Freedom in One Lesson

31.

Go Where the Action Is

In my day-to-day interactions, I generally feel closer, as a libertarian, to those who would call themselves conservatives than to those on the left. It is probably because the conservatives I know are far less likely than those on the left to openly and baldly advocate for invading the “life, liberty and estates” (Locke 1690) of others.

While there is often substantial agreement between myself and conservatives in opposing violations of liberty, I have also heard many conservative commentators, when they think an election might be close, attack libertarians with a great deal of vitriol for voting libertarian. To these conservatives, it is an indefensible attack on America to not vote at all—say, because both major parties are far too statist to support—or to vote for a party that advocates and defends liberty far more completely than conservative and not-so-conservative Republicans. This attitude was particularly noticeable during the 2020 US elections. Republicans never seem to recognize that libertarians diverge from their party because its candidates and elected officials propose deviations from and desecrations of liberty.

These thoughts occurred to me upon rereading Leonard Read’s “Go Where the Action Is,” from his 1970 book Talking to Myself (Read 1970), where he reflects on the relationship between libertarians and conservatives. He goes further than my own thoughts on the subject, focusing on how libertarians object to the means conservatives (and alleged conservatives) often utilize in pursuit of political power in their failures to heed the principle that “all actions and all ideas inimical to a free society are destructive.” His reflections are worth our own further reflections.

Strange as it may seem, FEE receives more criticism from “conservatives” than from out-and-out “socialists.” . . .

Certainly, it’s not because those we call socialists find anything to agree with in the freedom philosophy as we define it; far from that. . . .

Nor is it because our “conservative” critics necessarily find flaws in our philosophical position. Rather, they disagree with the method we commend to advance the practice of freedom, namely, a concentration on improving the understanding and exposition of each freedom-loving individual. These “conservatives” phrase their scoldings in countless ways, the most pointed being “ Why don’t you go where the action is?”

. . . We agree with their admonition. . . . But where is the action? Our critics think it is out yonder—external, where others are—whereas we believe it is internal—inside each one of us. They insist on reforming the ignoramuses; we say let’s look to the flaws in ourselves and see what can be done about that. When the objective is at the high level of individual freedom, the real action is within the individual—not out yonder, not at all.

. . . They fail to draw the distinction between methods useful for destructive purposes and those having creative potentialities. Warfare, for instance, is destructive. If you go where the action is, where do you go? To where the confrontation is: the battlefield. . . . Enlightenment, on the other hand, is in the creative realm. If you want to go where the action is, where do you go? Again, to where the confrontation is: between the self as is and the higher self that might be. Build me up! The tactics effective in attaining destructive ends remain destructive, regardless of the objective. Guns are not useful for catching ideas.

. . . All actions and all ideas inimical to a free society are destructive.

Certain methods have an impressive record of achievement when the purpose has been to destroy freedom. All of them are outgoing, exertions at others, pushful suasion; they range all the way from selling-the-masses propaganda, to pressure group activity, to name-calling, to political promises, to deceit, to intimidation and terror.

“Conservatives” who do not grasp the nature of this problem observe how effectively these tactics “work” in attaining socialistic or interventionist ends and see no reason why the same tactics won’t achieve their ends. The fact that the end they have in view is diametrically opposed to the socialistic end does not seem to warn them that “the end pre-exists in the means;” that the tactics in each case must be consistent with the ends.

Consider our end or objective: an essentially free society. Upon what does that possibility rest? Our aspiration is out of the question unless there be numerous citizens of an intellectual, moral, and spiritual quality to set a sufficiently high standard, to serve as pattern-setters or exemplars. There must be men and women who not only understand why self-responsibility and individual freedom work their wonders, but also men and women who put these virtues into daily practice.

When the trend is away from, not toward, a free society . . . the drift is marked by a decline in human virtue. The trend in the general societal situation, one way or the other, is merely a register of the drift, one way or the other, in personal quality. What is called the social problem boils down to the matter of individual emergence.

Individual emergence is not and never will be accomplished by imposition. Not one of the tactics effective in destructive programs is useful here; indeed, these outgoing, reforming efforts do more harm than good. It is difficult enough for oneself to emerge as a better person; impossible to force such change in another. Emergence is exclusively a self-help project; the change is internal, not external.

A remark by our great grandmother comes to mind. At the age of 102 she had been gently reminded, “Granny, you’re talking to yourself again.” She replied, “At least, I’m talking to a sensible person.”

And, what’s wrong with that? She was working on the right person, and shared her reflections with anyone who chose to listen.

The present situation may require more and better probing, introspection, talking to ourselves, more skillful sharing. . . . But it is doubtful that the method can be improved.