The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1912-11-09
Continued frosn paget.)
THE STATE ANDeSoCIAL DISTRESS.

Continued frosn page'L)
THE STATE ANDSSocIAL DfSTRESS.l
regulated work-house, lest the despera.
tion of starvation should lead to riot
and crime" webb, ''The Prevention of
Destitution," p. 223) For the effici-
ent protection of life and property it
was necessary that the State should
prevent those crimes of violence and
theft which would result from the un-
restrained liberty of class Of persons
who were in dire distress. There
fore, such persons were to be shut
up in a workhoHse or almshouse. That
the State had any positive duty of
assisting these unfortunates for their
own sake, or because they were an in
tegral part of the community, were
ideas that found no lodgment in the
brains of the wise men who drew up
that famous Report. They believed
that if individuals were left to their
own resources the vast majority would
become self-supporting a few would
be taken care of by relatives and
friends, while the remnant might be
left to perish, in conformity with the
socially beneficent law of the survival
of the fittest.
Happily this inhuman, anti-social,
and fundamentally false theory has
long ago been abandoned by all but
a small minority. 'For the most part
those who still cling to it are to be
found in the ranks of the lucky, the
successful, and the selfish. A large
proportion Of society has gone to the
other extreme, holding that in the
prevention and relief of distress pub
lie action should be increased to the
maximum, and private activity reduced
to the minimum While this theory
has in these pages for convenience
been called Socialistic, it has very
many adherents outside the ranks of
protested Socialists. It's advocates
would have the State occupy if posi-
BILE every portion of the field of So
cia1 distress.
1critieismaof These Theories.
Both the Individualistic and the
Socialistic theories are wrong, and for
the same reasons. They proceed from
a faulty analysis of concrete facts and
from a lack of right fundamental
principles. In this matter, as in most
other practical situations, the true
position lies midway between ex-
tremes On the one hand, individuals,
whether acting separately or through
organizations, cannot deal adequate
ly with the whole problem of social
distress. This fact has been proved
over and over again in the experience
of every community. On the other
hand, if the State is to bear the whole
burden, or even if it merely shows it.
self willing to take up an indefinitely
increasing share of the burden, the
consequences will be that much of the
work will become more costly, and
less efficient; individual initiative, re-
sponsibility, and freedom will be dim
inished, bureaucratic government will
be increased, and the sentiments of
brotherhood, compassion, and demo
cracy will suffer grievous injury. If
these facts have not been SO clearly
demonstrated as the facts that tell
against the Individualistic theory, the
reason is that the Socialistic theory
has not been so extensively practiced
nor so thoroughly tested.
State Should Promote the Common
Good.
What, then, is the correct principle
which marks off the sphere of the
State from the sphere of the individual
in the treatment of social distress? In
the most general terms, the function
of the State is to promote the common
good. The State should protect and
assist it's citizens in the pursuit of
mental, moral, and physical welfare.
For the most part, however, the State
should not provide these goods direct
ly, through the operation and manage
ment of social institutions and
processes, but indirectly by af-
fording and enforcing those stand
ards and conditions of well
fare which will enable the citizens
to obtain the goods for themselves.
Stated negatively, the true principle is
that the civil authority should deal
with no social distress which could
be dealt with equally we'll by pri-
vate action. This is not only cor
rect political principle, but it is also
one of the two or three great basic
truths of Democracy. This is one of
the reasons why men who think funda-
mentally prefer an Indifferent republic
to the most efficient and benevolent
despotism. Stated positively, the cor
rect principle is that the civil power
should deal with all social distress
which in the long run cannot be as
we'll looked after by other agencies.
l say ''in the long run" because there
are many things which the State might
handle with good immediate results,
but which it ought to let alone on &C
count of the ultimate injury to individ-
ua1 life and development. For instance,
it is conceivable that the State might
care for all dependent children at a
smaller total outlay than is required