The Responsible Society

by Lazarus Long

The society envisioned by the Rational Anarchist is one in which the individual can take for granted his right to live and take part in any activities that he chooses to do. The right to do this would only be restricted in that his activities must not impinge on the rights of his fellow citizens and must be attainable by the individual without asking the state for aid. Of course, any activities must also be compatible with his own moral code, but that can be a given, as no rational person would take part in activities that were in conflict with his own value system.

How a society that, at first glance has no rigid structure of laws and regulations to control its citizens can function without degenerating into chaos, will be explained by first looking at what rules would exist and what they would be based on. The rules having been explained, we can then examine how the various structures of society would be changed. The structures and institutions to be examined will include the economy, the justice system, health care and military defense. Later we will examine how the changes to these institutions will effect the fabric of society and the family unit.

The Laws that would govern a Free Responsible Society

The laws of a truly free and self-responsible society should be, first of all, clearly stated, uncomplicated, and just. These laws should only entrench the principles on which a free society is based and not give or take away rights and freedoms arbitrarily. To this end any proposal for a law should look first at necessity.

For example, is it necessary to have a law defining what is theft? Theft is recognisable and easily defined. The law governing theft would clearly state what theft is, and the repercussions for violators of that law. There should be no difference between grades or types of theft as there is under our present law. Under the present law, punishment of theft is based on a bizarre schedule of differing lengths of incarceration and fines that are based on the value of the theft and the amount of trust that has been deemed to be violated. (under the laws of embezzlement)

This is a ludicrous idea, as any theft is a violation of trust. Trust is not based on a sliding scale. It is either there or it isn't, if a person says that they don't trust someone completely, they are saying that they do not trust the person. As for value of an object, what value should society place on an object? A monetary value? What about sentimental value? Monetary value should be a matter between the property owner and his insurer? How does one place a sentimental value on an object.

No, the answer should be that all crimes of theft should be judged on the abuse of trust, and since trust is an absolute, the punishment should be the same in all cases.

What form of punishment would be used in a Free Society?

Some, in the Libertarian movement have advocated a system where violators of social order such as thieves and murderers would be removed from society, not to warehouse type prisons but to an isolated area of the country where they would have to cope without the benefits of an ordered society. This idea, similar to that advanced by R.A. Heinlein, is intriguing in its premise that reform must come through the criminal's self realisation of the fact that he must cooperate as an individual with the other individuals around him to be participate in society. However, I feel that it may be too optimistic to hope that those sent away would learn to cooperate together. I believe what would arise is a dictatorial state where one charismatic and strong individual would be able to rally enough support to his side and force the weaker members of these outcasts into a feudal system.

Many of those who commit acts of criminal violence are incapable of moral judgement and what do we do with those that are now labelled as sociopaths? Do we ship them off to kill or be killed by the others in this Coventry. Another problem is where would we place such a territory and how would we ensure that the exiled would remain there?

A possible punishment for crimes of theft could be public flogging. It has the advantages of being inexpensive, and does not waste resources. It also is effective as a deterrent when performed publicly. Another method could be having the convicted thief work at a court ordered task for pay, with his cost of lodging being deducted from his pay and a set amount being deducted and paid directly to the victims of his activities until his debt to them is repaid in full.

For crimes of murder, one can either use execution, effective and no long term economic costs. For crimes that cause death but are not a purposeful act, the guilty party should be financially liable for support. If a father or mother was killed and they had contributed through working or staying at home and raising the family and keeping house, the guilty party should not be imprisoned but should be forced to turn over a significant portion of their earnings to the surviving members of the family to compensate for either the loss of income or the additional expense of hiring a homemaker.

The New Economics

The market should be free of restrictions and false quotas and allowed to seek its own level. The elimination of props such as the various marketing boards, tariffs and subsidies would free the market to respond to true conditions such as supply and demand and allow for real competition. Certainly some companies would fail and some industries may become uneconomic, but if that is the case, they are most likely already uneconomic and only surviving because of intervention. Intervention that costs the economy millions of dollars a year in wasted expenditures.

Along with the removal of restrictions and marketing boards should be the elimination of Crown corporations. These financial losers are often created for political purposes with no valid economic reasons for their existence.

The privatisation of existing crown corporations should be made with the aim of maximising the selling price without building into the deal conditions that leave the govt on the hook for the cost of displaced workers and buybacks if the corporation goes belly up. The purchaser must assume the risks of the purchase and the employees must be prepared for the possibility that their jobs will not be guaranteed. Most crown corporations are notorious for having bloated payrolls and would almost certainly be downsized if privatised. Monopolies that exist by government fiat should be broken up and the free market principle should be allowed to work, allowing the consumer more choice and the benefit of a competitive market.

Reducing restrictions between the provinces of not just the movement of resources and manufactured goods is not enough, ending the restriction on the movement of labour must also be a priority. The closed shop mentality of the provinces, where diplomas and trade certificates are not exchangeable from one province to another hurts the economy by forcing many workers out of their professions and into state run retraining programs, in most cases unnecessarily. Only when jobs and goods can move freely about the country in response to economic change and not for political gain will the economy improve.

