SOCIALISM AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 299, 22 November 1922, Page 14

SOCIALISM AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

By "FORWABD 0

Aa anticipated, the Tory jaid lAber<al matdfestoes point to no pjpoposied ohanire ip, the economic of eociety. Thife Indicates that, bo-tar 3» th& Tories and Liberals ftre oono&sn* ed, the great majority o£ tb* people 8J_»11 have the liberty of cpnUfiuing to work on the foddor basis in order that tho few may rob thorn of their oarhiags and keep them to a condition Qt econom'io slavery. Tho parainouiii laterost of Tories and i_ibe.uls •fcUke is to prevent Labour from selrainar th* reins of Governmecaet and gradually changing the conomic system until it. squares with the principles of justice. The victory of Labour is assured if men and women will baso their economic thought upon Chris'Mian ethics, rather than on palpit utterances and P.P.A. sectarian propaganda. The enemies of economic progress for the many cry I "Hands off the present economic | foundation!" and misrepresent thos© [ who . would change it as wolves in ; sheep's clothing, whereas the real wolves are the Tories and Liberals, w-lio stand for ( a wolfish system. One marvels that it has s 0 long endured. The explanation is found in the persistent refusal of the mass of the people to do some consecutive thinking on the subject. Their inertness accounts for their gullibility and explains why they can be humbugged by the Tories and Liberals kt every election and why they are preyed upon by every kind of modern buccaneer. There is some evidence, however, at long last that the people are waking up. Fat has noticed it. He sees the spectre of Justice rising before his bulging eyes and shrieks "confiscation!" Tho workers' reply is "What about your confiscation ot our earnings, both in time of peace and in time of war? What about the confiscation of the people's heritage—the iund?"

No sane person who is not blinded by self-interest or ignorance, or both, will deny that the system,of society under which we exist is founded upon rank injustice, "and that it J s because o* ihls that poverty iaboundsin the midst of plenty and war scourges humanity every now and then. The rational thing to do, therefore, is to change the economic foundation of society. -Man cannot look "at the structure he has built and pronounce It good when its rotten fruits stare him in the ijace. If an individual "suffers from disease, he consults a physician in the hope that he wUI know its cause, or discover it, and apply the remedy. Similarly, we, as professedly rational and moral beings, should go to tho root-of,, our disastrous man-made 'economic- arrangements and rebuild on the rock foundation of Justice.

When the people complained:- to tho Prophet Nehemiah of tho Jfob'bery o£ their lands and houses and-money by usurers, he was "very angry 1 ' and compelled Fat to restore to them hiie plunder. Is the Tory or Liberal Pjarty very angry about the plundering of the people? FaT from It. The only party that is very angry is the Labour- Party. Therefore, vote for Labour. Fat cries <i Oonflsca,t?on!" Labour is entitled to meet this with the sry of ••Restitution!"

Anti-Socialists oppose Socialism on tAvo mala, grounds, viz.: That the Parlous privileges '.and monopoUstlc channels through which wealth flows into their coffers would be opt off; (2) that personal liberty would disappear. Any other grounds of opposition are apparently due io prejudice, custom or ignorance, oe to all these combined. On tho main grounds, thcre-ora, it will at once be seen thpJt a superficial consideration for selMaterest, instead of national and-international welfare is the prime 'motire which actuates opponents of social justice, 1 say "superficial consider atio-V?'' Means c in the long run, did they hut know It,'they would be all the better me n and women from every staixSpoiiit for helping tb promote the cbmin§ now order of things, Indee-t. thsy would then feel ihat they had done somethsn& tOW.ard» •mklra***? fc better and happlar, world for their children and other p.'eople'a childrea'. I Poverty, crime and untold misery arise from the gross inequalit'te- in the dlstribuUpn of wealth. Thlf state Ot th?n-f8 ta a terrible <*omnxßntj.ry upon the boasted fttnesa of the country.] Could th* labour Party possibly do worse? Try .itl It has the roErtsdy, &•';' not &riU to help to«pply it, flat Mther bm a&uld to let iiie perils of the eztfltlnf ordor. y prdiaorder, of society oontinn«. Ai -or th* question of pergonal I'b_rty f listen id what th« prolilbittonW& quote ftpprovtagly Is. one'of their (Qjafletn] ■•Over * v/ld* are* 01-floolifcfi-' Ja^Qiy^»eMton^J|&erfc-^^

to what the Pons terms 'the general prosperity and the common good.' Every law, both human and divine, is a restriction on the liberty of the individual, with a view' to securing /the greater liberty and well-being of all. And such restrictions, by State Jaw, are Justifiable when, they are for tho mon good and within the lim'tts of the *}ur_sdic-tior_ ot tho civil author-, The Increased leisure which Socialtßia would give 'the masses would secure to them greater liberty. But, even ii wo had less personal liberty under © socialistic regime It would, In view tit the (above argument endorsed by the prohibitionists, he Sust-"-i&able pn th© grounds of "the general prosperity and tha cbinmoa good/; It if clear, "thercforo, "that Tory and Liberal rule inuat cease "F-th ti-vbnr. to Bepurlng the greater liberty .and well-being of all." * ' personally, I am not opposed to prohibition, .but % would a** tho.o prohlbitlonist£i who are landed pro-J prieton and ©mj>loy6rß of l_-*boim wfcjr, if ifr-i p-rguiuent above to Ii Bound, "fthey do ncfo alio pifraac* It as a good "and sufficient reason for: instituting $oct*li«», Dom «*lM_>: terwtt stand fe the w*yT Don't let It I pl*oe the oauM of humanity lint and Totfl tt>t tAoonte