A couple of months ago, Tom Armstrong wrote a very interesting FSB piece on government and whether we still need it. As Armstrong says, it's a question which is rarely asked.
A rarely asked question perhaps, but not that rare. It has probably crossed the minds of many people concerned about the strikingly ineffectual yet repressive nature of recent UK governments. During the covid debacle for example.
Do We Need Government?
For most of human history, political power was a matter of geography. The Crown or Parliament in Westminster was, to all intents and purposes, remote to the majority of the people. Decisions handed down from London might take weeks to arrive in Yorkshire, Cornwall, or the Highlands, and still longer to make their effects felt. Government was not simply remote in spirit, but remote in fact.
So is it not strange that in an age when a message can travel the globe in less than a second, we still cling to a centuries-old model of centralised power? Why, in an era of instant communication, decentralised finance, instant communication and artificial intelligence, do we persist in allowing a handful of ministers - career politicians – and an army of arrogant mandarins in Whitehall to run the lives of seventy million people, often in ways the vast majority of those millions disapprove of?
So here I ask a question hardly never asked: Do we still need “government” as we know it? Is the centralised State, with democracy heavily qualified by the inaccurate word ‘representative’, its archaic practices, bloated bureaucracy and self-perpetuating ‘elite’ anything more than an anachronism, a hangover from horse-and-carriage times? And could we, the people, using modern technology, do a better job without it?
For most of human history, political power was a matter of geography. The Crown or Parliament in Westminster was, to all intents and purposes, remote to the majority of the people. Decisions handed down from London might take weeks to arrive in Yorkshire, Cornwall, or the Highlands, and still longer to make their effects felt. Government was not simply remote in spirit, but remote in fact.
So is it not strange that in an age when a message can travel the globe in less than a second, we still cling to a centuries-old model of centralised power? Why, in an era of instant communication, decentralised finance, instant communication and artificial intelligence, do we persist in allowing a handful of ministers - career politicians – and an army of arrogant mandarins in Whitehall to run the lives of seventy million people, often in ways the vast majority of those millions disapprove of?
So here I ask a question hardly never asked: Do we still need “government” as we know it? Is the centralised State, with democracy heavily qualified by the inaccurate word ‘representative’, its archaic practices, bloated bureaucracy and self-perpetuating ‘elite’ anything more than an anachronism, a hangover from horse-and-carriage times? And could we, the people, using modern technology, do a better job without it?
The whole piece is well worth reading, not because anything is likely to be done in this direction, but because the question is fascinatingly useful as a way to skirt well-worn paths. An idea to drop into conversations at Christmas perhaps.
So, do we still need government? Not in the form we inherited from the days when a journey from London to York consumed a week. Not in the form that treats free citizens as subjects, and a handful of politicians as monarchs in all but name. We need rules, yes. We need order, yes. But we do not need rulers. We do not need a permanent, parasitic class of officials to run our lives. The tools of liberty are already in our hands: digital platforms, decentralised systems, AI safeguards. The only missing ingredient is courage. Courage to say: the age of government is over. The age of citizen rule has begun.
No comments:
Post a Comment