In Search of Freedom; B. Moreell

Now, before you jump to the conclusion that I favor unbridled license, I want to say that I, too, favor certain restrictions on free dom. For example, I want a re straint against the freedom of any person to do bodily harm to any other person, or to cheat him, or to defame him, or to use force against him in any manner. I want adequate laws against fraud, coerThis article is from an address at the annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States in Washington, D. C., May 2, 1951. Admiral Moreell then was Chairman of the Board and President of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation. The U. S. crisis in 1951 was the Korean War; but the crises have continued, as has the urgency of the search for freedom. 237 238 THE FREEMAN April cion and monopoly. But I believe that type of law is designed to protect the individual's freedom of choice and action. It is true that it is a restraint. But it is one that does not inj ure any person who desires to live in peace and deal fairly with his fellow men.

That type of law is aimed solely at the person who wants to restrict or destroy the freedom of others by imposing his will and his ideas upon them. I doubt that any right-thinking American opposes what we, in gen eral, refer to as "the police and de fense powers of government." These are designed to protect all of us equally against internal or ex ternal aggression. Those basic povv ers were provided for in our F2d eral and State Constitutions just about as they had developed under the common law of England. But over the years a different concept of the functions of government has grown up among us. The founding fathers established a form of limited government with divided governmental powers de signed to protect the smallest pos sible minority - one person against the demands of the largest possible majority -all other per sons combined. But, today, there is evidence that we are turning to the dictatorial thesis that "might makes. right"; that there is no in violable right for any person if the organized and formalized maj 01" ity decrees otherwise; that the mere legalizing of an action makes it morally proper.

Thus we appear to be drifting from freedom and responsibility to re3trictions and irresponsibility. We now demand that government "protect" us against the results of our own freedom of choice. We ap pear to have accepted the theory of group morality; of determining right and wrong by voting on it - and then accepting the maj 01" ity decision. It makes one wonder what the future holds for a nation wherein the people lose their faith in individual freedom and in per sonal responsibility for one's own actions. The Case of Businessmen Now, before we consider specific examples of this rejection of free dom, I would like to make two points. First, I am not talking about "someone else" who is not with us today. I am talking specifi cally about myself - and about you, my fellow businessmen. For I see little evidence that we businessmen of America have greater faith in individual freedom' than have farn1ers, industrial workers, doc tors, teachers, ministers or any other occupational group. You may have heard it said that if only others - the traditional "man in the street" - knew as much about 1975 IN SEARCH OF FREEDOM 239 this subject as "we businessmen,"

there would be no danger to our freedom. I believe that is a self righteous position, built on a false premise. I believe that many of us have made the same errors as those in other groups. If you wish to see with what ease we "free enter prisers" can justify our tastes for socialism, you have only to ex amine the "resolutions" of almost any organization of businessmen as they emerge from the Annual Convention! Let us admit, then, that it is we who need to learn and not a nebu lous "someone else." My second point is that I am quite sure that I do not know the answers to the weighty problems which we face. I do not have a pipeline to God, or eternal truth, any more than you have. I speak to you as a student, not as a teach er. And, I come here, in all humil ity, to present for your considera tion the results of my study of freedom. Social Security Probably the most clear-cut ex ample of our lack of faith in indi vidual freedom is found in the compulsory social security pension system administered by the Fed eral Government which has spread so rapidly over our country. I would guess that few persons here would abolish this system, even if they could. The reason, I· believe, is this: few persons believe that individual freedom and personal responsibility for one's own wel fare offer the greatest possible se curity in an admittedly insecure world. It appears that we Ameri cans no longer believe that a free person in a free country can or will voluntarily provide for the welfare of himself, his family and his handicapped or temporarily unfortunate neighbor. In contra diction of our own Declaration of Independence, we appear to be rapidly becoming a nation of de pendents. That philosophy of de spair is summed up in the question that is heard whenever the subject of security by dependence on gov ernment is discussed: "Would you let them starve?"

Let us consider the implied meaning of that question. To me it says, if people are free and re sponsible for their own welfare, they will starve. It says that we have rejected Christ's teachings on love and charity. It says that we - through our churches and our other voluntary organizations - cannot or will not care for the unfortunate among us. It says that a free economy results in starvation instead of progress and prosperity. It says that freedom is a failure and that, for our sal vation, we must turn to the author itarian concept of government240 THE FREEMAN April guaranteed security. I believe this is an outright rejection of the original American belief in free dom of choice and personal respon sibility for one's own decisions and actions. I believe few would find fault with the announced goal of social security, i.e., freedom from want in old age. But even if we are will ing to incur the dangers to all our freedoms which arise when we maximize the importance of "free dom from want," we still must answer the question: "Will it work as it is now administered by Gov ernment?"

