Every so often, an event occurs that stands as a monument to the continuing struggle for human freedom and serves as a reminder to all who work for liberty that even when success seems farthest from reach, they can make a difference. Whether it is the Boston Tea Party, the storming of the Bastille, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, or the assault on the Berlin Wall, such events are a vivid reminder that man has an undying desire to be free.
Of all these, however, there is one event that will stand alone as the simplest and yet most profound reminder not only of the universal desire for liberty but also of the power of a single individual. This event occurred on June 5, 1989, one day after the Chinese government massacred thousands of its own citizens in Tiananmen Square. As a column of tanks rolled down the ironically named Boulevard of Heavenly Peace, a lone man ran into the middle of the street and stood in front of the lead tank, preventing the entire column from moving. For one brief moment, the age-old historical struggle between the individual and the state was crystallized into the image of this one man standing perfectly erect, staring straight ahead, with the gun turret of a tank pointed at him. It is said that the quest for freedom is the struggle between the armed state with its ultimate resort to the power of a gun and the individual with often nothing more than his principles to defend him. Never before has one event so perfectly represented this struggle before the world, and never before has the power of principle and the impotence of force been more perfectly communicated.
To those who fight the daily battle for liberty on even the smallest, most inconspicuous, and sometimes apparently the most meaningless level, the actions of this man in Beijing should serve as an inspiration and a reminder that, though a single individual may seem powerless to change anything, the greatest success must always begin with someone who is willing to stand up and fight for what he believes. Where, after all, would the world be today were it not for the first American patriot who resisted British rule, the first Frenchman who stood up against the ancien régime, the first person who refused to comply with the Nazis’ plan to murder every Jew in Europe, or the first East European who demanded his freedom in the worst days of Communist tyranny?
At the time, it may have seemed to all of these people that they were engaged in a hopeless exercise, that the resistance of one man is nothing compared with the military and political power of a state. They acted not because they knew that they would win, for victory was far from certain, and not as part of a mass struggle against tyranny, for they were, at least initially, quite alone. They acted because they knew they were right, because they wanted to be free, and because they hoped that by taking a stand they would inspire others to do the same. History, of course, proved them correct in the long run—acting alone they not only inspired others but eventually proved victorious. The undeniable lesson of history is this: One person, backed only by the strength of his convictions, can make a difference; one man can change the world.
George Mason University School of Law
Balance of Trade
Imagine applying mercantilism to our everyday economic affairs. When our employer gave us our weekly paycheck, we would have to say that this was a favorable balance of trade since it ended up with us having more money at our disposal. On the other hand, we would have to speak of being victimized by an unfavorable balance of trade when we shopped at the supermarket. This is because money left our hands and went to the grocer. But anyone who has ever shopped realizes that gains are made by such activities. Who would patronize the local supermarket unless what they get is worth more to them than what they pay for it?
It is the same with nations. If we buy more this month from Japan than we sell to them, this doesn’t mean we are exploited by them any more than grocery stores victimize us when we shop there. More to the point, the purpose of trade is to import—just as the purpose of working is to be able to afford to buy or import the groceries. So the next time you hear that we have a negative balance in merchandise trade, remember that means we are consuming more goods and services provided by foreigners than they are getting from us.
writing for The Fraser Institute Vancouver, Canada
“You want to go para-sailing?” the pilot of the snorkeling boat asked as we pulled ashore near Montego Bay. “No problem.”
And there was no problem. He hailed a cab, the driver took us a few miles down the sandy Jamaican beach, we paid cash, signed a one-paragraph release, and we were up in the air. It was as simple as that.
It’s about the same if you want to take your first scuba dive in Aruba. You sign a release, they sit you down to explain the basics, you practice in a pool, and an hour later you are diving off the side of a boat. Again, “No problem.”
Unfortunately, it isn’t so easy if you want to take some risks in the United States. If you can even find someone to take you scuba diving, para-sailing, mountain climbing, or whatever, the release forms are a lot longer than a paragraph or two, and the basic message is: “Don’t sue me.”
Americans have always been risk-takers. But if we have to go overseas to take our chances, that says a lot about our future as a people and as a nation.
Mises’ Last Word
Whatever reversals lie ahead, the day when pro-lessors of Marxism could make the case for their man over the market is over. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises had the last word back in 1947, when the Red Army was imposing central planning from the Baltic to the Mediterranean and socialists everywhere were dreaming that they had the key to a better world: “A socialist management of production . . . will squander the scarce factors of production, both material and human. Chaos and poverty for all will unavoidably result.”
—Rob Norton, writing in the
January 14,1991, issue of Fortune