A challenge — 11 Comments

    • Welcome lfb-uk!  I had heard of it but never read it.  It goes a hell of a long way in the right direction, though I'd have to omit the bit about The Crown!  Essentially they are saying the same thing – power being transferred from the ground up rather than from the top down.  Leastwise, I could live with it.

    • The bullet is quicker?  A re-call vote would require damned elections every second day, would it not?

  1. I'm insane (according to her indoors, dependent on who is winning the argument or proposing doing something the other doesn't think they should) but I too agree the current system is utterly fucked.

    I'm for anarchy defined as being without government. I have faith in people but absolutely zero faith in anyone who is willing to give up on authority for themselves to another person. Any form of government always leads to an abuse of power.
    Here there are parish, local, county councils all staffed with nutters who get off on the control of other people.

    I do see that there has to be a system of collective agreements which benefit everyone within the geographical area that is given the name of 'country' but name is all it is. Nationalistic pride in a dead entity like a country or dare I say a religion kills people much more effectively than any of natures viruses or indeed any of the man made ones.

    The question I cannot answer is how does one reconcile the personal responsibility for ones actions with the collective responsibility for the land upon which we all live.
    Presumably there has to be some kind of figurehead who is able to take the collective will of the people to other collectives around the world as it would be impractical to have two populations coming together in the same place to discuss matters of common interest but how to prevent such a figurehead from abusing the position is a toughie.

    As for taxation being necessary to fund the 'common good' the problem is all taxation is theft from the 'earners' pocket no matter what the justification for that theft. Tax presumes people will not get together to voluntarily fund the 'common good' I rather happen to think that once the ogre of government has been put too death people will begin to see their world in a different way and being free to spend their earnings in any way they see fit would naturally lead to common ground appearing and things such as kickstarter or indiegogo would replace compulsory taxation (no links as this blog doesn't like multiple links in one post. Thank you spamming community.

    As for the rule of law this makes far more sense to me and would kill off the parasitic lawyers at a stroke, if implemented…


    Law was but custom enforced. 'There are three pillars of the law: custom before record and tradition; the king through legal authority; and the decision of the country by vote where there has been neither custom nor law' (155). Three kinds of custom are to be maintained: first, the custom that sets the law aside; second, custom that excels law, but limited to local use; third, custom which excels law in the special circumstances, to be confirmed by the verdict of the country (28). Three things might supersede law: acts of the king to enforce truth or justice; privilege, which nothing can remove; and a contract with witnesses. The judge was to use his discretion widely; he must know the law, know the customs so that law may not injure them, and know the tendencies of his times and their consequences, leaving a wide opening for judge-made law (12).

    The court consisted essentially of the king, or lord, to listen and declare what the sense of the law and its application is, the judge to hear the evidence and decide on what is proved of the facts, the clerk to write the pleadings (204, 210) and to destroy the record after the cause is finished (130). This entirely prevented a growth of law by precedents as in England."

    Linky for more on where my thinking is heading

    • Anarchy [non-government] is an ideal though.  It would work perfectly in a Medieval agrarian society but I can't see it working in the modern world.  

      "The question I cannot answer is how does one reconcile the personal responsibility for ones actions with the collective responsibility for the land upon which we all live."  This is precisely why there is a need for a common consensus [I won't use the word 'authority'].  The problem lies in maintaining the people's power over that consensus so that it isn't hijacked by vested interests.

      Taxation I feel is an evil necessity.  Who or what is taxed is a different matter.  Certainly the current system is being grossly abused to a criminal extent.  If taxation is a necessity it is also absolute essential that the people have a say in how it's spent.  Misappropriation and misuse of tax funds is a crime against the whole community and should be treated as such.

      • Why would anarchy not work in a 'modern world'?
        Obviously at some point the 'Medieval agrarian society' was once a 'modern world'. going further back to pre a pre Roman Britain the Molmutine Laws worked most effectively for the benefit of all including 'Johnny foreigner'…

        "The most remarkable part of the law was the respect to foreigners. A foreigner under the protection of the tribe must be assisted in travel (A 8). He was as a trader not to be oppressed or injured though speaking a barbarous tongue (78). The foreigner practising arts obtained the status of freeman in the third generation (70). He was to be allowed an advocate in law courts (209), protection and support from the taxes (209), and to be excused in case of capital crime, as ignorant (23). In case he was shipwrecked on the coast he had free maintenance (198, 199).

