Violence As A Way of Life; L.E. Read

VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE BROADLY SPEAKING, there are two opposing philosophies of human relationships. One commends that these rela· tionships be in accord with the principles of love. The other commends that they be in accord with the princi. pIes of violence. 1 The principles of love in society lead to willing ex· change in the market place-the economics of reciprocity and the Golden Rule. No special privilege is counte· nanced. All men are equal before the law, as before God. The life and the livelihood of a minority of one enjoys the same respect as the lives and the livelihoods of rna· jorities, for such rights are conceived to be endowed by the Creator. Everyone is completely free to act creatively as his abilities and ambitions permit; no restraint in this respect-none, whatsoever. Abandon the ideal of love and the only alternative is to embrace violence in principle, with robbery and mur· der as its ultimate expressions. Plunder, spoliation, spe· 1 The use of "love" as the anti thesis of "violence" is suggested by Leo Tolstoy's little book, The Law of Love and The Law of Vio· lence. Published posthumously (1948) by R. Field, New York.

303 304 LEONARD E. READ cial privilege, feathering one's own nest at the expense of others, doing one's own brand of good with the fruits of the labors of others-coercive and destructive schemes of all sorts-all fall within the order of violence. Are we abandoning the ideal of love and drifting into the practice of violence as a way of life? That's the ques tion this paper intends to raise and answer-to answer in the affirmative. But why? William James may have suggested the reason: "Now, there is a striking law over which few people seem to have pondered. It is this: That among all the differences which exist, the only ones that interest us strongly are those we do not take for granted."2 T a/~en for Granted Socialis tic practices are now so ingrained in our think ing' so customary, so much a part of our mores, that we take them for granted. No longer do we ponder them; no longer do we even suspect that they are founded on vio lence. Once a socialistic practice has been Americanized it becomes a member of the family, so to speak, and, as a consequence, is rarely thought of as having any violent or evil taint attached to it. We are, in this state of taken for-grantedness, inclined to think that only other coun tries condone and practice violence-not us!

Who, for instance, ever thinks of TVA as founded on violence? Or social security, federal urban renewal, pub2 See The Will To Believe and Other Essays on Popular Philoso phy (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956), p. 257.

VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 305 lie housing, foreign aid, farm and all other subsidies, the Post Office, rent control, other wage and price con trols, all space projects other than for strictly defensive purposes, compulsory unionism, production controls, tariffs and all other governmental protections against competition? Who ponders the fact that everyone of these aspects of state socialism is an exemplification of violence and that such practices are multiplying rapidly? The word "violence," as here used, is a particular kind of force. Customarily, the word is applied indiscrimi nately to two distinct kinds of force, each as different from the other as day is from night. One is defensive or repellent force. The other is initiated or aggressive force. If someone were to initiate such an action as fiy ing at you with a dagger, that would be an example of aggressive force. It is this kind of force I call violence.

The force you would employ to repel the violence I would call defensive force. Try to think of a single instance where aggressive force-violence-is morally warranted. There is none. Violence is morally insupportable! Defensive force is never an initial action. It comes in to play only secondarily, that is, as the antidote to aggres sive force or violence. Any individual has a moral right to defend his life, the fruits of his labor (that which sustains his life), and his liberty-by demeanor, by per suasion, or with a club if necessary. Defensive force is morally warranted. Moral rights are exclusively the attributes of individ uals. They inhere in no collective, governmental or 306 LEONARD E. READ otherwise. Thus, political officialdom, in sound theory, can have no rights of action which do not pre-exist as rights in the individuals who organize government. To argue contrarily is to construct a theory no more tenable than the Divine Right of Kings. For, if the rights to governmental action do not originate with the organ izers of said government, from where do they come?

As the individual has the moral right to defend his life and property-a right common to all individuals he is within his rights to delegate this right of defense to an organization. We have here the logical prescription for government's limitation. It performs morally when it carries out the individual moral right of defense. As the individual has no moral right to use aggressive force-against another or others-a moral limitation com mon to all individuals-it follows that he cannot delegate that which he does not possess. Thus, his organization government-has no moral right to aggress against an other or others. To do so would be to employ violence. To complete this picture, it is necessary to recognize that man's energies manifest themselves either destruc tively or creatively; we might say violently or produc tively. It is the function of government to inhibit and to penalize the destructive or violent manifestations of hu man energy. It is a malfunction to inhibit, to penalize, to interfere in any way whatsoever with the creative or productive manifestations of human energy. To do so is clearly to aggress, that is, to take violent action.

