Freeman

ARTICLE

Who Shall Decide?

AUGUST 01, 1977 by JOHN C. SPARKS

Mr. Sparks, now Chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Foundation for Economic Education, is an executive of an Ohio manufacturing company.

There’s a difference between looking to another for enlightenment, and letting him make your decisions for you. At least, I think that is the message of the book, If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him! by psychotherapist Sheldon B. Kopp) Never abdicate to a mentor the responsibility to make your decisions or solve your problems.

Shouldering responsibility for self and family is no easy task. It may seem more comfortable to lean on others or blame them for one’s own shortcomings. But the road to maturity and peace of mind is through self-responsibility. Dr. Kopp’s advice is to kill the tempta­tion to lean on others—that the bet­ter path to mental health is for each person to rely upon the resources within himself.

To face up to this matter realisti­cally today is to find the road prac­tically blocked by a giant decision maker—namely, big government. And the more decisions it makes for us, the more evident is our tendency to turn to it with our problems. So, let’s examine some of the decisions or solutions government has ren­dered for us.

How, for example, has govern­ment relieved each of us of the responsibility to save and provide for his own old age? It is now being revealed that the security blanket of Social Security is not based on savings at all. The payroll deduc­tions withheld from you and matched by your employer have all been spent, just as any other tax collected by government. Your security rests upon the willingness of younger taxpayers to cover your needs—a prospect dimmed by ac­celerating inflation and increasing longevity.

This is not your fault, you say. The government simply assumed your responsibility without asking you, or so it seems. What could you, just one person, do about it when the law was under consideration? Chances are that you would have then and would now join your neighbors and welcome such an op­portunity to unbuckle burdens and hand them over to government. It’s easy to blame "the neighbors" for the way Social Security has gone. But the hard fact remains that re­sponsibility—or the lack of it—is a personal matter.

Or, consider how government has relieved us of responsibility for "Johnny’s" education, with our growing complaint to the neighbors that "Johnny can’t read." When will we admit to ourselves that a child’s education is a private, per­sonal, parental responsibility—you responsible for your child, I for mine?

Our decision-making government is now "volunteering" to solve our energy crises, heat our homes, fuel our industries. Cleverly concealed is the role it played in creating such problems, with its regulation and control of prices and production of gas, oil, coal, electricity. Set a ceil­ing price of $25 for mink coats, and there will be none produced for sale. Yet this is the sort of decision we may expect the government to make for us if we ask it to assume responsibility for our energy problems. The result: total conserva­tion—no energy available to use.

A government official proposed recently a law to hold hospital charges to a certain level. This should appeal to patients only if they seek deteriorating hospital ser­vice and care. The proposal calls to mind government entry some years ago into decisions concerning medical drugs—matters long handled quite satisfactorily and voluntarily among drug manufac­turers, doctors, and patients. What is the result of the decisions by government? The United States, with the factory guard in charge of drug research, is now surpassed by many other countries in the field of new drug development and use. The final step in this surrender of per­sonal responsibility would be to displace the private doctor by mak­ing him an arm of the government, a police officer as one’s physician!

We see in the field of transporta­tion the astounding damage gov­ernment can do when it takes charge for us. It has wrecked almost every railroad in the coun­try, making it hazardous to travel or ship by rail. But all for our own good, understand! One shudders to think what full government control of air transport could achieve. The horse and wagon may indeed be the wave of the future.

Other examples of the failure of government planning abound, but let one more suffice here: welfare for low-income families. Before this became government’s responsibili­ty, families climbed out of poverty and stood proudly on their deter­mination and action to improve their situation. Government welfare condemns its recipients to remain poor and helpless into the third and fourth generation—at least. Who knows how much longer?

 

For an improved state of mind—indeed for the health of the nation—let us kill the temptation to yield to some master those deci­sions we ought to make for our­selves.

 

1(Science and Behavior Books, 1972; Bantam Books, 1976.)  

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

August 1977

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