8. Steady Hands

CHAPTER 8 STEADY HANDS By now it should have become apparent that there are two distinctly different types of socialism. One is voluntary in character, as exemplified by the early Christians and other groups which urged a submissive economic sharing. The other is compulsive in character, as exemplified by Marxism and the highly successful Fabian approach. Before going further, it is important that we X"ecognize-that the Fabian technique relies on violence as does the Marxian brand of compulsion.

162-THIS BREAD IS MINE Invisible Violence There is a large area of thought which holds that so long as majority decisions are relied upon, no violence appears. This is a fallacy. It makes no difference to the final result whether the guns are produced visibly and employed to wrest private property from the rightful owners; or whether the guns are hidden, the appeal is made to the voters, and a majority approves of a public seizure of property or other wealth. Force, brutal and tyrannous, is employed in both cases. If anything, the second employment of force, which withholds the guns from public gaze, is the more dangerous. It is relatively simple to arouse the public against a visible display of might. It is in the nature of human beings that they deplore violence. But it is also in the nature of human beings that they sometimes fail to recognize violence when an agency not using guns (the tax assessor) is backed up by a second agency (the sheriff) which does Urse the guns.

STEADY HANDS -163 This false front of peaceful means must be recognized for what it is. Until it is recognized, great numbers of voters, enjoying what they imagine is freedom of choice, will be assembled at the polls and asked to choose between two so cialist measures. Fancying that peaceful means prevail, they will, in most cases, approve the lesser socialist proposal. The approval achieved, the ranks of the socialists expand and the process of eliminating private ownership moves forward with out a shot being fired. The fulcrum on which the individual mind must pivot at this juncture is the science of economics. Who is to own what, is the key question. Dr. F. A. Harper, in his remarkable "Liberty-A Path To Its Recovery," provides us with the clue. "The right of a person to the product of his own labor is the foundation of economic liberty. The requirements of liberty in the economic realm can be met in no other way.

"The question at issue is how to distinguish between what is mine and what is thine. The hennit is not concerned about 164 - THIS BREAD IS MINE this matter, which becomes a problem only when two or more persons have relationships with one another. "There are three ways to handle this problem: "1. Each person may have whatever he can grab. 2. Some person other than the one who produces the goods and services may decide who shall have the right of possession or use. 3. Each person may be allowed to have whatever he produces. "These three methods cover all the possibilities; there are no others." We could point out that the attainment of freedom, economic or otherwise, is the goal of the individualist. Let us now trace the individualistic pattern of economic thought seeing how, when it is sustained, the furtherance of human liberty is brought about. Individualist Economics In this tracing, our debt to Adam Smith is great. Al though he erred respecting the labor theory of value, which STEADY HANDS -165 Ricardo and later Marx were to expand into a dogma, he correctly saw the economic picture from an individualist's point of view. He clearly stated that "by directing that in dustry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain .... He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. .. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more ef fectually than when he really intends to promote it."

In other words, the individualist, even though he is in tent with his own pJ;ofits, must in the market place provide for the rest of mankind. His greatest· success, and hence his greatest profit, will accrue to him when he best serves others. Popular approval of his service or product must mean, if the market be free and open, that he is doing what society wants him to do. Therefore, though he gains, it follows that his gain is not made at the expense of society, but rather by society's own betterment. Under individualistic enterprise, the gain of one becomes the gain of all.

166 - THIS BREAD IS MINE This is a dynamic philosophy which must inevitably en courage the best from all individuals. And since it can be demonstrated that the individual who profits is not depriving the rest of something it once had, but instead is providing society with something it never had before, the values of the individualistic economic format become at once apparent. Static Economy In contrast, the socialist philosophy is seen as nearly static. It has no encouragement for the producer. Its sole function is to divide, on as even a base as possible, everything that at one time or another has been produced. It is not that socialists desire a static world. They are interested in an increase of wealth for everyone. They speak constantly of more production. But they prevent the creation of the wealth they desire by insisting that wealth be distri buted evenly as it is created. This is contrary to the nature of things and cannot occur without the use of force.

