On That Day Began Lies

On That Day Began Lies From the day when the first members of councils placed exterior authority higher than interior, that is to say, recognized the decisions ofmen united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and con science; on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their un happy work to the present day. LEO TOLSTOY 1 THIS is a striking statement. Is it possible that there is something of a wholly destructive nature which has its source in councilmanic, or in group, or in committee-type action? Can this sort of thing generate lies First published in 1949. IThe Law of Love and the Law of Violence (Rudolph Field, N.Y.), p. 26. that actually cause the loss of "mil lions of human beings"? Any reasonable clue to the un happy state of our affairs merits in vestigation. Two world wars that settled nothing except adding to the difficulties of avoiding even worse ones; men lacking in good character rising to positions of power over mil lions of other men; freedom to produce, to trade, to travel, disap pearing from the earth; everywhere the fretful talk of security as inse curity daily becomes more evident; suggested solutions to problems made of the stuff that gave rise to the problems; the tragic spectacle, even here in America, of anyone of many union leaders being able, at will, to control a strategic part of the com plex exchange machinery on which the IiveIihood of all depends; these and other perplexities of import 677 678 THE FREEMAN November combine to raise a tumultuous "why,"

and to hasten the search for an swers. The Searchfor Answers "... on that day began lies .... " That is something to think about. Obviously, if everything said or written were lies, then truth or right principles would be unknown. Sub tract all knowledge of right princi ples and there would not be even chaos among men. Quite likely there would be no men at all. If half of everything said or writ ten were lies .... Human life is dependent not only on the know ledge of right principles but dependent, also, on actions in accordance with right principles. Admittedly there are wrong princi ples and right principles. However, the nearest that any person can get to right principles-truth-is that which his highest personal judg ment dictates as right. Beyond that one cannot go or achieve. Truth, then, as nearly as any individual can ex press it, is in strict accordance with this inner, personal dictate of right ness.

The accurate representation of this inner, personal dictate is intellec tual integrity. It is the expressing, living, acting of such truth as any given person is in possession of. In accurate representation of what one believes to be right is untruth. It is a lie. Attaining knowledge of right principles is an infinite process. It is a development to be pursued but never completed. Intellectual integ rity, the accurate reflection of high est personal judgment, on the other hand, is within the reach of all. Thus, the best we can do with ourselves is to represent ourselves at our best. To do otherwise is to tell a lie. To tell lies is to destroy such truth as is known. To deny truth is to destroy ourselves. It would seem to follow, then, that if we could isolate anyone or nu merous origins of lies we might put the spotlight on the genesis of our troubled times. This is why it seems appropriate to accept Tolstoy's statement as a hypothesis and ex amine into the idea that lies begin with "decisions of men united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and conscience."

For, certainly, today, much of the decision that guides national and world policy springs from "men united in councils." In what manner, then, do "the de cisions of men united in councils" tend to initiate lies? Experience with these arrangements suggests that there are several ways. The Spiritof the Mob The first has to do with a strange and what in most instances must be an unconscious behavior of men in association. Consider the mob. It is 1983 ON THAT DAY BEGAN LIES 679 a loose-type association. The mob will tar and feather, burn at the stake, string up by the neck, and otherwise murder. But dissect this association, pull it apart, investigate its individ ual components. Each person, very often, is a God-fearing, home-loving, wouldn't-kill-a-fly type of individ ual. What happens, then? What makes persons in a mob behave as they do? What accounts for the distinction between these persons acting as re sponsible individuals and acting in association?

Perhaps it is this: These persons, when in mob association, and maybe at the instigation of a demented leader, remove the· self-disciplines which guide them in individual ac tion; thus the evil that is in each person is released, for there is some evil in all of us. In this situation, no one of the mobsters consciously as sumes the personal guilt for what is thought to be a collective act but, instead, puts the onus of it on an abstraction which, without persons, is what the mob is. There may be the appearance of unfairness in relating mob associa tion to association in general. In all but one respect, yes. But in one re spect there is a striking similarity. Persons advocate proposals in as sociation that they would in no cir cumstance practice in individual ac tion. Honest men, by any of the common standards of honesty, will, in a board or a committee, sponsor, for instance, legal thievery-that is, they will urge the use of the political means to exact the fruits of the labor of others for the purpose of benefit ing themselves, their group, or their community.

