When people are banded together to form a nation merely for protection against other nations, so that they are free to compete amongst themselves, they are largely operating from the attitude that they are OK, but others are not. In this common enough circumstance, governments become obsessed with military strength and maintenance of boundaries to separate the OK from the not OK.

If, on the other hand, people had chosen to band together out of mutual respect, in order to seek practical ways of implementing the survival strategy "I’m OK, you’re OK", then governments would be able to adopt a completely different rôle, both in concept and custom. In a free, mutually respecting society, the primary task of government would be rather like an insurance company: to provide assistance to individuals, or groups, to whom unfortunate events had occurred that were beyond their reasonable expectation or control. As individuals we should take responsibility for our own actions. The government should take responsibility for the adverse actions of others.

One of these functions would be national defence, territorially or otherwise. It is only prudent to recognise that there may be other individuals, or groups, or even whole nations, which may adopt the attitude "I’m OK, you’re not OK", and wage war by some means. Some form of deterrent is thus an essential part of any free nation’s assets. Its use would, of course, be very much the last resort of foreign policy. The primary thrust, to avoid war, would be to encourage mutual respect among all nations, and indeed within other nations. It is an unwritten understanding at present that one nation should not interfere in the internal affairs of another. I consider that this ostrich-like head-in-the-sand approach has encouraged so many civil or internal ethnic conflicts over the past 50 years as to be completely discredited.

"Good does not tolerate the presence of repression or evil." {Feist & Wurts}

Ways must be found to topple tyrants directly. People who are actively demonstrating their disrespect for others forfeit their OKness!

The broad strategy of mutual respect applies to relations between people, and among peoples, but not to ideas. It is sometimes claimed that freedom of speech, or of the Press, allows people to say anything they like. "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it", is the common cry. That is a partial defence against tyranny of any kind, but potential tyrants can be very persuasive, and honey tongued. People advocating disrespectful ideas should not be immune from legal reprisals. They certainly should be discouraged from acting out such ideas of disrespect, or inciting others to do so.

Governments should wage a constant propaganda war of logic against any disrespectful sentiments which surface in their own nation. As implied above, they should also interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, where such nations are adopting some anti-survival strategy against innocent individuals or groups. Such interference may cause short-term ill feeling, but if done persistently, and with respect, it could prevent such ethnic disasters as those with which the world has been plagued of late.

"A stitch in time, saves nine."{Proverb}

As many of the previous generation came to realise only too well, appeasement does not prevent wars, but deterrence, intelligence gathering, and propaganda can. Military defence, with reasoned verbal pre-emptive offence is the key to the constructive foreign policy of a free self-respecting society. The easiest way for tyrannies to grow, or persist, is for free nations to say and do nothing.

Domestic policy too would benefit from the insurance model approach. The government would take responsibility for the adverse consequences of unforeseeable events, or events over which the victims had no control. A mutually respecting society would delight in the good fortune of some, and rush to the aid of others struck down by pure chance. Citizens would be expected to insure themselves privately only against those happenings that they could reasonably be expected to foresee, or at least attempt to control.

I hear you say "That’s all very well but who decides which events fall into which category?". It would be the prime task of any government to decide which were which, in accordance with whatever democratic mechanisms were the nation’s custom.

The key part of a nation’s constitution, however, would be that any disaster, individual or collective, which had not been allocated, explicitly or implicitly, into a category, would be automatically regarded as unforeseeable. This contrasts sharply with present practice. It is a fundamental change of attitude. Almost every government today does not consider it is obliged to help people, when something happens to them that is not covered by any law or regulation.. Even as late as January 1994, a UK government minister was quoted as saying that there was no rôle for government in compensating its citizens for "Acts of God". Landslides were the context. I could not disagree more. Remember Aberfan in Wales!

I have my own views about which things should be in which category. Like every one else, however, I would have to accept the will of the majority, as expressed by the views of the politicians in government. For example, let us contrast the UK National Health Service with private medicine. Which may be available to patients, would depend upon the illnesses, accidents, or afflictions over which they could reasonably be expected to exercise adequate control. Thus the government may judge that it would be the norm for treatment for a cigarette smoker with lung cancer, or someone who was injured from not wearing a seat belt, would have to be paid for privately by the victim, either directly, or through personal insurance, or by a charity. On the other hand, treatment for eyesight problems, or some congenital problems, could be judged to be out of the patient’s control and hence "free at the point of delivery".

There would be plenty for pressure groups and political parties to wrangle about. Fine judgement would be needed on occasions. It may be that AIDS treatment for a victim of a contaminated blood transfusion would be at public expense, but for victims of witting sexual contact perhaps not. The "perhaps" depending on whether it were judged better to treat all AIDS victims free, rather than risk allowing the HIV virus to go undetected, and thereby spread. Governments would have to decide, taking into account the rational views of their citizens.

This logical approach would help many of today’s heart rending cases. In order to obtain adequate treatment or compensation for accidents of many kinds, victims have to prove negligence on the part of someone else. All one should really have to do is to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the catastrophe was outside one’s own control or reasonable expectation. I would be up to the government, in due course, to decide whether it thought someone had been negligent. If so, the government could seek compensation from, or even prosecute, those responsible. The victim, however would get speedy treatment, or appropriate compensation, under the National Health Insurance Scheme.

Another aspect of government where this concept would have a major impact would be in the application of laws. At present, although they are completely outside the control of any individual member of the public, once a tax law, say, is passed, it is up to the individual to discover how best to react. I would maintain that it is the responsibility of government to inform individuals, on request, of the effect of the legislation on their life. Note I say inform of the effect, not just inform of the options, but also of the potential results. Not, of course, to advise on which option to choose.

There is currently no such National Information Service. People are deprived of information relating to their personal circumstances because they cannot afford to seek private legal knowledge or consult an accountant. A government that introduces legislation, (in the country’s best interest it would no doubt claim), has an obligation to convey the full effect of that legislation to any citizen who asks. It may be pragmatic, (I would say lazy), for administrators to press the point that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but mutatis mutandis, there is no excuse for a government department, when consulted, to refuse to inform people, of the detailed personal, as opposed to general, effect of various options under the law, before their having to choose one.

To recapitulate: internally, within its boundaries, geographical or otherwise, a national government should operate a kind of no-fault National Insurance. Externally, when the foreign policy outlined previously is successful, there should emerge groups of mutually respectful nations which could work together in a similar fashion, but on a more global scale.

Continuing the insurance allegory, these commonwealths (literally) would act as mutual re-insurance companies. They would be expected, indeed obliged, to help in the event of unforeseeable accidents or disasters befalling one of their commonwealth partners. That is how I would see the current European Community developing, rather than as a single superstate. Through the good offices of the United Nations, all such similarly created commonwealths around the world: The Middle East, North Africa, Sub Saharan Africa, Australasia, etc. could form mutual re-re-insurance companies, and so on. Eventually the whole world would be a giant re-to-the-nth-insurance company with mutually respecting alliances of commonwealths of nations as their clients.

The relationship "I’m OK, you’re OK" is fractal. It is independent of scale. It should apply, recognisably the same, between people, between political parties, between governments, between commonwealths, and between alliances; one day, perhaps, between worlds?

return to Contents

go to War

View my guestbook