Freedom in One Lesson

8.

How Collectivism Makes Us
Look Stupid

I have been surrounded by professor types most of my adult life—in college, in graduate school, and as a professor myself for more than four decades. But for much of that time, perhaps because I was brought up in a very blue-collar town, I have preferred to hang out with people who actually know how to do things rather than those who profess about that which they know virtually nothing. In other words, my history has taught me to be suspicious of opinions about economics and public policy from those who may be experts in some things but not necessarily those things.

I was struck by Leonard Read’s “Making Fools of Ourselves” (Read 1962e), from the September 1962 issue of Notes from FEE, because it recognizes that most people are not competent to give valuable opinions on policy. As Friedrich Hayek, who became a close associate of Read’s, expresses so notably in “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” efficiently operating collectivism requires knowing what is beyond the ability of any planner or group of planners to know. Read takes this one step further, arguing that voters who want to give elected individuals collectivist powers over the rest of us face the same problem: many of their opinions and prescriptions are bound to be ignorant or misguided.

If, on the other hand, people are allowed to do “anything that’s peaceful,” while government is limited to ensuring that things are peaceful— that is, voluntary—then people can focus on what they really know and, through creative and cooperative efforts, accomplish as much as possible for one another. In talking about what they actually know, instead of what they don’t know but feel compelled to have an opinion about, people would sound much more intelligent. During elections, predictable high points for people sounding stupid, Read’s argument is especially worth considering.

There is no statistical evidence that stupidity is on the increase. Yet, no observant person can help being impressed by the increasing division in our society between the self-anointed “experts” on the one hand, and the run-of-the-mill citizen on the other . . . which helps explain the diminishing esteem in which we admitted nonexperts hold each other. . . .

A mutual nonadmiration society is headed for trouble. . . . When by common consent our society is peopled with the unwise, we set the stage for the big, strong, “wise” man who will appoint himself as our ruler—for our own good, of course!

Is it that we are so much less wise than our Founding Fathers? In many ways, yes. But not enough to account for the low appraisal we currently have of each other’s views. It is my contention that we are making fools of ourselves, submitting to and participating in a situation that engenders a bogus ignorance. . . .

First, reflect on the ideal society where government is limited to dispensing that type of protection for everyone which each has a moral right to exercise individually. Ideally, government has no more authority over or control of creative and productive actions than does a factory guard. Government at its best is but a refinement of guarding against fraud, violence, misrepresentation, predation; it is but the final man-made arbiter of liberty and justice for all—this and nothing more.

Second, let us take note of a universal characteristic among individuals: no human being is all-knowing. An individual, at best, has no more than a fragment of all knowledge, regardless of how well educated or politically powerful he may be. . . . But here is the significant fact: the free society does not require that the individual know all there is to know about everything. If he knows and practices a few simple moral principles and has a mastery of his own profession or trade, he is adjudged an intelligent man, able to act intelligently within that tiny orbit which is his. Thus, in a free society, we look for and find numerous individuals who are considered competent within their own frame of experience.

Third, observe what happens to these same individuals when the ideal, free society disappears and is replaced by democratic collectivism. See how an otherwise intelligent people can give all the appearances of being an ignorant people . . . by an ignorance artificially created.

The formula for an artificial ignorance is simple: Democratically elect, say, one thousand . . . each being reasonably intelligent within his own little orbit but each being only dimly aware that he doesn’t know much. Next, transfer individual freedom of choice and decision-making from the many to the few. Let the few have power over all aspects of life . . . give the few these powers over the many and the recipe for a bogus mass ignorance is complete. The millions, many of whom would appear intelligent in a free society, will, under democratic collectivism, appear stupid.

Why will many of these millions appear stupid? Because under the pressure of “responsible citizenship” they vote for those who would control all aspects of life. Therefore, to vote “intelligently” they must try to know a great deal about all the affairs of human existence that the candidates for rulership—the few—are striving to control. . . .

. . . Not being all-knowing . . . they must appear ignorant whenever they wander beyond their own tiny realms of knowledge, that is, whenever they presume to discuss and pass judgment on problems about which they know nothing at all.

Few of us . . . when living under democratic collectivism, are able to resist talking about and feigning authoritative judgment on every subject within the domain of the collectivistic rulership. Further, when living in this kind of a society and when taking positions on matters about which we know nothing, our know-nothing positions tend to side with the collectivistic. Led thus astray, we have no time to understand and practice freedom! Is it any wonder that we appear ignorant to each other?

Is there a way out of this trap? There is, indeed! . . .

Humility suggests that each freedom devotee become conscious of how little he knows and of how little is known by those who would be or are our rulers. From this acute consciousness stems a healthy skepticism: no one knows how to make socialism work. Aware of this we then recognize that organized force (government) has only a strictly negative role to play, that all productive and creative actions belong in the realm of men acting freely, privately, voluntarily, competitively, cooperatively. Thus fortified, we cannot be drawn into the acceptance of a socialistic premise and, without such an acceptance, we will no longer pontificate on what socialistic conduct or procedure should be. . . .In other words, we’ll have faith in freedom. . . .

. . . George Washington made a good suggestion: “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.” Let each of us adhere to such a standard, quit making fools of ourselves, and have faith that the event will occur.

It is worth noting that Leonard Read’s argument goes beyond the fact that faith in freedom would make us seem smarter. The fact that we would be free to think, build, create, and voluntarily cooperate on the basis of the very different things we as individuals actually understand would serve us far better than collectivism, which is based in confusion and backed by coercion. If the proof is in the pudding, such an arrangement would prove we were actually smart.