• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

At what cost the nanny state?

by Simon Longstaff

To what extent do measures imposed by states rob individuals of their freedom? Simon Longstaff considers why we might shun taking responsibility for many aspects of our own welfare.

At the height of the Cold War, the British journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge, observed that the downfall of the liberal democracies would not be brought about by columns of tanks rolling out of the East. Nor was their principal threat arising from ‘fifth column’ communist sympathisers, working from within. Rather, he said, the democracies would collapse because of their “radical incapacity to cope with the burden of their own freedom”.

Such a statement is not just a brilliant line. It is also a perceptive observation about the human condition – and the fact that many people find being free just too hard to bear.

In a world in which the ‘Mexican wave’ can be banned, I fear that Muggeridge may have been proved correct. When I look at society today, I find a community that is deeply antipathetic to responsibility – a condition that is reinforced by governments (of all political persuasions) that operate as if the best way to mange risk is to increase the number of regulations and the scale of surveillance. The pursuit of safety and certainty, principally by this means, is in my view, a seductive folly.

many people find being free just too hard to bear

But first, a note of personal explanation. In order to avoid any doubt, let me be clear. I am not arguing against all laws, nor am I opposed to all forms of surveillance. My point is that the balance is out of whack. There can be too much of anything, even good things. Indeed, ‘too much’ means just that – too much. This goes for rules, regulations and surveillance (which are good in moderation).

The problem I see is that too much regulation and surveillance is leading to a predictable and significant escalation in the very risk we seek to avoid or control. This is precisely the opposite of what people want – thus making the current approach a classic ‘act of folly’.

There are two reasons for being opposed to the proliferation of rules and surveillance. The first is based in economics. Since the dawn of the ‘dismal science’ of economics, it has been known that high trust ‘equals’ low cost. Regulation and surveillance represent ‘deadweight costs’ that are imposed when things go wrong – or when you fear that they will.

As such, regulation and surveillance typically add nothing to prosperity. At best, they are justified as being less expensive than the costs associated with things going off track. So, we put up with the cost for fear of the alternative. Yet we should never forget that this is, from an economic perspective, very much a ‘second best’ outcome. The better option is found when trust is widespread and operative – when people keep their agreements voluntarily, when they obey the law voluntarily, when they choose not to lie, not to cheat, nor to use power oppressively, then prosperity increases for all.

The trouble is that enough people act in an untrustworthy manner to make it seem rational to operate according to specific rules with increased levels of surveillance. But where do you stop? One limitation is imposed by affordability. Yes, we could have a rule for every situation and a police officer on every corner. And we could have an inspector standing at the shoulder of every police officer, and so on. But we cannot and could not afford this. Any society trying this sort of thing would just go broke. That’s the economic problem.

But there’s an even bigger problem at the heart of this approach. Let’s suppose that you could create a world in which no person could choose to do wrong. Inadvertently, you would have created a world in which no person could choose to do right. Indeed, no person would ever have to choose – merely comply.

That is how the risk piles up. When no person need exercise responsible choice, the capacity to do so will wither away – much like a muscle encased in a plaster cast. The capacity for responsible decision-making having been lost, for want of use, we all stand at grave risk if the rules, or system of surveillance, fail – as they must do from time to time.

Robust societies must take risks with responsible decision-making if they are to maintain the resilience they require to flourish – in good times and bad.

Spare a thought for the people in parliaments and our governments if ever they really tried to reverse the current, foolish trend. They would immediately be attacked – not least from some most unlikely quarters. Business leaders love to criticise the level of regulation. However, they will be the first to demand ‘legislative certainty’ or make the claim that, “if it’s not illegal, it’s not wrong”. When no standard other than the law is recognised, is there any surprise that the laws increase in number?

Then there are those who prefer that someone else decide for them – a condition made worse in complex times, such as those in which we live. No wonder all manner of ‘fundamentalists’ find willing converts. Their siren call of apparent certainty and ‘outsourced responsibility’ for life’s intrinsically difficult questions is potent.

Welcome to a world in which the ‘Mexican wave’ is banned (along with English trumpet players). Welcome to a world in which someone else is always there to save us from ourselves. Welcome to the world of the liberal democracies.

If you think this a depressing picture, then there’s only one source of hope for change. It is not ‘government’. It is not ‘the media’. It is us!

discuss this article

---