
pointed  out,  "tends  to  consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the 
departments  in  one,  and  thus  to  create,  whatever  the  form 
of  government,  a  real  despotism." 

Advice  and  Counsel 

The  body  of  the  Farewell  Address  is  devoted  to  advice 
and  counsel  about  how  to  conduct  the  government  so  as  to 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order  /  47 

maintain  order  and  preserve  liberty,  and  to  warnings  about 
holding  in  check  those  partisan  tendencies  and  the  bent 
toward  consolidating  power  which  endanger  them.  The 
following  were  his  main  points:  (1)  Maintain  the  union;  (2) 
Keep  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  intact;  (3)  Preserve 
national  independence;  (4)  Buttress  policy  and  behavior 
with  religion  and  morality;  (5)  Cherish  the  public  credit; 
and  (6)  Follow  peaceful  policies  toward  all  nations.  These 
general  principles  are  not  nearly  so  revealing,  however,  as 
his  particular  recommendations  and  the  arguments  he  used 
to  support  them. 

The  main  device  Washington  employed  to  support  his 
advice  to  maintain  the  union  was  to  invoke  those  things  the 
people  had  in  common:  the  name  American,  their  struggles 
for  independence,  their  common  beliefs,  and  their  common 
interest.  He  surveyed  the  continent,  from  a  mountaintop  as 
it  were,  and  ticked  off  how  north  and  south,  east  and  west, 
were  bound  together. 

"The  North,"  he  said,  "in  an  unrestrained  intercourse 
with  the  South,  protected  by  the  equal  laws  of  a  common 
government,  finds  in  the  production  of  the  latter  great .  .  . 
resources  of  maritime  and  commercial  enterprise  and  pre- 
cious materials  of  manufacturing  industry.  The  South,  in  the 
same  intercourse  .  .  .  sees  its  agriculture  grow  and  com- 
merce expand.  .  .  .  The  East,  in  a  like  intercourse  with  the 
V/est,  already  finds  ...  a  valuable  vent  for  the  commodities 
which  it  brings  from  abroad  or  manufactures  at  home.  The 
VJest  derives  from  the  East  supplies  requisite  to  its  growth 
and  comfort."  This  was  an  economic  order  which  had  its 
roots  in  the  diversities  of  the  regions.  Washington  warned 
against  the  rise  of  factions  seeking  to  use  political  power  for 
partisan  ends  that  might  disrupt  the  union  and  disturb  the 
existing  order. 


48  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 
Preserve  the  Constitution 

Washington's  concern  for  preserving  the  Constitution 
intact  was  motivated  by  the  belief  that  a  balance  had  been 
incorporated  in  it,  a  balance  in  which  the  national  and  state 
government  checked  one  another,  and  the  branches  held 
one  another  in  check.  "The  necessity  of  reciprocal  checks  in 
the  exercise  of  political  power,"  he  declared,  "by  dividing 
and  distributing  it  .  .  .  has  been  evinced  by  experiments 
ancient  and  modern.  .  .  ."  "Liberty  itself,"  he  pointed  out, 
"will  find  in  such  a  government  with  powers  properly  dis- 
tributed and  adjusted,  its  surest  guardian."  He  warned 
against  two  things  in  particular.  One  was  the  "spirit  of 
innovation  upon  its  principles."  The  other  was  "change  by 
usurpation"  of  power.  That  was  not  to  say  that  the  Consti- 
tution was  perfect  as  it  stood  in  1796.  But  if  something 
needed  correction,  it  should  be  "by  an  amendment  in  the 
way  which  the  Constitution  designates."  No  man  or  body 
of  men  should  assume  the  power  to  do  so,  "for  though  this 
in  one  instance  may  be  the  instrument  of  good,  it  is  the  cus- 
tomary weapon  by  which  free  governments  are  destroyed." 

Washington  hoped  that  the  United  States  would  follow 
an  independent  course  in  world  affairs,  that  it  would  lend 
its  weight  toward  an  order  in  which  peace  would  be  the 
norm,  but  that  it  would  not  become  entangled  with  other 
nations  in  the  quest  for  power  and  dominance.  His  distrust 
of  government  did  not  end  at  the  water's  edge,  for  he 
believed  that  foreign  governments  would,  if  they  could, 
use  the  United  States  for  their  own  ends.  He  warned 
"Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  influence,"  for  "(I 
conjure  you  to  believe  me,  fellow-citizens)  the  jealousy  of  a 
free  people  ought  to  be  constantly  awake,  since  history  and 
experience  prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one  of  the  most 
baneful  foes  of  republican  government."  Underlying  these 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order  /  49 

fears  was  the  belief  that  in  the  nature  of  things,  in  the  nat- 
ural order,  each  nation  pursues  its  own  interests.  Hence, 
"There  can  be  no  greater  error  than  to  expect  or  calculate 
upon  real  favors  from  nation  to  nation."  He  cautioned 
against  constant  preference  for  one  nation  and  opposition 
to  others.  "It  is  our  true  policy,"  Washington  said,  "to  steer 
clear  of  permanent  alliances  with  any  portion  of  the  foreign 
world. . . ." 


Religion  and  Morality 

The  first  President  had  some  other  recommendations  on 
foreign  policy,  but  before  discussing  them,  it  would  be  best, 
as  he  did,  to  refer  to  the  role  of  religion  and  morality.  The 
belief  in  a  natural  order,  the  hope  that  the  American  politi- 
cal system  had  been  shaped  in  accord  with  it,  was  not  suffi- 
cient, in  Washington's  opinion,  to  assure  the  working  or 
continuation  of  order  among  men.  Man  is  a  creature  of 
unruly  passions,  as  already  noted,  and  the  necessary  cor- 
rective to  these  is  religion  and  morality. 

"It  is  substantially  true,"  Washington  commented,  "that 
virtue  or  morality  is  a  necessary  spring  of  popular  govern- 
ment." And,  "Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead 
to  political  prosperity,  religion  and  morality  are  indispens- 
able supports.  In  vain  would  that  man  claim  the  tribute  of 
patriotism  who  should  labor  to  subvert  these  great  pillars 
of  human  happiness.  ...  A  volume  could  not  trace  all  their 
connections  with  private  and  public  felicity."  Moreover, 
"let  us  with  caution  indulge  the  supposition  that  morality 
can  be  maintained  without  religion." 

These  remarks  preceded  both  his  advice  on  public  credit 
and  on  peaceful  relations  with  other  nations.  On  cherishing 
the  public  credit,  he  said:  "One  method  of  preserving  it  is  to 
use  it  as  sparingly  as  possible  .  .  ."  Washington  expected 


50  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

that  there  would  be  occasions  for  extraordinary  expenses, 
making  war  came  to  mind,  when  it  might  be  necessary  for 
the  government  to  borrow  money.  But  he  warned  against 
the  "accumulation  of  debt,"  declaring  that  the  way  to  avoid 
this  was  "not  only  by  shunning  occasions  of  expense,  but 
by  vigorous  exertions  in  time  of  peace  to  discharge  the 
debts  which  unavoidable  wars  have  occasioned."  That  way, 
it  should  be  possible  to  avoid  "ungenerously  throwing 
upon  posterity  the  burthen  which  we  ourselves  ought  to 
bear."  Washington  thought  his  countrymen  might  be  the 
more  inclined  to  follow  these  policies  if  they  would  keep  in 
mind  "that  toward  the  payment  of  debts  there  must  be  rev- 
enue; that  to  have  revenue  there  must  be  taxes;  that  no  taxes 
can  be  devised  which  are  not  more  or  less  inconvenient  and 
unpleasant.  .  .  ."  Not  everyone  may  find  the  balanced  for- 
mulations of  eighteenth-century  sentences  pleasant,  but  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  logic  in  the  above  is  impressive. 

At  any  rate,  the  principles  discussed  in  the  above  two 
paragraphs  provided  the  framework  for  his  recommenda- 
tions for  maintaining  peaceful  relations  with  other  nations. 
To  that  end,  Washington  advised  this:  "Observe  good  faith 
and  justice  toward  all  nations.  Cultivate  peace  and  har- 
mony with  all.  Religion  and  morality  enjoin  this  conduct. 
And  can  it  be  that  good  policy  does  not  equally  enjoin  it." 
Above  all,  "The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  for- 
eign nations  is,  in  extending  our  commercial  relations  to 
have  with  them  as  little  political  connection  as  possible." 

Any  extended  political  connections — permanent  al- 
liances, for  example — could  only  embroil  the  United  States 
in  the  conflicts  among  other  nations.  Otherwise,  "Har- 
mony, liberal  intercourse  with  all  nations  are  recommended 
by  policy,  humanity,  and  interest.  But  even  our  commercial 
policy  should  hold  an  equal  and  impartial  hand,  neither 
seeking  nor  granting  exclusive  favors  or  preferences;  con- 


George  Washington  on  Liberty  and  Order  /  51 

suiting  the  natural  course  of  things;  diffusing  and  diversi- 
fying by  gentle  means  the  streams  of  commerce,  but  forcing 

nothing "  That  is  surely  the  natural  order  for  trade,  and 

a  plausible  hope  for  peace  to  those  who  knew  of,  when  they 
had  not  experienced,  the  devastating  mercantile  wars 
resulting  from  the  use  of  force  in  national  commerce. 

A  Farewell  Message  of  Timeless  Truths  on 
Liberty  and  Order 

George  Washington  reckoned  that  he  had  devoted  the 
better  part  of  forty-five  years  to  the  service  of  his  country 
when  he  retired.  He  was  an  unabashed  patriot,  proud  to  be 
called  an  American,  a  sturdy  friend  of  the  union,  and  none 
knew  better  than  he  the  struggles  out  of  which  the  United 
States  had  been  bom.  He  was  a  man  of  his  time,  as  are  all 
mortal  men,  spoke  in  the  phraseology  of  times  past,  yet  in 
his  Farewell  Address  he  touched  upon  and  elaborated 
some  timeless  truths.  Further  experience  has  served  only  to 
confirm  the  validity  of  many  of  his  recommendations. 

His  thoughts  on  unity,  on  the  love  of  power,  on  the 
impact  of  partisan  strife,  on  the  importance  of  focusing  on 
our  common  interests,  on  avoiding  entanglements  with 
other  nations,  on  religion  and  morality,  on  the  public  credit, 
and  on  freedom  of  trade  have  worn  well  when  they  have 
been  observed,  and  have  brought  suffering  by  their  neglect. 
The  terror  and  tyranny  of  this  century,  the  slave  labor 
camps  and  barbed  wired  borders  of  nations  with  their  fet- 
tered peoples  prove  once  again  that  liberty  depends  upon 
order,  and  that  if  order  is  not  founded  upon  and  in  accord 
with  an  underlying  order  it  will  tend  to  be  nothing  more 
than  the  will  of  the  tyrant. 


John  Witherspoon: 
Animated  Son  of  Liberty' 


Robert  A.  Peterson 


On  July  4, 1776,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  lay  on 
the  table  of  Independence  Hall  in  Philadelphia.  Two  days 
earlier,  Richard  Henry  Lee's  resolution  for  independence 
had  been  adopted,  and  now  the  time  was  at  hand  when 
each  delegate  would  put  pen  to  paper,  thus  committing  his 
life,  his  fortune,  and  his  sacred  honor  to  a  future  darkened 
by  clouds  of  war.  If  their  bid  for  liberty  failed,  those  who 
signed  would  be  the  first  to  be  hung  from  a  British  noose. 

Sensing  the  urgency  of  the  moment,  John  Witherspoon 
of  New  Jersey  rose  to  speak: 

There  is  a  tide  in  the  affairs  of  men,  a  nick  of  time. 
We  perceive  it  now  before  us.  To  hesitate  is  to  con- 
sent to  our  own  slavery.  That  noble  instrument  upon 
your  table,  which  ensures  immortality  to  its  author, 
should  be  subscribed  this  very  morning  by  every 
pen  in  this  house.  He  that  will  not  respond  to  its 
accents  and  strain  every  nerve  to  carry  into  effect  its 
provisions  is  unworthy  the  name  of  freeman.  For  my 
own  part,  of  property  I  have  some,  of  reputation 
more.  That  reputation  is  staked,  that  property  is 


Mr.  Peterson  is  headmaster  of  the  Pilgrim  Academy  Egg  Harbor 
City,  New  Jersey  This  essay  appeared  in  the  December  1985  issue  of  The 

Freeman. 


52 


John  Witherspoon:  "Animated  Son  of  Liberty"  /  53 

pledged,  on  the  issue  of  this  contest;  and  although 
these  gray  hairs  must  soon  descend  into  the  sepul- 
chre, I  would  infinitely  rather  that  they  descend 
thither  by  the  hand  of  the  executioner  than  desert  at 
this  crisis  the  sacred  cause  of  my  country.^ 

Witherspoon's  words  gave  voice  to  the  sentiments  of 
the  majority  of  delegates,  and  on  July  4,  America  declared 
her  independence. 

In  his  philosophy  of  freedom,  Witherspoon  was  one  of 
the  most  consistent  of  the  Founding  Fathers.  Leaving  no 
realm  of  thought  untouched,  all  knowledge  was  his 
province  as  he  discussed  money,  political  economy,  philos- 
ophy, and  education,  all  in  relation  to  Whig  principles  of 
liberty.  His  articles  and  teachings  on  the  nature  of  money 
foreshadowed  the  discoveries  of  the  Austrian  school  of  eco- 
nomics in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  contributed  to  mak- 
ing the  Constitution  a  "hard-money  document" —  a  fact 
that  has  been  forgotten  by  modern  politicians. 

His  Influence  on  Others 

Witherspoon  never  led  an  army  into  battle,  nor  did  he 
run  for  high  national  office  after  the  war.  Yet  his  influence 
was  such  that  in  his  role  as  President  of  the  College  of  New 
Jersey  (now  Princeton)  he  helped  to  educate  a  generation  of 
leaders  for  the  new  nation.  His  students  included  James 
Madison,  the  young  Aaron  Burr,  Henry  and  Charles  Lee  of 
Virginia,  and  the  poets  Philip  Freneau  and  Hugh  Bracken- 
ridge.  Of  his  former  students  10  became  cabinet  officers,  6 
were  members  of  the  Continental  Congress,  39  became 
Congressmen,  and  21  sat  in  the  Senate.  His  graduates 
included  12  governors,  and  when  the  General  Assembly  of 


54  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  met  in  1789,  52  of  the 
188  delegates  had  studied  under  Witherspoon.  The  limited- 
government  philosophy  of  most  of  these  men  was  due  in 
large  measure  to  Witherspoon's  influence.^ 

Born  in  Scotland  in  1723,  Witherspoon  was  reared  on 
stories  of  the  Scottish  Covenanters  who  in  years  past  had 
stood  for  both  religious  and  political  liberty.  In  due  time  he 
was  sent  to  the  grammar  school  at  Haddington,  and  later 
entered  Edinburgh  University  at  the  age  of  fourteen. 

Witherspoon  received  his  education  in  Scotland  at  a 
time  when  the  air  was  filled  with  the  kind  of  thinking  that 
led  to  Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations.  Indeed,  Wither- 
spoon and  Smith  were  contemporaries,  and  in  1776  both 
would  strike  an  important  blow  for  liberty — Witherspoon 
with  the  signing  of  the  Declaration  on  one  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  and  Smith  with  his  publication  of  the  Wealth  of 
Nations  on  the  other.  Witherspoon  spoke  out  for  political 
liberty,  while  Smith  took  a  stand  against  mercantilism  and 
for  economic  liberty.  Freedom  is  all  of  a  piece,  and  the  work 
of  these  two  Scotsmen  complemented  and  supported  one 
another.  Political  freedom  and  economic  freedom  go  hand 
in  hand — you  cannot  have  one  without  the  other. 

Witherspoon  received  his  M.A.  in  1743,  and  spent  the 
next  two  decades  serving  as  a  parish  minister  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  During  this  period  of  his  life  he  developed  a 
reputation  for  being  the  champion  of  the  "Popular  Party," 
which  stood  against  patronage  and  pluralism  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  His  fame  continued  to  grow  in  both  Scotland 
and  America,  and  so,  when  an  opening  occurred  for  the 
presidency  of  Princeton,  Witherspoon's  name  was  brought 
up  and  approved  by  the  trustees.  After  careful  negotiations 
and  some  pleading  by  Princeton  alumnus  Benjamin  Rush, 


John  Witherspoon:  "Animated  Son  of  Liberty''  /  55 

who  was  studying  medicine  in  Edinburgh,  Witherspoon 
accepted  the  call.^ 

Arriving  in  America  in  1766,  Witherspoon  plunged  into 
his  new  task  with  vigor.  One  of  his  first  jobs  was  to  get  the 
college  on  a  sound  financial  footing.  Unlike  many  college 
administrators  today,  who  go  begging  at  the  public  trough, 
Witherspoon  could  not  appeal  for  federal  aid.  Princeton 
was  totally  supported  by  tuitions  and  voluntary  contribu- 
tions. Within  two  years,  Witherspoon's  fund-raising  efforts 
(even  George  Washington  contributed)  brought  Princeton 
back  from  the  brink  of  bankruptcy. 

Educational  Reform 

After  laying  a  sound  foundation  for  school  finances, 
Witherspoon  turned  his  attention  to  educational  reform.  He 
was  the  first  to  use  the  lecture  method  at  Princeton.  Previ- 
ously, instructors  had  assigned  readings  and  then  quizzed 
their  students  in  class.  He  also  set  up  a  grammar  school, 
authored  several  works  on  child-rearing,  introduced  mod- 
em languages  into  the  college  curriculum,  and  taught  a 
course  on  moral  philosophy.  Witherspoon's  activities  at 
Princeton  were  brought  to  an  abrupt  halt  by  the  outbreak  of 
the  War  for  Independence.  Like  most  Americans,  Wither- 
spoon was  at  first  slow  to  embrace  the  cause  of  indepen- 
dence, hoping  instead  for  a  reconciliation  of  the  two  coun- 
tries based  on  the  restoration  of  full  English  rights  for  the 
colonials — in  particular,  the  right  of  their  own  little  parlia- 
ments to  tax  them  and  make  their  laws,  under  the  overall 
jurisdiction  of  the  king. 

Witherspoon  grew  increasingly  concerned,  however, 
with  the  attempt  of  the  British  to  install  an  Anglican  bishop 


56  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

over  the  American  colonies.^  He  viewed  this  as  the  first  step 
toward  an  ecclesiastical  tyranny  over  the  colonies,  of  which 
the  Quebec  Act  was  also  a  part  (the  Quebec  Act  extended 
French  law,  which  meant  no  trial  by  jury,  and  Roman 
Catholicism  into  the  Ohio  Valley).  Witherspoon  understood 
that  religious  liberty — man's  freedom  to  own  his  con- 
science— was  inextricably  intertwined  with  political  and 
economic  liberty:  "There  is  not  a  single  instance  in  history," 
he  wrote,  "in  which  civil  liberty  was  lost,  and  religious  lib- 
erty preserved  entire.  If,  therefore,  we  yield  up  our  tempo- 
ral property,  we  at  the  same  time  deliver  the  conscience  into 
bondage."^ 

When  hostilities  broke  out,  and  continued  for  about  a 
year  with  no  end  in  sight,  Witherspoon  felt  that  it  was  his 
duty  to  set  forth  the  issue  from  the  pulpit.  In  what  is  p>er- 
haps  his  most  celebrated  sermon,  "The  Dominion  of  Provi- 
dence Over  the  Passions  of  Men,"  Witherspoon  said: 

. . .  the  cause  in  which  America  is  now  in  arms,  is  the 
cause  of  justice,  of  liberty,  and  of  human  nature.  So 
far  as  we  have  hitherto  proceeded,  I  am  satisfied  that 
the  confederacy  of  the  colonies  has  not  been  the 
effect  of  pride,  resentment,  or  sedition,  but  of  a  deep 
and  general  conviction  that  our  civil  and  religious 
liberties,  and  consequently  in  a  great  measure  the 
temporal  and  eternal  happiness  of  us  and  our  pos- 
terity, depended  on  the  issue.^ 

Witherspoon  went  on  to  say  that  Americans  would 
need  "pure  manners,"  "bravery,"  "economy,"  and  "frugal- 
ity" if  they  wanted  to  win  their  independence. 


John  Witherspoon:  "Animated  Son  of  Liberty"  /  57 
Limited  Government 

In  his  concept  of  political  economy,  Witherspoon 
believed  that  good  government  was  limited  government, 
wherein  "faction"  checked  "faction"  so  that  no  person  or 
group  of  persons  could  gain  unlimited  power.  Thus,  he 
believed  in  a  system  of  checks  and  balances — a  system 
that  found  its  way  into  the  United  States  Constitution 
through  the  influence  of  one  of  his  favorite  students, 
James  Madison/  Ashbel  Green,  who  would  follow  in 
Witherspoon's  steps  as  a  president  of  Princeton,  said  that 
the  aging  statesman  approved  of  the  Constitution  "as 
embracing  principles  and  carrying  into  effect  measures, 
which  he  had  long  advocated,  as  essential  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  liberties,  and  the  promotion  of  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  country."^ 

Witherspoon  put  his  views  on  civil  government  into 
practice  when  he  served  in  Congress  from  1776  to  1782. 
Always  active,  he  served  on  over  one  hundred  committees 
and  preached  to  members  of  the  Continental  Congress  on 
Sundays  while  in  Philadelphia.  The  British  showed  that 
they  realized  the  significance  of  Witherspoon's  contribu- 
tion when  they  burned  him  in  effigy  along  with  George 
Washington  during  the  occupation  of  New  York  City. 

The  war  left  Nassau  Hall  in  ruins,  as  the  British  particu- 
larly singled  out  Presbyterian  institutions  for  destruction. 
Undaunted,  Witherspoon  left  the  Continental  Congress  in 
1782  to  rebuild  his  beloved  Princeton.  He  still  found  time  to 
comment  on  the  problems  which  confronted  the  new 
nation — particularly  economic  problems.  An  economist,  or 
moral  philosopher,  of  the  first  rank  and  an  advocate  of  hard 


58  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

money,  Witherspoon  had  seen  firsthand  the  effects  of  the 
inflationary  "Continentals."  In  his  "Essay  on  Money," 
which  in  many  ways  presaged  the  writings  of  the  Austrian 
school  of  economics,  Witherspoon  wrote: 

I  observe  that  to  arm  such  bills  with  the  authority  of 
the  state,  and  make  them  legal  tender  in  all  pay- 
ments is  an  absurdity  so  great,  that  it  is  not  easy  to 
speak  with  propriety  upon  it ...  It  has  been  found, 
by  the  experience  of  ages,  that  money  must  have  a 
standard  of  value,  and  if  any  prince  or  state  debase 
the  metal  below  the  standard,  it  is  utterly  impossible 
to  make  it  succeed.  Why  will  you  make  a  law  to 
oblige  men  to  take  money  when  it  is  offered  them? 
Are  there  any  who  refuse  it  when  it  is  good?  If  it  is 
necessary  to  force  them,  does  not  this  system  pro- 
duce a  most  ludicrous  inversion  of  the  nature  of 
things?^ 

Witherspoon  was  also  mindful  of  the  tremendous  pro- 
ductive capacity  of  the  free  society,  not  only  in  the  physical 
realm  but  in  the  other  fields  of  human  action  as  well.  In  a 
textbook  he  wrote  for  his  students,  he  concluded:  "What 
then  is  the  advantage  of  civil  liberty?  I  suppose  it  chiefly 
consists  in  its  tendency  to  put  in  motion  all  the  human 
powers.  Therefore  it  promotes  industry,  and  in  this  resf)ect 
happiness — produces  every  latent  quality,  and  improves 
the  human  mind. — Liberty  is  the  nurse  of  riches,  literature, 
and  heroism."^^ 

Contracts  Are  Important 

The  contract,  so  essential  to  capitalism,  also  loomed 
large  in  Witherspoon's  thought:  "Contracts  are  absolutely 


John  Witherspoon:  "Animated  Son  of  Liberty"  /  59 

necessary  in  scKial  life.  Every  transaction  almost  may  be 
considered  as  a  contract,  either  more  or  less  explicit/'^^  And 
in  what  constituted  an  intellectual  "end  run"  around  the 
classical  economists,  Witherspoon  touched  upon  the  dis- 
covery that  value  is  essentially  subjective,  determined  not 
by  the  amount  of  labor  that  goes  into  a  product  or  by  gov- 
ernment decree,  but  by  individuals  freely  acting  in  the  mar- 
ketplace. "Nothing  has  any  real  value  unless  it  be  of  some 
use  in  human  life,  or  perhaps  we  may  say,  unless  it  is  sup- 
posed to  be  of  use,  and  so  becomes  the  object  of  human 
desire. . .  ."^^ 

Besides  writing,  Witherspoon  spent  his  last  years  build- 
ing up  Princeton  and  his  church.  Two  accidents  left  him 
blind  the  last  two  years  of  his  life.  His  light  spent,  he  con- 
tinued to  preach  and  teach,  relying  upon  the  vast  store  of 
knowledge  that  he  had  husbanded  away  through  years  of 
diligent  study. 

At  the  age  of  seventy-one,  having  crammed  several 
careers  into  one  lifetime,  Witherspoon  passed  away  and 
was  buried  in  the  President's  Lot  at  Princeton.  Two  hun- 
dred years  later,  Witherspoon's  great  contributions  in  help- 
ing to  lay  the  foundations  of  American  freedom  are  still 
only  darkly  understood.  There  have  been  those  in  the  past, 
however,  who  have  recognized  the  magnitude  of  Wither- 
spoon's life  and  thought.  John  Adams,  for  instance,  noted 
in  his  diary  that  Witherspoon  was  "as  hearty  a  friend  as  any 
of  the  Natives — an  animated  Son  of  Liberty."^^  One  of  his 
students,  Philip  Freneau,  wrote: 

His  words  still  vibrate  on  my  ear. 
His  precepts,  solemn  and  severe. 
Alarmed  the  vicious  and  the  base. 
To  virtue  gave  the  loveliest  face 
That  humankind  can  wear.^^ 


60  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

It  was  through  the  influence  of  men  like  John  Wither- 
spoon  that  a  new  nation  gained  a  constitution  that  repudi- 
ated interventionism,  fiat  currency,  and  embraced  the  idea 
of  hard  money.  He  was  a  pastor,  educator,  statesman,  econ- 
omist, and  political  theorist.  He  was,  and  still  remains,  "an 
animated  Son  of  Liberty." 

1.  John  Witherspoon,  quoted  in  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  Ameri- 
can Presbyterianism  (New  York:  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  1885),  p.  351. 

2.  Charles  G.  Osgood,  Lights  in  Nassau  Hall  (Princeton:  Princeton 
University  Press,  1951),  pp.  12-13. 

3.  Lyman  H.  Butterfield,  John  Witherspoon  Comes  to  America 
(Princeton:  Princeton  University  Library,  1953). 

4.  Carl  Bridenbaugh,  Mitre  and  Sceptre:  Transatlantic  Faiths,  Ideas, 
Personalities,  and  Politics  1689-1775  (New  York:  Oxford  University 
Press,  1962). 

5.  John  Witherspoon,  The  Works  of  John  Witherspoon,  9  vols.  (Edin- 
burgh: 1804-1805)  Vol.  ii,  pp.  202-203. 

6.  Ibid. 

7.  James  H.  Smylie,  "Madison  and  Withersf>oon:  Theological 
Roots  of  American  Political  Thought/'  Vie  Princeton  University  Library 
Chronicle,  Vol.  xxii.  No.  3  (Spring,  1961),  MS,  Presbyterian  Historical 
Society. 

8.  Ashbel  Green,  quoted  in  Smylie,  p.  130. 

9.  Works,  Vol.  iv,  p.  223. 

10.  John  Witherspoon,  An  Annotated  Edition  of  Lectures  on  Moral  Phi- 
losophy, Jack  Scott,  ed.  (Newark,  Del.:  University  of  Delaware  Press, 
1982),  p.  147. 

11.  Lectures  on  Moral  Philosophy,  p.  168. 

12.  Lectures  on  Moral  Philosophy,  p.  178. 

13.  Martha  Lou  Stohlman,  John  Witherspoon:  Parson,  Politician, 
Patriot  (Philadelphia:  The  Westminster  Press,  1976),  p.  15. 

14.  Philip  Freneau,  quoted  in  Mary  Weatherspoon  Bowden,  Philip 
Freneau  (Boston:  Twayne  Pub.,  1976),  p.  17. 


Education  in  Colonial  America 
Robert  A.  Peterson 


One  of  the  main  objections  people  have  to  getting  gov- 
ernment out  of  the  education  business  and  turning  it  over 
to  the  free  market  is  that  "it  simply  would  not  get  the  job 
done."  This  type  of  thinking  is  due,  in  large  measure,  to 
what  one  historian  called  "a  parochialism  in  time,"^  i.e.,  a 
limited  view  of  an  issue  for  lack  of  historical  perspective. 
Having  served  the  twelve-year  sentence  in  government- 
controlled  schools,  most  Americans  view  our  present  pub- 
lic school  system  as  the  measure  of  all  things  in  education. 
Yet  for  two  hundred  years  in  American  history,  from  the 
mid-1600s  to  the  mid-1800s,  public  schools  as  we  know 
them  today  were  virtually  nonexistent,  and  the  educational 
needs  of  America  were  met  by  the  free  market.  In  these  two 
centuries,  America  produced  several  generations  of  highly 
skilled  and  literate  men  and  women  who  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  a  nation  dedicated  to  the  principles  of  freedom  and 
self-government. 

The  private  system  of  education  in  which  our  forefa- 
thers were  educated  included  home,  school,  church,  volun- 
tary associations  such  as  library  companies  and  philosoph- 
ical societies,  circulating  libraries,  apprenticeships,  and 
private  study.  It  was  a  system  supported  primarily  by  those 
who  bought  the  services  of  education,  and  by  private  bene- 
factors. All  was  done  without  compulsion.  Although  there 


This  essay  appeared  in  the  September  1983  issue  of  The  Freeman. 

61 


62  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

was  a  veneer  of  government  involvement  in  some  colonies, 
such  as  in  Puritan  Massachusetts,  early  American  educa- 
tion was  essentially  based  on  the  principle  of  voluntarism.^ 

Dr.  Lawrence  A.  Cremin,  distinguished  scholar  in  the 
field  of  education,  has  said  that  during  the  colonial  period 
the  Bible  was  "the  single  most  important  cultural  influence 
in  the  lives  of  Anglo-Americans."^ 

Thus,  the  cornerstone  of  early  American  education  was 
the  belief  that  "children  are  an  heritage  from  the  Lord."^ 
Parents  believed  that  it  was  their  responsibility  to  not  only 
teach  them  how  to  make  a  living,  but  also  how  to  live.  As 
our  forefathers  searched  their  Bibles,  they  found  that  the 
function  of  government  was  to  protect  life  and  property.^ 
Education  was  not  a  responsibility  of  the  civil  government. 

Education  Began  in  the  Home  and  the  Fields 

Education  in  early  America  began  in  the  home  at  the 
mother's  knee,  and  often  ended  in  the  cornfield  or  bam  by 
the  father's  side.  The  task  of  teaching  reading  usually  fell  to 
the  mother,  and  since  paper  was  in  short  supply,  she  would 
trace  the  letters  of  the  alphabet  in  the  ashes  and  dust  by  the 
fireplace.^  The  child  learned  the  alphabet  and  then  how  to 
sound  out  words.  Then  a  book  was  placed  in  the  child's 
hands,  usually  the  Bible.  As  many  passages  were  familiar  to 
him,  having  heard  them  at  church  or  at  family  devotions, 
he  would  soon  master  the  skill  of  reading.  The  Bible  was 
supplemented  by  other  good  books  such  as  Pilgrim's 
Progress  by  John  Bunyan,  The  New  England  Primer,  and  Isaac 
Watts'  Divine  Songs.  From  volumes  like  these,  our  founding 
fathers  and  their  generation  learned  the  values  that  laid  the 
foundation  for  free  enterprise.  In  "Against  Idleness  and 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  63 

Mischief/'  for  example,  they  learned  individual  responsi- 
bility before  God  in  the  realm  of  work  and  learning/ 

How  doth  the  busy  little  bee 

Improve  each  shining  hour. 
And  gather  honey  all  the  day 

From  every  opening  flower. 

How  skillfully  she  builds  her  cell. 

How  neat  she  spreads  the  wax 
And  labours  hard  to  store  it  well 

With  the  sweet  food  she  makes. 

In  works  of  labour,  or  of  skill, 

I  would  be  busy  too; 
For  Satan  finds  some  mischief  still 

For  idle  hands  to  do. 

In  books,  or  work,  or  healthful  play 

Let  my  first  years  be  passed; 
That  I  may  give  for  every  day 

Some  good  account  at  last. 

Armed  with  love,  common  sense,  and  a  nearby  wood- 
shed, colonial  mothers  often  achieved  more  than  our  mod- 
em-day elementary  schools  with  their  federally  funded 
programs  and  education  specialists.  These  colonial  mothers 
used  simple,  time-tested  methods  of  instruction  mixed 
with  plain,  old-fashioned  hard  work.  Children  were  not 
ruined  by  educational  experiments  developed  in  the  ivory 
towers  of  academe.  The  introduction  to  a  reading  primer 
from  the  early  nineteenth  century  testifies  to  the  impor- 


64  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

tance  of  home  instruction.^  It  says:  "The  author  cannot  but 
hope  that  this  book  will  enable  many  a  mother  or  aunt,  or 
elder  brother  or  sister,  or  perhaps  a  beloved  grandmother, 
by  the  family  fireside,  to  go  through  in  a  pleasant  and  sure 
way  with  the  art  of  preparing  the  child  for  his  first  school 
days." 

Home  education  was  so  common  in  America  that  most 
children  knew  how  to  read  before  they  entered  school.  As 
Ralph  Walker  has  pointed  out,  "Children  were  often  taught 
to  read  at  home  before  they  were  subjected  to  the  rigours  of 
school.  In  middle-class  families,  where  the  mother  would 
be  expected  to  be  literate,  this  was  considered  part  of  her 
duties."^ 

Without  ever  spending  a  dime  of  tax  money,  or  without 
ever  consulting  a  host  of  bureaucrats,  psychologists,  and 
specialists,  children  in  early  America  learned  the  basic  aca- 
demic skills  of  reading,  writing,  and  ciphering  necessary 
for  getting  along  in  society.  Even  in  Boston,  the  capital  city 
of  the  colony  in  which  the  government  had  the  greatest 
hand,  children  were  taught  to  read  at  home.  Samuel  Eliot 
Morison,  in  his  excellent  study  on  education  in  colonial 
New  England,  says:^^ 

Boston  offers  a  curious  problem.  The  grammar 
(Boston  Latin)  school  was  the  only  public  school 
down  to  1684,  when  a  writing  school  was  estab- 
lished; and  it  is  probable  that  only  children  who 
already  read  were  admitted  to  that.  .  .  .  they  must 
have  learned  to  read  somehow,  since  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  unusual  illiteracy  in  the  town.  And  a 
Boston  bookseller's  stock  in  1700  includes  no  less 
than  eleven  dozen  spellers  and  sixty-one  dozen 
primers. 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  65 

The  answer  to  this  supposed  problem  is  simple.  The 
books  were  bought  by  parents,  and  illiteracy  was  absent 
because  parents  taught  their  children  how  to  read  outside 
of  a  formal  school  setting.  Coupled  with  the  vocational 
skills  children  learned  from  their  parents,  home  education 
met  the  demands  of  the  free  market.  For  many,  formal 
schooling  was  simply  unnecessary.  The  fine  education  they 
received  at  home  and  on  the  farm  held  them  in  good  stead 
for  the  rest  of  their  lives,  and  was  supplemented  with  Bible 
reading  and  almanacs  like  Franklin's  Poor  Richard's. 

Some  of  our  forefathers  desired  more  education  than 
they  could  receive  at  home.  Thus,  grammar  and  secondary 
schools  grew  up  all  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  particu- 
larly near  the  centers  of  population,  such  as  Boston  and 
Philadelphia.  In  New  England,  many  of  these  schools  were 
started  by  colonial  governments,  but  were  supported  and 
controlled  by  the  local  townspeople. 

In  the  Middle  Colonies  there  was  even  less  government 
intervention.  In  Pennsylvania,  a  compulsory  education  law 
was  passed  in  1683,  but  it  was  never  strictly  enforced.^^ 
Nevertheless,  many  schools  were  set  up  simply  as  a 
response  to  consumer  demand.  Philadelphia,  which  by 
1776  had  become  second  only  to  London  as  the  chief  city  in 
the  British  Empire,  had  a  school  for  every  need  and  interest. 
Quakers,  Philadelphia's  first  inhabitants,  laid  the  founda- 
tion for  an  educational  system  that  still  thrives  in  America. 
Because  of  their  emphasis  on  learning,  an  illiterate  Quaker 
child  was  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Other  religious  groups 
set  up  schools  in  the  Middle  Colonies.  The  Scottish  Presby- 
terians, the  Moravians,  the  Lutherans,  and  Anglicans  all  had 
their  own  schools.  In  addition  to  these  church-related 
schools,  private  schoolmasters,  entrepreneurs  in  their  own 
right,  established  hundreds  of  schools. 


66  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

Historical  records,  which  are  by  no  means  complete, 
reveal  that  over  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  private 
schoolmasters  advertised  their  services  in  Philadelphia 
newspapers  between  1740  and  1776.  Instruction  was 
offered  in  Latin,  Greek,  mathematics,  surveying,  naviga- 
tion, accounting,  bookkeeping,  science,  English,  and  con- 
temporary foreign  languages.^^  Incompetent  and  inefficient 
teachers  were  soon  eliminated,  since  they  were  not  subsi- 
dized by  the  State  or  protected  by  a  guild  or  union.  Teach- 
ers who  satisfied  their  customers  by  providing  good  ser- 
vices prospered.  One  schoolmaster,  Andrew  Porter,  a 
mathematics  teacher,  had  over  one  hundred  students 
enrolled  in  1776.  The  fees  the  students  paid  enabled  him  to 
provide  for  a  family  of  seven.^^ 

In  the  Philadelphia  Area 

Philadelphia  also  had  many  fine  evening  schools.  In 
1767,  there  were  at  least  sixteen  evening  schools,  catering 
mostly  to  the  needs  of  Philadelphia's  hard-working  Ger- 
man population.  For  the  most  part,  the  curriculum  of  these 
schools  was  confined  to  the  teaching  of  English  and  voca- 
tions.^^ There  were  also  schools  for  women,  blacks,  and  the 
poor.  Anthony  Benezet,  a  leader  in  colonial  educational 
thought,  pioneered  in  the  education  for  women  and 
Negroes.  The  provision  of  education  for  the  poor  was  a 
favorite  Quaker  philanthropy  As  one  historian  has  pointed 
out,  "the  poor,  both  Quaker  and  non-Quaker,  were  allowed 
to  attend  without  paying  fees."^^ 

In  the  countryside  around  Philadelphia,  German  immi- 
grants maintained  many  of  their  own  schools.  By  1776,  at 
least  sixteen  schools  were  being  conducted  by  the  Mennon- 
ites  in  Eastern  Pennsylvania.  Christopher  Dock,  who  made 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  67 

several  notable  contributions  to  the  science  of  pedagogy, 
taught  in  one  of  these  schools  for  many  years.  Eastern 
Pennsylvanians,  as  well  as  New  Jerseyans  and  Marylan- 
ders,  sometimes  sent  their  children  to  Philadelphia  to  fur- 
ther their  education,  where  there  were  several  boarding 
schools,  both  for  girls  and  boys. 

In  the  Southern  colonies,  government  had,  for  all  practi- 
cal purposes,  no  hand  at  all  in  education.  In  Virginia,  edu- 
cation was  considered  to  be  no  business  of  the  State.  The 
educational  needs  of  the  young  in  the  South  were  taken 
care  of  in  "old-field"  schools.  "Old-field"  schools  were 
buildings  erected  in  abandoned  fields  that  were  too  full  of 
rocks  or  too  overcultivated  for  farm  use.  It  was  in  such  a 
school  that  George  Washington  received  his  early  educa- 
tion. The  Southern  Colonies'  educational  needs  were  also 
taken  care  of  by  using  private  tutors,  or  by  sending  their 
sons  north  or  across  the  Atlantic  to  the  mother  country. 

Colonial  Colleges 

A  college  education  is  something  that  very  few  of  our 
forefathers  wanted  or  needed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  of 
them  were  unimpressed  by  degrees  or  a  university  accent. 
They  judged  men  by  their  character  and  by  their  experi- 
ence. Moreover,  many  of  our  founding  fathers,  such  as 
George  Washington,  Patrick  Henry,  and  Ben  Franklin,  did 
quite  well  without  a  college  education.  Yet  for  those  who  so 
desired  it,  usually  young  men  aspiring  to  enter  the  min- 
istry, university  training  was  available.  Unlike  England, 
where  the  government  had  given  Cambridge  and  Oxford  a 
monopoly  on  the  granting  of  degrees,^^  there  were  nine  col- 
leges from  which  to  choose. 

Although  some  of  the  colonial  colleges  were  started  by 


68  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

colonial  governments,  it  would  be  misleading  to  think  of 
them  as  statist  institutions  in  the  modem  sense.^''  Once 
chartered,  the  colleges  were  neither  funded  nor  supported 
by  the  state.  Harvard  was  established  with  a  grant  from  the 
Massachusetts  General  Court,  yet  voluntary  contributions 
took  over  to  keep  the  institution  alive.  John  Harvard  left  the 
college  a  legacy  of  800  pounds  and  his  library  of  400  books. 
"College  corn,"  donated  by  the  people  of  the  Bay  Colony, 
maintained  the  young  scholars  for  many  years.^^  Provision 
was  also  made  for  poor  students,  as  Harvard  developed 
one  of  the  first  work-study  programs.^^  And  when  Harvard 
sought  to  build  a  new  building  in  1674,  donations  were  so- 
licited from  the  people  of  Massachusetts.  Despite  the 
delays  caused  by  King  Philip's  War,  the  hall  was  completed 
in  1677  at  almost  no  cost  to  the  taxpayer. ^^ 

New  Jersey  was  the  only  colony  that  had  two  colleges, 
the  College  of  New  Jersey  (Princeton)  and  Queens  (Rut- 
gers). The  Log  College,  the  predecessor  of  Princeton,  was 
founded  when  Nathaniel  Irwin  left  one  thousand  dollars  to 
William  Tennant  to  found  a  seminary.^^  Queens  grew  out  of 
a  small  class  held  by  the  Dutch  revivalist,  John  Frel- 
inghuyson.^^  Despite  occasional  hard  times,  neither  college 
bowed  to  civil  government  for  financial  assistance.  As 
Frederick  Rudolph  has  observed,  "neither  the  college  at 
Princeton  nor  its  later  rival  at  New  Brunswick  ever  received 
any  financial  support  from  the  state.  .  .  ."^  Indeed,  John 
Witherspoon,  Princeton's  sixth  president,  was  apparently 
proud  of  the  fact  that  his  institution  was  independent  of 
government  control.  In  an  advertisement  addressed  to  the 
British  settlers  in  the  West  Indies,  Witherspoon  wrote:  "The 
College  of  New  Jersey  is  altogether  independent.  It  hath 
received  no  favor  from  Government  but  the  charter,  by  the 
particular  friendship  of  a  person  now  deceased."^"* 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  69 

Based  on  the  principle  of  freedom,  Princeton  under 
Witherspoon  produced  some  of  America's  most  "animated 
Sons  of  Liberty."  Many  of  Princeton's  graduates,  standing 
firmly  in  the  Whig  tradition  of  limited  government,  helped 
lay  the  legal  and  constitutional  foundations  for  our  Repub- 
lic. James  Madison,  the  Father  of  the  Constitution,  was  a 
Princeton  graduate. 

Libraries 

In  addition  to  formal  schooling  in  elementary  and  sec- 
ondary schools,  colleges,  and  universities,  early  America 
had  many  other  institutions  that  made  it  possible  for  peo- 
ple to  either  get  an  education  or  supplement  their  previous 
training.  Conceivably,  an  individual  who  never  attended 
school  could  receive  an  excellent  education  by  using 
libraries,  building  and  consulting  his  own  library,  and  by 
joining  a  society  for  mutual  improvement.  In  colonial 
America,  all  of  these  were  possible. 

Consumer  demand  brought  into  existence  a  large  num- 
ber of  libraries.  Unlike  anything  in  the  Old  Country,  where 
libraries  were  open  only  to  scholars,  churchmen,  or  gov- 
ernment officials,  these  libraries  were  rarely  supported  by 
government  funds.  In  Europe,  church  libraries  were  sup- 
ported by  tax  money  as  well,  for  they  were  a  part  of  an 
established  church.  In  America,  church  libraries,  like  the 
churches  themselves,  were  supported  primarily  by  volun- 
tarism. 

The  first  non-private,  non-church  libraries  in  America 
were  maintained  by  membership  fees,  called  subscriptions 
or  shares,  and  by  gifts  of  books  and  money  from  private 
benefactors  interested  in  education.  The  most  famous  of 
these  libraries  was  Franklin  and  Logan's  Library  Company 


70  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

in  Philadelphia,  which  set  the  pattern  and  provided  muc±i 
of  the  inspiration  for  libraries  throughout  the  colonies.^ 
The  membership  fee  for  these  subscription  libraries  varied 
from  twenty  or  thirty  pounds  to  as  little  as  fifteen  shillings 
a  year.  The  Association  Library,  a  library  formed  by  a  group 
of  Quaker  artisans,  cost  twenty  shillings  to  join.^^ 

Soon  libraries  became  the  objects  of  private  philan- 
thropy, and  it  became  possible  for  even  the  poorest  citizens 
to  borrow  books.  Sometimes  the  membership  fee  was  com- 
pletely waived  for  an  individual  if  he  showed  intellectual 
promise  and  character.^^ 

Entrepreneurs,  seeing  an  opportunity  to  make  a  profit 
from  colonial  Americans'  desire  for  self-improvement,  pro- 
vided new  services  and  innovative  ways  to  sell  or  rent 
printed  matter.  One  new  business  that  developed  was  that 
of  the  circulating  library.  In  1767,  Lewis  Nicola  established 
one  of  the  first  such  businesses  in  the  City  of  Brotherly 
Love.  The  library  was  open  daily,  and  customers,  by 
depositing  five  pounds  and  paying  three  dollars  a  year, 
could  withdraw  one  book  at  a  time.  Nicola  apparently 
prospered,  for  two  years  later  he  moved  his  business  to 
Society  Hill,  enlarged  his  library,  and  reduced  his  prices  to 
compete  with  other  circulating  libraries.^  Judging  from  the 
titles  in  these  libraries,^^  colonial  Americans  could  receive 
an  excellent  education  completely  outside  of  the  school- 
room. For  colonial  Americans  who  believed  in  individual 
responsibility,  self-government,  and  self-improvement,  this 
was  not  an  uncommon  course  of  study.  Most  lawyers,  for 
example,  were  self-educated. 

Sermons  as  Educational  Tools 

The  sermon  was  also  an  excellent  educational  experi- 
ence for  our  colonial  forefathers.  Sunday  morning  was  a 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  71 

time  to  hear  the  latest  news  and  see  old  friends  and  neigh- 
bors. But  it  was  also  an  opportunity  for  many  to  sit  under  a 
man  of  God  who  had  spent  many  hours  preparing  for  a 
two-,  three-,  or  even  four-hour  sermon.  Many  a  colonial 
pastor,  such  as  Jonathan  Edwards,  spent  eight  to  twelve 
hours  daily  studying,  praying  over,  and  researching  his  ser- 
mon. Unlike  sermons  on  the  frontier  in  the  mid-nineteenth 
century,  colonial  sermons  were  filled  with  the  fruits  of 
years  of  study.  They  were  geared  not  only  to  the  emotions 
and  will,  but  also  to  the  intellect. 

As  Daniel  Boorstin  has  pointed  out,  the  sermon  was  one 
of  the  chief  literary  forms  in  colonial  America.^^  Realizing 
this,  listeners  followed  sermons  closely,  took  mental  notes, 
and  usually  discussed  the  sermon  with  the  family  on  Sun- 
day afternoon.  Anne  Hutchinson's  discussions,  which  later 
resulted  in  the  Antinomian  Controversy,  were  merely  typi- 
cal of  thousands  of  discussions  which  took  place  in  the 
homes  of  colonial  America.  Most  discussions,  however, 
were  not  as  controversial  as  those  which  took  place  in  the 
Hutchinson  home. 

Thus,  without  ever  attending  a  college  or  seminary,  a 
churchgoer  in  colonial  America  could  gain  an  intimate 
knowledge  of  Bible  doctrine,  church  history,  and  classical 
literature.  Questions  raised  by  the  sermon  could  be 
answered  by  the  pastor  or  by  the  books  in  the  church 
libraries  that  were  springing  up  all  over  America.  Often  a 
sermon  was  later  published  and  listeners  could  review 
what  they  had  heard  on  Sunday  morning. 

The  first  Sunday  Schools  also  developed  in  this  period. 
Unlike  their  modem-day  counterparts,  colonial  Sunday 
Schools  not  only  taught  Bible  but  also  the  rudiments  of 
reading  and  writing.  These  Sunday  Schools  often  catered  to 
the  poorest  members  of  society. 

Modem  historians  have  discounted  the  importance  of 


72  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

the  colonial  church  as  an  educational  institution,  citing  the 
low  percentage  of  colonial  Americans  on  surviving  church 
membership  rolls.  What  these  historians  fail  to  realize, 
however,  is  that  unlike  most  churches  today,  colonial 
churches  took  membership  seriously.  Requirements  for 
becoming  a  church  member  were  much  higher  in  those 
days,  and  many  people  attended  church  without  officially 
joining.  Other  sources  indicate  that  church  attendance  was 
high  in  the  colonial  period.  Thus,  many  of  our  forefathers 
partook  not  only  of  the  spiritual  blessing  of  their  local 
churches,  but  the  educational  blessings  as  well. 

Philosophical  Societies 

Another  educational  institution  that  developed  in  colo- 
nial America  was  the  philosophical  society.  One  of  the  most 
famous  of  these  was  Franklin's  Junto,  where  men  would 
gather  to  read  and  discuss  papers  they  had  written  on  all 
sorts  of  topics  and  issues.^^  Another  society  was  called  The 
Literary  Republic.  This  society  opened  in  the  bookbindery 
of  George  Rineholt  in  1764  in  Philadelphia.  Here,  artisans, 
tradesmen,  and  common  laborers  met  to  discuss  logic, 
jurisprudence,  religion,  science,  and  moral  philosophy 
(economics). ^^ 

Itinerant  lecturers,  not  unlike  the  Greek  philosophers  of 
the  Hellenistic  period,  rented  halls  and  advertised  their  lec- 
tures in  local  papers.  One  such  lecturer,  Joseph  Cun- 
ningham, offered  a  series  of  lectures  on  the  "History  and 
Laws  of  England"  for  a  little  over  a  pound.^^-^ 

By  1776,  when  America  finally  declared  its  indepen- 
dence, a  tradition  had  been  established  and  voluntarism  in 
education  was  the  rule.  Our  founding  fathers,  who  had 
been  educated  in  this  tradition,  did  not  think  in  terms  of 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  73 

government-controlled  education.  Accordingly,  when  the 
delegates  gathered  in  Philadelphia  to  write  a  Constitution 
for  the  new  nation,  education  was  considered  to  be  outside 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  government,  particularly  the 
national  government.  Madison,  in  his  notes  on  the  Conven- 
tion, recorded  that  there  was  some  talk  of  giving  the  federal 
legislature  the  power  to  establish  a  national  university  at 
the  future  capital.  But  the  proposal  was  easily  defeated,  for 
as  Boorstin  has  pointed  out,  "the  Founding  Fathers  sup- 
ported the  local  institutions  which  had  sprung  up  all  over 
the  country."^  A  principle  had  been  established  in  America 
that  was  not  to  be  deviated  from  until  the  mid-nineteenth 
century.  Even  as  late  as  1860,  there  were  only  300  public 
schools  as  compared  to  6,000  private  academies.^^ 

A  Highly  Literate  Populace 

The  results  of  colonial  America's  free-market  system  of 
education  were  impressive  indeed.  Almost  no  tax  money 
was  spent  on  education,  yet  education  was  available  to 
almost  anyone  who  wanted  it,  including  the  poor.  No  gov- 
ernment subsidies  were  given,  and  inefficient  institutions 
either  improved  or  went  out  of  business.  Competition 
guaranteed  that  scarce  educational  resources  would  be 
allocated  properly.  The  educational  institutions  that  pros- 
pered produced  a  generation  of  articulate  Americans  who 
could  grapple  with  the  complex  problems  of  self-govern- 
ment. The  Federalist  Papers,  which  are  seldom  read  or  under- 
stood today,  even  in  our  universities,  were  written  for  and 
read  by  the  common  man.  Literacy  rates  were  as  high  or 
higher  than  they  are  today^  A  study  conducted  in  1800  by 
DuPont  de  Nemours  revealed  that  only  four  in  a  thousand 
Americans  were  unable  to  read  and  write  legibly.^^  Various 


74  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

accounts  from  colonial  America  support  these  statistics.  In 
1772,  Jacob  Duche,  the  Chaplain  of  Congress,  later  turned 
Tory,  wrote: 

The  poorest  labourer  upon  the  shore  of  Delaware 
thinks  himself  entitled  to  deliver  his  sentiments  in 
matters  of  religion  or  politics  with  as  much  freedom 
as  the  gentleman  or  scholar.  .  .  .  Such  is  the  prevail- 
ing taste  for  books  of  every  kind,  that  almost  every 
man  is  a  reader;  and  by  pronouncing  sentence,  right 
or  wrong,  upon  the  various  publications  that  come 
in  his  way,  puts  himself  upon  a  level,  in  point  of 
knowledge,  with  their  several  authors.^ 

Franklin,  too,  testified  to  the  efficiency  of  the  colonial 
educational  system.  According  to  Franklin,  the  North 
American  libraries  alone  "have  improved  the  general 
conversation  of  Americans,  made  the  common  tradesmen 
and  farmers  as  intelligent  as  most  gentlemen  from  other 
countries,  and  perhaps  have  contributed  in  some  degree  to 
the  stand  so  generally  made  throughout  the  colonies  in 
defense  of  their  privileges."^^ 

The  experience  of  colonial  America  clearly  supports 
the  idea  that  the  market,  if  allowed  to  operate  freely,  could 
meet  the  educational  needs  of  modern-day  America.  In 
the  nineteenth  century,  the  Duke  of  Wellington  remarked 
that  "the  Battle  of  Waterloo  was  won  on  the  playing  fields 
of  Eton  and  Cambridge."  Today,  the  battle  between  free- 
dom and  statism  is  being  fought  in  America's  schools. 
Those  of  us  who  believe  in  Constitutional  government 
would  do  well  to  promote  the  principle  of  competition, 
pluralism,  and  government  nonintervention  in  education. 
Years  ago,  Abraham  Lincoln  said,  "The  philosophy  of  the 


Education  in  Colonial  America  /  75 

classroom  will  be  the  philosophy  of  the  government  in  the 
next  generation." 


1.  Bertrand  Russell,  quoted  in:  Tim  Dowley,  ed..  The  History  of 
Christianity  (Grand  Rapids:  Wm.  B.  Eerdman's  Pub.  Co.,  1977),  p.  2. 

2.  Clarence  B.  Carson  has  emphasized  this  point  in  his  The  Ameri- 
can Tradition  (Irvington-on-Hudson,  N.Y.:  The  Foundation  for  Eco- 
nomic Education,  Inc.,  1964). 

3.  Lawrence  A.  Cremin,  American  Education:  The  Colonial  Experi- 
ence, 1607-1789  (New  York,  Evanston,  and  London:  Harper  and  Row, 
1970),  p.  40. 

4.  Psalms  127:3. 

5.  Romans  13. 

6.  Elizabeth  McEachem  Wells,  Divine  Songs  by  Isaac  Watts  (Fairfax, 
Va.:  Thobum  Press,  1975),  p.  ii. 

7.  Ibid.,  p.  42. 

8.  Eric  Sloane,  The  Little  Red  Schoolhouse  (Garden  City,  New  York: 
Doubleday  and  Company,  Inc.,  1972),  p.  3. 

9.  Ralph  Walker,  "Old  Readers,"  in  Early  American  Life,  October 
1980,  p.  54. 

10.  Samuel  Eliot  Morison,  The  Intellectual  Life  of  New  England 
(Ithaca:  Cornell  University  Press,  1%5),  pp.  71,  72. 

11.  Carson,  p.  152. 

12.  Louis  B.  Wright,  The  Cultural  Life  of  the  American  Colonies  (New 
York:  Harper  and  Row  Pub.,  Inc.,  1957),  p.  108. 

13.  Ibid. 

14.  Wright,  p.  109. 

15.  Carl  and  Jessica  Bridenbaugh,  Rebels  and  Gentlemen  (New  York: 
Oxford  University  Press,  1982),  p.  36. 

16.  Ibid.,  p.  39. 

17.  Frederick  Rudolph,  The  American  College  and  University  (New 
York:  Random  House,  A  Vintage  Book,  1962),  pp.  15-16. 

18.  Morison,  p.  39. 

19.  Morison,  p.  37. 

20.  Morison,  p.  39. 

21.  Archibald  Alexander,  The  Log  College  (London:  Banner  of  Truth 
Trust,  1968;  first  published,  1851),  pp.  14-22. 


76  /  Robert  A.  Peterson 

22.  William  H.  S.  Demarest,  A  History  of  Rutgers  College,  1766-1924 
(Princeton:  Princeton  University  Press,  1924),  p.  45. 

23.  Rudolph,  p.  15. 

24.  John  Wither  spoon,  "Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Jamaica  and 
Other  West-India  Islands,  in  Behalf  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey," 
Essays  upon  Important  Subjects,  Vol.  Ill  (Edinburgh,  1805),  pp.  312-318, 
328-330. 

25.  Max  Farrand,  ed..  The  Autobiography  of  Benjamin  Franklin  (Berke- 
ley, Cal.,  1949),  p.  86. 

26.  Bridenbaugh,  p.  87. 

27.  Bridenbaugh,  p.  99. 

28.  Bridenbaugh,  p.  91. 

29.  Wright,  pp.  126-133. 

30.  Daniel  Boorstin,  The  Americans:  The  Colonial  Experience  (New 
York:  Random  House,  Vintage  Books,  1958),  pp.  10-14. 

31.  This  later  became,  of  course,  the  American  Philosophical 
Society. 

32.  Bridenbaugh,  pp.  64-65. 

33.  Bridenbaugh,  p.  65. 

34.  Boorstin,  p.  183. 

35.  Richard  C.  Wade,  et  ai,  A  History  of  the  United  States  with  Selected 
Readings,  Vol.  I  (Boston:  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  1966, 1971),  p.  398. 

36.  Rousas  John  Rushdoony,  The  Messianic  Character  of  American 
Education  (Nutley  N.J.:  The  Craig  Press,  1%3, 1979),  p.  330. 

37.  Ibid. 

38.  Bridenbaugh,  p.  99. 

39.  Farrand,  p.  86. 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76 
Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 


A  fresh  spirit  of  change  is  in  the  air.  It  has  swept  into  the 
Office  of  President  a  man  who,  as  the  Governor  of  Califor- 
nia, has  shown  his  dedication  to  the  principles  of  limited 
government.  It  has  carried  into  ascendancy  in  the  halls  of 
Congress  men  who  by  their  records  have  demonstrated 
their  commitment  to  support  constitutional  principles 
which  were  designed  to  protect  individual  liberty. 

Let  us  seek  the  roots  of  that  spirit.  Perhaps  we  may  find 
the  key  to  curing  what  the  late  Dean  Clarence  Manion 
termed  "Cancer  in  the  Constitution."^ 

An  examination  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
will  produce  several  important  clues:  "(Men)  are  endowed 
by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights  . . .  among 
these  are  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  "...  to 
secure  these  rights  governments  are  instituted  . . .  deriving 
their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  Gov- 
ernment is  to  be  founded  on  principles  and  its  powers 
organized  in  such  form  "most  likely  to  effect  safety  and 
happiness." 

Men  capable  of  expressing  thoughts  such  as  these  had 
of  necessity  developed  an  inbred  sense  of  self-reliance. 
They  were  God-fearing,  Bible-reading  people  who  were 
accustomed  to  taking  responsibility  for  their  own  actions. 

The  late  Mr.  Hillendahl  was  a  banker  and  long-time  member  of 
FEE'S  Board  of  Trustees.  This  essay  appeared  in  the  March  1981  issue  of 
The  Freeman. 


77 


78  /  Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

Whence  would  they  likely  receive  guidance  for  these  ideas 
of  liberty?  We  know  they  invariably  looked  to  the  Bible  as 
the  source  of  inspiration  and  direction.  So  let  us  follow  their 
steps. 

James,  the  president  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  was  elo- 
quent in  translating  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  law  into 
Christianity.  In  Chapter  1:25  he  wrote:  "But  whoever  looks 
into  the  perfect  law  of  liberty  and  abides  in  it  is  not  merely 
a  hearer  of  the  word  which  can  be  forgotten,  but  a  doer  of 
the  work,  and  this  man  shall  be  blessed  in  his  labor."^  In 
Chapter  2:11,  James  admonished  those  who  have  broken 
the  commandments:  "You  have  become  a  transgressor  of 
the  law ...  so  speak  and  act  as  men  who  are  to  be  judged  by 
the  law  of  liberty."^  This  clearly  denotes  that  individuals 
are  to  be  held  responsible  for  their  choices  and  actions.  Irre- 
sponsible actions  are  to  be  judged  accordingly. 

Paul  wrote  from  Corinth  encouraging  the  Galatians  to 
maintain  Christian  liberty.  Chapter  5:1,  "Stand  firm  there- 
fore in  the  liberty  with  which  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and 
be  not  harnessed  again  under  the  yoke  of  servitude."  In 
Romans  8:21  we  find  that  servitude  is  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption. Then  in  Galatians  Chapter  5:13  and  14,  "For  my 
brethren  you  have  been  called  to  liberty,  only  do  not  use 
your  liberty  for  an  occasion  to  the  things  of  the  flesh,  but  by 
love  serve  one  another.  For  the  whole  law  is  fulfilled  in  one 
saying  that  is:  You  shall  love  your  neighbor  as  yourself." 
Underlying  liberty  is  freedom  of  choice.  We  are  admon- 
ished to  make  only  responsible  choices.  Our  actions  should 
focus  on  service  rather  than  on  the  accumulation  of  wealth 
as  an  end  in  itself.  To  live  within  the  laws  of  the  Command- 
ments also  includes  the  prohibition  of  making  laws  which 
institutionalize  greed,  envy,  lust,  or  coveting  of  property.  So 
herein  is  the  spirit  of  the  law. 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  79 
The  Purpose  of  Law 

As  to  the  purpose  of  law,  we  may  turn  to  the  great  Eng- 
lish judge.  Sir  William  Blackstone,  who  said  "The  principal 
aim  of  society  is  to  protect  individuals  in  the  enjoyment  of 
those  absolute  rights  which  were  vested  in  them  by  the 

inrunutable  laws  of  nature The  first  and  primary  end  of 

human  laws  is  to  maintain  and  regulate  those  'absolute' 
rights  of  individuals."^  The  Frenchman,  Frederic  Bastiat,  in 
his  pamphlet  on  The  Law  wrote:  "We  hold  from  God  the  gift 
which  includes  all  others.  This  gift  is  life — physical, 
intellectual  and  moral  life. . . .  Life,  faculties,  production — 
in  other  words,  individuality,  liberty,  property — this  is 
man.  And  in  spite  of  the  cunning  of  artful  political  leaders, 
these  three  gifts  from  God  precede  all  human  legislation, 
and  are  superior  to  it 

"Life,  liberty  and  property  do  not  exist  because  men 
have  made  laws.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  the  fact  that  life, 
liberty,  and  property  existed  beforehand  that  caused  men  to 

make  laws  in  the  first  place The  law  is  the  organization 

of  the  natural  right  of  lawful  defense.  It  is  the  substitution 
of  a  common  force  for  individual  forces.  And  this  common 
force  is  to  do  only  what  the  individual  forces  have  a  natural 
and  lawful  right  to  do;  to  protect  persons,  liberties,  and 
properties;  and  to  maintain  the  right  of  each,  and  to  cause 
justice  to  reign  over  us  all."^ 

Constitutional  Law — Power  to  the  People 

In  the  United  States  Constitution  we  find  a  codification 
of  the  Biblical  laws.  It  provided  for  the  protection  of  life,  lib- 
erty, property,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  It  provided  for 
the  freedom  of  choice  of  individuals  with  implied  self- 


80  /   Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

responsibility  for  their  actions,  and  the  protection  of  indi- 
viduals against  those  who  would  abridge  or  infringe  those 
rights.  A  society  wherein  individuals  are  free  to  choose 
requires  a  government  supported  willingly  by  the  consent 
of  the  governed.  Individuals  who  choose  to  be  free  must  be 
willing  to  support  laws  which  protect  the  rights  of  all  oth- 
ers who  choose  to  be  free.  This  constitutes  a  free  and  open 
society  wherein  each  can  choose  to  serve  God  and  mankind 
in  the  ways  of  his  own  choice,  free  from  the  will  of  others. 

At  the  same  time,  the  men  who  drafted  the  Constitution 
accepted  the  fact  that  individuals  are  corruptible.  They  are 
subject  to  temptation;  they  can  be  envious,  and  greedy; 
they  may  steal,  or  covet  property.  As  someone  has  said, 
each  man  has  his  price,  and  it  is  indeed  a  rare  individual 
who  is  totally  incorruptible,  given  the  opportunity  to  gain 
power.  So  their  principal  concern  was  how  to  develop  a 
legal  framework  that  would  prevent  corruptible  individu- 
als or  groups  from  acquiring  power  to  infringe  on  the  rights 
of  other  individuals.  The  key  word  is  power.  The  division 
of  power,  fragmentation  of  power,  and  the  checks  and  bal- 
ances of  power  extend  through  the  entire  fabric  of  the  Con- 
stitution. A  horizontal  division  of  power  was  provided  in 
the  form  of  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  separation.  A 
vertical  division  of  power  appears  in  the  form  of  the  fed- 
eral, state,  and  local  governments.  The  goal  was  to  limit 
opportunities  to  concentrate  powers  taken  from  the  people. 

Limiting  the  Government 

The  Bill  of  Rights  includes  a  set  of  specific  "thou  shalt 
nots"  which  were  designed  to  constrain  the  federal  govern- 
ment from  infringing  on  specific  individual  rights.  In  sub- 
stance, the  Constitution  is  a  document  which  was  designed 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  81 

to  hold  in  chains  the  powers  and  authority  of  the  federal 
government  along  with  those  who  would  use  government 
to  further  their  own  ends. 

For  such  a  system  to  survive  requires  a  continual  effort 
toward  maintaining  the  distribution  and  balance  of  power 
at  all  times.  During  a  speech  in  Ireland  on  July  10,  1790, 
John  Curran  warned,  "The  condition  upon  which  God  hath 
given  liberty  to  man  is  eternal  vigilance." 

The  guarantees  of  "freedom  to" — to  choose,  to  try  and 
to  fail — can  only  be  made  under  a  government  which  is 
restricted  from  interfering  with  individual  choices.  In  con- 
trast, the  constitution  of  the  Soviet  Union  and  the  United 
Nations  charter  are  vehicles  of  unlimited  power.  Their 
goals  of  "freedom  from" — from  war,  disease,  want,  unem- 
ployment and  the  like— can  only  be  enforced  by  an  unlim- 
ited central  authority  and  bureaucracy. 

Being  aware  that  neither  the  Constitution  nor  statutory 
law  can  ever  change  the  nature  of  man,  nor  force  him  to  be 
what  he  cannot  or  will  not  be,  we  may  ask  how  successful 
were  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  We  live  in  an  imper- 
fect world.  It  is  an  imperfect  Constitution,  and  we  are 
imperfect  individuals.  Yet  for  nearly  two  centuries  with 
freedom  of  opportunity  the  people  of  the  United  States 
increased  their  standard  of  living  more  rapidly  than  did 
those  of  any  other  nation  in  the  world.  Given  the  choice,  the 
acid  test  is  whether  one  would  rather  live  in  the  United 
States  or  somewhere  else  in  the  world.  The  vast  influx  of 
legal  and  illegal  aliens  speaks  for  itself. 

The  Problems  of  Government— Man  Was  Made  Vain 

Yet  we  are  troubled  today;  inflation,  unemployment, 
economic  instability,  housing  shortages,  high  taxes,  high 


82  /   Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

interest  rates,  are  but  a  few  of  our  problems.  How  do  the 
conditions  underlying  the  problems  of  today  compare  with 
the  concerns  and  grievances  of  the  Founding  Fathers?  Let's 
look  again  at  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  signers 
were  concerned  about  "relinquishing  the  rights  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  legislature."  Today  we  are  concerned  about 
centralized  government  and  administrative  law. 

In  1776  they  were  concerned  about  being  "exposed  to 
dangers  of  invasion  from  without  and  convulsions  from 
within."  Increasing  numbers  are  concerned  about  our 
defense  posture  today  and  the  problems  of  internal  unrest. 

They  complained  that  "judges  were  dependent  on  the 
will  (of  the  King)  for  tenure  of  their  offices."  Today's  judges 
are  political  appointees  who,  to  a  significant  extent,  legis- 
late according  to  their  ideologies  rather  than  seek  precedent 
for  decisions. 

The  Founders  were  concerned  about  "a  multitude  of 
new  offices,"  and  we  are  concerned  about  burgeoning 
bureaucracy. 

They  were  concerned  about  "imposing  taxes  without 
our  consent."  Who  isn't  concerned  today  about  high  taxes, 
consent  or  otherwise? 

They  were  concerned  about  "deprived  .  .  .  benefits  of 
trial  by  jury."  Today  administrative  law  has  gone  a  long 
way  to  the  same  end,  and  has  altered  fundamentally  the 
forms  of  government. 

They  complained  about  exciting  "domestic  insurrec- 
tions among  us."  Today  who  is  not  concerned  about  crime 
and  personal  safety?  The  very  survival  of  our  system  is 
threatened  by  the  encroachment  of  a  totalitarian  ideology. 

Are  we  not  faced  again  today  with  the  problems  of  200 
years  ago?  We  are  in  fact  encountering  an  ageless  collision 
with  a  destructive  ideology.  Paul  wrote  in  his  letter  to  the 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  83 

Romans  8:20,21,  "For  man  was  made  subject  to  vanity  .  .  /' 
(Definitions  of  vanity  include,  "inflated  pride  of  one's  self/' 
or  "emptiness,  worthlessness."  We  may  ponder  the  signifi- 
cance of  this  polarity  of  meaning.)  "For  man  was  made  sub- 
ject to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  gave 
him  free  will  in  the  hope  that  he  would  choose  rightly. 
Because  man  himself  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of 
corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  Children  of  God." 

Or  perhaps  more  clearly,  man  (of)  himself  shall  be  deliv- 
ered .  .  .  Man  only  by  his  own  choice  of  responsible 
thoughts  and  actions  can  achieve  the  soul  growth  that  is 
required  to  achieve  grace,  and  entrance  into  the  Kingdom 
of  God. 

But  in  fact,  has  he  chosen  "rightly"?  In  spite  of  the  com- 
mandment "Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  property," 
we  have  permitted  laws  to  be  passed  which,  taken  all 
together,  confiscate  almost  half  of  our  neighbor's  property 
via  taxes  in  the  vain  concept  of  doing  good.  These  vain 
thoughts  manifest  in  a  number  of  syndromes: 

•  The  "welfare"  syndrome  which  enforces  the  privilege 
of  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  the  individuals 
who  constitute  the  body  politic. 

•  The  "free  lunch"  syndrome  which  looks  on  dollars 
sent  from  Washington  as  free.  If  we  don't  get  them,  some- 
one else  will. 

•  The  "meddling  in  the  affairs  of  others"  syndrome  in 
which  individuals  feel  compelled  to  attempt  to  solve  the 
problems  of  others  rather  than  minding  their  own  business 
and  concentrating  on  solving  their  own  problems. 

•  Similarly,  the  "let  George  do  it"  syndrome  considers 
today's  problems  to  be  too  complex  to  be  solved  equitably 
at  the  state  or  local  level — they  must  be  sent  to  Washington. 


84  /  Wesley  K  Hillendahl 

•  The  "exploitation"  syndrome  in  which  the  producers 
in  society  are  held  to  have  victimized  those  less  stationed. 
Therefore  the  producers  must  be  chained  with  regulations 
and  their  ill-gotten  profits  must  be  taxed  away. 

•  The  "victims  of  society"  syndrome  maintains  that  crim- 
inals are  the  innocent  victims  of  society — they  cannot  be  held 
responsible  for  their  crimes  or  misdeeds;  therefore  they  must 
be  pampered  and  "rehabilitated"  rather  than  punished, 
while  many  live  in  fear  that  they  may  be  the  next  victims. 

•  Finally,  the  "homogenized  milk"  syndrome  which  is 
destroying  all  natural  affinity  groups  and  is  forcing  all  peo- 
ple to  live  and  work  together  on  the  basis  of  a  "social 
adjustment"  formula  of  equality  based  on  race,  color,  creed, 
or  whether  one  fancies  dogs,  cats,  horses,  or  white  rats. 

These  syndromes  are  all  manifestations  of  an  ideology 
that  is  anathema  to  liberty.  They  reflect  the  attitude  of  those 
who  lack  faith  in  the  ability  of  each  individual  to  solve  his 
or  her  own  problems;  hence,  a  forced  redistribution  of  soci- 
ety is  necessary  to  overcome  maladjustments. 

The  thermometer  of  a  redistributive  society  is  what? 
Inflation.  Inflation  is  a  measure  of  the  maldistribution  of 
wealth  via  government — no  more,  no  less.  The  underlying 
motivating  forces  and  the  mechanics  of  inflation  are  com- 
plex and  widely  misunderstood.  Yet  no  one  in  good  con- 
science can  deny  the  necessity  to  help  those  who  are  in  a 
condition  of  misfortune.  However,  today  much  redistrib- 
uted wealth  is  going  to  those  who  have  established  vested 
positions  of  privilege.  The  consequence  is  that  regardless  of 
how  legitimate  a  given  cause  may  be,  the  total  burden  of 
aggregate  causes  on  the  nation  has  exceeded  the  carrying 
capacity  of  its  productive  resources  to  the  point  where 
inflation  is  an  unavoidable  condition.  The  problem  goes  far 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  85 

deeper  than  any  transient  federal  administration,  its  roots 
extend  back  through  decades,  hiflation  is  the  manifestation 
of  vain  thoughts  and  ideas  applied  cumulatively  since  the 
Civil  War.  It  represents  the  misapplication  of  free  will  and 
an  accumulation  of  a  vast  number  of  wrong  choices. 

The  Redistribution  of  Power 

What  have  been  the  mechanics  of  change  wherein  these 
false  doctrines  have  gained  ascendancy? 

Dr.  Cornelius  Cotter,  Professor  of  Political  Science  at  the 
University  of  Wisconsin,  appeared  before  a  special  Senate 
committee  in  April,  1973.^  He  remarked:  "You  know.  Sena- 
tor Mathias,  it  has  been  said — and,  1  think  wisely  so — that  if 
the  United  States  ever  developed  into  a  totalitarian  state  we 
would  not  know  it.  We  would  not  know  that  it  had  hap- 
pened. It  would  be  all  so  gradual,  the  ritualism  would  all  be 
retained  as  a  facade  to  disguise  what  had  happened.  Most 
people  in  the  United  States,  in  official  position,  would  con- 
tinue to  do  the  sorts  of  things  that  they  are  doing  now.  The 
changes  would  have  all  been  so  subtle  although  so  funda- 
mental that  p>eople  generally  would  be  unaware." 

Senator  Church  res|X)nded,  "That  is  the  way  it  hap- 
jDened  in  Rome,  is  it  not?" 

Dr.  Cotter:  "Indeed." 

Senator  Mathias:  "No  Roman  was  more  deferential  than 
Augustus." 

Dr.  Cotter:  "Exactly" 

Senator  Church:  "And  kept  the  Senate  happy,  although 
the  Senate  had  lost  its  power." 

So  this  age-old  collision  of  ideas  is  producing  very  sub- 
tle changes  in  the  power  structure  of  the  United  States.  The 
mechanism  of  change  involves  power,  its  balance  and  the 


86  /  Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

concentration.  Four  simultaneous  flows  have  been  under- 
way for  a  century:  (1)  Power  from  the  Congress  to  the  Exec- 
utive Branch,  (2)  power  from  the  Congress  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  (3)  power  from  the  states  to  the  federal  government, 
and  (4)  power  from  individuals  to  the  government. 

Judicial  Abuses 

Let's  examine  some  of  these  flows  of  power.  First,  the 
Supreme  Court.  The  Bill  of  Rights  expressly  forbids  the  fed- 
eral government  to  interfere  with  the  fundamental  personal 
liberties  of  individuals  in  this  society.  That's  clear  enough. 
As  an  outfall  of  the  Civil  War,  the  14th  Amendment  was 
adopted  in  1868.  This  amendment  forbids  the  states  to 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  people.  However,  it  had  a 
devious  intent,  namely  to  give  Congress  control  over  the 
people  of  the  South.  But  in  1873  the  Supreme  Court 
thwarted  that  intent  in  the  "Slaughterhouse  Cases."  For 
half  a  century  an  ideal  situation  prevailed  in  which  both  the 
federal  government  and  the  states  were  constrained  by  the 
Constitution  and  its  amendments  from  interfering  with  the 
liberties  of  the  people. 

However,  in  more  recent  years  a  subtle  but  profound 
change  has  been  effected  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Dean 
Clarence  Manion  wrote,  ".  .  .  .  For  the  32  years  of  service 
together  on  the  Supreme  Court,  Justices  Black  and  Douglas 
have  been  repetitiously  citing  each  other  as  authority  for  a 
gross  and  gratuitous  misconstruction  of  the  First  and  14th 
Amendments."'' 

"The  accumulation  of  these  malignant  constitutional 
misconstructions  of  the  first  eight  amendments  with  the 
14th  has  placed  a  cancer  near  the  heart  of  our  constitu- 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  87 

tional  system  which  is  proliferated  with  each  successive 
term  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court."^  Essentially, 
today  the  Court  has  legislated  its  jurisdiction  over  the 
rights  of  j)eople  by  effectively  merging  the  Bill  of  Rights 
into  the  14th  Amendment  and  reversing  its  position  in 
1873. 

The  specific  consequences  of  the  Black  and  Douglas 
decision  were  highlighted  in  an  editorial  which  appeared 
in  the  San  Diego  Union:  "The  United  States  Supreme  Court 
has  returned  three  more  decisions  drastically  altering  the 
pattern  of  American  life. 

"For  more  than  15  years  now  the  Court  has  been 
steadily  rewriting  the  laws  and  reinterpreting  the  Constitu- 
tion to  suit  the  ideological  bias  or  judicial  whims  of  its 
members . . . 

"In  recent  days  the  Supreme  Court  has  ridden  over 
states'  rights  abolishing  residency  requirement  for  relief, 
sidestepped  a  ruling  in  a  case  of  burning  the  American 
Flag,  and  placed  further  restrictions  on  law  enforcement  by 
freeing  a  convicted  rapist  because  the  police  took  his  fin- 
gerprints in  some  legal  hocus-pocus  . . . 

".  .  .  Court  majorities  in  those  15  years  have  returned 
more  than  30  decisions  .  .  .  have  brought  about  basic  and 
often  demoralizing  changes  in  the  fields  of  politics,  crimi- 
nal procedure,  religion,  race  relations,  subversion  and  com- 
munism, cmtitrust  laws  and  obscenity. 

"The  Court  has  told  the  states  how  they  are  to  portion 
their  legislatures,  granted  avowed  Communists  the  run  of 
defense  plants;  made  a  criminal's  confession  almost  impos- 
sible to  use;  approved  even  secondary  school  demonstra- 
tions against  the  South  Vietnam  war;  banned  prayers  or 
reading  of  the  Bible  in  public  classrooms;  ruled  that  pass- 


88  /  Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

ports  cannot  be  withheld  from  Communists  just  because 
they  are  Communists;  and  held  that  deserters  from  the 
armed  forces,  even  in  wartime,  cannot  be  stripped  of  citi- 
zenship. . . . 

"In  the  notorious  Keylishian  case,  a  majority  opinion 
held  that  a  college  professor  may  not  be  dismissed  for 
teaching  and  advocating,  in  college,  or  anywhere,  the  over- 
throw of  our  government  by  force  and  violence  .  .  .^  The 
Court,  once  the  ultimate  in  both  prudence  and  jurispru- 
dence, is  now  the  darling  of  the  liberal  radicals;  it  has  done 
for  them  what  the  Congress  has  refused  to  do."^^ 

This  is  a  most  concise  summary  of  the  consequences  of 
the  Court's  abrogation  of  states'  rights  and  the  jurisdiction 
of  Congress. 

Courts  Take  Charge  as  Congress  Forfeits  Control 

At  this  point,  the  more  perceptive  will  grasp  the  real 
issue  which  underlies  the  polarization  of  the  Nation  con- 
cerning the  Equal  Rights  Amendment.  Under  the  facade  of 
women's  rights,  the  real  objective  is  to  deliver  the  jurisdic- 
tion for  defining  the  rights  of  all  individuals  into  the  hand 
of  a  Congress  which  has  already  defaulted  its  jurisdiction 
to  the  legislative  whims  of  the  Supreme  Court.  At  the  heart 
of  the  opposition  to  ERA  are  those  who  recognize  its  pas- 
sage would  give  validity  to  the  Supreme  Court's  abridge- 
ment of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  encourage  further  intrusions 
into  the  private  affairs  of  individuals. 

As  a  curtain  over  these  actions,  a  myth  has  been  erected 
which  holds  that  Supreme  Court  decisions  are  the  "Law  of 
the  Land."  It  presumes  that  once  the  Court  takes  a  position 
on  a  case,  every  similar  case  would  be  adjudged  that  way. 
In  actuality,  each  ruling  is  the  "law  of  the  case."  It  is  possi- 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of '76  /  89 

ble  for  a  court,  made  up  of  the  same  or  different  justices,  to 
arrive  at  a  different  interpretation  if  it  were  to  rule  on  a  sim- 
ilar case. 

Under  a  second  myth,  the  prevailing  belief  is  that  Con- 
gress has  no  control  over  the  Supreme  Court,  hence.  Con- 
gress has  no  way  to  redress  the  sorties  of  the  Court  into  the 
legislative  arena.  Such  an  alleged  lack  of  control  is  far  from 
fact.  Congress  enacted  the  first  Federal  Judiciary  Act  in 
1789  and  this  act  has  been  employed  to  apply  its  unques- 
tioned constitutional  power  over  the  jurisdiction  of  all  fed- 
eral courts. 

The  Congress  by  a  wide  margin  recently  voted  to  deny 
the  Supreme  Court  the  right  to  spend  appropriated  funds 
to  conduct  hearings  into  school  busing  cases,  in  effect, 
denying  the  court  jurisdiction. 

Dean  Clarence  Manion  of  Notre  Dame  held  that  a  major 
step  will  be  taken  toward  rectifying  the  consequences  of  the 
Court's  unconstitutional  decisions  when  the  Congress 
restricts,  abolishes  or  controls  selected  types  of  appellate 
jurisdiction  of  both  the  Supreme  Court  and  all  other  federal 
courts."  A  federal  court  system  comprised  mainly  of  judges 
and  justices  who  are  committed  to  upholding  the  original 
tenets  underlying  the  Constitution,  can  do  a  great  deal  to 
curb  the  judicial  misuses  and  excesses  which  have  pre- 
vailed in  recent  years. 