The receipts from social se curity taxes are used to defray current costs of government. But the goods and services which will be given in the future to the bene ficiaries of social security will have to be provided from the then current production. They will be paid for by current taxes or by in flation. In either case the net effect will be to take from producers to give to nonproducers. When this effect becomes substantial, the in centive to produce is impaired or destroyed. And we must remember that the very safety of the nation depends upon our ability and our willingness to produce! Social Se curity taxes are, in effect, a with drawal against savings. If they are to be productive they should be used to increase our tools of production, not for current ex penses of government! Slavery and Privation As proof of the error of our present approach, let us look at the nations of the world where gov ernments exercise the greatest de gree of control over their people.

There you will find the lowest standards of living. Let us ex amine Russia and her satellites. The siren song of government guaranteed security has brought mass privation to the citizens of those nations. Look at Britain and her pro mise of security from the cradle to the grave! It is important to recall that the British experiment in government security has not only led to succes sive crises in this postwar period; it has also required that Britain be bailed out periodically primari ly by American aid, with secon dary assists from Canada and other Commonwealth nations. It is proper, then, to raise this ques tion: Who will be there to do for us what we have done for others if we follow this road into bond age? Our approach to the concept of government-guaranteed security here in the United States is more along the lines of British national socialism than the Russian brand of socialism. Here, we retain a 1975 IN SEARCH OF FREEDOM 241 two-party system and the right to vote, but most of the leaders of both parties are pledged to the same general program in such matters as governmental housing, social security, subsidies to farm ers, loans to poor business risks, rent controls, price controls, tariffs and other restrictions against the freedom of honest persons to trade with other honest persons on terms mutually acceptable. There may be a difference in the degree of socialization or in the mechan ics of administration advocated by our two major political parties.

But it is difficult to distinguish any major difference in basic prin ciple. Thus, I believe, we have clear proof at home and abroad that democracy of itself does not auto matically guarantee freedom; in fact, we have proof that regimen tation lurks insidiously behind democratic promises of govern mental security. Lost Freedoms I will not undertake to list all of the many freedoms we have sur rendered in the United States the restraints against freedom of choice that we have voted against ourselves. But such a list would include controls over farmers, businessmen, industrial workers, bankers, foreign traders and other groups. It would include price controls, wage controls, rent controls, raw materials controls, controlled rates of interest, inflat ed money, artificially cheap credit, and controlled production. Each of these measures has the effect of preventing honest persons from doing what they want to do or of forcing honest persons to do some thing that they do not want to do.

As such, each is a clear-cut denial of freedom. Else why has freedom been forsaken and forbidden in these vast areas of our daily activ ities? To me, the sad part of these con troIs is that, even if we disregard the moral issues involved, I believe they will not accomplish what they are designed to do. I can find no evidence in history that they will work and I believe the reason is clear. It is not, as is claimed, an attempt to control prices or mate rials; it is always an attempt to control persons. For example, when the "new deal" was tried in Old Rome, it was announced as a program to control prices. It was persons, however, who were fed to the lions when they were caught charging more than the legal price. But, as they always will, the people continued to trade on terms mutually accept able to buyer and seller, even when facing the death penalty. During the French Revolution, the government tried to stop the rise of prices by condemning the 242 THE FREEMAN April so-called black n1arket merchants to the guillotine. But, in spite of this, prices continued to rise in proportion to the amount of infla tionary paper money that was printed and distributed by gov ernment.

In Russia, the government tried to stop inflation by the direct pro cesses of starvation, the concen tration camp, and the firing squad. It did not work, even in this most completely controlled economy the world has ever seen! The Vital Question This brings us to the vital ques tion: Will the price controls, wage controls, profit controls and other measures against freedom now be ing instituted by,government stop inflation and high prices in our country? I believe the answer is "N0." I believe that fines against so-called black marketeers will not stop inflation nor will prison terms stop it. I concede that our government officials do wish to stop inflation. I suggest, therefore, that they consult the dictionary to find a definition of what they are trying to stop. They will find that infla tion is defined as "a dispropor tionate increase in the quantity of money or credit, or both, rela tive to the amount of exchange business." That is, inflation is caused by a disproportionate increase of money and credit rela tive to available goods and ser vices. The question then is: Who or what is responsible for increas ing the money and credit?

It would appear to be our own government that is responsible for the inflation and high prices that are upon us today. Yet, this same government is leading the posse in an attempt to catch the culprits! While we are being warned to watch out for "specula tors and black marketeers" the real culprit (our own government) continues its inflationary fiscal policies of creating more and more money and credit in relation to the production of goods and services. We are now fighting one costly war while we are preparing for a greater one. Such a program re quires a tremendous amounf of goods and services. If these must be produced now, instead of ten years from now, then the efforts of individual citizens must be di rected now to that purpose. What ever the cost in effort of rearma ment it comes at the time the goods are being provided. It is not possible to have the products now and to postpone the effort to suit our convenience. And if the gov ernment does not pay for the effort required to produce the goods of war with money gathered by taxes now, then, judging by past experi ence, the government will pay for 1975 IN SEARCH OF FREEDOM 243 those goods with printing-press money, or its equivalent, that will destroy by inflation the value of our earnings and savings as though they had been taken from us by taxes. It appears that the sole effect of so-called "deferred payments," as previously practiced, is to delude us into believing that it is possible to get something for nothing - instead of having to work and pay for it.

