PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20513, 1 June 1938, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents, whose letters are welcome, 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.

SCARCITY (To the Editor) Sir,—Scarcity in a land of plenty. That is the stale of affairs actually prevailing throughout the Dominion to-day. Why? Because the Government’s financial policy, which is no different from that of the private banks, reflects scarcity. Scarcity, not of goods or commodities, hut of money, the medium of exchange. Wealth in the abstract is limited; consequently there are many thousands either just on or below the bread-line. It does not make the slightest difference who owns or controls the financial machine. It does, however, make all the difference possible the manner in which the “money machine” is operated. The money system can either serve the people on the basis of equation, or enslave the masses with its deadly coils. There is no possible middle course. We are continually told, and given to understand, that the Government is not under the iron heel of any external money power, by virtue of the fact that it owns and controls the Central Bank. Who can deny that there are hundreds existing on a weekly sum of money which is well below the bread-line? These unfortunate ones are the victims of a vicious money system which is owned by, controlled by, and operated by a Labour Government. —I am, etc-, HARRY WOODRUFFE. Auckland. May 28. WAGE SLAVERY \ (To the Editor) Sir, —I read with much pleasure the criticism passed by “Junius” on my letter on wage slavery. He evidently thinks that I have mistaken views about life. I do not think so. Tn selling and buying the crux of the matter is the justice of the transaction. not the goods transferred. During my life I have sold both my brawn and my brains, and never had in either case the least suspicion that I was doing anything derogatory to my dignity as a human being. All I was concerned with was getting and giving a square deal. Surely “Junius” would not argue that it is honourable to sell gold and jewels and dishonourable |.o soil soap and sausages? My critic talks about “democratic Socialism.” 1 challenge the possibility of the existence of such a monstrosity. We have to-day three great Socialistic states —Russia. Italy. Germany. These are not. democracies. The key principle of democracy is that the State exists for the citizen; of Socialism, that the citizen exists for the State. But the State is an abstraction; everything done in the name of the State must be done through human agency—that is, a bureaucracy—so that the theoretic supremacy of the State means in practice the supremacy of the bureaucracy, and the community falls under the control of an aristocratic class of officials, like the Roman Empire after Constantine, and the Russian and Chinese Empires in modern times- Mandarin rule, hut not democracy! As for slavery, my point of view Is l,hat. it is the condition of slavery that matters; the identity of the persons wielding power over the slave is immaterial. Considering the “liquidations and “purgings” that form such a constant factor in Russian affairs, one thinks that “Junius” was rather indiscreet in dragging Russia into the arena.-—I am. etc., A. WARBURTON. Ngaruawahia, May 27-

| SUPERANNUATION SCHEME (To the Editor) | Sir, —When “Fraternity” discourses j “dispassionately” on the justice of j confiscating public servants' savings, as represented by their contributions j to superannuation funds, he Is using j precisely the right fly for tho evening ' rise or any other time of day. j “Fraternity" declared that “we are i heading for a socialistic State,” and it 1 Is well to consider what that state--1 ment implies. In the first place, I should say equality of opportunity; ' secondly, equality of sacrifice; and, . lastly, equality of reward. If we are : all destined to be equal which Heaven i forbid), then let us be equal not only i in the benefits but also in the burdens. Why a comparatively poorly-paid section of the community such as the ! public servants should he regarded by another section as fair game on which to practise a barefaced social injustice : is quite beyond me. : Had we attained the. millennium I should have lo plead guilty, to selfishness. but as obviously we have not 1 ' can only plead that when any infringement of their rights is contemplated public servants are liable to act .in much the same way as any other section of the community would do in the circumstances.

The great majority of public servants will, on retirement after the expiration of 40 years’ service, receive pensions not exceeding £3OO per annum. It may not be generally known that contributors who have joined the superannuation funds for many years past are not permitted 'o draw pensions in excess of the figure quoted above, irrespective of their salaries prior to retirement. For this pension the public servant pays a minimum of is in tbo £. Th* social security proposals now under consideration provide for a tax of Is in the £ on wage* and other income to ; provide for employment promotion. ! health service anil superannuation. | The Minister of Finance is reported to • have stated Viat of the is in the £ 1 tax 2id or thereabouts represented the proportion which would I jp required for superannuation purposes. also-is qualified to receive the pension will be entitled to receive £156 per annum for a payment of a paltry 2ld in the £. Surely even “Fraternity” will admit. That, i hr public servant is entitled to the additional £144 per annum if he is forunate enough to qualit'v for the full pension when it- is considered that, on the figures, be is pay in tr an additional i»Ad in the £ for it. In addition tbere is a distinct pusbibililv that lie mnv be required to contribute In the national scheme at the same rate as any ~th*r member of the community, and w’lii little nr benefit under »!.e superannuation section of the sell* t„ e. I am. f |C.. UAL IT V. * Hamilton, May 31.

