Can Opera Be Grand if Socialized? L.E. Read

CAN OPERA BE GRAND IF SOCIALIZED? AN AMERICAN MEZZO-SOPRANOand one of the great inter national opera stars of our time laments the plight of aspiring American singers. 1 After concluding that "the problem cannot be blamed away: more fundamental treatment is in order," she says: If we are interested in the cause of the shameful conditions for the young American singer we must look elsewhere: the jet plane, our outmoded manner of dealing with the arts on a national level, a false pride of helping others before ourselves and, above all, a childish fear of government aid. Seeking to justify the subsidy she has in mind, our opera star calls attention to an inconsistency on the part of the U. S. A. politician: Has he ever bothered to explain how the majority of Eu rope's war-destroyed opera houses were rebuilt with American money and placed on an operating basis through large sub sidies? Having delivered that coup de grace, she makes this point: 1 See "There's No Place at Home for Young American Singers"

by RIse Stevens. New York Herald Tribune, April 29, 1962. 129 130 LEONARD E. READ I feel the taxpayer has every right to demand that his own community be blessed with a new auditorium which houses its own opera company, symphony orchestra, ballet troupe, and theater ensemble. It's not a dream. Such theaters exist all over middle Europe, in towns with no more than 50,000 inhabitants. (All italics mine.) Were I to try my hand at opera this star would rol lick in laughter at my incompetency; indeed, she is con scious of flaws among the best opera singers. And I, in my turn, am sensitive to socialistic flaws even when skill fully written. The article under question is really skill ful; it is almost unbelievable that an opera star of the first magnitude, with all the attention and concentration her art demands, could write such clever statist rationale' l While socialized opera is no more to be deplored than socialized anything else, there is reason as we shall see later for giving it special treatment.

As a starter, what are we to infer from "our outmoded manner of dealing with the arts on a national level"? Until now in this country the arts have, for the most part, been dealt with privately and locally. It has been The New York Metropolitan Opera Company or The Boston Symphony or The Los Angeles Philharmonic or whatever. Furthermore, these have been privately financed. 2 The music patrons have been the music pay ers. Others of us have been free to stay at home and to spend the fruits of our labor on necessities and luxuries of our own choice. But, be it noted, this freedom of 2 Much of the private financing has been in the nature of sub stantial gifts from wealthy persons. See "Met's Golden Angels Make Opera Heaven," World Telegram and Sun. May 12, 1962.

CAN OPERA BE GRAND IF SOCIALIZED? 131 choice, in socialistic parlance, is "outmoded." What is the new, the modern, the up-to-date scheme? Nationalize the arts! A music devotee or not, you payl And like any thing else, once it is nationalized, the penalty for all-out noncompliance is the loss of life itself. 3 Violence is the new way; freedom the "outmoded manner." True enough, our politicians in spending over $100 billion on foreign aid in recent years have rebuilt Eu rope's war-destroyed opera houses and put them on "an operating basis," with dollars forcibly collected from American citizens, millions of whom have no interest in their own, let alone foreigners', opera. Where, we must ask, is the moral sanction for the coercive extor tion of the livelihood of Joe Doakes, an American who is concerned more with the education of his own chil dren than with opera, that European music devotees may sate their aesthetic desires? According to libertarian philosophy, this is legalized evil. Even worse is to use this wrong action as an excuse to apply the same social istic principle at home-recommending a second wrong to right the first one.

Then follows this point: "I feel the taxpayer has every right to demand that his own community be blessed with a new auditorium which houses its own opera com pany .... " Which taxpayer has the right to what? Does the opera-going taxpayer have a right to subsidize his fancy at the expense of the unmusical taxpayer? Does it never occur to these people who would nationalize the arts 3 If the reader has any doubt about this point, read my "Vio ence as a Way of Life," Essays on Liberty, Vol. IX, p. 303.

132 LEONARD E. READ that the latter has a right to the fruits of his own labor? Or, do the socializers hold that everyone's fancy be so cialized, that all citizens have a right to the fruits of the labor of all other citizens? For instance, Ij50,OOOth of us in New York's metropolitan area are ardent curlers. This sport is expensive, as is opera. Should the other 49,999j50,OOOth part of our local population be com pelled to subsidize us? Better yet, to use the opera argu ment, should not curling be nationalized? Then the San Francisco dock worker could help pay for my curling! Anyone who cannot see through this thin argument of the socializers or nationalizers will not be aided by more explanation, regardless of how simply spelled out. Political Urge to Nationalize Our opera star is not alone in suggesting the national ization of her art; it has been given a substantial political impetus and for reasons easy to recognize. For example, if government intervention and control of railroads con tinues as in the past, we shall, sooner or later, see them nationalized. Assuming present trends, the same fate is in store for the airlines. Having railroads and airlines to preside over is important politically to a paternalistic state.

The closing of the Metropolitan Opera was an nounced. Front page news all over the nation! The high est officials in Washington took immediate action. Why? Officialdom cannot risk the reasons coming to light: The more government interference-inflation, taxation, and CAN OPERA BE GRAND IF SOCIALIZED? 133 control in any sphere of economic activities, the less op portunity for devotees of opera to independently sup port their favorite art. Included among the interventions, and most directly affecting the opera, are (1) high taxes on real estate (the opera house), (2) union restrictions and requirements for not only the stars but all the stage hands and crews (with government approval and en couragement), and (3) luxury taxes on tickets. It is governmental overextension that makes private opera impossible all over Europe and is making it im possible in the U. S. A. And so we are urged to solve the problem by turning it over to the malefactor!

