“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis
The most insidious sort of oppression is that which is carried out “for our own good.” In American politics it is a trite generalization that the Right views government is the archetypal Father Figure, an authoritarian caretaker keeping us on the straight and narrow, and punish us when we slip, lest we become savages. The Left conceives of the state as our collective Mother, with resources enough to nurture the whole of the people, and sooth their ills. It’s difficult to choose the lesser of these two evils, and I wouldn’t endorse either one without a litany of reservations. But for its manifold faults the impulses of the Right to act as enforcers of proper behavior are at least generally less expensive than the Left’s insatiable drive to feed everyone on everyone else’s dime, if only because it’s cheaper to beat people than feed them (though the modern prison system calls this assumption into question). Those of us who would prefer the State do no parenting whatsoever are relegated to the margins of political discourse, presumably to busy ourselves with UFO sightings, Revolutionary-period costume parties, and our gold fetish. I assume that there’s a similar dynamic at work in most other countries, regardless of the particular names and forms.
It appears Scotland is planning to assign every child an official “Named Person” starting in 2016. This person will be, it seems, either a health worker or teacher, depending on the age of the child. I’ve no doubt that the proponents of this plan have little but the best interests of the children in mind. This official will receive copies of reports, and be informed if a child misses an appointment. The State, and its magnanimity, has provided a Kindly Uncle (or ‘Aunt.’ We’re not sexist ’round here…) for the family, interested in nothing but the wee lad’s (or lass’s…) well-being.
There are those who, being backward and reactionary, view such snooping as an improper intrusion. Perhaps even “meddling.” The Light of Progress has not yet graced their faces, and it is the responsibility of the more enlightened vanguards to drag them, perhaps kicking and screaming, into this brave new world. But let us forget these unwashed pagans for the moment, and assume that it is a demonstrable good to assign these youths an Official Busybody to make sure their parents aren’t busy, forgetful, or abusive. What are the odds that it will stay there? Is it anything but credulity of the highest order to imagine that the State, once inserted into the family, will be so reserved as to limit itself to the original task?
No. Power begets power, human nature and mission creep assure a steady supply of new evils to combat, and any successes will be hailed as justification to expand the program. £30,000 isn’t much to fight a policy campaign or protracted court battle, but I wish the opponents of this policy all the best, both for their sake and for ours, as policy-makers tend to borrow ideas, and if it “works” in Scotland, it may spread.
(Hat tip to Cranmer.)
Sundry Complaints 