Political Freedom is Not Freedom; M. Upton

If we don't start to challenge the assertion, to reflect exactly upon what the term Hfree world" en compasses and what it is we're free from, we may very well end up living a lie. Certainly the term cannot stand for national freedom in the sense of national independence - that is freedom from domination by an other sovereign power. All sov ereign states-Russia, China, Eng land, France, Cuba, Portugal, and so all-are "free" in this sense. So Dr. Upton is president of Beloit College in Wisconsin. This article is from an address of May 7, 1974, delivered in the C. A. Moorman Memorial Lectures at Culver-Stockton College, Canton, Missouri. 549 550 THE FREEMAN September we must have in mind something else. If I were to pose· the question to this audience as to what is meant when we use the term "free world," I am confident I would get two dominant responses. One group would assert that it has reference to those countries which believe in individual freedom; the other group would offer the re sponse that the term applies to those countries which are gov erned under some form of democ racy. Both responses have a com mon psychological effect, a favor able emotional reaction grounded on implied protection of the indi vidual against exploitation. But I must submit that both answers are subject to serious challenge at the present time on the basis of ob jective reality.

All-Powerful Governments It is manifestly clear that all countries in the world, including the so-called Western democracies, are trending towards a form of social organization in which the agency of government dominates individual behavior and action· where private property and pri vate choice are less and less ten able; where the only difference be tween the world's societies is not in the amount of individual free dom allowed but only in the man ner in which the all-powerful government is chosen. Individual ini tiative and decentralized author ity in all cultures has become sus pect; collective action through the agency of government has become trusted. And as a consequence it is increasingly difficult to estab lish clear lines of demarcation be tween the "free world" and the rest of the world so far as govern ment domination of the individual is concerned. Specific differences can be cited at this instant of time, but the st~tement seems im possible to challenge if historical trends are taken into account.

We therefore seem to be de pendent entirely upon the proposi tion that the "free world" coun tries are those which rely upon some form of democracy to de termine who shall be entrusted with the all-powerful authority of government. There is the sugges tion implicit in this notion that "freedom" and "democracy" are somehow synonymous, that polit ical freedom is all we need to en joy the benefits of a free society. I submit that this is the unchal lenged assumption that is leading our country Pied Piper fashion into the morass of collectivism and its concomitant of centralized au thoritarianism. We should have been alerted to this booby-trap type of thinking by Lenin's assertion that Capital ism represents democracy of the 1974 POLITICAL FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH 551 exploiting minority whereas So cialism represents democracy of the exploited majority. Individual creativity and initiative, decen tralization of authority and pri vate property need to be sacrificed for what is presumed to be the common good. But that we have not learned from experience is evi denced by the fact that Lenin's philosophical descendants now speak in terms of developing dem ocratic socialism, hoping to sug gest thereby that individual free dom can be preserved in a collec tivized state.

No One Ought to Rule The notion is implicit: if we have the freedom to vote for those whp will govern us then our free dom is preserved. But such a no tion is completely at variance with the concept of liberty. As Professor Douglas says in his re cent article in The Freeman maga zine, "Democracy is a theory about sovereignty, that is a theory about who ought to rule . . . The first principle of liberty, on the other hand, is that there is no one who, of right, ought to rule. The theory of liberty is not a theory of sov ereignty at all."l Rather, I would add, it is a theory of social vital ity and health. A theory which 1 George H. Douglas, "Mr. Mencken on Liberty," in The Freeman, Decem ber, 1973. maintains that the whole of soci ety is equal to the sum of its parts, that society prospers in all regards when individual freedom with its corollaries of individual creativity and initiative reign, that that gov ernment is best which governs least.

