The Challenge of Liberalism; D. Brown

David M. Brown The Challenge of Liberalism IN OUR ERA the age-old assault of the state upon the individual has reached its zenith. Through such horrifying manifestations as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the twentieth century has seen the rise of despotic utopias whose power to destroy seems all-encompassing. Meanwhile, the growth of welfare statism in those polities not yet ex plicitly totalitarian increasingly re stricts the scope of human action even as its advocates proclaim the futility of individual effort. The lone individual unwilling to participate in the game of power and depen dency finds his resources and integ rity strained to the crumbling point as he seeks the path to independent living. Mr. Brown of Syracuse, New York, Is a freelance writer and student of Individualism. 434 In this context, the emerging in fluence of an individualist move ment dedicated to the preservation of individual rights deserves both applause and scrutiny. Among its guiding lights are Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Robert Nozick. Whatever their differences, they and their followers agree that the state must shrink, that its intervention in the economic and· social realm is disastrous and il legitimate, that the individual must be allowed room to breathe and live.

But is their argument against the collectivist philosophy sufficient? And have they made their case for the individual? The modern libertarian movement has received scant serious attention from writers outside its mainstream, but its swelling ranks-and its in tellectual challenge to statist privi lege-are hard to ignore. A recent survey, Liberalism at Wits' End by Stephen Newman, grapples with the libertarian phenomenon. He con cludes that although the libertarian position is timely (if anachronistic), and its critique of state power often valuable, libertarianism at best of fers only a partial solution to "the crisis of public authority," at worst actually betrays liberty. Given Newman's professed alle giance to concepts like liberty and rights, it's not surprising that his answer to libertarianism rests in part on misconceptions regarding THE CHALLENGE OF LIBERALISM 435 what those terms imply politically.

In traditional collectivist fashion, he contrasts human rights with prop erty rights as if these two were op posite and inimical. The limiting of government to the "night watch man" role of retaliation against the use of force and fraud, in Newman's view, leaves uncountered the auton omy-threatening "tyranny of eco nomic power." In striving to refur bish the Lockean undergirding of the original American republic, the lib ertarian neglects this economic tyr anny in the name of property rights. In brief, libertarianism "calls for the renewal of liberal theory, but it dem onstrates liberalism at wits' end." Liberalism-not today's "liberal ism," synonymous with economic in terventionism, but the classical lib eralism that respects the sovereignty of the individual and the inviolabil ity of his rights-of course upholds the right of private property. But far from implying an abrupt lack of sen sitivity to the abuse of power "at the entrance to the market place," the consistent preservation of property rights is the only means of protect ing men's lives and achievements both from criminals in general and the government in particular. Such stark limiting of the government's purview does not mean that the in dividualist is indifferent to nonvi olent iniquities which he would for bid the state from acting against.

But he disagrees that legal coercion is an omnipotent and benevolent cor rective of social ills, and he compre hends the role of ideas in shaping human events. Error cannot be re futed with a club. The only lastingly influential weapon man has against ignorance and prejudice is his reason. Since the concept of rights is val idated by reference to what man re quires in a social context to pursue values successfully, any use of coer cion extending beyond that needed to defend the individual from hood lums and defrauders inevitably un dercuts the freedom that best pro motes every honest man's struggle. To ignore this must lead to disas trous consequences, such as are ev ident throughout history. Respect for the Individual The liberal philosophy is grounded on a profound respect and sympathy for the individual and an optimistic view of his potential. The liberal sees man as fundamentally efficacious, worthy of the fruits of his achieve ment, and able to accept responsi bility for his own life. This is the vi sion that must be articulated if liberalism is to be persuasive. Ifman were the helpless entity some depict him to be, freedom would seem of lit tle practical value, certainly few would be inspired to defend it.

