Why Not Slavery; B. Sparks

Slavery then is a political and economic system that permits one human being to own another human being in the literal and abso lute sense. The slave is the property of the master. Slaverywas abolished a long time ago, at least in the Western world. And in this age Bertel M. Sparks (1918-1994) was a professor oflaw at New York Universityand later at Duke University, and a trustee of the Foundation for Economic Education. This previously unpublished article was originally prepared as a speech for a FEE summer seminar. that seems to be blessed (or cursed) with more conflicting ideologies than people, and when almost any doctrine or teaching can be heard from some housetop somewhere, no one can be found who is openly proclaiming slavery as a desirable way of life. And I assure you that I have no intention of suggesting any move ment in that direction. In that case, why should we spend our time discussing an issue upon which there seems to be such unanimous agreement? My reason is simply this: When everyone is agreed that a thing is wrong, there is a tendency to forget why it is wrong. And when the reason for a wrong is forgotten, there arises the danger that the wrong itself might reappear and receive a warm reception from the very peo ple who are most convinced that they have long since rejected it. Wrongs that are under stood are rarely, if ever, accepted by human beings. But when the wrong is wrapped in a sufficientlyattractive package, attention tends to drift toward the beauty and glamor of the package, the understanding falters, and the wrong itself is unwittingly accepted as a model of righteousness. Maybe we all agree that slavery is wrong, but how many of us can articulate a good reason why it is wrong? Why shouldn't people be permitted to own people?

Why should there be a law against it? Slavery is such an ancient practice that the exact circumstances, time, or place of its beginnings cannot be determined with com plete certainty. But all indications are that it began as a humanitarian measure. There was a time in the ancient world when the custom ary way for ending wars was to slay your 742 enemies. That meant the slaughter of whole tribes, cities, or nations. Eventually primitive man conceived the idea that it would be more humane, as well as more profitable, to capture the enemy and make him a slave rather than kill him. In that era when it was a choice between becoming a slave or havingyour head prematurely removed (and possibly boiled for dinner), slavery did have its attractions and even some humanitarian aspects. But it is doubtful if any degree of humanitarianism or the lack thereof willever be sufficientto either justify or condemn slavery. Something more fundamental is needed to provide a satisfac tory answer to the question, Why not slavery?

That "something more" is well expressed in John Locke's declaration of the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property; or as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That simple, three point statement is probably the most concise and yet the most complete statement of the fundamental human rights ever written. Al though it has not been often used in connec tion with the slavery argument, its application is sufficient to make slavery impossible. And whether you prefer Locke's or Jefferson's version makes no difference. I hope to illus trate that point in just a moment. The Right to One's Own Person The right to life means the right to one's own person. It is a right not to have one's own body interfered with. And if everyone has a right to his or her own person, then no one can have a right to control, own, or interfere with the life, the existence, or the personality of any other person.

The right to life includes the liberty to use that life in the manner most pleasing to the individual concerned. And if everyone is free to use his life as he sees fit, he is free to pursue whatever calling or employment he chooses, and to advance as far in that calling or employment as his abilities and inclinations permit. He may use his life foolishly or wisely; but since it is his life, the choice is his. That is but another way of saying that no one has a 743 right to dictate or control the manner in which any other person uses or neglects to use his own life. This is the meaning of the word liberty as used in the Locke-Jefferson trilogy. It is also a demonstration of how the right to liberty is an inevitable consequence of the right to life. If one has a right to life, he must have a right to use that life as he sees fit. He has a right to liberty. And if each individual has a right to choose how he willuse his life, it would seem to follow that he also has a right to the fruit of that choice. The fruit of that choice means the product. of one's own work and labor. It is what Locke described by the word property and what Jefferson identified as the pursuit of happiness. Different individuals make dif ferent choices. They also have differing abil ities. Although using different words, both Locke and Jefferson declared that every in dividual is entitled to the fruit of his own choices. And if each one has a right to the product of his own life as that life is lived in accordance with the choices which he alone is entitled to make, it necessarily follows that no one has any right to the product of someone else's efforts.

Thus it is that if every individual is pos sessed of an unalienable right to life, liberty, and property (or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you prefer) slavery cannot exist. Its existence is impossible because where everyone has a right to run his own life, no one can be left free to run the life of another. The abolitionists tended to center their attention upon the cruelty toward or the living conditions of the slaves. Much was heard of the cruelty illustrated by Uncle Tom's Cabin and the inhumanity involved in the frequent division of families in the slave markets and the substandard living conditions of the slaves. The defenders of slavery usually an swered these arguments with claims that per sonal cruelty toward an individual slave was a rare thing and that the forced division of families was almost unheard of. They also alleged that the livingconditions of the slaves on the plantations were superior to the living conditions of the free workers in the industrial centers of the growing nation.

