The struggle to be free is a war of conflicting ideas. These ideas underlie competing political and social systems, and form the primary issues of the latter twentieth century. Indeed, these ideas or concepts serve as the very foundations of each system. Some of these concepts are of ancient origin. Others have a more recent history. An understanding of any political or social system requires an analysis and appraisal of the ideas behind the system.

The Importance of Ideas. The noted economist, John Maynard Keynes, comparing economic systems in The Power of Ideas, said: "It is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil." This is, indeed, the truth. Ideas give birth to plans of action, to political and social programs, and to laws, codes, constitutions, and systems of justice. Ideas also precede conspiracies, revolutions, conquests of power, dictatorship, terrorism, and slavery. A system supported by concepts that give due regard to humanity, morality, honesty, justice, moderation, and progress invariably is found to be a social order that is beneficial to the human race. On the other hand, a system founded on inhuman, immoral, dishonest, unjust, and cruel concepts invariably is found to be detrimental to all mankind.

We live today in a divided world. Two great competing political and social systems-democracy and communism-confront each other. The ideas or concepts that support democracy are diametrically opposite to the ideas upon which Soviet communism is founded. At the same time, the governments and other institutions that defend and preserve democracy are the exact opposite of the organs of a Communist regime. But, as already implied, the ideas of each system ap

peared first in point of time. The institutions and power machinery came later; they followed the ideas.

In the examination of the ideas underlying the conflicting systems of democracy and of communism, the fundamental guide should be intellectual honesty. If there are any "bad" or defective concepts within the system of democracy, they should be examined as carefully as the "good" ideas. This kind of analysis and appraisal is required, not merely in the interest of what scientists call objectivity or impartiality, but also as a matter of common honesty.

John Stuart Mill pointed out in his classic essay On Liberty, published in 1859, that no single philosophy or doctrine contains all the truth. Liberty means, among other things, the right of every man and woman to examine all doctrines in order to discover what truth there is in each of them. Much the same idea had been expressed by John Milton in his renowned Areopagitica (1644), which defended freedom of speech and religion. He said: "And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing [censoring] and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter." The same sentiment was expressed by Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address in 1801: "error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Free men and women will desire, and governments should not prohibit them, to seek the truth. The prohibition of free speech and press by government should be tolerated only in cases where doctrine seeks to overthrow the foundations of society by organized force and violence.

Throughout the history of civilization, men have had different ideas of liberty. Plato and Aristotle associated liberty with justice or giving every man his due. The Epicureans thought of liberty as complete freedom to pursue pleasure and to avoid pain. The Stoics, and later St. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, held that all men possess natural rights which derive from Natural Law. The exercise of these rights constitutes liberty. The Russian thinker, Tolstoi, compared the "liberty" of some men with the freedom of the ox, "loving its own yoke." The great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, held that liberty is connected with moral law. Human freedom involves the necessity of doing one's duty as dictated by the moral conscience. To do freely what one ought to do is the true expression of human dignity. In modern times, liberty is regarded as the freedom of the individual to think his own thoughts and to speak and act as he thinks proper, subject only to the restrictions necessary to preserve the liberty of other individuals and the good of society.

These are but a few of the many views regarding liberty. Before evaluating these different ideas, it will be helpful to examine the question whether the majority of men and women actually desire liberty rather than slavery. Is there a natural aspiration for liberty?

The desire for liberty in the Western World has been so prevalent that political philosophers in the seventeenth century made liberty the basis of their explanation for the origin of government. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and later Rousseau theorized that men first lived in a state of nature in which all men possessed complete liberty. Then strong men began to oppress the weak, and the situation became intolerable. Thereupon, ac

cording to Locke, men entered into a contract, setting up a government to which they gave the right of judging disputes and the duty of protecting their natural liberties. There is no evidence that governments originally arose in this fashion. However, the U.S. Constitution can be considered a historical example of such a contract. The purpose of the contract theory of government was not to explain how governments originated historically, but rather to announce the doctrine that the powers exercised by government could be made legitimate only by the consent of the governed.

Liberty has been dear to men for differing reasons. Acts of government that men readily accept in one society will be resented in another. Yet it is a safe generalization that men everywhere desire to be free to do those things and think those thoughts which they believe are necessary to a meaningful life. Sometimes men have not been very much concerned with political liberty, but always there is some kind of liberty that is dear to them.

Liberty and Individualism

The men who founded our Republic assumed that liberty was a natural right of the people, and one of the basic purposes of government was to ensure and preserve this right. However, governments have many functions other than defining and protecting the rights of citizens. The varied purposes of government in a modern democracy are well explained in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1789, which reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Jus

tice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The clauses of the Constitution, following the Preamble, give the Federal Government power to carry on these functions of government as well as power to tax citizens for these purposes. Many of these powers, particularly the powers relating to the promotion of the general welfare, permit restrictions upon the liberty of individual citizens.

A consideration of these powers brings us to the distinction to be made between liberty and individualism. Liberty lays emphasis on the freedom of the individual, including freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, and of individual action. Individualism is the doctrine or practice based on the assumption that the individual, and not society, is the paramount end or consideration of social control. In ethics, this doctrine holds that all values, rights, and duties originate in the interest of serving the individual rather than in serving society as a whole. This view is expressed in the oft-quoted passage from Principles of Political Economy (1848) by John Stuart Mill:

there is a circle around every individual human being which no government, be it that of one, of a few, or of the many, ought to be permitted to overstep: there is a part of the life of every person who has come to years of discretion, within which the individuality of that person ought to reign uncontrolled either by any other individual or by the public collectively.1

In a later section of this book, an examination will be made of standards of measurement of human values or ethical norms. Intelligent men and women always seek for guides to distinguish between what, on the one hand, is "good" or beneficial for each and all, and what, on the other hand, is "bad" in the sense of being hurtful to both the individual and the community. The problem of ultimate values cannot be sidestepped in any honest attempt to assess political and social ideas.

What Are We Comparing? This study is a comparison of the ideas that underlie the two important systems-democracy and communism. Each system requires careful definition. In general, democracy is based on liberty or freedom of

the individual. It includes freedom of religious belief, of conscience, of speech, and of individual action, except under such restraints as are necessary to preserve the rights of others or the good of the entire community. This political system normally operates as, and is also frequently called, representative constitutional government, and usually provides for a large measure of free economic enterprise.

The opposing system-communism - today means complete governmental ownership and management of all means of production and distribution of economic goods. It also includes the control of all political and social life by what the Communists call the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism is thus a form of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

An examination of the ideas underlying the two systems requires, first, a study of the nature of democracy and of communism and, second, a study of the history of these two concepts. This study will be followed by an examination of the concrete instruments of the two systems. What kind of political organization is necessary for preserving liberty? What sort of political organization has been created to carry out the aims of Communist doctrine?

Granted the soundness of the doctrine of individualism, how far should the state go under the necessity of limiting the individual in the interest of the entire community?

The Individual and the State

Most doctrines of individualism admit that some compulsion by the state is necessary in order to preserve the rights of one individual against trespass by more aggressive individuals. The state is thus the protector of the individual. But, by means of the same power with which the state shields the individual, it may also oppress him.

By definition, the state is a large group of people, occupying definite territory, organized under a government, and possessing sovereignty and independence. Government is the organ of the state for social control. Sovereignty is the power of the state to enforce its will within the borders of the state. The will of the state is expressed in law.

All of these definitions indicate that the power of the state is vast. Nevertheless, in a modern democracy the government is bound by constitutional