In Part 1, I suggested a new sociopolitical model I called Voluntary Democracy. In Part 2, I expanded upon the idea, suggesting a stateless jurisdiction where people manage their own affairs but are governed by the rule of law—by justice.
I'm about halfway through so far, but the first thing that immediately struck me is that you are making a horrendous fallacy of definitions here. And it is seriously bad where philosophy is concerned.
Nietzsche, I am absolutely certain, would understand every word I'm about to say.
See, this essay would make a lot more sense if you replaced the word 'statist' with 'stupid infantilised conditioned slave-mentality people'. Likewise you need to replace 'oligarch' with 'resentment-motivated sociopath'. Because that's what you are really talking about here. You are absolutely not talking about enlightened people like myself who wholeheartedly understand the need - in larger social groups beyond the square of the social cognition number (22,500 for humans) - for a 'state' in the simple sense of a 'social decision-making council'. You can't have progress, let alone care for millions of people, without 'organisation'. That's part of the point of being a social animal.
Your fallacy is in assuming that 'any state' is by definition bad. And yet you also readily admit that the reason it's bad is because of the bad character of the people running it (oligarchs), and the stupidity of the people supporting it (statists). So, clearly you are disingenuously confusing a neutral system (the idea of a state) with the specific historical manner in which human states have turned out to be bad. My blatantly obvious point being that if you 'deal with' the oligarchs and you have a good enough education system, and you don't allow stupid people to have any influence over the state, then you will end up with a benevolent state.
This is one of the logical idiocies I've encountered with so-called anarchists. An anarch-system only works by 'voluntaryism' as you say. But it also requires all the participants to be spiritually and psychologically mature such that they don't need to be told how to behave well because they are in harmony with natural law. But if you had a 'state' with such mature people running it, then you have the same thing. Exactly the same thing. So I would suggest these sorts of 'anarchists' are in fact just reactionaries in the end.
A benevolent 'state' is run by agreement of the people. If you have a mature people, then it works fine.
So instead of attacking the idea of a 'state' by highlighting 'stupid people', it would be better to explain the distinction between a 'statist' and a 'stupid person'. It is a very dangerous thing indeed to confuse the way things have specifically turned out in history with the theoretical philosophy of a state.
Unless you can prove to me, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for a 'statist' to be a highly spiritually and psychologically and socially mature individual, and for there ever to be a 'state' which is managed by such mature people. I seriously doubt you can do that.
Thank you for two thought provoking comments. I will respond to both in this reply.
You say I made a “horrendous fallacy of definitions” so it will be useful if we agree some.
Statism is a belief that force can legitimately be used to control people’s relationships and behaviour.
Voluntaryism is the belief that all human interactions should be voluntary and initiation of the use of force is unacceptable under any circumstances. Minimum force can only be used in defence of justice.
An oligarch is someone who has amassed sufficient wealth to convert that advantage into political authority. As Aristotle, among others, recognised.
Providing we both accept these definitions, we can discuss the points you have raised.
You claim it is a fallacy to assume “that 'any state' is by definition bad.” But every state is based upon the initiation of force or the threatened initiation of the use of force to control its “subjects” behaviour. As this is slavery and as all slavery is evil, every state is evil and therefore “bad.” I reject your claim.
That is not to say one state, like any slave master, can’t be “nicer” than another. Often this depends on where and when we live. But all states, like all slave masters, reserve the alleged right to use violence to oppress. All states are evil.
All states, no matter how nice they are, afford some more power and so-called authority than others. The state, no matter how nice, is never a “neutral system” as you claim.
You say that you are an enlightened person and suggest that enlightened folk, such as yourself, can perform the vital state function of organisation. Though as a statist, that organisation is exercised by enlightened people, such as yourself, ultimately at the point of a gun.
May I ask if you consider me an enlightened person? If you are perfectly capable of “organising” society what makes you think I can’t?
If we both can, why do you need to tell me what to do? Why can’t we simply agree to some basic rules and not cause each other any harm or loss and live our lives without either one of us forcing the other to obey them?
Why would either of us not want to live that way?
You make the same arguments as all statists. Evidently, it is not that you consider yourself an enlightened person capable of ruling, it is that you consider everyone else incapable of the same. Nor is it that you think organisation is essential. The voluntary democracy I suggest would not be a system without rules, just a system without rulers. It would be “organised." Yet you reject this kind of organisation.
So it seems you think “organisation” can only be achieved by forcing everyone you don’t consider enlightened to do as they are told. You appear to favour slavery. Bluntly, you clearly think you and others you agree with should rule. Of course, this is what the state you advocate is designed to achieve through the use of force. Which is evil.
Voluntaryism does not require “all the participants to be spiritually and psychologically mature such that they don't need to be told how to behave.” It simply requires people to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that all behaviour has consequences, good and bad. Not everyone will of course, that’s why there needs to be some sort of justice system. I have suggested voluntary democracy.
Simultaneously, as a statist, you require literally “everyone” to be obedient to authority. You demand that everyone believes the same thing (I this regard) and, indeed, the vast majority do. So why couldn’t the vast majority believe that they are individually responsible for every one of their own actions and, if they cause harm or loss, expect unwelcome consequences? In terms of achieving dominance as a belief systems, voluntaryism requires no greater uptake than statism.
Your “obvious point” that the state can deal with oligarchs and can have a good enough education system to ensure “stupid people” don’t have any influence over the state and that this will inevitably lead to a “benevolent state” is not even logical, let alone “obvious.” Statism is the only system by which oligarchs operate. Oligarchs control the education system. Why would oligarchs ever diminish their own claimed authority?
If a “benevolent state is run by agreement of the people” then why do all states rule by force? It is absurd to allege that this is not how all states function. All states invest all political power in a small group. There have never been any state exceptions to this.
Herein, you make the same old tired arguments of every delusional statist reformer. You seemingly cannot grasp that the absolute power corrupts absolutely and that it is only through the state that absolute power can possibly be exercised. Moreover, it is through the woeful, historically illiterate naivety of statists that absolute power is consistently maintained.
No one who seriously advocates a stateless society does so because they believe human beings are angelic. They do so precisely because they understand that humanity is capable of the most appalling violence, inhumanity and destruction. But the voluntaryist also recognises that in order for that violence to achieve the horrendous scale that it does, a state and statists' obedience to authority are required.
You say that you doubt that I can prove to you that “it is impossible for a 'statist' to be a highly spiritually and psychologically and socially mature individual, and for there ever to be a 'state' which is managed by such mature people.” No statist is “socially mature.” By definition, you give away your own sovereignty, and agency over your own life, to other people in whom you invest the power to order you about. Please explain to me how that has anything to do with intellectual, spiritual or emotional maturity.
You argue that, given the right conditions, statists “would only vote for genuinely decent people. Then you'd have a genuinely benevolent state.” You can't vote for genuinely decent people. If they were genuinely decent they wouldn't seek the authority to tell other people what to do.
You also point out that statists are deceived and misled. Indeed so, I have consistently highlighted this throughout the piece. Who is it that deceives them and why?
Again, you overlook that which is glaring you in the face. Both “enlightened” statists and voluntaryists recognise that bad people exist and some bad people seek power and influence and control. But it is only the statist that perpetuates the system that gives power to evil people on a plate.
I return to your circular reasoning. If this benevolent state ever existed, or were possible, and if this unheard of state was “run by agreement of the people,” then what need would anyone ever have to either use any force or be obedient to any system of compulsion?
The distinction between voluntaryism and statism, is that statism, with its reliance upon absolute force exercised by enlightened people and the total obedience of statists, enables oligarchies to rule. Voluntaryism does not provide the oligarch any avenue, other than brute violence, to exercise any claimed “authority.” Only statists facilitate oligarchs.
Harking back to some mythical moment in history where the state didn’t rule by force is, it seems to me, a redundant argument. I agree that the so-called Dark Ages were perhaps the least dark in the history of states, but are you seriously claiming an aristocracy didn’t rule absolutely? I confess, I don’t know enough about the period to definitively argue the point. But if you can show me a state that didn’t rule by force I would be fascinated to learn about it.
You ask me why I attack the state. It is simple. It is only the state that enables the pernicious rule of oligarchs.
The necessary organisation, the observance of justice, the efficient management of resources, trade, security, even defence can all be achieved without obedience to authority. There is no necessity for the state to exist.
The state only exists because statists believe obedience to authority is essential. While they do so in sufficient numbers, all of us will remain subject to the tyranny of oligarchs.
There are no examples of states that are not “malevolent.” Can you not grasp that ruling other human beings by force is immoral? It is unequivocally wrong. The benevolent state cannot exist, it is an ethical oxymoron.
I do not accept that a monetary system that is not based on usury is impossible; I think your grasp of inflation is questionable and “neoliberalism” is just about as far removed from a genuine “free market” as it is possible to roam.
With respect, I am not “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” The state and statists belief in the state is the problem. It is ludicrous for you to claim that advocating voluntaryism is the reactionary position.
I get what you are saying with "the corrupt seek power and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power." But my point is, regardless of social group identity or 'ideology' based on identity, it is the state, that relies upon the use of force to rule, that enables "the absolutely corrupt" to rule absolutely. Without that model of state "government" they would not be able to rule absolutely, short of, as I said, pure brute violence.
I also appreciate your point about the SCN and how, in any practical organisational sense, there is an optimum size for what I might call a functioning community. However, I do not accept that homogeneity of what we might call culture is necessary or how its absence or differentiation explains the dominant "cabal" is you prefer to call it.
In my view, it does not follow that what I'll call cultural homogeneity in a society larger than the optimum SCN would deliver a benevolent state. Your suggestion denies individual human nature. Even in a united culture there are good and bad---moral and immoral---individuals. I contend any state system based upon the use of force will always enable to immoral to rule irrespective of any cultural homogeneity.
While I accept that the "Establishment" of oligarchs that currently exploit us share a perspective, and will defend their collective interests, I think they are drawn from many different "cultures" and also form a group that is internally adversarial.
I don't accept the concept of the all powerful, united and annexed, "Establishment." That's why I talk about a network of public-private partnerships. That said, "Establishment" or "the one percent" are apt descriptions for our purposes.
I absolutely agree with you that debating one "conspiracy" or another, obsessions with dynasties and secret societies, etc. are often diversionary and usually counter-productive. An analysis of how power functions and proposing measures we might take to make it function in our interests---something both you and I are trying to do---is far more useful in my view.
Then again, whatever measures anyone suggests will need public support in order to get off the ground. Which brings us back to encouraging wider awareness of the power dynamic and that often does require conspiracies to be exposed.
My new point about the cabal is one of definitions. This has been happily prompted by you by the way, so I'm grateful (and I may have to add a part V to my little series about social psychology). Amongst other things I have a background in academic philosophy so I understand the importance of definitions. I hope I don't come across as quibbling, though.
When I suggested the cabal's social group are defined by a 'cultural identity' or 'ideology', I should perhaps explain that a bit more, I mean what I mean by 'ideology' and 'identity', as it is quite important. I do agree with you that they come from many different 'cultural' backgrounds, but they do share a definite type of character and objective (which informs their 'identity').
Human identity is effectively composed of two parts, the individual, and the 'belonging to a social group'. Social groups have 'character' as well as individuals do. That's not a racist thing to say of course. Racism is not 'acknowledging the differences', racism is 'antagonistic towards the different' (the out-group - and I would argue that even with the low SCN, normal humans are not automatically antagonistic towards out-groups - the cabal, however, are).
Anyway, with regards to the cabal, it might be easier to understand them if we think of them as having a 'shared objective'. Yes, I would argue that this objective is a product of a shared, or underlying ideology, in the sense of a view of the world and of themselves and thus their place or purpose in it, and we can also take the Nietzschean approach and psychoanalyse (and historically analyse) what gave rise to that ideology or world view, but I think we can agree on their 'shared objective' - which does indeed unite them.
Specifically, they think:
1/ They are the master race and everyone else is inferior. This leads to racism of course, although one may also argue the racism came first.
2/ As the master race, the obvious method of global social control is simply 'feudalism' but on a global level. We can certainly add the prefix 'techno-' to this, but it's really just feudalism with better technology (indeed, global feudalism requires advanced technology - we can see all the different mechanisms of this in WEF publications of course - as I believe you'd ably demonstrated). We can readily identify other expressions of this feudalism - the GPPP (as you've discussed), neoliberalism, fascism, etc. But it's all just feudalism in the end. That they would adopt this system is simply logical.
We can definitely keep it that simple. Anything to add to that is simply detail and colour.
One interesting new aspect about the cabal however which I have been writing about is that they now know they are not the master race, because they are aware of superior intelligences. This might explain their increased viciousness in recent decades (and their 'occult deception' it now occurs to me). That's another story though.
One of the most important points here, however, is that this attitude doesn't apply to the vast majority of human beings. Normal humans do not have a dark side that would lead them to develop 'states' and a 'statist' mindset. All of that is purely a happenstance of history (and conditioning by various authoritarian ideologies - what we would call 'coercive control'). One can, for example, imagine a different history. Indeed, given that humans have been around for 300k years, if they had the innate propensity to become statists then we'd see archaeological evidence of that going back to at least the previous two interglacial periods. So with the cabal we really are talking about a relatively recent aberration here.
Notice also how the cognitive infiltrators try to push the idea that normal humans have a dark side - this misdirects people from understanding the cabal as an aberration. The cognitive infiltration in this aspect of course also encompasses the academic discipline of psychology. And neuroscience, to a certain degree. Equally notice how they really don't want people to understand neuroscience. Or evolution. Or anthropology. Etc.
Anyway - there's another nice comment for you. I need to go to the little girls' room.
I just have to briefly add a bit about neuroscience and psychology and break one of my cardinal rules about not exposing cognitive infiltrators here, because it is very important.
They couldn't get away with their transphobia cult thing if they informed their readers about neuroscience. Gender incongruence, after all, is just a (very rare) disorder of brain development, characterised by the brain (and thus the personal identity) developing at odds with the biological/physiological gender. The brain is a gendered thing, after all, as neuroscience has shown (fMRI etc.). Perpetuating this is intrinsic to the anti-woke thing, which encourages antagonism, which is what they want.
And to advocate denying children with this condition the treatment they need (puberty blockers) is nothing short of child abuse. To push this kind of agenda is simply one of the ways they seek to corrupt their readers, because it turns those readers into nasty, right-wing bigots. Statists, in other words. It's a great irony.
Which, of course, allows Marianna to paint 'conspiracy theorists' in the 'appropriate' colour.
It also turns them against socialism (true socialism, I mean, pre-dating Marx - it's the inevitable reaction to feudalism; cf. peasants' revolt, diggers, levellers etc. - this is also why they'd have to infiltrate the anarchist movement) - and as I have repeatedly said, socialism is the great enemy of the cabal, so they expend inordinate energy on attacking it on every level (again, starting with Marx - one of the original cognitive infiltrators).
With regards to the cognitive infiltrator, the obvious person who springs to mind in all this is that bloke 'Todd Hayen', who is like Off G's resident 'don't allow your readers to understand psychology or neuroscience'. Obviously I don't know the bloke, but you may well do, but I can certainly say that either he doesn't understand a damn thing about human psychology (or neuroscience or anthropology or evolution etc.), or he is simply lying the whole time. Either way, he's dangerous. Because an understanding of psychology is absolutely key to understanding the cabal and thus the way the world is, and why history has turned out the way it has.
Anyway - that was the bit I felt I needed to add. I would imagine TH reads your posts and the comments, so his reaction would be intriguing, and revealing.
Same as Miri's, ironically. That silly post about 'conspirasocialists' I mean. Part of me likes her, part of me doesn't. I do find her a very interesting person, though - and I have always been of the opinion that a person who is interesting is a person who has value and quality. A life without quality, after all, has no meaning.
Again - so much potential for discussion! But thanks for your measured response. We are certainly on the same side, so it's pointless and stupid to get antagonistic. Sorry if I came across that way.
In this comment, though, I'll just say that I have a lot of affinity with your proposed system - the reason is because of a point I made before about the 'separation of powers' which is a vital necessity for a genuine democracy. I think your system would indeed preserve that separation, because it would put power into the hands of the people to annul bad laws and right wrongs and so on (as you have described).
The obvious point about the illusion of democracy we have now is that there is no separation of powers when the same social group control all those powers.
This obviously suggests putting all the other 'powers' into the hands of the people. This is why I talk about a publicly owned money supply/national bank, for example. Ironically, you can indeed (at least loosely) call this 'socialism' in the true sense of the word. And of course we've noticed how terrified the cabal are of true socialism - hence the inordinate amount of effort they put into attacking it - including with their cognitive infiltrators of course (beginning with Marx).
Whilst we're on the subject of cognitive infiltrators, I do also agree with you that it's important to expose this or that conspiracy, because it erodes the authority of those in power bit by bit. Hence - likewise - the inordinate amount of effort put into cognitive infiltration. Part of my 'project' if you will is a study of all that. I find the whole thing fascinating quite frankly.
I've kind of learned though not to expose specific individuals (unless they are just totally obnoxious and, in one particular case, 'on their way out' anyway) - as that invites blowback and the spooks would get nervous. Taking amusing potshots at the MM Committee however is fun, and they love it too. You can tell that with the lovely double bluff approach they take. Obviously if I didn't vehemently disapprove of some of the stuff they are pushing then I'd definitely ask for a job there. It would be great fun.
Anyway, I have a good new point to make about the cabal which I'll do in a separate comment.
Perhaps if I could condense everything into the point I was fundamentally attempting to make, which is that all of this depends entirely on social group psychology, or what we might call 'cultural identity' - which is the shared identity of a social group.
What I've been saying with regards to history is that 'states' historically have been 'rule by a different social group than the people'. If you have a society which is governed by those with the same cultural (and thus personal/social) identity as the citizens, then the 'governors' will do right by the people, because they view the people as their own family, so to speak, or their own community (and they wouldn't be 'authoritarian').
The ironic point here is that in such a situation you would, indeed, end up with precisely the system of 'voluntaryism' you advocate. That's the greatest irony in fact because I totally agree with your proposal. But it won't happen unless you can eliminate the potential for a minority social group (with a different identity) to lord it over everyone else, and treat them like serfs.
The reason why such a minority group would do that is because of ideology. We can trace that (racist) ideology back approximately 3,000 years - prior to this, the kind of statism you are describing (rule by a minority adhering to a different ideology or identity than the people) simply didn't exist. This is why there is zero archaeological evidence of 'conflict' before then (despite what the likes of stenographers like Pinker would say).
The other problem I think you're addressing here is the 'separation of powers' which is necessary for a democracy. In the current system members of the same (minority) social group (i.e. the parasite class) control all these different powers. Which is obviously the problem. I do believe that your proposed system would go a long way to solving that problem - BUT - it does require a fundamental understanding of social group psychology and human social identity. Because what I'm really saying here is that it's social group identity and 'ideology' based on 'identity' that is responsible for 'malevolent states' in terms of 'us v them'. A society composed only of people with the same cultural identity would end up having a benevolent state - that state would not - as you say - 'impose' itself on the people, it would care for them. It would simply be a 'council of social decision-makers'. And that's the only way your system can work - with either homogeneity of cultural identity within the society, or a shared ideology of tolerance (and non-aggression, lol) towards other identities.
So yeah - this is the great irony. I agree with your proposal. But without an understanding and incorporation of social group psychology and what determines a human's identity, and acknowledgement of that - it's never going to work and it will, equally ironically, result in governance by a dominant social group. In other words, an authoritarian state.
I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming that the so-called enlightened are free from indulgent and crass actions leading to authoritarian rule. This I think, is Iain’s principal point. The average person has been brainwashed along the lines that they are inferior and incapable of making decisions. A jury system enforcing the rule of law is one of the few controls of authority available. God knows just look at the world now and try and claim democracy or centralisation of power has worked.
