Some trades are payment first, then delivering value, be it goods or services. An example of this would be buying groceries. Other trades deliver value first, then payment is made. An example of this is eating out at a restaurant. There is another type of trade, exemplified by Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson and others like them, where the seller delivers value first, with no obligation on the part of the buyer to make any payment. Molyneux and Peterson give away knowledge and understanding and advice. They ask you to support them with donations, but they can't make you. Much like a Renaissance lord patronising an artist, those who make payment subsidise the artist and allow the freeloaders to benefit. I'm not sure if that counts as charity, but it certainly makes the world a better place at least some of the time. If nobody patronises the artist, then it's charity by the artist for the freeloaders. If there are patrons, it's charity by the patrons for the freeloaders. With charity either by or for the artist, depending on how much he receives compared to the value he delivers, assuming some mystical 'just price' exists for his art.
Most politicians are like grocery stores. With a poor returns policy. You pay first by giving them political power, based usually on some form of false advertising. Then they deliver, well, let's not call it value. But they perform actions that they will tell you are of value. Unlike the grocery store, you can't return a rotten apple for your money back on the same day. You have to wait years to dispose of the bad apples, and you get nothing back for those who didn't act as advertised. It's the equivalent of having to wait years to throw rotting fruit into the garbage.
What if a politician was willing to deliver value in the same way as an artist in search of a patron was? This may not be as feasible on the larger political stages, but it certainly can be done at the local level. Think of the prosecutor who makes a name for himself by locking up bad guys before running for office. He has shown you the goods he delivers, and you are free to decide if you want to pay for them with your future vote. Or the businessman who brings jobs and prosperity to a town. He has delivered his goods as well, with no obligation on you to pay.
There are now political parties in South Africa without any political power, because they hold no elected offices. Some (see here and here) align with my suggestions for a more peaceful, prosperous and free South Africa. But they can do nothing without political power, be it the ballot box or the bullet box. Media interviews and social media campaigns will only take them so far. They need to deliver value to the people they hope to represent, first. And thereafter ask for payment in votes.
My suggestion is for the secessionists in the Cape to identify ways to deliver value on behalf of their parties, and go out and do just that. There are two big issues in the Cape currently which could be the answer. The water crisis is the first, and for most people the more pressing need. But without government money and political power, it will be hard to make an impact.
The second issue is where the real potential lies. Cape Town has some of the most violent crime in the country, and it is concentrated in the townships. A political party hoping to represent selected ethnic groups could benefit greatly by improving the violent crime rates amongst their peoples. When looked at in this light, the problem appears more manageable. The goal is not to reduce all crime in all of the provinces. It is not even to reduce all crime in all of Cape Town. It is to reduce violent crime in the white and Coloured populations. And since these parties have limited numbers and limited money and limited power, the goal should be to focus their forces as much as is necessary to achieve the goal at a Schwerpunkt. Instead of diluting their efforts to the point of failure.
These parties should ally with one another for the purposes of secession. They should identify a violent ward, in a poor Coloured area, where they have the most community support available. And in that single ward all of their resources should be devoted to improving the violence. But only that ward. Their focus must not spread itself thin. The only reason to look outside that ward is if the nature of the conflicts requires it. This must be their main effort, indeed their only effort. Once that ward has seen the value these peacemakers can provide, the people there will vote them into a seat of power. The first step of a thousand mile journey.
This is not a time for simple solutions which haven't ever worked, like more visible policing or anti-drug presentations at schools. These parties must learn the nature of these violent gangs. Why are there gangs to begin with? Why are they more violent than the norm? How are they financed? How do gang loyalties relate to family loyalties and racial loyalties and national loyalties and religious loyalties? Achieving this goal is a 4th Generation War. It must be fought as such. Just as winning at the strategic level trumps winning at the tactical level, so winning at the moral level trumps winning at the physical level. And what could be more moral than less crime and more peace?
There may be police raids. There may be realpolitik advancement of one gang over others for a Pax Romana. There may be negotiated agreements between them. There may be formation of non-state conflict resolution methods, like a Mafia don refereeing between two of his captains. There may be all of these things or none of these things. But this is the value the political parties need to deliver. If they fail, then they are no worse than the ANC or DA or EFF who haven't solved the problem either - so there is limited downside to this. But if they can solve this problem, then they prove they can do that which the larger parties cannot. That is a huge upside. That is the antifragility they need to grow into a force capable of actually seceding.
And since the antifragile ideal involves having many options with a large potential upside and a small potential downside, the secessionist parties could still try to help with the water problem. This would of necessity be on a small scale. But if they look at the model formed during the recent electricity load shedding, some possibilities present themselves. Shopping centres throughout the country pooled their tenants' resources to buy generators and fuel supplies for use during blackouts. Could businesses or gated communities or some other group of people or businesses pool their resources to buy or hire small scale desalination plants? In theory they could, but they face the problems of water use licensing and pumping and piping costs to get the water from the point of abstraction to the end users. Though this hasn't stopped the V&A Waterfront from providing land for free for such a plant. If these parties become organisers who improve the lives of the people, they prove themselves as leaders worth voting for.
No comments:
Post a Comment