EMPHASIZE THE POSITIVE

Action that is wholly against must lead to inaction as soon as it is successful.

    —JACQUES BARZUN
 
  It was 33 years ago, long before I had met and read the works of the brilliant Jacques Barzun, that I discovered how wholly ineffective it is just to be against politico-economic nonsense. In view of the fact that ever so many antisocialists are presently using this negative tactic, a sharing of my experiences seems appropriate.

  My first book, The Romance of Reality, was published in 1937 when I was Manager, Western Division, U. S. Chamber of Commerce. Its thesis was that the growing socialism—locally and nationwide—should be dealt with by educational methods rather than by political action. The book was surprisingly well received by those disposed toward the freedom way of life.

  It was my emphasis in that book on the educational approach that resulted in an invitation to become General Manager of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest. My assignment was not so much to manage customary chamber of commerce projects as to take the leadership in California against numerous socialistic programs rapidly gaining in popularity.

  Among these schemes was a renowned socialist’s EPIC plan—End Poverty in California. Another was the Governor’s “Production for Use”—so-called. A third, known as “Ham and Eggs,” had been devised and promoted by two brothers recently out of prison. And so serious was the situation that it failed of passage in the state by a bare 5 per cent of the vote.

  It is often hard to identify the chicken that lays such a socialistic egg. As a case in point, we had prepared a pamphlet entitled “Production for Use,” proving it was wrong. It was sent to 10,000 people in the State: legislators, leaders in business, labor, education, and so on. One recipient was a professor of economics at a leading university. After reading the pamphlet he remarked to a friend, “I cannot successfully refute any one of the points made by the Los Angeles Chamber.” That’s the last we ever heard of “Production for Use.” This professor had been the power behind the movement; the Governor a mere front man, not caring about either production or use!

  There were other campaigns, and I’d like to emphasize that we succeeded in defeating each scheme we tackled. A 100 per cent batting average! The method? Merely proving that each was wrong! We were successful with our negative tactic, or so it seemed. Thus, these successes should, as Barzun suggests, lead to inaction—the tactic sufficient, the job done.

  After six years of these “successes,” it became evident that if the intellectual soil from which these fallacies sprung were rancid, new ones would spring up in their places. Only the labels would be different. What I had been doing was comparable to proving only that the earth isn’t flat. Succeed in that and there remains the task of proving it isn’t a cube, a cone, a cylinder, or any of countless shapes. And then the light: Someone discovered that the earth is a spheroid. The positive knowledge of what’s right rid us of the whole caboodle of fallacies about the earth’s shape.

  While it is necessary to understand and explain fallacies, that’s less than half the problem. Finding the right is the key to salvation, for the wrong can be displaced only by the right. “It is,” as Burke wrote, “not only our duty to make the right known, but to make it prevalent.”

  So, early in 1945 I began a search for the sources from which the right, as related to the freedom philosophy, might be emanating. Here were my findings just 32 years ago:

 
   
      There was an enormous outpouring of what’s wrong in magazines, newspapers and books, such as The New Deal in Old Rome—an approach similar to the one I had been using.
   

   
      At that time there were a few but not many lectures or pieces of literature emphasizing the positive, that is, few explanations of the freedom philosophy and why its miraculous results.
   

   
      There were such remarkable works in preparation as Human Action, but it was not published until 1949. Another example I recall was an English translation of Bastiat’s The Law but it was not available in modern American idiom.
   
 

  Doubtless, there were numerous reasons for this lack of emphasizing the positive. Both the depression and the war lessened the demand for ideas on liberty and, thus, the supply was minimal.

  These discoveries had a profound effect on my methods in advancing an understanding of the freedom way of life. Instead of dwelling only on the negative—proving this and that to be wrong—my associates and I, since the beginning of FEE in 1946, have emphasized the positive, bringing what’s right to light to the best of our abilities.

  Indeed, there was a genuine need for FEE. The best indication that our task has been rather well performed is the fact that we have helped and encouraged ever so many others to start similar endeavors and to compete with us. Some of these others are real good, and at least in several aspects of the philosophy—publishing and teaching—are now further advanced than we at FEE. This is the way it should be: the more competition, the better! But freedom waxes and wanes, so the job is never done. It is one of continuing search and self-education.

  As to how FEE is doing in this competition we so highly favor, there is our monthly journal, The Freeman. Many readers insist that it improves with each issue. FEE’s catalogue, “A Literature of Freedom,” lists some 120 volumes ranging all the way from such easy-to-read books as The Mainspring of Human Progress, Economics in One Lesson, The Law, to such profound tomes as Human Action. New books are being added annually. In any event, it is a freedom library well worthy of study and respect.

  Not all ideas on liberty are new. But of first importance is to relate some of the earlier formulations to the conditions of our time. I first heard about and read Bastiat’s The Law in the mid-forties—nearly a century after he’d presented the ideas to his fellow Frenchmen. Excited with its brilliance and simplicity, I had it printed and sent copies to some 1,500 friends around the nation expecting orders galore. But there was no such response! Why? That edition was translated by an Englishman, a contemporary of Bastiat, into nineteenth-century British English. Several years later, Dean Russell, then a FEE associate, translated it into modern American idiom. Result? We have now sold at least 600,000 volumes. The lesson? We must learn to improve now and forever in communicable language.

  To repeat my beliefs, ours is not a numbers problem—thank heaven! All good movements in history have been led by an infinitesimal minority. And, further, ours is not a selling but, rather, a learning problem—aiming toward excellence in understanding and clear exposition. Let our ambition be this: the persistent and diligent search for lessons along life’s pathway.

  From whom seek? From those who are known and unknown, and from individuals who are wrong as well as right. Often truth is revealed as error is discovered. Bear in mind that many sources of both right and wrong are hidden from view. As we seldom know the individuals who lay the socialistic eggs—the university professor, for instance—so are we unaware of many thinkers who add gems of thought to the freedom philosophy and your and my enlightenment. Keep an open ear and eye—now and always!

  Let each among us emphasize the positive, that is, be an exemplar of what’s right. We can then be positive that freedom will again prevail.

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

THE COURAGE TO STAND ALONE

True courage is not the brutal force of vulgar heroes, but the firm resolve of virtue and reason.

    —PAUL WHITEHEAD


  The rare kind of courage to be examined—willingness to stand alone—can be clarified by explaining courage in its more or less popular acceptance. Generally, courage is thought of as synonymous with physical valor, fearless when in great danger, such as a soldier “going over the top” in the face of enemy fire—undaunted!

  Why undaunted? It’s because we possess two brains: (1) the human cortex and (2) a small brain, the diencephalon, common to man and animal alike. The same brain, in the event of grave danger, works automatically on us as it does on animals. “When the diencephalon sends out an emergency signal through the autonomic nervous system, the adrenal medulla is made to discharge a gush of adrenalin into the blood stream.”1 It is this gush of adrenalin that instantly turns a scared-to-death individual into a fearless “hero”—over the top, undaunted!

  I have experienced this instinctive phenomenon on two occasions. To label my “brave behavior” as courage would be a gross misnomer. My thinking apparatus—the cortex—had absolutely nothing to do with my behavior. It was automatic, as in animals, that is, beyond my conscious control. So, let’s not call this courage; it is by no means the same thing as “the courage to stand alone.” This rare and true courage is a task for the other brain—a venture in thinking.

  Interestingly, the courage to stand alone is, in most cases, attended by more fear than going over the top in the face of enemy fire. It is the fear of ostracism, unpopularity, being looked down upon; and this fear must be overcome by reason. No diencephalon can rescue one from this type of fear. That is a job for the big brain—the cortex—the full measure of one’s intellectual capacity.

  A classic example of nearly 2,000 years ago: Jesus of Nazareth, leader of an unpopular movement, had been arrested and his followers scattered. One of them, Simon Peter, was a victim of this fear. Read about him disowning his master:


    . . . Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a maidservant came up to him and said, “Weren’t you with Jesus, the man from Galilee?” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” Then when he had gone out into the porch, another maid caught sight of him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath—“I don’t know the man!” A few minutes later those who were standing about came up to Peter and said to him, “You certainly are one of them, you know; it’s obvious from your accent.” At that time he began to curse and swear—“I tell you I don’t know the man!” Immediately the cock crew, and the words of Jesus came back into Peter’s mind—“Before the cock crows you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly.

    —Matthew 26:69


  Woodrow Wilson wrote a booklet, When a Man Comes to Himself. That’s precisely what happened to Peter—he came to himself! And, by so doing, Simon Peter became Saint Peter. While common mortals can hardly expect to become Saints, the direction is clear: coming to ourselves, that is, gaining the courage to go it alone with whatever our highest reason suggests.

