The Real Functions of the State.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 1, Issue 5, 20 January 1911, Page 8

The Real Functions of the State.

" TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS." (By P. J. O'REGAN.) 1 hasten to fulfil a long-standing promise to the Editor of "The Maoriland Worker " to write an article. The subject to which I invite the readers' attention is the proper function of fovernment. I do not pretend to deal ully with the subject. I shall suggest a few thoughts. What are the proper functions of government? The question is an important one, and it will be answered in different ways, according to the school of thought to which the reader professes allegiance. I frankly own myself an Individualist. Yet, not many professing Socialists will quarrel with my Individualism —at least, after I have explained it. I take it for granted that the reader will concede the existence of natural rights. Every man has, in the memorable language of the American Declaration of Independence, an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not many are aware that Thomas Paine was largely responsible for the wording of the Declaration of Independence. Anyone who reads his " Rights of Man " will at once recognise the similarity of the sentiment to that of the Declaration. The same idea has often been expressed by other authors of more or less eminence. For example, Henry George writes in " Social Problems " :— There are those who, when it suits their purpose, say that there are no natural rights, but that all rights spring from the grant of the sovereign political power. It were a waste of time to argue with such people. There are some facts so obvious as to be beyond the necessity of argument; and one of these facts, attested by universal consciousness, is that there are rights as between man and man which existed Jbefore the formation of government, and which continue to exist in spite of the abuse of government; that there is a higher law than any human law —to wit, the law of the Creator, impressed upon and revealed through Nature, which is before and above human laws, and upon conformity to which all human laws must depend for their validity. To deny this, is to assert that there is no standard whatever by which the rightfulness or wrongfulness of laws and institutions can be measured; to assert that there can be no actions in themselves right and none in themselves wrong; to assert that an edict which commanded mothers to kill their children should receive the same respect as a laAv prohibiting infanticide. " There are some facts so obvious as to be beyond the necessity of argument." That may appear a bold assertion. Yet, in pursuing any science Aye must assume something as true. Take mathematics as an illustration. The primary truths of that science cannot be proved—they are incapable of proof. We call them self-evident from necessity. We assume their truth, and Aye deduce results Avhich would be impossible if they Avere false. So in the science of political economy. If Aye bear in mind that every human being comes into this Avorld clothed with a natural right to live, we shall find no difficulty in arriving at a standard by which, to judge the laws under A\-hich we exist, and we shall readily perceive the difference between what is and what ought to be. SCHOLASTIC FALLACIES. The truth for which I am contending would never have been obscured were it not for certain scholastic fallacies. Learned jurists like Hobbes and Austin speak of rights as the creation of the State. Scientists like Huxley deny the existence of natural rights, and seek to inculcate the notion that progress is conditioned on a "struggle for existence"—that the weakest are crushed in the struggle in order to secure the success of " the fittest." Go to any of our universities, and you will find sleek professors of political economy who teach that population naturally tends to increase beyond the limits of subsistence, that political economy has nothing to do Avith justice—nay, even that justice in the abstract does not exist ! Nor are socalled scholars and scientific men alone in iireaching this dismal doctrine of social despair. There are men professing Socialism Avho ridicule the idea of natural rights. Read Gronlund's Cooperative CommonAvealth, and observe how the author sneers at the American Declaration of Independence for its insistence on the existence of natural rights. The widespread and unquench-

