The Good Life; W. M. Curtiss

The Good Life W. M. CURTISS WHAT CONSTITUTES "the good life"? The question has engaged writers and thinkers through the ages. But the search continues and a moment's reflection reveals why. The good life is a highly per sonal and individual concept, meaning something entirely dif ferent to one person than to an other. And its meaning to any person may change from time to time. Walden Pond was most im portant to Thoreau, though .not to some of his contemporaries. The good life for a small boy is likely to differ greatly from that for his father or his grandfather. One worker may look upon the compulsory 40-hour week as a chance to get away from distaste·ful work; another finds the short ened workweek a signal to take on a second job. Dr. Curtiss is Executive Secretary of the Foun· dation for Economic Education. Hope and faith that something pleasant will happen in the future has been the good life for many religion, in its various forms.

Abundant food, streets paved with gold, freedom from pain and suf fering, eternal life - these are some of the dreams· or hopes for the good life. The feeling of power over men must constitute the good life for some, while others find it revolt ing. Pursuit of knowledge may be highly rewarding to some persons. Leisure may seem either heaven or hell. The point is that each has his own answer to what is the good life. Or, as Thoreau expressed it: "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." Many persons feel a responsi739 740 THE FREEMAN December bility to help arrange the life of others as well as their own. Par ents, of course, do this; and rightly so, up to a point. But some elected officials, dictators, teachers, church leaders, and a host of others feel they have the right, the responsibility, and the wisdom to determine what shall be the good life for others. As Dean Acheson commented re cently: "Conscience used to be an inner voice of self-discipline; now it is a clarion urge to discipline others." History records the fail ure of such arrangements, whether attempted by parents or by dicta tors, the reason being that the good life is so very personal, and so highly variable from person to person. Parents, hoping to bring about the good life for their children, often do precisely the opposite. Elected officials may hon estly believe that "an affluent na tion can surely assure a minimum income of $3,500 for every fam ily." The belief, of course, is that this would bring about the good life.

Many "utopian" arrangements have been tried over the years. The fact that most were based on the communal principle, "from each according to ability and to each according to need," was a major reason for failure. Individuals often think that the good life - heaven on earth - will come to them if only they have an abundance of material things or the money to buy them. Who hasn't dreamed how he would use a million dollars or the winnings from a huge lottery? "Boy, what I wouldn't do with all that money!" Or, more modestly, how much better life will be when I get that raise, or when the mort gage is retired! But, we know that material pos sessions alone do not guarantee a good life. Such things contribute to the good life, but the circum stances under which material pos sessions are acquired make a lot of difference. Beyond Material Things If, by the good life, we mean an inner satisfaction, contentment, or happiness, then the acquiring of material things is hardly an appropriate measure of such sat isfaction. If it were, we could say that a man who has a better home, finer clothes, more television sets, and better cars, has more of the good life than his less wealthy neighbor. Or, we could say that the life of an average American is twice as good as that of his English or French cousin. But we know that the good life as meas ured by inner satisfaction and pride of accomplishment is not determined by the amount of things a person has.

1968 THE GOOD LIFE 741 Our attempt to help people who seem less well off than we are often consists in giving them ma terial things or the money to buy them. Our government poverty programs are largely based on the assumption that some people have too much and others have too little: Take away from those who have and give to those who have not. Thus, "the good life" would seem to be shared, though it hasn't worked out that way. Instead, it appears that everyone loses - the givers and the receivers. It is not our purpose to dis parage the accumulation or pro duction of wealth on the part of an individual. The relatively free economy of the United States over a period of 150 years, together with a heavy investment of capi tal in the tools of production, en ables a worker to purchase a pair of shoes or a suit of clothes with one-fifth to one-tenth the hours of work required in many other coun tries. This suggests a possible cure for the poverty found in many parts of the world. But it does not follow that the good life of individuals in such countries will automatically be improved if wealth is forcibly extracted from individuals in wealthy countries and given to those in less wealthy countries.

What then, can be said about how government or society can help an individual attain the good life? Bear in mind that individ uals include the young as well as the old, the poor as well as the rich, blacks as well as whites, schooled as well as unschooled, leaders as well as followers. A key, to be so universal, must then have something to do with man's basic nature; and it does, indeed. Inner Contentment The secret is self-responsibility. Recall that the good life does not result from an accumulation of material things but involves rather the inner-contentment of living one's own life - of developing one's own potential and being respon sible for the results. It follows that the forceful re moval or denial of self-responsi bility will diminish the good life. The satisfactions which come from being self-responsible must bewell known to almost everyone, out of his own experiences. Experts in human behavior have documented the fact again and again. Who hasn't witnessed the unmistaken joy that comes over a child in tak ing his first unassisted step or trying to tie his own shoe? "Me do it!" is often the response to offers of adult help, and persistent interference or "help" may pro duce tantrums.