Legislative  Abuses 

For  many  decades  the  Supreme  Court  routinely  struck 
down  as  unconstitutional  various  acts  passed  by  Congress 
which  infringed  on  the  Bill  of  Rights.  However,  over  the 
last  two  decades  the  Congress,  taking  its  cue  from  the 
Black-Douglas  Supreme  Court  decisions,  has  enacted  a 


90  /   Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

number  of  bills  which  have  intruded  ever-increasingly  into 
those  rights  which  were  originally  held  to  be  out  of  bounds. 
These  intrusions  are  being  felt  by  the  public  in  their  oppor- 
tunities for  employment,  work  environment,  on  the  high- 
way, in  the  air,  while  shopping  and  banking,  in  schools, 
among  family  relations  and  in  the  home.  While  obviously 
accomplishing  some  benefits,  the  bulk  of  this  legislation 
has  been  undertaken  in  response  to  the  highly  vocal,  some- 
times rowdy,  pressure  of  special-interest  groups.  In  the 
main,  these  intrusions  have  caused  vast  numbers  of  people 
to  become  outraged,  resentful,  and  rebellious. 

In  its  attempts  to  legislate  social  justice  and  equality,  the 
Congress  has  cut  to  the  core  of  the  mores  of  the  incredibly 
complex  but  generally  balanced  and  tolerant  American 
society. 

The  wisdom  of  those  who  insisted  on  including  the  Bill 
of  Rights  in  the  Constitution  is  gradually  seeping  into  the 
subconscience  of  all  but  the  most  hardheaded  advocates  of 
reform  by  coercion.  It  would  be  a  wise  Congress  indeed 
that  undertook  to  reverse  or  modify  these  unconstitutional 
intrusions  which  prior  congresses  have  made  over  the 
years. 

Executive  Abuses 

The  scope  of  the  powers  of  the  executive  branch  has 
been  expanded  enormously,  particularly  in  recent  years. 
Authority  of  the  office  of  the  President  has  increased  while 
departments,  commissions,  boards,  and  agencies  have  pro- 
liferated. 

Professor  Cotter  and  Professor  J.  M.  Smith  determined 
that  the  powers  entrusted  by  Congress  to  the  Executive 
Branch  can  be  grouped  in  four  categories:  (1)  powers  over 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  91 

fjersons,  (2)  powers  to  acquire  property,  (3)  powers  to  regu- 
late property,  and  (4)  control  of  communications.^^ 

Executive  Orders:  The  President  normally  employs  Exec- 
utive Orders  to  implement  the  efficient  conduct  of  the  daily 
routines  of  the  office.^^  However,  several  presidents  have 
employed  Executive  Orders  to  conduct  international  rela- 
tions and  to  effect  legislation. 

For  example.  President  Roosevelt  used  an  Executive 
Order  in  1933  to  establish  diplomatic  relationships  with  the 
Communist  regime  in  Russia  at  a  time  when  it  was  unlikely 
that  such  action  by  Congress  would  have  been  supported 
by  a  consensus  of  the  people. 

Under  the  pressure  of  time,  the  President  has  employed 
emergency  orders  properly  in  the  declaration  of  national 
emergencies.  However,  one  would  believe  that  matters  as 
basic  as  the  legal  framework  for  the  conduct  of  government 
under  such  national  emergencies  would  be  given  extensive 
examination  by  the  Congress  in  the  process  of  passing  suit- 
able laws.  Such  is  not  the  case. 

President  John  F.  Kennedy  issued  a  series  of  Executive 
Orders  in  1%2  which  established  a  comprehensive  legal 
framework  to  deal  with  any  national  emergency  as  defined 
by  the  President  or  the  Congress.^"*  On  its  face,  this  would 
appear  to  have  constituted  an  unwarranted  intrusion  into 
the  legislative  process. 

On  October  11, 1966,  President  Lyndon  Johnson  issued 
Executive  Order  11310  which  continued  the  process  by 
transferring  the  authority  granted  under  the  emergency  or- 
ders from  the  Office  of  Emergency  Planning  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice. 

President  Richard  Nixon  also  gave  attention  to  updat- 
ing the  emergency  orders  while  in  office. 

Early  in  the  1970s  Congress  became  sufficiently  con- 


92  /  Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

cerned  about  the  existence  of  national  emergencies  that  the 
Senate  established  a  Special  Committee  on  the  Termination 
of  the  National  Emergency.^^  This  led  in  1976  to  the  passage 
of  the  National  Emergencies  Act.^^  This  act  terminated  all 
existing  declared  emergencies  and  established  procedures 
and  limits  for  the  declaration  of  future  national  emergen- 
cies. 

The  matter  took  on  new  impetus  when,  on  July  20, 1979, 
President  Jimmy  Carter  issued  two  new  Executive  Orders: 

(1)  E.O.  12148  Federal  Emergency  Management,  which 
authorized  a  thorough  overhaul  of  both  civil  and  war  emer- 
gency procedures  and  placed  them  under  a  newly  created 
Federal  Emergency  Management  Council. 

(2)  E.O.  12149  Federal  Regional  Councils,  which  estab- 
lished councils  for  ten  standard  federal  regions,  their  prin- 
cipal function  being  to  implement  federal  programs. 

Taken  separately  or  together  these  Executive  Orders 
provide  wide-ranging  ramifications  when  analyzed  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  powers  delegated  to  these  Councils. 
While  these  structures  may  be  thought  of  as  logical  provi- 
sions for  the  implementation  of  federal  policy,  increasing 
numbers  of  states  are  taking  the  position  that  Regional 
Councils  constitute  a  major  intrusion  into  their  autonomy.^^ 

Such  widespread  reaction  would  lead  one  to  conclude 
that  a  deep  rift  has  developed  in  the  power  structure  as  a 
consequence  of  the  thrust  underlying  these  Executive 
Orders.  As  a  consequence  of  these  and  other  Executive 
Orders,  a  broad  review  by  Congress  of  their  use  and  abuses 
should  lead  to  establishing  guidelines  which  define  appro- 
priate uses  of  Executive  Orders  by  the  Executive  Branch. 

Administrative  Law:  The  myriad  of  statutes,  regulations, 
and  codes  by  which  the  various  departments  and  bureaus 
of   government   administer   their   operations   under   the 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  93 

Executive  Branch  constitute  administrative  law.  In  large 
part  they  are  established  to  implement  details  of  the  broad 
language  of  the  acts  of  Congress.  These  regulations  are  es- 
sential to  the  smooth  and  orderly  functioning  of  govern- 
ment. 

Nevertheless,  the  structure  of  departments  which  com- 
bines executive,  legislative,  and  enforcement  or  judicial 
functions,  provides  a  concentration  of  power  and  authority 
which  lends  itself  to  potential  bureaucratic  abuses.  Among 
many  possible  examples,  congressional  hearings  have 
revealed  that  the  detailed  statutes  developed  in  administer- 
ing the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Act  (OSHA)  went 
far  beyond  the  intent  of  the  act,  and  provided  the  basis  for 
executive  abuses  and  deliberate  harassment,  in  particular 
of  small  business.  Many  are  aware  of  instances  in  which  the 
Antitrust  Division  of  the  Justice  Department,  using  the 
charge  of  conspiracy  and  restraint  of  trade,  has  imposed 
fines  and/or  jail  sentences  though  the  accused  firms  and 
their  officers  were  innocent.  These  firms  chose  to  make 
payment  under  a  plea  of  nolo  contendere  because  the  legal 
fees  required  to  establish  their  innocence  would  exceed  the 
fine. 

Administered  proi:)erly,  government  agencies  should 
facilitate  trade  and  commerce,  and  protect  the  various 
interests  of  the  people.  At  best,  administrative  law  can  only 
regulate,  prohibit,  or  constrain  individuals  or  groups  from 
imposing  on  the  rights  of  others.  However,  in  increasing 
numbers  of  cases  the  bureaucracy  has  gone  far  beyond  its 
legitimate  functions.  One  may  find  dozens  of  magazine 
and  newspaper  articles  reciting  wasteful  or  counter-pro- 
ductive bureaucratic  activities,  and  arrogant  abuses  of 
power.  Today  the  friction  and  costs  to  society  of  the  bureau- 
cracy have  reached  destructive  proportions.  These  excesses 


94  /   Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 

must  be  brought  again  under  control.  The  implementation 
of  reforms  is  too  broad  a  subject  to  address  here.  A 
comprehensive  report  by  the  Heritage  Foundation^^  has 
recommended  a  broad  platform  of  reforms  to  President- 
Elect  Reagan  "to  roll  back  big  government."  Included  are 
specific  recommendations  concerning  Executive  Orders 
and  administrative  law.  Implementation  of  these  recom- 
mendations should  go  a  long  way  in  restoring  a  prof)er  bal- 
ance of  power. 

Revitalizing  the  American  I>ream 

The  foregoing  are  but  a  few  examples  of  the  restructur- 
ing of  power  which  has  been  achieved  during  the  last  cen- 
tury. They  have  been  selected  to  illustrate  the  vast  depar- 
ture from  the  spirit  in  which  the  Constitution  was  written 
some  200  years  ago.  As  a  consequence,  people  in  all  walks 
of  life — both  the  providers  and  the  recipients  of  govern- 
ment aid — are  hurting  as  they  have  never  hurt  before.  The 
thermometer — inflation — shows  that  the  waters  of  our  eco- 
nomic and  political  environment  are  approaching  the  boil- 
ing point.  Not  one  amongst  us  is  immune  to  the  heat. 

In  the  face  of  these  adversities,  a  new  spirit  is  emerging 
in  the  land.  The  new  religious  revival  extending  from 
neighborhoods  to  nationwide  television  is  a  new  expres- 
sion of  the  old  Spirit  of  '76.  People  are  going  back  to  basics. 
They  are  thinking,  questioning,  and  organizing.^^ 

The  overwhelming  choice  by  the  electorate  of  a  new 
administration  dedicated  to  redressing  these  abuses  of 
power  is  a  manifestation  of  the  revival  of  the  spirit. 

The  retirement  of  many  congressmen  who  have  aided 
and  abetted  this  misdirection  of  power,  together  with  the 
election  of  other  congressmen  who  affirm  the  original  pre- 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  95 

cepts  of  the  Constitution  are  further  manifestations  of  the 
spirit. 

Yet  this  is  only  a  beginning.  We  must  not  expect  mira- 
cles from  any  administration,  nor  can  any  of  us  escape  the 
painful  process  of  readjustment.  We  are  presently  in  a  posi- 
tion to  achieve  a  victory  in  this  battle.  But  the  foes  in  the 
ageless  war  for  the  minds  of  men  are  not  to  be  easily  van- 
quished. It  will  require  years  of  unrelenting  effort  to  over- 
come the  damages  which  have  been  incurred  by  the  Repub- 
lic. 

We  know  in  our  hearts  that  cold,  impersonal  welfare 
will  never  succeed  loving  charity.  Government  can  never 
provide  security  to  replace  self-reliance.  No  government 
can  accomplish  those  things  we  must  do  for  ourselves  if  our 
souls  and  spirits  are  to  expand.  If  we  are  to  restore  the 
American  dream  we  must  never  again  become  complacent 
and  allow  ourselves  to  be  overridden  by  those  who  are  in  a 
vain  quest  for  false  goals. 

Let  us  again  restore  the  balance  between  spiritual  and 
material  values.  The  institutions  of  church  and  state  are 
inseparable,  they  are  as  inseparable  as  two  ends  of  a  rope, 
each  is  a  manifestation  of  the  spirit  and  substance  of  soci- 
ety.^ We  may  recall  that  the  spirit  of  liberty  was  heralded 
from  every  pulpit  during  our  Revolutionary  War.  I  main- 
tain that  Spirit  of  '76  has  never  really  disappeared,  we  have 
simply  allowed  it  to  become  encrusted  with  false  doctrine. 

Paul  offered  words  of  encouragement:  "Stand  firm 
therefore  in  liberty  with  which  Christ  has  made  us  free.  Be 
not  harnessed  again  under  the  yoke  of  servitude.  ...  the 
bondage  of  corruption."  James  urged  us:  "So  speak  and  so 
act  as  men  and  women  who  are  to  be  judged  by  the  law  of 
liberty."  Let  freedom-loving  individuals  prevail  by  reas- 
serting the  Spirit  of  '76. 


96  /   Wesley  H.  Hillendahl 


1.  Clarence  E.  Manion,  Cancer  in  the  Constitution  (Shepherdsville, 
Ky.:  Victor  Publishing  Company,  1972). 

2.  Holy  Bible,  trans.  George  M.  Lamsa  (Philadelphia:  A.  J.  Holman, 
1957).  This  version  is  translated  into  English  from  the  Aramaic,  the  lan- 
guage of  Jesus  and  is  recognized  for  accuracy  and  clarity  of  expression. 

3.  The  law  of  liberty  within  the  context  of  Bible  usage  expresses 
freedom  of  choice  with  consequences.  All  thoughts  and  actions  cause 
reactions  for  which  we  are  to  be  held  accountable.  The  law  of  liberty  is 
the  Christian  counterpart  of  the  Sanskrit  term,  karma. 

4.  James  Mussatti,  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Our  Charter 
of  Liberties  (Princeton:  D.  Van  Nostrand  Co.,  Inc.,  1960),  p.  9. 

5.  Frederic  Bastiat,  The  Law,  trans.  Dean  Russell  (Irvington-on- 
Hudson,  N.Y.:  Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  1950),  pp.  5,  6,  7. 
(The  Law  was  first  published  as  a  pamphlet  in  June  1850.) 

6.  U.S.  Congress,  Senate,  Special  Committee  on  the  Termination  of 
the  National  Emergency,  National  Emergency,  Part  1  Constitutional  Ques- 
tions Concerning  Emergency  Powers,  Hearings  before  the  Special  Com- 
mittee of  the  Senate,  93rd  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  April  11, 12, 1973,  p.  29. 

7.  Manion,  p.  33. 

8.  Ibid.,  p.  35. 

9.  As  a  consequence  of  this  Supreme  Court  decision,  by  1975  an 
estimated  2,000  campus  "radical  economists"  who  "respect  the  point  of 
view  of  Mao"  and  who  believe  in  "a  socialism  of  affluence"  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Union  of  Radical  Political  Economists.  (Los  Angeles  Times, 
December  21, 1975J. 

10.  San  Diego  Union,  April  28, 1%9. 

11.  Manion,  p.  27. 

12.  C.  P.  Cotter  and  J.  M.  Smith,  Pozvers  of  the  President  During  Crises 
(Washington,  D.  C:  Public  Affairs  Press,  1960). 

13.  Executive  Orders  are  issued  by  the  President,  reviewed  by  the 
Office  of  Legal  Counsel  and  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  They 
become  law  unless  rescinded  by  Congress  within  a  specified  period  of 
time. 

14.  Executive  Orders  including  numbers  10995, 10997,10998, 10999 
and  11000,  11001,  11002,  11003,  11004,  11005  and  11051  define  proce- 
dures during  war,  attacks  or  other  emergencies  for  executive  control  of 
communications,   energy,   food   and   farming,   all   modes   of   trans- 


Reasserting  the  Spirit  of  76  /  97 

portation,  civilian  work  brigades,  health,  education  and  welfare  func- 
tions, housing,  public  storage  and  so  on. 

15.  VS.  Congress,  Senate,  National  Emergency. 

16.  National  Emergencies  Act,  U.S.  Code,  vol.  50,  sec.  1601-  51  (1976). 

17.  Extensive  hearings  on  regional  governance  have  been  con- 
ducted by  legislative  committees  in  a  score  of  states.  The  proceedings  of 
these  hearings  appear  in  bulletins  published  by  the  Committee  to 
Restore  the  Constitution,  Inc.,  P.O.  Box  986,  Fort  Collins,  Colorado 
80522. 

18.  Charles  Heatherly,  ed..  Mandate  for  Leadership  (Washington, 
D.C.:  HeriUge  Foundation,  1980). 

19.  For  an  example  of  grass  roots  organization  see  "The  Pro-Family 
Movement:  A  Special  Report"  in  Conservative  Digest  6  (May/June  1980). 

20.  Into  the  artfully  contrived  rift  between  church  and  state  has 
been  driven  the  wedge  of  Humanism.  According  to  the  book  The 
Assault  on  the  Family,  "As  a  religion.  Humanism  demands  the  end  of  all 
religions  that  are  God-oriented,  and  the  abolition  of  the  profit-moti- 
vated society,  so  that  a  world  Utopian  state  may  be  established  which 
will  dictate  the  distribution  of  the  means  of  life  for  everyone."  See  "Our 
Last  Opportunity"  in  Don  Bell  Reports,  November  13, 1980. 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers 
Clarence  B.  Carson 


History,  it  has  been  said,  is  a  seamless  cloth.  The 
thought  is  apt.  You  cannot  clip  a  thread  within  it  and 
attempt  to  extricate  it  without  unraveling  the  whole.  There 
have  been  efforts  to  tell  the  history  of  the  United  States  with 
the  role  of  religion  either  excised  from  it  or  altered  within  it. 
One  common  alteration  occurs  in  those  textbooks  which 
claim  that  the  Pilgrims  and  Puritans  came  to  America  for 
freedom  of  religion. 

They  did  not.  They  came  in  order  to  be  able  to  practice 
their  religion.  The  difference  is  by  no  means  merely  a  quib- 
ble. Freedom  of  religion,  as  it  is  now  understood,  is  a  secu- 
lar concept.  It  is  probably  even  more  highly  valued  by  those 
who  have  no  religious  faith  than  by  active  believers.  To  be 
able  to  practice  one's  faith  is  only  of  value  to  him  who  has  a 
faith  to  practice.  It  is  a  sacred,  not  a  secular,  value.  The  Puri- 
tans at  the  time  of  settlement  could  no  more  conceive  of  the 
desirability  of  freedom  of  religion  than  Treasury  officials 
today  can  conceive  of  the  desirability  of  freedom  of 
counterfeiting. 

My  point  is  that  books  on  American  history  often  either 
secularize  religious  values,  treat  them  as  alien,  or  leave 
them  out  of  account.  Yet,  without  these  religious  founda- 
tions there  could  have  been  no  United  States  as  it  was  and 


This  essay  was  published  in  the  December  1976  issue  of  The  Free- 
man. 


98 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers  /  99 

is.  There  is  no  knowing  American  history  without  grasping 
its  underpinnings  in  Judeo-Christian  faith.  America  as  it 
was  and  is  cannot  even  be  successfully  imagined  without 
the  thread  of  faith  woven  into  the  cloth  of  history. 

Biblically  Based  and  Christian  Settlement  of  America 

American  history  cannot  be  imagined  without  the  pow- 
erful evocative  phrases  of  the  King  James  Version  of  the 
Bible,  or  without  the  story  of  our  origins  in  Genesis: 

In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth.  The  earth  was  without  form,  and  void;  and 
darkness  was  on  the  face  of  the  deep.  And  the  Spirit 
of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters. 

Genesis  1:1-2. 

Or,  without  the  account  of  man's  place  in  the  creation: 

And  God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after 
our  likeness:  and  let  them  have  dominion  over  the 
fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over 
the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth,  and  over  every 
creeping  thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth. 

So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the 
image  of  God  created  he  him;  male  and  female  cre- 
ated he  them. 

Genesis  1:26-27. 

The  fundamental  character  of  all  proper  law  is  revealed 
in  the  Ten  Commandments.  Though  two  of  them  do  com- 
mand appropriate  affirmative  action,  the  remainder  are 
prohibitive  in  nature.  They  are  brief,  concise,  and  are  read- 


100  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

ily  understood.  A  United  States  without  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments in  its  background  would  have  been  a  United 
States  without  transcendent  law  upon  which  to  build: 

1.  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me. 

2.  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image. 

3.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God 
in  vain. 

4.  Remember  the  sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy. 

5.  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 

6.  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

9.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy 
neighbor. 

10.  Thou  shalt  not  covet. 

Excerpted  and  numbered  from  Exodus  20:  3-17. 

Most  of  those  who  settled  in  the  New  World  were  Chris- 
tian, nominally  or  devoutly  as  the  case  might  be.  Their  atti- 
tude toward  life  had  been  winnowed  through  and  condi- 
tioned by  the  Christian  perspective.  This  meant  many 
things,  but  one  of  its  meanings  is  never  to  be  ignored  by  the 
historian:  That  good  ultimately  triumphs  over  evil,  that  life 
is  not  necessarily  tragic  but  that  it  is  potentially  triumphant 
when  it  is  in  accord  with  God's  will.  America  without  the 
assurance  of  this  Revelation  could  not  have  been  as  it  has 
been: 

In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  He  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God;  all  things  were  made  through 
him,  and  without  him  was  not  anything  made  that 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers  /  101 

was  made.  In  him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light 
of  men.  The  light  shines  in  the  darkness,  and  the 
darkness  has  not  overcome  it. 

John  1:1-5  (RSV) 

This  assurance  comes  through  in  the  beautiful  promises  of 
the  Beatitudes: 

Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

Blessed  are  those  who  mourn,  for  they  shall  be 
comforted. 

Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the 
earth. 

Blessed  are  those  who  hunger  and  thirst  for 
righteousness,  for  they  shall  be  satisfied. 

Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain 
mercy. 

Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see 
God. 

Blessed  are  the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be 
called  the  sons  of  God. 

Blessed  are  those  who  are  persecuted  for  right- 
eousness' sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Blessed  are  you  when  men  revile  you  and  perse- 
cute you  and  utter  all  kinds  of  evil  against  you 
falsely  on  my  account. 

Rejoice  and  be  glad,  for  your  reward  is  great  in 
heaven,  for  so  men  persecuted  the  prophets  who 
were  before  you. 

Matthew  5:  3-11  (RSV) 


102  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 
Roman  Catholicism 

The  Christian  religion  was  for  a  thousand  years  of  its 
history  represented  primarily  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  Within  that  fold  many  doctrines  were  shaped  and 
many  great  preachers  and  teachers  held  forth.  While  the 
Catholic  Church  was  suspect  to  some  of  the  Founders  of  the 
United  States,  it  is  nonetheless  the  case  that  the  Faith  of  Our 
Fathers  found  many  of  its  underpinnings  in  that  faith.  Here 
is  a  statement  from  the  monastic  ideal  of  the  Middle  Ages: 

This  treasure,  then,  namely  Christ,  our  God  and 
Lord,  who  was  made  for  us  as  both  redeemer  and 
reward.  He  Himself  both  the  promiser  and  the  prize, 
who  is  both  the  life  of  man  and  the  eternity  of  the 
angels — this,  I  say,  store  away  with  diligent  care  in 
the  recesses  of  your  heart.  On  Him  cast  the  anxiety 
of  any  care  whatsoever.  In  Him  delight  through  the 
discourse  of  zealous  prayer.  In  Him  refresh  yourself 
by  the  nightly  feasts  of  holy  meditation.  Let  Him  be 
your  food,  and  your  clothing  no  less.  If  it  should 
happen  that  you  lack  anything  of  external  conve- 
nience, do  not  be  uncertain,  do  not  despair  of  His 
true  promise  in  which  He  said  "Seek  ye  first  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  all  things  shall  be  added  unto 
you. . . ." 

Peter  Damiani  (Eleventh  Century) 

Protestant  Reformation 

Even  more,  however,  is  the  United  States  inconceivable 
without  the  Protestant  Reformation.  Most  of  the  colonies 
were  settled  by  one  or  more  offshoots  of  this  movement. 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers  /  103 

The  emphasis  upon  reason.  Scripture,  and  decision  by  the 
individual — hallnnarks  of  the  Reformation — was  never 
more  dramatically  stated  than  by  Martin  Luther  at  the  Diet 
of  Worms  in  his  refusal  to  recant: 

Since  your  Majesty  and  your  lordships  ask  for  a  sim- 
ple reply,  I  shall  give  you  one  without  horns  and 
without  teeth;  unless  I  am  convinced  by  the  evi- 
dence of  Scriptures  or  by  plain  reason ...  I  am  bound 
by  the  Scriptures  I  have  cited  and  my  conscience  is 
captive  to  the  Word  of  God.  1  cannot  and  will  not 
recant  anything,  for  it  is  neither  safe  nor  right  to  go 
against  conscience.  I  can  do  no  other. 

Martin  Luther  (Diet  of  Worms,  1521) 

The  tendency  in  Protestant  lands,  however,  was  to  have 
one  established  church.  Those  who  did  not  want  such  an 
establishment,  or  wanted  a  different  one,  were  often  perse- 
cuted in  their  home  lands.  Some  of  these  sought  refuge  in 
America.  The  Pilgrims  were  the  first  of  such  English  groups 
to  do  so.  The  character  of  the  faith  of  one  of  their  leaders, 
William  Bradford,  comes  through  in  this  selection  from  his 
writing: 

What  could  now  sustain  them  but  the  Spirit  of  God 
and  His  grace?  May  not  and  ought  not  the  children 
of  these  fathers  rightly  say:  "Our  fathers  were  Eng- 
lishmen which  came  over  this  great  ocean,  and  were 
ready  to  perish  in  this  wilderness;  but  they  cried 
unto  the  Lord,  and  He  heard  their  voice  and  looked 
on  their  adversity,"  etc.  "Let  them  therefore  praise 
the  Lord  because  he  is  good:  and  His  mercies  endure 
forever."  Yea,  let  them  which  have  been  redeemed  of 


104  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

the  Lord,  shew  how  He  hath  delivered  them  from 
the  hand  of  the  oppressor.  When  they  wandered  in 
the  desert  wilderness  out  of  the  way,  and  found  no 
city  to  dwell  in,  both  hungry  and  thirsty,  their  soul 
was  overwhelmed  in  them.  Let  them  confess  before 
the  Lord  his  lovingkindness  and  His  wonderful 
works  before  the  sons  of  men. 

William  Bradford, 
Of  Plymouth  Plantation, 

The  Great  Awakening 

At  the  outset,  many  of  those  who  settled  in  the  New 
World  were  divided  from  one  another  by  religious  differ- 
ences. The  fact  that  most  of  them  were  Protestant  served  at 
first  more  to  divide  than  to  unite  them.  Over  the  years,  doc- 
trinal antipathies  moderated.  Perhaps  the  single  most 
important  of  the  moderating  influences  was  the  Great 
Awakening.  In  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  great 
revival  spread  through  the  colonies.  Though  it  did  provoke 
some  divisions  within  denominations,  its  tendency  was  to 
shift  the  emphasis  from  points  of  doctrine  to  the  experience 
of  conversion  and  a  spiritual  attitude  toward  life.  Denomi- 
nations continued  to  proliferate  but  their  differences 
became  more  a  matter  of  modes  of  organization  and  tastes 
as  to  ritual  than  of  dogma  and  doctrine.  The  Great  Awak- 
ening provided  a  widely  shared  evangelistic  base  for 
Protestant  Christianity.  The  tenor  of  this  evangelism 
appears  in  this  excerpt  from  a  sermon  by  Jonathan 
Edwards: 

1  invite  you  now  to  a  better  portion.  There  are  better 
things  provided  for  the  sinful  miserable  children  of 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers  /  105 

men.  There  is  a  surer  comfort  and  more  durable 
peace:  comfort  that  you  may  enjoy  in  a  state  of  safety 
and  on  a  sure  foundation:  a  peace  and  rest  that  you 
may  enjoy  with  reason  and  with  your  eyes  wide 
open;  having  all  your  sins  forgiven  . .  . ;  being  taken 
into  God's  family  and  made  his  children;  and  having 
good  evidence  that  your  names  were  written  on  the 

heart  of  Christ  before  the  world  was  made 

Jonathan  Edwards 

The  God  of  Creation 

In  the  great  documents  of  the  American  Revolution 
there  is  often  an  explicit  reliance  upon  natural  law  and  an 
implicit  underlying  dependence  on  the  inherited  religious 
faith.  The  God  of  nature  and  the  God  revealed  in  Scripture 
was  the  same  God.  There  were,  however,  differences  in  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  differences  which  did  not 
extend  to  the  natural  law.  Hence,  the  appeal  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  was  to  the  God  of  Creation: 

When  in  the  Course  of  human  events,  it  becomes 
necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  political 
bands  which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and 
to  assume  among  the  Powers  of  the  earth,  the  sepa- 
rate and  equal  station  to  which  the  Laws  of  Nature 
and  of  Nature's  God  entitle  them,  a  decent  respect  to 
the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they  should 
declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  the  separa- 
tion. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all 
men  are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  Rights,  that 


106  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

among  these  are  Life,  Liberty,  and  the  Pursuit  of 

Happiness 

Declaration  of  Independence,  1776 

The  practice  of  having  a  written  constitution  is  Ameri- 
can in  origin.  It  was  grounded  in  their  British  heritage  and 
colonial  experience,  but  it  was  particularly  informed  by 
their  Christian  and  Protestant  religion.  The  Founders  were 
people  of  the  Book,  the  Bible,  the  recorded  word.  As  Protes- 
tants mainly,  they  attached  an  unusually  high  importance 
to  Scripture  and  to  its  careful  exposition.  It  was,  to  them, 
the  highest  authority.  The  United  States  Constitution 
became  for  them,  out  of  this  tradition,  the  highest  authority 
within  the  country.  It  was  written,  precise,  and  was  to  be 
carefully  interpreted  and  observed. 

A  Subtle  Parallel 

One  part  of  the  Constitution  has  been  especially  revered 
over  the  years.  It  is  the  first  ten  amendments,  commonly 
called  the  Bill  of  Rights.  Some  of  its  antecedents  are  gener- 
ally understood  to  be  the  Magna  Carta  and  the  English  Bill 
of  Rights.  But  its  most  profound  antecedent  is  usually 
ignored.  It  is  more  difficult  than  it  may  at  first  appear  to 
imagine  that  the  First  Ten  Amendments  have  played  the 
role  they  have  without  the  prior  position  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments in  the  Judeo-Christian  religion.  It  is  not  just 
that  each  of  them  numbers  ten,  though  they  do.  It  is  con- 
siderably more.  They  are  similar  in  form.  The  Ten  Com- 
mandments usually  begin  with  "Thou  shalt  not."  The  first 
Ten  Amendments  are  equally  prohibitive  in  their  lan- 
guage:"Congress  shall  make  no  law  .  .  .  ,  No  Soldier  shall 
.  .  .  ,  shall  not  be  violated  .  .  .  ,  Excessive  bail  shall  not  be 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers  /  107 

required  . . .  /'  and  so  forth.  More,  the  Ten  Commandments 
forbid  individuals  to  do  acts  that  would  be  harmful  to  any- 
one. The  First  Ten  Amendments  forbid  government  to  do 
acts  arbitrarily  detrimental  to  our  life,  liberty,  and  property. 
The  Ten  Commandments  proceed  from  our  Maker  to  us. 
The  First  Ten  Amendments  proceed  from  the  makers  of 
government  to  it.  Can  it  be  doubted  that  they  draw  subtle 
force  from  the  parallel? 

The  Faith  of  Hamilton 

The  Founding  Fathers  were  not  particularly  renowned 
for  their  piety.  But  the  springs  of  religious  faith  often  ran 
deep  within  them,  to  break  forth  only  on  extraordinary 
occasions.  So  it  was  with  Alexander  Hamilton.  It  was  his 
fate  to  meet  his  death  in  a  duel  with  Aaron  Burr.  Perhaps 
"fate"  is  the  wrong  word;  he  took  a  course  which  exposed 
him  to  such  a  death  if  Burr  so  chose.  Hamilton  believed  that 
dueling  was  wrong  and  knew  that  it  was  against  the  law. 
Yet,  when  challenged  he  felt  that  he  must  participate.  The 
last  note  to  his  wife  written  on  the  night  before  the  duel 
contained  these  thoughts,  among  others: 

. .  .  The  scruples  of  a  Christian  have  determined  me 
to  expose  my  own  life  to  any  extent,  rather  than  sub- 
ject myself  to  the  guilt  of  taking  the  life  of  another. 
This  much  increases  my  hazards,  and  redoubles  my 
pangs  for  you.  But  you  had  rather  I  should  die  inno- 
cent than  live  guilty.  Heaven  can  preserve  me,  and  I 
humbly  hope  will;  but,  in  the  contrary  event,  I 
charge  you  to  remember  that  you  are  a  Christian. 
God's  will  be  done!  The  will  of  a  merciful  God  must 
be  good 


108  /  Clarence  B.  Carson 

On  the  day  of  the  duel  both  Hamilton  and  Burr  raised 
their  pistols  to  the  ready  position  on  command.  Burr  then 
aimed  and  fired  directly  at  Hamilton.  Hamilton  fired  into 
the  air,  as  he  had  said  he  would  do.  Hamilton  died  from  the 
wounds  inflicted  on  him.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  America 
without  men  devoted  to  principles  founded  upon  their 
faith. 

Washington's  Farewell 

Nor  should  we  imagine  an  America  without  the  guid- 
ance of  Washington's  Farewell  Address.  Nor  would  that 
address  have  been  the  same  without  its  references  to  reli- 
gious underpinnings: 

Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead  to  polit- 
ical prosperity,  religion  and  morality  are  indispens- 
able supports.  In  vain  would  that  man  claim  the  trib- 
ute of  patriotism  who  should  labor  to  subvert  these 
great  pillars  of  human  happiness — these  firmest 
props  of  the  duties  of  men  and  citizens.  The  mere 
politician,  equally  with  the  pious  man,  ought  to 
respect  and  cherish  them.  A  volume  would  not  trace 
all  their  connections  with  private  and  public  felicity. 
Let  it  simply  be  asked.  Where  is  the  security  for 
property,  for  reputation,  for  life,  if  the  sense  of  reli- 
gious obligation  desert  the  oaths  which  are  instru- 
ments of  investigation  in  courts  of  justice?  And  let  us 
with  caution  indulge  the  supposition  that  morality 
can  be  maintained  without  religion.  Whatever  may 
be  conceded  to  the  influence  of  refined  education  on 
minds  of  peculiar  structure,  reason  and  experience 


Faith  of  Our  Fathers  /  109 

both  forbid  us  to  expect  that  national  morality  can 
prevail  in  exclusion  of  religious  principle. 

George  Washington,  Farewell  Address 

But  then,  the  United  States  of  America  could  hardly  be 
conceived  without  the  Faith  of  Our  Fathers. 


II.  A  BIBLICAL  VIEW 


Jeremiah's  Job 
Gary  North 


Sooner  or  later,  those  who  are  interested  in  the  philoso- 
phy of  liberty  run  across  Albert  J.  Nock's  essay,  "Isaiah's 
Job."  Taking  as  an  example  two  Old  Testament  prophets, 
Isaiah  and  Elijah,  Nock  makes  at  least  two  important 
points.  First,  until  society  seems  to  be  disintegrating  around 
our  ears,  not  many  people  are  going  to  listen  to  a  critic  who 
comes  in  the  name  of  principled  action.  The  masses  want  to 
get  all  the  benefits  of  principled  action,  but  they  also  want 
to  continue  to  follow  their  unprincipled  ways.  They  want 
the  fruits  but  not  the  roots  of  morality.  Therefore,  they 
refuse  to  listen  to  prophets.  Second,  Nock  pointed  out,  the 
prophet  Elijah  was  convinced  that  he  was  the  last  of  the 
faithful,  or  what  Nock  calls  the  Remnant.  Not  so,  God  told 
the  prophet;  He  had  kept  seven  thousand  others  from  the 
rot  of  the  day. 

Elijah  had  no  idea  that  there  were  this  many  faithful 
p)eople  left.  He  had  not  seen  any  of  them.  He  had  heard  no 
reports  of  them.  Yet  here  was  God,  telling  him  that  they 
were  out  there.  Thus,  Nock  concludes,  it  does  no  good  to 
count  heads.  The  people  whose  heads  are  available  for 
counting  are  not  the  ones  you  ought  to  be  interested  in. 
Whether  or  not  people  listen  is  irrelevant;  the  important 
thing  is  that  the  prophet  makes  the  message  clear  and 

Dr.  North  is  president  of  the  Institute  for  Christian  Economics  in 
Tyler,  Texas.  This  essay  apj:)eared  in  the  March  1978  issue  of  The  Free- 
man. 


113 


114  /  Gary  North 

consistent.  He  is  not  to  water  down  the  truth  for  the  sake  of 
mass  appeal. 

Nock's  essay  helps  those  of  us  who  are  used  to  the  idea 
that  we  should  measure  our  success  by  the  number  of  peo- 
ple we  convince.  We  are  "scalphunters/'  when  we  ought  to 
be  prophets.  The  prophets  were  not  supposed  to  give  the 
message  out  in  order  to  win  lots  of  public  support.  On  the 
contrary,  they  were  supposed  to  give  the  message  for  the 
sake  of  truth.  They  were  to  witness  to  a  generation  which 
would  not  respond  to  the  message.  The  truth  was  therefore 
its  own  justification.  Those  who  were  supposed  to  hear, 
namely,  the  Remnant,  would  get  the  message,  one  way  or 
the  other.  They  were  the  people  who  counted.  Lesson:  the 
people  who  count  can't  be  counted.  Not  by  prophets,  any- 
way. 

A  Sad  Message 

The  main  trouble  I  have  with  Nock's  essay  is  that  he 
excluded  another  very  important  prophet.  That  prophet 
was  Jeremiah.  He  was  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  and  God 
gave  him  virtually  the  same  message.  He  was  told  to  go  to 
the  highest  leaders  in  the  land,  to  the  average  man  in  the 
street,  and  to  everyone  in  between,  and  proclaim  the  mes- 
sage. He  was  to  tell  them  that  they  were  in  violation  of  basic 
moral  law  in  everything  they  did,  and  that  if  they  did  not 
turn  away  from  their  false  beliefs  and  wicked  practices, 
they  would  see  their  society  totally  devastated.  In  this 
respect,  Jeremiah's  task  was  not  fundamentally  different 
from  Isaiah's. 

Nevertheless,  there  were  some  differences.  Jeremiah 
also  wrote  (or  dictated)  a  book.  He  was  not  content  to 
preach  an  unpleasant  message  to  skeptical  and  hostile  peo- 


Jeremiah's  Job  /  115 

pie.  He  wanted  to  record  the  results  of  their  unwillingness 
to  listen.  His  thoughts  are  preserved  in  the  saddest  book  in 
the  Bible,  the  Book  of  Lamentations.  Though  he  knew  in 
advance  that  the  masses  would  reject  his  message,  he  also 
knew  that  there  would  be  great  suffering  in  Israel  because 
of  their  stiffnecked  response.  Furthermore,  the  Remnant 
would  pay  the  same  price  in  the  short  run.  They,  too,  would 
be  carried  off  into  captivity.  They,  too,  would  lose  their  pos- 
sessions and  die  in  a  foreign  land.  They  would  not  be  pro- 
tected from  disaster  just  because  they  happened  to  be 
decent  people  who  were  not  immersed  in  the  practices  of 
their  day.  He  wrote  these  words  in  resix)nse  to  the  coming 
of  the  predicted  judgment:  "Mine  eye  runneth  down  with 
rivers  of  water  for  the  destruction  of  the  daughter  of  my 
people"  {Lam.  3:48).  He  knew  that  their  punishment  was 
well  deserved,  yet  he  was  also  a  part  of  them.  The  destruc- 
tion was  so  great  that  not  a  glimmer  of  hope  appears  in  the 
whole  book. 

What  are  we  to  conclude?  That  everything  is  hopeless? 
That  no  one  will  listen,  ever,  to  the  truth?  That  every  society 
will  eventually  be  ripe  for  judgment,  and  that  this  collapse 
will  allow  no  one  to  escape?  Is  it  useless,  historically  speak- 
ing, to  serve  in  the  Remnant?  Are  we  forever  to  be  ground 
down  in  the  millstones  of  history? 

One  key  incident  in  Jeremiah's  life  gives  us  the  answer. 
It  appears  in  the  32nd  chapter  of  Jeremiah,  a  much-neglected 
passage.  The  Babylonians  (Chaldeans)  have  besieged 
Jerusalem.  There  was  little  doubt  in  anyone's  mind  that  the 
dty  would  fall  to  the  invaders.  God  told  Jeremiah  that  in 
the  midst  of  this  crisis,  his  cousin  would  approach  him  and 
make  him  an  offer.  He  would  offer  Jeremiah  the  right,  as  a 
relative,  to  buy  a  particular  field  which  was  in  the  cousin's 
side  of  the  family.  Sure  enough,  the  cousin  arrived  with  just 


116  /  Gary  North 

this  offer.  The  cousin  was  "playing  it  smart."  He  was  selling 
off  a  field  that  was  about  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy, 
and  in  exchange  he  would  be  given  silver,  a  highly  liquid, 
easily  concealed,  transportable  form  of  capital — an  interna- 
tional currency.  Not  bad  for  him,  since  all  he  would  be  giv- 
ing up  would  be  a  piece  of  ground  that  the  enemy  would 
probably  take  over  anyway. 

Long-Range  Planning 

What  were  God's  instructions  to  Jeremiah?  Buy  the  field. 
So  Jeremiah  took  his  silver,  and  witnesses,  and  balances 
(honest  money),  and  they  made  the  transaction.  Then  Jere- 
miah instructed  Baruch,  a  scribe,  to  record  the  evidence.  (It 
may  be  that  Jeremiah  was  illiterate,  as  were  most  men  of  his 
day.)  Baruch  was  told  by  Jeremiah  to  put  the  evidences  of 
the  sale  into  an  earthen  vessel  for  long-term  storage.  "For 
thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  the  God  of  Israel;  Houses  and 
fields  and  vineyards  shall  be  possessed  again  in  this  land" 
(32:15). 

God  explained  His  purposes  at  the  end  of  the  chapter. 
Yes,  the  city  would  fall.  Yes,  the  i:)eople  would  go  into  cap- 
tivity. Yes,  their  sins  had  brought  this  upon  them.  But  this  is 
not  the  end  of  the  story.  "Behold,  I  will  gather  them  out  of 
all  countries,  whither  1  have  driven  them  in  mine  anger, 
and  in  my  fury,  and  in  great  wrath;  and  I  will  bring  them 
again  unto  this  place,  and  I  will  cause  them  to  dwell  safely: 
And  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their  God" 
(32:37-38).  It  doesn't  stop  there,  either:  "Like  as  I  have 
brought  ail  this  great  evil  upon  this  people,  so  will  I  bring 
upon  them  all  the  good  that  I  have  promised  them.  And 
fields  shall  be  bought  in  this  land,  whereof  ye  say.  It  is  des- 


Jeremiah's  Job  /  117 

olate  without  man  or  beast;  it  is  given  into  the  hand  of  the 
Chaldeans"  (32:42-43). 

What  was  God's  message  to  Jeremiah?  There  is  hope  for 
the  long  run  for  those  who  are  faithful  to  His  message.  There  will 
eventually  come  a  day  when  truth  will  out,  when  law  will 
reign  supreme,  when  men  will  buy  and  sell,  when  contracts 
will  be  honored.  "Men  shall  buy  fields  for  money,  and  sub- 
scribe evidences,  and  seal  them,  and  take  witnesses  in  the 
land  of  Benjamin,  and  in  the  places  about  Jerusalem,  and  in 
the  cities  of  Judah,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  mountains,  and  in 
the  cities  of  the  valley,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  south:  for  I 
will  cause  their  captivity  to  return,  saith  the  Lord"  (32:44). 
In  other  words,  business  will  return  because  the  law  of  God 
will  be  understood  and  honored. 

God  had  told  them  that  they  would  be  in  captivity  for 
seventy  years.  It  would  be  long  enough  to  make  certain  that 
Jeremiah  would  not  be  coming  back  to  claim  his  field.  Yet 
there  was  hope  nonetheless.  The  prophet  is  not  to  imagine 
that  all  good  things  will  come  in  his  own  day.  He  is  not  to 
be  a  short-term  optimist.  He  is  not  to  conclude  that  his 
words  will  turn  everything  around,  making  him  the  hero  of 
the  hour.  He  is  told  to  look  at  the  long  run,  to  preach  in  the 
short  run,  and  to  go  about  his  normal  business.  Plan  for  the 
future.  Buy  and  sell.  Continue  to  speak  out  when  times  are 
opportune.  Tell  anyone  who  will  listen  of  the  coming  judg- 
ment, but  remind  them  also  that  all  is  not  lost  forever  just 
because  everything  seems  to  be  lost  today. 

The  Job  Is  to  Be  Honest 

The  prophet's  job  is  to  be  honest.  He  must  face  the  laws 
of  reality.  If  bad  principles  lead  to  bad  actions,  then  bad 


118  /  Gary  North 

consequences  will  surely  follow.  These  laws  of  reality  can- 
not be  underestimated.  In  fact,  it  is  the  prophet's  task  to 
reaffirm  their  validity  by  his  message.  He  pulls  no  punches. 
Things  are  not  "fairly  bad"  if  morality  is  ignored  or 
laughed  at.  Things  are  terrible,  and  people  should  under- 
stand this.  Still,  there  is  hope.  Men  can  change  their  minds. 
The  prophet  knows  that  in  "good"  times,  rebellious  people 
usually  don't  change  their  minds.  In  fact,  that  most  reluc- 
tant of  prophets,  Jonah,  was  so  startled  when  the  city  of 
Nineveh  repented  that  he  pouted  that  the  promised  judg- 
ment never  came,  making  him  look  like  an  idiot — an  atti- 
tude which  God  reproached.  But  in  the  days  of  Elijah,  Isa- 
iah, and  Jeremiah,  the  pragmatists  of  Israel  were  not  about 
to  turn  back  to  the  moral  laws  which  had  provided  their 
prosperity.  It  would  take  seven  decades  of  captivity  to 
bring  them,  or  rather  their  children  and  grandchildren, 
back  to  the  truth. 

Invest  long-term,  God  told  Jeremiah.  Invest  as  if  all 
were  not  lost.  Invest  as  if  your  message,  eventually,  will 
bear  fruit.  Invest  in  the  face  of  despair,  when  everyone  is 
running  scared.  Invest  for  the  benefit  of  your  children  and 
grandchildren.  Invest  as  if  everything  doesn't  depend  on 
the  prophet,  since  prophets,  being  men,  are  not  omniscient 
or  omnipotent.  Invest  as  if  moral  law  will  one  day  be 
respected.  Keep  plugging  away,  even  if  you  yourself  will 
never  live  to  see  the  people  return  to  their  senses  and  return 
to  their  land.  Don't  minimize  the  extent  of  the  destruction. 
Don't  rejoice  at  the  plight  of  your  enemies.  Don't  despair  at 
the  fact  that  the  Remnant  is  caught  in  the  whirlpool  of 
destruction.  Shed  tears  if  you  must,  but  most  important, 
keep  records.  Plan  for  the  future.  Never  give  an  inch. 

A  prophet  is  no  Pollyanna,  no  Dr.  Pangloss.  He  faces 
reality.  Reality  is  his  calling  in  life.  To  tell  people  things  are 


Jeremiah's  Job  /  119 

terrible  when  they  think  everything  is  fine,  and  to  offer 
hope  when  they  think  everything  is  lost.  To  tell  the  truth, 
whatever  the  cost,  and  not  to  let  short-term  considerations 
blur  one's  vision.  The  Remnant  is  there.  The  Remnant  will 
survive.  Eventually,  the  Remnant  will  become  the  masses, 
since  truth  will  out.  But  until  that  day,  for  which  all 
prophets  should  rejoice,  despite  the  fact  that  few  will  see  its 
dawning,  the  prophet  must  do  his  best  to  understand  real- 
ity and  present  it  in  the  most  effective  way  he  knows  how. 
That  is  Jeremiah's  job. 


Ezekiel's  Job 
Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 


Basic  distinctions  often  prove  elusive.  Whether  by 
virtue  of  inattention,  human  resistance,  lack  of  comprehen- 
sion, or  some  indefinable  perversity  of  life,  we  human 
beings  often  fail  to  grasp  and  act  upon  the  most  central  dif- 
ferences both  of  concept  and  deed.  As  a  result,  all  manner 
of  disappointing  and  disturbing  events  take  place,  inas- 
much as  one  misstep  at  the  outset  of  a  journey  can  foreor- 
dain an  unexpected  destination. 

Consider  one  such  essential  distinction:  personal  belief 
and  action  premised  upon  a  set  moral  code  versus  the  coer- 
cive imposition  of  one's  moral  strictures  upon  another, 
unwilling  human  being.  The  dissimilarity  is  fundamental 
and  not  particularly  obscure;  yet,  the  blurring  and  commin- 
gling of  these  two  very  different  precepts  (and  their  atten- 
dant activities)  have  vexed  men  and  women  across  time. 

Ezekiel  provides  insights  into  this  common  and  f)er- 
plexing  situation.  Of  course,  it  is  not  "with  it"  to  relate 
modern  problems  to  some  old  fellow  who  lived  long  ago 
and  far  away;  in  the  skeptical  and  intolerant  climate  of 
today,  so  lacking  in  the  civility  of  open  thought,  it  just  does 
not  meet  the  modern  dictates  of  intellectual  exclusivity  to 
refer  to  the  Bible,  to  Christianity,  or  to  any  traditional  reli- 
gion— particularly  one  with  established  attitudes  of  "right" 

Mr.  Foley  lives  in  Prescott,  Arizona,  and  practices  law  in  Portland, 
Oregon,  with  Greene  &  Markley,  PC.  This  essay  appeared  in  the  Sep- 
tember 1990  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


120 


Ezekiel'sjob  /  121 

and  "wrong."  Yet  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  lays  a  firm  foundation 
from  which  all  of  us,  no  matter  our  religious  persuasion, 
may  investigate  the  differences  between  proper  belief  and 
prop>er  respect  for  the  beliefs  of  others.  After  all,  the  essence 
of  the  human  condition  remains  unchanged  despite  the 
passage  of  centuries. 

Recall  the  backdrop  of  history.  The  Jewish  people 
received  the  gift  of  insight  into  the  very  marrow  of  the  indi- 
vidual— the  ability  to  choose,  to  evaluate,  and  to  select 
among  alternatives,  and  in  so  doing  to  affect  not  only  the 
actor's  destiny  but  also  the  course  of  a  lineal  world  history: 
"...  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and  good,  and  death 
and  evil.  ...  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death,  blessing 
and  cursing:  therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou  and  thy 
seed  shall  live. . .  ."(Deut.  30:15,19) 

These  ancient  men  and  women  displayed  the  same  fea- 
tures and  failings  as  we  do.  At  times  they  made  venal, 
undesirable,  and  unwise  choices,  and  as  a  result  suffered 
the  inexorable  consequences  which  flowed  from  their  con- 
duct. As  a  nation,  ancient  Israel  waxed  and  waned:  Things 
worked  out  well  when  the  people  adhered  to  the  Deca- 
logue, and  bad  times  followed  their  evil  exploits.  God 
endowed  men  with  freedom,  even  the  freedom  to  forsake 
Him  and  to  choose  wrongly,  for  freedom  necessarily  entails 
the  freedom  to  fail.  Although  the  ineluctable  law  of  cause- 
and-consequence  foretold  unpleasant  sequels  from  inap- 
propriate acts,  the  Jews  of  old  seemed  hell-bent  on  the  eter- 
nal folly  of  trying  to  beat  the  house. 

Now  and  then,  when  the  Hebrew  nation  deviated  suffi- 
ciently from  the  proper  standard  of  behavior,  God  sent  a 
prophet,  a  man  assigned  to  remind  His  flock  of  the  rules  of 
the  game  and  to  warn  them  of  the  inevitable  lunacy  of  try- 
ing to  avoid  responsibility  for  their  wickedness.  Sometimes 


122  /  Ridgzvay  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

the  body  politic  listened;  more  often,  the  people  ignored, 
joshed,  or  abused  the  prophet. 

Enter  Ezekiel 

Ezekiel  was  one  of  the  major  prophets,  a  chap  God 
called  forth  26  centuries  ago  during  one  of  those  troubled 
times  for  Israel.  Prophets  were  role  players;  they  were 
given  a  part  to  play  without  a  thought  of  the  consequences. 
They  spoke  to  largely  hostile  audiences.  They  faced  uncom- 
fortable, and  sometimes  dangerous,  situations.  They  for- 
sook popularity,  credibility,  status,  and  wealth.  In  return, 
they  knew  that  somewhere,  somehow,  a  dutiful  Remnant^ 
would  hear  and  heed  the  words  they  uttered  as  God's  inter- 
mediary.^ Ezekiel  fit  right  into  this  tapestry  of  history  and 
role  of  prophet.  God  instructed  him  and  he,  in  turn,  carried 
the  message  to  those  of  the  multitude  who  chose  to  listen. 
And,  it  is  that  critical  message  recorded  in  Ezekiel  33:1-11 
which  edifies  us  specifically  as  to  the  dichotomy  between 
personal  commitment  and  coerced  orthodoxy. 

Ezekiel  33:1-11  imparts  threefold  tidings.  First,  God  tells 
His  people  "I  have  sent  thee  a  watchman"  {Ezek.  33:7)  and 
He  outlines  the  obligations  of  the  watchman.  Second,  He 
advises  the  Remnant  of  the  duties  laid  upon  those  who  hear 
His  watchman.  Third — and  most  saliently  for  our  present 
purpose — He  answers  the  ageless  inquiry  of  the  listeners, 
"How  should  we  then  live?"  {Ezek.  33:10) 

How  should  we  then  live?  Distinguish  between  the 
encompassed  relativism  of  a  humanistic  "man  is  the  mea- 
sure of  all  things"  precept  and  an  understanding  that 
imperfect  individuals  will  profess  different  beliefs.  It  is  one 
thing  to  ascertain  for  oneself  how  the  moral  life  is  to  be 
lived;  it  is  quite  another  matter  to  impose  that  particular 


EzekieVsJob  /  123 

view  upon  an  unwilling  neighbor.  The  Christian  may  think 
it  great  folly  for  each  man  to  live  according  to  his  internal 
moral  code  oblivious  to  God's  law  ("ye  shall  be  as  gods/' 
Gen,  3:5),  or  "each  individual's  innate  sense  of  truth  and 
justice";  does  this  profession  of  faith  necessarily  or  properly 
vest  in  the  practicing  Christian  the  right  to  compel  all  oth- 
ers to  accept  his  creed?  Or  rather,  doesn't  the  modem  theo- 
crat — ^be  he  religious,  atheistic  or  agnostic — confuse  subjec- 
tive value  with  moral  absolutes? 

Thus,  the  Remnant  through  Ezekiel  asked  God,  "How 
should  we  then  live?"  and  received  a  simple  and  direct 
mandate:  "As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord."  (Ezek.  33:11)  Yet,  sim- 
ple declarations  may  cloak  deeper  lessons.  Surely,  reflective 
men  and  women  in  the  sixth  century  before  Christ,  as  now, 
wondered  how  the  Lord  did  live.  And,  for  the  Jew  of  2,600 
years  ago,  as  for  the  Christian  in  the  late  twentieth  century, 
the  answer  appears  in  the  recorded  reports  of  eyewitnesses 
to  history.^ 

God's  Answers 

God  often  provided  sound  answers  to  this  secondary 
inquiry  (How  does  the  Lord  live?)  for  Old  Testament  fol- 
lowers. For  example,  in  the  entire  passage  from  Deuteron- 
omy abstracted  heretofore,  God  directed  His  people  to  fol- 
low His  statutes  and  laws  (see  Deut.  30:15-19),  a  message 
often  repeated  but  seldom  heeded.  He  condensed  His  rules 
of  conduct  in  the  Decalogue  {Ex.  20:1-17),  a  precise  sum- 
mary not  dissimilar  from  the  essential  teachings  of  most  of 
the  world's  great  religions,  and  not  wholly  unlike  the 
alleged  inbred  "innate  moral  sense"  so  popularly  presup- 
posed in  current  lore  to  reside  in  all  individuals. 

Somehow,  the  content  of  these  simple  yet  exact  rules  of 


124  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

order  either  escaped  most  folks  or  suffered  the  serious  ame- 
lioration of  convenience.  Hebraic  law  became  burden- 
somely  formal  and  uselessly  coercive,  smothering  the 
essence  in  arid  dust.  People  became  baffled:  How  did  God 
live?  Was  it  as  some  neighbor  declared?  Or  according  to  the 
local  prophet,  general,  or  rabbi?  Couldn't  these  restrictive 
commandments  be  modified  just  a  bit  to  fit  a  particular  case 
which  coincidentally  happened  to  be  of  personal  interest  to 
the  inquirer?  Didn't  modem  times  mandate  more  modem 
and  less  archaic  solutions?  And  so  the  waxing  and  waning 
of  the  Old  Testament  travails  continued  unabated  long  after 
Ezekiel  departed. 

For  the  Christian,  a  remarkable  and  unprecedented 
event  occurred  2,000  years  ago:  God  answered  the  sec- 
ondary inquiry  (How  does  the  Lord  live?)  in  a  unique  and 
direct  way.  God  became  Incarnate,  sending  His  Son  in  the 
form  of  a  man,  to  live  among  witnesses,  to  encounter  and 
suffer  the  range  of  human  events  and  emotions  and,  inci- 
dentally, to  show  us  just  how  the  Lord  does  live. 

In  the  examination  of  Jesus'  life,  set  against  the  back- 
drop of  the  Old  Testament  law,  we  see  not  only  how  the 
Lord  lives  but  also  the  stark  distinction  between  principled 
personal  belief  and  the  mandate  to  respect  the  beliefs  (no 
matter  how  dissimilar  or  possibly  erroneous)  of  others. 
Simply  put,  Jesus  lived  a  life  of  pristine  purity:  He  adhered 
to  the  essence  of  the  Ten  Commandments  and  eschewed 
sin  and  evil.  He  built  no  monuments  to  His  reign;  He 
assembled  no  mighty  army  to  strike  down  the  soldiers  of 
Satan;  He  accepted  no  patronage;  He  granted  no  special 
favors;  He  left  no  estate  of  substance.  In  short,  Jesus  lived 
quite  unlike  any  human  being,  ruler  or  ruled,  in  all  of 
human  history. 

Did  Jesus  ever  force  anyone  to  believe,  to  chant  His 


Ezekiel'sjob  /  125 

praise,  to  recite  His  creed,  to  follow  Him?  Did  He  ever  box 
the  ears  of  an  unreceptive  and  hooting  audience  and  charge 
them  to  "be  Christians  and  do  exactly  as  I  say  and  do  or  I'll 
whomp  you"?  Did  He  ever  ostracize  or  humiliate  those 
who  declined  His  offers?  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  of 
such  behavior. 

Peter  presents  the  perfect  counterpoint,  the  epitome  of 
demonstrative  evidence.  Once  Peter  figures  out  who  his 
Master  is  he  immediately  suggests  building  a  grand  temple 
{Matt.  17:4-9);  he  admonishes  Jesus  that  He  must  avoid  His 
trip  to  Jerusalem  and  His  destiny  on  the  cross  {Mark 
8:31-33);  and,  in  the  garden,  he  slices  off  the  ear  of  the  ser- 
vant of  the  high  priest  {Matt.  26:51-52).  In  every  instance, 
Peter's  actions  earn  stem  rebukes,  for  Peter  behaves  as  men 
do,  not  as  the  Lord  does. 

Abundant  Lessons 

Layers  of  lessons  abound  in  the  Lord's  answer  to 
Ezekiel's  question,  and  each  layer  offers  guidance  for 
believer  and  nonbeliever  alike. 

First,  Ezekiel  and  his  counterparts  must  adhere  to  prin- 
ciple in  a  sea  of  challenge,  doubt,  and  seduction.  Absolutes 
in  the  form  of  correct  choices  and  proper  principles  do 
exist;  consequences  flow  from  all  choices,  results  that  must 
be  endured,  events  that  beget  future  choices.  Selection 
between  alternatives  may  be  made  randomly,  thought- 
lessly, malevolently,  or  may  rest  upon  the  basis  of  the 
actor's  understanding  of,  and  adherence  to,  fundamental 
principle.  The  principled  individual  is  charged  to  live 
scrupulously,  to  make  the  right  choice  at  each  and  every 
opportunity,  be  he  Christian  or  Jew,  atheist  or  agnostic;  the 
distinction  exists  in  the  standard. 


126  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

When  the  moral  individual  refuses  to  soften  this  quest 
for  perfection,  he  is  often  met  with  derision,  enticement,  or 
compulsion.  In  this  regard,  scant  differences  separate  the 
doctrinaire  libertarian  and  the  overzealous  Christian.  There 
appears  a  natural  human  tendency  to  challenge  the  beliefs 
of  others,  first  through  shunning  and  scorn,  last  by  force 
and  fraud.  Those  most  inflexible  in  principle  seem  to  suffer 
the  greatest  assaults,  possibly  because  the  traducers  implic- 
itly recognize  the  propriety  of  the  upright  and  seek  to 
wrench  them  down  to  their  level. 

Disorderly  man  occupies  an  orderly  sphere  and  setting. 
Gifted  with  the  power  to  choose,  flawed  mankind  necessar- 
ily makes  poor  choices  on  occasion,  for  freedom  encom- 
passes the  power  and  the  right  to  be  wrong.  The  Christian 
is  called  only  to  be  a  faithful  steward,  not  a  perfect  one.  Per- 
fection is  our  goal;  it  is  not  within  our  grasp.  A  sentry  at 
Buckingham  House,  two-and-one-quarter  centuries  back, 
put  it  artfully:  "But,  Sir,  if  GOD  was  to  make  the  world 
today,  it  would  be  crooked  again  tomorrow.'"*  Intolerance 
of  human  failings — of  self  or  others — often  eclipses  the 
quest  for  betterment;  this  inherent  intolerance  leads 
directly  to  the  second  layer  of  understanding  and  the 
dichotomy  between  principle  and  force. 

Second,  then,  Jesus'  answer  to  Ezekiel's  inquiry  aptly 
illustrates  the  difference  between  holding  and  practicing  a 
belief  and  demanding  adherence  by  others  to  that  ideal. 
While  men  are  flawed,  God  is  not;  yet  Jesus  did  not  com- 
mand obedience  to  His  banner  although  He  knew  it  to  be 
true.  Nor  should  men.  Indeed,  since  men — unlike  God — do 
not  inevitably  know  that  they  hold  proper  principles  and 
exhibit  correct  behavior,  they  ought  not  compel  others  to 
accept  and  adopt  a  possibly  flawed  precept. 


EzekieVsJob  /  127 

Ample  manifestations  of  the  impermissible  blurring  of 
principle  and  command  appear  upon  reflection:  the  reli- 
gious zealot  who  seizes  the  machinery  of  government, 
establishes  a  state  religion  de  facto  or  de  jure,  enacts  blue 
laws,  and  orders  compulsory  chapel;  the  arid  libertarian 
who,  intolerant  of  any  suggestion  that  others  might  reach 
similar  results  from  dissimilar  bases,  mocks  his  Christian 
counterpart  out  of  the  discussion;  the  well-meaning  sophis- 
ticate concerned  about  the  homeless,  the  young,  the  irasci- 
ble, or  the  disabled,  who  induces  the  county  commission  to 
use  tax  revenues  to  pay  for  shelters  and  rehabilitation  cen- 
ters; the  illiberal  liberal  who  concocts  false  testimony  con- 
cerning, and  selectively  applies  state  legal  sanctions 
against,  disliked  religious  persons  or  groups  who  hear  a 
different  voice  and  dare  to  speak  out.  Sadly,  the  list  appears 
endless:  For  religious  and  agnostic  alike,  the  concept  of 
"witness"  has  all  too  often  transmuted  proper  belief  and 
the  quest  for  moral  excellence  into  an  evil  charade  replete 
with  clever  rationalizations,  as  each  individual  seeks  to 
impose  his  agenda  upon  all  others,  to  limit  the  discussion 
to  prescribed  topics,  and  to  foreordain  all  solutions,  hence 
circumscribing  human  action  with  his  own  finite  bound- 
aries in  the  name  of  his  "truth." 

Third,  Ezekiel  reveals  the  role  assigned  to  the  commit- 
ted: They  are  called  to  be  watchmen  {Ezek.  33:1-10).  Watch- 
men perform  specific  tasks:  They  search  out  the  truth,  live 
out  the  truth,  and  speak  out  the  truth,  in  order  that  others 
may  hear  and  assimilate.  No  one  expects  a  watchman  to 
battle  those  about  him.  Watchmen  cry  out;  they  sound  the 
tocsin;  they  raise  the  alarm;  but  Ezekiel  does  not  suggest 
that  the  watchman's  obligations  include  compelling  any- 
one to  believe,  to  profess,  or  to  act  in  any  discrete  manner. 


128  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

Instead,  God's  watchmen  provide  knowledge  and  oppor- 
tunity, a  palpable  form  of  due  process,  to  any  and  all  who 
choose  to  consider  the  message. 

The  watchman  directive  applies  to  the  nonreligious 
believer  by  a  parity  of  reasoning.  Leonard  E.  Read  devoted 
many  of  his  adult  years  to  the  study  and  explication  of  the 
appropriate  methodology  of  freedom.  He  repeatedly 
reminded  his  readers  and  listeners  that  one  who  truly 
espouses  the  freedom  philosophy  could  not  coerce  others 
to  adopt  those  premises,  since  to  attempt  to  do  so  would 
constitute  the  most  startling  contradiction  in  terms.  He 
admonished  us  that  the  "end  preexists  in  the  means,"  "the 
bloom  preexists  in  the  rose."  If  we  improve  our  own  self 
and  live  according  to  right  precepts,  others  will  observe 
and  be  drawn  to  the  proper  path  by  the  flame  of  attraction. 
Leonard  Read's  adjurations  do  not  differ  in  essence  from 
God's  admonition  to  Ezekiel  and  echoed  in  Matthew  16:5  to 
"Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men,  that  they  may  see  your 
good  works,  and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  Heaven." 

In  this  fashion,  the  Ezekiel  passage  makes  it  manifest 
that  committed  individuals  are  duty-bound  to  honor  their 
commitment,  but  they  are  not  to  coerce  others  to  follow 
their  opinions  or  mimic  their  precepts.  They  should  seek 
the  truth,  follow  the  right,  improve  the  self,  and  never  stray 
from  fundamental  principle.  In  the  timeless  truth  of  the 
redoubtable  F.  A.  Harper,  "A  principle  can  be  broken,  but  it 
cannot  be  bent."  Concomitantly,  committed  men  and 
women  should  attract  others  by  the  light  of  their  words  and 
the  propriety  of  their  deeds,  never  by  the  exercise  of  com- 
pulsion, aggression,  fraud,  manipulation,  or  malevolence — 
with  or  without  the  sanction  of  the  state. 

Further,  Ezekiel  offers  us  a  fourth  lesson.  Those  who 
hear  the  watchman  must  heed  his  warning  or  suffer  the 


EzekieVsJob  /  129 

ineluctable  consequences.  Remember,  one  need  not  accept 
or  act  favorably  upon  a  warning,  but  God  makes  it  clear 
that  the  listener  disregards  the  sound  of  the  tocsin  at  his 
own  peril.  Once  more,  this  passage  accords  with  the  funda- 
mentals of  freedom.  Force  and  freedom  are  inimical:  Free- 
dom includes  the  freedom  to  fail,  to  make  choices  that  seem 
wrong  to  legions  of  observers,  to  act  meanly  or  intolerantly 
or  foolishly,  to  go  against  the  crowd.  The  essence  of  man 
resides  in  his  power  to  make  meaningful  choices  that  will 
affect  not  only  his  life  but  also  the  lives  of  others  here  and 
hereafter.  Deprivation  of  this  power  of  creative  choice,  for 
whatever  reason,  not  only  limits  that  man's  array  of  selec- 
tions but  also  diminishes  him  as  a  person.  "To  enslave"  is 
much  too  light  and  lax  a  verb  to  describe  such  oppression, 
for  the  person  restricted  is  thereby  lessened  as  a  human 
being,  stunted  in  his  potential,  and  cut  down  in  his  moral 
growth. 

God's  watchman  must  speak  out  fearlessly  and  his  lis- 
teners must  act  accordingly,  or  both  will  suffer  inevitable 
consequences  of  their  respective  breaches  of  duty.  But 
nowhere  does  the  message  provide  that  disagreeing  men 
should  either  thwart  the  warning  or  forestall  the  reaction 
by  destructive  means.  Just  so  the  observant  nonbeliever 
may  deny  the  existence  of  the  law  of  gravity,  but  when  he 
leaps  from  an  airplane  without  a  parachute  he  pays  the 
inexorable  price  for  his  sincere  if  incorrect  intellectual 
position. 

Limiting  Human  Action 

What  limits  then  restrain  human  action?  The  rules  and 
order  of  the  universe  and  the  civil  sanctions  against  aggres- 
sion. The  nature  of  man  and  the  consequential  constraints 


130  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

of  the  world  permit  growth  but  preclude  perfection.  The 
civil  or  positive  law — no  less  than  the  essential  Biblical 
code — ought  to  deter  and  punish  the  employment  of  fraud 
and  the  initiation  of  aggression;  after  all,  if  Ezekiel  demon- 
strates that  proper  belief  does  not  include  the  coercive 
imposition  of  that  belief  upon  an  unwilling  other,  the  lesson 
must  also  implicitly  disparage  the  use  of  force  for  lesser 
purposes  as  well. 

Most  compulsion  develops  facially  as  a  quest  for 
"good"  and  as  an  affray  against  evil.  B  wishes  to  protect  A 
from  his  folly.  B  "knows"  that  he  knows  better  what  ought 
to  be  done  under  the  circumstances  by  virtue  of  his  exper- 
tise, his  beliefs,  or  his  prominence,  so  he  substitutes  his 
moral,  aesthetic,  political,  or  economic  judgment  for  that  of 
his  fellows.  After  all,  if  left  to  their  own  devices  and  desires, 
"they  will  make  bad  choices."  On  the  surface,  B's  outward 
clamor  is  always  for  good,  justice,  and  protection.  In  fact, 
the  Bs  of  the  world  seek  glory,  patronage,  and  power,  and 
their  conduct  displays  the  most  heinous  intolerance  and 
cant.  Those  who  seek  to  "do  good"  by  coercive  means 
accomplish  great  evil  by  depriving  their  subjects  of  their 
primary  human  trait.  These  dictators  great  and  small  live  as 
men  do,  not  as  God. 

Commitment  to  Christianity  and  to  the  free  society  are 
one  and  the  same.  The  sole  difference  of  note  lies  in  the 
choices  made  by  freely  choosing  individuals  once  all  recog- 
nize the  fundamental  difference  between  commitment  to 
principle  and  the  use  of  compulsion  to  impose  that  princi- 
ple upon  others. 

1.  See,  for  example,  Isaiah  1:9;  Nehemiah  1:3. 

2.  Albert  Jay  Nock,  "Isaiah's  Job,"  available  as  a  reprint  from  The 
Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  Irvington-on-Hudson,  New  York. 


EzekieVsJob  /  131 

3.  It  is  confusing  and  amusing  to  consider  the  reluctance  of  some 
individuals  to  credit  the  notable — if  not  inspired —  eyewitness  accounts 
of  ancient  men  and  women,  when  those  same  individuals  voraciously 
grasp  as  gospel  the  silly  and  demonstrably  unsupported  reports  of 
modem  ideologues  and  charlatans.  For  further  insight,  consider  G.  K. 
Chesterton,  The  Ex}erlasting  Man  (New  York:  Dodd,  Mead  &  Company, 
1925),  and  Charles  Mackay,  Extraordinary  Popular  Delusions  and  the  Mad- 
ness of  Crowds  (London:  Richard  Bentley,  1841). 

4.  James  Boswell,  Boswell's  London  Journal,  edited  by  Frederick  A. 
Pottle  (New  York:  McGraw-Hill,  1950),  entry  of  December  22, 1762,  p. 
100. 


The  Road  to  Jericho 
HalWatkins 


One  of  the  most  famous  stories  Jesus  told  is  the  parable 
of  the  Good  Samaritan  as  recorded  in  Luke  10:25-37.  It  con- 
cerns a  tragic  incident  on  the  road  from  Jericho  to 
Jerusalem,  a  distance  of  about  20  miles.  Part  of  the  road  was 
very  steep  and  rugged;  some  of  it  was  quite  smooth.  It  illus- 
trates the  common  road  over  which  all  of  us  must  travel; 
sometimes  it  is  steep  and  rugged,  and  other  times  it  is  quite 
smooth.  It's  every  man's  road. 

A  number  of  characters  appear  on  the  Jericho  road,  just 
as  they  do  on  the  road  of  life.  By  examining  them  we  will  be 
able  to  identify  with  some  of  them  and  perhaps  learn  some 
lessons. 

The  first  to  demand  our  attention  is  the  lone  man.  By 
common  consent  the  road  was  open  to  the  public,  so  this 
lone  man  had  every  right  to  be  on  it  without  fear  or  hin- 
drance. Each  of  us  has  a  God-given  right  to  travel  the  road 
of  life  without  being  hindered  or  molested.  Even  though 
we  enjoy  various  types  of  companionship  along  the  way,  in 
a  sense  we  are  traveling  the  road  of  life  alone.  We  will  be 
influenced  more  or  less  by  family,  church,  school,  co- 
workers, business,  government,  and  some  predators,  but 
the  final  decisions,  for  the  most  part,  devolve  on  each  of  us 
individually. 


The  Reverend  Mr.  Watkins,  editor  and  publisher  of  The  Printed 
Preacher,  wrote  this  article  for  the  June  1978  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


132 


The  Road  to  Jericho  /  133 

As  a  lone  man  I  have  a  right  to  expect  non-threatening 
treatment  from  all  my  fellowmen.  If  any  other  man  finds 
himself  in  a  circumstance  where  he  feels  he  must  act 
toward  me,  he  should  do  only  that  which  helps  rather  than 
hinders.  This,  of  course,  is  also  my  obligation  toward  him. 
A  lone  man  (woman  or  child)  is  vulnerable  to  harm  of  var- 
ious kinds,  and  also  to  help. 

The  next  characters  to  appear  in  this  drama  of  life  are 
the  cruel  men,  the  robbers  who  recognized  no  God  but  their 
animalistic  desires.  They  took  advantage  of  the  lone  man, 
stealing  his  goods,  his  time  and  his  well-being.  The  motiva- 
tion in  the  hearts  of  these  men  was  the  Satanic  principle 
that  "might  makes  right,"  or  "what's  yours  is  mine — if  I  can 
get  it."  Such  evil  men  add  nothing  of  value  to  the  lives  of 
the  people  they  contact  along  the  way,  but  they  will  take 
everything  they  can  get  by  fair  means  or  foul.  Their  own 
advantage  is  their  only  consideration.  They  wound,  bruise, 
and  rob.  It  may  be  money,  reputation,  or  even  characters — 
they  don't  care. 

The  thieves  in  the  parable  probably  ambushed  the  lone 
man  as  he  came  around  a  blind  corner,  but  some  of  their 
counterparts  are  more  sophisticated  or  subtle  in  our  day. 
They  might  feign  distress  along  the  freeway,  beg  a  ride  to 
the  next  town  and  rob  the  benefactor  en  route.  Or,  they 
might  put  out  a  plea  in  favor  of  the  "disadvantaged"  and 
ask  the  government  for  help,  but  since  the  government  has 
nothing  to  give,  it  must  first  steal  the  funds  from  its  taxpay- 
ers. This  might  even  involve  a  conspiracy  between  those 
desiring  the  aid,  the  group  pleading  their  cause  and  the 
government  agents  (legislators,  etc.).  The  whole  problem 
may  become  difficult  to  sort  out,  trying  to  determine  just 
who  are  the  sincere  agents  and  who  are  the  thieves.  But  the 
apparent  difficulty  should  not  be  allowed  to  obscure  the 


134  /  Hal  Watkins 

problem:  the  lone  man  has  been  robbed;  his  freedom  and 
his  very  life  have  been  threatened.  In  what  we  like  to  call  a 
"free  society,"  can  we  shrug  it  off  by  saying  that  each  man 
will  have  to  hire  his  own  army  or  police  force?  Perhaps  we 
would  do  better  to  examine  a  system  that  threatens  and 
crushes  the  individual  and  rewards  thieves  and  their 
accomplices. 

On  the  road  of  life,  within  the  framework  of  a  "Christ- 
ian" society,  there  surely  must  be  some  protection  for  the 
lone  man  from  the  depredations  of  thieves,  the  "minus" 
men  who  would  live  solely  at  the  expense  of  others. 

On  the  road  to  Jericho  there  were  also  other  men,  selfish 
men  who  saw  the  plight  of  the  abused  traveler  but  had  no 
concern  for  him  or  the  problem.  They  were  religious  men 
too,  but  their  religion — at  least  as  they  practiced  it — did  not 
consider  the  misfortunes  or  even  the  rights  of  their  fellow 
human  being.  They,  of  course,  would  never  steal  from  a 
lone  traveler  in  the  manner  practiced  by  the  bandits,  but 
they  didn't  want  to  get  involved.  "Tough  exf)erience  for  the 
poor  devil.  Should  have  known  better  than  to  be  traveling 
alone.  Hope  someone  moves  him  off  the  road." 

True  Christianity  is  in  the  world  today,  but  there  are 
many  counterfeits.  Many  of  the  alleged  followers  of  Christ 
occasionally  express  concern  for  the  plunder  taking  place 
along  the  road  of  life,  but  they  don't  lift  a  finger  to  expose 
or  solve  the  problem.  The  New  Testament  writer,  James,  is 
quite  blunt  in  his  description  of  them:  "To  him  therefore 
that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin" 
(4:17).  The  attitude  of  these  "zero"  men  is:  "We  were  not 
robbed,  so  it's  no  concern  of  ours.  What  we  have  we  will 
keep." 

Fortunately,  on  the  road  to  Jericho,  there  came  another 
man  who  was  not  a  disappointment  but  rather  a  delightful 


The  Road  to  Jericho  /  135 

surprise.  He  had  a  pure  Christian  philosophy:  "What  is 
mine  is  yours,  and  in  your  misfortune  I  will  share  it/'  He 
gave  of  himself  and  his  means.  He  was  the  compassionate, 
unselfish  man.  This  type  is  also  on  the  road  of  life  today. 
Not  only  would  he  steal  nothing  from  his  fellows,  but  he 
adds  much  to  their  general  welfare. 

The  Good  Samaritan  did  not  wait  beside  the  stricken 
traveler  until  another  victim  came  along,  beat  and  plunder 
him,  then  give  the  proceeds  to  the  first  victim.  He  was  not  a 
first-century  Robin  Hood  who  robbed  others  to  help  the 
poor,  but  he  gave  of  his  own  means.  He  didn't  run  for  polit- 
ical office  as  a  cover  to  conduct  his  robbery  "legally,"  then 
give  to  the  poor.  Jesus  certainly  pictured  him  as  a  concerned 
man,  one  who  was  not  content  to  pass  by  on  the  other  side 
as  though  nothing  had  hapf)ened.  He  saw  a  fellow  human 
being  in  distress,  and  he  visualized  himself  as  part  of  the 
solution  to  the  problem.  This  was  a  mandate  from  his  con- 
science to  DO  SOMETHING.  He  was  not  a  "minus"  man, 
or  even  a  "zero"  man.  He  was  a  "plus"  man.  And  Jesus 
forced  his  hearer  to  admit  that  the  Samaritan  was  moti- 
vated by  love. 

Within  the  Christian  context  we  are  not  here  to  wound, 
crush,  rob,  or  even  to  ignore.  We  are  here  to  heal,  lift, 
encourage  and  contribute  of  our  talent  and  energy  to  the 
end  that  others  too  may,  if  they  so  desire,  enjoy  the  same 
blessings  we  have.  This  truth  has  been  around  long  enough 
to  be  axiomatic,  and  Jesus  said,  "Ye  shall  know  the  truth, 
and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free"  (John  8:32). 


What  the  Bible  Says 
About  Big  Government 

James  C.  Patrick 


Evidence  is  mounting  that  government  programs  fail  to 
accomplish  all  that  their  advocates  had  promised.  After 
dipping  for  a  while,  crime  statistics  are  climbing  again. 
Confidence  in  the  institution  of  government  has  sagged. 
Some  people  wonder  whether  government  has  bitten  off 
more  than  it  can  chew.  They  suspect  that  Henry  Hazlitt 
came  close  to  the  mark  when  he  wrote,  "The  more  things  a 
government  undertakes  to  do,  the  fewer  things  it  can  do 
competently."^ 

What  do  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  scriptures  have  to 
say  on  the  subject  of  government  power  and  functions? 
News  reports  about  clergymen's  public  statements  and 
actions  often  reveal  the  men  of  the  cloth  on  the  side  of  big 
government — favoring  more  handouts,  more  interven- 
tion, more  regulation.  Does  the  Bible  support  that  posi- 
tion? Or  should  the  clergy  take  a  closer  look  at  what  the 
scriptures  disclose?  Answers  to  these  questions  could  be 
illuminating. 

First,  however,  just  what  is  government?  Some  of  the 
thinkers  who  helped  lift  Western  civilization  into  the  mod- 
em era  had  pondered  the  question  deeply  but  it  is  doubtful 


Mr.  Patrick,  a  retired  banker  and  Chamber  of  Commerce  executive, 
resides  in  Decatur,  Illinois.  This  article  is  reprinted  from  the  March  1976 
issue  of  The  Freeman. 


136 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  137 

that  most  people  ever  gave  it  a  thought,  either  then  or  now. 
A  look  at  what  students  of  the  subject  have  written  should 
provide  an  answer. 

The  Essence  of  Big  Government 

In  a  stark  cemetery  at  Mansfield,  Missouri,  stand  two 
identical  gravestones  side  by  side,  separated  by  about  six 
feet  of  sod.  Carved  in  large  letters  in  the  brown  granite  of 
one  is  the  name  Wilder,  of  the  other.  Lane.  One  marks  the 
graves  of  Almanzo  James  and  Laura  Ingalls  Wilder,  the  sec- 
ond the  grave  of  their  daughter.  Rose  Wilder  Lane. 
Almanzo  Wilder  died  in  1949  at  the  age  of  ninety-two.  His 
wife  lived  till  1957  when  she  was  ninety.  Rose  was  almost 
eighty-two  when  she  died  in  1968. 

A  mile  east  of  Mansfield  on  a  pleasant  hillside  rests  the 
modest  white  frame  house  that  Almanzo  Wilder  built  for 
Laura  at  the  turn  of  the  century,  using  building  materials 
produced  on  the  farm.  Here  Rose  grew  to  womanhood  and 
here  in  1932  her  mother  began  to  write  the  "Little  House" 
books  that  have  charmed  a  generation  of  Americans  with 
their  picture  of  pioneer  life  in  the  second  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  and  have  now  been  adapted  for  television. 
Drawing  on  a  descriptive  talent  developed  as  a  girl  when 
she  served  as  the  eyes  for  her  scarlet-fever-blinded  sister, 
Laura  wrote  the  series  of  books  in  longhand  on  tablet 
paper,  using  both  sides  of  the  sheet  to  avoid  waste  and 
writing  with  a  pencil. 

Rose,  too,  became  a  writer  and  her  best-known  book.  Let 
the  Hurricane  Roar,  is  in  part  a  retelling  in  fiction  of  the  pio- 
neer experiences  of  her  mother's  family.  But  her  most  influ- 
ential book  is  The  Discovery  of  Freedom,  published  in  1943.  It 
takes  nothing  from  Rose  Wilder  Lane  to  point  out  that  the 


138  /  James  C.  Patrick 

book  reflects  viewpoints  and  attitudes  that  are  evident  in 
her  mother's  writing. 

The  Discovery  of  Freedom  was  the  inspiration  for  Henry 
Grady  Weaver's  The  Mainspring  of  Human  Progress, 
described  by  Leonard  Read,  President  of  the  Foundation 
for  Economic  Education,  as  probably  the  best  introduction 
to  freedom  ideas  available  in  a  single  volume.  Mainspring 
has  multiplied  the  outreach  and  the  influence  of  Rose 
Wilder  Lane's  thought. 

Today  and  for  two  generations  there  has  been  abroad  in 
the  land  a  naive  faith  in  government  as  the  solution  to  all 
problems  — a  belief  in  the  ability  of  legislation  to  satisfy  any 
need.  Events  in  the  last  decade,  when  that  trust  reached  its 
zenith  in  the  Great  Society  programs,  have  dealt  several 
stinging  blows  to  the  faith  but  it  had  become  so  deeply 
ingrained  that  it  yields  slowly  to  opposing  evidence. 