  The eminent psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm, enlightens us:


    Many people have, potentially, a passion for reason and for truth. What makes it so difficult to realize this potential is that it requires courage and this courage is rare. The courage which is involved here is of a special kind. It is not primarily the courage to risk one’s life, freedom or property. . . . The courage to trust reason requires isolation or aloneness, and this threat is to many even harder to bear than the threat of life. Yet the pursuit of truth by necessity exposes the searcher to this very danger of isolation. Truth and reason are opposed to . . . public opinion. The majority cling to convenient rationalizations and to the views that can be glimpsed from the surface of things. The function of reason is to penetrate this surface, and to arrive at the essence hidden behind that surface; to visualize objectively, what the forces are that moves matter and men. In this attempt one needs the courage to stand the isolation from, if not the scorn and ridicule of, those who are disturbed by the truth and hate the disturber.


  Very well! Is there a formula for acquiring the courage to stand alone? All alone, if necessary, and without any fear? The answer, I believe, rests on the choice of voices: the voices without versus the voice within. By the voices without I mean popular babble in its countless variations, fickle public opinion, mob psychology. Anyone who tries to conform his conduct to these shifting standards will be hopelessly inconsistent in his life and ideas. He can never be right. What could be more fearsome?

  The courage to stand alone can be generated only by reason—a job for the big brain—the cortex. Its criterion? Virtue! Whatever one’s highest conscience—the voice within—dictates as righteous! Briefly, the courage to stand alone stems from the wisdom of choosing virtue, not popularity; alignment with righteousness, not applause; approval of God, not men. Fear? None whatsoever!

  What distinguishes the voice within from the voices without? Silence! Why? Because the inner voice is composed of insights, intuitive flashes, tiny revelations—growth—in the direction of Infinite Consciousness. Here we have the intellectual, moral, and spiritual attributes of man coming to himself—inching ahead toward human destiny. But how does one listen to silence? One might call it prayer, or contemplation. The procedure is to tune out worldly distractions and noises, to passionately prepare the mind to receive the inner voice.

  Ortega wrote an excellent prescription: “Truth descends only on him who tries for it, who yearns for it, who carries within himself a pre-formed, mental space where the truth may eventually lodge.”

  Finally, for an important and interesting sequence. As I have written elsewhere, free societies are few and far between. Historically speaking, they have been but momentary bright spots and can be accounted for only by eruptions of truth. The source of these glorious outbursts are men who have freed themselves. No man is free who is not master of himself, and only those who are masters of themselves have the courage to stand alone.

  Obedience to one’s highest conscience—the voice within—is the root of all true courage which, in turn, is the root of all true freedom. The few individuals thus graced are entitled to acknowledge, along with the Psalmist, “For I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Hail to our Maker!

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

FREEDOM: A YOUTHFUL ADVENTURE

Perpetual self-dissatisfaction is the secret of permanent youthfulness.

    —ELIOT D. HUTCHINSON
 

  Speak of Youth and everyone thinks of youngsters or adolescents; the word connotes early years rather than a certain quality of mind. Perpetual dissatisfaction—the daily realization as long as one lives, that all our yesterdays are but minor steps away from ignorance—is, indeed, not only the secret of permanent youthfulness but the adventurous road to freedom. As one sage observed, “One does not grow old; he becomes old by not growing.”

 
   
      Youth is not a time of life—it is a state of mind. It is not a matter of ripe cheeks, red lips and supple knees; it is a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions; it is a freshness of the deep springs of life.
   

   
      Youth means a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over love of ease. This often exists in a man of eighty more than in a boy of twenty.
   

   
      Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years; people grow old only by deserting their ideals. Worry, doubt, self-distrust, fear and despair—these are the long, long years that bow the head and turn the growing spirit back to dust.
   

   
      Whether ninety or sixteen, there should be in every being’s heart the love of wonder; the sweet amazement at the stars and the starlike things and thoughts; the undaunted challenge of events; the unfailing childlike appetite for what next; and the joy and the game of life.
   

   
      You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as your fear; as young as your hope, as old as your despair.
   

   
      In the central place of your heart is an evergreen tree. Its name is love. So long as it flourishes you are young. When it dies you are old. In the central place of your heart is a wireless station. So long as it receives and radiates messages of beauty, hope, cheer, grandeur, courage, and power from God and from your fellowmen, so long are you young.
   

   
      When the wires are all down and all the central place of your heart is covered with the snows of pessimism and the ice of cynicism, then are you grown old indeed and may God have mercy on your soul.1
   
 

  As to this thesis, there are two areas that demand exploration: the generally accepted tradition as it relates (1) to politico-economic affairs and (2) as it relates to moral imperatives. To allow one’s self to be wholly governed by the former is deadening; to heed and learn from the latter is life-giving, inspiring, and assures permanent youthfulness.

  As noted in “Eruptions of Truth,” freedom for all individuals to act creatively as they please has never been fully achieved; it has been approximated only several times since the dawn of human consciousness, and then for relatively brief periods, historically speaking. The kind of thinking responsible for these eruptions is unknown except to a very few. Regrettably, the notions that command the “minds” of the millions, in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, are the doctrines of the Command Society. Most citizens do no more than echo the mouthings of countless dictocrats who have dominated the inhabitants of our planet. They are not yet sufficiently enlightened to feel dissatisfaction with this unholy record, let alone embrace the alternative.

  Make a thoughtful assessment of the countless dictocrats, past and present; a Diocletian, a Napoleon or Mussolini or Stalin—even those in our country today. Contrary to popular notions, they are not leaders but followers. Of what? Of the tradition of servility, that is, they are imitators of do-as-I-say fallacies from the ancient past to the present day. To the extent that individual creativity is squelched, to that extent are the victims reduced to slavery. Slavery presupposes slave masters, and to whatever degree anyone succeeds in coercively inflicting his ways on another or others, to that shameful extent is he a slave master.

  These coercionists give the erroneous appearance of being leaders. But they are only followers of traditional errors, followers who succeed in getting themselves up front. They are remindful of the legendary Pied Piper of Hamelin, up front only because the millions of other followers are equally bound to politico-economic error. Not one whit of youthfulness! Dissatisfactions? These followers—those up front and those behind—are utterly unaware of their “blind and naked ignorance,” as Tennyson phrased this common blight.

  The remedy for this “blind and naked ignorance”? The best we can hope for, in my view, is to reach now and always for the truths revealed in the moral imperatives of our tradition. It is a perpetual dissatisfaction with what we do not know or understand of these imperatives that is the secret of permanent youthfulness.

  The oldest moral imperative known to me is the Golden Rule as originally phrased perhaps 4,000 years ago. Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you. Not wishing others to dictate my life—telling me what my schooling should be, where I should work and for how long and how much, what I should produce and with whom exchange—I will, if the Golden Rule be my guide, never impose my ways on any person. Such behavior is freedom. Learning how to refine our practice of this ethic, each day better than the former, is indeed an adventure in youthfulness.

  The Mosaic Law, sometime later, blest us with a moral code, The Ten Commandments—a set of prohibitions or Thou-shalt-nots. Were these gems of scripture comprehended and strictly adhered to—all evil blotted out—human creativity would be at its maximum, freedom a way of life.

  With reference to these moral imperatives, each of us has the problem of so learning to know and understand them that we learn to obey them. Many do not even know of their existence, while others have given no thought to the profound meaning underlying each Commandment. Take for example, the tenth: “Thou shalt not covet.” This, in my view, is the root cause of most of the evils besetting mankind. There’s only one cure for covetousness and that is the daily counting of one’s numerous blessings. Let us keep in mind that the art of becoming—our earthly purpose—is attained by overcoming, that is, knowing today what we did not know yesterday. Again, an adventure in youthfulness!

  Another moral imperative is in the New Testament: “But seek ye first the Kingdom of God [Truth] and his Righteousness; and all these things [material well-being, enlightenment] shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33).

  Seeking, in itself, is an acknowledgment and a confirmation that there is always more to learn—regardless of how far advanced one may be. Each step upward brings into view steps previously unknown, their existence not even suspected. And then the revelation: the more one knows the more he knows how much is yet to be known. It is an endless progression in the direction of the Kingdom of God—Infinite Wisdom. A youthful adventure, indeed, each day a birthday so long as one continues to seek and to learn.

  There may be no better way to conclude these musings on the idea that freedom is a youthful adventure than to cite the “Sage of Concord,” Ralph Waldo Emerson:

 
    Be content with a little light, so it be your own. Explore, and explore and explore. Be neither chided nor flattered out of your position of perpetual inquiry. Neither dogmatize, nor accept another’s dogmatism. . . . Truth . . . has its roof, and bed, and board. Make yourself necessary to the world, and mankind will give you bread.
 

  This is to say, “. . . and these things shall be added unto you.”

