A TREND AND THE REASONS

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 127, 26 November 1945, Page 6

A TREND AND THE REASONS

When Dr. Mazengarb spoke last week of the increasing number of offences against property and examined reasons for this trend, he gave expression to a feeling which a great many people must have had for a long time—that there is evidence in the community of diminishing respect' for the rights of others, especially for the rights of those who, by sacrifice and initiative, have acquired property. While human nature remains as it is, there will always be a section in any community which, by sharp practice and straightout dishonesty, seeks to better itself at the expense of somebody else. Society has taken steps to protect itself against such people. In recent years

there has been a marked increase in offences against property, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that there has been a disturbing deterioration in moral standards. What are the reasons for this? Dr. Mazengarb thinks that the decline is due, in part, to the attitude that Governments, not only in New Zealand (and not only, it should be added, in most recent times) have adopted towards those who own property. When any Government ceases to regard private property as sacrosanct, he says, the respect which society in general has for private property must necessarily be lessened. There is much evidence that can be presented to support this view.

In recent years Governments have shown an increasing tendency to place ownership of property on the defensive. Landlords, freeholders, mortgagees, shareholders have almost been placed in the dock. Instead of establishing final rights, or even prima facie rights, possession has almost been treated as prima facie evidence of wrongful action. Rather than proof of enterprise beneficial to the whole community it has been made suspect as anti-social. Side by side with this has been the tendency to accept without too close questioning the idea that lack of possessions in itself denotes virtue. The result has been that the "have-nots" have been rewarded for having nothing and the "haves" have been penalised for the thrift and enterprise they have exercised. The cumulative effect has been to encourage a lack of respect for all property. When Governments show little or no regard for property rights, and, in- some instances, depart from the principles of fair dealing, there is bound to be created in the minds of the people a feeling that property is no longer to be respected and that those who own it are fair game. That there should be this tendency is deplorable. At the same time there could be no greater danger than to accept it as an excuse for offences against property. The public conscience must, demand that those who offend are adequately punished. But it must also call for a public attitude that will go deeper than the hasty and superficial conclusion that "acquisitiveness" and possession, without thought of motives or means, are mostly wrong; and that failure or inability to acquire possessions gives an unquestionable title to share in the property of others and manage what the enterprise of others has created.