Trust v Control

Control is by far away the easiest option. Lay down your parameters, set up monitoring systems and then apply punitive measures on selected defaulters. In principle. In practice entirely a different matter. Parameters have to hit a broadband of human activity which, because it is human and we are all unique, has to cover a wide range nuances. Being human each of us will challenge the parameter as to why it does not apply to us because our own circumstance is different. As individuals we need to be differentiated from the crowd. By claiming that difference we assert our distinction from the crowd we are lumped into. Monitoring has to find that fine line between being too overt, thrusting control too upfront, challenging all comers to defy it or so covert as to be missed, encouraging mass defiance. Then punitive measures have to be applied to carefully selected defaulters, too broad a sweep and the administrative systems are overloaded, to few key representative defaulters and too many other defaulters will consider they have immunity. Being inventive and creative humans, long used to labouring under the choke of authority, we too apply our skills to evade, avoid, confuse, misrepresent or dissemble, anything other than just accept to being controlled by that parameter.

Trust is entirely another matter. Just a broad parameter is all that is needed then each person interprets it application to them within their own framework of experience. All those nuances reflecting individual difference are no longer needed. Maybe an occasional dialogue, indicating some extreme of interpretation, might have to be initiated to remove common misplace understandings. The beauty of trust is that each person does their own self-monitoring but there is the downside. Being people most will comply scrupulously, some will get away will as little restraint as they dare and a few will flout and exploit any apparent laxity. Any overt monitoring will quickly be seen as confounding the trust. If you are going to be checking up then there is no point in my restraint. Come on, lets see how far we can push this. Equally if abuse is too wide spread then dissatisfaction rapidly sets in. "Look they are all getting away with it why should I bother" become the norm of the day. So there has to be covert monitoring to pick out those most public and extreme abuses. Engage in dialogue and it can become almost self-policing. Complaints will readily identify where and almost inevitably the who of the more troubling abuses. Then it is either a matter of corrective dialogue or punitive measures to make a public example of non-compliers. Rather than over-loading the administration with large numbers of defaulters to be processed, all that is needed is a showtrial which has wide spread circulation picking out a blatant defaulter receiving just and equitable punishment.

In the end we do have choices, we do all decide which type of society we want to live in. Either by silent submission or by the clarity of our voiced wishes. What is your choice? Monitors at each and every street corner with ever more draconian rules or a relaxed society able to live with itself and adapt to change?