"But it also requires all the participants to be spiritually and psychologically mature such that they don't need to be told how to behave well because they are in harmony with natural law."
I summed all those words with just two: "Responsibility and Compassion".
Individuals pay no tax, except on investment profits which is non productive profit.
Companies pay taxes as they are not individuals and they only would pay taxes on profits, which is how you incentivize reinvestment in labor and equipment which are write offs.
Yes, Natural Law has to be the foundation of a healthy and free society. Its very existence is kept secret by those who rule over us, as it removes the excuse for their illegitimate authority - ie the need to maintain (top-down) order for the alleged good of society as a whole.
This is a good point you make in this respect - "The truth is: Oligarchs are human beings, exactly the same as the rest of us. And yet statists seriously believe, contrary to all evidence, that most human beings are incapable of managing their own affairs. Strangely enough, they simultaneously assert that a tiny cadre of human beings at the top are 'superior' and can somehow control everything on behalf of the billions 'beneath' them".
And this - "Statists call the violent, aggressive behaviour and criminality they regularly indulge in 'human nature.' Consequently, in the circular reasoning of the statist, the so-called 'protection of the state' is required, they argue, for the very reason that people are irrational, immoral statists!"
Stakeholder capitalism is indeed the same phenomenon as fascism - it seems to me to be the admission that, despite the façade of democracy, the real role of the state is to impose the control and advance the agenda of private corporate interests.
The existence of private security companies and drug companies are not features of the desirable future I personally imagine, but the voluntary democracy you set out would place long-term decision-making about society in the hands of the people itself, rather than of an exploitative and authoritarian ruling cabal, which is the key thing.
I agree that the abolition of a usury-based monetary system is an absolute must!
An understanding of the forces that create 'human nature' is needed in any process of change.
in one respect humans are like all living organisms in this world - they have a powerful impulse to survive, to live & will adjust their behaviour in whatever setting they find themselves in order to best protect themselves & survive.
This explains the 'only following orders' syndrome.
Without any strong spiritual beliefs human nature is very primitive & malleable. It will change chameleon-like according to the system the human finds itself living within. From that it will determine the best strategy for its survival.
Those who currently. manipulate human affairs understand this.
This is why the controllers need to destroy our spirituality - our inherent divinity -because it is spiritual belief that will stop us ruthlessly pursuing our personal survival at the expense of others.
Without spirituality humans will merely respond like the proverbial Pavlov's dog to the demands of the system they find themselves living within.
If the system teaches humans that in order to survive & succeed they must be greedy, selfish & at the same time obedient to a callous authority then that is how they will behave.
If on the other hand the system teaches that cooperation within local communities & respect for individual liberty will get the best reward, then the human will respond to that stimuli.
in short in our materialist world human nature is driven by the system/culture humans live within. This makes us easy meat for those who like to be in charge.
So human consciousness must change before there can be any meaningful & enduring positive change.
"So human consciousness must change before there can be any meaningful & enduring positive change."
Agree with the other things you said but not this one.
A voluntary system as described in the post will have to be implemented piecemeal alongside the current system, but that is possible. It could begin by organizing things like boycotts and strikes. Yes, not that unfamiliar. Not easy of course, but can accomodate human nature as it is.
A very encouraging response who has some faith in humanity. Those in power only persist in their abuse of 99% of humanity by brainwashing them into feeling worthless and helpless.
In your vision of a Voluntary Democracy, it is conceivable that a majority of people could decide that it is perfectly permissible to commit heinous forms of cruelty on minority groups. All people do not share the same values, morals, and beliefs. The primary function of “state government” is to protect minorities from being abused by majorities, and to protect the citizens of the independent sovereign state from aggression by a different independent sovereign state.
You misunderstand what the Author is stating. Iain said quite clearly. "Democracy" means only and exclusively the rule of law administered through trial by jury. It has nothing to do with choosing leaders, with expressing the will of the majority, or with exercising political power—political authority"
Who is The Lawgiver? Where did the Laws come from? Are the Laws by ascent of the people? Are the Laws approved by a majority of the people? What are the morals and character of those people who approve the Laws for the entire community? Do the Laws benefit the majority over the minority?
Who organizes the defense of the community against attack from a different community? What is to prevent a community with a majority of evil people from attacking another community and taking the weaker community’s land and resources, killing the men of the weaker community, and raping the most attractive women of the weaker community?
I don’t know if this is actually true or not, but somebody once pointed out that the reason why there are so many beautiful Scandinavian women is because the Vikings only kidnapped and raped the most beautiful women of the villages that they conquered and plundered.
The natural laws comes form our creator whether you believe in a creator or not.
Inalienable rights, founded upon the principles of Natural Law and natural justice.
Government is created by man not by God. The Government is there to protect our rights. Only because we allowed it to be so. Unfortunately the PPP between the government and their partner in crime the Bar have usurped that power because they had a monopoly over force. It is one of the reasons that we should never have allowed any restrictions of firearm ownership whatsoever. A fatal mistake that allowed them to control us.
Freedom is the unrestricted freedom to exercise our inalienable rights provided we do no harm to others.
It is the freedom to do all that is right whenever or wherever we choose. No one on this Earth has the authority to deny, remove or redefine any of our inalienable rights and that includes the government and communists.
Governments are instituted by the consent of the governed. A Constitutional Federal Republic, such as the U.S. Constitution, does in fact protect the Rights of the minority from infringement by the majority.
You also cant read and are easily triggered. I did not say you are a totalitarian. . I said "You sound like a totalitarian."
I am not and American. I am a South African and what I can tell you that that the South African constitution is a fraudulent document written by the Marxists communists and socialists and their left wing liberals, and was never ratified by the people in a referendum.
In fact the referendum option was removed and given to the ANC terrorists commander in chief to declare. Guess who declared it a PPP partner. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was approved by the Constitutional Court (CC) on 4 December 1996 and took effect on 4 February 1997. A court appointed by the State. It is the presidents sole prerogative now. W had the whole world nodding in unison when it was uttered as being the best the world in the world, it is complete BS.
A majority vote by a jury of evil people can inflict severe punishment on an innocent victim. That is why you need a government that is founded on a Constitution that protects the rights of the accused from being punished by a jury of evil people.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
~ Emma Goldman
The Constitution was so lacking that they had to AMEND it with the bill of rights, because people were protesting the lack of rights in the Constitution!
Remember how despite the Constitution, women and non white males had no rights for a long time. How was that possible if the Constitution was so great?
The Founders created a Constitution that constrained and limited the powers and authorities of the government. The State ratifying assemblies demanded that the constraints and limits upon the government be more expressly documented in a Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments.
The Founders had the great foresight to realize the Constitution needed a mechanism for amendments so that the Constitution could evolve as society evolved.
How exactly do we get populist amendments when Congress and the judicial is captured by wealthy corrupt people who profit from injustice?
It took many many years to get civil rights.
It took a long long time to recognize native Americans as people.
It took a long long time to abolish slavery.
It took a long time to give women property rights and then the right to vote.
My issue with the Constitution is that it's really the representation of the elites who have access to political systems.
We would be better off without representatives and instead have direct democracy. Why do we still need Congress people to vote on bills etc on our behalf?
Do you understand how the government actually functions? Do you understand that the people who actually do the research for legislation and actually write the legislation are not elected representatives, but the “shadow government” of the staff of each representative and the staff of experts of each congressional committee. In a Direct Democracy, every citizen of the nation would have to have the knowledge and expertise of every congressional committee.
It may have taken many years for the government to have incorporated all the things you list, but what is important is that it eventually got done.
Do you understand the election process?
Very few people have any desire to campaign for an elected office, let alone perform the civic duty of serving on a jury.
Those few people who do run for office need to raise exorbitant amounts of money to fund their campaigns. Obviously wealthier people can afford to donate larger amounts of money to candidates, and naturally they expect a return on their investment. But the candidate still has to convince a majority of the voters to vote for him/her. If an elected candidate fails to represent the interests of their constituents, then the constituents can vote for a different candidate in the next election.
Do you understand what is required of a direct democracy? EVERY citizen would have to take the time to research, understand, and debate the intricacies of every piece of legislation and every regulation that gets proposed. Most people have better things to do with their lives. Also, direct democracy is MOB RULE where the majority does whatever it wants to do, and minorities have no rights or influence on how they are governed and the laws/regulations they must obey.
You are conflating issues and confuse majority of vote with rule of law, being the rule of natural law. Do no harm.
The constitution is a document that is written by those who are already in power and it is so written to keep them in control. Maybe you are unaware that the highest power who made law being parliament itself is corrupted. Suggest you brush up on what that which was voiced in the 1970’s by the Conservative Law Lord Hailsham warning of the perils of the “Party system” that has now permeated almost if not all including the former commonwealth countries that gained independence from the British.
Indeed, as far back as July 1970 he also warned:
"It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing the Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament –the traditional protector of liberty – but Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could, in theory, become the most oppressive instrument in the world.” He aptly called it an elective dictatorship.
The proposal by Iain is one to get out of this "Party System which in a cabal now controls the system. An organized mafia cartel masquerading as the legitimate government.
I’m not a Brit. I’m a citizen of the USA. As a Brit, you obviously have no understanding of the founding of the USA, nor an understanding of how our Constitutional Federal Republic functions.
My sympathies to you and your fellow Brits for having to endure life under a Parliamentary system that was created to empower the British Imperialist Fascist Oligarchy and to keep the common man “in his place.”
I am not a Brit and have never declared to be one. I know it is a system that is corrupted.
I did not dispute that you are a citizen of the USA either.
I never declared either to be knowledgeable understanding of your constitutional Federal Republic functioning. I seems to me a complete disaster when it was so easily corrupted by the democrats and got an imbecile like Joe Biden elected as the president.
The Anglo-American Establishment has been doing everything it can to abolish the USA as an independent sovereign nation-state and to re-subordinate Americans back under the British Commonwealth ever since the Revolutionary War.
It is a testament to the will and resolve of the American people and the strength and soundness of the US Constitution that the USA still exists today as an independent sovereign nation.
