Richard M. Ebeling
– March 30, 2021 @ American Institute for Economic Research
In the first press conference of his presidency on March 25, 2021, Joe
Biden announced that he had set a target of administering 200 million
doses of the Covid-19 vaccine before the end of his first 100 days in
office. In an earlier statement before the press, Biden said that it
might be safe enough for the government to permit gatherings at people’s
homes to celebrate the 4th of July. Listening to the man who occupies the White House, it seems that our lives and how we live all depend on Joe Biden.
Some in the media have focused on the president’s recent stumbling up
the stairway ramp while getting on to Air Force One, and wondered if at
the age of 78 Biden can successfully put one foot in front of the
other. Others have suggested that without the written scripts prepared
by his White House staff and projected onto a teleprompter or the notes
in front of him at a podium, the president seems unable to always
articulately say a handful of words without a gaffe or getting lost and
confused in his own thoughts.
If anything goes wrong in the Biden administration’s policies for
directing and planning our lives, no doubt a fallback position for some
of our enlightened political paternalists likely will be that it is not
the principle or practice of government-designed social engineering that
is fundamentally flawed. No, it’s just that, unfortunately, a man too
old with some cognitive disabilities wasn’t quite up to overseeing the
national tasks to be done, and which are capable of repair and
improvement when the “right hands” are at the helm of government.
The EU Comedy of Confusions and Contradictions
Across the Atlantic, the European Union (EU) is mired in
contradictions, confusions, and member-nation conflicts about lockdowns,
vaccine safety, and national distributions of existing and projected
supplies of the vaccine. At first, the EU member governments declared
that the AstraZeneca vaccine was safe and effective. Then, some of them
announced that its use might cause serious side effects and halted
inoculations. This was followed by new statements that any such side
effects were less of a risk than not having the injection.
EU governments have been bickering among themselves over the
allocations of the vaccine supplies among the member nations, along with
disagreements of how much of the vaccine should be shared with poorer
and less developed countries in other parts of the world, and also
whether AstraZeneca manufacturers have shortchanged the European Union
compared to doses available to and taken by the British across the
English Channel in the United Kingdom.
Whipsawed by their governments about whether or not to trust taking
the AstraZeneca vaccine, those same governments are “shocked” that a
good number of their own citizens, particularly in places like France,
for instance, have chosen not to have the vaccination. At the same time,
large stores of the vaccine are “discovered” in warehouses as the very
moment that various EU spokesmen appear before the press in near
hysteria over the claimed short supplies of AstraZeneca being provided
by the manufacturing facilities.
Fearful of supposed “third waves” of Covid-19 cases, countries like
France and Poland have imposed new partial lockdowns. The German
Chancellor, Angela Merkel, declared that Germany would have to again
tightly shut things down over the Easter weekend to prevent a new
outbreak of the coronavirus. When German state governments and large
crowds of demonstrators around the country adamantly opposed such
renewed drastic steps, Merkel had to go on German television and reverse
the severity of the announced lockdown, while at the same time publicly
apologizing to the German people for so arrogantly presuming to tell
them how to celebrate such a widely recognized and shared holiday.
Classical Liberalism was an Inoculation Against Collectivism
For more than a year, now, we have been in the grip of a massive “new
wave” of a dangerous and deadly ideological virus that has the names
political paternalism and social engineering. It is often pointed out
that the current coronavirus crisis is the first of this magnitude and
global dimension since the infamous Spanish Flu from 1918 to 1920,
during which estimates say that tens of millions of people, worldwide,
may have died from that earlier virus.
But it is less often highlighted that a political virus of government
control, regulation, restriction and planning enveloped all the major
countries of the world at about the same time, a little over 100 years
ago during the First World War. After the 25-year European-wide war
between, first, revolutionary and then Napoleonic France against Great
Britain, Imperial Russia, Prussia, Spain, and some other minor countries
that ended in 1815, a number of leading nations, of which Britain was
preeminent, “inoculated” themselves against the all-dominating state
through classical liberal reforms that recognized individual rights,
personal and civil liberty, the sanctity of private property, the
freedom of enterprise and mostly unrestricted international trade and
investment, which were all bolstered by formal and informal
institutional restrictions on government spending, taxing, borrowing,
and the printing of paper money through introduction of constitutional
limits and national gold standards.