Weaver  and  Mrs.  Lane  did  not  share  the  popular  belief. 
Instead,  they  took  a  very  different  view  which  Rose  Wilder 
Lane  expressed  in  these  words:  "What  they  (men  in  gov- 
ernment) have  is  the  use  of  force — command  of  the  police 
and  the  army.  Government,  The  State  is  always  a  use  of 
force  .  .  ?  and  "Buck"  Weaver  wrote,  "In  the  last  analysis, 
and  stripped  of  all  the  furbelows,  government  is  nothing 
more  than  a  legal  monopoly  of  the  use  of  physical  force — 
by  persons  upon  persons."^ 

What  Authorities  Say 

Although  most  Americans  today  seem  never  to  have 
thought  of  it,  this  idea  was  not  new.  Numerous  other  writ- 
ers, representing  differing  shades  in  the  political  spectrum, 
have  expressed  a  similar  view,  both  before  and  since  Mrs. 
Lane  and  "Buck"  Weaver  wrote. 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  139 

"The  civil  law  ...  is  the  force  of  the  commonwealth, 
engaged  to  protect  the  lives,  liberties,  and  possessions  of 
those  who  live  according  to  its  laws,  and  has  power  to  take 
away  life,  liberty,  or  goods  from  him  who  discbeys."  (John 
Locke) 

"Government  is  not  reason,  it  is  not  eloquence — it  is 
force.  Like  fire  it  is  a  dangerous  servant  and  a  fearful  mas- 
ter . . ."  (George  Washington) 

"Law  is  the  common  force  organized  to  act  as  an  obsta- 
cle to  injustice."  (Frederic  Bastiat) 

"...  penal  sanction  ...  is  the  essence  of  law  . . ."  (John 
Stuart  Mill) 

"The  essential  characteristic  of  all  government,  what- 
ever its  form,  is  authority. . . .  Government,  in  its  last  analy- 
sis, is  organized  force."  (Woodrow  Wilson) 

"The  state  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  coercion.  It  would  be 
madness  to  renounce  coercion,  particularly  in  the  epoch  of 
the  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat."  (Nikolai  Lenin) 

"A  government  may  be  freely  chosen,  but  it  is  still  not 
all  of  us.  It  is  some  men  vested  with  authority  over  other 
men."  And  democracy  "...  is  a  name  for  a  particular  set  of 
conditions  under  which  the  right  to  coerce  others  is  ac- 
quired and  held."^  (Charles  Frankel) 

"The  State  is  the  party  that  always  accompanies  its  pro- 
posals by  coercion,  and  backs  them  by  force."^  (Charles  A. 
Reich) 

It  should  come  as  no  surprise  to  students  of  the  Bible 
that  the  scriptures  analyzed  the  ultimate  nature  of  govern- 
ment much  earlier  than  any  of  the  writers  cited.  Christians 
sometimes  wonder  what  Jesus  had  to  say  about  the  role  of 
government,  and  theologians  normally  reply  that  he  said 
very  little  on  the  subject.  The  principal  relevant  statement 
recorded  in  the  gospels  is  his  response  to  a  question  as  to 


140  /  James  C.  Patrick 

whether  it  was  proper  to  pay  the  head  tax  imposed  by 
Rome.  The  tax  amounted  to  about  twenty-five  cents  a  per- 
son and  was  regarded  as  a  mark  of  servitude  to  Rome. 

In  ancient  times  the  authority  of  a  ruler  was  symbolized 
by  the  circulation  of  his  coinage  and  coins  bearing  the 
ruler's  image  were  considered  his  property,  in  the  final 
analysis.^  When  Jesus  requested  that  his  questioners  show 
him  one  of  the  coins  used  to  pay  the  tax,  a  coin  was  brought 
and  he  asked,  "Whose  likeness  and  inscription  is  this?" 
They  replied  that  it  was  Caesar's.  Jesus  then  said,  "Render 
therefore  to  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  and  to  God 
the  things  that  are  God's."  The  account  is  told  in  Matthew  22 
and  in  parallels  in  the  gospel  according  to  Mark  and  accord- 
ing to  Luke, 

While  Jesus  said  little  about  the  power  of  government 
and  what  government  should  or  should  not  do,  two  other 
New  Testament  writers  came  down  solidly  on  the  side  of 
respect  for  the  civil  authorities  and  obedience  to  law.  One  of 
these  was  the  Apostle  Paul.  Of  Paul  a  respected  New  Testa- 
ment scholar  wrote  a  few  years  ago,  "It  is  evident  from 
many  allusions  in  his  writings,  that  the  thought  of  Rome 
had  strongly  affected  his  imagination.  He  associated  the 
great  city  with  all  that  was  most  august  in  earthly  power. 
He  believed  that  it  had  been  divinely  appointed  to  main- 
tain order  and  peace  among  the  contending  races."^ 

In  his  letter  to  the  Romans,  St.  Paul  offered  the  follow- 
ing admonition:  "Let  every  person  be  subject  to  the  govern- 
ing authorities.  For  there  is  no  authority  except  from  God, 
and  those  that  exist  have  been  instituted  by  God." 

Pay  your  taxes  and  give  respect  and  honor  to  whom 
they  are  due,  said  Paul.  Conduct  yourself  properly  and  you 
will  have  no  reason  to  fear  an  official.  "But  if  you  do  wrong, 
be  afraid,  for  he  does  not  bear  the  sword  in  vain."^ 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  141 
And  St.  Peter  wrote: 

Be  subject  for  the  Lord's  sake  to  every  human  insti- 
tution, whether  it  be  to  the  emperor  as  supreme,  or 
to  governors  as  sent  by  him  to  punish  those  who  do 
wrong  and  to  praise  those  who  do  right.  For  it  is 
God's  will  that  by  doing  right  you  should  put  to 
silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish  men.  Live  as  free 
men,  yet  without  using  your  freedom  as  a  pretext  for 
evil;  but  live  as  servants  of  God.  Honor  all  men. 
Love  the  brotherhood.  Fear  God.  Honor  the 
emperor.^ 

The  statements  are  brief  because  the  writers  were  not 
primarily  concerned  for  man's  relation  with  the  authorities 
but  for  his  relation  with  God  and  his  fellow  man.  But  the 
statements  are  definite.  And  they  provided  the  scriptural 
foundation  for  what  some  students  have  considered  Martin 
Luther's  exaggerated  reverence  for  the  State.  Luther's  atti- 
tude supplied  the  philosophical  substructure  for  the 
authoritarian  character  German  governments  have  dis- 
played more  than  once. 

"When  studied  with  any  degree  of  thoroughness,  the 
economic  problem  will  be  found  to  run  into  the  political 
problem,"  wrote  Irving  Babbitt,  "the  political  problem 
into  the  philosophical  problem,  and  the  philosophical 
problem  itself  to  be  almost  indissolubly  bound  up  at  last 
with  the  religious  problem."^^  In  short,  what  we  believe  or 
do  not  believe  about  man  and  about  God  determines  what 
kind  of  society  we  will  have  and  how  our  society  will  gov- 
ern itself. 

While  there  is  support  for  paying  taxes,  obedience  to 
law,  and  respect  for  civil  authority  in  the  New  Testament, 


142  /  James  C.  Patrick 

no  detailed  analysis  of  the  nature  of  government  or  the 
proper  functions  of  government  is  to  be  found  there.  There 
is,  however,  ample  guidance  for  the  individual  conduct  of 
government  officials.  They  are  human  beings,  so  they  will 
be  fair,  as  all  humans  should  be.  They  will  deal  justly  with 
the  people.  Tax  collectors  will  not  steal  because  nobody 
should  steal. 

Another  Biblical  View 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  writer  of  the  books  of  /  Samuel 
and  //  Samuel  draws  a  definite  contrast  between  limited 
government  and  the  all-powerful  State.  The  writer  of  the 
two  books  drew  on  earlier  sources,  some  of  which  probably 
went  back  as  far  as  1000  B.C.  or  earlier  and  all  of  which  had 
been  completed  by  about  600  B.C.^^  For  generations  the 
Jewish  people  had  been  led  by  officials  called  Judges,  of 
whom  at  least  one,  Deborah,  was  a  woman.  Best  known  of 
the  judges  to  modem  readers  is  Gideon,  because  his  name 
is  carried  by  the  organization  recognized  for  its  practice  of 
distributing  Bibles  in  hotels  and  motels.  The  judges  com- 
bined civil,  military,  and  religious  functions  in  their  office. 
They  led  the  Jewish  people  in  battle  against  their  enemies, 
settled  questions  of  law,  administered  justice  in  disputes 
between  individuals,  and  functioned  as  priests  and 
prophets.  To  the  enemies  of  Israel  they  often  showed  no 
quarter  and  in  some  of  their  judicial  decisions  they  may 
have  been  arbitrary  but  their  leadership  of  their  own  peo- 
ple was  apparently  rather  mild.  The  writer  of  the  book  of 
Judges  reports,  in  chapter  17  and  again  in  his  concluding 
verse.  Judges  21:25,  "In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in 
Israel;  every  man  did  what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes."^^ 

Gideon  did  not  even  want  to  be  king.  After  he  had  led 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  143 

the  men  of  Israel  successfully  against  their  enemies,  they 
asked  him  to  rule  over  them  but  he  replied,  "I  will  not  rule 
over  you,  and  my  son  will  not  rule  over  you;  the  Lord  will 
rule  over  you/'^^ 

After  the  death  of  Gideon  one  of  his  sons,  Abimelech, 
seized  power  briefly  and  killed  all  of  his  brothers  except 
one,  the  youngest,  Jotham,  who  hid  himself  and  escaped. 
When  Jotham  was  told  what  his  brother  had  done,  he 
related  a  parable,  recorded  in  Judges  9,  about  the  trees  going 
forth  to  anoint  a  king  over  themselves.  The  olive  tree,  the 
fig  tree,  and  the  vine  all  declined  to  abandon  their  produc- 
tive pursuits  to  become  king,  so  the  trees  then  turned  to  the 
bramble  and  the  bramble  accepted. 

The  Worst  on  Top 

In  The  Road  to  Serfdom,  Professor  Friedrich  A.  Hayek,  for 
somewhat  different  reasons  from  those  cited  in  Jotham's 
parable,  reached  a  conclusion  that  resembles  the  parable  of 
the  trees  and  the  bramble.  Professor  Hayek  describes  how 
kakistocracy  arises  in  a  chapter  entitled,  "Why  the  Worst 
Get  on  Top."  ^^ 

Samuel  was  the  last  of  the  series  of  prophet-judges.  He 
administered  justice  in  his  own  city  of  Ramah,  a  few  miles 
north  of  Jerusalem,  and  traveled  a  judicial  circuit  that  took 
him  annually  to  Bethel,  Gilgal,  and  Mizpah.  When  senility 
approached,  Samuel  made  his  two  sons  judges  but  the 
scripture  records  that  they  lacked  their  father's  honorable 
character  and  "turned  aside  after  gain  .  .  .  took  bribes  and 
perverted  justice."^* 

The  Jewish  people  were  still  engaged  in  the  prolonged 
effort  to  conquer  the  land  they  had  occupied.  Recurring 
wars   threatened    their   security.    Such   enemies   as   the 


144  /  James  C.  Patrick 

Philistines  were  better  organized  and  better  equipped  than 
the  people  of  Israel  who  retained  their  loose  tribal  structure 
and  had  not  yet  fully  abandoned  the  nomadic  life.  So  the 
elders  of  Israel  came  to  Samuel  with  a  request:  "Behold, 
you  are  old  and  your  sons  do  not  walk  in  your  ways;  now 
appoint  for  us  a  king  to  govern  us  like  all  the  nations." 

The  request  displeased  Samuel,  and  he  prayed  to  the 
Lord  who  admonished  Samuel  to  heed  their  request,  "for 
they  have  not  rejected  you,  but  they  have  rejected  me. . . ." 
But  Samuel  was  directed  to  tell  them  what  it  would  be  like 
to  have  a  king.  He  did  so  in  words  recorded  in  /  Samuel  8: 

These  will  be  the  ways  of  the  king  who  will  reign 
over  you:  He  will  take  your  sons  and  appoint  them 
to  his  chariots  and  to  be  his  horsemen,  and  to  run 
before  his  chariots;  and  he  will  appoint  for  himself 
commanders  of  thousands  and  commanders  of 
fifties,  and  some  to  plow  his  ground  and  to  reap  his 
harvest,  and  to  make  his  implements  of  war  and  the 
equipment  of  his  chariots.  He  will  take  your  daugh- 
ters to  be  perfumers  and  cooks  and  bakers.  He  will 
take  the  best  of  your  fields  and  vineyards  and  olive 
orchards  and  give  them  to  his  servants.  He  will  take 
the  tenth  of  your  grain  and  of  your  vineyards  and 
give  it  to  his  officers  and  to  his  servants.  He  will  take 
your  menservants  and  maidservants,  and  the  best  of 
your  cattle  and  your  asses,  and  put  them  to  his  work. 
He  will  take  the  tenth  of  your  flocks,  and  you  shall 
be  his  slaves.  And  in  that  day  you  will  cry  out 
because  of  your  king,  whom  you  have  chosen  for 
yourselves. . . . 

The  people  refused  to  listen  to  Samuel,  however,  and 
insisted  that  they  wanted  a  king  to  govern  them  and  fight 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  145 

their  battles.  Their  wishes  prevailed.  They  got  big  govern- 
ment. 

The  king  who  was  selected  was  Saul,  of  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin. Many  years  before,  when  Moses  explained  to  the 
people  of  Israel  the  law  that  he  had  delivered  to  them,  he 
told  them  what  kind  of  person  to  choose  as  king  when  the 
time  came.  His  counsel  is  recorded  in  Deuteronomy  17: 

When  you  come  to  the  land  which  the  Lord  your 
God  gives  you,  and  you  possess  it  and  dwell  in  it, 
and  then  say,  "I  will  set  a  king  over  me,  like  all  the 
nations  that  are  round  about  me  '  you  may  indeed 
set  as  king  over  you  him  whom  the  Lord  your  God 
will  choose.  One  from  among  your  brethren  you 
shall  set  as  king  over  you;  you  may  not  put  a  for- 
eigner over  you,  who  is  not  your  brother.  Only  he 
must  not  multiply  horses  for  himself,  or  cause  the 
people  to  return  to  Egypt  in  order  to  multiply 
horses,  since  the  Lord  has  said  to  you,  "You  shall 
never  return  that  way  again."  And  he  shall  not  mul- 
tiply wives  for  himself,  lest  his  heart  turn  away;  nor 
shall  he  greatly  multiply  for  himself  silver  and  gold. 

In  a  book  based  on  his  research  at  the  Hoover  Institution 
on  War,  Revolution  and  Peace  of  Stanford  University,  Alvin 
Rabushka  wrote,  "Governments  take  resources  from  the 
public  but  use  them  to  maximize  their  own  welfare."^^  Both 
Moses  and  Samuel  recognized  this  propensity  and  warned 
about  it.  To  modem  taxpayers  the  tenth  part  of  their  grain 
and  vineyards  and  flocks,  that  Samuel  said  the  king  would 
require,  must  appear  mild  indeed  but  in  time  the  burden 
became  onerous  to  the  people.  Samuel's  prophecy  that  one 
day  they  would  cry  out  because  of  their  king  was  not  real- 
ized immediately.  Then,  as  now,  persons  with  the  vision  to 


146  /  James  C.  Patrick 

foretell  the  consequences  of  certain  popular  choices  and 
actions  could  only  tell  what  would  occur  as  a  result,  not 
when  it  would  occur. 

David  and  Solomon 

David  succeeded  Saul  as  king,  united  the  people  of 
Israel  under  his  rule,  defeated  their  enemies,  pushed  the 
borders  of  his  domain  south  to  the  Gulf  of  Aqaba,  an  arm  of 
the  Red  Sea,  and  by  treaty  with  vassals  extended  his  control 
north  and  eastward  to  the  Euphrates  River.^^ 

Thrusting  aside  an  attempt  of  an  older  brother  to 
become  king,  Solomon  followed  David,  his  father,  on  the 
throne.  His  reign  was  marked  by  lavish  construction  pro- 
grams and  public  works  projects.  An  extensive  bureaucracy 
was  established  to  man  the  elaborate  governmental  struc- 
ture Solomon  created.  Twelve  administrative  regions  were 
defined  and  each  was  to  provide  the  taxes  and  other  re- 
sources to  support  the  king  and  his  government  for  one 
month  of  each  year.  Solomon  took  as  one  of  his  wives  a 
daughter  of  the  Egyptian  Pharaoh  and  built  her  a  luxurious 
residence.  He  also  built  a  temple  at  Jerusalem  to  be  the  cen- 
ter of  worship  for  the  entire  nation.  He  was  described  as 
having  "wisdom  and  understanding  beyond  measure,  and 
largeness  of  mind  like  the  sand  on  the  seashore.  .  .  ."^^  At 
the  same  time,  however,  the  scripture  speaks  repeatedly  of 
Solomon's  use  of  forced  labor  and  it  tells  of  the  hundreds  of 
wives  and  concubines  that  he  took.  History  casts  doubt  on 
the  wisdom  of  a  ruler  who  burdens  his  people  with  oppres- 
sive taxation  and  encumbers  them  with  the  upkeep  of  a 
sprawling  bureaucracy  and  a  parasitic  court. 

Like  the  Roman  Catholic  popes  of  the  fifteenth  and  six- 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Gaoemment  /  147 

teenth  centuries,  Solomon  mulcted  the  people  of  the 
resources  to  build  imposing  structures  and  create  works  of 
art.^^  The  popes  left  great  paintings  and  sculpture,  as 
Solomon  left  a  temple  that  stood  for  four  centuries,  but  the 
exactions  of  the  popes  brought  schism  to  the  Church  and 
those  of  Solomon  brought  rebellion  in  the  kingdom  when 
his  son,  Rehoboam,  succeeded  him. 

After  the  death  of  Solomon  the  people  who  assembled 
for  the  coronation  of  Rehoboam  came  to  the  new  king  with 
a  plea:  "Your  father  made  our  yoke  heavy.  Now  therefore 
lighten  the  hard  service  of  your  father  and  his  heavy  yoke 
upon  us,  and  we  will  serve  you."  Rehoboam  sent  them 
away  for  three  days  while  he  consulted  first  with  the  elders 
who  had  advised  his  father  and  then  with  his  youthful 
associates.  In  the  end  he  rejected  the  counsel  of  the  elders 
that  he  accede  to  the  people's  wishes.  Instead  he  took  the 
advice  of  his  contemporaries  and  when  the  people  returned 
for  his  answer,  he  told  them,  "My  father  made  your  yoke 
heavy,  but  I  will  add  to  your  yoke;  my  father  chastised  you 
with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise  you  with  scorpions."  Their 
appeal  rejected,  the  people  cried  out,  "To  your  tents,  0 
Israel!"  And  the  historian  records  in  /  Kings  12,  "So  Israel 
has  been  in  rebellion  against  the  house  of  David  to  this 
day." 

The  scriptures  say  that  Saul  and  David  and  Solomon 
each  reigned  for  forty  years.  So  one  hundred  twenty  years 
passed,  or  approximately  four  generations,  from  the  time 
when  the  people  abandoned  limited  government  until  the 
time  when  their  descendents  did  "cry  out"  because  of  the 
king  they  had  chosen.  By  600  B.C.  or  earlier  the  people  of 
Israel  had  learned,  however,  that  government  is  indeed 
force — a  dangerous  servant  and  a  fearful  master. 


148  /  James  C.  Patrick 

The  Role  for  Government 

If  government  is  force,  as  the  serious  students  of  the 
subject  have  agreed,  what  kinds  of  things  should  govern- 
ment do?  The  answer  is  obvious:  Government  should  do 
those  things  that  can  be  properly  done  by  the  use  of  force. 
The  question  follows:  What  are  the  proper  uses  of  force 
among  responsible  adults? 

Nobody  has  answered  that  question  more  clearly  than 
the  nineteenth  century  French  statesman,  Frederic  Bastiat: 
"Every  individual  has  the  right  to  use  force  for  lawful  self- 
defense.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  collective  force — which 
is  only  the  organized  combination  of  the  individual 
forces — may  lawfully  be  used  for  the  same  purpose;  and  it 
cannot  be  used  legitimately  for  any  other  purpose."^^ 

Government,  therefore,  is  to  be  used  to  defend,  to  pro- 
tect, to  prevent  violence,  fraud,  and  other  predatory  acts. 
Other  endeavors  are  to  be  left  to  the  initiative  and  the 
choices  of  people  acting  voluntarily,  either  jointly  or  as 
individuals.  In  short,  government  should  do  what  the 
judges  of  Israel  did.  Beyond  that  every  man  should  do  what 
is  "right  in  his  own  eyes." 

Obviously,  that  is  not  the  direction  Americans  have 
been  moving  for  the  past  two  generations.  Instead,  as  noted 
earlier,  a  naive  faith  that  government  can  solve  all  problems 
has  taken  root  and  persists  in  spite  of  the  repeated  failures 
of  government  social  programs.  But  it  makes  no  difference 
that  large  numbers  hold  a  wrong  view.  Right  is  not  deter- 
mined by  majority  vote.  As  Anatole  France  stated,  "If  fifty 
million  people  say  a  foolish  thing,  it  is  still  a  foolish  thing." 
And  Supreme  Court  Justice  George  Sutherland  said,  "A 
foolish  law  does  not  become  a  wise  law  because  it  is 
approved  by  a  great  many  people."^^  Right,  like  truth,  is 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  149 

usually  discerned  first  by  a  minority,  often  in  the  beginning 
a  minority  of  one. 

Everybody  Is  Responsible 

Everybody  has  a  stake  in  preventing  the  unprincipled 
members  of  society  from  committing  acts  of  violence  or 
fraud  upon  peaceful  persons,  and  should  help  pay  a  part  of 
the  cost  of  the  police  and  defense  mechanism  necessary  to 
protect  people  in  their  peaceful  pursuits.  Government  is 
society's  mechanism  for  protecting  and  defending;  it  prop- 
erly collects  taxes  to  pay  for  these  services.  But  when  it 
takes  from  some  persons  what  belongs  to  them  and  gives  it 
to  other  persons  to  whom  it  does  not  belong,  government 
commits  an  act  of  plunder.  One  person  who  uses  force  or 
the  threat  of  force  to  take  from  another  what  has  been  hon- 
estly earned  or  built  or  created,  commits  an  immoral  act 
and  a  crime.  Two  or  more  persons  banding  together  do  not 
acquire  any  moral  rights  that  they  did  not  have  as  individ- 
uals. When  government  provides  benefits  for  one  citizen  at 
the  expense  of  another  by  doing  what  the  citizen  himself 
cannot  do  without  committing  a  crime,  it  performs  an  act  of 
plunder.^^ 

Not  only  is  governmental  plunder  immoral,  it  reduces 
the  general  well-being  of  the  people.  It  does  so  by  taking 
away  from  some  people  what  they  have  produced  but  are 
not  permitted  to  use.  It  reduces  well-being  by  distributing 
to  other  people  what  they  have  not  been  required  to  pro- 
duce. Both  the  producers  and  the  receivers  are  thus 
deprived  of  incentive.  And  government  reduces  the  gen- 
eral well-being  by  creating  an  unproductive  administrative 
bureaucracy  to  do  the  taking  away  and  the  distributing. 
Society  needs  the  productivity  of  all  its  able  members. 


150  /  James  C.  Patrick 

Shifted  to  producing  goods  and  services  that  can  be 
exchanged  in  the  marketplace,  the  legions  of  bureaucrats 
could  add  materially  to  human  well-being. 

How  is  the  situation  to  be  corrected  that  has  been 
allowed  to  develop?  Rose  Wilder  Lane  points  the  way: 
"The  great  English  reform  movement  of  the  19th  century 
consisted  wholly  in  repealing  laws."^  What  is  needed  in 
the  United  States  is  to  repeal  laws,  not  to  pass  new  ones. 
Repeal  laws  that  vest  some  men  with  authority  over  other 
men.  This  is  not  to  set  the  clock  back,  it  is  to  set  it  right.^ 

As  Samuel  warned  the  people  of  Israel  when  they  chose 
big  government,  various  prophets  have  warned  the  people 
of  America.  Prophets  can  only  tell  what  to  expect,  however, 
not  when  to  expect  it.  More  than  a  century  of  suffering 
passed  before  the  people  of  Israel  rose  to  throw  off  the  yoke 
from  their  necks. 


1.  Life  and  Death  of  the  Welfare  State,  (La  Jolla,  Cal.:  La  Jolla  Rancho 
Press,  1968),  p.  52. 

2.  The  Discovery  of  Freedom  (New  York:  Amo  Press,  1972),  p.  27. 

3.  The  Mainspring  of  Human  Progress  (Irvington-on-Hudson,  N.Y.: 
Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  1953),  p.  71. 

4.  Charles  Frankel,  The  Democratic  Prospect  (New  York:  Harp>er  & 
Row,  1964),  p.  136  and  p.  30. 

5.  Charles  A.  Reich,  The  Greening  of  America  (New  York:  Bantam 
Books,  1971),  p.  350. 

6.  The  Abingdon  Bible  Commentary  (New  York  and  Nashville,  Term.: 
Abingdon-Cokesbury  Press,  1929),  p.  988. 

7.  E.  F.  Scott,  The  Literature  of  the  New  Testament  (New  York: 
Columbia  University  Press,  1936),  p.  156. 

8.  Romans  13:1-7.  All  scriptural  quotations  are  from  the  Revised 
Standard  Version  of  the  Bible  (New  York:  Thomas  Nelson  &  Sons, 
1952). 

9.  ZPefer  2:13-17. 


What  the  Bible  Says  About  Big  Government  /  151 

10.  Quoted  by  Russell  Kirk,  The  Conservative  Mind  (Chicago:  Henry 
Regnery  Company,  I960),  p.  482. 

11.  Robert  H.  Pfeiffer,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  (New  York: 
Harper  &  Brothers,  1941),  pp.  20-22. 

12.  Judges  8:23. 

13.  Friedrich  A.  Hayek,  The  Road  to  Serfdom  (Chicago:  The  Univer- 
sity of  Chicago  Press,  1944),  Chapter  X. 

U.I  Samuel  7:15^:5. 

15.  Alvin  Rabushka,  A  Theory  of  Racial  Harmony  (Columbia,  S.C.: 
University  of  South  Carolina  Press,  1974),  p.  93. 

16.  E.  W.  Heaton,  Solomon's  New  Men  (New  York:  Pica  Press,  1974), 
Chapter  2. 

17. /Kings 4:29. 

18.  Irving  Stone,  The  Agony  and  the  Ecstasy  (New  York:  Doubleday  & 
Company,  1%1;  Signet  edition). 

19.  Frederic  Bastiat,  The  Law  (Irvington-on-Hudson,  N.Y.:  Founda- 
tion for  Economic  Education  1956),  p.  68. 

20.  Address  as  President  of  the  American  Bar  Association,  at  the 
ABA  annual  meeting,  Saratoga  Springs,  N.Y,  September  4, 1917. 

21.Basrtat,op.  ci7.,  p.  21. 

22.  Loc,  d/.,  p.  239. 

23.  Wilhelm  Roepke,  A  Humane  Economy  (Chicago:  Henry  Regnery 
Company,  1960),  p.  88. 


A  Judeo-Christian  Foundation 
Hans  E  Sennholz 


Many  voices  in  education  and  the  media  do  not  tire  of 
denouncing  and  slandering  the  private-property  order. 
They  indict  it  for  being  heartless,  merciless,  cruel,  inhuman, 
selfish,  and  exploitative,  and,  branding  it  "laissez-faire  cap- 
italism," condemn  it  roundly  and  loudly.  Popular  college 
textbooks  of  economics  often  set  the  tone.  They  devote 
many  pages  of  friendly  discussion  to  the  writings  of  Karl 
Marx  and  other  champions  of  socialism,  but  they  dismiss, 
with  a  few  lines  of  utter  contempt,  the  ideas  of  "laissez-faire 
capitalism"  and  call  its  defenders  ugly  names  (e.g.,  Paul 
Samuelson,  Economics,  all  editions). 

If  capitalism  nevertheless  is  alive  and  advancing  in 
many  parts  of  the  world,  the  credit  belongs  not  only  to  a 
few  fearless  defenders,  but  also  to  the  visible  failures  and 
horrors  of  the  command  system  and  its  economic  and 
moral  inadequacy  Despite  all  the  slander  and  abuse  that 
may  be  heaped  on  private  property,  its  order  offers  more 
amenities  of  life  even  to  its  poorer  members  than  the  com- 
mand system  provides  for  its  privileged  members,  and  in 
contrast  to  the  command  system,  it  creates  conditions  of 
human  existence  that  are  most  conducive  to  virtuous  living 
and  a  moral  order. 


Dr.  Sennholz  is  the  President  of  The  Foundation  for  Economic  Edu- 
cation. This  essay  is  an  excerpt  from  his  booklet.  Three  Economic  Com- 
mandments (1990). 


152 


A  Judeo-Christian  Foundation  /  153 

The  private-property  system  rests  on  individual  freedom, 
nonviolence,  truthfulness,  reliability,  and  cooperation.  If  every- 
one is  free  in  his  dealings  with  others,  it  is  well  nigh  im- 
possible to  cheat,  shortchange,  or  short-weight  another.  If 
customers  and  businessmen  are  free  to  choose,  they  are  free 
to  shun  fraud  and  deception;  goods  and  services  must  be 
satisfactory  and  priced  right  or  they  cannot  be  sold.  A  busi- 
nessman who  deceives  his  customers  will  lose  them.  If  he 
mistreats  his  suppliers,  they  refuse  to  sell.  If  he  abuses  his 
workers,  they  will  leave.  It  is  in  everyone's  interest  to  be 
peaceful,  honest,  truthful,  and  cooperative. 

Capitalism  is  no  anarchism  which  rejects  all  forms  of 
government  for  being  oppressive  and  undesirable.  The 
market  order  does  not  invite  the  strong  to  prey  on  the 
weak,  employers  to  exploit  their  workers,  and  businessmen 
to  gouge  their  customers.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  only  sys- 
tem that  allocates  to  each  member  whatever  he  or  she  con- 
tributes to  the  production  process.  It  alone  provides  the 
means  for  and  gives  wide  range  to  all  forms  of  charity, 
enabling  man  not  only  to  satisfy  his  own  desires,  but  also  to 
assist  other  men  in  theirs.  Yet  its  critics  do  not  tire  in  charg- 
ing that  capitalism  best  serves  selfish  individuals  ever 
searching  for  the  greatest  possible  advantage.  To  the  de- 
tractors, capitalism  is  synonymous  with  "maximizing  prof- 
its," which  they  condemn  as  unrealistic  and  selfish. 

This  charge,  too,  misses  the  mark.  In  voluntary 
exchange,  every  individual  prefers  to  buy  the  desired  mer- 
chandise at  the  lowest  possible  price — unless  he  or  she 
means  to  engage  in  charitable  giving.  Even  rabbis,  priests, 
and  ministers  choose  to  pay  the  lowest  possible  price  for 
the  automobile  of  their  choice — unless  they  decide  to  make 
a  gift  to  the  dealer.  They  generally  sell  their  old  cars  at  the 
highest  possible  price — unless  they  choose  to  make  a  gift  to 


154  /  Hans  F.  Sennholz 

the  buyer.  They  seek  to  maximize  their  gains  on  the  pur- 
chase or  sale,  which  permits  them  to  allocate  the  savings  to 
the  satisfaction  of  other  needs. 

A  businessman  is  a  man  engaged  in  the  production  of 
economic  goods  and  the  rendering  of  economic  services. 
He  is  the  servant  of  consumers  whose  whims  and  wishes 
guide  him  in  his  production  decisions.  As  they  prefer  to 
buy  their  goods  in  the  most  favorable  market,  so  must  he 
buy  them  at  the  lowest  possible  price.  He  cannot  grant 
favors  to  suppliers  at  the  expense  of  his  customers;  he  can- 
not pay  wages  higher  than  those  allowed  by  the  buyers.  If 
he  does  pay  higher  wages,  he  distributes  his  own  property 
to  his  workers.  In  time,  he  is  likely  to  face  a  bankruptcy 
judge  who  will  dissolve  his  business.  Surely,  a  businessman 
is  free  to  spend  his  own  income  as  he  pleases.  Motivated  by 
various  notions  and  impulses,  he  may  buy  his  goods  at  a 
charity  sale,  paying  higher  prices,  or  sell  his  goods  there  for 
pennies  or  even  give  them  away.  His  economic  consider- 
ations do  not  differ  from  those  of  the  rabbi,  priest,  and  min- 
ister. 

The  private-property  order  is  not  lawless  as  its  detrac- 
tors so  loudly  proclaim.  On  the  contrary,  its  very  existence 
depends  on  honesty,  integrity,  and  peaceful  coopjeration.  Its 
bedrock  is  economic  virtue.  Its  complete  and  reliable  guide  on 
practical  questions  are  the  Ten  Commandments,  especially  the 
second  table  with  ethical  standards  for  every  area  of  life.  The  sec- 
ond table  is  a  solid  foundation  of  all  economic  ease  and 
comfort,  and  the  guidepost  to  prosperity  for  all  mankind. 
Even  agnostics  and  atheists,  Hindus,  Buddhists,  and 
Taoists,  Confucianists  and  Shintoists  who  reject  the  first 
table  governing  man's  relationship  with  God  must  live  by 
the  second  table  governing  man's  moral  choices  in  his  rela- 
tionship with  others,  if  they  set  out  to  thrive  and  multiply. 


A  Judeo-Christian  Foundation  /  155 

There  is  no  other  way,  in  this  world  of  scarce  resources  and 
limited  energy.^ 

The  second  table  affirms  the  general  principle  of  justice 
or  righteousness  for  the  organization  of  society.  It  is  no 
command  "to  do  good/'  but  instead  an  order  "to  restrain 
evil."  It  does  not  propose  a  state  that  would  create  a  good  or 
great  society,  but  directs  man  to  abstain  from  evil.  In  order 
to  avoid  the  bad,  it  merely  says:  abstain  from  coercion;  do 
not  commit  adultery;  do  not  lie;  do  not  steal;  do  not  covet. 
Aside  from  these  admonitions,  you  are  free  to  pursue  your 
own  interests. 

The  commandments  call  for  a  decent  society  that  inter- 
acts voluntarily,  a  contract  society  rather  than  a  coercive 
society,  a  peaceful  society  rather  than  a  violent  society.  They 
do  not  elevate  some  men  to  be  the  rulers  and  lords  over 
other  men,  nor  do  they  commission  some  to  manage  the 
economic  lives  of  others.  On  the  contrary,  the  command- 
ments set  out  to  do  very  little — to  restrain  evil.  Yet  they  ac- 
complish so  much  by  unleashing  the  creative  energy  of 
men  fired  on  by  their  self-interest,  but  without  harm  to 
other  men. 

The  private-property  order  rests  on  the  solid  foundation 
of  the  ethical  commandments.  It  relies  on  the  state  and  its 
instruments  of  force  to  restrain  and  punish  the  violators.  It 
does  not,  however,  call  on  the  state  to  enforce  the  first  table 
commanding  man's  relationship  with  God.  (Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me;  thou  shalt  not  make  any 
graven  image;  thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  vain;  remember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.) 
Such  an  extension  of  the  state  would  integrate  or  syndicate 
church  and  state.  Government  officials  would  reign 
supreme  in  the  religious  affairs  of  the  people,  denying  re- 
ligious freedom  and  generating  bitter  religious  conflict,  and 


156  /  Hans  F.  Sennholz 

church  officials  would  labor  to  gain  power  over  the  state,  or 
at  least  to  exert  great  influence  over  the  religious  affairs  of 
the  state.  The  European  experience  with  church  and  state 
affiliation  throughout  the  centuries  has  been  rather  dis- 
heartening. 

The  state  and  its  instruments  of  force  receive  their  sole 
justification  from  their  use  and  employment  against  antiso- 
cial individuals  who  would  steal,  rob,  and  otherwise  dis- 
rupt the  peaceful  cooperation  of  society.  As  a  guardian  of 
the  peace,  the  state  is  a  very  beneficial  institution  that 
deserves  the  support  of  every  peaceful  individual.  Yet  its 
coercive  powers  must  be  limited  to  the  ethical  command- 
ments, the  protection  of  which  constitutes  the  very  raison 
d'etre  and  the  first  and  only  duty  of  the  state. 

Unfortunately,  government  never  comes  up  to  ideal 
standards.  Governments  the  world  over  are  enforcing  some 
parts  of  the  table  while  they  sanction  and  even  encourage 
the  disregard  of  others.  They  may  even  lend  their  instru- 
ments of  force  to  obvious  violations  of  ethical  laws,  which 
puts  every  individual  on  the  horns  of  a  dilemma:  if  the  poli- 
cies of  the  state  and  the  ethical  commandments  conflict 
with  each  other,  what  is  he  to  do?  Is  he  to  obey  the  state  or 
obey  the  commandments?  Most  people  choose  to  obey  the 
state  because  it  readily  and  brutally  enforces  its  laws.  A  few 
individuals  who  choose  to  live  by  God's  commandments 
rather  than  man's  unethical  laws  pay  dearly  for  their  defi- 
ance. They  face  armed  sheriffs  and  jailers  who  unhesitat- 
ingly punish  the  resisters. 

All  ten  commandments  have  a  bearing  on  economic 
affairs;^  three  constitute  the  visible  pillars  of  the  private- 
property  order:  thou  shalt  not  kill;  thou  shalt  not  steal;  thou 
shalt  not  bear  false  witness.  To  violate  any  one  of  them  is  to 
do  evil  and  do  economic  harm. 


A  Judeo-Christian  Foundation  /  157 


1.  R.  J.  Rushdcx)ny,  The  Institutes  of  Biblical  Law  (Nutley,  N.J.:  Craig 
Press,  1973);  also  The  Foundations  of  Social  Order:  Studies  in  the  Creeds  and 
Councils  of  the  Early  Church  (Fairfax,  Va.:  Thobum  Press,  1968;  1978); 
Gary  North,  The  Sinai  Strategy  (Tyler,  Tex.:  Institute  for  Christian  Eco- 
nomics, 1986);  Lord  John  E.E.D.  Acton,  Essays  on  Freedom  and  Power 
(Boston,  Mass.:  Beacon  Press,  1948);  also  A  Study  in  Conscience  and  Poli- 
tics (The  University  of  Chicago  Press,  1%2);  T.  N.  Carver,  Essays  in  Social 
justice  (Harvard  University  Press,  1915);  Gordon  H.  Clark,  A  Christian 
View  of  Men  and  Things  (Grand  Rapids,  Mich.:  Baker  Book  House,  1952). 

2.  The  first  commandment  proclaims  the  sovereign  power  of  God, 
who  calls  on  man  to  submit  to  His  law-order,  including  His  eternal  and 
inexorable  laws  of  economics.  The  second  commandment  prohibits 
man  from  worshipping  the  works  of  man,  esj:)ecially  the  state  and  its 
institutions.  The  third  commandment  exhorts  man  to  act  judiciously 
and  reverently  in  every  area  of  life,  including  his  economic  life.  The 
fourth  commandment  has  numerous  economic  implications  as  to  pro- 
duction and  distribution,  sabbath  legislation,  regulation,  and  enforce- 
ment. The  fifth  commandment  exhorts  children  to  honor  their  fathers 
and  mothers — spiritually  and  financially — so  that  they  may  prosper  for 
generations  to  come.  The  seventh  commandment  protects  the  family 
and  safeguards  social  peace  and  economic  productivity.  Cf.  R.  J.  Rush- 
doony.  The  Institutes  of  Biblical  Lau\  ibid.;  also  The  Foundations  of  Social 
Order:  Studies  in  the  Creeds  and  Councils  of  the  Early  Church,  ibid.;  Gary 
North,  The  Sinai  Strategy,  ibid. 


III.  THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education 
George  C.  Roche  III 


To  fully  appreciate  the  shortcomings  of  our  present  edu- 
cational framework  and  face  realistically  the  task  of 
rebuilding  it  requires  a  careful  and  complete  understand- 
ing of  the  concepts  we  value  in  society — a  "thinking 
through"  of  our  own  first  principles.  What  kind  of  educa- 
tional goals  do  we  really  desire? 

To  Plato,  proper  education  of  the  young  consisted  in 
helping  them  to  form  the  correct  mental  habits  for  living  by 
"the  rule  of  right  reason."  But,  how  do  we  define  right  rea- 
son? 

An  important  part  of  education  centers  on  the  attempts 
of  society  to  transmit  its  culture  to  the  rising  generation. 
What  are  the  accomplishments  of  past  generations?  What 
have  been  the  goals  and  values  by  which  society  has  lived? 
What  guidelines  should  be  available  to  the  rising  genera- 
tion as  it  faces  its  own  inevitable  problems? 

Still,  education  must  be  far  more  than  the  mere  indoctri- 
nation of  the  young  into  the  methods  of  the  past.  A  hall- 
mark of  Western  civilization  is  its  educational  focus  upon 
the  development  of  the  individual's  capacity  to  function  as 
an  individual,  tempered  by  recognition  of  the  common 
characteristics  imposed  upon  all  civilized  communities  by 
the  unchanging  aspects  of  human  nature.  In  this  sense,  the 


Dr.  Roche  is  president  of  Hillsdale  College.  This  article  appeared  in 
the  November  1968  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


161 


162  /  George  C.  Roche  III 

proper  goal  of  education  is  everywhere  the  same:  improve 
the  individual  as  an  individual,  stressing  the  peculiar  and 
unique  attributes  each  has  to  develop,  but  also  emphasiz- 
ing the  development  of  that  "higher  side"  shared  by  all 
men  when  true  to  their  nature.  This  educational  goal  might 
be  described  as  the  quest  for  "structured  freedom,"  free- 
dom for  the  individual  to  choose  within  a  framework  of  val- 
ues, values  universal  to  all  men  simply  because  they  are 
human  beings. 

A  Framework  of  Values 

Education  in  this  best  sense  requires  no  elaborate  para- 
phernalia. It  is  characterized,  not  by  elaborate  classrooms 
or  scientific  "methods,"  but  by  an  emphasis  upon  the  conti- 
nuity and  changelessness  of  the  human  condition.  The 
effort  to  free  the  creative  capacities  of  the  individual,  to 
allow  him  to  become  truly  himself,  must  recognize  the  val- 
ues which  past  generations  have  found  to  be  liberating, 
asking  that  each  new  generation  make  the  most  of  inherited 
values  while  striving  to  enrich  that  heritage.  True  education 
is  society's  attempt  to  enunciate  certain  ultimate  values 
upon  which  individuals,  and  hence  society,  may  safely 
build.  The  behavior  of  children  toward  their  parents, 
toward  their  responsibilities,  and  even  toward  the  learning 
process  itself  is  closely  tied  to  such  a  framework  of  values. 

Thus,  in  the  long  run,  the  relationship  we  develop 
between  teacher  and  pupil,  the  typ)e  of  learning  we  encour- 
age, the  manner  in  which  we  organize  our  school  systems, 
in  short,  the  total  meaning  we  give  to  the  word  "educa- 
tion," will  finally  be  determined  by  our  answers  to  certain 
key  questions  concerning  ultimate  values. 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education  /  163 

Those  who  built  the  Western  World  never  ques- 
tioned this  continuity  of  our  civilization  nor 
attempted  to  pluck  out  the  threads  that  run  through 
its  fabric.  Ever  since  the  Hebrews  and  Greeks  made 
their  great  contributions  to  Western  thought,  it  has 
been  taken  for  granted  that  through  the  life  of  the 
mind  man  can  transcend  his  physical  being  and 
reach  new  heights.  Self-realization,  discipline,  loy- 
alty, honor,  and  devotion  are  prevailing  concepts  in 
the  literatures,  philosophies,  and  moral  precepts 
that  have  shaped  amd  mirrored  Western  man  for  cen- 
turies.^ 

The  necessity  for  such  an  underlying  value  system  has 
been  well  established  in  the  work  of  such  eminent  social 
critics  of  our  age  as  C.  S.  Lewis  and  Richard  Weaver.  The 
case  for  such  an  underlying  system  must  not  depend  upon 
the  whims  of  debate  with  the  relativistic,  subjectivist 
spokesmen  who  today  dominate  so  much  of  American  edu- 
cation and  thought.  Those  who  hold  that  certain  civilized 
values  are  worthy  of  transmission  to  the  young,  that  some 
standards  are  acceptable  and  others  are  not,  are  on  firm 
ground  in  their  insistence  that  such  values  and  standards 
must  be  the  core  of  any  meaningful  educational  frame- 
work. 

Truth 

The  late  C.  S.  Lewis,  an  urbane  and  untiring  critic  of  the 
intellectual  tendencies  of  the  age,  used  the  word  Tao  to  con- 
vey the  core  of  values  and  standards  traditionally  and  uni- 
versally accepted  by  men,  in  the  Platonic,  Aristotelian, 


164  /  George  C.  Roche  III 

Stoic,  Christian,  and  Oriental  frameworks.  The  Tao  assumes 
a  fixed  standard  of  principle  and  sentiment,  an  objective 
order  to  the  universe,  a  higher  value  than  a  full  stomach.  As 
such,  the  Tao  presupposes  standards  quite  incompatible 
with  the  subjective,  relativist  suppositions  of  "modem" 
man.  We  are  told  by  the  relativists  that  the  Tao  must  be  set 
aside;  the  accumulated  wisdom  of  centuries,  the  values  of 
East  as  well  as  West,  of  Christian  and  non-Christian,  the 
striving  of  the  past  to  discover  the  higher  side  of  man  and 
man's  conduct,  must  not  stand  in  the  path  of  "progress." 
Thus,  the  "revolt"  of  the  "Now  Generation." 

Advances  in  technology  account  in  part  for  the  denial  of 
our  heritage.  Since  scientific  and  technological  knowledge 
tends  to  accumulate  (i.e.,  be  subject  to  empirical  verification 
as  correct  or  incorrect,  with  the  correct  then  added  to  the 
core  of  previously  verified  knowledge),  many  people 
assume  that  man's  scientific  progress  means  he  has  out- 
grown his  past  and  has  now  become  the  master  of  his  own 
fate.  Moral  questions  are  of  a  different  order.  Wisdom,  not 
science  or  technology,  points  the  way  for  progress  here.  For 
an  individual  to  be  inspired  by  the  wisdom  and  moral  rec- 
titude of  others,  he  must  first  make  such  wisdom  his  own. 
This  is  education  in  its  finest  sense. 

Plato's  "Rule  of  Right  Reason" 

To  grasp  the  accumulated  moral  wisdom  of  the  ages  is 
to  become  habituated  to  such  concerns  and  to  their  claims 
upon  one's  personal  conduct.  At  that  point,  the  rule  of  right 
reason,  the  goal  which  Plato  set  for  education,  becomes  the 
guiding  light  of  the  individual. 

This  rule  of  right  reason  could  provide  the  frame  of  ref- 
erence so  lacking  in  today's  society.  Many  modem  existen- 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education  /  165 

tialists  complain  that  the  world  is  meaningless  and  absurd. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  the  world  no  longer  has  meaning 
for  those  who  recognize  none  but  materialistic  values.  The 
world  of  reason  and  freedom,  the  real  world  in  which  it 
matters  a  great  deal  what  the  individual  chooses  to  do,  is 
revealed  only  in  the  spiritual  quality  of  man  that  so  many 
modems  deny.  It  is  this  higher  spiritual  quality  of  the  indi- 
vidual, evidenced  in  his  creative  capacity  to  choose,  which 
alone  can  give  meaning  to  life  and  transform  the  world  of 
the  individual.  This  is  the  recognition  of  those  higher  val- 
ues that  lead  to  Truth.  Such  an  awareness  on  the  part  of  the 
individual,  such  a  rule  of  right  reason,  will  be,  in 
Berdyaev's  words  "...  the  triumph  of  the  realm  of  spirit 
over  that  of  Caesar.  .  .  ."  This  triumph  must  be  achieved 
anew  by  each  individual  as  he  strives  for  maturity  . . .  and 
his  struggle  for  maturity  constitutes  the  educative  process. 

A  Higher  Law 

Despite  our  vaunted  "modern  breakthroughs  in  knowl- 
edge," it  is  doubtful  that  anyone  now  alive  possesses  more 
wisdom  than  a  Plato,  an  Epictetus,  a  Paul,  or  an  Augustine. 
Yet  much  of  what  passes  for  "education"  in  our  time  either 
denies  this  accumulation  of  past  wisdom  or  belittles  it  in 
the  eyes  of  the  student.  Truth,  after  all,  is  a  measure  of  what 
is,  a  measure  of  an  infinite  realm  within  which  the  individ- 
ual is  constantly  striving  to  improve  his  powers  of  percep- 
tion. As  the  individual  draws  upon  his  heritage  and  applies 
self-discipline,  he  comes  to  recognize  more  and  more  of 
that  truth  and  to  understand  it.  The  individual  is  thus  able 
to  find  himself  and  his  place  in  the  universe,  to  become 
truly  free,  by  recognizing  a  fixed  truth,  a  definite  right  and 
wrong,  not  subject  to  change  by  human  whim  or  political 


166  /  George  C.  Roche  III 

dictate.  The  individual  can  only  be  free  when  he  serves  a 
higher  truth  than  political  decree  or  unchecked  appetite. 

Such  a  definition  of  freedom  in  consonance  with  a 
higher  law  has  its  roots  deep  in  the  consciousness  of  civi- 
lized man. 

In  early  Hinduism  that  conduct  in  men  which  can  be 
called  good  consists  in  conformity  to,  or  almost  par- 
ticipation in,  the  Rta — that  great  ritual  or  pattern  of 
nature  and  supemature  which  is  revealed  alike  in 
the  cosmic  order,  the  moral  virtues,  and  the  ceremo- 
nial of  the  temple.  Righteousness,  correctness,  order, 
the  Rta,  is  constantly  identified  with  satya  or  truth, 
correspondence  to  reality.  As  Plato  said  that  the 
Good  was  "beyond  existence"  and  Wordsworth  that 
through  virtue  the  stars  were  strong,  so  the  Indian 
masters  say  that  the  gods  themselves  are  bom  of  the 
Rta  and  obey  it. 

The  Chinese  also  sp^eak  of  a  great  thing  (the 
greatest  thing)  called  the  Tao.  It  is  the  reality  beyond 
all  predicates,  the  abyss  that  was  before  the  Creator 
Himself.  It  is  Nature,  it  is  the  Way,  the  Road.  It  is  the 
Way  in  which  the  universe  goes  on,  the  Way  in 
which  things  everlastingly  emerge,  stilly  and  tran- 
quilly, into  space  and  time.  It  is  also  the  Way  which 
every  man  should  tread  in  imitation  of  that  cosmic 
and  super-cosmic  progression,  conforming  all  activ- 
ities to  that  great  exemplar.  "In  ritual,"  say  the 
Analects,  "it  is  harmony  with  Nature  that  is  prized." 
The  ancient  Jews  likewise  praise  the  Law  as  being 
"true."2 

Thus,  the  Christian  insistence  that  man  must  order  his 
affairs  according  to  a  higher  law  is  far  from  unique.  Such  a 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education  /  167 

view  has  been  held  in  common  by  all  civilized  men.  Our 
own  early  institutions  of  higher  learning  were  deeply  com- 
mitted to  the  transmission  of  such  a  heritage.  The  nine  col- 
leges founded  in  America  in  the  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries,  (Harvard,  Yale,  Brown,  Dartmouth, 
Columbia,  Princeton,  Pennsylvania,  Rutgers,  and  William 
and  Mary)  were  all  of  religious  origin.  Such  was  the  early 
American  view  of  education. 

Human  Freedom  and  the  Soul  of  Man 

There  is  a  measure  of  truth  in  the  Grand  Inquisitor's 
assertion  that  many  people  do  not  wish  to  be  free.  Freedom 
can  be  painful,  and  someone  like  the  Grand  Inquisitor  usu- 
ally is  at  hand,  quite  willing  to  take  over  the  chore  of  mak- 
ing decisions  for  others.  Those  civilizations  which  have 
prospered,  however,  have  been  peopled  by  those  who 
appreciated  the  transcendent  importance  of  their  individu- 
ality and  who  valued  the  freedom  necessary  for  its  expres- 
sion and  fulfillment.  "Education  is  not,  as  Bacon  thought,  a 
means  of  showing  people  how  to  get  what  they  want;  edu- 
cation is  an  exercise  by  means  of  which  enough  men,  it  is 
hoped,  will  learn  to  want  what  is  worth  having." 

Education  is  an  exercise  by  which  men  will  learn  to 
want  what  is  worth  having.  This  is  a  recurrent  idea  among 
Western  thinkers.  Aristotle  wrote  that  the  proper  aim  of 
education  was  to  make  the  pupil  like  and  dislike  the  proper 
things.  Augustine  defined  the  proper  role  of  education  as 
that  which  accorded  to  every  object  in  the  universe  the  kind 
and  degree  of  love  appropriate  to  it.  In  Plato's  Republic,  the 
well-educated  youth  is  described  as  one  . . . 

who  would  see  most  clearly  whatever  was  amiss  in 
ill-made  works  of  man  or  ill-grown  works  of  nature. 


168  /  George  C.  Roche  III 

and  with  a  just  distaste  would  blame  and  hate  the 
ugly  even  from  his  earliest  years  and  would  give 
delighted  praise  to  beauty,  receiving  it  into  his  soul 
and  being  nourished  by  it,  so  that  he  becomes  a  man 
of  gentle  heart.  All  this  before  he  is  of  an  age  to  rea- 
son; so  that  when  Reason  at  length  comes  to  him, 
then,  bred  as  he  has  been,  he  will  hold  out  his  hands 
in  welcome  and  recognize  her  because  of  the  affinity 
he  bears  to  her. 

What  is  this  higher  side  of  human  nature  which  can  be 
cultivated,  this  higher  side  of  man  which  will  learn  to  want 
what  is  worth  having?  According  to  the  standards  of  West- 
ern civilization,  it  is  the  human  soul. 

If  we  seek  the  prime  root  of  all  this,  we  are  led  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  full  philosophical  reality  of 
that  concept  of  the  soul,  so  variegated  in  its  connota- 
tions, which  Aristotle  described  as  the  first  principle 
of  life  in  any  organism  and  viewed  as  endowed  with 
supramaterial  intellect  in  man,  and  which  Christian- 
ity revealed  as  the  dwelling  place  of  God  and  as 
made  for  eternal  life.  In  the  flesh  and  bones  of  man 
there  exists  a  soul  which  is  a  spirit  and  which  has  a 
greater  value  than  the  whole  physical  universe. 
Dependent  though  we  may  be  upon  the  lightest  acci- 
dents of  matter,  the  human  person  exists  by  the 
virtue  of  the  existence  of  his  soul,  which  dominates 
time  and  death.  It  is  the  spirit  which  is  the  root  of 
personality."* 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education  /  169 
Our  Choices  Affect  Our  Lives 

Some  of  those  who  espouse  the  idea  of  freedom  are 
quick  to  declaim  such  terms  as  soul,  God,  or  Higher  Law, 
feeling  that  such  "mysticism"  denies  the  individual  the 
capacity  to  freely  choose  since  it  binds  him  to  a  higher 
Authority.  This  is  a  groundless  fear.  In  fact,  the  whole  idea 
of  a  higher  law  and  a  God-given  capacity  for  individual 
free  choice  only  opens  the  door  into  a  world  in  which  man 
is  constantly  remaking  the  world  as  he  modifies  and 
expands  his  own  horizons.  It  is  precisely  the  fact  that  the 
soul  of  the  individual  derives  from  a  higher  order  of  nature 
that  allows  man  to  constantly  remake  the  world  and  his 
own  life  according  to  his  own  understanding  and  his  own 
perception.  This  is  the  source  of  the  self-discipline  which 
produces  honor,  integrity,  courage,  and  the  other  attributes 
of  civilized  man.  This  is  the  source  of  the  framework  within 
which  all  meaningful,  civilized  choice  takes  place. 

Still,  the  existentialists  may  be  right  about  one  point.  It 
is  true  that  man  finds  himself  encased  within  a  body  and  a 
material  existence  which  he  did  not  choose.  It  is  also  true 
that  he  finds  himself  limited  by  the  ideas  peculiar  to  his 
time.  Even  if  he  chooses  to  fight  such  ideas,  the  very  nature 
of  that  choice  and  struggle  is  determined  by  the  ideas  he 
finds  around  him.  This  is  why  man  is  at  once  the  molder 
and  the  molded,  the  actor  and  acted  upon  of  history.  We  are 
all  a  part  of  an  existential  situation  that  is,  and  yet  is  not,  of 
our  own  making.  In  a  very  real  sense  of  the  word,  we  are 
shaped  by  generations  long  past,  yet  have  a  role  to  play  in 
the  shaping  process  for  generations  to  come.  It  is  this  capac- 


170  /  George  C  Roche  III 

ity  to  choose,  limited  by  the  framework  we  have  inherited, 
which  man  must  come  to  understand  and  deal  with  if  he  is 
to  be  truly  "educated." 

In  principle,  therefore,  it  does  not  matter  whether 
one  generation  applauds  the  previous  generation  or 
hisses  it — in  either  event,  it  carries  the  previous  gen- 
eration within  itself.  If  the  image  were  not  so 
baroque,  we  might  present  the  generations  not  hori- 
zontally but  vertically,  one  on  top  of  the  other,  like 
acrobats  in  the  circus  making  a  human  tower.  Rising 
one  on  the  shoulders  of  another,  he  who  is  on  top 
enjoys  the  sensation  of  dominating  the  rest;  but  he 
should  also  note  that  at  the  same  time  he  is  the  pris- 
oner of  the  others.  This  would  serve  to  warn  us  that 
what  has  passed  is  not  merely  the  past  and  nothing 
more,  that  we  are  not  riding  free  in  the  air  but  stand- 
ing on  its  shoulders,  that  we  are  in  and  of  the  past,  a 
most  definite  past  which  continues  the  human  tra- 
jectory up  to  the  present  moment,  which  could  have 
been  very  different  from  what  it  was,  but  which, 
once  having  been,  is  irremediable — it  is  our  present, 
in  which,  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  we  thrash  about 
like  shipwrecked  sailors.^ 

Unless  he  seeks  only  the  freedom  of  shipwrecked 
sailors,  freedom  to  drown  in  an  existential  sea,  the  individ- 
ual desperately  needs  to  recognize  that  his  truly  liberating 
capacity  to  choose  is  hinged  upon  a  moral  framework  and 
certain  civilized  preconditions  which  at  once  limit  and 
enhance  his  choice.  It  is  this  recognition  that  constitutes  civ- 
ilization. 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education  /  171 
Civilized  Man 

What  is  it  then,  that  civihzed  man  comes  to  value?  One 
possible  answer  is  given  by  Harold  Gray,  the  creator  of  Lit- 
tle Orphan  Annie  and  of  the  equally  delightful  Maw  Green, 
Irish  washerwoman  and  homey  philosopher  par  excellence. 
In  one  of  Gray's  comic  strips,  he  confronts  Maw  Green  with 
a  slobbering,  unkempt,  aggressive  boob,  who  shouts,  "I  got 
rights,  ain't  I?  I'm  as  good  as  any  o'  those  big  shots! 
Nobody's  better'n  me\  I  say  all  men  are  bom  equal!  Ain't  that 
right?" 

Maw  Green  maintains  her  boundless  good  humor  and 
agrees  that  all  men  are  indeed  bom  equal,  but  she  turns 
aside  to  confide  to  the  reader,  "But  thank  Hiven  a  lot  of 
folks  outgrow  it!" 

Perhaps  that  civilizing  task  of  "outgrowing  it"  is  how 
the  educative  process  can  best  help  the  individual.  Yet  in  a 
time  of  collapsing  standards,  of  "campus  revolts,"  such  a 
task  for  the  educative  process  seems  impossible  of  fulfill- 
ment. If  so,  Mario  Savio  and  Mark  Rudd  may  be  samples  of 
things  to  come,  of  tomorrow's  torchbearers  upon  whom 
our  civilization  depends. 

Surely,  such  a  prospect  is  frightening  to  most  of  us.  If  we 
are  to  avoid  such  a  fate,  the  underlying  problem  must  be 
faced  squarely:  Does  a  proper  definition  of  the  nature  of  the 
universe  and  the  nature  and  role  of  man  within  the  uni- 
verse presuppose  the  existence  of  a  fixed  standard  of  value, 
universally  applicable  to  all  men  at  all  times?  To  accept 
such  a  view  is  to  challenge  directly  the  root  assumption  of 
the  modem  world  ...  a  world  unwilling  to  accept  the  disci- 
pline inherent  in  such  a  fixed  value  system,  a  world  finding 
self-congratulation  in  its  illusory  man-made  heaven  on 


172  /  George  C.  Roche  III 

earth,  a  heaven  blending  equal  portions  of  subjectivism  and 
relativism. 

Man  Must  Be  Free  to  Choose 

There  have  been  among  us  those  men  of  intellect  and 
integrity  who  have  challenged  the  dominant  mentality  of 
the  age,  warning  that  man  must  be  free  to  choose  and  yet 
properly  instructed  in  the  making  of  his  choice.  They  have 
insisted  that  proper  values  can  emerge  and  be  defined  by 
the  passage  of  time  and  the  accumulation  of  human  experi- 
ence. This  accumulated  wisdom,  this  framework  of  values, 
thus  provides  an  enhancement  of  meaningful  choice,  not 
limiting  but  rather  clarifying,  the  individual's  power  to 
decide.  Such  individual  choice,  plus  the  framework  within 
which  that  choice  takes  place,  is  a  reflection  of  higher  val- 
ues than  society  itself: 

Freedom  of  the  human  personality  cannot  be  given 
by  society,  and  by  its  source  and  nature  it  cannot 
depend  upon  society — it  belongs  to  man  himself,  as 
a  spiritual  being.  And  society,  unless  it  makes  totali- 
tarian claims,  can  only  recognize  this  freedom.  This 
basic  truth  about  freedom  was  reflected  in  the  doc- 
trines of  natural  law,  of  the  rights  of  man,  indepen- 
dent of  the  state,  of  freedom,  not  only  as  freedom 
within  society,  but  freedom  from  society  with  its  lim- 
itless claims  on  man.^ 

To  a  maverick  like  Berdyaev,  freedom  was  the  key  word, 
but  even  he  admitted  that  man  was  a  spiritual  being  and 
that  nature  had  her  own  laws  demanding  respect  from  the 
individual  as  he  made  his  choices. 


Freedom,  Morality,  and  Education  /  173 

Many  others  in  the  civilized  tradition  of  individual  free- 
dom and  a  fixed  moral  framework  have  perceived  that  the 
individual  must  be  not  only  free,  but  sufficiently  educated 
in  the  proper  values  to  permit  intelligent  choice.  Albert  Jay 
Nock,  for  instance,  believed  that 

.  .  .  the  Great  Tradition  would  go  on  "because  the 
forces  of  nature  are  on  its  side,"  and  it  had  an  invin- 
cible ally,  "the  self-preserving  instinct  of  humanity." 
Men  could  forsake  it,  but  come  back  to  it  they 
would.  They  had  to,  for  their  collective  existence 
could  not  permanently  go  on  without  it.  Whole  soci- 
eties might  deny  it,  as  America  had  done,  substitut- 
ing bread  and  buncombe,  power  and  riches  or  expe- 
diency; "but  in  the  end,  they  will  find,  as  so  many 
societies  have  already  found,  that  they  must  return 
and  seek  the  regenerative  power  of  the  Great  Tradi- 
tion, or  lapse  into  decay  and  death."'' 

Nock  was  not  alone  in  his  insistence  upon  such  stan- 
dards for  the  education  of  future  generations.  He  stood  in 
the  distinguished  company  of  such  men  as  Paul  Elmer 
More,  T.  S.  Eliot,  C.  S.  Lewis,  and  Gilbert  K.  Chesterton,  to 
name  but  a  few  of  the  defenders  of  the  Great  Tradition. 
These  have  been  the  civilized  men  of  our  age. 

With  Canon  Bernard  Iddings  Bell,  the  distinguished 
Episcopal  clergyman  who  saw  so  clearly  the  tendency  of 
our  times,  we  might  ponder  our  future: 

I  am  quite  sure  that  the  trouble  with  us  has  been  that 
we  have  not  seriously  and  bravely  put  to  ourselves 
the  question,  "What  is  man?"  or,  if  and  when  we 
have  asked  it,  we  have  usually  been  content  with 


174  /  George  C.  Roche  III 

answers  too  easy  and  too  superficial.  Most  of  us 
were  trained  to  believe — and  we  have  gone  on  the 
assumption  ever  since — that  in  order  to  be  modem 
and  intelligent  and  scholarly  all  that  is  required  is  to 
avoid  asking  "Why  am  I?"  and  immerse  oneself  in  a 
vast  detail  of  specialized  study  and  in  ceaseless 
activity.  We  have  been  so  busy  going  ahead  that  we 
have  lost  any  idea  of  where  it  is  exactly  that  we  are 
going  or  trying  to  go.  This  is,  I  do  believe,  the  thing 
that  has  ruined  the  world  in  the  last  half  century.^ 

We  have  lost  our  philosophic  way  in  the  educational 
community.  We  have  often  forgotten  the  moral  necessity  of 
freedom,  and  have  usually  forgotten  the  self-discipline 
which  freedom  must  reflect  if  it  is  to  function  within  the 
moral  order.  As  parents,  as  human  beings,  as  members  of 
society,  we  must  insist  that  our  educational  framework  pro- 
duce neither  automatons  nor  hellions.  The  individual  must 
be  free  to  choose,  yet  must  be  provided  with  a  framework 
of  values  within  which  meaningful,  civilized  choice  can 
take  place.  That  two-fold  lesson  must  lie  at  the  heart  of  any 
renaissance  of  American  education. 

1.  Thomas  Molnar,  The  Future  of  Education,  p.  30. 

2.  C.  S.  Lewis,  The  Abolition  of  Man,  pp.  27-28. 

3.  ''Science  and  Human  Freedom/'  Manas,  February  28, 1968,  p.  7. 

4.  Jacques  Maritain,  Education  at  the  Crossroads,  p.  8. 

5.  Jos^  Ortega  y  Gasset,  Man  and  Crisis,  pp.  53-54. 

6.  Nicholas  Berdyaev,  The  Realm  of  Spirit  and  The  Realm  of  Caesar,  pp. 
59-60. 

7.  Robert  M.  Crunden,  The  Mind  &  Art  of  Albert  Jay  Nock,  p.  134. 

8.  Bernard  Iddings  Bell,  Crisis  in  Education,  p.  162. 


Morals  and  Liberty 
E  A.  Harper 


To  many  persons,  the  welfare  state  has  become  a  symbol 
of  morality  and  righteousness.  This  makes  those  who  favor 
the  welfare  state  appear  to  be  the  true  architects  of  a  better 
world;  those  who  oppose  it,  immoral  rascals  who  might  be 
expected  to  rob  banks  or  to  do  most  anything  in  defiance  of 
ethical  conduct.  But  is  this  so?  Is  the  banner  of  morality, 
when  applied  to  the  concept  of  the  welfare  state,  one  that  is 
true  or  false? 

Now  what  is  the  test  of  morality  or  immorality  to  be 
applied  to  the  welfare  state  idea?  1  should  like  to  pose  five 
fundamental  ethical  concepts,  as  postulates,  by  which  to 
test  it.  They  are  the  ethical  precepts  found  in  the  true  Chris- 
tian religion — true  to  its  original  foundations;  and  they  are 
likewise  found  in  other  religious  faiths,  wherever  and 
under  whatever  name  these  other  religious  concepts  assist 
persons  to  perceive  and  practice  the  moral  truths  of  human 
conduct. 


After  teaching  at  Cornell  University  for  several  years.  Dr.  Harper 
(1905-1973)  joined  the  staff  of  The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education 
during  its  inaugural  year  of  1946.  In  1961,  he  founded  the  Institute  for 
Humane  Studies,  Inc.,  now  located  in  Fairfax,  Virgiiua.  This  article 
appeared  in  the  July  1971  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


175 


176  /  F.  A.  Harper 
Moral  Postulate  No.  1 

Economics  and  morals  are  both  parts  of  one  insepara- 
ble body  of  truth.  They  must,  therefore,  be  in  harmony 
with  one  another.  What  is  right  morally  must  also  be  right 
economically,  and  vice  versa.  Since  morals  are  a  guide  to 
betterment  and  to  self-protection,  economic  policies  that 
violate  moral  truth,  will,  with  certainty,  cause  degeneration 
and  self-destruction. 

This  postulate  may  seem  simple  and  self-evident.  Yet 
many  economists  and  others  of  my  acquaintance,  including 
one  who  was  a  most  capable  and  admired  teacher,  presume 
to  draw  some  kind  of  an  impassable  line  of  distinction 
between  morals  and  economics.  Such  persons  fail  to  test 
their  economic  concepts  against  their  moral  precepts.  Some 
even  scorn  the  moral  base  for  testing  economic  concepts,  as 
though  it  would  somehow  pollute  their  economic  purity. 

An  unusually  capable  minister  recently  said  that  only  a 
short  time  before,  for  the  first  time,  he  had  come  to  realize  j 
the  close  connection  and  interharmony  that  exist  between 
morals  and  economics.  He  had  always  tried  to  reserve  one  j 
compartment  for  his  religious  thought  and  another  sepa- 
rate one  for  his  economic  thought.  "Fortunately,"  he  said,  in 
essence,  "my  economic  thinking  happened  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  my  religious  beliefs;  but  it  frightens  me  now  to 
realize  the  risk  1  was  taking  in  ignoring  the  harmony  that 
must  exist  between  the  two." 

This  viewpoint — that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  j 
between  morals  and  economics — is  all  too  prevalent.  It 
explains,  I  believe,  why  immoral  economic  acts  are  toler- 
ated, if  not  actively  promoted,  by  persons  of  high  repute 
who  otherwise  may  be  considered  to  be  persons  of  high 
moral  standards. 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  177 
Moral  Postulate  No.  2 

There  is  a  force  in  the  universe  which  no  mortal  can 
alter.  Neither  you  nor  I  nor  any  earthly  potentate  with  all 
his  laws  and  edicts  can  alter  this  rule  of  the  universe,  no 
matter  how  great  one's  popularity  in  his  position  of  power. 
Some  call  this  force  God.  Others  call  it  Natural  Law.  Still 
others  call  it  the  Suj:>ematural.  But  no  matter  how  one  may 
wish  to  name  it,  there  is  a  force  which  rules  without  surren- 
der to  any  mortal  man  or  group  of  men — a  force  that  is 
oblivious  to  anyone  who  presumes  to  elevate  himself  and 
his  wishes  above  its  rule. 

This  concept  is  the  basis  for  all  relationships  of  cause 
and  consequence — all  science — whether  it  be  something 
already  discovered  or  something  yet  to  be  discovered.  Its 
scope  includes  phenomena  such  as  those  of  physics  and 
chemistry;  it  also  includes  those  of  human  conduct.  The  so- 
called  Law  of  Gravity  is  one  expression  of  Natural  Law.  Sci- 
entific discovery  means  the  unveiling  to  human  perception 
of  something  that  has  always  existed.  If  it  had  not  existed 
prior  to  the  discovery — even  though  we  were  ignorant  of 
it — it  could  not  have  been  there  to  be  discovered.  That  is  the 
meaning  of  the  concept  of  Natural  Law. 

This  view — there  exists  a  Natural  Law  which  rules  over 
the  affairs  of  human  conduct — will  be  challenged  by  some 
who  point  out  that  man  possesses  the  capacity  for  choice; 
that  man's  activity  reflects  a  quality  lacking  in  the  chem- 
istry of  a  stone  and  in  the  physical  principle  of  the  lever.  But 
this  trait  of  man— this  capacity  for  choice— does  not  release 
him  from  the  rule  of  cause  and  effect,  which  he  can  neither 
veto  nor  alter.  What  the  capacity  for  choice  means,  instead, 
is  that  he  is  thereby  enabled,  by  his  own  choice,  to  act  either 
wisely  or  unwisely — that  is,  in  either  accord  or  discord  with 


178  /  f.  A.  Harper 

the  truths  of  Natural  Law.  But  once  he  has  made  his  choice, 
the  inviolate  rule  of  cause  and  consequence  takes  over  with 
an  iron  hand  of  justice,  and  renders  unto  the  doer  either  a 
prize  or  a  penalty,  as  the  consequence  of  his  choice. 

It  is  important,  at  this  point,  to  note  that  morality  presumes 
the  existence  of  choice.  One  cannot  he  truly  moral  except  as  there 
exists  the  option  of  being  immoral,  and  except  as  he  selects  the 
moral  rather  than  the  immoral  option.  In  the  admirable  words  of 
Thomas  Davidson:  "That  which  is  not  free  is  not  responsible,  and 
that  which  is  not  responsible  is  not  moral."  This  means  that  free 
choice  is  a  prerequisite  of  morality. 

If  I  surrender  my  freedom  of  choice  to  a  ruler — by  vote 
or  otherwise — I  am  still  subject  to  the  superior  rule  of  Nat- 
ural Law  or  Moral  Law.  Although  I  am  subservient  to  the 
ruler  who  orders  me  to  violate  truth,  I  must  still  pay  the 
penalty  for  the  evil  or  foolish  acts  in  which  I  engage  at  his 
command. 

Under  this  postulate — that  there  is  a  force  in  the  uni- 
verse which  no  mortal  can  alter — ignorance  of  Moral  Law 
is  no  excuse  to  those  who  violate  it,  because  Moral  Law 
rules  over  the  consequences  of  ignorance  the  same  as  over 
the  consequences  of  wisdom.  This  is  true  whether  the  igno- 
rance is  accompanied  by  good  intentions  or  not;  whether  it 
is  carried  out  under  the  name  of  some  religion  or  the  wel- 
fare state  or  whatnot. 

What,  then,  is  the  content  of  a  basic  moral  code?  What 
are  the  rules  which,  if  followed,  will  better  the  condition  of 
men? 

Moral  Postulate  No.  3 

The  Golden  Rule  and  the  Decalogue,  and  their  near 
equivalents  in  other  great  religions,  provide  the  basic 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  179 

moral  codes  for  man's  conduct.  The  Golden  Rule  and  the 
Decalogue  are  basic  moral  guides  having  priority  over  all 
other  considerations.  It  is  these  which  have  guided  the  con- 
duct of  man  in  all  progressive  civilizations.  With  their  vio- 
lation has  come  the  downfall  of  individuals  and  civiliza- 
tions. 

Some  may  prefer  as  a  moral  code  something  like:  "Do  as 
God  would  have  us  do/'  or  "Do  as  Jesus  would  have  done." 
But  such  as  these,  alone,  are  not  adequate  guides  to  conduct 
unless  they  are  explained  further,  or  unless  they  serve  as 
symbolic  of  a  deeper  specific  meaning.  What  would  God 
have  us  do?  What  would  Jesus  have  done?  Only  by  adding 
some  guides  such  as  the  Golden  Rule  and  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments can  we  know  the  answers  to  these  questions. 

The  Golden  Rule — the  rule  of  refraining  from  imposing 
on  others  what  I  would  not  have  them  impose  on  me — 
means  that  moral  conduct  for  one  is  moral  conduct  for 
another;  that  there  is  not  one  set  of  moral  guides  for  Jones 
and  another  for  Smith;  that  the  concept  of  equality  under 
Moral  Law  is  a  part  of  morality  itself.  This  alone  is  held  by 
many  to  be  an  adequate  moral  code.  But  in  spite  of  its 
importance  as  part  of  the  moral  code  of  conduct  in  this 
respect,  the  Golden  Rule  is  not,  it  seems  to  me,  sufficient 
unto  itself.  It  is  no  more  sufficient  than  the  mere  admoni- 
tion, "Do  good,"  which  leaves  undefined  what  is  good  and 
what  is  evil.  The  murderer,  who  at  the  time  of  the  crime  felt 
justified  in  committing  it,  can  quote  the  Golden  Rule  in  self- 
defense:  "If  I  had  done  what  that  so-and-so  did,  and  had 
acted  as  he  acted,  I  would  consider  it  fair  and  proper  for 
someone  to  murder  me."  And  likewise  the  thief  may  argue 
that  if  he  were  like  the  one  he  has  robbed,  or  if  he  were  a 
bank  harboring  all  those  "ill-gotten  gains,"  he  would  con- 
sider himself  the  proper  object  of  robbery.  Some  claim  that 


180  /  K  A.  Harper 

justification  for  the  welfare  state,  too,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Golden  Rule.  So,  in  addition  to  the  Golden  Rule,  further 
rules  are  needed  as  guides  for  moral  conduct. 

The  Decalogue  embodies  the  needed  guides  on  which 
the  Golden  Rule  can  function.  But  within  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, the  two  with  which  we  shall  be  especially  con- 
cerned herein  are:  (1)  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  (2)  Thou  shalt 
not  covet. 

The  Decalogue  serves  as  a  guide  to  moral  conduct 
which,  if  violated,  brings  upon  the  violator  a  commensu- 
rate penalty.  There  may  be  other  guides  to  moral  conduct 
which  one  might  wish  to  add  to  the  Golden  Rule  and  the 
Decalogue,  as  supplements  or  substitutes.  But  they  serve  as 
the  basis  on  which  others  are  built.  Their  essence,  in  one 
form  or  another,  seems  to  run  through  all  great  religions. 
That,  I  believe,  is  not  a  happenstance,  because  if  we 
embrace  them  as  a  guide  to  our  conduct,  our  conduct  will 
be  both  morally  and  economically  sound. 

This  third  postulate  embodies  what  are  judged  to  be  the 
principles  which  should  guide  individual  conduct  as  infalli- 
bly as  the  compass  should  guide  the  mariner.  "Being  prac- 
tical" is  a  common  popular  guide  to  conduct;  principles  are 
scorned,  if  not  forgotten.  Those  who  scorn  principles  assert 
that  it  is  foolish  to  concern  ourselves  with  them;  that  it  is 
hopeless  to  expect  their  complete  adoption  by  everyone. 
But  does  this  fact  make  a  principle  worthless?  Are  we  to 
conclude  that  the  moral  code  against  murder  is  worthless 
because  of  its  occasional  violation?  Or  that  the  compass  is 
worthless  because  not  everyone  pursues  to  the  ultimate  the 
direction  which  it  indicates?  Or  that  the  law  of  gravity  is 
made  impractical  or  inoperative  by  someone  walking  off  a 
cliff  and  meeting  death  because  of  his  ignorance  of  this 
principle?  No.  A  principle  remains  a  principle  in  spite  of  its 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  181 

being  ignored  or  violated — or  even  unknown.  A  principle, 
like  a  compass,  gives  one  a  better  sense  of  direction,  if  he  is 
wise  enough  to  know  and  to  follow  its  guidance. 

Moral  Postulate  No.  4 

Moral  principles  are  not  subject  to  compromise.  The 
Golden  Rule  and  the  Decalogue,  as  representing  moral 
principles,  are  precise  and  strict.  They  are  not  a  code  of  con- 
venience. A  principle  can  be  broken,  but  it  cannot  be  bent. 

If  the  Golden  Rule  and  the  Decalogue  were  to  be 
accepted  as  a  code  of  convenience,  to  be  laid  aside  or  mod- 
ified whenever  "necessity  seems  to  justify  it"  (whenever, 
that  is,  one  desires  to  act  in  violation  of  them),  they  would 
not  then  be  serving  as  moral  guides.  A  moral  guide  which 
is  to  be  followed  only  when  one  would  so  conduct  himself 
anyhow,  in  its  absence,  has  no  effect  on  his  conduct,  and  is 
not  a  guide  to  him  at  all. 

The  unbending  rule  of  a  moral  principle  can  be  illus- 
trated by  some  simple  applications.  According  to  one  Com- 
mandment, it  is  wholly  wrong  to  steal  all  your  neighbor's 
cow;  it  is  also  wholly  wrong  to  steal  half  your  neighbor's 
cow,  not  half  wrong  to  steal  half  your  neighbor's  cow.  Rob- 
bing a  bank  is  wrong  in  principle,  whether  the  thief  makes 
off  with  a  million  dollars  or  a  hundred  dollars  or  one  cent. 
A  person  can  rob  a  bank  of  half  its  money,  but  in  the  sense 
of  moral  principle  there  is  no  way  to  half  rob  a  bank;  you 
either  rob  it  or  you  do  not  rob  it. 

In  like  manner,  the  law  of  gravity  is  precise  and  indivis- 
ible. One  either  acts  in  harmony  with  this  law  or  he  does 
not.  There  is  no  sense  in  saying  that  one  has  only  half- 
observed  the  law  of  gravity  if  he  falls  off  a  cliff  only  half  as 
high  as  another  cliff  off  which  he  might  have  fallen. 


182  /  f.  A.  Harper 

Moral  laws  are  strict.  They  rule  without  flexibility. 
They  know  not  the  language  of  man;  they  are  not  conver- 
sant with  him  in  the  sense  of  compassion.  They  employ  no 
man-made  devices  like  the  suspended  sentence — 
"Guilty"  or  "Not  guilty"  is  the  verdict  of  judgment  by  a 
moral  principle. 

As  moral  guides,  the  Golden  Rule  and  the  Decalogue 
are  not  evil  and  dangerous  things,  like  a  painkilling  drug, 
to  be  taken  in  cautious  moderation,  if  at  all.  Presuming 
them  to  be  the  basic  guides  of  what  is  right  and  good  for 
civilized  man,  one  cannot  overindulge  in  them.  Good  need 
not  be  practiced  in  moderation. 

Moral  Postulate  No.  5 

Good  ends  cannot  be  attained  by  evil  means.  As  stated 
in  the  second  postulate,  there  is  a  force  controlling  cause 
and  consequence  which  no  mortal  can  alter,  in  spite  of  any 
position  of  influence  or  power  which  he  may  hold.  Cause 
and  consequence  are  linked  inseparably. 

An  evil  begets  an  evil  consequence;  a  good,  a  good  con- 
sequence. Good  intentions  cannot  alter  this  relationship. 
Nor  can  ignorance  of  the  consequence  change  its  form.  Nor 
can  words.  For  one  to  say,  after  committing  an  evil  act,  "I'm 
sorry,  I  made  a  mistake,"  changes  not  one  iota  the  conse- 
quence of  the  act;  repentance,  at  best,  can  serve  only  to  pre- 
vent repetition  of  the  evil  act,  and  perhaps  assure  the  repen- 
ter  a  more  preferred  place  in  a  Hereafter.  But  repentance 
alone  does  not  bring  back  to  life  a  murdered  person,  nor 
return  the  loot  to  the  one  who  was  robbed.  Nor  does  it,  I 
believe,  fully  obliterate  the  scars  of  evil  on  the  doer  himself. 

Nor  does  saying,  "He  told  me  to  do  it,"  change  the  con- 
sequence of  an  evil  act  into  a  good  one.  For  an  evildoer  to 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  183 

assert,  "But  it  was  the  law  of  my  government,  the  decree  of 
my  ruler,"  fails  to  dethrone  God  or  to  frustrate  the  rule  of 
Natural  Law. 

The  belief  that  good  ends  are  attainable  through  evil 
means  is  one  of  the  most  vicious  concepts  of  the  ages.  The 
political  blueprint.  The  Prince,  written  around  the  year  1500 
by  Machiavelli,  outlined  this  notorious  doctrine.  And  for 
the  past  century  it  has  been  part  and  parcel  of  the  kit  of 
tools  used  by  the  Marxian  communist-socialists  to  mislead 
people.  Its  use  probably  is  as  old  as  the  conflict  between 
temptation  and  conscience,  because  it  affords  a  seemingly 
rational  and  pleaseint  detour  around  the  inconveniences  of 
one's  conscience. 