We have tended to lose sight of the compelling truth of this theory because we ten~ to confuse gov ernment with society. We operate under the false assumption that if it's good for the government it's good for society. We fail to deal consistently with the fact that government is a special creature of man and as such is only one agency of society established to deal with only some needs of so ciety. The agency of government can become too dominant for the social good just as any other agency can become too dominant. The health of human society is directly dependent upon the health and vitality of its individual mem bers. It is like any organism of the human body which is depend ent for its welfare upon the health and vitality of its individual cells. If governmental authority grows malignantly, then individual free dom and social vitality are doomed. Another reason we have lost sight of the truth of liberty is be cause we have too often confused freedom with security. President Roosevelt contributed to this con552 THE FREEMAN September fusion when he promulgated his four freedoms - freedom from want, freedom from fear, etc. in defense of his policy to central ize more authority in the federal government. This has become the same defense for all others who would substitute some brand of socialism for individualism, argu ing that one cannot be free if he is wracked by poverty or uncer tainty as to the future. We there fore subordinate the liberty of all in the hope of improving the se curity of some.

Liberty or Collective Security? But since liberty is defined as "freedom from arbitrary and des potic governmental authority" and security is defined as "freedom from danger, risk, etc."2 it is clear that we are faced with a choice: liberty or collective security, one simply cannot have both. The true joy of liberty is the challenge to provide one's own security. If one gets no joy in this challenge, then of course he's perfectly willing to sacrifice his freedom and that of his neighbor for a promise of se curity. And if a society puts more importance on collective security than individual freedom, then that is its choice to make. But in doing so it must cease any pretensions 2 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged edition. to being part of the "free world" even though other countries may be no more free than it. The fact of the matter is that there is no longer a "free world"

in the Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson sense. And this is re grettable, not in any sentimental sense of clinging to the past but in the rigorous philosophical sense of doing what is best for human society. This capacity for people to lose sight of their philosophical foun dation brings to mind a true ex perience I had last year. I checked into a hotel in Cleveland for a one night stay, having made a reserva tion in advance. I filled out the registration card, and as the young lady behind the counter was tran scribing the information onto the room slip, she asked, "How do you plan to pay this?" I immediately responded, "With cash." HOh," she said, and then after a short pause of apparent embar rassment she responded, "Then do you have some form of credit card for personal identification?" After I got myself under con trol from laughing I said to her: "I was aware that the U.S. dollar had declined in value but I didn't realize it was that bad."

"Oh," she said, still not cracking a smile, "I hadn't thought of it that way."

1974 POLITICAL FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH 553 "I hadn't thought of it that way." There is the rub! While man is a unique creative being, he is also a creature of habit. And most of our behavior is controlled by conditioned reflex rather than rea soned judgment. Accordingly, our country is currently drifting as a society in a direction that is con trary to its creation and its basic mission. Rigidities Develop as Government Grows OverExtended The genius of the United States that brought it so far in so short a period of time is its having broken with the established reli ance on centralized government authority in favor of the principle of decentralized authority, there by releasing the creativity and in itiative of the ordinary individual citizen. This fact has been demon stra ted in so many areas of social life-economic, educational and ar tistic-tha t even the opponents of liberty do not dispute it. Now, however, we see this genius being threatened by the gradual erosion of the basic principle. To date, a major segment of the populace seems unconcerned either because "they haven't thought of it that way," they don't want to bear the burdens of liberty, or they are content with their political freedom and blithely go on in the same blind fashion, apparently assuming that civil liberty is synony mous with political freedom.

Our institutions of government, justice, taxation, business and edu cation are all beginning to suffer from a form of institutional hard ening of the arteries born of ex cessive centralization of authority. Although our political freedom has provided us with a degree of governmental resiliency that has been able to avoid violent eruption and revolution to date, it has be come increasingly evident that political freedom, while central to all other social freedoms, is still not enough in itself .. To provide the continuous opportunity for so cial self-renewal so desperately needed, individual freedom must be respected and practiced more fully in all walks of life. When we speak of a free society we must encompass much more than poli tical democracy if we are to pre serve the genius of the United States. The accelerated shift in attitude that took place in the 1930s toward using government in an interven ing way rather than a facilitating way has brought us over the last 40 years to the point where we now seem to believe that the only way to solve any social problem is to pass a law. We. experience daily the ridiculous spectre of our legis lators competing with one another in trying to get legislative credits 554 THE FREEMAN September by having their names associated with bills. As a consequence, we are building a gargantuan govern ment bureaucracy, with a morass of law unfathomable in many cases by the legislators themselves.

