Good Governance - Day 4

Good evening everyone. I hope you found the previous lectures interesting. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to teach this kind of material at this length and depth. Usually, I manage to squeeze it into a workshop where I get an hour, and it's a bit of a gallop. It's nice to go through these things in more detail and unpack some of the ideas. However, I realised that I can't finish everything today, so I'll get as far as I can and then come back to it again sometime next year.

To remind you, this is from the very first day, the basic framework for understanding the role of government within society. We need to start with anthropology, which is really important. What does it mean to be a human being? What do all human beings want? Just like the Divine Principle starts off with what people want, they want to be happy. Anthropology is a good place to start because many people today do not believe in God. If we start with God, they might say they don't accept the authority of the Bible. So, we begin with the question: as a human being, what is it you want?

At the end of the day, every human being without exception wants to experience love and friendship. This is where the social system, which we looked at yesterday, comes in. The family is a place where people can experience love and friendship. On Tuesday, we discussed how people also want material things; they want to live in a nice house, have plenty of food, and enjoy nice possessions. To facilitate this, we have the development of the economy. Additionally, people want to live in their families, engage in their local neighbourhoods, and make a difference in the world. This is why we look at civil society and politics, which also forms part of that.

People also desire knowledge and skills, which is why the educational system develops. Furthermore, people want to worship and seek the meaning of life. This quest for meaning led to the development of religion. These aspects are interconnected; religious ideas inform all of these areas, and education shapes them. Families are the basis of this interconnectedness, but it's helpful to categorise things without taking it too far.

We looked at marriage yesterday, and I hope you found that interesting. I talked about the importance of understanding human nature and anthropology to explain marriage, especially in today's world. Marriage is based on society, but society is more than just families. When we look at society, we see many social structures and institutions, which we call civil society. David Hume makes a distinction between the family and society. He says the family is the basis of society, but there is a difference between relationships within the family and those within society.

The family is based upon love and forgiveness. You must love your children endlessly and forgive them for their mistakes. You also need to forgive your parents and siblings for their shortcomings. The family thrives on endless love and forgiveness; without it, it breaks apart. If you can't forgive someone for a mistake, it leads to disaster. In a family, you give love without keeping a record of what you've given. This unconditional love and forgiveness are essential within families, but society cannot function on that basis. Society must be based on justice.

David Hume examined three principles of justice: property, contracts, and the fulfilment of promises. Society must function on justice. For example, if someone steals your phone, you feel angry and upset. If they say, 'I'm sorry, please forgive me,' you wouldn't simply forgive them. Society can't operate on that basis. If someone steals your car and apologises, you wouldn't forgive them either. Society must ensure that thieves are punished for their actions. Justice must fit the crime; if someone steals a phone, life imprisonment is not a fair punishment. The purpose of punishment is to deter people from committing crimes. Some individuals only refrain from crime because they fear getting caught and punished.

Some argue that fear is not a good thing, but I believe fear can be beneficial. If criminals are not afraid of getting caught, society becomes a disaster. In the past, the idea of hell and punishment was a deterrent for many. People should be afraid of going to hell; it can motivate them to avoid wrongdoing. The abolition of hell and fear has not been beneficial in Christian theology or religious thought generally. Society must be based on justice, and it is crucial that the family and society remain separate. If the family were based on justice, it would break apart. Families operate on forgiveness, not strict justice. If a child breaks a valuable item, it is not fair to demand repayment based on their limited means. Families thrive on forgiveness, while society must function on justice.

If affection and love dominate social relationships, it can lead to corruption and nepotism. For example, if a person gets a job because of their uncle's position rather than their qualifications, it is not just. Society should be based on justice, where positions are awarded based on merit, not familial connections. Nepotism and cronyism undermine fairness. Society should not be built on love alone; it must be grounded in justice. Legalism in family relations can lead to destruction, as seen in divorce courts. David Hume's distinction between family and society is essential to understand these dynamics.

The person has made it or is selling it in various ways in which people get involved in civil society. They may start charities to help the homeless or people in other countries, or get involved in local government and religion. For example, within the Catholic Church, there is a hierarchy where individuals can work their way up. Although people are not necessarily supposed to think like that in a religious organization, many do get promoted to take on greater responsibilities. Additionally, there are schools where individuals can teach and contribute to civil society. Some may choose to teach in the classroom for their entire lives, while others may aspire to leadership positions, such as becoming a head teacher. This involvement allows individuals to look back on their lives and feel they have made a difference, leaving the world a better place in whatever way they can, whether through medicine, developing vaccines, or founding hospitals. The purpose of civil society is to engage beyond one's own family and contribute meaningfully to society.