  Observe the similarity in these moral imperatives and how blest we are with this persuasive-attractive tradition. The few who heed these guidelines are not only learners but leaders. On the other hand are the ones bogged down in the tradition of politico-economic behavior. These millions are but imitators and followers, be they in front or behind.

  The free market, private property, limited government way of life is founded on moral and spiritual antecedents. And it flourishes as you, I, and others—forever dissatisfied—“explore, and explore and explore.”

  Never the satisfied but only explorers advance the good life! Freedom, is indeed, a youthful adventure.

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

EVOLVE FOR YOUR OWN SAKE

. . . and only a highly evolved man is willing to defend the liberty of others.

    —LECOMTE DU NOÜY
 

  To forever evolve in awareness, perception, consciousness—every day of our mortal life: that is what we’re here for. However, most of us lack the self-discipline to recognize and make the most of our opportunities to grow. As Albert Wiggam observed, “Evolution is a stern taskmaster that knows no compromise and grants no reprieve.” It’s a case of perpetually striving for what’s right, lest one die on the vine—life’s high purpose abandoned.

  Why “evolve for your own sake”? For the reason that such striving is the apogee of enlightened self-interest! Why? Only a highly evolved man is willing to defend the liberty of others. Unless we defend the liberty of others, they won’t have it; and if others are unfree there will be no liberty for you or me. And without liberty we cannot evolve toward life’s high purpose.

  As a starter, we must recognize, and try to avoid or overcome, obstacles in the way of our evolving. So I turn for counsel to one of the best—Edmund Burke. Men, he insists, are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition:

 
   
      to put chains upon their appetites,
   

   
      as their love of justice is above their rapacity,
   

   
      as their soundness and sobriety is above their vanity and presumption,
   

   
      as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves.
   
 

  He concludes:

 
   
      Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere; and the less there is within, the more there must be of it without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate habits cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
   
 

  Ponder, “the less there is within, the more there is without.” Unless there be a fair number of people in a society who are evolving exemplars—mastering personal passions—men of the dictatorial breed take control. When Burke wrote, “Society cannot exist . . .unless a controlling power is placed somewhere,” he was reporting what all history reveals. As the control within diminishes, the control without increases.

  How are we doing? Merely have a look at the tend in the U.S.A. The acceleration of governmental controls indicates the extent of our loss of self-discipline—control within. As this fateful trend proceeds liberty fades from our vision and grasp. Unless some among us are evolving, liberty is out of the question.

  Based on Burke’s realistic method of grading, how many are qualified for civil liberty? One in a thousand, as we say. And even these few, while qualified, risk losing their liberty along with the many who put no chains on their appetites.

  The remedy? Let those of us who prize liberty look not only to the best within ourselves but in others—past and present—for hope and counsel. For instance, note how similar are the thoughts of Burke (1727-1797) and Socrates (470-399 B.C.), the following a line in the latter’s prayer:

 
    Grant that I may become beautiful in the inner man, and whatever I possess without be in harmony with that which is within.
 

  Fortunately for us, the salvation of liberty is not a numbers problem. Socrates gave us the only answer for him, for you, for me: “Grant that I may become beautiful in the inner man.” This, I am certain, is the sole formula for “a highly evolved man,” the man capable of defending the liberty of others because he understands his own need for liberty.

  Burke expressed precisely the same thought, except in more detail:

 
    How often has public calamity [our present situation] been arrested on the very brink of ruin, by the seasonable energy of a single man? Have we no such man amongst us? I am as sure as I am of my being, that one vigorous mind without office, without situation, without public functions of any kind, (at a time when the want of such a thing is felt as I am sure it is) I say, one such man, confiding in the aid of God, and full of just reliance in his own fortitude, vigor, enterprise, and perseverance, would first draw to him some few like himself, and then that multitudes, hardly thought to be in existence, would appear and troop about him.
 

  The aim in life, as I see it, is to become “one such man.” We are thus confronted with the art of becoming, a goal to be achieved only by overcoming our ineptitudes, flaws, ignorance, errors; that is, by learning, evolving. As Wiggam asserted, “Evolution is a stern taskmaster that knows no compromise and grants no reprieve.” Interestingly, as I am discovering after years of effort, the formula is the same for achieving each of life’s high goals.

  Unyielding integrity in word and deed is the first requirement. When anyone compromises what he may believe to be right for something that appears to be an immediate gain, he is selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. Reprieve from such error? Impossible! The already done, be it an outright lie or any deviation from what one believes to be truth, is never undone. It is glued to one’s past. A principle—what’s right—cannot be compromised but only surrendered.1 How take advantage of this error? How reap a good from it? Plutarch gives us an excellent answer:

 
    To make no mistakes is not in the power of man; but from their errors and mistakes the wise and good learn wisdom for the future.
 

  Pursuit of so-called “short-run gains” is and has been the bane of mankind. Such practices range from ancient tribes invading their neighbors and taking home the loot to modem “tribes” getting government to do the looting for them—camouflaged thievery, no less! The millions of practitioners are not evolving but, rather, devolving individuals. The evolving individual—Burke’s “one such man”—is aware that there is no such thing as a “short-run gain” unless it be a gain in the long run. His guideline is identical to Immanuel Kant’s: Act only on that maxim [principle] which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Or, in reverse, never do anything which, were everyone to do, would bring chaos. If it’s right in principle it has to work; if not, it never can! The evolving person looks to his principles.2

  Finally, there’s one more upward step if we are to evolve to the point where we can defend the liberty of others, a step consistent with enlightened self-interest. Here it is: Understand our own role and the rule of our opposition.

  William Ralph Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s London (1911-1934) deplored a failing exhibited by members of his own profession:

 
    The masses at Rome were not elevated by an unlimited provision of bread and circuses. And therefore I do not like to see the clergy, who were monarchists under a strong monarchy, and oligarchs under the oligarchy, tumbling over each other in their eagerness to become court chaplains to King Demos [the mob]. The black-coated advocates of spoliation are not a nice lot. “I take what I want,” said Frederick the Great; “I can always find pedants to prove my rights.”
 

  Dean Inge was referring to a tendency among clergymen to align themselves with whatever form of spoliation happened to be dominant at the time. Mobocracy of whatever brand rules their passions. With a few notable and laudable exceptions, present-day clergymen of this or that religion are just as eager “to become court chaplains to King Demos.”3 Dictocrats can always find pedants—conformists—to “prove” they are right. And by the millions—clergymen included!

  Let us not, however, attribute this “madness of the mob” to any one profession; there is not a single occupational category in which it does not predominate—education, medicine, labor, business, or whatever.

  Years ago the day’s mail brought me letters from two men, heads of huge corporations. I knew both men well, but they did not know each other. Their messages were identical. In essence: “I am not interested in helping you with the freedom philosophy. If the U.S.A. becomes like Russia, I’ll still be one of the head men.” Perhaps so. Doubtless they would become Commissars for each of them had the kind of “talent” useful to a totalitarian state.

  Has that situation changed as related to business? While writing this, an article by the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation was called to my attention. A revealing line:

 
    I think of national planning as a process for assessing our economic condition and prospects, setting national goals and priorities and then letting market forces work.
 

  Assume my wisdom to be equal to that of the President of the U.S.A. or his most brilliant appointee or the smartest member of Congress. How competent would I be to plan the businesses of America? To grasp the utter absurdity of such a proposal, reflect on my competence to run a single life: yours! Doubtless the business executive just quoted would have made his way in Mussolini’s Italy, for his proposal is economic fascism. While few businessmen go as far, millions of them go part way. Here, and in all the other occupational categories, we have the rule that originates with the opposition. Note the millions who lend support to these social planners—wielders of political power.

  Now to the role of Burke’s “one such man.” If one man is graced sufficiently with “fortitude, vigor, enterprise, and perseverance, [he] would first draw to him some few like himself, and then the multitudes, hardly known to exist, would appear and troop about him.” From whence the multitudes? From the crowds that are now trooping about the dictocrats—quite unconsciously.

  So what are the rules for our role? Devoted study, thinking, writing—learning to understand and explain the freedom way of life. Become a master thereof! And there’s one master guideline: righteousness—integrity!

  True, we must live in the world as it is or drop dead. Preferring life, one has no choice but to participate in all sorts of socialized institutions: government postal “service,” for instance. How, then, be consistently righteous? In one’s proclaimed positions!

  Further, be not herded into deviations by heeding others simply because they are celebrated, famous. Seekers after Truth should not be bound by who sponsors any idea—Truth being its own witness.

  Evolve, forever evolve, for thus one becomes not only willing but also free and able to defend the liberty of others.

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

THOUGHTS: FOUNTAIN OF OUR DESTINY

Thoughts lead on to purposes; purposes go forth in action; actions form habits; habits decide character; and character fixes our destiny.

    —TRYON EDWARDS


  Goethe wrote, “All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times.” This certainly applies to the sequence of forces listed by Edwards and, of course, to all of my comments which follow. But, first, a wise and interesting observation relating to each cause and its consequences as above set forth.


 
      Thought:—Thought is the seed of action; but action is as much its second form as thought is its first. It rises in thought, to the end that it may be uttered and acted. Always in proportion to the depth of its sense does it knock importunately at the gates of the soul, to be spoken, to be done.

      —Ralph Waldo Emerson
 

 
      Purpose:—Thy purpose firm is equal to the deed.—Who does the best his circumstance allows, does well, acts nobly; angels could no more.

      —Edward Young
 

 
      Action:—Action is preceded by thinking. Thinking is to deliberate beforehand over future action and to reflect afterwards upon past action. Thinking and action are inseparable.

      —Ludwig von Mises
 

 
      Habit:—We first make our habits, and then
      our habits make us.

      Ill habits gather, by unseen
      degrees, as brooks make
      rivers, rivers run to seas.

      —John Dryden
 

 
      Character:—To be worth anything, character must be capable of standing firm upon its feet in the world of daily work, temptation, and trial; and able to bear the wear and tear of actual life. Cloistered virtues do not count for much.

      —Samuel Smiles
 

 
      Destiny:—He [man] becomes capable of perfecting himself, and he is even the only one capable of doing this. But in order to improve himself he must be free, since his contribution to evolution will depend on the use he makes of his liberty . . . and only a highly evolved man is willing to defend the liberty of others.

      —Lecomte du Noüy
 


  What a fascinating sequence, beginning with the thoughts and concluding with destiny: “. . . the inevitable or necessary succession of events.” The similarity of reasoning among these authors is as if they had been conferring with each other. Doubtless, the scholarly Ludwig von Mises, the latest of the six, had read the others, but where did Dryden, the earliest (1631-1700), get his thoughts? “These thoughts had been thought already a thousand times.” Yes, indeed, all but Lecomte du Noüy’s refinement of “destiny,” set forth in his remarkable book, Human Destiny.

  Du Noüy’s thesis leads me to several conclusions. If one is to improve he must be free, and any contribution he might make to evolution—humanity’s High Purpose—depends on the use he makes of his liberty. It follows that liberty disappears or prevails according to the prevalence of bad or good thoughts, for these are the genesis of either hell on earth or High Purpose.

  History is featured mostly by periods when individuals have not been free to write or speak what they think; but even a serf or slave is at liberty to think whatever he chooses, that is, to himself. Thus, whether we are to have a hell or heaven during our earthly existence, depends on whether our thoughts be hellish or heavenly. Therefore, some thinking on thoughts—evil and virtuous, dumb or intelligent—is in order. The following are thoughts that already have been thought a thousand times.

  Many people believe they are thinking when, actually, they are only rearranging their prejudices. No High Purpose is served by these individuals.

  Wrote Thomas Alva Edison: “Five per cent of the people think.” Were the percentage that large there would be no need to fret about the rest of his statement: “Ten per cent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five per cent would rather die than think.” I might add that potential intellectual alacrity—good thoughts—is deadened by the prevailing lethargy.

  Those who think only about the disaster that lies ahead for themselves, and for our country, more than likely will experience personal calamity and dampen the prospects of a return to liberty for the rest of us.

  All thoughts which any of us inwardly harbor show forth in outward acts. If they be ignoble, one’s actions will be a reflection thereof; if they be noble, liberty will have another worker in the vineyard.

  Good thoughts are the mainspring of human progress. They bring the unseen—the unimaginable—into the realities that bless our lives.

  We would do well to jot down all good thoughts the moment they occur. The thoughts we do not seek, that is, the ones that flash mysteriously into mind, are often the wisest. Such insights must be captured at once, for they rarely return to grace the soul.

  Liberty is at once the cause and the consequence of good thoughts freely flowing between people in this and other countries; and between those of the past and we of the present.

  Good thoughts have never been nor can they be popular. They are always at odds with the notions of the millions who do no thinking for themselves—followers of know-it-alls.

  Look not to the thoughts of those who seek only fame, popular acclaim, fortune, votes, power to run our lives. They are the authors of the mess we’re in. Instead, look for good thoughts from those who seek righteousness. And they, as gold mines, are rare and hard to find. But how rewarding when discovered!

  Those graced with thoughts of sufficient excellence do not argue. Instead, they cope with bad thoughts by stating the truth as they see it. This rare behavior arouses neither anger nor resentment. This leaves the bad thinkers with nothing to scratch against—leaves them in their own mire.

  Extend sympathy, not censure, to those who are unhappy when alone with their own thoughts—and especially to those alone without thoughts of their own.

  Learning without thought is a waste of time, but even worse is thought without learning.

  Daniel Webster, when asked what was the greatest thought that ever entered his mind, replied, “My accountability to Almighty God.” Seek approval from God, not men.

  The joyful life depends upon the quality of one’s thoughts. Liberty is advanced only by those who are happy; never by angry people.

  Wrote one friend, “You caused me to think—I think!”

  We can be likened to Human Radios. The thoughts we receive depend upon how weak or powerful our individual amplifiers and tuners.

  War plagues a people infected with bad thoughts. Peace is the reward of good thoughts in ascendancy.

  As we lock our doors against possible intruders, so should we lock our minds against bad thoughts. This leaves the mind free to welcome and develop the good thoughts upon which our destiny depends.

  When liberty gives way to political tyranny inflation ensues and the cost of goods and services increases. However, kind words and good thoughts are valuable as ever. Indeed, they and they alone can bring about a rebirth of liberty.

  No one, not even the most powerful of dictocrats, has ever been able to put a tax or tariff on good thoughts.

  How mysteriously works the mind. Write out a thought and another will follow, on and on. The mind is a well of thoughts; it has no bottom. Forever draw on this well—and be well!

  The miracle of the market had its inception 200 years ago. No person is capable of calculating even remotely, how far the standard of living has advanced. The problem now? Raising our standard of thinking higher than ever known before!

  The art of thinking: the more one thinks the more is thinking a habit. It is not education if it does not create this habit.

  Finally, good thoughts will prevail. How do I know? I have faith that they will. As Goethe wrote, “Miracle is the darling child of faith,” meaning that faith tops the list of good thoughts. Liberty—freedom of everyone to act creatively as he pleases—is assuredly our Destiny!

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

EVANGELISM: TO BE SOLD OR SHARED?

We know; and, better yet, we feel inwardly, that religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and comfort.

    —EDMUND BURKE
 

  A good friend believes in the freedom way of life as much as anyone. But he’s not sure he agrees with our methods. He used these words from Mark XVI:15 to make his point:

 
    And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
 

  And our friend adds: “The accent is on go!” In a word, sell!

  Why be concerned over this difference between selling and sharing as related to Christianity and evangelism? Simply because the selling idea is so prevalent among the many Christians who espouse the freedom philosophy. They are turned off by the view that evangelism is a sharing process. As a consequence, many of them turn away from FEE and become exponents of the hard sell—convert the masses, the man in the street, as the saying goes. And in their missionary zeal, they tend to neglect the study as to why freedom works its wonders.

  Just about the hardest sell in all history, so far as I know, was undertaken by Medieval “Christians,” namely, the Crusades that went on for the better part of two centuries. These were largely attempts to reform heathens, forcing them to “see the light.” The result: countless thousands on both sides losing both their souls and their lives! Trying to ram freedom ideas into the heads of nonbelievers also is a crusade doomed to fail. High ideas and ideals are not spread or sold. Rather, they are sought or bought—caught not taught.

  Jesus of Nazareth was presented to mankind as the perfect Exemplar. The law of attraction accounts for all true Christians—His attraction!

  There is nothing in the biblical record to indicate that Jesus ever thrust His views on anyone. He acknowledged the need for receptivity on the part of the unconverted. He sent out the Apostles two by two on a preaching mission and among His instructions we find in Mark VI:11: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.” Now, as then, if they don’t hear—are not drawn unto you—fret not about it. If you have done your best in the way of understanding and exposition, that’s as far as you or anyone else can go. Discouraging? No, that’s the way it should be.

  Human destiny, I fervently believe, presupposes that individuals evolve. Are not the human beings of our day and age of a higher type, or further advanced in awareness, perception, consciousness than Cro-Magnon man of some 35 millennia ago? To argue that evolution has now reached its apogee is to claim that we are perfect exemplars, a far cry from the teachings of Jesus. Am I perfect? Heaven forbid such an egotistical thought! Nor can you or I name one who remotely approaches perfection. My problem is to grow, and growth is achieved only by seeking and sharing such light as may be discerned. How can I do that if I devote my efforts to selling others on being like me? First, it can’t be done and, second, if it could, there would be more loss than gain.

