_______________________________

There are those today who flatter themselves by calling themselves "liberals": they are but socialists.[2] The socialist proceeds on the assumption that all concerned will judge rightly and act fairly - will think as they ought to think, and act as they ought to act; and these socialists assume this regardless of the daily experiences which we all have and which show that men do not necessarily act in such a fashion. These socialists, with their complaints that they make against the existing system, show their belief to be, that men have neither the wisdom nor the rectitude required by their plan, at least not under the principles of freedom and democracy. The utterances of socialists, as George Santayana expressed it, is but "the babble of dreamers who walk through one world mentally beholding another." Liking them to flowers, Santayana writes: "Their thoughts ... are all positings and deductions and asseverations of which ought to be, whilst the calm truth is marching unheeded outside."

We need but look at the history of the 20th century and see the damage and injury that has been brought on by those who proceeded to put into practice the theories of socialism. Attempts of establishing governments along socialistic lines, time and time again, have simply demonstrated its unworkability[3]. But, far worse, on every occasion, the outcome has been human misery. But, we hear yet, the Siren Song of Socialism: government action can create the good life for all. To begin with government is not a neutral benevolent institution. But, let us forget and put aside the corrosive effect of Big Government -- just, I hasten to add, for the purposes of this argument. It cannot be calculated what it is that people in society should do; and when, and how, and in what order it should be done. Society works because of the cooperation of people at the roots of society; it cannot be directed from the top by any form of government, one with good intentions or otherwise. Thankfully, for the coming into being of the human race and for its continuing maintenance, no knowing and directive force is required.[4] Things in nature organize themselves by nature not by reason; reason is but a mental process by which human beings sort out choices, a process which necessarily is limited by the number of choices a person can keep in mind -- which, for most of us, is not too many at any one time.

We may achieve in our society, and not at general expense, full production and full distribution, and do so through the voluntary co-operation of most everyone: intrusive and confiscatory government is not needed. There is a natural directive apparatus at work in this world which governs and supplies the needs and wants of human beings. There exists an egocentric mechanism which serves an extended order of collaboration: it is called the "market." Have you not marveled on how food is brought to your table; have you not wondered along the isles of a modern day grocery store and beheld the variety and cheap prices. It all comes to you, spontaneously, through a complex of interacting individuals or groups of individuals, all working consciously to advance themselves, and by so working, albeit unconsciously, advances society as a whole. It all comes about with very little social conflict simply in the desire of each person to gain a living by supplying the needs of his fellows. This marvellous system is fueled and driven by self-interest of the individuals within it.[5]

The simple and timeless fact, as described by Adam Smith in 1776, is: given the diversity of man's knowledge, only the individual, through his or her own industriousness and ingenuity, is capable of advancing his or her own particular interest or interests. It is only the individual person who can properly assess the matter before him or her; and, considering what is at stake, it is that individual who knows how best to apply the needed industry and capital. It can only be the individual who has the matter at stake, who can best predict the product that might result from the application of his or her preserved industry and capital. It can only be the individual who can take into account his or her local situation; and, being at the level where the action must take place, take the action which is likely required to achieve the desired results. No person can do these things for another even if they be described as a statesman or a lawgiver. If, the inappropriate, or wrong action is taken, or no action is taken where some was called for -- with the result of an undesired impact on the individual; then, that individual has no one to blame but himself or herself; and a lesson becomes available for the learning.

[TOC]
Philosophy:-
We all take a great number of things for granted and many of these assumptions are of a philosophical character; we act on them in private life, in politics, in our work, and in every other sphere of our lives. It maybe, that while some of these assumptions are true; some, I am obliged to point out, are just as likely false; and, indeed, harmful. Thus, as Popper[6] points out, we, each of us, have a moral duty to carry out a critical examination of our presuppositions, a philosophical activity.

Metaphysics is a philosophical area of study which concerns itself with the existence of things. Are things real? Or, do they exist simply in ones mind? Is the mind real? These are some of the elementary questions that come to one who inquires into the nature and ultimate significance of the universe. Those who hold reality subsists only in thought, are idealists (idealism); those who hold reality subsists in only matter, are realists or materialists (materialism); and those who hold that reality subsists in both in thought and in matter, are dualists (dualism).

[TOC]
Plato:-
Plato, it may be concluded, was a dualist. In his work, the Republic, the putative wellspring of Western values, Plato sets forth his beliefs, among them being that there was another world beyond this changeable and destructible one in which we live, one consisting of unchanging eternal Forms; he asserted that what we see and touch are only very distantly related to the ultimate realities that exist. In addition, he believed that we are ineradicably social, and that the individual person was not, and could not, be self-sufficient. Plato took a dim view of democracy, thinking it absurd to give every person an equal say, since not everyone is equally knowledgeable about what is best for society.

In Plato's scheme, private property was to be abolished, persons were not to own anything, "so that we can count on their being free from the dissentions that arise among men from the possession of property." (Incidentally, the people of Plato's Republic were to dump their children at central orphanages for the very same reason.)

But there is a dark and dreadful side to Plato: Plato's view of man is the same that one might have of a labouring beast of the field:

"... And even in the smallest manner ... [one] should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals ... only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently ... There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or til those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands." (From Plato's Republic.)

Plato's view of society was pinned by the belief that philosophers are capable of knowing the absolute truth about how to rule society, and, thus, are justified in wielding absolute power. Such a view is in striking contrast to that of Plato's principal teacher, Socrates, who was always conscious of how much he did not know, and claimed superiority to unthinking men only in that he was aware of his own ignorance, where they were not.

[TOC]
Descartes:-
Any discussion of dualism -- a concept which one will have to comprehend before passing on to any discussion on how man might go about organizing himself and others (assuming he should bother at all) -- would have to include reference to the French mathematician and philosopher, René Descartes (1596-1650). It was Descartes who formulated the axiom, Cogito ergo sum, "I think therefore I exist." Descartes was a dualist, viz., a man is of two natures, a spiritual nature and a temporal nature. Descartes, while he accepted some ideas were developed from experience, was steadfast in his belief that certain ideas were innate. By pure deduction Descartes evolved for himself entire universes that neither he, nor anyone else, could perceive by the use of their natural senses. All that was necessary for Descartes was intense self examination and intense reason and through this process all would be revealed. The philosophy of a socialist whether he appreciates it, or not, is Cartesian; he or she is as steadfast as Descartes in the belief that through pure reason humans can build a better world. Socialists are hardly ever discouraged by reality or are they much concerned with the true nature of man; theirs is a world they spin out of their heads, and, because they never in their schemes have to look beyond themselves, they have the pleasure of always being right.

Now, I think most everyone would agree, a stable and efficient society is important; but one should wonder about a society that will use force (legislation) to make the individual give in to the desires of those who have set themselves up as knowing what is best for everyone. Those who subscribe to such a theory, as we have seen, subscribe to Plato's theory of man. It is this theory upon which, in these times, our society rests. The theory, - so attractive in its statement - is that the community is to permit government to use persuasion and force with a view to unite all citizens and make them share together the benefits which each individually can confer on the community for the benefit of the community: it is a false theory. When, in its legislation, in its use of force, government suppresses the welfare of the individual; when its efforts are aimed to foster the attitude that one should not proceed to please oneself, government commits a fatal error in the achievement of its laudable object, the betterment of the whole. The essential problem in proceeding in this manner is that individuals cannot contribute to the whole, indeed will be a drain on the whole, unless they are allowed to be free and productive, that is to say allowed to suit themselves. Men did not evolve into robots; they did not come to possess the independent spirit, so characteristic of man, by serving others; man came to be the superior being, -- that he clearly is -- because of the exercise of free choice, free choice the essential ingredient in the evolutionary process.

Down through the ages many thinkers and writers took their cue from Plato and speculated on social reform; most of them come from relatively recent times. Humans came out of their Dark Ages and into their Renaissance during the middle part of the second millennium, but a few hundred years were yet to pass before they started to seriously address their political and social situations. The Romantic Period (as a defined period, it does not go much beyond the limits of 1800 and 1825) heralded an encompassing age which covered certainly all of the 19th century and which, in many ways, is still with us; an age, as described by John Stuart Mill[7], which is characterized by people who have become "destitute of faith" and "terrified at skepticism."

[TOC]
Political Process and Democracy:-
The Platonic social engineers[8] can be heard to say, "Be docile, bow to leadership, obey the law: it is all for the common good. If, people were to be left alone to go about their own business; -- well, you know, to do so, well, -- it will just bring about social ruin: people, you know, are incapable, immoral and ignorant." (Why is it, I wonder, that these same social engineers defend, so passionately, the right of these same people to vote. The word Democracy has, in itself, a clear enough meaning; but what happens when one adds the word social to democracy; "social democracy." It is a label for a political party that espouses a "social state," but the social state they imagine can only be founded and continue to exist, -- if one will only give the matter a modicum of thought -- if there exists control over people, undemocratic despotism: benevolent or otherwise. These social dreamers commit a semantic fraud: "we will preserve individual freedom by doing away with freedom.")

While the political process is the centre-piece of socialism there is one halting problem, -- the political process does not work. The collectivists, while pointing to the financial obstacles existing in a capitalistic system, create in their collectivist system a whole host of "cultural obstacles."[9] Special interests -- elitist minorities whose goal it is to coerce the dispersed majorities for preferment on arbitrary grounds -- move in and the resulting situation is perpetual unrest.[10] And if one should want to get in on the debate, as the Chief Justice of Ontario, Charles L. Dubin, has pointed out, then that person should be ready to be denounced: as a racist, as a misogynist, as a supremacist, as a imperialist, or, as a facist; or a combination of any of the above. "Their [the spokepersons for interest groups] purpose often is to inflame -- not to inform; to provoke -- not to educate; to hector -- not to reason, and frequently they impute dishonourable motives to those with whom they disagree."[11]

Because of its tyranny, we cannot leave important questions to the political process; indeed the political process is to be avoided; and, to do this we must keep the functions of government to a minimum.

[TOC]
Lessons of History:-
As already pointed out, due to its faulty philosophical basis, socialism cannot work, and where attempted, the experiment has always ended in a wreck. Just look to recent history: that is all one needs to do. Collectivism, outside of small units of personally interdependent groups of human beings (for example, religious orders), on any sort of significant scale, -- at least from what I can see from the history books -- was slow to actually set itself up in states of society in which things were to be held or used in common. Certainly, persons who have a true sense of human nature, would think it too daunting a task: -- imagine bringing into being, and seeing to their workings, social institutions which were to bring to all members of human society, regardless of their station or income making ability, all of their life's needs with (and here's the kicker) the option for each of not working for these needs.

When I suggest recent history, I mean one need not go back any further than the early part of the 19th century; read through the years from the times of Owen and New Lanark, down through and into our own century, the 20th century, and read of the social experiments of Nazi Germany and of the communistic states of Russia and eastern Europe. The evil empires of the 20th century were built on the ideals of sincere people determined to change society for the better, but who were wrong in their view of the nature of man. These idealistic dreamers were in error to think they could convert their dreams to reality: these social experiments brought about human misery, mostly untold: we stand now on higher ground and can look back on the world-wide downfall of socialism and the destruction which it wrought. Simply put, there existed, in the past, and yet today, it seems, thoughtful men who had an abiding faith that the nature of man was changeable: -- forget that the nature of man was forged in an evolutionary process which extended over millions of years. The nature of man is not changeable; we are obliged to work with man as he exists not as we wish him to be. We can now make a final analysis; and the choice is, either: "Do this or I will make you" or, "Do this, or take the consequences." The choice is to compel people to do what some think is right; or, to allow people to do, under the confines of criminal law, what they think is right through a system of voluntary co-operation, by civil contract.

But still there are those who with bright eyed innocence insist the world be shaped to their visions. Though they be benevolent, very well intentioned, very grave, and very respectable: they are, however, amateurs. And they carry the hallmark of all amateurs; they refuse to put aside subjective preference; they refuse to employ the scientific method.[12] Socialists believe in a grand system that has only ever existed in their collectivist heads. The use of rational argument will not shake them loose; they become like Jesuits at the burning pole.

[TOC]
Poverty and Morals:-
I mean, now, to address a great problem which has long occupied the minds of practical statesmen and popular philosophers: the conflict between the rich and the poor: the conflict between those who possess property and those who do not. It is a conflict as old as time.

But first, let me say, before we get started with this discussion, that it is necessary to keep separated in one's mind two different concepts: the economic problems of production and distribution of wealth, and the moral principles of right and wrong.

Now, the thing that is thrown in the face of anyone who prefers freedom over collectivism, is, that such a course (no state intervention) is cruel and uncaring for the disadvantaged and the poor. The truth lies in just the opposite direction. Collectivism, as is so easily demonstrated, is a recipe for crime, corruption and a plastered environment. And it is, while it lasts, a system, which, as a general proposition, sucks up our scarce resources to such a point that little is left for those, who the collectivists say, should receive our collective help. The collectivist system, as has been demonstrated, is but only a method by which we transfer resources from the disadvantaged and poor to those who expound on the virtues of a collectivist system.[13]

Aside from the fact that there is an unacceptable slippage and waste when the state plays Robin Hood, there is the moral question of whether we should, by law, be forced to give up our property in favour of our neighbour? This leads us to a discussion of one's moral duties.

