Reflection on the Guilt Complex; L.E. Read

The cause often ascribed for this apostasy - this turning away from the free society by those it has raised to positions of affluence - is that the wealthy are victims of a guilt complex. They are ashamed to be more successful than their fellowmen! Personally, I believe this to be a fallacy; further, it is a mischievous ex planation and we do injury to the freedom philosophy by excusing these apostates in this manner. A wealthy friend suggests a state minimum wage law so high that tourist accommodations in his area will no longer be finan cially feasible; he wants his beau tiful countryside uncrowded and uncluttered. A statist position in order to have his little world to himself! This, for certain, is not a. guilt complex. Or, here's a. suspicion of mine: Turning to welfare statism is purely a pose assumed by many! affluent persons - often unwit-; tingly - to shield themselves from; a growing number of socialistic critics. They pose as welfare stat1970 REFLECTIONS ON THE GUILT COMPLEX 29 ists or profess to be in business for "the social good" rather than, for profit; saying, in effect, to those who covet their affluence, "See, I'm on your side and doing all in my power to bring you to my level." This is far from a guilt complex.

Now and then there may be a business mogul or an inheritor of wealth who actually believes that "from each according to ability ... to each according to need" leads to social felicity. But we cannot call the advocacy of this Marxian tenet a guilt complex. There is little point in tracing causation further. The causes are far more numerous than the num ber of apostates, for each of them is led down the primrose path to socialism by more reasons than anyone else can fathom or than he himself is aware of. All of these countless defections are either immaturity or a lapse of judgment - thoughtless drifts that are as common to those who "have it made" as to those who haven't. However, in no instance do we uncover a guilt complex. Suppose that Success Were a Marie of Distinction Suppose that affluence were a mark of distinction - that getting ahead of others, becoming rich through voluntary exchanges, or making big profits brought not criticism but applause, acclaim, esteem from everyone. Were this the ca'se, would the affluent among us be apologetic for their success, that is, would they have a guilty feeling? Indeed, they would not!

Instead, they would be basking in their glory. Or, look at it this way: If some person's~~gui1ty feelings bred an uncontrollabie compassion for others - as the Bible puts it, "this man's possessions were weighing him down" - any individual so afflicted could sell his possessions and give to the poor. Until we see such voluntary charitable behavior on the part of an affluent person, let us hear no more about a guilt complex as an explanation for his apostasy! Sell his possessions and give to the poor! What, really, are the wealthy doing when they side with welfare-state concepts and pro grams? The very opposite! They are advocating that your and my possessions be expropriated and given willy-nilly, more often than not with injury to the poor. This posture may, on occasion, gain ap proval or silence criticism but only because so few see the sham in it. If the naked truth were apparent to all, would an affluent person so unfavorably expose himself? Of course he would not! Only profes sional comedians try to make a laughing stock of themselves.

30 THE FREEMAN January Affluence Gains Publicity Why put so much emphasis on the apostasy of the affluent? Why not equally on the apostasy of those in the middle or lower brackets? In all frankness, this apostasy - by the rich or by the poor may be fairly and accurately diag nosed as an utter lack of under: standing, a failure to grasp the most simple and basic economic relationships of cause and effect, of human action and its conse quences. This is not to suggest that per sons of affluence are either more or less prone to these lapses into medieval or primitive ways than those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Understanding is not advanced or retarded by the rise or fall of bank balances; there is no correlation between the two. But an affluent person - usu ally well known - pa.cks more weight than a poor person. The views of a captain of industry or finance or whatever are much pub licized, whereas the views of a person who hasn't "made it" yet may go unheard or unheeded, even by his family. The "higher-ups"

make news, and to the extent that they defect from freedom principles they infect more than their fair share of fellow Americans. This is why the apostasy of the affluent merits special attention - and disapproval, not acclaim. Fortunately, each of us has it within his own power to immunize himself against economic sophisms and fallacies. We need not be mis led in economic theories and prac tices by a spreader of nonsense, whether he be .affluent or poor. No genius is required to see clearly that an unhampered mar ket economy best fulfills the peace ful wants and ambitions of every one involved. Each best serves himself by serving others, produc ing his own specialty, trading for theirs. To be ashamed of success under such a creative arrange ment, is to be sick of mind. The market does, in fact, handsomely reward those who best serve others, and the others ought to know and welcome the result, be glad and proud of it, for their very lives depend on this.

The alternative to which men turn in their failure to understand is a coercive tyranny that con demns mankind to slow starvation. This is not really a concern for the poor; it is not a guilt complex!