Principles first
Published: Tue, 04/10/18
So, the government has made its knee jerk reaction to an apparent rise in violent crime in London. The main policy? Clamping down on ‘knife crime’. Ever noticed how those words are put together these days almost as frequently as ‘liar’ and ‘politician’?
Yes, I am angry for two reasons. Firstly, ever since the end of the stone age (a while ago now) metal knives have been the basis of human survival and progress. If you are going to be self-reliant you are going to need tools and a great many tools are simply knives or incorporate knives in various ingenious ways. A pair of scissors is just two knives pivoted together, a lawn mower, several knives driven by a motor to cut grass and, well look around for yourself, and you will see what I mean.
A self-reliant person needs access to basic tools, and the most basic tool is a knife of some kind. Indeed, the law permits the carrying of a folding knife with a non-locking blade up to 3 inches long. I have seen no indication of any proposal to change this, already repressive, legislation. Yet the government is putting out propaganda that no one has an excuse for carrying a knife. The majority of people are not self-reliant and that is their (usually unconscious) choice. I find it very disturbing that self-reliant people should be afraid of persecution by the police for doing nothing wrong.
The second reason I am angry about the situation, is the principle which is at stake. There are three things that you need to achieve an aim. You need a strategy, you need tactics and you need principles, to decide which tactics will actually serve the strategic aim. In military terms, the principles are sometimes called the ‘operational method’, which is the process of selecting, and applying, the right tactics to achieve a strategic aim.
I accept that a government has some responsibility for law and order, and should have a strategy aimed at creating, and maintaining, a peaceful and safe society. I say, some responsibility, because most people want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours and most of the time they do so with no interference from the authorities. Most people can also resolve a local dispute with a civilised discussion. In most communities the forces of law and order are rarely needed, and if something more serious does happen, the usual response is. ‘Nothing we can do, lack of evidence and no resources anyway’.
So, the government has decided to declare its strategy against violent crime. The main tactics? First, making it more difficult to buy a knife by mail order (which is all that Internet shopping is) and, thus inconveniencing anyone who needs a specialized tool. Secondly, making announcements that cause law abiding citizens to be nervous about carrying a basic tool with them on a daily basis.
Where is the principle here? There are only three crimes: First, harming a person. Secondly, depriving another person of their property or damaging it. Third, defrauding another person in a contract. If an action does not cause one of those effects then it is not a crime. Some regulation is needed for public safety. A good example being an agreement that everyone on a public highway will drive on the left. However, this is completely arbitrary since most of the world drives on the right. If the tactics used by government go beyond preventing the three crimes, and absolutely necessary regulation, then the strategy is clearly about social control and creating dependency, rather than freedom and harmony.
The big problem is that we don’t think clearly about all three elements in social policy. Strategies are often not what they seem. Just because a big deal is being made about violent crime, it does not mean that the government is serious about dealing with it. It could be that the actual strategy is something else altogether. Even if there is no intentional mischief, unintended consequences always come about. The clue is always to look at the tactics being employed and see if they actually serve the announced strategy. If not then either you are dealing with idiots who have no idea what they are doing . Or, the real strategy is something completely different to the announced one. The reality will probably somewhere between the two.
A real strategy for dealing with gang violence in certain areas of London would use tactics such as: Legalising drugs and selling them through government regulated outlets. Getting enough police on the beat to deal with antisocial behaviour before it becomes gang warfare. Looking at poverty, opportunity and unemployment and giving people a real stake in society. Getting young people into activities where they can gain confidence and learn how to use knives as the creative tools they are. Get young people learning martial arts, so that they learn self-respect and are confident enough to defend themselves without having to resort to stabbing each other.
These are just some tactics which would be in accordance with the principle of dealing with real crime. These tactics would also suggest a strategy that was serious about creating a better society.
What can you do? Most important, start thinking critically for yourself. Then exercise your democratic right to tell our representatives what you think, and vote accordingly at elections. But, most importantly, develop your critical thinking, the most important tool, and most powerful weapon your have, is the one between your ears.
regards
Graham
PS These days I am getting slightly nervous about what I should, or should not, mention when promoting courses. Some of the lessons which will be taught at the HDC in June could make our lords and masters worried, see what I mean here http://hdc.stavcamp.org/