Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Expositíon

of society as the association of persons working in cooperation and sharing a

common way of life is in the interest of every individual. Whoever gives up a
momentary advantage in order to avoid imperiling the continued existence of
society is sacrificing a lesser gain for a greater one.
The meaning of this regard for the general social ínterest has frequently been
misunderstood lts moral value was believed to consist in the fact of the sacrifice
itself, in the renunciation of an irnmediate gratification. One refused to see that
what is morally valuable is not the sacrifice, but the end served by the sacrifice, and
one insisted on ascribing moral value to sacrifice, to renunciation, in and for itself
alone. But sacrificing is moral only when it serves a moral end. There is a world of
difference between a man who risks his life and property far a good cause and the
man who sacrifices them without benefiting society in any way.
Everything that serves to preserve the social order is moral; everything that is
detrimental to it is immoral. Accordingly, when we reach the conclusion that an
institution is beneficial to society, one can no Jonger object that it is imrnoral. There
may possibly be a difference of opinion about whether a particular institution is
socially beneficial or hannfuL But once it has been judged beneficíal, one can no
longer contend that, for sorne inexplicable rea.son, it must be condemned as
ímmoral.

7. State and Govemment

The observance of the moral law is in the ultimate interest of every individual,
because everyone benefits from the preservation of social cooperation; yet it
imposes on everyone a sacrifice, even though only a provisional one that is more
than counterbalanced by a greater gain. To perceíve this, however, requires a
certain insight into the connection between things, and to conform one's actions in
accordance with this perception demands a certain strength of will. Those who lack
the perception, or, having the perception, lack the necessary will power to put it to
use, are not able to confonn to the moral law voluntarily. The situation here is no

34
 liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition

There is, to be sure, a sect that believes that one could quite safely dispense with
every fonn of compulsion and base society entirely on the vol untary observance of
the moral code. The anarchists consider state, \aw, and govemment as superfluous
institutions in a social order truit would really serve the good of a 11, and not just the
special interests of a privileged few. Only because the present social order is based
on prívate ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to
compulsion and coercion in its defense. If prívate property were abolished, then
everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by
social cooperation.
It has already been pointed out that this doctrine is misraken in so far as it
concerns the character of prívate ownership of the means of production. But even
apart from this, it is altogether untenable. The anarchist, rightly enough, <loes not
deny that every form of human cooperation in a society based on the division of
labor demands the observance of sorne rules of conduct that are not always
agreeable to the individual, since they impose on him a sacrifice, only temporary, it
is true, but, for ali that, at least for the moment, painful. But the anarchist is
mistaken in assuming that everyone, without exception, will be wílling to observe
these rules voluntarily. There are dyspeptics who, though they know very well tbat
indulgence in a certain food will, after a short time, cause them severe, even
scarcely bearable pains, are nevertheless unable to forgo tbe enjoyment of the
delectable dish. Now the interrelationships of life in society are notas easy to trace
as the physiological effects of a food, nor do the consequences follow so quickly
and, above ali., so palpably for the evildoer. Can it, then, be assumed, without
falling completely into absurdity, that, in spite of all this, every individual in an
anarchist society will have greater foresight and will power than a g]uttonous
dyspeptic? In an anarchist society is the possibílity entirely to be excluded that
someone may negligently throw away a Lighted match and start a tire or, in a fit of
anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchísm
misunderstands the real

