So some of the political class in Barbados want to change from the Westminster Parliamentary System of Government, with the Speaker, Michael Carrington saying it, “appeared to pit Government and Opposition inexorably against each other in aggressive, contentious and oftimes seemingly unnecessary confrontation”.  As if changing the mode of governance will change this.

I submit that no matter what system is put in place, if no limits are set on the size and scope of government, where little kingdoms are set up for and by the political class, nothing will change human responses.

As Tom Bethell points out in his 1998 book, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages; "Once people accepted the notion of an economy as a hydraulic organism (in the mid and late 1930's), controllable from the center by economists adjusting the fiscal or monetary levers of policy, it became inappropriate to think of individual businesses as autonomous centers of decision. In a kind of Copernicanism, the national government became the center of the economic solar system. Economists were empowered to fine-tune its natural power, and property could be ignored. Independently acting human agents seemed to be in conflict with the very idea of a scientifically controllable economic machine." p 30 Empahsis added.

And so it continues today. Whether it's the Republic of the United States of America or the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

Where politicians/parliament thinks they/it is the center of the universe where they attempt to control the minutiae of the economy and everyones daily lives with policies for "our own good" they constantly tell us.

If we examine how far the tentacles of government reach, and how personal responsibility is relieved we might begin to put two and two together as to why the nation is in the fix it's in.

Other "essential institutions of a free society (are): private property, free markets, a rule of law, a separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a written constitution with a bill of rights." Jim Powell, The Triumph of Liberty p 528

No matter which political system Barbados or The Bahamas wants to pursue, the discussion cannot begin without first defining the role of government.

If there are no limits as to what government is responsible for – a clearly defined institutional framework instead of this blank page approach ignoring our present Constitution, it will all be a waste of time.

I have no affinity for the Royal Family, other than its historical value, so have no deep seated aversion to change but beside the institutional framework, government should be responsible for Police, Defence, Courts and maybe limited infrastructure and no more.

In other words a limited government because of a powerful group that have an irresistible urge to create the prefect society from their perspective.

As Adam Smith said;

"The man of system…is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it… He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it." The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II, pp. 233-4, para 17.

We've arrived at this crossroads as a result of politicians planning virtually every detail of society. Do we really need more?