These leaders, for they have been elected or appointed to a board or a committee, do not think of them selves as having sponsored legal thievery. They think of the board, the committee, the council or the as sociation as having taken the ac tion. 2 The onus of the act, to their way of thinking, is put on an ab straction which is what a board or an association is without persons. Imagine this: Joe Doakes passed away and floated up to the Pearly Gates. He pounded on the Gates and St. Peter appeared. "Who are you, may I ask?" "My name is Joe Doakes, sir." "Where are you from?" "I am from Updale, U.S.A." "Why are you here?" "I plead admittance, Mr. St. Pe ter." St. Peter scanned his scroll and 2It is acknowledged that most of us acting in association do not consciously regard any of our acts as bad. Yet, the fact remains that we persist in doing things in this circumstance that we would not do on our own responsibility. Ac tually, involved is a double standard of moral ity. Morality is exclusively a personal quality.

Any action not good enough to be regarded as attached to one's person is, ipso facto, bad.

680 THE FREEMAN November said, "Yes, Joe, you are on my list. Sorry I can't let you in. You stole money from others, including wid ows and orphans." "Mr. St. Peter, I had the reputa tion of being an honest man. What do you mean, I stole money from widows and orphans?" "Joe, you were a member, a finan cial supporter and once on the Board of Directors of The Updale Do-Good Association. It advocated a munici pal golf course in Updale which took money from widows and orphans in order to benefit you and a hundred other golfers." "Mr. St. Peter, that was The Up dale Do-Good Association that took that action, not your humble appli cant, Joe Doakes." St. Peter scanned his scroll again, slowly raised his head, and said somewhat sadly, "Joe, The Updale Do-GoodAssociation is not on my list, nor any foundation, nor any cham ber of commerce, nor any trade as sociation, nor any labor union, nor anyP.T.A. All I have listed here are persons, just persons."

The Spirit of the Committee It ought to be obvious that we as individuals stand responsible for our actions regardless of any wishes to the contrary, or irrespective of the devices we try to arrange to avoid personal responsibility. Actions ofthe group character heretofore referred to are lies for in no sense are they accurate responses to the highest judgments of the individuals con cerned. The second way that lies are ini tiated by "the decisions of men united in councils" inheres in commonly accepted committee practices. For example: A committee of three has been assigned the task of preparing a report on what should be done about rent control. The first member is devoted to the welfare-state idea and believes that rents should for ever be controlled by governmental fiat. The second member is a devotee of the voluntary society, free market economy and a government of strictly limited powers and, therefore, be lieves that rent control should be abolished forthwith. The third member believes rent controls to be bad but thinks that the decontrol should be effected gradually, over a period of years.

This not uncommon situation is composed of men honestly holding three irreconcilable beliefs. Yet, a report is expected and under the customary committee theory and practice is usually forthcoming. What to do? Why not hit upon something that is not too disagreeable to any one of the three? For instance, why not bring in a report recommending that landlords be permitted by gov ernment to increase rents in an amount not to exceed 15%? Agreed! In this hypothetical but common instance the recommendation is a 1983 ON THAT DAY BEGAN LIES 681 fabrication, pure and simple. Truth, as understood by anyone ofthe three, has no spokesman. By any reason able definition a lie has been told. The LowestCommon Denominator Another example. Three men having no preconceived ideas are appointed to bring in a report. What will they agree to? Only that which they are willing to say in. concert which, logically, can be only the lowest common-denominator opin ion of the majority! The lowest com mon-denominator opinion of two persons cannot be an accurate re flection of the highest judgment of each of the two. The lowest common denominator opinion of a set of men is at variance with truth as here de fined. Again, it is a fabrication. Truth has no spokesman. A lie has been told.