        These laws give a remarkable view of a community with the greatest respect for weakness and misfortune, high rights for women, full consideration for foreigners, and great privilege for learning, for the arts, and the crafts. Social duty was strongly held, and the full power rested on the vote of every free man and woman, even to deposing the king. Arms were prohibited civil assembly, and the harp was as necessary to a free man his coat and his cooking-pot. The whole air is that of simple conditions and a free life, with much personal cultivation and sympathy in general conduct. It would be impossible to produce such a code from a savage or violent people, and this intimate view of their life is the best ground for judging of their qualities. That there was generally a well-organized peace kept in the country is shown by Caesar's statement that 'the number of the people is countless, and their buildings exceedingly numerous.'

        I agree that it is the control of the common consensus that appears to be a fundamental obstacle to the creation of a better way of 'running things'. No matter what form the figurehead takes there is always the potential for 'it' to turn into the crud we have today. An obstacle for sure but one which isn't unsurmountable.

        We will have to disagree on the taxation situation. The trouble with allowing 'the people' to a 'say' is there is always the potential for 49% of the people to be disappointed with how the money they are forced to hand over is spent.

        The Treasury has the power to create its own money but it doesn't it issues bonds and gives them to the private Bank of England who issues debt notes which people believe are money and use them to buy 'stuff' whether that stuff is required or not. The very fact the Bank of England manipulates the value of the currency (devaluing it massively over time) shows just how insane the debt system actually is. It's a ponzi scheme of unimaginable proprtions that is easily explained if people care to look.
        (Apologies to people who have seen this before but it is the best explanation of how the ponzi scheme works for the benefit of a tiny minority)

        Off topic a tad… well not really… I've just watched David Icke's 'dot connector' show on utube and what he says in this video makes a helluva lot of sense. I know he has been trashed a nutter or even a 'system plant' across all forms of media but when he comes out with things like the content of this video he is obviously onto 'something of value'.
        Do have a listen with an open mind and see if you think the same as I or not as the case may be.
        (with apologies to the site for making it throw a wobbler with two links in one comment!)

        • The reason anarchy can't work in the modern world is that it would be taken as a massive regressive step by the vast majority.  Whether we like it or not, we live in a globalised world with internet access and global trade.  For a country to revert [or progress] to anarchy it would have to isolate itself from the rest and essentially become self sustainable.

          Suppose I declare my land to be a separate state with my own laws and customs?  That's fine but what happens when I need to interact with the rest of the country?  I have to trade, whether it be for food or utilities and immediately I am sucked into the system of paying taxes and all the rest.  Whether it's just my land, or an entire country, there has to be interaction which essentially means we have to play by their rules?

          • See where you are coming from. I agree the existing crap does constantly and consistently paint anarchy in the worst possible light and this fact alone tells me it is probably one thing 'the system' really does fear.

            I'm not sure who 'their' is when you refer to 'their rules. History shows that time after time peoples and countries get together to work out trade treaties. Trust is required for these treaties to take place and I for one believe it is a natural human state of being to trust another. Again the system works night and day to create the opposite so once again there is another clue to what is required to make the change.
            Icke talked in that video I recommended about how the world we live in is full of inversions and to be honest I diidn't quite get it but I do now. Everything is upside down to the natural way of being.

            The system that exists today is beyond it, completely. The governments of Ireland and Britain are completely bankrupt financially, morally and by any measure in between. There is no democracy just a master and slave arrangement. We have always lived in a globalised world. That book about the early Irish and the work of Alan Wilson not to mention the books by Gavin Menzies (1434 and 1421) nor the work of numerous archeologists prove (to me at least) that there has been global trade for a very long time and if the guy leading the excavation of the Bosnia pyramid is correct it's been going on for 30,000 years or so.
            This myth that globalisation is a 'modern creation' is just that a myth.

            I do not believe that any system that can only exist because it uses force to instill fear is a just and effective system. It simply creates a division in a population which gets exploited by many different parties and ban we have the master and slave system we have today. Fixing such a system is truly impossible as you stated in your original post. If there is an authority that has to be 'controlled' isn't that just another iteration of the current system?

  2. You should consider the American system of government.  Now I mean the system intended by our founders as opposed to what it had devolved into.


    • You Merkans got it right with your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"  Spot on.  It's just a pity your gubmint fucked it up as royally as every other gubmint.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting