Rambling Remarks.

Northland Age, Volume 8, Issue 2, 12 October 1938, Page 4

Rambling Remarks.

On the Abuse of Words

[By the Old Scribe]

The first—and most neglected ride of debate is that the debaters should carefully define their terms, state exactly what meaning they attach to the subject words of the argument. Words are often used in a very loose sense, and thus what should be a piofitable debate often descends into ai. unseemly wrangle. Then words, get charged with emotional contents that prevent the subject to which they aie attached being justly considered. Those of us who are old enough to recall the war will remember that “Germans” to us was equivalent to “sub-human degenerates,” whom it would be a blessing to the world to exterminate. In politics these manufactured bogey woi'ds play a great pait. “Bolshevik,” “Tory,” “Agitator,” “Fascist,” “Communist,” “Dictator,” “Bureaucrat,” and so on, are used to rouse hostile feeling and perveit sound judgments. It is the principle of giving a dog a bad name—you need no other excuse for hanging him. For instance the words “liberty” and “freedom” are being bandied about in politics at present. A number of men, who modestly shirk the limelight, patriotically put up a considerable sum of money to conduct a “Freedom Association Agitation. Their apostle is a University professor, presumably a man with a welltrained mind, worthy of his very generous salary. Now freedom is a very precious thing—the word itself is very highly charged with emotional content. One thinks of the saying of the great Scots patriot, W illiam Wallace, “When I was young and lived with my uncle, the priest of Elderslie, he would often say to me, ‘Of all precious things, freedom is the most precious. Therefore, my son, never live under any slavish bond.’ ” Our hearts echo the words, to the defenders of freedom we instinctively rally. The party that can plausibly figure as the champion of freedom has a very profitable asset. That is the professor’s job, and he is doing it very efficiently and no doubt quite honestly. His favourite method is to utilise the fact that most people think the words “liberty” and “freedom” always mean the same thing and use them interchangeably, while often they really mean opposite things. Every restriction of freedom is a bad thing undoubtedly—therefore every restriction on liberty, is bad. That does not follow at all. What Liberty and Freedom Mean The difference between liberty and freedom is fundamental. Liberty is a negative, freedom a positive thing. Liberty is merely absence of restraint, a dead thing. Freedom is the opportunity to grow and develop to the extent of one’s powers, to realise one’s true self—a very live thing. And though it sounds like a paradox it is nevertheless a plain fact: to gain true freedom you must often restrict liberty. A man is at liberty to get drunk, but the more he exercises that liberty the sooner he will become a slave to drink. The more we give liberty to our animal instincts the more we restrict our freedom as men. If we wish our children to grow up to be free and self-respecting men and women we find it necessary to restrict their liberty almost from the moment they are bom. All wise discipline involves restrictions on liberty. All well-ordered communities demand from their members the sacrifice of a certain amount of their individual liberty to gain the greater good of freedom. Every sensible man pays the price willingly. To allow a motor car to be driven at a furious pace on any side of the road would certainly be an extension of the driver’s liberty but would be disastrous to the freedom of the public. The restriction of liberty is a cheap price to pay for the increase of freedom. The Price of Freedom While unnecessary or excessive restrictions on liberty ought to be opposed, to say that any proposed action involves a loss of liberty is no argument against it. The real question is: Will it increase real freedom? Our mortgage legislation certainly restricted the liberty of the lenders very materially, but it meant a very sub-

stantial increase of freedom to many farmers and others. As society becomes more highly organised, as we become more and more parts of one another—more socialistic in fact—the restraints on individual liberty are bound to increase, but the result will be more freedom for all. For freedom ; consists not in liberty to do what we like but to do what we ought. The prophets looked forward to a time when the law of the Lord would be \ written on men’s hearts, an dthe , State and all its restraints would i wither away, because they were no ; longer necessary, as they are unnecessary in a family bound together in the bonds of affection. Until that . distant time we must be prepared to ’ buy the greater good at the sacrifice ’ of the lesser. ' On Nationalisation and Socialisation There are two other words, nationalisation and socialisation, which are also being used to confuse the real issues. These words, too, are Icing used as if they meant the same thing, while really they differ widely. The more logical French have two equivalent words—“etatisation” and “socialisation”—which they use as opposites. The first means State socialism, the other social control. Both have the same object, but embody different methods. Our railways, for instance, are an example of State socialism; 1 they are organised, managed and 5 worked by State servants throughout. \ But socialisation simply means that L any industry socialised shall be operated for the benefit of the community * at large and not purely for private » profit. Any industry already doing ' that would be undisturbed. The «< ntrol of others would be limited to l ' securing that they were necessary for r the service of the public, that their ' service was efficient, and that those in ,T | charge did not exact too high rewards 7 for their service. The amount of 3 State control would therefore vary very lai’gely under socialisation. - Under wise direction, its aim would » be to give the widest possible scope and every possible encouragement to t individual enterprise and energy, and, 1 so long as results were satisfactory, J to interfere as little as possible. , Planning and a very considerable 2 amount of organisation would be 1 necessary. There would be no chances 2 for an enterprising and unscrupulous . man to pile up a huge fortune by exploiting the public or the natural resources of the country. But the opI portunity to serve the public for a fair reward, to have an honourable and secure place in society, would be open to all under a system co-oper-ating with others instead of competing with them as at present. ; Socialisation and Farming 1 It would be quite impossible to > apply the State Socialist system to ! farming, and no Socialist advocates ; it. The aim of socialisation is to see that the land is well managed for the > public good, and that those working r it get a full equivalent for their > labour. No State can allow land to > be treated as absolute private pro- ■ perty, with which a man may do as 2 he likes, farm it well or let it be over--2 run with noxious weeds, improve it or 1 destroy it. Its aim must be to see t that the land is put to the best post sible use, and whatever method at- - tains that end is best. There is little question that, at present at any rate, a modified freehold | system that will guarantee to the farmer absolute security of tenure, a L full equivalent for his labour, and freedom from control as long as he [ did his part, would be the best method 1 under any form of socialisation. It would shut off land speculation, it

would ensure that what is called “unearned increment” would go to those who earned it, and it would abolish most of the parasites who at present prey on the farmer. How much then would the average working farmer with a heavy mortgage charge on his farm, lose by socialisation? It would be a welcome change from some of the idiotic and spiteful questions asked at political meetings if j candidates were asked what exactly J they mean by some of the phrases they j use so glibly. I fancy it would deflate some of them badly.