Freeman

ARTICLE

The Guaranteed Life

OCTOBER 01, 1962 by MAXWELL ANDERSON

Filed Under : Statism, U.S. Constitution, Social Security

Preface to Knickerbocker Holiday: Copyright 1938, by Maxwell anderson. The Guaranteed Life: Copyright 1950, by Maxwell Anderson.

Maxwell Anderson (1888-1959), noted American dramatist,
first wrote this article as a preface to his
Knickerbocker
Holiday in 1938. He revised it somewhat in 1950, when it
was published as a pamphlet by the Foundation for Economic
Education. It is again presented here because the ideas
seem even more timely now than ever before.

"A government is a group of men organized to sell protection to the inhabitants of a limited area at monopolistic prices." So said Peter Stuyvesant in Knickerbocker Holi­day, and so I believe now. In other words, there’s no such thing as a "good" government; one and all they partake of the nature of rackets. But government is better than anarchy, and was invented as an insurance against anarchy.

And some kinds of government are far better than others. Spe­cifically, our American experiment has worked so well that we can point to it as one of the most suc­cessful in the history of the world, if not the most successful.

In Knickerbocker Holiday I tried to remind the audience of the attitude toward government which was prevalent in this coun­try at the time of the revolution of 1776 and throughout the early years of the republic. At that time it was generally believed, as I believe now, that the gravest and most constant danger to a man’s life, liberty, and happiness is the government under which he lives.

Balance of Selfish Interests

It was believed then that a civ­ilization is a balance of selfish in­terests, and that a government is necessary as an arbiter among these interests, but that the gov­ernment must never be trusted, must be constantly watched, and must be drastically limited in its scope, because it, too, is a selfish interest and will automatically be­come a monopoly in crime and de­vour the civilization over which it presides unless there are definite and positive checks on its activi­ties. The Constitution is a monu­ment to our forefathers’ distrust of the state, and the division of powers among the legislative, ju­dicial, and executive branches suc­ceeded so well for more than a century in keeping the sovereign authority in its place that our government has become widely re­garded as a naturally wise and benevolent institution, capable of assuming the whole burden of so­cial and economic justice. But there was nothing natural or acci­dental about it. Our government has done so well because of the wary thinking that went into its making.

The thinking behind our Con­stitution was dominated by such men as Franklin and Jefferson, men with a high regard for the rights of the individual, combined with a cold and realistic attitude toward the blessings of central authority. Knowing that govern­ment is a selfish interest, they treated it as such, and asked of it no more than a selfish interest can give. But the coddled young re­former of our day, looking out on his world, finding merit often un­rewarded and chicanery trium­phant, throws prudence to the winds and grasps blindly at any weapon which seems to him likely to destroy the purse-proud haves and scatter their belongings among the deserving have-nots. Now he is right in believing that the accumulation of too much wealth and power in a few hands is a danger to his civilization and his liberty. But when the weapon he finds is economic planning, and when the law he enacts sets up bureaus to run the nation’s busi­ness, he is fighting a lesser evil by accepting a greater and more deadly one, and he should be aware of that fact.

Protection at Monopolistic Prices

A government is always "or­ganized to sell protection to the inhabitants of a limited area at monopolistic prices." The mem­bers of a government are not only in business, but in a business which is in continual danger of lapsing into pure gangsterism, pure terrorism, and plundering, buttered over at the top by a hypocritical pretense at patriotic unselfishness. The continent of Europe has seen too many such governments lately, and our own government is rapidly assuming economic and social responsibili­ties which take us in the same direction. Whatever the motives behind a government-dominated economy, it can have but one re­sult, a loss of individual liberty in thought, speech, and action. A guaranteed life is not free. Social security is a step toward the abro­gation of the individual and his absorption into that robot which he has invented to serve him—the paternal state.

When I have said this to some of the youthful proponents of guaranteed existence, I have been met with the argument that men must live, and that when the eco­nomic machinery breaks down, men must be cared for lest they starve or revolt. This is quite true and nobody is opposed to helping his fellow man. But the greatest enemies of democracy, the most violent reactionaries, are those who have lost faith in the capacity of a free people to manage their own affairs and wish to set up the government as a political and so­cial guardian, running their busi­ness and making their decisions for them. This is statism, or Stalinism, no matter who advo­cates it, and it’s plain treason to freedom.