You are confusing animals with mammals. Animals belong to the kingdom Animalia while mammals belong to the class Mammalia. Human beings fall under Mammalia, however with superiors abilities of reasoning and far superior human characteristics than other mammals
If you imagine Human being is merely 'animal' then you are animal mind, & show lack of gratitude for existence. Dehumanisation agenda is top of list for oppression.
Is that because you are hive mind, or posh & effected Voza@Odb.
I like that you liink with VOZA Developments a property development company based in the UK. They focus on creating high-quality, affordable housing to address the UK's housing shortage, & 0db is additional intrigue !🙄😀
Ok, so I've read the whole thing now and I totally stand by my previous comment. You are egregiously misusing the word 'state' when you should be using the word 'establishment' (or 'oligarch-controlled establishment'.
Just because the specific version of 'state' which has been created and maintained by the oligarchs/establishment is bad, doesn't mean all states are bad. The answer lies in history, not political philosophy. The reason why the current 'state' is bad is because a small minority social group (in Britain, originally the Normans in 1066 - i.e. foreign) control it for their own benefit.
And you are wrong about 'statists'. You continually play down or forget the fact they have been deceived. Remove that deception and they no longer support the minority rule of the parasite class. Give them a proper education and there's no way they'd vote for the parasite class. They would only vote for genuinely decent people. Then you'd have a genuinely benevolent state.
There is, in other words, in this long essay no real reference to history or psychology. You're ignoring why the current state is the way it is - which is a feudalist history imposed on the people of Britannia by an invading and occupying force. This 'bad state' didn't happen pre-1066. Unless you can find me a heap of reference documents from pre-1066 talking about how disaffected the population was? Nope, didn't think so. Any peasants' revolt pre-1066? Nope. any oligarchs imposing their wicked ways on communities? Nope. And so on, and so on.
You have also not addressed the effect of 'ideologies' and 'propaganda' with regards to your voluntaryist system. You don't have a mechanism for protecting the people from that. If it's 'implied' in your potential education system, then logically you can have that education system in a state-organised society (which - ironically - would be benevolent).
From a certain point of view, then, you are doing what all reactionaries do and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are taking an example of an obviously malevolent state and projecting that example onto all possible state-systems. You can do this because you fundamentally ignore the (social) history of how the malevolent state came into being, and the (social group) psychological manipulation of how it continues. If the majority of British people were aware that they are being governed by a foreign, occupying force - i.e. a fundamentally different social group - the 'other') who have a racist attitude towards the British people (and a feudalist attitude because they're occupiers) then all these 'statists' as you describe them would no longer tolerate the Establishment. Sheer force of numbers would do the trick.
Then they would 'volunteer' to have a proper state system by the people and for the people. That would be a liberal socialist system for obvious reasons. Attacking 'any' state is also attacking liberal socialism - and that's disingenuous. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of so-called anarchists are in fact cognitive infiltrators, for precisely all these reasons - they are misdirecting people away from a true historical and psychological understanding of why things are the way they are.
Anyway - the other thing is this was such a long essay that one can only do a counterargument in an equally long dissertation, and that's not possible in these comments. Your version of 'money' for example is unworkable. And you don't seem to understand that 'inflation' is a decision made by people. Prices don't put themselves up, people put prices up! And why not have fixed interest rates and a fixed value of the currency? These are far more obvious, simple solutions.
And as for a totally unregulated 'free market' - sorry but that's called neoliberalism. I'm going to stop there because otherwise this will end up winning the record for longest ever comment.
No neoliberalism is about cronyism not free market. and No, "Prices don't put themselves up, people put prices up!" Price is determined by a perception of value without government interference a a free market.
And no again "'inflation' is a decision made by people'" it is a creation by colluding corrupted scammers of government and Banksters (Gangsters).
That's kind of what I was getting at. Ordinarily I would've enlarged on what I said but it was the end of a long comment and tbh I probably should've left it before the economics bit, as to really explain it requires an essay (which I shall do for my stack at some point).
Briefly, though - you say inflation is a 'creation by colluding corrupted scammers of government and banksters' - yes - this is precisely what I meant by 'prices don't put themselves up' - prices are increased by the supply side of the supply-demand equation - which, in a neoliberal oligarchy, is indeed the corrupt bankers and industrialists. i.e. it's them who put prices up, not prices themselves.
A true socialist view on this would say that if the people own the supply then they do not put the prices up.
So here's where we get to the true free market - in a free market, prices are equal to 'costs of production' plus 'reasonable profit margin'. Competition drives prices down until you reach the equilibrium level - where the profit margin can't go any lower without putting the business in serious trouble. Once this initial equilibrium has been reached, innovation happens to reduce the price by lowering the cost of production. So that's 'technical' innovation mainly. Obviously in the neoliberal system, with no protection for workers, wages are the first part of 'costs of production' to be reduced. Again - a socialist system would fix a 'reasonable' minimum (starting) wage, and probably have automatic pay rises each year (plus bonuses for productivity and for being promoted/learning a new specialism/skill set/increased responsibility etc.).
Adam Smith himself warned about 'bad actors' interfering with the free market 250 years ago. He called it 'mercantilism' but today he'd recognise it as 'neoliberalism', which is a perversion of the free market. One of my all-time favourite quotes is this one from Smith: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion; but when they do, the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public". So very true and sums up today's economic problems in a nutshell.
In a system in which you haven't (yet) eliminated all these bad actors you need to have 'regulation' in order to prevent the bad actors from gaining unfair advantages and gaming the system. In a system devoid of bad actors (i.e. everyone acts in enlightened self-interest and is a mature individual) then that's the point where you don't really need regulation, although you would naturally fix the value of certain resources, including the currency itself.
So, furthermore you would have a fixed value for the currency, which would be determined according to a basket of necessities which are of 'unlimited availability' (defined as potential supply will always exceed potential demand' - thus circumventing the deceitful supply/demand-price curve - it's deceitful because it's a lie, as I've shown in terms of 'costs of production' plus 'reasonable profit margin'). It doesn't matter how many people need a chair to sit on, the price of the chair remains the same - neoliberalism achieves social control by playing musical chairs with the people.
Fixed currency values are also made possible by having a national/publicly owned bank & money supply. If the value of each currency unit is fixed you can create as much of it as you like (for free), plus you don't need a national debt (you don't lend yourself money, after all). Public ownership of the money supply is the most crucial aspect of a liberal socialist system because it's what enables every other aspect of the economy to function properly, whilst fundamentally preventing bad actors from fucking with the system. This is why it's also the policy which the cabal fear the most.
See - it needs a proper essay. Or series of essays. I'll put it on my new year's resolutions list.
Evelyn, this is very good. Over the course of many years I have dealt with these issues in depth and am equally somewhat irritated by Iain D. In particular, I argue that representative democracy would work, but you need to get rid of parties. I have explained how this is now possible, whereas it was not feasible last century, at www.fuzzydemocracy.eu All votes count, none go wasted, you never vote for a second-best candidate.
Electoral democracy is one check & balance among others.
In a proper market people vote with their money.
I have also tackled the issue of money, but this is more intricate.
Iain's three essays are very long, and I felt he was covering much that was obvious while hiding what was contentious. I have poor eyesight and cannot read a lot, or quickly.
I have another website which deals with the issue of character, which is key.
I had a look at your intro - I really like your idea of 'thematic devolution'. One might even say there's a certain genius in that.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that sounds a little like addressing the issue of 'separation of powers'. In which case it's a good point.
However - I would argue a simple point here, contained in the following observation - 'a democracy can only function if the people are fully informed and educated'.
In other words the problem with modern democracy is not one of 'system', but of psychology. Currently, the people are not informed or educated, and so they make bad democratic (voting) decisions. If they were informed and educated, they wouldn't vote for corrupted or corruptible people, they would only vote for decent intelligent people.
I was going to say in which case any system is fine, but now I find myself disagreeing with that. This is the point about the PR2 system - people can vote for more than one, with their second choice counting for half a vote. So everyone gets one and a half votes. Those halves do make a difference in the final count, especially for smaller parties. So no group-think. Most people use their first choice to continue the system, and their second to raise issues.
I think what I shall have to do is read all of your stuff and then maybe get inspired to write a part 3 to my Lizzy 2PR articles. The next one, which I have been meaning to do for ages, was simply about the (parallel world) electoral history, but you have raised some intriguing points.
One of the ironies, though, to give you a little spoiler, is that after the liberal socialist party got into government (in 2003), and simply did benevolent stuff, despite introducing the PR system they still ended up with two-thirds of the vote! (in 2008) This is basic psychology of course - if you have a benevolent government, no one in their right mind votes for change. Eventually, however, you end up with a range of smaller parties (including, interestingly, devolution parties), each of which has something to say regarding the direction of progress, even if they all agree on the basic underlying liberal socialist system.
Anyway - as I say, I'll have a nice read of your stuff in due course and 'to be continued...' Thanks for the link!
I will definitely check out your link in due course. I've also written about this kind of thing quite a lot. Part of my Substack is about a parallel world which is somewhat liberal socialist, with a voting system which looks like this: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/the-lizzy-pr-2-voting-system?r=2s9hod
I need to complete that series of essays actually, which is on my new year's resolutions list.
Which is essentially explaining the fact that to understand the globalist cabal you simply need to think of them as a specific social group, whose identity is governed by a racist ideology (racist against everyone who isn't a member of their group). This makes the whole thing so very easy to understand.
I note from a brief look (the texts you refer to are very long!) mention of PR and of random selection. From 2019: http://www.fuzzydemocracy.eu/fzyenglish/PR.html What is wrong with Proportional Representation. I toyed for a long time with the random selection idea and came to definitely reject it. First, with my vastly superior "Fuzzy Democracy" mechanism it is not necessary. Secondly it offends a fundamental principle of electoral democracy, namely that any citizen who wishes (it is not -- not -- an obligation because people are different) should be able to register a choice as precisely as possible without the process becoming onerous (i.e. complicated).
I read your thing about PR. Another irony here about the 2PR system (definitely read it!) is that it directly addresses two of your counter-arguments against PR.
First, in Lizzy 2PR there is no minimum threshold. Furthermore, for every party, once any votes which result in seats have been subtracted, for every .25% they gain a seat on the 'additional list'.
Second, there is a 'none of the above' option. Again, for every .25% of the vote NOTA gets one MP on the additional list, which is a random selection from the population (a bit like jury service - although a person does have the right to say no, in which case simply a new random selection happens). Note also the 'upper house' is one third random selection.
Third, you mentioned political parties and lists and suchlike. The rules for independent candidates go some way to solving that issue. The original PR2 said any indy candidate who gets 3.5% in their constituency gets a seat (again, additional list). This was later reduced to 2.5%. This makes voting for indies worth considering for voters. Especially with their second choice.
It is, in fact, the second choice which constitutes the genius of this system. Psychologically, people do use this second choice to vote for 'themes' (like your 'thematic devolution'). They don't have to compromise. So they will indeed vote for small parties (no min threshold remember, so every vote counts), or for NOTA, or for indies. So you really do end up with a rainbow parliament.
Hmm, I really must write my article on the electoral history of the parallel world. I think you'd love it (and understand it).
The answer to the test is love! Has another astonishing test been prepared for us⁉️ Our species is mocking the forefathers struggle to seek a merciful Heavenly Father/Creator claiming to move us! Better watch out for Jupitor a big challenge could be ready to pop out 🤗
Probably an excellent template for protection of the people from the elites who are only happy exercising arbitrary power and control to the detriment of 99% of people. Just look at the world and deny this.
"law-abiding statists feel comfortable amusing themselves to death while they watch the world burn."
🎯
"Voluntaryists reject political authority. They believe obedience is a failing, not a virtue. "
also 🎯
But all this would have to be regarded very sceptically from the perspective that some criminals like Bill Gates, who no doubt was very obedient and suffered a lot to get into Harvard, and who could bide his time looking like an angel, will be a very special challenge to such an open and forgiving system.
I think it’s possible that to be hinging your diatribe in large part around the definition/application of the word ‘state’ (and the use of certain other words) is to be looking at Iain’s work here egregiously superficially. You hail the pre 1066 life in these islands as being indicative of a good and nice better ‘state’- but now, since then (the Norman invasion), everything’s gone to pot. (And it surely has!)The pre 1066 jurisdiction in these islands (and Western Europe in general) was, as far as I can see, in no small part congruent with much that Iain suggests above. The law of the land - crucially - was upheld and protected by jury trials of peers conducting properly convened courts of conscience - and had been for centuries. The juries tried the facts, the law, as uniquely applicable in each individual case, and in the event of a guilty finding, decided on the sentence. That is the centre-piece of Iain’s basis for, one could say, a common law constitution. You seem perfectly capable of drawing a distinction between then, (pre 1066), and now but only in so far as - you imply - it was a better ‘state’ then without looking beneath the surface in an endeavour to understand WHY that may be the case. WHY that may be the case is because a lot of what Iain’s painstakingly written about here was actually functioning back then. To me that’s an important if not crucial point and far more important than the mis application, as far as you’re concerned, of a word.
This is kind of true, sure. But as I hinted I could write an entire book about all this stuff - a comment alone can't address every aspect.
I'll just suggest the reason 'why' that you asked. The real 'why' is understood by reference to social group psychology. The Anglo-Saxons were united by membership of the same social group - as defined by their ethnicity and their customs and their 'identity'. The old adage 'you don't shit on your own doorstep' springs to mind here. Essentially, human psychology (and indeed any social animal psychology), as an adaptation to life within a homogenous social group (in terms of cultural identity) is such that it is an instinctive, hard-wired behavioural trait to treat other members of your own social group 'as you would be done by'.
This insight is what really explains the way the world is right now - the so-called 'cabal' are their own social group with their own, distinct identity - and, indeed, ideology. That ideology is obviously utterly racist (towards every other group) and feudalist/fascist in the sense of viewing every 'other' as inferior and only good for being slaves/serfs, which is why people are measured by the cabal as 'units of economic productivity' (hence 'useless eaters'). In other words, the malevolence of the modern state is a product of history, which has been largely written by this cabal - prior to the cabal gaining power, humanity lived in harmony with each other and nature. And that understanding of history is vital to understanding the world as it is today.
Britannia is a microcosm of this socio-historical fact. In 1066 we were invaded by a foreign - i.e. different - social group with a different ideology and identity. That identity is remarkably similar to that of the cabal of course. Since then, the native population of Britain has been treated like serfs by the 'other' occupying force, which is racist towards anyone not of their own group (and of course they trick the British people with 'nationalism' into thinking the Establishment are also 'British' and the same social group). Today, 'membership' of the ruling group isn't necessarily determined by ethnicity or genetic (Norman) origin - it's determined by 'identity'.
It is thus obvious that the 'state' system which a racist cabal would come up with would be feudalist, and the means to maintain it would be propaganda and lies and conditioning and so on. A state which however has solely been created by and for members of the same social group will be benevolent, precisely because of human psychology with regards to how you treat members of your own social group.
Interestingly, this is where the social cognition number (Dunbar's number) comes in, because it effectively sets a mathematical limit on the size of a social group, which is the square of the social cognition number (beyond which you have multiple degrees of separation and you can't know everyone, and all your 1st degree connections also can't know everyone, so you have 'strangers' and 'others'). For humans this is 22,500. Which I would say is the ideal size for a sophisticated human community. Beyond this, you need a 'state' simply in order to ensure harmony and peace between all these communities. You would also need some kind of mechanism to create and maintain a 'shared cultural identity'.
Also interestingly, I think we'd find that the vast majority of communities/towns in pre-1066 Britain were indeed fewer than 22,500.
Evelyn, thanks so much for the time and effort you’ve put into your response. I’ll try and digest it fully and if I have anything that may deemed useful to say respond later. In the meantime I’ll read your linked article.
"Most statists blithely facilitate evil without once considering the horrors they are all individually responsible for."
In my opinion Iain, an example of this is surrendering their consent to the PTB, by playing the "Party Political Game" and the idea that they have the right to surrender others consent without giving a damn, and ignore the fact that they never had rights this consent ever anyway.
I point it out like this to these statists.
Firstly of, no one has the right to give anyone else, something they themselves don’t already own. Understand this. You cannot grant or bestow something, such as an academic degree or a right, onto or upon someone, that does not belong to you in the first place.
Therefore, we cannot bestow upon government that which we do not possess.
Do you have a special set of powers that gives you the right to control others?
"I contend, therefore, that statism is a mental disorder. Statism must be rejected. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by constructing a Voluntary Democracy."
digital id next cristmas. to make things easy. but who can /cant get it. bio metric juraproject cbdc love to pay but covid bankruptrd me. weel my bank did
I'm about halfway through so far, but the first thing that immediately struck me is that you are making a horrendous fallacy of definitions here. And it is seriously bad where philosophy is concerned.
Nietzsche, I am absolutely certain, would understand every word I'm about to say.
See, this essay would make a lot more sense if you replaced the word 'statist' with 'stupid infantilised conditioned slave-mentality people'. Likewise you need to replace 'oligarch' with 'resentment-motivated sociopath'. Because that's what you are really talking about here. You are absolutely not talking about enlightened people like myself who wholeheartedly understand the need - in larger social groups beyond the square of the social cognition number (22,500 for humans) - for a 'state' in the simple sense of a 'social decision-making council'. You can't have progress, let alone care for millions of people, without 'organisation'. That's part of the point of being a social animal.
Your fallacy is in assuming that 'any state' is by definition bad. And yet you also readily admit that the reason it's bad is because of the bad character of the people running it (oligarchs), and the stupidity of the people supporting it (statists). So, clearly you are disingenuously confusing a neutral system (the idea of a state) with the specific historical manner in which human states have turned out to be bad. My blatantly obvious point being that if you 'deal with' the oligarchs and you have a good enough education system, and you don't allow stupid people to have any influence over the state, then you will end up with a benevolent state.
This is one of the logical idiocies I've encountered with so-called anarchists. An anarch-system only works by 'voluntaryism' as you say. But it also requires all the participants to be spiritually and psychologically mature such that they don't need to be told how to behave well because they are in harmony with natural law. But if you had a 'state' with such mature people running it, then you have the same thing. Exactly the same thing. So I would suggest these sorts of 'anarchists' are in fact just reactionaries in the end.
A benevolent 'state' is run by agreement of the people. If you have a mature people, then it works fine.
So instead of attacking the idea of a 'state' by highlighting 'stupid people', it would be better to explain the distinction between a 'statist' and a 'stupid person'. It is a very dangerous thing indeed to confuse the way things have specifically turned out in history with the theoretical philosophy of a state.
Unless you can prove to me, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for a 'statist' to be a highly spiritually and psychologically and socially mature individual, and for there ever to be a 'state' which is managed by such mature people. I seriously doubt you can do that.
Anyway - I'll read the second half now.
Thank you for two thought provoking comments. I will respond to both in this reply.
You say I made a “horrendous fallacy of definitions” so it will be useful if we agree some.
Statism is a belief that force can legitimately be used to control people’s relationships and behaviour.
Voluntaryism is the belief that all human interactions should be voluntary and initiation of the use of force is unacceptable under any circumstances. Minimum force can only be used in defence of justice.
An oligarch is someone who has amassed sufficient wealth to convert that advantage into political authority. As Aristotle, among others, recognised.
Providing we both accept these definitions, we can discuss the points you have raised.
You claim it is a fallacy to assume “that 'any state' is by definition bad.” But every state is based upon the initiation of force or the threatened initiation of the use of force to control its “subjects” behaviour. As this is slavery and as all slavery is evil, every state is evil and therefore “bad.” I reject your claim.
That is not to say one state, like any slave master, can’t be “nicer” than another. Often this depends on where and when we live. But all states, like all slave masters, reserve the alleged right to use violence to oppress. All states are evil.
All states, no matter how nice they are, afford some more power and so-called authority than others. The state, no matter how nice, is never a “neutral system” as you claim.
