sufficient depth. It is as though they felt, and had,indeed, come to believe, that freedom can be wonby an election, or possibly by some other titanicstruggle. After the winning, they could all stopworrying about freedom. Such is never true.

Freedom is not an end to a great effort, it is themethod that must be employed in all efforts. Free­dom cannot be automated. It is not achieved, inthe sense that a person arrives at a destination.Nor is it possible for some trick, political or other­wise, to provide other people with freedom. Nomanipulative legerdemain produces freedom forothers. Freedom is something that is learned byeach person, or it is not learned. It is grasped atlast only by those who love it most. Each one mustlearn it for himself. And the attainment is marked,not by a new political administration but by thehigh resolve of each individual who decides thatfrom this moment forward he will never willinglyor knowingly violate the freedom of another.

As one begins to grasp the nature of his ownreality, he begins to see that freedom is self­control, as opposed to externally imposed controlsupplied by others. The question of your ownfreedom is a question only you can answer. Itfollows that you cannot make others free nor canthey free you.

It is true, of course, that government hasalways been the principal enemy of human liberty.But it is not the only enemy. Were government todisappear - a disappearance which must be con­tinually sought - freedom would not appear in itsplace. The present mental level of the people ofthis land is such that the sudden passing of thestate would inspire most of them to create a newstate - or at least new means for using force on

THE MERRY WISH from an us little people who dwell at P.O. Box 2353 is that you will findjoy and fulfillment in your own freedom and in your own peace. And may that joy be so greatthat you will put aside all political action, as you would cast from you the memory of a baddream. A JOYFUL CHRISTMAS be yours - and a profit-filled 1977.

Should it turn out that unusual amounts of fogand mist still cling in folds to our tall buildings,and lie in billowing layers around our airports, thephenomenon may be readily explained. The elec­tion is over, and the condensation arising from thedroplets exuding from· so many fevered brows hasmixed with the sighs of relief as the political rut­ting season ended. The finale to our quadrennialvaporings must affect the weather, even thoughthe voting outcome has affected little else.

Of course the American people have lost. Butsince the Libertarians have not yet come to fullpower, there is still hope that some measure ofsanity may return as the silly season passes intowhat we still refer to as history. If we wished to beaccurate, we could refer to the trails made at thehustings as the medical records left behind by thepatients at an institution for the befuddled.

Now that national politicking is over for thetime being, we may again realize that others arestill human even if they belong to an opposingpolitical party.. Such reasonableness is neverencouraged during ,election time.

I am enormously pleased with the performanceof those libertarians who resisted the temptationto play the power game. As for those who wal­lowed in the welter, let them be welcome as theyreturn to constructive pursuits.

I suppose one of the reasons so many callingthemselves libertarians tilted so badly during the1976 emotional marathons ties back to the cry weheard so often during. the sixties: "Freedom inour time!"

Those giving ear to this siren call, and inprocess giving credence and support, have simplyfailed to understand the nature of freedom in

UP WITH LIBERTYDOWN WITH POLITICS

2

UP WITH LIBERTY(continued)

others. We have at the moment clear and over­powering evidence that the people of America arefearful of freedom and terrified of free marketideas. And freedom is such a celestial commoditythat while others can impede your freedomthrough imposed controls, none can reward youwith it even by taking off the controls.

What is needed is the resolve to control one'sself. And what is most in evidence today is thedesire of major and minor party sycophants toimpose controls upon others which they thinkappropriate. I have, indeed, listened to endlessharangues by people calling themselves libertarianwhose primary concern is how they can practiceretribution, retaliation, and "justice" upon thosewho misbehave. They see themselves as self­righteous bearers of the "true light" of liberty.They fancy that without government, they cancreate "free market" companies which will bring"justice" through forceful retaliation. So long asthey are of this mind, they differ from supportersof government control only in degree. Theyimagine that force and violence which they mightadminister over others would smell sweet. Itwould not. But then, we have very few among ourteeming millions who have grasped the principlesof freedom in depth.

The evil that is in the world today is created byhuman beings. In each case, the evil consists of theimposition of force by some upon others. Further,it must be grasped that most of the evil that iseommitted is performed by "good" people and withadmirable intentions. This is manifestly true, sinceit is apparent that nearly all of us are good peopleand there is so much evil around that it could nothave been created in such amounts as exist were itnot for the cooperation and participation of a greatmany.

If all men were naturally evil, then what wethink of today as evil would have no such conno­tation. Even if most men were evil, we would haveno such concept. If the majority of human beingswere constantly of evil intent and purpose, thenthe majority of us would be constantly engaged inevil doing. Destruction is easy. While it may takeyears of painstaking self-discipline to learn to playa violin, excel at sports or chess, or build abuilding, any evil person can smash a violinwithout prior instruction. It takes no great skill tocheat in sports or in any other activity. And animbecile with a stick of dynamite can bring downthe Taj Mahal. It may take years to produce a finepainting or a porcelain vase, but a child of two canwreck either in a moment .

The nature of the evil we see about us invari­ably contains the element of seeking to impose ourwills on others. Few of us feel that we need tocorrect the evil in ourselves. Even if we detect

shoddy motives and mediocre performance inourselves, we readily see that such falling awayfrom perfection does not justify any inroadsagainst us. It is the inroads against others that arealways a necessity and invariably justified. And itis from this unwillingness to mind our own busi­ness that evil is manufactured.

From this melancholy motivation governmentemerges. And it becomes government when itseeks to impose on others, although we may call itthe Paragon Protection Company. The character ofan act is not determined by its name. An act thatviolates the boundaries of another is invariablyviewed as necessary, profitable, and justified bythose who do the violating. It is always wrong.

The fundamental difference between a· liber­tarian and a political activist relates to the direc­tion of his effort. Each person may sincerely desirefreedom. However, the libertarian has recognizedone important factor in the equation which, despitelip service to the contrary, is never really graspedby the political activist. This is the fact that eachhuman being controls himself. The only controlthat causes your arm to move, your fingers to flex,or your brain to ideate, is your own control. I maybe able to inspire or terrify others. I may be ableto influence them fol' better or for worse. Butwhen it comes to control, there is only one personon earth I can control. Myself. My relationship tome is personal and direct. My relationship to allothers, although it might be personal, is and mustbe indirect. My body responds instantly to mycontrol of it. Were I to attempt to control· you, Iwould have to make the effort by demanding mybody to impose controls on your body. I can makeno direct demands upon you. All such demands ofnecessity are indirect.

