(_ g^poft ’ advi5'2-/ - ' m' REPORT ON FREEDOM NOVEMBER 1956 THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION, INC. IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK Purpose of the Report Anyone who has invested, or is contemplating invest- ing, his time or money in support of an institution is entitled to a factual report on what that institution is and does. Hence this publication: to provide, in the shortest possible space, a reasonably complete picture — espe- cially for present and prospective donors — of the Foun- dation for Economic Education. REPORT ON FREEDOM E verybody says he’s in favor of freedom. Even the leaders of communist Russia claim to be the only real defenders of true human freedom. Peace and freedom are their favorite words, just as the same words are used constantly by our own leaders. Yet, freedom of choice in the daily lives of the people is strait-jacketed in both the United States and Russia, and “peace” describes a period of armed truce between major wars. Why? Apparently it’s because we don’t know what freedom is. We don’t understand the fact that small-scale compulsions within nations tend to grow into large- scale violence among nations. The person who desires to impose his will and viewpoint upon his neighbors in small ways “for their own good” is well on his way toward imposing his ideas upon Foundation headquarters at Irvington-on-Hudson, about 20 miles north of New York City. 1 Economic Educationall people in large ways, “for the good of mankind.” This is not a new problem. Many eivilizations in the past have perished because they did not understand the proper rela- tionships of man to his fellow men and were thus unable to stop conflicts between persons and na- tions. Search for Solution Throughout history, persons in groups or alone have devoted their efforts to the search for a solution to this problem of the proper relationships among per- sons — and the part that should be played by the authority and force of government. Yet, few of the answers are generally known. If they were, conflict between per- sons and groups would soon be- come a minor problem. There have been, and still are, many persons and groups in the United States devoting their full efforts to a study of this problem of freedom — the problem of the individual in society. Some spe- cialize in one area of it, such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press or some other fraction of freedom. In March of 1946, another such group was formed. It was called the Foundation for Economic Ed- ucation because its founders then believed that the problem was simply a lack of understanding and appreciation of the infinite possibilities for peace and pros- perity to be found in voluntary exchange in the market place. That s why the solution was thought to be in economic edu- cation. But to many persons, the word economic is too narrowly concerned with material consid- erations to cover the gamut of human actions and reactions in- volved in the study of freedom. The founder and president of the Foundation for Economic Ed- ucation, Leonard E. Read, now believes that a more accurate and descriptive name for this organi- zation would be the Foundation for the Study of Freedom. The purpose of the Foundation — the study of freedom — involves every contact of man with his fellow men. It demands inquiry into the nature and function of govern- ment and religion, and other fac- tors which influence not only the economic behavior but also the whole life of man. Freedom is 2 indivisible, and any effort to frag- mentize it may be misleading, if not disastrous. A key idea in the concept of this Foundation is that the “mass education and mass opinion,” about which there is so much concern, must follow the under- standing which grows out of deeper study in the form of clear and simplified explanations. This basic research and a resulting literature are precisely what have been lacking. In one sense, it is something like the automobile; its mass ownership and use was attained only after the careful work of inventors and engineers and manufacturers made it pos- sible. Almost anyone can now own and operate a car — about which he knows very little — ex- cept how to enjoy its use. An All-Important Problem We of the Foundation staff do not in any sense claim that our studies and writings have re- vealed all the answers. We are well aware that in our lifetimes we can at best only scratch the surface of this perplexing and all- important subject. We propose only to continue an uncompro- mising search for truth and to make the results available in printed form to whoever wants them. Since we are persuaded by study and research that right and wrong cannot be determined by a show of hands, we do not and will not advocate basing such de- cisions upon the vote of the ma- jority. Since government ownership of the means of production is wrong in our judgment, we do not and will not advocate some “proper percentage” of government own- ership. Since we believe that a man’s religious faith, or the earning of his livelihood, or the management of his business, is his own per- sonal responsibility, we do not and will not try to be “practical” or “politically expedient” by urg- ing some measure of governmen- tal