OCR Text |
Show THE AMERICAN WAY DRAWING ' fe'jJ : THE LINE '&p By Geon Pick MM A newspaper reader writes me taking me to task and asking several leading questions. Says this reader in part: "I have read your column in the . . . for some length of time. I gather that you are very much opposed to government's gov-ernment's engaging in any sort of business. Have you taken into account that there are certain things which cannot be done by private interests; that have to be done by government? Would you have the Army, for instance, run by a private corporation? If not, then where would you draw the line between what government gov-ernment should do and should not do?" To attempt to answer the questions ques-tions in the order of asking, most certainly I am aware that there are certain things upon which we must take collective action, and those things are a proper function of government. Surely, it would be folly to entertain en-tertain the idea that a private corporation could run our Army. As to where I would draw the line that government should not cross, let me repeat what I wrote in my column ten years ago. "A government (federal, state or local)' under our American Constitution, has no right to engage en-gage in any business or activity, of which the product made or the service rendered can definitely ' be charged to a specific purchaser pur-chaser or user." Still believing this, the building build-ing and maintenance of armies, navies and air forces, properly are functions' of government. Here we must be collectivistic. Each of us cannot maintain defense de-fense forces of our own. There is no way of apportioning the cost to individual beneficiaries except through general taxation. The same thing applies to police po-lice and fire-fighting forces. Each of us cannot maintain our own forces to keep law and order or-der and to protect us from fire. In the cases of streetcar, bus, elevated and subway service, these are not proper government functions. The transportation rendered can be charged to those who use the service according to how much they use of it. It is not equitable to have the cost of maintaining such services come out of the general tax fund. As a case in point, New York City, until recently, maintaining maintain-ing a municipally-owned subway, sub-way, charged a fare of 5c for a ride that cost the city 7c or 8c to give. The deficit was made up out of the general tax fund, collected from tax payers, many of whom made no use of the subway sub-way facilities. For what I am now about to say, I know I will be severely castigated. By the same reasoning, reason-ing, the Post Office is not a proper pro-per function of government, as the cost of postoffice service can be allocated to specific users, according ac-cording to the amount each individual in-dividual or corporation uses thereof. It has been said repeatedly repeat-edly by qualified business experts ex-perts that the Post Office can be run at a profit by a private corporation with the following benefits accruing to the Ameri-canpeople. Ameri-canpeople. (1) Instead of deficits to be paid out of the general tax fund, as is now the case, the private pri-vate corporation would actually pay taxes into the general tax fund. (2) The postal rates would be lowered, resulting in savings sav-ings to postal users. (3) The service ser-vice would be stream-lined and speeded up. (4) Investors would receive dividends out of profits made. Government ownership of things not intended for its operation, opera-tion, is a stepping stone toward totalitarism. This means regimentation regi-mentation and loss of personal freedom. We must restrict government gov-ernment to engaging only in those activities the cost of which cannot definitely be charged to specific purchasers or users. In conclusion, let me express the hope that I have made it clear to my correspondent just where I would "draw the line between what government should do and should not do," and that he agrees with where I have located that line. |