Ii this point is grasped, if the distinctionbetween direct control and indirect manipulation isunderstood, then the individual has no difficulty inseeing that the only device he has by means ofwhich to impose his wishes on others is the use ofcoercive force. To make certain that you do notviolate another's boundaries, and hence performwrongfully, I must either kill you or incarcerateyou. But if I kill you or imprison you, I am vio­lating your boundaries.

It follows, therefore, that although I wish acondition of freedom to exist, I do not create acondition of freedom by imposing on you. Yet, if Ido not impose on you, how can I be sure that youwill not commit a wrongful act? The fact is, Icannot be sure. The belief in freedom entails risk. Imust leave you free so that you could perform awrongful act if you wished. I must rely on yourcontrol of yourself to see that you do not perform awrongful act. Either that, or I must violate theprinciples of freedom in order to obtain freedom ­clearly, a philosophic contradiction and a logicalabsurdity.

The difference between a real libertarian and apolitical activist appears here. The real libertarianwill leave you alone, trusting in your wisdom andyour conscience to refrain from wrongdoing;knowing that the only control over you is yourown. The political activist will not leave you alone.His planning must always be imposed on others.He is convinced that those who disagree cannot betaught. They must be restrained or compelled. Ofcourse his argument is that his actions are for thegood of all. He is a compulsive schemer who seeksto remold society in the image he likes best,usually his own. The libertarian, on the contrary,is willing to rely on each person's judgment todesign his own affairs as he sees fit and to bepatient should the other fall short of the ideal. Heis not so grandiose as to suppose that he knowswhat they should do better than they know it, tothe degree that he must impose force.

As it works out, all political activist theoriesare based on distrust of others. Therefore, allelection periods are filled with accusations aimedat awakening distrust and suspicion. Libertarianpoliticos stir up distrust of Republicans, Demo­crats, and all others. Republicans stir up distrustof Democrats, Libertarians, and all others.Democrats stir up distrust of Republicans, Liber­tarians, and all others. Each party sycophantwants you to believe that those who support himare virtuous and all others in all other camps arescoundrels.

The psychological effect of this periodic relianceupon sowing distrust and suspicion throughoutsociety is cumulative. It builds into such animusand hatred that we become unwilling to trustanyone at all. But liberty, a free society, is one inwhich we trust others to mind their own business.It follows that every political action helps to breedan anti-libertarian result. Every political action isaimed at proving that we can trust no one but thepolitical leaders of the party we happen to favor atthe moment. Over the long pull, this is bound to bedisastrous. In time, it leads to absolute tyrannyand dictatorship. For as suspicion mounts and weare more and more distrustful of everyone, reli­ance on force seems the only practical expedient.And what we hoped would be a move towardcivilization becomes a major reactionary forcetoward a resurgence of barbarism.

I see no practical means of moving toward afree society, a state of liberty, save by the emer­gence of self-control and self-discipline. Thesevirtues are taught and not imposed. In the end,education and self-control, precept and example,must be relied upon. And I see no procedure at allthat does not entail risk. To be a libertarian, aperson must be so devoted to liberty that he iswilling to let others be free, too, despite hisanxiety that each of them might do somethingwrong.

3

As the libertarian thrust intensifies and growsmore meaningful, if it does, more and more indi­viduals will withdraw from the political process.Should the point be grasped by any significantnumber, the effect on any administration, be itRepublican, Democratic, or Libertarian, will bethe same. We do not need to change the existingform of government into something more reason­able. Government is not reason, it is force. What isrequired is a waning, a reduction in that force, sothat reason can be relied upon once more. Thisdoes not mean force under better management.Under any management, it is the use of power bymeans of which to violate boundaries. Good man­agement of a predatory organization does notassuage predation, it tends to justify it.

The ultimate merit of precept and example asthe methods to be followed is this. Our society willadvance toward liberty exactly as rapidly as weare ready for it. As each individual grasps thesepoints, he steps aside from the political process.By doing so, he removes his energy from thewrongful practice of trying to control others,either by ballots or by bullets. To that degree, theforce of government (any administration) is dimin­ished. From this process there is no backlash. Onedoes not need to worry about a more persuasivepolitician following later who will sway others backto an earlier position. As the individual grasps thenature of his own identity, his own individuality,and finds himself in support of freedom, he im­poses on no one. He simply withdraws and learnsto content himself by minding his own affairs.

All government obtains its power from theconsent of those who are ruled - even in a dic­tatorship, but most especially in a democracy. Asfewer and fewer consent to be ruled, yet at thesame time impose neither threat nor force onothers, government is inadvertently less potent.Finally, it ceases to be potent altogether. But thatcessation comes at a time when the population, inthe main, is prepared for liberty. Were we toobtain the disappearance of government by anyother process, the population would not be ready,and the screams of outrage and anguish wouldquickly create a new government.

There is something else that needs to be said. Ihave found a number of persons, rightfully callingthemselves anarchists, who seek the abolition ofgovernment on the grounds that the existence ofgovernment makes private ownership of propertypossible. I'm not speaking of the so-called anarcho­capitalists but of those who follow the classicalanarchist tradition. In my judgment, such anar­chists are economically illiterate and wrong on thispoint. While it is true that government has servedto reward political favorites with privileged controlof property, as. in feudal times and in modernfascist states, government has invariably been the

(please turn to page 5)

4

I ANfW100'1

scheduled for December release

ANEW APPROACH TO THEFUNDAMENTALS OF ECONOMICS

that challenges all the old notions aboutteaching the subject - and especially theold saw attributed to Carlyle that· "econom­ics is a gloomy science." NOT· SO!

In more than 20 years of studyingand teaching economics, I have usuallyfound that ideas which are little morethan common sense have been cloakedin such profundity that the disciplineappears to be esoteric, far too difficultfor the average adult to fully compre­hend.But all economic ideas are basi­cally simple.

LIFT HER UP, TENDERL Y is a text­book that contains the element of purefiction. A man in his fifties is the guardian·of a twelve-year-old girl. The situationsand dialogue are imaginary. But the lawsof economics (common sense) are sug­gested by the guardian and applied by

the young lady in her efforts to deal withreal life situations.