744 THE FREEMAN • NOVEMBER 1996 No doubt there was at least some measure of truth on each side of the debate. But what of it? Suppose it could have been shown as a demonstrable fact that slaves were actually well treated and that their living standards were superior to those of a majority of the free workers employed in the factories of the country. Would that fact, if it had been a fact, have justified slavery? I would say not. The Privilege ·to Walk Away The real evil of slavery is that it places the slave's productive capacity as well as the expression of his desires in the hands of someone other than himself. It deprives him of any choice as to what work he shall do or what disposition shall be made of the fruit of his work after he has done it. The extent of his misery might be open to question at any particular time or place. But the thing that makes him a slave and the thing that makes his status wrong is that he is bound to a situation where he is legally bound to stay. He cannot voluntarily walk away and take his chances as to whether the thing he walks away to is better or worse than the thing he is leaving.

It is that privilege to walk away, the privi lege of making one's own choices, that makes a person free. The thing that makes slavery wrong is that it deprives the slave of the privilege of deciding for himself what it is that will make him happy. His decisions are made by someone else. And whether that someone else is a private master whose authority is approved and enforced by law or a govern ment bureaucrat who is acting as an arm of the law makes little difference. No one is free unless he is free to make his own choices as to what pleases him. Even if the slave is provided all the material wellbeing he can use, he is less than a whole person if his work and labor are being coerced into channels that are not of his own choosing. The Locke-Jefferson doctrine would declare that each individual has an inherent right to make his own choices, not because any gov ernment or any earthly power gave him that right, but because he is a human being. And according to Jefferson, that right is an un alienable right. It cannot be taken from him nor can he divest himself of it even by his own voluntary act. When slavery is understood as a deprivation of the right to the productive capacity of one's own body, its appearances in its various disguised forms become harder to conceal.

The building of the ancient pyramids of Egypt was one of the major engineering and technological feats of the ancient world. Al though the magnitude of the task was suffi cient to impose almost impossible demands even upon modern-day machinery and engi neering methods, it was accomplished without any tools except those of a most primitive sort and without any power except human power. The entire work was performed by human labor. The largest of the pyramids is the one known to us as the Great Pyramid. It is estimated that the building of that one alone consumed the labor of 100,000workers for 20 years. And it appears that most, if not all, of these workers were slaves. The cinematic productions of Cecil B. De Mille have made most of us intensely aware of the cruelty of Egyptian slavery. Some of us still shrink back in horror as we remem ber what we saw on the screen years ago. But suppose the Egyptian pharaohs had not used slave labor. Suppose the workers had been left free to seek their own employment and to follow whatever work, trade, or craft they chose. If the pharaohs had then seized the workers' wages through taxation and used that revenue to hire other workers to build the pyramids, would the people whose incomes were being seized be in any better position than they were as slaves? If our attention is centered upon the inhumanity of the lashings that were applied to slaves when they failed to meet their production quotas, we might tend to believe the "free" workers whose substance was being taken were in the more favored position. But if our attention is centered upon the failure of the worker to have any choice as to how the product of his labor is to be used, we will see little difference between the two situations. In either event the worker is being deprived of any choice as to how his produc tive capacity will be used.

Suppose the tax rate had been fixed at 100 percent and extended to include the incomes The Foundation for Economic Education Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533 Tel. (914) 591-7230 Fax (914) 591-8910 E-mail: freeman@westnet.com November 1996 Sweatshops for the New World Order P overty is an anomaly to many Americans. When they encounter it in foreign countries they view it as an aberration of human relations: the rich are exploiting the poor who are forced to work for "slave labor." In contemporary termi nology, "profit-seeking multinational cor porations are operating monstrous sweat shops for the New World Order." What these Americans call"sweat shops," the workers in those workplaces may actually hail as "opportunity shops"; and what Americans call" slave wages," foreign workers may welcome as "living wages." The descriptions seem to vary according to the height from which the earnings are viewed. Americans whose wage rates and standards of living are among the highest in the world always look down on the lower earnings of other nationals. Their lofty perspective invites hasty and disparaging explanations.

