Sacred Cows and Bruised Shins; F. A. Harper

[269 ] formal statement, including several minutes for the chairman~s eloquent introduction. At the end there will be five minutes for questions and answers. His audience seems spellbound by the .speech. He may mistake as admiration a reaction which is, in fact, nothing but just plain wonderment; it is as though they were watching some strange animal. Most of the audience will surely miss his point completely, never having studied seriously the underlying concepts of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the works of persons such as Locke and Paine and Lord Acton. So why shouldn~t these. libertarian ideas amaze them? No Time for Explanation Then comes the five-minute question period when the speaker is to stand trial. A freshman libertarian is likely to perform in the manner of the proverbial Irishman who, with his bare hands, tangled with the bull in the pasture lot. At the funeral, a friend was heard to observe that he had exhibited more courage than judgment.

The parade of socialist sacred cows begins: "You mean you are opposed to ---? Why?" One by one, these sacred cows are turned loose in the arena as though they were prima facie evidence of his guilt. ceI must defend myself as one accused," he thinks, cCand answer any question thrown at me. It would be cowardly to fail to give my opinion on every issue presented in the time available." But there is time for him to give nothing except bare [270 ] conclusions which he throws back at his questioners conclusions shamefully unclothed in any supporting evi dence and reasoning. There just isn't time for anything more. So the herd of sacred cows all survive the fray quite unblemished, whereas the poor speaker emerges deeply bowed and with badly bruised shins. Why? The mistake of this courageous libertarian was to sub mit to trial in such a courtroom where his views on any subject could be judged in the absence of any oppor tunity for a complete hearing. With a jury overwhelm ingly of the view that he is guilty, he has no chance of acquittal unless it is to be a hearing where there will be ample time for him to present evidence in his own de fense-defense of the beliefs he holds, that is.

Judgment after the Facts A perfectly proper and safer approach is suggested by our traditional legal processes. When a case comes up for hearing before the judiciary, it is accepted as simple justice that the accused shall be allowed a full hearing. All facts may be presented without any arbitrary time limit, as a matter of justice. Only then, after all the facts have been brought out, is a judgment presumed to be in order. Imagine, for example, being accused of a crime while at the same time you are allowed only a specified num ber of minutes during which to present the case for your own defense. Imagine being subjected to a trial where [271 ] your guilt or innocence will depend on how much evi dence you can present in the few minutes before the judge has to leave in order to make his golf appointment at 1:10. About all you would have time to do at such a trial would be to reassert your innocence-an approach hardly convincing to anyone already presuming your guilt.

Trying to answer an involved question about some socialist panacea in one or two minutes is hopeless and unfair by the test of intellectual justice, for the same rea son. Unless ample time is available and willingly offered by those who will be judging your case, it is probably better not to enter that particular courtroom at all; it would be better to refuse to accept its jurisdiction. In other words~ it would be better to refrain from offering your views on all these questions at that time and place. The wise libertarian is one who uses his time to the best advantage, who employs whatever honest strategy will best defend the concepts he holds dear. To do that is not cowardice. Why suffer bruised shins battling the keepers of the sacred cows in an arena of injustice and disadvantage while so many fertile fields for libertarian talent remain untilled? [272 ] POPULAR CAUSES AND UNPOPULAR EFFECTS THERE is an old story about a perennially reelected legislator who attributed his lifelong political success to the fact that he had never voted for a tax bill or against an appropriation bill. He had grasped the elementary fact that people dislike paying taxes but like to receive handouts. They enjoy getting something for nothing, in other words, and tend to vote for candidates who promise them opportunities to do so.