Who's Progressive; D. Boudreaux

But you don't turn junk into jewels by call ing it pearls. No matter what they call themselves, statists emphatically are not pro gressive. The root word of "progressive" is "progress," which my Merriam-Webster defines as "to move forward" and "to develop to a more advanced stage." Under this defini tion, statists are anti-progressive; they're regressive;they possess less ethical sophisti cation than Cro-Magnon man. Think about it. The statists' policy prescrip tions are nothing but directions for the use of force. From dealing with the poor ("force the haves to surrender some of their money to the have-nots") to the regulation of industry ("force every firm to abide by bureaucratic rules") to cultural matters ("force people to support art that they will not buy voluntari ly"), the common element in all statist proDonald J. Boudreaux is president ofFEE. 4 posals is force-coercion, or its threat, initiat ed against peaceful people.

What, though, is more primitive, more backward, more regressive, than relying on force as a means of organizing society? Rely ing on force requires no intelligence, ingenu ity, insight, or wisdom. If you have more brains than a tree stump, you can visualize how to satisfy your immediate desires through force-simply grab whatever you want, standing ready to bludgeon or blast away any one who interferes with you. And if what you want is someone else's services, simply threaten to do him physical harm unless he does your bidding. Coercion and theft are primal impulses, and primal impulses become no more meritorious when carried out by government officials than when carried out by lone bandits. Consent and Empathy Compare reliance on force with reliance on voluntary, peaceful actions. A bandit-be he an independent operator or an agent of gov ernmentis interested in his victim's thoughts and desires only insofar as these determine if and how the victim will defend himself.

In contrast, peaceful people identify with empathize with-one another. They must fig ure out other people's likes and dislikes, needs and turn-offs-for only by empathizing with others can they prosper in the market. They must learn what to offer in order to prompt others to exchange goods and services with them. The entrepreneur who stubbornly ignores the desires of consumers and insists on producing only what he, personally, likes will not long remain an entrepreneur. This reciprocal learning in the market is continual. Far more than anything that gov ernment does, this process of being attentive to the needs of one another is what links us together into a peaceful and prosperous society. Moreover, while force destroys, market relations create. The brute who steals my sup per gives me nothing in return; his gain is my loss. And because I will not long keep pro ducing if others keep stealing from me, coer cion literally destroys wealth. But as I said, in the market people gain only by offering things of value. Human beings-brimming as we are with creativity-produce value by devising new products, new services, and new ways of doing worthwhile tasks. The more we create for exchange, the better off we all are.

Creativity,by its nature, is truly progressive. So, too, are the social conditions that promote creativity: private property rights, the division of labor governed by market prices and volun tary choice, and the rule of law under which no one is accorded special privileges or duties. While some semblance of private property rights and the division of labor has always been part of human societies, these institutions remain stunted and distorted without the rule of law. Regrettably, the rule of law has been largely absent from human history. It flowered during the Roman republic and again in west ern Europe during the past few centuries, reaching its historical zenith in nineteenth century England and America. Tragic Retreat But we've drawn back from the rule of law duringthis century. Governmentincreasingly treats us according to which groups we belong to rather than according to our individual actions. A new caste system is in the works.

But pigeonholing people into various groups, 5 and distributing legal privileges and duties accordingly, is primitive. Such obsession with status is a hallmark of the most repressive and backward of societies. The gall of the propo nents of this new caste system to call them selves "progressive"! The countless generations of human beings who lived before the industrial revolution knew very little prosperity and progress. With the exception of the nobility and a select few other fortunate dandies, people lived in uni form poverty and misery. (Indeed, even the nobility and the few fortunate dandies lived in what by our standards is deep poverty.) Hunger, disease, filth, and boredom-not to mention the deaths of spouses, siblings, and children-were routine and inescapable fea tures of life. Only since the protection of property rights and freedom of contract became widespread and available to the humblest person did the human race yank itself from the muck. Only then did we prosper and flourish. We did so because these institutions dramatically reduced the scope for "legitimate" force and therefore inspired us instead to create and to deal with one another peacefully and as equals, rather than as masters and slaves.

As Tom Bethell shows in his wonderful new book, The Noblest Triumph: When property is privatized, and the rule of law is established, in such a way that all including the rulers themselves are subject to the same law, economies will prosper and civilization will blossom. Of the dif ferent possible configurations. of property, only private property can have this desir able effect. Some proponents of government interven tion in economic affairs fail to see that force only destroys and never creates, while others are power-hungryhooligans.None of them, however, are progressive. True progressives embrace private property rights, the free mar ket, and the creativity and advancement that these institutions let loose. 0 "So-Called Property Rights"? It Just Ain'tSol n emember William Weld? He was the .ftMassachusetts governor (and presumed presidential wannabe), who resigned so Pres ident Clinton could appoint him to dispense advice as ambassador to Mexico. Those plans were derailed by Senator Jesse Helms, so now he makes money in Boston perhaps while planning his political future. Weld wrote an op-ed in the New York Times late last year that indicates why the media like this "maverick"