Levels of Discussion

Dr. Sennholz heads the Department of Economics at Grove City College and is a noted writer and lecturer on monetary and economic affairs.

The novice in economic and social thought is bewildered by the great variety of competing philosophies, ideologies and doctrines that vie for his support. In desperation about the apparent confusion, he may shun the social sciences altogether and seek other knowledge. As a young student, Albert Einstein despaired about economics and turned his great intellectual powers toward physics. Many others of lesser talent may just imbibe the brand of thought that is fashionable at the moment. Or they may readily accept that which is available at their particular institution of learning. Others may temporarily suspend their judgment until they have thoroughly analyzed the various schools of thought. As students, they may be sitting at the feet of the great scholars anywhere in the world until, after much deliberation and research, they are prepared to take a position of their own.

For the scholar who soberly and deliberately pursues knowledge, there is a short-cut to the issue. He may simply judge the level of scientific discussion in which each of the contending schools is engaged. The level may range from the most exacting dispassionate analysis of a subject matter to the most primitive emotional exchange of debate tricks that negate any pretense of scholarship. The latter may be very popular with the masses of people who prefer entertainment over enlightenment. The seeker of truth has no choice but to listen to serious scientific discussion.

Many years ago Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Austria’s foremost economist and statesman at the turn of the century, described his search for knowledge. In his critique of the writings of Marx and Rodbertus he was looking at the exploitation theory "with its best foot forward." He tried to adhere to what we today would call "a policy of equal opportunity for all contending doctrines." In the language of the Continental aristocrat: "He who would be victorious on the field of scientific research, must allow his adversary to advance in all the panoply of his armor and in the fullness of his strength."¹

The great writings that have passed the test of time reflect this calm confidence in the ultimate victory of truth over error. Surely they recognize that man is a creature of impulse and emotion and that he is perpetually swayed by his interests, passions and vices. But man was also given his power of reasoning which makes way for revelation and knowledge. Reason is the candle in man’s hand which enables him to explore and discover.

Popular writings may appeal to passions and emotions. But the taste for emotion is a very fickle taste that changes continually and fatuously.

The writers who, for the applause or gratuity of the moment, appeal to such tastes are riding the waves of human folly that will swallow them in the end.

Jokes and Insinuations

Most contemporary writers on social matters, even the most illustrious among them, are merely skillful surfboard riders whom the next wave may engulf. They entertain their readers with wit, jest and jocularity, carefully avoiding any serious discussion with knowledgeable opponents. They may ignore their critics entirely or, if this can no longer be done, shoot at them with malice and hatred. A poor joke may take the place of a rational reply.

Paul A. Samuelson, the vocal spokesman for post-Keynesian political economy and Nobel laureate in economics, mostly ignores the writings in defense of individual freedom and the private property order. In his Economics, the textbook for millions of American students, he brushes them aside "as conservative counterattacks against mainstream economics." He neither defines nor describes these counterattacks, but having announced them in a boldface title he demolishes them with a four-line gesture of disgust. With selfishness, ignorance, and malice "there is not much intellectual arguing that can be done." (10th ed., p. 847)

He devotes half a page to "Chicago School Libertarianism" of men like Frank Knight, Henry C. Simons, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. He lumps them together under a cryptic label and rejects them as "provocative negations." His favorite target, Milton Friedman, is dispatched with an ugly joke. "If Milton Friedman had never existed, it would have been necessary to invent him." (p. 848)

But the champions of all-round government ownership or control in the means of production are treated with utmost courtesy and respect. He devotes eight pages of text supplemented by eight pages of appendix to "eminent," "competent," and "eloquent" advocates of radical economics from Karl Marx to John G. Gurley. He quotes extensively from their writings without refuting any of their arguments. To Samuelson, Karl Marx "was as much a philosopher, historian, sociologist, as a revolutionist. And make no mistake. He was a learned man." (p. 855) In fact, Samuelson echoes Engels: "Marx was a genius … the rest of us were talented at best." (p. 853)

Samuelson is riding the high waves of fashionable folly. It does not speak well for the American Academe to have made his writings the best sellers of our time. And depend on it, a society that builds its policies on such thought faces misfortune and calamity.

