Good Governance - Day 3

Good evening everyone. It's nice to see so many familiar faces and a few names I haven't seen before, which is also nice. I'll just start sharing my screen. This is where we finished on Tuesday: what is the purpose of government? I had a little review about how society develops. As I was talking about that, we have individual, family, society, nation, and world—there are different levels. The Father talked about this, and Confucius also discussed the same thing. We saw how in the Joshua to Jesus lecture, they examined how that developed, and we also looked at David Hume reflecting upon six volumes of English history. He drew out lessons from that about how things develop, and we could see there are also problems. Sometimes you need to have government, which is often called a necessary evil. The first function of government, as I said, is defense—to protect a country from invasion, which would break the peace, damage people's way of life, and prevent them from being happy. Over and over again, that's regarded as the main origin of government. The main origin of kingship is that people realize their next-door neighbours aren't really that nice, and if we want to live a peaceful life undisturbed, we need to defend our village, town, city, or country. To do that, we need someone to organize that defense, and that basically is why you need to have a government or a king. That's the origins of it way back when.

At the same time, we saw that even though there are these basic laws that David Hume recognized—his three basic laws of justice—sometimes there are people who don't behave in the right way. Sometimes there are people who don't observe the law; they just want something, so they steal it. How are you going to uphold the law? It's one thing to have the laws, but what do you do when people break them? The conclusion there was that the second function of government is to uphold justice, to maintain the laws necessary to create a realm of freedom so that people can live a peaceful, moral, and meaningful life, and thus be happy and fulfilled. I want to move on from there to briefly look at economic crimes because that's basically looking at the economy. Economic crimes include theft—stealing someone's car, apples, or robbing them when they're walking down the road—fraud, and much more in terms of finances. There are other economic crimes, like the denial of private property. This happens in communist societies where land, businesses, and homes are nationalized, often without compensation. It's just nationalized, and so obviously, in order to do that, it's basically theft. Communism is theft when the state steals people's land, businesses, homes, and everything, but they don't want to call it theft. They have an excuse called the expropriation of the expropriators, suggesting that private property itself is theft. Therefore, the only legitimate thing to do is to abolish private property, which means the state takes everything over into what they call public ownership, giving the impression it's for the sake and benefit of the public.

In communist countries, this would happen with nationalization without any compensation. In reality, there are occasions when the state needs to nationalize a particular piece of land for various reasons. In a good society, the people who have that land taken away from them by the state ought to be compensated at market value. For example, sometimes a state might need a piece of land for military maneuvers. There are lots of pieces of land in Britain owned by the Ministry of Defence for this purpose. If the state decides it needs that land, it should compensate the people who owned those farms. Another example is unreasonable and punitive taxation by the state. In England in the 1960s, the highest rate of tax was 97%. If you're paying 97% tax, you might think, what's the point in going to work? If you earn £100 and have to pay £97 in tax, is it really worth it? Sometimes they do this for social engineering, to redistribute wealth. This is often justified as a form of social engineering where certain people in power decide to make society conform to their expectations of how it ought to be. One way of doing this is through inheritance tax, which in Britain used to be called death duties. If you have a reasonable amount of money, when you die, 40% of everything over a couple of hundred thousand pounds is taken by the government. Although you've already paid tax on all your income, when you die, there's another level of taxation. This makes it hard for people to think, what's the point in working so hard if a huge proportion of what I've saved is just going to be confiscated by the government? I regard that as an economic crime—thievery through lineage, depriving people of passing on what they've inherited to the next generation.

