Getting There; J. K. Williams

"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat. "I don't much care where-" said Alice. "Then it doesn't much matter which way you go," said the Cat. "-so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only· walk long enough."1 GETTINGTHERE 709 FEWWYERSOF LIBERTYand students of the freedom philosophy share the confusion of Lewis Carroll's Alice. We know "where we want to get to." We wish to move from a fettered market economy and an intrusive government to a free market econ omy and a limited government. Yet how to reach that destination is not without its problems. Alice's ques tion, therefore, can well be ours: Which way ought we to go from here? Economic Education Economic education is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the transformation of the possible world of economic and political liberty into a realized world. "Getting there"

cannot be achiyved by economic ed ucation alone; without economic ed ucation, however, "getting there" is impossible. What form, however, should that economic education take? Two direc tions seem to me important. First and foremost comes self-education. As the late Leonard Read insisted again and yet again, you and I must be perpetual students of the freedom philosophy. We must read; we must think; we must meet with like minded men and women and learn from them and with them. We will never possess all the answers, but The Reverend Dr. John K. Williams has been a teacher and is a freelance writer and lecturer based in North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. He was resident scholar at FEE this past summer. when real-world counterparts of the grinning Cheshire Cat ask us to de scribe our destination, we will be able to say more than could poor Alice. There seems to me, however, to be a second direction we students of the freedom philosophy should be tak ing. I refer not to research at the cut ting edge of human thought about economic issues and political philos ophy, important though such re search be. Fortunately, many schol ars in universities, foundations, and institutes are, in this nation and other nations, engaging in such re search, and doing so in greater num bers than has been the case for many decades. The gap I perceive, and be lieve we both could and should close, relates to accessible materials intro ducing and creating an appetite for our case. Let me explain.

On my shelves, alongside the col lected writings of Karl Marx, the significant writings of Lenin, the works of Trotsky, and numerous vol umes by contemporary Marxist-Len inist thinkers, stand some so-called "documentary comic-books."2 These books introduce readers to the ideas of Marx and of Lenin. They do so in an admittedly superficial but none theless essentially accurate way. Footnotes and comments in the text refer the reader to more sophisti cated works. The books are easily read, are not without humor, and both introduce a case and whet the 710 THE FREEMAN December reader's appetite for more. The "tar get audience" is obvious: the curious layperson in general and college stu dent in particular. Where, I wonder, are comparable volumes making our case? Many de fenders of liberty say, and I believe correctly say, that really there is lit tle to be said against Marxism-Len inism that has not already been said. 3 Yet the young undergraduate has to be "lured" into tackling the demanding works on our side. A dy namic professor can so lure his or her students, but such professors are not, alas, as plenteous as soybeans. There is, I submit, a dearth of volumes pre senting in an interesting and highly accessible form the essential case for economic and political liberty and against Marxist-Leninist teachings.

A churchman, perusing the hymnals of his day, lamented that the devil seemed to have all the good tunes. My lament is that the Marxist-Len inists and other statists are showing a more imaginative determination to communicate their ideas than are we. I think I perceive the problems. Our case cannot,· without gross dis tortion, be reduced to slogans scrawled on walls and messages adorning our cars. Simply, we do face problems in popularizing and cre ating interest in our case. But so do our opponents. Many so phisticated Marxist-Leninists de plore the "documentary comic books" to which I have referred. They dismiss them as unsophisti cated and crude. The books can be torn to shreds by anyone with even a passing knowledge of the thinkers I previously cited. Yet our opponents have taken the risk. They picked out a target audience. They hired an able illustrator. They worked and re worked the text. They carefully in cluded references to the best mate rials making out their case. They calculated that if sufficient interest were created, readers exposed to a rebuttal of the arguments presented in the comic books would turn to the more sophisticated works cited in search of answers. They showed imagination, embraced risks, and got on with the business of retailing ideas and generating enthusiasm for these ideas.

