In Defense of the Individual; E. Opitz

A: From what I have heard of your philosophy, it repre sents a position of extreme individualism. I disagree with that position; I doubt that the individual has any right to ignore society or other people. I take my stand with the injunction of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephe sians, "We are members one of another." B: I ,;viII try to tell you something of our position, and then you can decide whether it represents what you would label "extreme individualism." A word like in dividualism is not easy to define. It is, in fact, another of those turncoat words whose meaning has become com pletely inverted. You seem to speak of individualism as a [215 ] doctrine which presses a man to· ignore society. Is that your understanding? A: That is approximately correct. An individualist is one who insists·upon living his own life in his own way; he feels no obligation to help another person, and he tells the rest of the world to go hang.

B: You have laid several ideas on the table as descrip tive of the individualist or individualism. I am not sure that they are consistent with one another. Taking them in order, you mentioned first the right to ignore society or other people. A: Isn't that part of the creed of individualism? B: It is part of the creed of all free men! It is conceivable, but certainly most uncommon, for a man to want to with draw from human-kind and live by himself. In the history of Christianity there are several familiar examples, from the eremites of the Egyptian desert to what might be called communities of solitaries like the modem Carthu sians. And there are occasional secular hermits who take themselves off to the woods for private reasons difficult for the rest of us to fathom. If you declare that a man does not have a right to do this-that he has no right to ignore society-then you must believe that those of us who constitute society have a right to use coercion on this reluctant individual to force him to stay. Do you be lieve that a person who wants to choose other company than ours, as in the case of Thoreau at Walden, should [216 ] be treated like a soldier A.W.D.L., pursued, brought back in irons, locked up, tried for his defection?

A: No, I didn't mean quite that. B: But if a man doesn't have a right to ignore society, the ineluctable corollary is that society must enforce its right to frustrate any eHort on his part to ignore society. A: My words were not well chosen. I certainly. don't want to be in the position of comparing society to .an army in which men are to be held by force if they have a desire to withdraw. I would aim to encourage men to recognize their obligations to other men. At the Other Fellow' s Expense B: Well, that is quite a diHerent matter. Using coercion to force a man to associate with people raises problems of one kind; using persuasion to help a person· perceive his obligations to other people raises issues of another kind. Even when using persuasion one ought not invade another's privacy, but rather ought to respect every man's right to choose his friends, his church, his club, the per sons he will admit into his home, the people he will per mit to use his machines and premises if he owns a factory, the teachers he selects to educate his children, the doctor he selects when he is ill, and so on. A man is entitled to live the life of his own choosing in accord with his own will and conscience. But he has no right to live at the expense of any other person.

[217 ] A: That is about what I had in mind; individualism is the doctrine that some men have a right, if it suits their pur poses, to live at the expense of others. B: If that is the common understanding of individualism today, then the word, like liberalism, has undergone a complete change. Individualism once meant the philoso phy that each person, regardless of race, creed, or educa tion, has the right to follow the promptings of his own conscience provided only that he allows every other per son this same right. This is close to the second definition you oHered, "An individualist is one who insists upon liv ing his own life in his own way." But that definition leaves off the important proviso that an other persons be granted the same right. A: That qualifying clause throws a different light on the matter. B: Indeed it does. We honor men who have chosen to obey the dictates of their conscience rather than the customary ways of their contemporaries, when they were forced to choose one or the other. To quote St. Peter's words, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Martin Luther said, "No man can command my conscience."

When a man is led to conclude that the promptings of his conscience are a closer approximation to the voice of God than the moral maxims of his fellows, then most of us would agree that he ought to follow his own con science; and this means living his own life in his own way. [218 ] But this is completely dissociated from the rest of your definition. A man may both live his own life and feel a strong obligation to help other people. Not only do some men feel these as compatible obligations, but also they feel them as the same obligation having two phases. A: Perhaps individualism is the wrong label for what I have in mind. As you define it, the philosophy of in dividualism doesn't sound bad. I like the idea of every man following his own conscience provided he allows every other man the same right. But even this does not seem to stress sufficiently the social aspect of the person. I think that people fulfill themselves in society, and that you, with your stress on limited government and your analysis of political action, fail to stress the importance of social life.

Importance of'SocialLife B: If we do fail to stress the importance of social life, it is not because we fail to recognize the importance of social life. The limitation of government is not an end in itself; it is the means to an end, and the end is the enrich ment of the personal and social life of people. Limiting the scope of government extends the scope of society and enlarges the sphere of creative activity. You remarked that persons find fulfillment in society, and I think your observation a true one. Even those who choose in ma turity to be hermits take with them into their solitude the social heritage that has rubbed off on them from their [219 ] family and community. Society is the seedbed of per sons; the person emerges from society as its fulfillment and perfection. Society, then, is a means; the person is the end. A: You seem to imply that if human beings would only limit government, then the automatic result would be a civilized society with supermen emerging from it. I exag gerate a bit, but would you clarify for me?

B: Limit government among the Andaman Islanders and you won't produce a Dante, a Bach or a saint, not in the present generation, at any rate. What the future holds, no man can say. The quality of personal.and social skills which people are able to bring to an association de termines the level which individual and social living can reach. The mere limiting of government does not produce skills out of a vacuum immediately. But whatever the potential in people, they will do better with what they have if artificial impediments are not put in their way. Even among people like ourselves of the West, with a rich social heritage and a comparatively high level of civilization, there is no escalator carrying us to heights of personal fulfillment. In religious literature, what is called redemption, salvation, or being born again is not an auto matic accomplishment; it is something that requires un remitting effort on the part of the individual.

These are matters of primary concern for churchmen and religionists, and some of them are handling these matters very competently. Also, in our time, psychol ogistsare concerning themselves with personal and social [220 ] problems that pertain to this area. But in spite of the expert ministrations of these people we observe anti social behavior on the increase, together with widespread social dislocations. Surely one way to reverse this trend is through improved understanding of a philosophy which; would· keep government, that is, legal violence or threat of violence, limited to its proper function. It is the intrusion of legal violence into areas of society where government has no place which has already blighted some of our social skills and placed arbitrary restraints on others. A: Before we go further, I should like to have you say something about the earmarks of a properly limited gov ernment. What are the minimum functions of government in your view?

B: I can give you an answer in a few words: Government is society's agent of coercion, and its proper function is to defend each person's life, his liberty, and his property. I believe this brief answer is accurate; but the under standing of it, like the understanding of a chemical for mula; requires a bit of doing. This answer and your ques tion have innumerable implications, and the exploration of these implications is what true political theory is all about. Government for Defense A: I can see that there would be a number of implica tions, but.I don't want to wander too far afield from the interest that prompted this particular conversation. You [221 ] will recall that I was bothered by what I regard as your extreme individualism. I may have to amend that some what because you seem to share a concern for the enrich ment of life in society, or social life as I like to call it. But in what you have just said about government, it seems to me that you have a completely nonsocial con ception of government. You would limit government to the defense of the individual; I don't see why government cannot be used in a positive way to accomplish social goals. I was much impressed by what a certain theologian said on this score. He said that the Christian should re joice "that by the mechanism of government he can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and love his brethren in practical ways." That seems to me like the practical ap plication of Christianity to the social order.

B: I am not sure how Christian that idea is, nor how practical either, for that matter. No one can exercise an other's personal responsibility. for him; and it is difficult to twist Jesus' words, "Inasmuch as ye did it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye did it unto me," into the idea that men should erect an elaborate political mecha nism to absolve themselves from the obligation that rests on each man to love his neighbor. As to the practicality of the idea that government can guarantee security by promising a minimum of food, clothing, and shelter consider the fact that government on its own has no food, clothing, or shelter to dispense. Government cannot give anything to anyone without first depriving someone else of what is rightfully his. [222 ] A: The particular passage you cite from the Gospels seems to stress personal responsibility, and you could un doubtedly find many other texts which reinforce that idea. But, after all, Paul was closer to the picture than we are, and he said, "We are members one of another."

B: Do you regard this observation of Paul as a general truth about mankind, or did it apply specifically to the early churches? It is certainly true that these early Chris tian communities were bound together by a common loyalty to Christ. A: I think the observation, "We are members one of an other," applied to the early church; but it also contains a larger truth. It has an application to the general condi tion of all mankind. Our Individuality B: I too think that this observation applies to the human situation. Men do have a genuinely social aspect. But men also have two other aspects: the personal and the antisocial. There are certain aspects about each one of us that are undeniably individual. No one can assimilate our food for us, or circulate our blood. No one can think, or will, or believe for us. In each of us is a private self, an individual soul. One of the great practitioners of the inner life has told us, "To mount to God is to enter into oneself. For he who so mounts and enters and goes be yond himself, he truly mounts up to God." There are cer tain things that no one can do for us but ourselves. But [223 ] we are not encapsulated monads which develop in a shell insulated from social contacts. Weare born into a family and a community. An immense social heritage is put at our disposal-a storehouse into which has been distilled the contributions of an enormous number of individual men and women, some famous and some nameless.

Knowledge, wisdom, skills, and some of the very thought forms by which we may avail ourselves of this treasure are handed down to us. The problem here is not analo gous to rationing a given quantity of goods to a certain number of people; it is analogous to keeping a conduit open so that the spiritual accumulations of previous gen erations can flow unimpeded, to be enriched through understanding and application by this generation and passed on to those to come. Diminution of political lib erty is comparable to the silting up of the conduit; free dom is the removal of obstructions to the How of energy. And we are social creatures in another respect. Other people are the most marvelous things in creation; we associate with them for our delight, for our instruction, for our entertainment, for our pleasure. Our minds are kindled by the minds of our friends, and we in turn kindle their minds and the minds of men we do not know. We take heart when others encourage us, and we are depressed by their censure. Even though we are sufficiently individual to go it alone if our conscience demands it, nevertheless it is our nature to want to link arms in fellowship and friendship. There is nothing in mathematics to express the difference between one lonely individual-and two persons yoked together by a com[224 ] mon loyalty. G. K. Chesterton has expressed this point well. Writing of one of his characters he said, "Through all his ordeal his root horror had been isolation, and there are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathemati cians that four·is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one."

The picture is not complete, however, if we mention only the private and the social aspects of personality. Each of us has an antisocial streak which most of us can curb most of the time. The devilish thing is that some expressions of our antisocial nature have always enjoyed social approval and still do! One facet of our antisocial nature is our urge to gain a politically privileged position for ourselves at the expense of others, and then to cloa~ this in impressive legal forms and bolster it with religion, custom, and tradition. There is a tendency in each of us to economize our energy, to satisfy our needs and desires with a minimum of effort. This means, all too often, that we satisfy our needs and desires as parasites on the rest of society. So strong is this tendency that it corrupts and perverts .. even our noblest ideals. We embrace the idea of freedom, .and twist it to mean the freedom of some to exploit others. We give lip service to the idea of equality, and act as if some men were more equal than others. We speak favorably of justice, and then write injustice into law. We embrace a religion which says that no man·is beyond the reach of God's love and power,· and then institutionalize it to prove that we [225 ] are close enough to God so that we can play God for those who are further away.

This may seem like a sermon far removed from a con sideration of the nature of the mechanism of government. But as Irving Babbitt has pointed out, "The political problem (will run) into the philosophical problem, and the philosophical problem itself (will) be almost indissol ubly bound up at last with the religious problem." We have to come to some understanding of what man is before we can grapple with the question of the place the political agency, government, should occupy in his affairs. We are social; we are members one of another. If this be so, it follows that we don't have to be coerced into being social. A: I can follow you there; we don't have to be forced to be what we are anyway. A Collectivistic Premise B: But a short while back you were advocating that gov ernment be used in a positive way to accomplish social goals. This rests upon a premise that man is not social, that he would not accomplish social goals without the coercive interventions of government to force him through his paces. In fact, the premise of every variety of collectivism, whether it be socialism, communism, weHare statism, or the Social Gospel, is that man's nature deters him from social performance unless violence or the threat of violence, cloaked in legality, be used on him.

[226 ] The premise is that man is asocial or even antisocial, and that he must be nagged and dragooned into acting socially. I would concede that freedom won't usher in utopia, because man's social achievements are limited by his nature. He is a sinner, and he is always tempted to deny his :6.nitenessin the effort to rule over the lives of other people .. But, I might ask, if we are members one of another, how can some members arrogate to themselves the prerogative of riding herd on other members? A: For the moment, at least, until I have time to think up some arguments I can see some defects in the idea that government is the proper agency to use for the accom plishment of social ends. But what, then, is the proper role of government? B: If men are naturally social as well as individual, their ingenuity and creative energies will lead them into forms of association where they hope to find joy and fulfillment -as well as into those associations which enable them to satisfy their creaturely needs, peaceably, by the smallest expenditure of energy. Government is the social apparatus of coercion. It is basically the agency to which we pro visionally grant the right to use coercion on members of society under specified conditions.

