Some Things to Think About; H. Watkins

put two one-year-old children in a playpen with a few toys, this motive becomes obvious. If one picks up a toy, the other will want it and reach for it. About that time, the parents begin their lessons in sharing, and the children are completely baffled by such a concept. Communists also teach sharing, sharing with the State. The State then "shares" with the less fortu nate-if the less fortunate meet all the ideological criteria laid down by the oligarchy in charge of the State. This is raw materialism, based on the idea that it is impossible for a human being to rise above covetous ness. Actually, communists prefer it that way. They find it difficult to keep their serfs in subjection when they develop motives on a higher plane. This is the fundamental rea son for communist opposition to re ligion. Christianity denigrates cov209 210 THE FREEMAN April etousness and replaces it with loftier motives.

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praisewor thy-think about such things" (Phi lippians 4:8). The Christian scrip tures encourage us to think about what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, praise worthy. I am convinced there is no conflict here with the free market system. Contrariwise, this quality list can be said to be almost 100 per cent opposed to socialism. (I am us ing the qualifying word "almost" in the event there may be something I have overlooked, but I seriously doubt the word is useful here.) The Truth About Freedom Does freedom in the marketplace have the ring of truth about it? Is competition an advantage to the con sumer, or would he be better served if the State (politboro, council of eco nomic advisors, or whatever) deter mined what he should buy, how many and what quality? Back in the 1930s the college professors told me the capitalistic system wasted enor mous quantities of goods and energy because of its competitive nature. It would be better if the Technocrats (socialists, communists, fascists) should assemble in their board rooms and determine just what was needed and how much. This would eliminate waste and everyone would be amply supplied. That was a lie, but at that time I did not know it. I was being fed such books as The Challenge of Russia, by Kirby Page.

That wonderful experiment in the U.S.S.R. was pointing up the falla cies in the free market system. Nearly 50 years have gone by since those days, and history has proved their propaganda to be utopian lies. The Soviet Union cannot feed itself. It has to steal industrial secrets. It must fence its people in. It exports its doctrines by force. Its educational system is a continuous process of brainwashing. Where is·the truth in communism? If there is any, even its own disciples have been unable to find it! How about the nobility of the Rus sian experiment? I submit there is none to be found in the leadership, the rulers. They have starved, tor tured and killed millions oftheir own people. Wherever they have tried to export their philosophy they have achieved the same result. Much of the Third World is suffering the mis eries of starvation and war because Marxists have infiltrated under developed countries in order to make havoc ofthem. Then, when the depth of tragedy has been reached, they step in and take control. Where is there anything noble about such a system? Nobility is found in the Gu lags, the prisons and the exiles.

1985 SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT 211 Is there anything right about Marxism (socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism)? A current expres sion in America to describe some thing that works is, "They must be doing something right." What are they doing right in Russia, Cuba, China? If they are doing anything right, why do they have to be bailed out all the time? I agree totally with the Guatemalan leader, Dr. Manuel F. Ayau, when he says, "I, for one, believe that socialism would have disappeared from the face of the earth long ago if it were not kept alive by the United States." Their regimes continue in power by means of repression, violence and terror. They cannot afford to allow an op posing party to exist within their borders. It probably has never occurred to anyone, either in or out of commu nism, to describe the system as pure or lovely. But the apostle. Paul says we should think on such things. So cialism/communism is so full of de ceit, coercion, intrigue, shortages, hunger, privation, and class warfare (planners vs. plannees), that one is hard pressed to discover purity and loveliness therein.

Is there anything that could be de scribed as excellent in the practical applications of Marxism? We search in vain in the testimony of those who have managed to escape Russia, China, Cuba, et al., to find anything that can be given unqualified praise. The best to be said for their industry, research and development, housing, education, quality of life and morals, is that they might, in some in stances, be called mediocre. More frequently the descriptions run from fair to poor to terrible. Excellence is seldom achieved via coercion; it de pends on inner motivation, some thing that is singularly absent in a slave state. The last item in our list is "praise worthy," something worthy of praise. Occasionally, we hear communists referred to as dedicated, and surely dedication is praiseworthy. But are they really dedicated? I know that someone will cite the Russian and East German athletes and their nu merous accomplishments as evi dence. Admittedly they get high marks and set records in their var ious specialties. But why? Party bu reaucrats scour the nation looking for promising young athletes, give them special training, housing, and perks, all of which give them the il lusion of being emancipated from run-of-the-mill slavery so common in socialist countries.

