Talking to Ourselves; H. G. Weaver

So runs the argument whenever some useful enlight ened statement is distributed among persons who favor individual freedom within a voluntary society and a free market economy. But when you stop and think about it, isn't the idea of educating the so-called masses a case of putting the cart before the horse? We are too much inclined to attempt the impossible. Little if any thought is given to the one thing that we can effectively accomplish, namely,. how to improve our selves and our own thinking as individuals. The idea that we are not all-wise seldom seems to occur to us. It is true, of course, that many of us are wise in our own narrow and highly specialized fields. But it does not necessarily follow that we are wise in the broad aspects of the economic system in which we practice our profes sions and operate our enterprises. When you come right down to it, the very idea of [ 171] "educating the masses:>:> is inconsistent with the ideals of individual freedom to which we give lip service. Just who are "the masses:>:>? Can the term be more appropri ately applied to others than to ourselves?

We are all individuals differing in qualities and abil ities, but we all share a basic human nature capable of self-development. If this is not true, then the ideal of personal freedom is a fanciful myth. But the ideal of freedom is not a fanciful myth. It is thoroughly attainable in a practical way. And it will be more readily attainable if we quit regarding those we wish to convert as either masses or classes, and recognize the individual person as the fountainhead of good, of energy, of all that is creative. Free competitive enterprise is something we have loudly acclaimed. We have praised it, however, not so much because we have understood it, or even because we have wanted to practice it, but more because it has seemed to be the opposite of dreaded socialism. But many of us who are not socialists unwittingly play into the hands of the socialists. Only now and then, among all of us in America, do we find a skilled advocate of free competitive enterprise.

Most of us are left speechless in a debate with a socialist, a radical labor leader, or any other ardent collectivist. We sputter, but we do not explain. We lose our argu ments, and in the process we provide the opposition with a sounding board. We cannot speak our subject well. Nor do we practice it any too well. And to be honest about it, we ourselves [172 ] have inspired about as many anti-enterprise institutions as have our political opponents. Not only is confession justified and good for our souls, but the meekness that it inspires will make us more willing to learn. For we can learn free competitive enter prise just as we have learned our individual trades and professions. We can master the principles of freedom better than our opponents have learned the jargon of their systems, for the very simple reason that the prin ciples of freedom are superior to anything that the collec tivists are able to offer.

One understanding man summed it up this way: "I'm not smart enough to run the personal affairs of the great masses of people. I've got enough to do just trying to improve myself as an individual citizen. 4:4:lf 1 work hard enough and long enough at that one job, then the time may come when two or three, orJour or five, or maybe even eight or ten persons may volun tarily seek my counsel. Then and only then can it be truly said that 1 have earned a worth-while influence." [173 ] ROOTS OF ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING THE GAME of economics in the United States is something like a ball game where the home team fails to score. The record shows a lack of economic understanding. Despite the abundance of material splendor parading before us in the show of ostentatious consumption, we seem to be losing most of our games in terms of economic principles. The human weakness for watching false economic scoreboards reminds me of an astute observation by a man who was reviewing the state of affairs in the nation he governed. He said to a subordinate: It gives us also a special, secret pleasure to see how the people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficial ities, such as possessions and income and rank and other out worn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories?