According to Hoiles

BY HARRY H. HARVEY

ORANGE COUNTY ILLUSTRATED

NOVEMBER 1971

What about that “strange” Hoiles philosophy which daily challenges Freedom Newspaper readers from coast to coast?

Is the philosophy as laid down by the late Raymond Cyrus Hoiles an outlandish aberration of a demented publisher, as some claim? Is it a clever scheme to stir up controversy in order to sell more newspapers, as others believe? Or, could it be that Hoiles, who died in November, 1970, at the age of 90, had a rare insight on life, human nature, economics and freedom?

Today, the publishing empire built from one newspaper in Alliance, Ohio, by “R. C.” – as he was known by friend and foe – consists of 20 papers, all of which conform editorially to “The Hoiles Philosophy."

Just what is that philosophy which so enrages readers that they continue to subscribe to the paper so they can write scathing letters to the editor?

R. C. believed in what he called a “Universal Single Standard of Right.” As stated by the irascible publisher, it declared: “Persons, groups and governments ought not threaten to initiate force or use it to attain their ends. This would certainly mean Thou shalt Not Steal individually or collectively. If no person or group stole, there would be no murder, no false witness, no adultery.”

As it develops into editorial fodder and the stance of all the Freedom Newspapers (as the chain is called), nothing should be done on any level of life - private or governmental -- which entails the use of force.

Thus, there would be no taxes. No politicians making laws dictating how other people should live or conduct their businesses. No tax-supported public schools, or tax-supported anything, since taxation is considered thievery: taking away people's money without their consent.

During his lifetime, R. C. probably fought more battles over tax-supported public schools than over any other one facet of his philosophy. Many people could say, "I think R. C. is right on many things, but I can't see the elimination of public schools.” Yet, R. C. never said he was against education.

An insatiable reader, R. C. Hoiles mocked by many for his insistence that people read more and use their minds more efficiently in what he liked to call "close reasoning.” He always had his pockets filled with pamphlets for the persons interested in probing a particular subject. Yet he was destined to be dubbed "anti-education."

He believed in what he called "true liberty,” which became in practice Voluntarism or Libertarianism.

In fact, R. C. Hoiles was a Utopian. The Hoiles philosophy as professed today by the Freedom Newspapers is a utopian dream. Though it clashes with modern expanding government, growing taxes, restrictive laws and seemingly insurmountable obstacles as a philosophy and a way of life, the newspaper group itself nevertheless continues to grow, prosper and expand.

Those who do not pursue the philosophy to its basic premise may simply believe that a “conservative” newspaper chain is fighting the not-unusual battle of high taxes and growing bureaucracy.

The Hoiles philosophy is much more. It is revolutionary. It is as revolutionary in its way as the social theories of Herbert Marcuse, the professor of philosophy at the La Jolla campus of the University of California, who espouses a utopian elitist society. The Hoiles dream, however, has nothing in common with that of Professor Marcuse.

The least of the Hoiles philosophy concerns itself with tax-supported public schools. That issue is simply the most inflammatory, particularly to parents who attempt to get school bond passed over the resistance of Freedom Newspaper editorial writers.

Hoiles would eliminate taxation. Period. At one time he believed in “voluntary taxes," but decided later the phrase was a contradiction in terms. Taxes, he said, are not and cannot be voluntary. It takes but little mental effort to follow the loss of taxes to the subsequent lack of funds to operate and pay for a multi-layer governmental structure: the pay for public employees, public aid of every kind, including foreign aid - and the elimination of politicians themselves.

Hoiles once wrote:

"In all of recorded history men have banded together for certain reasons – to

hunt, to play, to trade, to build. In a voluntary association each can exercise his rights through the group he chooses to form. But simply because each man is a member of a group, he cannot morally assume rights he did not possess as an individual. And, neither does the group possess rights which the individuals in that group do not possess as individuals.”

It develops out of this thought process that in Hoiles' voluntary association doctrine there would be no rule by majority vote. He always said, “No man can vote my right to do anything.”