The words change as the indi vidual ages, and resistance to out742 THE FREEMAN December side help may be less vocal; but the basic attitude is still there. This is not to say that when one is offered the choice of doing something for himself or of ac cepting a handout, his response will always be: "I'd rather do it myself!" There is much evidence to the contrary. But, it seems to be human nature to gain satisfac tion from being self-responsible - doing things for oneself. The wealth of one's family or of the "affluent society" contributes to a something-for-nothing attitude in many people and is at the root of many of today's problems. The fault is not so much in the wealth, per se, as in the easy way it allows a person to escape self-responsi bility. In the agricultural economy of our colonial period, the family's living was practically limited to what it produced. We were an underdeveloped nation by today's standards, with little in the way of foreign handouts. But the sat isfactions of the good life were found in being self-reliant and self-responsible. Children as well as adults had their responsibilities.

Denials of Responsibility There are today a great many different ways in which persons are heing denied the right and privilege of self-responsibility, chief among these denials being the various governmental welfare measures. Administrators of such programs, together with law-mak ers, observe that some persons are poorer than others; they insist that those of the lower third are "entitled" to a better life and that the cost to the other two thirds will hardly be felt. Be sides, much of the help can come from Washington where the cost will be diffused among other gov ernmental expenditures. It is but a short step from "they're entitled to it" on the part of administrators to "we demand it" on the part of recipients. Thus, we see demonstrations of the "we demand" type, with leadership to turn such demonstrations into looting and burning and other types of violence. "We're entitled to it; we're just getting our share."

The greatest tragedy of this type of welfare is not its cost in dollars but its effect on the re ceiver as well as the giver. With the denial of responsibility for self goes a loss of self-respect. The appetite for such handouts is insatiable and the effect on the moral fiber of a people is tremen dous. As one person aptly said: "A man deprived of the opportun ity of paying his own way, of supporting his children and pro viding the nurture that will give them healthy bodies and a foun1968 THE GOOD LIFE 743 dation of self-respect - a man who cannot accomplish these things through hard work and thrift, must become a revolutionary." The basic satisfaction of doing for oneself seems to be matched by a willingness to accept hand outs. It takes courage on the part of wealthy parents to refuse to indulge their children. And the same order of discipline applies in an affluent society with· respect to its poor.

We can say, over and over again: "It is for your own good that you earn your own way." But few adults can rise above the temptation of a handout - some thing for nothing - if it is offered. The inj ustice is primarily to the receiver in denying him satisfac tions through his own efforts. While we cannot do much about the over-indulgent parent, we can recognize that it is not a proper function of government to deny its citizens their self-respect or to encourage the "something for nothing" philosophy. Something for Nothing There are other ways in which self-responsibility may be denied. Consider the whole area of jobs and labor relations. A man may strike against his employer and, by violence or threat of violence, keep some other willing worker from taking his job. The right to a job is not a one-sided contract. It implies that someone else has the obligation to supply that job. Job tenure is of a similar na ture. Some jobs, especially in aca demic circles,carry what amounts to a guarantee that the holder can have the job as long as he wants whether or not he performs re sponsibly. Or consider the effect of a minimum wage on the person incapable of earning it in open competition. This person may be perfectly willing to work for $1.00 an hour, but when the law says he must be paid $1.60, he may be forced out of work and onto relief.

This is hardly the way to develop self-respect. The guaranteed annual wage or the negative income tax, as a method of meeting welfare needs, can only compound the serious problem of gaining self-respect through individual responsibility. Higher education has been much publicized of late because of cam pus disturbances by students. It is easy to pass this off as a "lack of communication," or the "gen eration gap," or the result of an unpopular war. But, how many of these student demonstrators show any real sense of responsibility for gaining an education? Doesn't society owe them an education! Once upon a time, parents strug gled and saved to provide educa tional opportunities for their chi!744 THE FREEMAN December dren, and most children under stood that sacrifice. There was no generation gap on the point. How can a comparable responsibility be aroused in students for whom the government provides?

Laws to "protect the consumer" also have a tendency to deprive a person of his self-responsibility. True, it is a valid function of gov ernment to do its best to prevent fraud and stealing, and to enforce contracts. But there are some risks a person can and should assume for himself. For instance, I am not interested in having a serious driving accident or getting killed. If I believe seat belts will help protect me, I'll install and use them. Why should anyone ~ave to compel me to do that - and de prive me of the responsibility? Compulsory social security like wise deprives people of their own responsibility for thrift and sav ing. It also destroys the good life of the family as a unit. Self-re sponsibility and self-respect run from the individual to the family; and the assistance which young people can give their elders volun tarily can be an important part of the good life for all concerned.

The gradual weakening of family ties has ma~y causes, but high on the list must be the exorbitant amount of government welfare. The erosion of self-responsibil ity and self-respect surely con tributes to the general decline of morality in our time. Respect for others stems from self -respect; the self-responsible person re spects his neighbor's property as he would his own. He is not likely to throw bricks through school windows, or destroy college prop erty, or join gangs in looting and burning. Such respect for prop erty is the essence of law and order. Pride in one's accomplishments, responsibility for what one does, and respect for self and others constitutes inner satisfaction, con tentment, happiness - in short, the good life. ~ Ed Howe BEHAVE YOURSELF; let others go to the devil, if they so please. If you behave yourself and do well, that will be the most power ful preaching you can indulge in; noting your example, many on the way to the devil will turn back and follow you to safety.