Looking down on poor and primitive workshops they see" sweatshops" paying "slave wages." A little historical knowledge would help these critics to come down from their lofty perches. During the last century and earli er our forefathers labored long hours in shabby factories and dangerous mines with primitive tools and equipment, earn ing wages even lower than those paid in poor countries today. It took many decades of economic development to arrive at current levels of productivity and income. It took several generations of Americans to save and accumulate the productive capital that built our modern apparatus of production. The savings of the people and the business profits that were reinvested by capitalists together with the technological improvements by inventors built the economy as we know it today. Politicians who always labor for the next election are quick to take credit for the improvements. The phenomenal rise in American wage rates and working condi tions, they declaim, was the sweet fruit of their own efforts, their labor legislation and regulation. Wise and courageous politicians, they want us to believe, fought valiantly for higher wages and better working conditions. The chorus of these politicians is often sounded out by the agents of labor unions who are singing the praises of their efforts in the form of collec tive bargaining, violent strikes, and costly boycotts. Both groups often cooperate and give credit to each other for pointing the way and forcing greedy employers to pay American wage rates.

The main activity of politicians and labor leaders is criticizing their opponents. If they actually could improve the working conditions of all workers, they could eradi cate the hunger and want of this world, purge all poverty, and bring prosperity to everyone. American legislators and union organizers could bring American working conditions to every corner of the world, from Burundi to Bangladesh.

In reality, working conditions and wage rates depend on labor productivity, which is a direct function of the stock of capital invested per worker. Unless they them selves made investments in their equip ment, American workers made no contri bution whatsoever to their high standards of living. Wherever they opposed the intro duction of modern equipment, or their union agents and political representatives fought or taxed it, they actually resisted the rise in productivity and improvements in their own working conditions. It was rising labor productivity and increasing levels of living that liberated women and children from the early sweat shops. In the industrial countries, labor legislation merely sanctioned the improve ments brought about by capital invest ments. Naturally, legislators, regulators, and union officials claimed credit for the changes. Their loud denunciation of child labor in poor countries usually produces unin tended consequences. It may actually hurt the very people it is intended to help. The children who are dismissed or never hired usually do not return to school. On the contrary, they are likely to seek new employment in the underground economy that pays lower wages and makes more physical demands than the "sweatshops."

Many children manage to return to the shops by buying fake documents that make them older than they actually are. Few American critics of "monstrous sweatshops" are motivated by their concern for foreign children. They rarely offer to house, clothe, and educate the children after they have been driven out, or merely inquire into the fate of those who have been given the gate. This glaring lack of concern clearly indicates that many critics of for eign child labor are more interested in protecting jobs in the United States than in improving the lot of foreign children. They are old-fashioned protectionists who seek to disguise their odious intentions in the sweet talk of great love for children. Their protectionist agenda also is visible in their open hostility toward "the new world order." No matter what we may think of the new order, it is preferable by far to the old order of war or preparation for war. The cataclysmic polarization between the democratic and dictatorial worlds, which generated two world wars and numerous lesser wars, has given way to the worldwide dominion of democracy under the leadership of one world power, the United States. The new order created a world of unprecedented interconnection and economic interaction. National trade barriers have come down significantly, which has led to a great extension of international cooperation and division of labor. The new information technology has brought the light of individual enterprise and the market order to all countries, and a new transportation technology has drawn them closer together than ever before.

Many millions of people in the develop ing countries now are laboring diligently and joyfully for Americans. Foreign and American capitalists have built thousands of assembly plants giving employment to people who heretofore had depended on charity or had toiled for mere survival. In exchange for their efforts, several million American workers have found employ ment in efficient American export indus tries. Both parties to the exchange, Americans as well as foreigners, benefit visibly from the trade. In fact, the new world order with its great improvements in the international division of labor has helped to offset the horrendous burdens placed on the American economy by the New Deal, Fair Deal, New Republicanism, New Frontier, and all other new political calamities. If it had not been for the phe nomenal expansion of world trade with its new "sweatshops," many of us would be unemployed and all of us immeasurably poorer.