So, how would decisions be made by a voluntary group? Or community? Or nation? They would have to be unanimous decisions, or there would be no resultant action. The doctrine not only is a utopian concept but an absolute in voluntary decision making.

Hoiles said, “Rights and morality are individual matters. These moral laws do not make exceptions for groups. They do not say, 'Thou shalt Not Steal except at the desire of the majority.' They say, 'Thou shalt Not Steal.' Period. And the man's association with a group does not relieve him of the burden of these laws."

The philosopher-publisher therefore developed his Single Standard of Conduct as a social philosophy without exceptions, and quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, “I know of but one code of morality whether it be for men or for nations.”

In most things political, the Freedom Newspapers take a rigid position, believing that there is "no such animal as good political socialism on a local, national or international scale."

Hoiles believed it violated the rights of the individual to force him to support a school, church, industry or profession if he did not choose to do so. In other words, he believed implicitly that the majority could not write moral laws. But he conceded that neither issues could the minority. And neither, he said, enjoys any moral advantage denied the minority, or the individual.

The form that government would take under the Hoiles philosophy is Voluntarism. That is, a voluntarily-supported government. The government could exercise only those powers which each individual voluntarily turned over to it for administration.

For example: Hoiles would prefer a private police force because he would rather support a police force than wear a gun. But if some do not want to support a police force they would not be forced to do so. Nor would they receive its services. The police force would have no powers denied any individual, and neither would the existence of a police force abridge the right of any citizen to defend himself.

Hoiles never overtly claimed to be a revolutionary setting out to “do in" existing government. He did say, "Governments should exist only to try to protect the rights of every individual – not to redistribute property, manipulate the economy, or establish the pattern of society.”

Since R. C. Hoiles was not simply a social philosopher but a publisher-philosopher, his words and thoughts could not hang in mid-air, such as those of Professor Marcuse and others who advocate radical change.

The Hoiles philosophy is on the block daily in many parts of the country as editors of the Hoiles newspapers try to reconcile and translate the basic beliefs into hard-to-deal-with events in scores of communities.

Most people believe the papers attempt to follow the “Most Consistent Newspaper" quote on many of the papers’ mastheads. There are exceptions and a statement of Freedom Newspapers acknowledges that there are remisses at times.

Their quote states: “Regrettably, we do not always follow this principle (Single Standard of Right). We fall into error. Our humility, perhaps, is not sufficient to the effort. But it is our belief to the degree a universal single standard of right is followed you will have a deeper understanding of your religion, greater freedom and security, more happiness and a higher standard of living."

Where does the newspaper chain fall down in its consistency?

One of the areas is in politics. Editors (as well as editorial writers) are prone to give more space quoting those politicians who appear to be more "conservative” than their opponents. If a politician raps the system that feeds him he is quoted at length.

In Orange County, Republican candidates and some GOP office holders fair particularly well in their public relations through the Hoiles papers.

The Register, which is the Home paper for the Freedom Newspapers, takes a slightly ambivalent stand in its news columns and on its editorial pages. A conservative politician knows that despite the official editorial stand opposing politicians on principle, he can get "space" by making a cut-government communities speech, or by writing a column condemning in some manner the expanding governmental process.

Although the paper denies favoritism, the amount of space which some politicians are able to generate for them selves tells its own story. Editors, however, would claim that some politicians are simply better newsmakers. And to a degree they are correct.

Although bond issues – whether for schools, municipal projects, politicians' salaries, or other – are consistently opposed, the Register a few years ago supported on its editorial pages the largest water bond issue in the history of California. That misstep brought R. C. a caustic letter from Author Rose Wilder Lane, who was also a close friend. She wrote, “Why, even my friend R. C. Hoiles is a socialist.” R.C., never one to be lenient on anyone guilty of error, including himself, ran her letter in his column on the editorial page.

Although R. C. Hoiles held to his philosophy of Voluntarism to the end, many people argued with him over the years on the “practicality” of a system whereby an entire group's approval would be required in order to conduct any kind of community activity.

Many said, “How can you have a private group, a voluntary government, or any type of association, which depends on 100 per cent agreement before any action is taken? Isn't that virtually impossible?

R. C. granted that it might be difficult. But to agree to a majority approval of 51 per cent, 62.5 per cent, 75 per cent, or even 99 per cent, would violate the rights of the remainder in the group opposing and thereby be immoral. He suggested that too many things which were undertaken, particularly by "representatives" of the people, would probably be better left undone, particularly if the action required taking money from people in the form of taxes.

The utopian idea of a perfect society where all agree to work in harmony and benefit equally is not new. Plato's “Republic," written more than 2000 years ago, is one of the most noted treatises on a "perfect society.” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were seeking a similar goal.

Between 1663 and 1858, 130 utopian communities were begun in the United States. There were some additional settlements in the 1890's. Although working for perfectibility, many of the utopian communities incurred the wrath of surrounding communities.

Almost all the American utopian had one thing in common – equality of all the members. Most found some kind of government essential, however. Many groups evolved around the leadership of one person – a religious figure or a social reformer. History notes that when that type of person defected or died the colony shortly fell apart.

A few communities were governed by committees, but all recognized the need of some sort of leadership. Although virtually all of these communities were begun with the idea of attempting to gain perfection, to bring out the inherent goodness of man and a sense of brotherhood, none achieved permanent success or survived to have any great influence on the nation. The story is one of a breakdown of relations in dissension, jealousy and dissatisfaction.

R. C. Hoiles believed in the inherent goodness of man. He believed that left alone men would conduct their affairs better and more efficiently than they would or could with imposed government. He did not seek controversy for its own sake, but did not avoid a battle when it involved the defense of his philosophy.

Although loud and sarcastic at times, R. C. genuinely liked people and loved to discuss ideas with young and old. He adored children and liked to see photos of children in various activities in his newspapers.

It is doubtful that R. C. ever believed his ideas of a perfect voluntary society would be achieved. His principal objective in life was not devoted to active revolution or attempts to create a utopian community so much as it was to make people think. And in this he was eminently successful. He could be startling in his loud challenges to businessmen who supported bond issues of various kinds. Rarely could they stand up to his demands that they justify the right of the majority to "steal" in the form of taxation to benefit others.

For the advocates of Hoiles' philosophy, principally his editorial writers, an

American dilemma is posed. Since Hoiles advocates Voluntarism as the best form for society, what becomes of representative government as developed by the Founding Fathers 200 years ago?

For instance, representatives of the people were selected for the First Continental Congress in 1774. In Pennsylvania and Rhode Island they were chosen by the Legislature. In Massachusetts by the Lower House. Sometimes they were appointed in conventions or provincial congresses of town or county called for the purpose, as in New Hampshire, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia and North Carolina. And so it went: representatives who would act for others.

In any event, colonists chose others to represent them to form a body which was to be called the First Continental Congress. There were 55 members from 12 colonies. This Congress of 1774 was essentially an advisory or consultive body. It undertook no acts of "sovereign” authority. It prepared the way for the assumption of authority by the Congress of 1775.

This was its delegated task: "To consult together upon the present unhappy state of the Colonies, to form and adopt a plan for the purpose of obtaining redress of American grievances, ascertaining American rights upon the most solid and constitutional principles and for establishing that union and harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies which is indispensably necessary to the welfare and happiness of both.”

Then, more representatives were chosen for the Second Continental Congress. Delegates were chosen by popular conventions of the people of the various states or by the popular branches of the state legislatures.

Continental Congress had no authority to pass laws, to enforce the measures it took, no means of raising money except printing, begging or borrowing. But it governed until March, 1781, when the Articles of Confederation became effective and could be considered the first national government.