aid or intervention in these matters. Consistent Means We will always attempt to sug- gest means which are consistent with, rather than in contradiction to, those objectives which seem to us proper. We deal only in principles which, if correct, are eternal and timeless and inde- 3 pendent of tlie particular stage of advancement of any given society. We leave compromise for those who believe that there may be a long-term advantage in a tempo- rary deviation from what one be- lieves to be right. Many sincere friends of the Foundation have suggested that fee’s work would be more effec- tive if it accepted and worked with political action as it exists in praetice. They have suggested, for example, that FEE should endorse the “moderate” or “lim- ited number” approach to the issue of government housing rather than to continue FEE’s “extreme and politically inexpedi- ent” position of no government housing at all. Under no circumstances will the Foundation for Economic Ed- ucation ever knowingly adopt or endorse such a philosophy of “compromise” Does anyone sug- gest, for example, that German moralists should have concen- trated their efforts on the “po- litically attainable goal” of in- fluencing Hitler to use a more “humane and Christian method of exterminating Jews” rather than concentrating their efforts on “the politically inexpedient” idea that Jews should not be ex- terminated at all? Grounds for Repudiation If FEE ever compromises in this area of principle—whether it concerns housing, wheat, electric- ity, or human life—its present and future potentialities for good will be ended. If the Foundation ever begins to operate on the level of political expediency, it should be—and doubtless will be—repu- diated by all. The Foundation for Economic Education makes no pretense of “presenting both sides” of the socialist question. We of the staff are opposed to socialism—call it governmental intervention, fas- eism, communism, the Welfare State, common ownership for the good of all the people, or what- ever. Since we are convinced that socialism is evil, we ourselves would necessarily become evil by our own standards if we repeated the fallacies and cliches offered by the socialists in defense of their position. We’re Only Human We would no more think of deliberately sponsoring socialist thought than would a minister 4 think of sharing his pulpit with the devil in order that “the peo- ple may have the advantage of hearing both sides of the issue.” There is no moral obligation— and there should be no legal ob- ligation—upon any person to ad- vance, present, or sponsor ideas which he considers false or evil. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the FEE staff is always right and hasn’t made mistakes. Since we’re only human, we’ve naturally made our full share of mistakes in both policy and ideas! But when our readers point them out —as they frequently do—we admit them and continue our search for more understanding and better explanations. The Staff The Foundation staff is headed by Leonard E. Read, former ex- ecutive in Chamber of Commerce work and executive vice-president of the National Industrial Con- ference Board. Among those as- sisting him are Doctors F. A. Harper and W. M. Curtiss, for- mer professors of marketing at Cornell University; Dr. Ludwig The Library and Board Room at Irvington headquarters. 5 von Mises, famed Austrian econ- omist whose time is divided be- tween the Foundation and his professorship at New York Uni- versity; Dr. Paul L. Poirot, for- mer business economist; Thomas J. Shelly, veteran teacher of his- tory and economics in high school; Miss Bettina Bien, with experi- ence in foreign trade and edito- rial work; Charles Hull Wolfe, former creative executive with a leading advertising agency; Rev. Edmund A. Opitz, an ordained minister who has studied widely in economic and political science; and Mrs. Elizabeth Glenn East- burn, former manager of Ameri- can Chamber of Commerce Exec- utives. Economist, Dr. Murray Roth- bard, and journalists, John Cham- berlain and Dean Russell, are among the other part-time mem- bers of fee’s senior staff. The Foundation is further staffed by persons skilled in the handling of publications, mail- ings, library research, records and accounts, secretarial work, and other tasks vital to its operation. There are 50 full-time employees. Needless to say, the Foundation staff has grown, and there have been changes in personnel since 1946. Such change is not unu- sual, particularly within a group searching more for freedom and its opportunities than for security and its betrayals. To help indi- viduals discover their potentiali- ties and then to release them to new and greater opportunities in industry, journalism, teaching, and other occupations is consid- ered an important function of the Foundation. The Trustees The Trustees are drawn from all sections of the nation. They are mostly leaders in industrial and academic work, with one or more representatives from pub- lishing and communication fields. While the Trustees advise on general policies of operation, they do not sit as an editorial board. The Officers and Trustees for the year 1956-57 are: B. E. Hutchinson Leonard E. Read Jasper E. Crane Chairman of the Board President