Liberty v. Coercion; T. Machan

TIBOR R. MACHAN f r f WHENEVER I become aware of some new means by which some of my fellow citizens aim to encroach upon other people's liberty, I tend to oppose such measures. Some time ago a local television editorial advocated the establishment of a new Federal agency to protect the interest of consumers. Later I discussed this with some acquaint ances. When they heard my pro tests, they immediately raised their eyebrows: "Why not?" they asked. "Why should the govern ment stay out of the business of protecting the consumer?" I tried to explain, starting from the principle of caveat emptor and going on to the impossibility of protecting consumers against their would-be protectors. I even argued for some alternative system, such as an insurance program, where by the consumer can protect him self without involving everyone in this mission. Dr. Machan teaches Philosophy at State Uni versity College, Fredonia, New York. He has collected and edited a book of essays by con temporary individualists, The Libertarian Al ternative, to be published later this year by Nelson-Hall Company, Chicago.

None of this seemed to help my case. At each turn I was simply told, "Well, such an agency might still help; it might be able to do something to avoid difficulties with business firms that make shoddy products and cause all sorts of trouble for the consumer." And in a way this is right; such an agency might very well do some good for somebody. But this seems hardly sufficient to justify its establish ment. Each time I emerge from such a discussion I make several reso lutions. Most frequently I resolve that it does little good to talk about such matters in brief en counters - hardly anyone is pre pared to investigate the issues carefully enough to learn anything. It seems inconceivable to most peo ple that agencies of the Federal government should not get in volved with such activities as consumer protection, that is, pro tecting people against their own carelessness. This, despite what Herbert Spencer discovered some time ago: "The ultimate result of 35 36 THE FREEMAN January shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

It becomes evident in these dis. cussions that people nowadays rarely think in terms of principles. Who wants to apply an old fashioned principle to a modern practice? Regulating business firms seems to many people to be light-years away from regulating the work of newspaper and televi sion writers; consumer protection and censorship are thought to have nothing to do with each other. Fi nally, there is always a problem in protesting some new infringement on human liberty because so many exist already. What point is there in protesting at this juncture; after all, we live with so much co ercion and force already! Thus, the matter is purely academic, or so these people seem to believe. For a Better Way How, then, does one combat this prevailing tendency to run to gov ernment to achieve every goal that seems desirable? "Why not?" "It might work despite the record of failures." Let me share some of my thoughts on the matter.

When a program is advocated by someone, others are entitled to know his reason if the program involves them in some unavoid able manner. If I decided tomor row that I will try, from now on, to help America's consumers by writing letters to business execu tives, accompanying buyers on their trips to the store, publishing books about the quality and va riety of products available, or the like, no one else need be worried about why I am doing this. I may be someone with altruistic mo tives, a guilt complex, or a plan to strike it rich through a consumer protection business. Other people are free to ignore my efforts, or to join in them if they so choose. But they have no right to demand that I furnish them with a justi fication for my actions. (They could conclude, even rightly, that I am w~sting my time, that I will go broke, or something of that sort - just as they could judge my plans to be very valuable. But they cannot justifiably demand that I account to them as to why I am embarking on my mission.) The case is different when my plans must necessarily' involve others. Take, for example, the .edi torialwhich urged a Federal con sumer-protection agency. Others will be involved - including tax payers, business employees who must comply with regulations, and so on. At this juncture, it seems reasonahle to demand that propon ents of such a scheme fuUyexplain and justify why Dther persons should be involved and obliged to join in their mlssion.

