The Moral Foundation of Freedom; R. Husted

RALPH W. HUSTED My JOB occasionally takes me to Philadelphia. I never miss an op portunity, when I am there, to look at that small room where the ar chitects of this nation in a rela tively short time drafted, debated, and finally adopted the Constitu tion; where the vision of a great republic was given to a handful of men who, when opportunity came, were prepared by education, cour age, and faith to discharge one of the greatest responsibilities ever undertaken by men. I do not believe it was an ac cident that those men were brought together at the same time and at the same place in history. I think it was no accident that among that small group were some of the Mr. Husted is Vice-President and Secretary of the Indianapolis Power & Light Company. This article is from his 1965 Veterans Day address before the IPALCO Young Men's Forum. greatest thinkers of their day, either in Europe or in America.

To one who sees about him a world of infinite plan and design, things do not just happen. There were times, we are told, when the Constitutional Convention ap proached disruption. I believe the fact that it was finally successful was not an accident. I believe the courage and wisdom de,monstrated on that occasion were not acciden tal. And I believe it was no accident that Madison was able to draft in a short time a document containing the wisdom of ages, and at which men have marveled ever since. The man who sees history as a great laboratory in which it has been proved time and again that cause has its inevitable effect, according to the design of a power greater than any of us can envision, can not believe that the birth, educa23 24 THE FREEMAN March tion, and experience of Washing ton, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison were mere accidents of history and that the founding of America was merely a fortunate coincidence of men and circum stances.

Our Founding Fathers believed tha t we Iive in an ordered uni verse. They believed themselves to be a part of the universal order of things. Stated another way - they believed in God. They believed that every man must find his own place in a world where a place has been made for him. They sought inde pendence for their nation but, more importantly, they sought freedom for individuals; freedom for men as individuals to think and act for themselves. They established a re public dedicated to one purpose above all others - the preservation of individual liberty, the protec tion of a society where men would be free to pursue their purposes in life as they see them. They did not think man's purpose in life is to be determined by government or that government has any business decid ing what purposes our society shall serve. Spiritual, Economic, Political When we speak of individual lib erty, just what do we mean? In fi nal analysis, I think it has three es sential elements-namely: freedom of worship, economic freedom, and political freedom. I will not say much about religious freedom ex cept to make a point which is very significant, especially in the light of the recent school prayer cases.

Freedom of worship meant to our forefathers exactly what the words imply, Le., freedom to worship as one pleases. But remember, it also meant to them the right not to worship at all. We know, of course, that very few of them were dis posed to make that choice. For most of them, worshiping God was an essential part of their lives. It is true that they believed in and advocated the separation of church and state, but they certainly did not believe in separation of the people from God. In 1835 the French lawyer, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote about what he had seen in America: ... in America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom .... I have said enough to put the character of Anglo-American civil ization in its true light. It is the re sult (and this should be constantly kept in mind) of two distinct ele ments, which in other places have been in frequent disagreement, but which the Americans have succeeded in incorporating to some extent one with the other and combining ad mirably. I allude to the spirit of re ligion and the spirit of liberty.

1966 THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF FREEDOM 25 There is one more point I want to make in connection with reli gious freedom, and it leads to the central idea of what I have to say here this evening. Religious free dom means nothing without eco nomic and political freedom. Life is not divided into ne'at little com partments one of which can be con sidered without regard to all others. Life can't be divided, nor can freedom. It is impossible to have religious freedom without political and economic freedom. It is equally impossible to. have eco nomic or political freedom without religious freedom. Now let us con sider economic freedom in that light. Importance of Economic freedom Economic freedom means, liter ally, freedom to seek the means of satisfying one's material needs; but I doubt that any man ever con sidered his own well-being in terms of material needs alone. Considera tion of man's material needs neces sarily involves thinking at the same time about his spiritual needs, be cause his well-being depends upon satisfaction of both, and both con sciously or unconsciously influence his efforts to satisfy his wants.

Hence the interdependence of eco nomic and religious freedom. The significance of economic freedom lies in the very nature of creation. We are made one at a time, and no two of us alike. The differences between us are great, and by far the greatest differences are spiritual. The bare necessities of life are few but the. number of material things necessary to give expression to the spirit of man kind is endless. The millions of forms in which property is mold ed by the hand of man and the mil lions of uses to which it is put are but extensions of the millions of human personalities who gather property and adapt it to their needs. Whether it be a pencil or a steel mill, property is but a reflec tion of the infinite spirit of man. It reflects the desire of the human spirit for self-expression. If you agree with this, I think you will also agree that property, to serve its purpose best, must be private property. By the very na ture of creation, no two of us can have the same desires, the same skills, or the same mental endow ments. No two of us can express ourselves in the-same way. Proper ty cannot possibly serve the same purpose for one owner as it serves for others. What we call ownership is the right to the use, possession, control, and disposition of proper ty; and it is these incidents of own ership which make property useful in satisfying the needs of individ uals.

