The New Zealand Tablet WERNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1924. THE LIMITS OF STATE INTERFERENCE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LI, Issue 36, 3 September 1924, Page 29

The New Zealand Tablet WERNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1924. THE LIMITS OF STATE INTERFERENCE

T is not for lack of physicians that the world remains an invalid; for nearly every social reformer has a quack remedy for all our social disorders. The horrors of war and the hardships of poverty, which bitter trade rivalries thrust upon the people, have shocked mankind into a feverish search for immediate protection; and although in the main the ills of society are merely the reflection of moral corruption, many people seek their cure not in the sphere of ethics but in that of economics. They have become obsessed by the idea that the welfare of all can 'be secured only by abolishing the natural rights of everybody. They would make the individual a creature of the State and thus they promote the pernicious error that the civil government should arbitrarily intrude into the family and the household. This is a denial of the truth so clearly enunciated by Pope Leo XIII that: "Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of. providing for the sustenance of his body." The Pope was refuting the errors of those who are "striving to do away with private property, and (who) contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State. . ."; but as there is general uncertainty about the powers and functions of the State a brief examination of them may serve to dissipate some of the current fallacies.

The State is an institution that rises out of human necessity. The rights of man flow not from the State but from nature; and -the liberty of the individual to exercise his rights is restricted only by the liberty of his neighbors likewise. The restriction proves the right, for while it is the duty of the State to prevent the clashing of rights, it has not the authority to abolish rights any more than ajudge has . to abolish the laws he administers. Rights may be abolished only by the authority that created them; and the rights which God gave’ to man cannot be taken away by any collection of men. The State is merely the guardian of rights, and its duty is to limit the how, when, and where of their exercise. ■ For instance, • everyone has the right to use the ■ public thoroughfares, but it must be exercised in the manner best cal- * ciliated to ensure for all , the * greatest possible liberty in moving about. It would surely be absurd for a. State to decree that because some people refused-to conform to the traffic laws it was necessary to close the

roads altogether. Yet this reasoning is not more foolish than that of those who say that because some people misuse . private property F r the right to own private property should be denied to everyone:' The right to own things is something T that•- separates mankind" from 'the - brnte * creation. The brute lives for the moment, and is guided by its senses to the means of satisfying its simple needs. • But with man it is different.- He is guided by reason and he knows that the needs of to-day will recur to-morrow. "And " says Pope Leo, "on this very account— man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason—it must Ibe within his right to possess things not-merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only the things that perish in the use but those also . which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after times." The State is called into being at the behest of man himself acting under the supreme authority of God, and its primary purpose is to preserve his rights by so limiting his exercise of them that those. of his neighbor . will be also preserved. The moment the State abolishes individual human rights it automatically abolishes the limitation of them; and the chief reason for its existence having* thus disappeared, we are thrown back into anarchy. In such ■ case the position of-the citizen is infinitely worse than it would be if no State existed at all. In the latter circumstances he. would have to defend his rights only against individuals, and he would no doubt receive help from his neighbors; but when the State uses, its power to attack him he is helpless. Aristotle was right when he said that "the tyranny of a majority is the worst of all tyrannies." •■*'-■■■ The argument is sometimes advanced that man does not precede the State in any. real sense that in return for the assistance of the community, without which he cannot develop, he enters .into., a social contract—a contract to give up all rights and liberties to the State, and let the State decide what rights and duties he shall have for the future. This artificial theory is torn to shreds by .Father McLaughlin, 0.5.8., in the Catholic Times: "Man, with his rights, precedes the State with .its rights. Man, with his rights that clash with his neighbor's rights, precedes the State with its right to adjust things so that each can get the substance of his rights unhindered. Man,, with his right to daily bread, and his duty to win that daily bread, precedes the State with its right' and duty to protect his daily bread-winning. Man, with his daily needs, has a right to his-own permanent sources of' livelihood, before the State is born to protect his ownership. The order of nature is thus: Man has his needs, and his duty to provide for himself and his family. , These needs and duties to provide for himself and his family, imply that he has also a right to do this. In seeking his rights -he. clashes with his neighbors, unless order .be taken to prevent this clashing. To prevent this clashing the State is formed." The craze for State action—or rather, State interference—is becoming a serious menace to individual liberty as those who agitate for, it most have the least -idea of its just. limits. We have seen the extent to which it has been carried in the matter of prohibition, when the temperate citizen is punished for the excesses of others. Most deplorable of all is it to see- ministers -of religion beseeching the politicians to relieve them ; arid parents of their responsibility of training the ! children in the love and fear of God; and it is a sad reflection on the Information that after five hundred years of Protestantism its ministers can see no means of checking prevailing evils except the popular vote. .*" :■-: ":.::■' y..-. " v; ■ >' f- '"*"..