I Chose Liberty - Ludwig von Mises Institute

320 I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians
It is to be noted that this way of life was not seen to be for everyone or even for most,
either by Plato or by the religious tradition. It was considered a separate way of life, with
its own dangers and goods. It was not, furthermore, considered to be in principle antagonistic
to the “normal” life of families or wealth production and distribution. Indeed, without
the latter, without families, there could be no new members or normal way of life for
monastic communities.
A responsible government would allow such forms of voluntary religious life to exist
on their own legal terms. The contribution of the monastic orders was seen to be measured
in new ideas and initiatives that directly or indirectly benefited both its members and
the public. Indeed, economic historians have seen the vows of poverty to be responsible
for the initial savings, hence accumulations of wealth from which things like banking
and public or religious buildings and institutions sprang. The very discovery that savings
could be the foundation of wealth productivity is not unrelated to the monastic
experience.
I am, however, in agreement with the basic point of the Aristotelian critique of Plato’s
proposals in Book V of The Republic, that we should have, for peace, justice, and philosophy,
this commonality of wives, children, and property, at least in the city in speech. Aristotle,
who seems to have taken Plato’s proposal as a serious one for actual polities, observed that
if everyone was our parent or child, no particular person would really be adequately taken
care of. He saw that good order required private property. Paradoxically, people took better
care of what was theirs than what was public, no matter how noble-sounding public concern
might appear. Accountability follows ownership. The general destruction of family or
property did not improve but harmed human enterprise.
Moreover, property made the family, in which real children with their own parents
could flourish, much more possible and secure. Thus, institutions like monastic life, while
they were justified if seen as something extraordinary, were not designed for everyone.
Monasteries have to take special precautions that its members do not become sloppy, or
neglectful, or unconcerned. Human nature remains the same and needs to be counteracted
if such a life is to be possible. The point is not that it is impossible or inadvisable to live
such a life, but that it is a very special and often dangerous way of life if the virtues that
support it are not practiced.
Thus, I think that my experience as a “practicing socialist” has been a major factor in
seeing the value and worth of a private property system for most people. The great attack
on this view today is, paradoxically, in the name of the poor, who generally speaking, if
given a choice, want nothing better than having their own homes and families and private
property. Modern ideology is often economic in nature, proposing some better way of
coming to the aid of the poor. This endeavor has been the moral justification for movements
from communism to liberalism. Moreover, this concern for the poor has been a major factor
in pronouncements of religious leaders, including Catholic ones.
Modern economic systems are generally faulted for failure to help the poor in the third
world, or sometimes at home. Schemes to remedy this failure are prevalent in modern
parliaments and economic discussions. The question remains, what is the best way to help
the poor, as well as enhancing the growth and abundance that is necessary to manifest the