The Church and the Market Consider another fairly specific target audience: clerics and church people. I do not receive all the mail ings emanating from my denomi nation's headquarters. The Division of Social Justice has written me off as a lost cause. And I didn't endear myself to those employed at the Uniting Church's city offices when, in print, I described the impressive edifice occupied as the black hole of the Uniting Church, emitting no light and absorbing everything com ing within range. Still, I do receive a goodly number of mailings from 1985 GETTING THERE 711 that eerie place, and value the stamps, which I save for a charity. I receive mailings from my nation's equivalent to your National Council of Churches, and mailings from the World Council of Churches. Some of the material is innocuous. Much of it, however, is littered with specifically economic claims. Again and again I learn, for example, that the poverty of so-called developing nations is caused by past plundering and present exploitation by devel oped nations.

Specifically the Marxist-LeninIst theories have "trickled down," so to speak, and are being promoted, whether intentionally or uninten tionally, through pamphlets, study guides, and learning kits addressed to clerics in particular and church people in general. Men and women using these materials absorb an en tire conceptual apparatus, learning to use words such as "justice," "equality" and "rights" in a way prejudging the case for economic and political liberty. What materials are available, spe cifically addressed to churchpeople, presenting the case for the free mar ket in a free society in a highly ac cessible, interest-creating way? Ed mund A. Opitz has penned an admirable volume entitled, Religion and Capitalism: Allies, Not Enemies, and more recently both the Lu theran theologian Robert Benne and the Roman Catholic theologian Michael Novak have written and ed ited volumes primarily addressed to churchpeople and informed by the ological subtlety and economic sa gacity.4 There are also, I know, not a few works defending economic lib erty, and sometimes political liberty, in the context of what one might call a fundamentalist theological stance.

Yet there remains a gap. There is a desperate need for materials, spe cifically directed to church leaders and church members, which are not far removed from the simplicity, brevity, and accessibility of the Marxist-Leninist "documentary comic books" to which I have referred. Wakening Interest in Liberty I am not suggesting for a moment that the volumes penned by such thinkers as Edmund Opitz, Robert Benne, and Michael Novak are ir relevant to the economic education of clerics and churchpeople. They are vital for such education. I know, for example, of three clergymen who, af ter reading Edmund Opitz's book, substantially modified their eco nomic and political attitudes. Yet these people had to be cajoled into reading the three hundred pages of the work. Attractive, brief, simple materials, the purpose of which pri marily is to waken an interest and whet an appetite scholarly works can satisfy, are urgently required.

Students of the freedom philoso712 THE FREEMAN December phy would, I submit, do well to meet, think together, and list specific tar get groups for materials making out the case for economic and political liberty. The specific interests and concerns of these groups should be identified. Then comes the prepara tion of direct, uncluttered, relatively unsophisticated materials making a case for liberty related to these in terests and concerns and, even more importantly, leading readers to sub stantial works elaborating and fill ing out that case. I know some of us have done this before. We have not, however, done it well enough. Op ponents of liberty have been more creative, more imaginative, more venturesome than have we. The time is ripe for us, in our vitally impor tant work of economic education, to start "outsmarting" our opponents. In this way the journey from where we are to our desired destination is furthered.

The NonRational Allied to the ongoing work of eco nomic education, is the task of ex ploring nonrational factors affecting people's attitudes to economic and political liberty. Much has been writ ten and said about nonrational fac tors predisposing men and women against the free market in a free so ciety. In my article entitled, "Catch the Little Foxes!"5 I discuss some of these: snobbery, a fear of so-called elitism, and a confused moralism. Ludwig von Mises brilliantly ad dresses the issue in his volume, The AntiCapitalistic Mentality, and a collection of essays edited by Ernest van den Haag-Capitalism: Sources of Hostility-further explores the problem. 6 A volume from the pen of Igor Shafarevich, a Russian dissi dent dismissed in 1977 from his teaching position in mathematics at Moscow University, throws a great deal of light on the anticapitalist mentality, and I recommend the book-The Socialist Phenomenon'1 to you. Inasmuch as useful materials dissecting nonrational sources of op position to the free market in a free society are so readily available, I here merely wish to indicate two fac tors we do well to remember.

