What about Sin? P.L. Poirot

For instance, I believe that the most practicable and desirable form of society is one that maxi mizes personal freedom of choice and minimizes violence among men. That is, I believe in a free market to facilitate voluntary as sociation and trade. But I also be lieve that the optimum release of 1971 WHAT ABOUT SIN? 551 creative human energy - through voluntary association and trade requires a framework of organized force or police power, a govern ment of strictly limited scope and purpose to minimize violence among men, protecting the life and property of everyone who comes to trade in peace, permit ting no person or group to block any peaceful trader from the mar ket. Such a faith in a market econ omy is said by some to be a sin, and they would outlaw competi tion, or tax it, or both. If faith in competition be a sin, surely it must be less deadly than mayhem and murder, lying, cheat ing, stealing, corrupting the lives and polluting or destroying the property of others. But the rang ing of "sins" in order of their seriousness raises the interesting question of how or where to rank the love of money, the sin of pride, drinking, smoking, drug use, obes ity, dancing, gambling, and an endless host of other questionable practices.

Are Innocent Persons Injured? One approach to this problem of identifying sin and how to cope with it is to determine if the al leged sin does injury to the life or property of an innocent person be having peacefully and self-respon sibly. If so, should he not have full recourse under the law to recover damages sustained and to prevent further injurious action to himself and his property? And there probably should be govern mental provisions for dealing with cases of child abuse, corruption of minors, and similar injurious ac tions against those considered to be incapable of caring for them selves - too immature or irrespon sible to vote. Respect for human life and be lief in the dignity of the individ ual are by no means so universal and unanimous in the United States today as to preclude further debate. Note the sincere and vig orous differences of opinion on the matter of abortion, for instance, or on the methods involved in waging war in Vietnam. Yet, there would seem to be an overwhelming consensus against murder and other deliberate or careless acts of violence against the lives of in nocent peaceful persons. Is there any reasonable doubt that killing and maiming others, deliberately or negligently and without due cause and provocation, is a punish able offense against man and so ciety? Is there any reasonable ob jection to outlawing such antiso cial actions and employing the full force of government to prevent and discourage such activities by individuals or groups against the lives of peaceful citizens?

It would seem equally proper to 552 THE FREEMAN September prevent and discourage acts of ag gression against the property of any peaceful person. Yet, there is by no means the degree of un animity of understanding and re spect for private property in the United States as generally pre vails in regard to human life. Con siderably more educational effort is needed before it becomes uni versally clear that a man's honest ly and peacefully acquired prop erty is due the same respect from others as is his life itself; his property is but an extension of his life, his to use as he chooses so long as he chooses not to use it to the deliberate or negligent injury of other peaceful persons. Which Attitude Toward Property? The attitude toward private property may well be the key to the great puzzle over sin and what the government ought to do about it. If a man's property is viewed as something gained by inj uring others, then it must seem just to retrieve it from the present owner (obviously, the rich) and redis tribute it among those presumed to have been injured (obviously, the poor). But if one looks upon John Doe's property as that which others have freely given him, as outright gifts or for services rend ered to them, the seizure and re distribution of such property would seem to be saying that services ought not be rendered ac cording to the wishes of the cus tomers, that no one should be free to own or buy or sell what he chooses. And the question boils down to this: Which attitude to ward private property really re flects a respect for the life and dignity of the individual?

The logical answer would seem to call for the mutual respect and the common defense of private property, as acquired through peaceful productive effort and vol untary exchange. To shorten or diminish a man's life by stealing some or all of his property would seem to be the same kind of sin as maiming or killing him. But this, of course, is not the attitude or answer of those who advocate and condone the socialistic practice of taxing the rich for redistribution among the poor. It is the accumu lation of property - saving really - that seems sinful to them; and the children of grace would be the deserving poor, no matter how well-deserved their poverty. The Sin of Ignorance We have been discussing actions injurious to the lives or property of innocent, peaceful persons, argu ing that it is an appropriate func tion of government to protect the innocent and to prevent such crim inal acts. But what about those sins of self-abuse that do not 1971 WHAT ABOUT SIN? 553 threaten or harm any innocent and peaceful person - drinking, smok ing, gambling, and so on? What should government do about that kind of sin?

"That kind of sin" really boils down to the sin of ignorance - not knowing or caring that there are better ways to use one's faculties and other private property. And in the United States a decision was made a long time ago as to what the government ought to do about ignorance: compulsory education! Outlaw ignorance, and tax every body to pay for government schooling! Had there been no early decision for compulsory edu cation, one can imagine the prob lems that might otherwise have arisen to confront today's citizen ry: widespread drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography, sexual promiscuity and perversion, irre sponsible proliferation among the poor, slum conditions, looting and rioting, trespassing and destruc tion of property, disrespect for law, old people unable to care for themselves, masses of able-bodied men and women reduced to beg gary, children roaming the streets dressed in rags and carrying guns and knives, moral and spiritual and intellectual and physical deg radation on every hand, not to mention the waste and pollution of other scarce resources.

The harsh fact is that we have had an all-out government cam paign against ignorance - and we do have all these other conditions, too - in the United States of America, in 1971. And the sober conclusion can no longer be es caped: perhaps the worst of the sins of ignorance is the belief that ignorance can and should be out lawed, that people can be forced to behave as if they were wise. If one finds his own ignorance intol erable, then he has already taken the first essential step toward cor rection. To the extent that he suc ceeds with his own problem, he will learn to tolerate what he had presumed to be ignorance in others, leaving to them the sweet and the bitter consequences of their own actions and the full re sponsibility for their own conduct. Unless one is prepared to tol erate the ignorance of the poor or the rich - and leave them to their just rewards, he can have no logical complaint against those who would seize his property for their own "better" purpose. As for the sins of ignorance, it is im portant not to outlaw them and not to tax them. But most impor tant of all is not to subsidize them.

~ LUDWIG VON MISES, Human Action W. MARSHALL CURTISS A businessman is always under the necessity of adjusting the conduct of his business to the institutional conditions of his country. In the long run he is, in his capacity as entrepreneur and capitalist, neither favored nor injured by tariffs or the absence of tariffs. IF THERE is one point of fairly general agreement among econo mists throughout the world and throughout time, it is that trade should remain free from all sorts of governmental restrictions and interventions. It would seem un necessary to repeat over and over why the material welfare of indi viduals is enhanced through the division of labor and freedom to trade. But restrictions still exist! Tar iffs and other barriers to trade seem to move through cycles, re laxed at times, and then reapplied. Dr. Curtiss is Executive Secretary of the Foun dation for Economic Education. This essay is from the "Mises 90th Birthday Collection,"