Philanthropy and Freedom; D. Peterson

Dennis L. Peterson Philanthropyand Freedom EVERY TIME the opportunity arises, I enjoy traveling to nearby Lancas ter, Pennsylvania, where I can ob serve the Amish and their farms. I enjoy seeing their neatly ploughed fields, immaculate homes, horse drawn carriages, and handmade crafts. More importantly, however, I admire their deep commitment to a mixture of self-reliance and com munity charity. It reminds me of what our nation once was and could again become. It is not their primitive, agrarian society I advocate. I long for in creased self-reliance and an indi vidual concern for our fellow man as opposed to the now predominant de pendence on government handouts. Early in our nation's history, Americans-farmers, laborers, mer chants, and manufacturers alike understood that charity was the re sponsibility and privilege of individ uals and religious organizations. Mr. Peterson is a freelance writer in East Greenville, Pennsylvania, anxious to share some of the lessons he's learned concerning the freedom philosophy.

They never dreamed of relegating this duty to any other institution, es pecially not to government. Mter the Civil War, however, an almost imperceptible change began to occur in the attitude of indi viduals. As the power of the federal government overshadowed that of individual state and local govern ments, the central government be gan to assume duties once fulfilled solely by individuals and churches, including those duties involving charity. Perhaps the greatest changes in attitude came during the New Deal. In an attempt to provide "quick fix" cures for the problems of the Depres sion, government usurped the role of individuals in charity and philan thropy. Government became the pri mary provider of jobs, homes, and other humanitarian aid. It did not take long for the American people to begin looking to Unele Sam for the sustenance of life and industry in America. Then came the "Great Society"

627 628 THE FREEMAN October under President Lyndon Johnson with its myriad welfare and public assistance programs. By this time, government assistance had come to be viewed as practically an inalien able right of every needy American. This attitude has since become en trenched in American life. When ever workers lose their jobs, families lose their homes, or farmers lose their mortgages, there is an imme diate cry for Federal assistance. Any hint of freezing the budgets of such programs at existing levels brings an outcry of anguish from social do gooders across the nation. Despite such vociferous defense of government assistance, there are several logical reasons for returning charity and welfare to the private sector. Government, some people are beginning to admit, simply cannot afford to continue financing the ever increasing demands for its assis tance. Private charity is more effi cient and more effective than the government dole because it can ap ply the help where it is needed most-on a local, individual level and keep administrative costs down.

It is easier through private charity to encourage individual pride and to stimulate efforts toward self-help and self-improvement, whereas gov ernment assistance encourages la ziness and idleness. Private charity is also more personal than bureau cratic welfarism. The most compelling reason to return charity to private hands, how ever, is because that is exactly where it belongs. Charity is not the respon sibility of government. Govern ment's only legitimate role is de fender and peacekeeper, not feeder, clothier, and general provider for the people. The General Welfare When confronted by this proposi tion' proponents of government as sistance and welfarism generally as sert two reasons for legitimizing government usurpation of this duty: the mandate of the general welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution and the argument that private enter prise capitalists exploit rather than care for the needy.

The preamble of the Constitution states that the federal form of gov ernment was instituted to, among other things, "promote the general welfare." This phrase, statists con tend, gives government a carte blanche to care for the people of the nation. Carried to the extreme, the logic of this argument encompasses the provision by government of cra dle-to-grave social welfare for every individual in the country. Contrary to this erroneous inter pretation, however, the "general welfare clause" means only that government is empowered to pro mote, through its peacekeeping au thority and power, an atmosphere in which all citizens are free both to ef1985 PHILANTHROPY AND FREEDOM 629 fect their own well-being and to help provide voluntarily for the well being of other less fortunate individ uals around them. The Founding Fa thers would be appalled to know that any other interpretation was made of this clause.

The idea that capitalists inhu manely exploit the needy, thereby necessitating government interfer ence and assistance, has long been espoused by socialists and Marxists. They enjoy portraying free-market entrepreneurs as obese, callous mag nates who violently oppress and ex ploit the unfortunate laboring masses. They claim capitalism helps only the rich at the expense of the poor. Lenin argued, "Capitalists are no more capable of self-sacrifice than a man is capable of lifting himself by his own bootstraps." Jawaharlal Nehru complained, "The forces of a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer." Even Roman Catholic bishops re cently condemned the American free enterprise system. They apparently prefer a government-enforced redis tribution of wealth, perceiving capi talists as unfeeling and greedy but a socialistic, paternalistic government as the savior of the downtrodden poor.