Vice-president Herrell DeGraff Ben E. Young Secretary Treasurer 6 Levin H. Campbell, Jr. Chairman of the Board Automotive Safety Foundation Washington, D.C. Ceorge Champion Executive Vice-president The Chase Manhattan Bank New York J. Reuben Clark, Jr. Director First National Bank of Salt Lake City J. W. Clise President Vermiculite-Northwest, Inc. Seattle William B. Coberly, Jr. Executive Vice-president California Cotton Oil Corporation Los Angeles T. Jefferson Coolidge Chairman of the Board United Fruit Company Boston Jasper E. Crane Wilmington, Delaware F. C. Crawford Chairman of the Board Thompson Products, Inc. Cleveland Herrell DeGraff Economist Cornell University U. G. Dubach Professor of Political Science Lewis and Clark College Fred R. Fairchild Knox Professor Emeritus of Economics Yale University Lawrence Fertig Lawrence Fertig and Company, Inc. New York Lamar Fleming, Jr. Chairman of the Board Anderson, Clayton & Company Houston Pierre F. Coodrich Goodrich, Campbell and Warren Indianapolis Henry Hazlitt Contributing Editor Newsweek New York B. E. Hutchinson Grosse Pointe, Michigan J. Hugh Jackson Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Vincent W. Lanfear Dean School of Business Administration University of Pittsburgh H. F. Langenberg Reinholdt & Gardner St. Louis A. C. Mattei President Honolulu Oil Corporation San Francisco 7 Hiighston M. McBain Chairman of the Board Marshall Field & Company Chicago James E. McCarthy Dean Emeritus College of Commerce University of Notre Dame Roger Milliken President Deering Milliken & Co., Inc. Spartanburg, South Carolina Ben Moreell Chairman of the Board Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation Pittsburgh W. C. Mullendore Chairman of the Board Southern California Edison Company Los Angeles W. A. Paton School of Business Administration University of Michigan Lovett C. Peters Financial Vice-president Continental Oil Company Houston J. Howard Pew Sun Oil Company Philadelphia Eugene C. Pulliam Publisher Phoenix Republic and Gazette Phoenix Leonard E. Read President Foundation for Economic Education Donald R. Richberg Charlottesville, Virginia Claude Robinson President Opinion Research Corporation Princeton, New Jersey J. Nelson Shepherd President Midwest-Beach Company Sioux Falls, South Dakota John Slezak Chairman of the Board Kable Printing Company Mount Morris, Illinois Robert B. Snowden Horseshoe Plantation Hughes, Arkansas Celestin J. Steiner, S.J. President University of Detroit John P. Weyerhaeuser, Jr. President Weyerhaeuser Timber Company Tacoma Leo Wolman Professor of Economics Columbia University Ben. E. Young Director and Consultant National Bank of Detroit Detroit 8 Publications The primar)' objective and leading actMty of the Founda- tion is the compilation and pub- lication of a literature on free- dom—by current as well as classi- cal writers. During its early years of oper- ation, FEE published well over 200 items on the problems and philosophy of freedom, ranging from, single sheets to books. Single copies of each item were sent to any person who had asked to be on FEE’s mailing list. A descriptive list of publications is available. This literature of freedom car- ries an appeal to almost everv’ age and interest. A sample of the scope and quality of FEE’s work is presented in two volumes of Essays on Liberty—collections in book form of pre\iously pub- lished shorter articles. The Freeman In addition to distributing pam- phlets, booklets, and books, the Foundation also publishes a jour- nal of libertarian opinion. The Freemax. Each month this 64- page digest-size publication pre- sents both timelv and timeless ar- A display of FEE publications in the reception room at Irvington. 9 tides—by FEE staff members and outside contributors, as well as excerpts from classic expositors of freedom. The Freeman is of- fered on a controlled circulation basis. Anyone who wants it may receive it, the expectation being that most readers also will want to help pay for it. The first $5.00 of each annual contribution to FEE is regarded as payment for The Freeman. Contributions exceeding $5.00 enable the Foundation to offer its publications on request and with- out charge to students, teachers, ministers, and others who may wish them. Speakers Besides its publication program, the Foundation carries on many other activities. For example, although FEE has no speakers’ bureau, the various staff mem- bers do fill many speaking engage- ments and participate in semi- nars, conferences, and such. In any one year, there may be a hun- dred or more of these, involving extensive traveling all over the United States and into Canada and Mexico. These personal con- tacts serve to fulfill the demand and need for verbal presentation of the ideas on freedom. They also introduce FEE and its staff to an ever-widening audience and to ideas, questions, and issues most in need of consideration. Schools and Colleges A Foundation project of high importance is its work with stu- dents in colleges and high schools. Much care and effort is devoted to their letters. The Freeman and other Foundation publica- tions are offered without charge to students. In the spring of 1956, about 4,000 requested and re- ceived these materials. Quite a thorough job is done in assem- bling information on the yearly debate questions for both high schools and colleges; and a packet of appropriate Foundation and other literature, as well as an ex- tensive bibliography, is offered on request. Each year hundreds of requests are filled, and the number increases steadily. In- quiry about debate packets may be addressed to Miss Bettina Bien. Study Guides The Foundation offers several study guides and bibliographies for the literature on freedom- 10 published by FEE or otherwise. The main purpose of this project is to adapt several of the Foun- dation’s releases to classroom use, although these study guides are also widely used by adult discus- sion groups. Some teachers—es- pecially in high schools—have found these aids most helpful. In line with Foundation policy, this service is offered only on request bv the teacher. For further infor- mation about study aids, write to Mr. Thomas J. Shelly. Study Groups From the beginning, the Foun- dation has encouraged students of freedom who wished to meet from time to time with like- minded persons for study and dis- cussion. fee’s interest in such activity was somewhat formalized in 1956, when it launched a na- tionwide Constitution 'Study Pro- gram. Under this program, the Foun- dation offers: a text on the Con- stitution (complete with a FEE- prepared study guide ) ; packets of pertinent reference materials; a multilithed article giving sug- gestions for starting and conduct- ing Constitution study groups; and help in locating other inter- ested students. Correspondence Each Foundation staff member carries on a large and ever-growl- ing personal correspondence. We feel strongly that much of FEE’s most effective work is done through careful consideration and response to specific questions asked by interested individuals. This highly desirable form of im- parting ideas has an added advan- tage: W e learn at least as much as w’e teach. College-Business Program Another service offered by the Foundation is its College-Busi- ness Exchange Program. This is designed to encourage business firms to offer summer fellowships to college professors. The pro- fessors are enabled to spend six w'eeks observing and participating in the problems and policies of the business firm. While the busi- ness firms pay the professors’ basic expenses, the fellowships are not intended to be “summer jobs.” They are offered to quali- fied professors who are walling to make some sacrifice to increase their knowdedge and their teach- ing ability. Each year fellow'ships are arranged for more than 100 professors from almost as many 11 J. M. Budd (left), President of Great Northern Railway Company, presenting certificate to Dr. Wallace I. Little upon completion of his 6-weeks College- Business Exchange Fellowship. different colleges and universities. Some business firms offer several fellowships each year. This is a most popular and ever-expanding project. The Foundation does not award the fellowships. It only serves as eo-ordinator between professors and businessmen who are interested in working to- gether. Summer Seminars In 1956, the Foundation con- ducted three 2-week seminars— in June, July, and August—at Foundation headquarters in Ir- vington-on-Hudson, New York. Following daily lectures by dis- tinguished libertarians, partici- pants took part in informal dis- cussions with members of the Foundation staff. These seminars were open to college teachers and a few businessmen. The success of the 1956 semi- nars warrants the expectation that these sessions will be continued in future years. 12 During the first year of this activity the professors came from the following colleges and universities: ARIZONA American Institute of Foreign Trade Arizona State College CALIFORNIA CoUege of the Pacific San Jose State College Pasadena College University of California IDAHO College of Idaho ILLINOIS Illinois Institute of Technology University of Illinois Aurora College INDIANA Purdue University Indiana University IOWA Westmar College State University of Iowa KANSAS McPherson College Fort Hays Kansas State College KENTUCKY University of Kentucky MASSACHUSETTS Boston College MICHIGAN University of Michigan MISSOURI Park College NEW YORK Fordham University St. Joseph’s College for Women Ladycliff College NORTH CAROLINA East Carolina College OHIO Xavier University Ohio State University PENNSYLVANIA University of Pittsburgh SOUTH CAROLINA University of South Carolina TEXAS Prairie View A & M College St. Mary’s University Incarnate Word College WASHINGTON Clark College State College of Washington WEST VIRGINIA Concord College WISCONSIN Beloit College Institute of Paper Chemistry WYOMING University of Wyoming MEXICO Institute for Research in Sociology & Economics PUERTO RICO University of Puerto Rico 13 For further information about college-business fellowships or summer seminars write to Dr. W. M. Curtiss. The Foundation for Economic Education tries to fill every re- quest for the foregoing and other services, while at the same time it must finanee its plant and ex- panding operations. As previously stated, anyone who indieates a sineere interest may, on request, be added to FEE’s mailing list and receive each new release and the announeements of its various programs. Obviously, these