Is something always better than nothing?
If you oppose something, should you always have a solution in mind before you get rid of that thing you oppose, or should the focus be on removing that which is undesired, and then seek to find a new way/thing?
There are many situations to which this applies, governments, relationships, home renovations, friendships..
I know many people who say they are guided in life by their faith or religion and the 'rules' offered within, yet there are those without religion who don't rely on any set of rules, but perhaps are bound by everyday/common laws..
Without boundaries, structure, rules and regulations, could we be trusted to be kind and fair to each other, or would the absence of structure produce mayhem? would it create a void which will inevitably be filled by someone or something seeking to exploit?
Ah another excellent question Dawna (and I will be responding to the one I have still to reply to - I'm still pondering the reply lol). Can I just say before replying to this that academically I'm a sociologist and therefore everything I say should be approached with caution lol.
ReplyDeleteI think all societies (large or small) need a structure (which history tells us is usually hierarchical). Even if we dispense with hierarchy some form of structure still needs to be in place. A by product (or maybe it's an integral part of having a structure? - Is control). Social control unfortunately is necessary.
Somalia would be a good example of what happens when control is lost once structures fall. It's something of a free for all there at a national level. Villages are now controlling their own fate however - but once again that means a structure - elders, politicians, organisations, responsibilities, tasks which have to be performed.
Britain is a small country (though very culturally diverse) - and I would argue that structures should be pretty small to reflect that.
We often criticise China for 'human rights' abuses - and of course they are terrible abuses - but I equally ask myself what it must be like for the rulers there to try and keep the lid on such a huge population - and try to keep them organised as 'one nation' with a common perception of the way ahead. What a massive task! Maybe to make it work they have to be pretty ruthless with dissent simply because of the unthinkable carnage there could be if dissent and violence were to take hold?
I am not about to offer a defence of Saddam Hussein here either - the man was tyrant - but I don't think we fully appreciate why he was a tyrant - he had people within his artificially created nation who would kill one another sooner than co-operate. Sunni's, Shiite's, Kurds to name but three - and he had to 'control' the hatred existing between them.
The best answer of course would have been to divide the nation up - make three 'Iraqs' and control within each would have been simpler, less brutal. But few nations ever want to scale themselves down.
You asked - "Would it create a void which will inevitably be filled by someone or something seeking to exploit?"
I would answer yes it would - but those in control should always be seeking the lowest level of control in all things. British people are currently ridiculously over controlled. Push it all down to the lowest level you can - cities, towns, villages, districts, even streets. But no matter how far down you push it - someone, unfortunately has to control it.
Not the best thing I've written and not the wisest either, but it's late and my left hand is paralysed with pain again - I'll probably retract all this in the morning :)
Rory
Rory
ReplyDeleteAhh ..You’re a sociologist * buries head in hands* of course!! :)
On the contrary Rory I’ll be listening to what you say even more intently!!
I agree with you that all societies need a structure and without it could result in chaos.
Case in point could be...a family. Extended family (if you’re fortunate enough) having respect for elders etc
And I completely understand your point about how difficult it must be for anyone to possibly control such a densely populated country like China without, almost ‘draconian’ means, but I have fought against this for many years, thinking why on earth should we accept certain hierarchies, or be ‘dictated to over how we should live our lives.
I believe in freedom justice and equality you see:) Maybe that’s a result of being born in ‘68 I don’t know!!
However, I’m beginning to see things in a slightly different way.
I still believe in freedom justice and equality but, problems arise I think not because of structures or even hierarchies, but they arise from the ‘abuse of trust’, resulting in a ‘lack of trust!’until a complete absence of trust!
This , I think, undermines the very essence of what the hierarchical structure and laws are intended to do (in the purest sense)
I think we’d be more likely to survive without rules, but it would be (to say the least)extremely difficult to survive without trust!.
Who needs rules when you trust someone?
*On another note Rory (you dont have to answer but) what's the matter with your hand? It sounds painful, are you getting treatment?*.. I hope so!!:)
Sorry Dawna - I'm having a hard time with my hand and will have to delay responding. It takes forever to type. I woke up to find my left arm paralysed and my fingers curled into my palm about four months ago. Nerves in my arm and spine are busted - surgery soon!!!!
ReplyDeleteRory
That's okay Rory - I look forward to your response when your hand isn't so painful. Gosh ..sorry to hear about your arm, wow that's tough! Wishing you all the best for the surgery!!
ReplyDeleteThanks Dawna - I think you just hit it squarely on the head with 'abuse of trust' as a key factor. Politicians can't be trusted unless there's complete transparency. Right wingers in particular keep yelping on about 'Small Govt' "Pushing the decision making processes down that hierarchy or structure" - and in principle that sounds super - except that the decision making process doesn't actually become something for the 'people' it becomes something for QUANGO's or Business to decide. In short it's capital and business growth which are nourished to flourish without the restraining influence of political control or democracy - and when that happens you don't have to be psychic to predict 'abuse'.
ReplyDeleteThe crazy thing for me is that although supposedly pushing control down the hierarchy (which they are not doing really - they are simply divesting central govt of the accountability that goes with the responsibilities of that control) - The Govt absolves itself from any blame when things do go wrong. In that respect the 'watchdogs' when power is moved from the centre need to be Independent - right now it's financial people regulating financiers, Police Officers investigating abuses where Cops are concerned and media moguls scrutinising the press. We need Independent eyes scrutinising all of them if we are to stop the abuses you so rightly raise as a central issue! If that cannot be achieved then the power must go back to central govt so that the people can make them accountable for what happens.
Rory
I should have said that I'm all for small govt if the power they dispose of actually goes into the hands of community based groups and not business.
ReplyDeleteRory
I completely agree with you Rory, this 'devolution of power' is filled with so many complexities as many scramble for control.. it does seem to be more a case of devolving accountability and responsibility.
ReplyDelete