Sometimes we think of the KGB agents as being dedicated, but are they? Let's face it. The pay is good, and if they can be trusted they get to live outside of Russia (or Cuba). I doubt if we should even use the word efficient to describe the KGB. If this vast spy network were -really effi cient, it could survive and even do a 212 THE FREEMAN April better job with 25 per cent of its pres-it; one would have to die to escape ent personnel requirements. our subject. Perhaps there are historians who The United States of America has are saying, "Yes, but see how com-Christian roots, and the predomi munism has spread since its incep-nant religion of our country is still tion," as though they expected praise Christianity. The guidebook· for for such an accomplishment. On the Christianity is the Bible, so let us same basis, we could commend the ask the question again: Is there an bubonic plague of the Middle Ages. economic system that is compatible I saw a bumper sticker recently with what we as Christians believe?

which read "God loves you, and I'm Happily, there is. It is the free mar trying." Well, I've tried to find some-ket, free enterprise, unfettered cap thing praiseworthy in intervention-italism. Let's examine it together, ist governments, but so far such - just as we did socialism. Can we give items have escaped me. our minds and hearts to that which is true and still promote a free marThe Science of Scarce Goods ket? Ideally, how could a free market Let's turn our attention away from succeed except in an atmosphere of statism and ask ourselves if there truth? A free market assumes lim really is an economic system that is ited government which guarantees compatible with the admonition of (to the extent of its ability) life, lib Paul, the apostle, in the Scripture erty and property, the enforcement verse we quoted. Economics, the sci-of contracts, and the punishment of ence (if it may be called that) of fraud. Truth is the cornerstone in the scarce goods, touches the life ofevery foundation of such an economy.

human being on earth, even though Christians, regardless of whether most of them may never have heard they are in positions of ownership, the term. We cannot escape econom-management or employees, would ics, any more than we can avoid eat-feel compelled to seek the truth and ing and breathing. Even astronauts, embrace it in all their economic af although they may be away from the fairs. The competitive free market earth for days, weeks or months at place would even tend to make a time, cannot remain aloof from "Christians" of the unbelievers, or economics. In fact, a sortie away they would eventually be out of from earth will involve them even business. more deeply. Air, water, and food-Can we apply the term noble to the things they may have accepted quite free market? Webster's definitions lightly on the ground-become very we wish to apply here are: "having precious to them in space. Let'sface or showing high moral qualities or 1985 SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT 213 ideals, or greatness of character, lofty." The truly free market is al ways controlled by the buyers, the consumers. They have the privilege of examining what is being offered for sale to determine the quality and competitive price range. If, for any reason, the potential buyers decide they had rather not buy a particular product, they can withhold their business or take it elsewhere. If the seller alleges his product to be some thing which it is not, the buyer has recourse within the framework of the law. Such an arrangement tends to ward nobility on the part of all con cerned. The producer is free to sell to whomever he pleases, and the con sumer is free to buy from whomever he pleases. The net result of this ar rangement is that the producer does all within his power to provide the best possible product at a cost to the consumer which is attractive to him.

We are told in our text to think about what is right, so join me for a moment in considering the rightness of free enterprise. Let Webster re fresh our memories: "Right: what is right, or just, lawful, morally good, proper, correct .... " The free market system measures up well to each facet of the definition, with the pos sible exception of one: lawful. It should not be, but here is the big problem area. The Constitution of the United States was designed and written to protect the rights of the citizens and promote the general welfare of all of them, but over the ensuing years many politicians lost sight of this worthy intent. They be gan to abuse their position and au thority and enacted laws that ben efited a few, to the detriment of the many. Because of this, the statute books are filled with labor legisla tion, interstate commerce laws, min imum wage laws, tariffs, and so on.

Legal Restraints The free market system is right, just, good, and proper, but the legal frustrations imposed upon it by its witting or unwitting enemies have placed so many boundaries around it that they who would practice it find themselves bumping their heads and stubbing their toes. Then, to com pound the frustration, whenever there is a problem in the economic community, free enterprise is blamed for it! So, we find ourselves contemplating a concept which is right, but in many respects, not law ful. Shall we eliminate that which is right, or shall we erase the legal re straints against it? Let's see how the free market sys tem fits within the context of pure, lovely, and admirable. The term "un adulterated" certainly comes to mind at this point. We have all stood on the banks of streams and rivers at flood stage and felt dismay at the amount of silt and debris being car ried downstream. At other times we have enjoyed watching mountain 214 THE FREEMAN streams tumbling over rocks and sand and noted that the water was so clean we could drink it. Socialism is a system clogged with the silt of trash produced by the State and dumped into the stream, leaving the buyers no choice but to consume it.

The managed economy is a river whose flow is slowed by all kinds of legal restrictions resulting in rising prices and a limited selection for the consumer. In Summation Is the free economy excellent and praiseworthy? It is hard to answer this question without being redun dant. A current expression goes something like this, "If it isn't bro ken, don't fix it." I think it would be well to apply this philosophy to our subject. History tells us that when ever and wherever the free market has been tried, it worked. Then why try to "fix" it? Those who wanted to fix it, and have too often succeeded, may be called liars, thieves, or ignorant. Communism (socialism) has never been a grassroots movement, but it must always be imposed on the un suspecting by gangsters who lust for power. Instead of granting freedom to the people, they impose more and more restrictions over life and prop erty. They even regiment whatever charity happens to survive in the hearts ofthe people. Freedom (within the laws to prevent fraud), on the other hand, allows for the fullest re alization of the desires and ambi tions of those who drink of its pure waters. All who are willing and able can do what they want and work where they will. Those who cannot participate will be cared for out of the hearts of those who can.

I believe a root of our dilemma in the twentieth century is the fact that we have not listened to the Apostle who told us to "think about such things." I (DEASON LIBERTY Thomas Jefferson Resolved . .. that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism: free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not con fidence which prescribes limited Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. . . . In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.