The Health Care System

The sacred cow of the Canadian Social-Welfare system is our Health program. Unfortunately, the health care system is on the critical list with a poor chance of recovery. What ails it is the same conditions that have dragged down our economy. Overregulation and political interference have been a drag on the system from day one and as problems have become worse, the intervention has increased thus compounding the problem. There are solutions to the problem, whether Canadians have the will to make or allow these changes to be made is the question. Some possible answers would be to allow the consumer a choice of private services... this would mean a multi-tiered health system, but anyone who doesn't think that we don't have one already is dreaming. If a cabinet minister gets sick... he doesn't sit around on a waiting list of a year like most of us do, he is bumped to the head of the line.

In a private health care system, everyone could have that option if they wished to pay for it. Those who couldn't pay for it would receive basic service. Right now the system dictates what services each hospital may provide and what equipment is to be allocated to what services. Should the government provide these basic level services or should the private sector be entrusted with this. If you ask the statists, you would find that they have little faith in the private physician being willing to provide service to the poor.

I believe that physicians, as a whole, would be as willing to provide for the poor as earlier generations of doctors did. Humanity and compassion are not exclusive properties of the socialist. I would trust the motives of the private physician more than those of the power-enthralled statist.

The Defense of the Nation

Many Libertarians seem to have problems when it comes to the military. Some take the utopian view that the military would be unnecessary in a Libertarian world. Some advocate that the military be privatised.

I believe that the role of the military should be redefined and restrictions on its uses put into the new constitution. The military's role should be assessed to determine the size required to be effective. One idea that I like is the concept of a small standing army... a cadre of trained officers and NCO's that would from the backbone of any military force required... the bulk of the army could come from a true militia. That is, a nation in arms, private citizens who voluntarily practice and keep their firearm at ready to be used in the defence of the country. The Air Force would be a different matter, as the majority of the positions in that area require specialised skills and training. Therefore one would expect to have a larger cadre of permanent officers and NCO's than in the army. However the role of the airforce would be redefined to fit the requirements of the post cold war reality. The number of interceptors could be lessened and the number of transport and air support craft increased. The role of the Air Force would change from primarily air defence and strike capability to a role of ground support and air/sea rescue. The role of the Navy would also change from being an almost dedicated Anti-submarine fleet to a general purpose role that would include sovereignty patrols, Air/Sea rescue as well as defence of the coastal waters.

The Family in the Rational Society

With all these changes to the institutions that form the framework of our society, the family structure will be effected as well. With less support from the state, families will have to bear a greater responsibility for their own financial and social status.

The extended family will become a viable option once again. This will have the benefit of allowing the elder members of society to become integral components of the family. The extended family with its inherent checks and balances will serve to lower the problems of the youth by providing feedback and responsible role models. The burden of child care will be lifted from the parents and distributed among grandparents and other members of the family. Social ills will be lessened as the feedback and self-correcting influence of the family becomes re-established.

As the state will have less influence in the lives of the family, another more realistic and useful influence will grow. This influence is the community. Strength will be gathered from the neighbours and the solidity of the community. Instead of relying upon the faceless, depowering influence of the state, the family who experiences misfortune will be strengthened and nurtured by the communal spirit of his neighbours. The symbiotic strengths of the closely intertwined community provides far more strength and resources than does the inertia bound bureaucracy.

The roles of the members of the family will be changed. The parents will again resume their proper roles as the providers and the rule makers. The grandparents will regain their role as advisors and lore masters, handing down the wisdom of dealing with other people and everyday life, that years of experience has given them. Children will find their role changed as well. No more will they be considered free of responsibilities until adulthood as they are now. They will, instead, slowly take on responsibilities of the household as they grow older and will learn by adulthood the role of the citizen.

The Community

For some, the community that they will draw their strength from and find their roots in will be the church. Not the faceless, parasitical church of irrelevance that exists today, but one that is an integral part of the family life. One that is composed of like minded families that work together to ameliorate any suffering or pain within the community. Others who are not of religious bent will find their community among like-minded individuals bound together in a common interest.

The advantages of closer knit communities are many. They are less stressful, more likely to be free of crime and violence and more responsive to accommodation of the needs of the individual.

The various communities will not necessarily compete for resources because of their various strengths and weaknesses will make their demands so varied that two neighbouring communities are more likely to be dependent upon each other for supplying each other with resources in a mutually beneficial way.

Education in the Community

The education of our children will be removed from the state and placed where it belongs, with the family and in a greater sense, with the community. The state with its moral and social engineering will be replaced by either community education or family run education or a combination of the two. Community education may be secular or church-based depending on the wishes of the community and the family. In either case the values and the norms established in the school will be more compatible with the norms of the community than those provided by the present day system. Discipline in the school will become less of an issue, thus freeing the teacher from the role of care-provider and allowing the teacher to dedicate time to his or her proper role.

The exact methods that schools will be run by and financed by can be found in other works by myself and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the community will fund the school as well as set the standards for the school. This will return power to the parents and remove it from the hands of the social engineers.

Conclusion

About now I can hear the screams of anguish coming from the statists and collectivists .."what about rights"? Rights are only enabled when combined with responsibility. The individual in the responsible society will have all the rights that he has now. He would have the right to not work if he chose. He would have the right to refuse education. However society would have the right to refuse to support him.

The responsible society can thus be seen as growing out of the ashes of statism like the mythical phoenix. It is responsible to itself and to its individual members and conversely the individual members are responsible to upholding the values of their own community group. This is true individualism for the reason that with individual freedom and rights comes responsibility for oneself and by extension for the community. The individual will be responsible for doing his or her best to not become a burden on the community. The community will be responsible for ensuring that individual members are not allowed to fall into destitution through circumstances beyond their control.

POST FREELY