Saying What We Mean; L.E. Read

SAYING WHA T WE MEAN INTEGRITY requires that we mean what we say; effective communication demands that we say what we mean. There can be no good society without the widespread practice of integrity.1 Nor can society endure without effective communication. The increasing friction in man's relationship to man, especially those relationships of a political nature, betokens an erosion not only of in tegrity but also of communication. A friend in another country, of different cultural background from our own, was horrified to learn that I totally disapprove of socialism, and I was equally hor rified at his reaction. Subsequent discussion, however, revealed that we differed not at all in our ideologies, though the term "socialism" conjured up one image in his mind and quite another in mine. The divergence in the images created by certain words and terms accounts in part for the many quarrel ing camps into which we are divided; brother fighting brother, so to speak, and often for no more reason than 1 See "Integrity and Leadership," a chapter in my Elements of Libertarian Leadership. Irvington-on-Hudson, N. Y.; Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., $2.00 paner; $3.00 cloth.

434 SAYING WHAT WE MEAN 435 a failure to communicate our own ideas, uncorrupted, to others. We mean one thing, but what we say is taken to mean something entirely different; in short, we do not say clearly what we mean. Anyone who ventures into philosophical discourse is confronted with what has been described as "the tyranny of language."2 The term "private enterprise" is, a case in point. A person opposed to government or state enterprises TVA, Canadian National Railways, U. S. Post Office, collectivized farming as practiced in Russia, and so on may declare that he stands "foursquare in favor of pri vate enterprise." This term, however, is but a generality and is wholly lacking in descriptive precision. It is, at best, an untrustworthy image maker; it has a different meaning for every person who uses, hears, or reads it. To employ the bare term as descriptive of our beliefs is not to say, or at least not to convey, what we mean.

Most persons who speak and think favorably of pri vate enterprise will have an image of such ideal situa tions as honorable men engaging in willing exchange and voluntarily cooperating and competing in response to consumer demands. They visualize participants in enterprises that employ workers and capital to produce more goods and services for more people at constantly lowering prices. They think of businessmen as servants of the masses, servants who believe in and practice open opportunity for all, with each person having a right to the fruits of his own labor, including such rewards 2 See The Meaning of Meaning by C. K. Ogden and I. A. Rich ards. (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1936.) p. 4.

436 LEONARD E. READ for meri t as are determined by a free and unfettered market. Indeed, some protagonists of private enterprise think of it as the Golden Rule in economic practice. But observe what images "private enterprise" is apt to create in the mind of state interventionists: monopoly, dog eat dog, law of the jungle, cutthroat competition, exploitation of workers, devil take the hindmost, materi alism, conspiracy, subsidy-seeking, greed, crookedness. A generalized, simplified label does no more than of fer the reader or listener an empty container into which he dumps his own meanings or preconceptions. In the absence of a precise definition that is understood and accepted, such terms are unreliable and cannot be used in communication without the risk of corruption in the process. Furthermore, it is futile to seek a single, simple term to describe what an intelligent person believes.

The propensity to pigeonhole ourselves under some la bel not only tends to misinform others but also detours our own thinking processes away from self-enlighten ment; we need to think through and clarify what we mean in order to grow in understanding. 3 When we avow, without further explanation, our devotion to pri vate enterprise, we communicate little more to others about our ideology than we would if announcing our social security number. And, we must ask, why should we profess astonish3 For example, what do we mean when we refer to "price con trol"? Dr. Dean Russell has thought this through to the conclu sion that it can have but one meaning: people control! See "Free dom follows the Free Market," p. 198 of this volume.

SAYING WHAT WE MEAN ment when the term "private enterprise" conjures up unfavorable images? Piracy is a private enterprise, and so is robbery, embezzlement, kidnapping, blackmail, head-hunting. Accepting a deep freeze or a mink coat by a bureaucrat in exchange for a government handout or contract is just as private and .as enterprising as is a secret price-fixing get-together of corporate officials. Private vs. Public In the instance of the particular label-term here se lected for analysis, image distortion originates when "private" is used as opposed to "public" or "govern ment," as if the former were unqualifiedly virtuous. Other terms and explanations are needed to describe the two different organizational arrangements involved. All evils, all virtues-all human actions, in fact-are private in the sense that an individual originates them; and an evil or virtue is neither more nor less private because of its practitioners being in or out of govern ment.

