We know the immense sacrifices which people will make for the care of their own near and dear - for elderly relatives, disabled children and so on - and the immense part which voluntary effort, even outside the confines of the family, has played in these fields. Once you give people the idea that all this can be done by the state, and it is somehow second-best or even degrading to leave it to private people, then you will begin to deprive human beings of one of the essential ingredients of humanity - personal moral responsibility. You will in effect dry up in them the milk of human kindness. If you allow people to hand over to the state all their personal responsibility, the time will come - indeed it is close at hand - when what the taxpayer is willing to provide for the good of humanity will be seen to be far less than what the individual used to be willing to give from love of his neighbor.
So do not be tempted to identify virtue with colectivism. I wonder whether state services would have done as much for the man who fell among thieves as the Good Samaritan did for him?
In post-war Britain we have seen a tendency, particularly in some places of learning and even in some churches, to claim or assume a moral superiority for socialist and collectivist ideas. The argument is presented in a compelling way. It is suggested that a system run on a basis of self-interest, profit and competition is somehow immoral and even structurally wrong.
Those who take this view point to some of the bad things in Victorian times, and before that, citing as evidence selected works of contemporary artists and writers. Now no one would deny that in every age and in every society there are features of which we should be ashamed, but can we honestly say that the system built up on private enterprise and freedom of choice has not produced an immense change for the bettering the lot of all our people? Would a system dominated by the state have produced the wealth, well-being and freedom that we enjoy today? In this life we shall never achieve the perfect society, in spite of the optimism of much humanist writing; but at least a system based on personal choice allows us to have and pursue ideals and interests.
There is one heresy which it seems to me that some political doctrines embrace. It is the belief that man is perfectable. This takes the form of supposing that if we get our social institutions right - if we provide properly for education, health and all other branches of social welfare - we shall have exorcized the Devil. This is bad theology and it also conflicts with our own experience. In my own lifetime, we have expended vast efforts and huge sums of money on policies designed to make people better and happier. Have we really brought about a fundamental improvement in man's moral condition? The Devil is still with us, recording his successes in the crime figures and in all the other maladies of this society, in spite of its relative material comfort.
There is another dimension - a moral one. For a nation to be noted for its industry, honesty and responsibility and justice, its people need a purpose and an ethic. The state cannot provide these - they can only come from the teachings of a faith.
Freedom will destroy itself if it is not exercised within some sort of moral framework, some body of shared beliefs, some spiritual heritage. It will also destroy itself if it has no purpose.
There are many difficult things about freedom: it does not give you safety; it creates moral dilemmas for you; it requires self-discipline; it imposes great responsibilities. But such is the destiny of man, and in such consists his glory and salvation. In such too consists our national greatness. As the Book of Proverbs says: "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation."
MYR CONVENTION!