What will we do when statism fails? -- Part 1

So, what will it take to handle problems in society that we've been told are unmanagable without the benevolent state? What about the unfortunate, those who cannot help themselves and have no protectors? Would society allow them to suffer, linger and perish? No, society would not. Associations would evolve to assist those who cannot help themselves. Voluntary donations would flow to the associations most competent and efficient. There are many people in our society who possess a spiritual energy that leads to helping professions -- they have a moral sense internally generated that drives them to help the unfortunate. We all know people such as this -- they care and they act on their desire to help.

From what I saw working in the mental health profession for fifteen years, private institutions, for the most part, delivered superior service. It wasn't just the efficiency and financial management that was superior, the services were superior because talented employees were attracted to a system that was more flexible and responsive to actual needs. There wasn't that much difference in pay, and, in fact, the benefits offered by the state were superior. The private systems had two tiers (as did the state), clinical and administration -- both had to deliver excellent results in order to compete. In the private facilities I worked in, great effort was expended to keep the clinical focused on patient care while administration focused on management, marketing and finances.

The moral high ground was always accorded to state facilities because the idea was they didn't have to worry about making money, therefore they could concentrate solely on patient care. In reality, results were very different. There is a high burn-out rate in the mental health field, and in state run facilities staff that burned-out merely slowed down, hid behind paperwork and provided sub-par care while co-workers covered for them (a way of showing care for one another). In private facilities when a clinical staff member burned out, it was addressed and dealt with -- still, from a caring position, but also because it affected patient care and ultimately the business of providing that care in a competitive field.

Eventually, state guidlines and regulations of private facilities drove me from the field, because the system was handcuffed and it was becoming more difficult to provide patient care without violating some rule or regulation.

But, before the regulations became stringent, there were other big differences between private and state -- the freedom and flexibility to express our talents in a system with a mission of excellence, with no politics and no far away central control, allowed us to work as a team toward a goal we all valued. The state facilities I was familiar with never possessed this mission of excellence, although I knew some of the workers individually and they started out caring and striving to do an excellent job. The system beat them down and never allowed them the freedom and flexibility to express their talents -- it's the nature of state systems to regiment and rule the spirit out of good people.

Local associations left free to deal with the problems of the unfortunate -- those who, either temporarily or permanenetly, can't help themselves -- will surpass all government efforts to deal with the same problems. The only oversight needed is to prevent fraud and abuse. The licensing, state rules and regulations, and state inspections, otherwise, are a sham, and obstacles to good people providing excellent service.

Since here we are talking about those who can't help themselves, money will need to come from somewhere. Government programs are bloated and waste a lot of money, breeding resentment from many taxpayers that their money is used for something that's broken. This is not to say that state programs don't do some good, but on the whole it's a broken system, and has been broken for a long time. If people aren't being taxed to death they will have the money to donate to private efforts where the donors can see the results of their donations -- and judge the effectiveness.

Creative, local, private alliances will do a much better job addressing the problem and finding solutions and perhaps alleviate the overcrowding of large urbam areas where generous government programs overwhelm the system and create more problems than they solve.

Local private efforts would be judged by their results and wouldn't have the motivation to swell the rolls for more funding and agency protection. Private associations would be forced to adjust their size according to the need, and their success getting people on the road to helping themselves would determine their costs. A private association that became bloated and corrupt would quickly lose support from discerning donors through local oversight, plus the fact of a competitor offering more efficient and effective services would apply constant pressure on performance.

Local associations would also be more likely to create local alliances with businesses to help find ways to employ those who can work. The disabled who can not take care of themselves and have no family to take care of them would be more humanely treated through small, responsive, local associations than through large bureacracies.

With communities becoming more involved with the problem, creative solutions are more likely to arise as people freely choose to take responsibility and the idea of some "they" out there will take care of it is eradicated. This will stengthen community co-operation and alleviate ignorance of the sources and severity of social problems (problems of individuals in society). As people become more voluntarily involved, character is strengthened and co-ordinated efforts bring about innovative solutions. How we live together in a civilized society becomes a closer concern and responsibility is shifted to individuals rather than government control removed from local responsiveness and understanding.