Hans F. Sennholz Back in Print ... from The FreemanClassicsSeries THE MORALITY OF CAPITALISM Edited by Mark W. Hendrickson Introduction by Hans F. Sennholz 1/ Ethicalconsiderationsgive essentialjustificationto privateproperty in the meansof production,to marketcompetition,and the profitsys tem. They grant the capitalisticeconomicorderan importantplace within a moralorder,a place with one system of ethicsfor rulersand subjectsalike-to be honestand peaceful,refrainingfrom any action that woulddo harm to afellow man. In fact, the capitalisticorder gives rise to a moral system of rewardsand punishment basedon integrity, effort,talent,learning,and thrift. By lendingprotectionto economicfreedom it also becomesthe ultimateguarantorof the noneconomicelementsoffreedom such as thefreedomof speech,of religion,the press,and personalbehavior.II -HANS F. SENNHOLZ (from the Introduction) D espite Communism's recent setbacks, the moral arguments of Marxist thought-the reality of class struggle and the need for collective govern ment action due to capitalism's exploitation of the masses-still persist in the Western mind. This collection of essays by powerful writers attacks that "moral" foundation of Marxism. Capitalism, with its emphasis on personal responsibility, respect for an individual's rights, and protection of the fruits of one's labors, makes moral as well as economic sense.

Contributors include: Edmund A. Opitz, John K. Williams, Leonard E. Read, F.A. Hayek, Perry E. Gresham, Garet Garrett, Norman S. Ream, Robert A. Sirico, Paul L. Poirot, Peter J. Hill, Bill Anderson, Hans F. Sennholz, Allan Levite, Ludwig von Mises, Israel M. Kirzner, Steven Yates, and John Attarian. Published by The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Irvington-an-Hudson, NY 10533 ISBN 1-57246-055-5 216 pages (indexed) paperback $14.95 Availablein bookstoresnationally,or call (800) 452-3518 • Fax (914) 591-8910 Save $20 on your order of $50 or more from FEE's 1997 Book Catalog! This certificate is worth $20 toward the purchase of $50 or more on one order of books from FEE's 1997 catalog. Simply include this certificate with your mail or fax order-or mention it when placing a phone or E-mail order. One coupon per customer. Valid on book purchases only. Offer expires January 31, 1997.

Checking your holiday gift list? There is still time to give a year of The Freemanand Notesfrom FEE to friends, business associates, teachers, students, employees, clergy, libraries-whomever you choose. y/ First gift $30.00* (it can be your own subscription) *$45.00Foreign \ Each additional gift $20.00, $30.00 Foreign. Gift cards included. l New subscriptions begin with the January 1997 issue. Orders should be received at FEE by ~. December 15, 1996, for delivery in time for Christmas. Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Address City City Name Address City State ZIP Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Name Address City State ZIP Send 1 year of The Freeman to: Name Address City ZIP State ZIP Send 1 year of The Freemanto: Name Address City ZIP State ZIP State ZIP----------------- -----DENTER DRENEW MY OWN SUBSCRIPTION TOTAL ORDER: 1 @ $30 and __ @ $20 $ __ OWAYMENTENCLOSED CHARGE MY: DVISA DMASTERCARD Expiration ___ of workers being employed to build the pyr amids as well as others. Under that arrange ment the pharaoh could have returned to each worker what the pharaoh determined was sufficient for minimum food, clothing, and housing needs, and retained any excess over that amount to buy materials for the pyramids and to otherwise enhance the royal treasury.

By bringing everyone into the system, it could have been used to administer equality of treatment, a doctrine that usually meets with popular approval. But a freedom to work at an occupation of one's own choosing is an empty freedom if the worker loses control of the product of his work. Another difficultyin such a system is that if the fruits of one's work are not his, it is unlikely that there will be much work performed. The usual motive for work ing is to improve one's own wellbeing. And the worker might lose interest in the proceed ings if it is predetermined that his wellbeing must consist of his delight in having a beau tiful tomb for his ruling monarch. If all this sounds too artificial or unreal, it might be helpful to look at another country. Let it be an enlightened country where the rulers, whether hereditary monarchs or pop ularly elected legislators and executives, have lost interest in building impressive tombs for themselves or their families. They prefer to make experimental ventures into outer space.

Maybe they want to send a manned spacecraft to the moon or to some distant planet. It might be desirable for some of these fellows to go to the moon. The problem is one of finance. Who is going to pay for the trip? The fellows wanting to sponsor the trip do not have sufficientfunds for the job. They do have the power to compel the workers of the country to contribute to the project whether the workers want it or not. The exercise of that power bears remarkable similarity to the using of forced labor to build a pyramid. In both cases the work and labor of the inhab itants of the country are being seized against their wills. Some may like to distinguish the two cases by insisting that in the space project each worker approved of the expenditure by sup porting the government that sponsored it. But it is also quite likely that the Egyptian was WHY NOT SLAVERY? 745 giving loyal support to his government even though he was not voting in popular elections.

