Causes of Authoritarianism

My object in this lecture will be to submit to you an inventory of some of the errors, fallacies,. failures, and blind spots which appear to give rise to authoritarianism. I will not attempt to dis cuss these in the order of their importance, for I do not know how they should be ranked - except that there is one blind spot that [ 67 lies deeper than all the rest. At least, it is as deep in causation as I am able to probe. BLIND SPOT: That Man Is the Creator Persons unaware of a Creative Force, an Infinite Principle, In telligence, or Consciousness, far over and beyond the human self are susceptible to a belief in their own omniscience. And, those who believe in their own omniscience, logically, cannot envision a perfect society unless it be one in which others are cast in their fallible images. It is difficult for me to conceive of anything more responsible for authoritarianism than this type of unawareness.

A related blind spot was discussed in an earlier lecture under the title, "Historical Approaches to Ideal Government." If a peo ple do not accept the Creator as Sovereign, as their Supreme Ruler, as their Source of Rights, they must, perforce, locate sov ereignty in some mortal man or in some man-made institution. Logically, it has to be one or the other. If they locate sovereignty in government - a nlan-made institution - they have created an authoritarianism they must live with until they revoke it. FAILURE: Inadequate Development of Self Every individual is faced with the problem of whom to im prove, himself or others. The aim, it seems to me, should be to effect one's own unfolding, the upgrading of one's own conscious ness - in short, self-perfection. Those who don't even try or, when trying, find self-perfection too difficult, usually seek to expend their energy on others. Their energy has to find some target.

Those who succeed in directing their energy inward - particu larly if they be blessed with great energy, like Goethe, for in stance - become moral leaders. Those who fail to direct their energy inwardly and let it manifest itself externally - particularly if they be of great energy, like Napoleon, for instance - become immoralleaders. 1 Those who refuse to rule themselves are usually lFor an enlightening discussion of moral and immoral leadership, see The Psy chology of Leadership by Dr. Franz E. Winkler (Garden City, N.Y.: The Myrin Institute, Inc. for Adult Education, 1957). 68 ] bent on ruling others. Those who can rule themselves usually have no interest in ruling others. 2Spencer, Herbert. The Man Versus the State. Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, Inc. 1944. p. 117. [ 69 herd, and only an incompetent and frustrated person could ever aspire to such a role. In short, there is a vast market for Judas goats.s BLIND SPOT: Inability To See Unheralded Accomplishments The authoritarian who rises to the top, even though a frus trated person as implied above, is always a person of unusual energy, as suggested earlier. Being both energetic and having the power to impose his will on others, he gives the erroneous ap pearance of "getting things done." He gives "bread and circuses"

or "security" to the masses, always at their expense, or displays a sputnik as a great achievement even though the energy drained into such a project would otherwise have issued in millions of daily, unheralded achievements by the people. This false appear ance of ;;;;getting things done" is accomplished by depriving the people of freedom of choice as to their activities and the fruits thereof and vesting control and all freedom of choice in the dic tator. Nonetheless, to those who can see only highly publicized surface demonstrations and who are blind to the countless accom plishments of free men, the dictator is attractive. Those who wish to be told what to do and where to work and who prefer to be hand-fed in exchange for their labors, become the dictator's sup porters. FALLACY: Thoughts on Liberty Can Safely Be Left to Others Our modern world is a highly specialized world. Indeed, we have gone so far into specialization that we tend to let others supply virtually all our needs. This is unobjectionable if limited to goods and services. However, \ve carry the practice too far.

There are some things we should not turn over to others. There are matters which require strictly personal attention. For instance, we should not tum our religion over to others, nor our integrity, nor our conscience. Nor should we be so foolish as to believe we 3N0 doubt you have another term for these goats used in packing plants to lead sheep to their slaughter. They are trained to betray their kind. 70 ] can relieve ourselves of thinking seriously about liberty. This ob ligation should not be delegated to any person, group, or organi zation. When all of us come to believe that the preservation of liberty is a responsibility that can be delegated, then liberty will have not a single defender. Authoritarians thrive in the absence of libertarian thinking .like weeds in the absence of cultivation. ERROR: If You Can~t Lick ~Em, Join ~Em! An increasing number of business leaders, certainly in my country and perhaps in yours, are concentrating on how they can accommodate themselves and their operations to the current gov ernmental interventionism, not on how they can lessen the inter ventionism. Authoritarianism becomes very easy in any country where the business leaders cease their opposition to interven tionism - as in Hitler's Germany or in Mussolini's Italy.

