Freedom in One Lesson

7.

Good Government

Well before Leonard Read founded America’s first libertarian think tank in 1946, he had already thought deeply and carefully about the role of government in relation to individuals—a crucial question that, when ignored, leads to massive amounts of government-imposed damage on society. In “The Promotive Effects of a Good Government,” from his first book, The Romance of Reality (Read 1937), you can find Read’s central ideas about the few things a government could conceivably do well.

A good government . . . is a servant of all the people. It takes no sides. . . . It cannot be a government that divides the population into classes . . . and then take the side of one group or the other, which at the moment appears to be the politically expedient thing.

Insofar as a good government should have any economic interests, those interests should be directed to the people as consumers. For the only common denominator in a population, economically speaking, is the consumer. The object of a good government’s economic affections should be the consumers and not groups and classes. In no other way can a government remain good. To shower its affection on a group or a class it must evidence a greater devotion to a group or a class than to the remaining groups or classes. . . . The government becomes relatively unfriendly to those groups to which the overflowing cup of friendship is not extended.

A good government is one whose administrators must think of themselves only as representatives, as servants of the people, administering just laws, impartially and impersonally. They must never assume the notion that election or appointment to office places them in positions from where an undelegated, arbitrary attitude is permissible. They must never think, the minute they are in office, that they are the members of a new class, a different interest, that they must fortify their new positions by intrigues and favors to assure their permanency.

Needless to relate, it has been because of a violation of these political ethics, that contempt has developed toward “politicians” and, in turn, that “politicians” have assumed a vested interest attitude toward their offices and have felt compelled to use every device to perpetuate themselves . . . this politician-versus-people attitude. . . . A government cannot be good when its officers and administrators feel that their interests are different from those of the people, any of the people, they represent.

A good government recognizes that the best interests of the people are served when government keeps itself to the very minimum compatible with actual necessities. Such a government will keep a vigilant lookout for any possible excesses in its growth and cost.

A good government will scrupulously observe a disinterested attitude in the behavior and conduct between its citizens and will interfere only to assure fair play among them. It will assume the role of umpire and realize that that is as far as its function goes in this respect.

A good government . . . will not engage in competition with its citizens in affairs the citizens can possibly conduct themselves. . . .

In fiscal matters, a good government will set the example in economy, in controllable indebtedness and in the virtues of assets over liabilities. It will serve as a model in the high regard for sanctity of contracts. Government’s obligations must be kept inviolable. Its taxing system will be as fair and as equitable as highly endowed and disinterested individuals can make it. The taxing power will be used for securing revenues only, not used to achieve a partisan-conceived social reform nor ever used to punish groups in political disfavor. . . .

A good government will resist to the utmost the efforts of any groups to use the government as a vehicle to their own ends. It will close the gate to the political means as an avenue for man to satisfy his wants. A good government will leave man only the economic means through which to seek his material satisfactions, but will so perfect every instrument of government that success through the economic means will be facilitated and made easier for everyone.

A good government will be a government of laws and not of men. A people must never be subjected to a “Do this. Do that” order, insured in a government of men, impossible in a government of laws.

There is one point transcending them all in any definition of a good government. . . . A good government will set itself in such order that its citizens can best find an expression of their abilities and their virtues. The arena for citizen activity will be kept in good playing order, decently policed and fairly umpired. But the government, as government, will not have a concern as to who wins or who loses so long as the play has been fair and the rules of the game properly interpreted.

A notion contrary to this has been and is responsible for much of our trouble. People failing to win in the game of life, have turned to the umpire demanding favoritism in the interpretations of the rules and are now asking the umpire to carry the ball for their side. . . .The umpire finds himself hopping all over the field trying to help all sides to win. The dignity of the umpire becomes destroyed. He is a friend only when he is carrying our ball, an enemy when carrying the other fellow’s. The contempt for the umpire must soon become general and then there will be no ordered arena in which the citizenry can operate.

If government can do our job for us better than we can, then the case for socialism is complete. Why not admit it, all join the government and perform all duties through government? . . .

If socialism is not the answer, and we will frankly admit it, then government has no business taking any sides of any group or class against any other group or class. . . . To invite government interference in our behalf is to justify it in another’s behalf, which, sooner or later, must command national disaster. . . .A good government does not meddle in the legitimate affairs of any or all of its citizens. It merely keeps the arena in good shape for playing the game.

Certainly, no good government, as thus defined, would usurp any powers or prerogatives not specifically delegated to it by its citizens. As a matter of fact, it would frown on any delegation of powers, except in extreme emergencies, that was not done after long and careful deliberation, and then only sparingly. One searches the pages of history in vain for examples of delegated power later relinquished— short of revolution. A good government would be the first to avoid this destructive trend.

Is a good government as here defined a mere dream? Very likely. Too few are willing to sacrifice their present unsupportable positions (little recognized as unsupportable) to contribute the effort necessary for its fulfillment. Too many prefer filching the magnificent edifice of our national being to a life of personal contributions that made the edifice possible.

. . . The law of the universe . . . says: “You will learn and adopt civilized conduct or you won’t reap civilized results.”