Another economic crime is failing to honour agreements, such as not paying salaries. If you employ someone and don't pay their salary, that's a crime. If you buy something from someone and refuse to pay the invoice, that also counts. These are all economic crimes, including making a promise and breaking it. So, what's the government's role in the economy? The government's role should be to establish and maintain a simple legal framework for the free market, including the law of contract. If someone breaks a contract, how are you going to enforce it? Without government, you would have to take your own armed police force to confiscate whatever it is from whoever hasn't paid. That's why you need a government. If someone breaks a contract, you can take them to court, and the court can punish them and provide compensation. This takes the idea of revenge out of the equation and settles disputes on an independent basis. That's why we have laws against theft, fraud, and other crimes. If someone commits such a crime, they should be arrested by the police, taken to court, and punished. The purpose of punishment is to ensure they receive their just desserts, but the main thing is to deter people. If people think they might get caught and punished, they may reconsider committing a crime. The real problem arises when the police are so inefficient that people realize they can profit from criminality because crime does pay when people aren't being discovered or prosecuted. This breakdown in law is a real problem, and that's why we need government to address it.

Additionally, the government must maintain an independent judiciary, which is incredibly important. Judges should not be agents of the state; they must be independent of political and commercial control. The judge's role is simply to apply the law. The people who decide whether someone is innocent or guilty are independent individuals, which is what we call a jury. They listen to all the evidence and arguments from both sides, then go away to discuss and reach a conclusion. It has to be an overwhelming majority—at least 10 or 11 out of 12—to determine guilt or innocence. The jury remains anonymous and cannot reveal any conversations or read newspapers during the trial. They must make an objective evaluation of the evidence. The judges themselves do not deliver the verdict; they act as referees to ensure the arguments are fair and that the rules are followed. A politician should not determine the outcome of a trial, and there should be no political control over trials. Judges should also be free of commercial control, meaning they should not be bribable. They must be independent and anonymous, realizing that when judging, they are representing the law, not acting in a personal capacity. If a judge has any connection to anyone involved in the case, they must recuse themselves from the judicial process to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Furthermore, the government should not appoint judges, as that would compromise their independence. There needs to be a mechanism set up that is independent of political control. Additionally, we need independent central banks so the government cannot dictate monetary policy. Governments need to tax, but taxation should be fair. Taxes are necessary to pay for defense, roads, and other essential services. Without taxes, nobody would invest in building roads, as it requires a significant amount of money. One way to fund road construction is through tolls, where users pay for the road. Alternatively, local or national government can take on this role, but they need funds, which is why taxes are necessary. Public health issues, such as sewage and water supply, also require government involvement. However, the government should not be involved in finance or the economy, as this can lead to corruption. A small bureaucracy with minimal corruption is essential, which is what we will look at next. This is a very interesting book that came out in 1992. I read it about 30 years ago, and I remember a little bit of it. It's well worth reading, although unfortunately, it's out of print. It's written by someone called Jane Jacobs, who is a very famous person in Canada.

America, she wasn't a scholar, but she was incredibly highly respected because she got involved in a lot of activism. She first became active in New York during the 1960s when the local authority wanted to modernise the city by building huge road systems and highways through housing estates and neighbourhoods. She thought this was terrible; they were destroying the city by putting highways through these communities. So, she got involved in activism, and although some highways were eventually built, she managed to save huge amounts of New York from being bulldozed. In the process, she studied and gained an incredibly intimate understanding of how cities work and how commerce operates, particularly the interaction between politics and business.

One of her most famous books is titled 'The Death and Life of Great American Cities.' In it, she examines how the old city died for various reasons. I read this book about 30 years ago, and I found it fascinating; it's an easy read. In my previous lectures, I've often discussed the problems of Plato, but she builds upon one of his valuable insights: the importance of separating commerce from politics. Politicians should not be involved in finance or business, and she explains this separation well. As she reflected on her experiences as an activist, she noted that humans are the only species that engage in trade. While some animals, like monkeys, may swap things, only humans have developed this incredibly complex global economic system.

She argued that there are two ways to obtain what we need, leading to two sets of occupations: getting what we need or getting what we want. Essentially, there are two ways to get what you want: you can either buy it or steal it. At the end of the day, you can purchase something, steal it, or, if you're fortunate, someone might give it to you. She illustrated this with the example of two primitive tribes: one living by the sea with an excess of seashells and fish, and the other living inland, engaged in farming with an excess of corn. The traders between these tribes had to determine how many seashells to trade for corn, developing a primitive pricing arrangement.

