"Thou Shalt Not Steal"; J.M. Malek

THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY "ThOll Shalt Not Steal" by Jan Michal Malek P oland and the other post-Communist countries ofcentral and eastern Europe are struggling to establish a market society with freedom for all citizens. Advisers from the West who recommend U.S.-type gov ernment regulations, bllnking, and welfare state programs, on the theory that to insti tute free markets the former Communist nations shouldfollow the U.S. example, are doing the people of those countries no favors. The essential ingredient for turning back Communism and establishing a free market society, as Mr. Malek makes clear in this article, is the protection of private property. The original and longer first ver sion ofthis article was published in Polish in the Warsaw weekly "Najwyzszy Czas!" on December 11, 1993. That text directed to "common men" was intended to show the main difference between the political Right and Left on the plane of economy.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels stated that the Communist theory could be expressed in one single phrase "abolition of private property." Various names have been coined to describe Marx ian programs-collectivism, nationaliza tion, socialization of the means of producMr. Malek, born in Poland, has lived in the United States since 1967, working as an engi neer, inventor, and real estate investor and developer. He still maintains close ties with friends and relatives in Poland. Mr. Malek has translated into Polish and published Ludwig von Mises' The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, and sponsors the translation and publication ofother books explaining and promoting the free market. tion. When put into practice, however, these programs all have one common de nominator -reliance on the forceful expro priation by the State of the property of its citizens. If called by its proper name, it would be known simply as theft.

The true Marxists, "Reds," Communists, and the "extreme Leftists," are the most antagonistic toward private property, espe cially private ownership of the means of production, and are the most radical in their programs to take control over people's property. Others in the Leftist camp-the socialists-are more moderate, proposing a gradual* or partial expropriation or limita tion, through state intervention, of the rights of individuals to freely dispose of their property. The more Leftist is the attitude of some parties, groups, or particular people, the less respect they have for individual rights and economic freedom. Opposing the Leftists are the "Rightists." One main feature of all the Right is its anti-Communism, and subsequently its de fense of the right of people to own and freely dispose of all kinds of property, including factors of production. A person deprived of property rights is no longer a free human being. So, by respecting property rights, the "Rightists" are defending freedom.

Whoever claims to belong to the Right, but who advocates giving the State the authority to dispose of the citizens' honestly acquired property (that is, not acquired by *A known official statement in the Communist countries was that "Socialism is the road to Communism. " 486 way of violence, deceit, or theft in any form), misleads himself and other people; he acts on behalf of the Left. On occasion it may be necessary-because of a real threat to human life, human freedom, or other people's property. Even then, it must be in exchange for just compensation. In view of the above, the "extreme Right" label should be applied to those who defend most vigorously the sanctity of le gally acquired private property and of the principle "Thou shalt not steal!" A Natural Right The notion of property rights has existed in all cultures and in all regions of the world since the beginning of mankind. The right to property, indeed, is seen as a "natural right." People realized very early that vio lating this right, by engaging in theft of any kind was harmful and dangerous to the community. For that reason theft was pun ishable under the unwritten common law or in accordance with written regulations such as those in the Babylonian Code of Ham murabi nearly 4,000years ago. The penalties imposed aimed at insuring the security of people's property and the maintenance of order in the community. The greatest reli gions of the world condemn theft, that is, the violation of property rights. The Seventh Commandment explicitly forbids theft.

For millennia throughout history, there have existed castes and social classes of people-slaves or serfs-who were essen tially the property of others. Those persons had almost no right to own property and possessed virtually nothing. As slaves or serfs generally constituted the great major ity of the population, the opportunity to exercise property rights was very limited. The denial of property rights to such a large segment of the population accounted for the slow material progress for thousands of years. Only as new laws permitted the previously underprivileged to enjoy full property rights did individuals begin to gain freedom: first mainly in the Netherlands, then in England, and finallyin other Western countries. This freedom brought with it 487 rapid material progress. Later, the capitalist system that evolved-based on respect for property rights, private ownership, and the freedom to own and dispose of the means of production-led to a real outburst of mate rial progress, bringing to the capitalist coun tries economic welfare such as had never been known before.

If respect for private property yields such beneficial results, could the lack of such respect also have positive economic and social consequences? Suppose some indi viduals, even the state, disregarded the ancient ban against violating property rights and taking property from others? Could this possibly be beneficial? How about the effect of the loss of respect for private property in countries where it was traditionally, or still is, nominally protected, or at least toler ated? In truth, the fact that some people and their governments assume the right to take private property from some and distribute it to others wastefully is the main source of most contemporary economic and social ills. Those deprived of their property are victims; and frequently the supposed bene ficiaries are victims, too, as their moral standards, freedom, and initiative degener ate. Other innocent people and society as a whole also suffer because of such actions.