Civil society should be governed by laws that outline what individuals can and cannot do. For instance, if someone wants to become a prime minister or president, the constitution clearly states that they must win an election, which requires obtaining a certain number of votes. Some individuals may stand for election repeatedly and continue to lose, yet still desire power. In some cases, they may form armed groups and seize power through a coup d'état, which is a violation of the law. Within civil society, there should be freedom of speech and movement; individuals should have the right to live wherever they choose without needing permission. As long as they do not break the law, they can express their opinions and pursue careers for which they are qualified. Essentially, civil society should function as a meritocracy, where jobs are awarded based on qualifications.

A question arose regarding the extent of freedom of speech and hate speech. Historically, people have sought freedom of speech for various reasons. John Stuart Mill, an English political philosopher, articulated this idea in the 18th century. He stated that if all of humanity minus one held a single opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing that one person, just as that individual would not be justified in silencing mankind if the roles were reversed. Today, we refer to this as 'cancelling.' If everyone except one person agrees on an opinion, silencing that dissenting voice deprives society of the opportunity to discover the truth. This principle is particularly relevant in discussions about identity politics and gender. Silencing opinions, regardless of their nature, robs humanity of the chance to exchange error for truth. If 99 people hold a false belief and one person has the correct view, silencing that individual prevents the majority from discovering the truth.

Mill argues that to attain truth, we must have complete freedom of expression. If someone holds a mistaken belief, we should engage them in reasoned argument to demonstrate their error. Conversely, if they present better ideas or evidence, we have the opportunity to exchange our errors for truth. This approach fosters a clearer understanding of what is right. I was intrigued by a discussion among rabbis in the Middle Ages, where they acknowledged that another group's beliefs were superior to their own. They recognised their own beliefs but also displayed humility and honesty by considering the better ideas of others. This willingness to adopt superior ideas is a healthy mindset, as it encourages growth and understanding.

In exploring civil society, I recommend a book titled 'In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government' by Charles Murray, published in the early 1990s. Murray, an American who served in the Peace Corps in the 1960s, initially approached his work with idealistic socialist views. However, he later evaluated the impact of his efforts and realised that they were not as beneficial as he had hoped. He discovered that many people in underdeveloped countries were incredibly happy despite having little. This led him to explore the role of government in supporting a happy society rather than creating one. Another insightful resource is a free PDF titled 'Civil Society: Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics,' which examines the fundamental institutions of liberty and the ethos of personal responsibility. This concept aligns with the Divine Principle, which states that there is no freedom without responsibility.

Michael Oakeshott, another English political philosopher, observed that individuals support liberty not because they have an abstract definition of it, but because they have found a particular way of living that they deem good. The inquiry into liberty should focus on understanding what we enjoy, recognising what is hostile to it, and discerning how it can be enjoyed more fully. This perspective aligns with Friedrich Hayek's approach, which emphasises understanding the value of freedom enjoyed by Western nations. Oakeshott argues that liberty does not stem from any single institution, such as the separation of church and state or the rule of law. Instead, it arises from the absence of overwhelming concentrations of power. A free society is characterised by a diffusion of power among various institutions, ensuring that no single entity can dominate.

In a society governed solely by tradition, individuals may feel constrained by customs that prevent change. This can lead to a form of despotism, where the past dictates the present and future. Conversely, a society focused entirely on future ideals may also fall into despotism, as it neglects the lessons of history. A balance must be struck between the past, present, and future to foster a truly free society. Understanding the dynamics of power and the importance of civil society is crucial for creating an environment where individuals can thrive and contribute meaningfully.

Society is a conversation involving the past, the present, and the future, each with its own voice. While one may occasionally prevail, it is essential to understand the wisdom of the past before abandoning traditions. When examining traditions, one might discover that they embody wisdom that was previously unrecognised. Therefore, before changing something inherited, it is crucial to consider its origins and whether a different approach is indeed better. This balance between past, present, and future is what constitutes freedom, as no single institution dominates society.

Jane Jacobs and Michael Oakeshott describe a corporate association as a group of individuals united in pursuit of a common interest or objective. For instance, a football team comes together to win a game, with a captain and manager directing the players. Similarly, a business aims to produce goods and satisfy customers. In a pure form of such an association, there is one sovereign purpose; if multiple leaders with conflicting goals attempt to manage a team or business, it will fail. Thus, successful corporate associations require unity behind a single vision.

