Human Action Principles

March 19th, 1995

Lecture Number Thirteen


Good morning again, ladies and gentlemen. We’re going to once again journey in our time machine to the ancient people who live in Gaul, our friends who live in the great forest. You had such a memorable experience, I thought we’d take another trip back there to illustrate a point.

You are now a member of the tribe, and, more than that, you possess all of your present knowledge concerning causality. You are seated with your fellow tribesmen in a great circle that surrounds a giant tree. You can see the nine tribal elders dancing in a circle swinging their axes against the base of the tree.

There beneath the tree are 12 maidens. Their hands and feet are bound, and they are about to be sacrificed. You are a part of the tribal ceremony. You are wearing the traditional ceremonial vestments. You can see that the blows of the elders’ axes will soon topple the giant tree upon the helpless 12. What will you do?

Suddenly, you leap to your feet, race toward the tree – you throw yourself between the tree and the elders, shouting the tribal word for “Halt.”  In stunned disbelief, the tribe sits motionless, and you begin to speak. “Brothers and sisters, we must end this senseless sacrifice. The death, the sacrifice of these young girls will not bring us any protection from the tribes beyond the giant hill. You could sacrifice all of our maidens, but this human sacrifice is not the cause of protection from our enemy. Our enemies may be real or imaginary, but in either case, this is not the source of protection. My friends, it is time to end this superstition from the dark past.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m really impressed with the wisdom of your words. Those are good words you just said. But look over your shoulder. The chief elder is pointing a threatening gesture to you. “Seize this heretic at once.” What did you accomplish? You got everyone’s attention, but did you improve the tribe’s understanding of causality? What do you think?

How many of you think the ceremony will soon continue with all of its fanatic fury? Yeah. It is even possible that the number 13 will take on a new meaning in your remaining life. The chief elder might even give you the honor of becoming the 13th favored one. This is an honor you did not seek, nor can you afford.

You ran into a problem. What was it? Your fellow tribesmen have been overwhelmed by what?
Class: Their ideological immunity.

SNELSON: Their ideological immune system, indoctrination, yes. Before you get into any more trouble, we had better get out of here and back to our time machine.

We’re leaving the tribes of ancient Gaul to visit the tribes in the far-off land of modern America. As we get underway, I want you to think about this question: How does our own American tribe differ from the tribe that lives in the great forest? From what I said earlier, all of you should know the answer. We’re more civilized.

Our time machine takes us now to the banks of the river the early tribesmen named the Potomac. We are in a district called Columbia named in honor of the Spanish/Italian explorer who discovered America. Within the district is a settlement they call Washington, named after the great chief who defeated the English tribes who came across the great ocean.

My friend, you are now a part of this scene:  You are seated in a chamber within this white domed palace that sits high on a hill. How did you get there? Well, it seems your fellow tribesmen, by means of secret vote, have elected you to occupy a special seat of power here at tribal headquarters. Your authority and power are backed by tribal guns. Your election has decided the first tribal issue, who will control the gun?

The tribesmen back home in your district have given you more votes than your opponent. Therefore, you have a two-year term in which you can take part in control of the gun. Now that the gun is in your hands, you have to decide what to do with it. You are now confronted with the second tribal issue: At which of your fellow tribesmen should you aim the gun?

You and your fellow members of this House of Representatives decide it is time for another tribal sacrifice. You carefully select a target of confiscation to be sacrificed for the good of the entire nation of tribes. The majority of the representatives vote to aim the gun at the people who earn their living drilling holes in the ground to pump out a black liquid they refine as a fuel.

Now that you’ve decided the second tribal issue, it is time to decide the third tribal issue. How much should you confiscate from your fellow tribesmen? This third issue is not an easy one to decide. The problem is complicated by the fact that there are two separate bodies of tribal representatives who meet at the great white palace.

In order to confiscate from these hole-drillers, it is the written law of the land that both bodies of tribal representatives must agree on the exact amount to be confiscated at gunpoint. The body of representatives named the House of Representatives has decided by majority vote to confiscate from the hole-drillers $277 billion official greenbacks, the ones with the great early chief’s picture engraved on it.

This was considered a good and proper thing to do by the majority of tribal representatives sitting in the chamber they call the House. But across the hall is another chamber they call the Senate. What’s that? Senate is an ancient Roman word meaning an assembly of old men. I’m not making that up.

These old men at the Senate believe that to confiscate $277 billion greenbacks from the hole-drillers, well, that’s just too damn much. That’s outrageous. The majority of these old men have just voted to confiscate only $177 billion greenbacks from the hole-drillers.

My friends, if you’re not familiar with the ways of tribal statesmanship, you cannot appreciate the magnitude of the difficulty. This is a crisis for the entire nation. The early founders of our union of tribes put forth a now-sacred document that constitutes all of the rules of confiscation. These rules of confiscation are the supreme law of the land. They must be religiously followed by all those who sit in both the House and the Senate.

The rules clearly specify that both the big chamber, the House, and the little chamber, the Senate, must be in total agreement on the amount to be confiscated at gunpoint. If the House and Senate cannot reach a gentlemen’s agreement on this third political issue, then, according to the authors of this constitution, they will not be allowed to confiscate even one solitary greenback from the hole-drillers.

If they fail to agree, well, you can now see what a crisis this could be for the entire nation if they can’t agree. However, the spirit of unity might save the nation from this great loss. Both the tribal leaders of the House and the Senate are firmly united on one thing, and that is, the hole-drillers will have to be sacrificed.

It is said the sacrifice will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of tribesmen. As things turned out, what could have been a great defeat for the nation turned out to be a great victory. One of the old men from the Senate chamber came up with a mathematical formula to solve this grave problem. Some of my contacts in the district named Columbia were able to secure the formula for me. I will share it with you if you promise not to disclose this formula outside of this theater. Is that fair enough? If you feel you can’t do that, just close your eyes or put your hand over your eyes so you won’t see the formula. Okay?

Here’s the formula. We have HC plus SC divided by two equals C C. Okay? Oh, well, okay, H stands for House. S stands for Senate. C stands for confiscation and C C stands for compromise confiscation. Of course, the breakthrough is the formula. Once you have that, all you have to do, as the expression goes, is fill in the numbers.

Plugging in the numbers, you get this. You get $277 billion plus $177 billion divided by two equals C C. When you complete these mathematical instructions, essentially what you get is $454 billion divided by two equals $227 billion confiscated. Now, of course, all of you realize I’m making all of this up, and this kind of thing would not take place in the real world. But it is, perhaps, a useful illustration.

At least things like this wouldn’t take place in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Would they?

Maybe I should share with you a headline that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on January 23, 1980. It says here, “$227 billion oil tax okayed.”  In fact, the congressional compromise formula is given right here beneath the headline. “House and Senate agree to split difference on levy.”  Wasn’t that the formula I just gave you?

This headline clearly says what, freely translated? It says the United States Congress has okayed the confiscation of $227 billion at gunpoint from the hole-drillers, the American entrepreneurs in the oil business. That’s what it says. Since there was some question as to whether or not it was even constitutional for the Congress to do this, the issue was later brought before the court of courts, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four decision that, yes, it’s all right for the Congress to confiscate $227 billion from the hole-drillers.

This was a great victory for the nation of tribes, as you can see. The third tribal issue has been decided, that is, how much should you confiscate from your fellow tribesmen?

With the settling of the third tribal issue, there’s only one outstanding issue that remains. Which of your fellow tribesmen will benefit from the confiscation? In other words, who will and who will not be the beneficiaries of the 227 billion greenbacks?

If you think there will be a lot of tribesmen fighting to get their hands on these greenbacks – how many think there will be a lot of fighting over the 227 billion greenbacks? You bet. The demand for the greenbacks will exceed the supply. How many think that will happen? The demand will exceed the supply. The tribal leaders at the district named Columbia will have to make the difficult decision of who will benefit from this confiscated wealth.

These tribal elders have something going for them that will make their difficult task easier. They are all educated, intelligent, and successful men who have proven in the past that they can rise to the occasion when there is wealth to be redistributed among the people. Uneducated, unintelligent, unsuccessful people would not be equal to this task. They wouldn’t even know where to start. They probably couldn’t understand the mathematics of it.

Dropping satire, it has always amazed me how few educated citizens are sensitive to the role the gun plays as the essential foundation of all political structures. During an earlier session, I talked about the nature of interventionism, Russian-style. The politician or their bureaucratic agent says to you, “I’m confiscating all of your property. If you oppose me in this confiscation, you will be shot.”

The most honest statesman I’ve ever heard of, at least in the political arena, the most honest politician, came from the lips of the Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong, who said, quote, “Every communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” unquote.

Is his statement true of only communism, or any other kind of political structure? All political structures. What was interventionism German-style? I discussed this earlier. The politician or their bureaucratic agent says to you, “I’m controlling all of your property. If you oppose me in this confiscation, you will be shot.”

All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. That generalization is true for all political power in America. Interventionism American-style does not differ in principle from interventionism German-style or interventionism Russian-style to the extent that all three systems are backed with a gun. My friends, I hope this comes as no shock to you, but all political power in America grows out of the barrel of a gun.

What generalizations, then, can we make about all political issues? During election time, one of the popular demands of the candidates is a familiar statement. “Gentlemen, let’s stick to the issues.”

You’ve heard this? You hear it all the time. What are the issues in politics?

If I can show you that, after all is said and done, there are only four political issues, this will, by itself, give you a quantum leap in your understanding of what the hell is going on in the domain of social causality. I call these the four universal political issues.

Whenever and wherever you find politics, you will also find four issues and only these four issues. I will summarize each issue with a single sentence. When I deliver on this claim, you will immediately acquire a greater understanding of the reality of the nature of politics than you could by reading 1,000 books on the subject of politics or getting a Ph.D. in political science.

The first universal political issue is, which politicians should gain control of the government’s guns? If you live in a democracy, this issue will be determined by various elections and usually a secret ballot.

Once this first issue is finally settled, the stage is set for the second universal political issue. At which citizens should the politicians aim the government’s guns?

In a democracy, this will be determined by various committees made up of the elected gunmen or, often, unelected gunmen, just party officials.

When the second issue is settled, it will be followed by the third universal political issue. How much government aggression should the politicians impose against those citizens targeted for confiscation and interventionism? In a democracy, this will also be determined by the committee of elected gunmen.

Finally, there is one remaining issue to be settled, the fourth universal political issue.  Which citizens will be the beneficiaries of the confiscation and interventionism? In a democracy, this fourth issue is also determined by the various committees of elected gunmen. If it’s not a democracy but instead, say, a monarchy, the gunman appoints himself, or they are appointed by some existing committee of gunmen.

The system of communism is similar to a monarchy, except the leadership is not hereditary. Instead of the leadership being transferred from father to son, it’s transferred from Party Leader A to Party Leader B by consent of the committee of top party leadership. If the party leader is strong enough, which means ruthless enough, he can rule the people for life.

The same is true for a monarchy. If the king is strong enough, he can rule the people for life. However, very few educated people have been sensitive to the fact that politics, regardless of what form it takes, is essentially a game. What kind of a game? Politics is a game of confiscation. What is a characteristic feature of all games?

CLASS:  Winners and losers.

SNELSON:  There’s a winner and a loser. This is true of football, baseball, track, chess, cards, golf, Trivial Pursuit, all other games. In this game of politics there are winners and losers. Who are the winners? The confiscators and the recipients of the confiscation are the winners. You know who the losers are? Those who’ve had their choices confiscated are the losers.

Choices includes the confiscation of your wealth. Your choice of what to do with your wealth is confiscated when your wealth is confiscated. If it’s not confiscation of choice, it’s not politics. If it’s not interventionism, it’s not bureaucracy. I’ve shown you the reality and true nature of all political issues.

In school, you were told the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. What they did not explain to you is that the Constitution constitutes – that’s from the Latin constitutus, which means to set up or establish – what?

It establishes the rules to be imposed upon the people to carry out the four universal political issues. The Constitution constitutes the rules for the game of politics within the United States of America.

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme set of gun control laws for the American people. The Constitution of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the supreme set of gun control laws for the Russian people. But remember, the question of concern here is not whether this political confiscation is right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust?

I have not raised this issue. All contemporary political confiscators and bureaucratic interventionists claim to have the same goal. You hear it over and over again, the same theme. They aim only to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. They claim their actions are right, moral, and just.

This science, optimization theory, is concerned only with one simplex question, can political confiscation and bureaucratic interventionism actually achieve the greatest good for the greatest number? We must not hide the fact that all acts of political confiscation and bureaucratic interventionism are acts of violence.