FAILURE: To Know Liberty in the Absence of Pain There would be no tigers in zoos if they remained as ferocious as when first captured. However, they soon become docile, for tigers forget the freedom they once had and, forgetting, they have nothing against _which to contrast their existing condition. Their confinement becomes their normalcy. There never would have been any Negro slavery in the United States had the Negroes remained as intractable as when first taken from their African habitat. But, like the tigers, most of them soon lost consciousness of a freedom greater than the enslavement into which they were plunged. They became accustomed to their lot and, for the most part, accepted it. The tiger and the Negro are in no way singular in this respect. We note on every hand this same easy and willing accommodation to the status quo, regardless of how onerous it may be. Americans who only a few years ago screamed like wounded apes at some intervention by government today may give that very same in tervention their approval. Indeed, you can hear them exclaim, [ 71 "How could we possibly do without itl" I suspect that the same observations could be made about many Argentineans.

It has been said that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Yet, there are few persons who can continue their vigilance unless they are currently experiencing the restraint of a liberty they once took for granted. But, let the restraint persist for a short period and their aroused opposition will turn into compliance and finally into endorsement. Such persons merely add their weight to the interventionist movement. They aid authoritarianism. Man, in the state of Grace or evolution or unfolding or emer gence that characterizes most of us, is incapable of bettering him self except as he sees contrasts and faces and overcomes obstacles. All of nature seems to confirm this. For instance, we could not conceive of "up" if there were not a gravitational force pulling us "down." Nor would there be any such word in our vocabulary as "light" if there were no darkness. The taking of a simple step presupposes something stepped on. Man, except as he achieves a higher state of consciousness than most of us can understand, cannot upgrade himself in an unobstructed universe. He requires what sometimes is referred to as "tension of the opposites" or "the law of polarity." The art of becoming rests on the practice of overcoming.

The late Paul Valery wisely observed: The idea of liberty is not primary within us; it is never evoked without being provoked; that is to say, it is always a response. We never think weare free when nothing shows us we are not free .... The idea of liberty is a response to some sensation or hypothesis of impediment, hindrance, or resistance, which opposes itself either to some impulse in our being or to some desire of the senses or to a need or else to the exercise of our considered will. I am only free when I feel free, but I only feel free when I think I am being constrained, when I start imagining some state which contrasts with my present state. Liberty is therefore not felt, nor conceived, nor desired, save by the effect of a contrast. This is the conclusion I must draw: Since the need for liberty and the idea of liberty are not produced in those who are not subject 72 ] to hindrances and constraints, the less we are aware of restrictions, the less the term and reflex liberty will exist. A person who is scarcely aware of the constraints which are ilnposed on him by public powers will react hardly at all against these constraints.

He will have no impulse of rebellion, no reflex, no revolt against the authority which imposes such restrictions upon him. On the contrary, as often as not he will find himself relieved of a vague responsibility. 4 A political intervention when first imposed causes change and~ therefore, pain. But soon the changed way becomes the customary way, and no longer painful. "We never had it so good," chant millions of my countrymen as they become adjusted to an in terventionism that already takes one-third of their earned income. FALLACY: Value Is Determined by the Labor Put into a Good or Service The classical economists - Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and others - had no explanation of the market value of a good or service except the amount of labor that was used in producing it. It must be assumed that this explanation was not wholly satis factory to such accomplished thinkers, for it is so obviously wrong.

Pursuing this theory, a mud pie would have the same value as a mince pie providing the same amount of labor went into the production of each. The classical economists, let it be said on their behalf, did not follow this labor theory of value to its logical conclusion for, had they done so, they would have come to the conclusion reached by Karl Marx: socialism. Following this theory, the makers of mud pies would have no way of being reimbursed for their efforts except as the government would take the fruits of the labor of others by force and subsidize the mud pie makers. Carl Menger of the University of Vienna, in the early 1870's,. was, so far as I know, the first to deny and displace the labor 4See Paul Valery, Reflections on the World Today. Translated by Francis Scarfe.. New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1948.

