Book Reviews

A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN The message of Henry Hazli tt' s The Conquest of Poverty (Arling ton House, $8.95) is that his sub ject could have been dealt with in the past tense if it weren't for the pernicious doctrine that "the State knows best." Alas! the tend ency to hand problems of income "distribution" over to politicians whose only real skill is the ac cumulation of votes has prevented the West from utilizing the great productive strength that is to be found in the principle of volun tary association. So the "cure" for poverty is still in the future. Just how far are we from get ting "government" off our backs? Mr. Hazlitt is not a total pessi mist; he believes in the power of "education." Mere verbal demon stration, however, is not an infal lible schoolteacher; the collabora tion of events is needed to make "education" effective. Fortu nately, events are coming to Mr.

377 Hazlitt's aid; what he was saying twenty years ago about the falla cies of Statism is becoming hind sight as it is repeated by other and less prescient men who now stand appalled at what inflation, a government-created phenome non, is doing to compound our troubles. Since poverty is a relative thing (some people are always going to be poorer than others), Mr. Haz Iitt has had his difficulties with the conventional definitions. Value judgments are -involved. It is wrong to define poverty, as one "authority" does, as the condition affecting "any family with an in come less than one-half that of the median family." If such a defi nition were to be accepted it would mean that the percentage of "the poor" would never de crease until all incomes were equalized. The bottom "fourth" of a nation might be sufficiently fed 378 THE FREEMAN June to remain healthy and still be can didates for soaring relief if any such defini tion were to be per petuated. What Mr. Hazlitt pro poses is that the "subsistence level" must provide our working definition of the poverty line. Any attempt to provide relief for able bodied adults beyond subsistence must take money away from pro duction and so render society poorer on the whole.

Capitalism, in league with tech nological ingenuity, is what de livered the "West" from the spec tre of Malthusian doom. Before the industrial revolution, soaring populations pressed inexorably on the means of subsistence. But when the Manchester factories in England began to soak up the idled poor from the countryside and make the importation of cheap wheat a possibility, Malthus was discredited as a prophet for his own Britain. As things turned out, the ingenuity that capitalism unleashed was reflected in the birth statistics: "middle class" people who did not need big families in order to provide themselves with field hands found ways of limiting their children. The combination of smaller families and a more skillful application of science to agriculture itself ended the prob lem of famine in the "West." We were on our wa.y toward limiting poverty to the chronically incapacitated without saddling the productive system with high taxes and the inefficiency that always follows from government inter ference or takeover.

'Combing through the r~cords of antiquity, Mr. Hazlitt notes what "the New Deal in Old Rome" did to enervate our first great universal empire. Between State supported slavery, high taxes, the multiplying relief of "bread and circuses," and the final imposition of price controls, Roman produc tive efficiency simply vanished. In Britain, there was a saving real ism about the original application of the "poor laws." But in 1795 the Berkshire magistrates, meet ing at Speenhamland, decided to supplement wages in accordance with the price of bread. This placed everybody in the country side on a' "guaranteed minimum." The rise in the cost of relief was geometric. In order to put people back to work and unleash the in dustrial revolution Britain had to amend the poor law in 1834. Pity for' the pauper had to be recon ciled with pity for the laborer, the investor and the taxpayer, as Nassau Senior pointed out. So England came to accept the work house, a place that would guaran tee a pauper enough to live on without making idleness suffi ciently attractive to undermine such desirable characteristics as 1973 THE CONQUEST OF POVERTY 379 frugality, industry and ambition.

The rise of affluence, however, dulled the common sense of the British people, and the Speenham land mentality returned as the sentimentalists, following the rec ommenda tions of the radicals (Beatrice Webb, Prime Minister David Lloyd George), were se duced into accepting the idea of the Welfare State. With the Beveridge Plan (cradle to grave protection) , the "difficult problem" raised by Nassau Senior in 1834 posed its dilemma all over again. How, under State Welfarism, can one "afford to the poorer classes adequate relief without material inj ury to their diligence or their providence." Mr. Hazlitt rather doubts that the problem can ever be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. He recognizes that it would be "po litically impossible" to get the State totally out of the welfare business. But he sees some hope in the educative value of events. Back in the late Forties and early Fifties Mr. Hazlitt warned that if Washington were to extend ex travagant relief to other nations in the form of Marshall Plan and "Point Four" giveaways, it would not "save the world." Govern ment-to-government loans, he said at the time, would be squandered by political bureaucracies, and capital for free productive enterprise would thereby be dimin ished. Mr. Hazlitt was considered hard-hearted by the "liberals" of the Fifties and Sixties, but com mon sense is now coming to his support. The dollars that we have given away for international re lief now haunt us as the balance of-payments statistics turn against us.

Similarly, the inflation that has been caused by "welfare gone wild" is provoking the middle classes, including the blacks who have risen in the world, to cast a cold eye on unbalanced budgets and extravagant programs for such things as urban renewal and various make-work projects. It may take the final "inflation crisis" to bring us to our senses. But Mr. Hazlitt, after waiting some twenty years, may find that it is at last possible to teach peo ple "economics in one lesson," to quote from his bestselling book of that title. The real solution to the problem of poverty does not lie in any government relief system, or in any endeavor to "redistribute" wealth or income. It lies, says Mr. Hazlitt, in increased produc tion. One increases production by making investments in more ef ficient tools. The free-swinging enterpriser, using capitalist sav ings, is the true hero of the "war on poverty."

380 THE FREEMAN June How long will it be before our "intellectuals" begin to see through fallacies that are as old as the economics of the Emperor Diocletian? I would feel better about the prospects if such books as The Conquest of Poverty were to be reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Sunday book section. This is not likely to happen tomorrow. But "events" will continue to call the turn. What Mr. Hazlitt has to say about the need to free the pro ducing interests of a nation is bound to take hold as our infla tionary crisis deepens. The politicos are already trying to limit upward revisions of the minim urn wage by making special exceptions for job-seeking adoles cents. Common sense does break through. And even some of the big unions, the steel union, for example, are now doubting the ef fectiveness of wage increases that run beyond productivity. If the unions ever get the idea, can the "intellectuals" remain far behind?

Mr. Hazlitt may yet become a prophet with honor in his own country. ~ THE FOUNDATIONS OF MO RALITY, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1972), 398 pp., $12.00. Reviewer: Bettina Bien Greaves THE MANY contradictions among different philosophical theories have caused much confusion over the years. Unfortunately, too few teachers and textbooks explain the basic principles that could help students discriminate intelligently among them and understand the ethical code which fosters free dom, morality and social coopera tion. Thus, Henry Hazlitt deserves special credit for bringing logic and clarity to the subject. His book, The Founda,tions of Moral ity, was first published in 1964. After having been out of print for several years, it is again available thanks to Nash and the Institute for Humane Studies. The author is primarily an econ omist, a student of human action. As a result, he is a strong advo cate of individual freedom and re sponsibility. He has long been a close personal friend and associate of Professor Ludwig von Mises, the "dean" of free market econom ics, to whom he acknowledges a great intellectual indebtedness.

With this background, he is well qualified to discuss the ethics of social cooperation. His many years of "apprenticeship" as essayist, 1973 OTHER BOOKS 381 book reviewer and columnist (New York Times, Wall ,Street Journal, Newsweek, The Freeman, National Review and many others) prepared him well for explaining complex matters simply. The read er may wish to pause, ponder and reflect from time to time on the ideas and concepts presented, but the author's reasoning is clear, his prose unambiguous and most chapters delightfully short. Mr. Hazlitt's position is that "the interests of the individual and the interests of society," when "rightly understood" are in har mony, not conflict. His goal in writing this book was "to present a 'unified theory' of law, morals and manners" which could be log ically explained and defended in the light of modern economics and the principles of' jurisprudence.

This reviewer believes most read ers will agree that Mr. Hazli tt succeeded.· He has marshalled the ideas of many philosophers and analyzed them with careful logic. He has explained many of the con tradictions among them, thus dis posing of much confusion. He has formulated a consistent moral phi losophy based on an understand ing .of the ethical principles, so frequently ignored in today's "per missive" climate, which promote peaceful social .cooperation and free enterprise production. Mr. Hazlitt points out that our complex market economy requires peaceful and voluntary social co operation. The preservation of the market is essential for large scale production and thus for the very survival of most of us. Therefore, social cooperation is the very most important means available to in dividuals for attaining their vari ous personal ends. This means that social cooperation is also at the same time a well worthwhile goal.

Let Mr. Hazlitt speak for himself. For each of us social cooperation is of course not the ultimate end but a means. . . . But it is a means so central, so universal, so indispen sable to the realization of practically all our other ends, that there is little harm in regarding it as an end-in itself, and even in treating it as if it were the goal of ethics. In fact, precisely because none of us knows exactly what would give most satis~ faction or happiness to others, the best test of our actions or rules of action is the extent to which they promote a social cooperation that best enables each of us to pursue his own ends. Without social cooperation modern man could not achieve the harest fraction of the ends and satisfac tions that he has achieved with it. The very subsistence of the immense majority of us depends upon it. The system of philosophy out lined in the book is a form of util itarianism, "insofar as it holds that actions or rules of action are 382 THE FREEMAN June to be judged by their consequences and their tendency to promote hu man happiness." However, Mr.

Hazlitt prefers a shorter term, "utilism," or perhaps "rule util ism" to stress the importance of adhering consistently to general rules. He suggests also two other possible names - "mutualism" or "cooperatism" - which he thinks more adequately reflect the central role of social cooperation in the ethical system described. The criterion for judging the consistency or inconsistency ofa specific rule or action with this ethical system is always whether or not it promotes social coopera tion. Mr. Hazlitt reasons from the thesis that social cooperation is of benefit to everyone. Even those who might at times like to lie, cheat, rob or kill for personal short-run gain can usually be per suaded of the longer-run advan tages of social cooperation, Le., of refraining from lying, cheating, robbing or stealing. Even the most self-centered indi vidual, in fact, needing not only to be protected against the aggression of others, but wanting the active co operation of others, finds it to his interest to defend and uphold a set of moral (as well as legal) rules that forbid breaking promises, cheating, stealing, assault, and murder, and in addition a set of moral rules that en join cooperation, helpfulness, and kindness ....

The predominant moral code in a society is compared with lan guage or "common law." Society does not impose a moral code on the individual. It is a set of rules, hammered out bit by bit over many centuries: [O]ur moral rules are continu ously framed and modified. They are not framed by some abstract and dis embodied collectivity called "society" and then imposed on an "individual" who is in some way separate from society. We impose them (by praise and censure, approbation and disap probation, promise and warning, re ward and punishment) on each other, and most of us consciously or un consciously accept them for our selves .... This moral code grew up sponta neously, like language, religion, man ners, law. It is the product of the experience of immemorial genera tions, of the interrelations of mil lions of people and the if\terplay of millions of minds. The morality of common sense is a sort of common law, with an indefinitely wider juris diction .than ordinary common .law, and based on a practically infinite number of particular cases. . . .

[T]he traditional moral rules ... crystallize the experience and moral wisdom of the race. But what about religion, you say? Doesn't a moral code have to rest on a religious basis? The fundamental thesis of this book, 1973 OTHER BOOKS 383 as noted, is that· reason and logic are sufficient to explain and de fend the code of ethics which fos ters and preserves social coopera tion. Yet, the author does not ig nore religion. He calls attention to similarities among the world's great religions and the contradic tions in some of them. Religion and morality reinforce one an other very often, he says, although not always and not necessarily. Here is his description of their relationship: In human history religion· and mo rality are like two streams that sometimes run parallel, sometimes merge, sometimes separate, some times seem independent and some times interdependent. But morality is .older than any living religion and probably older than all religion. . ..

[W]hile religious faith is not indis pensable [to the moral code] ... , it must be recognized in the present state of civilization as a powerful force in securing the ohservance that exists .... The most powerful religious belief supporting morality, however, seems to me ... the belief in a God who sees and knows our every action, our every impulse and our every thought, who judges us with exact justice, and who, whether or not He rewards us for our good deeds and punishes us for our evil ones, approves of our good deeds and disapproves of our evil ones.... Yet it is not the function of the moral philosopher, as such, to pro claim the truth of this religious faith or to try to maintain it. His func tion is, rather, to insist on the ra tional basis of all morality, to point out that it does not need any super natural assumptions, and to show that the rules of morality are or ought to be those rules of conduct that tend most to increase human cooperation, happiness and well-be ing in this our present life.

Mr. Hazlitt discusses many per plexing ideas and concepts such as natural rights, natural law, jus tice, selfishness,. altruism, right, wrong, truth, honesty, duty, moral obligation, free will vs. determin ism, politeness, "white lies." Any one who has speculated on these problems without reaching satis factory conclusions, as has this reviewer, will no doubt find his analyses and comments both stim ulating and enlightening. The book contains numerous quotations from the works of early and recent philosophers, which the author always analyzes for their consistency with social co operation. Except for a few tech nical philosophical terms - such as tautology (repetition of the same idea in different words), eudaemonism (the doctrine that happiness is the final goal of all human action) and teleotic (an adjective derived from the Greek meaning end, design, purpose or final cause) - readers should not 384 THE FREEMAN June find anything in the book really difficult to understand. As they follow the author's line of thought, they will discover that reason and logic come to the defense of moral ity; order and a common sense ethical code evolve from philosoph ical chaos.

Mr. Hazlitt has long been a noted free market economist - one of the very best. His introductory Economic'S In One Lesson is a long-time best seller. The Failure of the "New Economics," a care ful critique of Keynes, is a real contribution to economic theory. With the publication of The Foundations of Morality in 1964, he added another very important feather to his cap as a moral philosopher. It is good to have it in print again. To summarize, the author ex plains again and again, in the course of the book under review, that the rules of ethics are neither arbitrary nor illogical. They are not mere matters of opinion. They are workable, acceptable, moral rules developed over long periods of time. They must be adhered to consistently and may not be will fully violated without detriment to social cooperation. In this age of permissiveness, when everyone is encouraged "to do his own thing" and few see any urgency in, respecting the rights of others, it is a rare philosopher who rec ognizes that the consistent ad herence to a set of ethical rules promotes social cooperation and benefits everyone in society. Per haps a free market economist, whose very field of study encom passes the role of social coopera tion, is the most appropriate per son to explain the logic of this position. This book should live through the centuries. , HANDSOME BLUE LEATHERLEX FREEMAN BINDERS ORDER FROM: THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533 each$2.50 the Freeman VOL. 23, NO.7. JULY 1973 American RevolutionUnique 9 Vincent A. Drosdik, III 387 Not the fighting, but the idea of personal freedom and limited government, made it unique.