You say that you are an enlightened person and suggest that enlightened folk, such as yourself, can perform the vital state function of organisation. Though as a statist, that organisation is exercised by enlightened people, such as yourself, ultimately at the point of a gun.
May I ask if you consider me an enlightened person? If you are perfectly capable of “organising” society what makes you think I can’t?
If we both can, why do you need to tell me what to do? Why can’t we simply agree to some basic rules and not cause each other any harm or loss and live our lives without either one of us forcing the other to obey them?
Why would either of us not want to live that way?
You make the same arguments as all statists. Evidently, it is not that you consider yourself an enlightened person capable of ruling, it is that you consider everyone else incapable of the same. Nor is it that you think organisation is essential. The voluntary democracy I suggest would not be a system without rules, just a system without rulers. It would be “organised." Yet you reject this kind of organisation.
So it seems you think “organisation” can only be achieved by forcing everyone you don’t consider enlightened to do as they are told. You appear to favour slavery. Bluntly, you clearly think you and others you agree with should rule. Of course, this is what the state you advocate is designed to achieve through the use of force. Which is evil.
Voluntaryism does not require “all the participants to be spiritually and psychologically mature such that they don't need to be told how to behave.” It simply requires people to take responsibility for their own actions and recognise that all behaviour has consequences, good and bad. Not everyone will of course, that’s why there needs to be some sort of justice system. I have suggested voluntary democracy.
Simultaneously, as a statist, you require literally “everyone” to be obedient to authority. You demand that everyone believes the same thing (I this regard) and, indeed, the vast majority do. So why couldn’t the vast majority believe that they are individually responsible for every one of their own actions and, if they cause harm or loss, expect unwelcome consequences? In terms of achieving dominance as a belief systems, voluntaryism requires no greater uptake than statism.
Your “obvious point” that the state can deal with oligarchs and can have a good enough education system to ensure “stupid people” don’t have any influence over the state and that this will inevitably lead to a “benevolent state” is not even logical, let alone “obvious.” Statism is the only system by which oligarchs operate. Oligarchs control the education system. Why would oligarchs ever diminish their own claimed authority?
If a “benevolent state is run by agreement of the people” then why do all states rule by force? It is absurd to allege that this is not how all states function. All states invest all political power in a small group. There have never been any state exceptions to this.
Herein, you make the same old tired arguments of every delusional statist reformer. You seemingly cannot grasp that the absolute power corrupts absolutely and that it is only through the state that absolute power can possibly be exercised. Moreover, it is through the woeful, historically illiterate naivety of statists that absolute power is consistently maintained.
No one who seriously advocates a stateless society does so because they believe human beings are angelic. They do so precisely because they understand that humanity is capable of the most appalling violence, inhumanity and destruction. But the voluntaryist also recognises that in order for that violence to achieve the horrendous scale that it does, a state and statists' obedience to authority are required.
You say that you doubt that I can prove to you that “it is impossible for a 'statist' to be a highly spiritually and psychologically and socially mature individual, and for there ever to be a 'state' which is managed by such mature people.” No statist is “socially mature.” By definition, you give away your own sovereignty, and agency over your own life, to other people in whom you invest the power to order you about. Please explain to me how that has anything to do with intellectual, spiritual or emotional maturity.
You argue that, given the right conditions, statists “would only vote for genuinely decent people. Then you'd have a genuinely benevolent state.” You can't vote for genuinely decent people. If they were genuinely decent they wouldn't seek the authority to tell other people what to do.
You also point out that statists are deceived and misled. Indeed so, I have consistently highlighted this throughout the piece. Who is it that deceives them and why?
Again, you overlook that which is glaring you in the face. Both “enlightened” statists and voluntaryists recognise that bad people exist and some bad people seek power and influence and control. But it is only the statist that perpetuates the system that gives power to evil people on a plate.
I return to your circular reasoning. If this benevolent state ever existed, or were possible, and if this unheard of state was “run by agreement of the people,” then what need would anyone ever have to either use any force or be obedient to any system of compulsion?
The distinction between voluntaryism and statism, is that statism, with its reliance upon absolute force exercised by enlightened people and the total obedience of statists, enables oligarchies to rule. Voluntaryism does not provide the oligarch any avenue, other than brute violence, to exercise any claimed “authority.” Only statists facilitate oligarchs.
Harking back to some mythical moment in history where the state didn’t rule by force is, it seems to me, a redundant argument. I agree that the so-called Dark Ages were perhaps the least dark in the history of states, but are you seriously claiming an aristocracy didn’t rule absolutely? I confess, I don’t know enough about the period to definitively argue the point. But if you can show me a state that didn’t rule by force I would be fascinated to learn about it.
You ask me why I attack the state. It is simple. It is only the state that enables the pernicious rule of oligarchs.
The necessary organisation, the observance of justice, the efficient management of resources, trade, security, even defence can all be achieved without obedience to authority. There is no necessity for the state to exist.
The state only exists because statists believe obedience to authority is essential. While they do so in sufficient numbers, all of us will remain subject to the tyranny of oligarchs.
There are no examples of states that are not “malevolent.” Can you not grasp that ruling other human beings by force is immoral? It is unequivocally wrong. The benevolent state cannot exist, it is an ethical oxymoron.
I do not accept that a monetary system that is not based on usury is impossible; I think your grasp of inflation is questionable and “neoliberalism” is just about as far removed from a genuine “free market” as it is possible to roam.
With respect, I am not “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” The state and statists belief in the state is the problem. It is ludicrous for you to claim that advocating voluntaryism is the reactionary position.
I’m not defending the status quo, you are.
As an afterthought, and given you are one of my lovely subscribers, perhaps I should remind you of or point you towards my series about social group psychology and the cabal, which starts here: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/circe-1-social-psychology-and-the?r=2s9hod I'd love to know what you think of all these ideas.
I get what you are saying with "the corrupt seek power and the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power." But my point is, regardless of social group identity or 'ideology' based on identity, it is the state, that relies upon the use of force to rule, that enables "the absolutely corrupt" to rule absolutely. Without that model of state "government" they would not be able to rule absolutely, short of, as I said, pure brute violence.
I also appreciate your point about the SCN and how, in any practical organisational sense, there is an optimum size for what I might call a functioning community. However, I do not accept that homogeneity of what we might call culture is necessary or how its absence or differentiation explains the dominant "cabal" is you prefer to call it.
In my view, it does not follow that what I'll call cultural homogeneity in a society larger than the optimum SCN would deliver a benevolent state. Your suggestion denies individual human nature. Even in a united culture there are good and bad---moral and immoral---individuals. I contend any state system based upon the use of force will always enable to immoral to rule irrespective of any cultural homogeneity.
While I accept that the "Establishment" of oligarchs that currently exploit us share a perspective, and will defend their collective interests, I think they are drawn from many different "cultures" and also form a group that is internally adversarial.
I don't accept the concept of the all powerful, united and annexed, "Establishment." That's why I talk about a network of public-private partnerships. That said, "Establishment" or "the one percent" are apt descriptions for our purposes.
I absolutely agree with you that debating one "conspiracy" or another, obsessions with dynasties and secret societies, etc. are often diversionary and usually counter-productive. An analysis of how power functions and proposing measures we might take to make it function in our interests---something both you and I are trying to do---is far more useful in my view.
Then again, whatever measures anyone suggests will need public support in order to get off the ground. Which brings us back to encouraging wider awareness of the power dynamic and that often does require conspiracies to be exposed.
Interesting stuff though Evelyn.
My new point about the cabal is one of definitions. This has been happily prompted by you by the way, so I'm grateful (and I may have to add a part V to my little series about social psychology). Amongst other things I have a background in academic philosophy so I understand the importance of definitions. I hope I don't come across as quibbling, though.
When I suggested the cabal's social group are defined by a 'cultural identity' or 'ideology', I should perhaps explain that a bit more, I mean what I mean by 'ideology' and 'identity', as it is quite important. I do agree with you that they come from many different 'cultural' backgrounds, but they do share a definite type of character and objective (which informs their 'identity').
Human identity is effectively composed of two parts, the individual, and the 'belonging to a social group'. Social groups have 'character' as well as individuals do. That's not a racist thing to say of course. Racism is not 'acknowledging the differences', racism is 'antagonistic towards the different' (the out-group - and I would argue that even with the low SCN, normal humans are not automatically antagonistic towards out-groups - the cabal, however, are).
Anyway, with regards to the cabal, it might be easier to understand them if we think of them as having a 'shared objective'. Yes, I would argue that this objective is a product of a shared, or underlying ideology, in the sense of a view of the world and of themselves and thus their place or purpose in it, and we can also take the Nietzschean approach and psychoanalyse (and historically analyse) what gave rise to that ideology or world view, but I think we can agree on their 'shared objective' - which does indeed unite them.
Specifically, they think:
1/ They are the master race and everyone else is inferior. This leads to racism of course, although one may also argue the racism came first.
2/ As the master race, the obvious method of global social control is simply 'feudalism' but on a global level. We can certainly add the prefix 'techno-' to this, but it's really just feudalism with better technology (indeed, global feudalism requires advanced technology - we can see all the different mechanisms of this in WEF publications of course - as I believe you'd ably demonstrated). We can readily identify other expressions of this feudalism - the GPPP (as you've discussed), neoliberalism, fascism, etc. But it's all just feudalism in the end. That they would adopt this system is simply logical.
We can definitely keep it that simple. Anything to add to that is simply detail and colour.
One interesting new aspect about the cabal however which I have been writing about is that they now know they are not the master race, because they are aware of superior intelligences. This might explain their increased viciousness in recent decades (and their 'occult deception' it now occurs to me). That's another story though.
One of the most important points here, however, is that this attitude doesn't apply to the vast majority of human beings. Normal humans do not have a dark side that would lead them to develop 'states' and a 'statist' mindset. All of that is purely a happenstance of history (and conditioning by various authoritarian ideologies - what we would call 'coercive control'). One can, for example, imagine a different history. Indeed, given that humans have been around for 300k years, if they had the innate propensity to become statists then we'd see archaeological evidence of that going back to at least the previous two interglacial periods. So with the cabal we really are talking about a relatively recent aberration here.