The moral system, again a natural system which runs without intervention, is sustained by two opposite principles of attraction and repulsion. These principles working in the heart of a normal person (the vast majority of us) lead us to do things for our fellow man; such as to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, and enlighten the ignorant. A moral duty springs from the heart of the observer and is personal to that observer and comes about as a result of his or her experience, tradition and/or culture. A legal duty, I should distinguish, is that which is imposed upon a person from the outside, by a person or group who has coercive power over the law abider. The breach of either a legal duty or a moral duty will bring forth a penalty. In the case of the moral duty, the proscription of the penalty comes from within the person, himself or herself, its breach, in normal people, will bring on a feeling of shame and the fear of disfavour which may flow from friends and/or family. A penalty or a punishment imposed from without and as is proscribed by the law is what compels a person to obey law.[14] As to moral duties: each man must be his own judge, in each particular case, as to whether, and how, and how far, he can, or will, perform them.

We can all agree on the ends, which might well be summed up in words, "Distributive Justice." A number of us might also agree that to each his own "Moral Desert." A fact with which we must all come to grips, is, that there is inequality in the world and it is neither determined by, nor reconciled with, any deliberate moral judgments.

Poverty, according to the OED2, is the "condition of having little or no wealth or material possessions. It is a state of indigence, of destitution, of want; ... Having few, or no, material possessions; wanting means to procure the comforts, or the necessaries, of life; needy, indigent, destitute; ... so destitute as to be dependent upon gifts or allowances for subsistence." The OED2 continues and points out that such a concept of poverty can be expressed in "various degrees, from absolute want to straitened circumstances ..." As Malthus observed in 1798, "poverty is relative." Most all of us can feel, to one degree or another, the pangs of "poverty" as we look to our richer neighbor. Sure, now, any one of us will be able to draw a line between those who just want more and those who are in straitened circumstances. Sure, anyone of us will have no problem drawing a line. The lines of all those who care to draw them, will not, however, fall to the same spot on the continuum. These lines will be all over the place and never will we be able to eliminate feelings of indigence from the general population and much damage can be caused in the try.

Much of the analysis in respect to poverty applies equally well to the disabled or disadvantaged that exist amongst us. One of us will point to a neonate who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of our help, both at its moment of birth and throughout its cerebral palsied life; and another of us will point to the child who did not have a full breakfast this morning. For myself, I believe in charity; and, I believe you and I ought to help the poor and disadvantaged; each to give to the person, and to the degree, as each of us might determine. On no account should we employ the coercive and corrosive authority of the state to achieve charitable objects, as the state cannot achieve such objects.[15]

Any examination of the state's role in relieving poverty will reveal, not only the impossibility of such a task, but will further reveal, that in its tinkering, the state can only exacerbate the condition and make more widespread the existence of the evil which it wishes to get at (known as "The Law of Unintended Consequences"). What will become obvious to any researcher is the harmful effects of state assistance on personal character. Handouts, it will be observed, weaken the will and the capacity of the individual to escape from their lower state within the economy. It has been argued[16] that money is the only ultimate teacher of discrimination and judgment in learning to choose the objects and services required in everyday living and in developing self-respect in the rebuilding of character. "Free" state services, instead of leaving people to contend with the opportunities and challenges of life and thus obliging them to build their own list of choices, have simply deprived them of the occasions to exercise judgment between alternatives in education, medical care, housing and providing for their old age. The solution is not further increments of state-provided services that require no effort by those who are in the best position to know and to provide the kind of assistance needed for others or for themselves.

The people who will relieve the poor and disadvantaged in our society can only be those who have a real heart for the matter. Those who can best identify the situation are the very same as those who are best able to bring forth the cure. The people who are in the best position to know and to provide the kind of assistance needed by those in need are those who are in the group which makes up the needful person's "family"; which, in the wider since, is that group to whom that person is attached. It cannot be expected that we can collectively respond to the emotions and needs of a stranger. Only an emotionally dependant person, a family member, can respond to the emotions and needs of a fellow family member. It cannot be expected that the normal family interaction can exist in the extended order of the wider society. While it is the notion of give and take that governs in any relationship -- either a family relationship or one that exists in the extended order -- in a family relationship we rely more on the notion of trust, simply because we have the repeated experiences of dealing with a particular member who now turns looking for help. We will extend emotional credit to a family member (and that too has its limits) but rarely to a "stranger" in the extended order.

The idea of human cooperation, and that which exists in the family system and that which is found in the extended system, is better dealt with under the topic of economics. Let me, however, express just a couple of thoughts on this topic. First we go to a Chinese sage in the mold of Confucius, Mencius (372-289 BC): "The path of duty lies in what is near, and man seeks for it in what is remote." And, "Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge are not infused into us from without." The plain fact is -- and the proof is all about us -- a gratuitous system intended to boost the family has just the opposite effect in that it diminishes the sentiment of parental responsibility. To bring a child into the world is to incur a grave responsibility, and no action of the State should tend to obscure the fact. To relieve parents from the costs of bearing and raising children will most emphatically diminish their motives for forethought. When government extends its "help" to parents and thus relieves them of their role to nurture their own children, and does so with coercive legislation (and let me tell you all legislation is coercive), passed in the name of progress; then the centre of gravity shifts in the moral world from the parent, to the State; and this undermines the foundation of national life by the deterioration of the unit of the family. This, of course may very well fit some people's idea of the way the world ought to be run, viz., parenting is to be one of the roles of the state: a Platonic idea.[17]

I should not think it necessary to argue the proposition; but, inequality exists in both the "systems" that we have labelled capitalism and socialism; it is, just that inequality is easier to modify in a capitalistic system (for example the introduction of a negative income tax system or an inheritance tax). In fact, socialism is inherently one which promotes inequality: "The articulate, adroit and literate 'political' people extract more than the inarticulate, maladroit and illiterate 'domestic' people from the schools, hospitals, transport and other socialized services ..."[18]

A free enterpriser is not against the delivery of food to the hungry, or education and good medical care to all. All that a free enterpriser argues is that there is a better way to achieve such laudable objectives. No inference or a conclusion (Non Sequitur) can be made in respect to any difference in the ends to be achieved because one advocates a different means. Almost invariably, and its a shame, those who advocate state altruism see themselves as saints and anyone who differs from them as inhumane monsters. If one objects to a thing being done by government, it should not be concluded that the objection is that it should not be done at all. To disapprove of state education is not to oppose education. To oppose state-enforced equality, is not to say one is against equality. These propositions are as absurd as stating that one is against people eating bread because he or she is against the state raising wheat.

Though they do not mean to be, and while one can only attribute to them the highest motives, socialists are enemies of society. These do-gooding and meddlesome people, often by appealing to some of our finest instincts, and, too, to the insecurities deep within us all -- cause mischievous results. We should not allow ourselves to be guided, or governed by the principle that we should mostly do what we think is for the good of the body of society, - for the good of the whole, - for the good of others.[19] The same mischievous results are reached when one preaches that the object of government is to bring the most good to the most number; what the preachers fail to understand is that there is no good to be had out of socialism, none at all. As Winston Churchill said, "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." He added: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of blessings; whereas the inherent virtue of socialism is the even division of misery."

Our objective is clear; and it does not take a brilliant mind, or long years of study to see what we must do. We must strive to increase the sum of private happiness of the members of society. It comes about, as I hope I have demonstrated, because of individual action, individual actions which are guided both by moral and legal duties. It cannot come about through the action of an extended group such as is government.

"The old idea of a powerful philosopher-king who would put into practice some carefully thought out plans was a fairy-tale invented in the interest of a land-owning aristocracy. The democratic equivalent of this fairy-tale is the superstition that enough people of good will may be persuaded by rational argument to take planned action. History shows that the social reality is quite different. The course of historical development is never shaped by theoretical constructions, however excellent... Under no circumstances could the outcome of rational planning become a stable structure; for the balance of forces is bound to change. All social engineering, no matter how much it prides itself on its realism and on its scientific character, is doomed to remain a Utopian dream." [Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (Routledge, 1969), p. 47.]

How are we to get at and solve the large social problems faced? It is an open question. What can be said, is that these problems will not be solved through the operation of a central committee. At the best of times, and with the best of members, and only if it be a simple matter, is it possible to lend a directive hand.[21] In regard to economic matters, the missing material needed for the proper deliberations of the committee is a continuous stream of market data; committees do not have this stream of data; nor do they have the means, even with the most sophisticated computers, to deal with it; and, even if the billions of mystic levers and buttons revealed themselves, the committee wouldn't know which ones to pull and to push, when to do it or in what sequence, or with what results: -- its an impossibility. The simple answer to those who have the conceit of thinking they can set up and run a centralized economy by committee, is: "You have no idea of what drives an economy; it is driven at the roots by people who know their own wants and needs; and who, each of them, the millions, have the wherewithal to satisfy themselves by planning, and working, and trading; and, more generally, by learning to accommodate, and to learn, and to get along with their fellow human beings: all of this, so that each might satisfy their own particular set of wants and needs." Laws impinge on the essential ingredient of progress and of civilization and to the extent that laws are necessary, they must be certain and applicable to all.

The ultimate price we pay for collectivism is that democracy is docked and liberty is lost; the law of the jungle creeps back in with the final result being that there appears more human misery than ever there was before the collectivists first set in motion there freedom crushing machinery.

The only argument of those who advance the cause of collectivism, is that the human species is fundamentally evil and they need to be controlled, else we will all go about greedily taking things from one another; be nasty to one another: It is, -- these faithless collectivists assert -- in the nature of man to be thoughtless, greedy and cruel. If this be the reason for putting on the controls of collectivism, then the question must be asked: Who are going to be the controllers? Who are we to put in charge? And the answer is, the same evil and greedy men from whom the collectivists wish to save us.

I do not advocate sitting around and doing nothing; but, likely all that is available to us, is, as Sir Karl Popper put it, "social midwifery." None of what I have said should be construed as giving up the "systematic fight against definite wrongs, against concrete forms of injustice or exploitation, and unavoidable suffering such as poverty or unemployment;" but such a fight "is a very different thing from the attempt to realize a distant ideal blueprint of society." And always, we must be aware of "an accumulation of power, and to the suppression of criticism."

History, particularly, of the earlier ages will tell of the growth and maintenance of our customs and traditions. History of the last two hundred years, however, will show the deterioration of customs and traditions that took a long, long time to develop; it will show that this deterioration came about on account of man's meddlesome ways and in his interference with a natural process in attempting to impose his rationalistic views on the suitability of customs and traditions; attempts which have done nothing but impede, or reverse the process of man's cultural development, and have brought about untold burdens of human misery.

We must fear those who demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race; we must fear those who desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy; we must fear those who think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own socialistic inventions; we must fear those who desire to force mankind docilely to bear a yoke of the public welfare; we must fear those who proceed, always, on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislature.

_______________________________

A featured essay in a book

NOW AVAILABLE

Essays: Law & Politics

_______________________________

Found this material Helpful?

_______________________________

2 Socialism is "a theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all." (OED2.) Or more simply, a state of society in which things are held or used in common. Collectivism, socialism, communism: it's all the same. A communist, incidentally, it has been said, is merely a socialist with the courage to express his views openly and with conviction. And, the theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: "Abolition of private property." (Marx, 1848.) Therefore, we see, essentially, socialism is, as H. G. Wells put it, "a repudiation of the idea of ownership in the light of the public good." The question essentially boils down to property rights.

3 Joseph A. Schumpeter, an economist whom the socialists love to claim as their own, stated the principal difficulty: "Any kind of centralist socialism, therefore, can successfully clear the first hurdle - logical definiteness and consistency of socialist planning - and we may as well negotiate the next one at once. It consists of the 'practical impossibility' on which, it seems, most anti-socialist economists are at present inclined to retire after having accepted defeat on the purely logical issue. They hold that our central board would be confronted with a task of unmanageable complication, and some of them add that in order to function the socialist arrangement would presuppose a wholesale reformation of souls or of behavior - whichever way we prefer to style it - which historical experience and common sense prove to be out of the question." (Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Harper & Row, 3rd ed., 1962, pp. 184-5.)

4 "A cardinal trait in all advancing organizations is the development of the regulative apparatus. If the parts of a whole are to act together, there must be appliances by which their actions are directed; and in proportion as the whole is large and complex, and has many requirements to be met by many agencies, the directive apparatus must be extensive, elaborate, and powerful. That it is thus with individual organisms needs no saying; and that it must be thus with social organisms is obvious." (Arthur Seldon, Capitalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), pp. 16-7.)

5 It was James Anthony Froude (1818-94) who said: "The first principle, on which the theory of a science of history can be plausibly argued, is that all actions whatsoever arise from self-interest. It may be enlightened self-interest, it may be unenlightened; but it is assumed as an axiom, that every man, in whatever he does, is aiming at something which he considered will promote his happiness. His conduct is not determined by his will; it is determined by the object of his desire. Adam Smith, in laying the foundations of political economy, expressly eliminates every other motive. He does not say that men never act on other motives; still less, that they never ought to act on other motives. He asserts merely that, as far as the arts of production are concerned, and of buying and selling, the action of self-interest may be counted upon as uniform." Then there is Emerson: "On the whole, selfishness plants best, prunes best, makes the best commerce and the best citizen." ("Montaigne," Representative Men.) And finally, if one is truly proceeding in what is in his best interest, he will be kind and considerate to all those around him; a rational person will not normally do things for momentary gain if he thinks the action will cause him grief in the future. "Caution," as Woodrow Wilson said, "is the confidential agent of selfishness."

6 See the philosophy of Sir Karl Popper and in particular The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). The guiding public policy put forward by Popper in this grand work of his, is this: "Minimize avoidable suffering," this in contradistinction to the Utilitarian maxim, "Maximize happiness."

7 See Mill's work On Liberty. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher and economist. Though socialists will often misquote him and claim him for their own: they cannot, for John Stuart Mill was, pure and simple, a believer in the necessity, for the benefit of the whole, of the freedom of choice for the individual, and stressed in his writings the danger of putting too much power in the hands of the state.

8 Popper was of the view that any "social engineer" can only proceed on a "piecemeal" basis. "... only a minority of social institutions are consciously designed while the vast majority have just 'grown' as the results of human actions." (See The Poverty of Historicism.) I would venture to give but a couple of examples of the consciously designed social institutions: the government mechanisms themselves (legislative, executive and judicial), national armed forces (fully answerable to the proper political authorities), local police forces, jails, food inspection, health inspection and school inspection. Certain social institutions would arise quite naturally as the result of human interaction: there is the all important activity of food production and distribution, housing and clothing -- all of which have arisen and maintain themselves quite nicely, thank-you, without government intervention; and, also, I would include, the delivery of health care and education, notwithstanding, that there are those (invariably on the government payroll) who would be aghast to think that these (admittedly) important social institutions should be left to the free market to sort out; hoping, as they do, that the taxpayer will forget that fortunes are being spent by government with, demonstratively, poor results.

9 That the political process is treated with disdain or wholly ignored by millions, is evident by the turn out at election time. Compare this with the market system where all the voters spend every dollar with infinitely more thought, knowledge and responsibility. (For development see Seldon, p. 320.)

10 For a development, see Bruno Leoni's work Freedom and the Law (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 3rd Ed., 1991), p. 15. Leoni was a professor of the University of Pavia, Italy and the Past President of the Mont Pelerin Society.

11 The Law Society Gazette, vol. 28, p. 201.

12 The scientific method might be best summed up by stating that all conclusions in science are empirical, tentative, and undogmatic. Scientific theory has its roots in the Humeian view that all concepts must be built with ideas of substance, ideas of matter which truly exist in the external world and not figments of pure imagination -- ideas consistent with all observed phenomena. The approach calls for the gathering in of all observations, all the available pieces of the puzzle, so to speak; and, then, to use the imagination to fill in the gaps, sufficient to make a statement about the whole, a supposition, a theory. We then (at least we ought to) proceed to conduct our affairs on the basis of this theory, until we come onto a piece of evidence that doesn't fit the theory. It is at this point we ought to adjust the theory; not only to fit the new observation, but the old observations too; and then to set out once again. Hume was an empiricist from the school of Locke. He challenged the rationalistic school and the social contract theories as were developed by Hobbes, Locke and, later, Rousseau.

13 "The rich have become richer, and the poor have become poorer; and the vessel of state is driven between Scylla and Charybdis of anarchy and despotism." (Shelley.) In Greek mythology Scylla and Charybdis were two monsters. All Greek monsters have very familiar backgrounds: Scylla and Charybdis were not always monsters, they had been lesser Gods condemned by the more superior Gods. Scylla is to be permanently found where the Gods had condemned her to be, on the shores at the tip toe of the boot of Italy; Charybdis, on the other side of a narrow Strait of Messina, on the shores of Sicily, lies on a rock on the Italian shores, barking like a dog; she has twelve feet and six heads extended on long necks, each head is armed with three rows of pointed teeth. On the other side is Charybdis, living under an immense fig tree; he swallows up the sea three times a day and spews it out again. The expression between Scylla and Charybdis has come to mean that a person or a group must mind that they do not fall into one evil in the effort to avoid the other. Shelley, the romanticist, in his Defence of Poetry, speaks of another time, a time when the landed gentry owned it all, and democracy had yet come to full bloom. Shelley's quote, though, has as much application today as it ever did. Instead of the royal aristocrats versus the have-not people; we have, today, those who are at the government tax taps and those who are taxed; the sliver of the whole -- the poor and disadvantaged -- hardly count when it comes to the larger discussion.

14 I editorialize and say that there is no need to pass a law where there exists a moral duty, simply, because, moral actions (by and large) occur to a greater degree and to a greater extent and more often (need I add less expensively) than a law compelling the same action (assuming that such a law could even be formulated).

15 There is an agenda being served in Canada in our fight against poverty, and I fear it is not the agenda of the poor. We might define poverty at least in two ways: The first way is to establish "official poverty lines," this is how Statistics Canada has defined it. This is a relative definition of poverty, it focuses on a person's standard of living in comparison to others within the community. This approach presumes that we as human beings measure our well being in relation to what others enjoy. By this definition we are poor if our standard of living is substantially below what most others have, regardless of whether we have met our basic needs or not. This concept of our basic needs brings us to the second definition: one is poor where he or she cannot acquire all the basic needs required for physical survival; this is the more traditional way of defining poverty; it is an absolute and not a relative definition. To accept the first definition means that most all of us are poor, as most everybody will find someone else who possesses more stuff; while under the second definition a state of poverty will only exist if there exists a situation of genuine deprivation of certain of the necessities of life, a situation in which the physical well being of a person is threatened, a situation where the person is on the borders of being cold, hungry and sick. To accept the relative definition of income is to accept: there are, where everyone is equally deprived, no poor people in Somalia; that in an economic depression, given that everyone's income decreases at the same rate, there are no more poor in the country than there was before the depression began. Thus, it can be seen, why is it socialists readily accept the relative definition of poverty. To accept such a definition means one must accept the manner in which poverty is to be fought: redistribute income and property from those who have more to those who have less. It may well be a worthwhile object to redistribute wealth (I would argue otherwise); but it is not honest, and brings fog to the field of battle, when we redistribute wealth in the name of fighting poverty.

16 See Seldon, p. 307.

17 In Plato's scheme, families, at least in the upper classes, were to be abolished; children were to be raised collectively; women, well, they were to be shared! "... women shall be common to all men, and none shall cohabit with any privately, and that the children shall be common, and that no parent shall know its own offspring nor any child its parent."

18 Seldon, p. 198. "... since the power to persuade and organize others in collective organizations is itself unequal, the ability of people to advance as individuals in the market without waiting for others is in the end more egalitarian than the socialist method of waiting in the political process for agreement, universal or by majorities, in debating chambers. The evolutionary spontaneous freedom under capitalism for individuals to act without collective restraint is necessary for some to forge ahead and show the others the way. In the end, as the others follow, more can share in the advance. Inequality in action is the way to equality in result." (p. 153.)

19 "The great principle, that societies and laws exist only for the purpose of increasing the sum of private happiness, is not recognized with sufficient clearness. The good of the body, distinct from the good of the members, and sometimes hardly compatible with the good of the members, seems to be the object which he proposes himself. Of all political fallacies, this has perhaps had the widest and the most mischievous operation." (Macaulay, "Machiavelli.")

20 The chief problem with social "scientists" is that they confuse, as Sir Karl Popper points out, laws with trends.

21 Popper likens "social science" to "midwifery"; it is the mother who is obliged to go through the untidy and the painful business of delivering her baby. An important point that is to be made, by the way, is, that, not only can a state not be run by a controlling mind, but it cannot, as the Roman statesman, Cicero, pointed out, be set by one controlling mind: a lasting state can only evolve through the passing of several generations, viz., it comes into being only after the passage of a considerable period of time. "Our state, on the contrary, is not due to the personal creation of one man, but of very many; it has not been founded during the lifetime of any particular individual, but through a series of centuries and generations. For he said that there never was in the world a man so clever as to foresee everything and that even if we could concentrate all brains into the head of one man, it would be impossible for him to provide for everything at one time without having the experience that comes from practice through a long period of history." (As quoted by Leoni, at p. 88.)