Crime in America; D. Walter

CRIME in America DAVID WALTER IT IS with considerable dismay that one notes the increasing in cidence of criminal activities in the United States. After all, do not people living in the United States have the highest standard of liv ing in the world and the most op portunity for advancement thanks to the operation of the free enterprise system? Why, then, the increase in crime? Many persons believe that fear of punishment has a direct effect on the rate of crime, and that leniency tends to encourage more crime; whereas others argue that harsh treatment by police or judg es may drive the criminal to more brutal crimes in a desire to "get even" or "strike back at the op pressors." Still others contend that crime Mr. Walter is a Cost Accountant in Phi1a~ delphia and editor of Society for Individual Liberty News. 546 is committed by those "kept poor by the system" and that welfare, not punishment, will stem the causes of crime. However, the record suggests to me that bribery or blackmail payments in the form of urban renewal, government handouts, and poverty programs unwittingly promote and become the justification for the commis sion of crimes. So, I believe we must examine further the basic causes of crime before prescrib ing more punishment as a solution.

The American tradition has been for the people to delegate to government the responsibility to combat crime through its police and judicial arms. Citizens sup porting these government func tions want a society of individuals content to leave their neighbors in peace. Police, and courts are sup posed to deal effectively with those few individuals who seek to obtain 1971 CRIME IN AMERICA 547 possessions from others by initi ating force and denying rights of ownership. Government Unbounded If one is to understand the fail ure of government to check the crime wave, one must first recog nize that government has taken to itself or been urged to assume many additional functions which are difficult to distinguish from outright criminal activity. Gov ernment, on all levels, is infring ing upon the rights of individuals and taking their property by force. Government is increasingly seeking to control, without permis sion, those businessmen, entrepre neurs, and hard-working individ uals who provide our high stand ard of living through the free market. If these same interven tions were visited upon citizens by private persons, the actions would be clearly identified as crimes. But government, by "legalized" meth ods, now manages to deprive citi zens of some 43 per cent of their own earnings. And many persons condone this system; they see the similarity of actions, but feel that coercion for "the right reasons"

(to benefit the collective) is per missible while similar action for personal gain is not. Those who believe in individ ual rights and the efficacy of the free market should understand why and how the government plunderbund encourages crime. The increasing attacks on private property - by criminals, govern ments, politicians, activist minis ters, welfarists, students, and philosophers - indicate that re spect for private property has been replaced or has diminished as a moral value among responsible people. This change in the basic attitude toward private property (which may be defined as the individual's life and all those things one has acquired to sustain it through voluntary transactions) explains the rise in crime. Other wise, if more and more people were accepting the ideal of private property, surely the remaining criminals could not step up their activities sufficiently to raise the over-all level of crime.

The Looter Philosophy Any society will have its prin ciples reflected in i.ts government, its mores, and its problems. It is not surprising to note an increase in crime in conjunction with an increased acceptance of collectivist principles of human action. For the widespread and popular ac ceptance. of a looter phiJosophy is bound to bring forth a rash of looters. Unfortunately for believers in liberty, many of the policies of government in the United States, 548 THE FREEMAN September as in other countries today, are based on the superiority of the group over the individual. We are told that the group (or the "pub lic interest") demands subordina tion of individuals to the collec tive will. One might ask where these powers originate, since no individual holds such rights over another. But licensed philosophers of the new faith stand ready to answer that such powers spring like a will-o'-the-wisp from a suf ficient grouping of individuals.

Government, under the collec tivist philosophy, consists alleged ly of the people who have superior insight into the everyday needs of the typical citizen. They decide how to distribute the nation's total output of goods among the masses for the common good. In America, this idea has been most dominant since the New Deal era, though it has governed to some extent every society previously known. Sorrow fully, today's debate concerns only how much to take, at what time, and for what purpose. Whether it is right and proper to take any thing at all seems no longer to be questioned. A whole new genera tion has learned to turn these no tions for their own benefit. Labor unions, pressure groups, looter groups such as the Welfare "Rights" Organization, political parties, and even business organi zations and industrial concerns are all engaged in organized, sophisticated taking of other peo ples' property. All this has come to be more or less accepted as part of the current political process.

Instant Justice Nor are people entirely content to play according to the political rules. Why, they ask, should they wait for some greedy bureaucrat to get around to giving them the money "everyone" recognizes as having no rightful owner? Buf feted by government restrictions, or recipients of a poor public edu cation, or unskilled and out of work due to minimum wage laws, or kept in a ghetto by urban re newal and building codes, these people decide to take "what is theirs by right" (or, at the very least, belongs to no one except he who can take it and hold it). So, cutting out the middleman, the thugs take to roaming the streets in search of loot and victims. They read about graft in public con struction, war and pillage, infla tion, labor union violence, and ad vice from the thought leaders about redistributing the wealth. Absorbing the society's predilec tions for violation of private prop erty rights, they decide not to wait their turn in the political process because they have been waiting too long already.

Can the student who, in the 1971 CRIME IN AMERICA 549 morning, devotes his free period to working for a group which urges the workers to seize the fac tories complain when, in the eve ning, he is mugged as he leaves the campus? Can the labor union leader or the tariff advocate or the trust buster or the Presidential aspirant deny to criminals the "rights" they themselves demand to the IiveIihood of others? In a word, no. To be consistent with their own preachings, those who advocate to any degree a collec tivist program have no right to complain about criminals tram pling the rights of individuals. If they wonder why there are gangs roaming the streets, let them re alize that those gangs are only doing what the collectivists pious ly demanded. The hoodlums do not wear dinner jackets nor do they speak from the podiums of great universities; they do not ob serve the niceties of "proper"

political procedure or claim divine inspiration; they do not ask for the sanction of their victim; and they look upon politicians as fools who preach human liberty while doing everything in their power to enforce conformity and obedi ence to the welfare state. Order, stability, and civilization (prerequisites of the free market) require far more than punishment, bribery, and blackmail in an at tempt to gain good behavior. It is up to those who believe in private property and individual liberty to set an example for others by liv ing what they preach. Each of us must root out from his own be havior those actions which run counter to voluntary trade among men. We must forswear any at tempt to force others to our will. And, if we succeed with applying consistent principles of morality to our own lives, then perhaps oth ers will be inspired to do likewise. Crime will decrease only to the extent that individuals begin to accept the principles of the free society where each man lives his life as he wishes, trades volun tarily with whom he pleases, and respects the right of other men to do the same. ~ IDEAS ON LIBERTY A Risk Worth Taking THE LIBERTY of going wrong is the seamy side of the priceless privilege of going right by free choice rather than by compulsion.

WILLIAM ERNEST HOCKING, The Coming World Civilization WHAT ABOUT ?. To OUTLAW sin or to tax it, that seems to be the question. But the answer depends on one's definition of sin and his understanding of the nature and purpose of govern ment. There are among honorable men vast differences of opinion as to what constitutes sin and what government can and should do about such things. It seems reasonably clear and undebatable that what government can do about anything is to apply force, even if men may disagree as to whether a particular appli cation of force is aggressive, or defensive, or of some other kind. In the final analysis, government is force. From one point of view, the question is settled then and there: any resort to force is sinful by this view, and among the greatest of sins is a reliance on government 550 PAUL L. POIROT for any purpose whatsoever; so, there should be no governmental agency to either outlaw sin or tax it. That's well and good for the saintly who have the character and courage absolutely to resist not evil - to turn the other cheek whatever the provocation. But it only confuses the issue and ag gravates the problem for those who believe that force can and should be used in defense of life and prop erty - to say nothing of those who would apply coercion for any other purposes they deem worthy.