able desire for social improvement shoAvs that the mass of men do not accept this teaching. The very existence of what Aye call the Labour Question proves that men not merely desire better things, but that they believe in the possibility of a higher social state. The multitude sire wiser than many of their professing teachers. There is nothing in the truths of political economy that the humblest and busiest man may not understand. It is this fact that makes the future radiant with hope. If we had to depend on university men and professors of so-called science for social emancipation, reform Avould be long delayed—if indeed it would ever come. Take the memorable struggle noAv going on in England—a struggle big with hope for mankind. Where are the educated men in that struggle? What is the attitude of the Parliamentarians who represent Oxford and Cambridge? The shooting preserves and deer parks of the dukes would long remain sacred to their " owners " were it not for the fact that the average man has at last awakened to the truth that in order to secure true liberty an end must be put to private property in land. THE LESSON OF HISTORY. History shows that the State, as we know it, is really a modern institution. The first men had no conception of the State. For countless ages men lived on this earth in families or tribes. Shall we be told that men had then no rights? If Cain and Abel were alone in the world, did Abel have no right to live? If Cain killed Abel did he commit no crime merely because there was no tribunal to punish him? The answer is obvious. When men first appeared on this earth they had precisely the same rights as men have today. The State can enact legislation, and by legislation it may do much to distort the true conception of government. But the State can neither add to nor detract from rights. It is quite true that we use language loosely. We may, for Jnstance, say that the Workers' Compensation Act gives a man who is injured in the course of his employment a right to compensation. We may say that the Old Age Pensions Act gives a person who has attained the age of sixty-five years the right to receive a pension of 10s per week. But this is not exactly what we mean. Suppose that before either of these Acts became law—when they were merely Bills before Parliament—that a discussion took place regarding them. What would be the sum of the arguments in support of them? Simply this: "The man who is injured Avhile engaged in doing useful Avork has a right to compensation. It is unjust that a man Avho has done no wrong, but Avho is engaged in doing a useful service, should suffer want merely because he has had the misfortune to meet with an accident. It is not right that the wife and children of such a man should suffer the pangs of want. It is also wrong that a man who has worked hard all his life should want for the necessaries of life in his old age. We cannot all be rich. Many men are not rich—are poor even—because they were conscientious and did not use their opportunities to defraud others. Other men are poor in their old age through hardship or misfortune. Hence it is quite right that there should be an old age pension system." Such in effect would be the pormlar argument. Does it not amount to an implied admission of the truth of my contention —that rights exist independently of the State, and that legislation, while it should conform to what is right, does not really create rights at all ? Paine Avrote truly in his " Rights of Man " when he said that it is just as if the human race were continued by creation instead of generation. Whatever rights the first man had, every man to-day has. Rights exist independently of the State. The true function of the State is to protect individual rights—to secure equality of opportunity to every person under its government. To put it another way: The State has no right to restrain any man, unless and until he commits some act of aggression—some infringement on the equal right of others. It is a maxim of jurisprudence that " ignorance of the law excuseth no man." In modern days, when laws have become so complicated, this maxim has come in for much adverse criticism. Nevertheless, if the State were to limit its activities to its proper sphere, the maxim -would be reasonable enough ; or, more correctly, the maxim is true if rationally understood. It is because the State has often stepped beyond its proper sphere that the critics have sought to fasten on the law a censure which it does not deserve. The law is supposed to prohibit only what is morally wrong, and if that were so the law would be knowable by everyone, and the maxim would and could be taken in its literal fulness. Every man knows that it is wrong to murder. A man does not require a legal training to know that thieving is wrong, and so long as the State prohibits the doing of acts so obviously contravening the moral law, the law Avill be readily cognisable by everyone. But what shall Aye say to the em-

ployer of labour aalio is working under, say, a dozen awards of the Court of Arbitration ? What shall we say to the man AA'ho brings a wedding present ashore from an ocean liner, and Avho is haled before a Court of law for smuggling? A man might easily commit a breach of an award without knowing that he is breaking the law. He might easily import goods Avithout knowing that they were dutiable. These are but illustrations, but they will serve to show my meaning. Again, let us suppose that in due time national prohibition of alcoholic liquors will be carried under the legislation of the late session. That will mean that no man may keep liquor m bis house without contravening the law. Does any rational man believe it possible to enforce such a law? Does it not imply that every private house shall be liable to invasion by a policeman? Does the reader believe it possible to provide enough police to enforce the law? Or, if enough policemen should be found, Avill the public generally respect the laAv ? My point is that if the taw is to be efficient, it must be enforceable. But if it is to be enforceable, it must not attempt too much. The reader will now realise that in my view legislation has in some respects gone too far. In another article I shall endeavour to show that in other respects legislation should be extended.