My hope is that teachers in highschool - and even .grade school - willmake use of this simple approach toeconomics.

Even more importantly, I hope thatin its pages parents will rediscover theexciting and rewarding task of teachingtheir own children. Love alone is notenough. Physical maintenance, payingthe bills, playing together - none ofthese is enough. Learning the meaningand common sense of living is a life-longchallenge for parents and children alike.

This beautifully bound hardcover book (over 200 pages) is first offered to Journalreaders for the remarkably low price of $6.95 (plus 7St postage/handling).California residents add 42t for 6% sales tax. Use the handy attached envelopefor your check and order. Write for discount on 100r more copies.

UP WITH LIBERTY(continued from page 9)major device by means of which the ownership andcontrol of property by private persons is erodedand abolished.

Once the true libertarian position is grasped, amajor position is established in favor of privateownership and control of property. The libertarianmust be willing to run the risk that others willhave more or less property than he has.. Withoutgovernment as a device to call on, only market­place methods for acquiring and keeping propertywill pertain. This means that customer patronagebecomes the controlling force and this, in itself,provides the only true democracy worthy of thename. In a free society, voting occurs constantly inthe market place. The customer is king and votesfor or against a product or service by buying orrefusing to buy. Elections are not periods of timefor sowing suspicion and hatred. Elections go onevery day, and every hour, with each personexpressing his wishes by the practical method ofparticipating as he will or abstaining as he will.Yet his decisions are not binding on others. Free­dom remains a constant, and the rewards go to thebest producer and not to the best confidence man.

Government, on the other hand, is invariablyan instrument of monopoly and special privilege.This is, indeed, why so many people support it.Government behaves like an intoxicated million­aire, willing to throw money around in an irre­sponsible manner. The difficulty is that the gov­ernment has no money to throw around except the

5

money it takes by force from those who earn it. Solong as we have a preponderance of persons willingto receive goodies they have not earned and arenot entitled to, we will have government.

Thus, in the final analysis, the growth of gov­ernment' and the reliance upon it, are marked by adiminution and shrinking of individual character.The person of integrity does not want a specialfavor nor a forcefully obtained monopoly position.All he asks is freedom, and the chance to run hisrace without interference. He knows that somewill do better than he will and some will do worse.As invariably occurs, those lacking most in char­acter are those seeking most from government.And those running for office are almost alwaysthose who have lost all belief in human goodnessand human integrity and so they seek force, whichthey fondly believe will be safely administered intheir hands.

This nation and the world are experiencing anepidemic far worse than the highly touted swineflu. It is a pandemic featuring the decline of self­respect and individual character, which is beingreplaced by the proxy of government founded onviolence. The inoculation recommended must beself-administered. It is the vaccine of freedom. Theinoculation has been effective at that point in theindividual's life when he says to himself, "I know Icannot control the actions of others. But I cancontrol my own and from this moment forward, Iwill so conduct myself that I will never knowinglyor willingly violate the rights and freedom of

another." f-SEMINARS WITH ROBERT LeFEVRE - 1977

January July9-14 Morgantown, West Virginia 10-15 Greenwood, South Carolina

16-21 Greenwood, South Carolina 24-29 Greenwood, South Carolina30-Feb. 4 Greenwood, South Carolina August

February 8-12 Wichita, Kansas13-18 Greenwood, South Carolina 14-19 Northern California20-25 Greenwood, South Carolina 28-Sept. 2 Greenwood, South Carolina

March September6-11 Northern California 11-16 Greenwood, South Carolina

20-25 Greenwood, South Carolina 18-23 Greenwood, South Carolina

April October3-8 Greenwood, South Carolina 2-7 Greenwood, South Carolina

17-22 Greenwood, South Carolina 9-14 Greenwood, South Carolina

May November1-6 Greenwood, South Carolina 13-18 Greenwood, South Carolina8-13 Greenwood, South Carolina 27-Dec. 2 Greenwood, South Carolina

June Sessions fully reserved by sponsor ex-12-17 Greenwood, South Carolina cept for August 8-12. For information re26-July 1 Greenwood, South Carolina Wichita seminar, write to Mrs. Wanda

Lee Zuercher, Love Box Co., Box 546,Wichita, Kansas 67201 .

6

JUDITH SLOAN: "The Americanpublic has been so indoctrinated that ittakes a free thinker to make us awarethat we do have alternatives. Yourthoughts have opened my mind and it'sreally fun to think!"

PETER McALPINE: "Why shouldanyone value freedom as a thing in it­self! I must confess that only philoso­phies based on self-interest as thehighest individual value make anysense to me. I can point to the plea­sures possible only to the well and liv­ing as evidence for the self-interestphilosophy. Your philosophy is self­consistent, but so what? Where doesyour first premise come from? Belief inthe supernatural and life after deathseems to me the only possible justifica­tion for sacrificing self-interest to aconcept of 'freedom' or any other ver­sion of 'right and wrong.' " You mighttry thinking of the kind of life you'dlead if aU your freedom were takenfrom you. The primary self-interest ofany rational person is that he be free.

MARION KINTNER, M.D.: "Ahappy life, with good will and equanim­ity, free of arrogance and aggression, iseasier for me to achieve when I learn ofyour ideas. Urges to incinerate vandalsor thieves grow like weeds, but medi­cal experience shows that malaise anddisease result from bitter or vengefulthoughts. . . . Your observation thatnon-aggression may not solve all prob­lems, but may more nearly achieve jus­tice than any other means deservesconsideration and application by allthoughtful persons."

MARCUS LOGAN: "It was easy tosit and try to find faults - to gain rec­ognition by that action. But I find itironic that now I champion your views.I use my words, maybe not exactlyyour meanings, but try to express free­dom to people who want to listen. Atrend has started and if it's kept

nourished, -fueled by many, no onereally trying to dominate- - becausethen it would be extinguished - theworld still has a choice. I pay tribute toyou, and to my employer, Roger Milli­ken. I don't think either of you reallywants the credit, I know you don'twant to be the leader - this enlighten­ment doesn't need one, nor does itwant one. No majority, nor minority,should rule - everyone has to under­stand for themselves. A maturity ofthought has to grow. Thank you."

