Its the 'shoe lace principle.'
We teach our kids to tie their laces; if we didn't they might spend the rest of their life asking for help to tie them. We work hard trying to get them to be as self-sufficient as possible. Good international aid does the same thing - the old " don't give a man a fish, teach him how to fish."
So there we have the basic principle. Society has an additional principle - real equality of opportunity - not lip-service. So we take each task and place it at its 'lowest effective and efficient level.' People are expected to clean their own home; if they are unable to do that then we move up a level. Is it practical for the extended family to help? If not then a service needs to be purchased. The purchaser is the individual or family or if financially unable to contribute then the next level up takes on the function - usually the local council.
This principle is applied to everything. If the family wish to home school then they register with a professional educational association who monitor and adjudicate the effectiveness. If the family [see Ivan Illich] are unable to do that then the local community [council] make the arrangements and the community invests [tax] in community education.
Policing, hospitals, social services and a whole range of functions are tested by the principles of self-sufficiency and efficiency and effectiveness. Professional associations monitor progress. There is no profit motive in any of the services as they are collaborative and for the benefit of the community.
Regional and national governments are left only with the issues that need to be dealt with on a national level. And nothing else. All matters that have been dealt with at the local level must not be duplicated at the national level.
The national government prints [and distributes to the national public sector] money and defends [broadest sense] the population. Each band of service taxes only for the issue for which they are responsible.
So all matters are organised from the bottom up. Communities send their representatives up a level or so to make decisions at the next level. Representatives must be of that community, living in the community and representing its needs and aspirations.
The key factor is that national government keeps its nose out of all matters other than to offer broad guidelines on quality of anticipated outcomes. Non-governmental professional associations offer advice on improvement, but the decisions on all matters relating to the community are taken by the community.
Levels of community in order of import.
1 Individual 2 Family 3 Immediate local community 4 City 5 County [if really necessary] 6 Region [if necessary] 7 National government.
This argument is not concerned with the broader matter of international affairs.
Our current governmental system has managed to invert the importance principle and has a befuddled view of the equality of opportunity principle.
Self-sufficiency of individuals, families and communities is essential to growth and development; principles of fairness are essential for individual and community happiness.
Why socialism? Throughout there is a commitment by 'society - the nation state' to help those who can to help themselves and to support those who can't. In so many societies the concern for the whole community has been suppressed by the one-eyed greed of the individual. Therefore capitalism needs to be regulated; the means of the production do not need to be in the hands of the government. The government needs to be able to balance capital and labour - or at least attempt to.
Hope this has been helpful. All of my political attitudes are judged against this model.
4 comments:
Very imteresting account Malcolm.
Malcolm
I thought you would like to read what John Pugh had to say at LD conference today re: the NHS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/mar/12/liberal-democrats-conference-live-updates
11.09am: John Pugh, the Southport MP, is speaking now. He says that the conference should have had more than an hour to debate this topic.
Reforming the NHS is like turning around an oil tanker, he says. But turning around an oil tanker is even harder if you are taking it apart at the same time.
Pugh says the conference is being asked to endorse something that is not Lib Dem health policy, not Conservative health policy and not even coalition health policy. The coalition agreement says there should be no top-down health reorganisation.
Any delegates with doubts about the plans should vote for amendment one, he says.
Not supporting amendment one is not being loyal, he says. It would be "giving licence to the biggest political, financial and health risk ever taken with our treasured national asset".
Good stuff :)
Malcolm,
I appreciate the fact you wrote this for me. I'm not sure I appreciate why?
Before I offer a view do you mind if I ask you why you particularly wanted my view on this?
Malcolm,
Firstly, forgive me for taking so long to reply. I have been under the cosh for a week or so, and only ever seem to have a few minutes here and there.......
One cannot but concur with the 'shoelace principle'. The logic and sentiment is flawless. I believe that we should teach people to help themselves. I also believe in smaller government, the state does not have all the answers, and worse, arguably creates many of the problems. The principle that more should be done on a local level, "bottom up" as you describe it, makes sense. Your order of "import", or responsibility as I might call it, is how it should be. And those are realistic aims. So far, we agree.....
I guess where we would depart is on the following....
- the principle of equality of opportunity is theoretically fair and right, but practically undeliverable.......unless I have misunderstood you? Are you suggesting that everyone's circumstances are assessed from the standpoint of equality? Or that equal opportunity is the target for all?
- the system of taxation you propose sounds profoundly complicated, and I'm not sure what you mean by the national government "printing money" and distributing to the public sector?
- what would your approach be to those for whom the concept of self-sufficiency is anathema? So you have started by tying their shoelaces for them, then taught them how to tie their own shoelaces, and yet they still would rather you did it for them?
But your principles and your ideals are admirable......and you remain true to them...sprinkled with a healthy dose of well-merited cynicism.... :-)
I know you despise "The Tories". But the right spectrum of politics is as integrally diverse as the left. If there had to be a pigeon-hole, I would be in One Nation - I don't believe in class distinction, I do believe in eradicating poverty (everywhere). I have very liberal and tolerant views. I can't abide hypocrisy, and false pretences. I just think that having worked bloody hard to catch thousands of fish, I shouldn't have to give them all away, and have my rod snapped in half for catching too many..... ;-)
Post a Comment