A Place for Coercion A: If by coercion you mean actual physical violence or the threat of violence, do you admit the need of a social agency with the right to use coercion? [227 ] B: The answer is yes to both questions. Because all or nearly all persons have an antisocial streak which in some people issues in overt antisocial behavior, such as murder, theft, fraud, and defamation, we need an agency to cope with this aspect of human nature. We have seen that we cannot make men social by force; they are social by na ture. But where the antisocial side of man breaks out in actual violence directed by one member of society against another, then we need a social agency possessed of enough force to neutralize or cancel out the private violence. This agency, performing its proper functions, acts as a curb to frustrate antisocial, aggressive, invasive, crim inal acts. It restrains the aggressor by force, if other means do not avail; and it gives redress to the victims of aggression.

A.: As ,I get the picture, individuals will take care of their personal and social needs by themselves or together and the government will keep hands off entirely. The need for the agency of government rests upon the fact that there is an antisocial side to human nature. Govern ment functions within its proper sphere by curbing anti social behavior. Do 1 follow your thought? B: Correct! That is what is meant by limited government. I might add that curbing antisocial behavior is likely to be a full-time job for a good many generations to come, and that it is an exceedingly complex job. It is not always easy to tell who is the aggressor and who the innocent victim, but experience has deposited a great body of law to render assistance at this point. [228 ] A: Then limited government is designed to defend the individual, and otherwise let him alone. B: Correct again! I would have you note that the concept of limited government rests upon the premise that the individual, every individual, is worth defending. It is a secondary concept, derived from the primary religious concept of the dignity of the person. The concept of the worth of persons is, at least for us in the West, a heritage of Christianity, stemming from the teaching of Jesus. To reinforce the general understanding about Jesus and true individualism, let me quote from the latest book of one of the greatest contemporary Christian scholars, Kenneth Scott LaTourette, "Although Jesus had much to say of the kingdom of God, and ·in that must have meant, if not a visible social structure, at least the relations of men to one another, he was deeply and primarily interested in individuals and saw society, customs, and institutions only as they affected individuals .... He declared that he had 'come to seek and to save that which was lost/ and by that he meant individuals."

[229 ] WHAT CAN I DO? "WHAT can I as an individual do to stop this mad rush toward compulsory collectivism in America today?" Few questions are as challenging as yours, and here's my attempt at an answer. Fortunately for the cause of freedom, it is only as an individual that you or I can do anything at all. This is true because every good idea-as well as every bad idea begins with one person. He in turn convinces another person. Soon there are several persons who have accepted this idea as advanced by one individual person. This is the voluntary way of accomplishing a desired objective. This is the only method that is in accord with freedom. Unfortunately, it quite frequently happens that individual persons who have voluntarily accepted an idea then band themselves together to force-by vote or otherwise-their idea upon other persons. This, of course, is directly opposed to freedom. It is force and compulsion. This is the method used by those who desire to make other per sons do as they think C'best for them" or c'for their own good." This concept is contained in the much used phrases, "There ought to be a law to make people do this"

and C'Every American should be forced to read this." [230 ] Force cannot be used in the interests of freedom except for self-defense and rebellion against slavery. This holds true whether the force is applied by a majority or a minority. It holds true whether the force is applied by a robber with a pistol or by a representative of the majority of the people who have voted to force other persons to do what the majority considers "best for them.:>l' The theory now held in this country that the votes of the majority automatically insure freedom is incorrect. It is now leading us to our own destruction. Might has never made right. It never will. This is not to deny that a republic or representative democracy is the most desirable form of government we have yet discovered. It is not to deny that freedom is safer in the hands of the many than in the hands of the few. But it is to deny that freedom is automatically safe just because the franchise has become widespread in Amer ica; just because we call ourselves "a democracy.'l' It requires more than a vote to preserve liberty; it requires understanding on the part of the voters; it requires the knowledge that all governmental decrees and actions must be grounded on moral and natural law if they are to benefit the people.

