Why Can't We Have Both? J. Hockman

Why cant we have both? JEAN HOCKMAN THE CURRENT political discussion in the United States centers on how to control the economy. Not should the government control the economy but how! The propriety of government intervention into the private financial affairs of the people is a question long overdue. For years America has been try ing to "solve the problem" of how to have her cake and eat it too. Expert and layman alike struggle to understand why the government can't spend money it doesn't have and still remain solvent; why we can't have government handouts without raising taxes; and why every American can't be financial ly secure, with enough left over to support the poor on a· global scale. Just what miracle do Amer icans believe will be forthcoming? Mrs. Hockman of Tacoma, Washington, is a housewife and freelance author with a bias toward freedom. Let us leave aside opInIons of economic experts who insist that a government-managed economic system is necessary, or superior to, or consistent with freedom. (This last, despite .the fact that the historical record of all such at tempts reveals that the people are required to live in a state of forced subjugation to the leadership, in behalf of the nation and/or the "common good.") Instead, let us apply an ingredient that has all but vanished from the American scene - common sense.

Federal bureaucracy is spread ing (unchecked) over our land like a fungus. And like fungus, it feeds off the main crop, i.e., the earnings of the people. A fungus is a para site that attaches itself to healthy growth, gradually weakening and ultimately destroying it. If the fungus is caught and destroyed, the main crop will be free to re67 68 THE FREEMAN Februa.ry cover and continue its healthy growth at its own speed. If the fungus is allowed to spread, it gathers momentum, perpetuating itself until there is nothing left to feed on. So it is with bureaucracy. It feeds and perpetuates itself first. Bureaucracy Has First Claim One needn't be an expert to figure out how it works; and fur ther, that it can work no other way. In any society, some people prod uce more than others - and some produce nothing at all. But, the bureaucracy has first claim on all production, and siphons profits off the top. What seeps back to the people is considerably less than they have produced, thereby limit ing their capacity for economic ex pansion and tending to lower their level of living.

We have been told repeatedly that "some" economic controls are necessary because men in private life are either unable or unwilling to successfully and honestly man.. age their own affairs. If this were true (of course, it isn't), one might logically ask the following question. By what magical means do men, hired by the government, suddenly acquire the wisdom and honesty to manage the economic affairs of the entire population? Apparently, we are expected to be lieve that people aren't capable of "handling" freedom, but that the government is. The first order of private busi .. ness is to make a profit. It should go without saying that an unprofit able business is scarcely in a posi tion to survive (much less ex pand) and is' of no use to anyone. Government a Profit Taker But government is a profit tak ing operation. It is not econom ically productive, but economically dependent upon the earnings gen erated by the private enterprise of the people. If a government pro gram is ineffective or inefficient (and which ones aren't?), the gov ernment does not account for the loss; it simply draws against the people's private earnings and busi ness profits and perpetuates the loss.

Observe the rising clamor against American business for making profits, the demand that "excess" profits be penalized. Yet the biggest profit taking organiza tion in this country, the Federal government, is being encouraged to expand its operations and cre ate new agencies of economic con trol. To what end? If the goal is to eliminate pov erty and unemployment through economic prosperity, the expansion of business must be encouraged, not restricted; and the role of gov ernment reduced - not expanded.

1972 WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH? 69 Economic control does not lead to growth, progress, and prosperity. It never has and it never will. Economic control is the means by which government maintains total political control over the people, a fact which the American people will have to face sooner or later one way or another. Government intervention is al ways restrictive, and for this rea son it is impossible for govern ment to "manage" or "control" a free economy. It is a contradiction in terms - and in reality. Communism Controls Through Force and Subjugation If proof is needed,. communism has proven for all to see that economic control can only be fully achieved and maintained through sheer force and total human sub jugation. Socialism (the supposed ly benign version of communism) is failing miserably in every coun try that has tried it. Under social ism the people are taxed unmerci fully, and end up bickering among themselves and clamoring to their bureaucratic "benefactors" for a greater "share." In short, eco nomic control is a, vicious, static, dead,:,endcycle that can only result in the ultimate loss of all human liberty and dignity, and a lowered level of living. (Note that fascism "permits" private ownership, but denies property rights and is merely a variation of the same theme.) This leads toa question which I ask now, and future historians may well ponder. Why did America.

abandon the free enterprise sys tem, .or more precisely - capital ism? Do Americans really believe the communist propaganda that was deliberately designed to destroy the most successful economic sys tem in the history of mankind? I am 35 years old, and I can't recall hearing a single American politi cian stand up and defend capital ism on the righteous grounds that it is entirely consistent with the CQnstitutionalprinciples of in dividual liberty by which we are supposedly· bound. In fact, one rarely hears capitalism mentioned at all, except in negative terms. "Private enterprise" is referred. to and grudgingly accepted (pri marily as a source of government spending power). But a fully con sistent system ·of capitalism (lais sez faire) does not exist anywhere in the world - and never has. It certainly doesn't exist in America. Nor is it being seriously consid ered. Why not? Efficient and Profitable Capitalism is the most efficient, progressive, and profitable econ omic system ever devised. People seek their livelihood on their own 70 THE FREEMAN terms, according to their own ability, for and with their own money. They deal directly with one another, not through the gov ernment - thereby saving the ex pense of useless bureaucracy.

(Properly, government should en ter the picture only upon request, i.e., in the event of a legal dispute or a criminal offense, to determine the legality of a given situation in terms of the natural rights of the individuals involved. Needless to say, no government, including ours, has yet confined itself to this role. This doesn't mean it isn't possible or desirable.) Capitalism also contains its own built-in checks and balances. Peo ple are required to exercise sound judgment, or suffer the conse quences of their own folly. It doesn't carry any guarantees. One risks failure along with the pros pect of success. And if we are hon est, we know that there are no real guarantees possible in life - not in theory, or in reality. Life is a process of change and risk, growth and setback, and ultimately what one can realistically hope for is to achieve a just measure of success commensurate with one's own ability. This is what capitalism is, and does. It puts the responsibility where it belongs - on the individ ual - which is, after all, the mean ing of independence. One is not in dependent if he is not responsible for his own needs. Nor can one become independently responsible if the government intervenes to make it impossible.

