Freedom Cuts Two Ways; R. Tyson

FREEDOM CUTS TWO WAYS ROBERT C. TYSON ABRAHAM: LINCOLN, speaking in Baltimore in 1864, beautifully brought out the double-edged na ture of freedom. He did this through a parable, after first ex plaining that the word freedom for some may mean for each man to do as he pleases solely with himself and the product of his labor, while for others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labor. The parable had to do with a shepherd, a sheep, and a wolf. The wolf feels free to attack the sheep. But the shepherd drives the wolf Mr. Tyson is Chairman of the Finance Com mittee, United States Steel Corporation. This article is from his commencement remarks to the graduating class of the Voorhees Technical Institute, June 3, 1968. from the sheep's throat. The sheep thanks the shepherd as his liber ator, while the wolf denounces him for the very same act. Plainly, Lincoln noted, the sheep and the ,volf are not agreed on a defini tion of freedolu.

To me the parable illustrates the conflicting meanings deri ved from freedom. 'roday we hear of freedom as never before, but just what does it lnean? We hear of Freedom Workers, Freedom Marchers, Freedom Fighters. We hear of Freedom Now, Freedom for Students, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Authority, and, for all I know, maybe even Freedom from Freedom. Yet in all this clamor over free dom, I find little or no reference to what I think is the necessary 1968 FREEDOM CUTS TWO WAYS 549 concomitant of freedom, the very thing that gives man his essential dignity, the factor that makes a society livable, creative, and truly free: namely, responsibility. Without responsibility - by which I mean primarily self-re sponsibility - liberty becomes li cense, morals become elastic, and society becomes predatory, its peo ple tending to become like the wolf in Lincoln's parable, lunging at the other fellow's throat.

Neither License Nor Anarchy No, as I understand it, freedom is not license; it is not anarchy. Under freedom, no man is free to do entirely as he likes. After all, freedom involves morality; it in volves discipline, an inner disci pline, a conscience within the in dividual ever reminding him that his freedom stops where the other fellow's freedom begins, that no man is really free if he renders another man less free. And it makes no difference who lessens freedom, whether it stems from private or public sources. The fact is that most usurpation of free dom has stemmed from the latter. As liberal reformer 'Voodrow Wil son noted: "The history of liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power, not the in crease of it." Indeed, this was the design for the American dream, for our Constitutional society. The design was carefully laid down by the Found ing Fathers. They realized that freedom was not a grant of gov ernment. Such a grant would then be but a slender reed, for what government could grant, govern ment could clearly also take away.

In fact, freedom stems from a much Higher Authority than gov ernment. The Declaration of Inde pendence holds "that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Lib erty, and the pursuit of Happi ness." So through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the authors of our Federal Republic insisted for the sake of liberty that men in public office could not be blindly trusted, that they had to be made accountable and responsible, that the American government was to be strictly limited in its powers, subj ect to checks and balances, and expressly prohibited from in fringing on the endowed freedom of the individual. Ours was to be a government of law, not of men. Political foundations of freedom in America Thus, the theory of government put forth by the designers of the Constitution was something unique in the history of govern ment. They laid down the founda550 THE FREEMAN September tions of a society that was essen tially dependent on individual con science, on self -government, on each individual's sense of respon sibility, love of justice, and re spect for the framework of due process of law - that is, respect for the other fellow's freedom.

Hence, our society was built on not one but many centers of gov erning authority, beginning with the governing authority within the person himself and extending to families and churches, commu nities and states, business enter prises, and other voluntary asso ciations. So ours is a society - thanks to self-government, to self-realiza tion - that strives to encourage every individual to achieve what ever rank or distinction of which he is capable. It is a society with Constitutionally guaranteed free doms of press, speech, assembly, and petition. It is a society of political freedom of choice for the individual citizen. It is a society whose economic system is built upon individual enterprise and ownership within the framework of a free market. As you know, this economic system has made us the most productive people in all history with the world's highest living standards. The system fur thermore provides far and away our greatest weapon in the War on Poverty.