While many supporters of the free enterprise way of life would auto matically reject Marxist premises as false, one important point does war rant our attention: There is always and in every instance the potential for such a premise becoming a reality. Thomas Jefferson recognized the danger when he warned, "Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction." Grover Cleveland, aware of the threat of communist ideas to capi talism, was not blind to the dangers within the free enterprise system it self. "Communism is a hateful thing and a menace to peace and organized government," he declared, "but the communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overween ing cupidity and selfishness, which insidiously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions, is not less dangerous than the com munism of oppressed poverty and toil, which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of rule."

Obsessed by Materialism There is within every individual a natural tendency to develop an at titude of selfish materialism which leads to the complete disregard for those who, perhaps through no fault of their own, happen to be less for tunate than the average citizen. In the past, genuine concern and com passion has prompted those with the financial means to develop a variety of programs that help meet the needs 630 THE FREEMAN October of such people. Private and religious philanthropy and benevolence saw to it that those in need were cared for. In many instances, however, there has developed among the citizens of the free world such an obsession with personal and material advancement as to seemingly obscure the efforts of private philanthropy. Some indi viduals have become so wrapped up in obtaining more and more for themselves that they have thought less and less of the needs of others.

Their conscience has been seared by the attitudes of "looking out for number one" and "get to the top of the ladder as quickly as you can re gardless of those on whom you must step in the process." In direct proportion to the unwill ingness of private individuals to con tribute philanthropically, the gov ernment has eagerly stepped in to fill the void. With these government funds, however, has come the inevi table hand of government control. And, contrary to what some would have us believe, government welfare has not been the gleaming success Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" predicted. If anything, it has only encouraged and compounded the problems. While self-interest has always been at the heart of capitalism, it has also been accompanied by a feeling of human charity and a sense of so cial responsibility toward one's fellow man. This is shown by countless instances of private philanthropy.

Andrew Carnegie gave an estimated $350 million to charities. Marshall Field provided $8 million for a mu seum and donated land for the cam pus of the University of Chicago. "There is no happiness in mere dol lars," he warned. "It is only in the wider public affairs, where money is a moving force toward the general welfare, that the possessor of it can possibly find pleasure, and that only in constantly doing more." Private Charity But most charitable funds come from the average citizen, the ones who share in the wealth produced by the wealthy minority. The magni tude of this giving was brought to light recently in Philadelphia. In an attempt to evict members of MOVE, a radical antisocial commune, police accidentally destroyed the homes of 61 families. Individuals, corpora tions, and community organizations immediately began raising funds for the innocent victims of the tragedy. A radio station solicited $30,000 from its listeners in less than a week.

A large corporation donated $56,000 for emergency relief and challenged other businesses to match it. All of this took place-even before govern ment officials had pieced together what had happened-because people were genuinely concerned about the welfare of their fellow men. As a re1985 PHILANTHROPY AND FREEDOM 631 sult, some people are beginning to remember that Philadelphia is the "city of brotherly love." Yet there is still a clear danger that capitalism, if left unchecked-not by government interference but by the superior moral standards of individ uals-will degenerate into a state similar to that predicted by the Marxists. This danger, however, is not-as Marxists would have us believe-in evitable. With the rebuilding of sound national moral foundations and the strengthening of individual character, capitalism can continue to disprove socialist propaganda by meeting the needs and fulfilling the dreams of every citizen willing to put forth efforts at self-improvement and responsible social consciousness.

History has repeatedly proven that not only the greatest material pros perity but also the greatest philan thropy has resulted from commit ment to the freedom philosophy. Such high character and morality cannot be dictated by an omnipotent government; it must arise voluntar ily from within the individual heart and conscience. It must develop as the result of an awareness of the truth and practicality of the Golden Rule: "Therefore all things whatso ever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Mat thew 7:12). It must be the outgrowth of realizing the need for an individ ual to love his neighbor as himself. Samuel Smiles, who wrote widely on the practical aspects of personal and entrepreneurial success, con cluded, "... society mainly consists of two classes-the savers and the wasters, the provident and the im provident, the thrifty and the thrift less, the haves and the have-nots."