It is proper, I believe, to raise this question at this point: How can we discharge that obligation to "secure the blessings of liberty" to our posterity which the Con stitution enjoins upon us, if we pursue the will-o'-the-wisp of inflation and thus mortgage the liberty of that posterity? Four Minus One Is Three We have beep told that one"': fourth of our production and ser vices may eventually be absorbed by the armament program. In the face of that, some of our more op timistic government officials tell us that the Defense Program will cause little or no decline in our standard of living. I cannot follow this line of reasoning. For when one is subtracted from four, the result is three. And all the controls in the world cannot change that answer or the natural conse quences that must inevitably re sult when more and more money bids for fewer and fewer goods and services. I believe that if our government adopted the forthright approach of collecting in taxes the full amount of its expenditures, we w'ould thus eliminate any excuse for building up a huge bureaucracy in the futile effort to prevent prices and wages from finding their natural levels. For on a pay as-you-go basis, as goods and ser vices are funneled into rearma ment, an equal amount of purchas ing power would be withdrawn by taxation. Thus there would be no serious inflation and little or no further general price rise in the overall economy.

But if we continue in the direc tion we have been going in recent years, with a steadily increasing stream of money accompanied by compulsions against individual freedom, we have reason for con cern for the future of our nation. For such a course will bring two evils that must eventually destroy us - as surely as if we were in vaded and conquered. A Nation of Lawbreakers In the first place, I believe eco nomic necessity will eventually in duce us to become a nation of law breakers in order to survive under a permanent system of wage, price and other controls. Normally hon est persons will find it necessary 244 THE FREEMAN April for economic survival to return again to the under-the-counter deals and black market operations that existed under previous gov ernmental attempts to abolish the free market and the right of per sons to trade with each other on mutually acceptable terms. Good laws will then suffer along with bad laws. Because the only way to create respect for all law is to make sure that all laws are them selves respectable. Laws that cause normally honest people to become technical criminals are not respectable laws. But these laws against individual freedom of choice and action, laws that are designed to abolish the natural operations of a free and competi tive market, will offer criminals and gangsters an unexcelled op portunity to flourish. This could easily mean the end of our Ameri can experiment in freedom - the end of our original concept of gov ernment as servant, not master of the people.

Power Corrupts Another great danger is to be found in what happens to the of ficials who are called upon to ad minister these great governmental powers. For when a person gains power over other persons - the political power to force other per sons to do his bidding when they do not believe it right to do soit seems inevitable that a moral weakness develops in the person who exercises that power. It may take time for this weakness to be come visible. In fact, its full ex tent is frequently left to the his torians to record, but we eventu ally learn of it. It was Lord Acton, the British historian, who said: "All power tends to corrupt; ab solute power corrupts absolutely." Please do not misunderstand me. These persons who are cor rupted by the process of ruling over their fellow men are not in nately evil. They begin as honest men. Their motives for wanting to direct the actions of others may be purely patriotic and altruistic.

Indeed, they may wish only "to do good for the people." But, appar ently, the only way they can think of to do this "good" is to impose more restrictive laws. Do-Gooders Now, obviously, there is no point in passing a law which re quires people to do something they would do anyhow; or which pre vents them from doing what they are not going to do anyhow. Therefore, the possessor of the political power could very well de cide to leave every person free to do as he pleases so long as he does not infringe upon the same right of every other person to do as he pleases. However, that concept ap1975 IN SEARCH OF FREEDOM 245 pears to be utterly without reason to a person who wants to exercise political power over his fellow man, for he asks himself: "How can I 'do good' for the people if I just leave them alone?" Besides, he does not want to pass into his tory as a "do nothing" leader who ends up as a footnote somewhere.

So he begins to pass laws· that will force all other persons to conform to ~ his ideas of what is good for them. That is the danger point! The more restrictions and compulsions he imposes on other persons, the greater the strain on his own morality. As his appetite for us ing force against people increases, he tends increasingly to surround himself with advisers who also seem to derive a peculiar pleasure from forcing others to obey their decrees. He appoints friends and supporters to easy jobs of ques tionable necessity. If there are not enough jobs to go around, he cre ates new ones. In some instances, jobs are sold to the highest bidder. The hard-earned money of those over whom he rules is loaned for questionable private endeavors or spent on grandiose public projects at home and abroad. If there is opposition, an emergency is de clared or created to justify these actions. If the benevolent ruler stays in power long enough, he eventually concludes that power and wisdom are the same thing. And as he possesses power, he must also possess wisdom. He becomes con verted to the seductive thesis that election to public office endows the official with both power andwis dam. At this point, he begins to lose his ability to distinguish be tween what is morally right and what is politically expedient.