This concept of trade has existed since ancient times, as evidenced by the existence of markets and trade routes like the Silk Road, which connected China to Europe. Goods were not transported directly from one end to the other; instead, traders would carry them to various markets along the way, with prices changing based on distance. For instance, seashells and arrowheads were once used as currency. Each tribe needed a warrior class to defend against potential theft from neighbouring tribes. If someone decided to steal rather than trade, the tribe had to protect its resources, leading to the establishment of marketplaces often located near castles where soldiers could enforce order.

She identified two different groups: those involved in commerce and those who are guardians. Each group has developed its own set of values, moral principles, and virtues, which she termed a 'moral syndrome.' These syndromes operate around a number of values, and although the lists may not initially appear to be values, they make more sense when placed in context. Jacob warns that society must maintain both sets of values; otherwise, it will become unhealthy. This insight, which she attributes to Plato, emphasises the need for two distinct groups of people with different values. When these groups overlap, corruption arises, leading to an unhealthy society.

For example, if a commercial entity adopts guardian values, it may resort to intimidation to eliminate competition. Conversely, if a government adopts commercial values, it may prioritise profit over public service, leading to corruption. Problems arise when these two moral syndromes are mixed, resulting in divided loyalties within government, which can lead to corruption and civil unrest. The guardian mentality demands loyalty to the crown or country, while a government official involved in commerce may have conflicting interests, leading to corruption when they favour their own business or family in contract decisions.

She recognised that government officials should not engage in trading cash for favours, as this compromises their loyalty to the public. The guardian law prioritises loyalty to the country, while involvement in commerce introduces divided loyalties. This can lead to corruption when officials award contracts based on personal interests rather than public good. The guardian syndrome prohibits trading, as it produces divided loyalties. Warriors should not intimidate competitors, and traders should not use force against one another. Instead, guardians should exert prowess without engaging in commerce, while traders should compete based on price and quality without resorting to intimidation. This distinction is crucial for maintaining a healthy society.

Loyalty is about coming to voluntary agreements. You don't say, 'I'm only going to shop in Sainsbury's' or 'I'm only going to go to this shop because I'm loyal.' Of course, those shops want to develop customer loyalty because they like that, but the fact is it's based upon voluntary agreements. As a customer, you can decide to shop wherever you like; you can't be compelled to go to Sainsbury's, Tesco, or Waitrose. You decide whether to do that, and they have to attract your custom. The answer is a voluntary agreement. This applies to businesses as well when they engage in business with each other. If I don't like your products anymore or your price has gone up, I can choose not to buy from you anymore. I might find a cheaper supplier and go to them instead. In the business world, you don't accuse people of disloyalty; you might hope they are loyal, but that's not an important consideration. Accusing someone of treason is a different matter altogether.

Loyalty is really important in certain contexts, such as serving the public or the monarchy. If you're not loyal to your country, that's called treason, which is considered the worst crime. You're supposed to serve your country and its head of state, but if you decide to serve another country and give secrets to them, you might be doing it for ideological reasons or for money. However, this is still seen as treason, and if someone commits this act, vengeance is often taken against them. In business, if someone doesn't respect a contract, you might take them to court or choose never to do business with them again, but you don't take vengeance on them. It's all settled within the court of law.

When you look at how the world works, consider former Russian spies who defect. What happens to them? They might be poisoned with Novichok because, from the guardians' perspective, they have committed treason. Even decades later, they may still face vengeance. This is not about contracts; it's a different moral framework. If you work for one company and then resign to work for another, you can't take company secrets with you, but nobody says you've committed treason or that you're going to be assassinated. There are different moral frameworks at play, and they need to be kept separate. When these frameworks overlap, it can lead to organized criminality, like the mafia.