The writings of J. K. Galbraith are as popular with bureaucrats and politicians as Samuelson’s work with academicians. It is true, Galbraith abstains from crude personal attacks on authors who disagree with him. He merely ignores them. He is utterly unaware of the subjective-value theory and its important ramifications. In his own book on Money (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1975) he does not deal with a single monetary thought of the Austrian writers. But he mentions Joseph A. Schumpeter, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Gottfried Haberler, Fritz Machlup and Oskar Morgenstern, composing "the world’s most distinguished coterie of conservative economists." Having lived through Austrian inflation they all shared "a profound mistrust of any action that seemed to risk inflation along with an even greater distaste for anything that seemed to suggest socialism." (p. 186) This is Galbraith’s only reference to a school of thought that for more than a century has spearheaded the scientific discussion of money and the systems of social organization.

Galbraith is a clever phrase-maker. Almost instinctively he uses figurative or metaphorical terms that are favorable to his contentions and unfavorable to those of his critics. Pre-Galbraith economic knowledge is "conventional wisdom" which is "obsolete" and "pessimistic." After that rhetoric so brilliantly flavored with the spices of intellectual omniscience, who would have the courage to identify with "conventional" and "obsolete" knowledge? Who would care to join "the coterie"? For Galbraith any further discussion is redundant.

Talking To The Audience

Most academic writers do not painstakingly analyze the theories and arguments with which they disagree. It takes great effort and labor to reach beyond a familiar body of thought and wade through the armory of a different school. Indeed, it is much easier to talk to one’s own audience and seek its applause. The Keynesian writers are scribbling for their followers, the "radical economists" for theirs.

Where a particular assertion is in need of verification and support, they may appeal to authority rather than rely on their own reasoning. They may cite another writer of similar persuasion, a member of their own school of thought. Samuelson may quote Solow and Solow, Samuelson. Neither of them knows, or cares to know, what Mises and Hayek have written about the subject matter.

The great writers whose works survive the test of time reach beyond their particular audiences and seek truth regardless of its popularity. They analyze doctrines and theories; they do not psychoanalyze their opponents. They refute errors and fallacies, they do not malign the person who errs. They do not engage in propaganda, they search for truth no matter where it should be found. In the interests of science they pursue the truth even if society should dislike and reject it. They do not primarily teach that which they know, but endeavor to discover that which they do not yet understand. To seek for the truth, for the sake of knowing the truth, is their first objective.

Human understanding is always liable to error; infallibility is denied to man. Therefore, error needs to be exposed and corrected. This is the proper function of scientific critique. But it must not just destroy and pull down, it must direct attention to the excellent and positive.

Emphasize the Positive

Error must not be permitted to run its course and work its harm. It must be confronted and refuted in order to make way for truth. But it is difficult to decide which fallacy should command our attention and effort, and which one should be ignored. Ludwig von Mises considered it an important task for young scholars to confront and explode popular fallacies. To recognize error and refute it was a minimum requirement for doctoral candidates and prospective economists.

Leonard Read built his creative efforts on the observation that "action that is wholly against must lead to inaction as soon as it is successful." In all his writings and the activities of his Foundation, he and his associates are emphasizing the positive, bringing to light that which is right. They are convinced that only positive views of truth show the way and can lead to action. For this reason they try to avoid the arena of heated debate and criticism, and instead, proceed on the steady course)f learning and explaining the freedom philosophy and its miraculous results.

And yet, all findings must be submitted to the test of free discussion which is a reliable friend of Ruth. Trickery and emotion in argument betray a conscious weakness of the cause and often signal despair. Indeed, we may be able to judge our adversaries, as they may urge us, by the levels of discussion.

¹Capital and Interest (South Holland, Illinois: Libertarian Press, 1959), Vol. I, p. 250.

***

A Cage of Apes

Blind conformity, regimentation, and loss of the individual in the mass are both national and individual suicide. When we have reduced the world to a cage of apes, each imitating the other, we may be perfectly sure that we will be apes and nothing more. For leadership does not develop in an atmosphere that provides no opportunity for change, growth, and self-determination.

God gave you legs on which to stand, and may He forgive you if you use them only as something with which to run away from reality. Yet he who takes a stand on anything today is in danger of being torn to pieces by those who run with the pack. Do you dare to be different?

Despite all interpretations of the Constitution to the contrary, man still has innate and inalienable rights. One of these is the right to be an individual. But this right is also a responsibility. If you refuse the responsibility, as so many people today are doing, you will be deprived of the right—as has happened in almost every other country in the world. The hour calls for people who dare to be individuals in a world where it is fast becoming improper to be anything but apes.

KENNETH W. SOLLITT, "Do You Dare to Be Different?"