C!tunspirary l1ig.est S MM~R 19?1 T HE ROOTS OF CONSPIRACY; THE METAPHYSICAL PRESUP:POStnONS OF POLITICAL E CONOMt!' 'b Dr. Mo· e Kr@y Beginning wi:lh this inci.,1,fve eJ-.plora1ion of lhe psyc.hufogicaT arrd ph.ilosophict,{ h.eaN of ,· on- spil'a.cy, cnmE>1 , ~, ~ uic. ' t will run a series of articles in which Dr. Krny will outlit1e his pro• ~tive ynd cha/J nging, virnis on rhe nuttire, philosophy, rne1lwds. and goals of Jiu! ro11- spirawrial po ~ ► <er elite. /J1: Kro.v (eache:. p/Jilo. oph. • al LaTrobf! UNiversity in Australia. This paper was originally pre.senl1:d al a con- I eren.t-e r::omrenw at Ausi roUa 's Mucquari.e Uni-.,f!fsity (April 16-17. J977) ro di.sr:uss ,Wurray Rothbard'_s m,1ster-piece rn defense of the Jree-m,rvkel; MN , lll~OMY, NO iTA Man. Economy and State, t e b{!OK. f m. whit· b. the prcseni couference tlali derived its theme, provirl1."S a very S)'S- Le-j (\::, colnm:u l, and: \'a1id derivation of the ncocssaI}' disi11tegratiOJ1 of an au plcd pfu.nacd eeOOlomy. ,he gu - mL?nt is, ba 5,ically, a restatement of von Mises' argum em: ill Human Action, suitably mo" dernizcd a.ndl impro,.,ed 11.1110n. De!!:p ite thei nig level of technical compeumce. and their imp re.~h'e logical apparatllsr and i rrespecti e: : of their \IO'"Y worrying corn: u:sio fl:S, both 1 bo oks, and th,e whole u-adi(on of economic thinkmg Jhey r;epr · e-- senl, have been largely · ig;n OJed by I.ht:: academic establishm.em of eco1 omi~ 8:, ''i •noroo." mean ignored, and riot ref utfll. iEul~mrt - IDqrorg - §peculation Ma:ins t•ea econonlks seeins net even to h:a.ve bothered to try LO shmv- why they aeg.lect the pow1:.rfu] argnmentation of tlie free ma.rkiet cconmm;st~. They ha vc just cooti11uoo ta ac-t .and behave as if his argumenta: lion never e1;;isted ls 't Iris fac! of some concern .i.od i 111tercst! Many po~,;i b le explanation~ come lo mind. Mos.l of the rolarc lo lhe socio1om, of acad.ern.ic res.ca.rch. Acaden1iG,, such aa e pJa11a.tion w oli1d ven- ture be'l:011~ u~ually 10 a dosed, or rnlativ~ty losed, radi io , T. I e-y: consider their intere: to Ix: dcfi 100 bo c.h by a \/er)· specifically defined l.i leralUTe. .a · d a ery specific refcrnme g o 1p. I is [his rc:fcrnnce gm p, iJ:1 turn, ·hkh •o Id d lcrmi:ne th. e:ir pmfessiona I ca.rec, in te rms of jobs and p blicatioit>. h L~ both id®I' tic an ti oid fashioned, t h.L e ·plaJ1ation would. contia11e, to e J)<! I academic.s to 'be concerned wjth tnJ lh or with so l ( on IO p,obl.t:m,s. Rather. aK anybody e r.t ,, I.hey woU:td e interested with prnmo. tion, prestige sociaJ ac.Clil'.l)tabili- t y1 publisbabilil)' - none of d1cse jm teres lS befog ~cnctl too wel I b)· a perverted in Lere-sr in rebellious s.chooh of thinkmg. "fhl~ explanation, h.owcvcr, docs aot seem lo lI1 • fully iatis- Iyinc, despite lts elet;am. cyni l t · tu e. h · t uc Li t t the • ran _ a d 1 e' e-eonom is:t~ would apply such consid~·ralion:s, Hut these d0 11 ot ap,pl:y to the ,.opinion leader~" of tbe fi eld, thosl:1:" few we.U koow11 "auth o:ri- tic:s• • who have shown, jf only b}' refr-rencc to I.heir s(H:iologiral :.tall.I , that. U1 cy have ~ome a b :llit Io i depe dent wo!k, or. a c leasl, foT creatin,g Ui ,e • m- i;,re.<J fon that ~hey oss-e s :ui,;h an abili1y. How come d1a. a non-i diot like Galbraith, rho is: om: of the cxlrcmt advocates of a fu.U plan ed. ·econ omy, as 1 managed rn ignore comptetely th e von ises tradition? [s it due to 1l , rFreadin~. or 11Qn- com pFehension·r O.r aru there other rea o ~ in oJvcrl? T e pu pose of llt · pre:;cml. paper i~ to arg :e that ti e.ri:: arc mch reason~. a!ld tha c t. hey fire, al leas:t pianialr:y, of a rck:-Yant na turn. Mor :;pecific-all}I', t ey r 'foT lo cithe:. hidden pre.mises or tu !m:il preml~ which scpw:ak libcr arian.. free enter- prise orien[l;:d cc:onomist:!I from ~h e offidaJ spokesman for plamaed eroriomy. The distim:• !:ion drawn in th e last semence: is no l accidental. cit piremi ses a re premises of which one i.s not. aware, bec.a115'e they are not ar- liculatcd cxpiicl tly _ ff dden p r cmis~ arc premises so mebody has be-ell a<:lillg catefwly lo h·de. ·o em st I c been well aw:are of them in the fi.r~I lace but considcre-il it not to · e o has advau(a,ge lo ad tise the1u. Toe rdercna:.~ to '"h\Men p ~-;s" docs imply a$sign- ment of impure motives - hilt T can t see an) i valid reasou {or a cootrary presumpdon. Aftc.r all, to &'i..'1-UllU? that a I c desm.ic resean:hers are, y ne-cessity, virruo11S human loving ai:ige , who c.an be criticized only • n::fm-crice to their intellectual or ~choJarly shortcomings, s-eem.3 to be very ar itt· ry, T:he late Adolph HiUe and t e ~OOkl'.n- p orar,r ld i min have lrcc1dy haken th e similar 1:nesu1!11pJion cori~rnin.g Lht: fm1damental good nalur and benevo llence of heads of state ,s,. [ see no a prim-i reason to exempt academic.~,, in u:s-pet:l of tl:leir prnfcs.sional wo.-k, from 11 e suspicion of nhertor morive se-ned l l:fOu:gh ese wo , J:s motive:; wllicn have ~otbing to do with I rnlh, rm le dge or e ·ei good fonn. ate · Elrgum.e.n , I hope, ·m show that this 1.1 p· don dcri\ 'es from more than per orud per:scc1J.l:im1 complex. VOL ME JI, NO. 3 THEBASIC A SUMP'J'IO OF FREEECO OMICS Mcm, Economy a11d Slate, which I'll enceforth take, for rea oru of (: Oll'r'emence aion.c, as t:he. .s t.andacd n:fc.rcnc.ll cxi;,Os:i• tion of Austrian free economy, i~. li e other ma . terpi e.s. f economit: thought of' all i:radi- tioni;, a deductive tr,eatisc. [ proceeds not by an empirtcal tt l'llysi,s o.l'.' economic acl.ivi'l.ie-s, but b}' a. lo.gica dcriv at:i o11 of lhe oondhions and 11alure of ~eonmnic activity. s s ch., this deri , atioa must res.t on assump- tions which arc, in th-e context of economic Lheory, .axiomatic. a.mcly, at lea:. t for eco1:mmic lllcory, Uiesc assumprioru mas( stand be o ' LIie need of p oof. Roch.bard is well a are of t is fac, ,md. actua l'!)' ~lects foJ at- tention his fundamental a5- sump1fon in the ve.ry beginning of his book: {p. 1) "Human action is i!Overne-d by a lain purpose l al the actor tas in view. The purpose of a ma ·s act i hi end; the desire to achie,.,e this end i the man's ·1 olive for im t ituting lhe act ion, We could llo t (;,onceive of human beings who do not act purpo efully, who naYe 110 ends in view that the,• desire and a.t• tempt lo attain. 1'hi1:1gs- that did nOi act, that did not beha'r'e pur• po·cfull j wouM no tonger be class'fied as hw an." · ·n i t.llis fu .damentd truth - ch is axiom o·f man ac-ti on - that for!JI-.S trie ey to 011[ :mitly •• • economics is based on an auafysis of the necessary logical im. plications of this c. onoept . , • ' • Thus, economic theory. whil hllelf no t fo~ , d i ng any deta.lbid study of human natu re, is- basi:d on certafa spocific aSccsnmpliOll.!i C:011(.. ' Cfiling the natw- or ma-n: t un ma:n poss , cerl'ain abiliti~ - to wH - con. sdo1.t:mo;s, dt1:s1:r .e: .o:r will) amli o1ctio11. M a c. ,rn 'St:l up t1. pu.r- posie, of wh.klt h.e m be a e, and ac in order to real i:r.e thi5- pu.rpo-se, his i an El~~IITTlpP on Rolhba.rd con~ders to be beyond dispute, for rcaso lo be lm.i'l e<liatdy lOUA'.: c:d p r1. Thu • all o Rothbard's .- gv- ment o:r, i you wish, the whole a:r_gwnen l in favou of a free economy} j predicate on rh· assu mptlou, The, -a&Sl! rn ii on iLo;elf lie,s: 1 of coune. out.side of the domain of pol.iticaJ . economy; It bclongi; lo U1c s I.ti d. cirtJ1e funda ent.af ah.1re of e - i sie'!l~e -1netaphysic . Heoce U1e utle of ihis pap,er efer~ to meniphy fc.al prrui,pposi- trcws.. 11ri:; foct alcine impHes tbe followiTlg consequences ; (a) Thlnke.rs who disa.gre-.e wit this bask axiom , and sta rt rrom diffor nt basic ax- ioms, would be kfl ll ·m- p~,ed by Rotllbaro•s ar11,u1rn:nt °M()l[ro\lt:r in view Qf the fa rhat tbi a>.- forn of human action i~ not, :in itself, part of econom.ks, Lru y would oot consider iL Lhtir profcssi o at onct.'nt lo cril icizo1:: il. ( b Thinker£ ~ 110 do noL ~oflsider e.conomic1.; io be, baskally, a i.heo .etical dudy, but as a mani- pula t i"e tool, would ignOrc Roe bflrd•s argm1H:rUs for other, r 1ou b ret 1ed r,ea~on: l'he reason i~ ,. t- at Rothbard's conception of man allowi; for a ~·e:ry in- tcr~tins parndo11, which Rot ba,rd did o take i111.0 aci;oun l This p ra di o c-iu1 be uS1ed to moti va,1e and makt: p. Os.'iibk a phi nned economy. Thi~ is the para!Jox of freedom lo be di:.!:ussctl la Lcr. ill el bo ai.e d1e .fir poinl. I, rdate:s to, the bask tacit {aot li.id en) pn:-mise of planned e(;Onom - one l · ch is t.r$ perva.c;-i\le in. om culru,e. DETERMINISTIC M. · TERIALISM. AND Pl A E:DECO OMY 'he official view or man, pro- 1mgattid by intellectuals of all pr-0£-t:s s..iong, whtch. nderli e:~ a-lsa official crnnomic~, is thal re.an is. ttasii:all)', aa mine-rial cn- tit j ', a for 1 of a com:pkx machine. , c:-ticll, hi action arc tprc) determfoe-d by a vane of causes, ro be am, le-d on va:ri us level : physiotogkal. chemical, trlologkal. or C',len so- ciological and psyehological- Ho eever. whatever lhe derails of this cau.sal anillysis, its very narurc i.rnplie~ hac m.m does not, i 1u-nspec1 i o11 o ith- !,!. nding, act purpo~ful !y, he i Dot a ware of :my purpG..<:.es because h~ has none, and he do~ nm act to ~chieve anythin~, he only rf!acts to stimuli. The dli ffcrnnc~ bctwren man and a robot is only compkxil.y and rna e[:ial~. ·rhii; vie of m is hailed as .. scientHic. " lteh.a: ior:·stk p~y- chok1gy and marerialistic phi- losophy take it for g.ranted, "if it bad been i;irnved by ' 'hard" &e iem:: r:: namely. ,)nys io;, cbe-- misir~, blolug;•) . To reject chi~ _· ~ ' of ,nan is lo b-ct1ay a .. re.ac-- tio ar ., ' s(;!Jlimcntal allegiance to the. idea thaL man is a con - ~cio il rill!, a ware:, ubjttt, all "I." Th is jdea. is, howc.·-ve.r • out of place in nloderr.l tirnc:s, due to it~ religio anc~try. Granted th.it rnaa 1s :i material, det errn i1i" 1. ic, ma - chj ne. however• a plann ed eoonon ~ ~t:c:ms :[o follow. You c;i, fan to, [:I factory, co ~isti g of many machin , by rereren.ce co in;pu.l ou !:pa. re - qui rem em,~. hy not piatl for a .factory whld1 i a \ l ole Dcie:ty .,fa:· en •fica I)"• , peaking, eai;-b human mm:hrne has its own input requiremc:11 Is - bum an nood!i - sue as food, clothrs., sheller, ~ni.n:spon fcon and l orl!., pro,gr-1m ming (education), etc. &ch "human resmuce' can produc work. U is O'Ssibfo to plaa maJ.bc- mackall; • a. complete system •bi ·11 sur · ives by prod dns ac- cord i.ng to coru.uinption eeds, and al ocates ptoducu, ac- cordi n co c lfl umptron needli, This fa a, planned eoonom , Granting he assumptior1 that m i.s a [Ilacn·n~. it i the Quly possible orm of econ.amy. Gra11ting thi~ as. .. urn;pfion, it Ca.II be ~Lable, and ~wvj im:l:efini iely. Cldld~, , otwer bolds ni assru 1, 1io11 can iguo e Roth- bard·~ .u·sument., be,ca.u~e he starts by full d~ial of his ba.~i ~ axiom. Thus, th~ 'fundamental disagreement bctwren planned i:c:onomy lhinken ;u d frt~ ellh:rp-cist" eco aon isb r prc;- d.sel lrere. Th is. if. is e.lSY to see why a Galbraith, ~ay _. 'I ho 2 3$Sumes. as any good M anisi doe.s, that "ooru;ciousnes~ is a by-product of material. forces," would 1gnorc Rol:hba.rd and von ttises, and fu.r good rcasorts. Bt1 t th.. 1 a.ner doe:. nOL end lefe, TH M, TERIALIST P/\R DO Tbe malerialisli..:: dclei:-• rntr ·sue view of man ii;, hm,\I• ever, u nenabk [ r very ob- vious, io£k:a.1 re • ru. Tile op- pacnenrs of t his • iew ha e e- Heratcd the argument dl:sprm1. ins ll.'lj~ ic of man maoy limes - a,ud none o · tha,i e e:r 11.ndi:r- ;;tood why he a.s jg11ored. Le u.~ redew mis argu ,tent, just to -see why it would :ie 1g1m eo. f ma:n is a machilile, ne i in- apabk of knowledge. n ledge requin::; awarcnes , as we I ~ purposi: anJ Lnllil. T-0 obt.ai.a knowledge, one rnust be able rn m.ike deci1 (cms, j d emems. Om~ must posses-s 1m:laphysic.a,I [n::cdoin or d i io , Tl ·u • if man is a mm::hhie, tbi.~ fact, nor any othe.r is not k.nowable by man. How do ma1c:rial is Ls - dc- LL':rrn.im:s.lics ju ·tif:i,' (heir dw n to k:n6\',• , alJ llie more so scien - 1ifii;::ail , 1ha mar1 j a madi'ne':' The nu I b ach · e:s. s wdl. T 1us, b)' lhe.i o n <ldmis~io11, l ma ·ea claim · 1kh ca1mo1 he 1ustifted, nor e en u der- scood. (A marhi.ne understand~ nothing. A computer may com- pul<", bu1 a ll.u au con- :.c:iousm:ss of pro i:,ra, 1ltt:r is require..! lo inkrprt:I it mciin- ingle m o ~). Thi argumen i-s very ob- viou~- StiU, it has- be-e n t taJly ignored . /hj"? H •r~ , re go rrom Lhe realm of laei't ass.ump, tiuns to 1 a of billc.kn ~ ·,.;ump• lions. Cl a.Ly, n body ~,rn riTe a buck. wh.id p-UIJ) rts com~ munica<c: k.11 1edlge, od. llt the ~a.me lime, r:leny that he: iF. rapable of po.ssessfog knov.r - edge, c.om ui ·ng ii, o.r u.udcrsuuulin ·, il. On n,us~ be IOQ , s pl.d to make sue a1 mo e: - and none of the: prominent thinkers of the materialistic: detenni nist'ic 'trn.ditiun - 'is lha.t :.tuptd. This rgumem applie · wi .h eq al f"orce ro ei:onornics. To pl an an cooDomy om.ooody must bEJ there who ran 11fan. Maclrln~ dlo.n't plan thcm- i;dve.s. ~ co dou being :i5 re-- qu i 1red lO plan - t-om~ ne ti Li , - fyi11g the: basic axiom of Roth- bard Soincont with ~onscfou.s- ness, will aud ability to acL Plannin~ rnquire-s, in lh e tri\'ia.l case planners H L h · plamtcr.s arc pfanned, Lh.r.n logic k-ad-ll us. by n :eClii;ity, w unpla1 111:d plan- m:~. How are ihey pD. · it'lle'.r Th aL is, ~ranting ,bat rna:n is a rnareriai machine p.red.tt:er- mined by force5 which ha""' nothing to d.o with aJ l q1.e dly il- lu..wry oom;c:iousness ~J w.iU? m . critic~ of lhe dominanl ma<erfali~tic delermil1islic vie'Yo• of man or, more T lfHl'O '] , or pfanaed cw om)', ha ' sto pe:d l lhis poi· l. ai,..elJ ,f , th~r 1 ere of the opinion i at they made [hei.r:- point, and the fact tha ! nobod amwerud it iml.i.:: atc.-..,s that they wrre 11ndefra l1:1 bk. Were the}'1 I. am dri,·iug to make a poiin here wnich is er _ simpl '~. buL, r:iL i,e same t'me. qulte sho k- ia,g, an d herice ard to digest. Tnaf i .why ] make all these in • troduC"tians .. '\\rhat I '111,'anl UJ say is ve.ry unpleasant lo say. U is much more :sak lo r~1na-in in 1J 1e realm of logica l :atgum em~ con- cerning as.sumptians, and not to e amine human motives under- lying lhe: pnbJirnlion or such arguments. Truth however, as "•ell l:\s c::01 mi~mel'lt to the cause uf .fr~liom, com pel1; me i:o ,•oice l.hi:s poin.1 - and I'll leave it to you lO j ud_gt: it. The point i. q: no ody is .so .~tupid to not kno, tlla,r a planned .economy t'allilOt con i t on l of pfa nc:d robo T but also or pl 11 Jler , and: that if man h, is our cn.<ilomcrs. be consideroo, although only a kw can be prin d. generally, a robot, the inccllcc- tuals who claim he is. provenly a robot, could not logically be robots. Bul lhis fact can be hid- den. The point is, of course, the planners do not con.sider them- sel ves machines to be planned. Rather , they be lieve that two kinds of human beings exist, or can be made to exi st : robocs and thinker s, machines and pro .. gr am mers, workers an d manag- er s, subjects an d rukrs. This, of c. ourse, is an old idea. Plalo has made his political philosophy out of it. The re are, basically, two kinds of man: at least, and one kind shoul d rule the other. Aristotle spoke, no less fra nkly, about "oatural slaves*' and "natu ral masters." Today, it is not fashjonable to draw atten - tion to this d ivision. It is simply presuppose d, and made hidden. Let me put this same issue in different language: Those who speak about man as a machine, or about economic planning, want to say some1hing djffercnt: they want to say: •' We are the eU1e. \Ve were b orn to rule. We can th i nk and plan. The rest are mindless bodies, born LO hard work and no thought. They have lo be made to live, as befits their nature, as slaves, in a slave economy, which we will run and manage." But L hjs is noc the whole mes.sage. P lato. after all, failed because he was t oo sincere. People, even machines, do nor want to hear that others are bet- ter than them. Moreover, they obey beller hi dden masters, masked by "the state." Thus, it is su rprising, but should not really be, ch at che same people speak about man as a machine, abouc Che need to plan the C(.."'Ono rny, about state control of the economy, and about "human equality." We are all equa l., sai d Orwel1 1 except those who a re more equal. These, however , should be hidden. M.ence, they would not be att acked. Now. a group which tries to establish itS own supremacy over othe rs by hidden means is, by d ictionary de fi nition, a co n• spiracy. Hence, my argume nt implies tha t there is a co n- sp ira to rial mo tive behind 1he Hplanne.rs." 1·hey speak about "equal itarian ism" as the mo ra l justification fo r the ir recom- mendation to plan the economy. They mean, o f course, elitism. Th ey also underscand each ot h er qu i lc well when they speak about "cqualitariani.sm." All robots a re equal, no t us, of course. But 01bers, includi ng genuine.ly intelligent libertarian thinkers fail to understand. Th.ey anack in t he name of the law of non •cOn lr adiction. There is no conlra dfotion here: It is not contradictory to deny tha t lhcre is one race of man, and to assert t hat there a re two: Thinkers and brutes. It is dishonest 10 hide 1his p rem i~e, b ut again, it all depends on what you want to achieve: you can' t very well make people allow you to rule t hem by te ll ing them chey are in- ferior to you. Rather, tell them everyb ody is equal, and shou ld be made so by "the state" which is, seemingly, impersonal. Since they are brute, or at least brutish, they won't find out tha t the State is you and your friends. An explicit arislOcracy can be attacked. A hidden aris- tocracy can be immune to attack. The re is anothe r poi nt here, which makes understanding of Chis fundamental fact hard : the use of lansuase. One of the oldest tricks known in com- municatjon is the use of code. which does not commun icale to all, only 10 those elecced 10 understan d it. But the best code js the one which dOc.."S com • municate, falsely. to some and truly to others. Such a code was developed by Hegel, called •' dialec tics." It was also ca ll ed .. logic," but this was a dia1ec- tical tri ck, because The basic principle of dialectics, as a code, is t hat you use con tr ar ies as names, so as to refer to war by "peace," to slavery by ' 1 free- dom,' • and to a doub le class so- ciety as a ''clas.s.less. society." Thus, dialectics, which is anti- logic, can be called, dialetically, logic. Now, such a gimmick is most useful: it deceives your victims, but allows for free and open commun ication to your fellow conspir ator s. The ma sses fall for it. T hey believe th at t he government ca n increase their we.If are, by taxation. T hey have never bo1hcrcd to check what is the dialcctica1 definition or "welfare" (general poverty, o f course, whi ch is what a ny "wel- fare sr.ate'' proceeds towards a1 1d tries to achieve). Your friends, in the know, understand you im mediately. Only th e r eal fool s, such as libercarians 3 and other strajght - lhinkin g, stra ight • spea k in_g indjviduaJs may fall in, and attack yo u fo r bei n,g inconsistent: But such fools ca11 safely be ignored, because, indeed, they don't know what they arc talking about. Thus , tak ing dialectics into account, it is simple to under- sta nd what planned economics are based on: on the assumption that some men th ink. others don' t, and t hat the first should rule the second, usi ng Hthe sta te" as the ir magical .. coa t of invisi bility." Now, is I his assumption cor- rect'? Aren' t 1he planners trap- ping themselves by ignoring the possibility (or fact) tha t it isn't? Here I reach my last point, the paradox o f freedom, already re- ferred 10, and it shows that they are not deceiving themselves at all - only to understan d their full purpose and meaning a greater courage is needed than what see ms due, at firsl glance. THEPARADOX OF FREEDOM The paradox of freedom has an old philosophical history, and many versions. It is very deep, melaphysicalty, and of a larming pr ae li c.al significance. Ro chbar d, unforcunately, and other libertarian lhfokcrs. never followed its consequences to t heir full, a la rm i ng outcome. To state t he paradox fully, a theological version th ereof may be helpful : Can God, who is ., by assump 1i on, tot ally omniscient and totally ornnipOtent, hence ah so1ute 1y rree, create a stone he cannot lift? Whatever answer you· give, you seem to end in a contradiction. But this is only an illusion. The answer i s: God can create such a stone, and t hereby give up his own om- nipotence, an d become less th an God. In other words, freedom, as exercised in lime, can reduce itself. As a free asenc, I can decide I will never make any fu r- chcr decisions, and tha t I will never remember this very deci- si on. Having made this deci- si on, due to my freedom. which implies my ability to control my own exisLence by my decisiotis:-T have l ost , for good, my power of decision, and have been t r ansfo r med into an entity which can only react, not i n- itiate action. God, ac1uaJly, could decide al so to become a stone, and, in vi ew of his as - sumed power, bec ome one, ir• revocably. A free man can sell himself as a slave, and thereby renounce b is freedom. A sover- eig.n of a state can use his sovereignty to transfer rule to another, lhus losing sovereignty by exercising it. These are all ex - amples, for one ba sic l ogica l pa tt ern. An d Ibis pattern shows how Rothbard's firs1 axiom (which, indeed, nobody could sensibly and honestly deny, without, by his demonstration o f his power of judgment throu gh denial, prove its tru th) can le ad LO a planned economy. What is needed he re is only some inducerncnt, som e help, by those who "plan" to t he others to become robots, zombies or machines. Here another subject comes 10 the picture: Modern psychology. Many th i nk ing individuals ig- nore this subject because they consider it to be "u nscientific, 11 due to its failu re to provide any practical rnethod to solve any human prob lem: In sanity, men- t al anguish, education, family life, none of th em was. really and substantially helped by the ap, plication of psychological 0 knowledge." This attitude o f ignori ns psycholosy is, how- ever, mistaken, because psy• chology has operated, from its conception, t owards a com- pletely differenl aim: Con trol o f human b eh avior, Skinner, t he writer of "beyo nd freedom and d i gnity" made this f act ve r y clea r. Psychology is intended to teach how one ca n transform a human being f rom a free agent to a stimu lu s response condi- tioned reflex machine. Clea rly , Skinner does not believe he, himself, needs to be contro lled - who could contro l cbe con- trollers? The same old question. Rather, he should con1rol ot hers. And, indeed, psychology has grown: Drugs, shocks, sta r vat i on, aversion conditi on- ing, hypnosis, e duca t i ona l brainwashing, all these arc valid psychological techniques for the subjugation of fr ee indiv idual s, for making chem suitable sub- jects in a planned society. It can be protested that I am going here beyond the realm of economics, as well as philoso-. phy. Not so. Psychological con - trol is possible in vi rtue of the p ar adox of fre edom . Psycholo- gy, as a di sc ipline, c.a n be de- fined as a collection of practical inducements technique nc:cdcd to make a free ag(Jn g;ivi: 11p, t du aHy. Ills reedom. AHuch, ·t. is esse11 ti I for a planned s;oci ety ecaur.e otherw"5;e- the plamtirng: \Yould 11ot work. USSR is-, tto11omkal.ly, failin g. This was d Ille to tht IJSC of kl'U" and physical pu.n·~hment -as rneam, of ccmtroL These r.cehri[ques arc um.0phisticated.. The Chi11ese m.etli ds or "_group pre ure' ' do work - China has managed ta demoa~tr;i.te a pla:ruied econo m y wihi.d1 mn · stably i;u.r - 'ive,, by lo al cnslavcme.nt, roboti!ia tfo n or :wmhHication, i::hoc,.e your term, of i ~ po:pu!ahon,. SUMMARY On O e lc-;•et Ul!1'- 4isagroo- men t betwee:n free m lr.::rprisc econumfat,; and pl.armed e,cc;mo- my f:m.s ooIJc'l:!,ncs tm m.m na - urc~ mcla physk.ally rree m.m can survive only i:n a frne eco11omy; a m bm c;an onl .fim - li'i c in a planned tconom • On a deeper ]evel, the dis• a,greemet,r is in motive: Granting. man's f ndamental freedom. one c;an derive t.1e. p:rradox of f.rnedom. This al - tows . fo r some mcill ac, ing so a; s to make 01 tt:cirs Tclinq:uish lhe-k frecd,;im, an d for [:I plannell 0eonomy, or mor~ cxl.cnsivdy a planned societ:;i w h -re a min on - ty a "thi aid ,g in te-llecwals .'' hid d.m by the impenetrable sc.rcen of anonymity (The Si:ate), rules ii Vll:S L maj_orHy of ro- bodzed workers, ClearJ:,i, t.bose who desire this form or clitism, cannot ad,..ocate ·c openly T ey havC' to rude botli imen t and J)tembes, and to pay the rela- ··vet, !is t price of s-eeming in- co11sis te t. The fact t:ba l omoonr; pos es an acal1erni c posHfon doe not imply t.nar he b oonc.erned with truth rn ore than power. nd to argue. with one who r ants p ower 011 I.he S'Stimptjoo that he ants lrut is both to 111is 1.rnderf;ttU1d hj posilion and to w.ast:e m1e s littl I:. An oihe.r pe spec ti v c: ~ A plll.nned society is nm o ilh erollomic<1lly and politica:Uy controrted, bm, mo t sign, fi,_ c!Ulrly, psyctmlogicatly. It cafl M.U j e, China, a:nd Swed-en., d.errro.mu i le ll1at Man as man wo11ldn't rmrvi e, exccpt for 11c select elite o man, and cor- rupt, leading ' ' phrnners. . " e 1t 11lcn, who would c-are? Thw;, • lhe. re al issll!e e face i~ .nnt: pl,.rnned t , 011omy and eco- nomic doomsday ~ ·s economic freedom and praspi:ril)'. 11 i.s: Hu an existcm:c, o:r sla ve eic- 1;tencc. O:rwcU !!rasped ~hat Vi!ell, and e haNe 7 reim w go rtn 1984. ifs Bro, thi:r. a a I is many intell~t.ua.l helpers - economists, phito.~opb:ers p..~ •- c:hologists, sociologis. ~. potn:ic.a :;cie.n tis s - are acting cleverly. Sh all. we. s(op tln'ffi in time? DR. MOSHE K.ROY Dr. KF'O.}' o.Uomed Ms : B, A. und M .A • .deg~ees rn PsychoJog 1111d Phiio.sop/Jy al the Hebr-er~ ' Un.iver~•ity, Israel in I 968 and 1970. He gained n· Ph.D in Phi/QSophy m ThJ A vi Utiiver- sity in 1972. He is now i. ec:turing ln Philosophy ar La Truhe U.flh'ffs.ity lur~iflg Jefl ]$ro.~I iu 1975, Ri published b-ooh m - dude The Coru.1:k.11.ce (Wiley and fsrm::I U,iiver&:ity P,eslJ ; 1974) and Moral Compe-. limo~, ,(Momon, 1975). - FlA SH - Buondock Char-lif' arid rhe M"tsumJerst.ooa Fed by Eric Wa:y (CD • a11 l 976 ha~ been p1.1b!i.~h- cd in the Co~restiulUll Rerord (July 11, 1977) by Se.oater Jesse Helms. We are mak- ng "' a11esl T HE STATE OF RESEARCH CONCERNING , PO WE R Elf T iES lily Anion , ul 1 1 co:-. P Y tno · er is _urowi m pl'esem Ille fusr of a swim of exclusive. t1r1ides .by A many S¥:(irm, The most fascinatin~. b11I still farg,d~ 1.1.llC.)(}Jlarnd re.search topic loday is llla of the history and c:urccn1 0p ration'> of t e power eli · hapri g our worl'd Yet, o ly i bin the 1 t de1.-ade have rofe~stonal analyst~ and t.i torims entered this arena whieli bas 1 11 bci:n the preserve of amueiir Mstorians, i.e. those. who se m11in occupation is something olhct han he com:- pifa tion and analysis of i - fonml.l:i ri. , l'h l)rofessi.ooal anaJ is of power elites a11d pow er eJite opemt"ons, hile !ong overrlue, today covers a ·n,ening s;pcc- lrum rnarging from na 110-na.l in ~ l~lli.genee org · anil11hons, - ~- tFigue c.l by I c il'.ller rOJ alisl am.ic~ of ~he United t:.ate~ .amJ ~he Sov1 et U · 011., ta dower moving and historlcally oriented .a:cademici. Tile e:1.rli~ amateur analy~:i8 If d1 beg.an in the 1920 's, while a athbrea · :n.s. ,1, d a valiant d - fo ha been ~omelhing of a rnadbloc to profe ·ional analy~t~. Thi~ i~ because of the manner in which he term •• c onspiracy" bas b.een applied 1 1:11:motsl as an arlid .c of Fai , to e..,;piai rut.yllti:11,g and cverylhi:ng su:spk:ious lhal moy .es or breal he ,~ w1 [ hont pmvi ding rnuch iu .ht': way of ha rd sup ~ por(irtg cvi~i:nc~. This- na:i"rC .ap- prnael'I ha , en' led rhe p-OW<:r iHte and their represenmti e · to apply th label "par:moid" or he diclit "dc-v:iJ lileo~, or hi toryn a d scan: off to a oon- ~l dernb1e exte t scri ow; con- siderntion of powe.- tlile opera- tions and ob )~tivr;:; . I brief. the ama t eo.r .. conspir.u.·y" dis- cl!l.o;;,sio11 ha.<r be.en arqund "how'' power elites a,:e prt!5ume:d m opt:rate fo :E:etting llial tt i~ eq u:ally impotta: a know ••,1d 1 0'' and '• h " o.r even ••wnether'' rn irac-y is a necessary m va.Jid expla nation for sp ec-Hie evenl.S. The fundfJ.n1 e DtaJ dil'fere!'!C~ b~tween the "amat.enr" and the "profossion:af,. approach, oon ,- ccms lllc: rult:.:> of inclhodo • J ka:t pi:(X;edun:. Tht:..n: ar1:1 gi:m:rally ci.:.epr.ed I e:. of sci en ti fie proced'l]re. Any i1 - t:up:reta.tion of-evenbi th.it is in- rended to survive ·n hist,pry has o conform lo such ru.Jc~. The ba.U ma.rk. of ' amalrur'' ,maly- sis has been ro, piace cxpl.anatto bei re exa: fnario -i.e w a.r- ri e at con his-ions before pro- vidin evidence o which oo - dusi om are based., l.n otheT words a causal. ~La atioo. of Ml evto is nol nc:.cesslirily a ror • rcct. c:xphmation ] 115,i bCJCause someone intuil.i d~ • b~licl"l'•rc:s tl lu be so An ekmcnlar poin( maybe. b I L hn1sands of pages of .. co s-r11rac " literat:ur, lta, little more substance than beUef th a t a pruii nlar l<''XJ}lana- lion uf c en ts is lr11c and otheT poss.i.bk explanatio are nol true. "i 1:orin-a e &deri ti 1c 111 1 ethod, the basi5 -of all modem re~eard1. is a method as,ed on observation, measun1men1 and n:Hi rud 111llru :tio from llic:.!i,c oh~cr at:lom,. Thi· method does not 1rir~ i th the ainswer. The metho,d expfores in or d er to find a prohable answer h fir.st obs:erv es by c ollec: ing_ a:ml 1u a1y2i11g i llform 1ion l d. then ti .akes rationa 1 conclusions from these 01::lserv,1 ·(ms. There- fore a scientific- meth.rn;I cannot tart. wirh an cx planatimi of' ''con iracf 1 <1 d !he procec:d to compile and w · te all acct.m:1te history a procedure to. of ell 1:1doptc d by Lhc amateur hH.o ri- an. Titc only scitnHfica.lly ac- 1.:epla bk mct110d is (1) hypothe,. .si~, ,(2) cc mttfaHon of da1ta.. (3) ppli ation of data to a hypo- thes is, (4) rational fo.rrnulmion of COil cl liSlOll • As r.i c.i e. io po·n , 'Ile cx- islenc e o-f al! overall " 01 - spirncy" among power elites is - <I i this thnc - o mo re than 3 by O ::s is waitiJlg l be- ID: • am·,iedl. alm~g wiO dozens of ot er equall alid hyp0lheses. , Such as. competin T con.sp iTacy model - Ed} A.t ieas t 1.a.t is t he cautious assum- rion we: .