Clearly, therefore, ownership must be private if a particular item 26 THE FREEMAN March of property is to satisfy the needs of a particular man as he and no one else sees them. If you still have doubt as to the necessity for pri vate ownership of property, con sider for a moment that all of us are property owners; a man's la bor is his property, and unless he is free to control and dispose of his labor as he wishes, he is a slave. Men have coordinated their ef forts in countless ways to satisfy their material wants, but always, and regardless of how interdepen dent their lives may become, their efforts are directed to satisfaction of the wants of individuals. Men have created business organiza tions both large and small, both simple and complex, but such or ganizations have no life, no philos ophy, and no ability to create or produce separate and apart from the individuals comprising them.

An organization or corporation may become so large, that a person begins to feel that his individuality has become completely swallowed up in it, but the fact remains that he is the one endowed with life and not the organization. Only individ uals can: grow and progress, and only individuals can generate eco nomic progress. Only an individual can want. Only an individual can know what he wants; and unless he is free to make the choices that will satisfy his wants, he is not really free. It is inconceivable that in a so ciety where choices are made for us by government we could ever enjoy complete satisfaction of our material and spiritual needs. It is equally inconceivable that any group of economic or social plan ners could make choices for us in a way that would satisfy us, be cause one man can never under stand another well enough to do so. The division of labor in a free society is a vast voluntary coopera tive system. In America it has enabled men to enjoy a standard of living that taxes the imagina tion of people living in other parts of the world where such freedom is denied them. Complex as our system may be, it is, nevertheless, built upon something that all of us understand - the promise of one man to another. It is built on the right to contract, to contract freely without the intervention of government. It is built on freedom of individual choice. A planned society may enforce specialization of work, but compulsion has never performed the miracles of produc tion that have become common place among men who are able to contract as they wish.

Meaning 01 Political Freedom So much for economic freedom. What about political freedom? Po litical freedom in the minds of 1966 THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF FREEDOM 27 many people is something which they define vaguely by the word "democracy," and which they as sociate with freedom of speech and the right to vote. To think of politi cal freedom only as democracy is dangerous indeed because a democ racy can become a tyrannical mob. To think of political freedom only as freedom of speech and the right to vote is to fall into a socialist trap, because even the socialists profess to believe in both. The right to vote may be essential to freedom, but we should remember tha t time and again people have given away their freedom by ma jority vote. Then what do we mean by politi cal freedom? I think it is this. Every right which we insist upon as free men carries with it the duty not to interfere forcibly with the enjoyment of the same right by others. Man's desire for self-ex pression is natural and good and the right to self-expression is es sential, but unless it is accompa niedwi th a proper sense of re sponsibility it may manifest itself in the use of force. Weare respon sible beings but we all know that in the present state of civilization, and as it probably will be for ages to come, no one is or will be per fect. Noone has or will have a perfect sense of right and wrong.

We must, therefore, have law to restrain the use of force. But let us also keep this in mind. The law is not self-execut ing. The law itself must employ force or the threat 'of force to restrain those who would act ir responsibly. It may seem trite to repeat here that that government governs best which governs least, but it needs to be said now as much as when first spoken. Politi cal freedom means. freedom from government restraint orcompul sion beyond what is needed to curb irresponsible men. When govern ment goes further than that, it becomes the oppressor of freedom. When we turn over to government the job of planning, managing, or controlling any undertaking, re gardless of how humanitarian it may appear to be, we must weigh the cost in loss of freedom because loss of freedom inevitably accom panies the delegation of such power. The Role of Government Now, some of you may ask, "What about the many services which the government renders for the people? Does not the govern ment do for us many things which we could not do for ourselves?"

Does it? Perhaps we have been deluding ourselves. Dr. F. A. Har per has said, The government could do for us what we cannot do for ourselves only if it sits on the right hand of Crea28 THE FREEMAN March tion itself. Otherwise, unless it be possessed of the powers of God, it cannot possibly do anything that peo ple can't do for themselves, for the simple reason that people comprise all that is government. Government is manned by the very same persons whose deficiencies are presumed to disappear when combined into a legal structure with bureaucratic, political trappings - a process which makes an ordinary person, if anything, less able than before to accomplish things. The bureaucratic whole is, for this reason, really less than the sum of its freely cooperating individual parts. Edmund Burke once said, To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power; teach obedience; and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free govern ment, that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflec tion, a sagacious, powerful, and com bining mind.