Once we conceive of all action as related to persons and, therefore, responsible, we must look for the sig nificant distinction between different types of private action. What, for instance, distinguishes TVA from an investor-owned electric system, or Canadian National Railways from Canadian Pacific Railway, or the U. S. Post Office from A. T. & T., or a collective farm in Rus sia from the farm you yourself might own and operate? The distinction is not fully explained by the term 438 LEONARD E. READ "private"; for all actions, collectivized or not, are private. What, then, is the essential difference? What is the characteristic of those private actions which are immoral and unjust and, therefore, should be restrained; and of those private actions which are moral and just and, therefore, should be left free?4 Human actions are difficult to categorize in a precise manner, but the distinction sought here is roughly be tween the compulsory or coercive and the voluntary or nonauthoritarian. Yet this division, by itself, does not complete the task of saying what we mean, for there are certain acts of compulsion that may be desirable in a social sense; for instance, employing the authoritative force to defend life, liberty, and the fruits of one's la bor. Authority of the defensive brand is needed to put down unwarranted acts of aggression against peaceful persons, to discourage that kind of private action which takes life, liberty, and the fruits of one's labor.

Compulsory action by the political authority is action backed by force or the threat of force. Reason as well as history attests to the fact that the political authority is always dangerous, for it can be used as easily for aggres sive as for defensive purposes. Government is by nature compulsory, but as long as persons, organized as government and backed by force, are limited to the defensive function, their work is wholly desirable. But when this same agency of men in4, Bear in mind that we are here concerned only with those pri vate actions which relate to and have. a bearing on others, that is, actions with social implications.

SAYING WHAT WE MEAN 439 tervenes to modify the productive or creative affairs of peaceful persons the authority becomes aggressive. The point need not be labored; one example will suffice: should we nationalize opera, as is now proposed, the authority will forcibly take the income of all taxpayers to gratify opera goers. This is the simple essence of all socialism and state welfarism. Coercive in All Cases Thus, it can be seen that all government enterprises beyond defensive functions-TVA, federal urban renew al, federal aid to education, the farm program, federal tourist agencies, "public" golf courses, endlessly on and on-are but human actions, all individual and private, backed by force, which is to say, they are authoritarian enterprises; the coercions are of the aggressive, not the defensive, brandl Individuals backed by force and organized as govern ment have no place or purpose, are capable of no con tribution to peaceful persons in society, except to put down all -private, authoritarian actions of the aggressive type .. Examples of such private, aggressive action include theft, piracy, contract breaking, misrepresentation, vio lence, kidnaping-in short, feathering the· nest of some with feathers coercively plucked from others.

Many of us when we speak of "private enterprise" in contrast to TVA and the like, have only in mind private actions which rest solely on willing exchange, that is, on nonauthoritarian or voluntary actions. But even these ad440 LEONARD E. READ jectives, more accurately descriptive than "private," will not, by themselves, fully convey what we mean. Some readers may look upon this commentary as much ado about nothing. Yet, in these days of scan read ing and getting our ideas, if any, on the run, when so many believe they have no time for reflection, contem plation, concentration, and when hordes of us think we have a mission to set the masses straight, there is a temp tation to oversimplify, to "lump think." We seek a word or phrase that will serve as an intellectual short cut to saying what we mean. This disastrous tendency is harm ful, not helpful, to an emergence of the kind of people among whom the understanding and practice of liberty is possible.

Once we are rid of the self-delusion that we can make over or reform "the ignorant," we may see that the na tion's economic, social, political, and moral disarray will not respond one whit to our censure or blandishments; that the extent to which liberty eludes us is but a meas ure of intellectual and moral deficiency; that salvation rests exclusively on the appearance of numerous improv ing individuals, enough, at least, to compose an attract ing vanguard, persons whom others will seek as tutors. This requires that we find out how better to say what we mean for, in so doing, we plumb our own depths and move toward self-enlightenment. It is impossible to improve explanations of what we mean without, at the same time, expanding our own knowledge and increas ing the demand for our services as tutors.