海角大神

I am a believer in the power of liberty 鈥� voluntary relationships 鈥� to bring out the best in individuals and, therefore, society. But that well-founded belief makes it painful to see markets (willing exchange) blamed for virtually everything someone can think to object to, in favor of coercion of some by others via government, inspired by some utopian vision that cannot actually be achieved by that coercion.

The question then becomes why unattainable utopian visions seem to be so much more attractive and inspirational to so many people than liberty, which can achieve the best society actually attainable, and how the spell that leads to ever-increasing statism can be broken.

Leonard Read, one of America鈥檚 most prolific defenders of liberty in the 20th century, considered that question. And in his 1969 Let Freedom Reign, he offered a useful two-part answer in his chapters, 鈥淔ree Market Disciplines鈥� and 鈥淭he Bloom Pre-Exists in the Seed.鈥�

In 鈥淔ree Market Disciplines鈥�, Read showed that liberty鈥檚 failure to gain more adherents than utopian statism can be, in part, traced to the fact that it is the ends envisioned, rather than the means involved, that often motivate people. And since unlike utopian visions, freedom, including free markets 鈥� an 鈥渁moral servant鈥� 鈥� cannot be proven to have no objectionable results to anyone, liberty can be saddled with an inspirational deficit. However, attributing disliked results to markets misplaces the blame. Therefore, restricting voluntary arrangements (beyond preventing the use of force and fraud on others) cannot solve the real problem, yet it hobbles the market鈥檚 ability to coordinate people鈥檚 cooperative and productive plans, causing harm in the misguided attempt to accomplish good:

Read saw that defenders of liberty must face the fact that markets enable people to do whatever they want better 鈥� i.e., that it is an amoral servant. It cannot be relied upon with certainty to only do good and inspirational things. But whenever they enable doing ill, they only reflect what some desire. If we reformed ourselves, markets could do no harm. And Read had great faith such improvements were possible, that 鈥淓ventually, in a free society, the junk goes to the junk heap and achievements are rewarded.鈥� In contrast, coercively 鈥渞eforming鈥� ourselves by law does not eliminate the cause of such harm and so does little to actually stop it, but the restrictions on markets adopted in the process throw out the amoral servant to doing greater good than can be accomplished via any other mechanism.

Read proceeded to address the crucial distinction between the 鈥渋nspirational鈥� utopian ends and the means that such ends necessarily entail in 鈥淭he Bloom Pre-Exists in the Seed.鈥�

Intended ends may be the vision that inspires people, so much so that they ignore whether the means are morally defensible. That is, the utopian ends envisioned can be chimeras of self-delusion that can be used to justify immoral means. And if the collectivism to be imposed requires immoral means, one cannot assert the result is a moral system:

Visionary or utopian ends may inspire people to pursue what turn out to be statist failures, sacrificing liberty for innumerable 鈥済ood causes.鈥� Read argued powerfully that we should instead focus on the means (voluntary versus coercive) rather than stated goals or ends that can often be achieved only in someone鈥檚 imagination. And since the means utilized by statist 鈥渟olutions鈥� are immoral, such systems are morally inferior to voluntary arrangements, not morally superior.

Leonard Read recognized that liberty 鈥� voluntary arrangements that spring up, once one鈥檚 rights to oneself and one鈥檚 production are protected 鈥� provides the means of achieving what is actually achievable in advancing society. As we develop ourselves, we each have more to offer others, accomplishing the goals of statist utopias, without immoral acts, that they themselves cannot, despite their immoral acts. And what freedom has historically accomplished, beyond anyone鈥檚 ability to envision, extended to further as-yet-unknowable possibilities (beyond the fact that it will benefit those who voluntarily participate) was at the heart of his inspirational vision.

To follow in Leonard Read鈥檚 path toward increasing liberty, we too also develop our ability to 鈥渟ee鈥� the unseen (and often unimagined) good that can only be accomplished by freeing people鈥檚 ability to peacefully create and innovate. To complement that skill, we must also be able to 鈥渟ee鈥� and articulate the inherent failings of the coercive and immoral means employed toward utopian goals, which are unachievable despite such means. With such binocular vision, liberty can be recognized as far more inspirational than any statist alternative. If that is the vision we hope others to catch, that is the vision we need to better articulate, as Read argued over and over again.