Here’s a restatement of the question. Can acts of government violence achieve the greatest good for the greatest number? Write me an essay. There are three possible answers to the question. This means there are only three possible views on the subject you can have. All of you have been indoctrinated to accept one of these three views.

View number one is that all acts of government violence achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. That’s one possibility. It might surprise you how many people believe this when it applies to their own government. If your government is British or French or American, you might believe this is true for your government. If you’re French, it’s true for the French government. British, true for the British government, but not true for certain foreign governments, such as Russian governments or Chinese governments.

View number two. Another possibility is that you believe no acts of government violence can achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Like view number one, this view does not allow for any exceptions. But hardly anyone in either the Western world or the Eastern world believes or clings to this view number two.

View number three. The view of government that you most likely have and bring into this seminar, and that all of your relatives, friends, and associates have, is that some acts of government violence achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, but presumably not all. That’s almost everybody’s view.

Especially if you are intellectual, you are likely to believe that there are at least some acts of government violence that do not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. You might believe that. In fact, the most common view among intelligent, educated, and successful adults is that most acts of government violence, but not all, achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. That’s the view of most educated people or people who we refer to as intellectuals.

Your intellectual homework assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to identify those acts of government violence that you believe achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Which ones do you believe will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number? Write me an essay. If we had time to do this, we would have every one of you write the essay and stand up here and read it, but we don’t have time to do that. That would be very useful, if we had time to do this.

Let me restate what I’ve called the grand issue of your century. Will interventionism or non-interventionism achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, or, its logical equivalent, will the free society or an un-free society achieve the greatest good for the greatest number? Or, will the win-win society or the win-lose society achieve the greatest good for the greatest number? These are all logically equivalent terms used interchangeably.

Since you cannot have interventionism without also having violence, the corollary statement is, will violence or nonviolence achieve the greatest good for the greatest number? Another way of stating it. To improve this clarification, the issue can be explained in still different language, non-interventionism versus interventionism. Interventionism, is the one road to slavery. Non-interventionism is the one road to freedom.

That’s another way of stating the same issue. In other words, the grand issue of this and the next century will be freedom versus slavery. Please take note, anyone anywhere at any time can state that the issue is slavery versus freedom but the statement means nothing because something will be missing behind the statement. What’s that?

The something that will almost always be missing is science. Where there is science, there is always semantic precision. Without a precise definition of both slavery and freedom, it is impossible to understand what either of these concepts will mean.

I discussed, for example, the soldier who gave up his life on the field of battle fighting for freedom. If you could resurrect this soldier who gave up his life, if you could resurrect from the dead, all the millions and hundreds of millions of soldiers that littered the battlefields, that have given up their life for freedom, if you could ask each one of them, “Soldier, you there that had your head blown off, I see you just got killed fighting for freedom.

“If you can give me, soldier, an articulate and precise definition of freedom, I have the power to bring you back to life to give you a second chance. All you have to do is to give me a precise definition of freedom.”  You ask each one of the hundreds of millions of soldiers who died fighting for freedom. “I’ll give you a second chance, soldier, sailor, airman.”

If his life depended on it, it’s highly unlikely he could give a precise definition of freedom. He died fighting for freedom, and he can’t define freedom, which means he can’t define why he died. He doesn’t know why he died. The leaders he was indoctrinated to respect ask him to fight for and, if necessary, die for freedom, but these leaders never define freedom either.

To optimize freedom – this is the science of optimization; that’s why it’s called optimization theory – we have to start by defining it. I defined it for you. Here it is again. Freedom exists where the individual’s discretion to choose is not confiscated by interventionism. That’s where freedom exists.

Where freedom does not exist, something else also exists, its converse. Slavery exists where the individual’s discretion to choose is confiscated by interventionism. This means, then, there are only two societal effects possible. Wherever there is a society, either freedom exists or slavery exists. That covers all possibilities. If you are standing on this planet, regardless of where you are standing, either your discretion to choose has been confiscated by interventionism or it has not.

Please note, there is no third option. Throughout the world, there can be degrees of slavery, by definition, but there cannot be degrees of freedom. Degrees of slavery, yes. Where there is anyone who is un-free, what does un-free mean? If you are un-free, you are in some condition of involuntary servitude. You are serving someone else that you have not volunteered to serve.

Traditionally, involuntary servitude is synonymous with slavery. But is there anything wrong with this? Is it wrong for A to enslave B, and, if it is wrong, then what’s wrong with it? I haven’t said there’s anything wrong with it at all. Have you considered this? Perhaps the solution to man’s major problems can be found in our ability to acquire more slavery, and the whole problem has been that we haven’t had enough slavery. Is that possible?

So, the question arises, should we have more slavery, or should we have less slavery, or do we have just about the right amount of slavery? Write me an essay. It’s time for another survey in this class. I’ll read all three, and then I’d like a show of hands. This is more than a rhetorical question. I’d like participation.

Actually, there are four. I’m going to ask you four. I’ll read the four quickly, and then I want your response. I’ll read them again.

One, I’m for slavery.
Two, I’m against slavery.
Three, I’m for some slavery and against some slavery.

And four, I don’t know what I’m for and against.

This will not affect your grade. I will put my glasses on, though. We don’t give grades.

How many, “I’m an advocate of slavery”? Let’s see a show of hands. All right, for the record, those of you who are reading or listening to this, no one has responded.
How many of you are against slavery? That’s nearly everybody. Maybe I missed somebody. How many are for some slavery and against other slavery? One, two. That’s all? Just two? Three. All right, two and a half.

How many don’t know what you’re for or against? Anyone? One person. Okay. Please note that if you are only opposed to some slavery, that implies what? You must be for some other slavery. Therefore, what kind of slavery do you advocate, and what people do you think should be enslaved by this slavery you favor?

Please note, once you decide you are in favor of slavery, either you must be the slave master or you must appoint someone else to be the slave master on your behalf. I’ve not said this is wrong. I’ve not said you’re a bad person if you’re an advocate of slavery. I’ve not said that this is immoral.

Please remember, however, if your goal is slavery, slavery can only be imposed through means of violent interventionism. There’s no other way to get it. Most people, like the farmer who grows orchids and wants his subsidy, are not violent themselves, but they usually do not hesitate to appoint someone else to impose violence on their behalf. Nevertheless, that still makes them the promulgators of violence. The man who grows orchids is a promulgator of violence, even though he owns no gun.

My friends, I have a question I’ve been preparing you for during all of the sessions prior to this. It’s one of the most important questions you have ever been asked, and you probably have never been asked this question outside of this seminar. The more important the question, the more likely it will not be asked of intelligent, educated people, or that intelligent, educated people will do the asking.

Listen, I know you think I’m hard on educated, intelligent people. I’ve gone to school. Some of my best friends are intelligent. Here’s the question I’ve been preparing you for. Should we abandon slavery in favor of freedom? Have you ever been asked this question, anyone, outside of this seminar? No one.

If you think we should abandon slavery as a form of human action, then on what grounds should we give it up? Should we give it up on the grounds that slavery is immoral? One of the difficulties with that approach is that those who oppose slavery on moral grounds do not present us with a precise definition of slavery. Therefore, even if you oppose slavery, it’s impossible to know what you’re opposing unless you define it.

Furthermore, even if you have a precise definition of slavery, giving lectures and sermons to slave masters and their supporters on the immorality and inhumanity of slavery or servitude, it is not enough to terminate the servitude as a means to the greatest good for the greatest number.

Earlier, I gave you this illustration. During World War I, there were some 10 million battlefield deaths. The overwhelming majority of these 10 million were killed by Christians and Jews, most of whom believe that God, the author of the universe, the almighty, the all-powerful, the Supreme Being, had given them the moral commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”  They believe this.

This included good Christians and Jews gassing to death other good Christians and Jews with mustard gas. This Judeo-Christian morality was not enough to restrain Christians and Jews from slaughtering Christians and Jews. Do you see that point? Mustard gas, if you’re not familiar with it, is very effective because, in trench warfare especially, it’s heavier than air and oxygen, so it floats down into your trench, and you can’t see it, and sometimes you can’t smell it, and then it’s too late.

Mustard gas doesn’t know the difference between a good guy or a bad guy, either. It kills everybody without discrimination. This was fostered by Christians and Jews. Almost every user of mustard gas in World War I was a Christian or Jew.

My point is, morality has not been missing as a basis of the social structure. Do you see that point? What has been missing from the basis of the social structure? What do I claim has been missing from the basis of the social structure? Science. We have been missing a scientific foundation to the structure of society.

Earlier, I asked you to think about what you would write in an essay with this title: “Although I Believe Slavery Is Proper and Moral, I Am Opposed to Slavery on the Following Rational and Scientific Grounds.”  Can you leave morality entirely out of your argument and give us scientific reasons to abandon slavery?

I gave you this challenge, should we abandon slavery in favor of freedom? Can we apply the methods of science to answer this question? Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to follow the scientific logic here and see if you can, independently of me as I go through it, reach the same conclusions.

Remember, one of the strengths of science is, each person can independently perform the experiment. You don’t have to accept anybody’s word for anything. That’s how we build great achievements in science. You don’t accept anybody else’s word. You try it out. You independently test it. That’s what we build on. Opinions are out. You can throw every opinion into the trash can. It will build nothing, ever, anywhere at any time. “Well, my opinion is ….”

In other words, if you and I use the same methods of science, can we independently reach the same conclusions? When man decides that high production per worker is a desirable goal, then he must adopt a division of labor as the true means. There’s nothing to argue here. If you want high production, this is a requirement.

Before you can even have a division of labor, you must attain social cooperation. If you want a division of labor, this is a requirement. The scientific reason to aim at social cooperation is that there is no other means of establishing the specialization that is created by the division of labor. Where high production per worker is the goal, a division of labor is not established for arbitrary reasons but for scientific reasons.

With the emergence of the division of labor, there can only be two kinds of labor, slave labor and free labor. Where there is slave labor, the division of that labor is mandated by the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy interferes with what would have been the free operation of the division of labor.

The function of the bureaucrat is to dictate how laborers must labor. That’s what bureaucrats do. They dictate how laborers must labor. All bureaucrats are dictators. Within a slave society, the division of labor is the derivative of all the imposed dictates of the bureaucratic bosses. Every bureaucrat gives dictates. Every dictate is backed up with what? A gun.

If the bureaucrat does not carry one of those guns themselves, they can summon a gun-bearer who carries the gun for them. The gun is to be aimed at those who refuse to comply with the dictates. Where the bureaucrat reigns, the very makeup of the division of labor is dictated by a gun. The bureaucrat confiscates the people’s choices of what to produce, who will produce it, how, where, and when it will be produced.

The bureaucracy has literally stolen the consumers’ freedom to choose the kind of products they believe will give them the greatest satisfaction. After observing the bureaucracy in action, we can reach certain scientific conclusions. The bureaucratic impact upon the division of labor is always the same. Under bureaucratic rules backed by bureaucratic rule, the division of labor can never flourish.

At this point, it should come as no surprise that I’m proposing that we abandon slavery in favor of freedom, but I’m not proposing abandonment on moral grounds. But if you want to do that, that’s okay. Here is the first of two missing links, if you will, necessary to the abandonment of slavery forever in all places. Wherever there’s slavery, you’ve got a lot of intelligent people who don’t know what they’re doing. It doesn’t matter what the unintelligent people are doing or what they believe.

The first scientific reason to abandon politically imposed slavery is that it always destroys the efficiency and the effectiveness of the division of labor to serve the best interests of the consumer bosses.

If you ever get an idea in your head that you want to serve your fellow man with a product of any kind, see if there are any consumers who are willing to buy your product at a price that exceeds your cost of production.

If they are willing to do that, and they continue to do that year after year, then you can with some assurance assume that perhaps you are really serving them with a high-quality product at a low price. But if nobody wanted your product or service, and therefore you picked up a gun and imposed it upon them anyhow, would you claim to be both a public servant and an honest man at the same time? Would you do that?

Every bureaucrat you know claims to be a public servant, and, if you ask them, they will all tell you they are honest men and women, won’t they? You ever heard a bureaucrat or a politician tell you they were dishonest? You won’t hear this. In spite of what every bureaucrat will claim, they can only impose slavery upon society and upon the division of labor.

In sharp contrast, within a free society, the division of labor is the derivative of all the free market choices of the consumer bosses in their pursuit of greater satisfaction. Let’s see if we can find a second scientific reason to abandon politically imposed slavery.

Here are some regressive domino effects that you might want to avoid. within a nation bureaucratic interventionism causes internal interference with free trade, which, in turn causes external interference with free trade. We’ve discussed this. The price we have to pay where there is political interference with free trade is very large. Interference with free trade is the cause of war.

Once the government establishes a policy of internal interference with free trade, the regressive domino effects soon lead to external interference with free trade. Once the government imposes any policy of confiscation of choice, this policy leads to further confiscation of choice, which in turn leads to more confiscation of choice until, finally, there are no choices left to confiscate.

At that point, you have the well-known totalitarian state, i.e. totalitarian in the sense that the totality of your freedom of choice has been confiscated. Here’s a second scientific reason to scrap slavery, or servitude as a social system. If slavery sounds a little jarring to you, use the term servitude. They mean the same thing. Involuntary servitude is slavery. Slavery is involuntary servitude. If you look up servitude in the dictionary, it gives slavery as one of its meanings, and conversely.

The second scientific reason to abandon politically imposed slavery is that it always causes, within a nation, internal interferences with free trade, which causes external interferences with free trade, which causes war.

When you were a child, all of you probably heaved a rock into a pond or a lake. The rock caused an inevitable effect. What? Waves. If you heave a rock today into your own fish pond, what will it do?

It probably won’t kill very many fish, but it will make waves. When your son or daughter throws a stone into the pond, what does it do? Makes waves. When your grandfather threw his baseball into the swimming hole, what did it do? It made waves.

In a like manner, whenever and wherever there is bureaucratic interventionism within a nation, it always makes destructive waves that I call regressive domino effects. Every act of interventionism is in fact an act of war. Interventionism generates more interventionism, which generates more interventionism. Eventually, the regressive wave effects of interventionism become so large that even the man in the street says, “Good grief, this is war.”

He knows it’s war because the bombs are falling from the sky. Before bombs can fall from the sky, something else must happen first. A lot of political and bureaucratic interventionism must be aimed at the people. Where there is a free society and free labor, no one is laboring to make bombs or bombers because these are not consumer products, and no consumer boss wants to consume them.

In the end, there’s only one effective means of combating the interventionism that leads to slavery and the slavery that leads to war. Combating interventionists is a total waste of time. Not only that; they carry a big gun. They don’t like people that want to do battle with them. They fear that.

Look what happened to those people in Waco. The government doesn’t like competition for their violence. They’ll snuff it out quickly if they think there’s any growing threat. Instead of combating interventionism and the interventionists, what we must do, ladies and gentlemen, listen carefully, is we must obsolete the idea that interventionism will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number.

That’s all you have to do. To obsolete something is to cause it to fall into disuse. The only reason the institution of slavery can be found throughout the world is because good people believe that the various forms of slavery will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. When you obsolete this idea, you will obsolete interventionism and the slavery it generates at the same time.

Here’s another scientific conclusion. If the goal of government is to attain the greatest good for the greatest number, then the imposition of slavery is always a false means. No exceptions. When you heave a rock into a pond it always makes waves. When authorities confiscate the people’s choices for any reason this always makes waves that cause the confiscation of more choices which, in turn, causes the confiscation of more choices.

In this seminar, once you reach the scientific conclusion that we are forced to abandon these social experiments with slavery altogether, then we can effectively deal with the various popular arguments for the conservation of slavery. So then, here is a purpose of this seminar that I could not tell you about in the brochure and certainly not in an introductory lecture.

Another name of this seminar, which we use from time to time, is Human Action Seminars, which is a larger term that covers more than just this seminar. One purpose of Human Action Seminars is to present a scientific refutation of all major arguments advanced for the maintenance of slavery.

Clearly, you cannot tell that to somebody in a brochure. Who would want that? Who thinks he needs it? I have another very important question for you. How many major arguments are there for the maintenance of slavery? It would be an interesting exercise for you. Write down every argument you can think of that’s advanced on behalf of the conservation of slavery.

How long a list could you compose? Could you come up with 1,000 reasons to conserve slavery or servitude? How about 100 arguments in favor of slavery? Could you list 100? Dear friends, I have some outstandingly good news for you. This is fabulous news. There aren’t even 100 arguments on behalf of slavery. There are fewer than 50.

In fact, the good news is, there are only some 13 popular arguments in support of slavery. Thirteen is a small enough number that we can effectively deal with them. It’s a lot easier to deal with 13 arguments than 100, right, or 1,000? “Yeah, but what about ….?”

Every one of these 13 arguments for the maintenance of slavery is a bad idea. Please note, I will give even the popular expression “bad idea” some scientific precision because I’m using the term as an important idea. A bad idea is a false means. Now, “bad idea” in this seminar has semantic precision. A false means, of course, is any means that cannot attain the ends sought.

Who do you think are the people who are the most articulate and persuasive advocates of slavery? It should come as no surprise that they are, yes, that’s right, those who see themselves as educated, intelligent, and successful. These good people, for the most part, advocate slavery for only one reason. What’s that? They do not understand the causes of things in the social domain. They don’t understand the causes of the things they like or the causes of the things they dislike.

Dear friends, I don’t know how to tell you this, if you don’t know what causes the things you most like and the things you most dislike, you do not know anything about anything all the time on all subjects. You don’t have a clue as to what’s going on. It’s even worse than that. You’ve got it all backwards. You’ve got it all wrong.

Here’s bad idea number one. This is in random order. It doesn’t mean number one is necessarily badder than number two. If the government does not maintain slavery, entrepreneurs of products will profit from losses sustained by employees and consumers.

Bad idea number one is a derivative of the Montaigne dogma that says, “A can only profit when B suffers a loss.”  It comes from the win-lose paradigm, for us to gain, they must lose. The acceptance of this win-lose paradigm leads to government-imposed price controls which include, for example, both minimum and maximum price controls. Examples of these that I’ve discussed are minimum wage laws, rent control, union-imposed wages, price controls on goods and services. In general, I discussed all these this morning.

Bad idea number two. If the government does not maintain slavery, the quality and availability of education will diminish. I will give a lecture on education later today do don’t get sick. You will not want to miss the lecture on education, especially if you went to school. I won’t ask for a show of hands.

Bad idea number three. If the government does not maintain slavery, large corporations will monopolize the production of essential products. The outgrowth of bad idea number three has been government-imposed antitrust, anti-monopoly, anti-one-owner legislation. This fallacy was exposed during the lecture on what is a fair price and what is a just price that was given, I believe, the last time we met.

Bad idea number four. If the government does not maintain slavery, burglary, robbery, arson, rape, and murder will reach epidemic levels. I’ll address this subject next week.

Bad idea number five. If the government does not maintain slavery, foreign aggressors will enslave the people. This bad idea was refuted in an earlier lecture. In fact, the last lecture was a major conclusion.

In the last analysis, there is only one alternative to foreign aggression, and that was discussed in that lecture, and that is the conversion of biological competition to what? Economic competition. We’re getting closer.

We convert biological competition into free market competition. You can have an economic structure in the Soviet Union, but it’s all based on the gun. War is obsoleted by converting biological competition into free market competition or win-lose competition into win-win competition. Another way of saying the same thing.

Bad idea number six. If the government does not maintain slavery, foreign-manufactured products will be sold in domestic markets to the detriment of domestic producers. This fallacy has been refuted in more than one lecture. It, too, is born out of the win-lose paradigm, for us to gain, they must lose.

Bad idea number seven. If the government does not maintain slavery, many elderly citizens will be impoverished. This bad idea will be refuted next Sunday.

Bad idea number eight. If the government does not maintain slavery, there will be mass unemployment. In earlier sessions, I’ve shown you the true causes of mass unemployment. It is nothing more than government interventionism in its manifold forms.

Bad idea number nine. If the government does not maintain slavery, inflation will destroy the value of the currency. I’ll discuss that in a later session today.

Bad idea number 10. If the government does not maintain slavery, any individual could produce any product, offering it for     sale at any price. This idea has already been refuted during earlier lectures.

Bad idea number 11. If the government does not maintain slavery, transportation and communications services will deteriorate into chaos. I’ll discuss that later.

Bad idea number 12. If the government does not maintain slavery, the national resources will be squandered and the land will be rendered uninhabitable by pollution. I’ll discuss that in part, not in depth, in this seminar. I’ll touch on it later today. I have touched on the subject in much greater depth in some of our graduate seminars. It’s a little bit too large to take that on in this seminar, but I’ll discuss it in part today later.

Bad idea number 13. If the government does not maintain slavery, the quality and availability of health services will deteriorate.

As I have said, a great number of the 13 bad ideas have been scientifically refuted in earlier lectures. As this seminar continues, I will continue to refute arguments for the maintenance of servitude and slavery.

One of the main arguments for the maintenance of slavery is that freedom is impractical or utopian. That’s one of the most popular ones among educated people. If the word utopian is in your vocabulary, you either went to college or you’re well-read.

One of your college assignments might have been to read the 1516 publication of Utopia by the English politician. Every college graduate knows his name was Sir Thomas More. More wrote about an imaginary island he named Utopia. The Utopians have created a perfect society based upon pure socialist interventionism. The title Utopia comes from the Greek utopos, which means “no such place.”

The term utopian or utopianism has come to mean any ideal but impractical or unworkable social system. I’ve said that in principle you can only have two social systems, interventionism or non-interventionism. Where there is interventionism, you have slavery or involuntary servitude. Where there is non-interventionism, there is freedom, and, hence, individual liberty.

If the goal is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, one of these is utopian. It’s slavery, it turns out. Interventionism as a means to the greatest good for the greatest number is a false means. It is hopelessly utopian. But please note that if the goal is the greatest good for the smallest number, then slavery and interventionism is not utopian.

If the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, is freedom, then, a true means, or is freedom also utopian? Most educated people believe freedom is utopian or unworkable, impractical. We’ve got to be practical. I will spend the rest of this seminar proving this is a false doctrine. You can only reach that doctrine through indoctrination and rejection of science.

One of the conclusions we’ve reached is that there’s only one social alternative to the system of bureaucratic interventionism and that is the free market society or the win-win society. Where there is a free market society there is freedom, and where there is freedom there is the free market society. In a free market society, everyone has the complete, unhampered, unimpeded, unrestricted, unfettered freedom to buy and sell.

The principle of universal free trade is the foundation of a free market society. This is where the incentive for everyone to be productive is optimized. I’d like to stress a major point. All points in this seminar are major, some are just more major than others. In order for you to be intellectually confident with the practicable feasibility of freedom and a free market society it is not necessary for you to be able to anticipate in advance just how every human action problem will be scientifically solved in such a society without violence.

I’m going to examine now a very important illustration. I’m going to show the difficulty of anticipating, in advance, ultimate solutions to problems. In 1954, John C. Sparks wrote a short one-and-a-half-page article with the title “If Men Were Free to Try.”  In his article, Sparks gave this illustration:

“Assume it is the year 1900, and you were given seven technological problems to solve by the year 1954.”  That was the year Sparks wrote the article so that’s why 1954. That was the year I graduated from high school. “Let’s assume it is now 1900. You are all engineers and scientists, and you have 54 years to solve these problems.”  That’s over half a century.

Here they are. It’s 1900. You’re a scientist. You’re an engineer.

In 1900, how would you build and maintain safe roads and highways that will effectively carry the nation’s vehicles without congestion?

In 1900, how would you increase the average lifespan by 30 years?

In 1900, how will you transmit, in an instant, the sound of a voice speaking in one place to various points all over the world?

In 1900, how would you transmit into living rooms all over America moving pictures and sound of a live performance of the New York Symphony Orchestra?

In 1900, how would you develop a medical preventive against death from pneumonia?

In 1900, how would you physically transport a person from Los Angeles to New York in less than four hours?

In 1900, how would you build a horseless carriage with the appearance and performance capabilities described in any 1954 Detroit advertising brochure?

Ladies and gentlemen and fellow scientists, it’s 1900. Are you ready for your assignment? You have 54 years. All of you are M.S.’s and Ph.D.’s in engineering and the sciences. You have 54 years. Get ready. Go.

If you study these seven problems, you will reach the conclusion there’s probably only one of the seven there’s any hope to solve. How would you build and maintain safe roads and highways that will efficiently carry the nation’s vehicles without congestion?  Was this problem solved by 1954?

I’m not so sure that it was solved, really, by 1954, because in 1954 one of the most dangerous places you could ever be was in a car on a road or a highway. Well, it’s now 1995. Do we today have safe roads and highways?

After 95 years, almost a century of highway construction, do we have safe roads today? What do I consider safe? The ones we have, I don’t consider very safe. We’ve been averaging killing 40,000 to 50,000 people a year on these roads, right?

It’s now 1900 again. How are you doing with the other six problems that I gave you to solve?

Increase the average lifespan by 30 years.  It’s 1900. How are you doing with that one?

Build a radio transmitter and receiver.  How are you doing with that one?

