(Keith Wilde wrote:- ) Bill's comments below seem
unexceptionable to me. They nevertheless leave unanswered my persisting
question about the role, and especially the provision of the National Credit
Authority as a necessarily government function (a kind of natural monopoly as
Bill has already suggested).
I often get the impression that the Douglas
philosophy entails the elimination
of government, but when it comes down to issues of implementation there is
clearly no escaping the necessity of some
government functions. The question then is just which functions should
disappear in a Social Credit perspective on ideal social organization?
Which ones would just naturally wither away if the Social Credit
monetary-financial reforms were implemented, or could they be implemented at
all without a very substantial hacking up and revamping of existing governance
mechanisms?
(Joe replies:-) I think
it comes down to what Douglas saw as the differences between ‘policy’ and ‘administration’
rather than the elimination of government itself, Keith. His view, I believe, was that government was there to better
‘serve’ all the individuals who make up ‘society’. Not as a means to co-erce
those individuals to somehow serve what those in power describe as ‘society’. I believe Douglas made mention once that his political sentiments
were ‘Tory’. And then
qualified that by saying that there was no’ Tory’
party, (in the ‘traditional’ sense), in Britain at that particular time. And there wasn’t,
even though the one in power there then carried that label.
This would
seem to me to indicate that he did not envision an ‘elimination’
of ‘government’, since a ‘Tory’ generally is thought to
favour stability, or the ‘established order’. At least so far as the ‘structure’
of government itself is constituted. It would seem to indicate that he thought the ‘trinitarian’ structure of government that had evolved over the
centuries in Britain was essentially sound. And would remain so as long as the three ‘legs’
of that trinity, or ‘triangle, ’ which supported it, (in this case,
the ‘Crown’, the ‘Lords’, and the ‘Commons’),
were properly ‘balancing and
checking’ each other in respect to the various ‘powers’ each
had. That when one of the elements of
this structure grew out of proportion to the other two, as was happening at
that time, and since, with the dominance of the ‘Commons’, (in
reality the Prime Minister and his ‘inner circle’ ~ elected or not),
then the proper function of ‘government’ as the people’s
obedient servant was being compromised.
We have seen many examples of this since then, and they continue apace
today.
Properly,
government should be there to ensure people have the means to secure those
things for themselves which we individually all require, and then, most likely in diversity, individually
desire. To make what
is ‘physically’ possible fully ‘financially’ possible. To aid
and assist in the full development and attainment of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness” by each of us, without trammelling or denying the same for
others.
The important
thing is for us to be able to ‘mind our own business’,
to the fullest extent this is possible. Not
to have the ‘government’ tell us what our ‘business’ ought
to be, and then set about to mind it for us.
In this, ‘democracy’ is not, as it’s often made out to
be, ‘the rule of the majority’, but rather the individual’s
ability to have a ‘policy’ of his own, and see it implemented as it
relates to himself. Many individuals
will have a common policy, though, and it is only right and proper, and
natural, that they might associate to more easily implement it.
If we were to use the child ‘day-care’
example previously cited, it might prove prudent for those families who had need
of daycare to form an association of some type to secure it. They might organize themselves and agree to
contribute a certain amount each month to enable such a service to be provided
and maintained while they are in need of it. The ‘cost’ to each of
those associating may be considerably less, and the service provided
considerably better, than if each were to find a daycare provider and pay for her
services ‘individually’. In
addition, there is a ‘local’ control and oversight over the service
provider.
Contrast this
with what the previous Liberal government was proposing in the way of a ‘national’,
taxpayer funded, child daycare scheme. Superficially,
to those in need, it seems more attractive.
It looks like it would cost them less.
But how long will it be before ‘administration’, and the
fact that the ‘government’ is thought to have ‘deep-pockets’,
puts such a program in almost the same condition finding the funding for ‘mandatory’
Medicare now is? And would so much ‘daycare’,
and ‘medicare’, have
to be funded by ‘government’ if the ‘price’
charged for both were less, and the individuals in need of the service had
sufficient incomes to afford them?
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