-.hould be makin _ The rnader may · ~•.rell inr,er- jecl al lhi .s p, oim some ton m.cnt like " 'what a b out John Rob.i:son•s boo PROO , 0 · CO SP1R.ACTT' At the turu of ch I 9U l:C'.il- tury fohn Robison was Pro- fcsso[ of Natural PbJlosopby ~r Uni ve:r~ [y of Edinb •rgh and &i."n:lary of lhc Royal Society or dinburgb. Tbt: e~·i(kncc in Robi.son·s book is largely ac,c,c p,- table ·, even whe11 bal.1 :m:cd a,gain~t cantemp.cn:ary c itique$, Further, Robii.oo. can be u ,_ ported today b material not av.tilable in the I h:: JSUI tel'.\• _ry. Th i mater· a.t ha bttrl ublisheo in (le nan (but ot otran:slati<'d into Engli ) amd we certainly kno v a lot more today about th Hluminali than Ro i on did '.n the 1790's. ' or exam1, :l e., AJfredr Uecker CH[US IA GOTTLOB l:PE D DCE BO ER lLLutvUNATE {Bouvier er- la,s, Boon 1969) in spite of iL5 ·briefm:s~ presents 61 mo:rc 1;uecise outline of operi!itioru; o[ t , e Orde r than the ram 11ing Robi- son book, and Bernhard eyer, FRElM.AUREREl MU • CH N U D ALTBAIER (Hamb rg 1973) pw,idc~ e •en o eiri on ia~ i o'II, , rom these and other ourc~ we find t o 1c jal poini,s. to b noted about Ro ison whk :h a.11 ignored by modern con- 5piratorialids i (a) Ro bi,;,un on his ti le page suggests a bvuader target 1 baa l ~ Ulu.minalt alone. The lide p.l,gt of PROOFS 0 ' ONSP(R 'Y reads •• •• • secret meeting$ oi free masons. Hlu,nina,i a1 1 <l re ad ing societies. ~• Present day holders of t he JI. lum.in.ali th eory, particular- ly 11\trnbcrs of the John Bi rch Scoci1y I oflen igno re t he eqtJal attemJou propos- ed for freemasons and reading societies. Recem German literatu re does not ruake th is error, and an ex- trao r dinary book publis hed in Eng l and, Stephen Knigh1 , JACK T HE RIP- PER: TH(j FINAL SOLU - T ION confirms Rob boo·s \\idcr per spectives. { b) There js no major evi c.lcn cc at this ume that the 11· lumina li ~u rvived as au o rganization after about 1800 (although or cour se bolh readi ng societies and rr~masons sur vive d and <he fancr flourished aft er I 800). The on ly oo lablc exception to chi s obsierva1ion on the 11 luminati is The wo rk by Rabbi Marvin Antelman TO ELIM !· NATE '!'HE O PIAT E. a rece t1 1 sl;t1 dy tracing t he Illum inati th rough reform Judaism. Antel- man' :, book adop ls Lhe scientific procedutt: a.nd Jll~W in time p ro ve to be a n t:w resc.arcb path to be explored. Ao anonyu ,ou s book e.n titlcd SEVBNTEP,N E IG HTY NINE published by the John Birch Society in l 967 to present ,he cas-e: for a pre$umed l ink" be- twc c.n the Illuminati and rhe ••communist conspiracy'' con. firms 1 ha t in fact no evidence ex. htS for rhc: - c.~istcnce of I I• lumioati af ter L800. Tbc b ook describes a period rou r decad es before ,he w or d "socialism" came into use aod 1rwny d~ d~ before the word "com munlsm•· had its present meaning. No- tably, both freemasons a nd reading sociedes are ignored in SEVENTEEN EIGHTY N INE. The.:. anonymous autho r leaves Adam Weishaupt living in co mforrab le seclusio11 ar the house of the Du~• of Saxe Oot ha in the y ea r 1800. No one bas picked up the re. ~earch trail al th is place and time in h frao ry. No evidence has been pre- s~nt cd (aparl from in Antel• man's work) char the Order of the H1111n t na 1. i, as an organi;.o- tion, survived beyoud 1800. l t is conceivable that 1 he ir ideas .su r· vived in other form~, and through other organiza tions (this is Ante lm an 's approach ) but this r .. ~rch pr ob lem has by and l arge 001 been tackled. Th e a.~su mption ,hat the Ulumina.ii became the Co m mun ist Party c.an be b alan ced by an equally v alid a sswn ption thal the 11- luminari or its ideas became part of the Europca11 Establishment: both arcunprovena~serlio.ns. Tl\is apparent dhdain for fac- loal research by .. amateur" c<mspiracy buffs has led them to overlook imeres <io g J91h cea.- tury re flec rtons of the mum i nati which a little di!JSi ng would haYc discovered. For example, che H e gelian triad. the philosophical basis for modem to talitarianism, is bcner al- <ribu ted ro Fichte - and Fichte was a member' of the: lllumina1i This disdaio also suggests why 0 con spiracy· • bi scorjan.s have made little factual p rogr ess over the- last decade. Once you assume a '~conspiracy'' th ere is n.o i.J:1ccn ti v< co d ig. further for raclu al evi de nce. If you alre ad y ·•know" the ~1nswer why look f or proof'/ The parado~ today ls 1rn, , i n- ve.