Starting with individual Rights

That “An individual has, at the heart of the system, the right to do whatever they wish in their own home, that does not infringe on the rights of anybody else to be left alone” is a fundamental precept of freedom on which Smallism is based, and it includes the right to protect property and life by any reasonable means.

The rights to do whatever you wish, in your own home, that doesn't infringe on the rights of anybody else to be left alone.

 

Personal Privacy: We will look at ideas that imply a great deal of personal involvement in the local community and/or family. However, should someone want nothing to do with these in any way whatsoever; they have a minimum obligation to simply pay the annual bill and ask politely to be left alone.

Binary choices such as personal privacy versus community involvement are essential in a heterogeneous society to ensure that ‘a place is found’ for everyone in the continuum of personality types within a society.

Indeed it is the lack of flexibility and intolerance to opposing views in current political ideological debate, on both sides, that mean there will always be an unhappy proportion of the population, whichever side is in power, and we see this demonstrated in the swings between left and right in current politics over the last one hundred years and the confusion of resulting left and right legislation and concepts.

What the social experiments of UK Labour, USSR, Burma, North Korea and China has taught us, is that people do not respond well to change enforced with the use of law by the few who have (quite naturally) a deep, human self-interest at heart and who use this power at the expense of those who find themselves trapped in the lower orders.

In the UK today these seem to be the Political Elite or possibly, according to some sources, an almost invisible, incredibly rich and powerful group or groups, elite. Whichever it may be, a way has to be found to fix the implementation of the democratic principle.

Centralized power-based systems simply put too much power in the hands of too few people.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

                                                                          John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton 1887

The logic of the left, which reads that oligarchy is bad (which Smallism agrees with) but that monopoly is good (which smallism by extension has to disagree with) is nonsensical.  If putting power into too few hands results in bad outcomes (Cartels) then how can a monopoly provide a better outcome?  The only answer is that the left have a delusion that those that seek power (ultimate power in a truly left wing state) are incorruptible.  This defies history.  Every single capitalist that has emerged from China and Russia started in government.

Additionally, those that seek power tend to select pliant sub-commanders and as an organization becomes greater in size, be it a family, an overbearing state or a corporation (are all susceptible), the more power it wields, the greater the moral hazards and perverse incentives to abuse their position becomes.

Smallism creates society and culture change, not by legislating against specific (and quite natural, human) behaviors (as is the equality agenda) but by removing the incentives that create that behavior in the first place, once again, by restricting the size of an organization and doing so by providing flexibility in competition, employment, taxation, raising capital, mobility and most importantly, by giving local resources to local people for which profit is made and traded with wards that provide that which a local area does not have.

By ensuring all residents have a recognizable responsibility and reward structure in their local community, through shared ownership in local resources in a direct, measurable and specific way, Smallism encourages good and cooperative behaviour.  While talk of community in this way might sound a little like the communes of Mao, bear with me; in implementation Smallism is most certainly free market.

 

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation

 Thomas Brackett Reed

In order to change the people, you have to change the environment they grow into, as the council ‘sink’ estates from the 1950s on have demonstrated.  In many ways Smallism reverses the concepts of the sink estate social housing paradigm.

Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Humans? One of the interesting conundrums of the left wing desire to create a homogeneous human race is the ignoring of the power of the environment on human development.  In order for the human race to be homogeneous, it's environment must also be.  This implies that the left wingers must alter nature to create a standard, global environment in order to change the people.  Suppose that they did achieve this goal, by way of example, as soon as the race finds a new planet to colonize the effects of evolution will be seen over two or three generations as their physiology and culture is determined by distance from central command and local environment vs survival needs. Therefore, there is no possible way the left wing desire for a homogeneous  can be achieved over the long run, as nature tends to evolve.  To fight evolution, is to fight nature.  A force that has been around a lot longer than the human race, let alone cultural Marxism.

Human self interest should be celebrated as a natural human talent which Smallism exploits to create a peaceful and co-operative society by allowing true social mobility, variability, sharing, trading and education, rather than suppressing dissenters, as other regimes are bound to do when ideology fails. Smallism has a dualistic nature that always presents a choice for all personalities in society.

To achieve these goals we need to change our perspectives on who owns what and what can be done with that resource.

This requires us to first understand that 'public ownership' is not the same as 'government ownership'