On Talking to Ourselves; E. A. Opitz

ON TALKING TO OURSELVES tv GJmunJA. Opitz The REVEREND MR. OPITZ of the Foundation staff replies to a FREEMAN reader's observa tion that "we are talking to ourselves when we ought to be addressing the world." Dear Mr : Perhaps you have had the experience of expressing your concern over the mounting national debt and be ing reassured, "There's nothing to worry about; we owe it to ourselves." Most people now see through this bit of semantic sleight of hand. "We" who owe the debt are one set of people. The "ourselves" to whom the debt is owed are with possibly some overlapping-a different set of people. Similarly, welfare staters try to brush off objections to collectivist political interventions by telling the crit ics, "This is majority rule at work; we are doing it to ourselves." But, obviously, the "we" who are doing it are not the "ourselves" to whom it is being done! Some Americans are doing certain things to other Americans, and our question concerns the rightness of those Hcertain things." When one of our citizens assaults another citi zen, people don't dismiss the incident by saying, "We 142 ON TALKING TO OURSELVES 143 are doing it to ourselves"; they pass judgment on the act. When "our" group does something to another group, all of us know that "we" are the first set of people and we never think of the second set as "ourselves," but as the others.

Such distinctions as these are clear to many people, but move the discussion over into the area of libertarian concern-the collectivist trend and how to roll it back and the distinctions begin to blur. Libertarians rely on the written and the spoken word as their main tools. The high quality of some of this work is widely ac knowledged, but collectivists, nevertheless, continue on their way unheeding. Why? Because, it is alleged, we libertarians are talking to ourselves when we ought to be addressing the world, no less! This seems to be your feeling. You "heartily applaud" our program, you write, and are interested in what our "capable writers have to say." This encourages me to deal with the one critical matter you raise, the point about "talking to ourselves." "I am afraid," you write, "that there is a good bit of talking to ourselves going on in this field.... " Let's face it: we are) in a sense, "talking to ourselves"!

But is this fact surprising or in any way deplorable? No! Not if it be understood that "ourselves," in this context, refers to all the persons sufficiently interested in liberty to concern themselves with its future. Obviously, we cannot force people to read THE FREEM.j'\N or any other libertarian literature, nor would we d<l> so even if we had the power. Nor can we -force anyo~e to participate 144 EDMUND A. OPITZ in one of our seminars or· be part of the various audi ences we address. Such people as do open their pores to the several efforts of this Foundation are self-selected; they come within our orbit because they feel that we have something to contribute to their determination to understand liberty better-its economic and political im plications as well as its spiritual and moral postulates. Our material goes out each month to a mailing list numbering upwards of forty thousand. True, we have a number of readers who are hostile to our point of view but who read us just to see "how the other half lives."

This is all right; we read Marxian and collectivist liter ature for the same reason. And every so often one of these persons gets a better focus· on our philosophy and moves in our direction. I don't know how many readers we can claim for each copy of THE FREEMAN, probably several; but let's keep the figure at a minimum. Let's say that "ourselves" in this context refers to only forty thousand persons; forty thousand persons trying to bet ter their own grasp of the philosophy of liberty. I am far from asserting that we are doing a good job at this thing; our inadequacy in the face of what needs doing is obvious. But the better· job, if and when it is done, will be done in the same way, by "talking to ourselves." "We" have to talk to "ourselves" for a simple reason: the "not-ourselves" are not listening! Consider this problem as it is exhibited on the church scene. Church people, by and large, exhibit standards of probity somewhat higher than the standards which obtain in the society at large. One might say, therefore, ON TALKING TO OURSELVES 145 that churchmen do not need the min'istrations of the pulpit as badly as do those who never! become part of a Sunday morning congregation. But in the nature of things a sermon can be delivered only to those who come to hear it; it is the already converted who con tinue to draw upon the inspiration and wisdom each person needs for further growth. Similarly, the people who are already within FEE's orbit are, by and large, the very persons who are already the ablest expositors and practitioners of liberty. It has to be this way.

At the same time, we'd be happy to be reaching forty million a month. We'll approach this figure only as those now in the "not-ourselves" category are attracted in to the circle of the "ourselves." But our work, by its very nature, imposes a demand on the people exposed to it. We don't peddle attractive labels which people can simply pin on themselves; we offer facts, ideas, and argu ments which are merely the raw materials out of which each person must fashion the philosophy and convic tions which become peculiarly his own. This requires time and personal effort, and all we of the Foundation claim is that we can initiate a person into this field. Perhaps we can counsel his first few steps and offer sug gestions for further reading and study; beyond this he must find his own sources of instruction. We know from our own experience, reinforced by the testimony of countless others, that while this effort may be painful at times, it is genuinely rewarding.