Actually, though, little is accomplished by berating the socialization of opera. It is but an outgrowth of a fault which is common to nearly everyone, even the stoutest libertarian idealists: the inability to adhere steadfastly to principle. To descend to the vernacular, we all leak a little at the seams now and then. Frederic Bastiat came about as near to being a liber tarian idealist as anyone I know or have ever read-my ideological hero, so to speak. He laid down for himself solid criteria for his thinking and actions. For instance: 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 commit ting a crime. 4 Whenever a law did any of these things, that la"l-v was 4 See The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington, N. Y. 76 pp. $1.00 paper; $1.75 cloth.

134 LEONARD E. READ on Bastiat's black list. Thus a law which forcibly took from another in order that one might curl or attend the opera flew in the face of the moral code. It was evil. All through the vast works of Bastiat is to be found an ad herence to the principles he deemed to be the right ones. Disagree with this statesman, if you wish, but try to find where he deviated from his concept of right principle. Regardless of laws or popular opinions, he stood with his principles-except in one instance. In an essay, "Jus tice and Fraternity," he made a concession to the social ists, one that few Americans today would find faulty: If the Socialists wish to say that, in extraordinary circum stances and for urgent cases, the State should prepare certain reserves, relieve certain unfortunate persons, manage certain transitions, great heavensl We are in agreement with them. It is being done and we wish it were better done.

The above is an absolute contradiction of, a defection from, the whole Bastiat thesis. I cite this man who held so steadfastly to principles merely to indicate that even the strictest perfectionist now and then "leaks at the seams." Who Are the <'<'Needy"? While most of us libertarian idealists, in our own im perfections, can forgive Bastiat for this one inconsistency, we must not overlook how this single exception makes the case for socialism. For, if it be true that the state is morally warranted in building its reserves from what be longs to some persons and giving to those to whom it CAN OPERA BE GRAND IF SOCIALIZED? 135 does not belong, there then is no principle which points out the stopping place. 5 If Marx was right in advocating "from each according to ability, to each according to need," it follows that the state, which does the taking and the giving, must decide on what is ability and what is need. Ability, of course, is disposed of in a hurry: the state taxes everybody for the sake of the needy. But what constitutes need and who are the needy? Plainly, this is a matter for arbitrary decision only; no principle can be called upon nor can any law give precise instruction.

People hunger not only for food, clothing, and pro tection from heat and cold. Human appetite knows no bounds. Need is a judgment subjectively determined and it extends over the whole spectrum of human desires. A "need" is felt for exercise: curling, for instance. There is a "need" for cheap power and light or a high standard of living for farmers and wage earners, for "free" school lunches and, so we are told, for opera. The point is this: We cannot grant that any need, beyond the need for common defense, should be met by the use of state compulsion without logically conceding the use of state compulsion for all needs. Employ violence to gather funds (state action) to alleviate starvation and the case is made for the use of violence to subsidize opera goers. Thus, any person who condones or advocates legalized coercion as a means to productive or creative ends, that :5 Perhaps the growing insistence for government aid is based on the false assumption that government has a fund independent of what it takes from the citizenry. Any time anyone is "aided"

we can be certain that other citizens have been forced to supply the financial wherewithal. A government has nothing but the power to collect from us.

136 LEONARD E. READ is, who supports compulsion for other than the defensive function, regardless of how desirable he thinks the end is and no matter how minor his exception to this prin ciple, cannot, in logic and justice, condemn the opera star for her demand that opera be socialized. Every de fection from libertarian idealism is an affirmation that socialism is right. Let Government Do It A friend of mine who resides in a European capitol remarked, "We can no longer finance our opera pri vately, so we have turned it over to government." I told him that if their opera could not be privately financed, his city should have no opera. "But what about our culture?" he asked. Let us grant that culture is advanced by opera. But I insist that culture is degraded where state compulsion is used to take the fruits of the labor of any individual to gratify the desires of opera devotees. Here's a town of 50,000 population, among whom are 500 opera goers.

But the 500 cannot privately finance an auditorium, an opera company, symphony orchestra, ballet troupe, and theater ensemble. Should violence be used to coerce the other 49,500 into the local program? Does this procedure aid and abet the development of culture? Numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with the principle. Culture would be degraded if violence were applied to only one individual to force him into a program agreeable to 49,999 of the population. Our opera star refers to "a childish fear of government aid." This implies that no CAN OPERA BE GRAND IF SOCIALIZED? 137 such fear exists among mature adults. Perhaps not, in which case I cast my lot with the children. While there is no moral sanction for the theft of a loaf of bread to keep one's children from starving or for having the state do this for one, we must concede that such acts are for primal purposes, on the level of a cat eating the canary-instinctual and subrational. Such ac tion at this level cannot be condoned but at least it can be understood.

Needs can be listed on an ascending scale, ranging from the purely physical all the way to the highly spir itual. Philosophy, religion, poetry, and art, including opera, are in the latter category and genuine practitioners are characterized by spirituality; they are of a higher breed of creation or humanity. Any attempt to promote these higher forms of con sciousness by primal lueans, by violence, by the physical force of the state, is to reduce the arts to the level of banality. To claim that culture can prosper by the em ployment of anticultural means is to express a contra diction. One could as logically resort to state compul sion as a means of assuring immortal bliss. If men's rights to life, liberty, and happiness are en dowments of the Creator, a spiritual concept, then every individual must be accorded as much freedom of choice as any other. This is the minimum requirement for ad vancement in the spiritual life (culture). There can be no culture-no art-without justice or without freedom.

Opera will not remain grand, but only be degraded, if socialized.