These examples (numberless vari ations could be cited) suggest only the nature of the lie in embryo. It is interesting to see what becomes of it. Not all bodies called committees are true committees, a phase of the discussion that will be dealt with later. However, the true committee, the arrangement which calls for res olution in accordance with what a majority of the members are willing to say in concert, is but the instiga tor of fabrications yet more pro nounced. The committee, for the most part, presupposes another larger body to which its recommendations are made. These larger bodies have a vast, almost an all-inclusive, range in present-day American life. The neighborhood development associa tions; the small town and big city chambers of commerce; the regional and national trade associations; the P.T.A.'s; labor unions organized ver tically to encompass crafts and hor izontally to embrace industries; farmers' granges and co-ops; medi cal and other kinds of professional societies; ward, precinct, county, state and national organizations of politi cal parties; governmental councils from the local police department board to the Congress of the United States; the United Nations; thou sands and tens of thousands of them, every citizen embraced by several of them and millions of citizens em braced by scores of them; most of them "resoluting" as groups, decid ing as "men united in councils."

These associational arrangements divide quite naturally into two broad classes, (1) those that are of the vol untary type, the kind to which we pay dues if we want to, and (2) those that are a part of government, the kind to which we pay taxes whether we want to or not. For the purposes of this critique, emphasis will be placed on the vol untary type. In many respects criti cisms applying to the former are valid when applied to the latter; 682 THE FREEMAN November nonetheless, there are distinctions between the way one should relate oneself to a voluntary association and the way one, for the sake of self-pro tection, is almost compelled to relate himself to a coercive agency. 3 Now, it is not true, nor is it here pretended, that every associational resolution originates in distortions of personal conceptions of what is right. But anyone of the millions of citizens who participates in these associations has, by experience, learned how extensive these fabri cations are. As a matter of fact, there has developed a rather large accep tance of the notion that wisdom can be derived from the averaging of opinions, providing there are enough of them. The quantitative theory of wisdom, so to speak!

A Lie Compounded If one will concede that the afore mentioned committee characteris tics and council behaviors are per versions of truth, it becomes 3The common political idea that a member of Congress, for instance, must "compromise," that is, must on some issues vote contrary to his convictions in order to effect a greater good on some subsequent issue, or to keep himself in office that he may insure the public good, leaves shattered and destroyed any moral ba sis of action. If each member of Congress were to act in strict accordance with his inner dic tate of what is right, the final outcome of Con gressional action would, of course, be a com posite of differing convictions. But the alternative of this is a composite of inaccurate reflections of rightness. interesting to observe the manner of their extension-to observe how the lie is compounded. Analyzed, it is something like this: An association takes a stand on a certain issue and claims or implies it speaks for its 1,000,000 members.

It is possible, of course, that each of the 1,000,000 members agrees with the stand taken by the organization. But, in all probability, this is an un truthful statement, for the following possible reasons: (1) If every member were actually polled on the issue, and the majority vote was accepted as the organiza tion,s position, there is no certainty that more than 500,001 persons agreed with the position stated as that of the 1,000,000. (2) If not all members were polled, or not all were at the meeting where the voting took place, there is only the certainty that a majority of those voting favored the position of the or ganization-still claimed to be the belief of 1,000,000 persons. If the quorum should be 100, there is no certainty that more than 51 persons agreed with that position. (3) It is still more likely that the opinion of the members was not tested at all. The officers, or some committee, or some one person may have determined the stand of the or ganization. Then there is no cer tainty that more than one person (or a majority of the committee) favored that position.

1983 ON THAT DAY BEGAN LIES 683 (4) And, finally, if that person should be dishonest-that is, untrue to that which he personally believed to be right, either by reason of ulte rior motives, or by reason of antici pating what the others will like or approve-then, it is pretty certain that the resolution did not even originate in honest opinion. An example will assist in making the point. The economist of a na tional association and a friend were breakfasting one morning, just after V-J Day. Wage and price controls were still in effect. The conversation went something as follows: "I have just written a report on wage and price controls which I think you will like ." "Why do you say you think I will like it? Why don't you say you know I will like it?" "Well, I-er-hedged a little on rent controls." "You don't believe in rent con trols. Why did you hedge?" "Because the report is as strong as I think our Board of Directors will adopt."

"As the economist, isn't it your business to state that which you be lieve to be right? If the Board Mem bers want to take a wrong action, let them do so and bear the responsibil ity for it." Payingfor Misrepresentation Actually, what happened? The Board did adopt that report. It was represented to the Congress as the considered opinion of the constitu ency of that association. Many of the members believed in the immediate abolishment of rent control. Yet, they were reported as believing other wise-and paying dues to be thus misrepresented. By supporting this procedure with their membership and their money they were as re sponsible as though they had gone before the Congress and told the lie themselves. To remove the twofold dishonesty from such a situation, the spokes man of that association would have to say something like this: "This report was adopted by our Board of Directors, 35 of the 100 being present. The vote was 18 to 12 in favor of the report, 5 not voting.