The task of leaders is to manage the pursuit of this goal and direct individuals appropriately. A nation may comprise many corporate associations, including businesses, schools, and religious groups. However, sometimes a nation-state adopts a corporate character, which can lead to fascism. In such cases, a single leader demands that everyone unite behind a common purpose, such as during wartime. While this may be necessary in certain situations, it can also lead to a lack of freedom, as seen in communist societies where the state directs all aspects of life towards a singular aim.

In a civil association, individuals relate to one another not through a shared goal but through mutual respect for the law. People may not have common objectives with their neighbours, yet they interact within the framework of the law. Respecting the law does not mean supporting every law; individuals can disagree with certain regulations while still living within the legal system. The law is a changing phenomenon, and citizens can engage in the political process to reform it, ensuring that it reflects their values and needs.

In a civil association, people pursue their self-chosen lifestyles while adhering to the laws that govern them. Individuals may have diverse goals, from playing golf to serving in charities, and as long as they operate within the legal framework, they can fulfil their aspirations. This voluntary cooperation among individuals creates a free society, distinct from a corporate association where rules serve a common aim. In a corporate association, rules are instrumental, while in a civil association, laws are moral stipulations that individuals must follow to maintain order.

The distinction between corporate and civil associations is crucial. In a corporate society, individuals become instruments of the government, while in a civil association, the government serves the people. A free society is characterised by the government's role in maintaining institutions that allow individuals to pursue their ideals. This understanding of citizenship highlights the importance of the government existing to enable people rather than the other way around, ensuring that individuals are not merely tools for state objectives.

As we consider the practical implications of civil society, we can look at historical examples, such as friendly societies in Britain. These societies emerged as essential providers of social welfare during the 19th and early 20th centuries, rooted in community support and mutual aid. Historically, welfare was often provided by the church, with monasteries and convents playing significant roles in education and social services. This tradition of community support continues to be relevant in discussions about how societies can organise themselves without relying solely on government intervention.

When the religious institutions were dissolved, they were abolished, and although all the land and money was transferred elsewhere, there was no longer any formal welfare provided by the Catholic Church. The Church of England, along with many other religious institutions, faced similar fates. However, people still needed welfare, so they began to think about how to support themselves. With the government not stepping in and the church no longer able to provide support through monasteries, individuals started forming what were called friendly societies. These were self-governing mutual benefit associations founded by manual workers to provide against hard times. For example, if someone working in a factory got injured and could not earn money, they would face the harsh reality of not being able to feed their family. Thus, workers began to look out for each other, establishing mutual benefit associations to ensure that if one of them faced hardship, they could support that person and their family until they recovered and returned to work.

These friendly societies were quite different from traditional charities. Charitable organisations were often established by wealthy individuals who, upon nearing the end of their lives, would leave their fortunes to found schools, hospitals, or other institutions. While these charities played a significant role in welfare provision, friendly societies operated on a different principle. They were not run by a separate group intending to help another; rather, they were associations of individuals who pledged to assist each other when needed. The assistance provided was not a matter of charity or largesse; it was based on entitlement. Members contributed regularly to a common fund, and when hardship arose, they were entitled to support. This created a very different kind of relationship, one built on mutual obligation rather than dependency.

Initially, friendly societies began as local clubs that held their common funds in wooden chests. By the 19th century, they evolved into national federations with hundreds of thousands of members and carefully managed investments. As these societies grew, they realised the benefits of cooperation, often merging with similar mutual aid societies in neighbouring villages or towns. This collaboration allowed them to spread the risk; if one member faced a disaster, the burden was shared among all. Thus, while an individual might never need help themselves, their contributions ensured that support was available when required. Friendly societies were not merely about financial benefits; they were about fostering a sense of community and shared ideals among their members.

Members of friendly societies were united not just by their physical proximity but by their commitment to shared ideals. They were idealistic individuals motivated by the promotion of good character. Trust was essential; members needed to rely on one another during difficult times. Therefore, it was crucial that all involved were of good character. Friendly societies developed rituals and educational practices to cultivate this character. Most members were ordinary working people, primarily Christians, including non-conformist Methodists and Baptists. They understood the importance of self-help, taking responsibility for themselves while also being ready to assist others. This philosophy of mutual support was central to their operations, and great effort was made to maintain these traditions.