Several leading European countries along with the United States and
Canada in North America seemed to be successfully “immune” from the
virus of collectivism in its various permutations into the second half
of the 19th century. But under the external appearance of
political and economic “health” with widening liberty and growing
prosperity, new variations of this dangerous ideological virus were
infecting even the social bodies of the freest countries in the forms of
increasingly aggressive nationalist and socialist ideas.
Symptoms were noticed and warned about by a few, by such “social
diagnosticians,” for instance, as Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) in Great
Britain and William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) in America, and Paul
Leroy-Beaulieu (1843-1916) in France, and some others who are less
well-known but who were no less clear in their stated fears. (See my
articles, “Herbert Spencer on Equal Liberty and the Free Society” and “Paul Leroy-Beaulieu: A Warning Voice About the Socialist Tragedy to Come”.)
World War I Replaced Liberty with War and Welfare Planning
If government planning only had been a wistful socialist dream before
1914, with the coming of the First World War every one of the major
belligerent powers in Europe soon imposed price and wage controls,
production restrictions and planning targets, regulations or
prohibitions on almost all goods imported or exported, and ended the
gold standard to turn the handles of the monetary printing presses to
fund the huge costs of what became a long and destructive four years of
war. Personal freedoms and civil liberties were restricted or denied in
the name of winning the war. See my article, “The Lasting Legacies of World War I: Big Government, Paper Money, and Inflation”.)
Looking back at the consequences of the First World War, the German
liberal economist, Gustav Stolper (1888-1947), observed in 1931 in the
pages of Foreign Affairs magazine:
“Just as the war for the first
time in history established the principle of universal military service,
so for the first time in history it brought national economic life in
all its branches and activities to the support and service of state
politics – made it subordinate to the state . . . Not supply and demand,
but the dictatorial fiat of the state determined economic relationships
– production, consumption, wages, cost of living . . . At the same
time, and for the first time, the state made itself responsible for the
physical welfare of its citizens; it guaranteed food and clothing not
only to the army in the field but to the civilian population as well . .
.
“Here is a fact pregnant with meaning; the state became for a
time the absolute ruler of our economic life, and while subordinating
the entire economic organization to its military purposes, also made
itself responsible for the welfare of the humblest of its citizens,
guaranteeing him a minimum of food, clothing, heating, and housing.”
War is a Deadly Virus for Spreading Bigger Government
The countries that were before 1914 still fairly and widely free in
terms of economic liberty and personal freedom saw after World War I the
collectivist virus’s residue remaining in the social and policy system
of ideas, ready to reemerge with its virulent effects at any time. In
his insightful, but seemingly neglected study of The British Political Tradition
(1983), historian William H. Greenleaf (1927-2008) explained in volume
one of this work, on, “The Rise of Collectivism,” that once infected
with the bigger government virus, it is never fully expunged from the
affected society:
“It was the Great War which marked
a sea-change . . . and which saw an alternation in respect of
government control of a degree that beforehand would have seemed quite
impossible and would have met with invincible opposition if suggested . .
. The enduring impact of war on collectivist development is clearly
indicated because the reversion is never to the status quo ante bellum
. . . Although there is at the end of hostilities a decline from the
extreme heights of government expenditures reached during the war
itself, this fall stops at a level higher than that prevailing during
the pre-war period. A substantial residue of the increased wartime
activity remains . . .
“This appears to result from the operation
of three factors. First, there is an obvious and continuing impact in
respect of debt commitments, payment of war pensions, and the like.
Secondly, there are important fiscal effects of war concerning the level
of taxation which is acceptable . . . New types of taxes are introduced
and everyone gets used to the higher level of payment than was
previously thought possible or desirable . . .
“And thirdly,
there is a general loosening of restrictions hitherto imposed on
government activity . . . The state had come to control directly or
indirectly a great part of the economic process; the enormous wealth and
taxable capacity of modern industrial society now stood revealed. Why
should these possibilities not be exploited to abolish poverty? . . . If
tanks and bombers can be produced in many respects regardless of
expense, why should not this later be the case for schools, hospitals,
and houses?”
“Following the Science” Leading to More Government Control
And if the current incantation of “follow the science” and the
experts who claim to know what science requires and dictates in terms of
the social conduct of the entire population seems a new twist on the
required role of the state, Greenleaf referenced the growing presumption
and insistence in the 19th century that only government and
its specialized bureaucrats could manage various matters concerning
health. Here, too, was the assertion that the individual’s freedom of
choice concerning a vaccination could be legitimately abrogated in the
name of a “common good” defined by those in political authority.
