Is Freedom High on Today's Agenda? A. Brownfeld

Is ~ .~~tt\l\\\t\ High on ,\\:' Today's I "'a<J7ff?ii Agenda? ALLAN C. BROWNFELD IT. IS SAD, but may be true, that many, perhaps most, Americans really do not care very much about being free. Two candidates for public office recently told this writer that when they advocated a policy of the least coercive kind of government, they were rebuffed by the voters. One of these men was John Hospers, the Libe,rtarian Party candidate for President·· in 1972. When voters asked, "If. you alre elected, what will you do for me?" he responded: "I'll leave you alone." The other man, Michael Feld, a Republican, was running Mr. Brownfeld of Alexandria, Virginia, is a freelance author, editor and lecturer especi ally interested in political science. for Congress in Iowa. When he was asked the same question in Dubuque, he responded· that, "I'll do my best to see to it that the people .in this city run their own affairs, and a,re not told what to do by bureaucrats in Washington."

Neither Mr. Hospe,rs' audience nor that of Mr. Feld were interested in being left alone. What they wanted was, unfortunately for freedom, far different. Much the same happened when this writer ad.dressed a, group, of high school students visiting Washington, D. C. from Rhode Island. When they were told that the Founding· Fathe,rs were sus picious of government, and fearful of the centralization of power, the 515 516 THE FREEMAN September young people were mystified. "Do you mean to say," one asked, "that we should not have faith in our politicians and should not look to government for the answer to our problems?" Such an. idea - the tra ditional American idea of freedom and carefully limited governmental power - had never really occurred to these students. One wonders what is being taught in the schools of Rhode Island. Unfortunately, it is the same philosophy of depen dence upon the state which seems to he the common program of much of our public education. And why, after all, shouldn't state supported schools seek to foster dependence upon the state? It seems to be in the nature of things.

The fact is that more aspects of our lives than ever before are sub ject to the intervention of men in Washington, some elected, some appointed. We are to;Id by them to buckle our automobile s~at belts, to hire given percenta.ges of women and selected minority groups, to answer intimate ques tions on census forms and to turn over ever larger portions of our incomes in the form of taxes and social security levies. The govern ment keeps files upon us, some times spies upon us, ,and is always ready to tell us wha~ to do - al ways, of course, "for our own good." A generation ago the great economist Joseph Schumpeter de scribed the performance of intel lectuals, politicians and others who sought to expand government power at the expense of individual freedom and of traditional rights to private property this way: "Capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets. They are going to pass it, whatever the de fense they may hear; the only suc cess victorious defense can possi bly p,roduce is a change in the indictment."

Thus, while the issues may change, the answer is always the same: an increase in the power of the state and a diminution in the rights of individual men and women. For the Good of Society Today those who seek to expand state power say that they 'are doing this in the name of ecology, of the environment, of zero population growth, and a host of similar euphemisms for a planned and controlled society. They propose legislation which will tell individu als what they may do on and with their own property. They propose tax legislation which would include penalties upon those, having more than the legally mandated number of children. They propose environ mental standards which would limit growth and, as a result, re1975 IS FREEDOM HIGH ON TODAY'S AGENDA? 517 duce the expansion of business, industry, and jobs. Long ago, Justice Louis Bran deis declared that a nation's free dom was never taken from it "ex cept for a good reason." Those who wish to limit freedom at the present time have many "good reasons" for their actions. The average citizen, unfortunately, is not aware of the consequences of these proposals and,as a result, becomes their naive supporter and defender.

More and more, Americans are becoming subjects rather than citi zens. Many don't realize it. Many who do, don't mind it. After all, Capitol Hill is filled each day with men and women with their hands out for what they like to think is "federal money." They are farmers, veterans, teach ers, businessmen, welfare recipi ents - each one wants a govern ment subsidy fo·r his own particu lar group. In return for such gov ernment subsidization, they are quite willing to submit to govern ment rules and regulations. For them, freedom is simply the ask ing price for a form of guaranteed security. Many are eager to pay it. The illusion which those who care about freedom have operated unde·r from the beginning was that such freedom would be taken from them either by demagogues at home or tyrants abroad. It is, of course, necessary to guard against both of these very real phenomena. This, however, remains a somewhat mythical construc tion, for the real world does not work quite that way. Freedom is rarely taken from men and women who are jealous of it. Quite to the contrary - they give it away ea gerly for something they want more.