36
 Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition

railroads, hotels, or mines, I am notan "enemy of the state" any more than r can be
called an enemy of sulfuric acid because I am of the opinion that, useful though it
may be for many purposes, it is not suitable either for drinking, or for washing one's
hands.
It is incorrect to represent the attitude of liberalism toward the state by saying that
it wishes to restrict the latter's sphere of possible activity or that it abhors, in
principie, ali activity o n the part of the state in relation to economic life. Such an
interpretation is altogether out of the question. The stand that liberalism takes in
regard to the problem of the function of the state is the necessary consequence of its
advocacy of private ownership of the means of productíon. If one is in favor of the
latter, one cannot, of course, also be in favor of communal ownership ofthe means
of production, i.e., of placing them at the disposition of the government rather than
of individual owners. Thus, the advocacy of prívate owne rship of the means of
production already implies a very severe circumscription of the func tions assigned
to the state.
The socialists are sometimes wont to reproach liberalism with a lack of
consistcncy, It is, they maintain, illogical to restrict the activity of the state in the
economic sphere exclusively to the protection of property. lt is difficult to see why,
if the state is not to remain comple tely neutral, its intervention has to be limited to
protect ing the rights of property owners.
This reproach would be j ustified only if the oppositioo of liberalism to ali
govemmental activity in the econo mic sphere going beyond the protection of
property stemmed from an aversion in principle agaÍilst any activity on the part of
the state. But that is by no means the case. Toe reason why liberalism opposes a
further extension of the sphere of governmental activity is ptecisely that this would,
in effect, abolish prívate ownership of the means of production. And in prívate
property tbe liberal sees the principie most suitable for the organization of man's life
in society.

38
 Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition

11. The Limits ofGovernmental Activity

As the liberal sees it, the task ofthe state consists solely
and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and prívate
property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil. A
govemment that, instead of fulfilling its task, sought to go so far as actually to
infringe on personal security of [ife and health, freedom, and property would, of
course, be altogether bad.
Stíll, as Jacob Burckhardt says, power is evíl in itself, no matter who exercises it.
It tends to conupt those who wield it and leads to abuse. Not only absolute
sovereigns and aristocrats, but the masses also, in whose hands democracy entru.sts
the supreme power of government, are only too easily inclined to excesses.
In the United States, the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages are
prohibited. Other countries do not go so far, but nearly everywhere sorne
restrictions are imposed on the sale of opium, cocaine, and similar narcotics. lt is
universally deemed one of the tasks of legislation and government to protect the
individual from himself. Even those who otherwise generally have misgívings
about extending the area of govemmental activity consider it quite proper that the
freedom of the individual should be curtailed in this respect, and they think that only
a benighted doctrinairism could oppose such prohibitions. Indeed, so general is the
acceptance of this kind of ínterference by the authorities in the life of the individual
that those who, are opposed to liberalism on principie are prone to base their
argument on the ostensibly undisputed acknowledgment of the necessity of such
prohibitions and to draw from it the conclusion that complete freedom is an evil and
that sorne measure of restriction must be imposed upon the freedom of the
individual by the govemmental authorities in their capacity as guardians of his
welfare. The question cannot be whether the authorities ought to impose restrictions
upon the freedom of the individual, but only how far they ought to go in this respect.

52
 Líberalism: A Socío-Economic E:xposition

Shoutd meo be pennitted to incite others to civil war and to wars against foreign
countries? And should scurrilous lampoons and blasphemous diatribes be allowed
to undennine respect for God and the Church?
We see that as soon as we surrender the principie that the state shou!d not
interfere in any quesrions touching on the individual's mode of life, we end by
regu\ating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal
freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the cornmunity,
bound to obey the dictates of the majority. Jt is hardly necessary to expatiate on the
ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority.
The wielding, ofpowers of this kind even by men imbued with the best ofintentions
must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. Ali man.kind's progress has
been achieved as a result of the initiative of a smaJI minority that began to deviate
from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the
others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate
to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once
and for all.
Let no one object that the struggle against morphinism and the struggle against
"evil" literature are two quite different things. The only difference between them is
that sorne of the same people who favor the prohibition of the fonner will not agree
to the prohíbition of the [atter. In the United States, the Methodists and
Fundamental.ists, right after the passage of the law prohibiting the manufacture and
sale of alcoholic beverages, took up the struggle for the suppression of the theory of
evolution, and they have already succeeded in ousting Darwinism from the schools
in a number of states. In Soviet Russia, every free exp.ression of opinion is
suppressed. Whether or not pennission is granted for a book to be published
depends on the discretion of a number of uneducated and uncultivated fanatics who
have been p laced in charge of the arm of the govemrnent empowered to concem
itself with such matters.
The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibitíon as soon
as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to sucb

54