But this is not as &;implearle1974 LIBERTY VS. COERCION: THE BURDEN OF PROOF 37 mand as it seems. There are times that we believe, without the slight est doubt, that we are entitled to something; and when it is not de livered, we believe we may take measures to remedy the situation. There is no wide-scale agreement in such matters ; people differ drastically as to what each believes to be his rights. One person be lieves that he is entitled to some help with his medical problems whenever he cannot handle them, whereas another may believe that he alone is responsible for such matters as his health, welfare and education. To the first person, it will seem self-evident that others ought to help with .his troubles, whether or not they choose to do so; he would think it our natural duty, an obligation we have toward each other and whose performance must, at times, be enforced lest his needs be neglected. The second person, however, would consider the duties we have toward each other to be an outgrowth of our own choices; even if some of us have natural obligations toward others, we ought not be forced to perform them. Indeed, if force were to be justified, it would be to see that we are left free to lead our own lives and to be charitable in our own way.

Needed is a philosophical justi fication of the limits we ought to draw around our actions to help identify what we are entitled to do, what range of actions we can perform without limiting the lib erty of others. This in turn might help explain why we would demand j ustifica tion before we would allow another to involve us in his schemes. The person who believes that his medical problems should be alleviated through help from others may so believe in all honesty and sincerity. If so, at least he may be invited to consider a philosophical system under which various claims might be justified. Perhaps then he will see that to get the help he wants, he must justify his claim that we should give it to him and also justify any force he would use toward that end. Sincerity 01 Purpose But such a philosophical theory is not a simple matter to develop. Nor can it be communicated in dis cussion of such an isolated issue as the proposed Federal consumer protection agency. Such discussion will get nowhere unless the parties have the sincerity of purpose, time, and knowledge to cover the entire range of related ideas back to the theory of liberty.

Some have sought to shorten the discussion, saying that each indi vid ual' s person or body sets the limit of other people's au thority. But clearly this will not suffice, for it does not cover such 38 THE FREEMAN January things as our house, books, auto mobile, or musical composition. The theory must relate all such properties to us in some way that will justify our keeping them for ourselves if we choose. Opponents of liberty notoriously complain that Americans have stolen their present land holdings from the Indians. And if this is so, do we have any defense against those who would steal from us in turn these lands and their fruits? Do thieves or recipients of stolen goods have any justifiable com plaint if the goods are stolen again? Even with a sound theory of property rights, the argument for liberty may be lost in the mists of democracy. How often we hear that living in a democracy i'nvolves giving up certain rights to pri vacy, property, and the like. And if that be so, may the individual logically claim anything at all that is not allowed by the majority - or its representatives? What, in short, justifies the view that the exercise of majority rule is limited by certain principles defining hu man liberty - certain inalienable, universal, and absolute human rights?

So what is one to do in the face of such widely entrenched coer cion and political intervention? It seems that education in broad political principles and their philosophical justification must be the general approach. If there is a rea sonable case for such coercive in tervention, let the burden of proof be on those who are doing the at tacking. Let them try to justify coercion, even in one or two iso,.. lated cases. Let them prove to our satisfaction why consumer protec tion j ustifies that millions of others will be deprived of their income without their consent. Let them try to demonstrate the virtue of coercion, for they are the ones who are embarking on the course of action that will necessarily in volve the lives of others. Without a demonstration of the validity of the explicit or implicit claim that others should be forced to comply with .the .aggressor's plans - however noble these may be - we are entitled to treat his proposal as something entirely arbitrary, without support in truth and justice.

Nor is all this merely an aca demic exercise. When they are thus challenged, amazingly little attempted justification is forth coming from most of those who insist that coercion is a valid means for solving human prob lems. They simply hadn't thought about it that way. And such a pro vocative challenge may well be their first short lesson toward an education in the nature of human liberty. , BEFORE we consider the future the American dollar it may be wis to cast a glance at the glories 0 its past and examine t ai causes that have brought ·t present humiliating state. The logical starting poin examination is Bretton When the representatives of som forty nations met there in 1944 heretical monetary notions were floating in the air. Lord Keynes, who was there, was their chief spokesman. The most definite of these notions was that the gold standard was a barbarous relic, and neither could nor should be re stored. It put every national econ omy in a strait jacket. It prevented full employment; it strangled eco nomic growth; it tied the hands of national monetary managers. And all for no good reason except an outworn mystique. Besides, there wasn't enough gold in the world to sustain convertibility.