- - -
This title of this post was a phrase that I heard very frequently when growing up. My father was always going on about 'the general break down in society,' to which I never really paid much attention. I guess it was his way of trying to express his frustration about the changes that were going on around him, about how the youth of today have no morals, little respect for their elders and no sense of common allegiance with their neighbours.
Our parents are the offspring of a war time generation. They were raised with the same teachings that their parents had learnt during these times when discipline, respect and frugality were essential. In the same fashion that sharing a common enemy united our grandparents with their countrymen, our parents too have memories of a time when we felt a unity with the people around us, a time when, if a grown-up saw a young boy in the street during school hours, they would ask quite rightly "why aren't you in school?,' a time where you would respect and take good care of your elders, a time when one would knock on their neighbour's door to borrow some sugar. Nowadays it is the responsibility of state childcare to make sure kids are in school and social-services that provide care for the elderly, and depending on the person, a visit next door for some sugar could well be met with suspicion.
But is society likely to ever get back to how it was? Hardly. Immigration probably has a lot to do with it. In many areas of London, if you were to greet the first person you see in the street on your way to work with a simple 'Good morning,' you would be lucky to even be understood, let alone get a reply. So in many ways, I can see my dad's point. Society has quite literally broken down into smaller societies living side by side with each other.
But the question of immigration is only one aspect, and also part of a much wider debate that I don't wish to get into, at least not just yet. I am sure even those that live in predominantly white English regions also feel this 'break down' in society and wonder where the days of citizenship and ‘love thy neighbour’ have gone and why we now rely on the state to perform the duties once integral to the family and the community. But I ask you - Are these institutions products of our society or is the society we live in a product of our institutions? In other words, did we create this welfare state, social workers, government pensioners care and 'meals on wheels' because society was already in this sorry state and we no longer cared for one another? Or is it the very existence of these state institutions that has caused us to act selfishly, to see the problems of other people around us but no longer feel an obligation to help because “the state now deals with that”?
I expect it is a bit of both. But I hope you will agree that if we change the function of these institutions to be more decentralised, then we can work to bring back some of this common identity and help to ‘rebuild’ society. Imagine, for example, if the budget for social welfare was made on a more localised level (for this arguments sake let’s say the borough of Camden), and those that made the budgetary decisions were fully answerable to the people of Camden, in that they could lose their job if they didn’t put actions to their words or if they squandered funds, then each and every citizen of Camden could potentially be directly affected by any misuse of resources and would be at least mindful, if not helpful, in ways that could improve the welfare of Camden. There would be, in effect, more competition, a word which I know sounds out of place when talking about welfare, but that would create more efficiency as those that make decisions would be in direct contact with those that the decisions affect and everyone would have more of a stake in the welfare of those around them.
Now, please don't take me as radical who wishes to abolish the NHS, give every local town hall their fair share and let them get on with it. There will always be a place for National Health, cooperation between neighbouring cities, towns and boroughs, and central resource planning for issues of fairness and oversight. Nonetheless, I can’t help thinking that however blessed these government services may seem, unless we introduce reforms, they will increasingly become a burden, both socially and monetarily, as people become more and more dependent upon state welfare and less inclined to help one another personally, rather forced to help one another indirectly through taxation.
This kind of shift in decision making from the state to a more localised level would, in effect, be putting responsibility in the hands of people who are perhaps not ready for it, but by forcing people to share and work together with the people around them, perhaps we can begin to tackle some of these social problems and bring back that long forgotten sense of community.
Furthermore, make no mistake, the effects of state expansion and the decline of family and neighbourly values can and will have more serious consequences unless we do something about it, as explained by Daniel Hannan in the video below.
Our parents are the offspring of a war time generation. They were raised with the same teachings that their parents had learnt during these times when discipline, respect and frugality were essential. In the same fashion that sharing a common enemy united our grandparents with their countrymen, our parents too have memories of a time when we felt a unity with the people around us, a time when, if a grown-up saw a young boy in the street during school hours, they would ask quite rightly "why aren't you in school?,' a time where you would respect and take good care of your elders, a time when one would knock on their neighbour's door to borrow some sugar. Nowadays it is the responsibility of state childcare to make sure kids are in school and social-services that provide care for the elderly, and depending on the person, a visit next door for some sugar could well be met with suspicion.
But is society likely to ever get back to how it was? Hardly. Immigration probably has a lot to do with it. In many areas of London, if you were to greet the first person you see in the street on your way to work with a simple 'Good morning,' you would be lucky to even be understood, let alone get a reply. So in many ways, I can see my dad's point. Society has quite literally broken down into smaller societies living side by side with each other.
But the question of immigration is only one aspect, and also part of a much wider debate that I don't wish to get into, at least not just yet. I am sure even those that live in predominantly white English regions also feel this 'break down' in society and wonder where the days of citizenship and ‘love thy neighbour’ have gone and why we now rely on the state to perform the duties once integral to the family and the community. But I ask you - Are these institutions products of our society or is the society we live in a product of our institutions? In other words, did we create this welfare state, social workers, government pensioners care and 'meals on wheels' because society was already in this sorry state and we no longer cared for one another? Or is it the very existence of these state institutions that has caused us to act selfishly, to see the problems of other people around us but no longer feel an obligation to help because “the state now deals with that”?
I expect it is a bit of both. But I hope you will agree that if we change the function of these institutions to be more decentralised, then we can work to bring back some of this common identity and help to ‘rebuild’ society. Imagine, for example, if the budget for social welfare was made on a more localised level (for this arguments sake let’s say the borough of Camden), and those that made the budgetary decisions were fully answerable to the people of Camden, in that they could lose their job if they didn’t put actions to their words or if they squandered funds, then each and every citizen of Camden could potentially be directly affected by any misuse of resources and would be at least mindful, if not helpful, in ways that could improve the welfare of Camden. There would be, in effect, more competition, a word which I know sounds out of place when talking about welfare, but that would create more efficiency as those that make decisions would be in direct contact with those that the decisions affect and everyone would have more of a stake in the welfare of those around them.
Now, please don't take me as radical who wishes to abolish the NHS, give every local town hall their fair share and let them get on with it. There will always be a place for National Health, cooperation between neighbouring cities, towns and boroughs, and central resource planning for issues of fairness and oversight. Nonetheless, I can’t help thinking that however blessed these government services may seem, unless we introduce reforms, they will increasingly become a burden, both socially and monetarily, as people become more and more dependent upon state welfare and less inclined to help one another personally, rather forced to help one another indirectly through taxation.
This kind of shift in decision making from the state to a more localised level would, in effect, be putting responsibility in the hands of people who are perhaps not ready for it, but by forcing people to share and work together with the people around them, perhaps we can begin to tackle some of these social problems and bring back that long forgotten sense of community.
Furthermore, make no mistake, the effects of state expansion and the decline of family and neighbourly values can and will have more serious consequences unless we do something about it, as explained by Daniel Hannan in the video below.
No comments:
Post a Comment