Those who create wealth do so individually. Production occurs unevenly. There is no such thing as spontaneous STEADY HANDS -167 general genesis of wealth. To distribute it continually by the use of force stifles its creation. The net result of the socialist program can be reached in either of two directions: 1) a gradual diminution of wealth. 2) An increased reliance on force. The use of sufficient force to prevent the diminution of wealth would result in a static condition maintained by violence. The socialist world will be static, it will fall apart, or it will stop being socialist. It must follow that if division rather than multiplication is to be the mathematical formula applied to the economy, under socialism we will experience a shrinkage in all of the goods and services available. There will be no incentive to cause the individual to produce all he can. Consequently, society will be injured by his failure to seek as great a profit as possible. In fact - and the matter is one of common knowl edge gleaned from observation of the many controlled societies that have had existence, as well as from observation of those societies which have been relatively uncontrolled - superior 168-THIS BREAD IS MINE individuals, instead of seeking to make as much profit as they can, and thereby to enrich society, will produce only as much as they can produce with a minimum of predation against them.

The man capable of $100,000 worth of production in a given year who finds that $90,000 worth will be taken from him, is constrained to produce only $10,000 worth. Society thus loses the benefit of the $90,000 worth which remains un produced. And even though the $10,000 worth of production is equally divided, it follows that society is harmed for it cannot benefit by sharing in something that has not been produced. Carlyle saw the implications of the Adam Smith analysis and dubbed it "anarchy plus a constable." He was not refer ring to the anarchy of Proudhon or Bakunin, but only to the theoretical anarchy which would follow the elimination of all government interventionism in the economic structure. In short, the individualist economic position has been scurrilously attacked by socialists on the grounds that it tends STEADY HANDS -169 to create an unbalanced society. The fact is the individualist economic position tends to improve society and is a better and more natural balancing procedure than the static philos ophy of share-the-wealth, however unbalanced an economy may become.

There can be no sale without a purchase. Whatever goods are sold, must also be bought. And if there is no intervention in the economic laws of supply and demand, society will freely purchase that which it wants from the stocks of those things which have been produced. Thus, the individualist economic idea, generally termed "laissez-faire" (let it alone), ought to be more acceptable to socialists than the socialist doctrine. Since the aim of the socialist is allegedly the good of all society, and since it can be demonstrated that the good of all society is achieved best by freedom for the individual members of society to produce in an unlimited and unham pered manner, relying on societal acceptance, the real aim of the individualist, to make a profit, enhances the societal aim of the socialist.

170 - THIS BREAD IS MINE We must, at this point, either accuse the socialist of bad faith or of intellectual ineptitude. Either accusation could be authenticated in specific cases. The dread of the socialist is centered in inequality; he cannot, or will not recognize the natural laws of humankind which make it impossible· for two people to be identical. He insists that at whatever cost, this static sameness be achieved. He abandons his idealistic end - the good of all society - and becomes lost in a sea of means which are fundamentally immoral. But so fervently is this sophistry believed, that it becomes tantamount to heresy to point out the error. In fact, equality becomes the single moral absolute. Each Is Unique But equality, so far as the genus homo sapiens is con cerned, is more of a political shibboleth than anything else. From a psychological standpoint, each individual human being is unique. And now we have the remarkable study by Pro fessor Roger J. Williams of the University of Texas, to assure STEADY HANDS -171 us that physical individuality is no less a f~ct than psycholo gical variance. He says: "My own particular interest in this subject probably stems from the laboratory observation, over twenty years ago, that,although· creatine was described by Beilstein as a bitter biting substance, it was found to be absolutely tasteless to many. About the same time, I noted that some otherwise normal individuals were unable to detect skunk odor. I began to be convinced more than ten years ago that DIFFERENCES between human beings (as well as their similarities) needed to be brought to light, because they· are crucially important factors which must be taken into account if many human prob lems are to be solved. The ideas which grew out of this concept were set forth in two books, 'The Human Frontier' and 'Free and Unequal.' When my interest in this area first de veloped I regarded it as considerably divergent from my chosen field of research - biochemistry. However, as time has gone on and research results have accumulated, it has become clearer to me that individuality and applied bio172 - THIS BREAD IS MINE chemistry are inextricably intertwined. I no longer regard my interest in individuality as a departure from biochemistry."

