From the Summit of the Moral High Ground

Every society must decide how it cares for those who cannot care for themselves. Children. The elderly. The disabled. Those temporarily out of work. Those facing genuine hardship. No civilised society can ignore human suffering. The real question is not whether help should be given. It is who should provide it. For most of history, responsibility rested primarily with families, neighbours, religious organisations and voluntary charities. Government certainly existed, but it was rarely expected to become the principal source of support for everyday life. Over the past century that expectation has changed dramatically. Today, many people naturally turn first to government when confronted by difficulty. Healthcare. Education. Housing. Income support. Pensions. Childcare. Social care. Employment assistance. The list continues to grow. Some of these developments have undoubtedly improved lives. Many people have received assistance they desperately needed. Medical treatment has become more w...

Every society must answer one fundamental question. Who, or what, possesses ultimate authority? The answer shapes everything that follows. It determines where people look for justice. Where they seek moral guidance. Who educates their children. Who cares for the vulnerable. Who defines right and wrong. Throughout history the answer has rarely been government alone. Authority has been distributed among many institutions. Families. Churches. Local communities. Voluntary associations. Businesses. Guilds. Charities. Universities. Each exercised authority within its own sphere. Each limited the influence of the others. This distribution of authority acted as a safeguard against the concentration of power. No single institution possessed complete control over society. If government overreached, other institutions could resist. If a church became corrupt, families could challenge it. If families failed, communities could provide support. Liberty flourishes where authority is dispersed. It wea...

There was a time when caring for another human being rarely appeared in the national accounts. Parents raised children. Adult children cared for ageing parents. Neighbours looked after neighbours. Meals were cooked. Clothes were repaired. Homes were maintained. None of this counted towards Gross Domestic Product. It generated no invoices. It attracted no taxation. Yet society functioned. This raises an uncomfortable question. When politicians speak proudly of economic growth, are we always producing more wealth, or are we sometimes merely paying for activities that families once performed without charge? Suppose a mother stays at home to care for her own child. Economically, almost nothing happens. No wages are paid. No income tax is collected. No National Insurance contributions are made. No VAT is charged. The child receives care, but GDP barely notices. Now suppose that same mother returns to paid employment. The child enters professional childcare. The mother earns a salary. The ch...

When people discuss the institutions that shape society, they usually think of government. Some think of business. Others think of the courts. Few stop to consider the institution that, for thousands of years, formed the foundation of civilisation itself. The household. Today the word often means little more than the people who happen to live under the same roof. Historically it meant something far greater. The household was society's first government. It was the first school. It was the first welfare system. It was the first healthcare provider. It was the first pension scheme. It was the first childcare service. It was the first place where values, responsibilities and practical skills were passed from one generation to the next. Long before governments assumed these responsibilities, households performed them naturally. Children were educated by parents and extended family. The elderly were cared for by their relatives. Food was produced, preserved and prepared within the home. ...