Freedom in One Lesson

46.

Look to the Stars

How can one effectively communicate the extent that coercion damages individuals and their relationships with one another? Leonard Read often uses analogies for the impact that images can have on the reader. Sometimes he makes an analogy to a closed fist to show how much less it can accomplish than an open hand. Sometimes he puts a gun, the ultimate tool of enforcement, in that fist.

In “Look to the Stars,” from his 1967 book Deeper than You Think (Read 1967), Read makes an analogy to a physical blow that “knocks the breath out” of society. Since many have experienced such a blow and the way it limits our ability to do almost anything until we recover, the image helps to convey the impact of coercion on society in general. We can also visualize television and movie scenes in which someone is doubled over after being punched in the gut by a bad guy who threatens even worse if some demand is not met.

The image of a physical blow applies particularly well to the general experience of coercion because, most of the time, people give in before any further punishment is delivered. The threat, however, inflicts damage even if the punishment never happens. The image also helps us see that coercion, or the threat of it, is “anything but peaceful.” There is massive potential for good that could be realized if there were fewer blows disrupting our ability to function cooperatively.

Every act of coercion in society—coercion being the forcible imposition of one’s will on other—is like a damaging blow that knocks the breath out of humanity. . . .

Coercion imposed on others, whether to gain something for self or for those we love or pity, or to keep others from gaining for themselves by their own honest effort, is the crowning evil of our times. Coercion is anything but peaceful. Its practice on the grand scale is a crippling blow to our human potential.

Nor does it make any difference whether the coercion is inflicted directly or indirectly through one’s agent, such as . . . a government. . . . I am personally responsible for any evil I support, encourage, or condone, regardless of who carries my banner. . . . Individual absolution is not to be achieved by collectivization.

. . . So pervasive is the coercive doctrine that most Americans are unaware of any acceptable alternative.

In contrast with coercive punches to the gut, we should think about willing exchange as an alternative, mutually agreed on and therefore mutually beneficial. In fact, as I explain in every class I teach on principles of economics, wealth is created by the gains on each side of an exchange, in turn made possible by differences in opportunity costs and differences in subjective values. Economists tend to object to things like monopoly, collusion, cartels, artificial barriers to entry, taxes, costly regulation, tariffs, and high transaction costs because they wipe out wealth by obstructing willing exchanges.

Willing exchanges . . . these wealth-creating, poverty-destroying actions give us all our net economic gain, every last measure of material progress. Unlike the doctrine of coercion, these willing exchanges—economic freedom in practice—are commonplace, unheralded, unnewsworthy. Thus, they go unheard, unseen, unappreciated. So impressive is the noisy babble for destructive coercion and so quiet is the performance of creative freedom that coercion is thought to be the cause of the progress we enjoy. Such mistaken correlations can be the downfall of any individual or group, of any nation, economy, civilization. . . .

. . . Whenever coercive policies dominate the societal situation, inhibiting and prohibiting energies from manifesting themselves creatively, these energies . . . tend to turn destructive. . . . Coercion—even when backed by good intentions—must knock the breath out of humanity. . . . Coercive practices breed more coercion, and there is no remedy short of replacing these practices with freedom and willing exchange.

As with virtually any economist, my natural tendency is to focus on the gains that result from trade. But preventing the punches to the gut that we call coercion is also crucial for the growth of wisdom, morality, and creativity because these depend on freedom.

It is unrealistic to believe that institutions founded on coercion can, in the long run, advance . . . freedom. The record is already speaking for itself. . . .

. . . While the free market or willing exchange way of life is necessary for the preservation of an affluent society, it is an absolute “must” for any growth or development. Especially when confronted with difficult or “impossible” problems, turn to freedom.

It is a simple, obvious, self-evident fact that ideas, understanding, wisdom cannot be coercively injected into the consciousness of another. Yet, such is the presumption of persons who employ the coercive techniques.

If human creativity is the goal, the reliance should be on freedom.

If people didn’t have their breath knocked out, they could better identify, learn from, and imitate all kinds of exemplars, ideas, ideals, insights, inspirations, producers, and methods.

Luminaries—when freedom in transactions prevails—set the pace, lead us, if we so elect, into new and higher realms; they cut all the patterns for progress.

Our human stars come from every walk of life—when not retarded by . . . fear or coercion. . . .

. . . For any one of us in our proximity to absolute ignorance to attempt controlled management [of people] . . . is to reactivate a notion as nonsensical as “the divine right of kings” . . . enthronement atop the Cosmos! . . .

If we would improve ourselves, we will cast off our coercionist inclinations; we will look to the stars, which is to say, we will look to excellence in ourselves and others. This is what we do when we abandon our coercive ways and put our reliance on freedom.