First, we delude ourselves if we be lieve that we can carry our case merely by referring to self-interest. The very self-interest of many men and women within the statist appa ratus-politicians, government offi cials, bureaucrats, privileged busi nessmen, unionists, and intellec tuals, and a plethora. of men and women on the receiving end of so called "wealth transfers" -does not, in the short term, lead them to op pose the status quo and to start working for economic and political liberty. If the "short term" can rea sonably be expected to hold for their lifetime, there is no rationally com pelling reason to consider longterm consequences.

1985 GE'ITING THERE 713 This does not mean that appeals to self-interest are inappropriate, but such an appeal is most rationally ad dressed to people outside the statist apparatus and whose enforced la bors provide the goods and services consumed by net tax beneficiaries. We can, perhaps, remind net tax beneficiaries that self-interest dic tates some limits to the numbers they admit to their privileged ranks and the burdens they place on the shoulders of those laboring to sup port them. If we are addressing peo ple whose moral stance leads them to consider the well-being of all, then clearly arguments emphasizing overall utility and longterm conse quences are fittingly used. Yet the sooner we acknowledge that individ ual self-interest can dictate opposi tion to economic and political liberty, the better. Second, we likewise delude our selves if we assume that all people unambiguously desire individual liberty for themselves. A perusal of Erich Fromm's Fear ofFreedom 8 can do much to shatter this delusion, and if Fromm fails to convince us, the case argued in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov by Ivan in the section entitled "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" should do the trick.

Better than any reading, however, is a modest exercise in self-analysis. Is there not that within each of us that yearns for a "security" the free market in a free society cannot give? In my language, there is that within the human psyche which yearns to be carried through life and protected, much as a fetus is carried and protected in the womb. There is to be sure another voice, a voice say ing, "Son of man, stand on thy feet," a voice saying, "Take up thy stretcher and walk," a voice luring men and women to leave the secure, predictable, responsibility-free life of slavery in Egypt and journey through a wilderness toward the promised land of liberty. This voice, I believe, is both deeper and stronger than the voice whispering of a se curity we in truth can know only in the womb or in the tomb. Yet for all that, we are ill-advised to pretend that in getting from where we are to where we want to go, we can simply assume the existence of a universa~ unam biguous desire for individual liberty.

The human predicament is charac terized by an ambiguity and a com plexity hinted at both by depth psy chology and high religion, and that ambiguity and complexity must not be ignored. Making Freedom Exciting There is a third and final factor to which I would refer in considering nonrational components of people's attitude to economic and political liberty. A.N. Whitehead, in his little read volume, The Aims ofEducation and Other Essays, repeatedly and 714 THE FREEMAN December unashamedly refers to the centrality of imagination in the educative pro cess, and speaks of the able teacher as a person who "keeps romance alive in his pupils" and kindles an appreciation of "the beauty of a mathematical argument."9 The business of "getting there" -the task of moving toward our destination of an authentically free market in an authentically free society-demands not simply dedicated intelligence but also infectious enthusiasm. Bluntly, we need fire in our bellies as well as ideas in our heads and facts at our fingertips.

Read Michael Harrington. Read Marx and Engels. Read almost any socialist tract. There is a passion, a cry of moral outrage, a note of in dignation informing these works. It is clear that the authors care about the cause they are defending. In comparison, most volumes defend ing economic and political liberty are "super-cool." In their determination to be reasonable, the authors sup press the voice of rational anger and heartfelt emotion. It is of vital importance that you and I continue to refine our concep tual apparatus, clarifying for our selves and others what we mean by such terms as "liberty," "rights," "equality before the law," and so on. We must keep at the task of refining our arguments. We must argue our case, and argue it honestly and well. Yet, while avoiding theatricality and contrived emotion, we need not-we must not-fear our feelings. It is cause for outrage that socialist econ omies misallocate resources and con demn multitudes to destitution. It is cause for anger that intrusive gov ernments condemn the marginally skilled to involunt~ry unemploy ment, inflate the currency, feed and foster envy, breed factionalism, and pass off theft as an exercise in so called "social justice." Our cause the cause of liberty-is and should be a source of joy and of vitality and of enthusiasm.