("Biochemical Individuality," John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). We are beginning to learn that each'man is unique not only insofar as his political and economic predilections are concerned, but from the standpoint of biology, biochemistry, chemistry and even organic structure. The more we learn, the more futile appears to be the socialist dogma of "sameness," "togetherness," "conformity," and "universal division of wealth." Now let us review the individualist economic position briefly. It begins with the admission that while all humankind are unequal, all humankind have certain basic and unalien able rights which they hold in common, and in these rights have a brotherhood, if not an equality. Be it noted that the individualist does not concern himseH with the perplexing problem of morality among cows, chickens, trees,grasses and insects. He is concerned with establishing a moral base for mankind. The individualist wishes to see STEADY HANDS -173 this planet as one on which life is pleasant and productive for his own kind. He may be tenderhearted respecting other forms of life and a conservationist at heart respecting ·trees and flowers. But respecting these other forms of life he is not a Jain, moving about with broom to brush each beetle out of his pathway lest he inadvertently crush one to death.

Two Types of Energy He begins by recognizing that there are two types of energy operating on this planet, and two types only. One he classes as human energy; the other, as non-human energy. His con cern is with human energy. He does not wish to see it wasted, misdirected or destroyed. As to non-human energy, this must be harnessed so that it serves humankind, or it must be re duced at least to neutrality so that it does not injure or destroy humankind. Life on this planet is no idyllic passage of time in a sort of everlasting Eden. Man wars endlessly against insects, disease, drought, excesses in temperature, the ravages of wild beasts, exposure and starvation. Each advance in the 174-- THIS BREAD IS MINE uses of human energy is an improvement for all human energies. Each retreat before some onslaught of non-human energies poses a threat to the entire species. Realistically, the individualist holds that it is not a moral breach· if he smashes a beetle. He will raise cattle for food, harness horses for power, stalk deer in the wilderness and do whatever else is needful, including the felling of trees and the harnessing of rivers, so that humankind may benefit.

And here the individualist states that there are certain sell-evident truths which, while they may not be susceptible of proof, nonetheless are valid beginnings forms argument. He holds that all men have certain rights; that these rights are universally applicable. He also holds that a right is not a privilege ..A privilege is a special permission which is granted by certain persons with power, to other persons, and is not inherent, nor is it universally applicable. The true individual ist wishes to see an end to privilege and an acceptance of universal righu.

STEADY HANDS -175 Again we must give credit to Dr. F. A. Harper for the following. These are not the professor's words, but are the essence of a lecture delivered at the Freedom School in 1957. Five Steps The first right held by all men is the right to live. It is essential that we begin here. And it follows that if every man has a right to live, no man has a right to interfere with that right in another. Clearly, this is moral ground. Equally clear is the fact that if we accept this basic postulate, man must not prey on other men, but must instead employ his energies against the non-human agencies in nature for his existence. He may not kill another man. He may do as he pleases respecting non man. He cannot thwart nature. But he can combat its destructive tendencies and harness its constructive usages. The second right which follows the first, is that all men have a right to sustain their lives. The first cannot be true without the second. Therefore, man is a warrior, combatant in the natural arena, wresting his living from all areas except those occupied by other men.

176-THIS BREAD IS· MINE And now the third: If man has a right to sustain his own life, clearly he has a right to produce whatever he wishes to produce, so that his living can be sustained. This world is not a paradise. Man does not lie under a. bread-fruit tree and have his sustenanc~ drop into his mouth without effort. Man must convert the products of nature for his own use. Houses must be built, clothes must· be manufactured, food must be grown and harvested. These things do not occur naturally. They occur only when man harnesses his energy and produces the things he needs and wants. If a. man has a right to sustain his life, he must have a right to produce. Maintenance of life is impossible otherwise. The fourth right is in logical progression from the ori ginal right. If man has a right to produce, then· he must have a right to use what he produces in his own best interests. This means that he· must have the right to consume or to save the products of his own energy. It follows, then, that man has a right to own, to poss~ss. And those things which are his, are his absolutely. If one man produces much and another little, STEADY HANDS -177 the basic right· is unaffected. Each man has a right to the totality of his production. No other man has any right to any part of the production of another.