Is a good government complicated? No, it is simplicity itself. “Shoemaker, stick to your last,” That’s all.

Is it reactionary? Yes, in the sense that it calls for a restoration of the virtues, ideals and realities characterizing some of our earlier nationals. Yet, in another sense, the idea is extremely radical. Our government, and most of the other governments of the world, are headed in the other direction so fast they are afraid to stop. Somewhat comparable to the drunkard who fears to stop drinking lest the shock kill him. Perhaps it would. But in stopping there is hope. . . . It is radical to demand the overthrow of a present trend. . . .

. . . Government over-expansion with its economically enervating costs would cease. . . .

. . . Government mis-direction would no longer exist because a good government would not think in terms of groups and classes, and would play no favorites anyway.

. . . Government intervention into the fields of private enterprise would not be so much as entertained. . . .

. . . What is there actually promotive to be expected from a good government? For one thing, everyone (there could be no exceptions) would be forced to the use of the economic means to supply needs and to satisfy desires. There could be no other way, for the political means would be closed. Everyone would have to engage, in some manner, in the production and distribution of goods and services. These being the only elements of wealth, everyone would be engaged in producing and distributing wealth.

Under a good government even the politicians would be included in wealth production, since a good government is essential to an ordered society, without which wealth production and distribution is impossible. Politicians, servants of the public interest, would be a very realistic part of the process.

As a rule man has produced his best when he has lived in a society where assurances have been given that he will be permitted to keep that which he has acquired, in a society where he has been guaranteed the fruits of his own labor. History demonstrates that man has been subjected to the predatory practices of government as well as by other men or criminals. A good government is a promotive factor because it engages in no practices that either unjustly absorb or take away from the citizen that which he has earned for himself. Thus, because of the behavior of a good government, man’s energies are released to the extent he possesses energies.

There is one other basic characteristic to a highly civilized economy that can only be preserved under a good government and that characteristic is economic voluntarism. . . . [It] has been given a variety of titles: the competitive system, the system of laissez faire, private property, capitalism, the market economy and the profit system. . . .

. . . Economic voluntarism, under which so many other factors absolutely essential to economic welfare are nestled, can exist at its fullest only under a good government. It cannot exist at all under the opposite of a good government—the Totalitarian State. . . . Voluntarism diminishes, it fades, and with it the possibilities for material welfare, as governments approach Totalitarianism.

The United States, today, is the wealthiest nation all history has ever known, not because government created the wealth but because, during the past three centuries, several hundred millions of individuals, working competitively and cooperatively, have made contributions to a startling aggregate of wealth. They have left as their heritage to succeeding generations an amazing array of . . . essential instruments to future welfare.

While, during these three hundred years, we probably have never had a 100% good government, we have had a government better than any other people have been able to devise. It has not been perfect nor can it ever be, but it has been nearer a neutral government and has interfered less than have the others. As a consequence, the spirit of the individual was unshackled. His energies were released. Initiative, resourcefulness, courage, inventiveness, confidence, specialized knowledge and individual objectivity fairly blossomed in this atmosphere of assured reward for demonstrated merit, all going to compose highly endowed individuals. They created the wealth. They gave society more than they used. These free spirits, protected against the ravages of criminal individuals and predacious governments, built our national edifice. The total of their contributions made our national wealth.

We talk a lot about programs. “If you’re opposed to this plan of government, what plan have you to offer in its stead?” is a common question. The inference is, “ What alternate form of governmental planned economy have you to propose?” The answer is, “ We do not want nor can the people prosper under any form of governmental planned economy.”

About all we want in the way of a plan is a plan that will get the people to understand what their relations to government should be, what the functions of government should be, and how this relationship can be adjusted to release to the fullest the potential productive capacities, the energies, the enterprising attributes, the virtues and the genius of the individual.

Politicians in power and their backers seem to always define good government as whatever they are trying to do, while challengers do the same for their program. But they both accept as an unthinking (or cynical) premise that those whom they favor deserve to gain at the expense of everyone else (why else are they so quick to demonize their targets?).

In contrast, Leonard Read sees that “a good government is a servant of all the people,” an idea completely at odds with the current prevailing view as well as our gargantuan government. “The best interests of the people are served when government keeps itself to the very minimum compatible with actual necessities.” That minimum is what is necessary to “close the gate to the political means as an avenue for man to satisfy his wants” and “leave man only the economic means . . . [and] so perfect every instrument of government that success through economic means will be facilitated and made easier for everyone.”

In sharp contrast to what we experience as subjects today, “even the politicians would be included in wealth production, since a good government is essential to an ordered society, without which wealth production and distribution is impossible.” The rest could be safely left to “economic voluntarism,” which allows peaceful cooperation between creative, productive individuals.

Many things in life change, but the principles of good government that exist to advance what the preamble to the Constitution called the general welfare have not. Leonard Read recognized those principles three-quarters of a century ago, when we were far closer to, though already distant from, that ideal. His insight provides a guide to what Americans will have to understand in order to realize that far better world, which will “release to the fullest the potential productive capacities, the energies, the enterprising attributes, the virtues and the genius of the individual.”