I The Liberation of Man

nations. Policies of interventionism and socialism tend to immobilize the population and capital of the world, thus bringing about or 285 286 AN ALLIANCE OF FREEMEN maintaining the world divergencies of productivity, of wealth and income. A government that nationalizes efficient industries producing for the world market and then mismanages them not only hurts the interests of its own people but also those of other nations living in a world community. These international conflicts are inherent in the systems of interventionism and socialism and cannot be solved unless the systems themselves are abolished. The principles of national welfare as conceived by our progressive planners conflict with the principles of international cooperation and division of production. If international cooperation is to be restored, the policies of government interventionism and socialism must be abandoned. If the policies of interventionism and socialism are to be continued, the disintegration of the world market and world cooperation with all its ill consequences must be accepted. There is no other alternative—no middle road.

The various movements for international unification of states want us to believe that the nations are free to travel both roads simultaneously. They maintain that policies of planned welfare and planned production can be conducted and, simultaneously, the diverging national units can be unified. It is obvious that this contention contains a serious contradiction. There follows an outline, offered by this writer, of the path to international peace and cooperation. It is an outline that conscientiously follows the only road to peace and unity. It uncompromisingly rejects the principles of government interventionism and socialism because of their inherent quality of international disunity and conflict. The preservation of individual liberty is a requisite to international peace and cooperation. Only free people can deal with each other willingly and cooperate to their mutual advantage. He who desires peace and international cooperation must logically desire recovery of lost individual liberty. In his excellent work on "Liberty: A Path to Its Recovery" * F. A. Harper sets forth three distinct areas of liberty: (1) beliefs—thoughts, ideas, faiths; (2) physical relationships; (3) economic affairs. In all three spheres of human life and action the individual must be free to plan and act according to his own choice and liking.

Beliefs, according to Harper, are always inalienable so far as liberty is concerned. Like the famous "four freedoms"—freedom of speech, and worship, from want and fear—the freedom of beliefs is 1 The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1949.

THE LIBERATION OF MAN 287 even enjoyed by the inmates of penitentiaries. So far as the individual's beliefs are concerned, liberty is not in danger. "It is the expressions of belief/' says Harper, "not the beliefs themselves, that are threatened with loss of liberty. The danger is in connection with those devices by which one reveals his beliefs to others, such as printing and distributing evidences of them through the mails, using the radio, or meeting with others in a church for purposes of overt expressions of religious belief. These are the things attacked by those who would destroy liberty. Tools for the expression of beliefs are mainly economic matters. If they are not directly economic matters, they at least employ economic devices for carrying out the exchange of information or for the demonstration of beliefs. The newspaper or the radio, or some land and a building where a meeting is to be held, all involve physical act or economic considerations.

The problem of liberty arises only in these spheres." 2 The liberty of physical relationship, according to Harper, is the individual liberty of selection of associates. "Under liberty, the right to select associates is sacred." 3 The relationship among associates is based on voluntary agreement and contract. Under liberty, contractual obligations based on agreement and contract and on the freedom of choice by the parties must be made binding by the law, for contracts do not violate the tenets of liberty but rather constitute a vital means of interhuman communication and civilized relationship. The concept of contract on which the idea of law is built has facilitated the development of the exchange economy. Agreement and contract transcend the problems of ownership and embrace most of our economic relations.4 Economic liberty is the most important of all individual liberties. It touches the production, distribution, and consumption of goods, the ownership of property, contractual arrangements involving economic affairs, and all other economic matters. Economic liberty is the liberty of the individual to use his talents and his property to produce whatever he pleases. It is the liberty to sell or exchange his goods and services to whomever he wishes at whatever price he desires. If the individual is prohibited from doing this, his liberty is thereby transgressed. As to the liberty lost, it does not matter by whom his liberty is infringed upon, whether by another individual, a group of individuals, the community, the government, a 2 Ibid., pp. 20, 21.

3 Ibid., p. 24. 4 On the problems of ownership and contract, see L. von Mises, Socialism, Yale University Press, 1951, p. 37 et seq.

288 AN ALLIANCE OF FREEMEN labor union, a professional organization, or whomever. A government that owns all the tools of production and prohibits its citizens to acquire them thereby denies its citizens the liberty to produce. An economic stabilizer who "regulates," i.e., interferes with and overrules the plans and intentions of individuals, thereby infringes upon their liberty. A government that restricts imports, controls and allocates media of foreign exchange, fixes commodity prices and rates, and regulates the cost of money and its supply infringes upon the economic liberty of individuals. The right of a person to the product of his own labor is what F. A. Harper calls the foundation of economic liberty. This principle of ownership and distribution is diametrically opposed to two other conceivable methods: each person may either seize by way of violence whatever he desires, or some authority may distribute the goods and services which individuals produce.

Distribution by way of violence rests upon the principle that might makes right, a principle which is identical with the "law of the jungle." "This method makes ownership hazardous and highly unstable," says Harper. "Under such a system, the one who produces anything faces the immediate danger that it will be taken from him against his will. It may then be stolen from the thief, and stolen again from the second thief—again and again until it has been consumed. An economy conducted in this manner will remain primitive, or will return to the primitive state, living largely on the 'natural products' of the forests and the streams. "The law of the jungle discourages production and encourages consumption of even the little that is available; there is every urge to squander, and little or no incentive to thrift. He who would be enterprising, and who would create and use the tools of progress, is discouraged from doing so because of the likelihood that they will be taken from him by robbers. Wolves live in this manner; members of the pack subsist on what they can grab from the carcass of a sheep that has been pillaged from the farmer who reared it. An economy of this design will never build a Detroit, or a Radio City, or a great institution of research and learning." 5 If some authority distributes what each person has produced we speak of an authoritarian society in which someone other than the producer is entitled to decree who shall have whatever is produced.