Mr. Newman himself does take summary cognizance of a time and place-the United States before the 436 THE FREEMAN July turn of the century-when capital ism enabled the general widening of prospects that its admirers laud. "Free-market capitalism ... served the interests of rich and poor alike by opening the avenue of success to ambition and talent," he admits. Unfortunately, with the rise of eco nomic concentration, large-scale wage labor, and the End of the Fron tier as the nineteenth century drew to a close, it became obvious that "political and economic liberty could no longer guarantee personal auton omy or equal opportunity ... The changed conditions brought about a new politics and the expansion of state power."2 No Urge to Compete This scenario inverts the historical reality. In the free market, no inef ficient economic monolith could out last superior competition and the unchecked exercise of consumer choices. Monopoly power as such, in the sense of prohibiting or burden ing participation in the market place, was always conferred and en forced by governmental edict. The burgeoning of economic controls in fact led to diminished options, not vice versa. The controls were ration alized by collectivist dogma urging the sacrifice of the individual to the group, and supported by people who did not want to stand on their own.

The first "antitrust" legislation, the Sherman Antitrust Act, was backed by cotton farmers whose product was losing competitive ground to jute, while those unwilling to compete against the sugar and petroleum in dustries also unfurled the antitrust banner. At the time, the productive output of these trusts was generally rising as prices fell, a trend opposite to what the trustbusters were alleging. The trusts were organized as a means of making large-scale enter prises more economical, but had they attempted to raise prices above the dictates of supply and demand, such a move would have signaled other producers to enter the field.3 The op ponents ofefficiency and freedom, far from seeking to reclaim their inde pendence and autonomy as Newman argues, were forfeiting them in a quest for unearned gain. Newman's critique of the unham pered market obviously rests on something more fundamental than historical fallacy. In reality, the free market system, by releasing human energy to reach its full potential, en riches man's life and multiplies his opportunities. But Newman doesn't see it that way. Ignoring the role of personal effort and initiative, he maintains that "in the modern corporate economy ... the great ma jority of persons will find their au tonomy gravely circumscribed," in asmuch as they may be obliged to accept unpalatable employment for the sake of physical surviva1.4 1985 THE CHALLENGE OF LIBERALISM 437 -FOOTNOTESHow Jobs Develop The fact that the very existence of a job in the first place depends on some employer's successful produc tive effort, or that marginal employ ers (often the very ones ready to challenge corporate complacency) will be progressively forced out of business as controls and taxes grow, has apparently eluded Newman's at tention. A free economy is not a static economy. Any worker discon tented with his current station in life can save money, learn new skills, and so on in order to rise as high as his talent and energy will take him.

An independent man who knows the value of freedom and who re spects the rights of others will not demand handouts and market-out come" amendments" at the first sign of difficulty. As Ludwig von Mises writes, "If the longed-for success is not forthcoming, if the vicissitudes of fate destroy in the twinkling of an eye what had to be painstakingly built up by years of hard work, then he simply multiplies his exertions. He can look disaster in the eye with out despairing."5 Liberalism at Wits' End does have merit. Despite some condescension and occasionally creaky scholar ship, Newman manages to fairly summarize many common libertar ian ideas, while tracing their origins to such radical forefathers as Locke and the American revolutionaries. And he makes relevant criticisms of such aberrations in the movement as anarchism, subjectivist self-in dulgence and Pollyanna expecta tions. But the heroic ideal that· in spires so many individualists is grossly misconceived, and there is no awareness of a psychological litera ture defending the liberal attitude.

In the end, Stephen Newman's struggle against .liberalism is a los ing one. Too often, he doesn't antic ipate how his numerous, altogether unoriginal objections would be and have been answered by libertarian thinkers. This is especially disturb ing since, given the weighty values at stake, not even the sketchiest al ternative to an admittedly untena ble status quo is provided in the book. Even so, perhaps Newman's arguments against the individualist philosophy are the best that can be presented from a collectivist, "pub lic-interest" perspective. In which case, we might rightly conclude that they represent statism at wits' end. i 1 Newman, Stephen L. Liberalism at Wits' End: The Libertarian Revolt Against the Mod ern State (Cornell University Press: Ithaca and London, 1984), p. 11. 2Ibid., p. 16. 3For example, see "Competition (Except Where Prohibited by Law)" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo in the February '85 issue of Reason magazine.

4Newman, op. cit., p. 46. 5Mises, Ludwig Von. Liberalism: A Socio Economic Exposition (Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc.), 1978, p. 15.