It was no accident that Wash ington and his contemporaries es tablished something the world had never before seen, a nation dedi cated to freedom of the individual. Theirs were the minds which un derstood that the only real liberty is individual liberty. Theirs were the powerful and combining minds which understood the moral foun dation of freedom - man's per sonal relationship with his Crea tor - and they made that the foun dation for the greatest nation on earth. The Danger We face Today we are faced with the most serious attack on our free dom which has ever confronted us. I say the most serious because it is an attack on the very moral foundation which I have just de scribed. It is little comfort to know that the attack may have been inspired initially by people beyond our borders. The disturb ing fact is that the burden of the attack is now being carried by persons in all walks of life who prof ess to be and think they are good Americans. I think it has not been a case of knowingly aban doning our faith, but rather we have been led without thinking to accept many beliefs which in fact deny that men have a personal relationship with God. Individual liberty has been sacrificed and government has come to be looked upon, primarily, as an instrument for social and economic planning.

We have allowed to infect our political philosophy the belief that men are no longer able to take care of themselves. We have es tablished an enormous bureauc racy to plan for them. We still 1966 THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF FREEDOM 29 profess the need for religious freedom, but we have repudiated the conviction of our forefathers that unless we also have economic and political freedom, religious freedom is meaningless. We have, for example, adopted a graduated income tax for the avowed purpose of supporting es sential government functions, but we have changed our concept of what is essential and we are now using the tax in shocking measure for the redistribution of wealth and as a means of controlling the lives of people. We have subsidies for housing, subsidies for farmers, subsidies for power, subsidies for shipping, and subsidies for the aged. We take one man's property to give to another and think it is right simply because it is accom plished by majority vote. We have adopted the Marxist principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

We have outright government ownership of hundreds of enter prises. We have government inter ference with the right to contract in practically every area of eco nomic activity. In many areas such interference is so great that the free market, freedom of economic choice, is gone. We have allowed ourselves to think that a little socialism will not hurt uS,but the acorn has now grown into a giant of the forest. The Mixed-Up Economy Many of our politicians, political scientists, economists, school text book writers, and even some of our financial and industrial leaders see great hope for the future in what they call a mixed system of pri vate enterprise and public enter prise. They speak of the "public sector" of our economy as con trasted with the "private sector" and of the necessity for a partner ship between the two. They praise what is now fashionably called the partnership of government and business. They speak of the mar velous adaptability of our system of free enterprise because, as they say, it has been able to join hands with government to meet what government planners consider the needs of society. What kind of partnership is it where one part ner is supported entirely by the other? What kind of partnership is it where one has become such a burden to the other that there is evidence today of the load becom ing too great? How long can it last?

We have accepted fiscal im morality as a national policy. This is not something that has been forced upon us. The fact is that we insist upon it. Every downturn in business is the occasion for further demands that the govern ment increase spending, even defi cit spending; that the Federal Re30 THE FREEMAN March serve System reduce interest rates and buy government bonds so as to increase the supply of bank credit; all of which, of course, re sults in an increase in the supply of spendable dollars but contrib utes nothing to the real wealth of the people. People are really not better off, because dollars are not wealth, nor are dollars a true meas ure of wealth when they are sub ject to arbitrary devaluation by ar bitrarily increasing the supply of them. If one concedes that private property is indispensable to the achievement of man's happiness, then it must also be conceded that any artificial manipulation of the medium of exchange by which the value of property is measured is morally wrong, and that is exactly what our Federal government does when it tinkers with interest rates to expand or restrict credit, or reduces gold reserve requirements, or puts pressure on the Federal Reserve System to buy or sell government bonds to increase or decrease bank credit, or engages in deficit spending.

What is immoral about these practices? Let me mention only one thing that is obvious to all of you. It is simply the fact that everyone holding or depending di rectly or indirectly on fixed in come obligations and contracts is deprived of a part of his property without receiving anything in ex change for it. Money that is sub ject to tinkering by government becomes the instrument by which people are robbed of their prop erty. By Majority Vote in the Name of Democracy We have done it all by majority vote and in the name of democ racy. Now I do not want to be misunderstood. The word democ racy still has meaning to me and I believe in it, but I would ask you to remember always that de mocracy is not an end' in itself. Despite the preaching of our pres ent-day textbook writers and gov ernment social planners, democ racy is not the goal of America. Democracy can be and has been many times an instrument for the abuse of individuals. Our goal is, and must continue to be, individ ual freedom.

