It has been said by not a few,

"Society comes first!"

But is that true?

 

"Society," they call it – or, if they can,

"Humanity," -- or "Fatherland,"

Or maybe "Public Interest"!

 

But, any old way it's cast,

They've got their order just reversed!

For when they say those things come first,

What must, necessarily, come last?

 

The Individual! In thrall!

In service to the "Good of All!"

The "good" to be determined by the State!

 

I say NO!

It isn't so!

THE INDIVIDUAL COMES FIRST!

And society will fare no worse!

Society will prosper hence --

Not as cause, but consequence!

 

I repeat: The individual comes first!

 

My friend Jack had listened

Quite attentively all the way

"Well," said Jack, "It sounds all right

In THEORY, anyway

What I want to know is:

What in PRACTICE does it say?"

 

I said, "It means that one is

Independent of the State;

Each peaceful individual would be sovereign

Of his life and of his fate

His private property would be his

To do with as he may,

Regardless of what others wish,

Or what the group might say"

 

Jack shook his head, but I explained,

"Let's emphasize the fact:

Do as one wishes with ONES OWN,

NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S, Jack!

It doesn't mean the right to cheat,

But, having sown, to reap

It doesn't mean the right to steal,

But, having earned, to keep!

Whether it's your business,

Your house, your life, or even views,

It's all your private property

To do with as you choose!"

 

"But you carry it too far!" Jack said

"Now, you have things reversed!

Property rights are fine, I'm sure --

But HUMAN RIGHTS COME FIRST!

 

"But property rights ARE human rights!"

Said I, "You simply must agree:

Since it's HUMANS who own property,

How else could it be?"

 

"Oh, stop!" said Jack

"Now say no more!

I've heard these arguments before!

On 'basic rights' and 'property' --

You waste your breath, it seems to me!

For, rights do not belong to you

Just because you say they do!

Though you say that hot is hot,

Unproven! I can say it's not!

You quote the Constitution's laws?

I quote the 'general welfare' clause!

Your property is yours by right?

I say it's yours only by might!

You say these rights are man's innate?

I say they're granted by the State!

Nothing's certain -- which assures

My argument is as good as yours!

You say private property is moral?

I say, 'Why?'

You can't prove it -- so, I deny!"

 

WELL NOW, this was MY reply:

"Ones property is his by right!

It's no problem to derive

It arises simply from

Ones own right to survive!

The right to life --

This is a right we can agree upon?

You agree LIFE is a moral right?"

 

Jack nodded, so, I went on:

"The means of our survival

Is the property we earn --

The house, the food, and all the rest

So, now we can discern:

Since life depends on property,

Whatever else you give,

To deny the right to property,

Denies the right to live!"

 

Jack thought a moment, then said, "Wait!

Suppose the food came from the State!

The house & clothing, the State could give

No private property! Yet, we'd live!"

 

"The State can give -- then take away"

Said I, "Don't change position:

You just agreed that man may live

By RIGHT -- not by permission!

It's this moral right to life itself,

From which right extends

The right to ones own property

On which that life depends!"

 

Jack thought, then answered with a smile,

"I'll have to think on that awhile

You might be right

You might be wrong

Yet, even if I went along,

Still a theory's practice might

Fail -- even though the theory's right!"

 

"Then the theory's wrong," said I

 

"Forget I said it," was Jack's reply

"Let's leave theory, if we may

Let's get down to 'everyday'!

First: majority must rule, Jack said

The group! You must agree!

We cannot leave each to his own

For, CHAOS it would be!"

 

"The Bill of Rights," then answered I,

"It should not be forgot,

Says not what the 'group' must do --

But what the 'group' MUST NOT!"

 

"I'm for the Bill of Rights," he drawled

"That's why property, you see,

Must in accordance be CONTROLLED

In our society!"

 

"Your great zeal for civil rights

Is touching, Jack," I said

But if private property were gone,

Those rights would soon be dead!

If the State owned paper mills,

For example, I suggest,

We would not for long enjoy

Our freedom of the press!

Or, if businesses which advertise

Were subject to the State,

And supported the 'wrong' paper,

What would be their fate?

PRIVATE PROPERTY MEANS FREEDOM!

And those who doubt it will discover

That to sacrifice the one will mean

They've sacrificed the other!"

 

"That's just theory," Jack declared

 

Said I, "Then please explain

Why Fascist Italy and Red Russia,

Nazi Germany and Spain

All had one thing in common;

In each case it sealed their fate:

All property was managed

By and for the State!

The Constitution of the Soviets

Each 'civil right' defends,

Except that single basic right

On which the rest depend!

And when that happens, people find

That they're no longer free

Their fate's no longer in their hands,

But in the State's -- you see?"

 

"But your alternative," Jack said,

"I can't believe you mean it!

There could be no place THAT free --

At least, I've never seen it!"

 

"No, you haven't

That is true," Said I, "No one denied it

This idea has been around --

But no one has REALLY tried it!"

 

"Well, what's it called, this thing," said he

"For which so much you claim?"

"'Laissez Faire' it is called," I answered,

"That's its name."

 

"Laissez faire?" my friend mused,

"I've heard that once or twice

I don't recall the context --

But it wasn't very nice!"

"And it would never work," said he

"The first thing I would fear

Is that business would be 'dog eat dog'!

That's how it looks from here!"

 

"The analogy is strained," said I,

"For dogs, you will agree,

Are not competing to produce,

But to consume, you see."

"Now, what I've said is valid, Jack,

But there's just one thing more

That's even more important,

And one we've touched upon before;

It's this attitude we sometimes have

Enacted by the State

That OTHER men must serve us

And on terms that WE dictate!

But it isn't so! No ones obliged,

Not in a land that's free,

To serve the 'group' or live his life

As others may decree!"

 

Then Jack grinned, and said, "Egad!"

"The way you put it, it does sound bad,

But don't you think you put it kind of strong?

Without State planning, don't you think that

Society would fall down flat?

Any kid in public school would say you're wrong!"

 

"Not only would, but often do!"

I answered with a wince

"But if they took a closer look,

They'd see the evidence

That laissez faire took the blame

For many ills and flaws,

When INTERFERENCE WITH IT

WAS, IN FACT, THE CAUSE!

Take the 'Robber Barons'

Like Fisk, or Daniel Drew,

Or California's famed 'Big Four'

-- Not a pleasant crew!

But how did crooks like those get rich?

The point of this debate

Is that the trouble usually was

Created by the State!

Through subsidy, or franchise,

Or tariff -- or about

A million special laws

To keep the competition out!

Politicians sold 'protection'

Blackmail was the game

Plunder was made legal!

Yet, it's the moral men we blame!

Men like Vanderbilt, and J. J. Hill,

And Henry Ford, too --

Who now are called 'exploiters'!

But I don't believe it's true!

For, if we took the trouble,

I think, perhaps, we'd find

That what they earned would not compare

To what they left behind!"

 

"That's interesting," Jack said,

"But it doesn't prove your point

That governmental planning

Simply twists things out of joint

Now, how about depressions --

Is government to blame?

 

"You bet it is," I quickly said,

"The principle's the same!

Not just the one in 'twenty-nine,

But some that came before

What government's been doing

For a hundred years and more

Is inflate the nation's credit

Then, what do you see?

Malinvestment is encouraged

What else would it be?

With this artificial credit,

It inevitably must

Follow as the night the day:

First the boom -- then bust!

Inflation's a narcotic

Like heroin or cocaine, perhaps

With more and more they can postpone,

But not prevent, collapse!"

 

"Good Lord!" said Jack,

"You sure sound sad!

But I cannot believe

That government planning Is all THAT bad!

Now, here is something

That rings the bell

That the government does --

And does quite well!

I know you'll have to agree this time:

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

KEEPS THE PUMP WELL PRIMED!"

 

"We're not living in a pump," said I

"Now think what they're about

THE STATE CAN ONLY PUT BACK IN

WHAT FIRST IT'S TAKEN OUT!

No wonder that such high-flown schemes

Collapse with such a thud:

It's like trying to gain nourishment

By drinking ones own blood!

 

"Well, business isn't everything

Said Jack, "Taxes, I can show,

Support much more important things --

Like WELFARE -- as you know"

 

"But, Jack," said I, "I do suggest

That you surely must deduce

That bureaucrats cannot give away

What hasn't been produced!

