A Search for Reason; J. Tuccille

It becomes even more curious when we consider that these ac cusations are made daily, not only by the political leaders in Moscow, Peking, Havana, and Eastern Eu rope, but by most of the lead ing officials right here in the United States. We have accepted the basic premises of those who would destroy free enterprise all over the world and, instead of re futing their a.rguments with logi cal philosophical convictions of our Mr. Tuccille, new to F,REEMAN readers, is a freelance writer in New York City. 634 own, we proceed to a.pologize for our wealth and explain that we really are getting more "progres sive" every day and intend to share our prosperity with the "un derprivileged" of the world. When we are told that millions are starving in India while we "selfishly" enjoy our automobiles, refrigerators filled with food, pri vate homes, and other luxuries, what do we reply? Do we say that these people are victims of a crip pling religious heritage, that can be traced back to the Stone Age, a philosophical tradition that teaches them to hate the world and withdraw from it, and that starva tion is the logical end of such a heri tage? We do not. We accept the premises of our accusers, apologize for our prosperity as if it were at the expense of those who are going hungry, and export 1967 A SEARCH FOR REASON 635 tons of food instead of ideas which are most urgently required.

When we are told that capital ists are greedy moneygrabbers who exploit the poor, do we reply tha t in nineteenth century Amer ica the industrial revolution brought forth more enlightenment, advancement, individual freedom, and economic prosperity than the wor ld had ever known before? Do we say that without the indus trialists, the men who built fac tories and offices and created jobs for others, the average worker would be, forced to waste his labor grinding wheat or hammering out horseshoes as he had for centuries past? We do not. We tell the world that we intend to police the gre,edy tendencies of the capitalist, hand cuff him with government regula tions, and tax him out of business. When we are told that the un employed demand a guaranteed in come, do we ask whose income they wish to have guaranteed to them? Do we reply that welfare is not a career or a way of life, but rather a temporary expedient to enable the unemployed to live until they find a job? Do we reply that wealth is created by a producer and belongs by right to the man who created it, not to someone else who demands it because of some temporary need? We do not. We ask instead how much should we guarantee and what is the most efficient way of raising it, without giving a thought to the producers who are victimized by such a sys tem.

When we a.re told that our cities are getting too crowded, do we reply that people have no right. to bear children they cannot afford to feed? We do not. We offer bonuses to parents with illegitimate chil dren and are talking now a.bout living allowances based on the size of the family. In other words, we complain about the population on one hand, and then reward large families on the other. This is an example of Orwellian doublethink at its most ludicrous level. On overcrowded Manhattan island the politicians respond to the problem of overpopulation by creating one of the most attractive welfare sys tems in existence anywhere-and then wonder why they have so many hungry people to feed. They allow men who make their· careers in welfare (a career which de pends upon the hunger and help lessness of others for its very ex istence) to make crucial decisions. Do they actually expect these peo ple to make decisions which would eliminate their own jobs?

When we are told that capital ists are responsible for the wretched condition of the Negro in America today, do we tell our 636 THE FREEMAN October accusers to check their basic argu ments? Do we tell them that it is not capitalism that has exploited the Negro, but rather those who deny the benefits of capitalism to the Negro who are most responsi ble ? We do not. We shake our heads guiltily, accepting the prem ises of those who would destroy free enterprise and replace it with communism, socialism, or the wel fare state. In other words, we give sanction to those who seek to de stroy us. When those who advocate free enterprise, indi vid ual self-reliance, and limited government are ma ligned as "right wingers," do we reply that a philosophy of freedom has no more in common with the extreme right than it does with the extreme left? Do we explain that autocratic government is just as evil whether it is run by a Hit ler or a Stalin? We do not. We ac cept the definition, thereby giving respectability to those who wish to identify capitalism and free enterprise in the same category as fascism and neo-nazism.

It is becoming increasingly more apparent that a philosophy of the left (in all its shadings, from communism to the welfare state to the "mixed economy" concept) can only be successfully fought by a positive philosophy of freedom. Ideas must be fought with other ideas, not emotions. It is not enough to know what one be lieves in, it is equally important to know why one holds certain convictions. An attack against a position is best met by a strong counterattack, whether the battle is one of physical force or the force of opposing philosophical and economic ideologies. Clearly, it is time for each one of us to examine basic premises. It is time to re-examine our con victions and delve into the under lying reasons for them. Most of us know what our opinions are; it is just as important to discover where these opinions came from, what are the fundamental moral and philosophical premises on which they are based. It is time to stop fighting a defensive battle against leftist ideologies and turn the tide back with a strong show of clear, rational, carefully con sidered ideas. ~ A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN Wor'h"hrough Work WHITING WILLIAMS,the author of a challenging and charming book which bears the somewhat enig matic title of America's Main spring and the Great Society (Frederick Fell, $5.00), is eightynine years old, which, for a pub lishing writer, must constitute a r'ecord of sorts. Far from succumb ing to normal octogenarian gar rulity, Mr. Williams is a gaffer who distills wisdom. In his younger days, as a nonacademic sociologist, Mr. Williams used to spend a good part of his time disguised as a common laborer. He worked in coal mines in Pennsylvania,Wales, the Saar, and elsewhere; in steel mills here and in Britain; and in rail road yards and along the docks.