THE DANGER AHEAD.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1278, 6 November 1911, Page 4

THE DANGER AHEAD.

Discussing what he terms the clanger a he (id. Mr. Harold Cox, in the N'iPclccntli ('ciilunj for September, makes some observations which arc appropriate to New Zealand polities just now, and especially t-a the tendency to attempt the impossible Teat of curing all our economic and roci.il ills by Act of Parliament. Mi:. Cox regards the principal danger which Britain has to face rs the destruction of those essential human liberties for which miv ancestors fought and suffered. Liberalism, he argues, haj drifted far from the creed which it supported thirty odd years ajjo when that lireat Liberal leader, ''Sir \Yii.u>,-,i HAitcornT, expressed the attitude of his party in the following terms: A T.iljenil Government tries, as far ns Hit; safety of tho public will permi!, to allow everybody to do what lie wishes, It has been the tradition of the Liberal

parly consistently to maintain tlio doctrine tit' individual liberty. Il is (In. pi.ictiw ol allowing biiij sol. of people lo dictate lo another scl of people what Ihev .-hall do, what vlicv shylt Hunk, what tho'v shall drink, when lint!- .-.hall go lo hi ti, what iv.i;;cs I hey shaiPgot- and how Ihev .-hall spend them, against which thn Liberal parly has always protested. Such sentiments ulfored to-day would Iji! regarded as of the- rankest Tory character. The tendency nf the Liberal p.nrliy is to do exactly v.iuit the Liberal party of thirty yours jijro had "always protested against." liidividne.l liberty war, then roropjnisod as. essential to huI man happiness and human progress, and deep down in Iho hearts of Unpeople of to-day the same feeling cxistg. Yet the libe.rly of the individual is constantly" being encroached on and usually in the plcns.int.fst gui.se. The earnest philanthropist and the popularity-seek-ing politician join forces in the endeavour to sweep away the inequalities which the operation of economic and moral forces creates and rush to Parliament to remedy Hie evils with which society is faced. But how oft-cn do they create still greater evils I There is a passage in Jin. Cox's article, hearing on this point which is well worth quoting in. full: We should all like, he says, lo find nn immediate remedy for every disease; and some people can never convince themselves that this may often ho impossible. When the skilled physician semis them away with the verdict that the disease is incurable or (hat (in:o alone will cure it they (urn to the blatant quack, lie always has a following both in medicine and in politics, for he promises to euro every evil with a remedy which is both pleasant to lake and certain to succeed. No one who reads the speeches of the Attorney-General, with their promises of the millennium to ho attained by Act of Parliament, can fail to appreciate the dangers of political quackery skilfully'handled by a plausible advocate. The restrictions on individual liberty which, in most cases, incur the levelling down of the capable to the level of the incompetent; which hamper and discourage the enterprising; and which remove the incentive to progress, all tend to injure tlio very persons who are encouraged to rely more and more on the St ato instead of on their own individual effort. "The amount of wealth produced," says Mr. Cox, "very largely depends on the motives that exist for wealth production; and if these motives arc impaired the total produce will inevitably bo reduced. It is for this reason that all schemes for redistributing wealth upon anv other basis than that of reward for exertion ought to be unhesitatingly rejected. : ' Vriiilc recognising 'that much poverty—and undeserved poveiiy—remains, despite the great advance made through private effort, *iR. Cox expresses the conviction that taio remedy does not lie through political or State effort, but that in the mam the appeal must be made to moral and not to political forces. Wo must teach that a responsibility rests upon the individual to use for ho benefit of others as well as of himself the .advantages which ho pes- i senses whether they spring from personal ability or from inherited fortune. This view we suspect will proyo'ro the cheap jeers of the very learned political cure-alls who have, so many better schemes bv which a beneficent State shall relieve-the private individual of this responsibility as well as of other things. But the position could not perhaps bo better gummed up than is done bv Mi; Cox when dealing with the repeated encroachments on individual liberty with tin professed object of bettering the lot of mankind : Do not let us, ho says, for the sake of ifo throw away (he things that make lfe worth living. Do not let us in iho hope of making mankind happy destroy the essentials oi human hanpintss