CIVIL LIBERTY DISCUSSED IN DUNSTER TALK

That a strong democratic government tends to increase rather than curtail civil liberties was the consensus of opinion of the panel of speakers at the first Dunster House Forum of the year last night.

Headed by William Y. Elliott, professor of Government, the roster of speakers included Overton H. Taylor, lecturer in Economics, Charles Kiefer of the Department of Agriculture studying on a Littauer Fellowship, and Edward Ames '42, president of the Harvard Liberal Union.

Speaking before a crowd of about 100 persons, Professor Elliott pointed out that: "We are living today in a state that somewhat approaches feudalism in our great corporations and labor unions." He went on to state: "It's not from a strong democratic government that we have to fear, but from a weak one." "If you want documentation of this fact," he added, "look at Europe."

Government Can Protect Liberty

Amplifying the remarks of Professor Elliott, Taylor asserted that "Growth of government in a society can increase liberties, at least so long as each new government interference can remove greater private interference."

Taylor continued by warning against implicit faith in the democratic process by saying that, "The specious argument that a democracy should put unlimited trust in its government does not hold water" because one can not always be sure that the elected representative will act for the best interest of the people at large.

Bureaucracies Will Expand

Pointing to a role of growing importance for bureaucracies, Kiefer indicated that a bureaucracy per se is not undesirable. "Bureaucracy is necessary to do a big job. Harvard, with a budget larger than that of many states is a bureaucracy," he said, but also went on to warn that the actions of civil servants must be controlled, nor may pressure groups be allowed to run rampant.

Ames echoed the feelings of the other men when he maintained that the greatest threat to individual freedom came not from the federal government, but from private interest. The best hope for a good and effective government, said he, was through pressure groups "of individuals" acting for themselves.