| “ The
Social Function of
Property |
|---|
as a
bulwark
of freedom
inheres in
all forms
of property.
These functions
have long been
well understood.
The institution
of property
is the device,
and indeed
the only
known device,
by which
an individual
can freely make
his choice
as to
how he will
spend his resources,
when he
will consume,
when save.
Property is
the means
by which
the individual
creates independence
for himself
against the powers
of the state
and the powers of
organised opinion
in
the community.”
“The abolition
of private ownership
of the means
of production
would constitute
the abolition of
the institution
of property itself,
and that
in turn
would involve
the destruction of
all forms
of freedom.”
“It would
wipe out
the merchant.”
“It would restrict all choice of occupation
except that approved by the State.
It would deprive people of the right to save
except under conditions which make them more
completely subservient to the State.
And, by preventing the creation of a class
with a measure of financial independence,
it would enfeeble the expression of unpopular
minority views
which represent the salt and savour
of any society and so often
constitute,
in one generation,
what comes to be accepted as the
wisdom of the following.”
[generation]
(Pages
193 - 194)
Ordeal
By Planning
by
John Jewkes:
(copyright 1948)
Stanley Jevons Professor of
Political Economy
in The
University of Manchester.
(Page 189 - 190)
“ When Sir Staffort Cripps
declared
in the House of Commons
on February 28, 1946,
that no country in the world
has yet succeeded in carrying through
a
planned economy
without compulsion of labour,
he might, with equal truth,
have gone much further and admitted that
no planned economy has yet operated
without suppressing free speech,
destroying representative government,
robbing the consumer of
free choice
and virtually abolishing
private property.
This is no accident.”
“It is
due
to the logical
incompatibility
of a planned economy
and freedom for
the individual.1
For the
various strands of
personal liberty —
economic, political,
and social —
are bound together.
Weaken or destroy one and the
whole rope
inevitably snaps.”
“A free society cannot exist
unless people want
to be free.
Without this,
the whole paraphernalia of
democratic organisation
becomes a
dreary mockery.”
1
If Britain ever
slides, by
insensible degrees,
into a regimented economy
it will not be for lack
of warnings.
Professor Hayek in his
The Road to Serfdom
portrayed the connection between planning and slavery
in an analysis which has never been confuted.
And Mr. Churchill, in his opening broadcast
in the general election of 1946
uttered a sincere warning
which was received with the same kind of
indignant incredulity
as his warnings, before 1939,
that Germany was bent upon world domination.
(Page 66)
“The planners, however, with their
one-track minds,
have seized upon the general dread of unemployment
and the work of Keynes to push hard
their own particular gospel and to insist that an
employment policy must be one of
detailed central control of the minutiae of economic activity.
Sometimes the attitude arises through pure ignorance.
Sometimes it is to be feared that it is a trick,
by those who really know better,
to rivet upon us controls
as the only alternative to unemployment.
Certainly the vague conception of planning
is a heaven-sent opportunity for every humbug
to slip in his own particular nostrum
as a part of the essential order
of things.2
2
One of the most ardent among the
intellectual planners has been heard
to remark that
“ planning is such fun”.
The individual sufferer from
this ‘fun’ might well groan,
“As flies to wanton boys,
are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport”.
(Page 122)
“ A remarkable consequence of the growth of planning ideas
is the extensive use of vague and obscure terms
which can mean very different things to different people.
This helps to create a spurious sense of solidarity between
different planners. For so long as they can conveniently
ignore the different meanings they attach to
the same word,
conflict can be reduced to a minimum.
On occasions these
nebulous terms are deliberately adopted in order to mislead:
more frequently they are the result of muddled thinking
or are merely a substitute for thought itself.”
(Page 125)
“ The ultimate effect of this use of slipshod language
is to dilute, where it does not positively poison,
the meaning of words to the point at which
discussion could
just as usefully be carried on in pure gibberish.”
(Page 207)
“ Perhaps, however,
for the mass of the people
the whole atmosphere of independence and freedom is most
insidiously destroyed by the proliferation of minor officials,
essential for the working of the plan,
each of whom is charged with certain powers
over our everyday actions.”
“ But the system which brings them
into existence is dangerous.
They are conscious of their power,
they (and those who are subject to them)
recognise the inconvenience of recourse to appeal
against the exercise of that power.
These are the conditions which may multiply petty tyranny
of the most obnoxious kind.”
“ The Prime Minister revealed
in February 1947 that seventeen Ministries
have power to authorise inspections involving the entry
into private houses and premises without a search warrant.
It later was admitted that 10,916 Government officials
were authorised to carry out inspections and investigations
without a search
warrant. 3
The ‘snooping’ called for in enforcing regulations
leads to the creation of a new body of plain-clothed police
whose work may differ little from that of the
agent provocateur. 4
This is the sordid atmosphere which breeds
the anonymous informer
and everywhere sets one man
against
another. 5
3 House of Commons,
March II, 1947.
4
The Evening News reported such a case
on December 31, 1946 :
Mr. John Flowers, K.C., defending at
East Sussex Quarter Sessions;
Lewes,
a Hove restaurant proprietor
accused of supplying meals over the five shilling maximum,
submitted that it was a shocking thing
that people employed by the Government
should go into restaurants and deliberately attempt
to bring about an offence. . . .
He was commenting on the fact
that a Food Ministry enforcement officer,
Henry James Reed,
and a Miss Dickerson,
his typist,
went into Tommy Tucker’s Larder at Hove,
on June 25th, and ordered meals
costing a total of 14 shillings.
Reed agreed that he had tried
to get the restaurant people to go over the five shillings.
When he asked the waitress,
Mrs. Pelham,
for
trifle,
she said: “ I’m not
supposed to, but I’ll try
to get you one.”
Mr. Flowers:
“ Did it occur to you to say,
‘ If you are not supposed to,
don’t’ ? ” — “ No.”
Mrs. Pelham said
Reed pestered her for trifle
and she got one
to get rid of him.
At Carmarthen on December 30th
Mr. Lewis was fined £2
for buying rabbits at a price
exceeding the maximum.
The divisional enforcement officer of the Ministry of Food
admitted that, on the instructions of the Ministry,
he had taken a dozen rabbits to the market.
The defendant approached him and offered and paid him 2S. 6d. each
for the rabbits.
(The Times,
December 31, 1946.)
5
The Board of Trade receives 200 anonymous letters monthly
about rationing offences being committed by named individuals.
The corresponding figure for the Ministry of Food
does not seem to have been
made public.
LandGrab.US
Eminent Domain - Condemnation:
reduces Private Property to a priviledge,
and creates Nomads.
Eminent
Domain’s Propriety
in
Knoxiousville
Deign your own
Government —
M.B.’s
Topical
ISLE.
TaxJudas.com
Isonomia.US
|