WendyMcElroy.com
Watner and Konkin on Pushing the ButtonButton Pushing or Abdication: Which?
by Carl Watner
In Detroit on April 29,1946, Leonard Read gave a speech to the Midwestern Conference of the Controllers Institute of America., The address, which was titled "I'd Push the Button," opened on the following note:
Read's position, of course, was that the free market and wage and price controls were inimical to one another; that if the government price controls were wrong on principle, they should be abolished immediately. If there were such a button that could do away with them immediately, Read would not hesitate to push it because this would be one essential element in freeing the market. Bob LeFevre once considered an analogous situation in an editorial he wrote for the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. Appearing on July 9, 1959, in his "Not Against Government." LeFevre urged his readers to suppose that they had a button before them. The button was to be wired in such a manner that when it was pushed it would do away with all vestiges of government:
Supposing he was in control of the button, LeFevre asked himself: Would he push it? His answer was an unequivocal, "No." The balance of this paper is to explain LeFevre's reasons for refusing to "push the button" and to demonstrate how the voluntaryist position against electoral involvement and politics in general parallels LeFevre's thinking.
Essentially, LeFevre realized that all the button pushing in the world would not accomplish anything long-lasting if it were not accompanied by a concomitant change in public opinion. After all, it is public opinion and sentiment which endorses and supports any institution, such as government. If the government did not have the support of the majority of the people over which it exercised wage and price controls, it would be doubtful if the government could enforce its edicts. William Godwin, nearly two centuries ago, noted that "all government is founded on opinion. Men at present live under any particular form, because they conceive their interest to do so. .. .Make men wise and by that very operation you make them free. Civil liberty follows as a consequence of this; no usurped power can stand against the artillery of opinion." (Neither Bullets Nor Ballots, p. 33)
Furthermore, LeFevre observed that it was inconsistent to argue for freedom by forcing men to be free. Although he did not address the question from the point of view of the proper means to be used, this was actually what he was driving at. Forcing men to be free is an improper way to achieve their freedom; improper in the sense that it is inconsistent with the end to be achieved and improper in the sense that it involves compelling people to do things against their wishes. As LeFevre put it, "We do not believe that persons who have been forced to accept freedom can either understand it or respond with the requisite responsibility so that freedom can be meaningful."
Button pushing would probably result in chaos because most people would still be looking towards government to solve their problems. "To force them to get along without this instrument of coercion would probably simply inspire them to set up other instruments of coercion. This would not be freedom. It would result in a horrible catastrophe." This illustrates the difference between voluntary abandonment of government (a natural process based on individual action) and abolition (i.e., button pushing) which can only be an artificial or compulsory procedure.
Not only did LeFevre not condone button pushing, .but he claimed that he would abdicate if somehow he found himself in a position of total power: Any person who found himself in such a position "and who believed in freedom would have to abdicate." In an editorial of April 7,1961, titled "A Substitute for Government," LeFevre went on record as advocating no substitute for government except the market place. Not political action for the purpose of elections, but rather education was his constant theme. What he claimed was entailed was "the long and painful re-education of the American people," such that public opinion would effect a shift away from socialism and statism. LeFevre was quick to admit that education was a long process, but what, he asked, was quicker?
Leonard Read was exposed to similar thinking long before Bob LeFevre ever became an editorial writer for The Gazette Telegraph. In a story that he related in 1971, Read recounted his initial meeting with Ludwig von Mises. It was sometime in the early 1940's and occurred in the evening after a luncheon meeting during which von Mises addressed the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. "That evening he [Misesl dined at my home with renowned economists, Dr. Benjamin Anderson and Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, and several businessmen such as W.C. Mullendore The final question was posed at midnight: 'Professor Mises, I agree with you that we are headed for troublous [sic] times. Now let us suppose you were the dictator of these United States. What would you do?' Quick as a flash came the reply, 'I would abdicate'!"
Since LeFevre and voluntaryišts hold that aggression is wrong they realize it is a wrong means which will never lead towards individual freedom. We cannot use the weapons cf tyranny; for freedom and reason are our only tools. One should never have to labor towards compelling others to accept freedom. One need only exert self-control, so as to not interfere with the freedom of others. "Freedom for all is the product of self-control." So given the choice, what would you do: Push the button or Abdicate?
Samuel E. Konkin III rebuts this position after the leap
by Carl Watner
In Detroit on April 29,1946, Leonard Read gave a speech to the Midwestern Conference of the Controllers Institute of America., The address, which was titled "I'd Push the Button," opened on the following note:
If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage and price controls [which were still in effect in the post-World War II period] instantaneously. I would put my finger on it and push!
Read's position, of course, was that the free market and wage and price controls were inimical to one another; that if the government price controls were wrong on principle, they should be abolished immediately. If there were such a button that could do away with them immediately, Read would not hesitate to push it because this would be one essential element in freeing the market. Bob LeFevre once considered an analogous situation in an editorial he wrote for the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. Appearing on July 9, 1959, in his "Not Against Government." LeFevre urged his readers to suppose that they had a button before them. The button was to be wired in such a manner that when it was pushed it would do away with all vestiges of government:
And let us suppose... that all persons who are thus occupied [in government] have promised faithfully that... they will quit their offices; that all government would cease as of that instant; and that in no way, shape or form would these individuals seek to establish another government.
Supposing he was in control of the button, LeFevre asked himself: Would he push it? His answer was an unequivocal, "No." The balance of this paper is to explain LeFevre's reasons for refusing to "push the button" and to demonstrate how the voluntaryist position against electoral involvement and politics in general parallels LeFevre's thinking.
Essentially, LeFevre realized that all the button pushing in the world would not accomplish anything long-lasting if it were not accompanied by a concomitant change in public opinion. After all, it is public opinion and sentiment which endorses and supports any institution, such as government. If the government did not have the support of the majority of the people over which it exercised wage and price controls, it would be doubtful if the government could enforce its edicts. William Godwin, nearly two centuries ago, noted that "all government is founded on opinion. Men at present live under any particular form, because they conceive their interest to do so. .. .Make men wise and by that very operation you make them free. Civil liberty follows as a consequence of this; no usurped power can stand against the artillery of opinion." (Neither Bullets Nor Ballots, p. 33)
Furthermore, LeFevre observed that it was inconsistent to argue for freedom by forcing men to be free. Although he did not address the question from the point of view of the proper means to be used, this was actually what he was driving at. Forcing men to be free is an improper way to achieve their freedom; improper in the sense that it is inconsistent with the end to be achieved and improper in the sense that it involves compelling people to do things against their wishes. As LeFevre put it, "We do not believe that persons who have been forced to accept freedom can either understand it or respond with the requisite responsibility so that freedom can be meaningful."
Button pushing would probably result in chaos because most people would still be looking towards government to solve their problems. "To force them to get along without this instrument of coercion would probably simply inspire them to set up other instruments of coercion. This would not be freedom. It would result in a horrible catastrophe." This illustrates the difference between voluntary abandonment of government (a natural process based on individual action) and abolition (i.e., button pushing) which can only be an artificial or compulsory procedure.
Not only did LeFevre not condone button pushing, .but he claimed that he would abdicate if somehow he found himself in a position of total power: Any person who found himself in such a position "and who believed in freedom would have to abdicate." In an editorial of April 7,1961, titled "A Substitute for Government," LeFevre went on record as advocating no substitute for government except the market place. Not political action for the purpose of elections, but rather education was his constant theme. What he claimed was entailed was "the long and painful re-education of the American people," such that public opinion would effect a shift away from socialism and statism. LeFevre was quick to admit that education was a long process, but what, he asked, was quicker?
Leonard Read was exposed to similar thinking long before Bob LeFevre ever became an editorial writer for The Gazette Telegraph. In a story that he related in 1971, Read recounted his initial meeting with Ludwig von Mises. It was sometime in the early 1940's and occurred in the evening after a luncheon meeting during which von Mises addressed the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. "That evening he [Misesl dined at my home with renowned economists, Dr. Benjamin Anderson and Professor Thomas Nixon Carver, and several businessmen such as W.C. Mullendore The final question was posed at midnight: 'Professor Mises, I agree with you that we are headed for troublous [sic] times. Now let us suppose you were the dictator of these United States. What would you do?' Quick as a flash came the reply, 'I would abdicate'!"
Since LeFevre and voluntaryišts hold that aggression is wrong they realize it is a wrong means which will never lead towards individual freedom. We cannot use the weapons cf tyranny; for freedom and reason are our only tools. One should never have to labor towards compelling others to accept freedom. One need only exert self-control, so as to not interfere with the freedom of others. "Freedom for all is the product of self-control." So given the choice, what would you do: Push the button or Abdicate?
Samuel E. Konkin III rebuts this position after the leap
Pushing One's Buttons
by Samuel Edward Konkin III
Carl Watner seems to approvingly cite Robert LeFevre in contrast to Leonard Read concerning pushing a hypothetical button that would end all price controls immediately. I first came across a version of this when Murray Rothbard declared, at the 1969 Libertarian Conference in New/York City's Hotel Diplomat, that if offered a button that would do away with the State apparatus on the spot, he would "blister his finger pushing the button." The bold challenge was hurled, thus, not only to LeFevre but to Read.
There are two problems with the dichotomy presented: first, the actual opposition of the two premises; second, the interpretation of the hypotheses involved and their consequences.
It is far less obvious to me than it was to LeFevre that one must. to use his term, abdicate Abdication (of State power) in order to push this magic button. Neither Read nor Rothbard bothered to conjecture how such a button arose. Suppose that a group of agorists had somehow managed to buy up all the network and cable television time at a certain time of day and spent considerable advertising funds to induce most of the populace to watch. You are placed before the button which will run the videotape of a George Lucas-produced grabber which rivets the audience to their seat and gets most of them to listen to a new and improved John Gait speech. Upon hearing the words and absorbing the visuals, a sufficient number of people quit their statist jobs, refuse to obey regulations and pay taxes, and possibly defend their neighbors should they be harrassed by the few remaining State thugs. (Pacifists may drop the final consequence.) The agorists accomplished the set-up without violating anyone's rights. The situation is highly speculative and, alas, quite unlikely, but definitely possible. We now have a reasonable pathway to the Rothbard-improved Read hypothesis.
Would Robert LeFevre fail to push that button?
If at least one case can be drawn where the Button-Pushing vs Abdication are not in opposition, then the dichotomy fails. Those who are unable to construct others lack imagination.
Now let's explicitly deal with interpretation. Suppose I'm offered fwo buttons. One button will accomplish the end above with the specified means. The other button was connected to the White House "hot line" and would signal my acceptance of the presidency: in desperate straits as the State is rapidly collapsing from massive counter-economic activity, the dying Executive and rump Congress offer me total power (because I seem to know what the hell is going on) to save the situation the best way I can. I'm as convinced as I could be that they are willing to grab at anything and will accept at least my initial edicts. In fact, due to their experience with Friedmanite reform economists, they even expect that most of my dictates will involve abolishing huge chunks of the State, hopefully (to them) saving something.
Set up that way, it is still to easy to take the moral path. I'm even sure Murray Rothbard would push Button One. So let's add one more condition to get a bit of realism.
We do not know how either group will react. In fact, we are suspicious that we have not yet done sufficient preparatory work and the populace may enjoy the show but there's a good chance not enough of them are ready to go the rest of the way. And if we push Button One, we have blown our chance for Button Two, for the State's agents on hands will immediately report our "treason." For whatever reason, we seem to be more sure that the statists are in dire enough straits to carry out their promises this time. Now which one shall we press?
I cannot speak for all voluntaryists, but I certainly hope each and every Agorist would blister his or her finger along with me pushing -the button for the Lady of Liberty and not the Tiger of Statism. Push the button and abdicate.
by Samuel Edward Konkin III
Carl Watner seems to approvingly cite Robert LeFevre in contrast to Leonard Read concerning pushing a hypothetical button that would end all price controls immediately. I first came across a version of this when Murray Rothbard declared, at the 1969 Libertarian Conference in New/York City's Hotel Diplomat, that if offered a button that would do away with the State apparatus on the spot, he would "blister his finger pushing the button." The bold challenge was hurled, thus, not only to LeFevre but to Read.
There are two problems with the dichotomy presented: first, the actual opposition of the two premises; second, the interpretation of the hypotheses involved and their consequences.
It is far less obvious to me than it was to LeFevre that one must. to use his term, abdicate Abdication (of State power) in order to push this magic button. Neither Read nor Rothbard bothered to conjecture how such a button arose. Suppose that a group of agorists had somehow managed to buy up all the network and cable television time at a certain time of day and spent considerable advertising funds to induce most of the populace to watch. You are placed before the button which will run the videotape of a George Lucas-produced grabber which rivets the audience to their seat and gets most of them to listen to a new and improved John Gait speech. Upon hearing the words and absorbing the visuals, a sufficient number of people quit their statist jobs, refuse to obey regulations and pay taxes, and possibly defend their neighbors should they be harrassed by the few remaining State thugs. (Pacifists may drop the final consequence.) The agorists accomplished the set-up without violating anyone's rights. The situation is highly speculative and, alas, quite unlikely, but definitely possible. We now have a reasonable pathway to the Rothbard-improved Read hypothesis.
Would Robert LeFevre fail to push that button?
If at least one case can be drawn where the Button-Pushing vs Abdication are not in opposition, then the dichotomy fails. Those who are unable to construct others lack imagination.
Now let's explicitly deal with interpretation. Suppose I'm offered fwo buttons. One button will accomplish the end above with the specified means. The other button was connected to the White House "hot line" and would signal my acceptance of the presidency: in desperate straits as the State is rapidly collapsing from massive counter-economic activity, the dying Executive and rump Congress offer me total power (because I seem to know what the hell is going on) to save the situation the best way I can. I'm as convinced as I could be that they are willing to grab at anything and will accept at least my initial edicts. In fact, due to their experience with Friedmanite reform economists, they even expect that most of my dictates will involve abolishing huge chunks of the State, hopefully (to them) saving something.
Set up that way, it is still to easy to take the moral path. I'm even sure Murray Rothbard would push Button One. So let's add one more condition to get a bit of realism.
We do not know how either group will react. In fact, we are suspicious that we have not yet done sufficient preparatory work and the populace may enjoy the show but there's a good chance not enough of them are ready to go the rest of the way. And if we push Button One, we have blown our chance for Button Two, for the State's agents on hands will immediately report our "treason." For whatever reason, we seem to be more sure that the statists are in dire enough straits to carry out their promises this time. Now which one shall we press?
I cannot speak for all voluntaryists, but I certainly hope each and every Agorist would blister his or her finger along with me pushing -the button for the Lady of Liberty and not the Tiger of Statism. Push the button and abdicate.
| Donate with Paypal |
 | Donate Bitcoins! |
New Bitcoin address - 30 Nov 2020
1Ee7g7zAUReViPRWtLPBEgnPDRP62qxq3J
1Ee7g7zAUReViPRWtLPBEgnPDRP62qxq3J
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