We defend liberty not simply be cause we have found arguments that convince us, but because we glimpsed a vision that inspires us. If we seek to attract others to what we so yearn for and cherish, infectious enthusiasm must accompany the reasoned case we elaborate. No jug gling of concepts, no development of arguments, no recital of figures can, in itself, win fellow pilgrims on the pathway to liberty. Thought must be stimulated, yes; but so must feeling. Tennyson said it well: Let knowledge grow from more to more, But more of reverence in us dwell; That mind and soul, according well, May make one music as before-but vaster. Compromise: Yes or No? A contrast frequently is drawn be tween conviction and compromise. We preachers frequently draw it.

1985 GETTING THERE 715 The question we must consider is whether, in "getting there," some measure of compromise is accept able. Should we, for example, advo cate and agitate for specific eco nomic and political reforms which, while from our point of view partial and imperfect, nonetheless bring us nearer to the destination we desire to reach? The question is easier to ask than it is to answer, and any per son who fails to see any problem has, in all probability, not really under stood the full implications of the question. I can only, therefore, prof fer for your consideration my own tentative conclusions. "Getting there" involves selling some ideas. While a plethora of sell ing techniques are available, I have a soft spot for the manufacturer who distributes samples of his product. His confidence that consumers will find his product more to their liking than alternatives is itself appealing, and if his product is as good as he believes it to be, future sales are as sured. Can it not be argued that un less and until men and women ac tually see that the cessation of governmental acti.vity in specific areas of their nation's economic life leads not to disaster but to an im provement oftheir own situation, the total cluster of ideas and ideals we are attempting to sell will meet con siderable sales resistance?

Yet there is another side. Noble ends do not justify immoral means; indeed, the means we adopt not in frequently determine the ends we get. Again, might not measures im proving the workings of a fettered economy, or increasing the efficiency of an intrusive government, lessen people's discontent and delay rather than hasten the advent of a free mar ket in a free society? Is not an effi cient intrusive government or an ef ficient bureaucracy worse, from our point of view, than their inefficient counterparts? Nonetheless, I come down on the side of what I call cal culated and principled compromise. I can best explain what I mean by focusing upon specific measures. Compromise versus Conviction One. A "compromise" such as the funding of schooling by vouchers or tax credits is acceptable because it facilitates rather than complicates a further move totally entrusting schooling to the market. The myth that schools subject to market forces could not and would not satisfy the objectives of schooling is so deep seated that only the demonstrated consequences of deregulation can ex plode it. The decentralization and diversification of schooling which would result from deregulation make it easier rather than more dif ficult to contemplate the possibility that schools could be funded by fees rather than by federal, state, or local tax revenues. It is true that these 716 THE FREEMAN December gains might partially be offset by a lessening of parental and commu nity dissatisfaction with schooling as it now is, but that dissatisfaction is not immediately related by most people to the root cause of that dis satisfaction, namely, the involve ment of government with schooling.

Two. While defending and sup porting programs of tax reform which lead to the reduction of tax revenues and the consequent cutting of government expenditures (and only programs of tax reform which lead to these objectives merit consid eration) the advocate of economic and political liberty must oppose all forms of taxation which are hidden and which ipso facto are "painless." While the defining freedom philos ophy principle of equality before the law favors uniform rather than pro gressive taxes, a "progressive tax" where the highest marginal taxa tion level is, say, 20%, is "better" than a "uniform tax" of, say, 40%. Most importantly, if joining forces with so-called "supply-siders" ad vocating cuts in the marginal tax rate, defenders of economic and po liticalliberty must not claim that such cuts would result in increased government revenues and defend the cuts by reference to this claim. Any increase in taxation revenues re sulting from cuts in the marginal tax rates must be perceived as grounds for further cuts.