  As Burke wrote, “. . . religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and comfort.” And America was founded upon that religious base, the conviction:

 
    . . . that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 

  The result of this religious conviction? The Creator replaced government—for the first time in history—as the endower of men’s rights. Truly, this was the basis of the most wonderful society that ever existed; “good and comfort” blest all men as if by magic, with the greatest outburst of creative energy ever known, flowing freely to the citizenry.

  Our Founding Fathers, for the most part, believed in sharing rather than selling their views. Their method was quite the same as the Apostles—preaching missions, explaining the freedom thesis as best they could to those who cared to listen. They orated, preached, fielded questions and pamphleteered. Perhaps the outstanding example of their method was The Federalist by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. A re-reading will assure anyone that these noble persons were sharing evangelists.

  Suppose those several leaders in the founding of the United States had been political activists instead of sharing evangelists, angry at the many whose understanding was not up to theirs, trying vainly to inject their ideas into the heads of the several millions who had no interest! They would not be known today as Founding Fathers; indeed, if remembered at all, it would be as “floundering” something-or-other. The words, “Our Fathers’ God to Thee, Author of Liberty,” would never have been written.

  As I read these authors of liberty, they reveal a graceful humility. True, compared to a vast majority in their and our time, they had a remarkable knowledge and clarity of expression but no signs of be-like-me-ness. They would, without question, have agreed with Ralph Sockman, “The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.”

  The method must fit the mission! If the mission be an improved understanding of freedom and why its wondrous performances, the means employed must be as free from coercive preaching as the free market is free from coercive pricing, production, exchange. The fruit will be determined by the kinds of seeds we plant. Tell ’em off and we’ll be told off. Share and we’ll share alike. Emerson shared a truth we should heed: “The end pre-exists in the means.” Therefore, look to the means!

  To repeat, high level ideas and ideals cannot be imposed on anyone, any transmission that occurs is a taking-from procedure: the law of attraction which, in turn, is governed by one’s personal growth in understanding and exposition.

  It is growth, and that alone, which energizes the magnetism that draws others to the knowledge an individual possesses. There is an excellent guideline as to how much one is growing: observe who and how many are seeking ideas on the free market, private ownership, limited government way of life. If none, one stands alone. The remedy? An improvement of the potentially magnetic self!

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

F YOU CAN’T LICK ’EM, JINE ’EM

Every man has his devilish moments.

    —LAVATER


  There are those principles and practices which promote freedom and there are ideas and actions which impair it. A letter in my morning mail well illustrates the latter:


    I can tell you that unless I can see a real change in the direction of our government, I will probably abandon these endeavors I have supported and join in the race toward collectivism and regulation. For many years I have fought for individual freedom and responsibility. I am tired of struggling against the tide of welfarism. I have supported FEE . . . because I agree with it. Now, though, I have come to suspect that most people don’t care about anything other than “How do I get mine without working?” I am considering joining this group, rather than worrying about the correctness of that philosophy. I see no point in being “the last old Roman.”


  “If you can’t lick ’em, jine ’em” was described by Quentin Reynolds in 1941 as “an old political adage.” And it’s truer today than ever. Take note of the politicians who readily switch from their own convictions to the line of the opposition if the latter appears to be more seductive to voters. Chickenhearted! They stand for nothing but the power of office.

  Time after time over the years I have noted leading businessmen as board members of chambers of commerce and other organizations adhering not to conscience but to the line of least resistance, for instance, voting “Aye” on committee reports regardless of principle. The same intellectual sloppiness is observed in ever so many religious, educational, and other organizations. Standing ramrod straight for what one believes to be true and righteous is the admirable exception rather than the rule.

  Many years ago I was a guest at a Chamber of Commerce board meeting. They voted “Aye” on three committee reports advocating socialistic measures. When invited to comment at the close of the meeting, I offered this allegory:


    Joe Doakes passed away and his spirit floated to the Pearly Gates. Joe knocked and Saint Peter appeared, asking, “What do you want?”

    “I would like admittance, Sir.”

    Saint Peter looked at his list and replied, “Your name isn’t here.”

    “Why not?”

    “You stole money from widows and orphans.”

    “Why, Mr. Saint Peter, I had the reputation of being an honest man. What do you mean I stole money from widows and orphans.”

    “You were on the Board of that Chamber of Commerce which voted for a government golf course, and that would take money from widows and orphans to subsidize you golfers.”

    “Mr. Saint Peter, that wasn’t your humble servant who took that action; it was the Chamber of Commerce.”

    Saint Peter took another look at his list and said, “We don’t have chambers of commerce here, only individuals.” Whereupon, Saint Peter pressed a button, a trap door opened, and Joe Doakes went to hell!


  This brought a hearty chuckle from the 40 directors, and I believe they got the point, at least momentarily.

  The man who wrote the letter quoted above has decided to “jine ’em” since he can’t “lick ’em.” This, in my view, is a wrong assessment of self-interest.

  Playing host to parasites is indeed a thankless and discouraging role. It requires thought and effort to be a productive, self-reliant individual; and a part of the cost is to understand and explain and otherwise help to maintain a climate of freedom—an open market economy—in which to operate.

  The parasites, in a sense, are a burden—possibly, an enemy—to be overcome. But does one look to the parasites for a solution to this problem? Or is it among the remaining productive members of society that the solution is to be sought?

  To enter the ranks of the parasites is to renounce one’s self-respect, to abandon all hope, to cast one’s fate before the mercy of those who remain to serve in an ever-diminishing market. There is little future in such a shift.

  Neither you nor I nor anyone else has been commissioned to save the world, the nation, the community, or neighborhood. What, then? Work on that one individual over whom each of us has some command: one’s self. As Socrates said, “Let him who would save the world, first move himself.” Attend to the improvement of self, and that’s as much of a contribution as anyone can make to the salvation of the human race or any part thereof.

  Here are a few thoughts for those who are distraught and inclined to “jine ’em”:


    And I hold it is not treason

    To advance a simple reason

    For the sorry lack of progress we decry.

    It is this: Instead of working

    On himself, each man is shirking

    And trying to reform some other guy.

    —Unknown



    May your Lordship not torment yourself: there is a remedy for this deluge of crimes. Let us be, you and me, that which we should be. There will be two less souls to convert. Let each person behave thus: it is the most efficacious of reforms. The trouble is, that no one wants to correct himself and everyone meddles at correcting others: thus everything stays as is.

    —San Pedro of Alcantara



    God save us from the man who wants to save us. Reform only yourself; for in doing that you can do everything.

    —Montaigne


  So, I am not here to “lick ’em” but rather to “lick” my own shortcomings. And, regardless of “the sorry lack of progress we decry,” I shall not “jine ’em.” Instead, I shall join only such truth and righteousness as I can perceive in self and others, remembering always that the right is rare. Hail to the rare! Finding it is life’s highest goal.

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

TO MAKE GOOD IDEAS MORE WELCOME

Not obtrusive, in order not to be slighted. Better too niggardly than too free with yourself. Arrive desired in order to arrive welcomed.

    —BALTASAR GRACIAN
 

  Plymouth Colony operated initially along communalistic lines; the fields were held by the colony, tasks were assigned, and the rewards were parceled out without much regard for the quality and quantity of work performed. The Pilgrims were not ideologues, but their practice did exemplify the Marxian dictum, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” When the disastrous consequences of this policy became evident to all, Governor Bradford announced a new tactic, “that they should set corn every man to his own particular . . . and so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number. . . .”

  Governor Bradford’s colony made a wonderful about-face: from now on, it would be “to each according to his merit or productivity,” that is, each would have a right to the fruits of his own labor. Private ownership—the foundation of a free society—on a scale previously unknown, that led later not only to prosperity but to a revolutionary concept: that men are endowed by their Creator—not by government—with certain unalienable rights. Results? The American miracle!

  Governor Bradford laid the groundwork for a sound politico-economic ideology—which today, to our peril, is all but forgotten.

  The 17th-century Spanish philosopher, quoted above, emphasized the groundwork for a sound methodology which we should heed no less scrupulously than Bradford’s ideology. Right method is an absolute requirement if good ideas are to be welcomed and practiced. This philosopher’s counsel, if heeded and practiced, can pull America out of the mire into which we have fallen.

  There are good ideas in countless departments of life. My comments, however, will be confined to good ideas as related to freedom. When good ideas are setting the pace, freedom prevails. The two go hand-in-hand; they are inseparable. So, if we are to resurrect freedom from her present decline, we—some of us—are challenged by the need to undertake a great deal of learning. A set of ideas—of the quality here at issue—must “arrive desired in order to arrive welcomed.”

  Let us assume that you are entertaining invited guests. A stranger barges in. Would he be welcome? Probably not, especially if his presence might interfere with the purpose of the gathering.