theory of value. It was Menger and his followers who developed the market theory of value.5 This theory holds that the market value of a good or service is whatever someone will freely ex change for it. The free enterprise thesis is founded on this theory, just as the socialistic thesis is founded on the labor theory of value. While, logically and intellectually, the labor theory of value is as outmoded as the-earth-is-flat idea, it nonetheless persists to this day as a major cause of state interventionism. Why, for in stance, should we in the United States subsidize farmers and not subsidize bankrupt retailers except for the belief that farmers labor so much harder for their incoDle than do others? Thoughtful analysis will reveal that it is the labor-theory-of-value type of thinking that lies at the root of labor union monopoly and coercion. "The wage earner receives so little in return for his toil,"

goes the sympathetic thinking. The amount of effort expended, not what others will freely exchange for the result of the effort, becomes the basis for wage-earner compensation. No more with wage earners than with mud pies can an above market price be obtained except by coercive force. Authoritarianism on behalf of farmers and wage earners are but two of ever so many instances of interventionism where the labor theory of value is the underlying cause. Any intelligent person can grasp its fallacy when explained in mud-pie, mince-pie terms. Few, however, appear able to retain in practice that which they conclude in reason. FALLACY: A Wrong Can Be Righted with a Wrong Examine the position of every person you know who classifies himself as a free enterpriser. In nearly every case the "free enter priser" will endorse at least one item of interventionism. A friend of mine in Belgium takes a free enterprise position when he opposes the U.S.A. tariff imposed on the blankets he makes. However, he is an exception maker, for he favors tariffs 5This market method of price determination is often referred to as the subjective or marginal utility theory of value.

74 ] on the products coming into Belgium from the Belgian Congo on the grounds that the highly paid workers in Belgium cannot com pete successfully with the lowly paid workers of the Belgian Congo. In short, the evil of low wages in the Belgian Congo must be compensated for by introducing a restriction to free exchange, a wrong to right a wrong. Many. American farmers justify support prices and subsidies on the ground that businessmen have their tariff. They, instead of trying to remove the original wrong, practice what might· be termed "compensatory evil." Cities and states· apply political pressure for federal aid to local projects. cCOthers are doing it/ lJ they claim. cCSauce for the goose. lJlJ The whole economy is rife with efforts, not to remove economic plunder but to extend plunder. Here we have the recipe for a concoction more poisonous than any witch ever brewed: Take the single exception allowed by each CCfree enterpriser.

lJlJ Put these countless exceptions into a pot. Stir vigorously, rapidly adding emotion and self-interest unintel ligently interpreted. Bring to a rolling·boil with a political appara tus. In the name of accuracy and honesty list this dish on the menu as ~~communism." Serve to every man, woman, and child in the nation. Carry this message at the bottom of the menu: "This dish has been prepared at your expense by the free enterprisers of your country . You may not like it but we find it is necessary for us to be realistic and practical." BLIND SPOT: Free Men Cannot Get Things Done As the belief grows that coercion is the only practical way to get things done - housing and medical care, for instance - belief in the competence of man acting privately, freely, voluntarily~ competitively, cooperatively declines. As the former increases, the latter decreases. In the U.S.A., for example, government has a monopoly of mail delivery. Ask citizens if government should do this and most: of them will reply in the affirmative. Why? Simply because government has pre-empted this activity for so many decades that all enterprisers have ceased to think hovv mail could be delivered were it a private enterprise opportunity. Indeed, most of them have·come to believe that private enterprise would be wholly in capable of effective mail service. Yet, I note that each day we de liver more pounds of milk than mail. Further, milk is more perish able than a love letter, a catalogue, or an appeal for funds. We also note that the delivery of milk is more prompt and less costly to us than is the delivery of mail.

I ask myself, then, why shouldn't private enterprise deliver mail? Private enterprise delivers freight. That's heavier. But, no; my countrymen have lost faith in man's ability, acting freely, to deliver letters. These people who get gas out of the earth in Texas and pipe it to my range hundreds of miles away; these men who bring each four pounds of oil halfway around the world for less cost than· government charges to deliver a one ounce letter to the other side of the street in my home town; these men who build planes that will fly 150 people across the North American continent in less than four hours; these men who do such fantastic things have lost faith in themselves to do the simple chore of letter delivery. Take a hypothetical example. Suppose at the beginning of my country's political establishment, some 180 years ago, it had been decreed that all children, from the time of birth to adulthood, were to receive "free" shoes and stockings from the federal gov ernment. Now, suppose this practice had been going on for all these years and I were to suggest that supplying shoes and stock ings was not properly a government responsibility; that it was a family responsibility. What kind of a response would my sugges tion evoke? Because free men lose faith in themselves when gov ernment takes over an activity, they would respond, "But you would let the poor boys and girls go unshod" - which our own experience shows to be an absurdity. A decline in faith in free men and what they can accomplish results in a rising faith in disastrous authoritarianism.

76 ] BLIND SPOT: An Inability To Explain the Free Society I have never heard of a consistent socialist. That is, I am not aware of any person who believes that authoritarianism should be universally applied, that the State should forcibly direct and control all creative and productive activities. There are areas that the most ardent Marxist would leave to free will and volition. In short, there is hardly a person who does not balk at authoritarian ism in some of its forms. In the U.S.A. there are many millions of people who rant against communism, who inveigh against socialistic measures, and who raise their voices to high heaven at state interventionism, particularly if the intervention is directed at them. This negative force, however, does not constitute eHective opposition to authori tarianism. Bad ideas are not removed by damning them. Bad ideas, if they are to be rendered ineHective, must be re placed with good ideas. Herein lies a great weakness of the free dom supporters. Millions can damn authoritarianism but how few there are who can skillfully, persuasively, and attractively explain authoritarianism;' s opposite: the free market, private property, limited government philosophy! In the absence of this ability, state interventionism thrives.

FALLACY: Authoritarianism Should Be Removed Gradually Following World War II and prior to the relaxation of wartime wage and price controls, I made a speech entitled, "fd Push the Button.;';' This title was taken from the first sentence, "If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would in stantaneously release all wage and price controls, fd put my finger on it and push.';' This was regarded as a radical notion, radical in the sense of being so thoroughgoing that few persons shared it. However, if an act is morally wrong or economically unsound, the quicker it is abolished the better. Many people seem to hold the view that the beneficiary of special privilege acquires a vested interest in his unique position [ 77 and should not be deprived of it abruptly. They give little thought to the many persons from whom the plunder has been .taken. It makes no difference what example of wage or price control one takes - rent control is as good as any. Under this control people have been permitted to occupy someone else's property at less than the free market would allow. By reason of this fact renters have been privileged to buy more tobacco or vacations, or some other good or service than would otherwise be the case. The land lord has been deprived of the fruits of his own labor. Yet, when it comes to the matter of restoring justice, most people will think of the disadvantages suddenly falling upon the renters rather than the accrued damage done to the owner.

Imagine an habitual and successful thief. For years he has been robbing everybody in the community without their knowl edge. He has a fine home, cars, servants, and is a pillar of society. Upon discovering his fraud, should his robbery be diminished gradually or should justice be restored to the community at once? The answer appears too obvious to deserve further comment. People, when contemplating the removal of authoritarianism, seem to fear that a sudden restoration of justice would too severely disrupt the economy. The fear is groundless. During the early days of our New Deal we were the victims of the NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act, a system of wage floors, price ceilings, and production quotas. Originally, it was accepted with enthusiasm by most of the business community. Slowly, the fallacy of this nefarious program was realized. Thoughtful busi ness leaders agreed it had to be repealed. But, many of them argued that the repeal would have to be gradual. To remove it at once would throw the economy into a tailspin. Then, one after noon the Supreme Court ruled that NIRA was unconstitutional.

As of that moment all of its regulations and controls ceased to exist. Did this shake our economy? There wasn't a noticeable quiver except that all indices of prosperity showed improvement. The fallacy of the theory of gradualism can be illustrated thus: A big, burly ruffian has me on my back, holding me down. My 78 ] friends, observing my sad plight, agree that the ruffian must be removed. But, believing in the theory of gradualism, they contend that the ruffian must be removed gradually.They fail to see that the only result of the ruffian~s removal would be my going to work suddenly! There is nothing to fear by any nation of people in the removal of restrictions to creative and productive effort except the release of creative and productive effort. And why should they fear that which they so ardently desire? However, I am failing to stick to the causes of authoritarianism and am getting into the subject reserved for my final lecture, ;;'Libertarian Means and Methods."

If, in reciting a few of the more or less obvious causes of authoritarianism, I have left the impression that the remedy is beyond anything that can be expected from ordinary citizens in ordinary effort, then I have made nlY point. [ 79 Li£erfarian Meanl anJ. MetljoJ.1 ~ The political authoritarianism that is currently being embraced by people in every so-called civilized nation - the United States of America and Argentina included - is too widely accepted, too entrenched, too out-of-hand, too powerful to be remedied by ordinary people in ordinary effort. Ordinary"~' effort cannot even stem the tide, much less roll it back. .:" Lest this statement reflect a discouragement I do not per sonally feel, let me hasten to add that many persons are potentially able to rise above the ordinary, not only in their perceptions of freedom but in their labors on behalf of freedom. What I wish to emphasize is the futility of casual, commonplace, incidental, matter-of-fact effort. Nothing less than one's best, nothing short of deep, devoted, consecrated effort is adequate. Indeed, the tides of authoritarianism are running so high that no action can be significant that does not in some way arise out of an intellectual and, I might suggest, a spiritual revolution.