ROY CHILDS: "I have found thelast two issues of LeFevre's Journalrather disturbing. . . . My major pointwas that lying was not, in these con­texts, a moral issue; when dealing withmurderers and cut-throats, one has theright to protect oneself by lying. . . .You also think that lying is not a moralissue, and violates no libertarian prin­ciple. To you, the only moral principleis: 'Molest no one for any re'ason; afterthat, do as you please.' By 'molest' youmean 'violate the will of a propertyowner with respect to something thathe owns.' In your view, all else is in therealm of ethics, and therefore subjec­tive. This means that you agree withBlock." Wherever contracts or agree­ments exist in respect to the communi­cation ofinformation, a lie is an immor­al act. This is also true when a person isseeking to establish a contract oragreement, as in seUing a product or inrunning for office. In any case, how­ever we intellectualize over it, a lie isnot desirable and it most certainlydowngrades the concept of libertywhen a bright young advocate of free­dom recommends lying if only it wiUhelp him get what he wants.

JOHN RALEIGH: "Since I had theunique privilege of being in yourGreenwood class less than a year ago,I've made a sincere effort to steer myown life on a consistently non-meddle-

some course away from politics andtowards the market place. I've addedto that policy the belief that I'll getwhat I want out oillie if I help enoughother people get what they want. It'sbeautiful. It works. Behold! my en­closed contribution is double the lastone."

H. FLOYD NOWELL: "In readingyour work I constantly find ideas thatI've worked with for years withoutreally giving them expression as youhave. For years I was in the construc­tion and real estate business. At first,when I had not thought this ,allthrough, I used the FHA and VA pro­grams for financing and selling myproperties. One day I realized that Ihad to make it without governmenthelp and I stopped using these agenciesand never went back. I'm coming moreand more to see the value of yourideas." Congratuw,tions. It's most en­couraging to find a man with the skiUsand ability to stay in business andavoid reliJ:Lnce upon government fi­nancing schemes.

JOHN BUNTER: "Your philosophyleaves those who accept it at the mercyof those who don't! Any 'protection'system can be beaten, by a determinedthief. If I cannot forcibly defend myproperty, and I cannot recover proper­ty stolen from me, do I really have'property rights'?" It is entirely possi­ble for a person to protect himself andhis property by the use of reason, andadvance preparation. It is strange thatso many find force to be superior toreason and feel vulnerable unless forceis relied upon.

BOB MURPHY: "I greatly enjoyedThe Power of Congress. In it you say,'It doesn't matter whether governmentseeks to enforce real law or not, nature'enforces it.' My question: Are the lawsagainst murder and theft true law orlegislation? If they are true law, howdoes nature enforce them? If the lawsagainst murder and theft are legisla­tion, are you saying that we could dowithout them? that they are 'opinionsof some men imposed upon other menby force'?" Murder and theft are ac­tions that vWwte the wws of human re­ality. Passing legisln,tion against themdoes not stop them. But you can decidethat you 'Will neither murder nor steal.When you make that decision, we can~

stop worrying about you.BARRY POLLARD: "I suspect

that the things we call rights are com­pletely contractual and that their char­acteristics of 'equality' and 'unaliena­bility' are the expected results of rea­sonable contractual decisions. If some-

one breaks the (explicit or implicit)contract with someone else, this otherperson probably will not again contractwith the 'breaker.' Nor will others.But, what if the 'break' is a violent at­tack on Mrs. LeFevre? If such a reac­tion is possible, might you not bounce arock off the rapist's skull? 'No!' saysphilosopher LeFevre, but 'Yes!' saysthe engineer. For the scientist dealsin absolutes and the engineer dealswith reality. Many a scientist's dreamhas been saved by a tap in the rightplace by the engineer's hammer. Thedebate in your Journal is between thephilosopher and the engineers. And theengineers are right (as was illustratedby Don Fahrenkrug's letter). But, noengineer can work without the littlebooks telling him what the scientist/philosophers have discovered and thisis the importance of LeFevre. He isright, too. In fact, he is absolutelyright. But, someone who knows the'absolute' is faced with the task of ap­proaching its fruition by a circuitousroute. This 'engineer' may proceedtowards 'non-violence' by breaking anose or two. Such a procedure isn't im­portant in the scheme of things - solong as the philosopher's job is welldone. But, if LeFevre has failed to pro­vide the philosophy of non-violence,then 'breaking noses' may well becomenot the engineer's 'tap of the hammer'but his new philosophy!" I think thereis more to rights than the right to con­tract and the benefits achieved by con­tract. And LeFevre is duly warned. Hemust do his work very weU indeed tooffset the tendency of those who seek aphilosophy based on expedience.

FRAN LAVIN: "I'm paying younow for something about which I'velong wondered ... why a LibertarianParty? Why, indeed? Who needs it ­in that manner? Now, why couldn't Ifigure that out? Possibly because I'm ajeweler, not a philosopher; and I need aphilosopher close buy to answer suchquestions. (Note the freudian slip: buyrather than by.) If I had the time, per­haps I could have figured it out. Per­haps. Now that you have my attention,I'll read your Journal from cover tocover."

FRED WALKER: "I don't arguewith you very often, but really! 'Mostof the people in government are goodpeople'! Legal thieves are what theyare, .paid with the tax gun or/and theprinting press, and well aware of it.Certainly human, but in the lowestpossible employment. Possibly apeaceful way of reaching governmentis to cause aU government employees

to be looked upon with disdain by allthinking men. Loss of 'face' could havea telling effect on those who make pos­sible government as we unfortunatelyknow it. The silent stare when othersapplaud a local 'dignitary,' the get-off­my-back lapel pins, and thousands ofother ways will get across the peacefulmessage in no uncertain terms. Has itbeen seriously attempted in any orga­nized way? The beauty of it is that thisplan contains no goal other than reduc­ing others' powers. We would not our­selves be seeking office, a program, or'selling' something. Same concept as'Don't tread on me,' etc." Ionce wrotean article recommending that aU politi­cians be required to wear distinctiveheadgear at aU times, so they could bedistinguished from persons havinghonest jobs. Yet, I would stiU say thata man must be viewed as a man, de­spite some of the things he does. Theheadsman who wielded the axe for aroyal monarch may have been a goodman - only his job was vicious. Men inpolitical office are often good men; butthey are, of course, engaged in wrong­ful and destructive, even vicious ac­tions.