Now, carefully consider TVA or any of the other so cialistic projects earlier mentioned. You are living peaceVIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 307 ably and off the fruits of your own labor, including any thing which you have acquired from others in willing exchange. You are aggressing against no one; therefore, there is no occasion for anyone's use of defensive force against you, defense being a secondary action against an initiated aggressive action. And, certainly, there is no moral sanction for anyone or any organization to take aggressive action against you. Subsidized Power One more step for clarity's sake: Suppose that some peo ple decide they want their power and light at a price lower than the market rate. To accomplish their pur pose, they forcibly (with guns if necessary) collect the fruits of your peaceable labor in the form of capital to construct the power plant. Then, they annually use force to take your income to defray the deficits of their op eration-deficits incurred by reason of the sub-market rates they charge themselves for the power and light they use. The questions I wish to pose are these: Is any set of persons, regardless of how economically strapped they may be, morally warranted in any such action? Would not this be aggressive action? Would not their project be founded on violence? The answers to these questions are inescapably clear. There is hardly a person but would declare this thievery and criminal.

Very well. Move on to TVA. What distinguishes this from that? Not a thing, except that in the case of TVA the immoral, aggressive, violent action has been legal308 LEONARD E. READ ized. This merely means that the law has been fixed so as to exonerate the "beneficiaries" from penalties com mon to criminal action. There is no altering of the fact that TVA, as well as all instances of state socialism, are founded on violence 1 Most people are inclined to scoff at this idea simply because they have never witnessed any instance of actual violence. They are blinded by the common acquiescence to socialistic pressures, once they are legalized. Everybody goes along, so what! Before going further, isn't it enough to give any con scionable citizen pause for reflection when he awakens to the fact that the people of his country are abandoning the ideal of love and drifting into the practice of vio lence as a way of life? The fact that this catastrophic change is taking place without many persons being aware of it is all the more reason to sound the alarm.

Absolute Refusal To Pay It is easy to demonstrate that all state socialism, of which TVA is an instance, is founded on violence. Take the farm subsidy program, for example. Let us say that your share of the burden of this socialistic hocus-pocus is $50. Should you absolutely refuse. to pay it, assuming you had $50 in assets, you would be killed-legally, of course-here in the United States of America in the year of Our Lord, 19621 If that isn't resting the subsidy pro gram on violence, then, pray tell, what is violence? Here's how to get yourself killed: When you get your VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 309 bill from the Internal Revenue Service, remit the amount minus $50 with these words of explanation: "1 do not believe that citizens should be compelled to pay farmers for not producing. I do not believe in the farm sub sidy program. My share of the cost is $50, which I have de ducted. Do not try to collect for I absolutely refuse to pay for same,"

The IRS will quickly inform you that this is a matter in which freedom of choice does not exist and will de mand that you remit the $50. You respond by merely referring the IRS to your original letter, calling attention to your use of the word ((absolutely." When the IRS becomes convinced that you mean busi ness, your case will be referred to another branch of the government, the judicial apparatus. It being the func tion of the judiciary only to interpret the law, the law making it plain that a government claim has first lien on one's assets, a decision will be rendered against you and in favor of the IRS. If you have no assets but your home, the Court will order it put on the auction block and will instruct you to vacate. At this point you will apprise the Court of your letter to the IRS and your use of the word ((absolutely." When the Court becomes convinced that you mean business, your case will be referred to another branch of the government, the constabulary. In due course, a couple of officers carrying arms will attempt to carry out the Court's instructions. They will confront you in person.

310 LEONARD E. READ But to accede to their invitation to vacate would be to pay. With your ((absolutely" in mind, you refuse. At this poin t the officers will try to carry you off your property, as peaceably as possible, of course. But to let them carry you off would be to acquiesce and to pay. You might as well have acquiesced in the first place. At this stage of the proceedings, in order not to pay, you have no re course but to resist physical force with physical force. It is reasonable to assume that from this point on you will be mentioned only in the past tense or as "the late Mr. You." The records will show that your demise was "for resisting an officer," but the real reason was that you absolutely refused to pay farmers for not growing wheat or whatever. Rarely will any citizen go this far. Most of us, regard less of our beliefs, acquiesce immediately on receipt of the bill from the IRS. But the reason we do so is our recognition of the fact that this is an area in which free dom of choice no longer exists. I, for instance, would never give a cent of my income to farmers not to grow wheat were I allowed freedom of choice in the matter.