In the realm of espionage, it's acceptable to deceive for the sake of the task. Spies practice deception to advance their objectives, and nobody expects them to be honest. In warfare, a general wouldn't send a message to the opposing army detailing their plans; they aim to deceive to win the battle. However, in business, honesty and transparency are crucial. The public sector often has a lot of waste, while in industry and commerce, being industrious and working hard is essential. Businesses that become ostentatious, spending lavishly on banquets and palatial headquarters, often signal impending bankruptcy. When a company stops being thrifty, it usually indicates they've lost their way.

Governments often dispense largesse, giving out gifts and honours, which can be seen as wasteful since there's no return on that investment. The honour system in Britain, where individuals can be recognised for their contributions, is a good system because it rewards good deeds without significant cost. In contrast, in countries without such systems, favours often come with expectations of contracts or financial gain. In Britain, doing a favour might result in receiving letters after your name, which is a much better outcome. In commerce, investing for productive purposes is essential; wasting money on unnecessary largesse indicates a loss of direction.

In the army, exclusivity is important; you typically want your own citizens. For example, to join the British Army, you must be a British citizen or a citizen of a Commonwealth country. In commerce, however, you collaborate easily with strangers and aliens. Trade is just business, regardless of nationality or political views. This represents a different moral framework. Fortitude, bravery, and the ability to keep calm are valued traits in business. Optimism is essential for entrepreneurs, who often face high failure rates but learn from their mistakes to eventually succeed.

Honesty is crucial in business; you don't want to deal with people who lie. This is where the distinction between absolute values and reality becomes interesting. Jane Jacobs, for example, studied the interface between civil society and business. She was an ordinary person who opposed a highway being built through her neighbourhood. By engaging with both the government and the builders, she understood the differences between these groups and how they should remain distinct. When these groups mix, corruption can arise. Deception, while often viewed negatively, can have a purpose in achieving guardian tasks, such as in hunting or warfare. However, when guardians use deception for personal agendas, it becomes problematic.

In the guardian realm, it's acceptable to deceive the enemy, but not fellow guardians. In commerce, practicing deception leads to a loss of trust, which is fundamental to the economy. If you deceive suppliers or customers, you'll quickly find no one wants to do business with you. In the guardian realm, deception is permissible as long as it doesn't involve fellow guardians. This nuanced understanding is crucial, as illustrated by Jacobs' work. If deception serves a guardian task and is not aimed at fellow guardians, it is considered virtuous. However, in commerce, deception is not virtuous. When the two realms overlap, problems arise, as seen in the case of Huawei in China, where loyalty to the Communist Party supersedes loyalty to customers or businesses. This creates conflicts of interest and raises questions about trust and confidentiality in business dealings.

When companies operate under a guardian mentality or morality, particularly in the commercial sector, it raises concerns about the extent to which we should engage with them. This is especially true for companies from countries like China, where moral values differ significantly from those in the Western world. A similar situation exists in Egypt, where the military controls a substantial portion of the economy, including factories and farms. This control leads to widespread corruption and inefficiency, as appointments within companies are often based on military connections rather than qualifications. Such scenarios highlight the dangers of intertwining government and commerce, which can lead to significant corruption and mismanagement.

In examining the relationship between religion and commerce, Jane Jacobs offers insightful observations. She suggests that religious institutions often embody a guardian ethic, characterised by loyalty and hierarchy, which can lead to deception and cover-ups to protect the institution's honour. Reflecting on our own spiritual community, I recognise that while it is fundamentally rooted in guardian ethics, it also engages in commercial activities. Unfortunately, this can result in poorly managed businesses, as individuals may be appointed to leadership roles for spiritual reasons rather than business acumen. This overlap can create significant challenges, as the necessary commercial values and ethics may be lacking.

