The Incentives of Citizenship

Can we learn to rely less on the state and more on each other?

Last year David Render, 54 led his community in the incredible transformation of his local park. Tired of waiting for action from his local council, Mr Render and volunteers cleared rubbish, restored public sculptures and fixed seating areas, investing personally and through community fundraising in new timber and tools for the job. This common endeavour not only brought the community together, giving the locals purpose and self-esteem, but also restored a beautiful public space to its former glory.

With further community projects in mind It was of course a demoralising blow to Mr Render when he received a letter from his local council insisting that he cease and desist all projects on threat of legal action as such tasks fall within the remit of the local council and not the community. The council cited health and safety risks as the reasoning behind the demand. Unable to reason with his local council and under the threat of courts and hefty fines all the volunteer projects to restore public places in Washington reluctantly ceased.

Trapped in a space where our public services are in forever increasing demand, yet seem to be in a state of gridlock through lack of funding and personnel, could this be the moment we start to take responsibility for ourselves, our communities and our environment back in to our own hands? I would like to propose there are inherent benefits for us all in adopting this vision, not only the practical and financial, but also the value it gives us as people to care for one another and to work collaboratively.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am both a student nurse and a libertarian. I tend to broadly believe that public services are essential and that it is the role of the government to undertake work such as fixing the roads and paying the NHS and Police. However, the remits our government award itself today clearly far overreach this model; invading not only our privacy and autonomy, but also stifling our ability to empower ourselves and others and to live meaningful lives where our choices and values matter. This is the impact of over-legislation.

I would far rather see a system where the government demonstrate an understanding that public services will never be able to respond fully to the complexities of life as they arise and gives civil society enough room to move and build momentum of its own accord.

The potential of what can be provided through public services and civic society is very different by its very nature. Having spent many years personally moving through the mental health services as a patient, it is valuable distinction to recognise that the support I receive from individuals in my community holds an innate value that can never be replicated fully by even the most skilled and excellent mental health clinician. The value comes from an individual in society helping us out of choice, reassuring us that people care about my recovery and that I am valued enough for them to choose freely to help me. Such personal interventions also hold essential value for the giver- sense of purpose, self-esteem, a knowing that you are needed.

Once our responsibility for each other is eroded by legislation our mind set is changed. We are conditioned to stop caring about each other because it is no longer within our remit or control. What we are left with is not a democratic, moral and evidence based framework, but all too often the vanity project of a biased and privileged few whom feel their superiority justifies them to trickle down our moral code for us. The change will come when they finally realise they cannot legislate how well we are able to get on with each other. The classification of cannabis will do no more to heal addiction, than ASBOs will heal the rifts which ostracise dispossessed youth. It is sticking-plaster legislation that fails to take account of the role we all play every day, each time we interact with one and other to be aware and decent people.

So what could incentivise us enough to adopt this change and demand liberty over our own responsibilities? There is benefit for all of us when society thrives as a whole therefore there is value in looking after one another even from a centralised perspective. Then there is the argument of resource management. If looking after each other more in society eases the burden on our public services it will both speed up access for the most in need and put money back in all our pockets. But finally is it not an essential part of our hopes in life and our experience of what it means to be human to be valuable, to be needed, to matter? Why not give back the right to matter to the individuals who so desperately need it in an existence so often marred by separation and purposelessness. It’s no coincidence that there are no great libertarian dystopias warning of a system where we’ve all seized too much autonomy over our own lives. In fact, it could just be the change that saves us.