Forty per cent of our gross na tional income is now attributable to government of one sort or an other. A False Hope We continue blithely along this course, confident in our political freedom. But we fail to recognize that political freedom is not enough. A monolithic government produced over time by democratic process can become just as over bearing, cumbersome, repressive, and inefficient as such a govern ment imposed by any other means. After all, a democracy at best can only determine who shall govern and not how to govern, and it pro vides little solace to know that one has the chance to vote for the peo ple who are going to be in control of the government juggernaut that controls every facet of one's life. Government action can never effectively take the place of indi vidual initiative and individual ac tion for the solution of social prob lems. To propose such is tanta mount to arguing that the vehicle should propel the motor. There fore, laws in a free, self-renewing society must be proscriptive, not prescriptive. They must simply provide the broad limits within which the fullest amount of indi vidual creativity and action is en couraged. The challenge to any society that is to remain resilient and vibrant and therefore contin ually self-renewing is to achieve freedom within order, individual ity within community, and equality within diversity. Centralized gov ernmental authority can never achieve this kind of blending, for by definition there is no freedom.

All is sacrificed for order; the in dividual citizen as a whole is not trusted. In a society based on de centralized authority and freedom there is a constant threat of an archy and the absence of desirable order, but it is not absolutely denied. That is to say, order is pos sible under decentralized author ity, but freedom is not possible under centralized authority. Abuse of Power It is ironic that the political party that has been proclaiming over the last 40 years the grave threat to the United States of ex cessive centralization of authority is now the party that is being embarrassed through the over zealous use of that power by some of its leaders. It may just be this irony, however, that saves uS,for the people at large are being forced to see the ultimate danger 1974 POLITICAL FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH 555 to our way of life of such concen tration of power in a way that vvould never been seen if the irony were not there. They are at long last being forced to stop and ad mit: "I never thought of it that way!"

The press and the Congress are relentlessly belaboring the Presi dent in this regard, but in the final analysis it is the Congress that has been at fault and not the President. Even more accurately, it is we the people who have toler ated and even encouraged the ac tions of Congress over the years who are ultimately at fault. In our weakness we have willingly sacri ficed our individual liberty for a fleeting promise of security. Patrick Henry would have to be aghast! Congress is being criticized for its apparent impotence in the face of a strong President. But the fault lies not in its current impo tence but in its previous irrespon sibility in breaking with the gen ius of the United States by having opted for a highly centralized gov ernment structure instead of being faithful to a decentralized social structure. It has passed law after law after law for the Execu tive branch to administer, laws that are aimed at controlling every facet of our lives, laws that are paternalistic in nature, laws that circumscribe individual initiative and individual creativity rather than assure equal justice and equal opportunity, laws that prescribe individual action, laws that nullify private property.

After all, our constitution pro vided for a strong executive office in the presidency. The greater the federal bureaucracy and the greater the centralization of au thority in Washington, the greater will be the power of the individual President. The way to avoid a Frankenstein calamity is to avoid creating the monster to begin with. Security Is a Mirage The sad reality of it all is that the glittering promise of security through central governmental au thority turns out to be a mirage. We experience full employment only when we wage war. And aside from dislocating and brutalizing our individual lives, the wars maim our economy by stimulating inflation and disrupting our mone tary system. Our productivity de clines in relation to other nations. Poverty perseveres; but now it's looked upon as a political issue, which it isn't, rather than an eco nomic issue, which it is. Its pros pect for solution therefore de clines. In fact, all economic issues become politicized and therefore not dealt with properly. An intense adversary relationship develops 556 THE FREEMAN September between owner, employee and con sumer, which is just contrary to what should exist.

