STATE INTERFERENCE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 114, 11 February 1928, Page 10

STATE INTERFERENCE

Sir, —In your issue of February 9 appears a report of a conference of master grocers at Nelson, who asked the Minister of Industries and Commerce to pass legislation to prohibit price-cut-ting. on the ground that “they had the right to ask the Government to interfere.” The Minister’s reply was that Cabinet and its leader aimed at as little interference in business as possible by the Government, and in saying this he will have the approval of the majority of business men and producers. For some time past there has been a growing revolt by all interests against State interference, and strong protests are made from time to time, with good reason. We have even seen protests from men in the grocery business against some of the harassing and unnecessary regulations regarding the sale of commodities, and yet here we see an actual invitation for further State interference. The Minister is to be congratulated on his refusal to recommend Government action, and he might, with very good reason, have said that the growth of State interference during the past fifteen vears has been largely due to the tendency of both farmers and business men to rush to the Government when anv trouble occurs, and ask them to legislate or do something to remedy a situation which should be tackled by the people concerned. In this way the various Governments have been encouraged to interfere, and in doing so have tried to legislate so as to, in some way, vary the usual operation of supply and demand, or to prevent the natural operation of the unchangeable economic laws which control our world’s affairs, and the result is becoming disastrous to this country. This' league has always actively protested against' the growth of State activities, and pointed out the disastrous effect these have on private * enterprise. For this reason we have put all our weight behind those who are rebelling against the growth of State Socialism. Therefore we venture to suggest to the master grocers that they are adopting a very dangerous policv in advocating still further State control. Also, we feel bound to point out that it is verv inconsistent to abuse the State for extending its functions by interfering with legitimate private enterprise, and, at the same time, to request them to take a hand in a matter which should be governed by the usual laws of competition. You cannot have it both ways. Tlie principle of State control and interference is either right or wrong, and we believe that the greatest service the State can render is to take its hand off legitimate private enterprise and let it work out its own salvation, according to the universal economic laws, and not to try and kill the competitive instinct in business, which is its very life and soul. —We are, yours etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. Wellington, February 10.