Of course we believe that every one should have a decent house, that a farmer should enjoy a high standard of living, and that the aged should not want, but how are these things to be accomplished - by resorting to more economic and social planning by govern ment and to a program of mas sive government spending? Shall we ignore the fact that when we speak of government planning we presuppose the existence in gov1966 THE MORAL 11'OUNDATION OF FREEDOM 31 ernment of someone with super human wisdom to do the planning? Shall we ignore the fact that when government does the planning, the coerci ve powers of government will be used to carry the plans into effect at an enormous sacrifice of individual freedom? Apparently some of our present-day leaders, both in government and out, be lieve we should. Shall we accept the notion that merely because government planning for the peo ple is done under the label of de mocracy, and is claimed to repre sent the interests of a majority of the people, it is right?

Toda.y many of our people, both in government and out, believe the "welfare of the majority" is the criterion by which we should meas ure the extent of government in terference in and control of eco nomic affairs. We find people, both in government and out, urging an expanded program of government planning and spending in order, as they say, to improve society and strengthen freedom. How can the strengthening of centralized gov ernment dedicated to a program of social and economic planning assure individual liberty to any one? The· free man is the man who can make choices for himself and not have them made by gov ernment. We find today,· among people ranging from textbookwri ters to respected businessmen, whole hearted endorsement of the Uni versal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted by the U. N. Com mission on Human Rights, which declares that men are entitled, as a matter of right, to favorable working conditions, just pay, so cial security, adequate housing, and an adequate standard of liv ing.

Of course, these things are de sirable, but let me remind you that in the America conceived by our Founding Fathers, man's in alienable rights -life, liberty, and the right to own property - are not granted by the state. They are God-given. A decent house, ade quate pay, and social security are not God-given. God gives men the capacity to acquire these things for themselves, but no more. God gives men the capacity and free dom to work and create. He gives them nothing they can create for themselves. We renounce the great religious heritage handed down to us by our Founding Fathers when we speak of the material things which men are intended to work for as though they too are some thing we have a God-given right to demand. Christian Responsibility We are a nation with Christian traditions, and I know some of you are saying, "What about our re32 THE FREEMAN sponsibility as Christians to our fellow men?" Well, let me discuss that for a moment. I suspect that what really prompts us to think only the government can handle some of our present-day problems is that we do not really trust the sense of responsibility of our fel low citizens. We are afraid that if care of those in need were left to the people to handle voluntarily, they would let the job go undone.

Perhaps they would in some cases. Some people might suffer if their welfare were dependent solely on the charity of their fellow men. But is the welfare state the an swer? Now some of you will say that care of those in need is a much bigger problem than it used to be. "We are living in a different age," you say, "and care of the needy is so big now that only the gov ernment can handle it." That is a myth. I lived through the depres sion of the 1930's. I saw people go hungry and without enough cloth ing. But I never saw or read of anyone starving or freezing to death. On the contrary, in the early days of the depression, I saw the greatest voluntary re sponse of people to the needs of their fellow men that this nation had ever seen. Without being asked by anyone, people who had less thafl enough to satisfy their own needs shared what little they had with those who were in worse con dition.

And then something happened. Someone decided that the govern-. ment could do a better job of feed ing and caring for the unemployed, and a vast government handout program was launched. What hap pened? The spirit of charity that brought people to the aid of their fellow men was destroyed. The government tried to assume the mantle of Christian charity, the noblest characteristic of mankind, and the people themselves thought it would work; but it didn't. Oh yes, the poor were fed. The un employed were given work of sorts; but the people of this coun try were changed. They had lost something. They had surrendered to government their moral respon sibility - the thing that made them men and women - and from that \ve have not recovered to this day. If we believe as our Founding Fathers did, then we must let man be free to develop his sense of responsibility in his own way, and we must have faith that he will.

Christian charity is an individual act. It cannot be anything else. It springs from within men. It can't possibly be imposed on men by law; and how utterly ridiculous it is of us to think that it could be! Christian charity can't be expressed by any two people in the same way, 1966 THE MORAL FOUNDATION OF FREEDOM 33 because no two of us think and feel alike; and it is exactly for that reason that our responsibility as Christians can't be delegated. Christian charity is not a respon sibility which we can delegate to government; and when we attempt to do so, we only weaken ourselves and rob our society of the spiritual vigor which advances civilization. Christian charity springs from re spect of one individual for the dignity of another, from recogni tion by one of the divine spirit in another. When we come to un derstand that all men are en dowed with the divine spirit, I think then, and only then, will we understand why men were meant to be free. ~ TO THEGA 'l.