PROHIBITION ANALOGIES.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10737, 7 November 1928, Page 7

PROHIBITION ANALOGIES.

Jf you say to a prohibitionist that prohibition is a restriction .of hatoral liberty, he will say, as the President of the Alliance said in U 127, that-“all laws, human and restrict individuals in the community interest.” This, of course, is not true; some of the best laws enlarge liberty, and civilisation is largely the story of the removal of fetters. But what liberty-is it that the restrictive laws, human or divine, do restrict? Thd liberty only to do evil. And then what does'the prohibitionist say ? The dialogue would bo . something like this:— ■ ...

Socrates: Then- we are agreed that the liberty to berestricted is the liberty to do evil: Js it doing \evil to drink wine temperately, as the majority do ? Prohibitionist: J\ot in itself. Socrates: Then why destroy a libertv that, is not abused? Prohibitionist: For the sake iof jcithose who cannot drink _ i»ni/So/raLs : That is” a / 1 Jhink; a bad one* BBt W n ? jjrinciple/Jjl roJist jpf Jf |^/ peryet ielty jves _do gree and 5 sosee rence. emsnee of money P Prohibitionist: Yes! Socrates: 1 am sure yon will say that if private property were abolished much that is distressing would disappear. If .we had no guns or knives there could he no shootings or stabbings. The abolition . of. food would certainly result in the abolition of the human race. but. it- would at least abolish indigestion, would it not ? And if there were no money there would be no for-’ geries •or thefts or embezzlements. Traffic accidents and motor smashes would end if we got rid of motor-ears, obviously. Prohibitionist: I can’t deny that. Socrates:. Then your principle repuires the prohibition of private property, knives, motorears, and so on, * Prohibitionist: But— Socrates: YesP Prohibitionist: Well—but—.***