CARL WATNER: "'Caravan IntoConflict' was interesting; especiallyyour emphasis on Walter Block's de­fense of lying. Thought you might liketo see how I incorporated that idea intoa proprietary theory of justice. Quot­ing Block: 'Now it may not be nice (orin the opinion of some - moral) to lie,it may not be admirable. The personwe give the wrong time to may get intoall sorts of difficulties because he be­lieves us. That's tough. But society isnot justified in using force against theliar. For the liar has not first initiatedforce himself. He is not acting contraryto libertarian principles. We must, ofcourse, distinguish lying from fraud.... If you have a contractual relation­ship to tell someone the correct timewhen he asks, and you lie to him, youare guilty of fraud.... you are not giv­ing him the service for which he haspaid you.... If a beggar on the streetasks you for the correct time, you havea right to ignore him and remain silent,and you have 'the right to make him avoluntary gift of something he has notasked for, namely the wrong time. . . .Anyone who asks you a question islogically in the position of a beggar. Heis asking you for something. You don'towe him the truth unless he's paid youfor giving it.' I enjoy reading yourJournaL" "Society"isn'tjustified in do­ing anything. "Society" doesn't do any­thing. It's just a coUective noun~ Only

7

individuals act. I see the difference be­tween a lie that violates a contract andone that does not. A lie is obviously notdesirable. It is reprehensible primarilybecause of what it reveals of the liar'scharacter. Clearly, no one is requiredto believe what another tells him.

EDWARD UNDERWOOD: "To­day, thinking is done for people by pre­sumptuous educators and communica­tors who know human minds are vul­nerable to repetitive suggestion anduse it to our disadvantage. True liber­tarians would do well to turn their at­tention to the source of mental subver­sion, the public school system, whosegraduates not only staff all fields ofhuman activity but also comprise a so­ciety which has been led to believe itsbetterment depends upon collectiverather than individual integrity. Itshould not be too difficult to convincepeople in general that the whole cannever be better than its individualparts and that people must improve byhaving a school system with that pur­pose."

PHILLIP LUCE: "You've appar­ently been 'read out' of the 'movement'somewhat in the manner that someonenamed Tuccile read me out in his bookdealing with Rand.... I've never un­derstood who ordained anyone to leador banish anyone else. . . . Part of theproblem might be summed up byHobbes, 'For they see their own wit athand, and other men's at a distance.'This may be especially true of econo­mists, as in the case of Prof. Rothbard,who somehow manages to endorseAdam Smith while playing footsie withsyndicalists. No doubt some of ourfriends in the 'movement' would gladlystand you against the wall for yourpacifism and myself for daring to dealwith the State. I can't consider myselfa libertarian and then a member of apolitical party, theoretically speaking,because the two are natural opposites(it's like living in a State of Anarchy).Secondly, I can't support the party onpurely pragmatic grounds."

WALTER OAKES: "I was aston­ished by your doubts of the LibertarianParty as a vehicle to liberty. Don't youremember? If it succeeds and after ithas accomplished all its good works, itwill simply 'wither away,' as promisedby Marx - amply demonstrated by thewhite bones of the Communist Party,the Socialist Parties, Democrats, etc.It's well to remember, however, that'he who turns the other cheek willprobably not be able to sit down atall.' " A "withering away" of the Liber-

(please turn the page)

8

tarian Party, so-caUed, may indeedresult in a withering away of those whomay have too closely aligned them­selves to party politics instead of toliberty.

F. J. McMAHON: "Your Journal isalive with new thoughts. I.like yourcomments to the various letters. Itseems sometimes that what you're say­ing is, if we want to live in a societythat is heaven-like, then we peoplehave to be heavenly beings. There's noother way, because as we are now, wewould wreck heaven in a matter of mo­ments, so I have to keep trying."

SPENCER MACCALLUM: "If thisis less than I sent last time, it doesn'treflect any lessening of interest. Icouldn't afford to send you what yourJournal is worth."

ROBERT REYNOLDS: "I don'tentirely agree with you, but yourcogent presentation is at once delight­ful and makes for splendid pondering."

MARC MOFFITT: "Your Journalhas followed me through five jobs andfour residences without so much as athank you. Since it's my favorite pieceof mail, guaranteed to contain at leastone enlightening or inspirational ideaeach issue, I guess it's time to pay backat least a small part of the debt I oweyou. I wish I could send more but I'm acab driver (non-subsidized company,I'm happy to say). Two people have in­fluenced my thinking more than anyother: Ayn Rand revolutionized it andyou refined it - and continue to.Please send your Journal to myfather."

PHILIP O'CONNELL: "We've justreturned from Ireland, where centur­ies of coercion from outsiders has cre­ated a most unusual history and peo­pie. All of Ireland is at peace except forthe six counties in the North. Here theconstant theme of those in power isthat if you give equality and freedom tothe Catholic minority, you'll be de­stroyed. Violence is used by a smallminority to gain these rights and free­dom, and violence is used to retaliate.Men of good will abound on both sidesbut fail to come to an effective agree­ment because they have not the faiththat if they trust each other and re­move the restrictions and the BritishArmy, all will be well. From what Isaw on both sides of the border, thislack of faith is ridiculous. Once equalityand freedom is restored, the 'troubles'as they call them will go away and all ofGreat· Britain will be at peace. Here,Bob, is truly fruitful ground for theprinciples you so courageously de­fend." Thank you, Phil. The IriSh im-

broglio is no more than a power strug­gle - an election, if you please - usingbuUets instead of baUots with the sameend in view: a single faction which is tomonopolize power.

SARTELL PRENTICE, JR.: "Alibertarian politician is indeed a contra­diction in terms - as is 'politicial sci­ence.' "

JEAN SKINNER: "I find little timefor correspondence, but always findtime to read and enjoy the Journal."

MICHAEL USHiJIMA: "AlthoughI appreciated your 'Caravan into Con­flict,' I felt that on one or two occasionsyou uncharacteristically allowed youremotions to influence your rhetoric.I've come to expect a higher standardof writing from you over the years.Nonetheless, I strongly agree withmost of your positions and as you wellknow, generally support your positionmuch more so than that of the 'pragma­tists' of the 'Libertarian Party.' I es­pecially agree with your objection tomajority rule, an attitude which youcrystalized in my mind over ten yearsago. I'd be interested in contactinggrads in my Freedom School class tosee how their present thoughts havedeveloped." Perhaps my emotions in­fluenced my rhetoric. If so, I trust theydid not impair my logic. If Mike '8 class­mates care t() respond, the Journal wiUforward letters to him.