We  know  how  power-hungry  persons  have  gained 
political  control  over  others  by  claiming  that  they  somehow 
possess  a  special  dispensation  from  God  to  do  good 
through  the  exercise  of  means  which  our  moral  code  iden- 
tifies as  evil.  Thus  arises  a  multiple  standard  of  morals.  It  is 
the  device  by  which  immoral  persons  attempt  to  discredit 
the  Golden  Rule  and  the  Decalogue,  and  make  them  inop- 
erative. 

Yet  if  one  will  stop  to  ponder  the  question  just  a  little,  he 
must  surely  see  the  unimpeachable  logic  of  this  postulate: 
Good  ends  cannot  be  attained  by  evil  means.  This  is 
because  the  end  pre-exists  in  the  means,  just  as  in  the  bio- 
logical field  we  know  that  the  seed  of  continued  likeness 
pre-exists  in  the  parent.  Likewise  in  the  moral  realm,  there 
is  a  sinular  moral  reproduction  wherein  like  begets  like. 
This  precludes  the  possibility  of  evil  means  leading  to  good 
ends.  Good  begets  good;  evil,  evil.  Immoral  means  cannot 
beget  a  good  end,  any  more  than  snakes  can  beget  roses. 

The  concept  of  the  welfare  state  can  now  be  tested 
against  the  background  of  these  five  postulates:  (1)  Har- 


184  /  F.  A.  Harper 

mony  exists  between  moral  principles  and  wise  economic 
practices.  (2)  There  is  a  universal  law  of  cause  and  effect, 
even  in  the  areas  of  morals  and  economics.  (3)  A  basic 
moral  code  exists  in  the  form  of  the  Golden  Rule  and  the 
Decalogue.  (4)  These  moral  guides  are  of  an  uncompromis- 
ing nature.  (5)  Good  ends  are  attainable  only  through  good 
means. 

Moral  Right  to  Private  Property 

Not  all  the  Decalogue,  as  has  been  said,  is  directly  rele- 
vant to  the  issue  of  the  welfare  state.  Its  program  is  an  eco- 
nomic one,  and  the  only  parts  of  the  moral  code  which  are 
directly  and  specifically  relevant  are  these:  (1)  Thou  shalt 
not  steal.  (2)  Thou  shalt  not  covet. 

Steal  what?  Covet  what?  Private  prof)erty,  of  course. 
What  else  could  I  steal  from  you,  or  covet  of  what  is  yours? 
I  cannot  steal  from  you  or  covet  what  you  do  not  own  as 
private  property.  As  Dr.  D.  Elton  Trueblood  has  aptly  said: 
"Stealing  is  evil  because  ownership  is  good."  Thus  we  find 
that  the  individual's  right  to  private  property  is  an  unstated 
assumption  which  underlies  the  Decalogue.  Otherwise 
these  two  admonitions  would  be  empty  of  either  purpose 
or  meaning. 

The  right  to  have  and  to  hold  private  property  is  not  to 
be  confused  with  the  recovery  of  stolen  property.  If  some- 
one steals  your  car,  it  is  still — by  this  moral  right — your  car 
rather  than  his;  and  for  you  to  repossess  it  is  merely  to  bring 
its  presence  back  into  harmony  with  its  ownership.  The 
same  reasoning  applies  to  the  recovery  of  equivalent  value 
if  the  stolen  item  itself  is  no  longer  returnable;  and  it  applies 
to  the  recompense  for  damage  done  to  one's  own  property 
by  trespass  or  other  willful  destruction  of  private  property. 
These  means  of  protecting  the  possession  of  private  prop- 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  185 

erty,  and  its  use,  are  part  of  the  mechanisms  used  to  protect 
the  moral  right  to  private  property. 

Another  point  of  possible  confusion  has  to  do  with  cov- 
eting the  private  property  of  another.  There  is  nothing 
morally  wrong  in  the  admiration  of  something  that  is  the 
property  of  another.  Such  admiration  may  be  a  stimulus  to 
work  for  the  means  with  which  to  buy  it,  or  one  like  it.  The 
moral  consideration  embodied  in  this  Commandment  has 
to  do  with  thoughts  and  acts  leading  to  the  violation  of  the 
other  Commandment,  though  still  short  of  actual  theft. 

The  moral  right  to  private  property,  therefore,  is  consis- 
tent with  the  moral  codes  of  all  the  great  religious  beliefs.  It 
is  likely  that  a  concept  of  this  type  was  in  the  mind  of  David 
Hume,  the  moral  philosopher,  who  believed  that  the  right 
to  own  private  property  is  the  basis  for  the  modern  concept 
of  justice  in  morals. 

Nor  is  it  surprising  to  discover  that  two  of  history's 
leading  exponents  of  the  welfare  state  concept  found  it  nec- 
essary to  denounce  this  moral  code  completely.  Marx  said: 
"Religion  is  the  opium  of  the  people."  And  Lenin  said: 
"Any  religious  idea,  any  idea  of  a  'good  God'  ...  is  an 
abominably  nasty  thing."  Of  course  they  would  have  to  say 
these  things  about  religious  beliefs.  This  is  because  the 
moral  code  of  these  great  religions,  as  we  have  seen,  strikes 
at  the  very  heart  of  their  immoral  economic  scheme.  Not 
only  does  their  welfare  state  scheme  deny  the  moral  right  to 
private  property,  but  it  also  denies  other  underlying  bases 
of  the  moral  code,  as  we  shall  see. 

Moral  Right  to  Work  and  to  Have 

Stealing  and  coveting  are  condemned  in  the  Decalogue 
as  violations  of  the  basic  moral  code.  It  follows,  then,  that 
the  concepts  of  stealing  and  coveting  presume  the  right  to 


186  /  f.  A.  Harper 

private  property,  which  then  automatically  becomes  an 
implied  part  of  the  basic  moral  code.  But  where  does  pri- 
vate property  come  from? 

Private  property  comes  from  what  one  has  saved  out  of 
what  he  has  produced,  or  has  earned  as  a  productive 
employee  of  another  person.  One  may  also,  of  course, 
obtain  private  property  through  gifts  and  inheritances;  but 
in  the  absence  of  theft,  precluded  by  this  moral  code,  gifts 
come  from  those  who  have  produced  or  earned  what  is 
given.  So  the  right  of  private  property,  and  also  the  right  to 
have  whatever  one  has  produced  or  earned,  underlies  the 
admonitions  in  the  Decalogue  about  stealing  and  coveting. 
Nobody  has  the  moral  right  to  take  by  force  from  the  pro- 
ducer anything  he  has  produced  or  earned,  for  any  purpose 
whatsoever — even  for  a  good  purpose,  as  he  thinks  of  it. 

If  one  is  free  to  have  what  he  has  produced  and  earned, 
it  then  follows  that  he  also  has  the  moral  right  to  be  free  to 
choose  his  work.  He  should  be  free  to  choose  his  work,  that 
is,  so  long  as  he  does  not  violate  the  moral  code  in  doing  so 
by  using  in  his  productive  efforts  the  prof>erty  of  another 
person  through  theft  or  trespass.  Otherwise  he  is  free  to 
work  as  he  will,  at  what  he  will,  and  to  change  his  work 
when  he  will.  Nobody  has  the  moral  right  to  force  him  to 
work  when  he  does  not  choose  to  do  so,  or  to  force  him  to 
remain  idle  when  he  wishes  to  work,  or  to  force  him  to 
work  at  a  certain  job  when  he  wishes  to  work  at  some  other 
available  job.  The  belief  of  the  master  that  his  judgment  is 
superior  to  that  of  the  slave  or  vassal,  and  that  control  is 
"for  his  own  good,"  is  not  a  moral  justification  for  the  idea 
of  the  welfare  state. 

We  are  told  that  some  misdoings  occurred  in  a  Garden 
of  Eden,  which  signify  the  evil  in  man.  And  I  would  con- 
cede that  no  mortal  man  is  totally  wise  and  good.  But  it  is 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  187 

my  belief  that  people  generally,  up  and  down  the  road,  are 
intuitively  and  predominantly  moral.  By  this  I  mean  that  if 
persons  are  confronted  with  a  clear  and  simple  decision 
involving  basic  morals,  most  of  us  will  conduct  ourselves 
morally.  Most  everyone,  without  being  a  learned  scholar  of 
moral  philosophy,  seems  to  have  a  sort  of  innate  sense  of 
what  is  right,  and  tends  to  do  what  is  moral  unless  and  until 
he  becomes  confused  by  circumstances  which  obscure  the  moral 
issue  that  is  involved. 

Immorality  Is  News 

The  content  of  many  magazines  and  newspapers  with 
widespread  circulations  would  seem  to  contradict  my 
belief  that  most  people  are  moral  most  of  the  time.  They 
headline  impressive  and  unusual  events  on  the  seamy  side 
of  life,  which  might  lead  one  to  believe  that  these  events  are 
chciracteristic  of  everyday  human  affairs.  It  is  to  be  noted, 
however,  that  their  content  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  local, 
hometown  daily  or  weekly  with  its  emphasis  on  the  folksy 
reports  of  the  comings  and  goings  of  friends.  Why  the  dif- 
ference? Those  with  large  circulations  find  that  the  com- 
mon denominator  of  news  interest  in  their  audience  is 
events  on  the  rare,  seamy  side  of  life;  widely  scattered  mil- 
lions are  not  interested  in  knowing  that  in  Centerville,  Sally 
attended  Susie's  birthday  party  last  Tuesday.  It  is  the  rarity 
of  evil  conduct  that  makes  it  impressive  news  for  millions. 
Papers  report  the  event  of  yesterday's  murder,  theft,  or 
assault,  together  with  the  name,  address,  age,  marital  sta- 
tus, religious  affiliation,  and  other  descriptive  features  of 
the  guilty  party  because  these  are  the  events  of  the  day  that 
are  unusual  enough  to  be  newsworthy.  What  would  be  the 
demand  for  a  newspaper  which  published  all  the  names 


188  /  f.  A.  Harper 

and  identifications  of  all  the  persons  who  yesterday  failed 
to  murder,  steal,  or  assault?  If  it  were  as  rare  for  persons  to 
act  morally  as  it  is  now  rare  for  them  to  act  immorally,  the 
then  rare  instances  of  moral  conduct  would  presumably 
become  the  news  of  the  day.  So  we  may  conclude  that  evil 
is  news  because  it  is  so  rare;  that  being  moral  is  not  news 
because  it  is  so  prevalent. 

But  does  not  this  still  prove  the  dominance  of  evil  in 
persons?  Or,  since  magazines  and  newspapers  print  what 
finds  a  ready  readership  in  the  market,  does  not  that  prove 
the  evilness  of  those  who  read  of  evil?  I  believe  not.  It  is 
more  like  the  millions  who  attend  zoos,  and  view  with  fas- 
cination the  monkeys  and  the  snakes;  these  spectators  are 
not  themselves  monkeys  or  snakes,  nor  do  they  want  to  be; 
they  are  merely  expressing  an  interest  in  the  unusual,  with- 
out envy.  Do  not  most  of  us  read  of  a  bank  robbery  or  a  fire 
without  wishing  to  be  robbers  or  arsonists? 

What  else  dominates  the  newspaper  space,  and  gives  us 
our  dominant  impressions  about  the  quality  of  persons  out- 
side our  circle  of  immediate  [Dersonal  acquaintance?  It  is 
mostly  about  the  problems  of  political  power;  about  those 
who  have  power  or  are  grasping  for  power,  diluted  with  a 
little  about  those  who  are  fighting  against  power.  Lord 
Acton  said:  "Power  tends  to  corrupt,  and  absolute  power 
corrupts  absolutely."  This  dictum  seems  to  be  true,  as  his- 
tory has  proved  and  is  proving  over  and  over  again.  So  we 
can  then  translate  it  into  a  description  of  much  of  the  news 
of  the  day:  News  is  heavily  loaded  with  items  about  per- 
sons who,  as  Lord  Acton  said,  are  either  corrupt  or  are  in 
the  process  of  becoming  more  corrupt. 

If  one  is  not  careful  in  exposing  himself  to  the  daily 
news — if  he  fails  to  keep  his  balance  and  forgets  how  it  con- 
trasts with  all  those  persons  who  comprise  his  family,  his 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  189 

neighbors,  his  business  associates,  and  his  friends — he  is 
likely  to  conclude  falsely  that  people  are  predominantly 
immoral.  This  poses  a  serious  problem  for  historians  and 
historical  novelists  to  the  extent  that  their  source  of  infor- 
mation is  the  news  of  a  former  day — especially  if  they  do 
not  interpret  it  with  caution. 

To  Steal  or  Not  to  Steal 

As  a  means  of  sp^ecifically  verifying  my  impression 
about  the  basic,  intuitive  morality  of  persons,  1  would  pose 
this  test  of  three  questions: 

1.  Would  you  steal  your  neighbor's  cow  to  provide  for 
your  present  needs?  Would  you  steal  it  for  any  need  rea- 
sonably within  your  expectation  or  comprehension?  It 
should  be  remembered  that,  instead  of  stealing  his  cow,  you 
may  explore  with  your  neighbor  the  possible  solution  to 
your  case  of  need;  you  might  arrange  to  do  some  sort  of 
work  for  him,  or  to  borrow  from  him  for  later  repayment, 
or  perhaps  even  plead  with  him  for  an  outright  gift. 

2.  Would  you  steal  your  neighbor's  cow  to  provide  for  a 
known  case  of  another  neighbor's  need? 

3.  Would  you  try  to  induce  a  third  party  to  do  the  steal- 
ing of  the  cow,  to  be  given  to  this  needy  neighbor?  And  do 
you  believe  that  you  would  likely  succeed  in  inducing  him 
to  engage  in  the  theft? 

I  believe  that  the  almost  universal  answer  to  all  these 
questions  would  be:  "No."  Yet  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that 
all  of  us  are  participating  in  theft  every  day.  How?  By  sup- 
porting the  actions  of  the  collective  agent  which  does  the 
stealing  as  part  of  the  welfare  state  program  already  far 
advanced  in  the  United  States.  By  this  device,  Peter  is 
robbed  to  "benefit"  Paul,  with  the  acquiescence  if  not  the 


190  /  F.  A.  Harper 

active  support  of  all  of  us  as  taxpayers  and  citizens.  We  not 
only  participate  in  the  stealing — and  share  in  the  division 
of  the  loot — ^but  as  Us  victims  we  also  meekly  submit  to  the 
thievery. 

Isn't  it  a  strange  thing  that  if  you  select  any  three  funda- 
mentally moral  persons  and  combine  them  into  a  collective 
for  the  doing  of  good,  they  are  liable  at  once  to  become 
three  immoral  persons  in  their  collective  activities?  The 
moral  principles  with  which  they  seem  to  be  intuitively 
endowed  are  somehow  lost  in  the  confusing  processes  of 
the  collective.  None  of  the  three  would  steal  the  cow  from 
one  of  his  fellow  members  as  an  individual,  but  collectively 
they  all  steal  cows  from  each  other.  The  reason  is,  I  believe, 
that  the  welfare  state — a  confusing  collective  device  which 
is  believed  by  many  to  be  moral  and  righteous — has  been 
falsely  labeled.  This  false  label  has  caused  the  belief  that  the 
welfare  state  can  do  no  wrong,  that  it  cannot  commit 
immoral  acts,  especially  if  those  acts  are  approved  or  toler- 
ated by  more  than  half  of  the  people,  "democratically." 

This  sidetracking  of  moral  conduct  is  like  the  belief  of 
an  earlier  day:  The  king  can  do  no  wrong.  In  its  place  we 
have  now  substituted  this  belief:  The  majority  can  do  no 
wrong.  It  is  as  though  one  were  to  assert  that  a  sheep  which 
has  been  killed  by  a  pack  of  wolves  is  not  really  dead,  pro- 
vided that  more  than  half  of  the  wolves  have  participated 
in  the  killing.  All  these  excuses  for  immoral  conduct  are,  of 
course,  nonsense.  They  are  nonsense  when  tested  against 
the  basic  moral  code  of  the  five  postulates.  Thievery  is 
thievery,  whether  done  by  one  person  alone  or  by  many  in 
a  pack — or  by  one  who  has  been  selected  by  the  members 
of  the  pack  as  their  agent. 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  191 
"Thou  Shalt  Not  Steal,  Except. . . ." 

It  seems  that  wherever  the  welfare  state  is  involved,  the 
moral  precept,  "Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  becomes  altered  to 
say:  "Thou  shalt  not  steal,  except  for  what  thou  deemest  to 
be  a  worthy  cause,  where  thou  thinkest  that  thou  canst  use 
the  loot  for  a  better  purpose  than  wouldst  the  victim  of  the 
theft." 

And  the  precept  about  covetousness,  under  the  admin- 
istration of  the  welfare  state,  seems  to  become:  "Thou  shalt 
not  covet,  except  what  thou  wouldst  have  from  thy  neigh- 
bor who  owns  it." 

Both  of  these  alterations  of  the  Decalogue  result  in  com- 
plete abrogation  of  the  two  moral  admonitions — theft  and 
covetousness —  which  deal  directly  with  economic  matters. 
Not  even  the  motto,  "In  God  we  trust,"  stamped  by  the 
government  on  money  taken  by  force  in  violation  of  the 
Decalogue  to  pay  for  the  various  programs  of  the  welfare 
state,  can  transform  this  immoral  act  into  a  moral  one. 

Herein  lies  the  principal  moral  and  economic  danger 
facing  us  in  these  critical  times:  Many  of  us,  albeit  with 
good  intentions  but  in  a  hurry  to  do  good  because  of  the 
urgency  of  the  occasion,  have  become  victims  of  moral 
schizophrenia.  While  we  are  good  and  righteous  persons  in 
our  individual  conduct  in  our  home  community  and  in  our 
basic  moral  code,  we  have  become  thieves  and  coveters  in 
the  collective  activities  of  the  welfare  state  in  which  we  par- 
ticipate and  which  many  of  us  extol. 

Typical  of  our  times  is  what  usually  happens  when 
there  is  a  major  catastrophe,  destroying  private  property  or 
injuring  many  persons.  The  news  circulates,  and  generates 


192  /  F.  A.  Harper 

widespread  sympathy  for  the  victims.  So  what  is  done 
about  it?  Through  the  mechanisms  of  the  collective,  the 
good  intentions  take  the  form  of  reaching  into  the  other  fel- 
low's pocket  for  the  money  with  which  to  make  a  gift.  The 
Decalogue  says,  in  effect:  "Reach  into  your  own  pocket — 
not  into  your  neighbor's  pocket — to  finance  your  acts  of 
compassion;  good  cannot  be  done  with  the  loot  that  comes 
from  theft."  The  pickpocket,  in  other  words,  is  a  thief  even 
though  he  puts  the  proceeds  in  the  collection  box  on  Sun- 
day, or  uses  it  to  buy  bread  for  the  poor.  Being  an  involun- 
tary Good  Samaritan  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

When  thievery  is  resorted  to  for  the  means  with  which 
to  do  good,  compassion  is  killed.  Those  who  would  do 
good  with  the  loot  then  lose  their  capacity  for  self-reliance, 
the  same  as  a  thief's  self-reliance  atrophies  rapidly  when  he 
subsists  on  food  that  is  stolen.  And  those  who  are  ref>eat- 
edly  robbed  of  their  property  simultaneously  lose  their 
capacity  for  compassion.  The  chronic  victims  of  robbery  are 
under  great  temptation  to  join  the  gang  and  share  in  the 
loot.  They  come  to  feel  that  the  voluntary  way  of  life  will  no 
longer  suffice  for  needs;  that  to  subsist,  they  must  rob  and 
be  robbed.  They  abhor  violence,  of  course,  but  approve  of 
robbing  by  "peaceful  means."  It  is  this  peculiar  immoral 
distinction  which  many  try  to  draw  between  the  welfare 
state  of  Russia  and  that  of  Britain:  The  Russian  brand  of 
violence,  they  believe,  is  bad;  that  of  Britain,  good.  This  ver- 
sion of  an  altered  Commandment  would  be:  "Thou  shalt 
not  steal,  except  from  nonresisting  victims." 

Under  the  welfare  state,  this  process  of  theft  has  spread 
from  its  use  in  alleviating  catastrophe,  to  anticipating  cata- 
strophe, to  conjuring  up  catastrophe,  to  the  "need"  for  lux- 
uries for  those  who  have  them  not.  The  acceptance  of  the 
practice  of  thus  violating  the  Decalogue  has  become  so 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  193 

widespread  that  if  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  were  to  appear 
in  our  day  in  the  form  of  an  address  or  publication,  it 
would  most  likely  be  scorned  as  "reactionary,  and  not 
objective  on  the  realistic  problems  of  the  day."  Forgotten,  it 
seems,  by  many  who  so  much  admire  Christ,  is  the  fact  that 
he  did  not  resort  to  theft  in  acquiring  the  means  of  his  mate- 
rial benefactions.  Nor  did  he  advocate  theft  for  any  pur- 
pose— even  for  those  uses  most  dear  to  his  beliefs. 

Progress  of  Moral  Decay 

Violation  of  the  two  economic  Commandments — theft 
and  covetousness — under  the  program  of  the  welfare  state, 
will  spread  to  the  other  Commandments;  it  will  destroy 
faith  in,  and  observance  of,  our  entire  basic  moral  code.  We 
have  seen  this  happen  in  many  countries.  It  seems  to  have 
been  happening  here.  We  note  how  immorality,  as  tested  by 
the  two  economic  Commandments,  has  been  spreading  in 
high  places.  Moral  decay  has  already  spread  to  such  an 
extent  that  violations  of  all  other  parts  of  the  Decalogue, 
and  of  the  Golden  Rule,  have  become  accepted  as  common- 
place— even  proper  and  worthy  of  emulation. 

And  what  about  the  effectiveness  of  a  crime  investiga- 
tion conducted  under  a  welfare  state  government?  We  may 
question  the  presumed  capability  of  such  a  government — 
as  distinct  from  certain  investigators  who  are  admittedly 
moral  individuals — to  judge  these  moral  issues.  We  may 
also  question  the  wisdom  of  bothering  to  investigate  the 
picayune  amounts  of  private  gambling,  willingly  engaged 
in  by  the  participants  with  their  own  money,  when  untold 
billions  are  being  taken  from  the  people  repeatedly  by  the 
investigating  agent  to  finance  its  own  immoral  program. 
This  is  a  certain  loss,  not  even  a  gamble. 


194  /  F.  A.  Harper 

Once  a  right  to  collective  looting  has  been  substituted 
for  the  right  of  each  person  to  have  whatever  he  has  pro- 
duced, it  is  not  at  all  surprising  to  find  the  official  dis- 
pensers deciding  that  it  is  right  for  them  to  loot  the  loot — 
for  a  "worthy"  purpose,  of  course.  Then  we  have  the  loot 
used  by  the  insiders  to  buy  votes  so  that  they  may  stay  in 
power;  we  have  political  pork  barrels  and  lobbying  for  the 
contents;  we  have  political  patronage  for  political  loyalty — 
even  for  loyalty  to  immoral  conduct;  we  have  deep  freezers 
and  mink  coats  given  to  political  or  personal  favorites,  and 
bribes  for  the  opportunity  to  do  privileged  business  with 
those  who  hold  and  dispense  the  loot.  Why  not?  If  it  is  right 
to  loot,  it  is  also  right  to  loot  the  loot.  If  the  latter  is  wrong, 
so  also  is  the  former. 

If  we  are  to  accept  Lord  Acton's  axiom  about  the  cor- 
rupting effect  of  power — and  also  the  reasoning  of  Profes- 
sor Hayek  in  his  book  The  Road  to  Serfdom,  about  why  the 
worst  get  to  the  top  in  a  welfare  state — then  corruption  and 
low  moral  standards  in  high  political  places  should  not  be 
surprising.  But  when  the  citizens  come  more  and  more  to 
laugh  and  joke  about  it,  rather  than  to  remove  the  crown  of 
power  and  dismantle  the  throne,  a  nation  is  well  on  its  way 
to  moral  rot,  reminiscent  of  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire 
and  others. 

Nor  should  we  be  surprised  that  there  is  some  juvenile 
delinquency  where  adult  delinquency  is  so  rampant,  and 
where  the  absence  of  any  basic  moral  code  among  adults 
precludes  even  the  possibility  of  their  effectively  teaching  a 
moral  code  that  will  prevent  delinquency  in  the  young.  If, 
as  adults,  we  practice  collective  thievery  through  the  wel- 
fare state,  and  advocate  it  as  right  and  good,  how  can  we 
question  the  logic  of  the  youths  who  likewise  form  gangs 
and  rob  the  candy  store?  If  demonstration  is  the  best 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  195 

teacher,  we  adults  must  start  with  the  practice  of  morality 
ourselves,  rather  than  hiring  some  presumed  specialist  to 
study  the  causes  of  similar  conduct  among  the  youngsters; 
their  conduct  is  the  symptom,  not  the  disease. 

Thievery  and  covetousness  will  persist  and  grow,  and 
the  basic  morals  of  ourselves,  our  children,  and  our  chil- 
dren's children  will  continue  to  deteriorate  unless  we 
destroy  the  virus  of  immorality  that  is  embedded  in  the 
concept  of  the  welfare  state;  unless  we  come  to  understand 
how  the  moral  code  of  individual  conduct  must  apply  also 
to  collective  conduct,  because  the  collective  is  composed 
solely  of  individuals.  Moral  individual  conduct  cannot  per- 
sist in  the  face  of  collective  immorality  under  the  welfare 
state  program.  One  side  or  the  other  of  the  double  standard 
of  morals  will  have  to  be  surrendered. 

Appendix:  The  Welfare  State  Idea 

The  concept  of  the  welfare  state  appears  in  our  every- 
day life  in  the  form  of  a  long  list  of  labels  and  programs 
such  as:  Social  Security;  parity  or  fair  prices;  reasonable 
profits;  the  living  wage;  the  TVA,  MVA,  CVA;  federal  aid  to 
states,  to  education,  to  bankrupt  corporations;  and  so  on. 

But  all  these  names  and  details  of  the  welfare  state  pro- 
gram tend  only  to  obscure  its  essential  nature.  They  are 
well-sounding  labels  for  a  laudable  objective — the  relief  of 
distressing  need,  prevention  of  starvation,  and  the  like.  But 
how  best  is  starvation  and  distress  to  be  prevented?  It  is 
well,  too,  that  prices,  profits,  and  wages  be  fair  and  equi- 
table. But  what  is  to  be  the  test  of  fairness  and  equity? 
Laudable  objectives  alone  do  not  assure  the  success  of  any 
program;  a  fair  appraisal  of  the  program  must  include  an 
analysis  of  the  means  of  its  attainment.  The  welfare  state  is 


196  /  F.  A.  Harper 

a  name  that  has  been  substituted  as  a  more  acceptable  one 
for  communism-socialism  wherever,  as  in  the  United 
States,  these  names  are  in  general  disrepute. 

The  welfare  state  plan,  viewed  in  full  bloom  of  com- 
pleteness, is  one  where  the  state  prohibits  the  individual 
from  having  any  right  of  choice  in  the  conditions  and  place 
of  his  work;  it  takes  ownership  of  the  product  of  his  labor; 
it  prohibits  private  property.  All  these  are  done  ostensibly 
to  help  those  whose  rights  have  been  taken  over  by  the  wel- 
fare state. 

But  these  characteristics  of  controlled  employment  and 
confiscation  of  income  are  not  those  used  in  promotion  of 
the  idea  of  the  welfare  state.  What  are  usually  advertised, 
instead,  are  the  "benefits"  of  the  welfare  state — the  grants 
of  food  and  housing  and  whatnot — which  the  state  "gives" 
to  the  people.  But  all  these  "benefits"  are  merely  the  other 
side  of  the  forfeited  rights  to  choose  one's  own  occupation 
and  to  keep  whatever  one  is  able  to  produce.  In  the  same 
sense  that  the  welfare  state  grants  benefits,  the  slave  master 
grants  to  his  slaves  certain  allotments  of  food  and  other 
economic  goods.  In  fact,  slavery  might  be  described  as  just 
another  form  of  welfare  state,  because  of  its  likeness  in 
restrictions  and  "benefits." 

Yet  the  state,  as  such,  produces  nothing  with  which  to 
supply  these  "benefits."  Persons  produce  everything  which 
the  welfare  state  takes,  before  it  gives  some  back  as  "bene- 
fits"; but  in  the  process,  the  bureaucracy  takes  its  cut.  Only 
by  thus  confiscating  what  persons  have  produced  can  the 
welfare  state  "satisfy  the  needs  of  the  people."  So,  the  nec- 
essary and  essential  idea  of  the  welfare  state  is  to  control 
the  economic  actions  of  the  vassals  of  the  state,  to  take  from 
producers  what  they  produce,  and  to  prevent  their  ever 


Morals  and  Liberty  /  197 

being  able  to  attain  economic  independence  from  the  state 
and  from  their  fellow  men  through  ownership  of  property. 
To  whatever  extent  an  individual  is  still  allowed  free- 
dom in  any  of  these  respects  while  living  under  a  govern- 
ment like  the  present  one  in  the  United  States,  then  to  that 
extent  the  development  of  the  program  of  the  welfare  state 
is  as  yet  not  fully  completed.  Or  perhaps  it  is  an  instance  of 
a  temporary  grant  of  freedom  by  the  welfare  state  such  as 
when  a  master  allows  his  slave  a  day  off  from  work  to 
sj>end  as  he  likes;  but  the  person  who  is  permitted  some 
freedom  by  the  welfare  state  is  still  a  vassal  of  that  state  just 
as  a  slave  is  still  a  slave  on  his  day  off  from  work. 


The  Idea  of  Equality 
Jarret  B.  WoUstein 


It  is  doubtful  if  any  social  concept  in  the  entire  history  of 
man  has  been  more  fervently  championed,  more  fiercely 
denounced,  more  misunderstood,  more  poorly  defined,  or 
more  misrepresented  than  the  idea  of  equality. 

Many  Christians  proclaim  all  men  "equal  in  the  eyes  of 
God."  The  United  States  was  founded  on  the  principle  of 
"equality  of  rights."  The  basis  of  modem  Western  jurispru- 
dence is  "equality  before  the  law."  The  rallying  cry  of  the 
French  Revolution  was  "Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity."  A 
central  goal  of  communism  and  socialism  is  "economic 
equality."  The  American  Civil  Rights  Movement  seeks 
"equality  of  opportunity."  And  the  modem  women's 
movement  champions  "equal  rights  for  women"  and 
"equal  pay  for  equal  work." 

While  the  meaning  and  compatibility  of  this  multitude 
of  "equalities"  is  far  from  clear,  it  is  obvious  that  they  do 
not  all  mean  the  same  thing.  Just  what  does  equality  mean? 

What  Is  Equality? 

For  two  things  to  be  equal  means  for  them  to  be  identi- 
cal in  some  respect.  Thus  if  two  trees  are  both  precisely  six 
feet  tall,  they  are  equal  in  height.  If  two  men  both  earn  pre- 

Mr.  Wollstein  is  a  founder  of  the  Society  for  Individual  Liberty  and 
author  of  Society  Without  Coercion.  This  article  is  reprinted  from  the 
April  1980  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


198 


The  Idea  of  Equality  /  199 

cisely  $9,500  a  year,  they  are  equal  in  income.  And  if  two 
people  both  have  the  same  chance  of  winning  a  lottery,  they 
have  (in  that  respect)  equality  of  opportunity. 

However,  while  two  things  may  be  identical  with 
respect  to  one  or  a  limited  number  of  attributes,  no  two 
physical  objects  can  ever  be  identical  with  respect  to  all 
attributes.  For  example,  all  atoms  differ  in  position,  direc- 
tion, and  history.  And  all  human  beings  differ  with  respect 
to  anatomy,  biochemistry,  temperament,  knowledge,  skills, 
goals,  virtue,  and  a  thousand  other  characteristics. 

Here  we  will  primarily  be  concerned  with  three  types  of 
equality: 

1.  Political  equality,  a  major  goal  of  both  the  American 
and  French  revolutions,  has  traditionally  meant  equality  of 
individual  rights  and  equality  of  liberty.  Stated  simply, 
political  equality  means  that  the  individual's  right  to  life, 
liberty,  and  property  is  respected  and  that  government 
abstains  from  conferring  any  special  advantage  or  inflicting 
any  special  harm  upon  one  individual  (or  group)  in  distinc- 
tion to  another.  Clearly,  political  equality  is  at  best  only 
approximated  and  never  exists  completely. 

2.  Economic  equality  means  in  essence  that  people  have 
the  same  income  or  total  wealth. 

3.  Social  equality  generally  means  either  (a)  equality  of 
social  status,  (b)  equality  of  opportunity,  or  (c)  equality  of 

p     treatment.  Social  equality  is  also  increasingly  coming  to 
mean  (d)  equality  of  achievement. 

Equality  and  Liberty 

A  little  reflection  will  quickly  demonstrate  that  eco- 
nomic and  social  equality  can  only  be  achieved  at  the 
expense  of  political  equality.  Because  people  differ  in  abil- 


200  /  Jarret  B.  Wollstein 

ity,  drive,  intelligence,  strength,  and  many  other  attributes 
it  follows  that,  with  liberty,  people  also  will  differ  in 
achievement,  status,  income,  and  wealth.  A  talented  singer 
will  command  a  higher  income  than  a  ditchdigger.  A  frugal, 
hardworking  man  generally  will  accumulate  more  wealth 
than  an  indolent  spendthrift.  A  brilliant  scientist  will  com- 
mand more  respect  than  a  skid  row  bum. 

Nor  are  all  of  these  differences  of  social  and  economic 
achievement  the  result  of  environment.  Because  people  are 
individuals — genetically,  biochemically,  anatomically,  and 
neurologically — differences  in  strength,  intelligence,  ag- 
gressiveness, and  other  traits  will  always  exist.  While  envi- 
ronmental factors  can  and  do  exaggerate  physical  and  men- 
tal differences  between  people,  diversity  and  non-equality 
remain  the  natural  biological  order  and  hence  are  the  nat- 
ural social  and  economic  order. 

There  is  only  one  way  to  make  all  people  even  approxi- 
mately economically  or  socially  equal,  and  that  is  through 
the  forcible  redistribution  of  wealth  and  the  legal  prohibi- 
tion of  social  distinction. 

As  Dr.  Robert  Nozick,  of  the  Harvard  Philosophy 
Department,  has  pointed  out  in  Anarchy,  State,  and  Utopia, 
economic  equality  requires  a  continuous  and  unending 
series  of  government  interventions  into  private  transac- 
tions. Even  if  people's  incomes  are  made  equal  once,  they 
will  quickly  become  unequal  if  they  have  the  liberty  to 
spend  their  own  money.  For  example,  many  more  people 
will  choose  to  pay  $10  to  hear  Linda  Ronstadt  sing  than  will 
pay  $10  to  hear  me  sing,  and  Linda  Ronstadt  will  very 
quickly  become  far  wealthier  than  I  am. 

Economic  equality  can  thus  only  be  maintained  by  total- 
itarian control  of  people's  lives,  and  the  substitution  of  the 


The  Idea  of  Equality  /  201 

decisions  of  a  handful  of  state  authorities  for  the  free 
choices  of  milHons  of  men  and  women. 

Pohtical  equality  is  fundamentally  inimical  to  economic 
and  social  equality.  Free  men  are  not  economically  equal, 
and  economically  equal  men  are  not  free.  Because  the 
achievement  of  social  and  economic  equality  inherently 
requires  the  forcible  interference  with  voluntary  choice,  I 
will  subsequently  refer  to  the  doctrine  that  social  or  eco- 
nomic equality  should  be  imposed  upon  a  society  as  coer- 
cive egalitarianism. 

Equality  as  an  Ethical  Ideal 

In  reality  people  are  unequal:  Americans  are — on  aver- 
age— far  wealthier  than  Russians,  doctors  tend  to  earn 
more  than  garbage  collectors,  and  so  on.  But  should  people 
be  unequal? 

At  its  root,  egalitarianism  is  an  ethical  doctrine.  It  is 
often  asserted  that  "ethics  is  just  a  matter  of  opinion"  and 
that  "one  moral  system  is  just  as  good  as  any  other."  But  in 
fact  any  ethical  code  can  be  judged  by  at  least  three  criteria: 
(1)  is  it  logical? — have  the  basic  concepts  of  the  doctrine 
been  meaningfully  defined  and  are  the  arguments  for  it 
valid;  (2)  is  it  realistic? — is  it  a  doctrine  which  human 
beings  can  live  by,  or  does  it  require  that  people  act  in  a 
way  which  is  fundamentally  contrary  to  their  nature;  and 
(3)  is  it  desirable? — are  the  consequences  of  adopting  the 
doctrine  what  are  claimed,  or  would  they  be  something 
entirely  different;  and  if  people  adopt  this  doctrine  will  it 
lead  to  the  creation  of  a  society  in  which  they  are  happy 
and  fulfilled,  or  will  it  lead  to  a  society  of  hopelessness, 
repression,  and  despair? 


202  /  ]arret  B.  Wollstein 

Let  us  now  apply  these  criteria  to  the  doctrine  of  coer- 
cive egalitarianism. 

1.  Is  coercive  egalitarianism  logical?  Egalitarianism  states 
that  all  people  should  be  equal,  but  few  coercive  egalitari- 
ans define  "equality." 

As  stated  previously,  complete  equality  between  people 
is  an  impossibility,  so  it  can  be  rejected  at  once.  But  we  are 
hardly  better  off  when  we  speak  of  social  or  economic 
equality.  Does  "economic  equality"  mean  equal  income  at  a 
given  age,  for  a  given  job,  for  a  certain  amount  of  work,  or 
for  a  particular  occupation?  Does  "equal  wealth"  mean 
identical  possessions,  possessions  of  identical  value,  or 
something  entirely  different?  Does  "social  equality"  mean 
equal  status,  equal  popularity,  equal  opportunity,  equal 
treatment,  or  what?  All  of  these  concepts  of  economic  and 
social  equality  are  distinctly  different,  and  until  they  are 
defined,  the  doctrine  of  egalitarianism  is  illogical. 

2.  Is  coercive  egalitarianism  realistic?  People  are  different 
and  have  different  values.  To  some  happiness  requires 
many  material  possessions,  to  others  material  ix)ssessions 
are  relatively  unimportant.  To  some  people  intelligence  is  a 
great  value,  to  others  strength  or  beauty  are  far  more 
important.  Because  people  differ  both  in  their  own  charac- 
teristics and  in  the  way  in  which  they  value  traits  in  others, 
people  will  naturally  discriminate  in  favor  of  some  i:>ersons 
and  against  others. 

Since  variety  and  distinction  are  natural  parts  of  the 
human  condition,  by  demanding  that  people  abandon  such 
distinctions,  coercive  egalitarianism  is  contrary  to  human 
nature. 

3.  Is  coercive  egalitarianism  desirable?  Coercive  egalitari- 
anism, the  doctrine  of  complete  social  and  economic  equal- 
ity of  human  beings,  logically  implies  a  world  of  identical. 


The  Idea  of  Equality  /  203 

faceless,  interchangeable  p)eople.  Such  a  world  sounds 
much  more  like  a  nightmare  than  a  dream,  and  indeed  it  is. 

Perhaps  no  nation  on  earth  has  come  closer  to  complete 
economic  and  social  equality  than  Pol  Pot'c  Cambodia. 
Under  Pol  Pot's  regime  entire  populations  were  forcibly 
marched  out  of  cities  and  everyone,  regardless  of  age,  sex, 
skills,  or  previous  social  status,  was  forced  to  labor  with 
primitive  agricultural  implements  on  collective  farms.  In 
Pol  Pot's  Cambodia,  everyone  had  to  think,  work,  and 
believe  the  same;  dissenters  were  killed  on  the  spot. 

In  northern  Cambodia  stands  the  remains  of  one  of  Pol 
Pof  s  "model  villages."  The  houses  are  neat,  clean,  and 
completely  identical.  Nearby  sits  a  mass  open  grave  with 
hundreds  of  human  skeletons — the  pitiful  remains  of  those 
who  displayed  the  slightest  individuality.  The  village  and 
mass  grave  are  a  fitting  symbol  of  the  fruits  of  coercive 
egalitarianism. 

While  coercive  egalitarianism  masquerades  as  an  ethi- 
cal doctrine,  in  fact  it  is  the  opposite.  Ethics  presumes  that 
one  can  make  a  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  for 
human  beings.  But  coercive  egalitarianism  demands  that 
we  treat  people  equally,  regardless  of  their  differences, 
including  differences  in  virtue.  To  demand  that  virtuous 
and  villainous  i:>eople — for  example,  Thomas  Edison  and 
Charles  Manson — be  treated  equally,  is  to  make  ethical  dis- 
tinction impossible  in  principle. 

In  summary,  coercive  egalitarianism  is  illogical  because 
it  never  defines  precisely  what  "equality"  consists  of;  it  is 
uiuiealistic  because  it  requires  that  we  deny  our  values;  and 
it  is  undesirable  because  it  ultimately  requires  a  society  of 
human  insects. 

While  coercive  egalitarianism  fails  as  an  ethical  doc- 
trine, many  contentions  based  upon  coercive  egalitarianism 


204  /  Jarret  B.  Wollstein 

nevertheless  remain  emotionally  compelling  to  many  peo- 
ple. Let  us  now  examine  some  of  those  contentions. 

Myths  of  Egalitarianism 

1.  Social  and  economic  inequality  are  a  result  of  coercion,  an 
accident  of  birth,  or  unfair  advantage.  Let  us  consider  these 
contentions  one  at  a  time. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  some  inequality  is  a  result  of  coer- 
cion in  such  forms  as  conquest,  theft,  confiscatory  taxes  or 
political  power.  But  it  is  hardly  true  that  all  inequality  is  a 
result  of  coercion.  A  person  can,  after  all,  become  wealthy 
or  popular  because  he  or  she  is  highly  talented  or  extremely 
inventive,  and  talent  and  invention  coerce  no  one. 

Being  born  wealthy  certainly  constitutes  an  advantage, 
but  hardly  an  insurmountable  or  unfair  one.  Sociological 
studies  in  the  United  States  and  Eurof>e  show  tremendous 
mobility  between  lower,  middle,  and  upper  classes,  despite 
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  birth.  Except  for  all  but 
the  greatest  fortunes,  one's  parents'  wealth  and  success  are 
no  guarantee  of  one's  own  wealth  or  success.  And  there  is 
nothing  immoral  about  helping  out  one's  own  children  as 
much  as  possible.  Such  aid  takes  away  nothing  to  which 
anyone  else  is  entitled. 

Last,  there  is  the  argument  that  being  bom  with  below- 
average  intelligence,  or  strength,  or  attractiveness  consti- 
tutes an  "unfair  disadvantage."  Here  egalitarianism  reveals 
itself  to  be  (in  the  words  of  Dr.  Murray  Rothbard)  "a  revolt 
against  nature."  We  can  either  act  rationally  and  rejoice  in 
our  diversity  and  make  the  most  of  the  abilities  we  do  have, 
or  we  can  damn  nature  and  hate  everyone  who  is  in  any 
way  better  than  we  are  and  attempt  to  drag  them  down  to 
our  level.  I  leave  it  to  you  which  is  the  more  rational  and 
humane  policy. 


The  Idea  of  Equality  /  205 

2.  If  people  would  only  share  the  world's  bounty  equally,  there 
would  be  enough  for  everyone,  and  no  one  need  starve  or  be  seri- 
ously deprived.  This  contention  is  based  upon  two  false 
assumptions:  (a)  that  wealth  is  a  natural  resource,  so  one 
person's  gain  is  another's  loss;  and  (b)  that  if  the  world's 
wealth  were  equally  redistributed  it  would  remain  con- 
stant. 

Wealth  in  fact  is  a  product  of  human  productivity  and 
invention.  Some  people  are  poor  not  because  others  are 
wealthy,  but  because  the  poor  are  insufficiently  productive 
(often  because  of  authoritarian  political  systems). 

Any  attempt  to  redistribute  the  world's  wealth  by  force 
would  also  greatly  diminish  the  total  wealth  in  existence 
for  at  least  three  reasons:  (a)  large-scale  redistribution 
would  disrupt  the  world's  productive  machinery,  (b)  con- 
fiscation of  wealth  would  destroy  the  incentive  to  produce 
more  (why  bother  producing  if  it's  going  to  be  taken  from 
you  anyway),  and  (c)  the  process  of  redistribution  would 
require  an  enormously  costly  and  essentially  parasitic 
bureaucracy.  (Not  to  mention  losses  from  shooting  people 
who  resist,  and  starvation  from  bureaucratic  inefficiency 
and  mistakes.) 

The  cure  for  poverty  is  more  productivity,  less  state  eco- 
nomic intervention,  and  an  end  to  barriers  to  trade.  The 
cure  is  not  redistribution  of  wealth. 

3.  It  is  better  that  everyone  be  poor  than  for  some  to  have  more 
than  others.  Better  for  whom?  For  the  middle  class  and 
wealthy  stripped  of  their  property?  For  the  poor  robbed  of 
the  possibility  of  ever  improving  their  lot? 

The  production  and  accumulation  of  wealth  is  the 
benchmark  of  human  progress.  Wealth  in  the  form  of  better 
communications  systems,  environmental  control,  pest  con- 
trol, improved  transportation,  better  medical  care,  more 
durable  and  attractive  clothing,  more  comfortable  housing. 


206  /  Jarret  B.  Wollstein 

and  so  on,  ad  infinitum,  improves  the  quality  and  increases 
the  quantity  of  human  life  and  makes  possible  leisure,  sci- 
ence, and  art.  To  attack  wealth  is  to  attack  an  essential  con- 
dition for  the  achievement  of  virtually  every  human  value 
from  the  fulfillment  of  physiological  needs,  to  safety,  to  the 
pursuit  of  beauty  and  truth. 

This  argument  reveals  the  ultimate  and  ugly  motive  of 
many  egalitarians:  A  hatred  of  human  ability  per  se.  By  that 
hatred  they  betray  their  human  heritage  and  would  con- 
demn men  to  exist  at  the  level  of  barbarians. 

Free  and  Unequal  vs.  Coercive  Egalitarianism 

Equality  of  rights  and  equality  under  the  law  are  pre- 
conditions for  any  just  and  humane  society.  But  such  polit- 
ical equality  is  the  very  antithesis  of  coercive  egalitarian- 
ism. 

Coercive  egalitarianism  asserts  that  people  ought  to  be 
made  equal  hy  force,  and  that  ability  and  virtue  should  be 
ignored  or  punished  to  bring  all  people  down  to  the  lowest 
common  denominator. 

The  disabilities  of  others  should  evoke  our  compassion. 
But  those  disabilities  do  not  justify  the  forced  looting  of  the 
productive  or  the  obliteration  of  liberty  in  the  name  of  some 
undefined  concept  of  equality. 

The  natural  order  of  human  society  is  diversity,  variety, 
and  inequality.  The  fruits  of  that  natural  order  are  progress, 
productivity,  and  invention.  In  the  final  analysis,  virtue  and 
compassion  can  only  flourish  in  a  world  of  men  and 
women  free  and  unequal. 


Justice  and  Freedom 
Leslie  Snyder 


The  administration  of  a  republic  is  supposed  to  be 
directed  by  certain  fundamental  principles  of  right  and 
justice,  from  which  there  cannot,  because  there  ought  not 
to,  be  any  deviation;  and  whenever  any  deviation 
appears,  there  is  a  kind  of  stepping  out  of  the  republican 
principle,  and  an  approach  toward  the  despotic  one. 

— Thomas  Paine 


Justice  is  the  only  foundation  upon  which  a  society  of 
free  and  independent  people  can  exist.  Justice  is  a  concrete, 
recognizable,  and  objective  principle.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
opinion. 

In  our  day  and  age  the  word  justice  is  rarely  used  in 
political  and  economic  discussions.  The  entire  reason  for 
the  existence  of  communities,  laws,  governments,  and 
court  systems  has  been  forgotten.  But  if  life  and  property 
are  to  be  protected  and  secured,  which  is  the  purpose  of 
society,  then  justice  must  be  the  rule.  To  quote  Paine 
again,  "A  republic,  properly  understood,  is  a  sovereignty 
of  justice." 

According  to  a  1931  Webster's  dictionary,  justice  is  the 


This  article,  which  appeared  in  the  March  1980  issue  of  The  Free- 
man, is  excerpted  from  Ms.  Snyder's  book  Justice  or  Revolution  (1979). 


207 


208  /  Leslie  Snyder 

"quality  of  being  just;  impartiality."  Just  is  "conforming  to 
right;  normal;  equitable."  A 1961  Webster's  dictionary  says 
justice  is  "The  principle  of  rectitude  and  just  dealings  of 
men  with  each  other — one  of  the  cardinal  virtues.  Adminis- 
tration of  law.  .  ."  A  1975  edition  of  a  Grolier  Webster  dic- 
tionary says  justice  is  "Equitableness;  what  is  rightly  due; 
lawfulness. . . ." 

Since  1931  a  new  meaning  of  the  word  justice  has  been 
added,  that  of  lawfulness,  which  is  not  only  erroneous,  but 
deceitful  and  misleading.  Justice  is  not  based  on  law;  rather, 
law  ought  to  be  based  on  justice.  It  is  only  common  sense, 
for  men  lived  and  worked  together  before  laws  were 
formed.  Generally  laws  are  passed  to  formalize  what  has 
preceded  under  common  practice,  what  has  stood  the  test 
of  time  as  being  just  and  equitable.  Laws  are  common  prac- 
tice put  down  in  black  and  white  for  all  to  see  and  know. 

The  ancient  philosophers  said  that  justice  is  speaking 
the  truth  and  paying  your  debts,  giving  to  each  man  what 
is  proper  to  him,  doing  good  to  friends  and  evil  to  enemies. 
Therefore,  there  must  be  something  more  basic,  more  fun- 
damental than  laws  on  which  to  found  justice.  In  fact,  the 
French  jurist  Charles  de  Montesquieu  (1689-1755)  ably  con- 
tended that  "before  laws  were  made,  there  were  relations  of 
possible  justice.  To  say  that  there  is  nothing  just  or  unjust 
but  what  is  commanded  or  forbidden  by  positive  laws,  is 
the  same  as  saying  that  before  the  describing  of  a  circle  all 
the  radii  were  not  equal." 

Minding  One's  Own  Business 

The  Greek  philosophers  had  the  simplest  definition  of 
justice.  To  Plato  (c.  428-348  B.C.),  in  Tfie  Republic,  Book  IV, 
justice  is  simply  "doing  one's  own  business,  aind  not  being 


]ustice  and  Freedom  /  209 

a  busybody. ...  A  man  may  neither  take  what  is  another's, 

nor  be  deprived  of  what  is  his  own This  is  the  ultimate 

cause  and  condition  of  the  existence  of  all"  other  virtues  in 
the  state,  "and  while  remaining  in  them  is  also  their  preser- 
vative." 

In  Book  XII  of  Plato's  Laws,  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that 
"by  the  relaxation  of  that  justice  which  is  the  uniting  princi- 
ple of  all  constitutions,  every  power  in  the  state  is  rent 
asunder  from  every  other."  In  other  words,  without  justice 
the  threads  of  society  unravel  and  society  disintegrates  into 
barbarism. 

Aristotle  (384-322  B.C.)  in  Nicomachean  Ethics,  Book  V, 
gives  greater  perception  to  what  justice  is.  It  "is  found 
among  men  who  share  their  life  with  a  view  to  self-suffi- 
ciency, men  who  are  free.  .  .  .  Therefore  ywsf/ce  is  essentially 
something  human/'  (Emphasis  added.)  In  other  words,  free 
men  may  choose  to  be  just  or  unjust.  Justice,  as  an  ethical 
term,  is  voluntary;  "...  a  man  acts  unjustly  or  justly  when- 
ever he  does  such  acts  voluntarily"  When  wrong  is  done 
and  done  voluntarily,  it  then  becomes  an  act  of  injustice.  In 
short,  "All  virtue  is  summed  up  in  dealing  justly,"  said 
Aristotle. 

More  concretely,  Aristotle  claims,  in  Rhetoric,  Book  I, 
"Justice  is  the  virtue  through  which  everybody  enjoys  his 
own  possessions  in  accordance  with  the  law;  its  opposite  is 
injustice,  through  which  men  enjoy  the  possessions  of  oth- 
ers in  defiance  of  the  law."  There  is  the  problem  of  using  the 
law  to  legalize  theft  and  to  redistribute  the  property  of  one 
group  to  another  group,  but  for  the  time  being,  we  must 
assume  Aristotle  means  the  use  of  laws  that  are  rightful  and 
just.  For  when  he  says  "justice  has  been  acknowledged  by 
us  to  be  a  social  virtue,  and  it  implies  all  others,"  he  has  laid 
the  foundation  of  a  just  societ}^ 


210  /  Leslie  Snyder 

Furthermore,  Aristotle  maintains  that  "legal  justice  is 
the  discrimination  of  the  just  and  the  unjust."  And,  "Of 
political  justice  part  is  natural,  part  legal — ^natural,  that 
which  everywhere  has  the  same  force  and  does  not  exist  by 
people's  thinking  this  or  that."  Natural  justice  must  pre- 
cede law  and  form  the  basis  of  law  thereon. 

Michel  de  Montaigne  (1533-1592),  in  his  Essays,  elo- 
quently said:  "The  justice  which  in  itself  is  natural  and  uni- 
versal, is  otherwise  and  more  nobly  ordered,  than  that 
other  justice,  which  is  special,  national,  and  constrained  to 
the  ends  of  government."  He  continues,  "There  cannot  a 
worse  state  of  things  be  imagined,  than  where  wickedness 
comes  to  be  legitimate,  and  assumes  with  the  magistrate's 
permission,  the  cloak  of  virtue.  .  .  .  The  extremest  sort  of 
injustice,  according  to  Plato,  is  where  that  which  is  unjust, 
should  be  reputed  for  just." 


Hobbes  on  Natural  Justice 

In  Thomas  Hobbes'  (1588-1679)  Leviathan,  further 
ground  is  laid  on  which  to  base  natural  justice.  The  names 
just  and  unjust,  says  Hobbes,  when  they  are  attributed  to 
men's  actions,  signify  conformity  or  nonconformity  to  rea- 
son. Therefore,  "Justice  ...  is  a  rule  of  reason  by  which  we 
are  forbidden  to  do  anything  destructive  to  our  life,  cind 
consequently  a  law  of  nature." 

Then  Hobbes  leads  beautifully  into  the  virtue  of  just 
actions:  "That  which  gives  to  human  actions  the  relish  of 
justice  is  a  certain  nobleness  or  gallantness  of  courage, 
rarely  found,  by  which  a  man  scorns  to  be  beholding  for  the 
contentment  of  his  life  to  fraud,  or  breach  of  promise.  This 


Justice  and  Freedom  /  211 

justice  of  the  manners  is  that  which  is  meant  where  justice 
is  called  a  virtue;  and  injustice,  a  vice." 

Earlier  it  was  established  that  justice  is  the  social  virtue 
on  which  a  just  society  is  constructed.  Hobbes  adds  to  this 
not  only  by  tying  virtues  to  the  laws  of  nature,  but  to  moral 
philosophy  as  well.  "Now  the  science  of  virtue  and  vice  is 
moral  philosophy;  and  therefore  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
laws  of  nature  is  the  true  moral  philosophy.  .  .  .  For  moral 
philosophy  is  nothing  else  but  the  science  of  what  is  good 
and  evil  in  the  conversation  and  society  of  mankind." 
Thus,  Hobbes  establishes  the  fact  that  a  just  society  is  a 
moral  society. 

Saint  Augustine  (354-^30)  in  The  City  of  God,  Book  XIX, 
declares  "Where,  therefore,  there  is  no  true  justice  there  can 
be  no  right.  For  that  which  is  done  right  is  justly  done,  and 
what  is  unjustly  done  cannot  be  done  by  right."  Hence,  jus- 
tice precedes  "rights." 

Joseph  Joubert  eloquently  phrased  justice  as  truth  in 
action. 

Since  practicing  the  virtue  of  justice  is  voluntary,  man 
ought  to  have  the  courage  to  stand  up  and  fight  for  what  is 
right  and  against  what  is  wrong.  Cato  the  Younger  said  it 
this  way:  "...  a  man  has  it  in  his  power  to  be  just,  if  he  have 
but  the  will  to  be  so,  and  therefore  injustice  is  thought  the 
most  dishonorable  because  it  is  least  excusable." 

Another  way  to  consider  what  justice  is,  is  to  compare  it 
with  injustice.  For  example,  in  Utilitarianism,  John  Stuart 
Mill  (1806-1873)  states  that  "...  it  is  just  to  respect,  unjust 
to  violate,  the  legal  rights  of  any  one."  Second,  "...  injustice 
consists  in  taking  or  withholding  from  any  person  that  to 
which  he  has  a  moral  right."  Third,  "It  is  universally  consid- 
ered just  that  each  person  should  obtain  that  (whether  good 


212  /  Leslie  Snyder 

or  evil)  which  he  deserves."  Fourth,  "It  is  confessedly  unjust 
to  break  faith  with  any  one:  to  violate  an  engagement, 
either  expressed  or  implied.  .  .  ."  Fifth,  "It  is,  by  universal 
admission,  inconsistent  with  justice  to  be  partial." 

A  Moral  Issue 

Mill,  too,  sees  justice  as  a  moral  issue.  He  concludes: 
"Whether  the  injustice  consists  in  depriving  a  person  of  a 
possession,  or  in  breaking  faith  with  him,  or  in  treating  him 
worse  than  he  deserves,  or  worse  than  other  people  who 
have  no  greater  claims,  in  each  case  the  supposition  implies 
two  things — a  wrong  done,  and  some  assignable  person 
who  is  wronged.  Injustice  may  also  be  done  by  treating  a 
person  better  than  others;  but  the  wrong  in  this  case  is  to  his 
competitors,  who  are  also  assignable  persons.  .  .  .  Justice 
implies  something  which  it  is  not  only  right  to  do,  and 
wrong  not  to  do,  but  which  some  individual  person  can 
claim  from  us  as  his  moral  right." 

Thomas  Paine's  Dissertations  speak  about  justice  where 
the  public  good  is  concerned.  He  maintains  that,  "The  foun- 
dation-principle of  public  good  is  justice,  and  wherever  jus- 
tice is  impartially  administered,  the  public  good  is  pro- 
moted; for  as  it  is  to  the  good  of  every  man  that  no  injustice 
be  done  to  him,  so  likewise  it  is  to  his  good  that  the  princi- 
ple which  secures  him  should  not  be  violated  in  the  person 
of  another,  because  such  a  violation  weakens  his  security, 
and  leaves  to  chance  what  ought  to  be  to  him  a  rock  to 
stand  on." 

The  great  American  constitutional  lawyer  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  Lysander  Spooner,  wrote  a  pamphlet  enti- 
tled: Natural  Law,  or  The  Science  of  Justice,  which  succinctly 
summarizes  what  justice  is: 


Justice  and  Freedom  /  213 

The  science  of  mine  and  thine — the  science  of  jus- 
tice— is  the  science  of  all  human  rights;  of  all  a  man's 
rights  of  person  and  property;  of  all  his  rights  to  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

It  is  the  science  which  alone  can  tell  any  man 
what  he  can,  and  cannot,  do;  what  he  can,  and  can- 
not, have;  what  he  can,  and  cannot,  say,  without 
infringing  the  rights  of  any  other  person. 

It  is  the  science  of  peace;  and  the  only  science  of 
peace;  since  it  is  the  science  which  alone  can  tell  us 
on  what  conditions  mankind  can  live  in  peace,  or 
ought  to  live  in  peace,  with  each  other. 

These  conditions  are  simply  these:  viz.,  first,  that 
each  man  shall  do,  towards  every  other,  all  that  jus- 
tice requires  him  to  do;  as,  for  example,  that  he  shall 
pay  his  debts,  that  he  shall  return  borrowed  or  stolen 
property  to  its  owner,  and  that  he  shall  make  repara- 
tion for  any  injury  he  may  have  done  to  the  person 
or  property  of  another. 

The  second  condition  is,  that  each  man  shall 
abstain  from  doing  to  another,  anything  which  jus- 
tice forbids  him  to  do;  as,  for  example,  that  he  shall 
abstain  from  committing  theft,  robbery,  arson,  mur- 
der, or  any  other  crime  against  the  person  or  prop- 
erty of  another. 

So  long  as  these  conditions  are  fulfilled  men  are 
at  peace,  and  ought  to  remain  at  peace,  with  each 
other.  But  when  either  of  these  conditions  is  vio- 
lated, men  are  at  war.  And  they  must  necessarily 
remain  at  war  until  justice  is  re-established. 

Through  all  time,  so  far  as  history  informs  us, 
wherever  mankind  have  attempted  to  live  in  peace 
with  each  other,  both  the  natural  instincts,  and  the 


214  /  Leslie  Snyder 

collective  wisdom  of  the  human  race,  have  acknowl- 
edged and  prescribed,  as  an  indispensable  condi- 
tion, obedience  to  this  one  only  universal  obligation: 
viz.,  that  each  should  live  honestly  towards  every 
other. 

The  ancient  maxim  makes  the  sum  of  man's  legal 
duty  to  his  fellow  men  to  be  simply  this:  "To  live  hon- 
estly, to  hurt  no  one,  to  give  to  every  one  his  due. ..." 

Never  has  such  a  complex  subject  as  justice  been  treated 
so  clearly  and  simply.  To  summarize  justice  thus  far:  Justice 
means  that  each  must  be  accountable  for  his  own  actions, 
entitled  to  the  reward  of  his  labor,  and  responsible  for  the 
consequences  of  his  wrongdoings. 

The  love  of  justice  should  be  instilled  in  every  man, 
woman,  and  child — all  should  wish  to  see  justice  done.  For 
without  justice  the  rule  of  men  (dictatorship),  not  of  law, 
assumes  power.  Without  justice,  society  disintegrates  into 
barbarism,  where  courts  of  law  are  administered  by  favor 
and  pull  instead  of  objective  law,  and  without  objective 
laws,  the  individual  is  at  the  mercy  of  the  ruling  power  and 
its  agents.  The  ancient  atrocities  return,  such  as  no  trial  by 
jury,  confiscatory  taxes  on  life  and  property,  the  purchasing 
of  judges,  legislators,  and  sheriffs;  all  previous  forms  of  the 
prior  administration  of  justice  become  part  of  the  current 
machinery  which  administers  not  justice,  but  injustice  or 
tyranny. 

In  short,  all  that  is  good  rests  on  justice.  Where  there  is 
no  justice,  there  is  no  morality — no  right  or  wrong — any- 
thing goes  and  usually  does.  Justice  is  a  social  virtue  to  be 
practiced  by  individuals.  Justice  demands  that  the  individ- 
ual reward  or  recognize  good  and  condemn  evil.  To  prac- 


Justice  and  Freedom  /  215 

tice  justice  one  should  know  a  man  for  what  he  is  and  treat 
him  accordingly,  whether  he  be  honest,  dishonest,  friend, 
or  thief.  The  good  should  be  rewarded,  the  bad  punished. 

The  Highest  Goal 

Society  cannot  place  before  it  a  higher  or  nobler  goal 
than  the  administration  of  justice.  Thus,  here  is  a  bit  of 
advice  from  Conversations  with  Goethe,  March  22, 1825:  "A 
great  deal  may  be  done  by  severity,  more  by  love,  but  most 
by  clear  discernment  and  impartial  justice." 

Once  the  meaning  of  justice  has  been  established,  next 
comes  the  understanding  of  freedom  and  liberty,  which  are 
crucial  because  only  under  freedom  can  the  individual 
achieve  his  highest  potential  and  pursue  his  happiness. 

To  speak  of  liberty  and  freedom  is  to  speak  first  of  nat- 
ural laws  or  the  right  of  nature.  Hobbes  lays  an  excellent 
foundation  of  natural  laws  or  rights.  He  affirms  that  the 
right  of  nature  is  the  liberty  each  man  has  to  use  his  own 
power  for  the  preservation  of  his  own  life,  and  his  own 
judgment  and  reason  are  the  best  means  for  achieving  it. 

The  first  law  of  nature,  according  to  Jean  Jacques 
Rousseau  (1712-1778),  results  from  man's  nature.  "His  first 
law  is  to  provide  for  his  own  preservation,  his  first  cares  are 
those  which  he  owes  to  himself;  and,  as  soon  as  he  reaches 
years  of  discretion,  he  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  proper  means 
of  preserving  himself. . . ." 

Therefore,  if  man's  first  obligation  is  to  provide  for  his 
own  life,  he  must  live  under  the  proper  conditions  in  which 
to  sustain  his  life,  namely,  liberty.  By  liberty  is  understood 
the  absence  of  external  impediments,  the  absence  of  oppo- 
sition. 


216  /  Leslie  Snyder 
Liberty  Benefits  All 

In  The  Constitution  of  Liberty,  Nobel-Prize  winner 
Friedrich  A.  Hayek  points  out  that  liberty  is  a  negative  con- 
cept like  peace.  "It  becomes  positive  only  through  what  we 
make  of  it.  It  does  not  assure  us  of  any  particular  opportu- 
nities, but  leaves  it  to  us  to  decide  what  use  we  shall  make 
of  the  circumstances  in  which  we  find  ourselves.  .  .  ."  He 
continues,  "Liberty  not  only  means  that  the  individual  has 
both  the  opportunity  and  the  burden  of  choice;  it  also 
means  that  he  must  bear  the  consequences  of  his  actions 
and  will  receive  praise  or  blame  for  them.  Liberty  and 
responsibility  are  inseparable."  (Emphasis  added.) 

To  expound  further.  Mill  explains  that  one  cannot  take 
away  another's  freedom  no  matter  how  sincerely  one  tries 
to  protect  another  Only  by  our  own  hands  can  any  positive 
and  lasting  improvement  in  our  lives  be  worked  out.  And 
through  "the  influence  of  these  two  principles  all  free  com- 
munities have  both  been  more  exempt  from  social  injustice 
and  crime,  and  have  attained  more  brilliant  prosperity,  than 
any  others. . . ." 

Further,  "...  any  restriction  on  liberty  reduces  the  num- 
ber of  things  tried  and  so  reduces  the  rate  of  progress.  In 
such  a  society  freedom  of  action  is  granted  to  the  individ- 
ual, not  because  it  gives  him  greater  satisfaction  but 
because  if  allowed  to  go  his  own  way  he  will  on  the  average 
serve  the  rest  of  us  better  than  any  orders  we  know  how  to 
give." 

In  short,  liberty  is  the  only  object  which  benefits  all  alike 
and  should  provoke  no  sincere  opposition.  Liberty  "is  not  a 
means  to  a  higher  political  end.  It  is  itself  the  highest  polit- 
ical end,"  says  Lord  Acton.  It  is  required  for  security  in  the 
pursuit  of  the  highest  objects  of  private  life  and  civil  society. 


Justice  and  Freedom  /  217 
Morality  Requires  Freedom 

If  liberty  is  to  live  upon  one's  own  terms  and  slavery  is 
to  live  at  the  mercy  of  another's,  then  it  follows  that  to  live 
under  one's  own  terms  means  the  individual  has  a  choice 
of  actions.  He  can  be  virtuous  or  not;  he  can  be  moral. 
Therefore,  morality  requires  freedom.  Thus,  only  free  men 
can  be  just  men! 

In  his  The  Road  to  Serfdom,  Hayek  ties  liberty  to  morality. 
Since  morals  are  of  necessity  a  phenomenon  of  individual 
conduct,  to  be  moral  one  must  be  free  to  make  choices. 
Where  man  is  forced  to  act  by  coercion,  the  ability  to  choose 
has  been  preempted.  Only  under  liberty  and  freedom  can 
man  be  moral.  As  a  result,  only  "where  we  ourselves  are 
responsible  for  our  own  interests  . . .  has  our  decision  moral 
value.  Freedom  to  order  our  own  conduct  in  the  sphere 
where  material  circumstances  force  a  choice  upon  us,  and 
responsibility  for  the  arrangement  of  our  own  life  accord- 
ing to  our  own  conscience,  is  the  air  in  which  alone  moral 
sense  grows  and  in  which  moral  values  are  daily  recreated 
in  the  free  decision  of  the  individual.  Responsibility,  not  to 
a  superior,  but  to  one's  conscience,  the  awareness  of  a  duty 
not  exacted  by  compulsion . . .  and  to  bear  the  consequences 
of  one's  own  decision,  are  the  very  essence  of  any  morals 
which  deserve  the  name." 

The  facts  have  been  established  thus  far  that  man  must 
live  under  liberty  to  become  as  productive,  as  noble,  and  as 
just  as  he  can,  since  liberty  is  the  condition  under  which 
morality  thrives.  Also,  only  the  individual  knows  what  is 
best  for  himself.  And  finally  liberty  does  not  provide 
opportunities,  but  leaves  the  individual  free  to  choose 
those  actions  which  he  thinks  will  best  suit  him  and  to  bear 
the  consequences  of  those  actions. 


218  /  Leslie  Snyder 
The  Price  of  Freedom 

There  is  one  more  thing  to  consider  about  freedom  and 
liberty — the  price.  Tocqueville  remarked,  "Some  abandon 
freedom  thinking  it  dangerous,  others  thinking  it  impossi- 
ble." But  there  is  a  third  reason.  Some  abandon  freedom 
thinking  it  too  expensive.  Freedom  is  not  free.  "Those  who 
expect  to  reap  the  blessings  of  freedom,  must,  like  men, 
undergo  the  fatigues  of  supporting  it,"  noted  Paine. 

"Freedom  is  the  most  exacting  form  of  civil  govern- 
ment— it  is,  in  fact,  the  most  demanding  state  of  all  for  man. 
That  is  because  freedom  demands — depends  upon — self- 
discipline  from  both  the  governed  and  the  governing.  The 
foundation  of  freedom  is  self-government  and  the  founda- 
tion of  self-government  is  self-control,"  explains  author 
Rus  Walton,  of  One  Nation  Under  God.  Freedom  requires 
more,  however.  It  requires  a  strong  and  vigilant  defense. 
"The  greater  the  threat  of  evil,  the  stronger  that  defense 
must  be.  That  which  is  right  does  not  survive  unattended; 
it,  too,  must  have  its  defenders. . . ." 

Is  liberty  worth  the  effort?  According  to  Frederic  Bastiat, 
all  you  have  to  do  is  look  at  the  entire  world  to  decide.  That 
is,  which  "countries  contain  the  most  peaceful,  the  most 
moral,  and  the  happiest  people?  Those  people  are  found  in 
the  countries  where  the  law  least  interferes  with  private 
affairs;  where  government  is  least  felt;  where  the  individual 
has  the  greatest  scope,  and  free  opinion  the  greatest  influ- 
ence; where  administrative  powers  are  fewest  and  sim- 
plest; where  taxes  are  lightest  and  most  nearly  equal,  and 
popular  discontent  the  least  excited  and  the  least  justifiable; 
where  individuals  and  groups  most  actively  assume  their 
responsibilities,  and,  consequently,  where  the  morals  of  . . . 
human  beings  are  constantly   improving;  where  trade. 


Justice  and  Freedom  /  219 

assemblies,  and  associations  are  the  least  restricted; 
where  mankind  most  nearly  follow  its  own  natural  inclina- 
tions; ...  in  short,  the  happiest,  most  moral,  and  most 
peaceful  people  are  those  who  most  nearly  follow  this  prin- 
ciple: although  mankind  is  not  perfect,  still,  all  hope  rests 
upon  the  free  and  voluntary  actions  of  persons  within  the 
limits  of  right;  law  or  force  is  to  be  used  for  nothing  except 
the  administration  of  universal  justice." 

What  this  means  to  us  today  is  that  our  society,  so  filled 
with  government  regulations  and  laws,  has  taken  away 
many  of  our  liberties.  For  example,  we  cannot  go  into  some 
businesses  without  being  licensed,  taxed,  and  regulated. 
We  are  presumed  guilty  (of  dishonesty)  until  proven  inno- 
cent (which  is  impossible).  Our  reputations  are  continually 
under  attack  and,  for  the  most  part,  stand  for  nothing.  Hon- 
esty and  integrity,  once  the  backbone  of  our  society,  have 
been  replaced  by  government  regulations  and  promises. 
Under  this  system  of  injustice  all  of  us  are  losing  our  liber- 
ties, wealth,  and  happiness. 

What  better  way  to  summarize  the  spirit  of  liberty  and 
freedom  and  justice  than  to  quote  Tocqueville,  who  said,  "I 
should  have  loved  freedom,  I  believe,  at  all  times,  but  in  the 
time  in  which  we  live  I  am  ready  to  worship  it." 


On  Liberty  and  Liberation 
Bruce  D.  Porter 


For  at  least  half  a  century  now  the  word  liberty  has  been 
declining  in  popular  usage  and  the  word  liberation  has 
been  advancing.  Today  in  the  United  States  the  word  lib- 
erty has  all  but  disappeared  from  public  discourse,  while 
liberation  has  become  a  fashionable  term,  enthusiastically 
invoked  in  political  oratory,  in  everyday  conversation,  and 
in  respected  works  of  scholarship. 

This  is  not  a  mere  case  of  linguistic  drift.  The  decline  of 
liberty  and  the  rise  of  liberation  reveal  the  extent  to  which 
doctrinal  myths  and  political  folly  have  come  to  dominate 
our  age.  Americans  are  forgetting  the  meaning  of  liberty  in 
pursuit  of  a  phantom  liberation.  Over  two  centuries  ago  at 
Buckinghamshire  Edmund  Burke  observed  that,  "The  peo- 
ple never  give  up  their  liberties  but  under  some  delusion." 
With  mad  abandon  contemporary  Americans  are  jettison- 
ing many  of  their  once-cherished  freedoms  and  values  as 
they  seek  an  impossible  form  of  liberation — from  moral 
restraints,  self-discipline,  responsibility,  work,  necessity, 
competition,  struggle,  inequality,  natural  law,  and  the  con- 
sequences of  their  own  behavior.  It  is  a  senseless,  tragic 
course  which  can  lead  only  to  subservience,  dependency, 
and  decadence.  It  is  a  delusion. 

An  imperative  prerequisite  to  our  survival  as  a  free 

This  article  appeared  in  the  April  1980  issue  of  The  Freeman.  At  the 
time  he  wrote  it,  Dr.  Porter  was  a  Research  Fellow  of  Harvard  Univer- 
sity's Center  for  International  Affairs. 


220 


On  Liberty  and  Liberation  /  111 

nation  is  that  we  recapture — in  our  hearts  and  minds,  as 
well  as  in  our  politics — an  understanding  of  the  true  nature 
of  liberty.  A  love  of  liberty  and  a  clear  comprehension  of  the 
foundations  upon  which  it  rests  will  quickly  dispel  every 
attraction  of  the  false  ideologies  of  liberation. 

Liberty  is  a  divine  gift,  one  of  the  most  priceless  of 
God's  bequests  to  man,  and  the  natural,  inalienable  right  of 
every  person  who  enters  the  world.  In  simplest  terms  lib- 
erty may  be  defined  as  the  freedom  of  the  individual  to 
shape  his  own  destiny  and  to  govern  his  own  affairs.  Of 
necessity  this  implies  the  freedom  to  choose  one's  associa- 
tions, loyalties,  beliefs,  opportunities,  and  economic  rela- 
tionships, as  well  as  the  freedom  to  exercise  control  over  the 
fruits  of  one's  own  labors. 

Though  liberty  is  God-given,  mortal  efforts  are  required 
to  sustain  and  preserve  it.  Human  institutions  do  not  grant 
liberty,  but  they  often  usurp  it.  Individuals  are  born  free, 
but  they  can  willfully  sell,  abandon,  or  reject  that  birthright. 
For  these  reasons,  liberty  is  never  free.  When  not  defended, 
it  will  not  survive;  when  not  exercised,  it  will  atrophy. 

Essentials  of  Liberty 

Liberty  can  only  endure  when  certain  conditions  are 
met.  First,  there  must  be  an  absence  of  coercive  actions 
intended  to  impede  the  free  exercise  of  will  or  to  rob  indi- 
viduals of  their  labors  and  investments.  Coercive  force  is 
justified  only  when  it  is  imperative  to  the  defense  of  liberty, 
i.e.,  when  exerted  to  prevent  a  yet  greater  coercive  act. 
Criminals  and  tyrants  of  every  form  stand  ready  to  destroy 
human  freedom,  to  rob  the  property  of  others,  to  impose 
their  will  upon  whole  societies.  Their  influence  must  be 
checked  if  liberty  is  to  prosper. 


222  /  Bruce  D.  Porter 

A  second  necessary  condition  for  the  survival  of  liberty 
is  that  individuals  possess  and  are  free  to  acquire  the  posi- 
tive means  needed  to  pursue  rational  ends.  These  means 
include  material  resources,  talent,  initiative,  knowledge, 
energy,  discipline,  and  a  love  of  progress  and  freedom.  Lib- 
erty does  not  consist  of  undirected,  impotent,  and  senseless 
expressions  of  the  human  will;  rather,  it  thrives  as  the  indi- 
vidual acquires  power  to  act  and  to  focus  his  efforts  in 
meaningful  directions.  Liberty  requires  power — not  power 
over  others,  but  power  to  effect  personal  progress,  to 
change  one's  circumstances  for  the  better. 

Thirdly,  the  preservation  of  liberty  requires  that  individ- 
uals manifest  moral  commitment  and  self-restraint  in  the 
choice  and  pursuit  of  their  goals.  Liberty  means  the  absence 
of  coercive  restraints,  but  it  does  not  mean  the  absence  of  all 
restraints.  We  cannot  escape  the  consequences  of  our  own 
behavior  The  unrestrained  pursuit  of  power  means 
enslavement  to  ambition,  the  unrestrained  pursuit  of 
wealth  means  enslavement  to  avarice,  the  unrestrained 
pursuit  of  pleasure  means  enslavement  to  passions. 

Without  moral  limits  liberty  degenerates  into  license 
and  license  turns  inevitably  toward  destructive  ends.  The 
moral  authority  which  sets  limits  on  the  scope  of  an  indi- 
vidual's actions  must  flow  from  within  him,  the  product  of 
conscience  and  reason;  when  imposed  by  a  higher  author- 
ity, however  well-intentioned,  moral  laws  are  transformed 
into  instruments  of  coercion  and  domination. 

A  Constitutional  Structure 

Keeping  these  conditions  in  mind,  it  is  instructive  to 
inquire  into  the  kind  of  social  structure  which  will  foster 
liberty.  In  order  to  insure  the  first  condition  of  liberty,  a  con- 


On  Liberty  and  Liberation  /  223 

stitutional  and  legal  framework  must  be  erected  and 
upheld,  its  principal  end  being  to  guard  against  all  coercive 
challenges  to  f>ersonal  liberty — whether  from  individuals, 
institutions,  foreign  armies,  or  from  the  state  itself. 

The  threat  to  liberty  of  the  state  itself  should  be  empha- 
sized, for  unless  such  a  constitutional  system  is  strictly  self- 
limiting  its  administrative  apparatus  will  grow  in  size  and 
power  until  it  comes  to  dominate  the  entire  society  accord- 
ing to  its  own  vested  interests.  Consensus  and  consent  are 
fundamental  to  the  establishment  and  operation  of  a  free 
government,  but  the  goal  sought  is  not  so  much  "govern- 
ment of  the  people" — for  this  can  imply  that  majorities 
deserve  coercive  power — ^as  a  government  of  laws,  adminis- 
tered as  impersonally  and  fairly  as  possible. 

By  itself  alone  a  constitutionally  limited  government 
will  never  suffice  to  insure  the  survival  of  human  liberty. 
This  is  because  government  cannot  bring  about  the  second 
and  third  conditions  of  liberty  discussed  above — the  power 
and  means  necessary  for  positive  action  and  the  moral  lim- 
its within  which  liberty  operates.  Government  can  be  an 
arbiter,  but  it  can  never  be  a  provider.  It  can  enforce  protec- 
tive laws,  but  it  cannot  produce  virtuous  people  or  act  as  a 
higher  moral  authority. 

A  cycle  of  futility  results  whenever  the  state  attempts  to 
provide  the  resources  and  human  energy  necessary  for 
progress.  Every  resource  a  government  provides  to  the 
individuals  in  a  society  must  first  be  taken  from  those  indi- 
viduals. Because  the  process  of  injecting  them  back  into  the 
society  will  always  incur  a  net  loss,  the  result  over  time 
will  be  economic  stagnation,  declining  initiative  in  society 
as  a  whole,  depletion  of  real  resources,  debasement  of  cur- 
rency, decline  in  productive  capital,  and  the  disintegration 
of  social  cohesiveness.  The  end  of  this  cycle  of  futility  is  the 


224  /  Bruce  D.  Porter 

dependency  of  the  people  on  the  government  and  the 
death  of  liberty.  Liberty  is  certain  to  perish  in  any  society 
which  relies  solely  on  government  to  create  the  conditions 
of  liberty. 

No  matter  how  carefully  structured  and  well-defined 
are  the  legal  rights,  checks,  and  balances  of  a  constitutional 
system,  this  cycle  of  futility  will  at  some  point  ensue  unless 
the  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  possess  a  strong  spirit  of 
independence  and  self-reliance,  and  the  moral  sensibilities 
to  recognize  true  liberty  when  they  see  it.  When  the  moral 
will  and  independence  of  the  majority  of  a  p>opulation 
decline,  the  checks  and  balances  of  any  system  will  erode. 
No  constitutional  system  can  long  endure  if  its  legislators 
are  not  devoted  to  higher  principles,  if  its  judiciary  is  cor- 
rupt, if  its  administrators  do  not  place  integrity  above  all 
other  qualities. 

Moral  Foundations 

The  constitutional  framework  of  liberty  must  rest  upon 
a  firm  foundation:  the  love  of  independence  in  the  hearts  of 
a  people,  their  moral  commitment,  and  the  vast  human  and 
material  resources  which  they  possess  and  independently 
control.  The  institutions  which  transmit  this  foundation 
from  generation  to  generation  are  almost  all  private:  fami- 
lies, churches,  corporations,  firms,  associations,  publishers, 
newspapers,  and  the  like.  (Schools  can  also  play  a  key  role 
if  they  are  under  the  control  of  those  who  pay  for  them, 
rather  than  under  the  central  government.)  Standing  inde- 
pendent from  the  state,  these  institutions  are  the  founda- 
tions of  a  society's  liberty.  If  the  state  encroaches  upon  their 
domain  and  subsumes  their  functions,  liberty  declines.  But 
so   long  as  a   people  cherish   the   moral   and   material 


On  Liberty  and  Liberation  /  225 

resources  which  give  them  the  power  to  be  independent 
and  so  long  as  the  state  is  a  strictly  limited  constitutional 
government  of  laws,  liberty  will  prosper. 

The  increasingly  difficult  and  unfortunate  circum- 
stances in  which  America  finds  itself  today  may  be  traced 
in  large  part  to  a  general  decline  in  liberty.  Genuine  free- 
dom continues  to  diminish  even  as  large  numbers  of  Amer- 
icans are  seduced  by  the  muddle-headed  mythology  of  lib- 
eration, believing  that  it  will  somehow  make  them  freer. 
Quite  the  opposite  consequence  will  result,  for  the  doctrine 
and  practice  of  liberation  constitute  a  direct  assault  on  the 
conditions  and  structure  of  liberty. 

In  order  to  discern  the  destructive  potential  underlying 
the  multitude  of  contemporary  theories  and  programs 
advocating  liberation,  it  suffices  simply  to  ask:  liberation 
from  what?  We  learn,  to  begin  with,  that  we  are  to  be  liber- 
ated from  "artificial"  self-restraints  and  moral  limits — from 
the  third  condition  of  liberty  discussed  above. 

Proponents  of  liberation  preach  that  freedom  is  an  unre- 
strained, limitless,  spontaneous  expression  of  the  human 
will,  ignoring  the  reality  that  meaningful  progress  can  only 
be  made  when  disciplined  efforts  are  rationally  directed. 
Liberty  is  not  a  bundle  of  whims  and  passions.  In  order  to 
promote  this  doctrine  it  is  necessary  to  attack  all  the  tradi- 
tional and  independent  sources  of  morality:  religion,  family, 
private  property,  private  schools,  local  control  of  education, 
corporate  independence,  and  so  forth.  In  this  manner  liber- 
ation seeks  to  undermine  the  very  foundation  of  liberty. 

