None were disappointed, it was a real debate. Indeed, the only common denominator between arch-conservative William F. Buckley and arch-liberal Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., during a debate on "Freedom and the Welfare State." Monday night was their articulateness.

For Schlesinger, "The welfare state does not intrude on freedom and dignity but makes them possible.... Hungry men are not free men." For Buckley, the welfare state centralizes direction of the people and suppresses non-conformists.

"The economic argument for the welfare state is transparently fraudulent," concealing an intellectual desire to redirect society, the editor of the National Review charged. Even if every citizen had a million dollars John Kenneth Galbraith would still find a need for government action, he suggested.

Instead of centralized government action to redress the needs of our country, Buckley urged either state or voluntary action. If 95 per cent of people want social security, let them have it, but without coercing the other five per cent, he said. "We have a national economy and we ought to have a national government." Schlesinger countered. Labeling Buckley's views anarchistic, he charged that it would make ordered society impossible.

Stressing the pragmatic justification for the welfare state, Schlesinger rejected Buckley's contention that "our freedom diminishes to the extent that it is exercised by others... if you work for yourself you are free, if you work for anyone else you are not free--whether sanctioned by 99 per cent of the people, much less by 51 per cent."

"This view misconstrues democracy," the Harvard historian now on leave as special assistant to President Kennedy said. Taxation does not take place by the state arbitrarily but is the result of the legislative processes of a democracy.

This process has failed to result in any erosion of our liberties in the last 20 years, he declared. "The whole conception of totalitarianism through drift is a figment of fantasy... The road to serfdom lies not through strong government but through impotent democratic government."

Although admitting considerations of humanity must transcend ideological issues and genuine human needs taken care of by the state, Buckley attacked the sentimentalization of economic thought to the point where even New York City and Weld Hall become distressed areas.