The report itself was prepared by our economist, but it is not an accurate reflection of his views."4 Such honesty or exactness is more the exception than the rule as ev eryone who has had experience in associational work can attest. What really happens is a misrepresenta tion of concurrence, a program of lying about how many of who stands for what. Truth, such as is known, is seldom spoken. It is warped into a misleading distortion. It is obliter41t is evident that any such report as this is worthless. Yet, a more pretentious report would be a lie, a thing of positive harm. Ifa procedure can result only in worthlessness or harm, the procedure itself should be in question.

684 THE FREEMAN November ated by this process of the majority speaking for the minority, more of ten by the minority speaking for the majority, sometimes by one dishon est opportunist speaking for thou sands. Truth, such as is known-the best judgments of individuals-for the most part, goes unrepresented, unspoken. This, then, is the stuff out of which much of local, national and world policy is being woven. Is it any won der that many citizens are confused? Three questions are in order, and deserve suggested answers: (1) What is the reason for having all these troubles with truth? (2) What should we do about these associational difficulties? (3) Is there a proper place for as sociational activity as relating to important issues? "And now remains That we find out the cause of this effect; Or, rather say, the cause of this de fect, For this effect, defective, comes by cause." Pointing out causes is a hazardous venture for, as one ancient sage put it, "Even from the beginnings of the world descends a chain of causes."

Thus, for the purpose of this cri tique' it would be folly to attempt more than casual reference to some of our own recent experiences. First, there doesn't appear to be any widespread, lively recognition of the fact that conscience, reason, knowledge, integrity, fidelity, un derstanding, judgment and other virtues are the distinctive and ex clusive properties of individual per sons. Somehow, there follows from this lack of recognition the notion that wisdom can be derived by pooling the conclusions of a sufficient number of persons, even though no one of them has applied his faculties to the prob lems in question. With this as a no tion the imagination begins to as cribe personal characteristics to a collective-the committee, the group, the associationas though the col lective could think, judge, know, or assume responsibility. With this as a notion, there is the inclination to substitute the "decisions of men united in councils" for reason and conscience. With this as a notion, the responsibility for personal thought is relieved and, thus relieved, fails to materialize to its fullest.

A Blind Faith Second, there is an almost blind faith in the efficacy and rightness of majority decision as though the mere preponderance of opinion were the device for determining what is right. This thinking is consistent with and a part of the "might makes right" doctrine. This thinking, no doubt, is an outgrowth of the American polit ical pattern, lacking, it seems, an observance of the essential distinc1983 ON THAT DAY BEGAN LIES 685 tions between voluntary and coer cive agencies. It is necessary that these distinctions be understood un less the whole associational error is to continue. The following is, at least, a suggested explanation: Government-organized police force-which according to best American theory should have a mo nopoly of coercive power, must con tain a final authority. Such author ity was not planned to be in the person of a monarch, in an oligarchy or even in a set of elected represen tatives. The ultimate, final author ity was designed to derive from and to reside with the people. Erected as safeguards against the despotism that such a democratic arrangement is almost certain to inflict on its members were (1) the Constitution and (2) the legislative, executive and judicial functions so divided and dif fused that each might serve as a check on the others.

When the concession is made that government is necessary to assure justice and maximum freedom, and when the decision is made that the ultimate authority of that govern ment shall rest with the people, it follows that majority vote is not a matter of choice but a necessity whenever this ultimate authority expresses itself. No alternative ex ists with this situation as a premise. To change from majority vote as a manner of expression would involve changing the premise, changing to a situation in which the ultimate au thority rests in one person. A Restraint Against the Abuse of the Police Power For reasons stated and implied throughout this critique the major ity-decision system is considered to be most inexpert. However, it proves to be a virtue rather than a fault as applied to the exceedingly danger ous coercive power, providing the coercive power is limited to its sphere ofpolicing. This inexpertness in such a circumstance tends to keep the coercive power from becoming too aggressive.

