Mr. Foley, a partner in Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, Williamson & Schwabe, practices law in Portland, Oregon.
What effect does the action of one man exert on the life of another? How much control ought a single individual, or a group of individuals, impress upon the destinies of others? These inquiries represent the meat and marrow of the considerations underlying the purposive human action.
Let us state our abstract premises: no man ought to initiate force against another individual, or defraud him in any manner; each person should be free from restraints imposed by other men, singly or in the collective, and should be permitted to seek his own fortune; application of coercion gains justification only to thwart prior privately initiated force or fraud and to sanction a common and equal mode of settling disputes between inhabitants which they cannot adjust by themselves. Against the backdrop of these principles, consider the concept of power. One may define power as a position of ascendancy over another person, object, or situation; it concerns the ability to control a situation or to coerce obedience to a command. A person manifests power when he possesses the capability of acting and of producing a given effect by his actions. Power partakes of coercion and force; it means dominion and control, in this milieu dominion and control of one or more men over the lives and destinies of other human beings.
Thus stated, power represents the antithesis of freedom. Those who love liberty should eschew power and seek self-determination and noninterference with the lives of others. Such an easy answer: easy statements in the abstract often present difficult concepts in the application. The core is apparent, the penumbra indistinct. A lesson learned with difficulty involves a life lived without recourse to power over others.
Slight insight illuminates the reason why we can express a distaste for power in our philosophical guise and yet fall prey to its allure in our daily lives. Man, by nature, exudes sympathy; he seeks to do well, for himself and for his fellow man. Each man, convinced of his own infallibility, sincerely believes that he can better the lot of mankind if only his way represents the chosen path.
“There Ought to Be a Law”
How often have you heard one say “there ought to be a law”? Even the most dedicated libertarian sometimes slips into this easy way of thinking: if only we could compel people to be free, or to accept the free market philosophy, or to treat their neighbors with kindness and love, the world would become such a better place. The ordinary method which comes to mind when one aims to secure laudable goals involves the use of power—but for a “good” purpose. Frustration takes control when the stubborn wills of others impede the attainment of ends which the actor believes desirable, right, or necessary.
Consider the individual who holds views similar to those expressed here. All about him the world crumbles by reason of adherence to the socialist tenets concerning the production of abundance by means of people control. Man appears chained to useless laws and insipid politicians. “If only we could elect a libertarian president and propose laws compelling citizens to accept gold coins or bullion as legal tender,” runs a common lament. Yet such political moves, based on power, would not solve our problems. One should not decree that any material be legal tender; men, trading freely, ought to determine by their market choices that which will be acceptable: gold, butter, or aardvarks. Election of a libertarian president encompasses a solution only if such a man would act solely on the principles of liberty and carefully avoid any trespass upon the rights of free men to act freely in all endeavors beyond the proper jurisdiction of the state.
On a purely personal scale, one recognizes intrusions of power into almost every facet of life. How often have we discerned an apparent devotee of the freedom philosophy serving on some board or commission in a governmental capacity, wholly unaware of his inconsistency and infidelity to the faith? The rule should hold true, whether the participant is a free market economist asked to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, or a local businessman appointed to a state park commission: unless the activity promotes the administration of justice or thwarts the initiation of force or fraud, the committed free man ought to decline the position, with explanation, so that his actions resound in the community.
The Tendency to Trample Rights
Even the committed freedom philosopher exhibits a predilection to ignore the choice-making rights of his fellow and to impose his will upon his neighbors. The ordinary citizen, unhampered by a devotion to personal freedom and individual ‘responsibility, offers a much more likely source of abuse of power. In addition to the natural attributes of sympathy, empathy, and a desire to do good, the human condition displays a perverse tendency to exploit his co-inhabitants once a person gains ascendancy. It is this bifurcated character which distinguishes man from the angels and from the beasts: man, finite and fallible, can soar to great heights but he can never quite abandon his lower nature, that shadowy side predestined to coercion and violence.
Power represents the dark side of man’s nature, a proclivity which demands ever vigilant attempts to conquer. Persons ascendant over others seldom employ that power in harmony with the desires of the subjugated. Reason tells us why: no man possesses the talent and insight to determine the best course of action for another man. And, most men in dominant positions don’t even evince the impulse to discern and secure those goals.
Given this ugly part of man’s nature, and his inclination to subdue and direct those under his sway, one can readily see that rights become trampled in the process. The individual’s right (and obligation) to make his own decisions and to choose between alternatives comprise these rights destroyed. And, a right once lost cannot be reclaimed; it is gone forever, and with it a veritable part of the humanity of the possessor.
Suppose you desire to purchase furniture for your home. I, as lawmaker, impose price controls and a minimum wage law upon all furniture manufacturers. As a result, one-half of the furniture producers who would have occupied a free market are driven from business by their inability to achieve a profit under such circumstances. By my exercise of power, I have limited your choice and deprived you of meaningful alternatives. Once I have impeded your action, you will choose furniture from the stores remaining. You can never reclaim your widest range of choice because other real or potential producers have been excluded from the market by my action.
Again, you create value by producing and selling the service of delivering household goods to customers. You convert this created value into a medium of exchange and use the latter to trade for other goods which renders your life more enjoyable and worthwhile. I, possessing power as taxing agent, or as commissioner of a public dock, or as a member of the welfare bureau, or in any of a thousand other capacities, deprive you of some of your created or converted value, in the form of taxes. I use these tax funds to audit returns, or to pay for improvements to a dock which benefits a few persons, or to buy socks or soup for welfare recipients, or for myriad other public deeds.
Once I exert my power and reduce your store of value, by whatever means or name, I have deprived you forever of a choice. Unhindered you might have spent those tax funds for food, clothing or shelter, or for time-pieces, amusements, or pencils. Now, possessing less value, you will purchase either less of the commodities desired or some items to the exclusion of others. Once again, my exercise of power has ultimately narrowed your range of choice beyond regeneration.
Power, by its very essence, involves obliteration of the rights of some person. To command or to exercise authority over a person or an event conjures up only situations where the one in power makes decisions affecting the rights and liberties of other individuals. One may cede power to another voluntarily, or one may usurp power coercively. Condemnation attends coercive action only, not voluntary choice. When a party establishes a trust, a guardianship, or a conservatorship, when he employs a financial adviser, investment counselor, or a lawyer, he in effect surrenders power over a part of his life, value, and affairs to another individual or entity. He may make an improvident choice, but freedom utters no promise of success. The distinction drawn between a voluntary and a coerced choice is simply that in the former case, the purposive actor makes his own decision, while in the latter case someone else makes his decision for him.
Robbed of Choice
Power represents freedom’s antithesis whether one voluntarily relinquishes his choice or the state coercively deprives one of his choice. Voluntary forsaking of choice harmonizes with liberty, however, in the sense that man can choose not to choose. Compulsive divestiture of choice represents quite another matter, for here the individual loses all chance to choose.
Finally, power feeds on itself.
That murky side of human nature contains the predisposition to apply power; it likewise encompasses a drive to enjoy the assertion of power over another. It is this impulse above all others against which one must guard in his daily endeavors, so subtle is its blandishment. Related to, but wholly distinct from, the disposition to believe that only the actor knows and can achieve the proper result, the lust for power for power’s sake permeates each being.
A crafty, almost imperceptible, desire to employ dominion over others pervades our lives. In part, this trait relates to self-interests: each person desires to get his own way in almost all matters. But more than that, man generally enjoys the feeling of exultation collateral to command. Each of us must labor exceedingly hard to bridle this drift in all of our actions, a tendency commonly apparent in the drive of political, business and labor leaders who have outlived their usefulness to strive to retain their seats of jurisdiction.
Liberty Surpasses Power
Recur to the earlier suggestion that man displays the decided tendency to seek noble goals by the exercise of power with its concomitant deprivation of choice. Despite the near-universality of this ingrained instinct, the opposite is true: praiseworthy ends gain attainment through voluntary action rather than coercive application of force. Most phenomena require acceptance by faith; seldom does nature afford us absolute, logically positive, proof. Instead, we gather sufficient evidence to induce conviction, and pronounce a value judgment by way of conclusion. I desire to cross a street; I look both directions and listen attentively before I embark upon my way; I cannot say with absolute certainty that no vehicle will jar my journey for one might silently glide around the corner, but I have gathered sufficient evidence to cross the street in a sense of safety. Or, one person may express devotion to another in myriad ways; the recipient of the affection can never be positive about the actor’s commitment, but after the passage of time and the accumulation of evidence, he or she can reach a reasoned decision concerning the relationship.
The truth discussed in this section thus rests on faith. One cannot prove to an absolute certainty that freedom works better than slavery, although rational and empirical evidence preponderate in that regard. One can never unequivocally demonstrate that, in a given situation, liberty would produce a better material and spiritual result than coercion. For one thing, spiritual benefits are not subject to proof. For another, mankind does not exist in a controlled situation where human experiments can be conducted. No one can measure the damage to the person of one deprived of his choice-making abilities, nor can we repeat exact situations in a controlled and a free state.
Nevertheless, those of the libertarian persuasion steadfastly maintain, on faith and upon sufficient available evidence, that avoidance of power will permit a more desirable outcome than will the use of coercion. One cannot adequately explain why a concatenation of human lives takes place, but by and large, such a meshing does occur naturally and regularly. Power corrupts the natural process and thwarts the attainment of important goals; freedom lights the way to achievement.
Declining the Office
Suppose the effect upon the state, the nation, and the world if each potential appointee to a seat of coercive power reacted to the appointing agency, quietly, thoughtfully and in good taste, without rancor or snobbery, expressing his disinclination to serve in any predatory capacity.
Obviously, one cannot reasonably anticipate such universal action. However, the act of one man, or a few persons, rejecting impropriety and spurning power, can serve a dual purpose: first, these actions shine as a beacon for others to observe, consider and emulate; second, these actions give heart to the weary and frustrated who may rest on the verge of relinquishing all hope for freedom. Surely such an act of rejection will be understood and applauded by a few, viewed darkly by some others, laughed at and reviled by many, and ignored by most. Yet, just such a stand as this gains justification because it reflects adherence to the sound principles of liberty and justice. Right actions may not bring material rewards, but spiritual compensation abounds.
What kind of response should appointment or proposal for appointment or election generate? The riposte must fit the offer, the mood, the community, and the times. No one answer covers every situation. Letters, press conferences, interviews, prepared statements, all suggest possibilities. Likewise, the content of the response demands conformity to the requirements of the event. One can only offer suggestions, not commands. Two justifications light the response: explanation of the action in fundamental terms not scourged by rhetoric or shibboleth, so that some may comprehend and heed the deed, and action consistent with a faith in freedom. Individual application of these principles to the appropriate opportunity will swell the tide of principled liberty and diminish the unbridled application of power.
