Letters (January 1973)

From a caged supporter...

This letter comes to you from Chino State Prison in Chino, California. I am being held in prison for the crime of possessing marijuana. I am serving a ten-year term. I have already served four of the ten years.

Though my body remains caged behind tons of steel, my mind remains free. I refuse to admit to my keepers that I am wrong and they are right. I have harmed no person—not even myself.

Your publication deeply interests me. I have no funds to order a subscription, and I would like to ask you for a free subscription. I understand you don't have a business to give subscriptions away—but, as I've said, in my position I could not obtain the money needed.

Any consideration you might be able to give my request would be deeply appreciated.

Keep passing the word, brother.

A caged supporter,
Wayne Lassell B-30514
P.O. Box 441, Palm Hall
Chino State Prison
Chino, California 91710

You were right. We are not in business to give away free subscriptions. But how about the following deal? We'll enter a six-year subscription in your name for $30.00. You won't have to pay until seven years from now, or until you are out of prison, whichever comes first. In return, you can try to spread Outlook around as much as you can. We'll give any other prisoner accused of committing a victimless crime the same deal.

We would also be interested in receiving an article from you on life in prison, the details of your own case, etc., for which we will pay on publication.—Editor

Wise-ass parody

A few months ago I entered a trial subscription to Outlook. As the time approaches to indicate whether or not I shall become a regular subscriber, I find the question has been decided by the October issue.

If the earlier issues seemed a bit flippant, a little self-consciously irreverent, a good deal smart-alecky, there was (and is) a growing body of serious, informative content emerging. I found some things rubbed me the wrong way, but then again you are presenting a magazine with a relatively broad scope, for a general viewpoint which has heretofore been quite narrow. Even Halbrook's defense of Mao, as ludicrous as it seemed in a libertarian publication, had its place in a forum where it could be subject to rebuttal (and it was refuted). The essence of libertarianism would have it that all serious proponents of a point of view be heard. However, creeping into the magazine has been the wise-ass "parodying" of values which are supposedly the cornerstone of our interpretation of human dignity.

The straw that had to come was the tasteless and worthless treatment of Ayn Rand recently, culminating in the article by Elton Chalmers in the October issue.

Fun's fun, fellas, but this kind of treatment for an individual who has done more, single-handedly, to clarify for Americans the serious implications of personal freedom, and the nature of its enemies and is probably more responsible for creating an aware audience for libertarian thought than all the publications dealing with the theme put together, is a shameful waste of time, space and money. If I wanted to read slurs, direct and indirect, against people I considered worthy of respect, I would read The New York Post. But if there's one thing worse than a gang of journalists who are out to own your soul in naked defiance of your standards, it's a gang purporting to respect your life while ridiculing the virtues that respect should be built on. Outlook at its best is good. But there's just enough garbage on the plate to ruin the whole meal.

Michael M. Sheller
New York, N.Y.

The author replies: I cannot understand Mr. Sheller's complaint. I do not believe that there is anything in "The Night They Raided Atlas" which can be even remotely construed as an attack on Ms. Rand—although there was a bit of teasing of the "true-believer Randroids," a group vastly in need of some guidance.

What could only be obvious to anyone who even half-attentively read the piece is that I was attacking Hollywood's inability to deal seriously with such an important work. I presume Ms. Rand is not wholly out of sympathy with this attack, since she insisted (wisely, I think) on having the final cutting rights on the film version of Atlas Shrugged—an unheard-of demand which has apparently terminated the production of the film. Those who think my description of the Hollywood treatment was more wishful thinking than an attack rooted in reality are referred to the Hollywood version of James Bond as displayed in the ludicrous film, Casino Royale—which included, among other defects, a stuttering James Bond, Woody Allen as the son of James Bond, and a set of subplots that not only failed to take the original book into consideration but seemed to revel in ignoring it for the sake of comedy gags that defied humor.

Mr. Sheller states that "if there is one thing worse than a gang of journalists who are out to own your soul in naked defiance of your standards, it is a gang purporting to respect your life while ridiculing the virtues that respect should be built on." Firstly, why the latter is worse than the former escapes me, but to each his own. Secondly, I can't think of a single virtue attacked in the piece. Thirdly, I see no problem, flaw, defect or contradiction between respecting a person's right to life and ridiculing those virtues he holds dear, where those virtues are ridiculous to be held dearly. Fourthly, if someone can lose ownership of his soul to a group of journalists who merely write, I find the loser of the soul more repugnant than the journalist.

I think that many who admire Ms. Rand, as I do, confuse criticism of the foibles of her followers with attacks upon her. I have too much respect for Ms. Rand to blur the distinctions.

Elton Chalmers
New York, N.Y.

Go stand in the corner, Murray!

It's bad enough when Dr. Rothbard wrote [in the December issue] that "there has been very little thinking among libertarians about the children question." At the very least, this means that he hasn't done very much research on the subject; at worst, he is saying that Leo Tolstoy, Paul Goodman, A.S. Neil, George Dennison, Francisco Ferrer, Herbert Kohl, John Holt and scores of others who have worked for years to free children are somehow not libertarians. At any rate, when Dr. Rothbard makes statements like that in the future, he should speak only for himself.

But what really gets me angry is Rothbard's characterization of what he calls progressive education. To say that this involves letting children "run roughshod over everyone in the name of 'freedom'" is equivalent to claiming that advocates of free speech just want to shout fire in crowded theaters. What free schools have done is to throw out tests, grades and required courses. Students learn what they want to, when they want to, and at their own pace. And it works. Children are funny people; they learn more by what adults do than by what they say. And the main lesson that regular school teaches them is that they should follow orders all day. Free schools teach them to run their own lives by letting them run their own lives. No, they don't tyrannize over one another; that's something kids in traditional schools do. They copy adults.

I am hoping that Rothbard's statement, "The right to run away clears up most parent-child problems for the libertarian," was made in jest. What do children do before they know how to run—or even walk? Furthermore, this statement neglects known psychological and biological facts. Children are dependent on their parents for some time even after they are able to walk. When caught in a situation where they either have to obey or run away, most of them simply become neurotic. The fact is they can't run away. (I hesitate to say that children need their parents' love because, true love having no price, economists cannot deal with it; from an economist's viewpoint, the only real love is the type sold in the streets).

And those bits about "the moral duty as well as the right of the parents to train the children" and "the child yearning for direction and guidance by his parents." Really, now! Aside from the fact that duties and rights are opposite and mutually exclusive, every tyranny that ever existed has claimed to exist for the benefit of its victims. Feudal nobles talked about their duties toward their peasants, and southern slaveholders about how well they took care of their "darkies," because "they'd be lost without us." Had you observed children directly, you would have noticed that they are the most selfish beasts in creation and they scream quite loudly when their freedom is interfered with.

Freedom is not something that can be done halfway. A.S. Neil, the founder of England's Summerhill School, knew this. He gave the vote to everyone at his school, even the five-year-olds. There was no tyranny of the majority. Whenever a student had a penalty voted against him that he regarded as unfair, he fought against it, refusing to comply until it was reduced or eliminated. When he thought the punishment justified, he complied. And when Neil, playing the altruist, decided that it would be a good idea for the rich kids to have their allowances shared with the poor kids, his proposal was voted down as unfair. So, believe it or not, external moral codes are not needed to make sure that people behave like people. And if there ever is a kid's lib movement, its main demand will probably be an ultimatum to adults to "laissez-nous faire!"

Robert J. Marks
New York, N.Y.

Robert J. Marks is director of the New Prospect School, "the only Summerhill high school in Brooklyn."—Editor.

Rothbard? Hah!

Once I maintained a high regard for Dr. Rothbard, but that is deteriorating rapidly in light of his last two articles in Outlook: "Halbrook in Wonderland" [July-August, 1972] and "McGovern? Hah!" [October, 1972].

As an anarchocommunist (with a strong strain of individualism) I resent Rothbard's childish insinuations and direct comments to the effect that anarchocommunism would mean the "death of the individual." I, too, disagree with Halbrook, and believe Mao is a butcher, but Rothbard's intention to link all anarchocommunists under one fold is inept.

In his next article, Rothbard launches an attack against McGovern, thereby putting himself in a position remarkably close to that of Judas, as envisioned in the Jesus Christ-Superstar role; Judas being the betrayer, and civil liberties Christ. Though a non-voter, I find something absurd in the notion that now we can go back to "our previous task of hating the Nixon administration," while stating that McGovern held the "clear advantage in the areas of peace and civil liberties."

True, Middle America despises the counterculture, but do we need their inane list of why we are evil? We do not need the babble about welfare, which is crude, especially since I do not know one "hippie" who is receiving welfare. Many of Rothbard's other conclusions about the counterculture are invalid and outmoded. And for the grand finale, he arrives at the conclusion that Middle America feels threatened, and is!

What I would like to know is how many average Middle Americans are arrested for victimless crimes—even when they are innocent? How many Middle Americans have been illegally searched, or subjected to interrogation. Have you, Dr. Rothbard?

Perhaps the time has come for Dr. Rothbard to leave his ivory tower and take a good look about him. While it is true that we must try to educate the Middle American, let us face the grim truth that Middle America's perceptions are not as sound as Rothbard would lead us to believe. In my own experience, I've heard Middle Americans say, "So what if my phone is tapped. I've got nothing to hide." Or, "Hitler had the right idea!" And other such sordid ideas, even to the point of advocating the elimination of many points in the Bill of Rights (the most important ones, of course). As for the work ethic, I've seen Middle Americans rationalize the notion of buying stolen goods.

Dr. Rothbard can go back to his pet project of hating the current administration, which he tacitly supported, while I will sit back and wonder how a man could write that Mao is a Stalinist and give his support to a man who is a genocidal murderer. As the war continues, as more legalized murders are perpetrated, as our civil liberties continue to vanish...I find Rothbard's attitude rather hard to fathom.

Enjoy hating the administration, Dr. Rothbard—but I, for one, feel physically threatened by it.

T. Francis Rathgeber
Syosset, N.Y.

Middle America? Rubbish!

I would like to comment on Dr. Rothbard's analysis of the importance of Middle America and traditional culture to the libertarian movement.

First, he contends that we are the ideal group to become the "vanguard" of Middle America. Rubbish! I was born into a white, middle-class family and have associated with such people for years. The traditional culture wants drugs violently suppressed, has deep veins of racism, wants social and sexual experimentation suppressed, and generally takes a traditionalist conservative stand.

Let us recognize that neither the traditional culture nor the counterculture support freedom. Both have libertarian tendencies which we must help and nourish, but this requires getting to individuals and sub-groups, not trying to guide Middle America or the counterculture.

Secondly, since the majority does not want freedom, we cannot attain our ends by promising them freedom if they support us. How does Rothbard propose to hide the fact that in a free society homosexuals could neck openly, drugs could be used openly; in short, that all those things which are a "knife in the heart" of the Middle America could flourish freely?

Our task, I would have thought, would be to spread rationality and an appreciation of the values of toleration for variety, not to pander to the irrationalities of the rising social group of the moment.

And that brings me to the point that really rubs me the wrong way. Dr. Rothbard would have us become hypocrites and liars. From the tone of his diatribe against the counterculture, he finds it entirely detestable. Yet he was willing to praise the counterculture and work with it when it was a rising force, for the sake of the movement. Or perhaps Dr. Rothbard still favors the counterculture but is willing to lie now in order to appease a rising Middle America. We have here the paradox of a man sacrificing his convictions in order to work for his convictions—whatever Dr. Rothbard's true convictions might be. Surely, though, the ends don't justify the means. If we can lie for freedom, why can't we steal or kill for freedom?

I would not hesitate to recommend Dr. Rothbard's books on economics to anyone. But as a libertarian activist and an individual of integrity, he leaves something to be desired.

John Fay

Watch for the forthcoming Outlook interview with Dr. Rothbard.—Ed.