''Effortless  Abundance" 

This  is  only  the  beginning.  We  are  also  to  be  liberated 
from  work,  want,  necessity,  and  struggle.  Thus,  liberation 


226  /  Bruce  D.  Porter 

ignores  the  second  condition  of  liberty:  that  individuals 
must  possess  and  acquire  the  positive  instruments  of  action 
in  order  to  be  free.  The  assumption  is  that  freedom — the 
power  to  act,  choose,  and  progress — can  somehow  exist 
without  effort  and  investment. 

In  the  pursuit  of  this  chimera  goal  of  an  effortless  world 
of  abundance  for  all,  the  advocates  of  liberation  seek  natu- 
rally to  use  the  coercive  power  of  the  state  in  order  to 
extract  resources  from  others.  In  this  manner  liberation 
becomes  a  predatory  doctrine  which  can  only  accomplish 
its  ends  by  dismantling  the  constitutional  checks  of  limited 
government  and  replacing  it  with  an  all-powerful  bureau- 
cracy devoted  to  central  planning,  income  redistribution, 
economic  dictatorship,  and  totalitarian  control  over  indi- 
vidual lives.  And  thus  perishes  the  first  condition  of  lib- 
erty— the  absence  of  coercive  power. 

Liberation  is  a  delusion  which  cannot  lead  to  real  free- 
dom because  it  is  based  on  principles  and  values  funda- 
mentally contradictory  to  true  liberty.  The  consequences  of 
the  decline  of  liberty  and  the  rise  of  liberation  in  America 
have  never  been  described  more  eloquently  than  by 
William  Simon: 

There  has  never  been  such  freedom  before  in  Amer- 
ica to  speak  freely  ...  to  publish  anything  and  every- 
thing, including  the  most  scurrilous  gossip;  to  take 
drugs  and  to  prate  to  children  about  their  alleged 
pleasures;  to  propagandize  for  bizarre  sexual  prac- 
tices: to  watch  bloody  and  obscene  entertainment. 
Conversely,  compulsion  rules  the  world  of  work. 
There  has  never  been  so  little  freedom  in  America  to 
plan,  to  save,  to  invest,  to  build,  to  produce,  to 
invent,  to  hire,  to  fire,  to  resist  coercive  unionization. 


On  Liberty  and  Liberation  /  227 

to  exchange  goods  and  services,  to  risk,  to  profit,  to 
grow. 

.  .  .  Americans  are  constitutionally  free  today  to 
do  almost  everything  that  our  cultural  tradition  has 
previously  held  to  be  immoral  and  obscene,  while 
the  police  powers  of  the  state  are  being  invoked 
against  almost  every  aspect  of  the  productive 
process.^ 

It  is  not  difficult  to  discern  the  logical  end  of  this  trend: 
America  will  be  liberated  of  its  liberty. 

Prior  to  the  American  Revolution  the  world  was 
imbued  with  the  notion  that  liberty  was  dangerous  and 
irresponsible,  that  its  establishment  could  lead  only  to 
anarchy,  indolence,  and  the  breakdown  of  society.  The  birth 
of  the  American  republic  and  the  astonishing  release  of 
human  energy  and  productivity  which  resulted  shattered 
this  myth  forever.  America  was  both  free  and  stable;  it  pos- 
sessed both  liberty  and  order. 

The  liberty  of  America  became  the  cherished  ideal  of 
oppressed  peoples  everywhere.  Liberty  suddenly  acquired 
a  respectable  name.  Never  thereafter  was  it  possible  for  the 
enemies  of  freedom  to  attack  it  frontally.  The  most  bitter 
opponents  of  genuine  liberty  came  to  portray  their  policies, 
programs,  and  ideologies  as  pathways  to  freedom. 

Instead  of  liberty,  however,  the  favorite  watchword 
became  liberation.  Under  this  banner  march  the  tyrannies 
of  our  time,  from  Soviet  Russia  with  its  wars  of  national  lib- 
eration to  the  kaleidoscope  of  coercive  political  programs  in 
America  which  invoke  the  mirage  of  liberation.  The  twenti- 
eth century  has  been  a  century  of  liberation — of  a  war  on 
freedom  fought  in  the  name  of  freedom. 

The  irony  of  America's  present  course  is  that  in  the 


228  /  Bruce  D.  Porter 

name  of  freedom  from  restraints,  every  source  of  indepen- 
dent power  and  morality  is  being  undermined;  in  the  name 
of  freedom  from  work,  want,  and  scarcity,  the  constitu- 
tional framework  of  liberty  is  being  dismantled,  attacked, 
and  perverted  past  recognition.  Beyond  the  irony  stands 
the  very  real  tragedy  that  in  the  name  of  freedom  we  are 
being  led  inexorably  toward  oppression  and  slavery. 

1.  William  Simon,  A  Time  for  Truth  (New  York:  Berkely  Press  edi- 
tion, 1979),  p.  251. 


The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom 
Benjamin  A.  Rogge 


My  economic  philosophy  is  here  offered  with  full 
knowledge  that  it  is  not  generally  accepted  as  the  right  one. 
On  the  contrary,  my  brand  of  economics  has  now  become 
Brand  X,  the  one  that  is  never  selected  as  the  whitest  by  the 
housewife,  the  one  that  is  said  to  be  slow  acting,  the  one 
that  contains  no  miracle  ingredient.  It  loses  nine  times  out 
of  ten  in  the  popularity  polls  run  on  Election  Day,  and,  in 
most  elections,  it  doesn't  even  present  a  candidate. 

I  shall  identify  my  brand  of  economics  as  that  of  eco- 
nomic freedom,  and  I  shall  define  economic  freedom  as 
that  set  of  economic  arrangements  that  would  exist  in  a 
society  in  which  the  government's  only  function  would  be 
to  prevent  one  man  from  using  force  or  fraud  against 
another — including  within  this,  of  course,  the  task  of 
national  defense.  So  that  there  can  be  no  misunderstanding 
here,  let  me  say  that  this  is  pure,  uncompromising  laissez- 
faire  economics.  It  is  not  the  mixed  economy;  it  is  the 
unmixed  economy. 

I  readily  admit  that  1  do  not  expect  to  see  such  an  econ- 
omy in  my  lifetime  or  in  anyone's  lifetime  in  the  infinity  of 
years  ahead  of  us.  1  present  it  rather  as  the  ideal  we  should 
strive  for  and  should  be  disappointed  in  never  fully 
attaining. 

Dr.  Rogge  (1920-1980)  was  Dean  and  Professor  of  Economics  at 
Wabash  College  in  Indiana  and  a  long-time  trustee  of  FEE.  This  essay 
appeared  in  the  February  1981  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


229 


230  /  Benjamin  A.  Rogge 

Where  do  we  find  the  most  powerful  and  persuasive 
case  for  economic  freedom?  I  don't  know;  probably  it  has- 
n't been  prepared  as  yet.  Certainly  it  is  unlikely  that  the 
case  I  present  is  the  definitive  one.  However,  it  is  the  one 
that  is  persuasive  with  me,  that  leads  me  to  my  own  deep 
commitment  to  the  free  market.  I  present  it  as  grist  for  your 
own  mill  and  not  as  the  divinely  inspired  last  word  on  the  j 
subject. 

The  Moral  Case 

You  will  note  as  I  develop  my  case  that  I  attach  rela- 
tively little  importance  to  the  demonstrated  efficiency  of 
the  free-market  system  in  promoting  economic  growth,  in 
raising  levels  of  living.  In  fact,  my  central  thesis  is  that  the 
most  important  part  of  the  case  for  economic  freedom  is  not  its 
vaunted  efficiency  as  a  system  for  organizing  resources,  not  its 
dramatic  success  in  promoting  economic  growth,  but  rather  its 
consistency  with  certain  fundamental  moral  principles  of  life 
itself  \ 

I  say,  "the  most  important  part  of  the  case"  for  two  rea- 
sons. First,  the  significance  I  attach  to  those  moral  princi- 
ples would  lead  me  to  prefer  the  free  enterprise  system 
even  if  it  were  demonstrably  less  efficient  than  alternative 
systems,  even  if  it  were  to  produce  a  slower  rate  of  economic 
growth  than  systems  of  central  direction  and  control.  Sec- 
ond, the  great  mass  of  the  people  of  any  country  is  never 
really  going  to  understand  the  purely  economic  workings 
of  any  economic  system,  be  it  free  enterprise  or  socialism. 
Hence,  most  people  are  going  to  judge  an  economic  system 
by  its  consistency  with  their  moral  principles  rather  than  by 
its  purely  scientific  operating  characteristics.  If  economic 
freedom  survives  in  the  years  ahead,  it  will  be  only  because 


The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom  /  231 

a  majority  of  the  people  accept  its  basic  morality.  The  suc- 
cess of  the  system  in  bringing  ever  higher  levels  of  living 
will  be  no  more  persuasive  in  the  future  than  it  has  been  in 
the  past.  Let  me  illustrate. 

The  doctrine  of  man  held  in  general  in  nineteenth-cen- 
tury America  argued  that  each  man  was  ultimately  respon- 
sible for  what  happened  to  him,  for  his  own  salvation,  both 
in  the  here  and  now  and  in  the  hereafter.  Thus,  whether  a 
man  prospered  or  failed  in  economic  life  was  each  man's 
individual  responsibility:  each  man  had  a  right  to  the 
rewards  for  success  amd,  in  the  same  sense,  deserved  the 
punishment  that  came  with  failure.  It  followed  as  well  that 
it  is  explicitly  immoral  to  use  the  power  of  government  to 
take  from  one  man  to  give  to  another,  to  legalize  Robin 
Hood.  This  doctrine  of  man  found  its  economic  counterpart 
in  the  system  of  free  enterprise  and,  hence,  the  system  of 
free  enterprise  was  accepted  and  respected  by  many  who 
had  no  real  understanding  of  its  subtleties  as  a  technique 
for  organizing  resource  use. 

As  this  doctrine  of  man  was  replaced  by  one  which 
made  of  man  a  helpless  victim  of  his  subconscious  and  his 
environment — responsible  for  neither  his  successes  nor  his 
failures — the  free  enterprise  system  came  to  be  rejected  by 
many  who  still  had  no  real  understanding  of  its  actual 
operating  characteristics. 

Basic  Values  Considered 

Inasmuch  as  my  own  value  systems  and  my  own 
assumptions  about  human  beings  are  so  important  to  the 
case,  I  want  to  sketch  them  for  you. 

To  begin  with,  the  central  value  in  my  choice  system  is 
individual  freedom.  By  freedom  I  mean  exactly  and  only 


232  /  Benjamin  A.  Rogge 

freedom  from  coercion  by  others.  I  do  not  mean  the  four 
freedoms  of  President  Roosevelt,  which  are  not  freedoms  at 
all,  but  only  rhetorical  devices  to  persuade  people  to  give 
up  some  of  their  true  freedom.  In  the  Rogge  system,  each 
man  must  be  free  to  do  what  is  his  duty  as  he  defines  it,  so 
long  as  he  does  not  use  force  against  another. 

Next,  I  believe  each  man  to  be  ultimately  responsible  for 
what  happens  to  him.  True,  he  is  influenced  by  his  heredity, 
his  environment,  his  subconscious,  and  by  pure  chance.  But 
I  insist  that  precisely  what  makes  man  man  is  his  ability  to 
rise  above  these  influences,  to  change  and  determine  his 
own  destiny.  If  this  be  true,  then  it  follows  that  each  of  us  is 
terribly  and  inevitably  and  forever  responsible  for  every- 
thing he  does.  The  answer  to  the  question,  "Who's  to 
blame?"  is  always,  "Mea  culpa,  I  am." 

I  believe  as  well  that  man  is  im{:)erfect,  now  and  forever. 
He  is  imperfect  in  his  knowledge  of  the  ultimate  purpose  of 
his  life,  imperfect  in  his  choice  of  means  to  serve  those  pur- 
poses he  does  select,  imperfect  in  the  integrity  with  which 
he  deals  with  himself  and  those  around  him,  imperfect  in 
his  capacity  to  love  his  fellow  man.  If  man  is  imperfect,  then 
all  of  his  constructs  must  be  imp>erfect,  and  the  choice  is 
always  among  degrees  and  kinds  of  imperfection.  The  New 
Jerusalem  is  never  going  to  be  realized  here  on  earth,  and 
the  man  who  insists  that  it  is,  is  always  lost  unto  freedom. 

Moreover,  man's  imperfections  are  intensified  as  he 
acquires  the  power  to  coerce  others;  "power  tends  to  cor- 
rupt and  absolute  power  corrupts  absolutely." 

This  completes  the  listing  of  my  assumptions,  and  it 
should  be  clear  that  the  list  does  not  constitute  a  total  phi- 
losophy of  life.  Most  importantly,  it  does  not  define  what  I 
believe  the  free  man's  duty  to  be,  or  more  specifically,  what 
I  believe  my  own  duty  to  be  and  the  source  of  the  charge  to 


The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom  /  233 

me.  However  important  these  questions,  I  do  not  consider 
them  relevant  to  the  choice  of  an  economic  system. 

Here,  then,  are  two  sections  of  the  case  for  economic 
freedom  as  I  would  construct  it.  The  first  section  presents 
economic  freedom  as  an  ultimate  end  in  itself  and  the  sec- 
ond presents  it  as  a  means  to  the  preservation  of  the 
noneconomic  elements  in  total  freedom. 

Individual  Freedom  of  Choice 

The  first  section  of  the  case  is  made  in  the  stating  of  it,  if 
one  accepts  the  fundamental  premise. 

Major  premise:  Each  man  should  be  free  to  take  whatever 
action  he  wishes,  so  long  as  he  does  not  use  force  or  fraud 
against  another. 

Minor  premise:  All  economic  behavior  is  "action"  as 
identified  above. 

Conclusion:  Each  man  should  be  free  to  take  whatever 
action  he  wishes  in  his  economic  behavior,  so  long  as  he 
does  not  use  force  or  fraud  against  another. 

In  other  words,  economic  freedom  is  a  part  of  total  free- 
dom; if  freedom  is  an  end  in  itself  as  our  society  has  traditionally 
asserted  it  to  be,  then  economic  freedom  is  an  end  in  itself  to  be 
valued  for  itself  alone  and  not  just  for  its  instrumental  value  in 
serving  other  goals. 

If  this  thesis  is  accepted,  then  there  must  always  exist  a 
tremendous  presumption  against  each  and  every  proposal 
for  governmental  limitation  of  economic  freedom.  What  is 
wrong  with  a  state  system  of  compulsory  social  security?  It 
denies  to  the  individual  his  freedom,  his  right  to  choose 
what  he  will  do  with  his  own  money  resources.  What  is 
wrong  with  a  govemmentally  enforced  minimum  wage?  It 
denies  to  the  employer  and  the  employee  their  individual 


234  /  Benjamin  A.  Rogge 

freedoms,  their  individual  rights  to  enter  into  voluntary 
relationships  not  involving  force  or  fraud.  What  is  wrong 
with  a  tariff  or  an  import  quota?  It  denies  to  the  individual 
consumer  his  right  to  buy  what  he  wishes,  wherever  he 
wishes. 

It  is  breathtaking  to  think  what  this  simple  approach 
would  do  to  the  apparatus  of  state  control  at  all  levels  of 
government.  Strike  from  the  books  all  legislation  that 
denies  economic  freedom  to  any  individual,  and  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  activities  now  undertaken  by  government 
would  be  eliminated. 

I  am  no  dreamer  of  empty  dreams,  and  I  do  not  expect 
that  the  day  will  ever  come  when  this  principle  of  economic 
freedom  as  a  part  of  total  freedom  will  be  fully  accepted 
and  applied.  Yet  I  am  convinced  that  unless  this  principle  is 
given  some  standing,  unless  those  who  examine  proposals 
for  new  regulation  of  the  individual  by  government  look  on 
this  loss  of  freedom  as  a  "cost"  of  the  proposed  legislation, 
the  chances  of  free  enterprise  surviving  are  small  indeed. 
The  would-be  controller  can  always  find  reasons  why  it 
might  seem  expedient  to  control  the  individual;  unless 
slowed  down  by  some  general  feeling  that  it  is  immoral  to 
do  so,  he  will  usually  have  his  way. 

Noneconomic  Freedoms 

So  much  for  the  first  section  of  the  case.  Now  for  the  sec- 
ond. The  major  premise  here  is  the  same,  that  is,  the 
premise  of  the  rightness  of  freedom.  Here,  though,  the  con- 
cern is  with  the  noneconomic  elements  in  total  freedom — 
with  freedom  of  sp)eech,  of  religion,  of  the  press,  of  j>ersonal 
behavior.  My  thesis  is  that  these  freedoms  are  not  Ukely  to 


The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom  /  235 

be  long  preserved  in  a  society  that  has  denied  economic 
freedom  to  its  individual  members. 

Before  developing  this  thesis,  I  wish  to  comment  briefly 
on  the  importance  of  these  noneconomic  freedoms.  I  do  so 
because  we  who  are  known  as  conservatives  have  often 
given  too  little  attention  to  these  freedoms  or  have  even 
played  a  significant  role  in  reducing  them.  The  modem  lib- 
eral is  usually  inconsistent  in  that  he  defends  man's 
noneconomic  freedoms,  but  is  often  quite  indifferent  to  his 
economic  freedom.  The  modem  conservative  is  often  in- 
consistent in  that  he  defends  man's  economic  freedom  but 
is  indifferent  to  his  noneconomic  freedoms.  Why  are  there 
so  few  conservatives  in  the  struggles  over  censorship,  over 
denials  of  equality  before  the  law  for  people  of  all  races, 
over  blue  laws,  and  so  on?  Why  do  we  let  the  modern  lib- 
erals dominate  an  organization  such  as  the  American  Civil 
Liberties  Union?  The  general  purposes  of  this  organization 
are  completely  consistent  with,  even  necessary  to,  the  truly 
free  society. 

Particularly  in  times  of  stress  such  as  these,  we  must 
fight  against  the  general  pressure  to  curb  the  rights  of  indi- 
vidual human  beings,  even  those  whose  ideas  and  actions 
we  detest.  Now  is  the  time  to  remember  the  example  of 
men  such  as  David  Ricardo,  the  London  banker  and  econo- 
mist of  the  classical  free-market  school  in  the  first  part  of 
the  last  century.  Bom  a  Jew,  married  to  a  Quaker,  he 
devoted  some  part  of  his  energy  and  his  fortune  to  elimi- 
nating the  legal  discrimination  against  Catholics  in  the 
England  of  his  day. 

It  is  precisely  because  I  believe  these  noneconomic  free- 
doms to  be  so  important  that  I  believe  economic  freedom  to 
be  so  important.  The  argument  here  could  be  drawn  from 


236  /  Benjamin  A.  Rogge 

the  wisdom  of  the  Bible  and  the  statement  that  "where  a 
man's  treasure  is,  there  will  his  heart  be  also."  Give  me  con- 
trol over  a  man's  economic  actions,  and  hence  over  his 
means  of  survival,  and  except  for  a  few  occasional  heroes, 
I'll  promise  to  deliver  to  you  men  who  think  and  write  and 
behave  as  I  want  them  to. 

Freedom  of  the  Press 

The  case  is  not  difficult  to  make  for  the  fully  controlled 
economy,  the  true  socialistic  state.  Milton  Friedman,  in  his 
book  Capitalism  and  Freedom,  takes  the  case  of  a  socialist 
society  that  has  a  sincere  desire  to  preserve  the  freedom  of 
the  press.  The  first  problem  would  be  that  there  would  be 
no  private  capital,  no  private  fortunes  that  could  be  used 
to  subsidize  an  antisocialist,  procapitalist  press.  Hence, 
the  socialist  state  would  have  to  do  it.  However,  the  men 
and  women  undertaking  the  task  would  have  to  be 
released  from  the  socialist  labor  pool  and  would  have  to 
be  assured  that  they  would  never  be  discriminated 
against  in  employment  opportunities  in  the  socialist  appa- 
ratus if  they  were  to  wish  to  change  occupations  later. 
Then  these  procapitalist  members  of  the  socialist  society 
would  have  to  go  to  other  functionaries  of  the  state  to 
secure  the  buildings,  the  presses,  the  pa|:)er,  the  skilled 
and  unskilled  workmen,  and  all  the  other  components  of 
a  working  newspaper.  Then  they  would  face  the  problem 
of  finding  distribution  outlets,  either  creating  their  own  (a 
frightening  task)  or  using  the  same  ones  used  by  the  offi- 
cial socialist  propaganda  organs.  Finally,  where  would 
they  find  readers?  How  many  men  and  women  would 
risk  showing  up  at  their  state-controlled  jobs  carrying 
copies  of  the  Daily  Capitalist? 


The  Case  far  Economic  Freedom  /  237 

There  are  so  many  unlikely  steps  in  this  process  that  the 
assumption  that  true  freedom  of  the  press  could  be  main- 
tained in  a  socialist  society  is  so  unrealistic  as  to  be  ludi- 
crous. 


Partly  Socialized 

Of  course,  we  are  not  facing  as  yet  a  fully  socialized 
America,  but  only  one  in  which  there  is  significant  govern- 
ment intervention  in  a  still  predominantly  private  enter- 
prise economy.  Do  these  interventions  pose  any  threat  to 
the  noneconomic  freedoms?  I  believe  they  do. 

First  of  all,  the  total  of  coercive  devices  now  available  to 
any  administration  of  either  party  at  the  national  level  is  so 
great  that  true  freedom  to  work  actively  against  the  current 
administration  (whatever  it  might  be)  is  seriously  reduced. 
For  example,  farmers  have  become  captives  of  the  govern- 
ment in  such  a  way  that  they  are  forced  into  political  align- 
ments that  seriously  reduce  their  ability  to  protest  actions 
they  do  not  approve.  The  new  trade  bill,  though  right  in  the 
principle  of  free  trade,  gives  to  the  President  enormous 
power  to  reward  his  friends  and  punish  his  critics. 

Second,  the  form  of  these  interventions  is  such  as  to 
threaten  seriously  one  of  the  real  cornerstones  of  all  free- 
doms— equality  before  the  law.  For  example,  farmers  and 
trade  union  members  are  now  encouraged  and  assisted  in 
doing  precisely  that  for  which  businessmen  are  sent  to  jail 
(i.e.,  acting  collusively  to  manipulate  prices).  The  blind- 
folded Goddess  of  Justice  has  been  encouraged  to  peek  and 
she  now  says,  with  the  jurists  of  the  ancient  regime,  "First 
tell  me  who  you  are  and  then  Til  tell  you  what  your  rights 
are."  A  society  in  which  such  gross  inequalities  before  the 
law  are  encouraged  in  economic  life  is  not  likely  to  be  one 


238  /  Benjamin  A.  Rogge 

which  preserves  the  principle  of  equality  before  the  law 
generally. 

We  could  go  on  to  many  specific  illustrations.  For 
example,  the  government  uses  its  legislated  monopoly  to 
carry  the  mails  as  a  means  for  imposing  a  censorship  on 
what  people  send  to  each  other  in  a  completely  voluntary 
relationship.  A  man  and  a  woman  who  exchange  obscene 
letters  may  not  be  making  productive  use  of  their  time,  but 
their  correspondence  is  certainly  no  business  of  the  gov- 
ernment. Or  to  take  an  example  from  another  country 
Winston  Churchill,  as  a  critic  of  the  Chamberlain  govern- 
ment, was  not  permitted  one  minute  of  radio  time  on  the 
government-owned  and  monopolized  broadcasting  sys- 
tem in  the  period  from  1936  to  the  outbreak  in  1939  of  the 
war  he  was  predicting. 

Each  Step  of  Intervention  Leads  to  Another 

Every  act  of  intervention  in  the  economic  life  of  its  citi- 
zens gives  to  a  government  additional  power  to  shape  and 
control  the  attitudes,  the  writings,  the  behavior  of  those  citi- 
zens. Every  such  act  is  another  break  in  the  dike  protecting 
the  integrity  of  the  individual  as  a  free  man  or  woman. 

The  free  market  protects  the  integrity  of  the  individual 
by  providing  him  with  a  host  of  decentralized  alternatives 
rather  than  with  one  centralized  opportunity.  As  Friedman 
has  reminded  us,  even  the  known  communist  can  readily 
find  employment  in  capitalist  America.  The  free  market  is 
politics-blind,  religion-blind,  and,  yes,  race-blind.  Do  you 
ask  about  the  politics  or  the  religion  of  the  farmer  who 
grew  the  potatoes  you  buy  at  the  store?  Do  you  ask  about 
the  color  of  the  hands  that  helped  produce  the  steel  you  use 
in  your  office  building? 


The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom  /  239 

South  Africa  provides  an  interesting  example  of  this. 
The  South  Africans,  of  course,  provide  a  shocking  picture  of 
racial  bigotry,  shocking  even  to  a  country  that  has  its  own 
tragic  race  problems.  South  African  law  clearly  separates 
the  whites  from  the  nonwhites.  Orientals  have  traditionally 
been  classed  as  nonwhites,  but  South  African  trade  with 
Japan  has  become  so  important  in  the  postwar  period  that 
the  government  of  South  Africa  has  declared  the  Japanese 
visitors  to  South  Africa  to  be  officially  and  legally  "white." 
The  free  market  is  one  of  the  really  great  forces  making  for 
tolerance  and  understanding  among  human  beings.  The 
controlled  market  gives  man  rein  to  express  all  those  blind 
prejudices  and  intolerant  beliefs  to  which  he  is  forever  sub- 
ject. 

Impersonality  of  the  Market 

To  look  at  this  another  way:  The  free  market  is  often  said 
to  be  impersonal,  and  indeed  it  is.  Rather  than  a  vice,  this  is 
one  of  its  great  virtues.  Because  the  relations  are  substan- 
tially impersonal,  they  are  not  usually  marked  by  bitter 
personal  conflict.  It  is  precisely  because  the  labor  union 
attempts  to  take  the  employment  relationship  out  of  the 
marketplace  that  bitter  personal  conflict  so  often  marks 
union-management  relationships.  The  intensely  personal 
relationship  is  one  that  is  civilized  only  by  love,  as  between 
man  and  wife,  and  within  the  family.  But  man's  capacity  for 
love  is  severely  limited  by  his  imperfect  nature.  Far  better, 
then,  to  economize  on  love,  to  reserve  our  dependence  on  it 
to  those  relationships  where  even  our  imperfect  natures  are 
capable  of  sustained  action  based  on  love.  Far  better,  then, 
to  build  our  economic  system  on  largely  impersonal  rela- 
tionships and  on  man's  self-interest— a  motive  power  with 


240  /  Benjamin  A.  Rogge 

which  he  is  generously  supplied.  One  need  only  study  the 
history  of  such  Utopian  experiments  as  our  Indiana's  Har- 
mony and  New  Harmony  to  realize  that  a  social  structure 
which  ignores  man's  essential  nature  results  in  the  dissen- 
sion, conflict,  disintegration,  and  dissolution  of  Robert 
Owen's  New  Harmony  or  the  absolutism  of  Father  Rapp's 
Harmony. 

The  "vulgar  calculus  of  the  marketplace,"  as  its  critics 
have  described  it,  is  still  the  most  humane  way  man  has  yet 
found  for  solving  those  questions  of  economic  allocation 
and  division  which  are  ubiquitous  in  human  society.  By 
what  must  seem  fortunate  coincidence,  it  is  also  the  system 
most  likely  to  produce  the  affluent  society,  to  move 
mankind  above  an  existence  in  which  life  is  mean,  nasty, 
brutish,  and  short.  But,  of  course,  this  is  not  just  coinci- 
dence. Under  economic  freedom,  only  man's  destructive 
instincts  are  curbed  by  law.  All  of  his  creative  instincts  are 
released  and  freed  to  work  those  wonders  of  which  free 
men  are  capable.  In  the  controlled  society  only  the  creativ- 
ity of  the  few  at  the  top  can  be  utilized,  and  much  of  this 
creativity  must  be  expended  in  maintaining  control  and  in 
fending  off  rivals.  In  the  free  society,  the  creativity  of  every 
man  can  be  expressed — and  surely  by  now  we  know  that 
we  cannot  predict  who  will  prove  to  be  the  most  creative. 

You  may  be  puzzled,  then,  that  I  do  not  rest  my  case  for 
economic  freedom  on  its  productive  achievements;  on  its 
buildings,  its  houses,  its  automobiles,  its  bathtubs,  its  won- 
der drugs,  its  television  sets,  its  sirloin  steaks  and  green  sal- 
ads with  Roquefort  dressings.  I  neither  feel  within  myself 
nor  do  I  hear  in  the  testimony  of  others  any  evidence  that 
man's  search  for  purpose,  his  longing  for  fulfillment,  is  in 
any  significant  way  relieved  by  these  accomplishments.  I 
do  not  scorn  these  accomplishments  nor  do  I  worship  them. 


The  Case  for  Economic  Freedom  /  241 

Nor  do  I  find  in  the  lives  of  those  who  do  worship  them  any 
evidence  that  they  find  ultimate  peace  and  justification  in 
their  idols. 

I  rest  my  case  rather  on  the  consistency  of  the  free  mar- 
ket with  man's  essential  nature,  on  the  basic  morality  of  its 
system  of  rewards  and  punishments,  on  the  protection  it 
gives  to  the  integrity  of  the  individual. 

The  free  market  cannot  produce  the  perfect  world,  but  it 
can  create  an  environment  in  which  each  imperfect  man 
may  conduct  his  lifelong  search  for  purpose  in  his  own 
way,  in  which  each  day  he  may  order  his  life  according  to 
his  own  imperfect  vision  of  his  destiny,  suffering  both  the 
agonies  of  his  errors  and  the  sweet  pleasure  of  his  suc- 
cesses. This  freedom  is  what  it  means  to  be  a  man;  this  is  the 
Godhead,  if  you  wish. 

I  give  you,  then,  the  free  market,  the  expression  of  man's 
economic  freedom  and  the  guarantor  of  all  his  other  free- 
doms. 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the 
Decline  of  the  American  Heritage 

Paul  L.  Adams 


Man  in  his  very  nature  has  need  of  a  major  premise —  a 
philosophical  starting  point  or  Prime  Mover,  as  it  were,  to 
give  reason  for  his  being,  direction  and  order  to  his  think- 
ing, and  initiative  and  impetus  to  his  actions.  With  the 
Christian,  this  basic  assumption  stems  from  the  belief  that 
God,  by  Divine  fiat,  created  man  as  a  moral,  rational  being 
with  freedom  of  choice,  and  that  exercise  of  will  and  choice 
in  both  the  moral  and  physical  frames  of  reference  is  an 
awesome  but  unavoidable  fact  of  existence. 

Man's  choice  to  partake  of  the  "forbidden  fruit"  pro- 
vided him  with  the  promised  knowledge  of  good  and  evil, 
but  along  with  it  came  an  incalculable  complication  of  his 
circumstances.  Nature  became  a  challenge  to  his  physical 
existence.  Other  people  constituted  to  him  a  confused  com- 
plex of  variant  relationships  that  ranged  from  love  on  one 
hand  to  virulent  hatred  on  the  other.  God  faded  from  his 
consciousness,  and  with  that  loss  went  also  the  meaning  of 
man's  struggle.  Man  was  thus  lost  in  the  only  sense  in 
which  he  could  be  really  lost,  and  the  need  was  therefore 
critical  for  a  major  premise  which  promulgates  for  man  a 


The  late  Dr.  Adams  was  president  of  Roberts  Wesleyan  University, 
North  Chili,  New  York,  and  was  a  trustee  of  The  Foundation  for  Eco- 
nomic Education.  This  article  is  reprinted  from  the  March  1968  issue  of 
The  Freeman. 


242 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the  American  Heritage  /  243 

supreme  purpose  for  life,  a  purpose  which  justifies  the 
physical  hardship,  the  social  conflicts,  the  spiritual  strug- 
gle, and  the  disappointments  with  which  life  is  filled.  Only 
such  a  premise  delivers  life  from  the  insanity  it  sometimes 
appears  to  be — struggle  without  hope,  achievement  with- 
out happiness,  victory  without  exaltation,  death  without 
resurrection. 

Man,  himself,  throughout  the  concourse  of  his  history 
has  given  ample  evidence  of  his  longing  and  need  for  an 
all-embracing  purpose.  He  knows  so  little  that  is  perfect, 
yet  he  always  looks  for  perfection — a  seminal  response 
which  derives  from  the  moral  image  in  which  he  was  orig- 
inally created  and  the  perfection  of  the  environment  in 
which  he  found  himself.  Though  corrupt  by  his  own  choice, 
he  still  yearns  for  the  ideal,  like  some  earthling  wandering 
in  a  cosmic  wasteland  dreaming  of  the  green  hills  of  earth. 
Basically,  he  seeks  a  society  which  will  fulfill  his  demands 
on  nature,  ameliorate  his  relationship  with  his  fellow  man, 
and  provide  the  ultimate  reason  for  existence.  In  the  search, 
man's  thinking  has  led  him,  inevitably,  into  metaphysical 
and  ontological  problems,  to  a  consideration  of  the  first 
principles  of  all  existence. 

It  would  be  presumptuous,  indeed,  for  me  to  attempt  a 
definitive  statement  of  the  major  premise  with  its  detailed 
ramifications,  and  presumption  is,  among  college  profes- 
sors, a  sin  of  great  magnitude.  Perhaps,  however,  one  might 
conclude  that  within  such  a  premise  are  these  parts:  Man  is 
a  spiritual  being,  created  by  God  and  endowed  with  the 
freedom  and  responsibility  of  moral  choice;  his  purpose  in 
living  is  to  glorify  God  by  exercising  his  reason  toward 
those  ends  that  his  highest  moral  nature  urges,  and  his  task 
is  to  refine  his  intelligence,  develop  his  creativity,  discipline 
his  conscience,  and  clothe  himself  in  robes  of  righteousness. 


244  /  Paul  L  Adams 

The  Moral  Premise — Like  a  Golden  Thread 

Man  has  never  been  without  some  first  principle,  some 
major  premise,  sometimes  consciously,  more  frequently 
unconsciously,  held  up  before  him.  It  runs  in  some  form 
like  golden  thread  through  man's  history,  and  it  may  be 
noted  in  various  efforts  and  forms  that  mark  man's  societal 
action.  The  Israelites  had  in  Jehovah  God  the  source  of  law 
in  the  observance  of  which  was  life.  The  Greeks  promul- 
gated Natural  Law  as  an  absolute  reference  point  for  man's 
excursions  into  lawmaking.  The  Romans  embraced  Sto- 
icism and  with  it  the  Natural  Law  concept  which,  in  the 
Western  world,  yielded  place  to  the  Divine  law  of  Chris- 
tianity. This  is  clearly  seen  in  the  Gelasian  theory  which 
placed  absolute  value  on  the  sword  of  spiritual  power. 

All  of  these  systems  with  their  varied  premises  failed  to 
produce  the  ideal  society.  The  Hebrew  system  ended, 
oppressed  by  evil  and  corrupt  kings.  The  Greek  system, 
even  in  the  Golden  Age  of  Pericles,  was  marked  by  corrup- 
tion, vice,  weakness,  and  personal  lust  for  power.  The 
Roman  could  observe  the  cruelty  and  injustice  of  his  state, 
and  he  suffered  from  tyrants  who  plundered  the  poor  to 
lavish  wealth  on  the  idle,  sensual,  and  effete  nobility.  The 
slight  amelioration  that  feudalism  supplied  was  due  chiefly 
to  the  fact  that  there  was  less  economic  distance  between 
master  and  serf — for  goods  were  fewer,  even  in  this  pater- 
nalistic social  order,  and  pillaged  more  frequently  by  inces- 
sant warring.  Certainly,  there  was  little  understanding  of 
nature,  no  mastery  of  production,  and  a  very  low  level  of 
social  justice.  Seemingly,  man  was  destined  to  a  perpetual 
slavery  only  thinly  disguised  in  an  embracing  paternalism 
that  left  him  without  hope. 

Christian  Europe  was  not  without  hoi:>e,  however,  for 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the  American  Heritage  /  245 

the  sixteenth  century  saw  a  rebirth  of  the  idea  that  man  was 
free,  must  be  free.  Dramatically  stated  first  in  theological 
terms,  the  fuller  implications  in  nontheological  terms  were 
soon  asserted,  and  Europe  began  a  long  and  costly  march 
toward  freedom.  Costly,  for  human  liberty  has  never  been 
secured  or  maintained  without  sacrifice,  and  it  was  our 
own  Jefferson  who  said,  "Every  so  often  the  tree  of  liberty 
must  be  watered  by  the  blood  of  patriots — and  of  tyrants." 

The  American  Foundation 

With  all  of  the  foregoing  in  mind,  it  can  be  assumed  that 
those  who  raised  a  new  nation  on  this  continent  had  a 
wealth  of  history  on  which  to  draw.  The  responses  of  our 
forefathers  were  partly  the  product  of  a  vicarious  intellec- 
tual empiricism  and  partly  the  intuitive  conclusions  of  lib- 
erty-loving men  playing  it  by  ear.  What  these  men  gave  to 
America  and  the  world  was  the  moral  premise  embedded 
in  a  philosophy  of  moral  absolutes.  It  was  shaped  and  nur- 
tured in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  people  who  recognized  in 
it  the  last,  best  hope  of  man.  These  forebears  of  ours  were  of 
the  breed  of  men  who  count  not  their  own  lives  dear  unto 
themselves;  they  were  prepared  to  die  for  America  and  for 
freedom.  Need  I  remind  you  that  it  was  a  young  man  not 
yet  twenty-two  who  said  in  a  last  magnificent  moment  of 
life,  "I  only  regret  that  I  have  but  one  life  to  give  to  my 
country"? 

These  great  men  espoused  a  moral  absolute  which 
accepted  God  as  creator,  as  ultimate  Truth,  and  they 
believed  man  to  be  a  moral  creature,  responsible  to  God, 
and  capable  of  discharging  that  responsibility  only  through 
freedom  of  choice.  It  logically  follows,  then,  that  freedom  is 
more  than  just  another  attribute.  It  is  so  essential  that  life 


246  /  Paul  L.Adams 

without  it  loses  significance.  These  Founding  Fathers  saw 
in  freedom  and  liberty  the  only  perfection  a  human  society 
can  know,  for  in  freedom's  house  the  individual  can  shape 
his  own  perfections  and  follow  his  noblest  aspirations.  The 
exercise  of  freedom,  then,  is  for  man  the  perfecting  of  his 
humanity — ^not  that  the  exercise  will  ever  be  perfect,  but 
the  continuing  exercise  represents  a  constant  affirmation  of 
the  eternal  principle  that  man  can  find  himself  only  in  God. 

Limited  Government 

These  men  of  great  vision  clearly  understood  that  the 
only  real  threat  to  liberty  and  freedom  is  government,  for 
men  assign  a  sanctity  to  government  not  accorded  to  indi- 
viduals and  groups.  But  government  is  a  faceless  thing  and 
can  hide  the  predators  who  lurk  behind  its  facade  and  exer- 
cise its  function;  and  governments  assume,  quite  naturally 
it  seems,  government's  right  to  a  monopoly  of  physical 
force.  Fearing  government,  and  the  natural  tendency  of 
power  to  beget  power,  these  men  established  a  constitution 
which  attempted  to  assure  man's  freedom  by  limiting  the 
sphere  of  government  to  a  workable  minimum.  The  clear 
intent  was  to  magnify  the  responsibility  of  the  individual 
and  subordinate  government  to  its  primary  function  of 
serving  freedom's  cause. 

Even  among  its  most  ardent  devotees,  there  was  never 
any  suggestion  that  this  Constitution  was  a  panacea  for  all 
the  social  ills  to  which  man  is  heir.  There  was  no  guarantee 
of  identical  status  for  individuals  or  groups.  There  was  no 
promise  of  material  rewards.  There  was  only  the  implicit 
assumption  that  freedom  and  liberty  were  their  own 
rewards  and  worth  any  sacrifice.  The  Constitution 
promised  only  the  system  itself,  but  under  it  liberty  and 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the  American  Heritage  /  247 

freedom  were  to  be  nurtured.  It  was  Benjamin  Franklin 
who  saw  the  only  flaw,  and  he  stated  it  in  simple  terms 
when  he  suggested  that  perhaps  the  people  might  not  keep 
what  they  had  acquired.  It  was  George  Washington  who 
stated  in  eloquent  prose  that  liberty  is  guaranteed  only  by 
the  eternal  vigilance  of  those  who  share  its  vision. 

These  architects  of  nation  were  men  of  great  faith — faith 
in  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things 
not  seen — faith  in  their  vision  of  a  vast  land  and  great  peo- 
ple— faith  in  the  triumph  of  truth  over  error,  of  justice  over 
injustice,  of  right  over  tyranny,  of  knowledge  over  igno- 
rance, of  reason  over  prejudice,  and  the  ultimate  triumph  of 
eternal  values  over  the  temporal.  Faith  in  such  a  vision 
together  with  comnnitment  to  the  program  for  its  fulfill- 
ment constituted  in  their  thinking  an  irresistible  force  that 
would  shake  the  world — and  it  did.  In  addition,  it  gave  rise 
to  a  compelling  spirit  of  national  mission. 

Eternal  Vigilance 

It  is  a  truism  that  tragedy  lurks  close  to  the  surface  of  all 
enterprises  of  great  pith  and  moment.  George  Bernard 
Shaw  suggested  that  there  are  two  great  tragedies  in  life. 
One  is  to  not  get  your  heart's  desire;  the  other  is  to  get  it. 
The  observation  is  so  applicable  to  the  American  scene  that 
it  arouses  almost  a  response  of  sharp  physical  pain.  Amer- 
ica had  her  great  dream,  her  grand  design.  History  pro- 
vided her  with  the  opportunity  to  realize  it.  So  she  avoided 
the  first  of  the  tragedies  that  Mr.  Shaw  suggested.  The  alter- 
nate tragedy  was  left  to  be  realized,  for  tragedy  must  follow 
the  failure  to  understand  the  tremendous  demand  such  a 
society  places  on  the  individual.  It  calls  for  enormous  self- 
discipline  in  behalf  of  freedom's  preeminent  claim;  it 


248  /  Paul  L.Adams 

requires  a  conscious  articulate  sensitivity  to  freedom's  cli- 
mate; and  it  mandates  a  firm  dedication  to  freedom's  meth- 
ods and  goals  along  with  a  determination  to  live  with  the 
results. 

It  is  not  debatable  that  we  have  had  an  imperfect  and 
uneven  performance  in  this  regard.  The  student  of  Ameri- 
can history  recalls  the  demarche  of  the  Federalist  party  into 
unconstitutionalism  to  retain  power.  It  can  hardly  go  unno- 
ticed that  there  were  those  who  were  blind  to  the  implica- 
tions of  education  for  a  substantial  segment  of  our  society, 
including  women.  Even  more  compelling  shortly  after  the 
centennial  year  of  Appomattox  Court  House  is  the  thought 
that  there  were  those  who  insisted  on  the  immediate  attain- 
ment of  their  ends  and  refused  to  recognize  longer  that  the 
Constitution  provided  a  certain,  if  slow,  mechanic  for 
resolving  great  inequities  and  injustice.  This  impatience 
sent  men  to  graves  like  beds  and  finally  resulted  in  the 
slaughter  of  more  Americans  than  World  War  I  and  World 
War  II  combined. 

Unhappy  though  these  examples  be,  we  note  with  satis- 
faction that  the  Federalist  returned  to  make  the  great  right 
decision  in  1800,  and  that  educational  opportunity  has 
approached  universality  in  this  nation.  We  could  even  say 
that  although  the  larger  lessons  of  the  so-called  irrepressible 
conflict  were  lost  on  us,  we  have  at  times  demonstrated  our 
belief  that  the  nature  of  our  system  cannot  be  defined  in 
terms  of  any  appeal  to  the  doctrine  that  might  and  right  are 
inseparable. 

With  liberty  and  freedom  identified  in  the  Constitution 
and  accepted  as  the  norm  for  human  action,  we  demon- 
strated a  vitality  and  creativity  that  produced  achievement 
which  first  caught  the  attention  of  the  world  and  then  beck- 
oned her  disinherited  millions  to  the  "lifted  lamp  beside 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the  American  Heritage  /  249 

the  golden  door."  We  enlarged  individual  opportunity, 
secured  religious  toleration,  and  established  the  basis  for 
political  diversity  and  cultural  pluralism.  We  educated  the 
masses,  refurbished  the  concept  of  individual  justice  and 
charity,  and  we  took  over  leadership  of  the  revolution  in 
communication,  transportation,  and  production.  Our  free 
market  led  the  world  in  the  production  and  distribution  of 
goods  for  the  benefit  of  all  classes.  Somewhere  along  the 
line,  too,  we  began  to  develop  a  distinct  literature  of  merit 
and  other  artistic  forms.  Finally,  and  without  great  fanfare, 
we  assumed  world  leadership  in  moral  idealism  as  a  nat- 
ural concomitant  of  our  commitment  to  principles  based  in 
the  eternal  verity  of  the  moral  law. 

Obstacles  to  Be  Overcome 

Such  have  been  the  fruits  of  the  American  system,  and 
such  a  nation  or  system,  meeting  as  it  did  man's  age-old 
search  for  an  ideal  society,  should  fear  no  challenge.  Nature 
had  been  transformed  into  an  ally;  a  beginning  had  been 
made  toward  a  solution  of  the  omnipresent  problem  of 
human  relationships;  and  man's  right  and  need  to  know 
and  experience  God  had  been  left  unrestricted.  We  who 
received  such  a  heritage  should  fear  no  challenge,  yet  we 
are  alarmed  by  a  challenge  of  so  great  a  magnitude  that  we 
seem  unable  to  plot  its  dimensions.  Wisdom  and  intelli- 
gence, however,  as  well  as  the  instinct  for  survival  dictate 
that  the  problem  must  be  stated,  understood,  and  attacked. 

There  are  those,  undoubtedly,  whose  disquiet  is  solely 
in  terms  of  the  problem  posed  by  nuclear  physics.  These 
people  might  think  beyond  it,  but  the  possibility  of  a 
nuclear  war  produces  in  them  a  trauma  that  makes  further 
rational  thought  on  their  part  impossible.  Those  of  whom 


250  /  Paul  L.Adams 

this  is  descriptive  tend  to  view  the  great  ultimate  catastro- 
phe as  physical  death,  forgetting  that  the  great  moral 
premise  assigns  little  significance  to  the  fact  of  mere  physi- 
cal existence.  They  would  establish  a  new  commandment 
which  may  be  simply  stated,  "And  now  abideth  the  mind, 
the  spirit,  the  body,  these  three,  but  the  greatest  of  these  is 
the  body/'  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  those  who  hold  such 
a  belief  could  or  would  give  rise  to  any  inspired  resolution, 
for  that  which  they  treasure  most  is  most  easily  subject  to 
threats  and  force. 

Then  there  are  those  who  react  to  the  problem  in  mate- 
rialistic terms.  These  have  altered  the  supreme  moral  prin- 
ciple to  read,  "Man  shall  live  by  bread  alone."  The  member 
of  this  group  is  quite  likely  to  attach  himself  to  any  of  the 
several  simplifications  which  this  group  has  institutional- 
ized in  policy:  the  answer  to  any  domestic  problem  is  gov- 
ernmental spending  to  raise  everyone's  material  standard 
of  living;  neutralists  such  as  Tito  will  be  won  to  our  side  if 
our  gifts  are  large  and  continuous;  the  communist  will 
soften  his  attitude  toward  the  United  States  and  the  non- 
communist  world  if  we  allow  them  the  trade  advantages  of 
our  productive  system. 

Again,  there  is  a  class  we  could  call  passivists,  and,  like 
some  of  their  medieval  forebears  who  went  into  monastic 
seclusion,  they  seek  to  escape  the  world  of  decision  and 
action.  A  tendency  of  the  members  of  this  class  is  to  rely  on 
discussion,  fruitless  though  it  may  be,  and  on  a  complete 
negation  of  decisive  action.  Discussion  becomes  for  them 
not  a  means  but  an  end,  and  failure  is  not  failure,  for  non- 
productive discussion  guarantees  the  need  of  still  further 
discussion.  No  international  conference  is  a  failure,  in  this 
light,  as  long  as  it  ends  without  definitive  commitment. 
There  is  some  truth  in  the  assertion  that  protracted  dis- 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the  American  Heritage  /  251 

cussion  on  a  point  at  issue  often  results  in  a  blurring  of  the 
thought  of  both  parties,  but  it  logically  follows  that  in  such 
a  situation,  the  party  with  commitment  to  a  principle  and  a 
concomitant  course  of  action  stands  in  the  least  danger. 

Detoured  by  Relativism 

None  of  those  in  the  classes  just  mentioned  sees  the 
challenge  to  the  American  heritage  in  its  true  dimensions, 
and  obviously  they  have  little  understanding  of  the  re- 
sources necessary  to  meet  the  challenge.  The  basic  problem 
is  the  failure  of  Americans  to  dedicate  and  rededicate  them- 
selves to  the  great  moral  premise— freedom  under  God.  As 
dedication  to  that  premise  built  the  American  heritage, 
decline  from  it  has  given  rise  to  the  problems  that  appear  in 
the  guise  of  insecurity  —  the  fear  of  physical  extinction,  the 
compensation  of  materialism,  and  indecision. 

The  decline  was  initiated  by  the  introduction  of  a  phi- 
losophy of  relativism  with  its  inherent  negation  of  moral 
absolutes.  This  philosophy  relieves  man  of  all  respon- 
sibility; it  erodes  his  moral  standards,  for  morals,  it  says, 
are  a  product  of  man's  own  thinking  and  are  therefore  sub- 
ject to  change.  Further,  it  has  no  fixed  reference  point; 
rather  it  has  a  multitude  of  reference  points,  discoverable 
only  by  a  process  of  expediency  which  itself  becomes  the 
criterion  for  judgment.  Such  thought  canonizes  Niccolo 
Machiavelli,  who  baldly  and  boldly  asserted  that  the  end 
justifies  the  means.  In  such  a  philosophy,  man  is  not  free;  he 
is  rather  a  pawn  of  history,  and  he  has  significance  only  as 
he  participates  in  great  mass  movements.  In  action,  the  phi- 
losophy is  expressed  in  positivism  which  denies  any  super- 
natural standard  and  acclaims  any  law  as  valid  if  there  is 
sufficient  force  in  the  lawgiver  to  enforce  it.  Such  a  philoso- 


252  /  Paul  L.Adams 

phy  does  not  produce  Nathan  Hales.  It  is  more  apt  to  pro- 
duce those  who  seek  the  undisciplined  refuge  of  mass 
anonymity  and  mass  conformity.  The  end  of  such  a  system 
is  pictured  in  Orwell's  1984,  in  which  he  describes  a  society 
where  Big  Brother  decides  what  is  truth  for  the  unresisting 
masses.  Orwell  doesn't  say  it,  but  the  tragedy  is  that  under 
such  a  system,  life  doesn't  really  matter. 

Improper  Methods 

The  increasing  acceptance  of  such  a  philosophy  has 
spawned  an  incredible  number  of  value  standards  and 
courses  of  action  not  consistent  with  our  original  premise 
and  the  institutionalizing  of  liberty.  Time  forbids  a  discus- 
sion of  them,  but  some  of  the  more  dangerous  may  be 
listed.  There  are  those  who  change  or  pervert  the  Constitu- 
tion to  gain  the  ends  they  desire,  and  the  ends  are  presented 
as  good  ends  to  justify  the  action.  It  was  for  good  reasons 
that  the  Gracchi  started  the  process  of  violating  the  Roman 
constitution.  The  end  of  the  process  was  the  destruction  of 
liberty  in  Rome,  for  each  succeeding  constitutional  vio- 
lation takes  less  explanation  and  less  and  less  justification. 
Eventually  the  constitutional  image  is  lost,  and  the  term 
itself  becomes  a  shibboleth. 

Then,  there  are  those  who  forget  that  material  wealth  is 
a  happy  by-product  of  our  pursuit  of  a  morally  legitimate 
goal,  and  they  relentlessly  pursue  the  materialistic  largess 
of  nature  as  an  end  in  itself.  It  is  again  the  old  story  of  sell- 
ing the  birthright  for  a  mess  of  pottage.  The  goal  of  this 
philosophy  is  ever  greater  materialism  with  less  and  less 
effort.  This  idea  seems  to  offer  a  built-in  contradiction,  but 
still  the  belief  persists  that  we  have  invented  a  slot  machine 
which  pays  off  for  everybody. 


The  Moral  Premise  and  the  Decline  of  the  American  Heritage  /  253 

Again,  there  are  those  who  pervert  the  definition  of 
freedom  to  mean  an  absence  of  fear,  of  individual  responsi- 
bility, of  self-discipline,  and  they  include  within  its  context 
the  strong  presumption  of  egalitarian  doctrines.  These  find 
the  answer  to  all  of  our  problems  in  the  increase  of  central, 
bureaucratic  government.  Washington  is  their  Mecca.  They 
do  not,  perhaps,  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Washington,  but 
well  they  might,  for  not  only  is  their  money  there,  it  is  fast 
becoming  a  repository  of  the  American  soul.  In  interna- 
tional relations,  these  people  have  a  naive  faith  in  the 
United  Nations,  assign  to  it  a  supernatural  aura,  and  claim 
for  it  a  practical  success  not  demonstrable  in  logic  or  actu- 
ality. 

A  Time  for  Rededication 

Finally,  there  are  those  who  are  totally  oblivious  to  the 
fact  that  the  American  forefathers,  like  the  early  Christians, 
were  men  whose  vision  and  faith  were  such  that  they 
intended  to  turn  the  world  upside  down — and  did  so.  We 
have  lived  in  the  golden  heritage  of  their  dedication  to  a 
great  moral  principle  and  the  abundant  life  it  provided. 
That  we  have  grown  insensitive  to  such  a  principle 
presages  failure  where  they  succeeded.  We  cannot  escape 
the  fact  that  the  virility  of  communism  stems  from  the  fact 
that  the  communist  is  committed  totally  to  the  belief  that  it 
is  necessary  to  change  the  world — and  as  an  individual  he 
is  prepared  to  give  himself  to  realize  such  an  end.  We  can- 
not change  the  form  or  substance  of  the  communist  move- 
ment or  threat.  We  can,  however,  reclaim,  revive,  and 
renew  the  American  heritage  as  the  eternal  answer  to  those 
who  would,  under  any  guise,  enslave  the  free  spirit  of  man. 

The  innumerable  paths  of  history  are  thick  with  the  dust 


254  /  Paul  L  Adams 

of  decayed  nations  that  knew  the  passing  radiance  of  a  glo- 
rious moment.  Khrushchev  and  communism  promised  to 
bury  the  American  heritage  because  it  no  longer  serves  his- 
tory's purposes.  For  me,  I  fear  no  physiced  threat  com- 
munism can  offer.  I  do  fear  the  retreat  from  our  heritage.  I 
do  not  fear  Khrushchev's  judgment.  I  fear  the  inexorable 
judgment  of  God's  law  which  has  ordained  man's  freedom. 
Should  this  nation  so  blessed  by  God  forget  His  ordinance, 
then  we  have  no  valid  claim  to  existence.  We  will  have 
failed  those  who  lived  and  died  that  we  might  be  free  as 
well  as  the  serf  of  the  future  who  will  not  long  remember 
our  moment  of  history.  As  Americans  we  can,  as  one  has 
said,  "spend  ourselves  into  immortality"  in  freedom's  bat- 
tle or  we  can  make  our  way  carelessly  to  nameless  graves 
and  be  part  of  the  dust  of  history's  passing  parade. 


IV.  THE  CRISIS  OF  OUR  AGE 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market 
Ken  S.  Ewert 


According  to  an  author  writing  in  a  recent  issue  of  The 
Nation  magazine,  "The  religious  Left  is  the  only  Left  we've 
got."  An  overstatement?  Perhaps.  However,  it  points  to  an 
interesting  fact,  namely  that  while  the  opposition  to  free 
markets  and  less  government  control  has  declined  in  recent 
years  among  the  "secular  left,"  the  political-economic 
views  of  the  "Christian  left"  seem  to  remain  stubbornly 
unchanged. 

Why  is  this  so?  Why  are  the  secular  critics  of  the  market 
mellowing  while  the  Christian  critics  are  not? 

Perhaps  one  major  reason  is  the  different  criteria  by 
which  these  two  ideological  allies  measure  economic  sys- 
tems. The  secular  left,  after  more  than  half  a  century  of 
failed  experiments  in  anti-free-market  policies,  has 
begrudgingly  softened  its  hostility  towards  the  market  for 
predominantly  pragmatic  reasons.  Within  their  camp  the 
attitude  seems  to  be  that  since  it  hasn't  worked,  let's  get  on 
with  finding  something  that  will.  While  this  may  be  less 
than  a  heartfelt  conversion  to  a  philosophy  of  economic 
freedom,  at  least  (for  many)  this  recognition  has  meant  tak- 
ing a  more  sympathetic  view  of  free  markets. 

However,  within  the  Christian  camp  the  leftist  intellec- 

Mr.  Ewert  is  the  editor  of  U-Turn,  a  quarterly  publication  address- 
ing theological,  political,  economic,  and  social  issues  from  a  biblical 
perspective.  This  essay  appeared  in  the  March  1989  issue  of  The  Free- 


man. 


257 


258  /  Ken  S.  Ezvert 

tuals  seem  to  be  much  less  influenced  by  the  demonstrated 
failure  of  state-directed  economic  policies.  They  remain 
unimpressed  with  arguments  pointing  out  the  efficiency 
and  productivity  of  the  free  market,  or  statistics  and  exam- 
ples showing  the  non-workability  of  traditional  interven- 
tionist economic  policies.  Why?  One  likely  reason  is  that 
the  criteria  by  which  these  thinkers  choose  to  measure  cap- 
italism are  fundamentally  moral  in  nature,  so  much  so  that 
socialism,  despite  its  obvious  shortcomings,  is  still  pre- 
ferred because  of  its  perceived  moral  superiority.  In  their 
eyes,  the  justness  and  morality  of  an  economic  system  are 
vastly  more  important  than  its  efficiency. 

If  indeed  the  Christian  critics  of  the  market  are  insisting 
that  an  economic  system  must  be  ultimately  judged  by 
moral  standards,  we  should  agree  and  applaud  them  for 
their  principled  position.  They  are  asking  a  crucially  im- 
portant question:  is  the  free  market  a  moral  economic  sys- 
tem? 

Unfortunately,  these  thinkers  have  answered  the  ques- 
tion with  a  resounding  "No!"  They  have  examined  the  free 
market  and  found  it  morally  wanting.  Some  of  the  most 
common  reasons  given  for  this  indictment  are  that  the  mar- 
ket is  based  on  an  ethic  of  selfishness  and  it  fosters  materi- 
alism; it  atomizes  and  dehumanizes  society  by  placing  too 
much  emphasis  on  the  individual;  and  it  gives  rise  to  tyran- 
nical economic  powers  which  subsequently  are  used  to 
oppress  the  weaker  and  more  defenseless  members  of  soci- 
ety. 

If  these  accusations  are  correct,  the  market  is  justly  con- 
demned. But  have  these  critics  correctly  judged  the  moral- 
ity of  the  free  market?  Let's  re-examine  their  charges. 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  259 
I.  Selfishness 

The  market,  it  is  suggested,  is  based  on  and  encourages 
an  ethic  of  selfishness.  According  to  critics  of  the  market, 
mere  survival  in  this  competitive  economic  system  requires 
that  we  each  "look  after  Number  One."  Individuals  are 
encouraged  to  focus  on  the  profit  motive  to  the  exclusion  of 
higher  goals  and  as  a  result  selfishness  becomes  almost  a 
virtue.  And  this,  it  is  noted,  is  in  stark  contrast  with  the  self- 
sacrificial  love  taught  by  the  Scriptures.  Instead  of  reward- 
ing love,  compassion,  and  kindness  towards  others,  the  free 
market  seems  to  reward  self-orientation  and  self-indul- 
gence. Instead  of  encouraging  us  to  be  concerned  about  our 
neighbor,  the  free  market  seems  to  encourage  us  to  be  con- 
cerned about  ourselves.  Individuals  who  might  otherwise 
be  benevolent,  according  to  this  view,  are  corrupted  by  the 
demands  of  an  economic  system  that  forces  them  to  put 
themselves  first.  In  the  thinking  of  these  critics,  the  market 
is  the  logical  precursor  to  the  "me  generation." 

However,  this  charge  is  superficial  and  misleading  in 
several  respects.  It  is  important  to  remember  that  while  the 
free  market  does  allow  "self-directed"  economic  actions,  it 
does  not  require  "selfish"  economic  actions.  There  is  an 
important  distinction  here.  It  should  be  obvious  that  all 
human  action  is  self-directed.  Each  of  us  has  been  created 
with  a  mind,  allowing  us  to  set  priorities  and  goals,  and  a 
will,  which  enables  us  to  take  steps  to  realize  these  goals. 
This  is  equally  true  for  those  who  live  in  a  market  economy 
and  those  who  live  under  a  politically  directed  economy 
The  difference  between  the  two  systems  is  not  between  self- 
directed  action  versus  non-self-directed  action,  but  rather 


260  /  KenS.  Ewert 

between  a  peaceful  pursuit  of  goals  (through  voluntary 
exchange  in  a  free  economy)  versus  a  coercive  pursuit  of 
goals  (through  wealth  transferred  via  the  state  in  a 
"planned"  economy).  In  other  words,  the  only  question  is 
how  will  self-directed  action  manifest  itself:  will  it  take 
place  through  mutually  beneficial  economic  exchanges,  or 
through  predatory  political  actions? 

Clearly  the  free  market  cannot  be  singled  out  and  con- 
demned for  allowing  self-directed  actions  to  take  place, 
since  self-directed  actions  are  an  inescapable  part  of  human 
life.  But  can  it  be  condemned  for  giving  rise  to  selfishness? 
In  other  words,  does  the  free  market  engender  an  attitude 
of  selfishness  in  individuals?  If  we  define  selfishness  as  a 
devotion  to  one's  own  advantage  or  welfare  without  regard 
for  the  welfare  of  others,  it  is  incontestable  that  selfishness 
does  exist  in  the  free  economy;  many  individuals  act  with 
only  themselves  ultimately  in  mind.  And  it  is  true,  that 
according  to  the  clear  teaching  of  Scripture,  selfishness  is 
wrong. 

But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  although  selfishness 
does  exist  in  the  free  market,  it  also  exists  under  other  eco- 
nomic systems.  Is  the  Soviet  factory  manager  less  selfish 
than  the  American  capitalist?  Is  greed  any  less  prevalent  in 
the  politically  directed  system  which  operates  via  perpet- 
ual bribes,  theft  from  state  enterprises,  and  political 
purges?  There  is  no  reason  to  think  so.  The  reason  for  this  is 
clear:  selfishness  is  not  an  environmentally  induced  condi- 
tion, i.e.,  a  moral  disease  caused  by  the  economic  system, 
but  rather  a  result  of  man's  fallen  nature.  It  is  out  of  the 
heart,  as  Christ  said,  that  a  man  is  defiled.  Moral  failure  is 
not  spawned  by  the  environment. 

It  is  clear  that  not  all  self-directed  action  is  necessarily 
selfish  action.  For  example,  when  I  enter  the  marketplace  in 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  261 

order  to  earn  wealth  to  feed,  clothe,  house,  and  provide 
education  or  medical  care  for  my  children,  I  am  not  acting 
selfishly.  Likewise,  if  you  or  I  want  to  extend  charity  to  a 
needy  neighbor  or  friend,  we  must  first  take  "self -directed" 
action  to  create  the  wealth  necessary  to  do  so.  Such  action  is 
hardly  selfish. 

The  point  is  this:  the  free  market  allows  individuals  to 
peacefully  pursue  their  chosen  goals  and  priorities,  but  it 
doesn't  dictate  or  determine  those  priorities.  It  does  not 
force  an  individual  to  focus  on  his  own  needs  and  desires, 
but  leaves  him  or  her  at  liberty  to  be  self-centered  or  benev- 
olent. My  ultimate  goal  may  be  self-indulgence,  or  I  may 
make  a  high  priority  of  looking  after  others — the  choice  is 
mine.  As  to  which  I  should  do,  the  market  is  silent.  As  an 
economic  system,  the  market  simply  does  not  speak  in 
favor  of  selfish  or  unselfish  priorities. 

However,  the  free  market,  while  not  touching  the  heart 
of  a  man  or  eliminating  selfishness,  does  in  fact  restrain 
selfishness.  It  channels  self-centered  desires  into  actions 
that  are  beneficial  to  others.  This  is  so  because  in  order  to 
"get  ahead"  in  the  free  economy,  we  must  first  please  other 
people  by  producing  something  which  is  of  use  and  value 
to  them.  In  other  words,  the  market  disciplines  each  of  us  to 
look  outwards  and  serve  others.  Only  by  doing  so  can  we 
persuade  them  to  give  us  what  we  want  in  exchange. 

We  will  return  to  this  theme  later,  but  for  now  the  point 
is  that  in  a  very  practical  sense,  the  workings  of  the  market 
persuade  even  the  most  self-indulgent  among  us  to  serve 
others  and  to  be  concerned  about  the  needs  and  wants  of 
his  neighbor.  True,  the  motivation  for  doing  so  is  not  neces- 
sarily pure  or  unselfish,  but  as  the  Bible  so  clearly  teaches, 
it  is  only  God  who  can  change  the  hearts  of  men. 

Furthermore,  the  free  market,  because  of  the  incredible 


262  /  Ken  S.  Ewert 

wealth  it  allows  to  be  created,  makes  living  beyond  our- 
selves practicable.  In  order  to  show  tangible  love  toward 
our  neighbor  (minister  to  his  or  her  physical  needs)  we 
must  first  have  the  wealth  to  do  so. 

We  sometimes  need  to  be  reminded  that  wealth  is  not 
the  natural  state  of  affairs.  Throughout  most  of  history  the 
majority  of  people  lived  under  some  sort  of  centrally  con- 
trolled economic  system  and  were  forced  to  devote  most  of 
their  energies  to  mere  survival.  Often  all  but  the  wealthiest 
individuals  lacked  the  economic  means  to  look  much 
beyond  themselves  and  to  aid  others  who  were  in  need. 

But  the  productivity  spawned  by  economic  freedom  has 
radically  changed  this.  In  a  free  market,  we  are  not  only 
able  to  choose  unselfish  values  amd  priorities,  but  we  are 
also  able  to  create  the  wealth  necessary  to  fulfill  them  prac- 
tically. 

II.  Materialism 

Another  moral  indictment  of  the  market,  closely 
related  to  the  charge  of  selfishness,  is  the  belief  that  the 
market  fosters  materialism.  The  example  most  often  used 
to  demonstrate  the  market's  guilt  in  this  area  is  the  per- 
ceived evil  effect  of  advertising.  It  is  contended  that 
advertising  creates  a  sort  of  "lust"  in  the  hearts  of  con- 
sumers by  persuading  them  that  mere  material  posses- 
sions will  bring  joy  and  fulfillment.  In  this  sense,  the  mar- 
ket is  condemned  for  creating  a  spirit  of  materialism  and 
fostering  an  ethic  of  acquisitiveness.  The  market  in  gen- 
eral, and  advertising  specifically,  is  a  persistent  temptress 
encouraging  each  of  us  to  concentrate  on  the  lowest  level 
of  life,  mere  material  goods. 

This  charge  can  be  answered  in  much  the  same  manner 
as  the  charge  of  selfishness.  Just  as  allowing  free  exchange 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  263 

doesn't  require  selfishness,  neither  does  it  require  material- 
ism. It  is  true  that  when  people  are  economically  free,  mate- 
rialism is  possible,  and  certainly  there  are  materialistic  peo- 
ple in  market  economies.  But  this  hardly  warrants  a 
condemnation  of  the  market.  Materialism,  like  selfishness, 
can  and  will  occur  under  any  economic  system.  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  a  desire  for  material  goods  is  far  from  being  unique 
to  capitalism.  Witness,  for  example,  the  response  of  shop- 
pers as  a  store  puts  out  a  new  rack  of  genuine  cotton  shirts 
in  Moscow  or  a  shipment  of  fresh  meat  arrives  in  a  Krakow 
shop. 

Although  the  role  of  advertising  has  been  much 
maligned,  it  in  fact  provides  a  vital  service  to  consumers. 
Advertising  conveys  information.  It  tells  consumers  what 
products  are  available,  how  these  products  can  meet  their 
needs,  cmd  what  imjxjrtant  differences  exist  among  com- 
peting products.  The  fact  that  this  is  a  valuable  function 
becomes  apparent  if  you  imagine  trying  to  buy  a  used  car  in 
a  world  without  advertising.  Either  your  choice  of  cars 
would  be  severely  limited  (to  those  cars  you  happen  to 
stumble  upon,  i.e.,  gain  knowledge  of)  or  you  would  have 
to  pay  more  (in  the  form  of  time  and  resources  used  in  seek- 
ing out  and  comparing  cars).  In  either  case,  without  the 
"free"  knowledge  provided  by  advertising,  you  would  be 
much  worse  off. 

But  the  economic  role  of  advertising  aside,  does  adver- 
tising actually  "create"  a  desire  for  goods?  If  it  does,  why 
do  businesses  in  market-oriented  economies  spend  billions 
of  dollars  each  year  on  consumer  research  to  find  out  what 
customers  want?  Why  do  some  advertised  products  not  sell 
(for  example,  the  Edsel)  or  cease  to  sell  well  (for  example, 
the  hula  hoop)?  In  the  market  economy  consumers  are  the 
ultimate  sovereigns  of  production.  Their  wants  and  pri- 
orities dictate  what  is  produced;  what  is  produced  doesn't 


264  /  Ken  S.  Ewert 

determine  their  wants  and  priorities.  Many  bankrupt  busi- 
nessmen, left  with  unsalable  (at  a  profitable  price)  products 
wistfully  wish  that  the  reverse  were  true. 

Moreover,  the  Bible  consistently  rejects  any  attempt  by 
man  to  ascribe  his  sinful  tendencies  to  his  environment.  If  I 
am  filled  with  avarice  when  I  see  an  advertisement  for  a 
new  Mercedes,  I  cannot  place  the  blame  on  the  advertise- 
ment. Rather  I  must  recognize  that  I  am  responsible  for  my 
thoughts  and  desires,  and  that  the  problem  lies  within 
myself.  After  all,  I  could  feel  equally  acquisitive  if  I  just  saw 
the  Mercedes  on  the  street  rather  than  in  an  advertisement. 
Is  it  wrong  for  the  owner  of  the  Mercedes  to  incite  my 
desires  by  driving  his  car  where  I  might  see  it?  Hardly. 

Just  as  God  did  not  allow  Adam  to  blame  Satan  (the 
advertiser — and  a  blatantly  false  advertiser  at  that)  or  the 
fruit  (the  appealing  material  good)  for  his  sin  in  the  Garden, 
we  cannot  lay  the  blame  for  materialism  on  the  free  market 
or  on  advertising.  The  materialist's  problem  is  the  sin 
within  his  heart,  not  his  environment. 

If  we  follow  the  environmental  explanation  of  material-  j 
ism  to  its  logical  conclusion,  the  only  solution  would 
appear  to  be  doing  away  with  all  wealth  (i.e.,  eliminate  all 
possible  temptation).  If  this  were  the  appropriate  solution 
to  the  moral  problem  of  materialism,  perhaps  the  moral 
high  ground  must  be  conceded  to  the  state-run  economies 
of  the  world  after  all.  They  have  been  overwhelmingly  suc- 
cessful at  destroying  wealth  and  wealth-creating  capital! 

III.  Impersonalism  and  Individualism 

Another  common  criticism  of  the  market  economy  is  its 
supposed  impersonal  nature  and  what  some  have  called 
"individualistic  anarchy."  According  to  many  Christian 
critics,  the  market  encourages  self-centered  behavior  and 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  265 

discourages  relational  ties  in  society.  The  non-personal 
market  allocation  of  goods  and  services  is  seen  to  be  anti- 
thetical to  the  seemingly  higher  and  more  noble  goal  of  a 
loving  and  interdependent  community.  Because  of  the  eco- 
nomic independence  that  the  market  affords,  the  individual 
is  cut  off  from  meaningful  relationships  with  his  fellow 
human  beings  and  divorced  from  any  purpose  beyond  his 
own  interests.  In  short,  the  free  market  is  accused  of  breed- 
ing a  pathetic  and  inhumane  isolation. 

But  does  the  market  encourage  impersonal  behavior? 
Certainly  not.  It  is  important  to  understand  that  the  pres- 
ence of  economic  freedom  does  not  require  that  all  transac- 
tions and  relationships  take  place  on  an  impersonal  level. 
For  example,  many  people  have  good  friendships  with 
their  customers,  suppliers,  employees,  or  employers.  While 
these  relationships  are  economic,  they  are  not  merely  eco- 
nomic and  they  are  not  impersonal. 

Furthermore,  while  the  market  leaves  us  free  to  deal 
with  other  people  solely  on  the  basis  of  economic  motives, 
we  are  not  required  nor  even  necessarily  encouraged  to  do 
so.  We  are  completely  free  to  deal  on  a  non-economic  basis. 
Suppose  that  I  am  in  the  business  of  selling  food,  and  I  find 
that  someone  is  so  poor  that  he  has  nothing  to  trade  for  the 
food  that  I  am  offering  for  sale.  In  the  free  market  I  am  com- 
pletely free  to  act  apart  from  economic  motives  and  make  a 
charitable  gift  of  the  food.  I  have  in  no  way  lost  my  ability 
to  act  in  a  personal  and  non-economic  way. 

Community  Relationships 

So  the  market  is  not  an  inherently  impersonal  economic 
system.  Nor  is  it  hostile  to  the  formation  of  community 
relationships. 

An  excellent  example  of  a  community  which  exists 


266  /  Ken  S.  Ewert 

within  the  market  system  is  the  family.  Obviously  I  deal 
with  my  wife  and  children  in  a  non-market  manner.  I  give 
them  food,  shelter,  clothing,  and  so  on,  and  I  certainly  don't 
expect  any  economic  gain  in  return.  I  do  so  joyfully,  because 
I  love  my  family  and  I  value  my  relationship  with  them  far 
above  the  economic  benefits  I  forgo.  Another  example  is  the 
church.  I  have  a  non-economic  and  very  personal  rela- 
tionship with  people  in  my  church.  And  there  are  countless 
teams,  clubs,  organizations,  and  associations  which  I  can 
join,  if  I  choose.  If  I  want,  I  can  even  become  part  of  a  com- 
mune. The  market  economy  doesn't  stand  in  the  way  of,  or 
discourage,  any  of  these  expressions  of  community. 

But  now  we  come  to  the  heart  of  this  objection  against 
the  market:  what  if  people  will  not  voluntarily  choose  to 
relate  to  each  other  in  personal  or  community-tyi:)e  rela- 
tionships? What  if  they  choose  not  to  look  beyond  their 
own  interests  and  work  for  some  purpose  larger  than  them- 
selves? The  answer  to  this  is  the  rather  obvious  question: 
Who  should  decide  what  is  the  appropriate  degree  of  rela- 
tionship and  community? 

True  community,  I  submit,  is  something  which  must  be 
consensual,  meaning  it  must  be  voluntarily  established. 
Think  of  a  marriage  or  a  church.  If  f)eople  do  not  choose  to 
enter  into  these  relationships  when  they  are  free  to  do  so, 
we  may  judge  their  action  to  be  a  mistake,  but  by  what 
standard  can  we  try  to  coerce  them  into  such  relationships? 
Even  if  there  were  some  objective  standard  of  "optimum 
community,"  it  is  not  at  all  clear  that  we  would  create  it  by 
robbing  people  of  their  economic  freedom.  There  is  no  rea- 
son to  believe  that  individuals  living  under  a  system  of  eco- 
nomic "planning"  are  less  isolated  or  have  more  commu- 
nity by  virtue  of  their  system.  The  fact  that  individuals  are 
forced  into  a  collective  group  hardly  means  that  a  loving 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  267 

and  caring  community  will  result.  Love  and  care  are  things 
which  cannot  be  coercively  extracted,  but  must  be  freely 
given. 

Moreover,  the  free  market  actually  encourages  the  for- 
mation and  maintenance  of  the  most  basic  human  commu- 
nity— the  family.  As  the  Utopian  socialists  of  past  cen- 
turies— including  Marx  and  Engels — recognized,  there  is  a 
vital  connection  between  private  property  and  the  integrity 
of  the  family.  Destroy  the  one,  they  reasoned,  and  the  other 
will  soon  disintegrate. 

Their  motives  were  suspect  but  their  analysis  was  cor- 
rect. When  the  state  fails  to  protect  private  property  and 
instead  takes  over  the  functions  traditionally  provided  by 
the  family  (such  as  education,  day  care,  health  care,  sick- 
ness and  old-age  support),  the  family  unit  is  inevitably 
weakened.  Family  bonds  are  undermined  as  the  economic 
resources  which  formerly  allowed  the  family  to  "care  for  its 
own"  are  transferred  to  the  state.  There  is  little  doubt  that 
the  disintegration  of  the  family  in  our  country  is  in  large 
part  due  to  state  intervention.  Instead  of  turning  toward 
and  receiving  personal  care  from  within  the  family,  indi- 
viduals have  been  encouraged  to  turn  toward  the  imper- 
sonal state.  The  result  has  been  the  disintegration  of  family 
bonds.  It  is  state  economic  intervention — not  the  free-mar- 
ket system — which  is  inherently  impersonal  and  antitheti- 
cal to  true  human  community. 

rv.  Economic  Power 

The  objection  to  the  market  on  the  grounds  of  imper- 
sonalism  is  based  on  the  same  fallacy  as  were  the  previ- 
ously discussed  charges  of  selfishness  and  materialism. 
Each  of  these  claims  indicts  the  market  for  ills  which  in  fact 


268  /  Ken  S.  Ewert 

are  common  to  all  mankind — faults  that  would  exist  under 
any  economic  system.  Impersonalism,  selfishness,  and 
materialism  are  the  consequence  of  the  fall  of  man,  not  the 
fruit  of  an  economic  system  which  allows  freedom.  If  these 
sinful  tendencies  are  an  inescapable  reality,  the  question 
that  must  be  asked  is:  "What  economic  system  best 
restrains  sin?" 

This  brings  us  to  a  fourth  moral  objection  to  the  market 
which  is  often  espoused  by  the  Christians  of  the  left:  that 
the  market,  which  is  often  pictured  as  a  "dog-eat-dog"  or 
"survival  of  the  fittest"  system,  leaves  men  free  to  oppress 
each  other.  It  allows  the  economically  powerful  to  arbitrar- 
ily oppress  the  economically  weak,  the  wealthy  to  tread 
upon  and  exploit  the  poor.  According  to  this  view,  wealth  is 
power,  and  those  with  wealth  will  not  necessarily  use  their 
power  wisely  and  justly.  Because  the  nature  of  man  is  what 
it  is,  this  "economic  power"  must  be  checked  by  the  state 
and  restrained  for  the  public  good. 

But  does  the  market  in  fact  allow  individuals  to  exploit 
others?  To  begin  with,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  misunder- 
standing about  this  thing  called  "economic  power."  The 
term  is  in  fact  somewhat  of  a  misnomer.  When  we  speak  of 
power,  we  normally  refer  to  the  ability  to  force  or  coerce 
something  or  someone  to  do  what  we  desire.  The  motor  in 
your  car  has  the  power  to  move  the  car  down  the  road;  this 
is  mechanical  power.  The  police  officer  has  the  power  to  ar- 
rest and  jail  a  lawbreaker;  this  is  civil  power.  But  what  of 
economic  power?  If  1  possess  a  great  deal  of  wealth,  what 
unique  ability  does  this  wealth  confer? 

In  reality  what  the  critics  of  the  market  call  economic 
power  is  only  the  ability  to  please  others,  and  thus  "eco- 
nomic power"  is  not  power  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word. 
Regardless  of  a  person's  wealth,  in  the  free  market  he  can 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  269 

get  what  he  wants  only  by  pleasing  another  person  through 
offering  to  exchange  something  which  the  other  deems 
more  valuable.  Wealth  (assuming  it  is  not  used  to  buy  polit- 
ical power)  doesn't  bestow  the  ability  to  apply  force  to  or 
dominate  another  individual. 

Take  for  example  the  employer  of  labor,  an  individual 
who  is  often  considered  to  be  the  embodiment  of  economic 
power  and  an  exploiter  of  those  less  powerful  than  himself. 
It  is  often  forgotten  that  an  employer  can  get  what  he 
wants— employees  for  his  business — only  by  offering 
something  which  pleases  them,  namely  a  wage  which  they 
consider  better  than  not  working,  or  better  than  working 
for  someone  else.  He  has  no  power  to  force  them  to  come 
and  work  for  him,  but  only  the  power  to  offer  them  a  better 
alternative. 

What  ensures  that  he  will  want  to  make  them  a  pleasing 
offer?  The  fact  that  doing  so  is  the  only  way  to  get  what  he 
is  interested  in,  namely  their  labor,  provides  a  very  strong 
incentive.  But  suppose  the  prospective  employee  is  in  very 
desperate  straits  and  almost  any  wage,  even  one  which 
seems  pitifully  low,  will  please  him  enough  to  work  for  the 
employer.  In  this  situation,  it  seems  as  if  the  employer  can 
get  away  with  paying  "slave  wages"  and  exploiting  the 
economically  weaker  employee. 

This  scenario,  however,  ignores  the  effects  of  the  com- 
petition among  employers  for  employees.  In  the  market 
economy,  employers  are  in  constant  competition  with  other 
employers  for  the  services  of  employees.  They  are  "disci- 
plined" by  this  competition  to  offer  top  wages  to  attract 
workers.  Because  of  competition,  wages  are  "bid  up"  to  the 
level  at  which  the  last  employee  hired  will  be  paid  a  wage 
which  is  very  nearly  equivalent  to  the  value  of  what  he  pro- 
duces. As  long  as  wages  are  less  than  this  level,  it  pays  an 


270  /  Ken  S.  Ewert 

employer  to  hire  another  employee,  since  doing  so  will  add 
to  his  profits.  Economists  call  this  the  marginal  productiv- 
ity theory  of  wages. 

But  what  if  there  were  no  competing  employers?  For 
example,  what  about  a  "one-company  town"?  Without 
competition,  wouldn't  the  employer  be  able  to  exploit  the 
employees  and  pay  "unfair"  wages? 

First  of  all,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  in  the  free 
market,  an  economic  exchange  occurs  only  because  the  two 
trading  parties  believe  that  they  will  be  better  off  after  the 
exchange.  In  other  words,  all  exchanges  are  "positive  sum" 
in  that  both  parties  benefit.  Thus  if  an  employee  in  this  one- 
company  town  is  willing  to  work  for  low  wages,  it  is  only 
because  he  or  she  places  a  higher  value  on  remaining  in  the 
town  and  working  for  a  lower  wage  than  moving  to 
another  place  and  finding  a  higher  paying  job.  The 
"power"  that  the  employer  wields  is  still  only  the  ability  to 
offer  a  superior  alternative  to  the  employee.  In  choosing  to 
remain  and  work  for  a  lower  wage,  the  employee  is  likely 
considering  other  costs  such  as  those  of  relocating,  finding 
another  job,  and  retraining,  as  well  as  non-monetary  costs, 
such  as  the  sacrifice  of  local  friendships  or  the  sacrifice  of 
leaving  a  beautiful  and  pleasant  town. 