Notice also how the cognitive infiltrators try to push the idea that normal humans have a dark side - this misdirects people from understanding the cabal as an aberration. The cognitive infiltration in this aspect of course also encompasses the academic discipline of psychology. And neuroscience, to a certain degree. Equally notice how they really don't want people to understand neuroscience. Or evolution. Or anthropology. Etc.
Anyway - there's another nice comment for you. I need to go to the little girls' room.
I just have to briefly add a bit about neuroscience and psychology and break one of my cardinal rules about not exposing cognitive infiltrators here, because it is very important.
They couldn't get away with their transphobia cult thing if they informed their readers about neuroscience. Gender incongruence, after all, is just a (very rare) disorder of brain development, characterised by the brain (and thus the personal identity) developing at odds with the biological/physiological gender. The brain is a gendered thing, after all, as neuroscience has shown (fMRI etc.). Perpetuating this is intrinsic to the anti-woke thing, which encourages antagonism, which is what they want.
And to advocate denying children with this condition the treatment they need (puberty blockers) is nothing short of child abuse. To push this kind of agenda is simply one of the ways they seek to corrupt their readers, because it turns those readers into nasty, right-wing bigots. Statists, in other words. It's a great irony.
Which, of course, allows Marianna to paint 'conspiracy theorists' in the 'appropriate' colour.
It also turns them against socialism (true socialism, I mean, pre-dating Marx - it's the inevitable reaction to feudalism; cf. peasants' revolt, diggers, levellers etc. - this is also why they'd have to infiltrate the anarchist movement) - and as I have repeatedly said, socialism is the great enemy of the cabal, so they expend inordinate energy on attacking it on every level (again, starting with Marx - one of the original cognitive infiltrators).
With regards to the cognitive infiltrator, the obvious person who springs to mind in all this is that bloke 'Todd Hayen', who is like Off G's resident 'don't allow your readers to understand psychology or neuroscience'. Obviously I don't know the bloke, but you may well do, but I can certainly say that either he doesn't understand a damn thing about human psychology (or neuroscience or anthropology or evolution etc.), or he is simply lying the whole time. Either way, he's dangerous. Because an understanding of psychology is absolutely key to understanding the cabal and thus the way the world is, and why history has turned out the way it has.
Anyway - that was the bit I felt I needed to add. I would imagine TH reads your posts and the comments, so his reaction would be intriguing, and revealing.
Same as Miri's, ironically. That silly post about 'conspirasocialists' I mean. Part of me likes her, part of me doesn't. I do find her a very interesting person, though - and I have always been of the opinion that a person who is interesting is a person who has value and quality. A life without quality, after all, has no meaning.
Again - so much potential for discussion! But thanks for your measured response. We are certainly on the same side, so it's pointless and stupid to get antagonistic. Sorry if I came across that way.
In this comment, though, I'll just say that I have a lot of affinity with your proposed system - the reason is because of a point I made before about the 'separation of powers' which is a vital necessity for a genuine democracy. I think your system would indeed preserve that separation, because it would put power into the hands of the people to annul bad laws and right wrongs and so on (as you have described).
The obvious point about the illusion of democracy we have now is that there is no separation of powers when the same social group control all those powers.
This obviously suggests putting all the other 'powers' into the hands of the people. This is why I talk about a publicly owned money supply/national bank, for example. Ironically, you can indeed (at least loosely) call this 'socialism' in the true sense of the word. And of course we've noticed how terrified the cabal are of true socialism - hence the inordinate amount of effort they put into attacking it - including with their cognitive infiltrators of course (beginning with Marx).
Whilst we're on the subject of cognitive infiltrators, I do also agree with you that it's important to expose this or that conspiracy, because it erodes the authority of those in power bit by bit. Hence - likewise - the inordinate amount of effort put into cognitive infiltration. Part of my 'project' if you will is a study of all that. I find the whole thing fascinating quite frankly.
I've kind of learned though not to expose specific individuals (unless they are just totally obnoxious and, in one particular case, 'on their way out' anyway) - as that invites blowback and the spooks would get nervous. Taking amusing potshots at the MM Committee however is fun, and they love it too. You can tell that with the lovely double bluff approach they take. Obviously if I didn't vehemently disapprove of some of the stuff they are pushing then I'd definitely ask for a job there. It would be great fun.
Anyway, I have a good new point to make about the cabal which I'll do in a separate comment.
Obviously there's a lot to talk about here.
Perhaps if I could condense everything into the point I was fundamentally attempting to make, which is that all of this depends entirely on social group psychology, or what we might call 'cultural identity' - which is the shared identity of a social group.
What I've been saying with regards to history is that 'states' historically have been 'rule by a different social group than the people'. If you have a society which is governed by those with the same cultural (and thus personal/social) identity as the citizens, then the 'governors' will do right by the people, because they view the people as their own family, so to speak, or their own community (and they wouldn't be 'authoritarian').
The ironic point here is that in such a situation you would, indeed, end up with precisely the system of 'voluntaryism' you advocate. That's the greatest irony in fact because I totally agree with your proposal. But it won't happen unless you can eliminate the potential for a minority social group (with a different identity) to lord it over everyone else, and treat them like serfs.
The reason why such a minority group would do that is because of ideology. We can trace that (racist) ideology back approximately 3,000 years - prior to this, the kind of statism you are describing (rule by a minority adhering to a different ideology or identity than the people) simply didn't exist. This is why there is zero archaeological evidence of 'conflict' before then (despite what the likes of stenographers like Pinker would say).
The other problem I think you're addressing here is the 'separation of powers' which is necessary for a democracy. In the current system members of the same (minority) social group (i.e. the parasite class) control all these different powers. Which is obviously the problem. I do believe that your proposed system would go a long way to solving that problem - BUT - it does require a fundamental understanding of social group psychology and human social identity. Because what I'm really saying here is that it's social group identity and 'ideology' based on 'identity' that is responsible for 'malevolent states' in terms of 'us v them'. A society composed only of people with the same cultural identity would end up having a benevolent state - that state would not - as you say - 'impose' itself on the people, it would care for them. It would simply be a 'council of social decision-makers'. And that's the only way your system can work - with either homogeneity of cultural identity within the society, or a shared ideology of tolerance (and non-aggression, lol) towards other identities.
So yeah - this is the great irony. I agree with your proposal. But without an understanding and incorporation of social group psychology and what determines a human's identity, and acknowledgement of that - it's never going to work and it will, equally ironically, result in governance by a dominant social group. In other words, an authoritarian state.
I think you have fallen into the trap of assuming that the so-called enlightened are free from indulgent and crass actions leading to authoritarian rule. This I think, is Iain’s principal point. The average person has been brainwashed along the lines that they are inferior and incapable of making decisions. A jury system enforcing the rule of law is one of the few controls of authority available. God knows just look at the world now and try and claim democracy or centralisation of power has worked.
My definition of 'enlightened' encompasses 'free from indulgent and crass actions leading to authoritarian rule'.
"But it also requires all the participants to be spiritually and psychologically mature such that they don't need to be told how to behave well because they are in harmony with natural law."
I summed all those words with just two: "Responsibility and Compassion".
Look what I got... CuCuSky
The tax issue is even simpler.
Individuals pay no tax, except on investment profits which is non productive profit.
Companies pay taxes as they are not individuals and they only would pay taxes on profits, which is how you incentivize reinvestment in labor and equipment which are write offs.
"volcourts" sounds like a place where you play volleyball.
Maybe the nomenclature needs a little improvement 😁
Natural Law Courts?
sounds better, yeah
Natural Law Executive and Natural Law Legislature also sound better than Volexec and Volegis.
imho 😄
Very interesting Iain, thank you.
Yes, Natural Law has to be the foundation of a healthy and free society. Its very existence is kept secret by those who rule over us, as it removes the excuse for their illegitimate authority - ie the need to maintain (top-down) order for the alleged good of society as a whole.
This is a good point you make in this respect - "The truth is: Oligarchs are human beings, exactly the same as the rest of us. And yet statists seriously believe, contrary to all evidence, that most human beings are incapable of managing their own affairs. Strangely enough, they simultaneously assert that a tiny cadre of human beings at the top are 'superior' and can somehow control everything on behalf of the billions 'beneath' them".
And this - "Statists call the violent, aggressive behaviour and criminality they regularly indulge in 'human nature.' Consequently, in the circular reasoning of the statist, the so-called 'protection of the state' is required, they argue, for the very reason that people are irrational, immoral statists!"
Stakeholder capitalism is indeed the same phenomenon as fascism - it seems to me to be the admission that, despite the façade of democracy, the real role of the state is to impose the control and advance the agenda of private corporate interests.
The existence of private security companies and drug companies are not features of the desirable future I personally imagine, but the voluntary democracy you set out would place long-term decision-making about society in the hands of the people itself, rather than of an exploitative and authoritarian ruling cabal, which is the key thing.
I agree that the abolition of a usury-based monetary system is an absolute must!
Appreciated Paul. Thanks for considering the ideas presented. Keep going, what else are we gonna do???
Good question! It certainly seems like the time to be shifting up a gear.
A voluntary democracy is just another way to promote libertarianism.
This type of political structure could only work in a communal setting with a relatively small population.
In any event, given human nature it's a political arrangement which never lasts, as a small bunch of creepos inevitably seek control.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Orwell
An understanding of the forces that create 'human nature' is needed in any process of change.
in one respect humans are like all living organisms in this world - they have a powerful impulse to survive, to live & will adjust their behaviour in whatever setting they find themselves in order to best protect themselves & survive.
This explains the 'only following orders' syndrome.
Without any strong spiritual beliefs human nature is very primitive & malleable. It will change chameleon-like according to the system the human finds itself living within. From that it will determine the best strategy for its survival.
Those who currently. manipulate human affairs understand this.
This is why the controllers need to destroy our spirituality - our inherent divinity -because it is spiritual belief that will stop us ruthlessly pursuing our personal survival at the expense of others.
