March

90 The Moral Case for a Balanced Budget Joseph S. Fulda A trillion dollar debt is a betrayal of our heritage. 91 Collectives, Communities, and the Individual John K. Williams Individualism fosters interdependence, not alienation. 96 Sweden's Empty Smorgasbord Eric Brodin The economic plight of a model welfare state. 99 Latin American Economic Liberation Jose Rivas-Micoud Facilitating trade and development in Latin America. 103 Welfare States at War Hans F. Sennholz How interventionist policies lead to economic nationalism. 105 The Morality of Good Intentions Robert J. Bidinotto The free economy, unlike socialism, focuses on consequences of human action, not mere intentions. 110 The Rhetoric of Antitrust Thomas J. DiLorenzo A rebuttal of some current antitrust myths. 116 A Reviewer's Notebook John Chamberlain A review of "Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919" by Arthur Walworth.

117 Other Books "Antitrust Policy: The Case for Repeal" by D. T. Armentano, and "A Basic History of the United States" by Clarence B. Carson. CONTENTS MARCH 1987 VOL. 37 NO.3 THEFREEMAN IDEAS ON LIBERTY Published by The Foundation for Economic Education Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 President of the Board: Robert D. Love Vice-President of Operations: Robert G. Anderson Senior Editors: Beth A. Hoffman Brian Summers Editorial Adviser: Paul L. Poirot Book Review Editor: Edmund A. Opitz Contributing Editors: Howard Baetjer Jr. Bettina Bien Greaves Gregory F. Rehmke Production: Laurel A. Mascola The Freeman is the monthly publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 (914) 591-7230. FEE, founded in 1946 by Leonard E. Read, is a nonpolitical educational champion of private property, the free market, and limited govern ment. FEE is classified as a 26 USC 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt organization. Other officers of FEE's Board of Trustees are: Bruce M. Evans, chairman; Thomas C. Stevens, vice-chairman; Joseph E. Coberly, Jr., vice-president; Don L.

Foote, secretary; Lovett C. Peters, treasurer. The costs of Foundation projects and services are met through donations. Donations are invited in any amount. Subscriptions to The Freeman are available to any interested person in the United States for the asking. Single copies $1.00; 10 or more, 50 cents each. For foreign delivery, a do nation of $10.00 a year is required to cover direct mailing costs. Copyright © 1987 by The Foundation for Eco nomic Education, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Permis sion is granted to reprint any article in this issue, provided appropriate credit is given and two copies of the reprinted material are sent to The Foundation. Bound volumes of The Freeman are available from the Foundation for calendar years 1969 to date. Earlier volumes as well as current issues are available on microfilm from University Micro films, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. The Freeman considers unsolicited editorial sub missions, but they must be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Our author's guide is available on request.

PERSPECTIVE The Quest for Freedom It is man's hunger for freedom and spiritual well-being more than his hunger for material well-being that sounds the death knell for so cialism and communism. The realization that human freedom is morally superior to state co ercion in any form is what is changing the world. -Terrance D. Paul, President Best Power Technology, Inc. The Least We Can Expect In Beyond Liberal and C@nservative, Wil liam S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie argue per suasively that "classical liberal" principles serve, to some degree, as the basic assumptions of almost all Americans. These assumptions in clude: individualism; "the state as an instru ment to serve .individuals, not as an end or value in and of itself' '; limited government; in dividual rights; equality under the law; and rep resentative government. It would be difficult to find many Americans who did not at least pay lip service to such basic principles of classical liberal philosophy.

Yet, of course, few Americans hold to those principles consistently. Most advocate substan tial government intervention either in the eco nomic or personal realms of human action, or in both. In one respect, all principles are promises. When people espouse certain abstract prin ciples, in effect they are making pledges about their future actions. From a social standpoint, inconsistency and hypocrisy are forms of promise-breaking which fool other people's reasonable expectations. If widespread, this renders social relationships unpredictable and chaotic. Now, America is a nation of considerable in tellectual diversity, and it is irrational for us to expect our fellow man to agree with us on ev erything. But we can reasonably hold each other to account for the promises implied· by our stated principles. And due to shared clas sical liberal assumptions, Americans have a right to expect of each other certain minimum standards of political behavior.

The whole thrust of classical liberal prin ciples is toward a society of self-responsibility. If classical liberal assumptions are indeed widely shared in the United States, then they constitute implied social promises between cit izens. And thus, the least we can expect of any able-bodied American is a life of self-sup porting productivity - not irresp\ nsible parasi tism or aggression. The least we can expect is that individuals support themselves-not live at the expense of others. The least we can expect is that busi nesses win their success in the marketplace not in the corridors of Congress. The least we can expect is that politicians keep their oaths to uphold the Constitution - not abuse their power by making some favored constituencies "more equal than others." The least we can expect is that voters view each other as invio late ends-not mere means. As Americans, our common principles pledge each other lives of self-responsibility.

And the least we can expect of each other is that we keep our promises. -Robert James Bidinotto The Heart of the Issue In many parts of the country, hospitals are being hindered in their attempts to provide needed services. In Fairfax, Virginia, for ex ample, Fairfax Hospital until recently was pro hibited from performing heart transplants. Who was standing in the way? Federal and local bu reaucrats. According to The Wall Street Journal (No vember 21, 1986) such disputes are becoming more frequent. Many hospitals wish to offer additional services such as transplants, but in states where government permission is re quired, officials often object. Why? Sometimes, as in Fairfax, it is argued that the area's residents are already adequately served by other centers that perform trans plants. Some are concerned about the costs of PERSPECTIVE duplicating staff and resources. The main con tention is that these procedures should be per formed only in "centers of excellence" where chances of success are best.

The hospitals counter that close-to-home ac cess is economically, socially, and psychologi cally valuable. Patients often need extensive follow-up care. Using a distant center can mean relocation, or expensive and tiring travel. A Fairfax resident, for example, would have to travel to Baltimore or Richmond, both more than an hour and a half away. This is one of those unnecessary debates in which basic questions are ignored. Leave aside that if Fairfax residents are content with the ser vice in other centers, Fairfax Hospital will do no transplants. Leave aside that duplicate staffs may develop money-saving improvements which could be passed on to others. Leave aside that new "centers of excellence" surely a desirable goal-cannot develop if they are not allowed to gain experience. Instead consider the fundamental question: Who should decide these secondary issues of availability, quality, and costs? Should patients and their physicians be free to decide what hos pital services to use, and should hospitals be free to decide which to offer? Or should a polit ical authority restrict this freedom?

If individual freedom of choice is a basic right, then despite all good intentions of local health planning boards, and notwithstanding their legal authority, these decisions are just none of their business. -HB Last Call: Alderbrook Seminar FEE's annual Northwest seminar will be held April 10-12 at the Alderbrook Inn on beautiful Hood Canal in Washington State. Dr. Stuart Pritchard is organizing the program. Speakers will include Howard Baetjer Jr. and Greg Rehmke of the FEE staff and Richard Stroup and Jane Shaw of the Political Economy Re search Center (PERC), Bozeman, Montana. For more information contact Dr. Pritchard at P.O. Box 4101, Tumwater, WA 98501, (206) 352-4884, or contact us at FEE.