Conceding the limitation of the coercive power, which was implicit in the American design, the really important matters of life, all of the creative aspects, are outside this coercive sphere and are left to the attentions of men in voluntary effort and free association. The idea of citizens left free to their home life, their business life, their religious life, with the coercive power limited to protecting citizens in these pursuits presents, roughly, the duality of the American pattern. On the one hand is the really important part of life, the creative part. On the other hand is the minor part, the part having to do with constraint. Con straining and creating call for dis tinctly different arrangements. Constraint can stop the trains but it 686 THE FREEMAN November is not the force we use to build a railroad. Out of this pattern has developed a high appreciation for our form of government, particularly as we have compared it with the coercive agen cies of the 0 ld World. Here is the point: The majority-decision system, an effect rather than a cause of our form of government, has been erro neously credited as· responsible for the superiority of our form of gov ernment. It has been thought of as its distinctive characteristic. There fore, the majority-decision system is regarded as the essence of rightness.

Without raising questions as to the distinctions between creating and constraining we have taken a coer cive-agency device and attempted its application in free association. Something is not quite right. Per haps this is one of the causes. Loss of Reason Third, we have in this country carried the division-of-labor practice to such a high point and with such good effect in standard-of-living benefits that we seem to have for gotten that the practice has any lim itations. Many of us, in respect to our voluntary associational activi ties, have tried to delegate moral and personal responsibilities to mere ab stractions, which is what associa tions are, without persons. In view of (1) this being an impossibility, (2) our persistent attempts to do it, nonetheless, and (3) the consequent loss of reason and conscience when personal responsibility is not per sonally assumed, we have succeeded in manufacturing little more than massive quantities of collective dec larations and resolutions. These, lacking in both wit and reason, have the power to inflict damage but are generally useless in conferring un derstanding. So much for causes.

"What should we do about these associational difficulties?" This wri ter, to be consistent with his own convictions, finds it necessary to drop into first person, singular, to answer this question. In brief, I do not know what our attitude should be, but only what mine is. It is to have no part in any association whatever which takes ac tions implicating me for which I am not ready and willing to accept per sonal responsibility. Put it this way: If I am opposed, for instance, to spoliation-legal pIunder-I am not going to risk being reported in its favor. This is a mat ter having to do with morals, and moral responsibility is strictly a personal affair. In this, and like areas, I prefer to speak for myself. I do not wish to carry the division -of labor idea, the delegation of author ity, to this untenable extreme. This determination of mine refers only to voluntary associations and does not include reference to mem bership in or support of a political 1983 ON THAT DAY BEGAN LIES 687 party. The latter has to do with my relationship to coercive agencies and these, as I have suggested, are birds of another feather.

One friend who shares these gen eral criticisms objects to the course I have determined on. He objects on the ground that he must remain in associations which persist in mis representing him in order to effect his own influence in.bettering them. If one accepts this view, how can one keep from "holing up" with any evil to be found, anywhere? If lending one's support to an agency which lies about one's convictions is as evil as lying oneself, and if to stop such evil in others one has to indulge in evil, it seems evident that evil will soon become unanimous. The alterna tive? Stop doing evil. This at least has the virtue of lessening the evil doers by one. The question, "Is there a proper place for associational activity as re lating to important issues?" is cer tainly appropriate if the aforemen tioned criticisms be considered valid. First, the bulk of activities con ducted by many associations is as businesslike, as economical, as ap propriate to the division-of-Iabor process, as is the organization of specialists to bake bread or to make automobiles. It is not this vast num ber of useful service activities that is in question.

The phase of activities here in dis pute has to do with a technic, a method by which reason and con science-such truths as are pos sessed-are not only robbed of in centive for improvement but are actually turned into fabrications, and then represented as the convictions of persons who hold no such convic tions. It was noted above that not all bodies called committees are true committees-a true committee being an arrangement by which a number of persons bring forth a report con sistent with what the majority is willing to state in concert. The true committee is part and parcel of the majority-decision system. Intellectual Leveling-Up The alternative arrangement, on occasion referred to as a committee, may include the same set of men. The distinction is that the responsi bility and the authority for a· study is vested not in the collective, the group, but in one person, preferably the one most skilled in the subject at issue. The others serve as consul tants. The one person exercises his own judgment as to the suggestions to be incorporated or omitted. The report is his and is presented as his, with such acknowledgments of as sistance and concurrence as the facts warrant. In short, the responsibility for the study and the authority to conduct it are reposed where respon sibility and authority are capable of being exercised-in a person. This 688 THE FREEMAN November arrangement takes full advantage of the skills and specialisms of all par ties concerned. The tendency here is toward an intellectual leveling-up, whereas with the true committee the lowest common-denominator opin ion results.