Voting Against Freedom And that is where you as an individualenter the pic ture. Without in any respect repudiating democracy and the right of universal franchise, all voters must under stand that what becomes law is far more vital to freedom [231 ] than the method used to secure its passage. Blinded by the erroneous belief that freedom is automatically guaran teed by the right to vote, we are now rapidly voting ourselves into abject dependence upon government con trol of our affairs. We are repudiating the responsibility that is freedom. Weare adopting a "something for noth ing" philosophy. If you would best serve the cause of freedom, you must explain this concept to all who will listen. If you as an individual neglect to do this, how else can it be done? I cannot do it because I do not know your family, your business associates, your fellow churchmen, your lodge brothers, your friends. They will listen to you-not to me.

Now you may say: CCBut all my associates and friends already agree with me. They are already on our side!" It is true that most of your associates and friends may pay lip service to the principle of private ownership of the means of production. They may say that they are opposed to c"specialprivileges" for anyone-but are they? How many of them are opposed to government's entry into the business of producing and selling electricity? How many of them understand the danger to personal freedom found in compulsory, government-guaranteed ""security"? Who is the logical person to explain it to them-you or I? Are all of your friends and associates opposed to gov ernment-decreed, compulsory unionism? How about our government's support of socialism in Europe? Do your associates understand that tariffs cause higher prices by [232 ] protecting less efficient producers? What about the other violations of freedom such as rent control, progressive taxation, the decreasing of the value of our money by government decree and by. deficit financing, price sup ports, and a host of others? These are vital issues. Can you explain them convincingly to your friends and asso ciates?

What can you as a lone individual do? First you can train yourself to explain instead of, like most of us, only to sputter on behalf of liberty. We here at the Founda tion for Economic Education can be of help in that respect. In many cases, we spend a thousand technically skilled hours to prepare a study that you or any other interested person can read and understand in ·less than an hour. Our sole purpose is to furnish this information to any person who will use it. Our work is ineffective unless individual persons read it, understand it, and explain it to other individual persons. Now it may be that you-like me-do not know the answers to all these questions. If that is true, I suggest that you and I learn them. Literally, we must learn free dom. We as individuals must· understand the philosophy of freedom so well that we can explain it convincingly and persuasively. Above all, as individuals we must begin this job with other individuals. Don~t expect to change the course of the nation overnight. Begin with just one person. Con vince him or her that personal responsibility for one's own welfare is more desirable than government-guaran teed "security." Convince him that freedom will work if [233 ] \ve will only trust in it. If this one person becomes con vinced through understanding, he or she will in turn convince another person. And so on. In short, if you yourself understand and are able to explain the fallacies of compulsory, government collectivism-and the alterna tive advantages of voluntary cooperation-many persons will seek your opinion and advice .. Only then will you become truly eHective.

Slow? Yes! But it is the only way. Any short cut must necessarily involve compulsion. That would defeat your own purpose! Education is indeed a slow process. That is because it must be voluntary. The person must want to know. He cannot learn until first he has a desire to learn. Thus your task as one individual person is indeed a hard one and a vital one. First you yourself must be able to explain your philosophy convincingly. Then you must be most tactful in approaching the other person. While it is not dangerous to be honest, one should not become cantankerous with his honesty. Don~t argue; ex plain. Don~t call names; you will only antagonize. Since freedom is the world's finest product, there is no reason why a skilled salesman can't sell it to several of his friends and associates. Suppose that a million "individ ual persons" did that? The battle for freedom would soon be won. The voters would then automatically reject all socialistic candidates and proposals, by peaceful and voluntary means.

I hope that this purely personal answer may be of some aid or encouragement to you. And, finally, good luck! [234 ] THE CURSE OF SOMETHING FOR NOTHING A BANK president has implicit faith in the integrity of his cashier. The cashier suddenly absconds with fifty thousand dollars of the bank's funds. A man hurries through a New Year's throng in Times Square. He reaches for his purse. It is gone; picked by some one in the crowd. The vacationing members of a family return to their home in the city. It has been ransacked. Valuable possessions are missing. Two armored-car guards are shot down in a bank entrance without warning. Two other men with smoking guns grab the fallen pouches of currency and disappear. IF YOU are a regular reader of newspapers, the events brieRy described above should have a familiar ring. Per haps, at one time or another, you may have wondered how it happens that an able-bodied adult gets himself to the point where he will commit such crimes.