But, realizing that the farm subsidy program rests on violence, it takes no more than the threat of violence to make me turn part of my income over to farmers for not growing wheat. The Penalty Is De,ath The idea that the whole wearisome list of socialistic practices rests on violence and that the ultimate penalty VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 311 for noncompliance is death, was written and published in 1950.3 Many have read the booklet and an explana tion of the same idea has been given before many dis cussion groups throughout the country, but the reason ing has never been challenged. Yet, I am unaware of any instance where an individual has gone all the way, that is, has absolutely refused to pay and gone to his death for his beliefs. One farmer went so far as to leave the country, and quite a number of citizens have de layed their acquiescence considerably, that is, they have carried their revolt beyond immediate payment mixed with grousing. One of the most interesting examples is reported by IRS in a news release dated May 15, 1961: Considerable public and press Inisunderstanding exists over the seizure of three horses frorn a Pittsburgh area Amish farmer who refused to pay Social Security taxes because of religious convictions.

This memo is designed merely to acquaint you with all the facts in the case. Public Law 761, 83rd Congress, effective January 1, 19S5, extended Social Security coverage so as to include farm op erators. A tax on the self-employment income of these people is imposed and they are required to report this tax on their annual federal income tax return. The Old Order Amish are the most conservative of the Amish groups and have taken the position that although they will comply with taxes, as such, Social Security payments, in their opinion, are insurance premiums and not taxes. They, therefore, will not pay the "premium" nor accept any of the benefits. In the fall of 1956, the IRS district director at Cleveland 3 See my Students of Liberty (Foundation for Economic Educa tion, Inc., Irvington, N. Y.), pp. 7-8.

312 LEONARD E. READ held meetings with Amish farmers and their church officials in an effort to solicit cooperation and voluntary compliance with the laws we have to administer. At these meetings, it was explained that the self-employment levy is a tax and that it would be the responsibility of IRS to enforce this tax. As a result of these meetings and of letters sent to the in dividuals involved, the majority of Amish farmers in that general area voluntarily remitted the tax. With respect to those who refused, it became apparent that some did not wish to contravene the dictates of their church, but they also did not want "trouble" with IRS. Thus, a portion of these farmers did not pay the tax, but did make the execution of liens possible by maintaining bank accounts which covered the tax. The current problem stems from the "hard core" group of Old Order Amish farmers who closed out their bank accounts and lnade such levy action impossible. As a result, the IRS was forced to collect 130 delinquent taxpayer accounts from Amish farmers in the past two years.

Valentine Y. Byler of New Wilmington, Pennsylvania, be came the latest collection problem among the Old Order Amish. He owed the following self-employment tax: 19,56 $82.60 19,57 76.57 1958 32.98 1959 65.63 'The foregoing taxes amounted to $257.78. The total inter est for the same period was $51.18, making a grand total of $308.96 owed by the taxpayer. Attempts had been Inade since 1956 to induce Mr. Byler to pay his tax willingly, but with no success. Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property. It then was determined that Mr. Byler had a total of six horses, so it was decided to seize three in order to satisfy the tax indebtedness. The three horses were sold May 1, 1961 at public auction for $460.00. Of this amount $308.96 represented VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 313 the tax due and $113.15 represented expenses of the auction sale including feed for the horses leaving a surplus of $37.89 which was returned to the taxpayer.

The Byler case like all others in the same category present an unpleasant and difficult task for the Internal Revenue Service. However, there is no authority under which Amish farmers may be relieved of liability for this tax. With respect to those who remain adamant in their refusal to pay, as in the case of any person who refuses to pay any federal tax that is lawfully due, it is incumbent on the In ternal Revenue Service to proceed with collection enforce ment action as provided by law. We have no other choice under the law. Had our Amish friend, Valentine Y. Byler, not acquiesced at the point he did but had gone all the way in his determination, he would have employed physical force against the officers who seized his three horses. In this event he would now be known as "the late Valen tine Y. Byler." He would have established beyond a shadow of doubt that the social security program, as well as all other socialistic practices, is founded on violence.

T hey Did Their Duty It is important to acknowledge at this point that the IRS did precisely what it should have done. This agency of government is not in the business of deciding the rightness or the wrongness of a tax. Its job is to collect regardless of what the tax is for. The judiciary, having previously ruled on the powers of the IRS to make such collections, accurately inter preted the law and, thus, did what it should have done.

