PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20952, 3 November 1939, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless Ibis rule Is complied wilb, their letters will not appear.

FARMERS AND PRODUCTION (To the Editor) Sir,—Judging by the widespread and sustained complaints of farmers throughout New Zealand, the volume of production, despite the appeal of Ministers to increase it, will show considerable diminution. Individual farmers with whom I have conversed assure me that though they are anxious to produce to the maximum they are unable to do so because of the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Government. Labour is not available, and necessary machinery cannot be secured, and in view of these disabilities the request for increase is farcical and indicates that the Ministers are completely out of touch with farming conditions and refuse to listen to those who are better informed. But what can we expect when we have administrators who publicly decry the importance of tho primary producer in the community, and persistently refuse to accord him his rightful place, denying him a hearing and withholding from him a just deal? There is an awakening looming, and one effect will be a widespread recognition of the fact that, despite the declaration of the Hon. P. C. Webb to the contrary, the primary producer is the vertebrae not only of the Dominion but of the world.—l am, etc., H. E. PERWIN. Hamilton, November I. COMPLAINTS OF FARMERS (To the Editor) Sir, —I must congratulate T. E. Magner on his worthy remarks and appeal for unity among the people during this great war. It is a disgraceful state of affairs to read of the meetings of the handfuls of farmers in some cases passing ridiculous resolutions. These spoonfed individuals are being carried on the backs of the people of New Zealand, as they have got the limit, the sky, and now they want the moon. A man who is working night and day in his endeavour to get an extra Id per lb butterfat for them on the London market is getting nothing but abuse and insults from a section of New Zealand farmers. Men in positions like Mr Par Lane and Mr McKenzie are in no way encouraging the farmer to produce. Of course these men are, as they think, running with the hare. Here our Government is in the midst of one of the greatest wars in history, when one and all should pull together. Yet what do we find? Absolutely no co-operation or patriotism coming from this quarter. It was the same in Parliament in the dying stages—the same oppose, oppose, oppose, by Messrs Hamilton, Coates, HoUand and Poison. The Leader of the Opposition when war was declared got up and said he would co-operate in every way, but he and his party put in all the opposition they had in their souls. The whole thing boiled down is this: The Tory section among the farmers has the old Tory spirit, oppose, oppose, oppose. What did the old Tory Government do for the farmers? It simply drove 70 per cent to the verge of bankruptcy. Oppose, oppose, oppose.—l am, etc., HAMILTONIAN. Hamilton, November 2.

BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL (To the Editor) Sir,—l think we must all realise that the world is set for the greatest tussle that has ever been staged. Some declare it to be a clash between Good and Evil. This may be so; 1 don’t know. Are we on our side, for instance, justified in claiming the Good? There seems little doubt that we are going to fight, but after all It is God Almighty who is going to decide the issue. The whole world seems to have fallen away greatly from its dependency on the power of prayer. We are all set for material values; all our deeds are in this direction—4o- - week, high standard of living, as little return in labour for what we demand in remuneration as it is possible to get away with. Now after we shall have succeeded in getting all these so-called benefits, shall we as a result attain to the righteousness of God*? It certainly seems to be the wrong way round, because we are definitely told, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” This has been proved on many occasions to be absolutely true. I know of no proof for the other way. It may be that we shall be brought down to the very depth- of despair before w'e are allowed to demonstrate that Right shall conquer in the end. At least as nations we profess to worship God, whereas our enemies have deliberately forsaken Him. Our professions have only to be sincere for us to move forward with the certainty of victory.—l am, etc., THOUGHTFUL. Hamilton, November 2. CIVILISATION AND POVERTY (To the Editor) Sir,— l have been waiting to see if any Social Credit advocate would reply to Mr Douglas Seymour’s statement regarding the relation of poverty to past civilisations, and his inference that luxury more than poverty was the chief cause of their failure; therefore social creditors were just beating the air. Mr Seymour wilL I think, admit that in each departed social organisation and culture some special weakness or fault accounts for its passing, as there may also be in ours this year of grace 1939. I hardly think that Major Douglas professed to cure poverty. When here he denied having “planitia,” and said that idealism was the “last resort of an uninformed mind” (Press reports). His objective was the remonetisation of the industrialists. Stripped of its technique it m—n« small profits and more returns. As far as poverty is concerned, it can be said that it is merely a matter of comparisons. Probably we are all better oft in material thing, today than folks were before the mechanical era. I would like to think that the same could be said regarding our ethical and spiritual condition. One indication of this kind of poverty is a lack of ability to see two sides of a question. Farmers want more money; socialists want more industrial centralisation; communists want to pool earnings but stop short of their own pay envelopes. We have lost the judicial mind. When concluding one of their Fabian tracts, Mr and Mrs Sydney Webb (both prominent reformers) ■say, “It may be that the whole experience of the last century has been a mistake, and that we shall yet revert to individualism, but if so, it will be an individualism of a much higher order than that which has preceded it.” This gives us a glimpse of what we might be if we were not continually barking up the money tree and wasting opportunities for practical work. Much of the blame for national and international disorder may, I think, be placed upon a crude theology, past and present, that leaves the Sermon on the Mount in an atmosphere of unreality and invalidity, i putting other worldlmess in place of ' present realities. As far as poverty is concerned, ! habit has a great deal to do with i our happiness, and you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. This is where corr.monsense and toleration become necessary. What we want is a little more Christianity in business, and a little more business in applied Christianity. Seeing then that we have “this treasure in earthen vessels,” it is necessary to test all things and hold fast that which is good if we are ever to arrive at the new era envisioned by Britain's Prime Minister after the end of the present war. We shall have to realise that rationally restricted liberty is preferable to go-ss-you--1 please, and that this does not spell personal equality. Whether this kosmos is to endure or not rests partly with ourselves, but so long as mankind is bom young so long shall we have the erring brother to consider, not to pamper but to lift, even though it be by war. If we admit that economic disorder is the cause of poverty and of wars, then the Douglas analysis is worthy of consideration as a means to environmental regeneration. Perhaps Mr Seymour has not realised the fact and import of the mechanical era in which we live, and I commend to him a question put by Mr Henry Ford in his “Today and Tomorrow”: “Shall we not some day reach a point where the machine becomes all-powerful and the man of no consequence?” That civilisations have come and gone may be attributed to this very fact—that a man was of no consequence.—l am, etc, E. DAVIES. Cambridge. November 1.