"Social Justice" From its beginning Christianity promul gated the sanctity of the Commandment to love your neighbor. The Left substituted for this Commandment the notion of "social justice, " which is supposed to be something better than what is understood as "justice." The concept of "social justice" however, takes no account of the Tenth Command ment-"Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's." Moreover, it also ignores the Seventh Commandment-"Thou shalt not steaL" Often, people are misled to believe that the Left's ideas on ' 'social justice" are similar to the teachings of the Church in regard to helping the sick and the poor. This 488 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1994 is wrong. The Church teaches that the people have to help the needy with their own funds and means (as well as with acts of a non-material type, such as providing moral support). On the other hand, the Left, when in power, confiscates income from produc tive people to distribute among other groups of people. A small part of this largesse goes to the needy, who in exchange are expected to support the Left's efforts to stay in power.

The state bureaucracy then consumes or wastes the major part of those funds ac quired by coercion and theft of various forms. In its plan for "social justice," Leftist governments devise social welfare pro grams to provide free health care, educa tion, transportation, and recreational facil ities. Obviously these services are free to the direct beneficiaries only; the taxpayers must foot the bill. The services offered under these programs are allocated by pol iticians, administrators, and bureaucrats. As these officials usually look out for their own interests, the programs soon become very expensive. Overhead costs increase. Indirect costs mount also as the implemen tation of these social programs calls for anti-free-market state interferences that up set the natural market processes. Negative economic and special phenomena follow, such as the inflation, recession, depression, unemployment, experienced by the social democracies of the West. All these negative phenomena arise as the state interferes in economic life and violates the property rights of its citizens. Countries of the Far East with capitalist or similar systems have adopted only very few, if any, of these social programs and are now flourishing econom ically and beginning to catch up with the West.

In the task of spreading the truth about the evils of violating property rights, which conflicts with the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal," the political Right in essen tially Christian countries such as Poland, has, or should have, strong support in the institutions of the influential Catholic Church. Unfortunately however, there are a few clergymen who prefer to avoid discussing in depth the Seventh and Tenth Com mandments and who like to criticize, some times even from Leftist positions, free market capitalism. They are critical of capitalism even though that economic sys tem is based on respect of property rights and, therefore, respects the Decalogue's Commandment "Thou shalt not steaL" The criticism by these clergymen usually relates to capitalism's alleged lack of sensi tivity toward the poor, exploitation of work ers by the rich, and the drive for profit and material things to the detriment of the spir itual life. Yet the capitalist system has improved the conditions of mankind more than any other economic system.

It has raised standards of living to an almost unbelievable extent and substan tially lengthened the average lifespan. The dictate of the capitalist system is service to other people----customers, clients, patrons, collectively called consumers. The capital ist who does not serve consumers well by producing goods or delivering services to meet the material needs of the largest num ber of people, will not be profitable. He may lose his business and his capital, and so cease to be a capitalist. I believe that one need not go far to perceive here an analogy and an affinity to Christ's Commandment of serving your neighbor. The Christian who does not do good and is not useful to others becomes an empty vessel. So, it is worth pointing out that the dictate or command of serving other people, though in various ways and for completely different reasons, is common to Christianity, other major religions, and free market capitalism. They also have in com mon with the political Right respect for the property rights of individuals. Without such respect one cannot serve others well. This is one important reason why the Left, which disrespects and violates those rights, always fails in its economic programs.

Even though Christianity, Judaism, Is lam, and many other religions stand firmly for the sanctity of the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal," relatively few peo ple realize the vast meaning and implica tions of that imperative.

The Politics of Good Intentions How many people are aware that trying to benefit some at the expense of others, even when done with the best of intentions, leads to detrimental consequences, often directly contrary to what had been intended? Here are several examples: 1. Government allowances for poor girls and single women with children. The idea seems noble enough. Yet, when put into practice in the United States and other countries, such programs have led to drastic increases in the number of illegitimate chil dren, fatherless families, and mothers with children dependent upon the state, which becomes a sort of the "head" of the family. Every poor woman with a child may qualify if the father fails to provide; the allowance comes to her automatically as a kind of reward for having children out of wedlock. Generally, the more children, the higher the welfare benefits. Often each child has a different father{!)* As a result of such poli cies, during the last quarter of the century the number of illegitimate children has in creased several times and is still growing in the United States. These children very often become non-achievers, school dropouts, and drug addicts. Once physically mature, they reproduce themselves and the cycle continues. As the number of women and children on welfare increases, the scope of poverty widens, the institution of the family disintegrates, criminality soars, and the so ciety gradually degenerates.

2. Progressive taxation was specifically recommended in Marx's Communist Man ifesto. By taking the profits of those who are most productive and can best satisfy the material needs of consumers, progressive taxation penalizes those who are most suc*Otherwise, the welfare officials of the govern ment would presume that the father stays and supports or will support the family, and that, therefore, the mother does not qualify for the welfare benefits. So it is a financial disincentive for her to run the risk of living permanently with one and the same man, or to marry and have legitimate children. "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL" 489 cessful in helping others. It also prevents or inhibits the accumulation of capital needed for investment. By hampering new ven tures, progressive taxation leads to fewer jobs and more unemployment, lowers pro ductivity, reduces living conditions, and contributes to economic backwardness.

