A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 1

Just finished reading the debate between a libertarian and a liberal from "Faith and Freedom" published in the months of April and May 1953. Dr. John C. Bennett represents liberalism who served as a professor of Christian theology and ethics at Union Theological Seminary. Rev. Edmund A. Opitz is the libertarian who headed the regional conferences of "Faith and Freedom." The style of the debate is in the form of a personal letter. It has two parts. In this aticle, I just want to summarize the gist of their positions.

Rev. Edmund A. Opitz

Rev. Opitz had the privilege to introduce his position first. The sum of what he said is divided into four parts: mental adventure, indoctrination, the unknown case, and the basic question.

Under mental adventure, Rev. Optiz mentions that the pronouncements of church councils about "planned economy, or a welfare state, or socialism, or a mixed economy" are not attractive to him. For him, the recommended solutions are "nothing but an articulate form of the disease: government force against persons to cure the evils caused by prior political intervention."

Turning to indoctrination, the kind of doctrine Rev. Opitz refers to has something to do with the idea that the government is perceived as a "proper and efficient means to accomplish the end of general prosperity and security for individuals against the uncertainties of modern life." This was achieved through the propagation of the "social gospel or the welfare state idea." Seminarians did not have the opportunity to listen to an alternative concept. As a result, seminarians believed that "genuine concern for his fellows and for the good of society would lead a man to embrace the progressive extension of the functions and controls of government." And anyone who resisted this program was considered selfish.

The unknown case pertains to the absence of awareness of the seminarians about "classical liberalism", which "has long roots in the past and an impressive literature, and that it has a strong moral and intellectual case." Students never learned this in their formal education. Instead, what was taught was a "caricature" of the philosophy. However, based on the experience of Rev Opitz, after perusing the books of "social gospellers and the welfare-staters," and after talking to Dr. Bennett and other men who were "professionally engaged on one or the other of the various church councils for social action," he realized that the reason why the "libertarian case" was not taught in the seminaries was because the theological circles were not aware ot it.

The basic question is related to "Christian judgment" about the limitation of the power of the government. But before he mentioned it, Rev. Opitz showed the difference between the state and the society, and in what way can the state serves the society: "The business of society is peace; the business of government is violence. So, the question is: What service can violence render to peace? The libertarian answer is that violence can serve peace only by restraining peacebreakers."

Dr. John C. Bennett 

As a response, Dr. Bennett identifies at the outset the difference of his "presuppositions" from Rev. Opitz. It was his intention to clarify few misunderstandings by explaining three subjects: limited government, the essential element, and the main issue.

Dr. Bennett believes in limited government. Basic to his idea is the difference between the state and the society. And since the society is composed of different kinds of associations, "swampint the life of all other associations by the state is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, evil of our age." He assured Rev. Opitz that they are one in opposing the growth of a totalitarian state.

For Dr. Bennett, it is misleading to say that the essence of the state is found in coercion or violence. He emphasizes the need of society for the state "to preserve public order." In addition, he also believes that the state exists to serve the purposes of the society, and many of these purposes do not require the use of "coercion" or "violence." And then he identifies the means to limit the power o the government:

"The state should be limited by its own law which protects the freedom of minorities, of individuals, of many kinds of association. The state should be limited by the recognition on the part of the citizens that there is a law above the state and above the national community as well. The state should be limited by a pluralistic structure within the state itself, with division of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the recognition that functions should be distributed between various regional political units."

About the essential element, it has something to do with the provision of "educational opportunity" to children. To achieve this requires coercion in relation to taxation. However, this coercion in not the essential element in education. It is bettter perceived as the "constructive function" of the state.

In the last subject, "main issue", Dr. Bennett identifies the basic difference of his position from Rev. Opitz about the relationship of the state to freedom: "I think that the chief difference between us is that you regard the state as the chief enemy of freedom in all situations whereas I believe that the state may be an instrument of freedom for its citizens."

Dr. Bennett accepts that freedom has many enemies that only the state can effectively stop them. Among these enemies, he singled out the "business cycle", which to him is a kind of "coercion that results from the blind working of economic processes." When this happens, the state must do something to prevent economic depression that will save people "from the tyranny of circumstances that are beyond their control as individuals." This is a necessity to prevent the emergence of totalitarianism for based on history, this dictatorial tendency occurred not "through the gradual expansion of the functions of the state", but through "catastrophes that are the result of the failure of weak states to deal adequately with the problems of the people."

As a warning, Dr. Bennett mentions that the policy followed by Rev. Opitz and his group is actually "indirectly" helping in the rise of totalitarianism that he resents. For the professor, the idea of Rev. Opitz about the state will create a "vacuum into which the advocates of totalitarianism may move."

Dr. Bennett concludes his message:

"It will require very great wisdom which is free from the dogmas of the right or the left to enable our country to steer a course in the next period that will use the state to help people preserve freedom from the tyranny of circumstances and from the tyranny of private centers of economic power without over-extending the activity of the state, especially without overcentralizing it."

Tag-lish Version

Source: Faith and Freedom April 1953 Issue

Other Helpful Links:

1. Amazon

2. Faith and Freedom

3. Mises Daily

4. pdf files

A 1953 Debate Between a Libertarian and a Liberal Part 1 (Tag-lish Version)

Katatapos ko lang basahin kahapon ang debate ng isang liberal at isang libertarian sa "Faith and Freedom" na nilathala noong mga buwan ng Abril at Mayo taon 1953. Ang liberal ay si Dr. John C. Bennett na naging propesor ng Christian theology at ethics sa Union Theological Seminary. Ang libertarian naman ay si Rev. Edmund A. Opitz na siyang namuno sa mga conferences ng "Faith and Freedom." Ang istilo ng debate ay sa anyo ng liham sa isa't-isa. Ito ay may dalawang bahagi. Nais kong buudin ang nilalaman ng kanilang mga posisyon sa artikulong ito sa pamamagitan ng pagpili ng mga punto na sa tingin ko ay pinakamahalaga. 

Rev. Edmund A. Opitz

Unang nagsalita si Rev. Opitz. Ang buod ng kaniyang sinabi ay maaaring hatiin sa apat na mga punto: mental adventure, indoctrination, the unknown case, and the basic question.

Sa mental adventure, binanggit ni Rev. Optiz na walang dating sa kaniya ang mga pronouncements ng mga church councils na may kinalaman sa "planned economy, or a welfare state, or socialism, or a mixed economy." Para sa kaniya ang mga lunas na binabanggit ng mga church councils ay "nothing but an articulate form of the disease: government force against persons to cure the evils caused by prior political intervention."

Sa indoctrination, ang tinutukoy ni Rev. Opitz na doktrina ay ang pananaw na ang gobyerno ay itinuturing na "proper and efficient means to accomplish the end of general prosperity and security for individuals against the uncertainties of modern life." Sa pamamagitan ng sapilitamg pagsusubo ng "social gospel or the welfare state idea", ang mga mag-aaral ay walang pagkakataon na mapakinggan ang ibang alternatibong pilosopiya. Ito ay magiging dahilan upang paniwalaan ng isang mag-aaral na ang "genuine concern for his fellows and for the good of society would lead a man to embrace the progressive extension of the functions and controls of government." At anumang pagsalungat sa pananaw na ito, ay ituturing na bunga ng pagiging makasarili.

Sa unknown case, ang nais tukuyin ni Rev. Opitz ay ang kawalan ng kabatiran ng mga mag-aaral ukol sa "classical liberalism" that "has long roots in the past and an impressive literature, and that it has a strong moral and intellectual case." Ito ay hindi natututunan ng mga estudyante sa kanilang "formal education." Sa halip, ang tanging itinuturo ay ang "caricature" ng pilosopiyang ito. Subalit base sa karanasan ni Rev Opitz, pagkatapos niyang maingat na suriin ang mga aklat ng mga "social gospellers and the welfare-staters," at pagkatapos niyang makipag-usap kay Dr. Bennett at sa mga kalalakihan na "professionally engaged on one or the other of the various church councils for social action," ay kaniyang napagtanto na ang dahilan kung bakit ang "libertarian case" ay hindi itinuturo sa mga seminaryo ay sa kadahilanan na ito ay hindi batid sa mga "theological circles!"

At sa panghuling punto ukol sa basic question, ito ay may kinalaman sa "Christian judgment" ukol sa limitasyon ng kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Subalit bago ito binanggit ni Rev. Opitz, ipinakita niya ang pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng lipunan at ng pamahalaan, at sa papaanong paraan makapaglilingkod ang pamahalaan sa lipunan: "The business of society is peace; the business of government is violence. So, the question is: What service can violence render to peace? The libertarian answer is that violence can serve peace only by restraining peacebreakers."