Signs of Sickness Yet, because the responsibility side of freedom has been some hovv lost sight of, our society and economy are not well; indeed, they are sick, and the evidence of this sickness can be readily found in the daily headlines, notwith standing all the so-called refer ences to freedom. Rioters in the streets· are beleaguering our ma jor cities. Crime rates keep on hitting new records, with more youthful offenders than ever be fore. Teenage shoplifting is a mounting problem for our stores. Drug addiction, especially by young people, is an increasingly corruptive and corrosive social problem. Family ties are vveaken ing. Promiscuity is rising. In higher education we have also seen a marked deterioration in moral standards. Cribbing dur ing exams, for example, has al ways been a problem, but today more and more students seem to attach no dishonor to it whatso ever. Students talk of Student Power but precious little of Stu dent Responsibility. Students have even taken over academic build ings by force and have held cap tive campus recruiters, deans, and other college administrators ironically and clearly diminishing the freedom of the captives,all too often in the name of civil liberties and civil disobedience. Even the 1968 FREEDOM CUTS TWO WAYS 551 code of civil disobedience calls for accepting responsibility in terms of the consequences for infractions of the law. Yet when apprehended by the authorities, what is the first "demand" of the disobeying stu dents? It's amnesty. But such am nesty hardly squares with respon sibility.

One more point on campus riot ing: In practically all the disturb ances at our educational institu tions, a small but noisy nihilistic minority has commandeered facil ities and effectively blocked the freedom of the student majority to attend classes. The adversely affected maj ori ty all too often has been silent and has looked the other way. This response of indif ference also strikes me as irre sponsible. I do not suggest that the majority do battle with the disturbers, but rather that they rally to the cause of peace and ra tional discussion of issues, that they support the university admin istrators who are trying to main tain order and so to protect their freedom. Inflation Attends the Welfare State Economically, we also see signs of fever - and lack of responsi bility. Maybe you heard of the re sponse of the man getting his an nual physical checkup to the doctor who told him that he was as sound as a dollar; the man shot back: "Doctor, am I that bad?"

Well, is the economy really sick? The apswer depends on how you measure economic symptoms. Cer tainly, signs of inflationary stress and strain abound. The Federal budget is in perennial and ever rising deficit. The U. S. balance of payments is also in perennial and ever rising deficit. Our stock of gold has been dissipated to a dan gerously low level. All manner of controls have been applied to American lending and investing overseas, although history is re plete with their failure in previous applications. And, although the so called "voluntary" wage-price guideposts proved to be a demon strable failure, talk persists of new controls over wages and prices, while little is done about the underlying fiscal and legisla tive forces of inflation. That infla tion is compounded by wage and salary demands by leaders of or ganized employees both private and public, both professional and nonprofessional, far beyond any semblance of producti vity or merit. It is compounded by de mands for all manner of handouts from the government - local, state, and especially Federal. In the name of welfare, these demands are for more and more - not to morrow but today. These demands strain the body politic - and eco552 THE FREEMAN September nomic - and erode the foundations of our liberty.

In all these examples of social and economic sickness we see abuse of freedom; 'we see aban donment of discipline and respon sibility - of self-discipline and self-responsibility - by those in private and public life. In other words, we see the elnergence of the kind of freedom exemplified by the wolf in Lincoln's parable. The wolfish freedom may not always be overt and violent. It can be covert and subtle. It can be seen in disrespect for due process of law. It can be seen in a growing moral laxness, in indifference to corruption, in an ethical softness that is steadily eating away at our values and virtues, in the credit that every man is a law unto him self. I guess what I am trying to say boils down to this: The other side of the coin of individual freedom is individual responsibility. You can't have the one without the other. Before you and I can gov ern others, each and everyone of us must first learn to govern himself. Before any of us can blithely dismiss our external re straints, each of us must assume a solemn moral obligation to re strain himself. ~ Character Must Be Earned WHEN a man is on his own, an individual responsible for him self, he must earn a character-a personal character that is perhaps his first necessity. Others may then learn and imitate his qualities and capabilities. In a planned society he has no need of a character, for no such thing is wanted. No national or universal plan can afford to take the least notice of his personal character.

As an individual responsible for himself, a man must also acquire credit. Others must be convinced that he is credit-worthy; that he can be trusted; that what he undertakes he will perform to the limits of his ability. But when he is planned, nothing so troublesome is in the least n"ecessary. SIR ERNEST BENN, Rights for Robots Separationof Powers and tlie Labor Act Ill. JUDICIAL COURTS versus ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS SYLVESTER PETRO THE institutional setting of each member of the National Labor Re lations Board is a five-year ap pointment to what is known as a quasi-judicial tribunal, located by law, fact, and tradition in the ex ecutive branch of government. Ap pointment is by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The duties are essentially judicial in character. One hears varying opinions, concerning whether or not the Board mem bers should conceive of themselves as essentially policymaking par ticipants in any current Adminis tration, on the one hand, or judges on the other. The "Eisenhower Dr. Petro is Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. He has written several books, including The Labor Policy of the Free Society (1957) and Power Un limited: The Corruption of Union Leadership ( 1959) , and is a noted lecturer and con tributor to magazines.