Page 12 Advertisements Column 2

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 502, 3 November 1928, Page 12

PROHIBITION ANALOGIES If you say to a prohibitionist that prohibition is a restriction of natural liberty, he- will say, as the President of the Alliance said in 1927, that “all laws, human and divine, restrict individuals in the community interest/’ This, of course, is not true; some of the best laws enlarge liberty, and civilisation is largely the story of the removal of fetters. But what liberty is it that the restrictive laws, human or Divine, do restrict? The liberty only to do evil. And then what does the prohibitionist say? The dialogue would be something like this: Socrates: Then we are agreed that the liberty to be restricted is the liberty to do evil. Is it doing evil to drink wine temperately, as the majority do? Prohibitionist: Not in itself. Socrates: Then why destroy a liberty that is not abused? Prohibitionist: For the sake of those who cannot drink temperately. Socrates: That is a principle—l think, a bad one. But being a principle, it must admit of universal application. Is that not so? Prohibitionist: Yes. Socrates: You will admit that the institution of private property, though indispensable, yet produces fraud and cruelty and crime. Guns and knives also cause many deaths, do they not? And you will agree that food itself causes disease to those who eat unwisely and intern - perately ? Prohibitionist: I suppose that is so. Socrates: As for motor-cars you see for yourself the injuries resulting from their existence. You are aware also that embezzlements are a consequence of monev. Prohibitionist: Yes! Socrates: I am sure you will say that if private property were abolished much that is distressing would disappear. If we had no guns or knives there could be no shootings or stabbings. The abolition of food would certainly result in the abolition of the human race, but it would at least abolish indigestion, would it not? And if there were no money there would be no forgeries or thefts or embezzlements. Traffic accidents and motor smashes would end if- we got rid of motor-cars, obviously. Prohibitionist: I can’t deny that. Socrates: Then your principle requires the prohibition of private property, knives, motor-cars and so on. Prohibitionist: But Socrates: Yes? Prohibitionist: Well—but Advt.