The Manifesto

Activities of government

The public sector makes up approximately half of our economic live. It also legislates more of our life than ever before. Although recent ideology has aimed to reduce the state, little has been achieved. 

Building individual responsibility conflicts with many of the activities of government. To control our own life is a major objective, otherwise we will forget our independent power. Government's control over us should only be tolerated when there is no alternative. We should examine all areas of government to ensure that they are still required and that they do not limit our spirit. 

Government action should be limited:

- Government should ensure people are able to make their own decisions

- Government should provide opportunities for individuals to reach their potential, taking into account costs to freedom
- Government should move away from the provision of services - if needed, people will provide them

And what should be the overall aim of these actions? Always, the government should be focused on building the spirit of the population. 

What should government do/not do?

Bureaucracy and love of detail

Nothing else crushes the spirit as much as bureaucracy. It takes freedom, it kills ideas, it limits opportunities. It is based on the preservation of precedent. 

Bureaucracy is most seen in the way that we work. But it is also seen in the way we are treated by the instruments of power, the state, the boss. Almost any area of our life is touched by it, and suffers from it.

Bureaucracy is a hard enemy to break. A knee-jerk reaction is to take a simple idea and add complexity, add a requirement that everything has to be checked, all areas need to be covered. Bureaucracy can soon become a tool for lack of action and the maintenance of the power of those who do not deserve it. Simplicity and speed wrongly appear to be foolish. And criticism of failure is typically based on flinging the easy response that not enough detail was investigated. More often, detail slows progress and brings in confusion.

What changes result? First, we accept that some forms of mistake, either in policy, presentation or outcome, are a requirement of rapid progress. Rather than criticizing, we will find benefits from what has happened and build. Second, we will make actors always responsible for outcomes, rather than process. This will avoid a fall into inactivity and complexity. Third, we overturn bureaucracy where ever it is found. 

This will lead to less dead time spent on process, which will produce better service on issues that have a very real impact, in our government and our work.

What bureaucracy / pettiness should be abolished?

Relations at work

For many of us, work takes up the majority of life. We spend as much time with those we work with as with those we love. But examine the way that we spend this time - no wonder we can feel like our lives are out of our control. And as work organisations become larger and more systematic, the loss of control increases. 

The basis of the work relationship, superiority and power relations, by definition lead to an inability to express our own ideas and directions. Yet more enthused workers is better for both the employer and the person. And at some point we need to ask what is more important, the profit or the person.

The workplace should be a place for growing spirit. But to do this, it must be reformed. Look at the work-place in a cold light. Ask yourself if you would put up with your treatment at work if you were anywhere else. And would you treat the people you work with differently if you met them outside?

Second, ask yourself how much you are giving to your work, both in time and your soul. The network economy, and the reduced need to earn, mean that there are now many more ways to spend your days. 

And if you are an employer, ask if you are being just to your workers. 

Boss horror stories

Redistribution

Inequality is getting larger, and this will continue, with the greater concentration of productive capability. We need new rules for re-distribution of wealth. 

Re-distribution is right when the spirit of one person is grown. This means that hand-outs which lead to dependency are wrong. Pride and confidence should not be traded in. 

Re-distribution is also wrong when the money is gained in a way that restricts the provider. Restrictive taxation should be avoided if possible.

One solution would be voluntary re-distribution though family, community, personal network. Another solution would be to promote employment in labour intensive areas. But these measures are not likely to be sufficient for the scale of the problem.

What new ways of re-distribution are there?

Society has no caught up with the fact that we are getting older; we are getting old slower, we live longer, we are healthier, the old are a larger portion of society. Some of the work skills that the old have brought in the past are now reduced - technical experience counts for less in an age of change. Some of the living skills are just as valued. But the old are increasingly dismissed.

We believe that the needs of the old population should be addressed, especially as they are facing great change. The old should be allowed to decide for themselves. The old should be expected to be able to be competent. 

What issues face the old and what could be changed?  

A strong spirit does not mean a spirit that rises up against others. Self belief, human power, force of character does not mean that a person cannot accept others and has to fight to retain what they think is right. The ideal of building up spirit in others is diametrically opposed to forcing an opinion on others, on using strength to achieve your own way. And if you are not able to build others around you, you will sink. Anger towards others has no place in a strong society. 

Instead, a strong spirit is able to understand why others feel as they do, take account of it, build on it and improve the opinion. Every opinion has a cause and this cause needs to be understood to develop thinking and move on. 

In a network role, it is even more important to be able to build off others ideas. New ideas and methods are proposed more often than ever before. Unless we can make the most of these and accommodate them into ourselves, we will be left behind. Before, no man was an island. Now, every man is part of a river. Use others flow. 

How can you better use others ideas?

A mature society must be able to find alternatives to fighting.

Can rejection of anger be applied on a national arena? Anger and aggression between nations is war, and the outcome of modern wars is so devastating. Continue the idea that a belief in spirit means a rejection of anger and aggression, then complete pacifism and anti-militarism follow. Can this be applied? 

In the modern world, there are ever increasing numbers of wars. Although developed nations rarely start these wars, we certainly do make them more serious, through arms trading, international intrigue, inciting aggression in other nations. Clearly this cannot be defended if we believe in developing spirit in all nations. 

Can there ever be a justification for a war in the modern world? Some issues... Precedents for wars are reduced with international communication and agreement. Modern technology fosters this agreement, as does a personal rejection of anger and aggression. It is already hard to see how a fundamental disagreement of ideology could start an international war. Second, few wars solve the problems they are designed to solve. Each major war appears to lead to more conflict. Since war is ineffective, other routes should be evaluated, such as acceptance and communication. 

There are two types of society in the world. In the plentiful world we have more than enough material wealth to survive. We no longer need to ask how to get more, but ask how to live better. In the poor world, there is a need for more wealth to allow the people to eat, fight simple disease. There is not enough for people to live a basic life. 

The principles of a society will be different when a society needs to build wealth, rather than when societies are able to build spirit. 

Consider the difference between the two worlds. In the poor world, approximately one billion people do not have enough food, causing stunted growth, susceptibility to disease, constant uncertainty over survival. It costs a few hundred dollars to feed a person in the developing world for a year. In the plentiful world we diet. In the plentiful world we spend money on entertainment that could keep people alive in the poor world.

Concern for others is a first stage in reducing the difference between nations. This will lead to actions to reduce the suffering in the poor world. A large spirited person is more likely to act to reduce the differences.