The Freedom to Compete; J. Hancock

No one can assume -the lawyers prefer to say infer that the competitive hammering of prices to a common level betokens conspiracy instead of competition, any more than the fact that most men wear collars and ties is the basis for a proper inference that they have conspired to do so.... [157 ] The lawful conduct of one businessman may be made unlawful by the independent acts of his competitors over whom he has no control. This is no more realistic than to say that all of the citizens of one community are either righteous or criminal, depending upon what people in other towns in the same state might do. o 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 Editorial Comment: Apparently, a seller now 1. is guilty of collusion if he sells at the same price as competitors, in recognition of the fact that consumers in a free market will refuse to pay more to one seller than to another for virtually the same thing; 2. is guilty of profiteering if he raises his price to avoid the charge of collusion; S. is guilty of "cut-throat competition" if he low ers his price to avoid the charge of collusion.

[158 ] CHARITY BIBLICAL AND POLITICAL bIJ RU~~(JffJ. C~nchIJ * CHARITY is defined as an "act of loving all men as brothers because they are sons of God." This is a purely personal matter; an act voluntarily performed by one person for another; an act of faith in God and His commandments for governing our relationships with our fellow men. When we keep this concept in mind, it becomes a simple matter to distinguish between true· charity and the spurious schemes that now masquerade under its name. Charity Debased The original concept of. charity as an expression of love, now appears to have been largely replaced by a concept of government-guaranteed security. One possible explana tion for the development of this concept of charity may be that so many people felt that personal responsibility in the dispensing of charity was too slow and inadequate. Thus they chose to move into the speedier method of the use of public funds.