Chapter 13: TVA and Freedom

CHAPTER 13 TVA and Freedom There seems to be no doubt but that, at the present time, most Americans who have expressed an opinion on the subject are in favor of TVA — and more TVA's. This situation is well represented by the opinions of editors, publishers and educators on this issue. As David Lilienthal said: ". . . the application of the TVA idea to the great Missouri Valley and other regions receives the editorial approval of both the 'conservative' New York Times and the 'radical' PM, of Collier's as well as the New Republic, of both Joseph Patterson's New York Daily News and Marshall Field's Chicago Sun."56 A survey by Opinion Research Corporation in January, 1947 similarly showed that the "influence group" (editors and teachers) overwhelmingly approve of TVA. Here are three of the questions with their answers: QUESTION: "In general, do you approve or disapprove of TVA?" 82% of the influence group approved of it. Only 7% disapproved.

The others expressed no opinion. QUESTION: "Well, it has been suggested that the government put more TVA's along some of the other big rivers in this country. Do you think this would be a good idea, or not?" 74% in the influence group said: "A good idea." 11% were opposed.

88 TVA AND FREEDOM QUESTION: "If the Federal Government owned and operated all electric power production in this country, do you think this would be socialistic, or not?" 70% of the persons in the influence group answered: "Yes, socialistic." 23% answered: "No." Apparently, then, it is beyond question that most American editors and teachers are in favor of TVA. This sampling shows that only 7% are positively opposed to it. Nor was this survey merely a "one shot" affair. It was also made in 1943 and 1945. All three surveys showed the influence group mostly in favor of TVA. That approval has increased. Fortunately, this same survey also holds out a note of encouragement to those who oppose government ownership of the means of production. In answer to another question, 69% of the influence group wanted less government regulation of the means of production. This, together with the fact that 23% denied that TVA is socialism, indicates that a confusion of terms may be involved. This possibility is also suggested by the fact that most of the influence group say they favor private ownership of utilities, while at the same time they also say they favor TVA and more TVA's. Logically, though, a person cannot be both for TVA and for private ownership of utilities at the same time. That would be a positive contradiction in aims.

But instead of arguing definitions, let us examine the probable results of a continuation of TVA approval by the influence group. If most editors and publishers of newspapers and magazines continue to support TVA — and to advocate more TVA's — it will doubtless mean that in due time this nation will be covered with valley authorities. There will be no more private ownership and operation of the means of producing electricity. In that respect, at least, the United States will not differ greatly from socialistic England and communistic Russia.

A CONFUSION OF TERMS; FREEDOM DEFINED 89 Thus, if private ownership and operation of the means of production are to be preserved, it is of vital importance that this trend be reversed. But how to do it? It seems logical to begin by defining freedom itself. Freedom may be defined as the absence of coercion or restraint of man by man. If there are no man-made restrictions of any kind on any person, then every person has absolute freedom. If there were no evil persons or evil ideas in the world, the resulting complete freedom from overt restraint would be most desirable and logical. There would then be no need for rules and regulations. But, unfortunately, no person now living on this earth is considered completely free of evil ideas, thoughts and actions. And worse still, many persons wish to force their ideas — good or bad — upon others. Apparently some of them wish to make mankind over in their own images. They are not willing to leave people free to accept or reject their theories on a voluntary basis. Instead, they wish to force persons to conform to their ideas of what is right and what is wrong. It is for this reason that some form of government — essentially an organized police force — is necessary.

These dictatorially inclined persons who would use force, fraud and predatory practices must be stopped — by voluntary methods and logic if possible, but by government counter-force if required. Alexander Hamilton, in the 15th paper of The Federalist, put it this way: "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." In deciding what form and scope of government is best, we should first decide what we want. Let us assume that most Americans want freedom — personal freedom, the right to be free from the use of force or coercion by one person against another person, freedom to decide for himself where and how he wishes to live, work, worship and spend his earnings.

90 TVA AND FREEDOM If those individual freedoms are representative of what we want, then the required form of government needed to secure them is obvious. Essentially, we require a government dedicated to the principle of defending liberty and justice by preventing any person from using force against any person, or cheating any person, or libeling any person, or robbing any person. In short, freedom means a government that guarantees equality under the law; a government limited to the necessary use of force only against those who use force to impose their ideas and desires — good or bad — upon other persons. We cannot force a person to be free. We can only leave a person free, because freedom is the absence of compulsions and restrictions. Thus every government action should be dedicated to the securing of freedom by preventing the use of force or compulsion by any person against any other person. Then every person would automatically be left free to follow his own inclinations to the best of his ability and conscience.

Unfortunately, this concept of freedom and government is not currently popular. The prevailing philosophy of government in the world today seems dedicated to the idea of forcing persons to be "free," to making the people do what someone else considers "best for them." This is a complete reversal of what government should be set up to do. Instead of confining itself to suppressing the individual dictators, government itself has become dictatorial! These dictatorial measures by government in many countries include government ownership or strict control of the means of communication (the press), as well as government ownership and operation of the means of producing electricity. And, in essence, are they not equally important to the general welfare? In fact, many proponents of government ownership argue, logically enough, that the press is even more "clothed with the public interest" than is electricity. Thus, according to many, the governLIBERTY AND JUSTICE; A GOVERNMENT PRESS 91 ment should operate the newspapers and magazines and publishing houses "for the good of all the people" instead of "for the profit of just a few persons."

Yet probably 99% of the publishers and editors in this country are opposed to government ownership and operation of the press. In fact, as was shown by newspaper opposition to government attempts to regulate them through NRA codes and other schemes, most editors and publishers will bitterly fight even the appearance of government intervention into newspapers. In The New York Times of December 9, 1947, columnist Arthur Krock accurately summarized the reasons behind this editorial distrust of government ownership or control of the newspaper business: "In the first place the government properly cannot go into originating journalism. ... In that event, it would be adopting the practice of totalitarian states, it would be competing in an industry managed and supported by the citizens who have delegated authority to government and pay its costs; and the next logical steps would be an official newspaper and an official newscast. Should these steps be taken, the government would resemble those against which it has rallied the American people, and is now rallying them, as global threats to democracy, including our own. It might as properly enter any business as a rival of private ownership and management and as a bidder against industry for employees. The end would be state socialism, for clearly no industry could survive against the competition of government."

Well said! This applies to all industry, including the electrical industry as well as the publishing industry. In the final analysis, however, nations, power companies and newspapers as such are neither free nor unfree. When we refer to a free country and a free press, we really mean a place where individuals have freedom to say and print what they believe, and to own what they have honestly acquired. If enough of those 92 TVA AND FREEDOM persons — be they publishers or coal miners — want individual freedom and the private ownership of property, the nation as a whole will thereby grow and prosper. But if most of them believe that government ownership and operation of the means of production is superior to private ownership and operation, freedom and prosperity will be sorely tried. Is it not naive to believe that there can continue to be a free press under a government that owns and operates the means of production? Can the press long remain free under socialism?

Is England an exception? The best that can be said for the English press is that it presently appears to be near the bottom on the nationalization list. But there is little to prevent it from being moved higher up the list. Already the socialist government in England controls the supply of newsprint, advertising space, manpower, machinery, buildings, prices, and the electricity to run the printing presses. By restrictions on the use of these factors, the government could hamstring or suppress any or every newspaper at will. Is an editor really free to criticize a government that controls his supply of newsprint and electricity? In Parliament, there has already been severe censure of the English press for being critical of certain nationalization decisions by the government. And: "The activities of the British press will come under the public spotlight this year when the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Newspaper Ownership and Practices publishes its report, probably in the spring. This inquiry has been hotly pressed by the anti-press section of the Labor Party. In evidence, many of the critics have found their charges hard to substantiate "57 This indicates quite clearly that freedom of the press in England stands on a shaky foundation. This is always the case under government ownership of the means of production.

Will the English press ever be owned and operated by the BRITISH PRESS; FREEDOM IS FOR PERSONS 93 government "for the good of all the people," as the English electric plants are now operated "for the good of all the people"? There can be no sure answer to that question. But certainly this is a logical deduction: There would be no possibility of the English government now socializing the press if the government had not first secured the power to socialize the electrical industry. Will anyone be so bold as to say that there can be freedom for persons in any country where all the means of production are owned and operated by the state? If the owners of newspapers continue to support the socializing of the electrical industry, what moral principle will they use to fight the inevitable attempts to socialize the publishing industry? Woodrow Wilson, when he was a candidate for President, correctly weighed the fundamentals of this issue in these two quotations from his speeches as reported by The New York Times of September 9 and 10, 1912: "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of governmental powers, not the increase of it." And: "Has justice ever grown in the soil of absolute power? Has not justice always come from the . . . heart and spirit of men who resist power? Liberty has never come from the Government, but always from the subjects of it."

Is there not a thought here worthy of deep consideration by those American editors, publishers, teachers and others who favor TVA and more TVA's?