Moving on to the family system, which fulfills the desire for loving relationships, we must consider how to create structures that support these relationships. The family is often a central source of meaning in people's lives and, from a biblical perspective, is seen as a dwelling place of God. My wife often reminds me that 'the family that prays together stays together.' This highlights the importance of shared spiritual practices in fostering family unity and culture. For instance, Jewish families gather every Shabbat to pray, share stories, and enjoy each other's company, reinforcing their bonds and traditions.

Marriage is fundamentally an act of faith, hope, and love. When couples marry, they embark on a journey without knowing how it will unfold, which requires trust in one another. Similarly, having children is an act of hope, as parents cannot predict how their children will turn out. The family provides meaning and purpose, and many people, especially those at the end of their lives, often reflect on their regrets, wishing they had spent more time with their families rather than focusing on their careers. This underscores the importance of family as a source of love and a reason to live.

The family also serves as an educational unit, teaching customs, traditions, and values that are passed down through generations. T.S. Eliot noted that the family is the most important channel for cultural transmission. When family life falters, cultural deterioration can follow. Families not only pass on traditions consciously but also unconsciously, shaping the cultural landscape of their communities. Additionally, families often function as economic units, with many businesses being passed down through generations, particularly in farming and other industries. This continuity fosters a sense of responsible ownership and community support.

However, there are significant challenges within family structures, such as adultery, which is a leading cause of divorce and family breakdown. Religious traditions universally condemn adultery as a betrayal of love, leading to trauma not only for the couple but also for their children. Unmarried motherhood presents another challenge, as children have a right to both a father and a mother to learn about masculinity and femininity. Child abuse and neglect are further issues that can arise within families, particularly in stepfamilies, leading to long-lasting trauma for affected children. Additionally, neglecting the elderly and allowing the government to take over roles traditionally held by families in education and welfare can further undermine family integrity.

Parents are responsible for educating their children in various aspects of life, including how to speak, read, write, and behave. They instil good table manners and teach basic customs and traditions of their society. While parents can impart certain skills based on their professions, such as carpentry or farming, they cannot teach everything. This is why many responsibilities are delegated to schools. It is crucial that the values transmitted through schools reflect those of the parents and society, rather than being dictated by the government. When the government imposes its values on education, it leads to indoctrination, which is particularly evident in communist countries where children are taught Marxism, Leninism, and atheism. In contemporary society, children are often indoctrinated into political correctness, which may not align with their parents' beliefs.

The government should not supplant the family's role in education or health. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's health, and while vaccines can be beneficial, they should remain voluntary. Welfare, traditionally provided within families, has increasingly been taken over by the government, which undermines the family structure. When the government assumes these functions, it raises questions about the necessity of the family unit. People may feel they can rely on government support rather than taking personal responsibility for their families, including caring for elderly relatives. The government should support traditional family structures rather than replace them.

The family is an ancient institution, predating the state. Marriage and family law were not created by the government; they are human institutions that have existed for millennia. Understanding the origins of marriage is essential, as it has been a topic of much debate. Marriage originally developed as a social contract between a man and a woman, primarily for the purposes of love, sex, and raising children. When a man is attracted to a woman, he often desires a sexual relationship, but the woman is aware of the potential consequences, such as pregnancy. Therefore, she seeks a commitment from the man before engaging in a sexual relationship.

The woman evaluates the man based on his health, intelligence, and ability to provide for her and their potential children. If she decides to have sex with him, she wants assurance that he will take care of her and their child. This leads to discussions about commitment and monogamy. Both parties must agree to exclusivity, which is a fundamental aspect of marriage. The term 'marriage' distinguishes this relationship from others, such as friendships or familial bonds, as it specifically pertains to sexual relations and child-rearing. This relationship is mutually beneficial, particularly for women, who seek security and commitment from their partners.