Wards of the State

And life is infinitely less impor­tant than freedom. A free man has a value to himself and perhaps to his time; a ward of the state is useless to himself—useful only as so many foot-pounds of energy serving those who manage to set themselves above him. A people which has lost its freedom might better be dead, for it has no im­portance in the scheme of things except as an evil power behind a dictator. In our hearts we all de­spise the man who wishes the state to take care of him, who would not rather live meagerly as he pleases than suffer a fat and regi­mented existence. Those who are not willing to sacrifice their lives for their liberty have never been worth saving. Throughout remem­bered time every self-respecting man has been willing to defend his liberty with his life. If our coun­try goes totalitarian out of a soft-headed humanitarian impulse to make life easy for the many, we shall get what we vote for and what we deserve, for the choice is still before us, but we shall have betrayed the race of men, and among them the very have-nots whom we subsidize. Our Western continent still has the opportun­ity to resist the government-led rush of barbarism which is taking Europe back toward Attila, but we can only do it by running our government, and by refusing to let it run us.

If the millions of workingmen in this country who are patiently paying their social security dues could glimpse the bureaucratic absolutism which that act pre­sages for themselves and their children, they would repudiate the whole monstrous and dishonest business overnight. When a gov­ernment takes over a people’s eco­nomic life, it becomes absolute, and when it has become absolute, it destroys the arts, the minds, the liberties, and the meaning of the people it governs. It is not an ac­cident that Germany, the first paternalistic state of modern Eu­rope, was seized by an uncontrol­lable dictator who brought on the second world war; not an accident that Russia, adopting a centrally administered economy for human­itarian reasons, has arrived at a tyranny bloodier and more abso­lute than that of the Czars. And if England does not turn back soon, she will go this same way. Men who are fed by their govern­ment will soon be driven down to the status of slaves or cattle.

Professional Planners

All these dangers were foreseen by the political leaders who put our Constitution together after the revolution against England. The Constitution is so built that while we adhere to it, we cannot be governed by one man or one faction, and when we have made mistakes, we reserve the right to change our minds. The division of powers and the rotation of offices was designed to protect us against dictatorship and arbitrary authority. The fact that there are three branches of government makes for a salutary delay and a blessed inefficiency, the elective ro­tation makes for a government not by cynical professionals, but by normally honest and fairly incom­petent amateurs. That was exactly what the wary old Founding Fathers wanted, and if we are wise we shall keep it, for no scheme in the history of the world has succeeded so well in maintaining the delicate balance between per­sonal liberty and the minimum of authority which is necessary for the free growth of ideas in a tolerant society. But we shall not keep our Constitution, our free­dom, nor our free elections, if we let our government slide gradually into the hands of economic plan­ners who bribe one class of men after another with a state-admin­istered dole.

 Since Knickerbocker Holiday was written, the power of govern­ment in the United States has grown like a fungus in wet weather, price supports and un­employment benefits and farm subsidies are the rule, not the ex­ception, and our government has turned into a giant give-away pro­gram, offering far more for votes than was ever paid by the most dishonest ward-heeler in the daysof Mark Hanna. We march stead­ily toward the prefabricated state. Yet we see clearly that in Eng­land, socialism turns rapidly into communism, and that in Russia and Yugoslavia, communism gives neither freedom nor security. The guaranteed life turns out to be not only not free—it’s not safe. Do we want a gangster govern­ment? That’s what we’re going toward.

Reprints available at 5 cents each.

 

***

The Great Learning

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue through­out the empire, first ordered well their own States. Wishing to order well their States, they first regulated their families. Wish­ing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such exten­sion of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their per­sons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their fami­lies being regulated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed, the whole empire was made tranquil and happy.

Confucius (556-479 B.C.)

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

March 1996

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required

CURRENT ISSUE

November 2014

It's been 40 years since F. A. Hayek received his Nobel Prize. His insights, particularly on the distribution of knowledge and the impossibility of economic planning, remain hugely important today. In this issue, we look back on the influence of his work. Max Borders and Craig Biddle debate whether liberty must be defended from one absolute foundation, further reflections on Scottish secession, and how technology is already changing our world for the better--including how robots, despite the unease they cause, will only accelerate this process.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION