Essay Introduction

In "Gun Play in the Market Place," E. W. Dykes employs a simple dramatic skit to illustrate the moral equivalence between private theft and government redistribution. The narrative contrasts a farmer robbing a consumer at gunpoint—which society condemns—with a tax collector performing the essentially same act under the guise of law to provide a subsidy. Dykes argues that legalizing the taking of property against a person's will does not change the fundamental nature of the act, which remains a deprivation of the incentive to work and accumulate property.

Gun Play in the Market Place

by E. W. Dykes

WE have an informal group here which meets frequently to discuss and learn the basic principles of liberty. Each of us wants to steer himself, as best he can, away from the pitfalls and fallacies of socialistic doctrine. It seems as though the violations of liberty are most generally found in the field of economics. Therefore, we spend a considerable amount of time on economic questions. At one of our recent meetings, we decided to demonstrate one of our economic lessons.

The stage is occupied by several persons who are identified in a group as society. A narrator helps to explain the action. A farmer enters with a bushel of wheat, and a consumer steps forward to bargain for it. After some haggling, they agree upon a price of $1.00.

The farmer has tried hard to get $1.50 and isn't too happy as he starts to leave. Suddenly he turns back, whips out a gun, and demands another 50 cents from the consumer. The consumer suggests they call off the deal, but the man with the gun insists on—and gets—another 50 cents.

Society observes this action—duly shocked. Then someone calls to the farmer and invites him to discuss his problem with society. After considerable discussion and voice voting, society persuades the farmer to return the 50 cents, promising to work out a more satisfactory solution to his problems. The obvious leader in this scene of social action is one of the members who wants to do "good" things to everyone.

The next scene opens with the farmer and consumer bargaining over another bushel of wheat, arriving as before at a price of $1.00. As the farmer looks questioningly at the do-gooder, the latter nods his head; and a man steps from the group wearing a sign, "Tax Collector." He is carrying the same gun previously used by the farmer. Without explanation, he takes 60 cents from the consumer, pockets a dime, and gives the other 50 cents to the farmer. The farmer is pleased. The photographers ask him to pose, shaking hands with the beaming do-gooder. The rest of society is told to align itself as background for the picture.

Meanwhile, the puzzled consumer has stepped to one side and is being quietly interviewed by the narrator.

NARRATOR: You seem dissatisfied with this transaction; yet you have a bushel of wheat which cost only a dollar—a price you were willing to pay.

CONSUMER: Yes, but there was a 60 per cent tax on the transaction, which means that the wheat cost me $1.60.

NARRATOR: But, surely, you do not object to a legal tax!

CONSUMER: Legal, perhaps, but it appears to me to be remarkably like the other transaction that was deemed illegal. The tax collector also used a gun to take 60 cents from me—the same gun the farmer used before when he robbed me of 50 cents. Now that robbery has been legalized, it costs me even more money; and society no longer seems concerned in helping to protect my money or property from the robber.

NARRATOR: How can you describe this democratic action of society as legalized robbery? The people voted for it.

CONSUMER (shaking his head and slowly walking away): I only know that in both instances my money—the product of my labor—was taken from me against my will and given to a person who did not earn it.

(Then he turns to address society): You have taken some of my property to do "good" to one or more members of your group. But you have deprived me of further incentive to work and to accumulate property through service to others. Mark well these words: Your loss is far greater than mine.

About the Author

E. William Dykes is a partner in the architectural firm of Lawrence & Dykes, Canton, Ohio. "Gun Play in the Market Place" is from his March 30, 1952, letter to the Foundation and was published later that year.

Attribution

Dykes, E. W. "Gun Play in the Market Place." In Essays on Liberty, Vol. 2, 166-168. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1954.