MARGUERITE SNARE: "Themagic age (?) 65 finally caught up withme and my superiors have put me outto pasture. However, after attemptingto teach in that marvelous $1.6 millionschool building with its open class­rooms, I'm more than happy to retire.There are those who would probablysay that I'm not progressive, and theymay be right. But is there anythingwrong with privacy in a schoolroom? Inmy opinion, private schools are the an­swer to many of our serious problems."

J. T. SLAUGHTER: "Spooner'sNO TREASON has given me an addedregard for your Journal. The one areawhere you have not yet convinced meis that of self-defense. Man is not om­niscient, and despite all efforts to makehis life secure, he may find himself inextremis. In this situation, and with agreat deal of regret, I believe· he hasthe right to kill in order to defend him­self." This belief keeps governmentaround. But if man is not omniscient(and I agree), a government made up ofmen is no better.

KERRY THORNLEY: "I read andpass along every issue. Of all the thingsI've learned, I've come to appreciatenone of them more than the teaching

that retribution is a barbaric and total­ly useless practice. It's so obvious onceyou think about it, and yet so few everseem to dwell on it. That was the cen­tral message of Jesus and that 2,000years have elapsed without its havingtaken hold in social affairs is to me oneof the tragic ironies of history. I can'timagine what sort of person I'd betoday without that simple, valuable in­sight which you passed on to me in1964, and I want you to know I'm stillspreading the word about it."

JOHN BRISCOE: "I just finisheddestroying my 'right to vote' ballots. Itis at once both a humorous yet sadphilosophical state of affairs when thetypical voter believes legislators andlaws are only to control the 'other guy.''For whom the bell tolls'. . . . "

DAVID CARL ARGALL: "An anal­ogy: I'm held up by two thieves, Repand Dem, with one gun, government,between. . . . They are clumsy, drop­ping the gun from time to time andscrambling for it with the winner rob­bing both me and his fellow crook.Let's say I make a grab for the loosegun (engage in political action) and getit. We both agree I should not then robthe crooks.... However, I can throwthe gun down the sewer. Rep and Demmight still be able to rob me, but theirability to do so is greatly decreased andI can expect to keep a good deal more.How have I violated their rights? Nei­ther Rep nor Dem made any claim ofownership of the gun. In fact they in­sist they don't own it, that it belongs toa vague being called the 'public' whodecides who gets the gun when it isdropped, that whoever gets the gunhas a 'mandate' from the owner. Noram I imposing my will on anyone. Theyare free to do as they please. Theyhave the same rights as always. Theycertainly didn't lose the right to robme; they never had such a right. Thus,political action can be a morally accept­able way toward a libertarian society.One can debate the most efficientmethod(s), but there is no inherentreason to reject political action such asthe Libertarian Party." When a gun isfired, the target receives the buUet andaU others escape harm. When govern­ment is employed, not only is the tar­get injured, but aU others in the nationare drained of their resources. Whilemost analogies are colorful and some­times helpful, rarely do they coincidewith the prototype model at aU points.No one, however weU-intentioned, canemploy the "gun" of government with­out inflicting injury upon the people ingeneral. Government is far worse than

any gun ever devised. Nor am I com­forted by the suggestion that the weU­intentioned polit'ician can throw thegun into the sewer - a suggestionbased on the theory that there's onlyone gun, and another can't be pro­duced. The assumption is wrong. Solong as the people in general want agovernment, we will have one. If, byforce or legerdemain (and it would takeone or the other at this juncture), thegovernment we have were discarded,we'd have a new one within a week.This is why it does no good at aU toparticipate politicaUy. It accomplishesabsolutely nothing in the long run. Par­ticipation in government wiU continueuntil the misery caused by such partici­pation becomes so abusive that achange in belief, attitude, or philoso­phy occurs at a depth which wi/J, makepossible the abandonment of govern­ment. The only practical steps to betaken at this time entail an examina­tion of the philosophy of liberty indepth and support of those ideas whichare bound to culminate in abandonmentof the state. Thu cannot be done quick­ly. But it wiU never be done at aU un­less each ofus, acting by himself, doesaU he can outside the political arena.

ROY COTIRELL: "1 say a kind ofprayer whenever I receive your Jour­1ULl: that you will continue speakingand that nothing - nothing will silenceyour voice. It only matters to free menwho understand and appreciate. Whoknows how large a number are thisremnant in our land?"

RONALD TRAVIS: "When I strug­gle w~th your discussions on dealingwith the use of force, in truth I amstruggling to be inconsistent. I seek touphold contradictions; to both have andeat my cake. I have worked throughthese disagreements to where I nowconcur with your viewpoint, and I thor­oughly enjoy the consequent harmonyI've since experienced. In your Fall '76Journal, I was more disturbed thanwith any previous' one. 'The humanmind is finite and cannot envision per­fection ... And if the world is perfect,then there is no point toward whichany of us can strive. Weare already inParadise.' Certainly, Bob, the humanmind is finite. It's neither omniscientnor omnipotent, and it cannot be alland do all. But 'perfection' in this con­text is a moral abstraction of high or­der, and subsumes other abstractions."My difficulty with discussions respect­ing perfection arises from my inabilityto define it. Ii something is "perfect,"then it cannot advance to a higherstate. Or so it seems to me. There

would be no striving, nothing to accom­plish. In order to strive, one must dis­cern principles (not perfection) whickarise out of the nature of things as theyare. By using these principles one canstrive to "better" one's position. Ifone's position is perfect, it cannot beimproved upon.

JOHN GOODYEAR: "A friendgave me copies of your spring and sum­mer issues. It's a real long shot, but Ibelieve you have the right idea and Iam determined to be free, and to prac­tice the libertarian philosophy."

LEWIS CULVER: "What could bemore delightful than a letter from BobLeFevre whether it is 'form,' 'quarter­ly" or whatnot? ... I'm happy to be ac­quainted with a man who feels sostrongly about the pointlessness of thenotion of retributive justice."

JOHN EGOLF: "When I first gotinterested in libertarian thought, I hadmany erroneous ideas on 20th centuryhistory. Thanks to your counsel, I wasspurred to read the works of Barnes,Beard, Tansill, etc. These authorshelped me to understand revisionisthistory and to note the state's utterdisregard for the rights of its citizenswhen it is expedient, whether thatstate is a democracy or dictatorship."