Build a TV transmitter and receiver.  How are you doing with that?
Cure pneumonia.  How’s that going?

Build a man-carrying vehicle that can travel as fast as the speed of sound.  How are you doing with that?

Build any 1954 Detroit automobile.

If it is 1900, you would probably believe all six of these problems are impossible to ever solve. It cannot be done. But in the real world, were any of the six problems actually solved from 1900 to 1954? Were any of the six solved? How many of the six?

All of them.

Did we increase the average lifespan by 30 years? Yes. How was this done? It was an engineering achievement. It was not a medical achievement. The engineers built water transport systems that carried pure water right into your house. You didn’t have to go out to the well. You didn’t have to go down to the river.

The same engineers built a sewage transport system that carried sewage away from your house and deposited it safely where it could be treated in what is called a sewage treatment plant to render what is dangerous safe. This prevented deaths from typhoid fever and other diseases transmitted by contaminated drinking water, raw sewage.

However, the engineers were only giving us safe water and protection from sewage because, earlier, bacteriologists such as Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and others were building a germ theory of disease transmission. Please note, the germ theory came first before the engineers could adapt it.

The application of the principle of prosperity, furthermore, produced less crowded living conditions and higher-quality nutrition. The application of the new science of sanitation led to a significant drop in infant mortality.

Did we build a radio technology by 1954? How long after 1900 did it take for the radio to talk, and who made it talk? Anyone know that? How long did it take for the radio to talk after 1900, and who made it talk? No one knows?

Folks, I’m going to keep bringing up this point, and I don’t mean to beat this thing to death, but the more someone has done to enrich your life, the less likely you are to know who they are in a social structure where the educational system, to use a popular expression, sucks. Forgive me.

You don’t know his first name? All right. On December 12, 1901, Guillermo Marconi transmitted a wireless message in Morse code from England across the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Newfoundland. The Italian, Marconi, was careful to give credit to two men before him who made Marconi’s wireless telegraphy possible.

If you do have some background in the physical sciences, I would expect you to know this. It was not Morse. Morse did not even develop the Morse code. It’s just named after him. Morse did not even develop the telegraph. That was developed primarily by an American, Joseph Henry. But that’s another story. It’s called miscredit, gross miscredit.

Morse was not original to the telegraph or the Morse code, but he was a fine artist. He was a painter. You knew that, didn’t you? They explained this in school, right? No, they didn’t explain it in school. They told you Morse is responsible for this. They don’t explain causality. It’s all backwards. It’s upside down. Other than that, they’re doing great.

James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879

The man responsible for Marconi’s achievements – Marconi was generous with his intellectual credit, but that’s another subject. We won’t get into that right now. The Scottish professor seen here, James Clerk Maxwell, developed a mathematical theory of electromagnetism that predicted that you could transmit and receive radio waves before this had ever been done.

Heinrich Hertz 1857-1894

The German professor of physics seen here, Heinrich Hertz, demonstrated in 1886 that you can transmit and receive electromagnetic waves or radio signals. Hertz said, hey, Maxwell has predicted this. I’m going to see if I can do it. Which, of course, corroborated Maxwell’s prediction, didn’t it? It Confirmed Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic wave propagation.

Marconi, however, was only transmitting and receiving dots and dashes. That’s not talking. Who made the radio talk? Mr. Johnson gave us Morse, and that was close, but we’re not quite there yet.


De Forest?

SNELSON:  We have answers of De Forest and Edison.


SNELSON:  I heard the name from somebody. Who said it? Fessenden?

SNELSON:  Who said that? Let me put my glasses on. No kibitzing from graduates, now. Maybe you knew this before you took the seminar. Give him a chance to get it, David. The man on the screen is – do you know his first name, David?

SNELSON:  No. That’s close, though; Reginald.

SNELSON:  It’s Fessenden, F-E-S-S-E-N-D-E-N, an American professor of chemistry. For three years, he was a chief chemist for a man named Thomas Edison. On December 24, 1906, Fessenden broadcast the first continuous, unbroken radio signal from the coast of Massachusetts. This was the first time anyone had broadcast the human voice and music.

It was not only broadcast, but it was received by wireless telegraph operators who, prior to that time, had only heard dots and dashes in their earphones. Imagine their surprise when suddenly they heard music and people talking. Wow. That got their attention, except for the dull ones. “I don’t know what that was. There’s some kind of interference here. Can’t hear the dots and dashes. What is this? Must be broken.”  Starts shaking it, pounding it.

The day was December 24, Christmas Eve, 1906.

Did we build a television technology by 1954?
CLASS:  Yes.

SNELSON:  Who was the principal developer of television as we know it today?

SNELSON:  Who’s willing to say, “I’ve watched a lot of television, but I don’t have a clue who brought it to us?” – honest enough to say that? Don’t have a clue. Those of you who aren’t raising your hand, who did give it to us?

SNELSON:  I’ve heard a lot of answers, all incorrect. He was the director of research at the Radio Corporation of America, known as RCA. His name, Vladimir Kosmich Zworykin. Zworykin built the first all-electronic television system. In 1924, he built the electronic scanner, which was the signal-receiving technology for your television set. Very important if you want TV. That was in 1924.

Vladimir Kosmich Zworykin 1888 – 1982

In 1938, he developed the first practical television camera. Very important if you want TV.

By the 1950s, through the technology of Zworykin, television was a great commercial success that would have arrived a lot sooner had it not been for the profound and dramatic interventionism of World War II.

Did we develop a cure for pneumonia by 1954?

SNELSON:  Who cured pneumonia? We hear answers of penicillin. In the late 1920s, a German biochemist, Gerhard Domagk, was looking for a medical application for the latest chemical dyes. In 1932, he injected mice with one of the new dyes and discovered it destroyed streptococcus infections in the mice and, very important, without killing the mice. Is that important? It killed the streptococcus in the mice, but not the mice. A lot of things will kill the streptococcus which also kill the mice. Incineration will do a nice job, for example.

In 1935, Domagk’s daughter was in danger of dying from a streptococci infection. He gave her an injection of the new dye, and she made a dramatic recovery. Domagk’s medical technology was made famous when it was later used to save the life of the president of the United States at the time, Franklin Roosevelt.

Domagk, then, is the discoverer of a marvelous class of drugs called today sulfonamide drugs or sulfa drugs. Even earlier, the Scottish bacteriologist Alexander Fleming discovered in 1928 another so-called wonder drug, penicillin. It was Domagk, then, and Fleming who achieved the great victory over the deadly pneumonia.

