THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, JULY 29, 1935 LOOKING TO THE STATE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22173, 29 July 1935, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, JULY 29, 1935 LOOKING TO THE STATE

The National Government of Britain is not likely to go wrong for lack of advice. Following hard upon Mr. Lloyd George's proposals, a programme of political and social action for the next five years is put forward by a, large group of public men and women. In some respects, this programme resembles both those proposals and the manifesto, associated with them, that urged the formation of a, Council of Action for Peace and Reconstruction. However, this resemblance is described as accidental only, although some of the 34 signatories of the manifesto—Professor Gilbert Murray, Sir Basil Blackett and Sir Walter Layton—are mentioned to-day as among the 150 sponsors of this programme. Apparently, then, a considerable number of peopJe, all of them very much in earnest and many of them entitled to respect for eminence in their walks of life, are bestirring themselves to think about "present discontents" and to encourage each other in attempts to end them, particularly by pointing out to the Government the way it should go. For their earnestness and activity there can be no blame. In so far as they are giving organised and weighty expression to a widely national concern for the best use of new opportunities to refashion the fabric of social order their zeal, indeed, is an asset to the community—all the more valuable, no doubt, because they do not presume to make of their programme a party platform. This merit Mr. Lloyd George claimed at first for his New Deal; so have the i'ramers of a Council of Action. What is most strikingly evident in all these enterprises is their salutary mistrust of merely partisan action. How far they succeed in fulfilling a truly national intention may be questioned, but the intention itself is excellent, and the whole electorate would be no worse for a baptism of this spirit. It is to be feared that the general host is too far behind them to appreciate fully this nonpartisan approach, yet the strong position of the National Government, scarcely less symptomatic than all such more or less friendly offers of advice, indicates a movement of thought, as the Times says, "away from narrow party grooves and toward a sense of nationhood." It is a movement to be watched with sympathy and fostered with encouragement. So far the signatories of this programme are to be heartily commended. In heart they are profoundly right, as is the general eagerness for social welfare that they seek to express. It does not follow, however, that the things to which they pin their faith are capable of producing the results they expect. These are matters for studious discussion. The comment of the Times proceeds to describe the movement of thought toward a sense of nationhood "which recognises social welfare as an increasing obligation of the State." None can deny a movement in this direction. It is a fashion of the age to look to the State for more and more acceptance and discharge of responsibility for human happiness. No sooner is it realised that something has gone amiss than a grumble is afoot about "the powers that be." Two weather-bound wayfarers are depicted, in a familiar cartoon, as saying in their anger at the drenching rain that pierces their meagre shelter, "What a Government!" To execrate the Government as a bungling producer of ills and a sorry provider of relief from them has become a\habit. The very word "State" has acquired, in association with this habiit, a magic meaning. There is nothing that the State cannot do, nothing that it ought not to do, according to this easy thesis, which is a> prevalent political mysticism. The individual citizen is in danger of losing his identity. He expects to be cared for, from the cradle to the grave—to say nothing of experiences before and after his earthly lifetime —by the State. On close analysis the varying attractions of to-day— Fascism, Socialism, Communismresolve themselves into this strange excess of centralised control and guidance of communities. For the "depression" and for a slow emergence from it States have been roundly abused, and as things are this has a show of Teason; but deeper can be found, as the search for responsibility is pursued, the deification of the State as a substitute for individual wisdom and effort. It must be manifest that some measure of social oi-ganisation is essential to individual welfare. There are activities, as John Stuart Mill argued long ago, requiring for their duo operation a central, supreme authority. He instanced the post office, and this may well be taken as a sample of many activities in which a medley of separate interests can be served to infinite advantage by committing them to State management. But the tendency has been outrageously extended to include an everincreasing number of activities, and the inevitable outcome has been an

injurious inroad upon the domain of personal initiative. Instead of service to each other has come leaning upon each other; stalwart independence has been discouraged. Is this really social welfare ? Does it not rather make for social decay? Soon nobody will have anything worth contributing to the general stock of character and energy, so habitual will have become the looking to someone else or something else to carry the load flung from reluctant shoulders. "An increasing obligation of the State" is a poor slogan. For what is the State? Only a convenient term for the sum-total of individual effort, organised by individual effort. If individual effort should continue to languish, the bottom of the State will fall out. It is no widow's cruse of unfailing supply. No more can come from it than is put in. Social welfare must be paid for; every service performed by the State must be done by somebody, and if others have to find the cost of it this fact is unaltered. Those thinking of the State as anything more than a channel —say, aa a spring—are deluded. Programmes of social betterment can do no more than attend to the channel, and should be ever accompanied by emphasis on individual striving and responsibility.