The Washington times., 1934-05-26

Urine OF GIlc ~
right to work" RE
The first Lewis Haney
point is undesirable, impossible,
and based upon fundamentally
inconsistent reasoning.
Men are very unequal. We all
differ in our wants and IN our
capacities to produce. We are
interested in different things.
Our abilities are varied. Our en-
Yironments differ.
How, then, can we all be of the
same class? How can we expect
to have the same wealth?
But even if the thing were pos
Sible, think what gross injustice
would be done, both to the Su-
perior and the inferior ones Of us.
It would be the old tyranny OF
trying to treat unequalS equally.
And how are you going to
force us all into middle class"
without taking property away
from those who have it, in order
to give to those who haven't
any? I say that such a pro-
cedure would involve a destruc-
tiOn of private property, and the
man who talks of firmly main
taininy property by such proc
eSS is confused or inSincere.
This man complains of the So
eial "preSSl1re" from "thoSe who
have nothing to lose." He appar-
emily proposes to "give" them
some property to lose! But I won't
go into that.
would stress the point that
everyone has something to lose.
Each of us has his individuality,
opportunity, and the right to an
orderly society governed by ethi-
cal principles. This lecture"
mentions veterans" and the un-
employed as having nothing to
lose" But when we take away
their chance to make a living by
hurting honest and efficient busi-
ness, or raise their cost of living
by codes and initiation, they suffer
q loss.
That "right to work" doc
trine is very dangerous, and
the more so because it sounds
fair enough. But it is slO-
gan, and is meaningless. The
practical questions are: What
kind of work? Where and
when? At what wage?. We
can't all do the kind of work
we want to, and incOnceivable
chaos and injustice would re-
suit from trying to pay the
same for all work.
This lecturer, however, has his
solution. 1t is that the Govern
ment should have on hand at
all times varied projects of use
full public works" BY useful"
he means contributing to "health."
''beauty" and convenience"
, But how long could you and I
live on health and beauty?
Where would the wages come
from? Who, then, would provide
the bread and butter? How long
would government credit hold
out?
You might just as we'll say
that you have the fundamental
right to be beautiful, as to say
you have the right to work at
making beauty"
This dreary idealiSt goes on to
say that the "free collectivism"
which he proposes would free
everybody from the State. since
they would not be fed by gov
eminent.
Well, who would feed them
while they were exercising the
''right to work" by producing
"health" and beauty" for the
government? Their bread and
butter would certainly have to
come from the work of others, and
be given them as dole by gov
ernment.
Now mark me: I do not say
that all wealth is fairly earned.
I do not say that the great for.
tunes are socially desirable 1
believe every good citizen has
the right to live, and must be
provided for. And I believe in
much greater and more real
equality of opportunity for all
individuals than we have had in
the past.
But opportunity means rea-
sonable individualism. Freedom
and collectivism cannot go to-
gether as long as men are diff.