DORIS GORDON: "Nobody hasany responsibility to vote. The respon­sibility that everyone does have is toexercise control over his or her ownlife, not anyone else's. Voting givespoliticians the power to take away thatcontrol. Governments don't solve prob­lems, they create them. Voting im­proves nothing except politicians' egosand pocketbooks. We don't need the il­lusion of political reforms. What we doneed is to eliminate· politics from ourlives as soon as possible. Voting allowsus to choose the lesser of two evils.Since the lesser of two evils is still evil,refusing to vote is a responsible choicethat is our right and duty to make."

KEN GRAY: "Libertarians, at leastthose of your persuasion, do have aconsistent, moral philosophy althoughit may be incomplete. Your position isgood but to me it's only the beginning,a first, necessary step. Your analysis ofour problems is k.een but where are theanswers? How do we go about chang­ing the consciousness of statist think­ers' Le., the majority of this planet'spopulation? To that I have not heardone workable, effective answer duringthe ten years I've kept track of thelibertarian movement. Nobody seemsto know. And yet I refuse to acceptthat our societal problems are insolu­ble. I've heard your talk on communi-

9cating and I feel that something more isneeded. I don't mean more philosophy,but rather a method, a technology, areal physical and psychological processthat can transform people if they areopen to it. Please comment and keepthose Journals coming." I agree. In alater issue /'U try to come forward UJithan idea or two in this area.

DALE GREEN: "Government is asocial institution for legalizing the useof initiated force in human relation­ships."

GUY RIGGS: "Four years ago I wascirculating a petition to get on the bal­lot as a Libertarian candidate for stateassemblyman. One man gave me a hardyet strangely goodnatured look andsaid, 'Look, fellow, anyone seeking po­litical office is either crazy or crooked.Please don't waste my time.' Then hesaid, 'Hey, nothing personal ... You'retelling people you're not going to do athing for them; just prevent thingsfrom being done to them. Mr. Riggs,people want politicians to do all sorts ofthings for them. The only thing peoplewant politicians to prevent is the pay­ment of the bill.' I'll have to admit thisguy struck home . . . . but politiciansare no more crazy or crooked than youwant them to be. Bob, in your summerissue you say: 'It is not violence per sethat we can prevent. But we can pre­vent self-righteous violence. And thatis the burden of all political action thatis related to government. It endowsmen with the belief that violence undercertain conditions is righteous.' Thoseare profound words. I'm going to re­member them for two reasons (1) Idon't believe I've been so endowed bymy political action and (2) I will now(damn you!) have to keep proving it tomyself. Well, I'll just keep in mindwhat I said four years ago when I firstburst upon the political scene: 'Let'slook for another way of solving yourproblem than at the point of a gun.'Maybe I'll be the first man in historythat power doesn't· corrupt!" I under­stand that Mr. Riggs can be congratu­lated. He was recently defeated - thusattesting to his honesty and unwiUing­ness to out-promise his opponent.

CHARLES McFADDEN: "For bal­ance, and a different viewpoint, I enjoyreading LeFevre's Journal. Your price­less publication and half hour of lightreading is well worth my enclosed do­nation."

JEAN LOWRY: "I've read yourJournal for some time now. At first asa skeptic, and then with the realizationthat you in fact have the correct atti­tude."

10

THE "CONSPIRACY" OF BUSINESSMENSo many keep talking about business corruption

and conspiracy that it might be useful to look at analleged example of conspiracy by businessmen.

Once upon a time many years ago, SouthernCalifornia had a major means of mass transpor­tation referred to nostalgically as the Big RedCars. Widely spaced communities were linked bythe Pacific Electric Railway and these hurtling,swaying, clanking, uncomfortable monsters werepainted like fire engines, contained woodenbenches, smelled of disinfectant, and operatedelectrically. Then, they were detested; in absen­tia' they are loved.

Baxter Ward, a local politician, is now trying toenhance his career by claiming that the Big RedCars disappeared as a result of a conspiracy.According to Ward, a major automotive company,a tire and rubber company, and a gasoline com­pany created a holding company, purchased thePacific Electric, operated it a few years, and thenquietly shut it down.

The allegation has it that the three firms de­liberately did what was terrible for the people ofthe Southern California region, and it was donesolely to enhance the profits of the firms involved.

In an effort to deal with reports of this kind,and they are numerous, it is essential that thesirnple and fundamental principles of economics bekept in mind.

First, I'm going to suppose that the facts are asBaxter Ward reports them. I have not checked therecord. I am accepting the validity of his charge,presuming that the three firms did as they arereported to have done; that their purpose wasprofit, and that their move was a successful one.I'm not accepting the allegation that this was theworst thing that could have occurred in the trans­portation business in Southern California.

At the moment, Southern California does nothave a successful governmentally owned andmanaged mass transportation system. What it hasis a love affair with the automobile. Baxter Wardand others are seeking to put in some means ofrapid transit that the public will accept. Theevidence, which is constantly and repeatedlydeveloped, is that the public in Southern Californiawants no part of the solution that Ward andCompany offer. What Ward and Company do notseem to realize is that Southern California haswhat is by far the most successful means of masstransportation ever developed. It is the privatelyowned and independently operated motor vehicle.This is a difficult system to understand if one is apolitician. It means that the individual can go whenand where he pleases, and he doesn't have to rely

on bus or train schedules. With this amazinglyefficient system, close to ten million people livewhere they choose, work where they choose, andemploy an abundance and variety of recreationalopportunities probably unsurpassed in the worldwithin easy driving distance.

If one is a politician, he wants people to gowhen and where the politician wishes and by ameans the politician approves. The public in LosAngeles environs doesn't favor this collectivizedsystem. But it's always difficult for a politician tounderstand how anything can work if a bureaucratisn't running it.

Now, let us go to that early day when the"conspirators" allegedly got together to pull offtheir little scheme. The first thing that we see isthat government wasn't involved. At least wemake that assumption, although Ward says noth­ing about it. If the government were involved, itmeans that Ward's position is discredited. Hiscontention is that evil men in the free market wereable to pull off the deal and that if government hadhad anything to say about it, it wouldn't havehappened. This is the only inference possible fromthe repeated assertions by the politicos that ifgovernment had been planning the affair, theywould have had the "good" of Angelenos in mindrather than their own profits.

