The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1945-04-19

Debate is getting under way with
la good deal of vigor around the gen
leral question of how much "soclal
control" we shall have, or ought TO
have, after the war;
The spearheads are, roughly, on the
one side the planners; on the other
side the extreme full-and-free COM
petition advocates.
The question is one of tremendous
1t would be a point at which labor
might make a contribution OF great
and statesmanlike proportions. Per-
haps it will do so. 1t has made an ap-
proach in the joint declaration with
employers. But that is more or less an
oblique approach and not a direct
lblow at the heart of the major issue,
except in limited sense.
However, it can be springboard
| for a further declaration, since It's
promise is solid and sound.
Labor, speaking with employers,
stands for voluntarism.
But it remains to be seen how far
the new coalition will go whether
| it will regard its concern ended when
employment policies are dealt with, or
whether it will concern itself when
planning agencies seek to say to a
person that he may not enter busi-
ness, on the ground that enough al
ready are engaged in that business.
Few will argue that we do not need
any controls. Surely most of those
who watched veterans of World War
sell apples on cold street corners
and who saw Black Friday ruin mil
lions of homes will not think all con-
trolls are bad.
The Securities and Exchange Act
lis a measure of control and so is in
surance of bank deposits, with the
requirements it imposes.
We license dogs, not for revenue,
but for prevention of rabies. That is
a measure of control.
The real question at issue is this
What controls are needed to prevent
damage to one by another and where
must controls cease, lest they de-
stroy free enterprise and mans free
dom to move from job to job and oc-
cupation to occupation?
War has made many controls neces-
sary BECAUSE in war, obedience must
be instant and wars huge appetites
must be fed. There is no time for de-
bate. Perhaps we can get the distinc-
| tion this way: In peace one person
asks another if he will please do this
or that: in war it is the sharp COM
mand, with instant obedience. 1t has
to be that way. Modern war requires
that same obedience, only slightly
modified, all along the line.
We were not asked if we would like
to have rationing; we were rationed.
1t had to be and no time for debate.
But how far do we want controls
when peace returns? How much con-
troll can we afford to permit
! If a man wants to make that
stored "better mouse trap, shall he
be allowed to do SO, without getting
the permission of some great plan
ming agency?
We shall have to answer these
questions - and soon.
j
Some will say that war has got us
so tangled that we cannot get out
without planning, by govern
ment.
Now planning is an essential. 1t is
not planning, as such, that is arous-
ing debate. The question is, planning
by WHAT AGENCY?
When John Smith plans to save
his money and take trip or go into
business, that is one kind of PLAN
1 ming
| When X bureau is empowered to
plan for the COLLECTIVELY and under
that plan John Smith may not go in
to business, regardless of his own
faith in himself, that is something
else.
Shall governmental concern with
planning stop with the prevention of
abuse, as when it prevents waste Of
natural wealth and with the preven-
ton of injury of one by another; or
shall it go on into the realm of posi-
tive control over the actions of men
and the use of materials? We have
facing US mighty question.
Laissez faire can mean looting of
the weak by the strong, as it has
done; super planning by government
can lead to fascism, as it has done.
Where is the road down which we
preserve both the people and their
freedoms ?-CMW.