Like the principle of distribution by violence it is based on the right of a non-producer to take from the producer the product of his labor. However, two basic differences between these systems of 5 F. A. Harper, Ibid., pp. 28, 29.

THE LIBERATION OF MAN 289 ownership and distribution are advanced by the numerous adherents of this popular authoritative principle. They maintain that authoritative distribution is a "public matter/' The liberty of the individual is infringed upon in the "public interest;" his goods and services are taken from him for "public use" and "public welfare." On the other hand, they maintain, distribution by violence is a private matter, and as such is objectionable and detestable. The utter emptiness of this contention becomes apparent as soon as we reflect upon the meaning and contents of the concept "public." Let us assume a small society, say of three individuals. If the majority of this society, i.e., if two individuals, resolve to take by force all or part of the product of the labor of the third individual, either to consume it or to employ it to their future advantage, this appropriation of the person's property or income is called a "public matter." Consumption of his property by the majority is in the "public interest" and for the "public welfare." Now I ask you to find the difference between this "public" distribution by the majority of this small society and the robbery by two men holding up a third. Also, if you may, what is the difference between the public distribution in a small society of three persons and that in a larger society comprising three million persons?

The numerous adherents of this authoritative principle of distribution claim that the taking by violence is for selfish purposes and the "public taking" for unselfish purposes. They maintain that robbers take for their own consumption and the improvement of their living conditions. Public taking is said to be beneficial to the majority of the public. If we apply this difference to our small society, the two individuals comprising the public majority are said to act unselfishly and in the public interest by taking the property and income from the third individual. It is obvious that this is a flagrant mistatement. In both cases non-producers selfishly take from the producer the product of his labor; in both cases the liberty of an individual is transgressed. Robin Hood is said to have helped poor people with the fruits of his robberies. Did he rob unselfishly and in the public interest? Some thieves are known to have contributed to "worthy causes." Did they steal unselfishly and to the benefit of the public? Leading politicians, government regulators, and economic stabilizers holding vast economic powers have often thickly feathered their private nests with the proceeds from extortions from private enterprise, with "gifts" and "contributions" from individuals whose economic well-being they were in a position to regulate, or with enormous salaries from taxes "soaked" from the rich. Is their 290 AN ALLIANCE OF FREEMEN taking motivated by unselfish purposes? Do they act in the public interest? As far as the producer is concerned, his property and income have been taken from him against his wishes in both instances.

"The only method consistent with liberty," says Harper, "is the one that distinguishes between mine and thine according to the rule that the producer shall have the right to the product of his own labor. This foundation of economic liberty is important above all other considerations. By this concept, the right of ownership arises simultaneously with the production of anything; and ownership resides there until the producer-owner chooses to consume the product or to transfer its ownership to another person through exchange, gift, or inheritance. The right to produce a thing thereby becomes the right to own it; and to deny one right is, in effect, to deny both." 6 The Road to Liberty and International Peace, If international cooperation is to be restored and peace is to return to mankind, the ideologies and policies of government interventionism and socialism must be abandoned. The individual must be freed from the multiplicity of infringements upon his liberty by the public, i.e., the majority of his fellow men, and the individual must regain the right to the product of his own labor. Special privileges to any person or groups of persons must be denied because they are identical with infringements on the rights of others. The granting of benefits by government violates the principle of liberty in that it limits the liberty of others. Special privileges in the form of income or of position in the market for goods and services and special protection of certain producers and professions should be abolished. Special protection in the form of sanctioned monopolies, prohibition of competition, fixed prices by governmental decree, and prohibition of the free movement of goods across political borders, all are measures of government privilege and protection that must be abolished. The principle of "no special privilege" must be acknowledged as the fundamental principle of the liberal society.

All regional and national divisions should only be regarded as convenient divisions in the administration of safety and security of individuals by governments. If this attitude were held, it would be easily recognized that all limitations on trade are disadvantageous to all concerned. The functions of the state must be limited to securing the protection of life and property, a limitation which would eliminate the problem of boundaries. If the functions of the state are thus limited and no privileges can be attained through control over the apparatus of the state, it becomes a matter of utter indif*Ibid., p. 30.

THE LIBERATION OF MAN 291 ference whether the state extends over a large or small territory and which state affords the individual's security of life and property. In a liberal society individuals all over the world could cooperate, and economic causes for conflict would no longer exist. If the individual were freed from constant government interference and tutelage, he would go where the conditions of life would be most favorable for him. He would work and produce at a place offering the most suitable conditions for production. Thus individuals would migrate continually from places where the natural conditions of production are less favorable to places where they are more favorable. It is true, migration of individuals of various nationalities would create national minority problems. But these problems would be limited to cases of individual discrimination. The state whose function would be restricted to safeguarding life and property could not conceivably grant privileges and favors like the state founded on interventionism and socialism and in which political decisions have an enormous significance in the life of the individual.

The nations of Europe have the following alternative: either to continue their policies of government interventionism and socialism with their inherent seeds of conflict and disunity, or to abolish all infringements upon the liberty of individuals and establish a liberal society. Whether or not the European nations will cooperate and live in peace depends on this very choice.