Rx for Political Peace; R. Foley, Jr.

THE MYTH that the United States enjoys a consensus sheltering its public men from violence during the electoral process shattered a decade ago in Dallas, Texas, when President John F. Kennedy fell under a hail of gunfire. Prior to that onslaught, the nation smugly prided itself on a distinction from violent neighbors where political disputes find settlement in fire power and plastic explosives. Yet in late November, 1963, a sad dened and shocked nation gnashed its collective teeth and searched its collective souls for an explanation. The succeeding years witnessed no slackening of excesses. A litany serves only to emphasize the dark and the macabre. Such diverse public personages as Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Rev. Martin Mr. Foley, a partner in Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, practices law in Portland, Oregon. 722 Luther King, and Governor George C. Wallace have crumpled at the hands of equally diverse as sailants who, for varying shadowy motivations, have determined that the nation (or their concept there of) will best survive without their particular target. Add to this spectacle a host of attempts upon the Iives of less well-known offi cials and a truly grievous problem confronts the perceptive observer and disturbs those who advocate the peaceful life.

The fable of unprecedented freedom from violence in the do mestic politics of the United States suffers the malaise of dis harmony with empirical fact. For starters, Presidents Lincoln, Gar field, and McKinley died violently in office, and numerous other chief executives, including both Presi dents Roosevelt, provided targets for assassins. Murder of lesser officials pocks our history. While 1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 723 the first one hundred seventy-five years of our Republic did not com pletely resemble the reign of Lu cretia Borgia, neither did it match the folktale of an extended peace. Perhaps the nation avoided the number of confrontations, kidnap pings, and murders which per meated elections in Latin Ameri can nations, but its smugness ignored the existence of a very real problem. A Plethora of Theories Analysts have advanced various theories concerning the causes of attempts upon the lives of politi cal men and potential cures for this miasma.

One school of thought explains we live in a violent age. Yet in truth, man has never been fully insulated from coercion practiced by his predatory neighbors. Al though it may be destructive of our dreams, no one has witnessed Utopia. Another school of thought, hav ing recently discovered that not all men produce equally, attributes political violence to unrest bred by poverty. ThiR answer ignores the fact that the "poverty classes" consti tute the real beneficiaries of the voluntary exchange market sys tem. What passes for poverty in present-day America only slightly resembles the short, cluttered and brutish life in other nations and in other times. By this measure, if poverty breeds unrest and poli tical violence, the present-day United States should bear witness to a peaceable life. Indeed, poverty seems notably absent from the lives of the best-known political assassins of recent vintage.

A third voice suggests that easy access to firearms results in harm to political men, and advocates im plementation of strict "gun con trol" laws. These theorists over look the fact that inanimate ob j ects are never controlled - gun control really means people con trol. FirearII1 control resides a short step away from other, more dis turbing, types of controls nor mally associated with a totalitar ian society. Furthermore, advocates of gun control cannot assure us that political bloodshed will cease if their views receive implementation. While the best known political crimes of recent date have involved the use of fire arms, reason does not restrict the terrorist to this means. Indeed, the use of explosives might not only accomplish the identical task but also slay numerous other per sons who fortuitously happen to be in the vicinity. More perti nently, the criminally inclined seem unlikely to register their weapons, or to comply with other 724 THE FREEMAN December prophylactic norms; indeed, we can mainly count on them to se cure guns illicitly when no one else discovers a source.

A fourth observer suggests stricter application of the crimi nal laws and, with varying de grees of reason and irrationality, the cry for "law and order" peals across the land. Stripped of excess verbiage, purveyors of this con cept (which often amounts to a thinly veiled attack on the entire court system), suggest harsh penalties for those convicted of crime, more restrictive appellate procedures, and -minimal empha sis upon the rights of an accused as embodied in the Federal Bill of Rights. Yet destruction of the rights of the criminally accused may result in final analysis in de struction of the ···.liberties belong ing to all of us. A fifth suggestion advocates in creased protection for political figures in their public appear ances. History demonstrates that even a monumental undertaking, such as protection for the Presi dent of the United States, cannot guarantee success. How much greater the cost in energy and re sources and how much greater the likelihood of failure if the com munity attempts to protect eac'h public figure from all conceivable man ..inflicted harm! If society cannot afford to safeguard each politician fully, how shall we choose which ones will be pro tected and which ones will be left to the mercies of attack?