Representatives for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, were appointed in 11 of the states by legislatures or governors. New Hampshire failed to act before the convention was well under way. Rhode Island, controlled by men who feared further centralization of power, refused to send delegates. Seventy-four delegates were appointed, 55 of whom put in an appearance.

There was an average of 30 present at the sessions, and at the close 39 signed the completed document. Nearly all the recognized leaders of the country were delegates to attend. Ages ranged from 26 to 81; average age was 42. Most came from the more educated and professional classes. Twenty-five were college-educated men; 33 had studied law. All had wide experience in public affairs. Most, however, were from the Coastal regions. The hinterland and poorer classes being under-represented.

Thus, the United States and its Constitution were developed by a mere handful of men, assigned as delegates or representatives of thousands of others. Most agree that it is some sort of minor miracle that these men were able to develop a new type of government which would allow some measure of public voice in their affairs. The reign of kings, emperors, tyrants and dictators of all types had been the long, dismal history of mankind. Rarely had people been free. Rarely did they have any voice in their own lives.

Some Americans argue today that what the Founding Fathers developed was not a Democracy, as most prefer to term our form of government. According to this view, the men who drafted the Constitution in 1787 intended the the U. S. to take the form of a Republic.

It is true that the Founders were not especially fond of the word democracy. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, many speakers referred to the "turbulence and follies of a democratic government." Yet, the Founders – most of them, at least – plainly intended for the new government to be based on the consent of the people. The opening words of the Constitution reading: “We the people ..."

In 1787, however, the word democracy meant something different than it means today. It then was used to describe the kind of government that existed in ancient Greece, where every citizen took a direct part in making laws.

Today we refer to this as "pure" or “direct” democracy. The United States, of course, has never had a pure democracy, nor has any other large nation.

In a country of more than 200 million people, it would be virtually impossible for a citizen to make the laws and carry them out in person. The nearest thing to a pure democracy in the United States was the Town Meeting, where all citizens came together to vote on matters of local concern. But even these events relied on a majority decision of some sort.

New England was famous for its Town Meetings. Yet even in the days when those Town Meetings were in full flower, citizens empowered local officials to make the plans and decisions necessary to carry on the day-to-day business of running a town.

We now have in the United States a Representative Democracy, the same that Madison and the other Founding Fathers called a Republic. Today, the U. S. is both a Democracy and a Republic. The people theoretically rule through their elected representatives.

Of Democracy, Winston Churchill once said, "It is the worst imaginable form of government, until you try to think of something better."

Hoiles' editors, in following his philosophy, write editorials advocating that people abandon the system of representative government. They suggest that refusal to vote is an effective first step.

An editorial appearing in The Register, Saturday, April 17, 1971, states in its conclusion: "We would point out, on the other hand, that only by refusing to participate in the game (voting), do you retain the clear right to protest what the game produces; for, as noted earlier, when you vote, you have not only participated in the system, but, in addition, have tacitly agreed beforehand to accept and abide by whatever the system spews forth. The voter, complaining about the outcome of an election, is standing on untenable ground. Philosophically, morally and factually, only the non-voter is in a logical position to protest. Right now, with the local election just completed and emotions beginning to cool, is a good time to think about all this in retrospect. Political action does not bestow rights. Quite to the contrary, it takes them away.”

There is no doubt that great numbers of Americans today are questioning the value of voting and know their wishes are not being carried out in Washington, their state capitols, or on the home front. It is a fact that millions of Americans qualified to vote do not go to the polls each year. It is interesting to speculate what would happen in the U, S. if millions more began to boycott the voting booth.

We have entered an era where “hard hats” and blue-collar workers throughout the land are questioning and thinking about their government in realistic terms. The Hippie movement as well as the New Left and the New Right question and doubt the effectiveness of the U. S. government as it is constituted. No longer do citizens unquestioningly believe that the American Way is the Only Way. The naive pre-Viet Nam view of America as the great moral nation, honest and true blue, has become one of realistic cynicism. The Pentagon Papers have shown the potential of both deceit and centralization in American government. The so-called “Silent Majority” is becoming less silent. Voices are being heard – voices of average citizens objecting to being taken for granted by people in responsible positions. The voter is aware more than ever today that fateful decisions are being made on his behalf, but he is being kept in the dark.

