Freedom in One Lesson

37.

Resisting the Temptation of Problems
beyond Our Powers

What kinds of social problems and issues do individuals become aware of, and what kinds can they fix? If the answer to the second question is not the same as the answer to the first, which is increasingly true in a world with exponentially increasing access to information, then even well-intended “solutions” can fail or cause harm rather than provide help. It is crucial that people realize that there are far fewer items on the second list than on the first.

That is an important issue that Leonard Read insightfully addresses in “Rising above Mediocrity,” from his 1969 book The Coming Aristocracy (Read 1969a). With social “solutions” being increasingly offered for every perceived or imaginary problem, Read’s insights have become even more important to remember today.

My grandfather knew what went on under his nose—and little else. The wrongs and woes he observed were only those in his little orbit and these were few and minor. . . . Their world . . . was microcosmic and, as such, was not beyond their powers to manage. . . .

Our mental abilities are not to be distinguished from theirs, but the wrongs and woes coming within our vision are without limit. . . .

No less in our case than in grandfather’s, we react to wrongs and woes—nearby or far off—with, “I must do something!” For our compassion . . . remains on a level with that of our recent ancestors, as does our limited capabilities to right the wrongs and relieve the woes. . . .

Grandfather, however, reacting to the little he perceived, could and did rely upon his own efforts governed by his moral scruples. . . . But we? No such solution is open to us for these far-out problems. . . . Their handling is beyond our personal capacity. . . . My compassion bumps head-on into my limited ability. What, pray tell, can I do?

A prepackaged answer is waiting for me. Swarms of social reformers in government not only express a willingness to cope with these countless wrongs and woes, they actually plead with me to let them shoulder the burdens of my distressed brothers. And unless I am aware of the dreadful consequences, I will salve my conscience by giving them the go-ahead. . . .

. . . The price we are compelled to pay, once we resort to the reformer’s legerdemain, will be more than we can bear. . . .

. . . Mediocrity will be institutionalized. What we should recognize about the social reformers is that their mentalities and capabilities are not above our own. Indeed, the fact that they aren’t even aware of their limitations suggests that they be graded below the rest of us. Nevertheless, there they are with these far-out problems on their hands, no one of them knowing any more about how to solve them than do you or I.

So, what is the social reformer’s typical move? Almost without exception, he appoints a committee! And this gives him the same satisfaction of having accomplished something as we felt originally in turning the wrongs and woes of mankind over to him. We salved our consciences by nothing more than a gesture, and the social reformers, by another gesture, salve theirs. . . . Yet, we and they together have only built monuments to our ignorance, that is, institutionalized our collective mediocrity. The error is compounded by our apparent satisfaction at thus having solved everything so easily.

. . . We, after turning the wrongs and woes over to social reformers, retire from the field. So far as we are concerned, that’s that! And then observe that the social reformers, after appointing a committee, also retire from the field. So far as they are concerned, that’s that! . . .

. . . Salving our consciences in this easy and wholly irresponsible manner blinds us to reality; we have no eye for such solutions as lie within our power. When we pursue the impossible, we lose all sight of the possible.

. . . How, then, are the wrongs and woes of mankind to be solved? . . .

The first step is to recognize that not all of the wrongs and woes of mankind are my problems. Nor yours! For anyone—social reformer or whoever—to assume otherwise is to claim a self-divinity: the welfare of humanity is my responsibility! Let’s be realistic about this. . . . My problems are those potentially within my reach, the ones I can solve by personal practice—and no others.

While I cannot help bemoaning the far-out wrongs and woes of mankind with which I am daily confronted, I must, to be sensible, . . . labor in my own vineyard, not someone else’s. Grandfather wasn’t aware of all these problems; I am. But such awareness hasn’t upgraded my competence to cope with such problems; it has only tempted me to do so, a temptation to which I must never yield. Attending well to my problem, you to yours, and others to theirs, prescribes the formula for solving the world’s wrongs and woes.

. . . Bear in mind the amazing extent to which most of the wrongs and woes will right themselves if not disturbed by outside intervention. . . . When I try to set others straight, correcting what I believe to be their errant ways, they rise to their own defense, rationalize what they have been doing and, thus, come to believe their wrongs are right. My intervention provides the tension that upholds their ways and, finally, hardens them in their sins.

When we confine ourselves to our own upgrading and try to solve problems that are within our scope and orbit . . . by this light may wrongdoers see their errors. To confront and accuse another of wrongdoing is to overshadow him, cut off any light he might otherwise have received. This only delays or precludes the corrective action that the wrongdoer himself must undertake when he comes to see the self-destructive nature of his evil ways.

When each of us focuses on far-out problems—those we cannot handle—the wrongs and woes of society multiply; instead of solving problems, we institutionalize mediocrity. But when each of us tackles the problems that are within his capabilities, problem solving occurs efficiently in our respective areas of responsibility. In this manner we rise above our mediocrity and pave the way not only to our own but to society’s excellence.

Leonard Read recognizes that there is a risk whenever compassion urges us to “do something” about a problem that is beyond our ability to solve. The attempt is destined to fail, “institutionalizing mediocrity” and displacing those individuals whose circumstances and knowledge do put them in positions to work voluntarily toward solutions. (And here, we must remember that not all problems can be solved, in large part because there is no solution to scarcity, which underlies so many of the problems which face us. Success in dealing with such problems can only reduce, not eliminate, scarcity’s unavoidable burdens.) Furthermore, our attempts to fix others and their problems divert thought and energy from those problems of our own that we do have the power to address.

For decades, government has been moving in a direction nearly opposite to what Read prescribes. Its direction has resulted in little success but a great deal of damage to individuals and to their faith in cooperation—the faith that once made American success a wonder of the world. That is why it is so important that we see the wisdom in the idea that “when we pursue the impossible [through government coercion], we lose all sight of the possible [through voluntary individual action].”