And, if you tax away incentive,

You destroy those who create

It's businessmen and workers who

Produce wealth -- NOT THE STATE!"

 

"That's just theory!" my friend cried.

"Let's get to the source!

WE WISH TO HELP OUR FELLOW MAN!

There is charity, of course --

But, taxes give a better way:

CHARITY BY FORCE!

If you need what others earn,

No longer need you steal it

Government will do the job --

And people hardly feel it!"

 

"Jack, you put it well," said I

"But I would think you'd wonder

At the implications of thus

LEGALIZING PLUNDER!"

 

"My gosh," said he,

"From what you've said,

As far as I recall,

It seems to me that what you want is

No government at all!"

 

"Well, there's 'government' --

and  then there's 'statism,'" I said

"They're really not the same.

The first is quite essential

It's the second that I blame"

"So," I said, "permit me to

Distinguish, if I may:

The former protects property;

The latter takes it away!"

"Now, just a minute," then said Jack

It seems to me that there's a lack

Of what I'd call consistency --

At least, so it seems to me

From start to finish, you insist that we

May do as we wish with our property

And so it sounds to me as though

There'd be no taxes! Is not that so?

"Ideally, yes, that's so," said I

"How about defense?" was Jack's reply

"Your freedom cannot be expected

To survive if unprotected!

There is indeed no other source

Than by TAXES gained by FORCE!

For, why would you and I pay tax

So someone else would just relax?

I agreed it sounded grim,

But this is what I answered him:

"I don't think we'd have the right

To force a pacifist to fight,

Or use taxes to subsidize those who do

This applies, as well, to you"

"Well," sneered Jack, "We finally start

To see your system fall apart!

Now, I'd say from what I've heard

That what you want is just absurd!

"Government's essential!

This you have agreed

Now you cut off all the taxes

By which it can succeed!

You concede a point -- Then contradict

Now you're cornered; I think you're licked!

For, no one paying, I insist,

Means that government cannot exist!

This is what I meant before!

Theory's theory; nothing more

The theory may appear sublime,

Yet not in practice worth a dime!"

I answered, "Wait! I'm not so sure

But what your glee is premature

I didn't say it's 'either-or' --

(As far as I recall) --

That it's government by taxes,

Or no government at all!"

"Well," said Jack, "I'm in a daze!

We either tax -- or no one pays!

Next thing you'll be telling me

Is government perhaps could be

Financed VOLUNTARILY!"

"That's right!" said I

Said Jack, "Oh my!

I'll bet you cannot name me one

Way by which it might be done

Name ONE way that it could be

Funded voluntarily!"

"How about lottery?" said I

Said Jack, "I think I'm gonna cry!"

I said, "I've given you your one

By BETTER ways it might be done

Not by tax, but in a way

By which most would CHOOSE to pay!

But, I'll pursue this point no more

It's not the point I'm aiming for

"For, even if I did agree

That such notions were in vain,

It would make no difference

My point would still remain:

Taxes mean coercion --

Seizing property by might!

While this may seem 'expedient' --

It doesn't make it right!

"Such coercion means injustice

To condone it here and there

Simply paves the way for those

Who'd have it EVERYWHERE!

"So, I'll insist a tax is wrong --

Expedient or not!

And I'll suggest we think instead

Of CUTTING WHAT WE'VE GOT!"

"Well," said Jack

"I'm still in doubt

It sounds to me a bit far out

What's more -- as far as I can see --

Which system we have probably

Makes no difference -- not to me"

I started then to answer when

Fate smiled, and lent a hand

Jack spied the evening paper

On the corner, in the stand.

"Taxes up again," it read

"Up AGAIN!" Jack cried

"This is really much too much!

They take us for a ride!

"We subsidize the farmer!

We subsidize the train!

We subsidize the TVA!

We subsidize the plane!

We subsidize each bungler In a million different ways

We subsidize each dog-gone thing,

Except the guy who pays!"

I tried to make a comment here

That seemed quite apropos,

But Jack was hollering so loud

I had to let it go!

"Laissez faire?" he cried out,

"I just don't know, I guess,

How THAT system might work out --

BUT THIS ONE'S SURE A MESS!"

The End

(c) 1964 Richard W. Grant

---