PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20263, 4 August 1937, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are weloome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write In ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

MONEY. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Money, this ohannel of distribution, wai devised to overcome the difficulties of barter. Our money system of to-day, however, which is based on subtraction— money continually taken from industry and enterprise generally, In the form of excessive and hostile taxes —reflects an age of few wants, and It oannot possibly funotion in an age of plenty. However, the new social order demands an entirely different money system, a system based on addition, or money given to Industry and enterprise In the nature of subsidies, and not, as at present, money taken from industry through the medium of taxation.—l am, etc., HARRY WOODRUFFS. Auokland, August 2. NATIONALIST POLICY. (To the Editor.) Sir, —That sacred and useful word ‘'Liberty” has been much on the lips of the Nationalist Party since It left office, and now in an Issued statement the Young New Zealand Association states that It stands for “Individual liberty” and “equality of opportunity.” Frankly, they puzzle me, for though this society “Is independent of. any political party,” yet it recommends Its members to vote for the Nationalist Party! And the Nationalist Party stands for the perpetuation of the present economic system under which both individual liberty and equality of opportunity are Impossible. How much equality of opportunity has the worker’* -son who has to begin earning as soon as he Is employable, against the rich man’s son, who can have an expensive specialised education and then have his way into a highly-paid profession or Job by his father’s wealth and Influence?

How much liberty has the man on the basic wage, whioh, according to supporters of the Nationalist Party, is all this highly-efficient system can provide? Theoretically, he is at liberty to buy a decent home to live In and to feed his children as they should be fed. Aotually the system denies him the power to do either, so that liberty is to him a mookery. How much liberty -had the relief workers during the Nationalist Party’s reign? Not even the liberty to be heard in our public parks. How much liberty had the public servants and university professors, who were threatened with dismissal if they criticised the Nationalist Government? How much liberty had the electors when the Nationalist Party appropriated a fourth year of office? How much liberty had the workers when the Arbitration Court—their sole court of appeal —was hamstrung? How much liberty would the farmers have had if the Nationalist Party had stayed in office long enough to exeroise Its newly-taken power to turn off his land any farmer whom they did not consider “efficient"? Truly they have discovered the word “Liberty” rather late in the day.

The people are not so easily fooled nowadays as they used to be. They realise that “lalsser-falre” eoonomios and obstacles to the freedom of speech are no longer to be tolerated in the twentieth century. Also they rightly expect that someone must come forward who realises even better than the writer that this new age needs new economic and financial methods. That someone must be able to suggest a better way of breaking the vicious circle of booms and slumps and of providing the masses with the power to purchase the produce of mass production. This Is the problem of the age, and as yet the Nationalist Party have given no signs that they even realise the nature of the problem, let alone have any concrete suggestions for solving It. —I am, etc., INDEPENDENT. Hamilton, August 3.

PARTIES AND POLITICS. (To the Editor.) Sir, —That the National Party should show some eagerness to regain the Treasury benche-s Is only to be expected. To this end Its supporters are trying to prevent the recurrence of a t'hree-oornered contest at the next election. But surely the bounds were overstepped by Mr A. M. Blsley when he addressed a meeting of farmers at Horsham Downs on Saturday. Mr Blsley Bald: "If a third candidate attempts to stand, throw him In the river; get rid of him.” I prefer to believe that Mr Blsley spoke In Jest and did not mean his advice to be accepted In its literal sense by his supporters. But there are others who may think differently, and It would be as well for him to remember that his party has a far from creditable reputation for its methods In dealing with obstacles. (I refer to the Jamming of IZB and the damage to property which took place on that occasion.) It Is also to be remembered that there are laws in existence concerning Incitement to violence. It would be no surprise to me to discover that this kind of talk goes down very well with a Nationalist audience in New Zealand, Just as it would with a Nazi audience In Germany. But It was the wrong sort of propaganda to put over In a public meeting oonvened for another purpose altogether, and which had extended a courtesy In allowing Mr Blsley to speak. There are many people who have scant respect for either party, and if Mr Blsley thinks that such threats will prevent men from offering themselves for election, who are more progressive than the discredited Nationalists, he Is going to be disappointed. —I am, etc., G. HUNTER. Horsham Downs, August 2. THE YOUNQ DELINQUENT. (To the Editor.) Sir, —A distinguished visitor, Dr. Malherbe, of South Africa, has recently pointed out that, while our legislation regarding the young delinquent Is enlightened, the same cannot be said of our treatment, slnoe that can "only be as good as the people carrying out the work,” who need to be specially qualified and trained. In South Africa, for instance, he tells us, a court psychologist makes a study of the psychology and social environment of each ohild that oomes before the court, and, if committed to an Institution, each Is studied as an individual, from the sooial and psychological aspect, Is given vocational guidance, and taught how to use freedom properly with the help of a system of self-govern-ment within the institution. Now in all this, New Zealand is utterly behind. Even our probation officers are not trained for any constructive work. Our children’s courts lack all scientific and almost all sooial Information. lOur boasted Borstals know nothing of the “psyohologloal and social aspects” of each Individual inmate, nothing of proper vocational guidance, or even of self-government. Why all these deficiencies ? Our visitor kindly suggests that we are too poor. Yes, but poor in what? In vision perhaps. Our prisons are still far too full, and consequently too co-stly. They are not designed to reform, consequently again too 00-stly. We could in the end save money by checking our criminals when they can best be checked, in childhood. But that would mean psychology and psychiatry, and the head of nur Prisons Department believes in plain common sense as opposed to expert knowledge, which means In practice ignorance Instead of science, which is the true common sense. Finally, in Soulh Africa Juvenile delinquency is fruitfully undertaken by the Education Department. We commend this to our own Government as a desirable reform. Then our Borstals might be Borstals indeed. —We are, etc., N.Z. HOWARD LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM. Auckland, August 1„ POLITICAL PROGRAMMES. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I am pleased to see that my little exposure of the futility and humbug of political programmes has brought forth two writers of the calibre of "Hisloricus” and "Chelsea.” The former Is evidently a champion of preferential voting, which in some inexplicable manner will cure all the evils of which I complained. I fail to see it. All preferential voting will do will be lo give, the elector the chance of grading Hie humbugs presented lo him, and voting for them in order of his preference; but it will do nothing (o subvert Hie ascendancy of what the Americans call "ballyhoo.” It has not done so in the countries where it is in vogue. Political programmes under it would be as flamboyant, as self-contradictory, and as deceitful as ever. "Chelsea” is more philosophical, but no more practical, lie calls for an appeal lo reason, but lie must admit that the political party that appeals lo reason will have absolutely no • hance against one that appeals io i passion, prejudice and class interest, i The appeal lo reason is a policy of | perfection, possible only in a Utopia j where it would bo unnecessary. ! M>‘ half-century's acquaintance with politics includes the reporting of innumerable political speeches, and as • a result of that experience i can conJ fidently assert that barely one speech in a hundred is not self-contradictory. The Labour program mo of last election provides a good example of this; it proposed the abolition of the sales tax and reduction of the exchange rate (revenue reducers), and at the same time great, increases in State expenditure. This is about I tie equivalent to a private concern that was just, balancing its budget by means of economy, stating that it intended to reduce its income by 20 per cent, and increase its expenditure by the same amount. This is a palpable absurdity; yet every political pro-

gramme I have dissected during a half-century contained the same selfcontradiotory proposals. I still have something to say. but as this letter is already long enough I shall hold it over for a further occasion.—l am, etc., A. WARBURTON. Ngaruawahia, August 3.