Freedom in One Lesson

87.

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

If an injustice has been done, should it be prolonged or eliminated? The well-worn adage that “justice delayed is justice denied” would seem to make the answer clear. But government often fails to live up to its role as society’s agency for the defense of justice. It often violates rights and denies justice in the name of helping someone else. When it refuses to rectify the abuse, it justifies the delay as only fair to those who benefited from the initial violation.

A good example involves the “temporary” World War II rent controls on housing in New York City. These are still in place today because they created and then aggravated over time the housing shortage, which was the rationale for the controls in the first place. (This led Milton Friedman to quip, “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”)

In “Causes of Authoritarianism,” from his 1958 book Why Not Try Freedom? (Read 1958), Leonard Read addresses government’s eagerness to violate property rights and treat the benefits it transfers to others as if they themselves have become inviolable property rights.

FALLACY: Authoritarianism Should Be Removed Gradually

Following World War II and prior to the relaxation of wartime wage and price controls, I made a speech entitled, “I’d Push the Button.” This title was taken from the first sentence, “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would instantaneously release all wage and price controls, I’d put my finger on it and push.”

This was regarded as a radical notion. . . . However, if an act is morally wrong or economically unsound, the quicker it is abolished the better.

Many people seem to hold the view that the beneficiary of special privilege acquires a vested interest in his unique position and should not be deprived of it abruptly. They give little thought to the many persons from whom the plunder has been taken. It makes no difference what example of wage or price control one takes—rent control is as good as any. Under this control people have been permitted to occupy someone else’s property at less than the free market would allow. By reason of this fact renters have been privileged. . . . The landlord has been deprived of the fruits of his own labor. Yet, when it comes to the matter of restoring justice, most people will think of the disadvantages suddenly falling upon the renters rather than the accrued damage done to the owner.

Imagine an habitual and successful thief. For years he has been robbing everybody in the community without their knowledge. . . . Upon discovering his fraud, should his robbery be diminished gradually or should justice be restored to the community at once? The answer appears too obvious to deserve further comment.

People, when contemplating the removal of authoritarianism, seem to fear that a sudden restoration of justice would too severely disrupt the economy. The fear is groundless. During the early days of our New Deal we were the victims of the NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act, a system of wage floors, price ceilings, and production quotas. . . . Slowly, the fallacy of this nefarious program was realized. Thoughtful business leaders agreed it had to be repealed. But, many of them argued that the repeal would have to be gradual. To remove it at once would throw the economy into a tailspin. Then, one afternoon the Supreme Court ruled that NIRA was unconstitutional. As of that moment all of its regulations and controls ceased to exist. Did this shake our economy? There wasn’t a noticeable quiver except that all indices of prosperity showed improvement.

The fallacy of the theory of gradualism can be illustrated thus: A big, burly ruffian has me on my back, holding me down. My friends, observing my sad plight, agree that the ruffian must be removed. But, believing in the theory of gradualism, they contend that the ruffian must be removed gradually. They fail to see that the only result of the ruffian’s removal would be my going to work suddenly!

Government often ignores the theft involved when it imposes price controls and then treats the prospect of restoring justice as unjust. Leonard Read, in his well-reasoned devotion to liberty, sees this fact clearly while virtually everyone else ignores it. He also recognizes that not only are rights, whose defense is the core government function, violated in the process, but society also loses because price controls reduce the creation of greater consumption possibilities.

There is nothing to fear by any nation of people in the removal of restrictions to creative and productive effort except the release of creative and productive effort. And why should they fear that which they so ardently desire?