                  Planning Threatens Freedom
                    by C. Brandon Crocker

     Is the American economy too free?  Many people think so.
Socialists have long advocated central economic planning,
and, under the guise of "national economic policy," such
ideas are working their way into the programs of the major
political parties.
     The persistent appeal of central planning would seem
anomalous, given the poor relative performance of planned
economies versus free economies.  But economic efficiency is
not the only, nor necessarily the most compelling argument
against central planning.  Economic planning threatens all
individual freedoms, and must be analyzed in terms of these
threats.
     How does central planning threaten individual liberty?
To find the answer, we must consider what central planning is
and how it works.  The goals of central planning are to
create high growth, minimize unemployment, and sometimes to
provide an "equitable" income distribution, or to protect the
environment.  Proponents believe these goals can be achieved
by using government to intercede in the "chaos" of the free
market so as to redirect the nation's resources and design an
"optimal" mix of industries.
     The losses to individual freedom from this type of
system are obvious.  To make sure the economic plan is
followed, government must interfere with the freedom of
individuals to start businesses, to invest and work where
they choose, and even to consume certain goods and services.
     A nation's economy is nothing more than the decisions of
individuals as to what to produce and consume.  Therefore, a
government-controlled economy means government-controlled
people.  If government is to enforce an economic plan, it
cannot have people starting whatever businesses they like or
investing capital wherever they wish.  Certain fields of
employment will have to be forcibly curtailed and certain
goods and services (either already available or which could
be made available) will have to prevented from reaching the
population -- because control of what is produced is
necessarily control of what is consumed.
     These are not insignificant losses of freedom.
Proponents of central planning, however, deny that there is
any major restriction of occupational choice under economic
planning.  To be sure, some restriction will take place in
"undesirable" industries targeted to be phased out,
curtailed, or not allowed to start up, but this will be done
for the "social good."  Furthermore, central planning in
practice often saves jobs, they claim, in industries which
would be abandoned in a free market, thus preserving the
freedom of many people to pursue the occupations of their
choice.
     These arguments, however, are invalid.  First, whether
jobs are taken away for the "social good" or not doesn't
alter the fact that freedom of choice, in terms of available
options, has been diminished.  Second, while the free
operation of the market does cause some people to leave their
chosen occupations when industries become obsolete, there is
a great difference between not being able to follow one's
chosen occupation because no one is willing to pay for a
particular product or service, and not being able to follow
one's occupation because of government edict.  In the first
instance freedom of action is not being denied and the
freedom of people to make (or not make) contracts is
preserved.  In the second instance, the opposite is true.
     Is the individual freedom lost so onerous as to outweigh
such professed benefits as security against involuntary
unemployment and destitution?  An acquaintance from Norway,
living under a semi-socialist system, thinks not.  He likes
the feeling of security.  He even asserts, as do many
Norwegians, that government should tell people what they
should and should not do because most people do not know how
best to take care of themselves (and the government does).
     This is security at a price, certainly.  But in addition
to the individual freedoms already lost by such a scheme,
this brand of security comes at the expense of something of
far greater value -- security against arbitrary power and
despotism -- in a word, security against totalitarianism.
     The serious implementation of any significant economic
plan will lead to increasing governmental dominance in the
running of industry and make possible the easy abduction of
most political and economic freedoms.  There will be an
inevitable conflict between business and the economic
planners.  To regulate millions of individual businesses in
such a complete way (output, number of employees, use of raw
materials, etc.) without the cooperation of those businesses
will be impossible -- especially considering that business
will feel that policy may change with the next election.  The
solution to an uncooperative private sector will be to make
individual companies better serve the "public interest"
through measures such as nationalization and government
controlled syndicates.
     Government control of the economy leads not only to
power over production, but also to power over consumption and
distribution.  Substituting the price system with government
edicts takes the distribution of goods and services out of
the hands of individual buyers and sellers, and places it
into the hands of a central authority.  With this power the
central authority can wield great control over the populace.
     George Orwell, commenting on Friedrich Hayek's classic
book, The Road to Serfdom, remarked, "It cannot be said too
often -- at any rate it is not being said nearly enough --
that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the
contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the
Spanish inquisition never dreamt of."  To believe that such a
vast concentration power will not be used at some point to
oppress the population is to deny the history of mankind.
The world is full of maniacs and coercive utopians -- many of
whom are interested in political power, as history well
shows.
     All totalitarian regimes rely heavily on economic
controls to coerce their subjects.  The efforts of Hitler's
National Socialists to oppress Jews and other minority groups
were greatly facilitated by the Nazi government's control of
employment and the distribution of goods.  The Soviets use
economic controls to pressure dissidents, and they even use
their system of rationing to create high voter turnouts for
their one-candidate elections -- if you don't vote, you don't
receive your ration cards.  Those not rigidly conforming to
Maoist doctrine during the Cultural Revolution often lost
their jobs, no matter how valuable their skills.  China's
current one-child policy is enforced by a series of economic
"benefits" which include jobs, salaries, and rations.  The
success of the Chinese central planners in enforcing such an
unpopular policy which meets the resistance of centuries of
Chinese tradition shows how great the power a government can
wield over its people when it controls the economy.
     Neither Germany in 1933, Russia in 1917, nor China in
1949 had long traditions of democracy and political and
economic freedom.  The United States, in contrast, has a long
and deeply ingrained tradition of democracy and freedom, as
well as constitutional arrangements which make quickly
installed tyranny unlikely.  This is no reason, however, to
feel safe in taking steps to weaken that tradition and to
make possible great abrogation of individual freedom.  Free
societies have been, and still are, very rare and fragile.
Freedoms taken for granted and not carefully safeguarded do
not last long.  The loss of economic freedom is a major crack
in the foundation of any free society.
 