Furthermore, .this assertion suffers from a more fundamental malaise: ultimate protection for the political man further removes and insulates him from society at a time when too great a wall exists between electorate and represent ative. First, time and again, par ticularly at the local level, effec tive political campaigning demands maximum personal con frontation. More and more office seekers are ringing doorbells and haunting supermarkets, bringing their case to the constituency. Few are likely to forego what they believe to be a potent electoral tool for the sake of protection. Second, individuals in society feel a consuming and increasing sense of alienation from the political processes, a frustration and con tempt for government and its ap paratus. Greater insulation can only heighten this discontent. Prescription for Political Peace: A Silent Internal Revolution An antidote exists for the viru lent strain of political slaughter rampant this past decade: indi vidual freedom and a personal re commitment on the part of each of us to a belief in the sanctity of life. Each of the theories encoun1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 725 tered heretofore offers assistance in this endeavor, yet each suffers from inherent limitations. I pro pose that violence will diminish if we limit political force to the ad ministration of common justice, the prevention of external aggres sion, and the sanctioning of in ternal uses of force and fraud, and if each of us, citizen and politician alike, will rededicate his life to this libertarian principle.

Man, a questing, acting, pur posive being, is capable of volun tary association to improve his lot and that of his neighbors. He is likewise capable of banding to gether with his fellows to inhibit the voluntary action of other indi viduals. He is finite and mortal, capable of outward improvement but incapable of perfection be cause of his finiteness. He is set apart from other creatures by his ability to choose: to observe, mea sure, test, evaluate, and select from alternatives. Because of his finity and imperfection, man's nature possesses a dark side, a predilection to violence, a tend ency which must be externally or internally stifled ere society de generate into civil chaos. The anarchist and the liber tarian possess common grounds, but they split asunder regarding the propensity of man to violence. For example, one thoughtful edi torial recently asserted: Since any individual is utterly in capable of preventing another person from killing him, if the other person is really determined and is willing to bide his time, and since governments have proved themselves incapable of providing such protection, the only real protection we know of exists in the principle of nonprovocation: that is, in trying to so live one's life that no one will want to harm us.

And that, may we further suggest, means relying on the voluntary mar ket place, rather than government force. But, it also means mor~. It means that, through a process of re-educa tion, the peoples of the-world must be shown that the people of a coun try and their government are not the same thing. So long as the faulty idea is generally held that peaceful people on the one hand, and' their squabbling, bickering bureaucrats on the other, are one and the same en tity, atrocities against peaceful, un offending people, such as happened at Munich, will occur again and again. If we want peace, if we want se curity from aggression, to the great est degree possible in an imperfect world, we must break the mental chain that binds us to bickering governments and to the consequences of THEIR actions. Since that chain exists in the mind, it is in the mind where it will have to be broken; with ideas, never with force.

Let us, individual to individual, proClaim to the world that "Freedom is self control. No more. No less." No Arab grasping this truth could 726 THE FREEMAN December have acted as did the terrorists at Munich.! The concept of nonprovocation 2 utterly fails in the presence of a terrorist or a bully - ask anyone who hae tried to reason with such people - for man's shadowy na ture may overcome. The ana.rchist tenet crumbles under the philosophical hammer of Dr. Ludwig von Mises in "A Perfect System of Government" who succinctly puts the case: Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes Homo sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social 1 Grove, Cecil, "Let Us Break the Chain,"Colorado Springs Gazette Tele graph (September 14, 1972).

2 See also, regarding nonprovocation and the market response to violence, LeFevre, Robert, "Deducing to Morality," Ramparts College Newsletter (Santa Ana, California, December, 1972) stating the anarcho-capitalist view, see further, his provocative article "Justice on Trial," Reason (Vol. 3, No. 11) February 1972, page 18. apparatus of coercion and oppres sion. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Gov ernment and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d' etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimina tion of man's innate impulse to vio lence, only by the recourse to vio lence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent. 3 On the other hand, the statist who looks to the government as the source of all problem-solving wisdom likewise misapprehends man's true nature. Like the an archist, he views man as perfect ible, as able to create Utopia or Heaven on Earth, if only the mass will emulate the social engineer.