The next thing we must see is that the threefirms were able to get a considerable sum ofmoney together in order to make the purchase.How was that possible? There is only one answer.They were operating successful businesses. Whywere they successful? Because the public wasalready expressing a preference for motor carsover and beyond all other expressed preferencesfor transportation. In other words, the business­men involved were already in a profit position andthus had accumulated risk capital they wished toexpend to improve their position.

They did what they did ·because they werefiguring out not what was "good" for the people ofLos Angeles, but what the people wanted. It is thebusiness of business to satisfy their customers'desires, not to sit in judgment over them.

Why did Pacific Electric agree to sell out? Thereason is clear. They were losing money. Howcould they be losing money? Only because thepublic disliked the noisy, clanking monsters andwanted the freedom that comes when they couldindividually set their own schedules. Additionally,there is no way that rails can be laid to within ablock of all residences. Although a Big Red Carcould take you to your station, you were left withthe necessity of hiking a mile or so, or of having an

11

Employees of Shortstop participating in aLeFevre seminar at Silverado Lodge, Napa,California, April 18-23, 1976. John Roscoe,president of Shortstop, attempted to leasebillboard space prior to the election, intend­ing to publicize the slogan: "DON'T VOTE,IT ONL Y ENCOURAGES THEM." The bill­board firm rejected the ad. Roscoe got con­siderable media recognition, despite thissetback, by making and distributing buttonscarrying the same message.

additional means of transportation geared to theschedule of the trains. The public was beginning torealize that if it had other means of transporting apassenger to a station, one could continue the tripand avoid the electric cars altogether.

Indeed, the charitableness of the three firmsnow comes into view. Without their intervention,it seems quite likely that the owners of PacificElectric, whoever they may have been, facedbankruptcy. The timely financial intervention ofthe three firms saved them from disaster. Further,the three firms didn't immediately shut down therail operation. Indeed, as all admit, they continuedto run it. And knowing the tendency of all busi­nessmen to seek a profit, can one doubt for amoment that the men making this colossal invest­ment tried to operate it at a profit? You know theydid. Actually, they now had two major methods ofhelping people to move around. Had the publicevinced a continuing interest in the big redmachines, the firms would have continued tooperate them so they could turn a profit from bothdirections.

But the firms were correct in their basicassumption. The public did not want the PacificElectric. It did want its own vehicles. And pro­viding highways is a part of any program entailingautomobiles. Getting the rights-of-way involvespossible unpleasantness. But the rights-of-waycontaining rails and clanking, uncomfortablemonstrosities were made available with no diffi­culty.

So the transition was completed. Where trainsran every hour or half-hour, automobiles whizzedby every few seconds. The incredible jam thatwould have stymied the rail system or preventeddevelopment of the region flowed smoothly intothe better system.

But now \\Te have armies and armies of bureau­crats.And they want us to hate businessmen for

the "conspiracy." So the bureaucracy is conspiringto take away our automobiles so we will be forcedto ride some collectivized contrivance. The peopleare still favoring the mode of transportation theylike best, the private automobile. They are object­ing to the price of gasoline, but most realize that ifthe government would stop spending for war, we'dhave all the gasoline and oil we need to take careof civilian demands. And at reasonable prices.

But it is quite possible that some people wouldlike a monorail or some other fast and inexpensivemeans of getting to and from. So I have a sugges­tion for Mr. Ward and his bureaucratic cohorts. Ifthey will just back off and give public assurancethat they will positively not interfere, I can almostguarantee another business-type conspiracy. Someof the giant conglomerates, with their own money,will put in a monorail system or some other kind ofmass transportation that will serve.

Of course, there will have to be some assurancethat the government won't regulate and tax themto death. Businessmen serve the public by findingout what the public wants and then supplying it.So if a mass means of transportation can be madeto work out, the private sector will try to supplyit.

What if it's a mistake? Then better to let thebusinessmen lose their own funds in an attempt tomake profits than to saddle all the rest of us withdebt and stupidity.

What if it's not a mistake? Then why not let thepeople who risk their funds make some profits outof our voluntary patronage?

In short, if it really is true that the public isready for mass transportation of a centralizedkind, why not let another business conspiracysolve the problem'? It's a lot better than a politicalconspiracy. And that's what we're faced with now.

So much for the business eonspiracy theory.

t

12

"I don't know of a single congressman who would tell you that he represents all the people in his district." Rep. Wm. L. Springer, 1/1.

"A legislator has an obligation to attempt to represent all the p~ople in his district." Rep. Frank E. Evans, Colo.

"A district representative has an inalienable responsibility to represent all citizens living within the district in which he was elected."Rep. Bill Alexander, Ark.

"I do not know of any congressman who designates himself as anyone's agent." Rep. Wilbur D. Mills, Ark.

"While the title of congressman implies that he represent the views of his constituency, anybody knows one cannot representtwo opposite views at the same time." Rep. Albert H. Quie, Minn.

IIOnce elected, an individual does, in fact, represent all the people of his district." Rep. Don H. Clausen, Calif.

"A man holding public office can not be viewed only as an agent of others." Sen. James L. Buckley, New York

"The fact that some in his district do not agree with everything the member of Congress does, does not alterthe fact that he is the representative of all the residents of his district." Rep. Lionel Van Deerlin, Calif.

Is this the modern TOWER OF BABEL?No, it's just what has been brought to light in

THE POWER OF CONGRESS(As Congress Sees It)edited by R. S. Radford

$2.95 plus 60t postage/handling(California orders add 18t for 6% sales tax.)

You'll want a copy to study; to hand to a friend.Unbelievably revealing. Persistent, meticulous, ab­solutely devastating arguments bounce off impervi­ous, imperious, imperturbable olympians. One ortwo Congressmen and Senators attempt to meet theissue head on>; but not one is able to refute the logic ..

"Robert LeFevre has set out toprove the notion to be literally truethat Congressmen really don't knowwhat they're doing. Or what theyshould be doing. Or what givesthem the legal or moral right to doanything in the first place." - re­viewed by Steve Eddy, Santa Ana,California Register, Oct. 26, 1976.

Order from P. K. Slocum, bookseller, 7733 Corey, Downey, CA 90241. Write for discount for 10 or more copies.

Address correction requested

BULK RATEU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 163Orange, Calif.