THE POTENTIAL TO FINESSE ALL OUR BIGGEST SOCIAL ISSUES
[stextbox id=”info”]Disclaimer: Much of this treatise is based on the assumption that the host country will devolve some level of political independence to 3MC communities. The fact that this seems very unlikely in the present political climate should not prevent us from speculating what policies could be implemented if 3MC’s were able to free themselves from the political straight-jacket of nation states. The innate human desire for freedom, and the lessons of history itself, will ensure 3MC’s will come about eventually – and probably a lot sooner than the nay-sayers might like to think.
Obviously I cannot dictate the nature of future 3MC charters and which policies they might adopt, so the bold italicised comments below are merely my personal opinions, most of which are no doubt anathema to those of a left-leaning “liberal” persuasion. Many will want to adopt a more liberal approach than that which I advocate but, compared with the inflexibility and creeping totalitarian tendencies of “democratic” nation states, the great advantage of the 3MC concept is its flexibility and adaptability to all life-styles and all shades of opinion.
If the advantages of 3MC’s were limited to its environmental benefits, the UK government might even look kindly on the concept. But, for pig-headed idealogical reasons, the govt would insist that 3MC’s adopt the same politically-correct, socialistic ideals of contemporary Britain. That is – multiculturalism rights before responsibilities, entitlement culture, and the whole caboodle of endless welfare benefits, This explains why, for the foreseeable future, 3MC’s will not happen in Britain because – if for no other reason – nobody would want to invest under such conditions.
But would that socialist model be anywhere near as successful as one which adopted a charter based on personal responsibility or even, god forbid, Singapore-style authoritarianism? If each DP were to be organised on commercial principles, it will surely boil down to simple economics – which system will make the better return for its investors? Of course it is doubtful for example that the EU charter would permit politically autonomous enclaves. Which is just one more good reason to ditch the EU. (and to think I used to be an EU supporter..!)
- OBESITY EPIDEMIC – obesity was rare until quite recently, so why has it suddenly become so commonplace?
- Gluttony? Lack of exercise? No self-respect? No pride in appearance? Bad parenting? Poor nutritional education?
- Why burden health resources by admitting people with self-inflicted disabilities..?
- BENEFIT DEPENDENCY –
- DP aims to opt-out of the state benefits system
- SINGLE MOTHERS LIVING OFF BENEFITS –
- a well-intentioned policy that amounts to subsidising a form of child neglect.
- People with no means of support will not be admitted.
- STREET CRIME & VANDALISM
- DP will create an environment where crime of any kind is exceptionally rare.
- LACK OF DISCIPLINE, RESPECT, MANNERS, AND MORALS
- DP charters will emphasise responsibilities rather than “rights”
- DECADENCE – Self Gratification, “Luxury Fever”, Frivolity, Consumerism, Greed, Celebrity Worship,
- LACK OF A LEARNING CULTURE
- WEALTH INEQUALITY
- HOME OWNERSHIP OBSESSION (THE “PROPERTY LADDER”)
- DP Apartments will not be sold, but long, secure leases will be given.
- LACK OF AFFORDABLE GOOD QUALITY RENTAL HOUSING –
- Britain has 3 types of rental housing, all unsatisfactory….
- Highly subsidised “Social Housing” (“Sink Estates”) prioritised to large families, who are often recent immigrants.
- “Buy to Let” private landlords who only offer short (and insecure) leases and can be fickle and unfair with their tenants.
- Very expensive new high-rise developments (along London’s Riverside, for example)