Economic Disaster Follows Monetary Manipulation The greatest economic disaster in America's history came after the Federal Reserve Act had re lieved people of the responsibility and the means of making an ac curate judgment. The subsequent frantic efforts of government to "create" a sound economic balance through legislative force have brought us to our present state of chronic insecurity and collective dependency. Yet government is rarely blamed for our economic difficulties. After all, hasn't it been. trying to cure them for over 40 years? Capital ism is blamed. The accusation that capitalism exploits the worker has been re peated so often that it is generally accepted as true with no further thought. Let it be stated here for the record that capitalism is the system for the working man. It does not reward the idle - only the man who is willing to work for his wages. Consider the present situa tion in our "mixed" economy. Are we to believe that the working man is not exploited when a portion of the money he earns is forcibly ex tracted from his wages to support 1972 WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH? 71 government programs which harm rather than benefit him?

Another supposedly unpleasant facet of capitalism is that it ap peals to one's selfish nature. This is absolutely true. Selfishness means to be primarily concerned with one's own self-interest. Any body who claims to be otherwise is either a fool or a liar (to borrow an old phrase). Self-preservation is primary to all living things. If man were not selfish by nature, he would be extinct. Yes, capitalism serves the self-interest of each and every individual. Which sim ply means that capitalism serves the individual, as an individual. Which is why it should be the eco nomic system of the only nation ever founded in behalf of the in dividual-America. It is also said that capitalism promotes greed. Does it? Who is greedy: the man who wishes to earn his keep, and keep what he earns? Or the man who wants a legislative advantage, who wishes special privilege so he can com pete "fairly" in the "free" mar ket?

Observe the present clamor at the doors of Congress for straight financial handouts to accommodate every conceivable whim. The quest for the product of what another man has earned constitutes greed in my estimation. Every dollar the government gives away was earned by a citizen of this country. It makes no difference if the citizen can afford it or not. It is a matter of principle; and the principle in volved is the right of the individ ual to own what he earns, choose how his earnings are spent, and the right not to be forced to sup port a "spending," "subsidy," or "charitable" program of which he personally disapproves. If, for example, I were to ask you for a voluntary contribution to support a farmer too stupid to stop growing crops for which there is no market, you would undoubt edly refuse. Who would voluntarily support such a; program? It might work the first time around, but it would surely die of its own ac cord if it were pursued; and in a court of law it might even be con strued as fraudulent.

This is but one example of a "program" which would neither be tolerated nor sustained on a voluntary basis. The list of self defeating, useless, inefficient, and downright wasteful undertakings of government is endless,and well known to many of us. The Inevitable Trend It is not my purpose-here to prove that government "manages" economic affairs in the least effi cient manner possible. The situa tion here, and throughout the worId, speaks for itself.

72 THE FREEMAN February My point is that such is the in evitable result of government in tervention in the financial affairs of its citizens. When government assumes the "right'" to manipulate economic matters, where does it draw the line? Thus far, in Amer ica, it has not seen fit to draw any line at all. And herein lies the dan ger. Anything goes, if enough pressure is applied in the "right places." It is a, shameful abuse of a political system designed to limit the powers of government in order that the people might be free of government compulsion. If it were otherwise, (i.e., consistent with our fundamental principles), why is such effort made to hide the truth? The attempt to conceal the trend toward statism in America, is evi denced by the increasing use of evasive semantics. The economic policies outlined in the Communist Manifesto are written into law in the United States of America un der the heading of "social legis lation." Individual liberty is grad ually replaced by "the needs of a changing society," i.e., collectivism.

And our "mixed" economy is mov ing steadily toward a "new" ver sion of fullfledged fascism under the heading of "responsive gov ernment." Economic control lis the key to political dictatorship. And con versely, capitalism is the key to political freedom. Observe that capitalism has been the primary target of communism from the outset. Communism, as an econ omic system, can't hold a candle to capitalism. But. it is the most ef fective system of political dicta torship ever devised, precisely be cause the individual has no prop erty rights. Cause and Effect When are we going to see the connection? Why don't we see it now? We can't have our cake and eat it too. America is no more im mune to the natural law of cause and effect than any other nation, past or present. The strength of any nation lies in its consistent devotion to its own stated princi ples. Communism isn't spreading because it's a better system. It spreads because communists are steadfastly committed to every facet of communism; and no simi lar commitment to capitalism stands in its way.

Americans have been apolo gizing for and compromising capi talism, at first slowly, but with in creasing rapidity throughout most of this century. Where once we had a, simple government structure based on a solid foundation, we now have a gigantic superstruc ture resting on a mish-mash of contradictory inconsistencies. Where once we had a· thriving, 1972 WHY CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH? 73 progressi ve economy, we now have imminent disaster. By our own hand we are divided, weakened, a.nd vulnerable - fair game for anyone and anything. Figuratively and literally, the middle of the road is a dangerous place to stand. It indicates irra tional behavior at best, and sui cidal tendencies at worst. There are only two fully consistent and separate views of life. Two sides of the road. It's an either/or proposi tion. One side is collective dependency JOHN D. LINDL RIGHTS& CONGRESS has been working on a welfare reform bill,The Family Assistance Plan, for two years now. What is the nature of this bill? If it is approved, Congress will have declared its intention to Mr. Lindt is a graduate student at Princeton University.