Marriage is often perceived as a patriarchal institution, but it is fundamentally about the woman's desire for commitment and security. Many men today seek sexual relationships without the corresponding commitment, leading to societal issues. For instance, a woman may live with a man for years without a commitment, which can create tension when she desires children. The traditional definition of marriage is a socially recognised union between a man and a woman for love, sex, and procreation. All societies have some form of marriage, although the specifics may vary, typically favouring monogamy.

Religions support marriage by creating rituals and standards to protect it, including rules against adultery. Historically, the church played a significant role in formalising marriage, but over time, the legal authority surrounding marriage shifted to the state. This raises questions about the state's authority to redefine marriage, which was originally a social institution created by men and women for their own purposes. The state merely recognised existing arrangements, and any changes to marriage laws must consider the implications for the institution itself.

The emergence of same-sex marriage challenges traditional definitions of marriage, which involve the union of male and female sexual organs for reproduction. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage alters the fundamental definition of marriage, as it removes the reproductive aspect from the equation. This change means that the traditional understanding of marriage, which requires consummation through sexual intercourse, no longer applies in the same way for homosexual couples. Thus, the legal definition of marriage has been fundamentally altered, raising significant questions about its implications for society.

As grounds for annulment were removed in 2013, this is when gay marriage became possible in the UK. They had to change the meaning of marriage because non-consummation could no longer be a basis for annulment, as same-sex couples cannot consummate the marriage in the traditional sense. If consummation is a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples could never actually be married under the conventional understanding of the term. Therefore, the meaning of marriage had to be altered; it is no longer solely about a sexual relationship, which is traditionally its core aspect. Traditional marriage is fundamentally linked to procreation, and homosexual couples cannot procreate in the natural way. While they can adopt children or undergo certain medical procedures, the biological aspect of procreation is absent. Thus, this critical element is removed from the definition of marriage.

The term 'marriage' itself raises questions about its arbitrariness. The word was not created arbitrarily; it developed to describe a specific relationship that exists across all societies. Anthropologists study various cultures and identify the names for different relationships, and they consistently find a term for the union between a man and a woman, which is called marriage. The meanings of these words are not arbitrary; they carry distinct significance. If the definition of marriage changes to exclude sexual consummation and the possibility of procreation, it leads to further inquiries. For instance, if a relationship can exist without sex and without the potential for procreation, why shouldn't two sisters be allowed to marry? Or a brother and sister who do not engage in a sexual relationship? If we begin to question the traditional definitions, we must also consider why incest is deemed unacceptable, or why a parent and child who do not have a sexual relationship cannot marry.

This line of reasoning opens the door to other possibilities, such as polygamy. Once the meaning of marriage is altered, everything becomes arbitrary. If we allow for such changes, why shouldn't any two or more individuals who do not engage in a sexual relationship be permitted to marry, especially if they seek the financial benefits associated with marriage, such as tax breaks? The government generally supports marriage with special tax considerations, so the question arises: why shouldn't anyone be able to enter into a marriage-like ceremony to enjoy these benefits? My suggestion is that the institution of marriage should remain specifically defined as a union between a man and a woman. The reality is that approximately one percent of the population identifies as homosexual in the UK and European countries.

I propose creating a different legal institution with a distinct name for same-sex couples, which would provide similar legal rights and tax statuses without calling it marriage. For instance, in Britain, we have civil partnerships for same-sex couples, allowing them to have a legally recognised relationship with certain rights and tax benefits. This approach preserves the traditional meaning of marriage while accommodating the needs of homosexual couples. Furthermore, the role of government should be to support traditional marriage rather than dismantle it. The government should not replace the family unit, which it has increasingly done, nor dictate what people should believe.

The tax system should favour marriage and children, allowing for inheritance and the accumulation of wealth across generations. As David Hume recognised, this fosters a greater sense of responsibility, as individuals realise they can pass on their wealth to their children. This understanding provides motivation for working hard and building businesses. Additionally, the social security system should not subsidise unmarried mothers or promote that lifestyle; instead, social services should focus on supporting the voluntary sector.