Comes The Dawn
5. The Role of Differences
THE ROLE OF DIFFERENCES
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling would be an evil still.
—JOHN STUART MILL
The following reflections are inspired by two incidents: (1) a statement in today’s paper by a famous “conservative” politician standing foursquare for our socialized postal system, and (2) a letter from an ailing and scholarly gentleman who prides himself on being a freedom devotee: “Thank goodness for medicare.”
Shakespeare wrote: “How use doth breed a habit in a man.” Habit has me cringing at these typical examples of giving away the case for freedom. But reason suggests that my habit is more to be censured than these differences! The counsel of reason?
-
Were everyone identical in thinking and doing, all would perish. Our differences—individual variations—lie at the root of human welfare.
-
Truth flowers from the discovery of error. Find what’s wrong and the mind opens to what’s right—exploration ensues.
-
Criticizing the person who advocates what I believe to be wrong blinds him to what I believe to be right. Rather than being drawn to my view, he is repelled by such a tactic; it sparks his defense mechanism and closes his mind—at least to me. Stifling is an evil!
Let anyone freely speak his views, even if they be those of Karl Marx! Discovering the error in such views opens the mind to the truths of human liberty. Springboards! This is by way of proudly confessing that I am irrevocably committed to the proposition that some opinions are false; for instance, those favoring authoritarianism in its numerous forms. On this, I side with the English poet, William Cowper:
Tis liberty alone that gives the flower
Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume,
And we are weeds without it. All constraint
Except what wisdom lays on evil men
Is evil.
Briefly, all constraint against the freedom of any individual to act creatively as he chooses is evil; it is as false as striving for hell and damnation! I, for one, am settled on this view, now and hereafter.
However, it is not my intention here to dwell on the differences between the dictocrats and freedom devotees.1 Rather, it is to comment on the differences that crop up on the freedom side of the fence and to reflect on their value. My theme is that these differences play a teaching role in the learning process of each of us.
How many in the U.S.A. today really believe in the freedom way of life? How many oppose the Command Society, which for several decades has been so rapidly on the upswing? Who can tell? Certainly, the 50,000 requesting and receiving our studies is no measure: these few are no more than a mere fraction of those who believe in freedom. The vast majority has never heard of our efforts devoted exclusively to private ownership, free market, limited government ideas and ideals. Doubtless, most of them never will, nor is it necessary that they do!
To be a believer is one thing. What to do about it is quite another matter. It is in the realm of what-to-do—methodology, not ideology—that there are glaring differences among freedom devotees. Why are these differences blessings in disguise? One reason: Who among us can be absolutely certain that his methodology is correct? Not I, for sure—a compelling reason why I must do my best to keep an open mind as to method!
To be consistent, anyone who says, “Hurrah for our differences”—as I do—should not argue that the differences be resolved, that others adopt my method or yours. Not at all! Let the differences run rampant. Seek neither agreement nor praise, only what’s right. For, who knows, someone’s glaring differences may turn out to be the key to correct and effective method. If we keep our minds open, each explaining his own ideas as best he can, we may eventually learn what the right way is. In all humility, I believe there is a right way.
For 43 years the freedom philosophy has been my major concern. I have been exposed, as much as anyone, to countless techniques for its advancement. Many of these I have tried and many I have abandoned as seemingly futile or downright harmful. However, I do not ask that my judgment prevail, for what seems true and the only right way to me may not be the best and last word. What then is my role? It is precisely the same as yours: openly honest and frank in presenting what seems to be right, and open-minded as to what in fact may be right and wrong. Catholicity! Sample a few of my differences with others, taking note of the fact that I am trying to learn from each difference.
Here is a proposal from a freedom devotee: A convention to be held at FEE, the participants to write a new Constitution.
Of all places not to hold such a convention would be in the halls of an institution so at odds philosophically with majority opinion. Our 50,000 friends would hear about and doubtless read the document; but if it were widely publicized, it would be popularly ridiculed. But that’s only the beginning of my difference. What did I learn from this? That never in American history should a new Constitution be more ardently opposed than now. Why? It would be but a reflection or echoing of the preponderant leadership thinking of our time. As a consequence, it would resemble the Communist Manifesto!2
Concentrate at the political level; set the politicians straight!
What do I learn from this commonly recommended tactic? I beg to differ, because this approach presumes that its practitioners have mastered the freedom philosophy. The fact? Not a one of us has more than scratched the surface. All of us are neophytes! This is an acknowledgment necessary for an improved understanding, be it yours or mine.
I repeat, whatever shows forth on today’s political horizon reflects our preponderant leadership thinking. The Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were a reflection of the leadership thinking two centuries ago. Not perfect, but history’s best—by far! Note that these documents are no more than scraps of paper today, because our leadership thinking is too corrupt to sustain such wisdom.