I am aware that whenever con trols and restrictions are' pro posed, the argument is made that they are temporary, "for the pe riod of the emergency only." But I have seen too many "temporary" measures harden into permanent controls by government to permit me to view them with compla cency. We have been told by gov ernment officials that the present emergency may last for a genera tion or even longer! Will these controls and restrictions on free dom last that long? We should, I believe, base our appraisal of any measure on the moral principle in volved, and reject all justifications which are based on political or other expediency. Such justifica tions are inevitable when people grasp for power. Moral principle is timeless. An act that is wrong ten years from now is just as wrong today! We are now engaged in a con test between our philosophy of liv ing and that of a totalitarian 246 THE FREEMAN April state. We have said again and again that it is our free way of life that gives us both spiritual and material superiority over Russia and communism. Yet, when the crucial test between these two philosophies is imminent, we ap parently feel compelled to adopt their system in order to prove that ours is best. We feel com pelled to reject freedom and em brace the communist idea of a planned economy and a controlled people. Thus we surrender in the most vital battle, the battle of ideas, even before a shot is fired.

What will it profit us to defeat aggressive foreign nations who believe in a regimented people and government ownership of the means of production, if, in the process, we accept the validity of their doctrines for use here in the United States? That would indeed be a Pyrrhic victory! A Return to Freedom Where then does this search for freedom lead us? What should we do? First, I want to say that I am quite sure I am not capable of determining for 150 million peo ple [in 1951J their everyday eco nomic and personal decisions con cerning such things as wages, prices, production and all the rest. I believe that no other person, or group of persons, is capable of do ing so. For that reason, I propose that these decisions and the prob lems connected therewith be re turned to the people themselves. This, I believe, could be done in three steps: First, let us stop this headlong rush toward more collectivism. Let there be no more special privileges for employers, employes, farmers, businessmen or any other group or persons. Let there be no en largement of the area of socialism.

That is the easiest step of all. We need merely refrain from passing additional coercive laws! And let us not ignore the fact that when ever special privilege is granted to a person or group the freedom of others is correspondingly re stricted - that is coercion! Second, let us undertake at once an orderly demobilization of many of the existing powers of central ized government. This can be done by the progressive repeal of the various socialistic laws that we al readyha ve. Let us remove the special privileges that we have granted to persons and groups. This will be a very difficult step because every pressure group in the nation will fight bitterly to re tain the laws that grant them monopoly privileges and protec tion from competition. But if free dom is to live, all special privileges must go! Would it not be a wond erful thing if each pressure group would voluntarily surrender its 1975 IN SEARCH OF FREEDOM 247 own special privilege as a contri bution to the great cause of free dom for all?

Third, of the powers which re main in government, let us decen tralize as many as possible by re turning them to state and local governments. For on the local level the people will be better able to safeguard their freedom by criti cal scrutiny of the acts of their government officials. But I am sure that none of these steps will be taken until we believe that freedom as a way of life will work! Thus, the very first step of all is for each of us to examine his own conscience, to find out why he has lost faith in freedom in those vast areas that have been dele gated to government; and how he can regain that faith. It is my firm belief that such self-exami nation will result in a rebirth of confidence in freedom and in in dividual moral responsibility in a nation now beset by fear and con fusion. For I am sure that when a person understands freedom, he must believe in it! In this time of grave national crisis I believe we can obtain guid ance from the wisdom of our founding fathers. I, therefore, commend for your consideration these statements by George Mason and Thomas Jefferson in the Vir ginia Bill of Rights, which was it self the foundation of our Declara tion of Independence: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing pro perty, and pursuing and obtain ing happiness and safety.

"That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be pre served to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." These, I believe, are the truths by which we must live if we are to be free! , IDEAS ON LIBERTY Not Through Power I HAVE NEVER been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others. THOMAS JEFFERSON A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK UPLIFT 1////1/ JOHN CHAMBERLAIN IT'S BEEN a long time since Richard Cornuelle wrote his Reclaiming the A merican Dream, a glowing book which made the voluntaristic soci ety seem an immediate possibility. Things haven't quite turned out as Mr. Cornuelle would have wished. Inflation and voluntarism don't go together. Private schools struggle while the State, in response to the educational 10hl?Y, pours out the money for "aid" to public educa tion. And now, with a recession or a depression or whatever you want to call it fastening itself upon us, the cry is for millions of "public service" jobs to be paid for by our children's children.