On Being Practical; L.E. Read

ON BEING PRACTICAL t';} oCeonarJ G. Read 't\THEN an engineer aims at being practical, he seeks con sistency with sound principles so that his structures will endure. But when politicians or businessmen plead, "Let's be practical," they are suggesting some sort of a "middle way"-that sound principles be tossed overboard. They are thinking only of the moment with a disregard for the basic rules of the social structure in which they operate. (Perhaps this explains why the pyramids have outlasted so many societal designs!) All of us at FEE try to be intensely practical at our self-assigned chore of free market, private property, lim ited government education. Yet, because "being prac tical" is so often associated with momentary expediency as distinguished from adherence to sound principle, we constantly run the risk of appearing impractical-even esoteric or mystical-when we argue for and explain our idea of what is practical in educational endeavors.

The above is but a preface to my own belief that most of the "practical" schemes for reforming the masses are utterly impractical, and my acknowledgment that our concept of the practical will appear to many persons as mere fine-spun theory. 336 ON BEING PRACTICAL 337 Libertarianism-a label we use to identify the free way of life-is an ideal; it is not dogma. It hasn't a single rule that even suggests how any individual shall act creatively. On the contrary, libertarianism stands only for the un obstructed release of the creative human spirit, regard less of the form this may take. The creative spirit, as it manifests itself through individuals, cannot, prior to its manifestation, be predicted or imagined-let alone dog matized. Who can make dogma out of what yet is to be discovered, thought of, invented, produced, exchanged? Aspiring libertarians, however, unless they are cau tious, can easily become cult ish and doctrinaire. Some become intellectual authoritarians and regard all in dividuals to be in error who do not precisely share their views. Many become reformers and attempt to shape others in their own fallible images.

Few persons can sustain a pure libertarian position without constant self-scrutiny. For once a person is aware of freedom's significance-creative energy release-his im patience with those who remain unaware becomes diffi cult to subdue. The urge to force everyone else up to one's own level of "enlightenment" is strong, indeed. The question that has to be scrutinized is: "What can I really do about those who remain unaware?" The an swer to which both reason and carefully observed experi ence drive one is extremely humbling. Many persons-good friends and intelligent, too-are blissfully unconscious of freedom except as some abstruse subject that classifies as academic trivia. What can be done to open the eyes of those who will not see? Let's 338 LEONARD E. READ face what at first blush appears to be a discouraging fact: Nothing can be done with them-until they themselves ask! Too many of us make the error of trying to pry open these minds which are oblivious to freedom and its mean ing. Impatiently we pry with our cajolery, disparage ments, cantankerousness, harangues-all of which repel the very inquiry on which the awakening depends.

What we can do to cause these "sleepers" to ask is both different and less than most of us think. The limi tations of our own powers in this respect can be estimated by reflecting on those rare and high qualities in others which cause us to seek enlightenment from them-par ticularly in the realm of abstract thought. A spirit of inquiry is not too difficult to evoke in sensi ble matters, that is in areas dealing with things which can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted. Any number of per sons will drink at the fountain of personal excellence in golf, music, cookery, mechanics, art, science, and the like. But move into areas of the suprasensible-into an investi gation of those realities which lie beyond the purview of the five senses-and the difficulty of stimulating inquiry increases enormously. This, I suspect, is a good trait. Skepticism or disinterest here is man's innate protection against a level of ideas that is characterized more by con fusion than precision. Nature has endowed most men with a built-in reluctance to venture too far into the abstract so that they may "keep their feet on the ground."

This protective device should not, however, blind us to the possibility that the most important realties of life ON BEING PRACTICAL 339 are to be discovered over and beyond anything the five senses can reveal. Nor does it relieve us of exploring, understanding, and explaining them. This obstacle only announces that the task is difficult. As related to freedom -a subject clearly in the suprasensible area-this obstacle suggests that nothing short of one's very best effort will open dormant minds to freedom's significance. How few there are who can say "Yes" to the question, "Am I doing my best in understanding and explaining freedom?" Nearly every honest person will openly con fess to not even half trying. This apathy explains, more than anything else, why freedom is losing ground in our country. There is an unbelievable power of attraction in doing one's best-I.Q. is a secondary matter. Instinctively, most of us make light of, or even regard as "phoney," the counsel of those who have only half tried to master any subject. And the higher the I.Q. the more likely are we to pronounce such an unfavorable judgment. Within my personal acquaintance are many individuals-brilliant when compared to most of us-who profess an interest in freedom but regard the matter casually. They appear to be ineffective workers in the freedom vineyard. On the other hand, I know of some who are not brilliant but who are serving freedom's cause to the limit of their ca pacity. Their successes border on the miraculous. It's the dedication that counts! The dimmest glow in the dark ness makes a bright and attractive light.

If doing one's best is the key to attractive influence, then those of us who would widen an understanding of 340 LEONARD E. READ freedom and its significance need only discover the method for doing our best. When put in these terms, the secret is self-revealing. It is as simple as the answer to the ques tion-How do I learn more than I now know? I turn to those who know more than I do. In what direction should the eye be cast? Toward those whom we think so sorely need our teaching? Or toward those whose teaching we so sorely need? FEE receives many inquiries about organizing seminars and study groups. A suggested reply comes from the Mid dle Ages. According to legend there were gangs of stu dents who went in search of teachers-good teachers being exceedingly scarce-and upon finding one worthy of that title they would "shanghai" the learned one and keep him captive in order to gain undertsanding. These medieval seminars or study groups were of sound design, with eyes cast in the right direction, as right today as then. Merely substitute a gentle invitation for the rough and tumble of shanghaiing, and there's the pattern and our answer to these inquiries.

Reverse the above procedure. Imagine a gang of self designated "teachers" shanghaiing "students" in order that the "ignorant ones" might be blessed with their wisdom. The folly of this is obvious. But such is the "practical" way now in vogue. This is the way of the reformer. Should we not work with those whose minds have been opened to the meaning of freedom, and first of all, with those whose minds are ahead of our own? We can, quite properly, disregard the "sleepers." Paradoxically: To disON BEING PRACTICAL 341 regard the unaware in the interest of our own perfection is the only means we have of influencing them to come awake. N ow, what fault will be ascribed to this line of reason ing? None except, "It isn't practical. It won't work. The 'sleepers' will not ask." True, most will not ask nor is it important that they do. A few will. To deny this is to say that no one will draw on sources of understanding that exist and, by implication, to suggest that persons can be attracted to sources that do not exist. No more is re quired to correct this erroneous conclusion than to test the policy of "doing one's best" by giving it a fair trial.

Let us model our efforts after the hardheaded prac ticality of the engineer who constantly refers to funda mental principles. It follows then that the task of spread ing an understanding of freedom or of moving toward the libertarian 1deal-the only antidote to political au thoritarianism-is a project in learning~ not selling.