Two Kinds of Influence; L.E. Read

Anyone who is aware of the extent to which he is dependent on others is, or should be, familiar with his stake in the proficiency of others. Let all others fail, and I shall perish. Let all others become increasingly creative, and I shall in all likelihood receive more in exchange for the little I can create. No doubt about it, most of us do concern our selves with others. Every law is an attempt to do something to others. Wars are aimed at others, as are strikes and all coercive hassles. Sermons, lec tures, schooling,pamphlets, books, statements like this-all are communications to others. The important question at issue is not: "Should we have an interest in others?" Obviously we should. Instead, the vital question is: "In what way can we best aid the millionsof others upon whom we are unquestionably dependent?" There are two ways, constantly in action. One commends the influencing of others by force.The other commends the influencing of others by Leonard E. Read established The Foundation for Eco nomic Education in 1946 and served as its president until his death in 1983. He wrote this article in 1954.

attraction. Both are useful if understood and properly practiced. There isn't any doubt but that force is an effec tive method of influencing others. Force, howev er, is of two kinds. There is initiated or coercive force-aggression. It is inconceivable that this kind of force can have any moral justification among men under any circumstances. There is, though, another kind of force-defensive or repellent force. But even defensive force has only the capacity to destroy or restrain and, therefore, is the type of influence that should be limited to negating aggression or coercive force, regardless of source: all violence, all fraud, all misrepresen tation, all predatory practices. To avoid the authoritarianism of each citizen being a complete law unto himself-each person his own gun toter-we should, in good theory, delegate the defensive function to a formal, codified, societal wide agency called government. (When delegat ing only defensive functions to government, we grant no collective rights that are not the prior rights of individuals;for the collective cannot log ically or morally exercise rights which are not inherent in the very persons who organize the collective.) Defensive force, to be used profitably, must be confined to minimizing coercive or aggressive force-that is, to securing those rights to life and honestly acquired livelihood common to all men.

Force cannot, by its nature, otherwise serve us creatively. Yet, force of the coercive brand is attempted currently as a means of influencing others in tens of thousands of instances. All socialistic acts by government are cases in point -public housing, for example. How? The force of government-not defensive but coercive force -is employed to take the property of some for the "benefit" of others. In what manner is this aggression? The use of one's livelihood in one's own way is forcibly denied by the aggressive tak ing of it-effective, indeed! Force as a device for having others behave in ways seemingly advantageous to oneself is not intelligent attention to self-interest-except when used to restrain them from coercive acts. To aggressively force others is to thwart others. Self interest requires that all others become more cre ative, not more thwarted. The Powerof Attraction Attraction is the best answer to influencing oth ers creatively. Daily experiences supply evidence to support this conclusion. If one would influence another to become a better cook or golfer, he should increase his own proficiency at cooking or golfing. He should attain a perfection, a leader ship, a head-of-the-c1assstatus that would attract others to draw on him. No person is influenced to greater creative activity on any subject by one who is inferior on that subject. Influence of one on 201 another in upgrading-materialistically, intellec tually, spiritually-is by attraction only.