These are some of the reasons why a movement which follows the Hoiles philosophy is growing rapidly in intellectual-philosophic-political circles. It is the Libertarian movement, which is basically Hoiles' Voluntarism operating under a synonym.

Libertarians contend that Liberalism, Conservatism, and the Leftist-Radical movements are all bankrupt philosophies. They say the only question at issue among the various adherents is which gang of crooks and charlatans is to rule society, and for what "noble" purpose. The Libertarians say the question of whether an individual should be ruled at all – and, if so, to what extent – is almost never discussed. Freedom of the individual is considered obsolete, they say, as a political issue.

Advocates of individual freedom not only continue to exist, however, but are increasing greatly. Refugees from the Old Right, the Old Left and the New Left are organizing independently under the new banner of Libertarianism.

It should be understood that the the words Liberal and Libertarianism have taken separate paths from their semantic root origins. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, Liberalism was a philosophy of individual freedom. Liberals believed, both as an economic expedient and as a moral principle, that human beings should be free from coercion. As a result, they argued for limited government – a radical innovation at the time - which would have just enough power to prevent one individual from initiating violence against another.

Twentieth-century liberals, in contrast, feel that the state should have virtually unlimited power to redistribute material wealth, plan and regulate economic activity and balance the desires of each interest group against those of every other.

In the late fifties and early sixties, people on both sides of the political fence began to recognize that the United States government was growing increasingly powerful and increasingly indifferent to the desires of its subjects. From this awareness the New Left was created, while the long-quiet Conservative movement was reborn.

The New Left, which consisted mostly of young people brought up on Liberal ideology, never questioned the philosophic premises or long-range goals of 20th century Liberalism. In fact, a major theme of New Left propaganda was the gap between the promises and performance of the Liberals. In effect, the New Left radicals did not criticize the government for exerting too much power, but for using it to achieve the wrong ends.

The New Left achieved a peak period during which it misrepresented its goals

as Libertarian. It began to decline as its totalitarian nature became evident.

Unlike the radical left, Conservatives recognized that the federal government had far too much power. But rather than addressing themselves to the question of individual freedom versus government power, the Conservatives concentrated on the diffusion of federal power. Scores of conservative state and local politicians fight for "local control” and “no-strings-attached” fed al funds (tax sharing) so they can “more efficiently” make use of taxpayers' monies on a state-wide basis without federal involvement.

Conservative office holders inevitably are caught in the age-old political necessity of establishing "legislative track records” in order to convince voters at re-election time that they have, indeed, been doing something for the folks back home. They have also fought for extension of the federal military draft - an obvious anti-freedom doctrine based on involuntary servitude.

Conservatives, in effect, have "gone along” with established government while concentrating on states' rights and diminishing federal controls.

Although Conservatism during the sixties gathered under its wing varied groups - from people who were religiously motivated to those who were most concerned with fighting international communism – many were Libertarians, people who saw individual free dom – as R. C. Hoiles did – as an absolute.

These Libertarians opposed both the collectivist dreams of the Liberals and attempts by some Conservatives to legislate morality and piety. The Libertarians never quite fit into the Conservative movement because of their willingness to go to the limit of Anarchy. An example is the Conservative view that all laws should be obeyed until repealed, while Libertarians place the welfare of the individual over that of the state. The Libertarians further believe that freedom is a natural right, and that if the state denies it to its citizens, they have a right to seize it themselves.

Libertarianism, thus, is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of it as he sees fit; that all man's social actions should be voluntary, and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life is the ethical basis of a humane and open society.

If it were not for the fact that Libertarianism concedes the right of men to freely form communities or governments on the same ethical basis, Libertarianism could be called Anarchy.

