Government vs Society

In our founding document the Thinker's Party makes it clear that our efforts will not involve the government as a part of the solution. Given that the government plays a significant role in many social programs, either through ownership, funding or distribution of information to the public, this decision would seem to cut off a significant potential resource, something we argued against doing just a few days ago. While this is true, the Thinker's Party has decided that the risks of accepting or allowing government help outweighs the potential benefit.

One of the major reasons we made this decision was that we do not want to be subject to the policies of an individual administration, or empowered group inside the government. For examples of this involvement affecting social groups, see the history of the Mexico City Policy which Ronald Regan put into place during his administration, Bill Clinton removed when the Democrats took the White House, George W. Bush put back when the Republicans reclaimed it, and Barack Obama is likely to remove it again when he takes office as a Democrat. This policy effectively dictates whether or not NGO family planning organizations will receive government funding, on which they depend, based on whether they present a solution acceptable to the current administration's moral sensibilities. The Thinker's Party believes that the best way to avoid having to choose between an optimally effective solution and government funding is to avoid the situation entirely. It is possible that we will never support a project that will conflict with a given political party's stance, but we consider this extremely unlikely. (Note: The Thinker's Party has a policy against becoming dependent on any particular source of financial for this very reason)

Another reason we reject government support is a difference in priorities. Our priority with respect to a particular issue or problem will not match that of the government which must deal with that issue, all of the other pertinent social issues, maintaining power, maintaining financing, etc. etc. Our modular structure allows us to specialize on that issue and find the optimal solution without fear of losing an election. While poor planning and sloppy execution can damage our reputation and trust in our communities, through being separate from the government we have the freedom to learn from our failures and try again.

Our final reason has nothing to do with limitations or risks of government involvement, but with the benefits of a program that is driven entirely by citizens. When individuals work together to find solutions to common problems they each learn and grow, becoming more aware of how the world works around them and how to deal with it. They in turn become a group of people with this knowledge which leads to a stronger community. Take for example a hypothetical case of two high schools, school A and school B, who each have a big marching band. When the state budget is tight school funding often suffers, and arts programs such as band are often cut as a result. However, school A's marching band is an award winning band that has the support of its community developed through fund raising for trips to competitions and prominently displayed trophies. School B's band still teaches its students music, but they've never been competitive and don't have the same community ties. Obviously school A's band will survive the cuts with the loss in government funding subsidized by community donations while school B's band will likely wither. The important lesson here is not that the competitive, winning band survived, but that the band with community support did. The community's involvement in band A ensures that their students will continue to have quality music education, with all of the benefits that entails. This isn't to say that dependence on government funding is bad, in our current society it is frequently the only choice, but that dependence on the community is better. It still isn't perfect - nothing is - but a community that is actively involved in these programs is more likely to be aware of their benefits, and therefore more likely to fight for them.

The Thinker's Party wants to build a society that takes care of itself, knows what that involves, and as a result values it. We probably won't achieve that in our life time, we might not ever completely reach that goal, but we can cause improvement and have not yet discovered a downside to our approach. If you see one we encourage you to share it so that we can adjust accordingly.