If that is the case, some better basis for distinction will have to be found unless the two projects are to be considered on the same basis. Unalienable Rights It would be dangerous to distinguish the two cases on the basis of the different types of government involved anyway. If the popular election theory is used, it would mean that any sort of tyranny against a minority is all right if it is approved by the majority. The application of that theory would amount to a restoration of the same principle that was involved in the divine-right-of-kings doctrine in its most ab solute and authoritarian form. The only dif ference would be that the ruling authority would be the majority of the citizens rather than a hereditary monarch. But both the Declaration of Independence and the Con stitution of the United States take the position that there can be no such absolute authority in a free society regardless of who is chosen to exercise that authority. The Declaration of Independence declares that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable. The private citizen cannot divest himself of these rights even if he tries to do so.

And if the right to life includes the right to one's own body, it necessarily includes a right to the product that is produced by that body. It includes the time and the work of that body. Although the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be given by any government, the experience of our imperfect humanity has taught us that governments are needed to protect those rights. Since the rights themselves are inherent parts of the human creation, each human being is en dowed with a natural right to defend himself. But if each individual must provide his own self-defense, he will have little time for any thing else. Government then becomes a kind of organized self-defense. As soon as a gov ernment assumes the role of providing that organized self-defense, it begins to collect taxes to support itself. To that extent, the government is using force to take a part of the 746 THE FREEMAN • NOVEMBER 1996 substance created by the work and labor of the individual taxpayers. To that extent, the indi viduals are becoming slaves. Therein lies the reason why no people can remain free unless their government remains a limited govern ment. And unless those limits are wisely defined and clearly understood, the govern ment is in a position to use its taxing power to establish total slavery.

Dominion The question is one of determining who is entitled to dominion over the things being produced on the earth. And unless that do minion is left in the hands of the producer, the one who provided the time, the investment, and the other factors that went into the product, the producer is being denied the right to his own body, his own life. In es sence, he becomes a slave. And whether the product seized is used to build a pyramid, finance a trip to the moon, or build a monu ment to a deceased head of state makes no difference. Unless partial slavery in the form of heavy taxation is understood as partial slavery, there is always a danger of its growing into total slavery. Current estimates show that at least one third of the wealth being produced in the United States each year is going to the tax collector. The trend is up, not down. Does the remedy lie in setting a limit on the purposes for which taxes can be used? The answer lies in the function of government itself. If, as we have seen, government is a kind of organized self-defense, made necessary because of our imperfect humanity's attempts to rob each other of our inherent right to life, liberty, and our own property, is any action on the part of government beyond self-defense justified?

How much farther can we go into com monly accepted areas of state activity before leaving self-defense? Is the education of ei ther children or adults a part of this collective protection? Is it a legitimate purpose of government to gather taxes to provide med ical services for all citizens, no matter how desirable that medical care might be? What about feeding and clothing less productive citizens at the expense of the more productive members of the society? Is the forced funding of a national retirement system, euphemisti callycalled social security, necessary to insure domestic tranquility? Can any of these be defended as authentic activities of govern ment? If the function of government is to feed, clothe, house, and educate all citizens, and to pay for all of it by a redistribution of income in the form of taxation levied on the more productive persons, then we can discuss how this should be done. We can argue endlessly in town meetings and in the halls of Congress over trimming costs here and adding services there, cutting this benefit in order to increase some other "entitlement." And we can finally reach some uneasy compromise by which those resourceful members of the society who are forced to pay the taxes-become partially enslaved-will not become completely dis couraged and quit producing. The enslave ment and anger of producers must be bal anced against continuation of services to other members of the society who might become outraged if services were curtailed.

An angry, divided society is the inevitable outcome. We see it developing all around us. If, however, the only function of govern ment is to maintain an orderly society where citizens can go about activities of their choice unmolested, the considerations that appear so urgent under an income-redistribution system become moot. Businessmen and women can direct resources toward improving their busi nesses, incidentally creating more jobs, rather than diverting resources to activities aimed at fending off a government bent on enslaving them. The legendary generosity and compas sion of Americans toward the fellow down on his luck would re-emerge when private char ities no longer had to compete with forced bureaucratic largess. Why not slavery? The most reliable method for keeping ourselves out of slavery is to demand a government that protects us from each other and from foreign enemies. And that is all. 0 THEFREEMAN IDEAS ON LIBERTY EndingTax Socialism by James A. Darn I n 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used "to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state." Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation as a means of achieving "social justice" endures.