F. R. HAYS HITS OUT AT JOHN NORTON.

NZ Truth, Issue 507, 6 March 1915, Page 8

F. R. HAYS HITS OUT AT JOHN NORTON.

To John Norton. SJr,--Articles from your pen are always racy and amusing, and sometimes Illuminating, but I hold that your vlows of democracy and Socialism are erroneous and misleading, Tor if they are correct, since wo are piloting our ship of State towards true democratic government, we aro simply making direct for the rocks and destruction. If you alter the word "democracy." and substitute "mob," doubt loks everything you say Is true: but that changes the whole sense of your article, for the reason that (bMuocratic governments, like Christianity, have never had any . existence. tJovornments. no matter what their special denomination, have nlwnys been tyrannies and despotisms, m which the people have had absolutely no part. To-day ln Australia, though moving sflowly towards true democracy, we still remain under a tyranny, and must do so while the Legislative Councils exist, though 1 do not infer that wo should bo freo directly we abolished them; thoy aro merely a?*\ ot tho ob-

stacles m the road of democracy. You confuse democracies or democratic governments with mobs which are pitifully and damnably ignorant. . Mobs are not ignorant, por do they have the faults you ascribe to them because they are mobs, but because the individuals composing those mobs are ignorant as units. For instance, an aggregation of 1000 John Nortons would not be a mob m the sense you imply, for the reason that every unit would be intelligent, and would be guided by his intellect, and not by the passions of the multitude. All governments, whether ecclesiastic or otherwise, exercise tyrannical authority solely on account of the ignorance of the people, and to retain that power it is the object of i every tyranny to keep the mob ignor- ! ant. To-day lam the vilest slave it is possible to imagine; 1 have not the least say m the government of my country; I am permitted once m three years to cast a vote, and when, perhaps, I have assisted in' putting my representative into Parliament, he'll turn on me and crack me over the head with his waddy for my pains, and tell me he's cock of the walk, and that s I j can go to Hades. You say Socialism ! will mean political and industrial sla- J very, and you thereby infer that at present freedom exists, which is entirely contrary to fact. The only freedom 90 per cent, of the people to-day have is to starve and die. I live only by the permission of my landlord and employer, and am very little better off ■■ than If I werQ a chattel slave. Fshpuld ; welcome the slavery you mention, and j the only persons who now look upon it [

as a horrible slavery m future are the landlords and other idle parasites, who would have to work for their living under a sane system. Socialism would permit men and women for the first time m the world to lead decent and noble lives, and, John (and I say this m no offensive sense, for I believe you think you are doing good work), it would free the journalist from being | compelled to make a profit by expos--1 ing m the press the pictures and frailties of unfortunate women, for prostitution would cease as soon as its causes were abolished.! JOHN NORTON REPLIES. Mr. Hays declares broadly that "democracy, like Christianity, has never existed," and proceeds to infer that [ mankind's political panacea is Socialj ism. He is apparently one of those ! unfortunates who are wedded to a "fixed idea," Avhich becomes, first, an obsession, and then an hallucination. j How can Socialism, any more than Christianity, regenerate • mankind ? How could a democracy, based on Socialism, be any better than a democracy based on Christianity? Both of them — Socialism and Christianity — are idealisms m direct conflict with realisms. They both teach fraternity on the love-your-neighbor principle, while Nature proclaims "Every man for him- | self, and the devil take the hindmost." The strong are uppermost ahd the weak are undermost. Both Socialism and Christianity put the cart before the horse. Neither of them are possible — except as theoretical hypocrises — while human nature remains as it is;

. but both would evolve automatically ; were human nature as idealists wish iit to be. In the same way that democracy creates rulers — often tyrannical ones — who smite the" people, so would Socialism, if it were brought into existence to-morrow, create bureaucracies which would exercise an oppressive tyranny over the multitude. Such is human nature. As regards a niobccracy, that is human nature m its most contemptible and cowardly aspect. Each unit m a mob is a- creature who is afraid to stand alone, and delegates his power of citizenship to a man who is not so afraid. Then when the man who is not of the mob despises the mob, and shows his contempt for it, the units often combine, and, gaining courage. in gregariousness, become filled with the envy the weak ever evince towards the strong and endeavor by brute force to destroy that which the brains of their superiors built up. There could be no government by a mob, because a mob is not guided by brains. Its sole actuation is to destroy the master minds which dominate the community. Such destruction can only be achieved by brute force, and the mob is composed of a cowardly conglomeration which acts like a ferocious beast. Mr. Hays says 1000 John Nortons would not be a mob, forgetting that there could not be 1000 John Nortons mobbed- together, because each unit of the 1000, preferring to stand alone, would separate from, and not congregate with, the others. In fact, all through the piece, Mr. Hays is bnrking up the wrong tree. Ho is obsessed with a fad and is a

| fanatic, and, we are very much afraid, ' is rapidly journeying towards the hal- ' lucinatory stage. There is only one '. way towards a regeneration of man- , kind, and that is by education, and a i consequent increased diffusion of knowledge, when less attention will be paid to veneers and hypocrises and more to bedrocks and realities.