BACK TO NORMAL? (To the Editor) Sir, —The Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, has been telling various audiences In New Zealand that as far as unemployment is concerned New Zealand Is back to normal. Without actually saying so In so many words, the Minister of Finance, the 1 Hon. W. Nash, when speaking at Lower Hutt, implied the same thing, strengthening it by urging advanced reforms for further social amelioration. Even the Minister of Public Works, the Hon. R. Semple, when speaking at Morrinsville recently, answered the charge that his Government had created boom conditions by retorting that “these are not boom conditions; we are only back to normal.” Now. Sir, if we are back to normal, surely it is time ta expect the removal of emergency burdens put upon U 3 to meet abnormal conditions. The unemployment levy and wage tax, the increased exchange on London, and the sales tax were all enacted to deal with emergency conditions. If we are back to normal ought not the Government to remove them? —I am, etc., INDEPENDENT. Hamilton, May 30. CURRENCY MATTERS (To the Editor) Sir, —Mr Hunter, having set out to prove that goods could not be exchanged owing to lack of money, brings forward the questions as to whether or not money is a commodity and what other purposes it serves, other than that of a medium of exchange. As an answer to these questions either way could not decide the original point at issue I propose to postpone discussion on them until Mr Hunter has either refuted my arguments or admitted that his contentions are wrong. Your correspondent cannot dispute that 1.0.U.’5, credit notes, etc., are effective means of exchange, and that their use would be extended if the usual means were lacking. They are not dissimilar from bank notes. In countries where the latter are not legal tender there Js 4 no difference in principle whatever, yet they exchange at par with legal tender and are accepted in payment of taxes and the purchase of such commodities as Mr Hunter states can only he purchased with money. Douglasites frequently refute Mr Hunter's argument by reference to the business which is transacted by figures entered in a ledger. Mr Hunter admits that the application of his scheme would not solve the land question. If it will not solve this question it will not solve the problem of poverty amidst the unparalleled abundance which the advance of science has made possible. The benefits resulting from this progress would be absorbed in land values; the unequal distribution of wealth (in which Mr Hunter is not interested) would continue to become more unequal, until the rich became richer and the poor became poorer. A better system of exchange would not help matters. Large numbers would have nothing to exchange- Mr Hunter would soon be forced to adopt the policy of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, a policy j which _ie states i« the recreation of highwaymen and politicians. The latter take more from the poor and give to the rich than they take from tlie rich and give to the poor.—l am, etc., T. KINDLE. Hamilton, May 28.

FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY (To the Editor) Sir.—Your correspondent “Bird c’ Freedom” has his roots well grounded in the fertile soil of historic fact. He writes: . . the lons story of British liberty—a gloriojs heritage of our race that has been handed down to us from our ancestors, who enjoyed ■it 2000 years ago, when they lived among the forests and heaths c.t northern Germany.” That is historically correct, and T should like to state briefly what that ancient liberty was founded upon. Those ancient people had what was for their times a fairly just land system. every man having, as his birthright, an area of land allotted to him. upon which he was able to secure a living, and was thus economically independent. It was these free men from free land who overthrew the might of Borne, tiie legions having been so weakened by the land monopoly system that had developed in Italy. As Pliny the historian said: “The great estates latifundia) ruined Italy.” Driven off the land by slave labour and the mortgage system, the rural workers and smallholders Ihen tlocked into the cities, where they were kept quiet on “bread and games.” | much as we aro doing in New Zealand to-day. When tlie invasion came the populace had become a landless proletariat, and were fit neither for farming nor fighting, and were scattered like chaff before the hardy northmen from the free-land country. How to restore the natural rights of the people in the soil 1 explained in my letter on the basis of the “financial domination,” when I commented upm vour supplement article on the Bank of England- In short. “To the producer belongs the product,” is the natural law of ownership. To the Creator, therefore. Cm earth belongs, and He has given it in “possession.” not “ownership,” to man. “The land is Mine.” i The annual economic value of the I social environment is produced by j society at large, and that is the. natural | social’ salary for all public expendiI ture. i The improvements on and in land, j in town and country alike, arc labour I products, an 1 these belong to society, | they arid the social values “attaching” | to land being the “man-made” things, i \ triple restoration is called for —the j ownership of the land restored lo the 1 Creator. In he possessed by us and | used, and held as a trust for all | nomic rent of land, restored to society 1 for the future: and. thirdly, the pi-.»- | rjucts "f labour re- ton'll : il full by 1 being frep in he future from all t;j\- | iti, n. I'>i• a| rates and national. I of frrod- r.i. for it makes men econ •- micoly free. Beniamin Franklin jw!sei\ .-did: \\“hnut economic freej dora no oilier freedoms can endure.”

Freedom leagues completely ignore these historical and economic facts are not birds o* freedom, but are the tools of birds o’ prey.—T am. etc.. t. e. mcmillan. Matamata, May 28. (To the Editor) Sir.—T quite agree with your correspondent “Bird o' Freedom” that Britishers have become apathetic ami supinely watch socialistic governments stripping their liberties from • them. But all this is not really an argument in favour of the National Party, which, under its various aliases, was responsible for the introduction of Socialism to New Zealand. The Labour Party is merely carrying on where their predecessors left off. If the Nationals ever get back, the same old policy will undoubtedly be continued. owing to a complete lack of any new and constructive ideas. It is srmewhat ludicrous for a our correspondent to draw comparisons between tlm liberty of our hornyhanded. hairy-chested, cave-dwelling ancestors or the democracy of the Saxon councils with the present partypolitical system of caucus dictatorship, which is the very negation of liberty and democracy. Your correspondent and I both believe in free speech, but tie was unfortunate in choosing for his example the B radio stations. Under their present leadership the less the Nationals have to say about B stations

the better. Unless we, can pet a group of Independents with character and initiathe to contest the next election the vast majority of thinking electors will have to decide for themselves which party is the lesser of two evils. But it will ! e a vote “against” one of the parties, not a vote “for" either of them. Has democracy come to this?—l aim. etc., B. FARMEIt. Ihfmilton, May 30.