In the 1860s and 70s, the wholesome influence of friendly societies and similar institutions like the Methodists helped maintain a strong commitment to liberty and self-reliance. People became increasingly independent and self-supporting. The governance of these societies was democratic, as they were essentially groups of friends. To manage the society, a core group was needed, including a chairman, treasurer, and secretary. These roles rotated among members, allowing everyone to develop skills in leadership, finance, and administration. This experience laid the groundwork for the formation of political parties, such as the Labour Party in Britain, which was founded by individuals from these backgrounds. Unlike socialists, who were often intellectuals, the Labour Party emerged from the working class, with members who had gained practical skills through their involvement in friendly societies.

When examining healthcare, friendly societies played a significant role in providing medical services before the establishment of the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain. Many of these societies formed medical aid societies, employing doctors to care for their members. Workers at factories or mines would agree to deduct a portion of their pay to fund medical attention for themselves and their families. In some cases, factory owners, often motivated by Christian values, would hire doctors to ensure the health of their workers. By the turn of the century, workers began to choose their own medical attendants, as they were familiar with the quality of care provided by various doctors. Committees appointed by the workers managed these arrangements, allowing them to have a say in their healthcare, which was a significant shift in the relationship between workers and medical professionals.

Whether we should have a job or not is a cultural issue. In terms of medicine, there were providence dispensaries that functioned as semi-charities, partly funded by contributions from beneficiaries. People would pay something, supplemented by charitable donations from non-benefiting honorary members. Provident or self-supporting dispensaries developed out of the free dispensaries that had been established during the 19th century. Free dispensaries were seen as creating a permanently dependent section of the population, so provident dispensaries aimed to enable the poor to contribute as much as they could towards their medical care, with the balance supplied by charity.

There were places where people could receive medicine for free, but upon examination, it became clear that it was not beneficial for individuals to receive things for free. This fostered a dependency mentality, where individuals did not take responsibility for themselves. It was decided that people should be expected to contribute according to their means, often through a sliding scale. Those with good jobs were expected to pay the full amount for their medicine, while those earning less would pay a smaller amount. This understanding that wealthier individuals had a duty to contribute more was widely accepted, as it aimed to prevent the development of a dependency mentality and was fundamentally about character education.

By the time the British government introduced compulsory social insurance for 12 million people under the 1911 National Insurance Act, at least 9 million were already covered by registered and unregistered voluntary insurance associations, chiefly the friendly societies. The government then decided to set up its own scheme for welfare provision through taxation, known as national insurance. This meant that everyone paid taxes, and the government set aside that money for welfare. By 1911, three-quarters of those eligible were already enrolled in some form of insurance. However, once people realised that the government would take their money, which they would have contributed to voluntary friendly associations, many felt they could not afford to pay twice. This led to a rapid decline of friendly societies.

Essentially, this was a nationalisation of welfare by the state. At the height of the expansion of friendly societies, the state intervened and transformed them by introducing compulsory national insurance. The voluntary principle of mutual aid, where people took responsibility to help themselves and others, was undermined. The state’s intervention created a dependency relationship, diminishing opportunities for character development, as there was nothing for people to engage with anymore. The administration of welfare became the responsibility of bureaucrats and civil servants, rather than being self-governed by the friendly societies.

In the years following World War II, these institutions lost their influence. The National Health Service was established in Britain in 1944, nationalising all health services and hospitals. This shift resulted in a breakdown of family structures and an increase in personal dependency. As the state replaced the family as the basis for welfare, it undermined familial support systems and led to a growing sense of dependency. People began to rely on the state for support, asking why the government did not provide for them, rather than taking responsibility for their own lives and communities.

A typical example of mutual aid can be seen in building societies. People needed housing, which was expensive to buy or build. Factory owners often constructed poor-quality housing for their workers, leading to a dire situation. To address this, individuals would gather in pubs after work to discuss their living conditions. Over time, they decided to form a society to pool their resources. In 1775, Richard Catley, the landlord of the Golden Cross Inn, helped establish Kepler's Building Society with 25 regular patrons. They agreed to contribute a monthly subscription to a central fund, aiming to save enough money to purchase a house each year.

After a year of contributions, they had enough to buy one house, and they would draw lots to determine who would receive it. This process continued, and by the end of 25 years, everyone in the group had a house. This model of mutual aid was based on trust and character development, as members had to rely on one another to fulfill their commitments. The building society was owned by its members, not shareholders, and members were evaluated based on their reliability before being allowed to borrow money for a house. This system exemplified how people could take responsibility and work together to solve their problems without government intervention.