On occasion, associations are formed for a particular purpose and supported by those who are like minded as to that purpose. As long as the associational activities are limited to the stated purpose and as long as the members remain like minded, the danger of misrepresen tation is removed. It is the multi-purposed associa tion, the one that potentially may take a "position" on a variety of sub jects, particularly subjects relating to the rights or the property of oth ers~moral questions-where mis representation is not only possible but almost certain. The remedy here, if a remedy can be put into effect, is for the associa tion to quit taking "positions" ex cept on such rare occasions as unan imous concurrence is manifest, or except as the exact and precise de gree and extent of concurrence is represented. The alternative step to most asso ciational "positions" is for the mem bers to employ the division-of-Iabor theory by pooling their resources to supply services to the members-as individuals. Provide headquarters and meeting rooms where they may assemble in free association, ex change ideas, take advantage of the availability and knowledge of oth ers, know of each other's experi ences. In addition to this, statisti cians, research experts, libraries and a general secretariat and other aids to effective work can be provided.

Then, let the individuals speak or write or act as individual persons! Indeed, this is the real, high purpose of voluntary associations. The practical as well as the ethi cal advantages of this suggested procedure may not at first be appar ent to everyone. Imagine, if you can, Patrick Henry as having said: "I move that this convention go on record as insisting that we prefer death to slavery." Now, suppose that the convention had adopted that motion. What would have been its force? Certainly al most nothing as compared with Pa trick Henry's ringing words: "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" No one in this instance concerned himself with what Patrick Henry was trying to do to him or to someone else. One thought only of what Pa trick Henry had decided for himself and weighed, more favorably, the merits of emulation. No convention, no association, no "decisions of men united in councils" could have said such a thing in the first place, and second, anything the members might 1983 ON THAT DAY BEGAN LIES 689 have said in concert could not have equalled this. Third, had the con vention been represented in any such sentiments it is likely that misrep resentation would have been in volved.

One needs to reflect but a moment on the words of wisdom which have come down to us throughout all his tory, the words and works that have had the power to live, the words and works around which we have molded much of our lives, and one will rec ognize that they are the words and works of persons, not collective res olutions, not what men have uttered in concert, not the "decisions of men united in councils." A Waste of Time In short, if effectiveness for what's right is the object then the decision of-men- united-in-council procedure could well-be abandoned, if for noth ing else, on the basis of its imprac ticality. It is a waste of time in the creative areas, that is, for the ad vancement of truth. It is a useful and appropriate device only as it relates to the coercive, that is to the restric tive, suppressive, destructive func tions. The reasons for the impracticality of this device in the creative areas seem clear. Each of us when seeking perfection, whether of the spirit, of the intellect, or of the body, looks not to our inferiors but to our bet ters, not to those who self-appoint themselves as our betters, but to those who, in our own humble judg ment, are our betters. Experience has shown that such perfection as there is exists in individuals, not in the lowest common-denominator ex pressions of a collection of individu als. Perfection emerges with the clear expression of personal faiths-the truth as it is known, not with the confusing announcement of verbal amalgams-lies.

"... on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their un happy work to the present day." The evidence, if fully assembled and cor rectly presented, would, no doubt, convincingly affirm this observa tion. How to stop lies? It is simply a matter of personal determination and a resolve to act and speak in strict accordance with one's inner, per sonal dictate of what is right. And for each of us to see to it that no other man or set of men is given per mission to represent us otherwise. If such truth as we are in posses sion of were in no manner inhibited, then life on this earth would be at its highest possible best, short of further enlightenment. @ The Magic of Believing A FEELING OF <HOPELESSNESS is the straw that could break the back of the freedom movement-for free dom will never be achieved without faith. In any event, this feeling of futility more seriously threatens the continuance of the work of the Foundation for Economic Education than does any other discernible in fluence. People do not continue to work at a problem after its solution appears hopeless to them.