And so it will ever be, even in the best of free markets. But in a state planned economy the number of wasters, improvident, thriftless, and have-nots is far greater than in a free economy. The capitalist so quickly con demned by so many is, in Smiles' words, "merely a man who does not spend all that is earned by work." He then employs the money or time or resources saved in the acquisition of even more wealth in order to rise above a mere existence. He uses it to raise his family's standard of living. And what he believes he can afford to give to others for the fulfillment of their needs or desires, he contrib utes as he sees fit. Philanthropy Begins at Home To some, this may on the surface seem very selfish and self-centered, but it has proven to be without ques tion the most effective system of en couraging philanthropy known to human history. Leonard Read wrote that "if material wealth has any moral purpose at all, it is to free men from the restrictions which are im posed by a subsistence level of liv632 THE FREEMAN ing.... " Not only does the success ful capitalist improve his own lot but also that of his fellow men through the goods or services he provides. In addition, his success permits him to contribute through charity to the improvement of others without hindering his own standard of living.

Those who decry this system offree philanthropy fail to offer in its place any more adequate or more effective alternative system. While capital ism admittedly has its problems, in stark comparison to any form of totalitarianism-whether benevo lent or malevolent-these difficul ties are negligible. "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings," Winston Churchill stated, "but the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." Individual Moral Improvement The solutions to the needs of our fellow men lie not in regulation, in tervention, or government-coerced programs, but in the moral improve ment of the individual. Along with this will come to the individual re alization that one must be not only honest but also generous. This will sometimes require self-sacrifice on our part. Such sacrifice will, how ever, be strictly voluntary. The most important form of gen erosity is the giving of one's self.

Success experts Napoleon Hill and W. Clement Stone advised, "Share yourself without expecting a reward, payment, or commendation. And above all else-keep your good turn a secret." Do so consistently and that secret will not remain one for long. Consumers notice and reward such generosity and good will. Modern-day capitalists can help dispel the socialistic accusations of selfishness by realizing and acting upon the truth that if one wants to get more he has to give more. As someone once wrote: If you want to be rich, give; If you want to be poor, grasp; If you want abundance, scatter; If you want to be needy, hoard! The story has been told of a man who opened a butcher shop in a small town which already had several such businesses. Despite the fact that his prices were higher than any of his competitors', his shop became the most frequented shop in town. When questioned about how he did it, the wise man replied, "I give them a smile and twenty ounces to the pound."

The key to success, not only in business but also in life itself, is to give something to others. Some of us can give money, others offer goods, and still others provide services. But we can all give something. We should count that day lost in which we have not tried to give a little of ourself to or for someone else. This is the es sence of true charity. It is an integral part of true free enterprise. ~ New! GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL PLUNDER BastiatBroughtUp to Date Dean Russell Frederic Bastiat saw a century and a half ago that the law becomes legal plunder when it goes beyond simple defense of individual rights. Bastiat often presented his lessons in a series of clever and telling stories which explored and exploded the logic and true effects of the planned economy. Today his parables on free trade, the broken win dow fallacy, government schools, natural rights, and the law are just as true as they were in the 1840s.

In Government and Legal Plunder, Dean Russell uses Bastiat prin ciples as a starting point for his book, and provides contemporary ex amples of issues that we personally face every day. He shows that we must limit government's role in society and in the economy, to en courage individual initiative and human freedom. 120 pages $4.95 paperback (Postage paid on prepaid orders; otherwise $2.00 per order for billing.) Order from: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 A REVIEWER'S NOTEBOOK JOHN CHAMBERLAIN The Essence ofHayek To represent the full scope of Fried rich Hayek in a single book, even with an allotted 550 pages at the ed itors' disposal, was surely a formi dable undertaking. The object, as nurtured by W. Glenn Campbell, the director of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, was to greet Hayek on the occasion of his 85th birthday with a present to be called The Essence of Hayek (Hoover Insti tution Press, $27.50). The editors, Chiaki Nishiyama and Kurt R.