Moreover,  this  situation  cannot  last  for  long.  If  the 
employer  can  pay  wages  that  are  significantly  lower  than 
elsewhere,  he  will  reap  above-average  profits  and  this  in 
turn  will  attract  other  employers  to  move  in  and  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  "cheap  labor."  In  so  doing,  these  new 
employers  become  competitors  for  employees.  They  must 
offer  higher  wages  in  order  to  persuade  employees  to  come 
and  work  for  them,  and  as  a  result  wages  eventually  will  be 
bid  up  to  the  level  prevailing  elsewhere. 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  271 
Economic  Ability  to  Please 

What  is  true  for  the  employer  in  relation  to  the 
employee  is  true  for  all  economic  relationships  in  the  free 
market.  Each  individual,  though  he  may  be  a  tyrant  at 
heart,  can  succeed  only  by  first  benefiting  others — ^by  pro- 
viding them  with  an  economic  service.  Regardless  of  the 
amount  of  wealth  he  possesses,  he  is  never  freed  from  this 
requirement.  Economic  "power"  is  only  the  economic  abil- 
ity to  please,  and  as  such  it  is  not  something  to  be  feared. 
Far  from  allowing  men  to  oppress  each  other,  the  free  mar- 
ket takes  this  sinful  drive  for  power  and  channels  it  into 
tangible  service  for  others. 

It  is  also  important  to  consider  that  the  only  alternative 
to  the  free  market  is  the  political  direction  of  economic 
exchanges.  As  the  Public  Choice  theorists  have  so  convinc- 
ingly pointed  out  in  recent  years,  there  is  no  good  reason  to 
suppose  that  people  become  less  self-interested  when  they 
enter  the  political  sphere.  In  other  words,  to  paraphrase 
Paul  Craig  Roberts,  there  is  not  necessarily  a  "Saul  to  Paul 
conversion"  when  an  individual  enters  government.  If  he 
was  power-hungry  while  he  was  a  private-market  partici- 
pant, he  likely  will  be  power-hungry  after  he  becomes  a 
"public  servant." 

But  there  is  an  important  difference.  In  contrast  with 
economic  power,  political  power  is  truly  something  to  be 
feared  because  of  its  coercive  aspect.  The  power-seeking 
individual  in  government  has  power  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word.  While  in  the  market  he  has  to  please  those  he  deals 
with  in  order  to  be  economically  successful,  the  same  is  not 
true,  or  is  true  to  a  far  lesser  degree,  in  the  political  sphere. 
In  the  political  sphere  he  can  actually  abuse  one  group  of 


272  /  Ken  S.  Ewert 

people  but  still  succeed  by  gaining  the  favor  of  other 
groups  of  people. 

A  classic  example  is  a  tariff.  This  economic  intervention 
benefits  a  small  group  of  producers  (and  those  who  work 
for  or  sell  to  the  producers)  at  the  expense  of  consumers 
who  have  to  pay  higher  prices  for  the  good  in  question.  The 
politician  gains  in  power  (and  perhaps  wealth)  because  of 
the  significant  support  he  can  receive  from  the  small  but 
well-organized  group  of  producers.  Other  examples  of  the 
use  of  political  power  that  clearly  benefit  some  individuals 
at  the  expense  of  others  are  government  bail-outs,  subsi- 
dies, price  supports,  and  licensing  monopolies.  The  fact 
that  these  types  of  legislation  continue  despite  the  fact  that 
they  harm  people  (usually  the  least  wealthy  and  most 
poorly  organized)  demonstrates  the  tendency  of  mankind 
to  abuse  political  power. 

In  fact,  virtually  every  state  intervention  into  the  econ- 
omy is  for  the  purpose  of  benefiting  one  party  at  the 
expense  of  another.  In  each  of  the  cases  mentioned  above, 
some  are  exploited  by  others  via  the  medium  of  the  state. 
Therefore,  if  we  are  concerned  about  the  powerful  oppress- 
ing the  weak,  we  should  focus  our  attention  on  the  abuse  of 
political  power.  It,  and  not  the  so-called  "economic  power" 
of  individuals  acting  within  the  free  market,  is  the  true 
source  of  tyranny  and  oppression.  Our  concern  for  the 
downtrodden  should  not  lead  us  to  denigrate  economic 
freedom  but  rather  to  restrain  the  sphere  of  civil  authority. 

V.  Conclusion 

The  free  market  is  innocent  of  the  charges  leveled  at  it 
by  its  Christian  critics.  Its  alleged  moral  shortcomings  turn 
out  to  be  things  which  are  common  to  mankind  under  both 


Moral  Criticisms  of  the  Market  /  273 

free  and  command  economic  systems.  While  it  is  true  that 
the  free  market  restrains  human  sin,  it  makes  no  pretense  of 
purging  people  of  their  selfishness,  materialism,  individu- 
alism, and  drive  for  power.  And  this,  perhaps,  is  the  true  sin 
in  the  eyes  of  the  market's  critics. 

The  market  is  explicitly  non-utopian.  It  doesn't  promise 
to  recreate  man  in  a  new  and  more  perfect  state,  but  rather 
it  acknowledges  the  moral  reality  of  man  and  works  to 
restrain  the  outward  manifestations  of  sin.  In  this  sense  the 
free  market  is  in  complete  accord  with  Biblical  teachings. 
According  to  Scripture,  man  cannot  be  morally  changed 
through  any  human  system,  be  it  religious,  political,  or  eco- 
nomic, but  moral  regeneration  comes  solely  through  the 
grace  of  God. 

If  the  Christian  critics  of  the  market  expect  an  economic 
system  to  change  the  moral  character  of  people,  they  are 
sadly  mistaken.  Such  a  task  is  clearly  beyond  the  ability  of 
any  human  institution  or  authority.  We  must  be  content  to 
restrain  the  outward  expression  of  sin,  and  this  is  some- 
thing which  the  free  market  does  admirably. 


The  Psychology  of  Cultism 
Ben  Barker 


Cults  are  not  a  new  phenomenon:  they  may  be  as  old  as 
man — or  even  animal  herds.  Cults  may  form  around  an 
individual,  an  object,  an  animal,  or  a  concept.  Invariably, 
the  members  of  the  cult  ascribe  magical  powers  to  their 
object  of  worship — powers  to  manipulate  the  environment 
to  protect  the  cult  members  against  evil  spirits,  the  devil, 
natural  disasters,  bankruptcy,  illness,  or  whatever. 

The  core  concept  in  cultism  is  a  followership  dependent 
upon  someone  or  something  outside  itself  to  assist  it  in  cop- 
ing with  a  threatening  external  environment.  The  more 
inadequate  and  inferior  the  follower  feels  himself  to  be,  the 
more  magical  and  mystical  the  omnipotence  projected  onto 
the  leader.  However,  it  is  a  mistake  to  focus  on  the  leader  or 
object  of  veneration.  The  leader  is  usually  merely  a 
resourceful  individual  perceptive  enough  to  recognize  the 
varied  types  of  helplessness  in  those  about  him  who  offers 
to  take  away  those  feelings.  That  his  offer  is  frequently 
overstated  and  illusory  is  beside  the  point.  The  point  is  that 
the  followers  willingly  take  the  bait — hook,  line,  and  sinker. 

Many  were  shocked  by  the  submissive,  dependent, 
compliant  followers  of  Charles  Manson  who  carved  x's  in 
their  foreheads  and  chanted  on  the  Los  Angeles  County 

Ben  Barker,  M.D.,  a  physician  specializing  in  psychiatry  and  emer- 
gency medicine,  originally  presented  these  ideas  in  a  speech  for  med- 
ical staff  personnel.  It  was  published  in  the  April  1980  issue  of  The  Free- 
man. 


274 


The  Psychology  of  CulHsm  /  275 

Courthouse  steps.  They  were  even  more  shocked  to  learn 
that  some  men  and  women  had  brutally  annihilated  other 
human  beings  on  Manson's  satanic  command.  Then  there 
were  the  ill-fated  followers  of  Jim  Jones  whose  beliefs  led 
them  to  a  rotting  death  in  the  steamy  jungles  of  Guyana. 
Numerous  other  examples  could  be  cited.  Where  do  they 
all  come  from?  We  shake  our  heads  and  wonder,  while 
physicians  and  other  societal  leaders  continue  to  reinforce 
exactly  the  type  of  behavior  that  will  produce  more  cultists. 

The  Roots  of  Dependency 

What  are  the  roots  of  dependency  in  human  behavior? 
The  answer  should  be  obvious.  Each  of  us  began  life  as  a 
totally  dependent  parasite  encased  in  a  constant-tempera- 
ture liquid  environment  with  our  nutritional  needs  satis- 
fied effortlessly. 

Through  some  miracle,  the  maternal  host  does  not  set 
up  an  appropriate  foreign  body  rejection  reaction  and  the 
fetus  enjoys  this  total  dependency  state  for  some  40-odd 
weeks  before  expulsion.^ 

It  is  presumptuous  to  assume  that  this  experience  pre- 
cedes awareness.  Single-cell  living  forms  demonstrate 
avoidance  behavior  to  noxious  stimuli.  Are  they  aware?  If 
they  are,  then  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  the  fetus  to  be 
at  least  as  aware?  For  me,  though,  the  strongest  evidence 
that  the  intrauterine  life  is  experienced  as  pleasurable  is  the 
sustained  effort  adults  make  to  recreate  a  similar  experi- 
ence through  environmental  manipulation.  "To  be  waited 
on  hand  and  foot"  by  spouse,  servant,  child,  and  others  has 
long  been  associated  with  "all  the  things  money  can  buy." 

Once  expelled  from  the  uterus,  the  infant  must  struggle 
to  meet  some  of  his  own  needs.  The  struggle  is  multifac- 


276  /  Ben  Barker 

eted,  beginning  with  an  immature  autonomic  nervous  sys- 
tem which  must  stabilize  his  internal  environment  in  the 
face  of  a  shifting  external  environment.  Mother  assists  in 
this  process  by  attempting  through  appropriate  nurturing 
techniques  to  minimize  the  fluctuations  of  heat,  cold,  air 
circulation,  and  the  like  upon  the  infant.  He  remains 
extremely  dependent  upon  her  even  though  the  biological 
umbilical  cord  has  been  ruptured.  A  more  profound  attach- 
ment persists  which  defies  logical  analysis. 

In  a  slow,  incomprehensible,  years-long  process,  mother 
gradually  weans  the  infant  from  his  dependence  on  her. 
One  of  her  tools  is  to  promote  his  interaction  with  other 
adults,  siblings,  and  peers.  Obviously,  no  two  parents 
accomplish  this  task  in  exactly  the  same  way  nor  do  any 
two  individuals  react  identically  to  the  same  stimulus. 
However,  there  are  cultural  similarities  in  the  process  which 
conspire  to  create  more  than  surface  similarities  in  the  same 
generation  of  offspring. 

Herein  rests  the  central  point  of  my  thesis:  the  cultural 
factors  which  have  produced  so  many  dependent,  submis- 
sive followers  among  our  youth  are  also  behind  the  decline 
and  fall  of  the  United  States  as  a  force  of  geopolitical  signif- 
icance. Excessive  dependency  is  endemic  in  our  society  and 
those  who  are  in  positions  of  power  and  prestige — includ- 
ing many  in  my  profession — encourage  and  perpetuate  this 
dependency. 

An  Age  of  Specialization 

We  live  in  an  age  of  specialization  so  extreme  that  most 
of  us  are  truly  helpless  outside  our  specialties.  Our  "sys- 
tem" thus  has  become  an  incredibly  complex  web  of  inter- 
acting specialties  which  provides  great  comfort  when  all  is 


The  Psychology  of  Cultism  /  277 

going  well  but  reduces  us  to  extreme  helplessness  in  times 
of  crisis.  Examples  abound:  Supermarkets  are  very  conve- 
nient unless  trucks  stop  delivering.  Automobiles  are  a  nice 
way  to  get  around  unless  there  is  no  gasoline.  Washing 
machines  are  dandy  unless  yours  breaks  down  and  the 
repairman  has  a  two-week  waiting  list. 

The  trade-off  in  our  age  of  technological  marvels  is  this: 
We  gain  convenience  and  security  but  may  sacrifice  self- 
reliance  smd  independence.  For  example,  antibiotics  are 
available  over  the  counter  in  many  countries  and  individu- 
als are  free  to  take  the  responsibility  for  the  management  of 
their  own  illnesses.  But  here  in  the  United  States,  we  do  not 
have  that  freedom.  In  fact,  patients  here  have  been  so  pro- 
grammed to  depend  upon  physicians  that  we  must  take 
responsibility  for  all  their  bumps,  bruises,  and  sniffles — 
hardly  leaving  us  with  adequate  time  to  care  for  those  who 
truly  require  our  skilled  services. 

Our  cult  of  dependency  medicine  has  been  so  successful 
that  disenchanted  followers  are  literally  suing  us  out  of 
business.  They  are  impatient  and  demanding  that  all  dis- 
eases be  cured — and  cured  now!  In  turning  over  the 
responsibility  for  their  health  to  us,  they  gave  us  an  illusory 
omnipotence.  Our  fallibility  crushes  this  illusion  and  their 
response  is  vindictive  anger.  Discredited  cult  leaders  are 
adjudged  harshly  by  their  disappointed  followers. 

The  Drug  Cult 

Perhaps  the  largest  cult  of  all  that  our  profession  has 
had  a  hand  in  is  the  drug  cult.  By  that,  I  don  t  mean  the 
"Superfly"  white  El  Dorado  Cadillac  jockey  who  drives  his 
exotic  automobile  through  Harlem  or  Watts  nor  do  I  refer  to 
the  Mafia  Godfather,  the  French  Connection  mystery  men. 


278  /  Ben  Barker 

or  the  Colombian  cocaine  millionaires.  I'm  talking  about 
the  "drugstore  cult" — the  widespread  dependence  of 
American  citizens  on  the  soothing  syrups  and  pills  avail- 
able on  the  shelves  of  drugstores,  supermarkets,  news- 
stands, and  elsewhere.  It  is  the  cult  that  has  pushed  Valium 
into  the  number  one  all-time  best-seller  spot. 

Our  undergraduate,  professional,  and  postgraduate 
medical  education  is  drug-oriented  and  drug-saturated, 
hence  our  primary  weapon  against  illness  is,  of  course, 
pharmacological.  Was  it  not  fitting  and  symbolic  that  so 
many  at  Jonestown  were  put  out  of  their  misery  by  an  injec- 
tion from  a  doctor?  They  trusted  him  to  do  the  right  thing. 

Not  only  medicine  but  many  other  careers  and  skills 
have  enthroned  science  and  the  scientific  technique.  Our 
educational  systems  perpetuate  the  myths  of  science  ad 
nauseam.  How  much  of  the  science  and  math  shoved  down 
your  throats  in  high  school,  college,  and  medical  school 
were  really  useful  to  you  either  in  specialty  training  or  in 
practice?  Admit  that  much  of  your  schooling  is  pure  ritual 
and  you  will  see  that  "education"  itself  has  become  a  cult. 
College  graduates  enter  the  real  world  with  magical  expec- 
tations, waving  their  hard-earned  degrees  in  the  wind. 
When  their  skills  are  not  snapped  up,  they  are  disillusioned 
and  angry. 

Schooling  as  Religion 

In  attempting  to  achieve  power  over  the  environment, 
students  have  literally  endowed  the  schooling  process  with 
the  status  of  religious  veneration  and  plugged  themselves 
into  it.  The  teachers  and  professors  are  the  high  priests  and 
the  process  is  supposed  to  mystically  and  mysteriously 
protect  the  follower  from  risk  or  harm  if  the  prescribed  rit- 


The  Psychology  of  Cultism  /  279 

uals  are  followed.  Believe  it  or  not,  many  who  educate 
themselves  into  overcrowded  fields  simply  return  to  school 
for  another  degree.  Others  of  the  educated  cultists  simply 
change  cults. 

Basically,  then,  we  see  that  the  psychology  of  cultism  is 
simply  the  persistence  of  the  parent/ child  relationship 
beyond  an  appropriate  time.  Followers  or  members  feel 
helpless  or  overwhelmed  by  an  environment  they  perceive 
as  threatening  and  respond  to  this  feeling  by  embracing  a 
concept  or  leader  to  whom  they  ascribe  magical  power. 

This  is  a  sign  of  excessive  dependency;  and  excessive 
dependency  in  a  society  can  come  either  from  inadequate 
parental  directing  toward  self-reliance,  individual  rejection 
of  such  directing,  or  programming  from  external  sources 
which  directs  towards  dependency.  Additionally,  the  envi- 
ronment may  become  truly  so  threatening  that  dependency 
upon  an  authority  or  higher  power  source  may  be  appro- 
priate, in  war,  say,  or  in  specific  subcultures  as  depicted  in 
the  film,  "The  Godfather."  Modern  technology  also  shares 
the  guilt,  for  it  has  contrived  to  capture  a  formerly  active 
and  mobile  social  order  and  transformed  it  into  a  sedentary 
spectator  society. 

The  principal  villain  in  this  transformation  process  is 
television.  By  and  large,  it  is  a  dehumanization  process 
which  tends  to  dull  the  senses  and  produce  emotional  zom- 
bies who  respond  primarily  to  subliminal  and  repetitive 
advertisement  slogans.  What  then  occurs  is  much  akin  to 
disuse  atrophy:  the  spirit  within  dwindles  like  melting  wax 
and  the  mind  dulls.  The  products  of  this  process  suffer 
endemic  obesity  and  emotional  indifference  to  their  actual 
environment. 

What  Jim  Jones  and  his  ilk  have  offered  to  these  unfor- 
tunates is  an  antidote  to  the  poisonous,  dehumanizing 


280  /  Ben  Barker 

processes  induced  by  the  age  of  technology.  Few  who  leap 
for  the  bait  really  care  that  the  antidote  itself  is  toxic,  for 
what  they  have  been  experiencing  is  a  living  death  and  any 
escape  hatch  is  acceptable,  even  if  it  leads  into  an  endless 
maze.  The  visible  result  is  the  phenomena  of  cults  so  alive 
in  the  land  today. 

In  a  society  of  people  programmed  almost  from  birth  to 
foUow-the-leader,  it  is  inevitable  that  some  will  fall  into  the 
clutches  of  mad  leaders.  That  is  but  one  of  the  many  conse- 
quences of  the  loss  of  self-reliance  and  of  independent 
judgment  in  American  citizens.  Before  joining  in  an  emo- 
tional condemnation  of  "cults,"  perhaps  it  would  be  best  to 
understand  that  a  cult  is  but  a  system  of  worship  or  ritual. 
It  is  a  system  of  belief  gone  pathological,  to  be  distin- 
guished from  religious  beliefs  which  inculcate  indepen- 
dence. 

Freedom  of  Worship 

The  freedom  to  worship  God  after  your  own  manner  of 
belief  is  as  valuable  to  the  spirit  of  independence  as  is  free- 
dom of  speech.  These  freedoms,  guaranteed  by  the  First 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  are  about  all  we  have  left 
of  the  dream  of  the  Founding  Fathers  and  should  not  be 
carelessly  dismissed. 

Genuine  religious  beliefs  have  the  special  quality  of  sat- 
isfying intellectual  and  emotional  needs  simultaneously. 
They  account  for  unequal  life  fates,  promise  release  from 
illness  and  suffering,  and  offer  hope  for  a  better  life.  They 
are,  indeed,  a  special,  poorly  understood,  potentially  adap- 
tive set  of  ego  defense  mechanisms.  Do  we  psychiatrists 
have  a  socially  sanctioned  right  to  intervene  in  religious 


The  Psychology  of  Cultism  /  281 

beliefs,  particularly  when  we  know  so  little  about  the  influ- 
ence of  religion  on  psychopathology? 

If  we  deprive  someone  of  his  religion,  what  substitute 
do  we  have  for  him?  And  ought  we  to  impose  such  a  sub- 
stitute? Physicians  for  years  have  ignored  nutrition,  exer- 
cise, and  relaxation  as  techniques  for  combating  or  prevent- 
ing illnesses.  Indeed,  we  have  ignored  preventive  medicine 
itself.  We  are,  for  the  most  part,  disease-oriented  high 
priests  in  a  cult  of  science  and  technology  which  is  leading 
us  all  into  a  fate  which  appears  particularly  unattractive. 
Chronic  stress-related  diseases  plague  both  us  and  our 
patients  (hypertension,  strokes,  heart  attacks,  colitis,  ulcers, 
asthma,  and  so  forth),  yet  we  persist  in  disregarding  the 
spiritual  element  in  man  and  rely  solely  upon  chemical 
potions  and  invasive  techniques  to  combat  diseases. 

Perhaps  God  does  exist.  Perhaps  He  was  around  before 
Plato  and  Aristotle.  Perhaps  He  spoke  to  Moses  and  Paul 
and  many  others.  Perhaps  His  Holy  Spirit  is  within  each 
human  being  and  resists  the  sadness  of  a  mechanized, 
depersonalized,  technological  social  order.  Media  manipu- 
lators who  sensationalize  the  fates  of  unfortunate  cultists 
cannot  destroy  the  source  of  all  life  which  beats  within  each 
of  our  breasts  and  breathes  freely  of  the  air  that  His  plants 
provide. 

The  psychology  of  cultism  is  but  one  indication  of  an 
intrinsic  desire  in  each  of  us  to  offer  veneration  to  the  Cre- 
ator. This  process  becomes  pathological  only  if  the  surro- 
gate leader  is  mad,  as  with  Jim  Jones,  or  when  the  path  fol- 
lowed leads  into  a  blind  maze,  as  with  scientific  technology 
Almost  every  day  another  "accepted"  scientific  fact  is  dis- 
credited in  yet  another  laboratory  experiment.  It  appears, 
then,  that  science  offers  no  final  solutions  or  ultimate 


282  /  Ben  Barker 

explanations.  Is  our  own  worship  of  the  microscope  and 
the  wonders  of  microbiology,  neurochemistry,  and  physiol- 
ogy as  misplaced  as  the  blind  faith  that  Jones's  followers 
had  in  him? 

Blind  Departures  from  Basic  Principles  of  Freedom 

This  nation  was  founded  upon  principles  taken  from 
the  Judeo-Christian  ethic  and  as  long  as  these  prevailed,  we 
grew  and  prospered.  Now,  there  is  no  prayer  in  the  schools 
and  unionized,  socialist  teachers  insidiously  program  our 
youth.  Mindless  violence  and  senseless  trivia  beam  at  us 
from  the  television,  our  newspapers  are  full  of  lies  and 
scantily  clad  females  posing  for  underwear  ads.  Heroin  is 
the  opiate  of  the  ghetto,  alcohol  of  the  middle-class  com- 
munity, and  cocaine  of  the  wealthy.  Valium,  which  we  sup- 
ply, is  abused  by  all  social  classes. 

We  correctly  perceive  the  sea  as  a  dangerous,  hostile 
environment  for  man  and  few  would  attempt  to  navigate  it 
for  any  significant  distance  without  the  benefits  of  a  buoy- 
ant and  protective  superstructure.  What  many  fail  to  realize 
is  that  man's  journey  on  dry  land  is  at  least  as  hazardous.  In 
neglecting  the  spiritual  asf>ects  of  our  own  existences,  and 
of  our  patients'  as  well,  we  are  up  a  creek  without  either 
boat  or  paddles. 

Cults,  worthless  dollars,  gasoline  shortages,  and  depen- 
dent patients  are  the  long-term  consequences  of  too  many 
of  us  learning  to  rely  on  Big  Brother.  The  processed  foods 
we  eat  and  drink  are  as  suspect  as  the  poisoned  potion  was 
in  Guyana — it  simply  takes  longer  for  them  to  kill  us. 

Erich  Fromm  tells  us  that  all  human  beings  are  religious 
in  one  way  or  another,  religion  being  "any  system  of 
thought  and  action  which . . .  gives  the  individual  the  frame 


The  Psychology  of  Cultism  /  283 

of  orientation  and  object  of  devotion  he  needs/'^  The  psy- 
chology of  cultism  is  all  around  us,  as  men  elect  to  place 
their  faith  and  trust  in  other  men,  their  machines  or  their 
technological  products. 

As  long  as  we  pass  on  shallow  values  to  our  youth  and 
let  them  see  us  worshipping  at  the  altar  of  science,  or  the 
government,  or  the  dollar,  or  gold — they  will  do  likewise. 

As  long  as  we  promote  dependency  in  our  patients,  we 
are  reinforcing  the  psychology  of  cultism.  The  white  coat 
and  the  stethoscope  are  counterproductive  when  used  as 
talismans  in  a  cult  of  science.  We  should  learn  and  teach 
self-reliance  and  preventive  medicine  principles,  for  when 
these  attitudes  and  values  are  mixed  with  genuine  faith  in 
the  Creator,  we  may  return  to  being  a  nation  of  healthy  and 
sane  individuals  rather  than  a  society  of  drugged,  depen- 
dent sheep  and  we  may  finally  reverse  the  decline  of  the 
United  States  as  a  force  of  geopolitical  significance. 

1.  Cf.  S.  Ferenczi,  "Stages  in  the  Development  of  the  Sense  of  Real- 
ity/' Outline  of  Psychoanalysis,  by  J.  S.  Van  Tesslar,  p.  112. 

2.  Ashok  Rao,  M.  D.,  and  Jennifer  A.  Katze,  M.  D.,  "The  Role  of  Reli- 
gious Belief  in  a  Depressed  Patient's  Illness,"  Psychiatric  Opinion,  June 
1979,  pp.  39-43. 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die 
John  K.  Williams 


Saint  Augustine  once  lamented  that  he  knew  precisely 
what  he  meant  by  the  word  "time"  until  asked  to  state  what 
he  meant.  I  sympathize  with  the  saint.  I  know  full  well 
what  I  mean  by  the  noun  "civilization,"  but  pinning  down 
the  word  is  a  singularly  frustrating  exercise.  Webster's  New 
World  Dictionary  of  the  American  Language — a  work  some- 
what inordinately  given  to  using  the  term  et  cetera — tells  me 
that  "civilization"  is  related  to  "social  organization  of  a 
high  order,  marked  by  the  development  and  use  of  a  writ- 
ten language  and  by  advances  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  gov- 
ernment, etc."  and  thus  indicates  "the  total  culture  of  a  par- 
ticular people,  nation,  period,  etc."  and  "countries  and 
peoples  considered  to  have  reached  a  high  stage  of  social 
and  cultural  development."  This  helps — particularly  the 
reference  to  the  "development  and  use  of  a  written  lan- 
guage" and  "advances  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  govern- 
ment, etc." — but  1  am  still  dissatisfied:  1  know  not  a  few 
men  and  women  deeply  involved  in  government,  and  not 
completely  ignorant  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  whom  1  hesi- 
tate to  describe  as  "civilized."  It  is,  as  the  King  of  Siam  re- 
marked to  Anna,  "a  puzzlement." 


The  Reverend  Dr.  John  K.  Williams,  popular  author,  lecturer,  and 
philosopher,  served  FEE  as  a  resident  scholar.  He  continues  to  carry  the 
banner  for  liberty  in  his  native  Australia.  This  essay  appeared  in  the 
September  1985  edition  of  TJie  Freeman. 


284 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  285 

Non-dictionary  definitions  of  and  comments  about 
"civilization"  and  the  "civilizing  process"  compound  con- 
fusion. Martin  Crombie  asserts  that  "the  alchemy  of  civi- 
lization transforms  vicious  animals  ruled  by  instinct  into 
human  beings  governed  by  reason,"  but  Eric  Berne  tells  us 
that  "we  are  bom  princes  and  the  civilizing  process  turns 
us  into  frogs."  Jose  Ortega  y  Gasset  insists  that  "civilization 
is  nothing  else  but  the  attempt  to  reduce  force  to  being  the 
last  resort/'  but  Will  Rogers  wryly  observes  that  no  one  can 
"say  that  civilization  doesn't  advance,  for  in  every  war  they 
kill  you  in  a  new  way."  On  the  one  hand,  Winston  Churchill 
affirms  that  "to  fight  for  the  preservation  of  civilization  is  to 
fight  for  the  survival  of  the  human  race,"  but  on  the  other 
hand  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  insists  that  "the  end  of  the 
human  race  will  be  that  it  will  eventually  die  of  civiliza- 
tion." When  these  conflicting  utterances  are  blended,  and 
are  spiced  by  the  suggestion  of  Calvin  Coolidge  that  "civi- 
lization and  profits  go  hand  in  hand"  and  the  observation 
of  Alan  Coult  that  "the  flush  toilet  is  the  basis  of  Western 
civilization,"  the  search  for  a  definition  of  civilization 
begins  to  look  like  an  exercise  in  futility. 

Civilizations  Die  But  a  Continuity  Remains 

For  all  this,  while  no  one  of  us  may  be  able  precisely  to 
say  what  he  or  she  means  by  "civilization,"  all  of  us  under- 
stand, even  if  we  do  not  agree  with,  the  assertion  that  civi- 
lizations seem  to  die.  Civilization  itself  may  continue,  and 
much  that  past  civilizations  have  achieved  may  be 
absorbed  by  new  civilizations  and  thus  conserved,  but  par- 
ticular civilizations,  like  individual  men  and  women,  are 
seemingly  destined  to  be  bom,  to  grow,  to  flourish,  to  fade, 
and  to  die. 


286  /  John  K.  Williams 

While  it  is  easy  to  concede  that  such  a  process  has  char- 
acterized civilizations  of  yesteryear,  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
believe  that  this  is  also  true  of  our  own  civilization.  And 
yet,  the  cosmos  of  which  we  are  a  part,  and  thus  human  his- 
tory itself,  are  vital  and  dynamic,  not  lifeless  and  static. 
Change  is  thus  inevitable.  Since  change  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  reality,  no  particular  state  of  affairs,  and  hence  no 
particular  form  of  civilization,  are  forever.  And  that  is  not 
terrible:  rather,  it  is  ground  for  hope.  Tomorrow  is  not  pre- 
destined to  be  a  rerun  of  today.  A  world  more  prosperous, 
more  peaceful,  more  committed  to  liberty  than  is  our 
world,  is  a  real  and  exciting  possibility. 

I  have  been  unable,  alas,  to  identify  the  reference,  but  an 
observation  I  noted  in  a  desk  calendar  and  wrote  down 
says  it  all.  "Civilization  is  a  stream  with  banks.  The  stream 
is  sometimes  filled  with  blood  from  f>eople  killing,  stealing, 
shouting,  and  doing  things  historians  usually  record,  while 
on  the  banks,  unnoticed,  people  build  homes,  make  love, 
raise  children,  sing  songs,  write  poetry,  and  even  whittle 
statues.  The  story  of  civilization  is  the  story  of  what  hap- 
pened on  the  banks.  Historians  are  pessimists  because  they 
ignore  the  banks  for  the  river."  The  words  are  those  of  Will 
and  Ariel  Durant,  but  where  in  their  writings  they  are 
found  I  do  not  know. 

What  happens  on  the  banks  is  marked  by  continuity. 
One  generation  inherits  and  builds  upon  what  previous 
generations  have  achieved.  In  this  sense,  the  insights  and 
discoveries  of  particular  civilizations  last.  And  in  this  sense, 
what  is  great  and  glorious  about  our  civilization  can  last. 
Hence  my  willingness  to  affirm  that  "the  American  Way" 
can  last  and  will  last.  In  so  speaking  I  am  not,  incidentally, 
seeking  to  flatter  you.  The  "American  Way"  has  a  long  his- 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  287 

tory.  Insights  and  ideals  for  which  innumerable  people  over 
millennia  fought  and  died  came,  perhaps  by  an  accident  of 
history,  the  defining  characteristics  of  "the  American  Way" 
Your  nation,  after  all,  is  unique  in  that  it  was  "conceived  in 
liberty." 

What  can  last  and  what,  1  believe,  will  last,  are  the  prin- 
ciples so  many  for  so  long  sought  to  establish,  and  which  in 
this  new  nation  "became  flesh."  What  can  and  will  last  is, 
so  to  speak,  the  ringing  affirmation  that  "all  men  are  cre- 
ated equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  cer- 
tain unalienable  rights,  that  among  these  are  Life,  Liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  Happiness." 

While  we  cannot  pretend  that  our  civilization  as  it  is 
shall  endure  until  the  end  of  human  history,  the  way  to  pre- 
serve and  pass  on  to  those  who  follow  us  what  is  magnifi- 
cent and  awesome  about  the  American  Way  is  to  defend  all 
that  is  excellent  in  our  civilization  as  it  is.  Being  human — 
being  material  creatures  living  in  a  spatio-temporal,  physi- 
cal world — we  cannot  defend  an  abstraction  called  "civi- 
lization itself."  Just  as  the  only  way  to  serve  an  abstraction 
called  "humanity"  is  to  serve  particular  flesh-and-blood 
human  beings,  so  the  only  way  to  further  the  cause  of  civ- 
ilization as  such  is  to  cherish  and  conserve  a  particular  civ- 
ilization. 

We  serve  civilization  as  such,  and  can  only  serve  civi- 
lization as  such,  by  serving  the  best  in  our  own  civilization. 
And  one  way  to  do  this  is  to  ask  what  it  is  that  we  can  do  to 
combat  the  forces  that  weaken,  that  undermine,  that  erode 
a  particular  civilization.  Hence  the  title  of  my  address  and 
the  question  I  wish  to  explore:  What  is  the  disease  from  which 
civilizations  die? 


288  /  John  K.  Williams 
Thucydides 

In  using  the  word  "disease"  I  am  borrowing  a  meta- 
phor, an  image  used  some  two-and-a-half  millennia  ago  by 
a  Greek  historian  named  Thucydides. 

Thucydides  loved  the  city-state  of  Athens.  His  devotion 
was  not  to  the  buildings  and  environment  one  could  point 
to,  but  to  a  way  of  life  which  Athens  in  the  fifth  century  B.C. 
embodied.  In  words  Thucydides  ascribes  to  a  great  Athen- 
ian leader  named  Pericles,  that  way  of  life  is  thus  described: 

Our  constitution  is  called  a  democracy  because 
power  is  in  the  hands  not  of  a  minority  but  of  the 
entire  people.  When  it  is  a  question  of  settling  pri- 
vate disputes,  everyone  is  equal  before  the  law.  .  .  . 
And,  just  as  our  political  life  is  free  and  open,  so  is 
our  day-to-day  life  in  relation  to  each  other.  We  do 
not  get  into  a  state  with  our  next-door  neighbor  if  he 
enjoys  himself  in  his  own  way,  nor  do  we  give  him 
the  kind  of  black  looks  which,  though  they  do  no 
real  harm,  still  do  hurt  people's  feelings.  We  are  free 
and  tolerant  in  our  private  lives;  but  in  public  affairs 
we  keep  to  the  law.  This  is  because  [the  law]  com- 
mands our  deep  respect  .  .  .  especially  .  .  .  those 
unwritten  laws  which  it  is  an  acknowledged  shame 
to  break.  It  seems  just  as  natural  to  us  to  enjoy  for- 
eign goods  as  our  own  local  products  .  .  .  and  our 
city  is  open  to  the  world.  .  .  .  We  regard  wealth  as 
something  to  be  properly  used,  rather  than  some- 
thing to  boast  about,  and  as  for  poverty,  no  one  need 
be  ashamed  to  admit  it.  The  real  shame  is  not  in 
being  poor,  but  in  not  taking  practical  measures  to 
escape  from  poverty.  Here  each  individual  is  inter- 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  289 

ested  not  only  in  his  own  affairs,  but  in  the  affairs  of 
[Athens]  as  well.^ 

Now  it  must  be  confessed  that  this  description  of  the 
Athenian  way  is  not  a  httle  idealized.  The  institution  of 
slavery  was  a  reality  in  Athens,  just  as  it  was  in  all  Greek 
city-states  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.  Again,  power  in  Athens 
could  be  said  to  be  "in  the  hands  ...  of  the  entire  people,"  if 
and  only  if  women  did  not  count  as  people.  Yet  for  all  this, 
Thucydides'  description  accurately  captures  something  of 
what  was  so  magnificent  about  his  beloved  Athens,  a  civi- 
lization that  gave  birth  to  thinkers,  writers,  and  artists 
whose  insights  and  works  still  live,  having  become  part  of 
"civilization  itself."  Yet  the  civilization  that  was  Athens  did 
not  live.  It  died. 

Early  in  the  work  from  which  I  have  quoted,  Thucy- 
dides describes  a  mysterious  plague  which  swept  through 
Athens,  elaborating  in  detail  the  symptoms  those  suffering 
from  the  disease  displayed.  At  one  level  this  section  of  his 
history  is  simply  history,  a  painstaking  record  of  a  signifi- 
cant event  which  most  certainly  did  occur.  Yet  more  than  a 
simple  description  of  what  happened  is  intended.  Thucy- 
dides uses  this  description  as  a  controlling  symbol  for  his 
entire  work.  Athenian  civilization  itself  suffered,  he  asserts, 
from  a  "disease,"  a  disease  characterized  by  particular 
symptoms.  This  disease,  which  in  the  case  of  Athens 
proved  fatal,  is  the  disease  all  men  and  women  of  good  will 
must  fear.  For  it  is  the  disease  from  which  civilizations  die. 

Human  Beings  and  Human  Nature 

Thucydides  frequently  uses  the  phrase,  "human  nature 
being  what  it  is"  and  similar  phrases.  By  so  speaking,  he  is 


290  /  John  K.  Williams 

indicating  at  least  two  realities,  two  constants  about  men 
and  women.  First,  human  beings  are  rational.  Men  and 
women  are  capable  of  thought.  They  can  formulate  goals 
and  rationally  seek  out  ways  to  realize  these  goals.  They 
can  recall,  consider,  and  learn  from  the  past  and  thereby 
plan  for  the  future.  They  can  envisage  not  simply  an  imme- 
diate and  given  present,  but  a  distant  and  possible  future. 
Human  nature  is  rational. 

Now  rationality  dictates,  insists  Thucydides,  the  rule  of 
law.  Long-term  objectives  can  be  realized  by  an  individual 
if  and  only  if  he  or  she  can  count  upon  other  people  behav- 
ing in  an  essentially  predictable  way.  By  this  is  meant  not 
that  the  individual  cannot  or  should  not  be  spontaneous 
and  creative,  and  thus  unpredictable,  but  that  some  rules  and 
conventions  governing  the  way  people  relate  to  each  other  must 
exist  and  must  be  respected.  Rule  by  a  tyrant's  whim  or  a 
mob's  caprice  is  undesirable,  apart  from  anything  else,  pre- 
cisely because  such  rule  is  erratic  and  unpredictable,  pre- 
cluding cooperative,  long-term  endeavors.  What  is  permit- 
ted today  might  be  forbidden  tomorrow;  undertakings 
made  in  the  present  might  not  be  fulfilled  in  the  future. 
Social  coordination  and  cooperation  demands,  insists 
Thucydides,  the  rule  of  law.  And  as  rational  beings,  men 
and  women  can  perceive  that  this  is  so. 

The  Rules  of  Law 

Like  many  of  his  contemporaries,  Thucydides  divides 
"laws"  broadly  defined  into  four  groups  or  sets.  First,  and 
perhaps  weakest,  are  the  rules  signified  by  the  word  man- 
ners. People  breaking  these  rules  tend  to  be  regarded  as 
somewhat  uncivilized  and  uncouth,  but  that  is  all.  Ill-man- 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  291 

nered  people  may  not  be  invited  to  dinner  parties,  but  they 
are  not  perceived  as  "bad''  people. 

Then  come  the  rules  signified  by  the  word  morals.  These 
rules  are  significantly  stronger  than  the  rules  we  call  "man- 
ners." People  breaking  these  rules  are  perceived  not  simply 
as  irksome,  antisocial  irritants  but  as  evil  people. 

Third  come  the  rules  making  up  the  written  laws  of  a 
community.  These  rules,  stronger  than  both  manners  and 
morals,  are  the  rules  which,  if  broken,  incur  a  penalty 
imposed  by  a  court.  While  some  "immoral"  actions  may 
also  be  "illegal"  actions,  not  all  are.  Thus  the  sexual  license 
so  uproariously  depicted  in  the  plays  of  the  Athenian 
comedian,  Aristophanes,  while  certainly  not  illegal,  was  no 
less  certainly  regarded  as  immoral.  The  sphere  of  morality, 
and  the  sphere  of  legality,  were  not  perceived  by  the  Greeks 
as  identical. 

Manners.  Morals.  The  written  laws.  And  a  fourth  set  of 
rules:  the  "unwritten  laws  which  it  is  an  acknowledged  shame  to 
break. "  These  laws  were  perceived  as  so  basic,  so  fundamen- 
tal, so  important,  that  they  did  not  need  to  be  written  down. 
For  the  Greeks,  these  laws  were  two:  honor  the  dead,  and 
honor  the  gods,  including  the  gods  of  others.  In  a  sense, 
these  two  laws  reduce  to  a  single  imperative:  respect  other 
people  as  people,  possessing  a  worth  in  and  of  themselves, 
and  resj)ect  the  values  other  people  hold,  even  if  those  val- 
I  ues  are  other  than  one's  own.  In  more  contemporary  lan- 
guage, we  might  define  the  "unwritten  laws"  as  what  some 
philosophers  call  reciprocal  respect  for  autonomy,  a  respect  for 
the  personhood  of  other  people  and  their  capacity  to  for- 
mulate and  strive  to  realize  their  own  peaceful,  noncoercive 
visions  of  the  "good  life."  The  "unwritten  laws." 

Rationality,  then,  dictates  obedience  to  these  laws.  It  is 


292  /  John  K.  Williams 

in  one's  own  interest  that  one  is  part  of  a  community  where 
certain  expectations  can  be  held  and  long-term  goals  can  be 
pursued.  To  be  sure,  one  cannot,  given  these  rules,  do 
exactly  what  one  might  wish  at  a  given  moment,  but  nei- 
ther can  anyone  else.  There  is  thus  an  incalculably  valuable 
payoff,  a  payoff  more  than  compensating  for  the  irksome 
restraint  of  not  always  being  able  to  behave  with  impunity. 
So  affirms  reason.  So  asserts  the  rationality  that  is  part  of 
human  nature. 

Alongside  rationality  is  found  a  second  characteristic  of 
"human  nature":  a  drive  to  seek  immediate,  here-and-now  plea- 
sure. Men  and  women  resent  whatever  curbs  their  freedom 
to  seek  such  pleasure.  Regardless  of  the  dictates  of  sweet 
reason,  they  chafe  at  the  bit.  Thus  if  a  person  can  acquire 
the  power  to  defy  the  rules  social  cooperation  and  coordi- 
nation demand,  that  person  will  defy  them.  If  a  person  can 
acquire  the  power  to  defy  the  rules  and  get  away  with  it, 
that  person  will,  asserts  Thucydides,  tend  to  do  precisely 
that. 

The  first  rules  to  go  are  usually  manners.  Then  morals 
bite  the  dust.  Then  the  written  laws  are  defied.  Finally,  the 
"unwritten  laws"  are  forgotten.  Resentment  and  envy  are 
fostered,  the  powerless  detesting  the  powerful.  Factions 
proliferate.  Barbarism  reigns. 

A  Tyrant  Is  Born 

And  then,  asserts  Thucydides,  comes  the  end,  in  one  of 
two  forms.  A  social  order  without  coordination  is  power- 
less to  defend  itself  against  the  disciplined  onslaughts  of  an 
external  power.  Or — and  more  frequently — a  people  sink- 
ing into  the  chaos  of  barbarism  panic.  They  cry  out  for 
someone — anyone — who  will  restore  some  semblance  of 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  293 

cohesion  and  order.  And  invariably  that  someone  emerges. 
He  promises  to  give  the  people  what,  in  desperation,  they 
are  grasping  for.  He  promises  to  restore  social  order  and  the 
rule  of  law.  But  at  a  price.  In  exchange,  men  and  women 
must  surrender  their  liberty.  In  this  way,  the  tyrant  is  born. 

Thucydides  describes  in  great  detail  the  symptoms 
observable  as  this  disease — the  disease  from  which  civiliza- 
tions die — inexorably  works  its  way  toward  its  terrible  end, 
progressively  eroding  the  structures  and  practices  that  are, 
so  to  speak,  the  central  nervous  system  of  a  civilized  com- 
munity. I  quote  him  at  some  length. 

"Revolutions  broke  out  in  city  after  city,  and  in  places 
where  the  revolutions  occurred  late,  the  knowledge  of  what 
had  happened  previously  in  other  places  caused  still  new 
extravagances  ...  in  the  methods  of  seizing  power  and  .  . . 
unheard-of  atrocities  in  revenge.  To  fit  in  with  the  change  of 
events,  words,  too,  had  to  change  their  usual  meanings. 
What  used  to  be  described  as  a  thoughtless  act  of  aggres- 
sion was  now  regarded  as  the  courage  one  would  expect  to 
find  in  a  party  member;  to  think  of  the  future  and  wait  was 
merely  another  way  of  saying  that  one  was  a  coward.  .  .  . 
Fanatical  enthusiasm  was  the  mark  of  a  real  man . . . ;  [any- 
one] who  held  violent  opinions  could  always  be  trusted; 
anyone  who  objected  to  [such  opinions]  became  a  suspect. 
. . .  Family  relations  were  a  weaker  tie  than  party  member- 
ship, since  party  members  were  .  .  .  ready  to  go  to  any 
extreme  for  any  reason  whatever.  These  parties  were  not 
formed  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  established  laws,  but 
simply  to  acquire  power.  ..." 

Continues  Thucydides:  "Love  of  power  .  .  .  was  the 
cause  of  all  these  evils.  .  .  .  Leaders  of  parties  in  the  cities 
had  programs  which  appeared  admirable — on  the  one  side 
equality  for  the  masses,  on  the  other  side  safe  and  sound 


294  /  John  K.  Williams 

government  by  an  aristocracy.  Yet  by  professing  to  serve 
the  public  interest,  party  leaders  and  members  in  truth 
sought  to  win  . .  .  prizes  for  themselves. . . .  [With]  the  con- 
ventions of  civilized  life  thrown  into  confusion,  human 
nature,  always  ready  to  offend  even  where  laws  exist, 
showed  itself  in  its  true  colors . . . ,  repealing  general  laws  of 
humanity  which  . . .  give  a  hope  of  salvation  to  all."^ 

Thus  the  symptoms.  Then  the  end.  Whether  externally 
imposed  or  internally  generated,  tyranny  and  despotism 
triumph.  Liberty  dies,  and  with  it  a  civilization.  The  joy- 
ous songs  of  a  free  and  civilized  people  are  silenced.  The 
disease  from  which  civilizations  die  has  worked  its  way  to 
its  end. 

Here  endeth  a  brief  and  sketchy  lesson  from  a  volume 
penned  by  a  genius  whose  name  is  never  heard  by  many 
students.  They  prefer,  you  see,  "relevant"  books  and  con- 
temporary names.  And  those  of  us  who  should  know  better 
capitulate,  fearful  of  incurring  our  children's  wrath.  We 
proffer  amusing  mini-courses  about  ephemeral  interests 
instead — then  wonder  why  it  is  our  young  know  little 
about  the  heritage  that  is  rightly  theirs. 

Moral  Decline 

As  a  preacher,  I  might  be  expected  to  point  to  the  break- 
down in  Western  societies  of  moral  rules.  Clearly,  all  is  not 
well.  In  his  monumental  volume.  Modem  Times:  The  World 
from  the  Twenties  to  the  Eighties,^  Paul  Johnson  documents 
the  rise  in  the  West  of  moral  relativism  and  moral  subjec- 
tivism. More  and  more,  moral  rules  are  perceived  either  as 
arbitrary  prescriptions  and  proscriptions  relative  to  a  par- 
ticular society,  having  no  rootage  or  grounding  in  the 
nature  of  things,  or  as  expressions  of  personal  taste,  a  dif- 


1 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  295 

ference  over  the  merits  of  cruelty  for  its  own  sake  being 
akin  to  a  difference  over  the  merits  of  a  particular  flavor  of 
ice  cream. 

Yet  in  spite  of  this,  I  suggest  that  anyone  tempted  to 
assert  that  our  civilization  has  sunk  to  hitherto  depths  of 
moral  depravity,  read  some  history.  The  eighteenth-century 
writer,  Tobias  Smollett — author  of  that  ever-delightful 
work.  The  Expedition  of  Humphrey  Clinker— describes  the 
highways  of  his  day  as  being  "infested  with  violence  and 
assassination"  and  the  cities  of  his  age  as  "teem(ing)  with 
the  brutal  votaries  of  intemperance  and  lewdness."  London 
in  1839  boasted  933  brothels  and  844  houses  of  ill-fame  to 
serve  a  population  of  some  two  million  people.  Hooligan- 
ism is  no  more  rampant  in  New  York  City  today  than  it  was 
in  nineteenth-century  London,  where  gangs  such  as  the 
"Bucks"  and  "Corinthians"  perfected  traditions  of  sheer 
terrorism  elaborated  by  their  eighteenth-century  predeces- 
sors, the  notorious  "Mohocks."  Consider  this  description  of 
the  Mohocks:  "Nobody  who  was  alone  was  safe  from  their 
cowardly  assaults.  They  attacked  at  random  any  unarmed 
person  who  was  out  after  dark.  They  assaulted  unprotected 
women;  they  drove  their  swords  through  sedan-chairs; 
they  pulled  people  from  coaches,  slit  their  noses  with 
razors,  stabbed  them  with  knives,  ripped  the  coach  to 
pieces,  and  then  . . .  killed."^ 

The  barbaric  behavior  of  English  soccer  fans  which 
recently  shocked  a  disbelieving  world  has  its  parallels  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  the  major  difference  being  not  the 
mindlessness  of  the  behavior  but  the  fact  that,  today,  we  at 
least  are  shocked. 

The  situation  is  complex.  There  is  something  depraved 
about  an  age  witnessing  self-styled  world  leaders  applaud- 
ing a  speech  delivered  by  Idi  Amin  on  October  1, 1975,  at 


296  /  John  K.  Williams 

that  cabal  of  tyrannies  laughingly  described  as  the  United 
Nations.  There  is  something  profoundly  disturbing  about  a 
generation  of  adults  that  seemingly  has  lost  its  moral  nerve, 
leaving  the  young  to  improvise  their  manners  and  morals 
as  best  they  can.  Yet  to  assert  that  we  are  experiencing  an 
unprecedented  moral  decline  is  to  go  beyond  the  evidence. 
Suffice  to  suggest  that,  if  we  take  seriously  Thucydides' 
claim  that  a  disregard  of  the  rules  we  call  manners  and 
morals  is  indeed  symptomatic  of  the  disease  from  which 
civilizations  die,  we  cannot  be  complacent  with  impunity. 

The  Rule  of  Law 

What  is  beyond  dispute  is  that  we  today  have  largely 
departed  from  the  rule  of  law.  "When  it  is  a  question  of  set- 
tling private  disputes,  everyone  is  equal  before  the  law, "  asserts 
Thucydides.  Citizens  of  Western  nations  not  so  long  ago 
could  echo  this  assertion.  Today  they  cannot. 

The  Founding  Fathers  of  this  nation  meant  by  "equal- 
ity" precisely  what  Greeks  such  as  Thucydides  meant  by 
the  term  isonomia — namely,  equality  before  the  law.  There  are 
to  be  no  special  laws  for  special  classes  or  castes  or  elites, 
laws  privileging  some  but  disadvantaging  others.  Indeed 
rules  which  do  single  out  particular  individuals  or  particu- 
lar sets  of  individuals  were  not,  for  the  Greeks,  properly 
called  laws  at  all,  but  "edicts"  or  "decrees."  Even  when 
such  rules  are  backed  by  the  majority,  they  remain  other 
than  laws  proper,  "the  decrees  of  the  demos — the  people — 
correspond(ing),"  as  Aristotle  puts  it,  "to  the  edicts  of  the 
tyrant." 

This  truth  was  clearly  and  unambiguously  perceived  by 
those  who  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
defended  the  political  philosophy  of  classical — classical — 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  297 

liberalism,  and  was  no  less  clearly  perceived  by  your 
Founding  Fathers.  They  established  a  republic,  not  an  unre- 
stricted democracy;  they  advocated  not  the  absolute  rule  of 
any  majority  but  the  constitutionally  defended  liberties  of 
minorities,  even  minorities  of  one;  they  defended  not  rule 
by  any  principles  securing  majority  approval,  but  by  prin- 
ciples of  conduct  equally  applicable  to  all.  Justice  was  por- 
trayed as  a  blindfolded  figure.  She  did  not  see  who  stood 
before  her.  That  did  not  matter,  for  whoever  you  were — 
rich  or  poor;  Catholic,  Protestant,  Jew,  or  "Infidel";  edu- 
cated or  unlettered — your  "rights"  were  the  same. 

This  understanding  of  the  "rule  of  law"  is  utterly  vital 
for  a  free  and  civilized  community.  Rules  which  single  out 
special  classes,  castes,  or  elites  breed  the  factionalism  and 
scheming  Thucydides  laments,  foster  the  envy  Thucydides 
deplores,  and  precipitate  the  civil  strife  and  dissension 
Thucydides  fears.  No  matter  what  impressively  high- 
minded  terms  are  appealed  to  as  justification  for  any  depar- 
ture from  the  rule  of  law  properly  understood — "social  jus- 
tice" or  whatever — the  outcome  remains  the  same.  And 
that  outcome  is  disaster  for  a  free  and  civilized  society. 

And  let  us  not  delude  ourselves.  In  recent  decades  West- 
ern civilization  has  witnessed  a  departure  from  the  rule  of 
law,  classically  defined.  Justice  is  no  longer  blindfolded, 
supremely  indifferent  as  to  who  it  is  standing  accused 
before  her.  She  peeks!  "Tell  me  who  you  are,"  she  asserts, 
"and  then  I  shall  tell  you  your  rights."  The  notion  that  all 
enjoy  absolutely  equal  "rights"— essentially  the  "right"  to 
formulate  and  strive  to  realize  any  vision  of  the  "good  life," 
given  only  that  such  striving  and  such  visions  are  peaceful, 
and  that  all  are  to  be  protected  by  government  from  vio- 
lence, theft,  and  fraud— has  been  unspeakably  attenuated. 
"Equality  of  rights"  and  "equality  before  the  law"  have  sue- 


298  /  John  K.  Williams 

cumbed  to  a  different  vision  of  "equality" — an  egalitarian 
sameness  secured  by  edicts  and  decrees  which  advantage 
some  but  disadvantage  others. 

The  very  nature  of  government  thus  changes.  No  longer 
is  government  given  the  vital  but  limited  task  of  enforcing 
a  single  set  of  rules,  protecting  all  from  actual  or  threatened 
violence,  theft,  and  fraud,  and  thereby  ensuring  that  all  are 
equally  free  to  formulate  and  strive  to  realize  their  own 
visions — their  diverse  but  noncoercive  visions — of  the  "good 
life."  Rather,  government  becomes  the  means  whereby  one 
group  of  people  seeks  favors  and  advantages  at  the  expense 
of  rival  groupings  of  people.  A  massive  redistributive  appa- 
ratus proliferates  zero-sum  games  whereby  some  gain  and 
others  lose.  Factionalism  is  encouraged,  envy  is  increased, 
and  government  becomes  not  the  protector  of  all  but  what 
Frederic  Bastiat,  the  great  French  classical  liberal  thinker, 
called  "the  fictitious  entity  by  which  everyone  seeks  to  live 
at  the  expense  of  everyone  else."^  And  according  to  Thucy- 
dides,  this  eroding  of  the  rule  of  law  signifies  the  presence 
of  the  disease  from  which  civilizations  die. 

The  Family 

I  make  no  apologies  for  drawing  your  attention  to 
Thucydides'  specific  reference  to  the  weakening  of  family  ties 
as  a  further  symptom  of  the  disease  from  which  civiliza- 
tions die.  Indeed  I  would  urge  you  to  read  a  singularly 
scholarly  volume  penned  by  the  courageous  Russian  dissi- 
dent, Igor  Shafarevich,  entitled  The  Socialist  Phenomenon,^ 
While  a  mathematician  by  training — indeed  until  recently 
Shafarevich  was  a  professor  of  mathematics  at  Moscow 
University — he  displays  in  this  volume  an  utterly  awesome 
historical  knowledge,  and  he  uses  that  knowledge  to  docu- 
ment with  compelling  thoroughness  the  hatred  statists  and 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  299 

collectivists  invariably  have  had  for  the  family  unit.  It 
would  seem  to  be  the  case  that  opposition  to  individual  lib- 
erty inevitably  leads  to  opposition  to  the  family. 

Because  I  am  committed  to  the  rule  of  law,  I  cannot  and 
do  not  advocate  laws  specifying  the  family  unit  and  delib- 
erately seeking  to  foster  and  favor  the  family  unit.  I  must,  in 
the  name  of  the  rule  of  law,  oppose  all  rules  the  objective  of 
which  is  the  realization  of  some  particular  vision  of  the 
"good  life" — save,  of  course,  visions  involving  the  actual  or 
threatened  coercion  of  people  not  sharing  those  visions. 

What  I  oppose  in  the  name  of  the  rule  of  law  is  the  per- 
haps unintentional  weakening  of  the  traditional  family  by 
welfare  schemes  which  in  practice  encourage  a  breakdown 
of  the  family  unit.  It  would  be  impertinent  for  me  to  refer  to 
the  situation  in  your  nation.  But  I  can  refer  you  to  Charles 
Murray's  devastating  critique  of  American  social  welfare 
policy.  Losing  Ground/ 

All  I  ask  is  that  governments  mind  their  own  business 
and  get  out  of  the  way  as  individuals  organize  their  social 
relationships.  The  traditional  family  is,  in  my  judgment,  so 
grounded  in  biological  and  emotional  reality  that  it  can  look 
after  itself.  The  only  further  suggestion  I  make  is  that  indi- 
viduals caring  about  strengthening  the  traditional  family, 
involve  themselves  in  voluntary  organizations  assisting  fam- 
ilies in  trouble — financial  assistance,  counseling,  and  so  on. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  the  undermining  of  the  family  is,  as 
Thucydides  perceived  so  long  ago,  a  symptom  of  the  dis- 
ease from  which  civilizations  die. 


Individual  Integrity 

Finally,  according  to  Thucydides,  the  disease  from 
which  civilizations  die  afflicts  the  "best"  members  of  a  soci- 
ety, not  simply  the  "worst."  Given  immoral  social  institu- 


300  /  John  K.  Williams 

tions,  the  "best"  are  tempted  to  compromise  their  princi- 
ples. By  so  yielding,  however,  those  who  should  know  bet- 
ter become  infected  cells  carrying  the  disease,  rather  than 
healthy  antibodies  fighting  the  invader. 
Some  lines  of  George  Meredith  say  it  all: 

In  tragic  life,  God  wot. 

No  villain  need  be.  Passions  spin  the  plot: 

We  are  betrayed  by  what  is  false  within. 

I  know  the  alibis,  being  extremely  gifted  in  the  less  than 
noble  art  of  rationalization.  I  am  robbed,  say,  by  a  pick- 
pocket. At  some  future  date,  I  acquire  some  clout  over  the 
pickpocket.  Is  it  not  proper  that  I  retrieve  all  or  some  of 
what  rightly  is  mine?  Similarly,  is  it  not  right  that  I  join  in 
the  scramble  to  the  government  trough,  retrieving  what  has 
been  taken  from  me,  at  least  in  part?  But  the  analogy  is 
flawed.  We  are  not  retrieving  from  the  pickpocket  what  is 
ours;  we  are  rather  sending  him  out  to  pick  other  pockets — 
including  those  of  our  children  and  our  children's  chil- 
dren— and  sharing  in  the  loot.  We  are  partners  in  crime,  not 
victims  enjoying  a  measure  of  restitution. 

I  am  not  referring  to  forms  of  involvement  in  a  less  than 
ideal  system  that  cannot  be  avoided.  In  my  nation,  the  only 
way  I  can  opt  out  of  a  socialized  medical  system  is  to  seek 
out  some  ex-doctor,  struck  off  the  lists,  and  negotiate  an 
undisclosed  cash  payment;  and  frankly  I'm  not  prepared  to 
entrust  my  physical  well-being  to  some  probably  incompe- 
tent rogue.  I  go  to  the  ballet,  even  though  I  know  that 
money  coercively  extracted  from  football  fans  and  movie 
buffs  (for  the  most  part  less  affluent  than  am  I),  is  subsidiz- 
ing my  extravagant  tastes.  Total  disengagement  with  a  less 
than  ideal  system  is  acquired  only  by  opting  out,  and,  with 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  301 

like-minded  souls,  seeking  a  deserted  island  on  which  to 
set  up  a  Utopia— but  such  islands  are  few  and  the  pioneer- 
ing spirit  is  not,  alas,  mine. 

I  am,  however,  referring  to  an  involvement  we  could 
avoid  if  we  were  willing  to  pay  the  price.  Many  of  those  who 
state  that  they  value  liberty,  and  a  politico-economic  system 
informed  by  liberty,  tolerate  in  themselves  a  measure  of 
involvement  with  statist  structures  that  is  not  necessary, 
and  which  makes  their  professed  values  ring  hollow.  In  this 
sense  we  are,  in  Meredith's  words,  betrayed  by  "what  is 
false  within,"  becoming  carriers  of  the  disease  from  which 
civilizations  die. 


Conclusion 

No  person  with  eyes  to  see,  and  certainly  no  person 
with  eyes  alert  to  the  symptoms  detailed  by  Thucydides  of 
the  disease  from  which  civilizations  die,  can  entertain  the 
fantasy  that  all  is  well  with  our  civilization.  Yet  1  am  utterly 
convinced  that  our  situation  is  far  from  hopeless,  and  that 
the  "disease"  can  be  curbed  and  conquered. 

I  believe  the  American  inheritance  is  the  greatest  inheri- 
tance ever  given  to  any  nation:  "A  new  nation,  conceived  in 
liberty,  and  dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are  cre- 
ated equal."  In  this  land  the  dream  of  the  ages  was  earthed, 
and  became  the  very  foundation  upon  which  a  people 
began  to  build.  The  revolution  that  gave  you  birth  was 
unique.  Other  revolutions  ended  in  terror  or  Napoleonic 
empire.  Your  revolution  challenged  at  its  beginning,  and 
has  challenged  ever  since,  all  dominations  and  tyrannies, 
all  prejudices  and  bigotries,  all  predatory  institutions 
enslaving  and  debasing  the  free  spirit  of  humanity.  Your 
revolution  enshrined  and  still  enshrines  the  cry  that  people 


302  /  John  K.  Williams 

are  not  chattels,  not  pawns  on  a  planner's  chessboard,  not 
divided  by  "nature"  into  lords  and  serfs.  It  is  therefore  sac- 
rilege to  enslave  them,  infamous  to  engineer  them,  criminal 
to  degrade  them  and  seek  to  smother  the  liberty  that  bums 
in  their  being. 

And  that  is  your  strength.  For  the  liberty  upon  which 
this  nation  was  and  is  built  is  not  merely  a  value  created  by 
or  equal  to  a  taste  some  of  us  happen  to  have  acquired.  It  is 
grounded  in  the  very  nature  of  human  reality.  In  the  absence 
of  private  property  rights,  the  absence  of  changing  relative 
money  prices  in  a  market  economy — in  the  absence,  to  put  it 
bluntly,  of  economic  and  individual  liberty — a  community 
literally  cannot  use  what  it  has  to  acquire  what  it  wants,  and 
the  hungry  will  not  be  fed,  the  naked  will  not  be  clothed,  the 
destitute  will  not  be  sheltered. 

More,  there  is  in  the  human  spirit  a  yearning  that  can 
never  utterly  be  silenced,  a  yearning  for  freedom  to  formu- 
late one's  own  vision  of  the  "good  life"  and  seek  to  realize 
that  vision.  I  know  that  there  is  another  voice  and  another 
yearning — a  voice  that  whispers  fearfully  of  the  risks  and 
responsibilities  freedom  involves,  and  a  yearning  to  be  car- 
ried through  life.  Yet  the  voice  that  says,  "Stand  on  thy  feet, 
take  up  thy  bed  and  walk,"  has  the  last  word,  for  it  is 
stronger  than  the  voice  which,  in  the  name  of  an  illusory 
security,  lures  us  toward  the  collective  grave  of  statism. 

You  and  I  are  on  the  side  of  life.  Yes,  we  must  act  as 
though  everything  depended  upon  the  labors  of  our  hands, 
the  intensity  of  our  thinking,  the  devotion  of  our  hearts.  Yet 
if  liberty  is  written  into  the  very  structure  of  our  individual 
and  social  being,  victory  in  the  end  is  sure.  If  only  we  stop 
compromising;  if  only  we  as  educationalists  and  adults  do 
what  A.  N.  Whitehead  said  we  must  do,  and  expose  our 
children  to  the  "habitual  vision  of  greatness"  by  telling 


The  Disease  from  Which  Civilizations  Die  /  303 

them  the  story  of  humanity's  struggle  toward  freedom;  if 
only  we  stop  apologizing  or  indulging  in  neurotic  guilt,  and 
stand  tall  at  mention  of  the  "American  Way"  as  I  have 
defined  and  as  your  forefathers  defined  it  and  not  as  foolish 
rabble-rousers  define  it.  If  only  we  do  this  the  victory  shall 
be  ours.  Of  course  there  will  be  setbacks.  Of  course  there 
will  be  disappointments.  Since  when  has  the  long,  slow 
journey  from  the  slavery  of  Egypt  to  the  promised  land  of 
freedom  been  other  than  through  a  wilderness?  Yet  that 
"wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  made  glad,  and 
the  desert  shall  rejoice;  it  shall  blossom  abundantly  and 
rejoice  even  with  joy  and  singing." 

1.  ThucydideS/  The  Peloponnesian  War,  trans.  Rex  Warner  (Har- 
mondsworth:  Penguin  Books,  1954),  pp.  145-146. 

2.  Ibid.,  pp.  242-245. 

3.  Paul  Johnsoa  Modem  Times:  The  World  from  the  Twenties  to  the 
Eighties  (New  York;  Harper  and  Row,  1983). 

4.  Cited  by  J.  Hemming,  Individual  Morality  (London:  Nelson,  1969), 
p.  6. 

5.  Frederic  Bastiat,  "The  State,"  trans.  S.  Cain,  in  Selected  Essays  on 
Political  Economy,  George  B.  de  Huszar,  ed.  (Irvington-on-Hudson,  N.Y.: 
Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  1968),  p.  144. 

6.  Igor  R.  Shafarevich,  The  Socialist  Phenomenon  (New  York:  Harper 
and  Row,  1980). 

7.  Charles  Murray,  Losing  Ground:  American  Social  Policy,  1950-1980 
(New  York:  Basic  Books,  1984). 


A  Moral  Order 
Edmund  A.  Opitz 


The  Pilgrims  and  Puritans  who  settled  along  the  north- 
east coast  of  this  country  during  the  seventeenth  and  eigh- 
teenth centuries  had  sailed  across  the  rugged  Atlantic  seek- 
ing a  piece  of  land  where  they  might  put  their  deepest 
religious  convictions  into  practice.  They  were  called  Dis- 
senters or  Separatists;  they  were  estranged  from  the  doc- 
trines and  practices  of  the  government  church  of  the  nation 
from  which  they  fled.  For  their  faith  they  had  suffered 
various  hardships  and  some  persecution.  Alexis  de 
Tocqueville,  writing  of  the  men  and  women  who  estab- 
lished Plymouth  Colony  observed:  "...  it  was  a  purely 
intellectual  craving  that  exiled  them  from  the  comforts  of 
their  former  homes;  and  in  facing  the  inevitable  sufferings 
of  exile  their  object  was  the  triumph  of  an  idea."  That  idea 
was  conveyed  by  a  motto  that  Thomas  Jefferson  used  on  his 
personal  seal:  "Rebellion  to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God." 

These  early  settlers  were  not  peasants  or  serfs;  they 
were  clergymen  and  teachers,  farmers  and  men  of  business. 
Many  had  degrees  from  Cambridge  University.  The  late 
Samuel  Eliot  Morison,  a  Harvard  professor  specializing  in 
early  Massachusetts  history,  declared  that  there  was  a 


The  Reverend  Mr.  Opitz  served  on  the  senior  staff  of  The  Founda- 
tion for  Economic  Education  for  37  years.  This  essay  apj:>eared  as  a 
Foreword  to  a  1996  FEE  publication,  A  Moral  Basis  for  Liberty,  by  Robert 
A.  Sirico. 


304 


A  Moral  Order  /  305 

higher  percentage  of  Ph.D/s  in  the  Puritan  population  in 
the  1640s  than  in  any  time  since,  in  this  country! 

The  "idea"  referred  to  by  Tocqueville  had  been  spread- 
ing in  England  even  before  the  Reformation;  it  bears 
directly  upon  the  English  people  having,  for  the  first  time, 
the  Bible  in  their  own  tongue.  The  idea  of  a  new  common- 
wealth, fired  by  reading  in  the  Old  Testament  of  "the 
people  of  the  covenant,"  launched  in  America  what 
Tocqueville  described  as  "a  democracy  more  perfect  than 
antiquity  had  dared  dream  of."  John  Cotton,  who  has  been 
rightly  called  the  patriarch  of  New  England,  served  as  min- 
ister of  The  First  Church  of  Boston  from  1633  until  his  death 
in  1653.  Cotton  Mather  wrote  that  John  Cotton  "pro- 
pounded to  them  an  endeavor  after  a  theocracy,  as  near  as 
might  be,  to  that  which  was  the  glory  of  Israel,  the  'peculiar 
people/  " 

The  Puritan  regime,  taken  by  itself,  might  seem  to  us  a 
pretty  rigorous  affair.  But  these  people  were  in  what  might 
be  termed  a  fortress-under-siege  situation.  The  first  order 
of  business  was  survival  under  conditions  more  primitive 
than  they  had  experienced  in  England.  Most  survived, 
more  people  arrived  from  abroad.  They  had  an  educated 
ministry  in  every  town;  they  were  readers;  they  had  regular 
news  sheets  and  engaged  in  vigorous  pamphleteering.  All 
towns  had  a  large  measure  of  self-government;  they 
learned  about  self-government  by  practicing  it  in  local 
town  meetings.  And  there  were,  in  the  pulpits  of  the  time, 
vigorous  and  articulate  spokesmen  for  liberty.  Here,  for 
instance,  is  Reverend  Daniel  Shute  of  the  Second  Parish  in 
Hingham,  in  1759:  "Life,  Liberty,  and  Property  are  the  gifts 
of  the  Creator."  And  again:  "Mankind  has  no  right  volun- 
tarily to  give  up  to  others  those  natural  privileges,  essential 
to  their  happiness,  with  which  they  are  invested  by  the 


306  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

Lord  of  all;  for  the  improvement  of  these  they  are  account- 
able to  Him."  (I  had  the  privilege  of  serving  in  Dr.  Shute's 
pulpit  two  centuries  later.) 

The  difficulties  and  dangers  of  travel  in  early  New  Eng- 
land forced  each  village  to  generate  its  own  resources.  The 
colonists  hunted  and  fished,  grew  their  own  food,  and 
traded  with  the  Indians.  Early  on  the  Pilgrims  practiced 
communal  farming,  putting  all  crops  into  a  common  ware- 
house from  which  all  shared.  But  if  every  member  of  a  com- 
munity gets  an  equal  share  from  unequal  productivity  it  is 
inevitable  that  production  will  slow  down.  This  happened 
in  Plymouth,  and  the  rules  were  changed.  Under  the  new 
order  each  family  worked  its  own  plot  of  land  and  worked 
harder  knowing  that  what  they  produced  belonged  to 
them,  and  would  not  be  turned  over  to  nonproducers  or 
inefficient  workers.  As  a  result  the  general  level  of  pros- 
perity rose. 

The  local  churches  in  New  England  shared  the  same 
creed  and  were  perforce  independent  of  one  another;  there 
was  no  ecclesiastical  body  to  supervise  them.  A  small  group 
of  ministers  met  in  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  in  1648  and 
drew  up  a  document  that  came  to  be  labeled  The  Cam- 
bridge Platform,  affirming  that  the  exigencies  of  the  New 
England  situation  at  the  time  dictated  that  each  local 
church  must  take  charge  of  its  own  affairs.  This  polity  was 
called  "congregational,"  and  the  churches  which  practiced 
it  were  Congregational  Churches.  This  denomination 
played  an  important  role  in  American  history,  not  only  in 
New  England  but  in  other  parts  of  the  continent  as  the  West 
was  settled. 

The  early  settlers  on  these  shores,  whom  we've  dis- 
cussed briefly,  did  not  improvise  or  invent  the  ideas  they 
brought  with  them.  These  people  were  the  heirs  of  sixteen 


A  Moral  Order  /  307 

centuries  of  cultural,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  develop- 
ment of  one  of  the  world's  great  civilizations:  the  culture 
called  European  Civilization,  or  Christendom.  There  are 
several  other  great  civilizations,  of  course,  and  it  is  not  to 
disparage  them  to  say  that  we  are  the  heirs  of  Western  Civ- 
ilization, which  is  in  some  ways  unique.  It  is,  in  the  first 
place,  our  civilization,  and  American  Civilization  was 
launched  from  it  as  a  base. 

By  the  fourth  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century  there 
were  thirteen  colonies.  The  population  was  approximately 
3,000,000.  They  were  a  literate  people,  knowledgeable  in 
history  and  apt  to  quote  from  Cicero  and  other  Romans;  not 
fond  of  Plato  with  his  Utopia  and  its  "guardians."  They 
were  industrious:  farmers,  merchants,  craftsmen,  teachers, 
writers.  Paraphrasing  Sir  Francis  Bacon,  they  acted  on  the 
premise  that  we  work  for  two  reasons:  for  the  glory  of  God, 
and  for  the  improvement  of  Man's  estate.  A  job  was  a  call- 
ing. Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations  came  out  in  two  vol- 
umes in  1776  and  hundreds  of  copies  were  sold  in  the 
colonies.  And  no  wonder;  Smith  gave  his  readers  a  ratio- 
nale for  what  they  were  already  doing.  And  he  was  a  free 
trader,  which  the  British  were  not;  the  British  interfered 
with  trade  and  treated  the  colonists  as  if  their  main  purpose 
was  to  give  King  George  some  extra  income. 

The  nations  of  Europe  had  national  churches  operating 
under  government  funding  and  control.  The  colonists  had 
been  working  toward  the  idea  that  churches  should  be  free 
and  independent,  and  eventually— with  the  Constitution— 
the  idea  became  fact.  Their  way  of  life  demonstrated  that 
the  town  did  not  need  a  government  to  tell  the  people  what 
to  do;  the  Bible  told  them  what  to  do,  and  what  not  to  do. 
The  Commandments  forbade  murder,  theft,  false  witness, 
adultery:  The  Law  is  needed  to  deter  those  who  might  wan- 


308  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

tonly  kill  a  human  being,  and  to  punish  the  culprit  who  has 
taken  another's  life.  Private  property  is  a  sacred  trust;  the 
thief  who  steals  what  belongs  to  another,  or  the  arsonist 
who  bums  his  home,  deserves  punishment.  False  witness 
may  be  slander  or  libel;  more  importantly  it  is  breach  of 
contract,  which  is  to  go  back  on  one's  word.  "Life,  Liberty, 
and  Property"  was  the  popular  slogan. 

These  rules  and  others  come  to  us  in  our  Bible  as  the  Ten 
Commandments.  And  they  are  also  graven  into  the  very 
nature  of  things  in  terms  of  the  way  this  universe  works; 
general  obedience  to  these  Commandments  is  necessary  if 
we  are  to  have  a  society,  and  some  society  is  our  natural 
environment.  Only  within  some  society  is  the  full  potential 
of  our  nature  realized. 

Imagine  a  town  with  a  population  of  10,000.  Two  of  its 
inhabitants  are  dimwitted  and  spaced  out  from  time  to 
time.  They  find  life  pretty  dull.  They  watch  lurid  videos 
and  read  weird  magazines  and  decide  to  become  satanists, 
just  the  two  of  them.  The  town  soon  learns  that  it  has  a  cou- 
ple of  "serial  killers"  in  its  midst.  The  town  panics  after 
three  bodies  are  found  on  three  successive  days.  The  police 
are  pressured  to  get  tough;  gun  shops  are  sold  out;  houses 
are  double-bolted,  alarm  systems  installed;  armed  vigilante 
groups  form  spontaneously.  Suspicions  are  rife.  The  town 
has  ceased  being  a  civic  organization  and  turns  into  an 
armed  camp — all  because  a  tiny  fraction  of  one  percent  of 
its  population  has  turned  to  murder.  We  have  here  a  cause- 
and-effect  sequence  as  convincing  as  a  lab  test:  this  uni- 
verse has  a  moral  order  as  an  integral  part  of  its  natural 
order,  simply  awaiting  discovery  by  wise  men  and  seers, 
and  its  practice  by  the  rest  of  us. 

The  moral  order  is  the  Natural  Law,  an  important  con- 
cept rooted  in  Greek  and  Roman  thought,  and  part  of  the 


A  Moral  Order  /  309 

intellectual  equipment  of  European  thinkers  until  recent 
times.  It  was  a  central  element  in  the  legal  philosophy  of 
our  Founding  Fathers.  It  was  also  referred  to  as  the  Higher 
Law,  and  as  such  is  part  of  the  title  of  Edwin  Corwin's 
important  little  book  of  some  sixty  years  ago.  The  ''Higher 
Law"  Background  of  American  Constitutional  Theory.  Positive 
Law,  in  contrast  to  the  Natural  Law,  is  the  kind  of  law 
enacted  by  legislators,  or  decreed  by  commissions.  The 
Natural  Law  is  discovered;  a  positive  law  is  good  law  if  it 
accords  with  the  Natural  Law;  bad  law  if  it  runs  counter  to 
the  Natural  Law. 

The  Founding  Fathers  appealed  to  Natural  Law  argu- 
ment in  their  attacks  on  restrictive  legislation  that  impaired 
their  rightful  liberties.  Jefferson  declared  that  God  had 
made  the  mind  of  man  free,  implying  that  any  interference 
with  men's  peaceable  actions,  or  any  subordination  of  one 
man  to  another  is  bad  law;  it  violates  the  fundamental 
intent  of  Nature  and  Nature's  God. 

Thus  they  conceived  the  idea  of  a  separation  of  powers 
in  government — Executive,  Legislative,  and  Judicial — plus 
a  retention  of  certain  prerogatives  in  the  several  states.  This 
was  the  purpose  of  the  remarkable  group  of  men  who  met 
to  forge  an  instrumentality  of  government  in  conformity 
with  the  Natural  Law,  based  on  the  widely  held  conviction 
that  God  is  the  Author  of  Liberty.  In  short,  our  political  lib- 
erties were  not  born  in  a  vacuum;  they  emerged  among  a 
people  who  believed  in  their  unique  destiny  under  God — 
the  God  whose  nature,  works,  and  demands  they  gleaned 
from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  The  eighteenth-century 
New  England  clergymen  were  learned  men  and  often 
spoke  along  these  lines.  Many  sermons  made  their  way  into 
print  and  Liberty  Press  has  favored  us  with  a  mammoth 
one-volume  collection  of  them.  Such  messages  contributed 


310  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

much  to  the  mental  climate  of  the  time,  which  Jefferson  and 
his  committee  drew  upon  to  compose  the  immortal  words 
that  give  our  Declaration  of  Independence  its  enduring 
influence. 

The  Declaration  is  the  first  of  the  documents  upon 
which  this  nation  was  founded,  the  others  being  the  Arti- 
cles of  Confederation,  the  Constitution,  and  the  Northwest 
Ordinance. 

Let's  examine  the  opening  words  of  the  Declaration: 
''We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident.  .  .  ."  The  Declara- 
tion did  not  say  that  "these  truths  are  self-evident,"  or  that 
all  men  hold  them  to  be  such.  This  is  not  true.  Were  it  possi- 
ble for  us  to  cross-examine  the  "We"  who  offered  the  Dec- 
laration, they  might  explain  that  "We"  are  speaking,  first, 
for  those  of  us  here  gathered;  and  second,  for  the  generality 
of  our  fellows  whom  we  judge  to  share  our  view  as  deter- 
mined by  the  clergy  they  admire,  the  pamphlets  they  write 
and  circulate,  the  Committees  of  Correspondence,  and  the 
documents  emanating  from  the  legislators  of  the  thirteen 
colonies.  "We"  are  the  end  result  of  long  exposure  to  the 
Bible,  which  teaches  us  that  we  are  created  beings  and  not 
the  accidental  end  result  of  a  chance  encounter  of  atoms; 
and  that  we  belong  on  this  planet,  earth,  which  was  created 
to  teach  us  what  we  need  to  know  in  order  to  grow,  train 
our  characters,  and  become  the  mature  men  and  women  we 
have  it  in  us  to  be.  God  has  given  us  reason  and  free  will, 
which  we  often  misuse  so  as  to  cause  a  breach  between  God 
and  ourselves,  and  for  our  sins  Christ  died  on  the  cross — 
not  just  for  some  of  us  but  for  all  of  us.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
"all  men  are  created  equal,"  male  and  female,  master  and 
bondsman.  They  are  unequal  and  different  in  other 
respects,  as  common  observation  convinces  us.  Richard 
Rumbold,  convicted  in  England  because  of  his  beliefs. 


A  Moral  Order  /  311 

ascended  the  scaffold  in  1685  and  uttered  these  immortal 
words:  "none  comes  into  the  world  with  a  saddle  on  his 
back;  neither  does  one  come  booted  and  spurred  to  ride 
him."  Jefferson  quoted  these  words  in  one  of  his  letters;  it's 
a  fair  surmise  that  they  had  an  effect  on  his  own  thinking 
and  writing. 

A  group  of  extraordinary  men  assembled  in  Philadel- 
phia and  gave  us  a  Constitution.  In  1789,  after  much 
debate,  it  was  accepted  by  the  required  number  of  states 
and  the  United  States  of  America  took  its  place  among  the 
nations  of  the  world. 

While  the  Constitution  was  being  debated  and  argued 
out,  1787-1789,  three  very  able  public  men  who  were  also 
philosophers — ^James  Madison,  John  Jay,  and  Alexander 
Hamilton — presented  the  case  for  adoption  in  the  public 
press,  85  essays  in  all.  The  essays  were  gathered  in  book 
form  as  The  Federalist  (or  sometimes  The  Federalist  Papers), 
which  has  long  assumed  its  place  as  a  major  work  of  politi- 
cal philosophy,  certainly  the  finest  exposition  of  the  nature 
and  requirements  of  a  republican  form  of  government.  It  is 
an  indispensable  treatise  and  rationale  for  the  governmen- 
tal structures  essential  to  equal  freedom  in  a  civilized  social 
order,  as  envisioned  by  the  men  we  refer  to  as  the  Founding 
Fathers.  My  suspicion  is  that  in  today's  colleges  few  politi- 
cal science  majors  are  exposed  to  it. 

The  Declaration  opens  with  a  theological  statement, 
asserting  that  our  rights  are  Creator-endowed.  This  plants 
the  idea  of  a  political  order  rooted  in  the  Transcendent, 
designed  to  maximize  individual  liberty  in  society,  and 
incorporating  the  great  "Thou  Shalt  Nots"  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments. The  citizens  were  already  earning  their  daily 
bread  by  working  along  free-market  economy  lines  even 
before  they  discovered  The  Wealth  of  Nations.  Thus  our 


312  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

threefold  society:  religious-moral;  legal-political;  and  eco- 
nomic-commercial. These  three  sectors  interact  and  mutu- 
ally implicate  one  another,  supporting  one  another  as  well. 

