Looking for another way to promote peace, freedom and prosperity, and good living generally in addition to looking to Government and Salvation by Political Action?
The Conservative Vagabond makes the case for building communities.
One of a series. Worth reading and thinking about what follows.
Chat GPT 4.00 reviewed the article and summarised the text while adding some practical examples and solutions. Perhaps use Bard, Chat GPT or similar to review 1st draft …
While it’s true that tight-knit communities can sometimes evoke the image of being overly insular or even “cult-like”, we must acknowledge their significant potential to address societal issues in ways that neither the state nor individuals can. This is something we often miss in today’s state vs individual dichotomy of problem-solving.
Take the issue of rising obesity rates, for instance. In Japan, the town of Okinawa – known for its high longevity rates – has implemented a community-based approach called Moais, social support groups that encourage healthy eating and regular physical activity among its members. This local, communal effort has had significant success in promoting healthier lifestyles and reducing obesity, outpacing what any government program or individual resolutions might achieve.
Similarly, the issue of housing prices can be better managed at a local level. A prime example is the Baugruppen, or building groups, initiative in Germany. These are self-organized, community-led housing projects where future residents collaboratively plan and finance their own homes, resulting in affordable, sustainable housing, and vibrant communities.
Moreover, declining fertility rates can also be addressed by local communities. In France, for instance, the local government of Albi launched a “baby boom challenge”, providing various supports like childcare and housing subsidies for families. This local approach made having children less daunting financially and logistically, ultimately increasing the birth rate.
However, the formation of these local communities is not always straightforward. Our current legal frameworks sometimes restrict the freedom of association due to anti-discrimination laws. This is not to say that we should promote discrimination, but rather, we must find a balance. For example, enforcing transparency in community formation processes or encouraging the diversification of these value-based communities can ensure inclusion while maintaining shared values.
Polarisation can be mitigated if communities are allowed to self-govern, in turn lessening national tension. Devolution of power to local levels should be more than a theory, and can be initiated through policy changes. One practical approach could be implementing more subsidiarity principles in governance, allowing decisions to be made at the lowest possible administrative level.
Reforming communities and revitalizing civil society might seem like an ambitious task. However, given the potential benefits and successes of community-based solutions, this effort can pave the way for a more effective and inclusive future. In subsequent writings, I will delve further into this discussion, exploring solutions for demographic decline and overexposure to hyper stimuli from a community-focused perspective.
Modern government is fundamentally anti-community.
Government has devoured pretty much every anchor of community that it possibly can.
The proliferation of Men’s Sheds is an example of this pushing out. These men would have previously been gainfully employed via church or other organisations doing useful projects for the elderly or the community in general. That’s Governments job now.
Christmas decorations last year were confined to one vacant block in town because the grubs at the local council (government) claimed they didn’t have the necessary insurance to allow them to be placed throughout the town. The owner of the vacant block stepped up with the space and insurance.
Small examples of Government eating community. What’s “Community”? People working together of their own volition to make things better.
One observation might be that current population policy (part of which is immigration) in this country has tended in many instances to produce balkanisation (mostly in urban/suburban areas), whence communities certainly naturally exist (typically location-based) & intra-community cohesion therein is ok, however this has been at the expense of overall inter-community relations and organisational power being sacrificed. Govts appear to know this (feature not a bug) and dress it up as ‘multiculturalism’, ‘diversity’ etc to shield their policies from scrutiny and criticism. This enables govt to more easily overcome resistance to implementation of govt policies, as the scrutiny & resistance is fragmented and more often that not sub-optimally coordinated, often as the result of something as simple as language barriers.
Leave a Reply