My politics

25/10/12 13:21 [Thursday]
I have been thinking about politics and economics. I ask myself what the reason is I regard myself as Conservative and whether I still should be Conservative, considering the situation I am in of being unable to support myself in work and therefore relying on State handouts. Some of the people I follow on Twitter are likewise unable to work for reasons of mental illness and those who declare themselves are very much against the present Conservative Government because the policy is to save money by cutting State handouts this leading (especially under the system run by ATOS the assessors for the DWP) to seemingly harsh decisions requiring people to try to work who declare they are unfit for work.
The reason I regard myself as Conservative is that my brain wiring inclines me to prefer the individual over the collective. Some animals - for example tigers - are by nature solitary, while others - for example lions - are in their nature herd animals. As in many aspects, human beings vary a lot among themselves and some are more solitary and others more gregarious. The existence of language creates a semblance in the eyes of some that humans are naturally social animals, but in fact language can be used by an individual on his own and is not just for communication. It’s true that language would not have developed outside of groups of communicating persons and equally it is true that people are initially in the society of their family. Even individuals who are by nature solitary are going to acquire language (almost all of them) on the basis that enough people in the past have been of the society from which language emerged. Mrs Thatcher believed in the family but not in society.
Socialists are in favour of the collective imposing itself. If healthcare or education are provided free by the State (they could be provided free through charity but not in the way the State can guarantee them) then taxes are imposed to pay for them. You cannot escape the fact that freedom of the individual is associated with Capitalism (to use that term as better defined than the term Conservative for the more Capitalist party in British politics) and not with Socialism. I suppose there are people who are freer under Socialism - those subject to State handouts have more money - but overall there is less freedom. I interject here what I have said before that Socialism is in vogue these days because people in general are so well off (from economies of scale with such a large population density) that they can afford without trouble to subsidise people who need or otherwise take State handouts.
I have been thinking of an example policy of the Labour Party in Britain which means something to me, that is the policy of making train fares the same whether you book online or at the booking office. What this policy does is remove the incentive for people to seek out cheap fares and book online: they will tend to leave it to the formally employed booking clerk. As things stand people doing things for themselves online are saving the provider cost and - if they are allowed a reduced charge - profiting themselves. This helps even unemployed people like myself, by allowing us to help ourselves. Of course under the Labour scheme there would be more employment for formally employed booking clerks, but they would work less hard (at finding the ideal fare, in this specific instance) than the individual helping himself.
The generalisation from this is that Socialism is associated with larger and easier employment, but to the marginal disadvantage of those remaining unemployed. The way of compensating those who have to be unemployed even if there is full employment - a lot of the long-term sick and disabled - is to give them larger State handouts. What this means is that even those necessarily unemployed who could do things to benefit themselves outside of work are deprived of the opportunity and rendered inert with more State assistance. I’m not sure that this is specifically true of the British Labour Party but on the whole Socialism would be more associated with putting old people in collective homes and less with allowing them to remain in their own home. This is the basis of why my politics are as they are: I prefer to have an active mind (even without much bodily activity) - this being helped along by the provision of opportunities for benefiting myself through doing things myself (online the way technology is in the present) - rather than to sit inert all day in front of a television in an old people’s home.
Of course in my case - at the age I am now - it would more likely be a lunatic asylum than an old people’s home, and I mention here that a few months back when I was more inclined to favour being shut away in an asylum the reason was that the level of medication I was on was preventing me having an active mind.
Something I have asked myself in thinking about these matters is whether global resources are used faster if there are a lot of people in employment but not working very hard, or faster if there are fewer people in employment but a lot of motivation for those in and out of employment to do things for themselves. The presumption behind this question is that it is better not to consume resources quickly, because then human civilisation will continue over a longer period. It is possible to doubt this presumption on the basis that we are talking about such a long period into the future that it makes no odds: what does it matter whether my cousins many generations down the line have more or fewer children of their own surviving to an old age, or whether the line dies out? For the record my guess is that resources are used faster if there is full employment (which I suppose is obvious anyway because those not in employment however hard they try to do things for themselves are not going to get as much done which consumes resources as those in employment even if those in employment laze about a lot).
I must say the Conservative Party does not say that its policy is to keep unemployment high to provide better motivation and to reduce the rate of depletion of the world’s resources: what is said (or was said when Mrs Thatcher was in power) is that the motivation provided out of less subsidisation (for the unemployed, specifically) will let market forces operate more flexibly which should in time improve the economy and improve the rate of employment. From history one would expect in fact that less State intervention would lead to a more pronounced cycle of a better then worse then better again economy.
To summarise again: the reason I am Conservative is that less State intervention provides motivation (and indeed the possibility at all) of doing things for myself (even if I am not in employment: so long as things are not so difficult that I starve, of course).
Taking up the point in parentheses there: if things are not too easy for me I acquire more information (there are learning opportunities, to put it more conventionally) and a significant part of human progression through life is acquisition and processing of information - more significant to some than others, of course, depending on ‘personality’ and brain wiring. Also, where there is variety there is more beautiful information, so it suits those of us who adhere to certain aesthetics for there not to be too much equalisation. On reflection the people I follow on Twitter who believe in palling up with others and demanding a more equal society can’t genuinely be schizophrenic: either they are mis-diagnosed or their medication is turning them.