Explained Greenleaf:
“Once a scientific advance was
made there was a growing pressure for government to act on this
knowledge and use it as a basis for legislative regulation . . . A good
example in the public health field is provided by the activity of the
state in respect of smallpox vaccination as a major form of preventative
medicine . . . The first formal state action was taken in 1808 when
Parliament was induced to set up a National Vaccination Establishment to
provide free vaccination at its London stations . . .
“The moral
and constitutional issues involved were revealed in the Parliamentary
debate of 1872 about the legal enforcement of vaccination and the
continual imposition of penalties for refusal to comply. Lyon Playfair,
at the time perhaps the most influential MP with scientific knowledge,
demolished an attempt to amend the Bill before the House [of Commons]
saying that ‘individual disbelief in a remedy which science and
experience had confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt was no
justification for relieving the conscience of that individual at the
expense of society’ . . .
“There is indeed a kind of general
pattern in this particular example. First there exists a social problem,
in this case the major scourge of smallpox. A prophylactic treatment is
discovered by scientific research. Then government intervened to make
the treatment in turn available, compulsory, and more effective. Clearly
more and more intervention and powers of coercion are involved . . . In
sum, therefore, scientific knowledge could aid or even produce pressure
for government action by seeming to give this pressure intellectual
justification and provide practical means of implementation.”
The Rise of Scientism as a Tool for Political Paternalism
Part of the problem in all this, Greenleaf pointed out, drawing upon
the frustrations and concerns of those inside and outside of the British
government, already in the late 19th century, was to know
what was really fact from fiction, what was a serious social matter or
one that was only a minor social concern. Once the precedent was
established that such things required governmental intrusion and
imposition, it developed a momentum of its own in terms of more and more
instances in which the claim was made for greater bureaucratic
personnel and more authority to act. But how and who was to determine if
these demands were reasonable and really necessary? Greenleaf explained
the frustrations of one member of the British government at that time:
“Sir John Simon was one of those
administrators who . . . was preoccupied with the need for the national
government to legislate according to the precepts of science . . . R. R.
W. Lingen (who was a very economy-minded Permanent Secretary to the
Treasury during the third quarter of the [19th] century) was
once faced with a demand from Sir John Simon [in 1871] for another
vaccination inspector and minuted, ‘I do not know who is to check the
assertions of experts when the government has once undertaken a class of
duties which none but such persons understand’.”
Greenleaf went on to say that what this all reflected was the rise of
“scientism,” the belief that the discoveries and methods of the natural
sciences were not merely useful parts of human knowledge to assist
individuals and associative groups to find better ways of achieving
their respective goals and ends. No, it was the presumption that
“science” should direct and dictate social action, and since some might
not understand or not want to follow “the science,” government had to
increasingly impose what that science said was good for them, whether or
not such people wished to follow where science was leading in terms of
asserted social and economic policy. Such a mindset about science easily
and almost naturally manifested itself in an increasingly coercive
political paternalism.
New Waves of the Collectivist Virus in the 20th and 21st Centuries
All of the 20th century was a battle against the viral assaults of collectivism by the waning spirit of 19th
century liberalism, with insufficient intellectual and ideological
“anti-bodies” of liberty to ward off the infections. Even when the
collectivist “pandemics” of World War I, the interwar rise of communism,
fascism, and Nazism, the Second World War, and the postwar growth in
the interventionist-welfare state seemed to subside and degrees of
freedom were restored or preserved, each time the assault has left less
freedom in some corners of society, especially of economic liberty.
But since the beginning of the 21st century, the threats
to freedom and the free society have intensified. Following 9/11, and
the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the intrusive, spying,
surveillance state has reduced the private aspects of our lives, with
things we say, write or do being recorded, watched and classified as
being either loyal or subversive – with those in elected or appointed
political power determining what counts as being in one category or
another.
The newest attacks on the remnants of liberty now take two dangerous
forms, one being the identity politics/cancel culture warriors who want
to abolish the meaning of a free, autonomous, individual human being by
demanding that each person’s personal and social sense of identity,
“rights,” and deservedness be decided and dictated by the racial and
gender group to which they are assigned by the “politically correct” new
elite of “progressive” political paternalists. (See my articles, “Welcome to Word Tyranny and Cultural Balkanization” and “Save America from Cancel Culture” and “‘Systemic Racism’ Theory is the New Political Tribalism” and “The New Totalitarians”.)
A Tyranny of Science Leading to More Political Paternalism
But this past year has added to this an equally serious threat: a tyranny of science.