The fact of the matter is that what is good for an individual bus iness is good for owner, employee and consumer alike and therefore society at large. We see this truism violated in legislative action regu larly, currently by the absurd de termination of some legislators to penalize the oil companies for pre sumably profiting unduly during the recent oil crisis. Who do they figure own the companies, work for the companies and buy from the companies if not citizens whom they supposedly represent? Who else but the citizens of the United States will be forced to suffer if Congress penalizes the operating efficiency of these companies? Is not such legislative action, such arbitrary use of governmental au thority, a case of our collectively cutting off our nose to spite our face? A Miracle of Progress When one considers the miracle that has been wrought in this country over the last 200 years the conversion of a wilderness into what is generally recognized, for the time being at any rate, as the wealthiest and most powerful na tion in the world - one wonders how anyone can be critical of the economic system which brought it about. The land is no wealthier than many other lands in the world; the people are no different from those in other sections of the world; the climate is not superior to many other sections of the world - the only distinguishing characteristic is the extent to which we have relied upon decen tralized authority in the making of economic decisions and thereby capitalized more fully on the ini tiative and creativity of the indi vidual person.

There is no question that there have been instances of specific suf fering from excesses. Individual freedom in all areas - political, press, academic and economic will always be abused by some. But it simply cannot be denied that this economic system eliminated more poverty, created more leisure time, offered more cultural enjoy ments and created more educa tional opportunity in a shorter period of time than any other eco nomic system or government pro gram any place and at any time in the history of the world. So why now ridicule it, shackle it and sub stitute bureaucratic governmental programs for it? If we want to work on problems of the environ ment, worldwide poverty, cultural and educational deprivation, etc., we had best leave our economy free. Of course a free economy pro1974 POLITICAL FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH 557 duces its own elite just as any and every social system, but it is far safer to have these elite deter mined through the anonymous polls of the market place in serv ing the wants. of the public than by political appeal or demagoguery. We should penalize severely those who abuse the system and thereby violate the trust implicit in any decentralization of author ity. But we should not throw out the baby with the bath. It is well worth reflecting upon how much more advanced our economy and society would have been had there not been the heavy intrusion of the federal government into the opera tions of our individual businesses over the last 40 years.

There simply can be no doubt that the more individual initiative and creativity is circumscribed by governmental restraints and usur pation, the less productive the society becomes. A paternalistic government inevitably becomes an oppressive and suffocating govern ment. While I readily use the seat belts in my automobile for my own protection, I don't want the gov ernment telling me I have to. It's a very short step from Washing ton telling me what I have to do in order to protect my own body to telling me what I can or cannot do in order to protect my mind. For some inexplicable reason we have come to distrust individual initiative and freedom of action and assume that by substituting governmental action for individ ual action we will have greater wisdom and greater integrity, for getting somehow that it's the same fallible individuals who exercise power in the government halls as in the market place. If individuals can't be trusted as servants, how can they be trusted as masters? If evil is to prevail it is far better to have it decentralized. Is not this the prime lesson of Watergate?

Centralized Societies Fall History readily records that all societies founded on a highly cen tralized authority structure ulti mately die from a hardening of their societal arteries - a loss of resiliency, an inability to renew themselves. Our country was to be the great global experiment to prove that a society based upon trust in the individual and decen tralization of authority would de velop best and last longer. If we can't be faithful to the principle in our own country, it is not likely to be respected elsewhere. And if it does not prevail ultimately, hu man society at large will most certainly be doomed for want of a creative, self-renewing character. As Jean Ravel so well develops in his book, Without Marx or Jesus, the· United States is the only country remaining that still has 558 THE FREEMAN September the requisite freedom in its social functioning to offer the prospect for liberating change. If this qual ity be lost by our going the way of all other countries, then what profits us, and what profits man?