Catering to Weakness Totali tarians of all sorts whether Nazis or Fascists or Com munists - understand this flaw in human nature very well, and they play upon it very effectively. The Nazi spokesman Goebbels declared that, "To be a socialist is to sub mit the I to the thou; socialism is a sacrificing of the individual to the whole." Sacrificing the individ ual and reducing him to a bit of dust, to an atom, implies, accord ing to Hitler, the renunciation of the right to asse·rt one's individ ual opinion, interests and happi ness. The individual, under such a system, ceases to be important. Hitler declared that, "The indi vidual renounces his personal opin ion and his interests." Hitler praises "unselfishness" and teaches that "in the hunt for their own happiness, people fell all the' more out of heaven into hell." It was the aim of education in Nazi Germany to teach the individual not to as518 THE FREEMAN September sert himself. Precisely the same is true of education in the Soviet Un ion and in Communist China.

Freedom begins to be lost the moment the "public interest" re~ places what an individual believes to ,be the truth and the wishes of the group, assume an authority which cannot be rebuked. In his important book, E'scape From Freedom" Erich Fromm notes that in the course' of modern history the authority of the Church 'has been replaced by that of the State and today is being replaced as well "by the anonymous authority of ... public opinion. Because we have freed ourselves of the older, overt forms of authority, we do not see that we become the prey of a new kind of authority. We have become automatons who live under the il lusion of being self~willing indi viduals ... The loss of the self has increased the necessity to conform, for it results in a profound doubt of one's identity ... if we do not see the unconscious suffering of the average, automatized person, then we fail to see the danger that threatens our culture : the readi ness to accept any ideology and any leader, if only he promises excite ment ... and, offers meaning and order to an individual's life."

While we often declare that in dividual freedom is of the highest priority, and wonder why state power continues to, grow at its expense, and why so few are con cerned - this very anguish we feel may indicate that we do not pos sess a proper understanding of what is happening. It is not pol itics, or economics, or history which may really be at work, but human nature itself. Precious to Whom? The, French philosopher Ber trand De J ouvenel, in his classic work On Power, points out that we frequently say that "Liberty is the most precious of all goods" with out noticing what this formula tion implies in the way of social assumptions. He writes that, HAgood thing which is',of great price is not one of the primary necessities. Water costs nothing at all, and bread very little. What costs much is some thing like a Rembrandt, which though its price is above rubies, is wanted by very few people, and by none who have' not, as, it happens, a sufficiency of bread and water.

Precious things, therefore, are really desired by but few human beings and not even by them until their primary needs have been amply provided. It is from this point of view that liberty needs to be looked at ... the will to be free is in time of danger extinguished and revives again when once the needof security has received satis faction. Liberty is in fact only a 1975 IS FREEDOM HIGH ON TODAY'S AGENDA? 519 secondary need; the primary need is security." Yet, Americans live in the most prosperous and secure society in the history of the world - but are sacrificing freedom for what they perceive as "security" at an ever increasing rate. Unfortunately, many predicted that democracy would produce this result. Macaulay to Randall Thomas Babington Macaulay, writing to Henry Randall'in 1857, lamented, "I, have long, been con vinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization or both. In Europe, where the popu lation is dense, the effect of such institutions would be almost in stantaneous . . . Either the poor would plunder the rich, and civili zation would perish; or order and prosperity would be saved by a strong military government, and liberty would perish."

Macaulay, looking to America, declared that, "Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic, will be as fear fully' plundered and laid waste by barbarians in. the 20th century as the Roman Empire was in the Fifth - with this difference - that your Huns and Vandals will have be-en engendered within your own country by your own institutions." There is much discussion today about "equality" by men and wom en who do not understand that lib erty and equality are, in fact, two distinct and diametrically opposed concepts. They would do well to consider the analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in Amer ica: "I think that democratic com munities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with, regret. But for equality, their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, in vincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism - but, they will not endure aristo~racy."

As if shattering the dream of the Founding Fathers, Tocqueville declared that, "Democratic nations often hate those in whose hands the central power is vested; but they always love that power itself. I am of the opinion, in the democratic ages which are opening upon us, individual independence and local liberties will ever be the produce of artificial contrivance; that cen tralization will be the natural form of government . . . Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." Discussing the growth of cen520 THE FREEMAN September tralized power in the United States, a country created by men who feared such centralization and at tempted to write a Constitution which would prevent it, De Jou venel declares that, "America was a country which was a stranger to compulsory military service, in which the tradition was to elect officials to office,and in which Pow er was subject to judicial control.