However, the government later allowed many building societies to convert into banks, leading to a decline in their numbers. David Green's book discusses how the welfare problem is not primarily financial but moral. The welfare programs have tended to impair human character, fostering a dependency mentality rather than encouraging personal responsibility. Before the nationalisation of welfare, responsibility was divided among individuals, families, communities, and the government, which provided a safety net for those unable to care for themselves. Claiming benefits was seen as letting the side down, and the majority of the population assumed personal responsibility for supporting those in need within their communities. The crowding out of this tradition of non-political action for the common good has had harmful moral effects, rendering welfare services less effective and diminishing opportunities for people to serve one another.

Involved on a voluntary basis, like nuns, they were all very quickly shut out. The only people who could become nurses were those who would be trained or employed by the state. This is one of the reasons why the church has declined significantly; the opportunities to get involved in society, in the community, and in health and welfare provision at a local level were removed. They were taken over by the state. Consequently, people thought, 'Well, I pay my taxes, so why should I get involved in charity? I pay my taxes; the government should solve these problems.' Previously, people believed they should take responsibility for issues within their community, impairing the quality of life and encouraging us to look outwards to the authorities instead of inwards to our own strengths and skills for solutions to shared problems.

Is it possible to recreate today the tradition of non-political community service, once thought to be an indelible part of Britain's makeup? That was the way Britain was until the 20th century. The way Britain is today is a complete disaster. If you come to Britain today, you might wonder how on earth this country managed to govern a quarter of the world. It wasn't like this 100 years ago. This idea of liberty is important to understand, but I won't go into that now as it veers more into economics.

Crimes against civil society occur when one achieves their position illegitimately, whether through murder, coups, nepotism, cronyism, corruption, or bribery. These are all crimes against civil society because one is not attaining their position based on qualification and merit. Discrimination within the public sector, such as against people based on their religion or race, should not be allowed. In a totalitarian regime, everything is controlled by the state. In a communist society, there is no civil society because every aspect is controlled by the state through a member of the communist party, who provides direction to schools and other institutions. Everyone must align with the communist party member.

The role of government in civil society is to maintain an independent judiciary, manage infrastructure like roads and sewers, and provide national defence. The government is there to protect the way of life and not engage in social engineering. It becomes problematic when individuals seek to use the power of the state to reorganise society according to their ideals. Idealists can often be the most self-centred people, wanting everyone to conform to their vision of how the world ought to be. In civil association, everyone can pursue their own ideals, whereas in corporate association, everyone must conform to the ideals of the leader, president, or dictator.

Looking briefly at the educational system, education is a transaction between generations where individuals learn about and inherit the wisdom and understanding of the past. It is not just about transferring knowledge and skills but fundamentally about learning how to perform humanly. Education should first take place in the family, where children learn how to behave, live a spiritual life, think critically, and evaluate what is right or wrong. Parents should teach practical skills such as swimming, gardening, house maintenance, and money management, as well as fostering a love for reading and learning.

However, few parents can homeschool their children, which is why schools were established. The first school in Britain was set up by Saint Augustine as a cathedral school, where children learned to read and write to participate in the choir. In the Middle Ages, grammar schools were established to teach Latin grammar for administration purposes. Universities like Oxford and Cambridge were founded to educate clergy. Independent schools began to emerge, with wealthy merchants establishing schools for the poor, allowing them access to education that was otherwise unavailable.

After the Reformation, Sunday schools and church schools were established to ensure everyone could read the Bible. Up until 1944, about a third of schools in England were church schools. However, in 1944, the government nationalised the educational system, taking control of church schools and determining the curriculum. This led to a failure to pass on the wisdom of the ages, particularly regarding marriage and family. The current focus on gender issues lacks a basis in reason, evidence, or experience; it is an experiment imposed on young people. This is not education; it is indoctrination.

Today, many students graduate without qualifications or skills, receiving information devoid of values and lacking the ability to evaluate what they learn. I would argue that all schools should be independent and self-governing, not controlled by the state. The best schools in Britain are independent, not due to more funding but because of their autonomy. Schools should be financed through fees, scholarships, or vouchers, allowing them to specialise and set their own curricula. Education should not be for indoctrination, whether religious or political, but should focus on teaching children how to think critically and prepare for public exams.