People  tend  to  act  out  their  beliefs,  and  our  characters 
are  shaped  by  our  deepest  and  most  firmly  held  convic- 
tions. As  we  believe,  so  will  we  become;  and  as  we  are  so 
will  our  societies  be.  The  religious,  moral,  and  political  con- 
victions of  our  late  eighteenth-century  forebears  were  not 
improvised  on  the  spot;  they  were  supported  by  eighteen 
centuries  of  Western  experience  in  religious,  ethical,  and 
political  matters.  History  has  its  ups  and  downs,  its  gigan- 
tic swings,  and  some  historians  find  major  changes  about 
every  five  hundred  years  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christ- 
ian era.  The  modem  age  might  find  its  pivotal  point  at  the 
time  of  the  Renaissance,  Reformation,  and  Counter  Refor- 
mation. Christendom  was  sharply  divided;  minor  sects 
proliferated.  It  was  a  time  of  exploration;  the  West  came  to 
realize  that  there  were  other  civilizations,  far  more  ancient 
than  Christendom,  with  religions  of  their  own,  including 
sacred  scriptures.  A  few  Western  philosophers  began  to 
realize  that  there  is  no  reason  why  the  God  they  believed  in, 
the  God  of  the  Bible,  should  limit  his  attention  to  one  nar- 
row part  of  the  world,  and  a  relative  newcomer  at  that,  on 
the  world  scene.  Well,  we  do  have  something  to  learn  from 
Islam,  Buddhism,  and  Hinduism,  as  well  as  from  Taoism 
and  Confucianism.  And  they  have  a  lot  to  learn  from  us. 
But  that's  another  story. 

Most  of  us  do  not  create  the  ideas  and  assumptions 
which  guide  our  everyday  actions;  we  borrow  from 
thinkers  of  the  past  whose  names  we  may  not  know.  Joseph 
Wood  Krutch  taught  at  Columbia  University  and  was  a 
well-known  drama  critic  with  the  mind  of  a  philosopher. 
Here's  his  thumbnail  description  of  how  the  modem  mind 


A  Moral  Order  /  313 

was  formed,  the  assumptions  we  habitually  act  upon:  ''The 
fundamental  answers  which  we  have  on  the  whole  made, 
and  which  we  continue  to  accept,  were  first  given  in  the 
seventeenth  century  by  Francis  Bacon,  Thomas  Hobbes, 
and  Rene  Descartes,  and  were  later  elaborated  by  Marx  and 
the  Darwinians."  He  lists  these  items  in  chronological 
order: 

1.  The  most  important  task  to  which  the  human 
mind  may  devote  itself  is  the  "control  of  nature" 
through  technology.  Knowledge  is  power.  (Bacon, 
1561-1626) 

2.  Man  may  be  completely  understood  if  he  is 
considered  to  be  an  animal,  making  predictable  reac- 
tions to  that  desire  for  pleasure  and  power  to  which 
all  his  other  desires  may,  by  analysis,  be  reduced. 
(Hobbes,  1588-1679) 

3.  All  animals,  man  excepted,  are  pure  machines. 
(Descartes,  1596-1650) 

4.  Man,  Descartes  notwithstanding,  is  also  an 
animal  and  therefore  also  a  machine.  (Darwin, 
1809-1882) 

5.  The  human  condition  is  not  determined  by 
philosophy,  religion,  or  moral  ideas  because  all  of 
these  are  actually  only  by-products  of  social  and 
technological  developments  which  take  place  inde- 
pendent of  man's  will  and  uninfluenced  by  the  "ide- 
ologies" they  generate.  (Marx,  1818-1883) 

These  observations  are  tendentious,  of  course.  But  there 
does  seem  to  be  a  warped  streak  in  the  philosophies  of  the 
past  four  or  five  centuries  as  they  wander  away  from  com- 
mon sense.  An  observation  from  University  of  Glasgow 


314  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

professor  C.  A.  Campbell  seems  pertinent:  "As  history  i 
amply  testifies,  it  is  from  powerful,  original  and  ingenious 
thinkers  that  the  queerest  aberrations  of  philosophic  theory 
often  emanate.  Indeed  it  may  be  said  to  require  a  thinker 
exceptionally  endowed  in  these  respects  if  the  more  para- 
doxical type  of  theory  is  to  be  expounded  in  a  way  which 
will  make  it  seem  tenable  even  to  its  authors — let  alone  to 
the  general  public." 

Some  modem  philosophers  seem  to  have  given  up  on 
man,  and  even  distrust  their  own  reason.  Here  is  the  bril- 
liant Bertrand  Russell,  for  example,  from  his  celebrated  i 
essay  entitled  Free  Man's  Worship.  "Man,"  he  writes,  "is  the 
product  of  causes  which  had  no  prevision  of  the  end  they 
were  achieving;  his  origin,  his  growth,  his  hopes  and  fears, 
his  loves  and  his  beliefs,  are  but  the  outcome  of  accidental 
collocations  of  atoms."  Russell  has  just  stated  one  of  his 
beliefs  which,  on  his  own  showing,  is  the  result  of  an  acci- 
dental coming  together  of  some  atoms,  to  which  the  cate- 
gories true  and  false  do  not  apply.  He  continues:  "Brief  and 
powerless  is  man's  life;  on  him  and  all  his  race  the  slow, 
sure  doom  falls  pitiless  and  dark.  Blind  to  good  and  evil, 
reckless  of  destruction,  omnipotent  matter  rolls  on  its 
relentless  way."  Matter  is  simply  inert,  until  the  mind  of 
some  human  decides  to  use  it  to  further  some  human  pur- 
pose. Omnipotent,  indeed!  To  Russell's  credit  he  does 
admit  that  "good"  is  real  and  so  is  "evil."  Obviously  we 
cannot  be  blind  to  that  which  is  not  there! 

Russell  has  done  brilliant  work  in  mathematics,  and 
also  in  the  philosophy  of  science.  But  if  Man  is  in  such  a 
sorry  state  as  Russell  thinks,  then  ordinary  humans  need  a 
keeper.  Enter  the  humanitarian  with  a  guillotine!  Actually, 
the  record  shows  that  human  beings  play  a  variety  of  roles, 
both  good  and  evil.  We  know  the  horrors  of  twentieth-cen- 


A  Moral  Order  /  315 

tury  totalitarianism  and  collectivism,  but  also  the  glories  of 
Periclean  Athens,  Florence  at  its  peak,  Elizabethan  Eng- 
land, the  late  eighteenth-century  colonists  who  laid  down 
the  political  structures  of  a  free  society.  Nearly  every  person 
has  untapped  skills  and  strengths,  drawn  upon  only  when 
urgently  needed.  We  needed  them  in  the  1780s  and  1790s, 
and  they  gave  us  the  legal  framework  for  a  market  econ- 
omy. The  market  operated  here  more  freely  than  ever 
before — or  since.  There  were  government  interventions  all 
the  way  along,  of  course,  increasing  after  the  Civil  War.  But 
even  then  the  market  was  so  open  and  free  that,  of  the 
thirty  million  immigrants  who  came  to  these  shores  during 
the  last  three  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century,  nearly 
every  one  got  a  job.  Looking  back  we  would  be  shocked  by 
some  of  the  working  conditions;  but  the  workers  compared 
their  present  employment  to  the  much  worse  situations 
back  in  the  old  country.  Here,  at  least,  they  could  work  their 
way  up  the  ladder  and  they  were  confident  that  their  chil- 
dren would  fare  better  than  they. 

In  aristocratic  England  rural  poverty  did  not  attract 
much  attention,  but  when  these  poor  folk  flocked  into  the 
cities,  poverty  became  a  concern  of  many  well-intentioned 
folk.  We  know  something  of  the  slum  scene  in  mid-eigh- 
teenth-century London  as  depicted  in  William  Hogarth's 
drawings.  Things  were  not  much  better  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years  later,  according  to  Jack  London,  who  spent  some  time 
exploring  slum  life  in  London  and  wrote  up  his  findings  in 
his  People  of  the  Abyss.  There's  something  of  a  novelist's 
embellishments  in  the  book  but  there's  no  doubt  that  many 
men,  women,  and  children  lived  miserably  What  is  the 
cause  of  poverty,  and  the  remedy? 

A  poor  society  is  one  saddled  with  low  productivity 
and  low  productivity  means  a  low  ratio  of  capital  to  labor. 


316  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

i.e.,  few  tools  and  little  machinery.  Poverty  has  been  the  fate 
of  most  people  who've  ever  lived  on  this  globe.  We  began 
to  move  in  the  direction  of  prosperity  when  people  in  our  | 
section  of  the  planet  began  to  till  their  own  plots  of  land 
and  then  enjoy  the  full  fruits  of  their  labor.  Human  ingenu- 
ity was  turned  loose,  resulting  in  more  and  better  tools  pro- 
vided by  increasingly  skilled  workers  in  various  crafts.  The 
concept  of  private  property  was  redefined  and  people 
began  to  trade  more  freely. 

A  few  men  had  speculated  about  economics  before 
Adam  Smith,  but  he  made  of  it  a  new  science,  inspiring 
scholars  for  the  next  two  centuries.  We  now  know  how  to 
create  the  conditions  for  optimum  economic  well-being.  It 
is  now  possible  to  have  a  free  and  prosperous  common- 
wealth. First,  operate  within  the  political  order  envisioned 
by  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  Constitution; 
this  gives  us  the  Rule  of  Law — one  law  for  all  persons  alike 
because  we  are  one  in  our  essential  humanness.  Secondly, 
put  into  practice  the  truths  of  economics  gleaned  from  the 
classic  treatises  from  Adam  Smith  to  Ludwig  von  Mises, 
and  other  scholars  of  today.  Third,  there  is  the  moral  factor. 
We  have  in  our  time  suffered  from  loss  of  touch  with  the 
transcendent  aspect  of  human  experience,  although  we  are 
intimately  involved  with  it,  in  the  case  of  our  own  minds. 
The  mind  transcends  the  body,  but  they  interact  with  one 
another.  The  mind-body  problem  is  as  ancient  as  philoso- 
phy. We  know  that  they  interact  although  how  they  interact 
is  something  of  a  puzzle.  The  body  is  an  object  in  space  and 
time,  compounded  of  the  common  chemicals  found  in  the 
earth's  crust.  The  body  can  be  weighed  and  measured;  it 
can  be  looked  at  and  touched.  But  the  mind  has  no  such 
characteristics.  It  is  immaterial  but  it  can  affect  the  material 


A  Moral  Order  /  317 

body,  guide  its  actions,  generate  certain  illnesses,  or 
enhance  its  wellness. 

Your  mind  transcends  your  body,  and  yet  is  also  acting 
in  it  and  with  it.  Analogously,  it  might  be  suggested  that 
God,  conceived  as  Spirit,  transcends  this  universe  and  yet  is 
immanent  within  it.  This  is  a  mystery,  of  course,  but  hardly 
more  of  a  mystery  than  how  your  mind  interacts  with  your 
body.  From  this  perspective  the  idea  of  the  Natural  Law  or 
the  moral  order  as  a  real  part  of  this  mysterious  universe 
falls  into  place. 

But  a  new  religion  emerged  in  the  West  during  the  nine- 
teenth century  to  challenge  Christianity:  socialism.  This  is  a 
pseudo-religion,  really,  but  during  the  first  several  decades 
of  the  nineteenth  century  it  aroused  a  moral  fervor  compa- 
rable to  that  of  the  early  Christians.  In  1848  a  movement 
was  launched  by  two  Church  of  England  clergymen, 
Charles  Kingsley  and  F.  D.  Maurice,  called  Christian  social- 
ism. Their  aim  was  to  vindicate  for  "the  Kingdom  of 
Christ"  its  "true  authority  over  the  realms  of  industry  and 
trade,"  and  "for  socialism  its  true  character  as  the  great 
Christian  revolution  of  the  19th  century." 

The  year  1848  also  saw  publication  of  The  Communist 
Manifesto,  which  referred  to  its  socialist  rival  in  derisive 
terms:  "Christian  Socialism  is  but  the  holy  water  with 
which  the  priest  consecrates  the  heartburnings  of  the  aris- 
tocrat." 

The  movement  spread  in  England,  and  into  the  United 
States  where  its  common  name  was  the  Social  Gospel.  A 
popular  slogan  was:  "Christianity  is  the  religion  of  which 
Socialism  is  the  practice."  Well-known  theologians  con- 
tended that,  "To  be  a  Christian  and  not  a  Socialist,  is  to  be 
guilty  of  heresy!" 


318  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

Socialists  of  all  stripes  have,  from  the  beginning,  spoken 
as  if  they  had  a  monopoly  of  all  the  virtues;  only  socialists 
strive  for  justice  in  society,  peace  between  nations,  and  help 
for  the  poor.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  men  and  women  of 
good  will  want  to  see  other  people  better  off;  better  fed, 
clothed,  and  housed;  better  educated;  healthier  and  benefit- 
ing from  skilled  medical  care;  peace  among  the  nations  and 
just  relations  within  the  nation. 

Socialists  would  endorse  these  goals,  to  which  they 
would  add  a  Utopian  vision.  But  the  means  the  socialist 
employs  is  at  odds  with  his  goals.  The  socialist  would 
structure  his  society  along  the  lines  of  a  chain  of  command 
all  the  way  to  the  masses  at  the  bottom.  The  operational 
imperatives  of  a  socialistic  society  cancels  out  the  socialist 
dream.  No  society  organized  socialistically  has  been  able  to 
provide  sufficient  goods  and  services  to  raise  its  masses 
above  the  poverty  level;  and  the  citizenry  are  not  free  men 
and  women.  For  a  century  and  a  half  it  was  a  religion  that 
dominated  the  lives  of  millions;  it  is  now  revealed  as  a  "reli- 
gion" whose  god  has  failed.  The  failure  of  this  false  deity 
offers  us  a  clue:  turn  in  the  opposite  direction  to  find  the 
true  God  and  His  moral  order. 

Not  all  proponents  of  the  free-market  economy,  private 
property  order  are  theists,  and  they  do  have  a  concern  for 
an  ethic  compatible  with  capitalism,  referring  to  "enlight- 
ened self-interest"  as  the  guide  to  right  conduct.  This  is  not 
a  sound  theory,  in  my  view,  nor  is  it  an  accurate  reading  of 
the  ethic  appropriate  to  a  capitalist  economy. 

Enlightened  self-interest  as  a  moral  principle  has  its 
advocates,  but  it  exhibits  some  logical  difficulties.  The  term 
has  no  referent,  or  else  it  has  as  many  referents  as  there  are 
selves.  And  each  self's  interest  may  differ  from  day  to  day. 
Continuity  is  lacking  because  no  enduring  principle  can  be 


A  Moral  Order  /  319 

deduced  from  any  multiple  of  private  inclinations.  Further- 
more, if  a  person  is  urged  to  pursue  his  own  interest  he  can- 
not be  denied  the  right  to  decide  what  that  interest  is.  For,  if 
A  is  allowed  to  decide  for  B  what  B's  self-interest  is  then  B 
will  be  acting  out  A's  interest  and  not  his  own!  There's  no 
norm  or  standard  transcending  both  A  and  B  by  which  we 
might  be  able  to  determine  who  might  be  right  and  who 
wrong. 

So,  "Do  your  own  thing"  is  the  rule,  and  the  weak  doing 
their  thing  are  at  the  mercy  of  the  strong  doing  theirs.  The 
clever  and  unscrupulous  doing  their  thing  have  the  rest  of 
us  at  a  disadvantage.  If  every  individual  merely  pursues 
his  own  interest  or  pursues  his  private  advantage,  it  is 
impossible  from  this  starting  point  to  arrive  at  any  sort  of  a 
general  rule,  or  principle  or  ethical  norm.  Mr.  B  might  call 
something  a  norm  or  principle,  but  only  because  his  self- 
interest  dictates  that  he  do  so.  And  if  there  are  no  moral 
rules,  why  should  Mr.  B.,  having  been  told  to  pursue  self- 
interest,  refrain  from  fraud  or  theft  or  aggression  when  his 
self-interested  calculation  of  costs  and  benefits  determines 
that  the  benefits  accruing  to  him  outweigh  the  costs.  When 
all  is  said  and  done,  there  is  no  substitute  for  the  time- 
tested  code  built  into  the  nature  of  things,  whose  mandates 
form  the  necessary  foundation  of  a  good  society:  Don't 
murder;  Don't  steal;  Don't  assault;  Keep  your  word;  Fulfill 
your  contracts. 

Furthermore,  the  self-interest  ethic  does  not  represent 
an  accurate  rendering  of  the  capitalist  ethos,  although  most 
defenders  of  capitalism  have  adopted  it.  In  the  market 
economy  the  consumer's  needs,  wants,  and  desires  are  sov- 
ereign; entrepreneurs  wishing  to  maximize  profits  obedi- 
ently accept  the  dictates  of  the  market.  No  one  is  forced  to 
become  an  entrepreneur,  but  if  he  does  assume  that  role  he 


320  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

must  subordinate  his  own  desires  to  the  demands  of  his 
customers. 

Let  Ludwig  von  Mises  show  just  how  much  self-abne- 
gation the  entrepreneur  must  practice.  "In  the  market  soci- 
ety," he  writes,  "the  proprietors  of  capital  and  land  can 
enjoy  their  property  only  by  employing  it  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  other  people's  wants.  They  must  serve  the  con- 
sumers in  order  to  have  any  advantage  from  what  is  their 
own.  The  very  fact  that  they  own  means  of  production 
forces  them  to  submit  to  the  wishes  of  the  public.  Owner- 
ship is  an  asset  only  for  those  who  know  how  to  employ  it 
in  the  best  possible  way  for  the  benefit  of  the  consumers.  It 
is  a  social  function"  (Human  Action,  p.  684). 

Mises  also  said:  "For  in  an  unhampered  market  society 
the  consumers  daily  decide  anew  who  should  own  and 
how  much  he  should  own.  The  consumers  allot  control  of 
the  means  of  production  to  those  who  know  how  to  use 
them  best  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  most  urgent  wants  of 

the  consumers. . . .  [The  owners] are  mandataries  of  the 

consumers,  bound  by  the  operation  of  the  market  to  serve 
the  consumers  best"  (p.  683). 

Such  is  the  free-market  extension  of  the  Good  Samaritan 
Ethic;  to  which  one  can  only  say  Amen! 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule 
Edmund  A.  Opitz 


The  publisher  of  the  London  Times  came  to  this  country 
a  few  years  after  the  First  World  War.  A  banquet  in  his 
honor  was  held  in  New  York  City,  and  at  the  appropriate 
time  Lord  Northcliffe  rose  to  his  feet  to  propose  a  toast.  Pro- 
hibition was  in  effect,  you  will  recall,  and  the  beverage  cus- 
tomarily drunk  by  Northcliffe  in  his  homeland  was  not 
available  here.  So  Northcliffe  raised  his  glass  of  water  and 
said:  "Here's  to  America,  where  you  do  as  you  please.  And 
if  you  don't,  they  make  you!" 

Here,  in  this  land  of  the  free,  "we"  as  voters  had 
amended  the  Constitution  to  punish  conduct  which 
"we" — as  consumers — had  been  enjoying.  If  you  point  out 
that  the  Eighteenth  Amendment  had  been  inserted  into  the 
Constitution  by  majority  vote,  and  that  therefore  "we"  had 
done  it  to  "ourselves,"  you  need  to  be  reminded  that  the 
"we"  who  did  it  were  not  the  same  people  as  the  "our- 
selves" to  whom  it  was  done! 

The  Eighteenth  Amendment  was  annulled  in  1933. 
Shortly  thereafter  another  prohibition  law  was  passed,  this 
one  a  prohibition  against  owning  gold.  Under  the  earlier 
dispensation  you  could  walk  down  the  street  with  a  pock- 
etful of  gold  coins  without  breaking  the  law;  but  if  you 
were  caught  carrying  a  bottle  of  whiskey  you  might  be 
arrested.  Then  the  rules  were  changed,  and  you  could  carry 


This  essay  appeared  in  the  January  1977  issue  of  The  Freeman. 

321 


322  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

all  the  whiskey  you  wanted,  but  if  you  had  any  gold  in  your 
pocket  you  could  be  thrown  in  jail! 

Our  scientists  are  exploring  outer  space  looking  for 
intelligent  life  on  other  planets.  I  hope  they  find  some, 
because  there's  none  to  spare  on  planet  earth!  With  how  lit- 
tle wisdom  do  we  organize  our  lives,  especially  in  the  areas 
of  government  and  the  economy! 

The  fundamental  issue  in  political  philosophy  is  the 
limitation  of  governmental  power;  it  is  to  determine  the 
role  of  law,  the  functions  appropriate  to  the  political  agency. 
The  basic  question  may  be  phrased  in  a  variety  of  ways: 
What  things  belong  in  the  public  domain?  What  things  are 
private?  What  tasks  should  be  assigned  to  Washington  or 
some  lesser  governmental  agency,  and  in  what  sectors  of 
life  should  people  be  free  to  pursue  their  own  goals?  When 
should  legal  coercion  be  used  to  force  a  person  to  do  some- 
thing against  his  will?  In  view  of  government's  nature, 
what  is  its  competence?  What  are  the  criteria  which  enable 
us  to  distinguish  a  just  law  from  an  unjust  law? 

These  are  questions  we  cannot  avoid.  It  is  true  that  we 
don't  have  to  debate  them,  or  even  think  about  them;  but 
we  cannot  help  acting  on  them.  Some  theory  about  govern- 
ment is  the  hidden  premise  of  all  political  action,  and  we'll 
improve  our  action  only  as  we  refine  our  theory. 

What  Functions  Are  Appropriate? 

In  the  light  of  government's  nature,  what  functions  may 
we  appropriately  assign  to  it?  This  is  the  question,  and 
there  are  two  ways  to  approach  it.  The  approach  favored 
today  is  to  count  noses — find  out  what  a  majority  of  the 
people  want  from  government,  and  then  elect  politicians 
who  will  give  it  to  them!  And  believe  me,  they've  been  giv- 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  323 

ing  it  to  us!  The  party  that  wins  an  election  is  "swept  into 
office  on  a  ground  swell  of  public  opinion/'  as  popular 
mythology  has  it;  and  of  course  the  winners  have  "a  man- 
date from  the  people."  That's  spelled  Peepul 

I  do  not  accept  this  approach  to  political  philosophy, 
and  will  offer  some  reasons  for  rejecting  it.  Neither  did  our 
forebears  accept  this  approach.  Every  political  thinker  in 
the  West  from  Plato  down  to  modem  times  has  taken  a  dif- 
ferent tack.  Now  the  mere  fact  that  something  is  enshrined 
by  tradition  is  no  reason  for  accepting  it;  we  accept  some- 
thing because  we  believe  it  to  be  true.  But  anything  which 
is  both  tried  and  true  has  a  lot  going  for  it.  Let  me  try  to 
sketch  briefly  the  way  our  forebears  went  about  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  problem  of  trying  to  figure  out  what  gov- 
ernment should  do,  and  how  we  determine  whether  or  not 
a  law  is  just. 

The  backbone  of  any  legal  system  is  a  set  of  prohibi- 
tions. The  law  forbids  certain  actions  and  punishes  those 
who  do  them  anyway.  The  solid  core  of  any  legal  system 
therefore,  is  the  moral  code,  which,  in  our  culture  is  con- 
veyed to  us  by  the  Mosaic  Law.  The  Sixth  Commandment 
of  The  Decalogue  says:  "Thou  shalt  not  commit  murder" 
and  this  moral  imperative  is  built  into  every  statute  which 
prescribes  punishment  for  homicide.  The  Eighth  Com- 
mandment forbids  stealing,  and  this  moral  norm  gives  rise 
to  laws  punishing  theft. 

There  is  a  moral  law  against  murder  because  each 
human  life  is  precious;  and  there  is  a  moral  law  against 
theft  because  rightful  property  is  an  extension  of  the  per- 
son. "A  possession,"  Aristotle  writes,  "is  an  instrument  for 
maintaining  life."  Deprive  a  person  of  the  right  to  own 
property  and  he  becomes  something  less  than  a  person;  he 
becomes  someone  else's  man.  A  man  to  whom  we  deny  the 


324  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

rights  of  ownership  must  be  owned  by  someone  else;  he 
becomes  another  man's  creature — a  slave.  The  master-slave 
relation  is  a  violation  of  the  rightful  order  of  things,  that  is, 
a  violation  of  individual  liberty  and  voluntary  association. 

The  Gift  of  Life 

Each  human  being  has  the  gift  of  life  and  is  charged 
with  the  responsibility  of  bringing  his  life  to  completion. 
He  is  also  a  steward  of  the  earth's  scarce  resources,  which 
he  must  use  wisely  and  economically.  Man  is  a  responsible 
being,  but  no  person  can  be  held  responsible  for  the  way  he 
lives  his  life  and  conserves  his  property  unless  he  is  free. 
Liberty,  therefore,  is  a  necessary  corollary  to  life  and  prop- 
erty. Our  forebears  regarded  life,  liberty,  and  property  as 
natural  rights,  and  the  importance  of  these  basic  rights  was 
stressed  again  and  again  in  the  oratory,  the  preaching,  and 
the  writings  of  the  eighteenth  century.  "Life,  Liberty  and 
Property  are  the  gifts  of  the  Creator,"  declared  the  Rev- 
erend Daniel  Shute  in  1767  from  the  pulpit  which  I  occu- 
pied some  200  years  later.  Life,  liberty,  and  property  are  the 
ideas  of  more  than  antiquarian  interest;  they  are  potent 
ideas  because  they  transcribe  into  words  an  important 
aspect  of  the  way  things  are. 

Our  ancestors  intended  to  ground  their  legal  and  moral 
codes  on  the  nature  of  things,  just  as  students  of  the  natural 
sciences  intend  their  laws  to  be  a  transcription  of  the  way 
things  behave.  For  example:  physical  bodies  throughout 
the  universe  attract  each  other,  increasing  with  the  mass  of 
the  attracting  body  and  diminishing  with  the  square  of  the 
distance.  Sir  Isaac  Newton  made  some  observations  along 
these  lines  and  gave  us  the  law  of  gravity.  How  come  grav- 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  325 

itational  attraction  varies  as  the  inverse-square  of  the  dis- 
tance, and  not  as  the  inverse-cube?  One  is  as  thinkable  as 
the  other,  but  it  just  happens  that  the  universe  is  prejudiced 
in  favor  of  the  inverse-square  in  this  instance;  just  as  the 
universe  is  prejudiced  against  murder,  has  a  strong  bias  in 
favor  of  property,  and  wills  men  to  be  free. 

Immanuel  Kant  echoed  an  ancient  sentiment  when  he 
declared  that  two  things  filled  him  with  awe:  the  starry 
heavens  without,  and  the  moral  law  within.  The  precision 
and  order  in  nature  manifest  the  Author  of  nature.  The  Cre- 
ator is  also  the  Author  of  our  being  and  requires  certain 
duties  of  us,  his  creatures.  There  is,  thus,  an  outer  reality 
joined  to  the  reality  within,  and  this  twofold  reality  has  an 
intelligible  pattern,  a  coherent  structure. 

This  dual  arrangement  is  not  made  by  human  hands; 
it's  unchangeable,  it's  not  affected  by  our  wishes,  and  it 
can't  be  tampered  with.  It  can,  however,  be  misinter- 
preted, and  it  can  be  disobeyed.  We  consult  certain  por- 
tions of  this  pattern  and  draw  up  blueprints  for  building  a 
bridge.  If  we  misinterpret,  the  bridge  collapses.  And  a 
society  disintegrates  if  its  members  disobey  the  configura- 
tion laid  down  in  the  nature  of  things  for  our  guidance. 
This  configuration  is  the  moral  order,  as  interpreted  by 
reason  and  tradition. 

We're  in  fairly  deep  water  here,  and  this  is  as  far  into 
theology  as  I  shall  venture.  The  point,  simply  put,  is  that 
our  forebears,  when  they  wanted  to  get  some  clues  for  the 
regulating  of  their  private  and  public  lives,  sought  for 
answers  in  a  reality  beyond  society.  They  believed  in  a 
sacred  order  which  transcends  the  world,  an  order  of  cre- 
ation, and  believed  that  our  duties  within  society  reflect  the 
mandates  of  this  divine  order. 


326  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 
Take  a  Poll 

This  view  of  one's  duty  is  quite  in  contrast  to  the 
method  currently  popular  for  detennining  what  we  should 
do;  which  is  to  conduct  an  opinion  poll.  Find  out  what  the 
crowd  wants,  and  then  say  "Me  too!"  This  is  what  the 
advice  of  certain  political  scientists  boils  down  to.  Here  is 
Professor  James  MacGregor  Bums,  a  certified  liberal  and 
the  author  of  several  highly  touted  books,  such  as  The  Dead- 
lock of  Democracy  and  a  biography  of  John  F.  Kennedy.  Lib- 
erals play  what  Bums  calls  "the  numbers  game."  "As  a  lib- 
eral I  believe  in  majority  rule,"  he  writes.  "I  believe  that  the 
great  decisions  should  be  made  by  numbers."  In  other 
words,  don't  think;  count!  "What  does  a  majority  have  a 
right  to  do?"  he  asks.  And  he  answers  his  own  question.  "A 
majority  has  the  right  to  do  anything  in  the  economic  and 
social  arena  that  is  relevant  to  our  national  problems  and 
national  purposes."  And  then,  realizing  the  enormity  of 
what  he  has  just  said,  he  backs  off:  "...  except  to  change  the 
basic  rules  of  the  game." 

Bums'  final  disclaimer  sounds  much  like  cin  after- 
thought, for  some  of  his  liberal  cohorts  support  the  idea  of 
unqualified  majority  rule.  The  late  Herman  Finer,  in  his 
anti-Hayek  book  entitled  Road  to  Reaction,  declares  "For  in  a 
democracy,  right  is  what  the  majority  makes  it  to  be" 
(p.  60).  What  we  have  here  is  an  updating  of  the  ancient 
"might  makes  right"  doctrine.  The  majority  does  have 
more  muscle  than  the  minority,  it  has  the  power  to  carry  out 
its  will,  and  thus  it  is  entitled  to  have  its  own  way.  If  right  is 
whatever  the  majority  says  it  is,  then  whatever  the  majority 
does  is  O.K.,  by  definition.  Farewell,  then,  to  individual 
rights,  and  farewell  to  the  rights  of  the  minorities;  the 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  327 

majority  is  the  group  that  has  made  it  to  the  top,  and  the 
name  of  the  game  is  winner  take  all. 

The  dictionary  definition  of  a  majority  is  50  percent  plus 
1.  But  if  you  were  to  draw  up  an  equation  to  diagram  mod- 
em majoritarianism  it  would  read: 

50  percent  +  1  =  100  percent; 
50  percent  - 1  =  ZERO! 

Amusing  confirmation  comes  from  a  professor  at  Rut- 
gers University,  writing  a  letter  to  the  Times.  Several  years 
ago  considerable  criticism  was  generated  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  certain  man  to  a  position  in  the  national  govern- 
ment. Such  criticism  is  unwarranted,  writes  our  political 
scientist,  because  the  critics  comprise  "a  public  which,  by 
virtue  of  having  lost  the  last  election,  has  no  business 
approving  or  disapproving  appointments  by  those  who 
won."  This  is  a  modem  version  of  the  old  adage,  "To  the 
victor  belong  the  spoils."  This  Rutgers  professor  goes  on  to 
say,  "Contrary  to  President  Lincoln's  famous  but  mislead- 
ing phrase,  ours  is  not  a  government  by  the  people,  but 
government  by  government."  So  there! 

The  Nature  of  Government 

What  functions  may  we  appropriately  assign  to  the 
political  agency?  What  should  government  do?  Today's 
answer  is  that  government  should  do  whatever  a  majority 
wants  a  government  to  do;  find  out  what  the  Peepul  want 
from  government,  and  then  give  it  to  them.  The  older  and 
tmer  answer  is  based  upon  the  belief  that  the  rules  for  liv- 
ing together  in  society  may  be  discovered  if  we  think  hard 


328  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

and  clearly  about  the  matter,  and  the  corollary  that  we  can 
conform  our  lives  to  these  rules  if  we  resolve  to  do  so.  But  I 
have  said  nothing  so  far  about  the  nature  or  essence  of  gov- 
ernment. 

Americans  are  justly  proud  of  our  nation,  but  this  pride 
sometimes  blinds  us  to  reality.  How  often  have  you  heard 
someone  declare,  "In  America,  'We'  are  the  government." 
This  assertion  is  demonstrably  untrue;  "We"  are  the  society, 
all  215  million  of  us;  but  society  and  government  are  not  at 
all  the  same  entity.  Society  is  all-of-us,  whereas  government 
is  only  some-of-us.  The  some-of-us  who  comprise  govern- 
ment would  begin  with  the  president,  vice  president,  and 
cabinet;  it  would  include  Congress  and  the  bureaucracy;  it 
would  descend  through  governors,  mayors  and  lesser  offi- 
cials, down  to  sheriffs  and  the  cop  on  the  beat. 

A  Unique  Institution 

Government  is  unique  among  the  institutions  of  society, 
in  that  society  has  bestowed  upon  this  one  agency  exclusive 
legal  control  over  the  weaponry,  from  clubs  to  hydrogen 
bombs.  Governments  do  use  persuasion,  and  they  do  rely 
on  authority,  legitimacy,  and  tradition — but  so  do  other 
institutions  like  the  church  and  the  school.  But  only  one 
agency  has  the  power  to  tax,  the  authority  to  operate  the 
system  of  courts  and  jails,  and  a  warrant  for  mobilizing  the 
machinery  for  making  war;  that  is  government,  the  power 
structure.  Governmental  action  is  what  it  is,  no  matter  what 
sanction  might  be  offered  to  justify  what  it  does.  Govern- 
ment always  acts  with  power;  in  the  last  resort  government 
uses  force  to  back  up  its  decrees. 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  329 
Society^s  Power  Structure 

When  I  remind  you  that  the  government  of  a  society  is 
that  society's  power  structure,  I  am  not  offering  you  a  novel 
theory,  nor  a  fanciful  political  notion  of  my  own.  It  is  a  tru- 
ism that  government  is  society's  legal  agency  of  compul- 
sion. Virtually  every  statesman  and  every  political  scien- 
tist— whether  Left  or  Right — takes  this  for  granted  and 
does  his  theorizing  from  this  as  a  base.  "Government  is  not 
reason,  it  is  not  eloquence;"  wrote  George  Washington,  "it 
is  force."  Bertrand  Russell,  in  a  1916  book,  said,  "The 
essence  of  the  State  is  that  it  is  the  repository  of  the  collec- 
tive force  of  its  citizens."  Ten  years  later,  the  Columbia  Uni- 
versity professor,  R.  M.  Maclver  spoke  of  the  state  as  "the 
authority  which  alone  has  compulsive  power."  The  English 
writer,  Alfred  Cobban,  says  that  "the  essence  of  the  state, 
and  of  all  political  organizations,  is  power." 

But  why  labor  the  obvious  except  for  the  fact  that  so 
many  of  our  contemporaries — those  who  say  "we  are  the 
government" — overlook  it?  What  we  are  talking  about  is 
the  power  of  man  over  man;  government  is  the  legal  autho- 
rization which  permits  some  men  to  use  force  on  others. 
When  we  advocate  a  law  to  accomplish  a  certain  goal,  we 
advertise  our  inability  to  persuade  people  to  act  in  the  man- 
ner we  recommend;  so  we're  going  to  force  them  to  con- 
form! As  Sargent  Shriver  once  put  it,  "In  a  democracy  you 
don't  compel  people  to  do  something  unless  you  are  sure 
they  won't  do  it." 

In  the  liberal  mythology  of  this  century,  government  is 
all  things  to  all  men.  Liberals  think  that  government 
assumes  whatever  characteristics  people  wish  upon  it— 


330  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

like  Proteus  in  Greek  mythology  who  took  on  one  shape 
after  another,  depending  on  the  circumstances.  But  govern- 
ment is  not  an  all-purpose  tool;  it  has  a  specific  nature,  and 
its  nature  determines  what  government  can  accomplish. 
When  properly  limited,  government  serves  a  social  end  no 
other  agency  can  achieve;  its  use  of  force  is  constructive. 
The  alternatives  here  are  law  and  tyranny — as  the  Greeks 
put  it.  This  is  how  the  playwright  Aeschylus,  saw  it  in  The 
Eumenides:  "Let  no  man  live  uncurbed  by  law,  nor  curbed 
by  tyranny." 

The  Moral  Code 

If  government  is  to  serve  a  moral  end  it  must  not  violate 
the  moral  code.  The  moral  code  tells  us  that  human  life  is 
sacred,  that  liberty  is  precious,  and  that  ownership  of  pro- 
perty is  good.  And  by  the  same  token,  this  moral  code  sup- 
plies a  definition  of  criminal  action;  murder  is  a  crime,  theft 
is  a  crime,  and  it  is  criminal  to  abridge  any  f)erson's  lawful 
freedom.  It  becomes  a  function  of  the  law,  then,  in  harmony 
with  the  moral  code,  to  use  force  against  criminal  actions  in 
order  that  peaceful  citizens  may  go  about  their  business. 
The  use  of  legal  force  against  criminals  for  the  protection  of 
the  innocent  is  the  earmark  of  a  prop)erly  limited  govern- 
ment. 

This  is  an  utterly  different  kind  of  procedure  than  the 
use  of  government  force  on  peaceful  citizens — whatever 
the  excuse  or  rationalization.  People  should  not  be  forced 
into  conformity  with  any  social  blueprint;  their  private 
plans  should  not  be  overridden  in  the  interests  of  some 
national  plan  or  social  goal.  Government — the  public 
power — should   not  be  used   for  private  advantage;   it 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  331 

should  not  be  used  to  protect  people  from  themselves. 

Well,  what  should  the  law  do  to  peaceful,  mnocent  citi- 
zens? It  should  let  them  alone!  When  government  lets  John 
Doe  alone,  and  punishes  anyone  who  refuses  to  let  him 
alone,  then  John  Doe  is  a  free  man. 

In  this  country  we  have  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment. The  word  "republic"  is  from  the  Latin  words,  res  and 
publica,  meaning  the  things  or  affairs  which  are  common  to 
all  of  us,  the  affairs  which  are  in  the  public  domain,  in  sharp 
contrast  to  matters  which  are  private.  Government,  then,  is 
"the  public  thing,"  and  this  strong  emphasis  on  public 
serves  to  delimit  and  set  boundaries  to  governmental 
power,  in  the  interest  of  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  pri- 
vate domain. 

What's  in  a  name?,  you  might  be  thinking.  Well,  in  this 
case,  in  the  case  of  republic,  a  lot.  The  word  "republic" 
encapsulates  a  political  philosophy;  it  connotes  the  philos- 
ophy of  government  which  would  limit  government  to 
the  defense  of  life,  liberty,  and  property  in  order  to  serve 
the  ends  of  justice.  There's  no  such  connotation  in  the 
word  "monarchy,"  for  example;  or  in  aristocracy  or  oli- 
garchy. 

A  monarch  is  the  sole,  supreme  ruler  of  a  country,  and 
there  is  theoretically  no  area  in  the  life  of  his  citizens  over 
which  he  may  not  hold  sway.  The  king  owns  the  country 
and  his  people  belong  to  him.  Monarchical  practice  pretty 
well  coincided  with  theory  in  what  is  called  "Oriental 
Despotism,"  but  in  Christendom  the  power  of  the  kings 
was  limited  by  the  nobility  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Emperor  on  the  other;  and  all  secular  rulers  had  to  take 
account  of  the  power  of  the  Papacy.  Power  was  played  off 
against  power,  to  the  advantage  of  the  populace. 


332  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 
Individual  Liberty 

The  most  important  social  value  in  Western  civilization 
is  individual  liberty.  The  human  person  is  looked  upon  as 
God's  creature,  gifted  with  free  will  which  endows  him  with 
the  capacity  to  choose  what  he  will  make  of  his  life.  Our 
inner,  spiritual  freedom  must  be  matched  by  an  outer  and 
social  liberty  if  man  is  to  fulfill  his  duty  toward  his  Maker. 
Creatures  of  the  state  cannot  achieve  their  destiny  as  human 
beings;  therefore,  government  must  be  limited  to  securing 
and  preserving  freedom  of  personal  action,  within  the  rules 
for  maximizing  liberty  and  opportunity  for  everyone. 

Unless  we  are  persuaded  of  the  importance  of  freedom 
to  the  individual,  it  is  obvious  that  we  will  not  structure 
government  around  him  to  protect  his  private  domain  and 
secure  his  rights.  The  idea  of  individual  liberty  is  old,  but  it 
was  given  a  tremendous  boost  in  the  sixteenth  century  by 
the  Reformation  and  the  Renaissance. 

The  earliest  manifestation  of  this  renewed  idea  of  lib- 
erty was  in  the  area  of  religion,  issuing  in  the  conviction 
that  a  person  should  be  allowed  to  worship  God  in  his  own 
way  This  religious  ferment  in  England  gave  us  Puritanism, 
and  early  in  the  seventeenth  century  Puritanism  projected  a 
political  movement  whose  members  were  contemptuously 
called  Whiggamores — later  shortened  to  Whigs — a  word 
roughly  equivalent  to  "cattle  thieves."  The  king's  men  were 
called  Tories — "highway  robbers."  The  Whigs  worked  for 
individual  liberty  and  progress;  the  Tories  defended  the  old 
order  of  the  king,  the  landed  aristocracy,  and  the  estab- 
lished church. 

One  of  the  great  writers  and  thinkers  in  the  Puritan  and 
Whig  tradition  was  John  Milton,  who  wrote  his  celebrated 
plea  for  the  abolition  of  Parliamentary  censorship  of  printed 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  333 

material  in  1644,  Areopagitica.  Many  skirmishes  had  to  be 
fought  before  freedom  of  the  press  was  finally  accepted  as 
one  of  the  earmarks  of  a  free  society.  Free  speech  is  a  corol- 
lary of  press  freedom,  and  I  remind  you  of  the  statement 
attributed  to  Voltaire:  "\  disagree  with  everything  you  say, 
but  I  will  defend  with  my  life  your  right  to  say  it/' 

Adam  Smith  extended  freedom  to  the  economic  order, 
with  The  Wealth  of  Nations,  published  in  1776  and  warmly 
received  in  the  thirteen  colonies.  Our  population  numbered 
about  3  million  at  this  time;  roughly  one-third  of  these  were 
Loyalists,  that  is,  Tory  in  outlook,  and  besides,  there  was  a 
war  on.  Despite  these  circumstances  2,500  sets  of  The  Wealth 
of  Nations  were  sold  in  the  colonies  within  five  years  of  its 
publication.  The  colonists  had  been  practicing  economic 
liberty  for  a  long  time,  simply  because  their  governments 
were  too  busy  with  other  things  to  interfere — or  too  ineffi- 
cient— and  Adam  Smith  gave  them  a  rationale. 

The  Bill  of  Rights 

Ten  amendments  to  the  Constitution  were  adopted  in 
1791.  Article  the  First  reads:  "Congress  shall  make  no  law 
respecting  the  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof . . ."  The  separation  of  church  and  state 
enunciated  here  was  a  momentous  first  step  in  world  his- 
tory. Religious  liberty,  freedom  of  the  press,  free  speech  and 
the  free  economy  are  four  departments  of  the  same  liberat- 
ing trend — the  Whig  movement. 

The  men  we  refer  to  as  the  Founding  Fathers  would 
have  called  themselves  Whigs.  Edmund  Burke  was  the 
chief  spokesman  for  a  group  in  Parliament  known  as  The 
Rockingham  Whigs.  In  1832  the  Whig  Party  in  England 
changed  its  name  to  one  which  more  aptly  described  its 


334  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

emphasis  on  liberty.  It  became  the  Liberal  Party,  standing 
for  free  trade,  religious  liberty,  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
extension  of  the  franchise,  and  other  refonns. 

Classical  Liberalism  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  thing 
called  "liberalism"  in  our  time!  Today's  "liberalism"  is  the 
exact  opposite  of  historical  Liberalism — ^which  came  out  of 
the  eighteenth-century  Whiggism — which  came  out  of  the 
seventeenth-century  Puritanism.  The  labels  are  the  same; 
the  realities  are  utterly  different.  Present-day  liberals  have 
trouble  with  ideas,  as  ideas,  so  they  try  to  dispose  of 
uncomfortable  thoughts  by  pigeonholing  them  in  a  time 
slot.  The  ideas  of  individual  liberty,  inherent  rights,  limited 
government  and  the  free  economy  are,  they  say,  eighteenth- 
century  ideas.  What  a  dumb  comment!  The  proper  test  of 
an  idea  is  not  the  test  of  time  but  the  test  of  truth! 

You  may  be  wondering  why  I  have  not  yet  used  the 
word  "democracy,"  although  I've  spoken  of  monarchy,  oli- 
garchy, and  liberalism.  Well,  I'll  tell  you.  Our  discussion  has 
focused  on  the  nature  of  government,  and  we  have  discov- 
ered that  the  essence  of  government  is  power,  legal  force. 
Once  this  truth  sinks  in  we  take  the  next  step,  which  is  to 
figure  out  what  functions  may  appropriately  be  assigned  to 
the  one  social  agency  authorized  to  use  force.  This  brings  us 
back  to  the  moral  code  and  the  primary  values  of  life,  lib- 
erty, and  property.  It  is  the  function  of  the  law  to  protect  the 
life,  liberty,  and  property  of  all  p>ersons  alike  in  order  that 
the  human  person  may  achieve  his  proper  destiny. 

Voting  Is  Appropriate  for  Choosing  Officeholders 

There's  another  question  to  resolve,  tied  in  with  the 
basic  one,  but  much  less  important:  How  do  you  choose 
personnel  for  public  office?  After  you  have  employed  the 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  335 

relevant  intellectual  and  moral  criteria  and  confined  public 
things  to  the  public  sector,  leaving  the  major  concerns  of  life 
in  the  private  sector  .  .  .  once  you've  done  this  there's  still 
the  matter  of  choosing  people  for  office. 

One  method  is  choice  by  bloodline.  If  your  father  is 
king,  and  if  you  are  the  eldest  son,  why  you'll  be  king  when 
the  old  man  dies.  Limited  monarchy  still  has  its  advocates, 
and  kingship  will  work  if  a  people  embrace  the  monarchi- 
cal ideology.  Monarchy  hasn't  always  worked  smoothly, 
however,  else  what  would  Shakespeare  have  done  for  his 
plays?  Sometimes  your  mother's  lover  will  bump  off  the 
old  man,  or  your  kid  brother  might  try  to  poison  you. 

There's  a  better  way  to  choose  personnel  for  public 
office;  let  the  people  vote.  Confine  government  within  the 
limits  dictated  by  reason  and  morals,  lay  down  appropriate 
requirements,  and  then  let  voters  go  to  the  polls.  The  candi- 
date who  gets  the  majority  of  votes  gets  the  job.  This  is 
democracy,  and  this  is  the  right  place  for  majority  action.  As 
Pericles  put  it  2,500  years  ago,  democracy  is  where  the 
many  participate  in  rule. 

Voting  is  little  more  than  a  popularity  contest,  and  the 
most  popular  man  is  not  necessarily  the  best  man,  just  as 
the  most  popular  idea  is  not  always  the  soundest  idea.  It  is 
obvious,  then,  that  balloting — or  counting  noses  or  taking  a 
sampling  of  public  opinion — is  not  the  way  to  get  at  the 
fundamental  question  of  the  proper  role  of  government 
within  a  society.  We  have  to  think  hard  about  this  one, 
which  means  we  have  to  assemble  the  evidence;  weigh,  sift, 
and  criticize  it;  compare  notes  with  colleagues,  and  so  on. 
In  other  words,  this  is  an  educational  endeavor,  a  matter  for 
the  classroom,  the  study,  the  podium,  the  pulpit,  the  forum, 
the  press.  To  count  noses  at  this  point  is  a  cop-out;  there's 
no  place  here  for  a  Gallup  Poll. 


336  /  Edmund  A.  Opitz 

To  summarize:  The  fundamental  question  has  to  do 
with  the  scope  and  functions  of  the  political  agency,  and 
only  hard  thinking — education  in  the  broad  sense — can 
resolve  this  question.  The  lesser  question  has  to  do  with  the 
choice  of  personnel;  and  majority  action — democratic  deci- 
sion— is  the  way  to  deal  with  it.  But  if  we  approach  the  first 
question  with  the  mechanics  appropriate  to  the  second,  we 
have  confused  the  categories  and  we're  in  for  trouble. 

"Democratic  Despotism" 

We  began  to  confuse  the  categories  more  than  140  years 
ago,  as  Alexis  de  Tocqueville  observed.  His  book  Democracy 
in  America,  warned  us  about  the  emergence  here  of  what  he 
called  "democratic  despotism,"  which  would  "degrade 
men  without  tormenting  them."  We  were  warned  again  in 
1859  by  a  professor  at  Columbia  University,  Francis  Lieber, 
in  his  book  On  Civil  Liberty  and  Self-Government:  "Woe  to  the 
country  in  which  political  hypocrisy  first  calls  the  people 
almighty,  then  teaches  that  the  voice  of  the  people  is  divine, 
then  pretends  to  take  a  mere  clamor  for  the  true  voice  of  the 
people,  and  lastly  gets  up  the  desired  clamor."  Getting  up 
the  desired  clamor  is  what  we  call  "social  engineering,"  or 
"the  engineering  of  consent." 

What  is  called  "a  majority"  in  contemporary  politics  is 
almost  invariably  a  numerical  minority,  whipped  up  by  an 
even  smaller  minority  of  determined  and  sometimes 
unscrupulous  men.  There's  not  a  single  plank  in  the  plat- 
form of  the  welfare  state  that  was  put  there  because  of  a 
genuine  demand  by  a  genuine  majority.  A  welfarist  govern- 
ment is  always  up  for  grabs,  and  various  factions,  pressure 
groups,  special  interests,  causes,  ideologies  seize  the  levers 


Freedom  and  Majority  Rule  /  337 

of  government  in  order  to  impose  their  programs  on  the 
rest  of  the  nation. 

Let's  assume  that  we  don't  like  what's  going  on  today  in 
this  and  other  countries;  we  don't  like  it  because  people  are 
being  violated,  as  well  as  principles.  We  know  the  govern- 
ment is  off  the  track,  and  we  want  to  get  it  back  on;  but  we 
know  in  our  bones  that  Edmund  Burke  was  right  when  he 
said,  "There  never  was,  for  any  long  time  ...  a  mean,  slug- 
gish, careless  people  that  ever  had  a  good  government  of 
any  form."  Politics,  in  other  words,  reflects  the  character  of 
a  people,  and  you  cannot  improve  the  tone  of  politics 
except  as  you  elevate  the  character  of  a  significant  number 
of  persons.  The  improvement  of  character  is  the  hard  task 
of  religion,  ethics,  art,  and  education.  When  we  do  our 
work  properly  in  these  areas,  our  public  life  will  automati- 
cally respond. 

Large  numbers  are  not  required.  A  small  number  of  men 
and  women  whose  convictions  are  sound  and  clearly 
thought  out,  who  can  present  their  philosophy  persua- 
sively, and  who  manifest  their  ideas  by  the  quality  of  their 
lives,  can  inspire  the  multitude  whose  ideas  are  too  vague 
to  generate  convictions  of  any  sort.  A  little  leaven  raises  the 
entire  lump  of  dough;  a  tiny  flame  starts  a  mighty  confla- 
gration; a  small  rudder  turns  a  huge  ship.  And  a  handful  of 
people  possessed  of  ideas  and  a  dream  can  change  a 
nation — especially  when  that  nation  is  searching  for  new 
answers  and  a  new  direction. 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man 
Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 


Of  all  the  cliches  denigrating  liberty,  the  most  perni- 
cious consists  of  the  comment,  designed  in  any  of  its  vary- 
ing forms  to  terminate  the  conversation  entirely,  that  "your 
ideals  and  ideas  may  be  laudable,  but  you  can't  talk  liberty 
to  a  man  with  an  empty  belly  or  whose  children  want  for  j 
food  and  clothing."  This  essay  proposes  to  investigate  the 
validity  of  that  response. 


Freedom  consists  of  the  absence  of  organized,  coercive 
restraint  against  individual  human  action.^  It  is  indivisible 
in  two  respects:  (1)  restraint  in  one  aspect  of  life  affects  cre- 
ative action  in  other  categories;  (2)  restraint  of  one  member 
of  society  adversely  affects  all  other  men. 

Consider  the  first  postulate.  One  cannot  enjoy  meaning- 
ful liberty  of  association  or  freedom  of  speech  while  suffer-     | 
ing  under  economic  or  political  bondage.  Freedom  of 
speech  or  press  offers  an  illusory  value  if  the  potential 
speaker  or  writer  cannot  purchase  air  time  on  radio  or  tele- 
vision, or  a  soap  box,  or  newsprint  from  the  govemmen-     j 
tally  controlled  factory,  or  a  sound  truck,  either  because  of     ^ 
restrictive  regulatory  laws  preventing  free  entry  into  the 
market,  or  by  virtue  of  discriminatory  norms  against  pro-     \ 


This  essay  appeared  in  the  December  1976  issue  of  The  Freeman. 

338 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man  /  339 

ducers  by  means  of  economic  controls,  or  because  of 
debasement  by  means  of  state  monopoly  of  the  medium  of 
exchange.  The  right  to  vote  means  little  if  the  government 
apparatus  counts  results  for  but  a  single  candidate,  or  if  the 
state  limits  the  access  to  the  polling  booth  or  ballot  box  by 
enactment  and  enforcement  of  civil  and  criminal  penalties. 
Recur  to  the  second  proposition.  Simply  put,  my  freedom 
depends  on  yours.  Deprivation  of  the  rights  of  the  slave 
affects  the  master  in  several  discrete  ways. 

•  First,  the  predator  must  expend  a  portion  of  his  cre- 
ative energy  in  the  destructive  pursuit  of  constraining  his 
fief.  Absent  coercion,  he  could  devote  his  entire  energy 
resources  to  creative  endeavors.  Wars  provide  an  apt  exam- 
ple of  squandered  creativity:  Witness  the  millions  of  barrels 
of  oil  (which  could  have  heated  homes  and  propelled  auto- 
mobiles) wasted  in  recent  violence. 

•  Second,  looters  lose  the  chance  to  thrive  upon  the  cre- 
ated value  which  the  slave,  if  free,  would  produce  and 
trade  for  other  goods,  services,  and  ideas.  The  material 
well-being  of  any  society  depends  upon  the  aggregate  of 
creative  output  from  each  member,  the  proficiency  of  each 
individual  producer,  and  the  velocity  of  exchange  (a  factor 
of  the  voluntary  channels  of  communication).  Slaves  pro- 
duce only  the  amount  necessary  to  maintain  life  in  a  barely 
acceptable  station  and  to  avoid  or  reduce  pain. 

•  Third,  masters  lose  qualitatively,  since  the  quality  of 
output  diminishes  with  the  introduction  of  compulsion.  A 
coercive  society  enjoys  fewer  goods,  begrudging  services 
and  less  exciting  ideas  and  culture  than  a  free  society. 

•  Fourth,  and  perhaps  most  saliently,  a  slave  state  loses 
moral  force  as  well  as  material  largess,  a  subject  discussed 
hereafter. 

We  may  define  liberty,  then,  in  Leonard  Read's  felici- 


340  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

tous  phrase,  as  the  absence  of  man-concocted  restraints 
upon  creative  human  action.^  At  the  ideal,  each  man  should 
be  entitled  to  manage  his  own  life  and  to  seek  his  own  des- 
tiny as  he  sees  fit,  so  long  as  he  observes  the  equal  and  rec- 
iprocal freedom  deserved  by  every  other  man.  Such  a  con- 
cept limits  the  role  of  the  state — the  official  restraining  force 
imposed  upon  society — to  prevention  of  aggression  and 
coercive  settlement  of  disputes  by  rules  of  common  justice. 

The  Morality  of  Theft 

Observation  of  the  passing  scene  reveals  many 
instances  of  looting  and  theft.  One  unschooled  in  the  phi- 
losophy of  freedom  might  immediately  conclude  that  such 
a  statement  refers  to  the  rapid  increase  in  violent  or  deceit- 
ful crimes  such  as  forgery,  robbery,  burglary,  obtaining 
money  by  false  pretenses,  and  shoplifting  penalized  by  the 
several  state  or  national  governments.  In  fact,  I  refer  to  the 
unpenalized,  officially  sanctioned,  state-favored  instances 
of  theft  which  appear  in  guises  too  numerous  to  mention. 
Every  occasion  when  the  state  takes  property  from  an 
unwilling  donor  and  gives  it  to  some  other  individual 
affords  an  example  of  legalized  plunder.  Food  stamps,  sub- 
sidies to  Perm  Central  and  Lockheed  Aircraft,  social  secu- 
rity, inflation,  mandatory  automobile  insurance,  civil  tort 
rules  which  "diffuse"  risks  by  imposing  liability  without 
fault — the  list  is  truly  endless,  limited  only  by  the  ingenuity 
of  men  abusing  power  conferred  upon  them  by  the  political 
system.  Appellations  of  "transfer  payments,"  "negative 
income  taxation,"  "redistributive  liability,"  and  the  like 
cannot  cloak  the  true  nature  of  the  act:  Theft. 

Why  decry  the  concept  of  theft,  if  performed  by  the 
pure  of  heart  for  a  commendable  purpose?  After  all,  most 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man  /  341 

proponents  of  these  many  and  varied  legislative  or  judicial 
enactments  seek  grand  and  deserving  goals  of  preventing 
hunger,  illness,  and  alienation  or  providing  "necessary" 
goods  and  services.  Few  of  them,  despite  their  arrogance 
and  predilection  to  power,  really  exemplify  consummate 
evil. 

The  answer  to  the  moral  question  lies  in  contemplation 
of  ends  and  means.  Few  men  of  virtue  and  good  will  dis- 
pute the  ideal  of  dispelling  poverty,  illness,  and  loneliness, 
or  of  providing  everyone  with  food  for  thought  and  body. 
Most  observers  agree  upon  goals — they  diverge  upon  the 
means  to  the  end.  Those  imbued  with  the  freedom  philoso- 
phy recognize  that  the  end  pre-exists  in  the  means,^  that 
filthy  means  will  defile  innocent  and  praiseworthy  ends. 

Theft  deserves  disdain  because  it  conflicts  with  funda- 
mental morality,  with  the  right  to  life,  and  with  the  precept 
of  justice.  A  seminal  moral  rule  commands  treatment  of 
individual  human  beings  as  ends,  not  as  means — as  per- 
sons of  worth,  not  as  objects  to  be  molded.  The  thief  treats 
the  victim  as  a  means  to  his  own  ends.  The  legally  protected 
thief  performs  a  greater  iniquity,  for  he  refuses  to  acknowl- 
edge the  moral  opprobrium  necessarily  attached  to  his 
crime;  he  treats  the  victim  as  unworthy  to  manage  his  own 
affairs. 

Again,  theft  contradicts  the  concept  of  a  human  being's 
right  to  live  his  life  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  his 
conscience.  Property  consists  of  the  value  which  man  cre- 
ates by  the  application  of  his  being  and  his  talents  to  nat- 
ural resources;  it  can  only  be  viewed  rationally  as  an  exten- 
sion of  a  life.  One  lives  by  creating;  one  dies  by  stagnating. 
Thus,  deprivation  of  property  amounts  to  a  partial  taking 
of  human  life.  Moreover,  the  act  of  thievery  devastates  the 
fundamental  precept  of  justice:  Respect  for  free  individual 


342  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  ]r. 

choice.^  Approval  of  the  power  to  forcibly  or  deceitfully 
deprive  another  of  a  part  of  his  life  necessarily  contradicts  a 
respect  for  the  human  right  to  choose  between  alternatives. 

In  essence,  comprehension  of  the  moral  questions  asso- 
ciated with  theft  devolves  to  an  inquiry:  Why  doesn't  might 
make  right?  Theft,  after  all,  can  only  be  accomplished  by 
the  application  of  stealth  and  trickery  or  by  employment  of 
personal  or  political  force.  The  fact  and  the  scale  of  legally 
sanctioned  plunder  renders  this  inquiry  no  mere  philoso- 
pher's debating  point.  It  is  all  too  real  and  affects  each  of  us 
in  striking  and  personal  fashion. 

Immanuel  Kant^  provided  some  insight  into  the  moral 
question  of  whether  "might  makes  right"  when  he  sug- 
gested the  "silver  rule"  as  a  measuring  rod:  Individuals 
should  shun  actions  which  they  would  not  will  as  universal 
rules  of  conduct.  Few  rational  beings  would  voluntarily 
choose  to  live  in  a  world  governed  by  force,  without  moral 
constraint  of  any  kind.  Chaos  necessarily  reigns;  personal 
planning  becomes  impossible;  life  terminates  early  and 
after  an  unpleasant  duration.  Such  conditions  would  fore- 
stall even  rudimentary  exchange  or  growth  of  capital,  rele- 
gating mankind  to  the  cave  and  the  forests  from  which  it  so 
recently  and  hesitatingly  emerged.  Merely  imagining  a 
world  where  theft,  or  rape,  or  murder  occurred  on  a  daily 
basis  without  official  reprisal  registers  shock  on  the  minds 
of  most  human  beings.  Such  conduct  would  invite  retalia- 
tion in  the  form  of  blood  feuds,  vigilante  justice  or  civil  war. 

One  could  refute  the  contention  that  "might  makes 
right"  on  three  bases,^  any  one  of  which  would  serve  as  suf- 
ficient justification  for  a  contrary  rule. 

•  First,  experience  dispels  any  necessary  correlation 
between  force  and  propriety.  Recorded  history  imparts 
example  after  example  of  the  use  of  violence  to  accomplish 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man  /  343 

improper  goals — propriety  measured  by  the  subjective  val- 
ues of  those  deprived  of  life/liberty,  or  property.  The  neigh- 
borhood bully  may  be  stronger  than  you,  but  that  doesn't 
mean  he  possesses  any  greater  native  intelligence,  charm, 
wit,  cultural  accomplishments  or  other  attributes  more  or 
less  universally  desirable.  Indeed,  the  contrary  is  more 
often  true:  The  bully,  be  he  individual,  corporate,  or 
national  in  scope,  often  possesses  a  low,  mean,  and  not  par- 
ticularly endearing  character. 

•  Second,  a  related  pragmatic  reason  flows  from  the 
Kantian  silver  rule:  Force  and  power  tend  to  breed  more 
aggression,  and  man  cannot  exist  as  well  (or  at  all)  spiritu- 
ally or  materially  in  a  chaotic  world  regularly  visited  by 
coercion.  Might-makes-right  just  plain  fails  to  work  as  well 
as  the  alternative.  A  better  material  and  spiritual  life  with 
happier  men  and  more  abundant  goods  and  services  flows 
from  cooperation,  not  coercion. 

•  Third,  common  morality,  denoted  as  natural  law,  the 
theory  of  natural  rights,  Christianity,  rationality,  or  some 
other  similar  phrase  suggests  that  men  should  not  treat 
other  men  inhumanely.  All  three  reasons  interrelate,  but  the 
third  or  moral  concept  differs  from  its  siblings  in  one 
important  respect:  It  constitutes  an  appeal  to  faith  rather 
than  provable,  empirical  fact.  However,  this  feature  does 
not  deprive  the  tenet  of  validity.  History  manifests  a  grow- 
ing recognition  that  each  individual  human  being  pos- 
sesses inalienable  natural  rights  merely  because  of  his 
humanity,  and  that  no  other  individual  should  trespass 
upon  such  rights  in  the  absence  of  prior  personal  aggres- 
sion. If  this  precept  be  relegated  to  the  status  of  a  mere 
value  judgment,  it  certainly  has  gained  ascendency  in 
recent  years  although  it  still  falls  far  short  of  universal 
acceptance.  Since  theft  of  private  property  involves  the 


344  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

deprivation  of  an  extension  of  one's  life — our  essential 
humanity  derives  in  part  from  the  value  we  create — theft 
violates  the  principle  of  common  morality  or  natural  rights. 
Therefore,  one  can  say  with  the  confidence  undergirded 
by  logic  and  natural  law  that  theft  in  general  constitutes  an 
immoral  act  because  might  does  not  make  right  and  power 
tends  to  deprive  men  of  a  portion  of  their  life.  It  remains  to 
consider  whether  theft  can  ever  be  justified  under  any  cir- 
cumstances. The  admonition,  "you  can't  sell  freedom  to  a 
starving  man,"  possesses  two  root  assumptions  denying 
the  universality  of  the  normative  rule  that  theft  constitutes 
immorality.  If  freedom  varies,  directly  or  inversely,  with  the 
visceral  satisfactions  of  the  human  being,  it  follows  that 
(1)  hungry  people  need  not  abide  by  rules  of  common 
morality  while  productive  people  must  follow  such  rules 
and,  (2)  freedom  cannot  provide  the  precondition  neces- 
sary to  prevent  want  and  poverty.  Neither  assumption  can 
withstand  rigorous  analysis. 

The  Universality  of  Moral  Conduct 

No  accepted  ethical  or  religious  code  exempts  starving 
men  from  adherence  to  established  or  accepted  standards 
except  if  that  code  be  based  upon  the  doctrine  of  might- 
makes-right.  The  Marxian  tenet  "from  each  according  to  his 
ability,  to  each  according  to  his  need"  presupposes  a  social 
agency  which  will  forcibly  compel  transfer  from  "produc- 
ers" to  "needy,"  as  well  as  perform  the  concomitant  func- 
tion of  determining  "ability"  and  "requirement."  Every 
other  system  dependent  upon  transfer  payments  or  social 
redistribution  of  income  relies  upon  force.  Only  these  sys- 
tems justify  the  use  of  violence  by  hungry,  ill-clothed,  or 
other  "needy"  folk  in  order  to  satisfy  their  wants.  Contrast 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man  /  345 

the  known  axiological  precepts  handed  down  through  his- 
tory: Do  the  Judeo-Christian  heritage,  the  Islamic  tradition, 
Hindu  teachings,  or  the  Hke  differentiate  between  produc- 
ers and  consumers  insofar  as  their  normative  conduct  is 
concerned?  Merely  to  state  the  question  elicits  a  negative 
response. 

One  should  not  confuse  the  assertion  that  the  poor  as 
well  as  the  producer  should  obey  the  same  rules  with  the 
question  of  whether  the  creator  of  goods,  services,  and 
ideas  should  share  his  abundance  with  others  less  fortunate 
on  an  individual  and  voluntary  basis.  The  two  concepts, 
while  related,  state  two  entirely  different  principles:  (1)  all 
men  regardless  of  status  should  respect  the  lives,  liberties, 
properties,  choices,  and  subjective  values  of  all  other  indi- 
viduals who  do  not  commit  aggression;  (2)  one  blessed 
with  a  surfeit  of  material  or  spiritual  goods  should  share 
with  less  fortunate  individuals  on  a  mutually  satisfying 
voluntary  basis.  A  violation  of  the  first  axiom  deserves 
human  reprisal  to  revenge  the  breach,  protect  others  simi- 
larly situated,  and  deter  like  conduct.  No  human  sanction 
should  attend  a  violation  of  the  second  axiom  because  no 
human  being  possesses  the  right,  the  insight,  or  the  ability 
to  enforce  their  ethical  norm  since  the  norm  itself  depends 
upon  subjective  views  of  the  Eternal  Truth  of  the  Universe. 

Unjustifiable  Intervention 

In  essence,  the  suggestion  that  hungry  men  cannot 
appreciate  liberty  results  from  a  confusion  of  these  two  sep- 
arate postulates.  Similarly  most  justification  of  government 
intervention  into  private  lives  stems  from  a  perversion  of 
these  two  distinct  rules,  each  touching  a  specific  aspect  of 
human  action.  The  canard  that  an  ill-fed  individual  cannot 


346  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

comprehend  freedom  springs  from  a  belief  that  it  is  proper 
to  invade  or  destroy  the  human  rights  of  others  in  order  to 
secure  a  "good"  end,  such  as  the  prevention  of  poverty  or 
ill  health. 

In  simple  words,  one  should  not  destroy  another's  right 
to  choose  except  where  that  actor  would  not  willingly  select 
the  course  of  action  which  would  lead  to  sharing  with  oth- 
ers whom  the  party  possessing  power  perceives  as  appro- 
priate beneficiaries.  This  commingling  of  the  two  moral 
precepts  renders  each  of  them  nugatory.  The  first  axiom 
suffers  because  the  exception  guts  the  entire  meaning.  The 
second  axiom  falls  because  voluntarism  becomes  coercion 
and  thus  obviates  the  entire  concept.  A  sense  of  wrongdo- 
ing clouds  the  whole  transaction,  leaving  producer-victim, 
the  transferring  power,  and  poor  recipient-beneficiary  each 
with  a  pervasive  recognition  of  evil  inherent  in  their  affair 
which  does  not  accord  with  moral  law. 

In  like  manner,  the  belief  that  moral  rules  need  not  be 
universally  applied  partakes  of  the  corruption  of  the  two 
separate  axioms:  You  can't  sell  freedom  to  a  starving  man 
because  he  is  first  justified  in  invading  the  rights  of  others 
in  order  to  satisfy  his  wants  because  they  ethically  should 
assist  him. 

Several  reasons,  each  sufficient  alone,  support  the 
proposition  that  moral  conduct  applies  universally. 

•  First,  separate  treatment  betrays  the  egalitarian  ideal, 
the  subject  of  so  much  current  prattle.  Yet  it  is  in  this  precise 
context  that  equality  deserves  meaning,  for  true  juristic 
equality  means  equality  before  the  law — equal  rights,  equal 
responsibilities. 

•  Second,  relative  morality,  on  whatever  basis,  necessar- 
ily results  in  disillusionment,  bitterness,  hatred,  envy,  and 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man  /  347 

Other  unlovely  human  attributes:  In  short,  such  a 
dichotomy  will  bring  the  sinister  side  of  human  nature  to 
the  fore.  The  taker  will  take  even  when  the  justification  dis- 
appears, coming  to  believe  that  taking  constitutes  a  per- 
sonal right;  the  victim  will  resent  this  invasion  of  his  life 
and  fight  back  in  many  and  myriad  ways  including  the  use 
of  force  and  cunning,  the  production  of  shoddy  goods,  or  a 
transfer  to  the  taker  class.  Power  and  violence  naturally 
tend  to  breed  similar  offspring. 

•  Third,  definition  of  terms  renders  application  of  the 
distinction  impractical  if  not  impossible.  Who  shall  define 
"production"  cmd  "need"  (or  who  "starves"),  and  how 
shall  these  terms  be  defined?  Starvation  and  need  vary  by 
the  minute;  they  represent  highly  subjective  decisions,  for 
almost  every  individual  "needs"  something  he  does  not 
possess,  given  a  world  full  of  insatiable  subjective  wants 
and  blessed  with  limited  resources.  Acceptance  of  a  dual 
standard  dependent  upon  hunger  pangs  would  reduce 
morality  to  an  ephemeral  and  transitory  discipline  subject 
to  endless  debate  and  a  chaotic  result:  Victims  who  hon- 
estly believe  that  they  fall  within  the  taker  class  will  take 
umbrage;  they  may  even  fight  back,  leading  to  unending 
aggression. 

Thus,  common  sense  makes  manifest  that  moral  rules 
must  apply  in  an  evenhanded  manner.  Starving  men  pos- 
sess no  right  to  invade  the  persons  or  property  of  others, 
nor  are  they  justified  or  exempt  from  ethical  rules  preclud- 
ing such  action.  Freedom  attaches  equally  to  all  men:  It 
includes  the  freedom  to  fail  as  well  as  succeed.  Life's  losers 
cannot  vent  their  spleen  on  those  who  are  more  successful, 
and  thereby  receive  moral  approval. 


348  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 
Freedom  Dispels  Want 

One  who  claims  that  "you  can't  sell  freedom  to  a  starv- 
ing man"  really  means  "freedom  is  all  right  in  its  place,  but 
these  people  are  starving  and  they  will  receive  sustenance 
only  if  I  coerce  you  into  giving  them  food."  This  proposi- 
tion fails  on  two  counts. 

•  First,  the  near-universal  acceptance  of  the  second 
axiom  (the  obligation  to  share)  and  mankind's  natural 
empathy  for  fellow  human  beings  in  trouble  virtually 
guarantees  that  no  one  shall  starve  in  a  free  society. 
Strangely  enough,  the  acceptance  of  the  second  axiom  and 
man's  sympathetic  response  become  heightened  the  more 
open  society  becomes;  statism  and  compulsion  cultivate 
ugliness,  alienation,  and  a  lack  of  camaraderie.  The  guaran- 
tee against  starvation  does  not  insure  against  want  of  mate- 
rial things;  mankind  will  always  experience  unfulfilled 
desires,  given  his  nature  of  a  being  possessing  insatiable 
wants  in  a  world  of  limited  resources. 

•  Second,  the  statement  seems  to  contend  that  a  free 
society  cannot  produce  and  distribute  those  goods,  ser- 
vices, and  ideas  required  to  alleviate  starvation.  The  con- 
verse is  true.  A  free  market,  operating  without  restraints 
upon  human  creative  output,  produces  a  greater  abun- 
dance of  material  value  than  any  other  method  known  to 
mankind  because  the  free  market  or  voluntary  exchange 
system  accords  with  the  basic  nature  of  man.  The  market 
reflects  the  competing  subjective  values  of  each  member  of 
society  and  thus  more  nearly  approximates  the  sum  of  all 
those  desires. 

This  assertion  of  the  material  productiveness  of  the 
market  does  not  rest  merely  upon  unproved  theory;  it  gains 
support  from  empirical  and  historical  fact.  The  freer  the 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  Starving  Man  /  349 

culture,  the  better  clothed,  fed,  and  housed  its  citizens.  The 
rapid  improvements  in  the  standard  of  living  of  all  Ameri- 
cans during  the  nation's  first  century  derived  from  the  rela- 
tive freedom  of  the  citizenry.  Compare  the  average  life  span 
in  medieval  England  (5  years)  v^^ith  that  of  the  present-day 
United  States  (70  years)  and  one  immediately  perceives 
that  we  heard  relatively  little  about  the  "starving  man"  in 
history  because  he  died  so  young.  Few  of  the  wealthy  in 
merrie  olde  England  lived  as  well  as  the  average  high 
school  dropout  today. 

Stripped  to  its  essence,  the  cliche  "you  can't  sell  free- 
dom to  a  starving  man"  exemplifies  a  brazen  demand  by 
the  one  uttering  the  response  that  he  be  accorded  the  power 
to  impose  his  will  upon  unwilling  human  beings — all  in  the 
good  name  of  the  elimination  of  poverty.  Logic,  common 
sense,  empirical  fact,  and  history  demonstrate  that  just  the 
contrary  effect  will  take  place,  that  coercion  results  in  fewer 
individuals  enjoying  fewer  goals  which  they  subjectively 
value. 

The  Curse  of  Gradualism 

One  can  interpret  the  phrase  under  discussion  in  yet 
another  manner.  It  could  mean  that  a  hungry  man  will  not 
listen  to,  or  understand,  the  esoteric  discussion  of  liberty 
and  will  voluntarily  choose  an  aggressive  society  to  allevi- 
ate his  suffering.  Thus,  runs  the  argument,  someone  in 
power  must  appease  the  voracious  masses  before  educat- 
ing them  to  the  virtues  of  liberty. 

Insofar  as  the  question  depicts  a  communication  prob- 
lem, believers  in  liberty  must  hone  their  tools  of  expression 
to  fit  every  need.  Relative  freedom  helped  restore  conflict- 
ravaged  West  Germany  after  the  Second  World  War;  the 


350  /  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr. 

Germans,  hungry  as  they  were,  accepted  the  ideas  and 
responsibilities  of  freedom  from  Mr.  Erhard.  The  concept  of 
freedom  and  its  relation  to  prosperity  bear  retelling  because 
all  of  us  need  constant  reminders,  but  conveyance  of  the 
idea  to  everyone,  hungry  or  not,  does  not  present  difficult, 
let  alone  insolvable,  problems. 

Insofar  as  the  inquiry  poses  a  question  of  consistency, 
libertarians  must  remain  steadfast  against  the  importun- 
ings  of  gradualism  which  would  betray  the  ideal  by  impos- 
ing coercive  tactics  as  a  means  of  filling  stomachs  "tem- 
porarily"^ The  "temporary"  in  this  situation  tends  to 
become  ingrained  and  immutable,  misleading  the  unknow- 
ing into  the  assumption  that  coercion  (1)  has  always  been 
there  and  (2)  is  necessary  to  accomplish  the  end.  The  result: 
an  inefficient  and  uneconomic  United  States  Postal  Service 
which  has  never  been  able  to  compete  with  private  enter- 
prise save  for  its  monopolistic  protections,  which  con- 
stantly raises  rates  and  reduces  the  quality  of  service,  and 
which  has  incurred  budget  deficits  almost  every  year  for 
the  past  two  centuries.  It  requires  little  imagination  to 
appreciate  the  results  if  "feeding  starving  men"  were  left  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  compulsive  bureaucracy:  The  nation 
would  perish  within  five  years! 

1.  For  a  detailed  discussion  see  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr.,  "Individual 
Liberty  and  the  Rule  of  Law/'  The  Freeman,  June  1971,  pp.  357-358;  and 
Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr.,  ''A  Rationale  For  Liberty,"  The  Freeman,  April 
1973,  pp.  222-229. 

2.  Leonard  E.  Read,  "Justice  versus  Social  Justice,"  in  Who's  Listen- 
ing? (Irvington-on-Hudson,  N.Y.:  The  Foundation  for  Economic  Educa- 
tion, Inc.,  1973),  p.  93  et  seq. 

3.  See  Leonard  E.  Read,  "The  Bloom  Pre-Exists  in  the  Seed,"  in  Let 
Freedom  Reign  (Irvington-on-Hudson,  N.  Y.:  The  Foundation  for  Eco- 
nomic Education,  Inc.,  1%9),  pp.  78-86. 


You  Can't  Sell  Freedom  to  a  starving  Man  /  351 

4.  Ridgway  K.  Foley,  Jr.,  "In  Quest  of  Justice/'  The  Freeman,  May 
1974,  pp.  301-310. 

5.  Immanuel  Kant,  Fundamental  Principles  of  the  Metaphysic  of  Morals 
(New  York:  The  Liberal  Arts  Press,  1949),  p.  21. 

6.  Obviously,  this  essay  does  not  purport  to  deal  with  the  questions 
of  why  might  does  not  make  right  or  with  the  nature  and  scope  of  an 
alternative  postulate  for  mcinkind  in  great  detail.  Such  an  undertaking 
requires  more  extensive  development  than  is  requisite  for  the  topic 
under  discussion. 

7.  Leonard  E.  Read,  "Right  Now!",  Notes  from  FEE  (Irvington-on- 
Hudson,  N.Y.:  The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  Inc.,  May 
1975),  discusses  the  problems  inherent  in  gradualism. 


The  Roots  of  "  Anticapitalism'' 
Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 


In  many  minds,  "capitalism"  has  come  to  be  a  bad 
word,  nor  does  "free  enterprise"  sound  much  better.  I 
remember  seeing  posters  in  Russia  in  the  early  1930s 
depicting  capitalists  as  Frankenstein  monsters,  as  men  with 
yellow-green  faces,  crocodile  teeth,  dressed  in  cutaways 
and  adorned  by  top  hats.  What  is  the  reason  for  this  wide- 
spread hatred  for  capitalists  and  capitalism  despite  the 
overwhelming  evidence  that  the  system  has  truly  "deliv- 
ered the  goods"?  In  its  mature  stage  it  indeed  is  providing, 
not  just  for  a  select  few  but  for  the  masses,  a  standard  of  liv- 
ing cordially  envied  by  those  bound  under  other  politico- 
economic  arrangements.  There  are  historic,  psychological, 
and  moral  reasons  for  this  state  of  affairs.  Once  we  recog- 
nize them,  we  might  come  to  better  understanding  the 
largely  irrational  resentment  and  desire  to  kill  the  goose 
that  lays  the  golden  eggs. 

In  Europe  there  still  survives  a  considerable  conservative 
opposition  against  capitalism.  The  leaders  of  conservative 
thought  and  action,  more  often  than  not,  came  from  the 
nobility  which  believed  in  an  agrarian-patriarchal  order. 
They  thought  workers  should  be  treated  by  manufacturers 
as  noblemen  treated  their  agricultural  employees  and 
household  servants,  providing  them  with  total  security  for 

Dr.  Kuehnelt-Leddihn  is  a  philosopher,  linguist,  world  traveler, 
and  lecturer  whose  home  is  in  Austria.  This  essay  apf>eared  in  the 
November  1972  issue  of  The  Freeman. 


352 


The  Roots  of  "Anticapitalism"  /  353 

their  old  age,  care  in  the  case  of  illness,  and  so  forth.  They 
also  disliked  the  new  business  leaders  who  emerged  from 
the  middle  classes:  the  grand  bourgeois  was  their  social  com- 
petitor, the  banker  their  disagreeable  creditor,  not  their 
friend.  The  big  cities  with  their  smoking  chimneys  were 
viewed  as  calamities  and  destroyers  of  the  good  old  life. 

We  know  that  Marx  and  Engels  in  the  Communist  Mani- 
festo furiously  attacked  the  aristocratic  social  movement  as 
a  potential  threat  to  their  own  program.  Actually,  most  of 
the  leading  minds  of  Christian  anticapitalist  thought 
(equally  opposed  to  socialism)  were  aristocrats:  Villeneuve- 
Bargemont,  de  Mun,  Liechtenstein,  Vogelsang,  Ketteler. 

Bias  Against  Capitalism  Not  of  Worker  Origin 

Armin  Mohler,  the  brilliant  Swiss-German  neo-conserv- 
ative,  has  recently  explained  that  one  of  the  weakest  points 
of  contemporary  conservative  thought,  still  wrapped  in  the 
threads  of  its  own  obsolete  agrarian  romanticism,  is  its  hos- 
tility against  modem  technology.  How  right  he  is!  The 
exception  might  have  been  Italy  with  its  tradition  of  urban 
nobility  and  of  patricians  who,  even  before  the  Reforma- 
tion, engaged  in  trade  and  manufacture.  Capitalism, 
indeed,  is  of  North-Italian  origin.  It  was  a  Franciscan,  Fra 
Luigi  di  Pacioli,  who  invented  double-entry  bookkeeping. 
Calvinism  gave  a  new  impetus  to  capitalism  but  did  not 
invent  it.  (Aristocratic  entrepreneurs  in  Italy?  Count  Mar- 
zotto  with  his  highly  diversified  business  empire  of  textile 
plants,  paper  mills,  hotel  chains,  and  fisheries  is  a  typical 
example.  His  labor  relations  are  of  a  patriarchal  nature 
involving  substantial  fringe  benefits  which  also  character- 
ize Japanese  business  practice.) 

The  real  animosity  against  free  enterprise  did  not  origi- 


354  /  Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 

nate  with  the  laborers.  Bear  in  mind  that  in  the  early  nine- 
teenth century  the  working  class  was  miserably  paid,  and 
this  for  two  reasons:  (1)  the  income  from  manufacturing  was 
quite  limited  (true  mass  production  came  later)  and  (2)  the 
lion's  share  of  the  profits  went  into  reinvestments  while  the 
typical  manufacturers  lived  rather  modestly  It  is  this  ascetic 
policy  of  early  European  capitalism  which  made  possible 
the  phenomenal  rise  of  working  class  standards.  Seeing  that 
the  manufacturers  did  not  live  a  life  of  splendor  (as  did  the 
big  landowners)  the  workers  at  first  viewed  their  lot  with 
surprising  equanimity.  The  Socialist  impetus  came  from 
middle  class  intellectuals,  eccentric  industrialists  (like 
Robert  Owen  and  Engels)  and  impoverished  noblemen 
with  a  feeling  of  resentment  against  the  existing  order. 

As  one  can  imagine,  the  artificially  created  ire  then  was 
turned  first  against  the  manufacturer  who,  after  all,  is  noth- 
ing but  some  sort  of  broker  between  the  worker  and  the 
public.  He  enables  the  worker  to  transform  his  work  into 
goods.  In  this  process  he  incurs  various  expenses,  such  as 
for  tools,  and  a  part  of  the  costs  of  marketing.  He  hopes  to 
make  a  profit  from  these  transactions  in  order  to  render  his 
efforts  worthwhile.  Curiously  enough,  his  responsibility 
toward  the  enterprise  is  of  far  greater  scope  than  that  of 
many  workers.  No  wonder  that  the  interest,  once  centered 
on  accidents  in  the  factories,  is  shifting  more  and  more  to 
the  manager  diseases.  The  entrepreneur  sacrifices  not  only 
his  "nerves"  but  also  his  peace  of  mind.  If  he  fails,  he  fails 
not  himself  alone;  the  bread  of  dozens,  of  hundreds,  of 
thousands  of  families  hangs  in  the  balance.  The  situation  is 
not  very  different  in  a  stock  company.  There,  the  stockhold- 
ers sometimes  make  profits  in  the  form  of  dividends — and 
sometimes  they  do  not.  The  worker  always  expects  to  be 
paid.  The  bigger  risks  are  thus  at  the  top,  not  at  the  bottom. 