Let our thinking improve until those in public office no longer vie with each other as to the good they can do for us with our money. Improve our thinking and methods, and they will contend with each other to advance free market, private ownership, limited government ideas and ideals. Thinking, good or bad, is cause; politics, good or bad, is effect. Doesn’t it make sense to concentrate at the cause level rather than to “spin our wheels” at the effect level?
The mess we observe today is but the effect of hanging onto yesterday’s poor thinking. What’s past is past, the effects no less than the causes. Wrote the Bard of Avon, “Things without remedy, should be without regard; what is done is done.” The lesson? Concentrate on the improvement of one’s thinking and understanding, for out of it may come a return to freedom—the blessings of liberty! That’s what this difference has to teach me.
Sell the masses, the man in the street!
Here again is the presupposition that the would-be seller has mastered his subject. For a good example of the man in the street, let these “salesmen” look in the mirror.
We frown on those politicians who are so egotistical that they believe they can run our lives better than we can. But what of those who claim to know precisely what it is the rest of us must learn?
Learning is an individualistic, taking-from, not an injection-into, process. Learning is our task, not selling. If I have some knowledge of our philosophy, which is my responsibility, and if another wants to know about it, which is his responsibility, my counsel will be sought. It is only when one seeks understanding that he absorbs it into his tissues. Indeed, there is an accurate measuring rod as to how well one has progressed himself: observe how many are seeking one’s tutorship. If none, there is homework to be done.
We hear countless enthusiasts whose proclaimed mission is to “reach” this or that group or class of people, such as teachers, students, clergy, employees, on and on. My difference with this tactic? Instead of trying to reach for anyone, let’s see if we can gain enough competency so that others will reach for us. Seeking and reaching are one and the same—the only path to learning. This is the way it should be. Suppose I could insinuate my ideas into the minds of others. Then they might do the same to me—making me the victim of every inanity and insanity on earth! Thank you, no!
Make the teaching of free enterprise compulsory in the public schools.
Several states have already voted such a law and more are in the offing. What a quack remedy—an utter absurdity! Assume yourself to be a student and, at the same time, a freedom devotee, and that the teaching of socialism were made compulsory. Nothing but resentment! You would, if permitted, drop out of school. “Free enterprise teaching,” when compulsory, is no less revolting. I can think of no method more at odds with our philosophy than the compulsory teaching of freedom! What a contradiction in terms!
Further, how many teachers in the public schools today have the slightest idea of the free market, private ownership, limited government way of life? With rare exceptions, they are unaware of the proper textbooks and have never even heard of Ludwig von Mises and others of his kind. I accepted an invitation to discuss our philosophy with 27 teachers who are now compelled to “teach free enterprise.” Of that group, there was only one with an awareness of what I was talking about. The bright spot in that lonesome experience was his understanding.3
We must form one, big, strong organization!
This tactic has been suggested over and over again for the past 30 years. Instead of FEE and a thousand and one other “outfits” working along their respective and diverse lines—each embracing what it believes the right method—amalgamate, get together, merge into a powerful ONE! Away with all of these differences!
The various organizations working on behalf of freedom differ from one another in several respects, but the major difference has to do with method or tactics. Those who plead for one big organization are confessing an inability to distinguish one method from another, when deciding which organization to support. In effect, “I can’t give to all of them nor can I tell one from the other so, for my sake, relieve me of having to tell the difference.”
This attempt at amalgamation, if accepted, would bring to an end all honest convictions—differences—as to correct and effective method. Instead? One great big methodological potpourri! I, for one, prefer open competition. I still insist, “hurrah for our differences!” Why? Just as every socialistic cliche serves as a steppingstone toward making a better case for freedom, so does every tactical error committed by freedom devotees inspire a refinement of correct method.
Finally, the refinement of my belief that ours is exclusively a learning and not a selling problem, poses a rare and more significant question: What lies beyond knowing how to explain the fallacies of socialism and to espouse instead the principles of freedom? More—ever so much more!
Liberty—“we are weeds without it”—will not grace a people who are slumping into apathy, who quit thinking for selves, or who let prosperity—a by-product of liberty—go to their heads. Merely scrutinize what’s going on. Liberty and “the permissive society” cannot be companion experiences.
What then must we learn? To perceive and to adhere to the virtues—integrity, statesmanship, moral exemplarity—on a higher plane than has ever been known. Each advancing age must be so featured, for this is implicit in the evolution of humanity. Short of this, the historical sequence of evolution/devolution, evolution/devolution will go its wearisome way, awaiting the day when men will accept more responsibility for their own destiny than now.
Should we do—right now—what the Cosmic Scheme obviously calls for, historians of the future will write of our era, “The Great and Unprecedented Moral Renaissance.” How better can you or I employ our lives and potential talents than to participate in this reawakening to the principles and practices of those virtues that are the very foundations of freedom!
And I come back now to my opening theme that chief among those virtues is tolerance of honest differences as to the methods of achieving and practicing freedom. We are agreed that freedom is our goal, so let us extend to every man the respect due him, and carefully study his methods in order to improve our own.