How many people whose lives have even been saved where they were saved from dying from pneumonia even know who this person is who’s responsible for saving their lives? Probably most of them don’t and couldn’t care less.

Did we build a vehicle that could travel faster than the speed of sound by 1954? In 1900, you might have thought, how could you ever propel a vehicle to speeds of over 750 miles an hour? Maybe a high-speed train could travel from, let’s say, LA to New York in 30 hours at an average speed of maybe 100 miles an hour. That’s fast.

But how could you possibly get a train or an automobile to travel faster than the speed of sound? You would have not even considered in 1900 travel in a heavier-than-air flying machine at any speed. Why?

Because in 1900, virtually every educated, intelligent, successful man and woman believed that it would be impossible to build a machine heavier than air that could fly. In fact, one of the greatest British physicists of the 19th century was Professor William Thomson, known as Lord Kelvin.

In 1895, while Thomson was president of England’s most prestigious scientific organization, The Royal Society, Thomson proved my point when he said, quote, “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible,” unquote. That’s one of the most prominent and important, still, major physicists in the history of physics. Freely translated, Thomson said “it can’t be done.”

But it was done just eight years later, December 17, 1903. Two American technologists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, all three, Wilbur and Orville Wright, did it at Dayton, Ohio. October 5, 1905, the Wrights made a circular non-stop flight of 24 miles in 38 minutes for an average speed of 38 miles per hour. Lord Kelvin lived until 1907. I have never heard that he admitted that he was wrong about it being impossible to fly. If he did, I’m not aware of it.

First flight of the Wright Flyer I, December 17, 1903, Orville piloting, Wilbur running at wingtip.

But now, take a look at the Wright flyer at Kitty Hawk. There it is, right there. Can you imagine transporting a man in this machine from L.A. to New York in less than four hours? And yet, when an airplane did fly faster than the speed of sound, it flew upon the principles of aerodynamics discovered by the Wright brothers.

Finally, did we build an automobile with the specifications of any 1954 Detroit automobile in 1954? Yes, we did. In 1900, I like to point out, the best automotive engineers, if they could have seen the plans for any 1954 production model, would have said this futuristic design can never be built, and certainly not through mass production. It would be inconceivable as to how it could be built, if they saw all the plans that finally did build it.

So, the question is, how would you have done in 1900 in your role of scientist or technologist at solving these six seemingly unsolvable problems? You would have said, all of you, “It can’t be done.”

But the one problem you might have said that could be solved in 54 years – how to build and maintain safe and efficient roads and highways – you would have said, well, that’s probably the only one of the seven we can ever solve. This problem, however, by 1954, was not solved. It hasn’t been solved by 1995, either. When some 50,000 people are killed each year, as I said, on the highways and hundreds of thousands more seriously injured, pure reason will tell you the roads are not very safe.

If our freeways are jammed with bumper-to-bumper traffic when you most want to use them, by any rational standard, dear friends, that means they are inefficient. The automobile is at its most inefficient and most polluting when it’s stop and go. Are you aware of this? The most inefficient time of the automobile is when it’s starting up.

Why are they both unsafe and inefficient 95 years later? In sharp contrast, why were the six unsolvable problems all solved? Most of them, I might point out, were solved in much less than 54 years. The six unsolvable problems were solved where a specific condition prevailed – where men were free to try.

Men were free to try to increase our average lifespans. They were free to build radio and television, to cure pneumonia, to build airplanes and automobiles. But at the same time, were men free to entrepreneur, engineer, and maintain the roads? Yes or no? No. The government has maintained an almost exclusive gun-imposed monopoly in this area of production.

Therefore, guess what has happened? Where men were not free to try, they didn’t try. In the past 95 years, how many entrepreneurs have devoted their energy and talent to entrepreneuring a national road system that is safe, efficient, and beautiful? The answer is none. Why? For one reason. These entrepreneurs are denied the freedom to try. This freedom was confiscated at gunpoint

What has been the regressive domino effect? One of them is, the highways are not safe, they’re not efficient, and they’re not beautiful, in general. John C. Sparks says, quote, “How could roads be built and operated privately? I do not know. This is a subject to which none of us directs his creative attention.”

Sparks says, “We never do think creatively on any activity preempted by government. It is not until an activity has been freed from monopoly that creative thought comes into play.”  Preempted by government means your freedom to try has been confiscated. The consumer boss is thrown out and replaced by the bureaucratic boss.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, only where men are free to try can we optimize the human potential for solutions. I do not know if this concept is original to Sparks, but I like the way he’s explained it so well that I refer to it as Sparks’ Principle, the freedom-to-try solution. I’ve talked to Sparks – at least I’ve corresponded with him – and he discussed with me how he came about this idea, and as far as I know it’s fully original to him.

As I said earlier, the greater the solution, the greater will be the difficulty of the average person seeing that there’s even a solution to be seen. The freedom-to-try solution exists as a solution where? Where there is something resembling a free market.

The free market society fosters the maximization of individual choice and the positive or progressive domino effects. These progressive domino effects have included these six amazing solutions. If the educated, intelligent, and successful decide not to go with a free market society, there’s only one other possible choice.

The interventionist society imposes the minimization of individual choice and the regressive domino effect. The ultimate regressive domino effect is war and total destruction. I’ve given you Sparks’ Principle, the freedom-to-try solution, in order to prepare you for this major point. Don’t lose this one.

Just because you cannot figure out how to solve the problem does not mean the problem is unsolvable. Almost everybody assumes, if I can’t see the solution, it’s impossible to solve it. That’s partly because of the kind of thinking that schools turn out.

I’ll end this lecture with some good news. All of the essential knowledge and solutions necessary to establish a fully workable, free-market, win-win society – all of the necessary knowledge is available to do this. In other words, the human action sciences can give us enough understanding of causality to expand the free market society throughout the world.

But as soon as anyone puts forth a new and revolutionary explanation of causality, you run into the ideological immune problem. Educated, intelligent, successful adults rarely change their most fundamental presuppositions, and so part of the solution to this problem is to show people the advantage to them of taking a scientific attitude concerning the most fundamental premises.
In this regard, what is the attitude of a scientist? They are continually searching for better and better explanations of what? Causality. Cause and effect. As they find better and better understandings of causality, they will change their most fundamental premises accordingly. I hope all of you are becoming human action scientists.


© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010