  When freedom ideas—strangers to a vast majority—are not invited, wanted, desired, they are unwelcome. They are looked upon unfavorably, even scornfully, by the millions.

  The havoc wrought by the invading stranger is self-evident to nearly everyone, but the damage done when good ideas “crash the party” is not so obvious. My concern, however, is not with the millions who aren’t freedom oriented; rather, it is with those who “shudder with horror” at our present slump into socialism, who believe in freedom, but insist on massive reformation by proclaiming good ideas where they are not desired.

  So, let us further distinguish between what I believe to be the wrong and the right approaches to freedom.

 
   
      WRONG: A notion entertained by millions that any idea is good which results in freeing them from the responsibility of looking out for themselves. Rightly feeling that they have a right to life and livelihood, they wrongly refuse to extend the same right to others equally.

      They sense no wrong in preying on others. It is this upside-down appraisal of good ideas that accounts for the Command Society, be it called serfdom, feudalism, mercantilism, communism, the planned economy, or the welfare state.
   

   
      RIGHT: A truth perceived by a comparative few, namely, that any idea is good if it results in freeing them to act creatively as they please. No restraint—none whatsoever—against the release of creative human energy! The truly good idea has freedom and selfresponsibility as two parts of the same personal and social equation. Neither one is possible without the other. A bit of reflection makes this self-evident.
   
 

  There are countless thousands in the U.S.A. today who are graced with good ideas—the right ones. Their ideology passes muster. But their methodology is upside-down, as wrong as it can be. They observe the countless millions whose ideology is upside-down and engage in a methodology to turn them right side up. This is an impossible intellectual gymnastic, however appealing it may seem at first.

  Gracián’s perceptiveness sheds a helpful light: Good ideas must “arrive desired in order to arrive welcomed.”

  Assume that some reformer wishes me to become a computer designer, electrician, airline pilot, music composer, or any one of other occupations, no matter how laudable, but that I have no desire to become any one of them. Would his insistence, regardless of how clever, be welcomed? It would not! On the contrary, I would avoid not only him—because of an action that is none of his business—but his notions as well. Drawn to him and his views? Hardly!

  Forty-five years of trial and error in the freedom cause convinces me that Gracián’s counsel is right. Conceded, it is unorthodox to the point of bewildering most freedom devotees. Unless deeply reflected upon, it appears to recommend a do-nothing way of aiding the cause of freedom; it seems to advise: “Hide your light under a bushel.” Not so! It is precisely the opposite—life’s difficult and rare occupation: emerging or coming to one’s self, as Woodrow Wilson once put it.

  The idea here at issue was not original with Gracián—far from it! The ancients, at least 2,400 years earlier, received the same warning. Read the book Isaiah in the Old Testament for proof of this insight that graced them. Or read a simple and enlightening paraphrasing of it by Albert Jay Nock entitled “Isaiah’s Job.” The message? The very, very few who really matter in the advancement of good ideas—the Remnant—are put off, will pay no heed to, those who attempt to set them straight. What, then? Let him who would move humanity to a higher level concentrate on the perfection of self. To the extent that he succeeds, The Remnant who desire enlightenment will find him out and welcome his good ideas.

  As Albert Schweitzer wrote, “Example is not the main thing in influencing others; it is the only thing.”

  Freedom devotees—those who would become exemplars—are well advised never to be obtrusive. Shoving, pushing, trying to force ideas into the minds of others is a tactic that contradicts the very ideology we espouse. All aggressive or selling-the-masses methods belong to the aggressive opposition; such methods are consistent with that ideology, not with ours.

  Obtrusiveness repels rather than attracts. It does not enliven desire but stifles or deadens it and, thus, determines what ideas will and will not be welcomed. Freedom requires that we leave the interventionists free to use the hard sell. If we refuse to behave likewise, they’ll fall by the ideological wayside. Our role is the exact opposite:

 
   
      Quietly to go about improving our understanding of the freedom philosophy, and phrasing more clearly such knowledge as we may gain.
   

   
      Quietly to share with those who have found us out and desire an understanding of freedom—the only alternative to the present decline.
   

   
      Quietly to acknowledge that learning, contrary to the hard sell, is an intellectual and moral progression. It is rooted in humility, not arrogance. In essence, “I wish to learn,” instead of “I know it all.”
   
 

  Those who do not desire to know will not learn. Those who desire to know will seek and find sources; and the sources are always seekers! For freedom’s sake let us be seekers! It is the only way to make good ideas more welcome.

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

LIFE’S ACHIEVEMENT: INNER OR OUTER DIRECTED?

Aim at perfection in everything, though in most things it is unattainable. However, they who aim at it, and persevere, will come much nearer to it than those whose laziness and despondency make them give it up as unattainable.

    —LORD CHESTERFIELD
 

  Man did not create himself for it is easily demonstrable that man knows next to nothing about himself. But man, can if he so chooses, make himself. He has the choice of stagnating at the bone and flesh level or gaining day in and day out in awareness, perception, consciousness. The latter—realizing one’s unique aptitudes and potentialities—can be properly classified as life’s achievement. Ascending to such intellectual, moral, and spiritual heights as may grace our individual beings is what we’re here for!

  It seems self-evident that man’s earthly purpose is to grow, emerge, evolve, hatch. Referring to the remark of Heraclitus that we are here as in an egg, C. S. Lewis observed, “You cannot go on being a good egg forever; you must either hatch or rot.” Hatching, as the achievement in mind, poses the question: Is the process outer or inner directed?

  Only a rough estimate is possible here, but it’s my guess that more than 99 per cent of mankind’s thinking about the higher values—intellectual, moral, spiritual—has been and is outer directed. It has been molded by various outside forces: something-for-nothing schemes, popular political double talk, dictator jargon, mobocracy, nose counting as a means of deciding what is true and righteous, on and on—fickle, ever-changing fops of fashion, thus described by William Ellery Channing:

 
    Without depth of thought, or earnestness of feeling, or strength of purpose, living an unreal life, sacrificing substance to show, substituting the fictitious for the natural, mistaking a crowd for society, finding its chief pleasure in ridicule, and exhausting its ingenuity in expedients for killing time, fashion is among the last influences under which a human being who respects himself, or who comprehends the great end of life, would desire to be placed.
 

  In addition to these fashionable ones are millions of others just as inattentive to “the great end of life.” Instead of following fads, they are coercively pushed this way and that by innumerable governments and sub-governments. Mere samples of the regulations foisted on people: what to grow where and when; what wages and prices are permissible; the hours of work; what and with whom one may exchange; the thoughts to be entertained (government dictated curricula); what portion of the fruits of a man’s labor he “owes” to others. There are literally millions of such edicts ranging from how high the fence, to the shape of toilet seats, to how many dogs one may own! Here we have “the blind leaders of the blind,” the pushers and the pushed.

  Now to the achievers, those who aim at perfection and persevere. True, they too are pushed—but they know it. Taking the only corrective course there is, they use the “push” as a sailor uses the wind—to serve his ends—and thus they are inner rather than outer directed. Instead of being followers or tag alongs, they’re just the opposite—seekers! And they search every nook and cranny for bits of truth. But reflect on this enlightening point by the renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Fritz Kunkel: “. . . truth cannot be taught in words. It must actually be experienced within our own hearts.”1 Seeking for truth is an inside exploration; it is caught, rather than taught.

  How is truth caught? What criterion can the achievers use to distinguish truth from falsehood? The best answer known to me: If it’s right in principle, it is truth, and if wrong in principle ’tis false. But how does one tell whether a principle is right or wrong? See if it works, not only in the short run but in the long run! If it’s right in principle, it has to work. Reflect on the following:

 
   
      Suppose all were thieves—all parasites and no hosts. Everyone would perish. Robbery violates the right to the fruits of one’s own labor and, thus, is wrong in principle—and doesn’t work!
   

   
      Suppose all were liars. Why would all perish? Lying violates truth; expediency is wrong in principle—and doesn’t work!
   

   
      Suppose every citizen were a coercionist, freedom to act creatively completely squelched. None would survive. Coercion is wrong in principle—and doesn’t work!
   

   
      Suppose all were monopolists, every good and service having but a single source, not an iota of competition or exchange of ideas, inventions, discoveries. No survivors! Monopoly is wrong in principle—and doesn’t work.
   

   
      Suppose all were Keynesians. Society would revert to primitive barter, and nearly all would perish. Keynesism causes inflation and destroys an honest, workable medium of exchange. It is wrong in principle—and doesn’t work!
   