things cost money. Where does it eome from? Finances The method of obtaining finan- cial support to carry on the work of the Foundation is unique. In- dividuals and organizations send annual donations on a strietly vol- untary basis. These eontributions are tax-exempt because of the educational nature of FEE’s work. The Foundation uses no pressure tactics and has no solicitor on the road to collect funds. FEE is thus able to use nearly all of the do- nated money directly in the work for which it was intended — re- search and education in the prob- lems and ideals of human liberty. Though the Foundation has no reserve of endowed funds, they are invited nonetheless. The Foundation’s nearest ap- proach to solicitation is an occa- sional reminder to those on the mailing list: 1. That $5.00 a year eovers the eost of a monthly copy of The Freeman. 2. That costs of other Founda- tion activities and projects have averaged an additional $10.00 for each person on fee’s mailing list. 3. That any expansion, and in- deed, the continuation of fee’s efforts to supply pub- lications to the thousands of teachers, students, clergy- men, and others who re- quest and use our material but find it diffieult to help FEE finaneially, rests with those individuals, corpora- tions, and trusts that can and will contribute from $20.00 to $10,000 annually. Ungrounded Fear A few persons worry that cer- tain “big money” may dominate the Foundation’s finances and 14 thus influence its work. Actually, FEE receives no single contribu- tion that amounts to as much as 3 per cent of the total annual budget. The Foundation is free to work according to the best judgments of the individual staff members. Our own consciences, not the influence of any concen- trated support, guide our work. This, we feel, is important to the successful completion of the job that needs doing. If the publications and other works of the Foundation are un- acceptable to any donor, large or small, he is free to discontinue his support. That is the way it should be. And not infrequently, FEE pays that price of discon- tinued support for trying to be consistently honest in its work. Part-time workers in FEE’s basement mail room. 15 FEE\s Donors More than 40,000 individuals are on FEE’s mailing list by request. All states and many countries are represented. The number of these who financially support FEE, either personally or through their firms or foundations, has been increasing each month. The following is a recent breakdown (June 20, 1956) by states, territories, and countries of all FEE Donors: Alabama 29 Arizona 37 Arkansas 18 California 680 Colorado 61 Connecticut 180 Delaware 45 Florida 97 Georgia 38 Idaho 17 Illinois 591 Indiana 191 Iowa 68 Kansas 48 Kentucky 37 Louisiana 44 Maine 25 Maryland 91 Massachusetts 200 Michigan 283 Minnesota 103 Mississippi 8 Missouri 160 Montana 28 Nebraska 47 Nevada 12 New Hampshire 20 New Jersey 237 New Mexico 11 New York 1,086 North Carolina 36 North Dakota 16 Ohio 402 Oklahoma 75 Oregon 77 Pennsylvania 403 Rhode Island 16 South Carolina 20 South Dakota 17 Tennessee 55 Texas 282 Utah 41 Vermont 16 Virginia 95 Washington 224 West Virginia 34 Wisconsin 183 Wyoming 9 Washington, D.C. 89 Alaska 9 Hawaii 9 Puerto Rico 6 Aruba ( Neth. W. I. ) 1 Argentina 3 Australia 5 Austria 1 Belgium 1 Brazil 4 Canada 100 Chile 1 Colombia 3 Costa Rica 4 Cuba 3 Denmark 2 El Salvador 2 England 15 Ethiopia 1 Finland 2 France 6 Germany 3 Honduras 1 India 1 Iran 1 Italy 11 Jamaica ( Br. W. I. ) 2 Japan 1 Mexico 22 Netherlands 1 New Zealand 2 Norway 1 Panama 1 Philippines 3 Scotland 3 Sweden 5 Switzerland 5 Union of South Africa 1 Total 6,824 16 FEE concluded its tenth fiscal year on March 31, 1956. The follow- ing chart traces the ups and downs in numbers of contributors and in annual revenue. REVENUE DONORS (in thousands) (in thousands) W hat of the Future? What, many wonder, does the future have in store? The imme- diate past—1954 approximating an 8-year low with $287,000, 1955 with $433,000 and 1956 with an encouraging $601,000—has only one clue to what’s ahead. All of the increases came as if “from out the blue.” They were not engineered from the Foundation. FEE kept its eye on trying to improve its work instead of on the cash drawers, and these in- creases came as voluntary re- sponses. And FEE will continue to keep its eye on improving explanations of free market, private property, limited government concepts, and the moral principles which under- lie these concepts. The responses are in other hands. It is important to add that 17 everyone’s ideas are always wel- come, even if they differ from those expressed in our publica- tions, and whether or not that person is a donor, large or small. Perhaps above all else, the Foundation is noteworthy for its policy of living according to the theories it propounds—a volun- tary society of independent, re- sponsible persons. Individual re- sponsibility and voluntary partic- ipation are about the only policies of operation it has. Samples of publications or other information desired may be obtained by writing directly to the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. 18 upon request, additional copies of this pamphlet will be sent to one address with- out charge. PRINTED IN U.S.A.