Checks and Balances

In this vision of a new egalitarian society where we set aside the old first to the post winner takes all and instead work together to ensure everyone gets a fair share there will inevitably be problems. Leaders will emerge that the crowd will follow, most will be mainstream but some will be waywards off the regular tracks. Far rather than new rules and regulations are drawn up to prohibit or restrict them we have to encourage them to flourish. Regulation leads to centralism and totalitarian control. The opposite of the desired route of collective decisions meeting local needs and desires. The mavericks are needed to push the boundaries beyond the norm of conservatism. 



With flourishing contrast and compare examples widely available and highly visible, it is unlikely that communities will be led too far off the proven middle ground before they self correct. But there will always be the exception, and from time to time an exception will emerge that is hell-bent on self destruction along with his followers. What is Society to do? Their community, their choice, at what point can or should the collective wider society step in? What if the maverick leads them deeper and deeper into financial ruin they can never ever hope to recover from? Debts only the wider society can possibly bail them out of. 


So the question is when the wider societal community is put at risk by a community who has the authority to countermand their self-selected choices and who can instigate due redemption and ensure it is extracted? In the end it is the coming together of fellow communities to say this step is a step too far, we hold you to account for your wilful choices. Just as a parent would to a wilful teenager. The teenager has to be given the chance and support to try out a new and different lifechoice but the parent has to be the ultimate safety net to say that is just too far and takes us beyond what we can countenance. Check and balances. Always looking to see what impact your actions have on your neighbours and accepting that they have the right to comment and criticise your actions when they impinge on their freedom to make choices. None places themselves where others becomes disadvantaged. Throw away the centralised rules and regulations and let goodwill and commonsense rule us.

Fair Cop?

For the record I am underwhelmed by this whole Police Commissioner vote thing. The government advertising to whip up public interest really says it all for me. It is the classic 'which slice of the pie' do you want. Stop car vandalism or stop drunk louts or stop house thefts or stop speed abuse or stop drug pushers. The answer is of course all of the above and some more as well. The problem is there just is not enough pie to go round.

What I take exception to is that the government retains tight control of the permitted expenditure and manner and methods to be employed in policing our country. The Police Commissioner is just the 'locally elected' fall guy to take the heat of accountability off from the government decisions which make it impossible to attain the public's policing aspirations. As an aside, 'locally elected' of course equals a political parties nomination with first loyalty to the Party not the electorate.

Just yet another deliberate, cynical tactic by the government to divide to rule. Make someone or organisation 'accountable' at local level to take all the blame complaints and criticisms. Whilst retaining all meaningful control back at central government, preventing them for exercising and employing new innovative and structurally different ways of skinning the impossible cat. They were devised by government so government could escape public blame for failing to adequately source and fund an effective police force.