But now we see the inevitable conclusion. If man has a right to use whatever he has in any way he sees fit, then he has a right to save, to invest, to buy, to sell, to give away, or even to destroy wantonly that which is his. And if this is true, then man has a right to individual ownership. More, he has· a right to be a capitalist. For a capitalist is simply the person who saves what he produces today and invests it so that there can be more production tomorrow. Thus, capitalism becomes not only a sound economic procedure, and politically should be sacrosanct, it is at once a moral position. The owner, mani pulator and controller of non-human energies is essentially a moral man. Those men who devote themselves in an effort to control other men, or to wrest from them those non-human energies they have acquired, must be essentially immoral. If a man has a right to life, then he has a right to own property privately. If he has a right to own property privately, he has a right to be a capitalist.

178-THIS BREAD IS MINE Let us approach the individualist position respecting eco nomics in another way. Economics has been variously de scribed and defined. Let us simply conclude that it deals with man's material well-being, and that it is a science which sets forth the kind of human action necessary to create and en large upon that well-being. Basic Equation The primary essentials to man's material well-being are: natural resources, human energy and tools. That is all there is. Weare aided by the quotation furnished by the American Economic Foundation and its two analysts, Mr. Fred G. Clark and Mr. Richard S. Rimanoczy: MMW = NR +HExT. We see here that man's material well-being is equal to natural resources, plus human energy, multiplied by tools. This means thCit everything in the world that humaIl beings want and can use is the product of these three things. A· moment's reflection is all that is' necessary to apprise our selves of these facts. The whole world is full of natural reSTEADY HANDS-179 sources. These are the minerals, metals, plants, animals, soils, waters and all the natural products of the earth. Man does not provide those things. They are provided by nature; hence, we call them natural resources. Certain things we may not recog nizeat a given moment as being resources.

To begin with, when the early settlers moved West across the vast stretches of American prairie and forest, the natural resource that first appealed was the wild life. Animals were hunted for food and for clothh1g. Other· resources were over looked. Later, other men came seeking a use for timber, or they sought to clear land so that is could be planted to food crops. Still later, men sought for minerals and oils and metals. In the West right now, the shift in emphasis on natural resources is evident. A hundred years ago, gold was the mag net that drew men into the hills. There were many other kinds of ores available, but gold was what was wanted. For awhile men were seeking frantically. for a kind of ore called uranium.· It was always there in the hills, just as the gold had been, but men did not !mow its· uses·... Now that science has 180 - THIS BREAD IS MINE opened the doors of atomics and electronics, uranium can be even more important than gold. And who knows what new uses may be found in time for the most commonplace items that nature has provided?

The problem that has always confronted men in respect to natural resources is this: How do you get at the .resources? Crops do not plant themselves, cultivate themselves, harvest and store themselves. Metals do not leap from the earth; they must be mined, smelted, refined, and processed before they can be used. Trees do not fell themselves; they must be cut, trimmed, hauled, milled, and then retailed through thousands of outlets. Everywhere men are busy upon the face of the earth now, attacking the mountains of natural resources and con verting them to use. So, for men to have material well-being, natural resources are useless and valueless until human energy has been applied. Tools Are The Crux And now we come to the crux of the matter. For man, that strange and illogical biped, grows arms and legginstead STEADY HANDS -181 of tools. Primitive man learned how to use primitive tools stone axes, hammers, spears. Until he had his first crude tool he w~s no better than a beast. As time passed, he began to improve his tools. The better and more useful his tools be came, the mor~ readily did the natural resources succumb to his attack. A man with his bare hands cannot mine coal. Give him a spade and he can begin to work. But it would take thousands of man-hours using spades to provide even the be ginnings of a modem coal mine.

