Least of All, the Family; J.C. Sparks

LEAST OF ALL, THE FAMIL Y WHEN A GROUP of us undertook to study the socialist doc trine "from each according to his ability, to each accord ing to his need," a clergyman friend in our midst said he took mild issue with the use of the word "socialist" as the adjective. The doctrine, he went on, could apply to a number of circumstances involving human beings in society. And as a clincher, he added, "... for example, the family." Our questions, seeking further explanation, brought forth the following sequence of thought: parents pro vide the ability, children receive their needs: since the family method of operation is in perfect accord with the doctrine, it may be doubtful that "socialist" is the proper designation for the idea under discussion. Furthermore, the family operates in this manner very successfully; hence, this same mod us operandi should be considered favorably for extension into the community, state, and national "families."

In the ensuing discussion the arguments against "from ability, to-need" in the economic and political areas out side the home were fairly convincing to the predomi nantly libertarian participants. Nevertheless, the clergy220 LEAST OF ALL, THE FAMILY 221 man's point seemed to have taken the edge off the liber tarian argument, and some appeared to concede his as sertion that families do, in fact, conduct themselves on the basis of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." An uneasiness came over me. Having often used a sim ple situation to clarify the fundamental elements of a more complex situation, I had now been confronted with what was alleged to be a fundamental fact in a sim ple situation. And this Hfact" appeared to refute my conclusion pointing to the fallacy of Hfrom-ability, to need." Furthermore, I realized that many of the ideas for the welfare state and much of its support originate among very sincere persons striving to bring help, often in the form of material things, to those who have less than others. Of all the persons who advocate government laws bringing about wealth and income redistribution, none are so sincere as those whose professional work brings them into close contact with people in difficult economic conditions, at least some of which misfortune seems to have been beyond their control. It is not surprising that a doctrine calling forth the able to help the needy, ac complished by force of government in political social ism, should find acceptance among these genuinely sin cere persons.

How much of the socialist-enforced Hfrom the able, to the needy" stems from the analogy mentioned by my clergyman friend, I do not know. I only know that any difficult-to-refute argument as simply stated and impres222 JOHN C. SPARKS sive as this one is, can well be the foundation for many subsequent faulty conclusions leading toward interven tion by government. His assertion was either true or false. If true, then why not extend a successful family-operating method to community, state, and national "families" as suggested by this proposal? If false, then reasons are needed to head off the use of an incorrect and harmful analogy. To examine the matter carefully, one must first delve into the nature of purposeful human action. Sitting be fore the TV set, working, working harder, giving to charity, mowing the lawn, walking to the refrigerator, buying a dress for one's wife, purchasing shoes, going to church-even sleeping-are examples of human action!

Every act is done by a person as a preference to all other possible acts from which he can choose. In most cases, a person can perform only one or a limited few acts at the same time, to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Doing W hat Seems Best The fact is that every man's every act aims at self satisfaction, including a parent's actions toward mem bers of his family. So, the modus operandi of the family is not socialistic. Parents act to satisfy material wants and intangible desires. The motivations probably in clude comfort, self-acclaim, love, respect, friendship, real ization of a job well done, and pleasure in witnessing the joy and happiness of those who have received necesLEAST OF ALL, THE FAMILY 223 sary assistance and guidance. Or, there may be unworthy influences such as infatuation with arbitrary authority and power. The father may be a tyrant whose gratifica tion consists of batting his children around and terrify ing his wife. However, our purpose here is not to debate the merit of various motivations but to point out that the intent to gain satisfaction through achievement of an objective is the motivation of all human action, and the potential satisfaction that motivates must accrue to the person who is acting~ or the action will not occur.

