Law and Order

Oscar B. Johannsen

[Reprinted from The Gargoyle, October 1963]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the dominant domestic issue in the presidential campaign this year is law and order. The riots, the increased crime rates, and the general tendency on the part of groups to resort so readily to violence to redress real or fancied wrongs has created a feeling of insecurity so widespread that the major candidates have deemed it wise to emphasize their devotion and zeal for the maintenance of order.

Although the candidates recognize that a dynamic society is one of change and therefore sometimes a bit unruly, and so each in his own way assures the people that if elected he will attempt to arrive at some balance between change and order, nonetheless, in the main, their prescription boils down to the utilization of superior force to counter whatever force erupts.

Probably this is the only short-term formula possible. When a harmless dog is goaded beyond endurance by children throwing stones at it and retaliates by trying to bite them, at that moment the only solution the parent can adopt is to bring his superior force against it to save the children. Only after this has been done can he take the time to teach the children the value of humane treatment so as to prevent any repetition of the dog's attack.

Similarly in the affairs of men. Wrongs which have been perpetrated against individuals or groups over long periods of time can result in such frustration and anger as to cause those individuals who normally would be peaceful to indulge in almost unspeakable violence. At such times, the rest of the members of society, even though they may be to blame, have little option but to meet force with force to prevent chaos. Certainly, there is little doubt, whether right or wrong that the members of society will turn the other cheek only so long, and then they will resort to violence to restrain violence.

The violence sweeping the U.S. comes as a surprise to many people. After all ours is the affluent society; more people are working than ever and better off. But such is a superficial viewpoint. Most of us are merely holding our own, often only by getting deeper into debt, and certainly a large minority are not partaking of the affluence of our society. The maldistribution of wealth persists, and the freeing of some legal or social restrictions on minority groups only whets their appetities for obtaining some of the wealth. But nothing seems to help them acquire some of it so their frustrations becomes ever greater.

Almost ninety years ago, Henry George in Progress and Poverty, in his chapter on "How Modern Civilization May Decline" predicted the very things which are happening today. He pointed out "where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be. ...The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile will only be ousted by the viler. ...Strong, unscrupulous men, rising up upon occasion, will become the exponents of blind popular desires or fierce popular passions, and dash aside forms that have lost their vitality. The sword will again be mightier than the pen..."

And he asks, "Whence shall come the new barbarians? Go through the squalid quarters of great cities, and you may see, even now, their gathering hordes!"

Our nation did not listen to him. It has not put into practice the answer to the great enigma of poverty with progress, and the result has been as he foretold it.

So what will come of the present emphasis on law and order? Only the gradual replacement of a society of contract by one of imperatorship. This can only be prevented if the people use the time given them by the use of legal force to curb the forces of destruction loose today to institute true reforms to create a society of justice. This means an attack on the cancer of our society -- our unjust system of land tenure. Unless the people do that our society "will take a plunge downward which will carry us back toward barbarism."