Review of

The Writings of Henry J. Foley

Benjamin W. Burger

[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, July-August 1936]

Between Nov. 30, 1935 and Feb. 1, 1936, The Gaelic American in New York City published a series of ten articles from the pen of Henry J. Foley under the arresting title, "It Takes A Government To Make A Depression."

In these articles, as well as in a previous series in the same paper entitled, "An Ancient Remedy for Modern Depressions," Mr. Foley shows a sound, comprehensive knowledge of fundamental economic principles and reveals himself a competent teacher of political economy. Certainly he is better qualified than many present-day high school teachers and college professors who, under the guise of teaching that science, really expound business practice, banking, commercial law, and the like.

Mr. Foley truly writes of his "effort to establish some basic principles of government and economics, by which relations a government can be tested and pronounced helpful or harmful." He has a positive genius for expressing correct, basic truths in simple, vigorous words. Take, for example, such paragraphs as these:

"We have seen that the only scientific basis for the ownership of property is the creation of property, or the free and unforced exchange of property or labor. A man who produces nothing is entitled to own nothing. A man who produces is entitled to the ownership of what he has produced, against the world. This brings us to the question of property in land.

"If men are born into the world with equal rights, such rights must include equal rights to the use of the earth, which was created for all men. If one man is born with no right to the earth, while another is born with the right to keep that man from a place to make a living, such an arrangement is a mockery of equal rights."

The words, "a place to make a living," are especially felicitous and Mr. Foley is especially happy in their use. No writer, not even Henry George, ever expressed this thought more simply and effectively.

Where is our problem more graphically presented than in this paragraph:

"If the United States were inhabited by 130,000,000 sheep instead of by that many human beings there would be no unemployment. Any band of enterprising sheep attempting to persuade or compel 130,000,000 sheep to abstain from the grazing grounds would find the undertaking absolutely impossible."

While Mr. Foley never mentions "laissez-faire," it is clear that he is a thorough believer in that philosophy, but not in the monstrosity called "rugged-individualism."

Having given my impression of his extraordinary abilities, I must now point out a few statements, which, to me at least, seem debatable.

Mr. Foley writes that one of the functions of government is:

"To restrain the selling of goods below cost, a device for ruining competitors and securing monopoly."

Once this is conceded (and Mr. Foley's entire argument shows its dangers) we open the door to further interferences by government with private business. Freedom is conspicuous by its absence in countries which interfere with industry. Such are: Russia, Germany, and Italy. The moral is plain to us: do not permit government to interfere in non-governmental activities if you would preserve your freedom.

I heartily concede the right of any business to indulge in the short-lived luxury of selling its products below cost. It certainly is not injuring the community, whatever may be its motives. The more serious question is: How comes it that it is able to undersell its competitors? Is it because of greater efficiency? Or are there laws which favor one business over another? If the former, there can be no harm; if the latter, the remedy is evident. At this point Mr. Foley might have elaborated the differences between competition and monopoly.

Also, I cannot allow to go unchallenged this statement:

"If any group, actuated by an alleged religion, proclaims doctrines subversive of the equal rights of man or of property rights, government, for the protection of its citizens, should suppress such teaching or invite its devotees to practice it in another planet."

I take my position with those who believe that the meanest individual has an inherent right to preach any doctrine, however ridiculous the majority may conceive such doctrine to be. May I commend to Mr. Foley, Milton's Areopagitica, written in 1644 and John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," published in 1859. These authors, and a thousand others since; our Constitution, which guarantees free speech and free press, and forbids an established church; the history of mankind; all confirm the danger of permitting self-appointed groups or classes to impose their views on other groups or classes. Discussion, even of unpopular subjects, should at all times be as free and unrestrained as the air; even discussions of subjects which shock the majority or disturb the established order. Hyde Park steam prevents the explosion of British boilers.

I have an inherent right, for example, to criticize the laws on taxation, or to express my disagreement with the views of the majority on sex, religion, education, or what not. If, in a free society, I am afforded the opportunity to convince my fellows that I am right and they are wrong, they will, in time, perforce, change the laws and correct their attitudes. I have a right, I contend, even in time of war, to argue the folly of a draft law and seek to bring about its repeal. No law, or custom or belief, however ancient, is sacred and fixed for all time. In the dynamic world wherein we live everything is subject to amendment or repeal, as conditions change.

Only overt acts should be punishable. I have no right to advocate disobedience of law, for so long as the majority have decreed a course of action, I must obey whether I believe such action to be wise or unwise. This is the price I pay for living in society. A Judge may be opposed to capital punishment but if the majority has decreed that penalty, he must, (unless he took his oath of office with secret reservations) pronounce the penalty. Not the Judge but Society, acting through the Judge, punishes. Often the Judge would like to inflict no penalty or a lesser one. His duty is plain. It is to carry out the law as the majority have decreed it.

In discussing crime and criminals Mr. Foley writes:

"Human nature is bad enough. Society could best abolish crime by banishing the criminal."

It is a large order to say that "Human nature is bad enough." Really, has human nature ever had a chance in our economic slavery? Would you judge lion nature by gazing at a lion behind the cage at the zoo? No one ever saw a lion in his normal habitat, pacing back and forth as he does when deprived of his freedom in the zoo.

Does Mr. Foley really believe that under the natural order we advocate there would be much crime? Most thinkers today believe that poverty and crime follow as cause and effect, and that the only remedy for crime is to change the soil which produces criminals.

Read Mr. Foley's articles, however, and see for yourself how small a part government would play in the natural economic order which he, with great ability, and understanding, so earnestly advocates.