We naturally live in two worlds. One where we make our own choices and suffer the consequences of bad ones, and one where we expect others to make our choices for us, so we can blame them if things go wrong.

Business and Government cover these two options perfectly.

If you are the proud owner of a business that you have built up from scratch, then you have the primary choice of how you choose to ensure that business remains successful.

It was your money, your time, your ideas, and your hard work that built a business to a level that now operates internationally, supporting hundreds of employees, who all agreed to work for, (with) you based on a contract of employment that you offered them.

Every person that works for you, was asked to understand the terms of that contract. In Detail. It (should have) covered all of the detail in such a way that they, and you, consider it to be a fair return for both parties.

You in turn, continue to take all the risks, consider the profitability of the company and how to distribute that in such as way as to be fair to everyone involved. That includes, you and your family, all of your employees and their families, your suppliers, your customers, and your shareholders. You remain at the top of this decision tree and ensure that it doesn’t fall apart. You set the values for your business and pass these on to every employee to make sure that others respect the choices you are offering them.

When an alternative body finds it’s way into your company and tries to take these choices away, there must by definition be consequences. These choices are now being offered to you and to your employees, who in turn must learn to suffer the consequences.

If you let this party into your company in the first place, you presumably assessed the risk and made a choice, for everyone!

Ask yourself the most important question of all. Did you decide to take their choices away from them?

Let’s consider the other side of the same coin.

In our democratic society, we all get the choice to vote for our government.

What most of us never consider is how our choice will affect the options we will be told to live with.

Government run entities, (businesses by any other name as they offer a value to others based on financial and labour input), are bound by a different set of rules. 

The management and employees don’t need to worry about funding, and there are no expectations of a return on investment to maintain service levels, and the only shareholders are the people who voted them in, and they get no choices until the next election. This in turn supports the short-term decision making and massive inefficiency.

Let’s add to this conundrum and allow the third party to control the availability of manpower on a national basis, and we end up with everyone’s choices being controlled by individuals holding power, who are only in it for political gain and have no need to suffer any consequences for themselves. This eventually leads to anarchy and a form of Marxist government.

The outcome of the latter will suit a percentage of the people for some of the time, until they understand that they have no lifestyle of their own.

Abiding by a rule that you set, Never to take someone else’s choice away from them, is the most difficult value to apply.

It brings to life the reason that a company takes on board an HR department, now mostly employed to manage people-based risks to the company.

Risk management takes on a whole deeper meaning. If you call upon a third party to assess a risk and then offer that view of the risk to your employees, who takes the blame if something goes wrong?

In government. The country agrees to provide a level of free health support to everyone. By definition they agree to accept the cost, whatever it may be. Not bound by any limitations based on a required return on investment, they continue to add billions of pounds to an uncontrolled set of provisions, many of which have nothing to do with saving lives.

When management have no need to manage a return on investment, then the final outcome will always end on “the scrap heap”.

When management are afraid to tackle the unfairness of decisions they allow to happen in their name, they should end up on the same “heap”.

When third parties force their way into any or all of the above by commanding that an entity pays their members what they ask for regardless of a return on investment, then they in turn must end up on the same “heap”.

The final consequence of not managing your values based on fair choice, is that you and or the country will end up on the “heap of Marxism”. You will have to work, do as you are told, be paid what they are prepared to give everyone without differentiation, and if you disagree, you can always live your life out in prison.

The bottom line, management should be prepared to draw a line in the sand, and stand up to anyone trying to take choices away from you. Ask the people to consider both sides of the choice equation and let them live with their choice as a result.

Break a contract of employment by refusing to work, offers the choice of immediate refusal to employ them. Summary dismissal with an offer to renegotiate that contract, under the original conditions. When you take this consequence into account there should be no legal comeback. All of this is based on fairness.

For Government, give the people a choice with regard to who pays for what. If you require the services of a doctor, dentist, police, fire brigade, Lifeboats, helicopters, the broadest mixture of public service bodies, some totally reliant on public donations, then they must all have limits set upon their availability.

If you decide to take up flying using a parachute, with no formal licence or no insurance, and then have an accident. Who should pay for your recovery when you fall from the sky?

If you drive a car and pay for third party insurance only, have an accident, need the help of a number of public services, then who should pay for them?

If you decide to go abroad and pay for your teeth to be remodelled, which later fail when you return to the UK, who should pay for your dental treatment?

The basis of this fairness argument is that you and only you are accountable for the choices you make. It is based on fairness, nothing paid in, nothing available to pay out. Add an agreement to pay a nominal amount to support those, who through no fault of their own, cannot support themselves, and you have the basis for responsible government.

Ensure that any government voted into power, cannot print money to solve problems they have created, or by definition remove their ability to reapply for government once voted out, and people will eventually learn to appreciate the meaning of accountability.

Impossible?

Probably yes because democracy and autocracy must live side by side in the real world.

Back to your baseline then. Take a look at the choices you offer others. Test the fairness of each of them, and then explain these in a way that offers the people being offered your choice, a way to accept or not.

Always return to your agreements and agree to amend them only if you accept your first was unfair. Ensure that consequences are followed through and balance them by offering a return to the original choice.

When looking for a WIN- WIN, always offer a LOSE- LOSE as a choice.