Another's joy may influence a person to act, but only the actor's hoped-for satisfaction will really motivate the action. My sixteen-year-old daughter may be pleased over a new dress I have bought for her, but my antici pated satisfaction (in promoting her health and happi ness) must have been the motivation. I am sure she would be overjoyed if I were to buy her a bright-colored convertible or a mink coat, but her potential joy in the receipt of such gifts does not happen to create a desired satisfaction image in my mind; or, if it is on my value scale at all, it is so far down the list as not to be an effective objective. To further strengthen the point that self-satisfaction is unquestionably the motivation in a parent's actions concerning his child, one should reflect upon the fact that a minor child is but an extension of the parent. It is quite natural that one would seek to satisfy the desire to find something better in one's offshoot. Feeding, cloth ing, educating, and otherwise caring for my child is in reality no different from caring for myself.

224 JOHN C. SPARKS Unless self-satisfaction is obtained by the economic producers within a family, the family itself is endan gered. If an economic producer receives more satisfac tion in being attentive to and spending his earnings. on a woman other than his wife, for example, the other members of the family may discover that neither their economic nor their more intrinsic wants are being filled. Not present is the satisfactory exchange that prompts hu man action in the direction of overall family gratifica tion. In such an aggravated situation, it is more than likely that law and officialdom will step into the pic ture. Only then, under the artificial requirement of law, is the "from-ability, to-need" ideal brought into effect. And then, it is only a temporary expedient until a nor mal arrangement can be restored. No Evidence of Socialism I have tried to find a trace of "from-ability, to-need"

in the normal activities of the members of a family. I have sought it in the teaching of children, in the sacri fice of parents, in the acts of love, in the quest for accom plishment, in the discipline toward self-reliance-and nowhere in the family can I find any evidence of the presence of this socialist doctrine. Children are often taught household jobs as their in dividual responsibilities. Merely because fourteen-year old Jane has the ability to make beds is no good reason why she should be required to perform these tasks to sat isfy the needs of her younger twelve-year-old sister and LEAST OF ALL, THE FAMILY 225 eight-year-old brother. If all three are responsible for their own bed-making, then each will grow in strength of mind as each develops self-reliance to complete this daily household task, even though the finished job of the youngest may appear to have been stirred with a stick.

Again, the socialist ideal here under examination, Hfrom ability, to-need," does not come into use, and for good reason. Self-reliance is a more desirable trait to develop than dependence; and fortunately, self-reliance still re mains high in esteem inside the American family. Erroneously, there is a connotation of sacrifice in Hfrom-ability, to-need." Sacrifice, a worthy achievement in the truest sense, more appropriately belongs outside the socialist realm, inseparably tied in with free will. Sacrifice is often mistakenly thought of as a selection of a certain human action on some basis other than self satisfaction to the actor. This is error. Sacrifice is merely one kind of self-satisfaction. Parents may work hard and deprive themselves of worldly goods that they otherwise could have acquired, in order to save for the college edu cation of their children. Some may think this human action is illustrative of the "from-ability, to-need" ideal, falsely equating a warm, wholesome human action with this socialistic doctrine. Yet, in the absence of coercion, one must conclude that parents voluntarily choose their course of action; that is, they sacrifice because they re ceive satisfaction for themselves by providing their chil dren with higher-education opportunities. Were this basic principle not true, the family could never have developed in the first place. Sacrifice is not a giving up.

226 JOHN C. SPARKS It is an action, taken voluntarily, by which the actor ex pects to receive what he believes to be a greater value or pleasure in place of what he believes to be a lesser value or pleasure. Does this differ from any other human action? No. All voluntary action will be directed toward the achieve ment of more, rather than less, satisfaction. It is to achieve my satisfaction that I act. It is to achieve your satisfaction that you act. Achieving satisfaction for oneself is in itself neither selfish nor unselfish. Ho,v the action is affected by the various influencing factors may be an indication that one's satisfaction-seek ing acts are based on self-comfort or self-acclaim to such an overwhelming extent that the importance of other factors-such as love within his family-is slighted; thus, selfishness maybe said to rule one's actions. On the other hand, an actor whose satisfaction-seeking is influ enced more by love than self-comfort or self-acclaim may be thought of as unselfish. Whether the analysis is accu rate or not is difficult to ascertain, but in neither case is "from-ability, to-need" in operation.