Shortly we shall celebrate the Bicentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This was a notable event in itself, but we have more to celebrate and venerate than this. Subsequent to it there was a war to be fought and won; true independence as a sovereign state to be achieved; political compromise and agree ment to be worked out; a consti tution to be written and agreed to; a government to be formed; :t President to be elected and in stalled; and the whole govern mental structure to be put into successful operation. It was not until 1787 that the Constitution was signed, and 1789 that the gov ernment of the United States was launched under that Constitution with the great promise of the Declaration of Independence hope fully realized. Relive the Earlier Concepts Let us not, therefore, content ourselves with a crash celebration of the Bicentennial of the begin ning - July 4, 1976. Such a cele bration we should have, but we have more to think about than that. We have the opportunity during the 13-year period 1976 1989 to reawaken the nation to the nature of its origin and the genius of its concept. All segments of our contemporary society should be in volved in recovering the mission and pride of our existence - not for the sake of pride alone but to reassure our contribution to the social evolution of man by fidelity to the principle of decentraliza tion of authority.

This is not something the gov ernment whose birthday we will be recognizing can do or should do. Remember that government is only one agency of society! It was the creativity and initiative of private individuals that inspired and wrote the Declaration of In dependence. It was the creativity and initiative of private individ uals that hammered out the Con stitution of the United States. It was the creativity and initiative of private individuals that fash ioned this governmental structure that has become the prototype for so 'many revolutionary govern ments throughout the world in the evolutionary process toward indi vidual freedom and decentralized authority. It was the creativity and initiative of private individ uals that converted a wilderness into a modern state almost over night. It was the creativity and initiative of private individuals that in no more than an instant of 1974 POLITICAL FREEDOM IS NOT ENOUGH 559 history created the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has ever known. And it is the cre ativity and initiative of private in dividuals which alone will solve the immense problems of the fu ture and enable man to proceed apace in keeping with his social evolutionary design.

A NonGovernmental Celebration Let us, therefore, pay our re spects to the Bicentennial of the founding of our government in the only way consistent with its origin and its essence. Let us take the initiative as private individ uals and institutions in diverse ways to recall our heritage, honor our uniqueness, and plan for our future. In doing so, let us not be satisfied with a crash celebration as of a single date. Let us make use of the full bicentennial era of 1976 to 1989. Let us grasp this unique oppor tunity to reawaken the citizens of this nation to its special genius and destiny in serving the evolu tionary destiny of man. Not in any narrow, nationalistic, flag waving sense which at times is willing to destroy the true genius of America in a misguided effort to promote its physical embodi ment. Rather, let us strive to sensitize everyone to be aware of the fact that our forefathers at tempted to create a society in which freedom could exist within order, individuality could exist within community, and equality could exist within diversity - that is, in which individual liberty is prized over collective security.

This is the great challenge to us; this is the well-known Ameri can dream. To achieve it we must have faith in the individual citi zen while fostering a thorough going judicial process to·· penalize those who violate the trust. To achieve it we must assure equal justice under the law and equal opportunity for self-development. To achieve it we must renounce governmental bureaucratic author itarianism of any and every sort. To achieve it we must respect pri vate property and rely upon the creativity and initiative of the free individual. And most of all, to achieve it we must give up the naive notion that adherence to a democratic form of government is the sole requisite to realization l)f these other freedoms. Individual liberty can be violated by a gov ernment democratically chosen just as readily as one autocrati cally imposed. A tyranny of the masses is no less tyrannical be cause it represents majority will.

The record of the past and the conditions of the present demon strate conclusively that political freedom alone is not enough. We need liberty as well as democracy! ~ Freedom's Bounty CARL A. KEYSER A VARIETY OF REASONS have been given to explain the good life we Americans enj oy. One claims that it came about when steam power liberated factories from river valley sites and streams that were the source of energy. Another said it resulted when interchange able parts led to mass production and the ultimate in division of labor. Still another credits im proved metals technology, partic ularly the means to produce steel in large batches, steel from which rails and bridges and engines were made to bind East and West and open the granaries of the heart land. It has often been said that Mr. Keyser is Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst where he had specialized in materials engineering and metallurgy.