PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21203, 28 August 1940, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

SOURCES OF REVENUE?

NURSING CONDITIONS

MEANING OF ANARCHY

NEW GDE3IOCRACY

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

(To the Editor) Sir, —The Minister of Finance requires revenue for the heavy expenditure of war purposes. He has suggested that a further tax be im-

posed under the title of “Excess Profits Tax.” The suggested basis of this tax is an approximate figure of surplus income based on an average of profits spread over a number of years.

Now this assessment may appear quite just on the surface, but when investigated we will find that a grave injustice will be done to industry as well as to the individual. The suggested tax means that a premium is placed on production; it means that the brake will be put on primary production as well as on business generally. The Opposition in Parliament is too weak to withstand a division in the House on this matter, and unless the community expresses strong opinion upon this burden the country will suffer to an extent undreamed of through a reduction in primary produce and other goods.—l am, etc., WATCHMAN. Hamilton, August 27.

(To the Editor) Sir, —Your correspondent “Esprit de Corps” is following true to form. Any time one makes any suggestions for the improvement of the nursing conditions one hears of the humanitarian work and self-sacrifice. He should know that in these days what was good enough for grandfather is not good enough now, and just because nursing has always been poorly paid, it should not remain so. The correspondent should also know that the cost of all things required by nurses, both on and off duty, has risen greatly, and how much, out of such a small sum as they are receiving, can be spent in “that abnormal love of pleasure” he writes about? I can assure him that the nurses of today are just as modern as any girl in another profession. “Esprit de Corps” knows that if it was not for the doctors’ association New Zealand would be receiving greater benefits under Social Security. If doctors can enjoy the privileges of an association, why should it be so awful for the nurses to “stoop to protect themselves with a union?” I have no quarrel with the administration of the funds, but perhaps the board does not see “eye to eye” with me. A general increase of five shillings would only have absorbed £SOOO. This would have still left a considerable refund to ratepayers. To put your correspondent’s mind at rest, as a farmer, I can genuinely sign myself a ratepayer.—l am, etc., RATEPAYER. Cambridge, August 26.

(To the Editor) Sir, —Anarchy, generally associated with chaos, bomb and dagger, is one of the most misunderstood words today, in spite of our excellent system of education. Anarchy is a social theory which regards the union of order with the absence of government. For instance, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, noted French economist (1809 —1865) said that “the true form of the State is anarchy,” meaning not positive disorder, but the absence of government. Hence, anarchy is the absence of government, chaos the absence of order. Also, none other than Philip Snowden, whose name is a household word, states in his book, “Socialism

and Syndicalism,” first published in 1917, “there is a close affinity between philosophic anarchists, syndicalists, Spencerian individualists, single taxers and the older school of co-opera-tors; they are all opposed to socialism.”

Here is something to my way of thinking of special interest. In the preface to the Manual for Co-opera-tors, written by the late Judge Hughes, K.C., he states that “the individual anarchist does not believe in force, on the ground that liberty is the mother of order.” “The Socialist State,” the judge goes on to say, “is the invasion of individual rights by a band of individuals who seek to control the entire people within a given area. Our co-operators do not ask the State to do anything for 1 them, beyond giving them a fair field and standing aside while they do their own work in their own way. They want no man’s property, but only that they shall not be hindered in creating new wealth for themselves.”

I must briefly as possible refer to that great English poet, Percy Bysshe Shelly, bom August 4, 1792, at Field Place, Horsham, Sussex. Although Shelly was born in the lap of comfort, his mission was to “loosen traditional authority and untie wornout convention,” and to establish a universal brotherhood. His poem, The Mask of Anarchy, written on the occasion of the Massacre at Manchester in 1819, first published in 1332. depicts a ghastly masquerade of destruction, murder, fraud, hypocrisy. Shelley’s thoughts, or rather his considered opinion on anarchy, can only be described in the poet’s own words:— Last came Anarchy; he rode On a white horse splashed with blood; On his brow, this mark I saw, I am. God, King and Lav/. —I am. etc.. HARRY WOODRUFFE. Auckland, August 26.

(To the Editor) Sir,—ln this letter I am going to speak of economic security. Every honest and right-living man and woman has the right to security. A united country has the power to get it. We will have used that power when wc elect a Parliament free to serve us, and give that Parliament a

programme of reform. Then, and not until then, will there be an end to want and unemployment. That truth 'should be a trumpet call to action. | The revolt against the present con- : ditions has grown into a forward ! movement of our citizens out to get f their rights. This movement began when we first knew we could have security. It grew stronger when we knew that reaction opposed security. The apparent fact of potential plenty had to be proved before we could beilieve it. Democracy marches; not the ! old democracy, with the heel mark of | reaction on its neck, but the new | democracy which means to govern. I The new democracy will not fail be- ! cause it is as vital and true as the 'essential virtues which comprise the j national character, j National purchasing power will be 'influenced by extra-territorial cirj cumstances. Then the banking system of New Zealand will raise purchasing ; power to the level of our capacity to • produce, for the only purpose of this system will be the people’s welfare. ! Ask any honest banker if, thus en- ! franchised, the banking system will | have the slightest difficulty in meetj ing our requirements. His answer will be emphatically, No. We must have a balanced economy. Not only must we : raise our whole economy to a new ' high level, but we must see that every class has its just place upon that level. If increased purchasing power is to correct the present inequities, it must be equitably distributed. Therefore, wages, prices for primary products and consumer costs must have the right relationship.

The movement for a new democracy is economic in its direct objective. It is political in the means by which it will attain it. For the attainment of security is far more than an economic achievement, or a political victory. It is the proof that freedom lias dominion over New Zealand.

What should be the programme of the new democracy? Here is my proposal. The duty of Parliament is to put the natural .wealth of New Zealand at the service of the people of New Zealand. To perform this duty, Parliament must raise production to its optimum level; that means the level of our capacity to consume. It must raise distribution to the same level; that means increased purchasing power. It must ensure equitable participation by all classes in the high standard of living which will re-

How can we raise production to the level of our capacity to consume, so that we may have a high standard of living? In a modern and efficient economy the law of supply and demand would operate effectively to do so. Production would keep pace with increasing purchasing power. But ours is neither a modern nor an efficient economy. Therefore, not only must we raise our national economy to a new high level, but we must see that every element in it has its right place upon that level. We must buttress the law of supply and demand. We must ensure the facility, stability and responsibility of production. Under this plan we will achieve the highest measure of economic self-sufficiency compatible with the maintenance of the highest possible standard of living. We will equitably serve the producer and consumer. It must be conceded that the existing system does not even serve our low standard of living. Yet reaction wants to further limit it in i personnel, in trackage, inefficiency, in competition. In order to reach the high level of our capacity to produce we shall require adequate purchasing power. It will be the job of the Bank of New Zealand to achieve the necessary increase in purchasing power in step with increasing national wealth. The system has looked to high prices rather than to volume of production for its profits. Let us never forget that the basic thing in reform is to raise the means of distribution to the level of our capacity to produce. Should we fail in that, all other reforms will be merely tinkering with the old economy.—l am, etc., A. V. FABLING. Hamilton, August 26.