By saying this, it is not implied that science, rightly understood, is
at fault or a threat to liberty. Science is composed of sets of
systematic methods of determining the objective nature of the world
around us. In the physical, or “natural,” sciences it is an attempt at
(with admittedly the sometimes-controversial phrase of Karl Popper’s)
“conjectures and refutations.” The “scientific method” has built bridges
that do not fall down, enabled men to travel to the moon and back, and
provided the capacity to disentangle the DNA of life. It has provided
the ability to walk around with the smartphones that most of us have in
our pockets, to design and use 3-D printers that carry unimaginable
production possibilities and cost savings, and improved upon methods of
farming and genetically engineered crops that have enabled hundreds of
millions of people to have food to eat who otherwise might have
starved.
No, by a tyranny of science, I mean the dominant political mindset that was seen already in the 19th
century, as William Greenleaf explained, with Sir John Simon who
believed that government should legislate and regulate and command all
that people do and what is to be done to them according to the presumed
“evidence” of science. Listen to those declarations of Joe Biden
referred to at the beginning of these words. He knows how many doses of a
vaccine should be manufactured over what period of time, to inoculate
which and how many people by a designated date. Clearly, he and his
“scientific” advisors know how to direct and dictate that these goals
and targets are reached. All relevant actors in the society, clearly,
must conform to and fulfill “the plan.”
Joe Biden and his scientific experts know when and for what purposes
people should be allowed to meet and socialize for holiday occasions. If
Biden and his science advisors decide it’s safe, well, they will allow
us to gather with friends and relatives for a 4th of July
celebration. While there have been noticeable and cogent criticisms of
and demonstrations against the political and scientific presumptions
behind all of these declarations and dictates of the government, tens of
millions of others have been sufficiently infected with the
collectivist virus that they take it for granted that if the scientific
“experts” say such and such, then, “of course,” government has to
initiate the mandatory or pressuring policies that confine people’s
actions and choices to what “the science” says.
The Corruptions and Crimes of Politicized Science
But what is the reality of politicized science? Rather than allowing
the free and competitive market to peacefully and creatively find ways
for people to meet and manage the challenge of what has been and is a
serious health crisis due to the coronavirus, the entire social and
economic makeup of the society has been turned upside down with
catastrophic effects on the lives of hundreds of millions of people due
to lockdowns, shutdowns, production prohibitions and restrictions and
commands, along with governmental dictates about who and what might be
permitted as solutions to the epidemic. The government has decided – not
you or me – who is to be vaccinated according to their imposed planned
rationing and allocation. (See my articles, “To Kill Markets is the Worst Possible Plan” and “Leaving People Alone is the Best Possible Way to Beat the Coronavirus” and “Lockdowns as a Political Tragedy of the Commons” and “Government Policies Have Worsened the Coronavirus Crisis”.)
In New York, “the science” led the governor of the state to follow a
nursing home policy that has caused the deaths of thousands who might
otherwise have lived. And the same “science” convinced him, obviously,
to hide from view what really was happening, while boasting about his
leadership qualities as a politician who “follows the science.”
The same “scientific” leadership is before our eyes, as was
summarized earlier, in the European Union. Are entire populations to be
once again locked up or are they to be let free from the restricting
hands of government? Is a particular vaccine safe or significantly
hazardous, and who is to decide? Do your own nation’s citizens get the
prescribed vaccine or is a political decision made to “share it” with
others inside or outside of the EU? Do you stand firm that since the
science dictates . . .? Or do you go on television and apologize for
your lockdown arrogance, even as you mutter at the same time, “But the
science says . . .”?
The United States and many other parts of the world are at a
political crossroads. Do we succumb to the collectivist virus and
liberty continues to perish? Or do the fallacies and follies of those in
not just one country’s government, but of virtually all governments,
everywhere, finally make a growing number of people doubt and discount
the necessity and rightness of those in political power determining the
course of human events?
History has the habit of playing tricks on us and very often turning
out in ways that many if not most of us could not even imagine. That is
why, in spite of how things may look, it is never too late. But if
history is to tell a story of liberty rather than collectivism for the
remainder of this century, then it behooves as many of us as possible to
point out to our fellow citizens that the political emperors who say
they are “just following the science,” are really not wearing any
clothes.
Richard M. Ebeling, an AIER Senior
Fellow, is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free
Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel, in Charleston, South Carolina.
Ebeling lived on AIER’s campus from 2008 to 2009.
'All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players' 
By Rich Kozlovich 
Print