Is it not astounding that Power was able in a few years to reduce this control nearly to the vanishing point, to build up a vast bureauc racy, and to invest this bureauc racy with such wide powers that a number of federal agencies have been established simultaneously to formulate rules, to apply them, and to punish breaches of them - to act, in other words, as legislator, executive and judge 1" De Jouvenel concludes that, "The state, when once it is made the giver of protection and security, has but to urge the necessities of its protectorate and overlordship to justify its encroachments. Bis mark realized long ago that this was the road which led to enlarged authority." Whether governments are elect ed by a maj ori ty of citizens, or are elected by no one, tells us simply how they are constituted, not how power is exercised or whether or not freedom of the individual is protected. The fact that Americans, once in four years, elect a President, or once in two years choose a member of the House of Representati ves, should not con fuse the fact that government pow er is, nevertheless, arbitrarily im posed. After thE1; depradation of the French Revolution, Clemenceau said that "Had we expected that these majorities of a day would exercise the same authority as that possessed by our ancient kings, we should but have effected an exchange of tyrants." Clemen ceau's words seem to echo those spoken by William Pitt, Earl of Chatham on Janua.ry 9, 1770: "Are all the generous efforts of our an cestors ... reduced to this conclu sion, that instead of the arbitrary power of a king we must submit to the arbitrary power of a House of Commons 1 If this be true, what benefits do we derive from the ex change 1 Tyranny is detestable in every shape; but in none as formi dable as when it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants."

Freedom and individualism seem not to be natural to man, but must be carefully cultivated and taught. The American society is failing in this task - and the future of Amer ican liberty hangs in the balance. Total power over the lives of in dividuals is worst when that total power is exercised in the name of the majority of citizens organized into a powerful state. Lord Acton 1975 IS FREEDOM HIGH ON TODAY'S AGENDA? 521 declared that, "It is bad to be op pressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a maj or ity. For there is a reserve of la tent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the -absolute will of an entire people, there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason." Freedom, unfortunately, does not seem to be high on the Ameri can agenda at the present time. Dnless tha t agenda changes, the future for freedom is bleak. It will not, it seems, be taken from us by either force or subterfuge. If we lose it, it will be because we have given it away. The fault will be entirely our own. , IDEAS ON $ LIBERTY I'll Respect Your Life AMONG PEACEFUL PERSONS who have individually recognized the morality and wisdom of volunteering unilaterally not to kill, not to steal, not to injure another deliberately, there would be no need for government if everyone were capable of living according to his good intentions. Yet, within a society primarily comprised of property-respecting, peaceful persons, individuals make mistakes; and there is a place for an organized agency of force with sufficient power to suppress or discourage any errant threat to life or prop erty. One may solemnly pledge not to break the peace himself and yet consistently advocate a government police force strong enough to overcome and subdue him if in a moment of rashness he should forget or violate his pledge. Self-control is a most difficult thing; a properly limited government is a form of organized self-control and may be helpful in that limited role. But when government exceeds that very limited purpose and begins placing barriers be tween willing buyers and sellers, it then becomes the positive evil \ve know as socialism and all of its variations. When anyone tries to make a deal to respect your life if you'll respect his, tell him to forget it - but respect his life anyway, because it is the right thing to do.

PAUL L. POIROT DICK BEELER On Feeding the World The topic of the day is world starvation. Convention speakers, theologians, concerned citizens, newspaper columnists, TV moralists, classroom lecturers, civic leaders, con trolled parents, social engineers, symposium panelists, and long range planners are all up to their ears in it. The representatives of 140 nations, at the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome, concluded that somewhere between 400 and 800 million members of the human family are starving. They say 71 percent of world population is too poor to buy its minimum food requirements. While there is indeed a shortage of food, there is no shortage of ideas on what shquld be done about it. Most of them involve government restrictions and regulation, and none is going to solve the problem. They've all been tried. Perhaps that is the most horrifying thought of all. We seem to be tooling up for a flock of projects that will bleed America white, and in the long run just make the things worse.