To the Editors of the Crimson:

The Crimson's editorialist of Oct. 9 and I disagree so completely that I cannot resist answering. He is right when he asserts that gross injustice prevailed in what he terms "the chaotic free enterprise of the twenties." But the injustice was not the fault of free enterprise at all. Cartels, tariffs, monopolies: these injustices of the twenties, and the thirties and forties, too, are all based upon the stifling of free enterprise. The beneficiaries of these devices, when challenged with their ill-gotten gains, habitually call upon free enterprise to sanctify them. Many reformers have never checked the validity of this stand, but simply condemned free enterprise because "big business" seemed to be in favor of it. Had the Republicans of 1932 offered to sweep away all tariffs, or discontinue all subsidies, the country would have quickly seen how much the privileged few cared for free enterprise.

The Crimson editorialist would probably reply that he only wants the State to act as policeman, to prevent unscrupulous men from blocking free enterprise. This is, first, unnecessary. Monopolies (and, needless to say, tariffs) do not arise without governmental connivance. No monopoly exists that did not grow with the aid of the State. Secondly, it is impossible. Never has a State been given control over the wealth produced by its citizens without grievously misappropriating it.

What is needed is not a stronger government, to create a new privileged class without taking away the privileges of the old one, as the New Deal has done. When everyone is a member of some privileged class, no one will be doing any work. Real free enterprise is needed. Regulation of the production and distribution of wealth, whether intended for the benefit of J. P. Morgan or of John L. Lewis and the boys, should never be a function of government. Mason Gaffney '45.