Dr. John C. Bennett 

Bilang katugunan, binanggit ni Dr. Bennett ang pagkakaiba ng kanilang "presuppositions" ni Rev. Opitz. Layunin ng kaniyang tugon na linawin ang ilan sa mga "misunderstandings" sa pagtukoy sa tatlong paksa: limited government, the essential element, and the main issue.

Naniniwala si Dr. Bennett na ang pamahalaan ay dapat na limitahan. Basic sa kaniyang kaisipan ang pagbibigay diin sa pagkakaiba ng estado sa lipunan. At ayon sa kaniya dahil sa ang lipunan ay binubuo ng maraming klase ng mga pagtitipon at ang pagsaklaw sa mga ito ng estado "is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest, evil of our age." Binanggit niya na siya ay kaisa ni Rev. Opitz sa pagtutol sa "totalitarian state."

Para kay Dr. Bennett, "misleading" ang pagsasabi na ang essence ng state ay "coercion and violence." Ayon sa kaniya kinakailangan ang estado "to preserve public order." Dagdag pa rito, naniniwala siya na ang estado ay nabuo upang paglingkuran ang mga mithiin ng lipunan, at marami sa mga mithiing ito ay hindi nangangailangan ng paggamait ng "coercion" o "violence." Ipinaliwanag ni Dr. Bennett ang nais niyang tukuyin sa limitasyon ng kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan: 

"The state should be limited by its own law which protects the freedom of minorities, of individuals, of many kinds of association. The state should be limited by the recognition on the part of the citizens that there is a law above the state and above the national community as well. The state should be limited by a pluralistic structure within the state itself, with division of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the recognition that functions should be distributed between various regional political units."

Sa pagtalakay sa "essential element", ito ay may kinalaman sa pagkakaloob ng "educational opportunity" sa mga kabataan. Ayon kay Dr. Bennett, ito ay nangangailangan ng "coercion" upang maisakatuparan na may kaugnayan sa paniningil ng buwis, subalit ang "coercion" ay hindi ang "essential element" sa edukasyon. Para kay Dr. Bennett ito ay mas angkop na isalarawan bilang "constructive function" ng estado.

Pagdating sa huling paksa, ukol sa "main issue", ayon kay Dr. Bennett ang malaking pagkakaiba sa kanilang posisyon ni Rev. Opitz ay ang pagtingin sa kaugnayan ng estado sa kalayaan: "I think that the chief difference between us is that you regard the state as the chief enemy of freedom in all situations whereas I believe that the state may be an instrument of freedom for its citizens."

Binanggit ni Dr. Bennett na maraming mga kaaway ang kalayaan na tanging ang estado lamang ang may kakayanan upang sugpuin ang mga ito. Sa mga kaaway nito, tinukoy ng propesor particularly ang "business cycle" na ayon sa kaniya ay isang uri ng "coercion that results from the blind working of economic processes." Sa puntong ito kinakailangan ang estado upang maiwasan ang pagbulusok sa economic depression na magliligtas sa mga mamamayan "from the tyranny of circumstances that are beyond their control as individuals." Ito ay kinakailangan upang maiwasan ang paglitaw ng "totalitarianism" sa dahilan na base sa kasaysayan ang totalitarianism ay hindi nabubuo "through the gradual expansion of the functions of the state", sa halip ay lumilitaw sa panahon ng mga "catastrophes that are the result of the failure of weak states to deal adequately with the problems of the people."

Bilang babala, ayon kay Dr. Bennett ang policy na sinusundan ni Rev. Opitz at ng kaniyang grupo ay nakakatulong "indirectly" sa pagbuo ng kilusan tungo sa totalitariyanismo na kaniyang kinamumuhian. Ayon sa propesor, ang pananaw ni Rev. Opitz ukol sa estado ay lilikha ng "vacuum into which the advocates of totalitarianism may move."

Tinapos ni Dr. Bennett ang kaniyang katugunan sa mensaheng ito:

"It will require very great wisdom which is free from the dogmas of the right or the left to enable our country to steer a course in the next period that will use the state to help people preserve freedom from the tyranny of circumstances and from the tyranny of private centers of economic power without over-extending the activity of the state, especially without overcentralizing it."

English Version 

Source: Faith and Freedom April 1953 Issue