Does Integrity Matter? By Butler Shaff er
(2011-11-11 at 20:25:30 )

Does Integrity Matter? By Butler Shaff er

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but
because of those who look on and do nothing.- Albert Einstein

I become exasperated reading or listening to chuckleheaded people who
are unable - or unwilling - to distinguish the peaceful and voluntary
nature of a free market, from the violent and coercive character of the
corporate-state system that long ago took over our economic lives.
Murray Rothbards words come to mind, wherein he observed that it was no
great wrong to not understand economics, but that one ignorant of the
subject ought not be off ering advice on such matters. I would no more go
to a lawyer, or an orthodontist, or Lew Rockwell, to have brain surgery
performed on me, than would I take seriously the prescriptions off ered
by economic ignoramuses on how to "grow" an economy (an idea as absurd
as that of misguided, controlling parents who believe it is their role
to "grow" their children).

Many of the signs and comments of participants in the varied "Occupy Wall
Street" demonstrations ref lect this confusion between the impersonal
nature of markets and the politically-enforced interests of marketplace
participants. "End corporate greed" is a common sentiment expressed, no
doubt, by persons who embrace the "power greed" that drives those who
want the state to enforce their visions. It is such simplistic thinking
that insists on labeling the pursuit of individual self-interest as
"greed," while political power ambitions get def ined as "public service."

The slothful-minded then f ind it easy to condemn all marketplace pursuit
of self-interest as "anti-social" (at best) or downright "criminal" at
worst, and to regard the politically-driven as the embodiment of "public
spiritedness." "Businessmen" are then collectivized as persons lacking
in any principled integrity who will do anything to increase prof its to
their f irms.

As a response to such muddled thinking, I would like to off er two
examples: the f irst of literary derivation, the second from real-lif e.
Each involves manufacturers of airplane parts who have contracted with
the federal government to help produce military aircraft. For purposes
of this illustration, I will overlook the diff iculties associated with
government-contracting itself. My focus will be upon how each of these
men responded to def ects in either the manufacture or design of their
products; imperf ections each understood to be a danger to pilots flying
the planes involved.

The f irst man is Joe Keller, a f ictional character brought to lif e by
Arthur Miller in his 1947 play - and later a f ilm - All My Sons. Joe and
his partner, Steve Deever, are in the business of manufacturing, among
other items, airplane cylinders during World War II. Prior to the parts
being shipped, both Joe and Steve become aware of the def ective nature of
these cylinders, but operating under the pressures of time and threat of
being in default in their contract with the government, they proceed with
the shipment. Later, twenty-one pilots die because of such def ective
parts, but Joe manages to shift the blame to Steve who, as a consequence,
is convicted and sent to prison.

Most of the play centers on Joes lack of moral character, and the
consequences thereof not only to himself, but to his and Steves families.
Toward the end, it becomes known that Joes son - an Army pilot who had
long been listed as "missing in action" - had learned of Joes wrongdoing,
and committed suicide by crashing his plane. When Joe is told of this,
he goes to his room and shoots himself.

By contrast, consider the example of Spencer Heath, a man who was an
engineer, inventor, attorney, manufacturer, and a highly-respected social
philosopher. During World War I, Heath was in the business of
manufacturing airplane propellers. Like Joe Keller, Heath had a contract
with the f ederal government to produce and deliver a given number and
style of propellers that had been designed by the government. Prior to
shipping them, Heath did some testing that conf irmed the def ective
nature of the design of the propellers. He contacted the War Department
about this, informing them that the propellers would likely fall apart in
flight, endangering the pilots, and that he refused to ship them. Heath
faced more than a threat of a breach of contract action: he was told, by
the War Department, "Mr. Heath, this is wartime. You make these
propellers, or we will shoot you!"

I never met Spencer Heath, but from what I know of him it is evident that
he was a very moral and philosophically principled person. He patented
his inventions only as a def ensive measure (i.e., to keep others from
taking his ideas, patenting them, and thus preventing Heath from using
his own works). When asked if his thinking allowed his competitors to
follow his work, Heath replied: "Yes, I do f ind that they follow me -
and that s what keeps them behind, where they belong!"

How, then, would such a focused man of integrity respond to the
governments threat to have him shot if he failed to deliver the
def ective propellers? Unlike Joe Keller, how could Spencer Heath avoid
the governments threats without, at the same time, participating in what
his judgment told him would lead to the deaths of other men? I suspect
that this was not a moral dilemma for Heath - I doubt that he had any
conf lict as to the propriety of his actions - but did require the search
for a pragmatic solution that would keep both him and some unknown
pilots alive.

Late one night, and with the help of one of his employees, Spencer went
to the loading dock where the crates of propellers awaited shipment the
next day. With a crowbar, these men opened each crate and on each
propeller stamped the message: "Made under protest. Condemned by
manufacturer." Heaths grandson, Spencer MacCallum, told me he later
learned that the propellers had been sent to a warehouse in Texas, and
were never put into use. His grandson also informed me that he owns the
rubber stamp that Heath had made with which to warn others of the
def ective nature of the propellers.

My lif e experiences - including my years as a lawyer - have brought to
my attention the behavior of many business people who, like Spencer
Heath, lived the integrated life (i.e., having their moral principles
ref lected in the practical necessities of their work). Interestingly,
most of the men and women who exhibited such integrity were also the
owners of the f irms for which they made decisions. It is no coincidence,
I think, that in his important book Citadel, Market and Altar, Spencer
Heath gave birth to the theory of communities operating on property-
based principles, a work that his grandson has continued in his own book,
The Art of Community.

It is such distinctions as are off ered by the Kellers and the Heaths of
our world that ought to be kept in mind by us all, particularly when we
are trying to unravel the causes of the economic crises in which we f ind
ourselves. When business people f ind themselves inconvenienced by the
unintended consequences of their own incompetence, many will turn to
lobbyists and politicians to help them secure a more favorable spot at
the government trough. On a more encouraging note, there will often be a
Spencer Heath who will insist on putting his (literal) stamp on his work
to express his refusal to bring harm to others.

November 10, 2011

Butler Shaff er teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He
is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business
Campaign Against Competition, 1918-1938 and of Calculated Chaos:
Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is
Boundaries of Order.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.