Choice or Chains; R. Foley, Jr.

by our elders, sometimes after so bering and painful experience, that hot stoves usually burn flesh and cause severe pain. Animals may also perform with superficial similarity: a dog once caught in a trap will exhibit wariness about similar devices. But the distinction between the two situations rests with a rational selection of alter natives: a canine will seldom if ever encounter a trap in order to release an unrelated beast; a man may touch a hot stove in order to rescue a human being or an ani mal somehow endangered by the machine. Thus, man may choose to countermand an instinctive course of conduct because he perceives the risk but believes he must (or ought to) assume the hazard in order to secure some ultimate per sonal goal. Thus, man makes value judgments, a feat which describes his choices and distinguishes him from other living creatures. 199 200 THE FREEMAN April No One Can or Should Destroy Another's Right to Choose If choice relates to the values held by individual, thinking, per ceptive human beings, no one in dividual or group of individuals ought to deprive any other person or association of the right to choose, for no one can comprehend the values which make up the be ing of another person. Eachindi vidual is the product of the numer ous concepts, mores, customs, ex periences, deductions, intuitions and the like which constantly bombard and alter his being.· Even if an all-knowing sage could look inside his neighbor's soul and mind and discern, at a given mo ment of time, the content stowed within, his wisdom would be out dated the next instant when the subject encountered some new knowledge from within or with out, or the effect of a new experi ence. Thus, no man can possibly garner the wisdom necessary to make a meaningful choice for an other being. More saliently, how ever, no man ought to denigrate the humanness of one or more~ of his fellows by depriving him of his right to choose in even the smallest particular. Since· making choices separates human· beings from mere biological inhabitants of the-universe, one who dares destroy the right of free choice -in another being, by coercion, threats, or fraud, in even the most minute particular, to that extent destroys the essential humanity of his victim for our humanity de pends upon our choice-making capacity and· our worth as persons depends upon the value of our choices.

Deprivation of choice or dis placement of alternatives abound in modern society. A group of in dividuals seize power and tell others within a given territory that they may not manufacture, distribute and sell hydroelectric power, or that they cannot con struct a fourplex on their real· es tate, ,or that they must work for a given wage and no other, or that they must contribute a share of the cost of putting a man on an other solar body, or that they may hire only certain individuals of a given race, creed or color, or any one of thousands of other matters, insignificant or substantial. In some instances, the actor loses his choice completely, or is presented with a Hobson's Choice: do (or don't do) this, or you will lose your life, or all your property, or your liberty. Either the choice be comes nonexistent (no one will work for more or less than the stated wage because of fear, and two actors are required to act) or the consequences devastate the al ternative which those in power wish to avoid (no conscripted sol1974 CHOICE OR CHAINS 201 dier will refuse to obey a battle field command, even if immoral, because of fear of immediate death at the hands of his superior offi cer).

Power groups may also displace free choice by offering induce ments to some actors at a cost to others. Ordinarily, consumers would prefer clean and inexpen sive electric heat for their homes and apartments, and the majority of them would cast their dollar vote in the market place for such a service. However, the claque in power may determine that oil pro ducers should receive a subsidy un available to electricity distribu tors; the granting of this subsidy enables the oil and gas manufac turer to offer his product more cheaply, thus encouraging a change in consumption habits by the consuming public. Harmonious Differences Despite the seemingly haphaz ard and random existence of bil lions of choosing individuals, all seeking their private goals, an amazing phenomenon occurs in a free and unfettered ,vorld: a con catenation of effort and effect where each actor can fully and freely release his or her creative energy. No coercive, man-planned system can create harmony among myriad indi vid uals - history is filled with examples of millions crushed under the heel of the despot's boot, or mutilated to fit Procustes' Bed. Twentieth century liquidation of kulaks in Russia, peasants in China, and the Jews in Germany bears sad witness to the tyrant's method of planning and its effect on human freedom.

What causes this meshing to gether of individual choice into a cohesive and rational whole? No man can fully comprehend and ex plain, any more than one can know and explain the phenomenon of electricity. But freedom, like elec tricity, offers substantial benefits to be enjoyed and appreciated. I need not understand how elec tricity develops, or how it is trans mitted into my abode, in order to relax and bask in the generated warmth on a cold winter night. So, too, with liberty. I may not be able to explain why freedom works in bringing together myriad choice-making individuals into an ever-higher order, but I can rec ognize the fact and cherish the result. A partial explanation appears to reside in the nature of man kind. Each questing, choosing hu man seeks to act in harmony with his vision of ultimate truth. Each approaches that· essential reality from a different view with a dif ferent capacity for perception and action. The result isa blending of choices; and each step closer to 202 THE FREEMAN April truth more perfectly harmonizes the several choices. Man calls the ultimate truth of the Universe by different names. For some of us, the real essence resides in a per sonal, all-powerful Being we call God, Allah, or Yahweh. For oth ers, the universe appears as a never-ending expanse governed by the ultimate force of natural laws.

For the statist, man is a wholly perfectible creature in a relativ istic sphere; man represents no more than silly putty to be molded into perfection by the all-wise planner (who, oddly enough, rises up from the mass which is to be planned and programmed). The free man believes that man, finite and imperfectible but capable of improvement, represents an ulti mate value in himself and he re sides in a rational universe gov erned by immutable laws and an unchanging truth which he can partially espy. The statist firmly believes that a man-created state can turn iron into gold (or, more saliently, special drawing rights into gold). The free man recog nizes that, despite legislative and legalistic legerdemain, iron will remain iron, gold will remain gold, and never the twain shall meet. The fact that the unprogrammed choices of diverse individuals can coordinate into an increasingly improving world does not preclude disharmony from arising in human affairs from refusal to accept the burdens of liberty.

The libertarian avoids applica tion of force and withstands the pangs attendant upon rejection, recognizing that freedom to live includes freedom to fail. He ob serves that values may conflict: A may wish a quiet life in a resi dential neighborhood; B may wish to play hard rock at 3 in the morning; C may opt to burn old rubber tires. In such instances, a free man seeks voluntary solu tions to human problems, while the statist can only suggest force. Application of force necessarily deprives some man of his choice making power and thereby deni grates his essential humanness. Choice Represents an Absolute Some things remain constant and eternal in a dynamic world. Choice is one of those matters. Creation occurs by choice, not chance. Only man or his Creator can create value, for only man and his Creator possess the power and ability to assess meaningful alternatives and to choose. Choice, like truth, love and freedom, exhibits an absolute value as well as an absolute fact.

Rightness or justice demands that each human being be permitted to exercise his essential humanness by an unfettered decision between alternatives.

1974 CHOICE OR CHAINS 203 Choice cannot be avoided. I choose when I Ifail to choose or when I refuse to choose. Failure or refusal to choose constitutes a deliberate and voluntary decision as much as a preference for rose buds over carnations or an election between euthanasia and life. Man cannot escape choice, nor can he avoid its consequences. Choice per vades life and one cannot elude his responsibility by the affirmation that the decision represents the product of some group, committee or state. If I commit theft by taking value created by my neigh bor by force or duress, I must bear the consequences of that con duct; I cannot hide behind the alibi that the majority of voters somehow sanctioned this looting. No association or committee need answ,er for its conduct; only indi viduals incur that burden. Which is to say that every act of choos· ing incurs moral consequences for which the individual is respon sible.

Again, how can one ascribe moral consequences to every de cision between alternatives? In some cases, all will recognize the obvious: the decision to kill, molest or defraud or not to kill, molest or defraud another human being. In other instances the relation ship, while very real, seems less readily apparent. In this regard, we must remain cognizant of the fact that reality exists, with or without our personal perception of the matter. The Seen and the Unseen In discerning the moral conse quences of mundane choices, we must recall Bastiat's constant cry: Note the seen and the unseen! I lay my hand on a hot burner 01 a stove with the resultant searing of flesh. As a libertarian, I must concede that I am free to do with my life as I desire, without indi vidual or group interference; I may maim myself or destroy my self. Thus, from the seen point of view what I have done by crip pling my hand contains little moral effect. But consider the un seen: I must live with the cons~ quences of that act. If unable to work because of my injury, I become dependent upon others for food, clothing and shelter and to the extent that I deprive the pro ducer of value of the fruits of his labor I am responsible. If a prom ising pianist or mechanic, I de prive others of the value I could have produced and traded. The list is endless.

Again, I may choose to walk to work on Lancaster Street or on Lexington Street. How can we say that represents a moral choice? Suppose by taking Lancaster, I may witness an accident victim unattended, a scene I' would not 204 THE FREEMAN April have encountered had I journeyed down Lexington. By venturing on Lancaster I came upon further circumstances which present further choices to me: shall I aid the victim like the good Samari tan or leave him because I wish to remain uninvolved. Remember, I cannot eschew choice so I must act. My choice of Lancaster over Lexington thus has more obvious moral overtones because of its re lationship to subsequently develop ing situations and the decisions required thereby. Simply put, every choice repre sents a moral choice not because of the particular act involved (taking Lancaster instead of Lexington) but by virtue of the intertwining of myriad choices into life itself. Because we reside in a causal world, decision inter relates with decision in a natural and immutable way and each of us must abide the ultimate re sponsibility for the way he lives his life. The morality of choice means that man must assume re sponsibility for all of the effects rationally generated by his choices.

Rousseau declared, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Oddly enough, Rousseau and his followers helped chain suc ceeding generations of men more brutally than before. Free choice represents the sole means of avoiding fetters. Either you choose, or some other man or group of men will choose for you. To the extent· that others dom inate your choice, you are chained. Yet this singular fact remains: even though one voluntarily chooses chains or involuntarily loses his choice, he cannot escape the awful responsibility imposed upon human beings. It is this burden which so dismays the ex istentialists. Man was created free, and he functions better in a state of liberty. He bears personal respon sibility for his moral choices whether or not he is politically free. Therefore, he had best reside in a free dominion, fully respon sible for his actions and choosing between the widest range of al ternatives. To the extent that he lacks this choice, he loses his essential humanity and remains in the chains of slavery. ® IDEAS ON LIBERTY Ralph Barton Perry IGNORANCE deprives men of freedOlll because they do not know what alternatives there are.