To your observation that we are "talking to ourselves" you add that "not enough of us are listening." There 146 EDMUND A. OPITZ you have a point! Liberty in this country has lost ground, in large measure, because so many people think they already understand all that needs to be known about itl "We sound thinkers," they say in effect, "know all the answers; all we have to do is wrap them up in a pleasing bundle and sell this package to the masses." Well, the person who thinks he has all the answers is really one who has never asked all the questions! Every one of us is, to some degree and in most subjects, part of "the ignorant masses"! This means that ours is really an educational task, not a selling job; and the educa tion should begin with the only person over whom we have control-one's self. Thus, the improvement of self has been one of FEE's major emphases. If a person has properly tended to this first order of business, he will stimulate questions in others and be come a source of learning upon which others will draw.

And as· he formulates and candidly gives off his best insights, his own understanding grows. But, if he thinks he has all the answers and tries to peddle them to peo ple who are not asking the questions, he makes a nui sance of himself, does little for the cause of liberty, and may eventually quit the cause in utter discouragement. There is a handful of us here at FEE working full time, according to our lights, on behalf of liberty. There are several other organizations motivated by a similar philosophy. We are joined by a number of clergymen and teachers and writers who understand liberty and work for it in their own baliwicks. But add us all to gether and our numbers are insignificant compared to ON TALKING TO OURSELVES 147 the team the other side can put into the field. Start with the Communist and Socialist parties, add the theorists of the monopoly unions, the lobbyists of private organ izations pressing for this or that bit of collectivization, the left-wing professors and preachers, segments of the Republican and Democratic parties, the numerous pres sure groups who want government intervention in order to help their particular enterprises, and it must be ad mitted that we face a formidable array. The odds would be much too great, except for the fact that we can count on having our team filled out by volunteers.

The philosophy of freedom aims at personal growth by removing the obstructions which stand in the way of creative release and direction of individual human en ergy. This means that the persons most accomplished in the actual daily practice of freedom are largely the busy and successful persons on whom all of us depend to get the work of the world done, in business and in the professions. These people are.· practitioners of lib erty. I have reference to the creative efforts of the free mind as it produces a better medicine, a more efficient tool, a safer tire, a sounder philosophy, a lovelier poem or song, a more useful gadget, a more apt technique of management. These are the beneficial fruits of free men at work, available to each one of us. But in the same sense in which today's technologist or merchandiser is a projection of yesterday's researcher in pure science, we must acknowledge that everyone of us who today reaps the many fruits of a free society is in debt to those who have worked and continue to work 148 EDMUND A. OPITZ at the philosophy of liberty. Each one of us, of course, has priorities on his time, and it is up to each person to allocate his own time according to his convictions. But unless the practitioners of liberty at the level of goods and services become students of the subject as well, the freedom team is in a bad way. Unless a significant num ber of people can become as skilled in the exposition of libertarian concepts as they are in the practice of free dom principles, the free society will go on steadily contracting. The only way to push back these boundaries is to continue Htalking to ourselves" -but not necessarily in the same old way_ Liberty, it has been said, depends on eloquence, and eloquence is effective communication.

Men want freedom as much as they ever did, but not many have learned to voice their aspirations effectively in a modern idiom. The literature of liberty is mostly Hpast tense"; our job is to make it contemporary so that it meets the modern mind at its growing edge. When that is accomplished,we'll still be "talking to ourselves" -but the world may pause to listen in. Sincerely, EDMUND A. OPITZ OUR TRAGIC ST A TE OF CONFUSION: A DIAGNOSIS tv William e. mullenJore FOR THE PAST three decades, as an executive of a large utility, a private citizen, and an active participant in the discussion of many of the issues and trends in American life, I have "viewed with alarm," because I have been convinced that we have been on the wrong road-a road that will lead to a disaster-and my concern has increased each year, particularly in the "era of pros perity" since 1946. During this time I have repeatedly warned stockholders of the company of which I was president, and all others who would listen, that this is a period not of prosperity and progress, but of liquida tion of our free institutions and real assets-a period of retrogression in American life.