The Literature of Freedom; H. Hazlitt

Such a compilation seemed to me to be increasingly urgent because so few writers and speakers on public questions today reveal any idea of the wealth, depth, and breadth of the literature of freedom. What threatens us today is not merely the outright totalitarian philosophies of fascism and communism, but the increasing drift of Mr. Hazlitt, author of Economics in One Lesson and other liber tarian works, is a contributing editor of Newsweek. This article is from the introduction to his book, The Free Man's Library (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. $3.50. Also available through the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on Hudson, N. Y.) This descriptive listing of more than 540 outstand ing contributions to the literature of freedom begins with the early seventeenth century and carries through to our own time. [ 9] thought in the totalitarian direction. Many people today who complacently think of themselves as "middle-of-the roaders" have no conception of the extent to which they have already taken over statist, socialist, and collectivist assumptions-assumptions which, if logically followed out, must inevitably carry us further and further down the totalitarian road.

One of the crowning ironies of the present era is that it is precisely the people who flatteringly refer to· them selves as "liberals" who have forgotten or repudiated the essence of the true liberal tradition. The typical butts of their ridicule are such writers as Adam Smith, Bastiat, Cobden ("the Manchester SchooI'll), and Herbert Spencer. Whatever errors any of these writers may have been guilty of individually, they were among the chief architects of true liberalism. Yet our modern "progres sivesll' now refer to this whole philosophy contemptuously as laissez taite. Lack of Consistency Many of todaylls writers who are most eloquent in their arguments for liberty in fact preach philosophies that would destroy it. It seems to be typical of the books of our intelligentsia to praise one kind of liberty incessantly while disparaging or ridiculing another kind. The liberty that they so rightly praise is the liberty of thought and expression. But the liberty that they so foolishly denounce is economic liberty.

Unfortunately the authors who have fallen into this [10 ] practice include some of the nnest minds of our genera tion. (I think particularly of Bertrand Russell and the late Morris Cohen.) Such writers seem to me to be at least in part reflecting an occupational bias. Being writers and thinkers, they are acutely aware of the importance of liberty of writing and thinking. But they seem to attach scant value to economic liberty because they think of it not as applying to themselves but to businessmen. Such a judgment may be uncharitable; but it is cer tainly fair to say that they misprize economic liberty· be cause, in spite of their brilliance in some directions, they lack the knowledge or understanding to recognize that when economic liberties are abridged or destroyed, all other liberties are abridged or destroyed with them. O:O:Power over a man?s subsistence/? as Alexander Hamil ton reminded us, O:O:is power over his will." And if we wish a more modem authority, we can quote no less a one than Leon Trotsky, the colleague of Lenin, who in 1937, in a moment of candor, pointed out clearly that: O:O:In a country where the sale employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation: The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

Changing Historical Patterns Liberty is a whole, and to deny economic liberty is finally to destroy all liberty. Socialism is irreconcilable with freedom. This is the lesson that most of our modern philosophers and litterateurs have yet to learn. [ 11 ] I-Iistorically, the liberals fought against governmental tyranny; against governmental abridgment of freedom of speech and action; against governmental restrictions on agriculture, manufacture, and trade; against constant detailed governmental regulation, interference, and the harassment at a hundred points; against (to use the phrases of the Declaration of Independence)· "a multi tude of new offices" and "swarms of officers"; against con centration of governmental power, particularly in the person of one man; against government by whim and favoritism. Historic liberalism called, on the other hand, for the Rule of Law and for equality before the law.

The older conservatives opposed many or most of these liberal demands because they believed in existing govern mental interferences and sweeping governmental powers; or because they wished to retain their own special privi leges and prerogatives; or simply because they were tempermentally fearful of altering the status quo, what ever it happened to be. Old Words with New Meanings Those who flatteringly call themselves cCliberals"today, and to whom confused opponents allow or even assign the name, are for nearly everything that the old liberals opposed. Most self-styled present-day c'liberals," par ticularly in America, are urging the constant extension of governmental power, of governmental intervention, of governmental "planning." They constantly press for a greater concentration of governmental power, whether in [ 12] the central government at the expense of the states and localities or in the hands of a one-man executive at the expense of any check, limitation, or even investigation by a legislature. And they look with favor on an ever-grow ing bureaucracy and on the spread of bureaucratic dis cretion at the expense of a Rule of Law.

Those who oppose this trend toward a new despotism, on the other hand, and plead for the preservation of the ancient freedoms of the individual, are today's conserva tives. The intelligent conservative, in brief, is today the true defender of liberty. This conclusion should not seem too paradoxical. It was always possible to reconcile intelligent conservatism with real liberalism. There is no conflict between wishing to conserve and hold the precious gains that have been achieved in the past, which is the aim of the true con servative, and wishing to carry those achievements even further , which is the aim of the true liberal. [18 ] WHY PAY FOR THINGS? tg :J.. -4. JJarper "WHY do we have to pay for things?" asked a five-year old boy at dinner one evening. Probably his question was prompted by the suffering of privation endured by all small boys, with their many wants to be served by few pennies. If unrestrained by either force or understanding, this condition can easily lead to theft.