There are some crimes, which are peculiarly repulsive to humanity. Crimes which raise the ire and exude contempt for those who perpetrate such acts.
One such criminal act is child killing, an act rightly held in the highest condemnation by society, but often inconsistently so in the ages past (as we see in the abortion controversy). Especially vilified are those who were charged with the care of such little ones but were found wanting in the most abominable way.
Such people warrant the limit of a society’s sanctions and often receive a double portion of retribution when their prison inmates find out the true nature of their incarceration.
So, when we were confronted with the tragic cases of torture and finally murder meted out to Lauren Wright (aged 6) and Victoria Climbie (aged 8), society began to ask the usual questions.
The first being “How could people do such a thing?” and the answer to that remains the same whilst human nature retains a propensity to commit incorrigible evil.
The second question is more relevant to those of an anti-statist disposition when it is asked why such a thing was not preventable.
Indeed, the decivilising forces inherent in encroaching statism not only trickle down to those who commit such acts but also to those who have a part to play in the curbing of lawlessness. I will address the second group because they include our own law-abiding selves.
Whether one is a libertarian or otherwise does not change the axiom that the liberty of community must survive in order that the liberty of the individual survives. The Christian builds this upon the concept of “common grace” whilst the secularist may refer to it as the herd instinct (I am open to a nobler sounding phrase than that).
When the plight of an abused child is ignored by neighbours pre-occupied with their internal affairs to the exclusion of others then community becomes a mere aggregate of dissolving social links. Man is a social creature who is at his prime fulfilment when he is engaged in the business of relationships.
I venture that the concept of community is likened to the layered effect of an onion, which has the individual at the centre with varying concentric shells of family, local community and regional culture. A common and regional culture may include the nation-state but this is not mandatory, as we see in the primary distinction and allegiance to tribes within an artificially imposed national boundary.
The further that two layers are from each other, the less effective and even threatening they are to one or the other on the grounds of unfamiliarity, cultural disparity and a distance that leads to increasing indifference and even xenophobic hostility.
Therefore, each layer immediately above the one below acts as a buffer with it in a symbiotic manner against the layers above, which ensures the survival of each for the benefit of each.
So, take away the tribe or nation-state and the community is at the mercy of other tribes and nation-states.
Take away the community and the family is at the mercy of foreign communities and tribes/nations.
Take away the family and the individual himself is threatened and neglected by foreign families and beyond.
Take away the individual and the destruction of society is complete.
Why do I say “threatened” or “foreign”? Simply, because each layer which is in contact with its immediate neighbour has a unique familiarity which offers security and aid.
The individual is best served by his or her own genetically related family. The community is not as good as the family in serving the individual. How sadly this was demonstrated in these two girls who were being “cared” for by those who were not their natural mothers.
Moreover, the family unit is best served by the community of common families within the boundary defined by the range of face-to-face contact. It is not a social community, which relies on multi-megabit communication links to sustain its existence. Talking to people across the Internet lacks the warmth and immediacy of the human face. The regular altruistic contact and amiable conversation between those separated by fractions of a mile rather than freeways and oceans is a proven builder of relationships and hence motivation to effective and sincere mutual aid.
And, finally, the community is best served by other immediate tribal communities, who share a common, regional culture rather than that of a distant dialect or even ethic.
Which brings us back to the sad cases of these two little girls and, at which point, I bring in the State and its Social Welfare arm which was exposed as appallingly negligent in heeding the warnings of neighbours. The social workers and managers were given sufficient warnings to remove these kids from their abusers. Why did they not do this?
For the usual reasons – overworked, underpaid and under motivated staff. For less personal reasons beyond that, such as the bureaucratic paper trail and the legal bear traps underneath that impale the unwary with poison tipped lawsuits from falsely accused guardians.
But there is one prime reason, which the State will not accede to, and that is that there are others who can do the job of community and family welfare better than itself. In fact, so much better, that the State is not needed at all.
The two girls as individuals lacked the first layer of protection – those over them with a close genetic interest in their future. They thus fell back on the next layer of the community and encountered immediate problems for the State has helped oversee the increasing dissolution of the concept of communion within community.
Strip away the family, the community and even the tribal region and we see the omnipotent State offering to us the sophistry of the global village. It is a sedative which whispers to the layers below such promises as "We have the money.", "We have the technology.", "We have the professionals." and "We have the sanctions.".
They do indeed. One thing they cannot say, though, is "We have the love." and "We have the compassion." and therein lies the reason why their professionals will remain just that and no more. These people are paid to do a job; they expect money in return for their services. If they are not paid, how many will betray their ultimate indifference to the little ones they claim to have an interest in?
The neighbours who warned the Social Services of the evil going on did their part in the family-community symbiosis. They expected no pay rises in return or "employee of the month" awards, only justice. They too were failed. Neighbours who watched these little children come in and out each day grew to know them and develop and interest in their well being through the milk of human kindness. Such is the concept and evolution of this microcosm of society.
But the bureaucracy and monolith of the Welfare State knows none of this – it is a robot, it is a machine which pounds to the pistons of dogma rather than the beat of the compassionate human heart. It is a creature that cannot properly participate in a community for its ultimate allegiance lies in the distant and centralised offices of the Senate or Parliament or, worse, in the manifesto of its ruling party.
It skewers through the layers of our metaphorical onion in the name of common national interest and then watches as the life juices of that delicate and multi-layered organism ebb away through that wound whilst all the time agitating for more taxes to staunch the flow of the resulting society ills.
Yet, the thing that rankles most is that they do not appear to comprehend that they are part of the problem rather than the solution. I would that they knew they were culpable, for change may be quicker if they ever repented of it.
Libertarians, I hope, should not seek purely the role of complainers. We are problem solvers as well. Or, in this case, the community is the solution to State interference and sloth. The State has played its part in desensitising the fellow feeling of community, it is not the sole guilty party in this, but it is a large player.
The family and community combine to form a buttress against the State. In these small groupings within society individuals can find the protection to express themselves fully without fear of a centralised planner imposing a homogenous culture upon all.
Who is my neighbour? Let us learn the answer to that question anew lest the State redefines the very meaning of family and community before our very eyes.
October 22 , 2001