The Libertarian movement - even though R. C. Hoiles has promoted its basic ideas for more than 50 years – is only beginning to make itself felt in intellectual circles. It has, however, grown to significant proportions.

At present, the only areas of disagreement within the Libertarian movement are whether the movement should strive for Anarchy or for limited government, and whether it should work through revolution or within the system.

Those who see freedom diminishing through increasing demands of government through laws, taxation and controls, are not prone to criticize the Hoiles philosophy, whether it is called Voluntariam or Libertarianism. They see, just as he did, that all governments have within them the seeds of the totalitarian state.

Those who are dissatisfied with the representative form of government point out that, although the majority decide who their representatives will be, they have little control over them once they are in office. It is well known, they say, that too much of politics is the expedient act or the need to conform to party demands, or special-interest pressures.

Jacques Barzun, in his “Of Human Freedom,” writes:

"The difficulty of coordinating individual acts, even when the wills are at one, is the reef on which we split. Any theatrical or musical rehearsal, any picnic committee meeting shows us for what we are. It is not because we are human but because we are individuals that we part. The doctrine of individualism in politics and economics may have accentuated our sense of singleness, it did not create it. Consciousness of self, the strict privacy of all experience, is an irreducible fact. The impossibility of any large group governing itself is matched by the impossibility of any system creating a spontaneous union of wills, an obstacle that does not even take into account the further one of the masses' indifference to the task of government."

This is the dilemma of America to day. To what extent is it possible for men to live together with maximum freedom without losing freedom by placing it in the hands of a structure that increasingly takes away, piecemeal, more parts of freedom in the guise of “benefits" until that freedom vanishes?

This is where R. C. Hoiles came to a major decision in his philosophy. He did not believe in creating “systems" for governing people against their wishes. He believed in the inherent ability of people to do the right thing, if given the opportunity to act in freedom. He believed people were capable of governing themselves, without coercion.

Some would say that R. C. was naive to have such faith in the human species.

The question is: Would people, if allowed true freedom, be capable of working together in harmony for their common good? That is, what about human nature unfettered – is it good or is it bad?

Philosophers such as R. C. Hoiles would contend that people, left alone, would do the right thing. But theologians, sociologists and many philosophers would argue that people are basically bad, or sinful.

Many sects, many religious and social theories have evolved over the centuries in attempts to perfect, or at least improve, Man. The state of the world to day would indicate that Man has no more improved his basic nature over that of man 5000 years ago.

Marx and Engels foresaw a society, through communism, which would ultimately lead to a "withering away of the state" through the perfectibility of Man. But 50 years after the onset of communism in the Soviet Union there is grave doubt whether the nature of Soviet man has progressed or regressed.

Optimist that he was, R. C. would still answer: “Let's try freedom's way once. Let's try Voluntarism – we've tried everything else without success.”

Even though the Hoiles philosophy is in basic harmony with the growing Libertarian movement, neither the philosophy nor the man can be easily categorized. He was not a disciple of any doctrine or philosopher. He took from the best of his vast reading to develop his own doctrines. He owed no allegiance to any political party or political school of thought. Unlike many a philosopher, he honestly allowed margin for error in his own thinking and welcomed criticism or constructive evaluation. His faith was founded on Christianity.

If the Hoiles philosophy were to be judged against growing, dominant government, the result would have to be weighed in favor of Hoiles, if that most valued item – freedom - be the prime consideration, as it must. What, ultimately, is greater than freedom? What can be accomplished without it?

It is a fact of life that government, by its very nature, grows, expands, controls, restricts. It gives, but first it must take; and, in too much of American life, it takes from those who can least afford to give.

From the beginning of time, the greatest battles have been for human freedom. R. C. Hoiles devoted his life to that battle. That he helped to make people think – and is continuing to help, through his 20 newspapers, is a monument to his life.

Among the principles he set forth during his life were these:

"I have faith that life is good.”

“I have faith that the meek shall inherit the earth.”

"I have faith that man is perfectable even if he is fallible.”