In Defence of Liberty

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2500, 31 October 1922, Page 6 (Supplement)

In Defence of Liberty

What Workers Should Remember

AN ARTICLE BY A LABOUR MAN— J. B. H. (Wellington)

As a public advocate, some twenty years ago, of both prohibition and Socialism, I may be pardoned for taking the opportunity your offer gives me to explain why I have so long ceased to advocate prohibition:

First —The unnecessary and undesirable interference with individual liberty. I am well aware that absolute liberty is impossible, but that each member should bo prepared to make some sacrifice for the “general good.” In the endeavour to perfect tho body social a 9 little interference as possible must be made with others, and must not be encroached upon. Drunkards are an undoubted nuisance; so are church bells, public smokers, spitters, etc. (I live in it, and know, but, being to-day in the minority, have to put up with tho nuisance.) Those persons would Iks properly looked after in a well-ordered community. The causes of alcoholism or any other drug-taking would also be properly cared for, mainly by removing the fear of want and the uncertainty of securing a means of subsistence in this form of society. Lowering the Standard. Second —Under a system of absolute abstinence from alcoholic drinks (assuming such were possible) as a Socialist, I contend that the worker, economically, wonld be no better off, as he would receive less out of the total wealth produced than he did before he abstained. Alcohol, tobacco, pictures, etc., being so generally in use, they become embodied in the general standard of subsistence. Jt follows, if all

abstained from these articles, the general standard would be lowered, and the worker, being able to do with lees, would get less. Thus, the sober worker benefits at the expense of the drinker in present-day society. An Intolerant Class. Third—My third objection is, that those demanding prohibition would be a dangerous and an intolerant class entrusted with any power; all past history proves this, for when in any kind of control they abuse and persecute. \ m An instance of this occurred recently in the House' of Commons in an endeavour to pass a bill restraining girls of a certain age from wearing their hair in any but a particular fashion. The House, quite rightly, voted the measure out as frivolous. It might be said that Socialists, :f entrusted with office, might use it with intolerance to the minority; yet this is involving an entirely different principle, even if it were so, and does not affect the individual in his mode of life, his eating and drinking, so long as he does not encroach on the rights of others. With • more restriction upon the use of boverages, the danger of sly grog-sell-ing and all kinds of hypocrisy would bo aggravated, and the people would have recourse, as they do elsewhere, to all kinds of substitutes. We also find that, as liberties have been enlarged, they havo become less abused by tliio people as a whole. Severe punisliments in the old days used to be awarded far trivial offences. To-day our punishments are very small, comparatively, and as these have become leas, our crimes havo reduced, too. Tho people as a whole are trusted more than ever in the past, yet property of all kinds would be easier to secure if desired. Can our prohibition friends say how they account for this, and why they da not “trust the people”? There are other reasons for my abandoning prohibition which are impossible to deal with in this short essay. ~ j These, however, are the chief ones, and as I am not interested in grog, shops in any way myself, I am bound to speak as I find, and defend ths liberties of those about me,