Freedom To Decide; J.C. Sparks

FREEDOM TO DECIDE IN ONE of our best-known patriotic songs, we sing of our "sweet land of liberty." The implication is evident; it is good to live where liberty is present. But, how do we define liberty or know if we have it? There is good reason to ask this question. As words, liberty and freedom are in common use, especially by politicians of nearly every political persuasion. Each faction promises freedom through its program, and fore casts the loss of freedom if the opposition wins. Though used to describe opposing programs, the words always are intended to connote something highly desirable. Are these words only something to be lightly bandied about in the political arena? Or is there a deep and genuine meaning of liberty and freedom that is desir able and important to mankind? Philosophical reasoning as to the desirability of things usually harks back to man's purpose on earth. Though we humans may never fathom Ultimate Pur pose, the best clues afforded by Judeo-Chris tian and other religious philosophers suggest that each man's purpose is to achieve the highest degree of his own potential. Within this framework, mankind's favorable evolvement occurs only as each individual progresses 326 FREEDOM TO DECIDE 327 toward his capacity. Evolution is the accumulated and combined changes in all individuals.

Each man can achieve only to the degree that he suc cessfully overcomes those obstacles lying within and out side himself. To overcome internal obstacles is an im portant task requiring great concentration, for human weaknesses invite wastage of time and misdirection of effort. While difficult to conquer, these inner obstacles are nevertheless surmountable by the individual with out anyone else's consent. Our primary concern in this discussion, however, are those outside obstacles that deny freedom to individual persons in their attempts to attain their goals. These external obstructions are numerous and can block an individual's opportunity to shape his own purpose. Obstacles One May Avoid External obstacles are of two kinds. In one the choice to reject or nullify the obstruction lies entirely within the person being obstructed; in the other the obstruc tion arises out of the coercive activities of some men toward others in society, and the choice to reject or nullify the obstruction does not lie within the person being obstructed.

Examples of those external obstacles falling in the first classification are the domination of an adult child by a parent, the domination of a married person by his or her spouse, the domination of an employee by the employer, or the domination of its members by a reli328 JOHN C. SPARKS gious institution. The listing could go on and on and on. One purpose of parenthood should be to provide knowledge out of personal experience and rules of good judgment so that a child, as he grows toward adulthood, may become more and more capable in making decisions for himself. A parent should gradually introduce his child to the art of making decisions. When adulthood is reached, the new adult may expect a par ent to be available for consultation; but decision-mak ing should rest with the new adult. It is better to rob a person of all his possessions than to rob him of his right to make decisions. One's own maturity depends upon knowing how important it is to refrain from vio lating another's right to decide for himself. Surely, the same principle applies to married couples, especially when one partner attempts to degrade the other to a second-class obeyer of instructions.

Another aspect of child development merits mention. Many sports provide valuable training aside from the skill peculiar to that sport. Baseball instruction not only teaches how to throw, field, and bat, but also af fords the opportunity to train young minds to make a myriad of quick, individual decisions. The batter must determine within a split second whether to swing at a pitch or not. Coaches constantly try to alert defensive players to think ahead about the choice of play to be made if the ball is hit to one of them. This choice depends on whether the ball is hit sharply or is a slow roller, how many are "out," the number and position and speed of base runners, and many other factors, all FREEDOM TO DECIDE 329 of which must come into consideration within a matter of seconds. Adults working with boys' baseball teams would do a disservice to the young players if the game were stopped at the end of every play to instruct each fielder concerning the choice that should be made on the next play. Dismal results could be predicted in that case, not only in the scarcity of victories, but more vitally in the lack of decision-making development.

In the area of employer-employee relationship, oc casionally an owner or manager of a business attempts to make all decisions, not just those pertaining to over all company policy and direction. The employees conse quently are denied the responsibility of decision-making in their own assigned areas of activity. The ill effects on all persons involved in such a situation can readily be seen. The employee is denied the opportunity to de velop his creative abilities. The employer or manager finds his job overdemanding on his time and energies, with results unsatisfactory even to himself. The com pany fares poorly, like an eight-cylinder automobile running on one cylinder. Such a vehicle is greatly handi capped in a race with other vehicles (competitors) moving along on full power. Obstruction of this kind rnay be as detrimental to progress as any 0 bstacle raised by uncooperative labor groups. The problem also oc curs within departments of many companies where the superior dominates his subordinates. 1 1 See "Freedom, Authority, and Decentralization" by Bennett E.

Kline and Norman H. Martin in Harvard Business Review, May June, 1958.

330 JOHN C. SPARKS Some of the most difficult external obstacles originate within religious organizations formed to point the di rection toward right spiritual and moral citizenship. Among their leaders are those zealous to determine, in one manner or another, choices normally falling to in dividual members. Such action presumes the members are either too immature, too unintelligent, or too sus ceptible to temptation to arrive at proper decisions themselves. If so, how are they to gain maturity under a system whereby others decide moral questions for them? All of the external obstacles discussed above contain a high degree of pressure persuasion. None uses physical force to coerce the person being restricted, although the seed of force is there ready to bloom forth in all its ugliness. The adult child, if he chooses, can cast off the domination of his parents. The spouse can sever the marital bonds. The young baseball player can quit. The employee can resign. The member of a domineering church can resign altogether or transfer to another church. The final choice, as with internal obstacles, re mains with the person himself-either to submit to the interference of others, or to decide for himself.

When Coercion Is Involved The second category of external obstacles differs from either of the previous obstruction groupings, in that it involves physical coercion (or its threat) against one's person. Refusal to comply with the directives of coer cive force results in forfeiture of one's liberty or life FREEDOM TO DECIDE 331 or property. In this area, freedom of individual choice can vanish unless virtually all persons agree to protect each other against coercion. Running through the great religious and moral codes is a common theme sanctifying the right of each person to his life and property-"thou shall not kill .... thou shalt not steaL" Most governments have laws against murder and theft, often punishable by imprisonment or death. While almost everyone is aware that it is unlawful both in the eyes of God and of men for an individual person to murder and steal, a large number of society's members have become blinded to the very same laws of God in situations alleged to be more complex. The same society that prohibits anyone of its members from steal ing from another enacts laws permitting some to take the properties of others. The same society that would never tolerate the enslavement of anyone of itsmem bers by another enacts laws withdrawing freedom of choice from everyone.

This is the area of deep concern. In the name of the public good and the general welfare~ society through its organized government removes the freedom essential to individual good and individual welfare. Without in dividual welfare there can be no general welfare, no matter how sincere are those who believe that as a col lective they are endowed with more and better knowl edge and wisdom than any individual. How two boys, both of whom have mastered the multiplication tables through the sixes, can together have more knowledge 332 JOHN C. SPARKS about multiplication than each has separately is difficult to reconcile with logic. Yet this is the illogical premise of those who expect government to excel at any task undertaken, and who even go so far as to withdraw from all private persons or groups the opportunity to try to solve certain problems at hand. 2 One can only wonder at the quality of such faith held by these admirers of government intervention.

Fans of a good football team usually urge a post season championship game with another winning team to test the skill of their favorites. They have faith that their team can "take on" the best and come out vic torious in a fair contest with the same rules applying to both contestants. Not so with the interventionist's faith, however. He urges government into the electric power field, for example, only on the condition that there be special rules in favor of government, such as relief from taxation, interest-free financing, and en forced investment. While people individually may choose to invest or not in a private power company, such choice is denied in the realm of government-owned power ventures; everyone must invest via taxation. Investors in a pri vate company can sell out when they please, but not one of us can sell his individual "investment" in the government's Tennessee Valley power project. There is no faith among interventionists that government can 2 See Leonard E. Read, "Let Anyone Deliver Mail," Essays on Liberty, Volume V (p. 390) and John C. Sparks, "If Men Were Free To Try," Essays on Liberty, Volume III (p. 63).

FREEDOM TO DECIDE 333 attract and hold investors voluntarily or successfully compete on an equal basis. Faith is thin that must be supported by force of law. Central Regulation and Control A philosophy in favor of big, powerful government that substitutes centralized bureaucratic dictates for the numerous separate daily decisions of millions of indi viduals, is a philosophy opposed to the growth and de velopment of each individual person in the country. Knowing the whole cannot exceed the sum of its parts, we must realize that neither can the growth and devel opment of a nation exceed the growth and development of its individual citizens. The man who is required to pay social security tax as a hedge against his old age is not likely to develop re spect for frugality. The wage earner whose federal in come tax is deducted before he possesses his wages is unlikely to develop a deep patriotism or vigilant watch fulness about the things his taxes go to support. A par ent whose child is educated at public expense, forced to attend and to be taught a state-directed curriculum, is not likely to be concerned about thrifty use of edu cational funds or in the quality of instruction-until one day he discovers that his child cannot read. Then the parent discovers that he himself has failed the par enthood course of life, largely because the government education system had removed his right and duty to make decisions involving himself and his child.

334 JOHN C. SPARKS The downtown merchants and landowners who re ceive the presumed benefits of the federal government's urban renewal handout will probably continue to over look the voluntary economic decisions made daily by their present and former customers. These decisions point clear ly to a new and changing world of shopping in which downtown is no longer the prime destination for the na tion's housewife as she sets out to buy. The artificial aid will merely numb the recipient into a false sense of well being while he is losing customers. The builder of new apartment houses in "slum clearance" areas will eventual ly come to realize that there is today a popular preference for living in the country rather than in the city, leaving too few tenants to return him a profit on his new apart ment business. Developers of industrial tracts on "cleared" land may find that higher local taxation grow ing out of the urban renewal program is not an attrac tion to new industry. Every such interference removes, either by restraint or false lure of a government-con ceived bargain, the vital role of decision-making by individuals.

Those citizens who clamor for government programs to artificially control the field of medicine unwittingly propose to rob their self-reliant feHow citizens (and themselves) in numerous ways. Since one step of govern ment interference inevitably leads to further "free" service and control, one can logically expect an early proposal for government fixing of the maximium fees to be charged by doctors. This has happened in other parts of the world. A ceiling price is established by govFREEDOM TO DECIDE 335 ernment only when the legislators believe that the pre~ vailing price or fee is too high. When they fix it at a lower level, they hope that more persons can afford the treatment or operation. A delicate but expensive opera~ tion, perfected at the outset by a few highly skilled surgeons, undoubtedly would be a blessing to many sufferers. The relatively high fee does not prevent a person from choosing between values; and if the restora tion of vision, hearing, or other normal bodily function is worth the sacrifice of less-valued possessions, the suf ferer will choose the delicate operation in exchange for the fee.

However, if government intervenes to fix fees, the choice to the sufferer will probably disappear. The sur geon may find it more rewarding, for example, to per form ordinary tonsillectomies than to drain his nervous strength in an intricate operation on the inner ear. This operation that has been restoring hearing to many grateful patients at an "open market" fee of several hundred dollars would not be available at all if $50 were set as a maximum fee by government. A ceiling price always leads to the disappearance of the product or service; and a ceiling fee for the delicate ear opera tion would merely diminish its availability, with even~ tual loss of technical skill and doctor recruits in that specialized area. Such restrictive action would deny in~ dividual choice to many persons, doctors and patients alike. High tax rates on earnings and excessive interference and control is discouraging to those potential entre336 JOHN C. SPARKS preneurs who would start new businesses or expand ex isting businesses in our country. Some other nations of the world, meanwhile, have encouraged growth of in dustry there by reducing or removing government inter vention. Growth and development occur when people live in an atmosphere of minimum restraint and maxi mum freedom. The policy of interventionism threatens to sap the strength of our country, for progress depends upon individual freedom to decide. Authoritarian ob struction emanating from Washington and the state capitols erodes, deeper by the day, our liberty to choose.

These are typical examples of the countless infringe ments by organized society against the right of its in dividual members to make their own decisions. Few of the foregoing examples show anything but the good in tent of those who, through government, decide for others. Among the worthy objectives are cheaper elec tric power, certainty of saving for one's later years, con venience of paying taxes, education for all, restoration of the former downtown economy, lower surgical fees, and business regulation. But in the attempted attain ment of these goals, incorrect methods have been adopted, resulting in lost goals, and worse, lost oppor tunities to be self-reliant, decision-making individuals. The Uses of Adversity Mankind favorably evolves only as each man pro gresses. Every person has to do his own fighting to achieve a worthy goal. As Charles de Gaulle put it: FREEDOM TO DECIDE 337 "The man of character finds an especial attractiveness in difficulty, since it is only by coming to grips with difficulty that he can realize his potentialities." It helps no one to remove the consequence of a person's choice.

Each individual must of his own choosing overcome ob structions blocking his way toward fulfillment of his purpose. Such obstructions are sufficiently numerous and difficult in themselves without other persons in so ciety adding more obstructions through the organized coercion of government. While a person may wish sincerely to be his brother's keeper, this activity should be confined to personal en~ couragement and making available such enlightenment as he has attained that may arouse his brother to achieve his own purpose. Coercion applied to him, even with a good intent and a worthy objective in mind, will do nothing for his development and may, in fact, corrupt both the coerced and the coercer. The freedom to make decisions is the God-given right of every human being. Let us remove those governmen tal obstructions that prevent independent choice, and restore the freedom to decide.