Yet the statist exhibits a certain ambivalence for he treats the average individual as unable to know his own mind - a consumer cannot rationally choose which brand of soup or soap to buy yet when that same average in dividual comes to the polling place, he is suddenly qualified to choose the social architect who 3 Mises, Ludwig von, "A Perfect Sys tem of Government," The Ultimate Foun dation of Economic Science (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1962) pages 94-101; reprinted in 22 The Freeman No. 12 (Foundation for Economic Educa tion, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, December 1972) 747-752, at pp. 749-750.

1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 727 will lead him from the wilderness. Of course, the statist never con cedes that the leader derives from the mass and partakes of the iden tical finity and fallibility with his peers. Because finite man possesses a violent nature, his appetite for violence must be curbed by the state. To this extent the answer of those who favor strict criminal law enforcement as a response to political violence appears meri torious, just as are the paeans of the apologists of the "violent age" argument, which recognize that a stated number of frustrated indi viduals will give vent to their dis trust by violent action. Yet the very real frustration with political life and the beings which inhabit that world deserves consideration, for in that frustration and discon tent may repose a partial reason for cruel attacks on political men. The solution: neutralize that frus tration by restricting political ac tion to its proper sphere: preven tion and punishment of force and fraud, provision for the common defense and establishment of a system of justice whereby dis putes may be fairly adjudicated.

Leave the management of the rest of men's lives to each individual, giving free reign to creative pow ers in any direction chosen by free people seeking their own destiny. The twofold result: (1)an outpouring of creative energy, unpre dictable in direction but in final analysis bound to produce the goods and services most .desired by mankind, and (2) a release of tension and an inhibiting of the darker side of man as each person recognizes that he is no longer a mere pawn in the hands of su perior forces lacking rights and control over his life, but rather possesses the ultimate obligation responsibly to live his own life and to seek his own ends. Concomitant with the latter result: a recogni tion that force or the destructive use of energy will not effectively gain desired ends and perception that free men can best secure their goals by willing exchange and peaceful human actions. Wanted: A Reverence for Life Respect for human life under girds the freedom ideal. The lib ertarian concept of freedom de rives from the belief that each in dividual has the right to self-de termine his existence, to the ex tent permitted by his finite nature, absent any man-concocted re straints,4 save those necessary to assure an equal right to every other person. Each man forms ·an 4 See Read, Leonard E., "Justice Versus Social Justice," Who's Listening? (The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1973) 93 et seq. from whom I have borrowed this phrase.

728 THE FREEMAN December end in himself, not an object to be used or engineered by other be ings possessing a monopoly of force. It is the acme of arrogance to suggest that A is better suited by nature, talent, or motivation to live B's life for him in even the most minute particulars. From this fundamental right we can discern the transcendent rights of liberty and property: a man can not chart his life's course if he is not free to choose among the wid est range of alternatives, and if he is not free to keep, donate, ex change or destroy the value (prop erty) which he has created or ac quired from others in willing ex change. Contemporary society not only witnesses a gradual erosion of this reverence for life but also partici pates in that destruction. Elected representatives seriously consid ered legislation permitting what is euphemistically termed eutha nasia or "mercy killing ."5 The right to life certainly encompasses the right of the individual to cling to, or to terminate, his own earth ly existence; it cannot logically include the right to .destroy an other human being. 6 Again, the judiciary has exhib ited a singular ambivalence to ward human life in recent years.

How can one square the right to abort a human life 7 with the dec laration that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual pun ishment in contravention of the eighth and fourteenth amend ments ?8 Political men must thus bear partial responsibility for their own condition. True, rational be ings cannot justifiably destroy the life of a political figure. Never theless, when the victim partici pates in a system which denigrates human life, chains men to unwise policies, and panders to their base desires, he cannot escape the nat ural consequences of his acts, con sequences which include the like lihood that some of his victims men robbed of their liberty and essential humanity - will react violently toward his person. Thus a presidential candidate who supi"i The Oregon Legislative Assembly de bated this measure: See (Oregon) Senate Bill 179 (1973) enacting a "Voluntary Euthanasia Act."