314 LEONARD E. READ The constabulary, in seizing the three horses, was properly performing its function. This agency, unless derelict in its duty, has to look as indifferently on seiz ing the horses and harnesses of a gentle, God-fearing farmer as bringing a John Dillinger to bay. They are properly called law enforcement officers. And, had Mr. Byler resisted with physical force, the constabulary would have been performing its duty had it been found necessary to put Mr. Byler out of the way, as it did Dillinger. Theirs is to carry out the lawJ not to reason why! The fault here is with the law, the three above-men tioned parts of the political apparatus being but effectu ating arms of the law. And the fault with the law rests with those who make the law and with those of us who elect lawmakers and who, presumably, have some powers to reason what the law should be. The IRS, the judiciary, the constabulary, behave ex actly the same when seizing the Amish farmer's three horses as when collecting a fine for embezzlement. Yet, the former is an exercise of aggressive force-violence while the latter is an exercise of defensive force. The former has no moral sanction; the latter is morally war ranted. How can two police actions which ultimately manifest themselves in an identical manner actually be opposites? This is like asking how two shots from a pistol can be identical when one is used to protect life and property and the other is used to take life and prop erty. The shots are wholly indifferent as to how they are used. The pistol shots, like the IRS, the judiciary, the VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 315 constabulary, only do the bidding of someone's mind and will. It is the bidding which determines whether they are part of a defensive or an aggressive action. The law, and the people who are responsible for it, determine whether a police action is defensive or violent.

A Simple Test There is, however, a simple way to decide whether a governmental action is an exercise of defensive force or an exercise of aggressive or violent force: "See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without com mitting a crime."4 Using the above as a basis for determination, it is ob vious that every act of socialism is founded on violence. The fact that the IRS found it expedient to make a public explanation in the face of severe criticism throughout the country, merely lends credence to the fact that most people-even those who support socialis tic legislation-do not know what they are doing nor did they mean to do what they did. Simply because most of us meekly acquiesce, that is, uncomplainingly go along with the machinery of socialism, we tend to lose sight of the fact that it is founded on violence. The seizing of the Amish farmer's three horses generated widespread 4 See The Law by Frederic Bastiat (Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington, N. Y., 1950), 76 pp.

316 LEONARD E. READ feelings of remorse and resentment. Had he absolutely refused to pay and been killed in the process, the Ameri can people would have protested, ((But we didn't mean thisr' Of course they didn't mean it. Nonetheless, these pro jections of horse-seizure and even death are nothing more nor less than the inevitable consequences of admitting the socialistic premise into American polity. State so cialism-every single item of it-is founded on violence! Alexander Barmine and Victor Kravchenko, both of whom rose to top posts in the Kremlin heirarchy, escaped from Russia and came to this country because they could not stomach the purgings and shootings that logically followed the policies which they themselves had a hand in promoting. 5 Let the principle of violence continue in this country-even fail to rid ourselves of what we have -and gangsters only will come to occupy high political office. Few of the present crop of bureaucrats are heart less enough to administer socialism in its advanced stages. 6 Violence is not their dish. The IRS folksdem onstrate this.

That policies founded on violence are growing is self evident. Take the examples of practices founded on violence cited on page 305. All but the Post Office are 5 See One Who Survived by Alexander Barmine (New York: G. A. Putna'm's Sons), and I Chose Freedom by Victor Kravchenko (New York: Scribners). 6 To understand why gangsters rather than humane human be ings must occupy political office in a socialistic state, read "Why the \Vorst Get on Top" in F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (The University of Chicago Press).

VIOLENCE AS A WAY OF LIFE 317 of relatively recent vintage, and clamor for more of the same seems to increase daily. I can still remember when the income of farmers came from willing exchange; when people lived in houses built with the fruits of their own labor; when wage earners, for the most part, were no more compelled to join unions than businessmen were forced into cham ber of commerce membership or parents into the P.T.A. Violence as a way of life was in those days perhaps at an all-time minimum. Man either accepts the idea that the Creator is the en dower of rights, or he submits to the idea that the state is the endower of rights. There is no third alternative. Those who accept the Creator concept can never sub scribe to the practice of violence in any form. They have been drawn to this concept, not coerced into it. If we would emulate, as nearly as we can, that which we have learned from this relationship, we would confine our selves to this same drawing power. As Gerald Heard so clearly puts it: "Man is free to torture and torment him self until he sees that his methods are not those of his Maker."7 '1 Gerald Heard, editor, Prayers and Meditations (New York: Har per & Brothers, 1949), p. 39.