~ tigaton; who are skeptical ab ou t an aJJ cnco mpa ssiogl mo- no1i t hic umaster conspiracy" - .s u ch as this wriltc - ar e aware or more hard evidence on pas, Jlluminati operations ,han <hose who have accepted t he •• ma~ter conspiracy" e,:plana• tion withour probing for factua] evidence. Anoihc.r paradox is Lhal elitist objt:ctivcs ar.: not in any way secret o bje,:, rives - t l ley a re broadly .:nta logued in FOR EIGN AFFAIRS - and there is no a pr;ori reason why Nf!W WORLD ORDER ohjee- tiv ~ co uld nol b-e achlev cd by ad hoc groups wi th a co mm on philosophy and no t working within any formal organization. Further, t he significant his- to rical pbCJ!Omenon of Pa J' 1G~r- manism and t he inlluence of Karl Ritter a re ignor,d by our 11- lu mi na ti theori sts. Nesta Web- ster has a chapter on Pao Ge r- manism bu c trus chap ter is noiable for its dependence on secondary French r athe .r than l)rimary Ge rman s ource s. Ne sta Webster has assum ed an an- swer: consequently t he,re L s no impe- tl.lS- to look for evidence. Energy js spent oo propagandis- ing the''answcr'' ra t her than in- vestigation of facts. Thj s un- S( sicntific ap p roach doom s Il- luminati Lhcoris<s 10 an ctc.mal trea dmi ll. Re:pca ti ng a mantra based on the words " fllurni- s nat i'' and •·Master Conspiracy'' does not bri.Qg abou 1 the p h}'si • cal existence o r these categories, nor will ii con.vi nee mo::;t people. Most of us Opt.rate on the basis of at least ru<limenlary obse.rv.ation .and if we do act on th e basis of illu sio n we prefer o· ur own illusions to some- one else's. Is there a "mas ter con• spiracy?" I don·t k now in the ,;ciemWc sense. Aod nobod y el se does either [or t he peri od si nce I 800. On the o,her ha nd, ''conspiracy'' is· a hy pothesi.s well wor th iovcsligating along lines of scientific procedure i.e. collect evidence and make r a- tional ind uctions from 1-he evidence. Does any modern historical literature fit these criteria for par t of the o,·erall «heme ·? One book t hat co mes to mind in rheacackr nic sphere is Carroll Quigley •s TRAGEDY AND HOPE (b ased on two years' work in che Council on Foreign Relations fi les). William Dom- hoff's WHO R UL c-S AMERI- CA is ano,hcr candidate, so is Gary A.lien's NONE DARE'. CALL IT CONSPIRACY which relies heavily on factual data and fro m that deduces a co n- spira cy. But the.se. are limited aspects of a gigantic re- s ea rch p r oblem THE O CCULT TECHNOLOGY OF POWER , on th e o the r hand , is an exercise io hy pot h~itlng - pre s en ted .as s uch - and valuable because it suggests areas requir i ng faccual cx p!o, ation. Works t hat do NOT fit within the calegory of s.dentific. pro- cedure are numerous. Nesta Wcbsler has to be rejected be- cause it is di f fi<..· td t l-0 sepa r ate £ac t from fiction , F'or example, see pages 155 el. seq of THE FRENC'H REVOL U- TION How accurate • por • trayal is this or actual events? and how much is fietio~li zed r c..-consLru ct i o.o? While Jo- se phson in ROOSEVELT& CO MMUNI ST MA.i'IIFESTO was on the right track with b is hypotheses he was s loppy al handli ng facts. Yet anolbcr category i$ lhe United SLatcs Labor Party. Remarkabl y detailed ia facls, more so tha n any other current source."t~ the.\e facts require disentanglement from psych<r logical assumptions, i.e.. lhat everyone is a -unit in some svn- thetic vcbiclc c reated by t he Establishment, whereas in fact most or us s tr ive as much as we can to d isassoci ate ourselves from such vehicJes. What then are the differences between profess.ional analysis based on sciefilific m eth odology and amateur histo ria ns jn th e study of power elites? Possibly t he ma jor d ifference is th at Lhe professional never looks fo r instant bl ack and whiie answers. Aware of the comp l e;xjty of most event.s COD· pied with a built-in cauti on and experience, a professional will wait for the .story to emerge and then de,:, ide on the explanation. Even then the s to ry may be c ast in s hades of grays rather than absol ut e bla cks and wbites. (n other words we don"t li ve in a world of bad guys and good guys. We live in a wo rl d where most people - including would • be elitists - are sometimes bad and so metimes good, in whJch only a f ew make a lifetime career of doing one or ,he other exclusively. We also live in a world where anyone makin_g a career of anti-soda! actions will have gone 10 g rea, pains to con - ceal t he <rail, mean ing the facts are not always what they seem at fit,;t glance. Further, the,e is lil tJ e question that an t i-~ocial elitists absorb useful ideas and efforts not originating within the elite. For example George Bau·s recent book DIPLO - MACY FOR A CROWDED WOR L D has five l in es taken (i. e. sto len) directly - withou t acknowledgment - from this writer's l.9 7