The  Roots  of  "Anticapitalism"  /  355 

Yet,  how  well  the  worker  is  paid  depends  on  several  fac- 
tors, the  first  of  which  is  the  readiness  of  consumers  to  pay 
for  the  finished  goods  a  price  high  enough  to  warrant  high 
wages.  Here  we  come  to  the  brokerage  side  of  the  capitalist. 
Secondly,  there  is  the  decision  of  the  entrepreneur  (some- 
times the  stockholders)  how  much  of  the  gross  profits  will 
be  distributed  (as  dividends,  bonuses,  and  the  like)  and 
how  much  should  be  reinvested  or  laid  aside.  It  is  evident 
that  the  enterprise,  being  competitive,  has  to  "look  ahead" 
in  a  far  more  concrete  way  than  does  the  often  improvident 
worker.  The  business  usually  must  be  planned  years  ahead. 
It  not  only  has  to  adopt  the  best  means  of  production 
(which  means  the  purchase  of  new  expensive  machinery), 
but  also  needs  financial  assets  as  reserves.  Finally,  the 
wages  have  to  be  in  a  sound  relationship  to  the  marketing 
possibilities,  and  also  to  the  quality  of  the  work  done,  the 
sense  of  duty  of  the  workers  and  employees.  Virtue  enters 
the  picture.  Even  the  net  profits  paid  out  are  not  necessarily 
a  "loss"  to  the  workers,  because  a  profitable  enterprise 
attracts  investors;  what  is  good  for  the  enterprise  obviously 
is  good  for  its  workers. 

There  is  a  commonality  of  interests  which  can  be 
gravely  upset  by  either  side.  Needless  to  say,  the  most  com- 
mon way  to  upset  the  applecart  is  through  excessive  wage 
demands  which,  if  yielded  to,  tend  to  eliminate  the  profits 
and  to  make  the  merchandise  unmarketable.  Politically 
organized  workers  also  may  pressure  governments  into 
inflationary  policies.  Strikes  cancel  production  for  a  given 
period  and  mean  economic  loss.  The  inability  to  sell  due  to 
excessive  wages  and  prices  or  to  protracted  strikes  can 
bankrupt  the  economy. 

This  mutual  relationship  between  costs  of  production 
and  purchasing  power  is  frequently  overlooked— espe- 


356  /  Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 

dally  in  the  so-called  "developing  nations."  The  insistence 
on  "a  living  wage,"  often  by  well-meaning  Christian  critics, 
in  many  cases  cannot  be  met  without  pricing  the  products 
out  of  the  market.  Such  critics  forget  that  workers  might 
prefer  to  work  at  a  low  wage  rather  than  not  to  work  at  all. 

Saving  Begins  at  Home 

One  thing  is  certain:  nascent  industrial  economies  have  to 
start  on  an  ascetic,  a  Spartan  level.  This  is  true  of  all 
economies,  free  or  socialistic.  The  apologists  of  the  USSR 
can  well  use  this  argument  in  the  defense  of  Soviet 
economies  in  their  initial  stage,  but  only  up  to  a  point:  the 
introduction  of  socialism  in  Russia  effected  immediately  a 
tremendous  decline  of  working-class,  peasant-class,  and 
middle-class  living  standards  which,  compared  with  1916 
levels,  have  improved  only  in  spots.  Large  sectors  still  are 
worse  off  than  before  the  Revolution.  A  microscopic  minor- 
ity, however,  lives  very  well  indeed.^  In  the  meantime,  free 
economies  have  made  such  enormous  strides  that  the  gap 
between  Russia  and  the  West  is  greater  than  in  1916.  There 
are  two  reasons  for  this  state  of  affairs.  First,  the  Eastern 
Bloc  with  the  exception  of  Soviet-occupied  Germany, 
Latvia,  and  Estonia,  completely  lacks  the  famous  "Protest- 
ant Work  Ethic."  Secondly,  free  enterprise  is  basically  more 
productive  than  state  capitalism  because  of:  (a)  the  snow- 
balling of  millions  of  individual  ambitions  into  a  huge 
avalanche,  (b)  the  element  of  competition  based  on  free 
consumer  choice  which  improves  quality  and  efficiency, 
(c)  the  strictly  nonpolitical  management  based  on  efficiency 
and  responsibility. 

So,  whence  comes  the  wave  of  hatred  directed  against 


The  Roots  of  "Anticapitalism"  /  357 

free  enterprise?  Dissatisfied  intellectuals  designing  Utopias 
and  decadent  noblemen  do  not  account  entirely  for  the 
phenomenon.  Though  nascent  capitalism  has  not  yet  "de- 
livered the  goods"  (children  can  only  show  promise,  no 
more)  mature  capitalism  has  proved  that  it  can  provide. 
Empirically  speaking,  capitalism  has  justified  itself  in  com- 
parison with  socialism  (for  the  existence  of  which  we  have 
to  be  grateful  in  this  one  respect). 

The  assaults  against  free  enterprise  are  launched  with 
the  help  of  theories  and  of  sentiments,  sometimes  working 
hand  in  hand.  Frequently  these  attacks  are  made  indirectly, 
for  instance,  by  criticizing  technology.  This  critique  might 
be  genuine,  but  often  serves  as  a  detour.  Much  of  the  cur- 
rent antipollution  campaign  is  subconsciously  directed  at 
capitalism  via  technology.  (This  particular  problem  is  less 
acute  in  the  Socialist  World  only  because  it  is  less  industri- 
alized; it  is  nevertheless  amusing  to  see  the  Left  embracing 
all  the  idle  dreams  of  the  old  conservative  agrarian  roman- 
ticism.) However,  if  we  examine  closely  the  attack  against 
free  enterprise,  we  find  the  following  elements: 

•1.  The  charge  that  business  cycles  are  the  consequence 
of  freedom  rather  than  political  intervention,  though  proof 
to  the  contrary  is  well  established. 

•2.  The  attack  against  the  man-consuming,  soul-killing, 
slave-driving  forms  of  modern  production.  In  this  domain, 
however,  the  main  culprit  is  the  machine  rather  than  the 
human  factor.  Technology  per  se  is  strictly  disciplinarian.  In 
this  respect,  socialism  or  communism  would  not  bring  the 
slightest  alleviation.  On  the  contrary!  Let  us  remember  the 
ideal  of  the  Stakhanovite,  the  absence  in  socialist  countries 
of  genuine  labor  unions,  the  limitless  means  the  totalitarian 
state  has  for  coercion,  regulations,  and  controls.  We  must 


358  /  Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 

bear  in  mind  that  the  free  world  also  has  a  competitive 
labor  market.  Man  can  choose  the  place  and  conditions  of 
his  work. 

•3.  The  critique  of  "monopoly  capitalism,"  shared  in  a 
milder  way  by  the  "Neo-Liberal"  school,  is  opposed  to  all 
forms  of  bigness.  Still,  in  the  free  world  we  find  that  most 
countries  have  legislation  against  monopolies  in  order  to 
keep  competition  alive,  to  give  the  consumer  a  real  choice. 
Any  criticism  of  monopolies  by  a  socialist  is  hypocritical, 
because  socialism  means  total  monopoly,  the  state  being 
the  only  entrepreneur. 

Deeper  Resentments 

Yet  these  attacks  are  frequently  only  rationalizations  of 
much  deeper  resentments.  At  the  very  roots  of  anticapital- 
ism  we  have  the  theological  problem  of  man's  rebellion 
against  Original  Sin  or,  to  put  it  in  secular  terms,  his  vain 
protest  against  the  human  condition.  By  this  we  mean  the 
curse  to  which  we  are  subject,  the  necessity  to  work  by  the 
sweat  of  our  brow.  The  worker  is  in  harness,  but  so  is  the 
manager  and  so  is  everybody  else.  For  this  uninspiring, 
sometimes  unpleasant  state  of  affairs,  the  average  man  will 
stick  the  guilt  on  somebody;  capitalism  serves  as  the  conve- 
nient scapegoat.  Of  course,  work  could  be  greatly  reduced 
if  one  were  willing  to  accept  a  much  lower  living  stan- 
dard— which  few  people  want  to  do.  Without  the  opportu- 
nities free  enterprise  provides  for  highly  profitable  work, 
the  living  standards  would  go  down  to  early  medieval  lev- 
els. Still,  the  resentment  against  this  order  is  directed  not  so 
much  against  an  abstraction — such  is  human  nature — as 
against  persons.  Thus,  the  culprit  is  taken  to  be  the  "Estab- 
lishment"— of  the  "capitalists." 


The  Roots  of  "Anticapitalism"  /  359 

This  gives  us  a  hint  as  to  the  nature  of  the  anticapitalism 
which  has  more  and  more  surfaced  since  the  French  Revo- 
lution and  the  decline  of  Christianity:  envy.  Ever  since  1789, 
the  secret  of  political  success  has  been  the  mobilization  of 
majorities  against  unpopular  minorities  endowed  with  cer- 
tain "privileges"— particularly  financial  privileges.  Thus, 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  the  "capitalist"  appeared  to  be 
the  man  who  enjoyed  considerable  wealth  though  he 
apparently  "did  not  work"  and  derived  a  vast  income  from 
the  toil  of  the  workers  "who  have  to  slave  for  him."  Apart 
from  the  incontrovertible  fact  that  they  mostly  "slave  for 
themselves,"  there  is  some  truth  to  this. 

The  Entrepreneurial  Role 

Almost  every  worker  will  usually  contribute  in  a 
minor  way  to  the  income  of  the  entrepreneur  or  of  the 
stockholders.  This  is  perfectly  natural  because  a  broker 
must  always  be  paid;  and  an  entrepreneur,  as  we  have 
said  before,  is  actually  a  broker  between  the  worker  and 
the  consumer  by  providing  the  former  with  the  necessary 
tools  and  guidance  in  production.  (The  merchant  is  a  sub- 
broker  between  the  manufacturer  and  the  public.)  It  is 
also  natural  to  pay  for  borrowed  tools  for  the  simple  rea- 
son that  their  value  is  diminished  by  use.  (Thus  the  travel- 
ing salesman  will  have  to  pay  for  a  rented  car,  the  com- 
mercial photographer  for  a  rented  camera,  and  so  forth.) 
Beyond  this,  the  entrepreneur  (who  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
broker  as  well  as  a  lender)  takes  the  risk  of  failure  and 
bankruptcy.  This  situation  also  may  be  encountered  in  the 
USSR  where  anyone  can  get  an  "unearned  income"  for 
money  he  puts  into  a  savings  bank  or  where  he  can  buy  a 
lottery  ticket.  The  purchase  of  such  a  ticket  is  based  on  an 


360  /  Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 

expectation  (i.e.,  to  make  a  profit)  but  also  entails  a  risk 
(i.e.,  not  to  win  anything). 

Risk  characterizes  all  of  human  existence:  to  make  an 
effort  without  exactly  foreseeing  its  success.  Thus,  a  writer 
starting  a  novel  or  a  painter  putting  the  first  lines  on  his 
canvas  is  not  sure  whether  he  can  transform  his  vision  into 
reality.  He  might  fail.  Often  he  does.  The  farmer  with  his 
crop  is  in  the  same  boat.  But  the  typical  worker  entering  the 
factory  can  be  certain  that  he  will  be  paid  at  week's  end.  It 
should  be  noted  here  that  in  Austria  and  Germany,  for 
instance,  the  industrial  laborer  works  an  average  of  43 
hours  a  week  (the  40-hour  week  is  in  the  offing),  while  the 
self-employed  put  in  an  average  of  62.5  hours  a  week.  In 
other  words,  the  rule  within  our  mature  economy  is  this: 
the  "higher  up,"  the  greater  the  work  effort — and  the 
higher,  too,  the  work  ethics;  the  slack  employee  cheats  the 
employer  but  the  slack  employer  only  cheats  himself. 

Facts  and  Fiction 

The  trouble,  as  Goetz  Briefs  once  pointed  out,  is  that  the 
current  notions  about  the  profits  of  the  capitalists  are 
totally  out  of  touch  with  reality.^  The  reason  for  these 
wrong  ideas  is  partly  mathematical!  Let  us  look  at  some 
statistics.  Too  many  people  think  that  a  radical  redistribu- 
tion of  profits  would  truly  benefit  "the  little  man."  But 
what  do  the  figures  tell  us?  According  to  the  Economic 
Almanac,  1962,  published  by  the  National  Industrial  Con- 
ference Board  (page  115),  of  the  national  income  in  the 
United  States,  the  compensation  of  employees  amounted 
to  71  percent;  the  self-employed  earned  11.9  percent,  the 
farmers  3.1  percent.  Corporation  profits  before  taxes  were 
9.7  percent  of  the  total  national  income  (after  taxes  only  4.9 


The  Roots  of  "Anticapitalism"  /  361 

percent)  and  dividends  paid  out  were  3.4  percent.  Interest 
paid  to  creditors  amounted  to  4.7  percent  of  the  national 
income.  Yet,  were  the  recipients  of  these  dividends  and  in- 
terest payments  all  "capitalists"?  How  many  workers, 
retired  farmers,  widows,  benevolent  associations,  and 
educational  institutions  were  among  them?  Would  this 
sum,  evenly  divided  among  all  Americans,  materially 
improve  their  lot?  Of  course  not. 

In  other  parts  of  the  world  the  situation  is  not  much  dif- 
ferent. According  to  earlier  statistics  (1958),  if  all  German 
incomes  were  to  be  reduced  to  a  maximum  of  1,000  Marks 
(then  $250.00)  a  month  and  every  citizen  given  an  even 
share  of  the  surplus,  this  share  would  have  amounted  to  4 
cents  a  day.  A  similar  calculation,  expropriating  all  Aus- 
trian monthly  incomes  of  1000  dollars  or  more,  would  in 
1960  have  given  each  Austrian  citizen  an  additional  IVa. 
cents  a  day! 

But,  let  us  return  to  corporate  profits.  The  13  largest  Ital- 
ian companies  composed  in  1965  a  full-page  advertisement 
which  they  tried  to  place  in  the  leading  dailies  of  the  Penin- 
sula. This  statement  told  at  a  glance  what  the  dividends 
had  been  in  1963,  what  they  were  over  a  10-year  period, 
what  salaries  and  wages  were  paid,  how  much  industry 
contributed  to  social  security  and  old-age  pensions.  The 
relationship  between  the  dividends  and  labor  cost  was 
roughly  1  to  12.  The  companies  added  that  the  estimated 
number  of  shareholders  (obviously  from  many  walks  of 
life)  was  over  half  a  million — double  the  number  of  the 
employees.  Interestingly  and  significantly  enough,  two  of 
the  dailies  refused  to  carry  the  paid  advertisement:  one  was 
the  Communist  Unita,  the  other  the  Papal  Osservatore 
Romano  whose  excuse  was  that  it  was  published  in  Vatican 
City,  which  means  outside  of  the  Italian  State. 


362  /  Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 
Rooted  in  Envy 

To  the  advocate  of  equality,  the  fact  that  certain  individ- 
uals live  much  better  than  others  seems  to  be  "unbearable." 
The  internal  revenue  policies  which  try  to  "soak  the  rich" 
often  have  their  roots  in  man's  envy.  It  seems  useless  to 
demonstrate  that  a  redistribution  of  wealth  would  be  of  no 
advantage  to  the  many  or  that  an  oppressive  tax  policy 
directed  against  the  well-to-do  is  self-defeating  for  a  coun- 
try's economy.  One  usually  will  get  the  reply  that  in  a 
democracy  a  fiscal  policy  which  might  be  economically 
sound  could  be  politically  unacceptable — and  vice  versa. 
Pointing  out  that  the  spending  of  wealthy  persons  is  good 
for  the  nation  as  a  whole  may  bring  the  snap  reaction  that 
''nobody  should  have  that  much  money."  Yet,  people  who 
earn  huge  sums  usually  have  taken  extraordinary  risks  or 
are  performing  extraordinary  services.  Some  of  them  are 
inventors.  Let  us  assume  that  somebody  invents  an  effec- 
tive drug  against  cancer  and  thereby  earns  a  hundred  mil- 
lion dollars.  (Certainly,  those  who  suffer  from  cancer  would 
not  begrudge  him  his  wealth.)  Unless  he  buries  this  sum  in 
his  garden,  he  would  help  by  lending  to  others  (through 
banks,  for  instance)  and  by  purchasing  liberally  from  oth- 
ers. The  only  reason  to  object  to  his  wealth  would  be  sheer 
envy.  (I  would  add  here  that  had  it  not  been  for  the  liberal- 
ity of  monarchs,  popes,  bishops,  aristocrats,  and  patricians 
it  would  not  be  worthwhile  for  an  American  to  pay  a  nickel 
to  see  Europe.  The  landscape  is  more  grandiose  in  the  New 
World.) 

Still,  it  is  significant  that  one  of  the  few  outstanding 
Christian  sociologists  in  Europe,  Father  Oswald  von  Nell- 
Breuning,  SJ,  not  noted  for  conservative  leanings,  has 
recently  (Zur  Debatte,  Munich,  February  1972)  taken  a  firm 


The  Roots  of  "Anticapitalism"  /  363 

Stand  against  the  myths  of  the  beneficent  effects  of  the 
redistribution  of  wealth.  As  one  of  the  architects  of  the 
Encyclical  Quadragesimo  Anno  he  emphasized  that  Pius  XI 
was  thoroughly  cognizant  with  this  incontrovertible  fact 
but  that,  in  the  meantime,  this  knowledge  has  been  nearly 
lost  and  that  therefore  demagogical  ideas  have  largely 
invaded  Catholic  sociological  and  economic  thinking. 
Especially  in  the  domain  of  "Third  World"  economic  prob- 
lems, the  learned  Jesuit  hinted,  the  hue  and  cry  for  "distrib- 
utive justice"  has  done  a  great  deal  of  mischief. 

It  has  become  fashionable  to  attack  free  enterprise  on 
moral  grounds.  There  are  people  among  us,  many  of  them 
well-meaning,  idealistic  Christians,  who  freely  admit  that 
"capitalism  delivers  the  goods,"  that  it  is  far  more  efficient 
than  socialism,  but  that  it  is  ethically  on  a  lower  plane.  It  is 
denounced  as  egotistic  and  materialistic.  Of  course,  life  on 
earth  is  a  vale  of  tears  and  no  system,  political,  social,  or 
economic,  can  claim  perfection.  Yet,  the  means  of  produc- 
tion can  only  be  owned  privately,  or  by  the  state.  State  own- 
ership of  all  means  of  production  certainly  is  not  conducive 
to  liberty.  It  is  totalitarianism.  It  involves  state  control  of  all 
media  of  expression.  (In  Nazi  Germany  private  ownership 
existed  de  jure,  but  certainly  not  de  facto.)  The  remark  of 
Roepke  is  only  too  true,  that  in  a  free  enterprise  system  the 
supreme  sanction  comes  from  the  bailiff,  but  in  a  totalitar- 
ian tyranny  from  the  hangman. 

The  Christian  insistence  on  freedom— the  monastic 
vows  are  voluntary  sacrifices  of  a  select  few— derives  from 
the  Christian  concept  that  man  must  be  free  in  order  to  act 
morally  (A  sleeping,  a  chained  and  clubbed,  a  drugged  per- 
son can  neither  be  sinful  nor  virtuous.)  Yet,  the  free  world, 
which  is  practically  synonymous  with  the  world  of  free 
enterprise,  alone  provides  a  climate,  a  way  of  life  compati- 


364  /  Erik  von  Kuehnelt-Leddihn 

ble  with  the  dignity  of  man  who  makes  free  decisions,  en- 
joys privileges,  assumes  responsibilities,  and  develops  his 
talents  as  he  sees  fit.  He  is  truly  the  steward  of  his  family. 
He  can  buy,  sell,  save,  invest,  gamble,  plan  the  future,  build, 
retrench,  acquire  capital,  make  donations,  take  risks.  In 
other  words,  he  can  be  the  master  of  his  economic  fate  and 
act  as  a  man  instead  of  a  sheep  in  a  herd  under  a  shepherd 
and  his  dogs.  No  doubt,  free  enterprise  is  a  harsh  system;  it 
demands  real  men.  But  socialism,  which  appeals  to  envious 
people  craving  for  security  and  afraid  to  decide  for  them- 
selves, impairs  human  dignity  and  crushes  man  utterly. 

1.  See  ''Free  Enterprise  and  the  Russians/'  The  Freeman,  August 
1972,  pp.  461-470. 

2.  Das  Gewerkschaftsproblem  gestem  und  heute  (Frankfurt  am  Main: 
Knapp,  1955),  p.  98. 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution 
or  Part  of  the  Problem? 

Calvin  D.  Linton 


My  title  may  strike  you  as  odd,  whimsical,  even  wrong- 
headed.  Surely  education  is  a  "good  thing."  It  is  by  its  very 
nature  beneficial,  not  harmful;  Promethean,  not  Mephis- 
tophelean; our  savior,  not  our  destroyer.  The  more  of  it  the 
better. 

But  every  one  of  these  popular  beliefs  is  doubtful.  It  all 
depends  on  what  kind  of  education  we  are  talking  about, 
and  what  kind  of  people  receive  the  education. 

Let  me  say  at  once,  therefore,  that  I  am  speaking  of  that 
kind  of  education  which  is  secular,  largely  technological, 
and  chiefly  aimed  at  teaching  people  how  to  do  things.  This 
is,  I  believe,  the  public  image.  Every  member  of  a  liberal 
arts  college  has  at  one  time  or  another  confronted  bewil- 
dered or  irate  parents  who  demand  to  know  what,  after  an 
expensive  liberal  arts  education,  their  newly  furnished  off- 
spring are  trained  to  do — what  kind  of  a  job  can  they  get?  It 
is  difficult  to  convince  them  that  the  purpose  of  a  liberal 
education  is  to  develop  mental  powers,  to  sensitize  one's 
response  to  beauty  and  goodness,  to  expand  and  lengthen 
one's  outlook,  to  teach  civilized  emotions,  and  the  rest.  (It  is 


Calvin  D.  Linton  is  Professor  Emeritus  of  English  Literature  and 
Dean  Emeritus  of  the  College  of  Arts  and  Sciences  of  George  Washing- 
ton University,  Washington,  D.C.  This  article  appeared  in  the  June  1968 
issue  of  The  Freeman. 


365 


366  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

particularly  difficult  because,  in  all  conscience,  these  jobs 
have  often  not  been  done  by  the  liberal  arts  college.  But  that 
is  another  story.) 

The  menace  of  modem  education  is  quite  easy  to  define: 
Never  have  so  many  people,  groups,  and  nations  been  able, 
because  of  education,  to  do  so  many  things — and  we  are  all 
afraid  that  they  will  now  start  doing  them!  To  narrow  it  a 
bit:  The  menace  is  that  of  incalculable  power  (the  product 
of  knowledge)  in  the  hands  of  bad  or  foolish  men.  The  ago- 
nizing question  now  is  not  whether  we  can  possibly  learn 
how  to  do  this  or  that,  but  which  of  the  things  we  have  the 
tools  to  do  we  should,  by  an  act  of  will,  choose  to  do.  The 
question,  in  short,  is  one  of  conduct,  not  of  knowledge. 
With  this,  education,  to  its  own  peril,  has  little  to  do. 

And  yet  it  is  the  most  anciently  recognized  of  problems. 
Adam  faced  it,  and  chose  wrong.  His  problem,  like  ours, 
was  not  knowing  how  but  knowing  what.  And  the  corrective 
was  early  stated:  "Thou  shalt  do  that  which  is  right  and 
good  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord:  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee 
. . .  {Deut.  6:18).  With  the  spirit  of  this  commandment,  mod- 
em education  has  even  less  to  do.  Education's  answer  to 
man's  problems  is  more  education — as  if  Hitler  would  have 
been  made  a  better  man  if  he  had  taken  a  degree  or  two 
from  some  good  university. 

I  submit  that  modem  education  presents  increasingly 
the  fearful  aspects  of  Frankenstein's  monster  because  of  the 
prevalence  of  five  fallacies  or  myths. 

1.  The  Myth  of  Automatic  Human  Progress 

The  general  tendency  of  ancient  thought  was  that  man 
had  fallen  from  high  estate,  whether  from  some  Golden 
Age  or  from  the  bliss  of  Eden.  Not  until  the  eighteenth  cen- 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  367 

tury  and  the  rise  of  that  strangely  irrational  epoch  called 
the  Age  of  Reason  were  doctrines  of  inevitable  human 
progress  widely  disseminated.  Partly,  this  was  the  result  of 
a  sort  of  provincial  complacency,  and  partly  ignorance  of 
history.  How  easily  in  eighteenth-century  writing  flow  the 
condescending  remarks  about  the  barbarism  of  the  ancient 
world,  the  primitive  grotesqueness  of  gothic  cathedrals,  the 
ignorance  and  ineptitude  of  Shakespeare! 

But  it  remained  for  the  nineteenth  century  and  the  rise 
of  theories  of  evolution  for  the  views  to  become  the  dogma 
that  all  environments  tend  inevitably  toward  perfection. 
Why  this  is  so  was  never  clearly  stated.  There  simply  is 
faith  that  the  universe  is  so  constituted.  "Chance"  will  see 
to  it.  But  chance  is  simply  a  nonterm,  identifying  the  absence 
of  reason,  purpose,  intention,  and  will;  it  is  odd  that  reason 
should  put  its  faith  in  that  which  is,  by  definition,  nonrea- 
son. 

Reasonably  or  not,  however,  the  cult  of  inevitable 
progress  has,  in  education,  placed  improper  emphasis  on 
novelty,  change  for  its  own  sake,  the  gimmick.  True,  in  the 
world  of  technology  the  view  that  the  latest  is  the  best  is 
usually  sound — we  properly  prefer  the  up-to-date  type- 
writer, automobile,  washing  machine.  But  technology 
advances  automatically,  so  long  as  we  do  not  forget  the 
practical  lessons  of  past  experimenters.  Every  engineer 
begins  at  the  point  where  the  last  one  left  off.  Advancement 
is  due  not  to  any  improvement  in  the  human  brain,  but  to 
the  mere  accumulation  of  experience.  The  ancient  brains 
that  measured  the  diameter  of  the  earth,  that  worked  out 
the  basic  principles  of  force,  leverage,  hydraulics,  and  con- 
struction, were  almost  undoubtedly  greater  brains  than  our 
age  possesses.  But  the  modem  technologist  stands  at  the 
topmost  height  of  achievement  of  all  previous  craftsmen. 


368  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

He  may  himself  be  a  dwarf,  but  he  can  see  farther  than  they, 
for  he  sits  on  their  shoulders. 

Not  so  in  the  area  of  human  conduct.  Here  it  is  not  tech- 
nology but  wisdom  that  governs.  No  man  becomes  virtu- 
ous because  of  the  virtue  of  another.  He  may  be  inspired  by 
the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  others,  but  he  must  make  that 
wisdom  his  own  possession.  He  cannot  start  out  as  wise  as 
they  simply  because  they  have  recorded  their  wisdom. 
Every  human  being,  as  a  moral  creature,  begins  from 
scratch.  Not  the  novel  but  the  true  controls  here. 

Julian  Huxley  once  observed  that  evolution  seemingly 
has  not  worked  in  recorded  history.  Even  within  the  view 
of  evolutionary  progress,  therefore,  there  is  no  ground  for 
believing  that  the  wisdom  residing  in  the  most  ancient 
minds  was  not  as  great  as  that  held  by  the  latest  recipient  of 
a  Ph.D.  Indeed,  in  all  honesty,  most  of  us  would  agree  that 
there  probably  is  not  alive  this  day  any  human  being  whose 
wisdom  can  match  that  of  a  Moses,  a  Job,  a  Paul,  a  Marcus 
Aurelius,  an  Aristotle,  a  John — make  the  list  as  long  as  you 
wish. 

And  it  is  precisely  this  storehouse  of  ancient  wisdom 
that  the  Cult  of  the  New  denies  to  the  student.  How  they 
flock  to  the  latest  course  presenting  results  of  "an  unstruc- 
tured learning  experience  bearing  upon  upward  mobility 
desires  in  terms  of  motivational  elements  in  adjustment  to  a 
work  situation" — but  how  few  choose  a  course  in  the  ethi- 
cal teachings  of  Jesus. 

And  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  precisely  in  the  matter  of 
choosing  wisely  what  we  should  do,  not  in  mastering 
more  tools  of  power,  that  our  future  security — if  any — 
consists.  Bertrand  Russell  has  written:  "If  human  life  is  to 
continue  in  spite  of  science,  mankind  will  have  to  learn  a 
discipline  of  the  passions  which,  in  the  past,  has  not  been 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  369 

necessary. . . ."  In  other  words,  the  upward  curve  of  virtue 
must  parallel  that  of  knowledge. 

Professor  Ginsberg  of  the  University  of  London  in  his 
book  The  Idea  of  Progress,  correctly  states  that  progress  can- 
not be  defined  in  terms  independent  of  ethics.  One  can 
scarcely  call  it  progress  if  a  murderous  maniac  is  progres- 
sively handed  a  stick,  a  club,  a  sword,  a  pistol,  a  cannon, 
and  finally  an  H-bomb. 

Education  must  deal  with  that  which  has  never  changed: 
the  human  heart,  its  passions,  and  ideals.  There  are  the  well- 
springs  of  human  well-being  or  human  catastrophe.  In  an 
address  to  the  Royal  Society,  Laurence  Oliphant,  Aus- 
tralia's top  atomic  scientist,  declared:  "I  can  find  no  evi- 
dence whatever  that  the  morality  of  mankind  has  improved 
over  the  5,000  years  or  so  of  recorded  history." 

II.  The  Myth  of  the  Natural  Goodness  of  Man 

This  is  a  delicate  subject.  One  sometimes  feels  that  this 
dogma  is  simply  a  corrective  to  the  reverse  obnoxious  doc- 
trines of  extreme  puritanism  (the  sort  seen  in  medieval 
asceticism  and  seventeenth-century  extremism)  that  every 
impulse  of  man  is  totally  and  inherently  evil.  (In  passing, 
some  even  conceive  this  to  be  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of 
total  depravity.  Actually,  of  course,  the  view  declares  that 
the  total  man  was  touched  by  sin,  that  no  part  of  his  being 
remained  unaffected.  It  does  not  attribute  total  evil  to  every 
impulse.) 

But  the  cult  of  sensibility,  as  the  eighteenth  century 
termed  it,  is  not  a  corrective;  it  is  an  extreme,  untenable, 
and  unreasonable  dogma  that  shows  up  in  modern  educa- 
tion all  the  way  from  first  grade  to  graduate  school. 

Simply,  it  may  be  called  the  philosophy  of  "doing  what 


370  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

comes  naturally."  At  the  intellectual  level,  for  example,  it  is 
held  that  there  is  some  magic  value  in  the  uninhibited  and 
uninformed  opinion  if  freely  expressed.  And  so  discussion 
groups  are  held  in  the  grade  schools  and  the  high  schools 
on  such  subjects  as  "What  do  you  think  about  the  atom 
bomb?"  or  "teenage  morality"  or  "banning  Lady  Chatterley's 
Lover"  or  "implementing  freedom  among  underprivileged 
nations"  or  what  not.  The  poor  little  dears  have  scarcely  a 
fact  to  use  as  ballast.  But  no  matter.  The  cult  of  sensibility 
believes  that  continuing,  free,  uninhibited  discussion  will 
ultimately  release  the  inherent  goodness  of  natural  instincts 
and  impulses.  The  fad  for  "brainstorming"  has  passed,  but 
not  the  philosophy  behind  it. 

Now,  of  course,  we  must  encourage  discussion.  The 
young  need  to  be  encouraged  to  think  and  to  speak — the 
former,  anyway  But  the  deadly  assumption  underlying  this 
sort  of  thing  is  that  goodness  is  not  a  difficult  matter  of 
study,  discipline,  learning,  mastery  of  tough  masses  of  fact, 
but  just  a  kind  of  game.  It's  fun  to  do  what  comes  naturally. 
(On  reading  about  the  uninhibited  conduct  of  certain  grade 
school  classes,  with  free  discussion,  finger  painting,  group 
games,  or  whatever  the  youngsters  want  to  do,  an  older 
man  said:  "That's  not  a  new  feature  of  education.  They  had 
that  when  I  was  a  boy.  They  called  it  'recess.'" 

Ultimately,  this  view  of  ethics  believes  that  there  is  no 
objective  standard  of  morality  or  ethics.  If  there  were,  then 
what  one  wanted  to  do  would  be  either  right  or  wrong 
according  to  whether  it  reflected  or  violated  the  absolute 
standard.  Rather,  it  is  the  view  of  the  cult  that  society  deter- 
mines morality.  The  vote  of  the  majority  determines  the  eth- 
ical value.  To  refer  to  Bertrand  Russell  again,  one  remem- 
bers  his   assertion   that   there   is   no   rational   basis   for 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  371 

determining  ethics.  Man,  as  the  random  product  of  an  eter- 
nal flux  of  atoms,  feels  certain  things— chiefly,  that  he 
exists;  or  rather,  he  experiences  an  experience  he  arbitrar- 
ily names  "existence."  Thus,  what  are  "ethical  standards" 
to  one  may  be  unacceptable  to  another.  There  is  no  objec- 
tive basis  for  deciding  between  them.  One  can  only  hope, 
therefore,  that  he  lives  in  a  society  in  which  the  majority  of 
the  people  happen  to  like  the  same  ethical  standards  one 
does  oneself. 

The  idea  that  man  is  basically  good  and  infinitely  capa- 
ble of  self-improvement  has  ramifications  in  every  area  of 
modem  life.  It  is  ardently  preached  by  Freudian  psycholo- 
gists, to  whom  restraint  of  any  natural  desire  is  bad;  by 
dreamy-eyed  social  and  political  theorists  who  believe  that 
"freedom"  is  the  sovereign  remedy  for  the  ills  of  every 
primitive  tribe  and  nation;  by  aesthetic  theorists  who  teach 
that  art  is  an  unplanned  eruption  occurring  when  the 
"artist's  biography  makes  contact  with  the  medium  of  the 
art";  and  by  educationists  who  teach  that  what  Johnny 
wants  to  do  is  what  he  must  be  permitted  to  do.  No  concept 
is  more  widespread,  more  taken  for  granted  by  millions 
who  have  never  troubled  really  to  think  about  it. 

It  is  important  to  realize  that  members  of  the  cult  of  nat- 
ural goodness  believe  primarily  in  the  goodness  of  the  non- 
rational  faculties — instinct,  emotion,  impulse,  subrational 
urges.  They  are  not  so  strong  on  the  natural  goodness  of  the 
intellect.  (The  high  priest  of  the  cult  is  D.  H.  Lawrence.) 

There  is,  consequently,  a  prevalence  of  anti-intellectual- 
ism  in  educational  circles  that  manifests  itself  in  a  mar- 
velous jargon  largely  incomprehensible  to  the  rational 
intelligence.  Jacques  Barzun  gives  a  fine  analysis  of  this 
malady  in  The  House  of  Intellect 


372  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

III.  The  Myth  of  Egalitarianism 

This  is  an  even  more  delicate  subject.  To  seem  to  ques- 
tion the  equality  of  men  is  to  raise  questions  about  one's 
attitude  toward  home  and  mother  and  the  American  way 
of  life.  Actually,  of  course,  the  situation  is  not  hopelessly 
complicated.  It  is  simply  a  matter  of  identifying  those  areas 
in  which  all  men  are  equal  and  those  in  which  they  are  not. 

To  the  Christian,  every  soul  is  equal  before  God.  All  have 
sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God;  all  need  grace; 
none  is  good  before  God.  None  can  claim  social  status, 
investments,  political  office,  or  ecclesiastical  affiliation  to 
separate  him  from  his  absolute  equality  with  all  other 
human  souls. 

To  the  believer  in  the  Western  tradition  of  rule  by  law, 
every  man  is  also  equal  before  the  law.  The  protection  of  the 
law,  the  responsibility  for  obeying  the  law,  and  the  duty  of 
understanding  the  law  are  equal  in  distribution  and  force, 
without  regard  to  any  circumstances  save  legal  age. 

But  to  declare  that  all  men  are  equally  gifted,  equal  in 
force  of  character,  equal  in  abilities  and  talents,  equally 
deserving  of  a  share  of  the  world's  goods,  equally  deserv- 
ing of  esteem,  respect,  and  admiration,  equally  deserving 
of  rewards,  equal  in  cultural  heritage  and  contribution — 
this  is  irrational  nonsense. 

No  concept  has  had  a  deadlier  effect  upon  modem  edu- 
cation than  this.  It  has  hindered  the  identification  and 
encouragement  of  the  exceptionally  gifted;  it  has  lowered 
educational  standards  to  a  point  where  no  one,  no  matter 
how  dull,  can  fail  to  hurdle  them;  it  has  confused  the  right 
of  every  man  to  seek  an  education  with  the  fallacious  belief 
that  every  man  has  a  right  to  receive  a  degree.  It  has  stifled 
initiative  by  refusing  to  grant  exceptional  reward  to  ex- 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  373 

ceptional  effort.  It  has  encouraged  mediocrity  by  withhold- 
ing the  penalty  of  mediocrity. 

An  illustration:  A  university  with  which  I  am  very 
familiar  undertook  a  program  to  encourage  better  English 
in  the  high  schools  of  the  city.  The  basic  idea  was  competi- 
tion— the  best  writers,  the  most  skilled  in  grammar,  the 
clearest  thinkers  would  be  singled  out  through  public  con- 
tests for  reward. 

The  professional  secondary  school  counselors  were  hor- 
rified. This  clearly  amounted  to  ''discrimination" — it  dis- 
criminated between  the  able  and  the  unable  student!  In  the 
modem  doctrine  this  is  the  deadly  sin.  In  sum,  the  univer- 
sity was  permitted  to  put  into  effect  only  a  watered-down 
plan  that  carefully  provided  rewards  for  everyone.  Need- 
less to  say  the  program  was  of  only  modest  effectiveness. 
Needless  to  say,  too,  that  high  school  graduates  come  to  us 
scarcely  sure  whether  writing  is  the  white  or  the  black  part 
of  a  page. 

I  was  recently  told  by  a  professional  educator  colleague 
that  the  terrible  alternative  to  belief  in  complete  equality  in 
all  dimensions  is  the  inculcation  of  an  inferiority  complex. 
From  that,  he  told  me,  come  resentment,  insecurity,  antago- 
nism, maladjustment,  psychoses  of  various  kinds,  rebel- 
lion— in  short,  a  wrecked  society. 

This,  too,  is  nonsense.  The  thing  works  both  ways. 
Almost  everyone  has  some  talent  or  ability  that  could  be 
developed  beyond  the  average  level.  If  he  properly  receives 
acknowledgment  for  this  superiority,  he  will  be  willing  to 
grant  superiority  in  other  fields  to  other  people.  Is  this  not 
inherent  in  life  itself?  Do  we  feel  resentful  or  guilty  because 
we  have  not  the  mental  equipment  of  a  Pascal  or  an  Ein- 
stein? Physically  inferior  because  we  cannot  bat  home  runs 
like  Mickey  Mantle?  Artistically  inferior  because  we  cannot 


374  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

play  the  piano  like  Rubinstein  or  Richter?  On  the  contrary, 
one  of  the  keenest  pleasures  of  life  is  to  be  in  the  presence  of 
a  superior  person — and  to  be  very  still. 

That  sort  of  pride  which  cannot,  without  infinite 
anguish,  acknowledge  the  superiority  of  any  other  living 
being  is  quite  literally  Satanic.  From  it  flowed  all  our  woes. 

IV.  The  Cult  of  Scientism 

Again,  careful  qualification  is  needed.  No  one  can,  in 
the  first  place,  be  other  than  grateful  for  the  marvelous 
strides  science  has  made  in  increasing  human  comfort,  con- 
trolling disease,  providing  relief  from  soul-killing  labor. 
Nor,  in  the  second  place,  can  anyone  doubt  the  validity  and 
effectiveness  of  the  scientific  method — in  its  proper  place. 
What  I  refer  to  is  the  religion  of  scientism,  complete  with 
dogma,  faith,  ethical  system,  and  ritual. 

"Science"  is  a  wonderful  word.  It  means  "knowledge." 
Thus  the  old  term  for  what  we  today  call  "science"  was 
"natural  philosophy."  The  study  of  nature — physical;  per- 
ceived by  the  senses;  capable  of  instrumentation.  Indeed, 
modern  science  may  be  called  the  application  of  instru- 
ments to  matter  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  understanding 
of  material  forces  and  thus  of  gaining  control  over  them  for 
our  own  purposes. 

The  cultic  aspect  arises  when  (1)  science  is  viewed  not  as 
one  way  man  has  of  knowing  things  (and  a  sharply  limited 
one)  but  as  the  way  that  embraces  everything  man  can,  at 
least  respectably,  come  to  know;  and  (2)  when  the  teachings 
of  its  priests  are  accepted  without  question  by  a  faithful 
congregation. 

These  cultic  aspects  are  perhaps  most  perceptible  in  the 
development  of  "mysteries"  of  the  faith,  open  only  to  the 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  375 

initiated,  not  to  be  comprehended  by  nonscientists.  Writes 
the  great  Norbert  Wiener:  "The  present  age  of  specializa- 
tion has  gone  an  unbelievable  distance.  Not  only  are  we 
developing  physicists  who  know  no  chemistry,  physiolo- 
gists who  know  no  biology,  but  we  are  beginning  to  get  the 
physicist  who  does  not  know  physics."  As  a  consequence, 
the  mysteries  known  only  to  the  specialists  are  accepted 
without  question  by  those  without  the  necessary  knowl- 
edge to  judge  for  themselves. 

Anthony  Standen,  distinguished  British  chemist  who  is 
editor  of  a  huge  encyclopedia  of  chemistry,  writes:  "What 
with  scientists  who  are  so  deep  in  science  that  they  cannot 
see  it,  and  nonscientists  who  are  too  overawed  to  express 
an  opinion,  hardly  anyone  is  able  to  recognize  science  for 
what  it  is,  the  great  Sacred  Cow  of  our  time"  (Science  Is  a 
Sacred  Cow,  Dutton,  1950). 

"Is  the  universe,"  he  continues,  "to  be  thought  of  in 
terms  of  electrons  and  protons?  Or ...  in  terms  of  Good  and 
Evil?  Merely  to  ask  the  question  is  to  realize  at  least  one 
very  important  limitation  of  [science]." 

The  biologists,  he  says,  try  to  define  "life,"  with  ludi- 
crous results.  "They  define  stimulus  and  response  in  terms 
of  one  another.  No  biologist  can  define  a  species.  And  as  for 
a  genus — all  attempts  come  to  this:  'A  genus  is  a  grouping 
of  species  that  some  recognized  taxonomic  specialist  has 
called  a  genus ' " 

The  scientist,  says  Standen,  has  substituted  is  for  ought. 
"That  is  why,"  he  concludes,  "we  must  never  allow  our- 
selves to  be  ruled  by  scientists.  They  must  be  our  servants, 
not  our  masters." 

The  cult  has  many  imitators,  all  of  them  injurious  to  true 
education.  The  ritual  words  of  the  worship  services  have 
been  adopted  by  areas  of  knowledge  where  no  physical 


376  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

instrumentation  is  possible:  psychology,  sociology,  aesthet- 
ics, morality.  When  the  modem  psychologist  asks,  "What 
motivational  elements  predominated  in  this  behavioral 
manifestation?"  he  is  still  simply  asking,  "Why  did  he  do 
it?"  And  the  real  answer  lies  far  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
cleverest  electronic  computer  or  microscope. 

In  general,  the  attitude  fostered  in  modem  education 
toward  science  is  unthinking  worship.  As  a  consequence,  as 
Martin  Gardner  states  in  his  recent  book  Fads  and  Fallacies  in 
the  Name  of  Science,  "The  national  level  of  credulity  is  almost 
unbelievably  high." 

The  menace  of  this  scientific  gullibility  obviously  goes 
far  beyond  the  classroom.  It  is  the  malady  of  our  age,  and 
one  of  which  we  may  perish.  But  my  immediate  point  is 
simply  that  an  environment  of  anti-intellectual  materialism 
has  seriously  hampered  the  development  of  students' 
awareness  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  stature  of  man,  by 
which  alone  he  stands  erect. 

Most  paradoxical  is  the  cult's  dogma  that  there  is  no 
room  for  faith  in  any  true  search  for  truth.  The  notion  is  pal- 
pably false.  Let  me  quote  Warren  Weaver,  vice-president  for 
the  natural  and  medical  sciences  of  the  Rockefeller  Founda- 
tion: "I  believe  that  faith  plays  an  essential  role  in  science 
just  as  it  clearly  does  in  religion."  He  goes  on  to  list  six  basic 
faiths  of  the  scientist,  including  the  faith  that  nature  is 
orderly,  that  the  order  of  nature  is  discoverable  to  man,  that 
logic  is  to  be  trusted  as  a  mental  tool,  that  quantitative 
probability  statements  reflect  something  true  about  nature, 
and  so  on  ("A  Scientist  Ponders  Faith,"  Saturday  Review, 
January  3,  1959).  In  sum,  he  says:  "Where  the  scientist  has 
faith  that  nature  is  orderly,  the  religionist  has  faith  that  God 
is  good.  Where  the  scientist  believes  that  the  order  of  nature 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  377 

is  discoverable  to  man,  the  religionist  believes  that  the 
moral  nature  of  the  universe  is  discoverable  to  man." 

Dr.  Weaver  rejects  the  well-known  aphorism  of  Sir 
Richard  Gregory: 

My  grandfather  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 
My  father  preached  the  Gospel  of  Socialism, 
I  preach  the  Gospel  of  Science. 

But  many  others  accept  it  with  fervor.  "God  has  ceased 
to  be  a  useful  hypothesis,"  writes  Julian  Huxley.  The  prob- 
lem of  the  nineteenth  century,  says  another,  was  the  death 
of  God;  that  of  the  twentieth,  the  death  of  man. 

Any  humanist  who  speaks  in  these  terms  must  be 
extremely  careful,  lest  he  fall  into  mere  carping,  deeply 
tinged  by  envy  of  the  prominence  and  prosperity  of  sci- 
ence. Nothing  could  be  more  foolish — or  more  ungrateful. 
The  lament  over  the  low  estate  of  the  humanities  in  the 
public  mind  would  be  more  touching  if  those  responsible 
for  the  preservation  and  dissemination  of  humanistic  stud- 
ies had  something  of  positive  value  to  say,  if  they  had  a 
Path,  a  Way  of  Truth  to  declare. 

V.  The  Cult  of  Biologism 

I  admit  that  this  is  a  poor  term,  and  perhaps  the  topic 
itself  were  better  considered  a  subheading  of  the  previous 
one.  Essentially,  this  cult  is  an  outgrowth  of  materialism, 
the  faith  that  man  is  only  biology,  that  he  not  only  has 
glands  but  is  glands. 

As  a  consequence,  whole  segments  of  educational  the- 
ory consider  man  precisely  as  a  physicist  considers  an 


378  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

atom — one  purely  objective  item  among  others  of  its  kind, 
clothed  with  identity  only  as  it  is  part  of  a  group,  the  prop- 
erties and  motions  of  which  are  to  be  determined  statisti- 
cally, in  terms  of  average  behavior.  (Years  ago,  Irving  Lang- 
muir,  speaking  of  the  "burden  of  irrationality"  in  science, 
pointed  out  that  the  laws,  say,  of  the  expansion  of  gases  tell 
us  how  a  mass  of  molecules  behave  under  certain  condi- 
tions of  heat  and  pressure,  but  that  no  one  can  predict  how 
a  single  one  of  the  molecules  will  behave.) 

To  treat  man  merely  as  a  capacity  for  response  to  stim- 
uli, as  totally  the  product  of  the  forces  that  impinge  upon 
him,  without  will  or  conscience,  is  to  divest  him  of  person- 
ality, individuality,  and  dignity.  But  the  whole  science  of 
human  engineering  is  based,  more  or  less,  on  this  concept. 
The  only  variation  is  the  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
practitioners  as  to  whether  there  remains  in  man  some 
slight  indeterminate  center  of  being,  inviolate  to  stimulus 
or  statistical  confinement,  or  whether  he  is  totally  suscepti- 
ble to  manipulation. 

Among  the  many  ramifications  of  this  cult  let  me  men- 
tion only  two.  First,  the  dogma  that  all  human  actions  are 
social  in  their  implications,  to  be  judged  purely  by  their 
effect  on  society.  And,  second,  the  dogma  that  emotions, 
feelings,  are  not  essentially  moral  in  their  nature,  nor  the 
product  of  individual,  unique,  and  sovereign  personality, 
but  are  merely  the  conditioned  reflexes  of  quivering  biology. 

The  first,  the  social  dogma,  conceives  of  the  individual 
as  the  physician  thinks  of  the  cells  of  the  body — part  of  an 
organic  whole,  subject  totally  to  the  welfare  of  the  organic 
unit  (the  state,  in  the  social  and  political  parallel),  smd  to  be 
excised  through  surgery  if  a  cell  rebels. 

It  is  within  this  belief  that  a  nationally  prominent  psy- 
chologist has  defined  education  as  "the  engraving  of  desir- 


Higher  Education:  The  SoluHon  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  379 

able  behavior  patterns."  Through  conditioning,  teaching 
machines,  Pavlovian  devices  of  various  kinds,  the  individ- 
ual is  created  in  the  desired  image.  Undesirable  behavior 
patterns  are  to  be  eradicated  by  a  form  of  brainwashing  and 
a  new  engraving  superimposed.  Dismissed  as  utterly  out- 
moded is  the  view  of  each  human  being  as  a  living  soul, 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  with  primary  responsibilities 
as  an  individual  to  the  God  of  his  creation. 

And  who  is  to  determine  what  kind  of  behavior  pattern 
is  "desirable"?  That's  the  hitch.  The  persons  who  most 
ardently  would  like  to  impose  their  own  behavior  patterns 
on  me  are  the  very  ones  whose  patterns  I  would  least  like  to 
have  engraved. 

At  worst  this  view  of  human  existence  is  both  irrational 
and  evil.  It  is  irrational  because  it  must  believe  that  those 
who  impose  the  patterns  of  desirable  behavior  must  be  as 
totally  the  product  of  external  influence,  as  completely  a 
consciousness-produced-by-environment,  as  those  who  are 
to  be  manipulated.  It  is  evil  because  it  denies  human  dig- 
nity and  reduces  the  individual  to  a  cipher. 

The  second  menacing  product  of  the  cult  of  biologism  is 
the  belief  that  emotions  and  feelings  are  as  purely  biologi- 
cal as  the  purely  physiological  activities  of  man.  In  other 
words  this  view  denies  that  the  quality  of  a  person's  feel- 
ings is  a  measure  of  his  moral  stature,  of  his  culture,  of  his 
civilization.  It  denies  that  the  teaching  of  right  feelings  is  a 
vital  part  of  true  educahon. 

The  "natural"  emotions  of  a  child  are  pretty  fearful, 
until  they  have  been  civilized,  associated  with  moral  val- 
ues, enriched  with  culture.  Most  notably,  the  child— and 
the  savage— is  instinctively  delighted  by  cruelty.  A  child 
will  pull  the  wings  off  a  fly  A  recent  account  of  life  among 
certain  savage  South  American  Indians  describes  the  plea- 


380  /  Calvin  D.  Linton 

sure  of  the  community  at  the  antics  of  chickens  plucked 
alive,  with  perhaps  a  leg  or  wing  pulled  off  for  good  mea- 
sure. 

This  may  be  the  "natural"  feeling  of  sin,  and  it  may  be 
an  instinctive  expression  of  the  savage  as  biology.  But  it  is 
the  work  of  civilization,  of  culture,  and  above  all  of  religion, 
to  eradicate  it.  "Natural"  man  must  learn  the  right  emo- 
tions— what  to  laugh  at,  what  to  smile  at,  what  to  frown  at. 

Show  me  what  makes  a  man  laugh,  what  makes  him 
weep,  and  I  know  the  man.  It  is  ultimately  a  matter  of 
morality,  not  biology.  Education  divorced  from  moral  val- 
ues cannot  teach  right  feeling. 

The  deepest  and  most  significant  emotion  of  all,  the  one 
this  world  most  desperately  needs  to  be  taught,  is  compas- 
sion— the  emotion  most  readily  associated  with  the  love  of 
God  for  sinful  man.  "The  tender  mercies  of  the  heathen  are 
cruel,"  says  the  Bible.  Commandments  that  we  deal  gently, 
forgivingly,  tenderly  with  each  other  are  "unnatural"  in 
biology.  They  are  natural  only  to  the  regenerated  spirit. 

Now,  this  is  a  broad  indictment.  I  do  not  pretend  that  I 
have  said  anything  new,  or  that  these  problems  are  peculiar 
to  education.  They  are  maladies  of  our  age.  They  break  into 
dozens  of  major  subheadings,  scores  of  topics,  hundreds  of 
subject  headings,  thousands  of  instances. 

True  Education 

But  the  correction  is  magnificently  simple:  True  educa- 
tion, as  Milton  said  three  centuries  ago,  is  to  releam  to 
know  God  aright.  Education  divorced  from  God  is  capable 
of  infinite  and  endless  complexities  and  confusions.  He 
alone  is  the  motionless  Center  that  gives  meaning  to  all 


Higher  Education:  The  Solution  or  Part  of  the  Problem?  /  381 

motion.  What  he  is,  not  what  man  is,  determines  what 
should  be  and  shall  be. 

Let  me  end  with  a  quotation  from  that  rough-mannered 
philosopher,  Carlyle  (Sartor  Resartus,  Chapter  IX): 

"Cease,  my  much  respected  Herr  von  Voltaire,"  thus 
apostrophizes  the  Professor:  "shut  thy  sweet  voice; 
for  the  task  appointed  thee  seems  finished.  Suffi- 
ciently hast  thou  demonstrated  this  proposition, 
considerable  or  otherwise:  That  the  Mythus  of  the 
Christian  Religion  looks  not  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury as  it  did  in  the  eighth.  Alas,  were  thy  six-and- 
thirty  quartos,  and  the  six-and-thirty  thousand  other 
quartos  and  folios,  all  flying  sheets  or  reams,  printed 
before  and  since  on  the  same  subject,  all  needed  to 
convince  us  of  so  little!  But  what  next?  Wilt  thou 
help  us  to  embody  the  divine  Spirit  of  that  Religion 
in  a  new  Mythus,  in  a  new  vehicle  and  vesture,  that 
our  Souls,  otherwise  too  like  perishing,  may  live? 
What!  thou  hast  no  faculty  in  that  kind?  Only  a  torch 
for  burning,  no  hammer  for  building?  Take  our 
thanks,  then,  and — thyself  away." 

Somewhat  modified,  these  words  might  be  addressed 
to  the  kind  of  dangerous  education  I  have  been  describing. 


Index 


Abundance,  225-226,  345 

Academies,  73 

Acton,  John  E.  E.  D.  (Lord  Acton), 

188, 194,  216 
Adams,  John,  15, 59 
Adams,  Paul  L.,  242-254 
Administrative  law,  82, 92-94 
Advertising,  262-264 
American  heritage,  decline  of, 

242-254 
American  Revolution,  12, 17, 105, 

227 
Anarchism,  153 
Anglican  church,  55-56,  65 
Anticapitalism,  352-364 
Aristotle,  167-168,  209-210,  281, 

2%,  323 
Atheists,  154 
Athens,  288-289,  315 

Bacon,  Francis,  167,  307,  313 

Barker,  Ben,  4,  274-283 

Bastiat,  Frederic,  79, 139, 148,  218, 

298 
Bible,  62,  78,  99, 106, 115, 120, 

136-151,  236,  261,  264,  305, 307, 

310, 312, 380 
Biblical  laws,  79 

Bill  of  Rights,  80, 86-90, 106,  333 
Bill  of  Rights  (English),  106 
Bill  of  Rights  (Virginia),  15, 18 
Biologism,  377-380 


Blackstone,  Sir  William,  79 
Boston,  64-65,  305 
Brackenridge,  Hugh,  53 
Bradford,  William,  103-104 
Buddhists,  154 
Bunyan,  John,  62 
Burke,  Edmund,  220,  333, 337 
Burr,  Aaron,  53, 107-108 
Businessmen,  153-154, 237, 
264 

Caesar,  Julius,  29-30 

California,  77 

Cambodia,  203 

Cambridge  (England),  67,  74, 304 

Cambridge  (Mass.),  306 

Capitalism,  58, 152-153,  236, 258, 
263, 318-319, 352-354, 356-358, 
363 

Carson,  Clarence  B.,  7-24, 40-51, 
98-109 

Charity,  43,  95, 153-154, 249, 261 

Children,  13, 18-19, 83, 103-105, 
118, 162, 195, 204, 226,  261, 266, 
286,  294, 300,  302, 315, 338, 357 

Chinese,  166 

Christian  socialism,  317 

Christianity,  26,  30,  33-36, 1%, 
99-100, 102, 104, 106-107, 113, 
120, 123-127, 130, 134-135, 139, 
164, 166, 168, 198, 242, 244, 253, 
257-258,  264, 268,  272-273, 312, 


383 


384  /  Index 


317,  343, 353, 356, 359, 362-363, 

372,  381 
Church  of  England,  10, 18, 317 
Churchill,  Winston,  238,  285 
Civil  Rights  movement,  198 
Civil  War,  85-86,  315,  342 
Civilization,  136, 161, 163, 168, 

170-171,  284-303,  307,  332, 

379-380 
Classes,  4, 18-19,  204,  249,  251, 

282,  296-297,  353,  370 
Colleges,  67-69, 167,  311 
Colonial  America,  education  in, 

61-76 
Colonists,  2,  20,  306-307,  315,  333 
Columbia  University,  312,  329, 

336 
Communists,  87-88 
Community,  4, 18-19,  36,  46, 174, 

191,  265-267,  282,  291-293,  297, 

302,  306,  380 
Competition,  73-74,  220,  269-270, 

356,  358,  373 
Compromise,  181,  300 
Confucianists,  154 
Congregational  churches,  306 
Connecticut,  11, 13 
Constitution,  1, 11, 14-15,  21,  32, 

47-48,  53,  57,  60,  69,  73,  77, 

79-81,  86-^7,  89-90,  94-95, 106, 

216,  246,  248,  252,  280,  288,  307, 

310-311,  316,  321 
Constitutional  Law,  79 
Continental  currency,  58 
Contracts,  17,  58, 117 
Cotton,  John,  305 
Courts,  20-21,  88-^9, 108,  214, 

328 


Cults,  cultism,  4,  274-283, 
367-371,  374-379 

Dartmouth,  167 

Declaration  of  Independence,  2, 

17,  52,  77,  82, 105-106,  310,  316 
Delaware,  11, 13,  74 
Dependency,  220,  224,  275-277, 

279 
Despotism,  22,  26, 46,  331,  336 
Drugs,  226,  240 

Edison,  Thomas,  203 
EducaHon,  42,  53,  61-76, 108, 138, 

152, 161-174, 195,  225,  242,  248, 

261,  267,  278,  304,  336-337, 

365-381 
Egalitarianism,  201-204,  206,  372 
Eighteenth  Amendment,  321 
Elijah,  113, 118 
Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  285 
England,  8-10, 12, 17-18,  36,  41, 

43,  62,  64-65,  67,  235,  30S-306, 

309-310,  315,  317,  332-333, 349 
Entrepreneur,  319-320,  354-355, 

358-359 
Envy  78, 188,  292,  297-298,  346, 

359,  362,  377 
Hpictetus,  165 
Episcopal  Church,  33 
Equal  Rights  Amendment,  88 
Equality,  19,  84,  90, 179, 198-206, 

235,  237-238,  293,  2%,  298,  346, 

362,  372-373 
Ethics,  201,  203,  209,  337,  360, 

369-371 
Europe,  9,  31,  37,  41, 43,  69,  204, 

244-245,  307,  352,  362 


Index  I  385 


Ewert,  Ken  S.,  257-273 
Executive  Orders,  91-92 
Exploitation,  4, 84 
Ezekiel,  120-131 

Faith,  3,  50, 84, 98-109, 123, 138, 
148, 193,  212, 247,  253,  282-283, 
304,  343,  367,  374,  376-377 

Family,  62, 64,  66,  71,  90, 105, 115, 
132, 137, 188,  225,  239,  266-267, 
293,  298-299,  306,  364 

Federalist  Papers,  73, 311 

Foley,  Ridgway  K.,  Jr.,  120-131, 
338-351 

Founding  Fathers,  1-4,  53,  62,  67, 
72-73,  82, 98-109,  246,  280, 
296-297,  309,  311 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  65, 67,  69,  72, 
74,  247 

Freedom,  3, 11, 16-17,  31-33,  37, 
51,  53-54,  56,  59,  61,  69,  74, 
78-79,  81,  98, 121, 126, 128-129, 
134, 137-138, 141, 153, 155, 
161-174, 178, 197,  207-219, 
225-228,  229-241,  242-243, 
245-248,  251,  253-254,  257,  262, 
265-266,  268,  272,  277,  280,  282, 
292,  302-303,  311,  321-337, 
338-351,  357,  363,  370-371 

Freneau,  Philip,  53,  59 

Fromm,  Erich,  282 

Garden  of  Eden,  186 

Georgia,  11 

Germany,  349,  350,  356,  360,  363 

God,  2-3, 12-13,  27,  29,  32,  34,  63, 
71,  79^1,  83,  99-103, 105, 107, 
113-118, 121-124, 126, 128-130, 


133, 140-141, 145, 154-156, 
168-169, 177, 179, 183, 185, 191, 
198,  211,  218,  221,  242-246,  249, 
251,  254,  261,  264,  273, 280-281, 
300,  304,  307, 309-310, 312, 
317-318,  332,  372,  376-377, 
379-380 

Gold,  145,  283,  321-322 

Golden  Rule,  13, 178-184, 193 

Good  Samaritan,  132, 135, 192, 
320 

Government,  1-2,  9-10, 18-20,  22, 
26-27,  30-37, 41^3, 45-50,  57, 
59,  61-62,  64-65,  67-69,  73-75, 
77,  80-82,  84,  86,  88,  91-95, 107, 
127, 132-133, 136-151, 153, 
155-156, 183, 191, 193, 197, 
199-200,  210,  218-219, 223-226, 
229,  231,  234,  237-239,  246,  253, 
257,  271-272,  283-284,  294, 
297-298,  307,  309,  311,  315, 
322-323,  327-332,  334-337, 339, 
345 

Gradualism,  349-350 

Grand  Inquisitor,  167 

Great  Awakening,  104 

Greeks,  44, 163,  244,  291,  296,  330 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  107-108, 

311 
Harper,  F.  A.,  128, 175-197 
Harvard  University,  220 
Hayek,  Friedrich  A.,  143, 194, 

216-217 
Hebraic  law,  124 
Henry,  Patrick,  32-33,  67 
Hillendahl,  Wesley  H.,  77-97 
Hinduism,  154, 166,  312 


386  /  Index 


Hobbes,  Thomas,  41, 43, 210-211, 

215,  313 
Honesty,  25, 154, 219,  368 
Hoover  Institution,  145 
Huxley,  Julian,  368,  377 

Immorality,  175, 187, 193, 195,  344 
Impersonalism,  264,  267-268 
Independence,  2,  8-9, 17, 19,  21, 
32, 47,  52-53,  55-56,  72,  77,  82, 
105-106, 197,  224-225,  265,  277, 
280,  310,  316 
Individualism,  264,  273 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  11,  22,  33,  304 

Jeremiah,  113-119 

Jericho,  132-135 

Jesus,  124-126, 132, 135, 139-140, 
179,  368 

Jewish  people,  142-143 

Johnson,  Lyndon  B.,  91 

Johnson,  Paul,  294 

Judeo-Christian  faith,  3,  99, 
152-157 

Judicial  abuses,  86 

Justice,  13, 15,  25,  32,  50,  56,  79, 
90-91, 93, 108, 123, 130, 139, 
142-143, 155, 178, 185,  207-219, 
237,  244,  249,  297,  318,  331, 
340-342,  363 

Justice  Department,  93 

Kant,  Immanuel,  325 
Kennedy,  John  R,  91,  326 
King  Philip's  War,  68 
Kuehnelt-Leddihn,  Erik  von, 

352-364 
Lane,  Rose  Wilder,  137-138, 150 


Laurens,  Henry,  13 

Lee,  Charles,  53 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  33, 52 

Legislatures,  20-22,  87 

Lewis,  C.  S.,  163, 173 

Liberalism,  297,  334 

Liberty,  2, 10-12, 15-16,  23^25, 
30-31,  36-37, 40-51, 52-61,  69, 
77-79,  81,  83-^,  95, 106-107, 
113, 139, 175-197, 198-200,  206, 
213,  215-228, 245-248,  252,  261, 
284,  286-287,  294,  299,  301-302, 
304-305,  308-309,  311,  324, 
330-334,  336,  338,  343,  345,  349, 
363 

Libraries,  61,  69-71,  74 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  74,  327 

Linton,  Calvin  D.,  365-381 

Loyalists,  333 

Luther,  Martin,  103, 141 

Lutherans,  65 

Machiavelli,  Niccold,  27-31, 

33-34,  36,  38, 183,  251 
Madison,  James,  11,  25-39,  53,  57, 

69,  73,  311 
Magna  Carta,  106 
Manion,  Clarence,  77,  86,  89 
Manson,  Charles,  203,  274 
Market,  61,  65,  74, 153-154, 188, 

238-239,  241,  249,  257-273,  302, 

315,  319-320,  348,  356, 358 
Marshall,  John,  33 
Marx,  Karl,  152, 185,  267,  313,  353 
Maryland,  13 
Mason,  George,  15,  32 
Massachusetts,  11, 14-15, 19-21, 

32,  68,  306 


Index  I  387 


Materialism,  3, 251-252,  258, 
262-264,  267-268,  273, 376-377 

Mather,  Cotton,  305 

Media,  42, 152,  281, 363 

Mennonites,  66 

Merccintilism,  17, 42 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  139, 211-212, 
216 

Milton,  John,  332, 380 

Mises,  Ludwig  von,  316, 320 

Montesquieu,  Charles  de,  208 

Moral  conduct,  179-180, 188, 190, 

Moral  order,  304-320 

Moral  postulates,  175-184 

Morality,  26, 32, 37, 47, 49-51, 
108-109, 113, 118, 161-174, 175, 
178-179, 189, 195,  214,  217,  225, 
228, 231,  241,  258,  291,  340-341, 
343^44, 346-347, 369-370, 376, 
380 

Morals,  13,  32,  36, 175-197, 
217-218,  251,  291-292,  2%,  335 

Moravians,  65 

Morison,  Samuel  Eliot,  64, 304 

Moses,  145,  281,  368 

Murray,  Charles,  299 

National  emergencies,  91-92 
Natural  Law,  43, 105, 172, 

177-178, 183,  212,  220,  244, 

308-309, 317,  343-344 
Natural  order,  43-44, 49,  206,  308 
New  England,  36,  62,  64-65, 

305-306,309 
New  Hampshire,  11, 13 
New  Jersey,  10-11,  52-53,  68 
New  Testament,  134, 140-141 


New  York,  10, 20-21, 57, 242, 295, 

321 
Nixon,  Richard,  91 
Nock,  Albert  Jay,  113-114, 173 
North,  Gary,  113-119 
Northwest  Ordinance,  14, 16, 

310 
Nozick,  Robert,  200 
Numa,  27-28 

Occupational  Safety  and  Health 
Act,  93 

Old  Testament,  113, 123-124, 142, 
305 

Opitz,  Edmund  A.,  304-320, 
321-337 

Order,  1, 3, 14, 17,  25,  29-30, 32, 
40-51,  91,  98, 114, 124, 127, 129, 
140, 145, 152-157, 164, 166, 169, 
174,  200,  206,  217, 225-227, 242, 
244,  261-262,  270-271, 279, 281, 
284,  292-293, 304-311, 313, 
315-320,  324-325,  330-334, 337, 
344,  346,  352,  354,  358,  376 

Ortega  y  Gasset,  Jose,  285 

Owen,  Robert,  240,  354 

Paine,  Thomas,  207, 212, 218 
Patrick,  James  C,  136-151 
Pennsylvania,  10, 13,  21,  65-66, 

167 
Pericles,  244,  288,  335 
Peterson,  Robert  A.,  52-60,  61-76 
Philadelphia,  52,  "ol,  65-66,  70,  73, 

311 
Philanthropy,  70 
Philosophical  societies,  61,  72 
Pilgrims,  98, 103,  304, 306 


388  /  Index 


Plato,  161, 164-167,  208-210,  281, 
307,  323 

Plunder,  134-135, 149,  340,  342 

Plutarch,  27 

Plymouth  Colony,  304 

Pol  Pot,  203 

Porter,  Bruce  D.,  220-228 

Power,  2-3,  21,  26,  30,  34, 41^3, 
46-i8,  51,  57,  73,  79-81, 85-«6, 
89,  92-94, 126, 129-130, 136, 
139-140, 143, 156, 172-173, 177, 
182, 188, 194,  204,  209,  211, 
214-215,  222-223,  225-226,  228, 
231-232,  237-239,  244,  246,  248, 
267-273,  276,  278-279,  288-289, 
292-293,  313,  322,  326,  328-331, 
334,  340-344,  346-347,  349, 366, 
368 

Presbyterians,  33,  54,  57,  65,  369 

Press,  15,  234,  236-237,  268,  309, 
311,  333,  335,  338 

Primogeniture,  18,  23 

Princeton  University,  53-55,  57, 
59,  68-69, 167 

Prophet,  113-114, 117-119, 
121-122, 124 

Psychology,  4,  274-283,  376 

Public  choice,  271 

Puritans,  98,  304 


Reformation,  102-103,  305, 312, 

332,  353 
Relativism,  122, 172, 251,  294 
Religion,  12,  25-39, 42, 47, 49-51, 

72,  87,  98, 102, 106, 108, 134, 

175, 178, 185,  225,  234,  238,  278, 

281-282,  313,  317-318,  332-333, 

337, 374,  376, 380-381 
Religious  liberty,  10-12,  23,  31, 

36-37,  56,  333-334 
Remnant,  113-115, 118-119, 

122-123 
Renaissance,  174,  312,  332 
Resentment,  56,  292,  354,  358,  373 
Rhode  Island,  10, 13 
Ricardo,  David,  235 
Roberts,  Paul  Craig,  271 
Roche,  George  C,  III,  161-174 
Rogers,  Will,  285 
Rogge,  Benjamin  A.,  229-241 
Roman  Catholicism,  11,  56, 102, 

235,  297,  363 
Romans,  27, 44, 140,  244,  307 
Roosevelt,  Franklin  D.,  91,  232 
Rothbard,  Murray,  204 
Rousseau,  Jean  Jacques,  215 
Russell,  Bertrand,  314,  329,  368, 

370 
Rutgers  University,  327 


Quakers,  65 
Quitrent,  17 

Rabushka,  Alvin,  145 
Read,  Leonard  E.,  128 
Rededication,  253 
Redistribution,  84-85,  200,  205, 
226,  344,  360,  362-363 


Saint  Augustine,  211,  284 
Samuelson,  Paul  A.,  152 
Savonarola,  29 
Schooling,  65,  69,  278 
Scientism,  374 
Scotland,  54 

Selfishness,  258-263,  273 
Senate,  53,  85,  92 


Index  I  389 


Sennholz,  Hans  R,  152-157 

Sennholz,  Mary,  1-4 

Sermons,  70-71 

Shaw,  George  Bernard,  247 

Shintoists,  154 

Simon,  William,  226 

Slaves,  12-14, 144, 196,  339 

Smith,  Adam,  54,  307,  316, 333 

Snyder,  Leslie,  207-219 

Social  Gospel,  317 

Solomon,  146-147 

South  Africa,  239 

Soviet  Union,  81 

Specialization,  276,  375 

Spooner,  Lysander,  212 

Subjectivism,  172,  294 

Sunday  Schools,  71 

Supreme  Court,  14,  21,  86^9, 148 

Taoists,  154 

Teachers,  4,  32-33,  66, 102,  278, 

282,  304,  307 
Technology,  164,  279-281,  313, 

353,  357,  367-368 
Ten  Commandments,  99-100, 

106-107, 124, 156, 179-180,  308, 

311 
Theft,  13S-134, 185-187, 189, 

191-193,  204,  209,  213, 260, 

297-298,  307,  319,  323,  330,  332, 

340-344 
Thucydides,  288-290,  292-293, 

296-299,  301 
Tocqueville,  Alexis  de,  37, 

218-219,  304-305,  336 
Treaty  of  Paris,  9 
Tyranny,  25,  35,  51,  214,  247,  272, 

294,  330,  363 


United  Nations,  81,  253,  296 

Vigilance,  25,  81,  247 

Virginia,  11, 13-15,  22,  25-39, 53, 
67 

Virginia  Statute  of  Religious  Free- 
dom, 11 

Voluntarism,  62,  69, 346 

Walton,  Rus,  218 
Washington,  George,  26, 33, 

40-51,  55,  57,  67, 108-109, 139, 

247,  329,  365 
Washington's  Farewell  Address, 

40, 108-109 
Watkins,  Hal,  132-135 
Watts,  Isaac,  62 
Weaver,  Henry  Grady,  138 
Weaver,  Warren,  376 
Welfare,  83,  95, 135, 145, 175, 178, 

180, 183-186, 189-197,  260,  299, 

336,  378 
Welfare  state,  175, 178, 180, 

183-186, 189-197,  336 
Whig  principles,  53 
Whigs,  332-333 
Wilder,  Laura  Ingalls,  137-138 
William  and  Mary,  College  of,  167 
Williams,  John  K.,  284-303 
Witherspoon,  John ,  52-60,  68- 

69 
Wollstein,  Jarret  B.,  198-206 
Worship,  11-12,  32-34,  219, 

240-241,  274,  280,  282,  314, 332, 

375-376 

Yale  University,  167 
Young,  John  Wesley,  25-39 


Suggestions  for  Further  Study 

The  following  books  from  FEE  are  recommended  to  readers  who  wish 
to  explore  in  greater  depth  the  moral  case  for  a  free  society: 

Frederic  Bastiat 

The  Law 

A  powerful  summary  of  Bastiat' s  critique  of  socialism. 

76  pages 

Ezra  Taft  Benson 

The  Proper  Role  of  Government 

What  government  should  and  should  not  do. 
32  pages 

Robert  James  Bidinotto,  ed. 

Criminal  Justice?  The  Legal  System  vs.  Individual  Responsibility 

A  thorough  review  of  the  crime  epidemic  in  the  United  States. 

320  pages 

Clarence  B.  Carson 

A  Basic  History  of  the  United  States 

A  fresh,  comprehensive  narrative  in  five  volumes  of  200  to  350  pages 

each. 

Burton  W.  Folsom,  Jr.,  ed. 

The  Spirit  of  Freedom:  Essays  in  American  History 

An  anthology  of  essays  and  articles  on  the  freedom  movement 
throughout  American  history. 
212  pages 

Henry  Hazlitt 
The  Conquest  of  Poverty 

Capitalist  production,  not  government  programs,  has  been  the  real  con- 
queror of  poverty. 
240  pages 

The  Foundations  of  Morality 

The  author  presents  a  consistent  moral  philosophy  based  on  the  princi- 
ples required  for  voluntary  social  interaction. 
388  pages 


Mark  W.  Hendrickson,  ed. 

The  Morality  of  Capitalism 

A  superb  collection  of  essays  on  the  moral  foundation  of  the  private 

property  order. 

212  pages 

TiboT  R.  Machan 

The  Virtue  of  Liberty 

A  powerful  analysis  of  the  connection  between  liberty  and  virtue. 

176  pages 

John  Stuart  Mill 
On  Liberty 

Mill's  observations  made  in  1859  are  relevant  to  every  age. 
129  pages 

Ludwig  von  Mises 

The  Anti-Capitalistic  Mentality 

A  discussion  of  popular  psychological  arguments  against  capitalism. 

114  pages 

Human  Action 

Mises'  magnum  opus:    a  broadly  philosophical  work  which  is  indis- 
p>ensable  for  scholars  and  students. 
907  pages 

J.  Wilson  Mixon,  Jr.,  ed. 

Private  Means,  Public  Ends:  Voluntarism  vs.  Coercion 

A  thought-provoking  study  of  the  virtues  of  private  initiative  and  the 

failure  of  public  administration. 

251  pages 

Edmund  A.  Opitz 

Religion  and  Capitalism:  Allies,  Not  Enemies 

A  profound  discussion  of  the  relationship  of  biblical  religion  to  free- 
market  economics. 
328  pages 

Religion:  Foundation  of  the  Free  Society 

An  anthology  of  Reverend  Opitz's  eloquent  essays  and  articles. 

272  pages 


Leonard  E.  Read 
Anything  That's  Peaceful 

A  philosophical  discussion  of  individual  freedom  and  social  coopera- 
tion. 
243  pages 

Government:  An  Ideal  Concept 

To  Read,  government  was  neither  a  manager  of  economic  activity  nor 

an  almoner  of  gifts  to  the  people,  but  a  necessary  instrument  of  social 

order. 

149  pages 

Hans  F.  Sennholz 

Debts  and  Deficits 

A  devastating  critique  of  our  propensity  to  live  beyond  our  means. 

1 79  pages 

Robert  A.  Sirico 

A  Moral  Basis  for  Liberty 

A  brilliant  essay  on  first  principles. 

68  pages 

For  current  price  information,  or  to  request  FEE's  latest  catalogue  of 
more  than  400  books  on  economics  and  social  thought,  write  or  phone: 

The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  Inc. 
30  South  Broadway 
Irvington-on-Hudson,  NY  10533 
(914)  591-7230;  fax  (914)  591-8910; 

E-mail:freemanra  westnet.com 


About  the  Publisher 

The  Foundation  for  Econonnic  Education,  Inc.,  was  established  in 
1946  by  Leonard  E.  Read  to  study  and  advance  the  moral  and  intellec- 
tual rationale  for  a  free  society. 

The  Foundation  publishes  The  Freeman,  an  award-winning  monthly 
journal  of  ideas  in  the  fields  of  economics,  history,  and  moral  philoso- 
phy. FEE  also  publishes  books,  conducts  seminars,  and  sponsors  a  net- 
work of  discussion  clubs  to  improve  understanding  of  the  principles  of 
a  free  and  prosperous  society. 

FEE  is  a  non-political,  non-profit  501(c)(3)  tax-exempt  organization, 
supported  solely  by  private  contributions  and  sales  of  its  literature. 

For  further  information,  please  contact:  The  Foundation  for  Eco- 
nomic Education,  Inc.,  30  South  Broadway,  Irvington-on-Hudson, 
New  York  10533.  Telephone:  (914)  591-7230;  fax:  (914)  591-8910;  E-mail: 
freemanCo^westnet.com. 


If  You  Liked  This  Book,  You'll  Like  The  Freeman 

The  Freeman  is  the  source  of  most  of  the  chapters  in  this  book.  Since 
1956,  it  has  been  published  monthly  by  The  Foundation  for  Economic 
Education  (FEE). 

The  Freeman  offers  serious  readers  a  unique  source  of  free-market 
information.  No  other  magazine,  newspaper,  or  scholarly  journal  intro- 
duces readers  to  so  many  implications  of  what  the  free  society  is  all 
about:  its  moral  legitimacy,  its  tremendous  efficiency,  and  its  liberating 
effects  in  every  area  of  life. 

When  FEE  began  publishing  The  Freeman,  there  was  literally  no  other 
source  of  such  popularly  written  information  on  the  free  society.  Today, 
dozens  of  institutions  produce  thousands  of  pages  of  material  every 
year  on  the  topic. 

Despite  all  the  competition  (and  imitation!).  The  Freeman  remains  the 
most  effective  introduction  to  the  fundamentals  of  the  free  society.  For 
newcomers  and  old-timers,  for  high  school  students  and  Ph.D.'s,  The 
Freeman  offers  new  insights  of  significant  value  each  month. 

Why  should  you  read  The  Freeman?  Because  the  world  is  still  in  the 
midst  of  a  monumental  battle  of  ideas.  The  collapse  of  Europ)ean  Com- 
munism in  1989  has  only  changed  the  terms  of  the  debate.  It  has  not 
changed  the  fundamental  issues. 

What  are  these  issues?  Government  compulsion  vs.  private  choice, 
collective  responsibility  vs.  personal  resfx)nsibility,  the  wisdom  of  cen- 
tral planners  vs.  the  managerial  skills  of  profit-seeking  entrepreneurs, 
compulsory  wealth  redistribution  vs.  voluntary  charity.  Social  Security 
vs.  personal  thrift. 

All  over  the  world,  the  debate  rages.  Yet  most  people  don't  know 
where  to  begin  to  sort  out  fact  from  fiction. 

Do  you  agree?  Then  you  ought  to  be  reading  The  Freeman  every 
month.  Find  out  for  yourself.  For  a  free  trial  subscription,  call  (914)  591- 
7230.  Or  write  to  FEE,  Irvington-on-Hudson,  NY  10533. 


fmth  of  ©ur  father  i 


Edited  by  Mary  Sennholz 


IE 

LL 

D 


God-given  natural  rights  were  the  guiding  light  of  the  Founding  Fathers. 
The  stirring  closing  paragraph  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
not  only  the  formal  pronouncement  of  independence,  but  also  a 
powerful  appeal  to  the  Creator  of  all  rights:  "We,  therefore,  the  Representativ  es 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  General  Congress,  Assembled,  appealing  to 
the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  worid'for  the  rectitude  of  our  intentions,  do,  in  the 
Name,  and  by  authority  of  the  good  People  of  these  Colonies,  solemnly  publish 
and  declare,  that  these  United  Colonies  are  and  of  Right  ought  to  be  free  and 
independent  States."  In  the  final  sentence  of  defiance  they  appealed  to  the 
Almighty  for  His  Protection:  "And  for  the  support  of  this  declaration,  with  a 
firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  divine  Providence,  we  mutually  pledge  to 
each  other  our  Lives,  our  Fortunes  and  our  Sacred  Honor." 

The  moral  precepts  and  the  self-evident  truths  that  guided  our  Founding 
Fathers  may  not  be  fashionable  in  our  time,  but  they  are  as  inescapable  and 
inexorable  as  they  have  been  throughout  the  ages.  We  are  free  to  ignore  and 
disobey  them,  but  we  cannot  escape  the  rising  price  we  must  pay  for  defying  them. 


"The  serious  reader  will  find  Faith  of  Our  Fathers  revealing  and  exciting.  It 
tells  the  story^  of  the  formation  of  the  United  States  of  America,  how  it  became  a 
great  nation,  a  happy  and  prosperous  commonwealth,  and  how  we  may 
preserve  the  great  blessings  of  liberty.  The  greatness  of  America  was  built  on 
the  central  religious  convictions  of  its  founders  who  assured  their  descendants 
the  protection  of  their  God-given  natural  rights.  Here  are  some  of  the  very  best 
essays  and  articles  from  a  journal  that  for  nearly  fifty  years  has  brought  us 
'Ideas  on  Liberty^  'from  some  of  the  country  s  deepest  thinkers." 

— The  Reverend  Dr.  Norman  S.  Ream 
Pastor  Emeritus 
The  First  Congregational  Church,  Wauwatosa,  Wisconsin 


Published  by 

The  Foundation  for  Economic  Education,  Inc. 

30  South  Broadway 
Irvington-on-Hudson,  N^'  10533 
(914)591-7230    •    Fax  (914)  591-8910 

$19.95  US. 


ISBN   1-57246-063-6 
I 


781572"460638 


51995>