origins and the nature of its essentialnsupports; intellectuals will carp, thenpeople will decline to defend and thenhouse will fall.nDr. Rogge began by saying he did notnagree with this, and then proceeded tonaccept—and repeat—some of the basicnelements of the Schumpeter argument.nMost significantly, he agreed that mostnpeople cannot see the connectionnbetween their own lives and the futurenof capitalism. In my opinion that is anserious underestimation; the averagenperson has known for eons that he cannachieve a livelihood and even prosperitynin a free world—and he is equally wellnaware that governments are usuallyncombinations created to take away thatnfreedom. Dr. Rogge, therefore, acceptednwhat he might better have denied.nLater in the same speech, however.nDr. Rogge turns on the intellectual,nwhom he describes as “by and largencritical of the American businessmannand the system of which he is a part,”nand as “an enemy of capitalism.” Roggenalso draws scornful attention to thenbusinessman who “parrots the talknabout . . . social responsibility” whennhis primary duty is to make profits (andnopen more jobs). The professor pointsnout with accuracy that many businessmennwere in favor of the Nixon wagenand price controls before they were applied,nand notes that Nixon—despitenlip conservatism—moved the nationncloser toward socialism and its controls.nThese observations, which find thenprofessor on several sides at once, arenfollowed by the abrupt comment thatn”my self-assigned task here is one ofndiagnosis and not of prescription.” Henthen concludes not by sounding anynnote of optimism of his own, but bynciting the words of Adam Smith, whonsaid that “the uniform, constant andnuninterrupted effort of every man tonbetter his condition … is frequentlynpowerful enough to maintain the naturalnprogression of things toward improvement,nin spite of the extravagance ofngovernment, and the greatest errors ofnadministration. Like the unknown prin­nciple of animal life, it frequently restoresnhealth and vigor to the constitution,nin spite not only of the disease,nbut of the absurd prescriptions of thendoctor.”nHowever optimistic that may havensounded in Smith’s Edinburgh, whichnhad only to worry about the prescriptionsnof Commons and George III, itnwas followed by the French Revolution,nwhich destroyed, for some bloody yearsn”the effort of every man to better hisncondition,” and by other, later, equallyndisastrous horrors. To cite Smith in thisncontext seems both redundant and odd—nbut by the time the audience realizednthat, it was too late. Dr. Rogge hadnabandoned the argument leaving hopesnand fears suspended in n “The Philosophy of Freedom,”nhowever, Dr. Rogge comes forward withnsome impregnable statements about thenvirtues of a free economy and the individualnresponsibilities of mature adults.nHe shrewdly observes that those whonfavor both socialism and a free pressncontradict themselves. He explains howneconomic freedoms buttress all others,nand observes that man’s imperfectionsnare magnified by power. Unfortunatelynpower is one of man’s attributes and itsnexercise can hardly be forbidden withoutnreducing everyone to impotence.nWhile Dr. Rogge is accurate, at least innthe opinion of this reviewer, in his observationnthat a free market fits man’snessential nature, it is also true that man’snnature makes him eminently fit for thenattempt to control others. In othernwords, in the absence of a definition ofneither virtue or sin, it is difficult tonunderstand Dr. Rogge’s tacit assumptionnthat disembodied virtue can result innfreedom of action by those unable tondefend themselves, simply because it isnbest for society as a whole. It seems tonme that those who assume the innatendepravity of man, and who—as did Jefferson—advisenstrict curbs against thosenwho would coerce others, have morenevidence and less assumption on theirnside of the argument.nnnDr. Rogge himself seems to havensome discomfort over that, for later wenfind in another speech, “On LibertariannPhilosophy,” that although he believesnmarijuana laws should be repealed, childnlabor allowed and Yellowstone Park soldnto the Disney Corporation, he still upholdsnconservatism on “most questionsnof social organization and social processesn.. . in continuity, in the importantnrole of tradition and custom, in standardsnfor personal conduct, in the greatnimportance of the elite (imperfectnthough they/may be).” This sounds interestingnif confusing, until we turn tonthe Rogge strictures against ideologues,na term he applies to true believers ofnvirtually any strong faith, whether itnis “the establishment of the one truenreligion, the elimination of race prejudice,nthe elimination of poverty, thenimplementation of the General Will ornthe eternal glory of the American ornthe French nation,” or “any other beliefsnas revealed by voices from burningnbushes or by the magnificently objectivenresults of science or in the massivenand blind forces of history or in the darknand mysterious processes of the humannmind or what-have-you.”nDr. Rogge, of course, is exaggerating.nIt is difficult to believe that he equatesnthe civilizing influence of Christianitynand Judaism with barbarism and superstition,nor that he sees no differencenbetween Israel and the USSR, Francenand the United States. If one were tontake this diatribe seriously, all systemsnof thought would be declared idiotic,nand people would be expected to cleansentheir minds of all beliefs, and abandonnall religion—which is clearly impossible.nAfter all, even professors have to believensomething; it is sad to reflect that somenmay be attached to causes as trivial—nand as confined—as their schools andnthe subjects they teach.nBut Dr. Rogge draws back from thenactual cliffs he decries: what he means,nhe says, a little later, is that he does notn”wish to see these influences on humannbehavior institutionalized in the handsnof the state.” He believes in society; heniS5nIVovember/December 1979n