"The Liberty to Starve."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1008, 24 December 1910, Page 12

"The Liberty to Starve."

j . (New York "Nation.") j 0" ' ~ t3

One of the great facts of life which tho Socialist always fails to understand, or never fails to misconstrue, is that liberty, like everything else worth having, has its perils and its penalties. "That is not true liberty," says he, "which may mean, and 'sometimes does mean, merely tho liberty to starve." But no other conception of liberty is possible. It always and everywhere means liberty to starve or to suffer worse evils. Liberty to travel sometimes means the liberty to got smashed in a railroad wreck; liberty to eat what ono likes sometimes means liberty to ' got indigestion; liberty to start in business for one's self sometimes means the liberty to become bankrupt. Tho only way to prevent theso evils is to forbid men to travel, to supervise their diet, and dictate to them the occupations they shall enter and dirccttheni in those occupations.. But. such regulations-would be subversive of liberty, and no person could, with a straight', face, maintain that, they wero.jiot. Any scheme of regulation which would prevent poverty would be equally subversive of liberty.

: No socialistic scheme lias ever been evolved, even on paper, which could leave consumers' freo to spend their money or labour checks or other purchasing power, as they liked, and at the same time leavo producers freo.,to enter such occupations as they chose. The problem of adjusting supply to- demand, has never-been solved by any Socialist, possibly for the reason that no Socialist lias seen that there was such a problem to be solved. 'As a matter of' fact, there aro only two ways of adjusting supply to demand and of distributing workers among' the different occupations. One. is to leavo men to choose for themselves what , they will produce, or what occupations' they will enter, knowing that if they-'misjudge the demand and 'make the wrong choice it means failure,' whilo if they make the right choice it -means" success. Under this arrangement the penalty • for tho wrong, or the reward" for tho right choico goes to the ono who makes it. The one most interested is therefore made to foci the consequences. If too many men go into ono occupation and too few into another, it is 'n bad distribution, and therefore n waste, of human energy. Tho penalising of those who have gone into tho overcrowded, and ; the rewarding, of thoso who have gone into the undercrowded, occupation' tends to bring about a redistribution, and therefore a greater economy, of human energy. The lino of rational and effective social reform is to make it as easy as possible for men to inake this transfer; to redistribute themselves, to get'out of the poorly-paid and into the well-paid- occupations. This can bo done most, effectively by placing before . our , growing youths all possihle educational opportunities whereby they may acquire" the training and skill which will fit them for thoso occupations where men aro scarce and well paid. But even then, if there is to be anything resembling liberty, a certain number will refuse to avail themselves of thoso opportunities, and .they must pay the penalty. Such is liberty, and such is justice. The other method is to determine production and distribute .men among tile' (liflercnt occupations by authority;' to' say to this ■ninii-, work here; to that riian,. wort •there.- Whatever the name of tho; supervising agency,- it would,- 111 reality, 1 00. our boss. It would--have "to determine whether nicu were • distributingtiiemsolvcs in .such a way as to meet the demand, -and if it found that they .were not, it would have to redistribute them by sheer authority. Otherwise, it would liavo to determine whether consumers were demanding things in the proportions m which tho producers preferred to supply them, and, if it found that they were not, force : them fas change' tlieir: consumption, v If they wanted more than .was to be had of a certain product, it would bo easy to say to them: "You .can't, have any njore"; , ; fcut.if they did ;not .Want: as much, of .another as was actually being, produced,, it would not lie so easy to manage. The authority might, lighten the work, or reduce the hours of the workers in this particular field, but that would only aggravate the evil by making it more attractivo and leading men to -desert other fields where .they were needed more. Another . method would bo to lengthen the hours of those who were working .when too much was being produced, and thus mako that field of' production so unattractive . as to induce 'men to, desert, it. This might work, but.it yould look awkward to.say l to a group..of men: "You arc producing more than is needed, therefore you must work harder and longer." If. a political campaign were waged 011 that issue it is not difficult to predict.the result. The final result of all such methods of. adjustment would be, if men were left free to chooso their own occupations, that the authority would be compelled, by decree to penalise thoso occupations which seemed .to be attracting too many men, by reducing their wages, and covrespond--1 ingly increasing the rewards where more men were needed. But that is the. very thing which is done under competition, and the workers would say: "Away with Socialism. It is no better than the competitive system." ..What Would the Socialist, do then?. There would be only one thing ,for. him to do, that is, to redistribute. men' by authority.. Sinco every mail's position under Socialism would be ..a., public. position, the men against whom this author-: ity would be .wielded would always, he those commanding the least political, influence, or in tho position of being , ablo to make the least political fuss.

Such a scheme might effectually prevent poverty, as it might' prevent dyspepsia by enforcing scientific dietetics; but it would destroy anything even resembling liberty. ..It is not likely that any considerable part, of the world will ever choose, knowingly, to give, up liberty, even though by so doing they might eliminate poverty, ior. liberty is, to most men, a holy tiling.' However, it is doubtful if there is anything truly Jinlv which has not .something of the terrible' in it. Liberty is the holiest, and, at the same time, the most terrible thing in the .world.