So the tools have been improved. Now we have great electric or diesel shovels, electric drills, air pressure drills, lifts, ventilators, cable cars and even alfltomatic scoops, con veyor belts, railroad cars and a thousand other things from the tiniest wrench to the big diesel engines, all of which are used to mine coal. The result .0£ the improvement in the use of tools is that more coal can be mined in a shorter space of time so ~hat· more peopl~ in society can have the benefits that a use of coal can bring to them. Further, by the development of mass means of both mining and manufacture, prices have 182 - TmS BREAD IS MINE dropped. The advantage again accrues to society which· is now able to purchase more for asma11er investment of· its own time and energy. It is not our purpose here to provide .all the economic arguments. What we are trying to show is the superiority of individualistic efforts over socialistic efforts. And under an in dividualistic economy, there is major incentive' to save money so that it· can be· invested. This is true because investments provide a second way any human being' can earn. He can earn through his own labors; and he can earn additionally by saving something of what he· earns, investing it somewhere in the production and development of tools, and then he 'can receive interest or dividends on his money thus invested. All tools are the result of individual initiative and effort. All· tools are paid for out of savings. And in an individualistic economy both fonns of earnings are always available to anyone who will individually make the requisite effort and sacrifice.

Thus, while the socialist cries for equality and endeavors .to use the force of guns and law to provide-it, the individualSTEADY HANDS -183 is! recognizes a natural equality of opportunity, and according to his own. wisdom and his own conscience does what he be lieves is best for himself. In the process he cannot prevent being helpful to society. Thus, in fact, and according to the nature of things, there is. greater real equality to be found in an individualistic economy than can be found in a socialist economy. In an individualistic economy, each person may GO all he can, and is free to profit without limit according to his own ability to provide what the rest of society is willing te pay for. In a socialist economy, each person may do only those things he is pennitted to do by the gracious permission of a central authority. He cannot make profit. Nor can he provide profit for society. He can only serve within the limits prescribed.

The result of the individualistic economy is all about us in America. Only here in all the world and· in all of time, has there been enough of an individualistic· economy to pro vide abundance. Elsewhere, unde~ various degrees of social istic contr~l, shortages and s~r~ty are the rul~.

184 - THIS· BREAD ·IS MINE There are so many advantages to private individualistic ownership, and so few to public and collectivized ownership, that the argument is top-heavy in favor of freedom and private ownership at the outset. Yet, despite the evidence, the move ment toward world socialism continues. There must be a reason so many continue to support socialism by their words and their deeds. It cannot be written off as a case of simple subversion in which .a minority of enemy agents seize control and exercise dominion. Nor can it be written off as a matter of moral zeal. Against the moral position of the socialists -- that all men must share equally is the moral position of the individualist - that no man has a right to steal. Roots of the Problem The problem must go deeper. There may be a number of reasons for the ascendancy of the socialist philosophy in the twentieth century. But let us submit that there is one, all encompassing reason. It is this. People still do not underSTEADY HANDS -185 stand the t:rue nature of socialism, particularly when it is advanced by people they know and trust. They have not learned to recognize socialism's true character. If this is cor rect, then the reason we have such a tendency to advance into socialism is because the very persons who presume themselves to be opposed to socialism, in fact are not opposed.

There may be some particular part of socialism that they abhor. But they do oppose it only in specific cases. Let us sum up, then, the all-encompassing reason for continued. promotion of the socialist myth. One word covers it: Ignorance. And the answer to ignorance, now and. always, is education. Enlightenment. We are not referring to the government institutions of indoctrination which presently serve as public schools and which concentrate on convincing our youth that capitalism and free enterprise are "outmoded," "passe," and "18th century thinking." We are referring to true enlightenment, which is based upon the reality of man's existence on this planet.

186-THIS BREAD IS MINE Many doctors oppose socialized medicine, for example. But they do not oppose socialized housing, socialized farming, socialized libraries, socialized welfare in other areas than medicine. These doctors will paraie as being strongly anti socialist. Actually, they are full-fledged socialists in many areas save medlcine. Many a contractor is opposed to socialized housing. But the contractor will favor socialized medicine, socialized secur ity, socialized golf courses, socialized aviation, and even socialized .loans for buyers of homes. These ·contractors appear to be antisocialists. Actually, they are in the vanguard of those helping to tum this nation and the-world into a polyglot socialist state. It does little good to oppose socialism in one area while welcoming it with open anus in other areas. The antisocialist conviction is cancelled out by a flood of pro-socialism.

So it is time for us to examine socialism further in an effort to isolate the genn. Let us bear in mind that now we STEADY HANDS -187 are concerning ourselves with destructive and harmful so cialism. The unworldly and innocuous brand of share-the wealth on a voluntary basis is no longer under our purview.