Freedom in One Lesson

47.

To Avarice No Sanction

“No point in the field of political economy merits more thought and analysis than where to draw the line distinguishing the functions proper to government from the role assumed by all-out government—socialism. A good society is but a dream unless this issue be reasonably resolved.” That is how Leonard Read opens his “ To Avarice No Sanction,” from his 1972 book To Free or Freeze: That Is the Question (Read 1972a).

Government . . . means laws backed by force. To know what government should and should not do . . . requires a judgment as to which laws appeal to avarice, and a decision to avoid such laws! . . .

. . . Appeals to avarice . . . [include] thousands of examples affirming the tendency to satisfy desires along the lines of least resistance.

. . . Avarice breaks out, shows itself, grows and expands in proportion to the opportunities for a “free lunch” or a handout . . . because these feeding stations provide the means by which man can satisfy his desires along the lines of least resistance. . . . Men turn to these something-for-nothing sources as readily and as naturally as they turn away from higher and toward lower prices for goods and services.

Given that the word avarice is a couple centuries past its prime when it comes to usage, it is worth noting that its connotation is somewhat different from that of the word greed, which seems to have largely crowded it out. While greed means an undue desire for wealth and power, avarice adds the idea of gaining and withholding power from others. It is closer to covetousness, which involves desire for something which belongs to another.

This difference comes to the fore when talking about government policies because government has no resources it does not first take from its citizens by threatening them with coercion. To be greedy for government handouts of any sort inherently involves taking what belongs to other citizens.

There are a few who will not stoop to the line of least resistance—persons whose moral guidelines will not let them live by bread alone. In the final analysis, a good society rests on a proliferation of this breed of men. . . . [But] the percentage of the population accustomed to the feeding stations is so great and their voting power so attractive to politicians who accommodate this weakness that the combination seems unbeatable. Nevertheless, it is worth a try.

Men stand upright in the absence of things to stoop for. . . . Avarice is . . . a dormant trait in the absence of something to be avaricious about.

Feeding stations, contrived by laws that appeal to avarice, are composed exclusively of the fruits of people’s labor. . . . When these abound, as now, men contend with each other for our property. They take!

What would happen if the avarice enabled by government were eliminated? The greatest mechanism for reinforcing that avarice, with its almost uncountable tentacles of influence, would be eliminated too.

Remove these stations. Immediately men will compete with each other for our favor. They trade! Why? Because this is the remaining line of least resistance. From stooping to upright men! From contenders to competitors! From takers to traders! From plunderers to benefactors! No more goodness or perfection in man than before, but only the removal from his presence of the temptations to avarice!

Read then asks how we can identify a law that appeals to avarice, so we can shun it and its adverse effects appropriately.

How are we to judge whether or not a law has an appeal to avarice, so that we may keep it off the statute books? I believe there is a simple rule: Never give approval to a law that “helps” anyone!

It is definitely not the function of government to take positive action in aiding or sustaining or lending assistance to any person or group or segment of society. Such “help” can only be given to one person or group at the expense of others. The only principled role of society’s agency is negative; government should restrain anyone from doing injury to others. The law’s job is to codify the taboos or the thou-shalt-nots and enforce them; that is, it should invoke a common justice and keep the peace.

Any time and in every instance in which government departs from this negative or purely defensive role, avarice is released in the citizenry. Government can do all of us a service by warding off intruders; but when government pretends to “help” us, government itself thereby becomes the colossal intruder.

But how should one respond to those who say that such an approach is heartless? First, Read would assert that history shows great reserves of generosity among Americans. Second, he would point out that government help is heartless toward those whose resources have been taken away and given to others. Third, he would argue that such help does not really help those whose avarice is kindled and whose development is thereby undermined.

To most people this way of drawing the line seems cold, heartless, and without pity. But pity, unless spiced with common sense, is what’s heartless. Providing people with governmental feeding stations not only kindles the vice of avarice but it renders them helpless. The process results in an atrophy of the faculties from which recovery is next to impossible. Helping people to become helpless is no act of kindness.