 

  What then is right in principle? Discover what should be released and what restrained. Obviously, it is right in principle to restrain every action which hinders the release of creative energy. And, by the same token, it is right in principle to release every action which facilitates creative energy.2

  Another renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Carl Jung, sheds light on the distinction between the mill run of humanity and the achievers:

 
    The public in general is possessed of the fundamental error that there are certain answers, “solutions,” or attitudes of mind which need only be uttered in order to spread the necessary light. But the best of truths is of no use—as history has shown a thousand times—unless it has become the individual’s most personal inner experience. . . . Our need is not to know the truth but to experience it. . . . Nothing is more fruitless than to speak of how things must and should be and nothing is more important than to find the way which leads to these far-off goals.
 

  The goals of the achievers are indeed far off—into the Infinite! As related to the Infinite, the Bible has, as I believe, the greatest instruction ever conferred upon mankind, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God [Truth and Righteousness] and these things [wealth, learning, intelligence] shall be added unto you.” C. S. Lewis phrased the Truth: “Aim at Heaven and you get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you will get neither.”

  How interesting that two renowned psychiatrists, Kunkel and Jung, emphasize the point that truth, to be one’s own, must be experienced. Truth may be heard countless times but unless absorbed into the tissues, so to speak—digested—it is no more than hearsay, that is, without enlightenment. Anyone who has experienced this fact, and whose ambition is to advance the freedom way of life, would never “spin his wheels” with any selling-the-masses approach! Why? “The wisdom of experience is incommunicable.” Isn’t it obvious that experience is not transmissible in the commonly accepted sense?

  As Jung observed, “. . . nothing is more important than to find the way to these far-off goals.” What is the most far-off goal at the human level? It is freedom—each individual, without exception, being able to act creatively as he or she pleases, that is, sharing in Creation along the lines of one’s own uniqueness.

  Finally, as to those who are inner directed, achievers as related to the free market, private ownership limited government way of life with its moral and spiritual antecedents. What is the foundation of their achievement? Nothing less than experience!

  While experiences cannot be transmitted in words, each of us thinks of his experiences in words; my experiences are formulated in words that I may not forget and let them pass by profitless. Words are our “capturing devices.” What does an achiever capture by his experiences? He observes countless errors, his own as well as those of others, errors that stifle creativity. And then, being sensitive, he sees instances in which freedom works its miracles. Errors and truth in a magnificent contrast.

  From what has been said above it might appear that the achievers are loners—seekers and learners all by themselves—their influence nil. Not so! These individuals are growing and, without question, growth energizes the magnetism that attracts others to similar experiences. “There is not enough darkness in the whole world to put out the light of one wee candle.” No one who is growing can hide his light under a bushel, as the saying goes. Others—those who wish to grow—will find him out. Persons of achievement set the pace for noble experiences in others who will then reflect their own experiences in their own words. All of this is mysterious, at least to me. I know not how it works—only that it does!

  There is another encouraging force at work—heavenly, if you will; at least it is beyond the initiation of man. It is one of those infinite phenomena of the Creative Force or evolutionary ascendancy. Dr. Jung wrote a book entitled Synchronicity,3 an analysis of these human creativities that occur to different people simultaneously. One among countless examples: penicillin was discovered by an American medical student and by another in a foreign country at the same time. This phenomenon is often referred to as “coincidental thinking.” A more accurate term would be “coincidental reception.”

  There is evidence galore that an Infinite Consciousness or Intelligence (Something-Beyond-Words) is forever working on the intellectual, moral, and spiritual advancement of we mere mortals. But here’s the problem: whether or not enlightenment occurs depends on one’s receptivity. Thus, the highest art of living is to serve as a relay station of this Radiant Energy—receive and share, now and always! Why is this encouraging? To the extent that one succeeds, to that extent will he know that many others are simultaneously succeeding, that is, also receiving.

  As I see it, receiving and sharing is an obligation we owe our Creator. Further, isn’t it comforting to realize that an ascending humanity is guided by an Immense Intelligence—to use Emerson’s term?

  Freedom has been achieved only rarely in history, and for relatively short periods. Careful reflection on the “far off goal” of freedom makes it clear that only the inner directed achieve it. It is in the mind and soul of individuals—achievers—an affinity with Divine Providence. So powerful is this achievement, when in ascendancy, that all the babble, political double talk, dictatorial jargon, and the like, are rendered impotent. As the energy of the Sun penetrates the stratosphere and ionosphere, regardless of clouds or storms, giving life to all on earth, so is this Radiant Energy invincible—when improving. It is the sole genesis of human evolution—the good life.

  “Let there be light and there was light” and, if we live our lives aright, there will be. That’s the Divine promise!

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

TOO RARE FOR THE WINGS OF WORDS?

. . . the genius of man is a continuation of the power that made him and that has not done making him.

    —EMERSON
 

  Ralph Waldo Emerson—religious, spiritual, humble, and wise relative to the great and near great—added his own comment to the above observation:

 
    I dare not deal with this element in its pure essence. It is too rare for the wings of words.
 

  Genius is a superior power of seeing and Emerson was, assuredly, a continuation of the power that made him. He referred to this power—Creation—as “Immense Intelligence.” Rare? Man with his finite mind never has found nor will he ever find words to describe this Immense Intelligence or Infinite Consciousness. There are no wings of words to portray “this element in its pure essence”!

  This poses a question relating to human freedom. Freedom is, indeed, a rare social experience, being approximated only a few times in the history of man. Several questions: Is freedom in its pure essence limited to intuitions and insights? Is it too ethereal, in the sense of being “spiritlike; characterized by extreme delicacy,” for this workaday world? Is it too personal to be communicated from the few who partially perceive and believe to the many who do neither? Perhaps these questions have no precise answers but the pros and cons deserve our best thought in order to avoid frustration and head us toward useful effort.

  The discouraging aspects of our problems are easily discernible and frightening. To find encouragement, we must look beneath the surface. So, let’s dispose of the negative elements in order that we may better reflect on the positive.

  The difficulty, doubtless, begins with a tendency to attempt explanations of the unfathomable in familiar symbols, although there are in fact no wings of words for anything we do not clearly fathom. For instance, after more than four decades of concentrated thinking and study, I cannot make the case for freedom in terms that really communicate to more than a few people. Nor do I know of anyone who can. But even more distressing is our inability to forestall the contradictions, misunderstandings, antagonisms evoked when we stand foursquare for freedom—freedom with no “buts,” no “leaks,” no exceptions whatsoever. Seemingly, the continuity is lost in our own limited understanding of cause and effect.

  It’s a safe guess that less than one per cent of the citizenry are aware of the idea of limited government as set forth by our Founding Fathers, the idea whose practice has accounted for the American miracle. Simple as it is—keeping the peace, restraining destructive actions, invoking a common justice, leaving peaceful persons free to act creatively as they please—this politico-economic doctrine merely amuses, often infuriates, the millions. Arguing that government should be thus limited gets a nearly unanimous adverse reaction. It would be easier to erase the myth of Santa Claus!

  Of all the subtle ideas which confront us, which is the most unfathomable? For which concept have we—so far—no wings of words? There is one key idea beyond the imagination of nearly everyone; and of the few who grasp it, the idea is beyond our power of explanation. It is a truth I here repeat for the umpteenth time: To claim that the wisdom in the market is a million or trillion times greater than exists in any individual now or ever is a gross understatement. This is an earthly phase of a heavenly truth: Infinite Consciousness—Immense Intelligence—is infinitely greater than any finite consciousness. These parallel truths are obvious only to the few who are in search of wisdom. Neither truth is in the realm of the salable. If in doubt, try peddling either one!

  Why cannot more people grasp the fact that there’s no one person—nor even a committee—whose wisdom remotely approaches the wisdom to be found in the free and unfettered market? What is the obstacle to an understanding of this truth, the mental roadblock that the best explanations fail to penetrate? Thomas Alva Edison, an all-time great, revealed what is close to a secret: “No one knows more than one-millionth of one per cent of anything.” Wiser than most, he knew this of himself, of you, me, and all others. To know this is the first step in such individual wisdom as graces mankind. But not more than one in thousands has taken this infantile step.

  Whoever is unaware of how infinitesimal his wisdom may assess himself as wise, but he is utterly blind to a significant social truth: all of us—no exceptions—are intellectual fledglings! Can we identify those unaware of how little they know? Easily! They’re the ones who “think” they can rule our lives better than we can. “Be like me!” they exclaim; “Do as I say!” And they’ll seek political office in order to acquire coercive power to sway others their way. It is this blindness that explains our country’s plunge into socialism. Worse than “Blind leaders of the blind”? Yes, it’s little “Alexander the Greats” herding everyone! And there are many millions of them. The catastrophic consequences? John W. Burgess, for years the brilliant Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law at Columbia University, bequeathed to us this sage observation:

 
    The claim [of the Planners] rests upon the very serious error that world intercourse and world interchange of the elements of civilization require political interference and intermeddling. This is not only false, but it is so false as to be highly mischievous and harmful. Outside of this lies the whole free realm of trade, commerce, science, literature, art and social relations, things which bring all parts of the world together in friendly and helpful interchange, while political intermeddling almost always provokes hatred, enmity and war.
 

