A LIBERAL VIEW
LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR
Sue,—The Archbishops' speeches on the control of human purpose focus attention on the competitive offer by all the political parties of a bargain- line in planning. There is a widespread belief that the post-war planning machinery we devise will automatically be used for projects beneficial to the community as a whole. Our pre-war experience of planning should surely make us a little sceptical as to the section of the community whose interests will in fact be protected by an increase in planning. I belong to the section of the Liberal Party which views with considerable misgiving extension of the sphere of bureaucratic control. Consequently I should be glad to see greater precision in the definition of centralised control, which is being advocated with such passion by all shades of political opinion.
A sense of responsibility for others has been developing rapidly in the last seventy years, The Western democracies have now reached a stage in their moral development when compassion will not tolerate the know- ledge that members of their communities have insufficient food, clothing or shelter. At the same time, being democracies, they do not like the idea that personal responsibility is thereby lessened. Personal responsi- bility is the essence of democracy, of liberal philosophy and of the Christian ethic. We must therefore pay it something more than lip- service. We must, however, face the fact that personal responsibility cannot really flourish unless disabilities, both individual and corporate, are removed. By individual I mean the chance that a child is born of parents who cannot afford to give it adequate opportunities for self- advancement ; and by corporate I mean the disadvantage of living in a section of the community where there is scanty employment. If these handicaps are not removed individual freedom may well be indistinguish- able from freedom to starve. To eliminate disabilities is the whole function of planning.
Provision of equal opportunity is a matter of social planning: mainten- ance of full employment is the aim of economic planning. I think very few of the " Less-Planners " have any quarrel with social planning (which is really a question of redistribution of the national income) ; and on economic planning (the aim of which should be a bigger national income) the differences between the " Less-Planners " and the " More-Planners " are mainly, if not entirely, a question of method. We all want to increase productivity so that the consumer may benefit. I think that most of those who feel that too much State interference will lessen productivity never- theless accept the principle that the first charge on the total wealth of the community, before any luxuries are enjoyed by the rich, must be a decent standard of clothing, food and shelter for (a) every child, (b) every old or sick person, (c) every adult who is prepared to work.
We must accept this even although it may slightly reduce the pool of goods/services available to the community as a whole—reduce it because it will lessen the marginal incentive to work of the very rich and of the very poor. This is a price for social and economic stability which is worth paying. We must pay it in order (a) to provide social services, thus removing individual disabilities, and (b) to finance useful public works (such as a national prograrpme of housing), thus removing cor- porate disabilities.
I suggest that the extension of planning beyond the removal of personal and sectional injustices to a complete control of economic development and activity brings us squarely to a totalitarian State ; and, further, that the sanctions inevitable in a totalitarian State—elimination of opposition, competition and collective bargaining—entail a negation of individual freedom which the Archbishops should be the first to deplore.—Yours
Previous page