Three. The "myth-exploding" con sequences of even a partial entrust ing of schooling to the market noted above, justify support for any pro gram of "privatization." In fact a stress on the educative nature of such programs suggests a political strategy for privatization. Our pri mary objective is not the "privati zation" of any particular industry, but the restoration ofall government trading and operating activities, save those relating to defense against ex ternal and internal aggression, to the market. It is therefore utterly vital that we maximize the probability of consumers benefiting from initial programs of privatization. The "or der of privatization" will be dictated simply by the anticipated value ofnet benefits to consumers. Four. While gradualism is appro priate to some politically orches trated reforms (e.g., the restoration of schooling to the market through the interim device of deregulation by vouchers or tax credits), such a pro cess is singularly inappropriate if other objectives are to be realized.

Bluntly, measures which precipitate the inevitable unemployment re sulting from a serious misallocation of labor cannot and must not be· in troduced piecemeal. Massive but short-lived unemployment is politi cally preferable to less extensive but prolonged unemployment. Again, considerations of both logic and 1985 GETI'ING THERE 717 "fairness" dictate that some mea sures (e.g., the abolition of laws ex tending special privileges to unions) be accompanied by other measures (e.g., the abolition of subsidies, price maintenance schemes, et al advan taging privileged business interests). I do not pretend that these sug gestions in any way resolve the ten sion between compromise and con viction. Indeed, in the last analysis my prayer is simply that God keeps sharp the stab of conscience and thereby infuses all compromises with experienced bitterness until the advent of an authentically free mar ket in a free society minimizes the pressure upon anyone to compro mise his or her convictions. Our di lemma is that to move toward our destination we have to act, but the world in which we act is so much a creature of interventionism that pristine purity is not a real option.

Conclusion Yet I end where I began. Central to the business of "getting there" is the purpose for which this Founda tion was created: economic educa tion. Ideas alone will not bring us to our destination, but men and women excited by the ideas enshrined in the concept "liberty" and dedicated to the furthering of these ideas can do it. To the question, "How much can the world as it is be changed?" I answer in a single word: Enough. It can be changed enough to liberate a pro cess which, working in and through men and women like us, can bring us nearer to the realization of our dreams, our hopes, and our prayers for our children and our children's children. @ -FOOTNOTESlL. Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonder land in The Annotated Alice, ed. Martin Gard ner (New York: The New American Library, 1960), p. 88. 2Marx for Beginners and Lenin for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, Pantheon Docu mentary Comic-Book Series, 1974, 1976).

aSee M. Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy; E. von Bohm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest; H. B. Acton, The Illusion ofthe Epoch: Marxism-Len inism as a Philosophical Creed;R. Aron, In De fense ofDecadent EuroPe;L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origins, Growth and Dissolution; L. von Mises, Omnipotent Govern ment, Socialism, and Human Action. 4See E. A. Opitz, Religion and Capitalism: AL lies, Not Enemies; R. Benne, The Ethic ofDem ocratic Capitalism; M. Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. sJ. K. Williams, "Catch the Little Foxes!" The Freeman, October, 1985. 6L. von Mises, The AntiCapitalistic Mental ity (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1972); E. van den Haag, Capitalism: Sources of Hostility (New Rochelle: Epoch Books, 1979). "1. Shafarevich, The Socialist Phenomenon (New York: Harper and Row, 1980). BE. Fromm, Fear of Freedom (London: Rout ledge Kegan Paul, 1960).

9A. N. Whitehead, The Aims ofEducation and Other Essays (London: Williams and Norgate, 1929).