  Enough of the negative; so let’s have a look at the positive—the bright side. Again, here’s the key point to these issues: The wisdom in the free and unfettered market is trillions of times greater than that of any individual, be he a Socrates, Edison, or whoever. Is this truth too ethereal, too far into the realm of the unknown for comprehension, too rare for the wings of words? To the masses, yes; to the very few, no. Encouragingly, it’s only the few, from one to a dozen or so who have led every good movement in the world’s history. And it will ever be thus!

  Neither the heavenly truth of Infinite Wisdom nor the earthly truth concerning the wisdom of the market is readily demonstrable, or subject to immediate and certain proof. Each is assimilated primarily as an act of faith. But there are ways of acting in economic affairs which are in harmony with our faith. What behavior should we feature to assure an improved understanding of the enormous wisdom that graces the market?

  For the answer, reflect on that feature which largely accounts for the wisdom in the free and unfettered market: Competition! Here we have everyone—those who so wish—each with his tiny bit of expertise, trying to out-compete the others. ’Tis a perpetual game of leapfrog, competitors trying to advance their own interests. The result? Regardless of who’s ahead in the millions of competitions, it’s the consumers whose welfare is advanced day in and day out. William Graham Sumner found wings of words for this miracle of the market:

 
    Every man and woman in society has one big duty. That is, to take care of his or her own self This is a social duty. For, fortunately, the matter stands so that the duty of making the best of one’s self is not a separate thing from the duty of filling one’s place in society, but the two are one, and the latter is accomplished when the former is done.
 

  Now to the final question. How are we to discover ever-improving wings of words to advance an understanding of our earthly truth? The answer seems more or less obvious: Employ the identical behavior that lies at the root of this truth: Competition! The few of us ardently competing in thinking and exposition!

  As in the realm of goods and services, there will always be one out front, another later on. As James Russell Lowell observed, “That cause is strong which has, not a multitude, but one strong mind, behind it.” The strongest mind, rarely known, is in first place right now but will shortly lose the number one position to another. ’Tis the game of leapfrog—as in the market!

  As to leapfrogging, a good percentage of the few who truly believe in the freedom way of life under-assess themselves. “What possibly can I contribute?” is the baneful thought that besets them. Overlooked is the fact that the wings of words are composed of tiny contributions—words and phrasings—one word here another there. Why, better words by you, even one, could change the course of history.

  Come, if you please, and join the competition. It’s not only fun but the dividends are unbelievably large!

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00

HEADS UP

The idea of freedom must grow weak in the hearts of men before it can be killed at the hands of tyrants.

    —THOMAS H. HOGSHEAD
 

  Remember the last time you turned a somersault, or saw someone else do it? In case you don’t remember, it is an acrobatic stunt performed by turning the body one full revolution forward or backward, heels over head. The word is often used figuratively, as here, to mean a complete reversal of opinion. It appears that many of us are now about half way through the performance and are stuck there—heads down, heels in the air! So why not complete the somersault and bring our heads up where they should be! Otherwise—if you’ll forgive a pun—we make heels of ourselves.

  Pursue this analogy: we have for several decades been headed toward the Command Society and away from the Free and Competitive Society—heads down, heels up. To be stuck in that position in ridiculous.

  The question is, what should devotees of human liberty do about this ridiculous situation? How are we to get our heads up and feet on the ground? There are at least three requirements:

 
    1. A vast improvement in analytical thinking so that we may uncover the causes of our predicament.

    2. A recognition that the Command Society is led by millions of dictocrats, not one of whom regards himself as a despot or tyrant but, to the contrary, as a savior.

    3. A realization that the masses, those who do no politico-economic thinking for themselves, also assess the dictocrats as saviors, not tyrants.
 

  Wrote Lecomte du Noüy, “To participate in the Divine Task, man must place his ideals as high as possible, out of reach if necessary.” Human liberty assuredly is a phase of the Divine Task. To place ideals at their appropriate level would seem to require that we first see through the notions that are ridiculous in order that the ideals may come clearly within our vision.

  What is the most ridiculous notion of all that lies at the root of the Command Society—the genesis of Serfdom, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Communism, Socialism, the Welfare State, the Planned Economy? The fallacy is ancient—old as a mankind. ’Tis a primitive or barbaric assessment of self, a lamentable unawareness of how infinitesimal is the wisdom of anyone. Here are several observations on this vanity by thoughtful individuals:

 
    Vanity is the foundation of the most ridiculous and contemptible vices—the vices of affectation and common lying.

    —Adam Smith
 

 
    Over-stuffed egos, waddling about in self-appointed importance.

    —E. K. Goldthwaite
 

 
    Vanity is the quicksand of reason.

    —George Sand
 

 
    . . . vanity keeps us perpetually in motion. What a dust do I raise! says the fly on the coach-wheel! And what a rate do I drive! says the fly upon the horse’s back.

    —Jonathan Swift
 

 
    Vanity makes men ridiculous, pride odious, and ambition terrible.

    —Bulwer-Lytton
 

 
    When a man has no longer any conception of excellence above his own, his voyage is done; he is dead; dead in the trespasses and sins of blear-eyed vanity.

    —Henry Ward Beecher
 

 
    If vanity does not entirely overthrow the virtues, at least it makes them all totter.

    —La Rochefoucauld
 

  Now and then throughout history, even before Socrates, there emerge individuals who recognize this fact, who have an awareness of one of life’s most rewarding truths: the more one knows, the greater looms the unknown! The more wisdom, the more is one’s ignorance recognized. A simple demonstration of this truth, one I like to repeat, was made by the noted mathematician, Warren Weaver:

 
    As science learns one answer, it is characteristically true that it learns several new questions. It is as though science were working in a great forest of ignorance within which . . . things are clear. . . . But, as that circle becomes larger and larger, the circumference of contact with ignorance also gets longer and longer. Science learns more and more. But there is a sense in which it does not gain; for the volume of the apprehended but not understood keeps getting larger. We keep, in science, getting a more and more sophisticated view of our ignorance.1
 

  Suppose the millions of politicians and others who are trying to run our lives were to get a more sophisticated view of their ignorance. What a boon to mankind that would be! Is such a change likely? I think not. Why? Falling into vanity is like falling into a deep ditch—once in, rarely out. A sophisticated view of one’s ignorance leads to humility. But such humility, as protection against falling into the vanity ditch, may be attainable before the fall, seldom afterward.


Why seldom afterward? Those drugged by vanity, being know-it-alls, have no yearning for learning. And no one learns who is not an avid seeker of truth. Thus, all the reasoning, arguments, pleas, counsel, or damnations directed at the vain are in vain. Might as well try to put out a fire with gasoline, or enlighten that fly on the horse’s back. Confrontations have the effect of confirming them in their vainglory!

  Conceded, there are many among these self-proclaimed lords whose wisdom in a sense is equal or superior to that of the rest of us. For instance, I have had acquaintances with several once devout Communists who abandoned the Command Society and embraced the Free and Competitive Society—heads up, feet on the ground. These, however, are rare exceptions. The millions of dictocrats, having coercive power at their disposal, are unaware of the ignorance which is common to all mankind. So, they go their merry way—“saviors” at our expense!

  Have we no way then to put their dictatorial behaviors to naught? Of course! Two achievements are required on our part.

  First, never, under any circumstances, call them “fools.” Such a tactic makes fools of ourselves. What then is the first achievement? It is a learning problem on our part, namely, to discover how simply and clearly to explain that all attempts forcibly to control the creative activities of others are foolish. People, by and large, even those who are vanity-stricken, do not like to be thought of as authors of foolish actions. If we do our part well enough, they’ll put themselves in their proper place.

  Second, follow Lecomte du Noüy’s counsel: “To participate in the Divine Task, man must place his ideals as high as possible, out of reach if necessary.”

  It is impossible to place one’s ideals at the level du Noüy had in mind without participating in the Divine Task. Ideal thoughts are accompanied by ideal actions; if the actions aren’t ideal, the thoughts are somehow warped. As said earlier, a phase of the Divine Task is human liberty, which I define as: No man-concocted restraints against the release of creative human energy. The Free and Competitive Society is precisely the opposite of the Command Society. It includes government under the direction of statesman—invoking a common justice, inhibiting destructive actions, keeping the peace. Period!

  The result if we achieve heads up and feet on the ground? The dictocrats will hang their heads, not necessarily in shame but in fear of being shamed. Tyrants cannot kill the idea of freedom if it be strong in the hearts of men. Let’s pray and strive for this strength!

Read More

Buy it now for only US$5.00