By raising the expenses of employers, progressive taxation may force them to lay off employees or prevent them from hiring new employees or contractors. The funds collected may then go toward unemploy ment benefits or toward the upkeep of state officials. Thus, the money from progressive taxes is invested in idleness. Productivity declines still further. 3. The offer of government subsidies at tracts more and more applications for hand outs. When unemployment benefits are raised, the number of "unemployed" in creases. When benefits for the homeless are raised, more homeless are found. As the state "invests" more in a program to overcome one social problem, more people apply for' 'benefits" and the problem gen erally becomes more serious. Private in dustry withers under the higher and higher taxes needed to pay the costs. At the same time, the bureaucratic welfare "industry" prospers and expands as the numbers of poor unmarried mothers, fatherless chil dren, unemployed, and homeless increase.

The bureaucratic "industry" thus has a vested interest in the increase of human misery. 4. The manipulation of market prices by the state through' 'price regulation" may be intended to prevent "unjustified" price rises. Their effect, however, is to deprive manufacturers or service providers of some part of the value of their production, and to transfer that portion to those who obtain the goods or services. This discourages the incentive of producers or service providers to continue or expand production or ser vices. Thus, "price controls" always pro duce shortages and' 'black markets" where goods or services are offered at prices higher than they would have been in a free market. Instead of lower prices, therefore, higher prices result, the difference being covered 490 THE FREEMAN • SEPTEMBER 1994 by consumers. These consequences of in troducing "price controls" in the name of "social justice" are usually blamed by the government and the ignorant public, not on the regulations, but on speculators and "profiteers. "

As the above examples show, govern ment social welfare programs deepen peo pie's poverty. They are not a war against poverty; they are a war against the poor. The Proper Role of the State The main purpose of the state should be to ensure the freedom and physical security of citizens and to protect their property from aggression. When the state collects taxes proportionally to insure the safety of the country and the equal protection of all citizens and their property, it acts in con formity with its duties and in agreement with its legitimate purpose. On the other hand, when the state, instead of protecting the property of its citizens, "takes" property from some in order to favor others, then it abuses its powers. In doing so, it shows disrespect for property rights, and acts in conflict with the Commandment "Thou shalt not steaL" The distinction between what is allowed, and what is not, becomes blurred. Many then cease to distinguish between right and wrong: When the state justifies its immoral behavior by claiming that it is for the "public weal," that it is in the "public interest," or for the sake of "social justice," private citizens and com mon men can also find some justification for immoral behavior. This, in tum, contributes to rising crime rates.

The above presentation shows that social and economic programs based on, or involv ing the rejection of, the Commandment "Thou shalt not steal" bring about results contrary to those intended. In fact, such rejection of property rights by state policies brings misery to the people. In this author's view the injunction and Commandment "Thou shalt not steal, " in its broadest sense, is an economic imperative. If the science of economics is meant to provide instructions on how to use, in a most ma terially efficientand socially beneficial way, the resources available to a nation or other community, this imperative is, or must be, at work in any economic program of the true political Right. The goal of the Right is to improve the living conditions of the poor by moral and effective means. The disabled, the sick, underage orphans, widows without pen sions, the aged without family protection, and the unemployed, should be helped by voluntary, self-help organizations, private, religiousfoundations, charitable institutions, or guardians operating in local communities and churches. The Right says yes to every such truly social welfare program; no to gov ernment-operated, state welfare programs.

Only the Right can lead the society to prosperity. To achieve the leadership role however, the Right should pay more atten tion to the economic aspects of its programs, and to undertake an educational offensive of propagation of economic truths among the people. 0 THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Now, a better value than ever! SPECIAL OFFER! Begin or renew your subscription to The Freeman by September 30, 1994, and receive absolutely free: Public Education and Indoctrination 208 pages, paperback, a $14.95 value Just mention this ad to receive twelve great issues of TheFreeman and FEE's bestselling education anthology. A donation of $25 or more is all it takes. Call today with your Visa or MasterCard order: Tel. (800) 452-3518; Fax: (914) 591-8910. For addresses outside the U.S., please remit $40 to cover shipping THEFREEMAN IDEASON UBERTY Treachery? by Scott Alexander M y profession involves me in an aspect of the manufacturing process-sur face finishing-in which the opportunity for treachery abounds. My Macmillan Dictio nary uses four striking words in its definition of the word treachery-willful betrayal, and violation of a trust. My job is basically twofold:To assist in the selection and supply of appropriate polishing/buffing equipment and to consider for recommendation products and methods which might improve a pro duction process. To betray my customers or violate their trust in either task would be treachery.