() Destroyers of life often overlook the axiom that each choice made by man in his lifetime is a moral choice, and that the actor must bear full responsibility for the consequences of his choices. He can not improve his lot by the alibi that he acted under "legal sanction" or as part of a claque - moral principles break but do not bend, and evil is not less evil when performed by an association. See Harper, F. A. "Morals and Liberty," 21 The Freeman No.7 (Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, July 1971) 426,430. 7 See Roe v. Wade, U.S.,93 S.Ct. 705, 35L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). 8 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33L.Ed.2d 346 (1972).

,1973 RX FOR POLITICAL PEACE 729 ports the continuance of a system of conscription which recruits men to die in battle, a congressman who votes for looting the populace by subsidizing one group at the expense of another, or a senator who campaigns on divisive emo tions in his community to secure election should not exhibit sur prise when an assailant from the mass haunts them. That Internal Revolution A revolution need not be coer cive or violent; the most effective ones take place in the hearts and minds of mankind, slowly, almost tediously, but with certainty. Each of us, statesman and citi zen alike, must partake in this quiet personal rededication to the principle of the sanctity of life and the postulate of freedom. Each must accept the fact that he bears full responsibility for the mora] consequences of his choices. The statesman must respect the citi zen's need for full responsibility for his life; the citizen must re spect the statesman, who comes from the populace, as entitled to equivalent treatment.

How to effect this revolution from within forms a salient in quiry.9 Generally, man may induce action by other men through two means: force and persuasion. The free man must discard force as a respectable alternative inasmuch as it denies the essence of the freedom philosophy.lO I cannot force free choice upon you, for your liberty lies in choosing. It is a contradiction in terms to "force people to be free." Likewise, I cannot deny you the opportunity to assassinate a political figure by prior restraint consonant with a respect for individual liberty. I can only persuade you not to per form such a deed. If persuasion provides the key, how can anyone of us effectively dissuade our fellow men from mis deeds? One can seldom substan tially persuade another without two-way communication; the lis tener must desire to hear and must want to take action. Other wise, according to the homily, "good advice falls on deaf ears."

Preaching, ranting, raving, offer small effect. The answer - light a candle in yourself. Act a~ a free man, respectful of human life and 9 A comprehensive analysis of the methodology of freedom reaches far be yond the scope of this essay which, by its nature, must be restricted to the most conclusory of statements. For those in terested in the most exciting in-depth analysis of liberty's mode of growth, I respectfully suggest the writings of Leon ard E. Read, e.g., Read, Leonard E., Talk ing to Myself (Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 1970) 9 et seq. 10 See Read, Leonard E., Let Freedom Reign (The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 1960) 78-86. See also Note 6 op cit.

730 THE J.1'REEMAN December dignity in a world of Illiberal darkness. Few of us truly conduct ourselves in harmony with these principles. We may utter the ap propriate cliche and think the proper thoughts, but our actions belie our words and manifest a disrespect for the essence of life in others. ll If your actions are meritorious, they will be emulated by others who see your light. A slow and laborious process? To be sure, but it harmonizes with the principle underlying action respect for the individual and his capacity to choose. Instead of con centrating on improvement of others, each of us must engage in that silent little revolution within, dedicating his life to improvement of self and understanding of man's amazing gift of free action and its concomitant responsibility. To the extent that each person in society achieves the ends sought in his personal revolution, limited only by his finiteness, political men will achieve personal safety. , 11 I discard my principles and demon strate my disrespect for the right to life of my fellow man on every occasion when I seek to do good for him, or for someone else, with the property of my neighbor (without his consent), no matter how gracious or pure my motives. Likewise, I disparage the right to life of my colleague when I attempt to coercively order his life for his own good. These simple little predations, while possibly less odious than the felonious taking of life, in fact offer small copies of the same germ which in fects the thinking of the political assas sin. Remember Emerson's dictum: The end preexists in the means. It applies here, as elsewhere. See Read, Leonard E., Let Freedom Reign, Note 10, op cit, 78-86; Harper, Note 6, op cit.

IDEAS ON LIBERTY The Value of Freedom THROUGHOUT HISTORY orators and poets have extolled liberty, but no one has told us why liberty is so important. Our attitude towards such matters should depend on whether we consider civil ization as fixed or as advancing .... In an advancing society, any restriction on liberty reduces the number of things tried and so reduces the rate of progress. In such a society freedom of action is granted to the individual, not because it gives him greater sat isfaction but because if allowed to go his own way, he will on the average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give. H. B. PHILLIPS, "On the Nature of Progress"