Without spirituality humans will merely respond like the proverbial Pavlov's dog to the demands of the system they find themselves living within.
If the system teaches humans that in order to survive & succeed they must be greedy, selfish & at the same time obedient to a callous authority then that is how they will behave.
If on the other hand the system teaches that cooperation within local communities & respect for individual liberty will get the best reward, then the human will respond to that stimuli.
in short in our materialist world human nature is driven by the system/culture humans live within. This makes us easy meat for those who like to be in charge.
So human consciousness must change before there can be any meaningful & enduring positive change.
"So human consciousness must change before there can be any meaningful & enduring positive change."
Agree with the other things you said but not this one.
A voluntary system as described in the post will have to be implemented piecemeal alongside the current system, but that is possible. It could begin by organizing things like boycotts and strikes. Yes, not that unfamiliar. Not easy of course, but can accomodate human nature as it is.
Canadian truckers strike
Occupy Wall Street
Yellow Vests
etc
A very encouraging response who has some faith in humanity. Those in power only persist in their abuse of 99% of humanity by brainwashing them into feeling worthless and helpless.
In your vision of a Voluntary Democracy, it is conceivable that a majority of people could decide that it is perfectly permissible to commit heinous forms of cruelty on minority groups. All people do not share the same values, morals, and beliefs. The primary function of “state government” is to protect minorities from being abused by majorities, and to protect the citizens of the independent sovereign state from aggression by a different independent sovereign state.
You misunderstand what the Author is stating. Iain said quite clearly. "Democracy" means only and exclusively the rule of law administered through trial by jury. It has nothing to do with choosing leaders, with expressing the will of the majority, or with exercising political power—political authority"
Who is The Lawgiver? Where did the Laws come from? Are the Laws by ascent of the people? Are the Laws approved by a majority of the people? What are the morals and character of those people who approve the Laws for the entire community? Do the Laws benefit the majority over the minority?
Who organizes the defense of the community against attack from a different community? What is to prevent a community with a majority of evil people from attacking another community and taking the weaker community’s land and resources, killing the men of the weaker community, and raping the most attractive women of the weaker community?
I don’t know if this is actually true or not, but somebody once pointed out that the reason why there are so many beautiful Scandinavian women is because the Vikings only kidnapped and raped the most beautiful women of the villages that they conquered and plundered.
You sound like a totalitarian.
The natural laws comes form our creator whether you believe in a creator or not.
Inalienable rights, founded upon the principles of Natural Law and natural justice.
Government is created by man not by God. The Government is there to protect our rights. Only because we allowed it to be so. Unfortunately the PPP between the government and their partner in crime the Bar have usurped that power because they had a monopoly over force. It is one of the reasons that we should never have allowed any restrictions of firearm ownership whatsoever. A fatal mistake that allowed them to control us.
Freedom is the unrestricted freedom to exercise our inalienable rights provided we do no harm to others.
It is the freedom to do all that is right whenever or wherever we choose. No one on this Earth has the authority to deny, remove or redefine any of our inalienable rights and that includes the government and communists.
They are immutable and ours from birth.
I’m not a totalitarian.
I’m a Trump-supporting MAGA Patriot.
I’m not a religious believer.
Governments are instituted by the consent of the governed. A Constitutional Federal Republic, such as the U.S. Constitution, does in fact protect the Rights of the minority from infringement by the majority.
You also cant read and are easily triggered. I did not say you are a totalitarian. . I said "You sound like a totalitarian."
I am not and American. I am a South African and what I can tell you that that the South African constitution is a fraudulent document written by the Marxists communists and socialists and their left wing liberals, and was never ratified by the people in a referendum.
In fact the referendum option was removed and given to the ANC terrorists commander in chief to declare. Guess who declared it a PPP partner. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was approved by the Constitutional Court (CC) on 4 December 1996 and took effect on 4 February 1997. A court appointed by the State. It is the presidents sole prerogative now. W had the whole world nodding in unison when it was uttered as being the best the world in the world, it is complete BS.
My condolences to you and every other South African.
What do you think a jury is?
A majority vote by a jury of evil people can inflict severe punishment on an innocent victim. That is why you need a government that is founded on a Constitution that protects the rights of the accused from being punished by a jury of evil people.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
~ Emma Goldman
The Constitution was so lacking that they had to AMEND it with the bill of rights, because people were protesting the lack of rights in the Constitution!
Remember how despite the Constitution, women and non white males had no rights for a long time. How was that possible if the Constitution was so great?
https://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." - Judge Charles Evans Hughes
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ― Benjamin Franklin
The Founders created a Constitution that constrained and limited the powers and authorities of the government. The State ratifying assemblies demanded that the constraints and limits upon the government be more expressly documented in a Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments.
The Founders had the great foresight to realize the Constitution needed a mechanism for amendments so that the Constitution could evolve as society evolved.
How exactly do we get populist amendments when Congress and the judicial is captured by wealthy corrupt people who profit from injustice?
It took many many years to get civil rights.
It took a long long time to recognize native Americans as people.
It took a long long time to abolish slavery.
It took a long time to give women property rights and then the right to vote.
My issue with the Constitution is that it's really the representation of the elites who have access to political systems.
We would be better off without representatives and instead have direct democracy. Why do we still need Congress people to vote on bills etc on our behalf?
THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT
Do you understand how the government actually functions? Do you understand that the people who actually do the research for legislation and actually write the legislation are not elected representatives, but the “shadow government” of the staff of each representative and the staff of experts of each congressional committee. In a Direct Democracy, every citizen of the nation would have to have the knowledge and expertise of every congressional committee.
Committees of the U.S. Congress:
https://www.congress.gov/committees
What Are the Different Types of Congressional Staff?
https://www.americaexplained.org/what-are-the-different-types-of-congressional-staff.htm
Congressional Staff: Duties, Qualifications,
and Skills Identified by Members of Congress
for Selected Positions
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46262
It may have taken many years for the government to have incorporated all the things you list, but what is important is that it eventually got done.
Do you understand the election process?
Very few people have any desire to campaign for an elected office, let alone perform the civic duty of serving on a jury.
Those few people who do run for office need to raise exorbitant amounts of money to fund their campaigns. Obviously wealthier people can afford to donate larger amounts of money to candidates, and naturally they expect a return on their investment. But the candidate still has to convince a majority of the voters to vote for him/her. If an elected candidate fails to represent the interests of their constituents, then the constituents can vote for a different candidate in the next election.
Do you understand what is required of a direct democracy? EVERY citizen would have to take the time to research, understand, and debate the intricacies of every piece of legislation and every regulation that gets proposed. Most people have better things to do with their lives. Also, direct democracy is MOB RULE where the majority does whatever it wants to do, and minorities have no rights or influence on how they are governed and the laws/regulations they must obey.
You are conflating issues and confuse majority of vote with rule of law, being the rule of natural law. Do no harm.
The constitution is a document that is written by those who are already in power and it is so written to keep them in control. Maybe you are unaware that the highest power who made law being parliament itself is corrupted. Suggest you brush up on what that which was voiced in the 1970’s by the Conservative Law Lord Hailsham warning of the perils of the “Party system” that has now permeated almost if not all including the former commonwealth countries that gained independence from the British.
Indeed, as far back as July 1970 he also warned:
"It is the Parliamentary majority which has the potential for tyranny. The thing the Courts cannot protect you against is Parliament –the traditional protector of liberty – but Parliament is constantly making mistakes and could, in theory, become the most oppressive instrument in the world.” He aptly called it an elective dictatorship.
The proposal by Iain is one to get out of this "Party System which in a cabal now controls the system. An organized mafia cartel masquerading as the legitimate government.
I’m not a Brit. I’m a citizen of the USA. As a Brit, you obviously have no understanding of the founding of the USA, nor an understanding of how our Constitutional Federal Republic functions.
My sympathies to you and your fellow Brits for having to endure life under a Parliamentary system that was created to empower the British Imperialist Fascist Oligarchy and to keep the common man “in his place.”
I am not a Brit and have never declared to be one. I know it is a system that is corrupted.
I did not dispute that you are a citizen of the USA either.
I never declared either to be knowledgeable understanding of your constitutional Federal Republic functioning. I seems to me a complete disaster when it was so easily corrupted by the democrats and got an imbecile like Joe Biden elected as the president.
The Anglo-American Establishment has been doing everything it can to abolish the USA as an independent sovereign nation-state and to re-subordinate Americans back under the British Commonwealth ever since the Revolutionary War.
It is a testament to the will and resolve of the American people and the strength and soundness of the US Constitution that the USA still exists today as an independent sovereign nation.
The British Oligarchy’s Fourth War on America
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/the-british-oligarchys-fourth-war?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The Anglo-American Pilgrims Society (1902)
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/the-anglo-american-pilgrims-society?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/how-andrew-jackson-destroyed-the?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Voluntary Democracy requires an animal that possess two simple traits:
Responsibility and Compassion.
No animal on this Planet can be found that has both... Or even one of those!
You are confusing animals with mammals. Animals belong to the kingdom Animalia while mammals belong to the class Mammalia. Human beings fall under Mammalia, however with superiors abilities of reasoning and far superior human characteristics than other mammals
Yes... Uman Thought always had the necessity of creating such moronic divisions just for the sake of its own felling of security.
You might be confused about all these inventions/divisions and so you pretend not to be an animal...
Each uman animal does his thing.
If you imagine Human being is merely 'animal' then you are animal mind, & show lack of gratitude for existence. Dehumanisation agenda is top of list for oppression.
Deumanisation should be INDEED top of the list... Instead we embrace it.
I can only imagine "Human Being" since there is no evidence that such entity exists in Real Life.
(don't worry... the absence of the 'h' is not a typo)
'we' embrace it ?
Is that because you are hive mind, or posh & effected Voza@Odb.
I like that you liink with VOZA Developments a property development company based in the UK. They focus on creating high-quality, affordable housing to address the UK's housing shortage, & 0db is additional intrigue !🙄😀
If you don’t understand the Portuguese Code don’t make stuff up!
Your inventions are funny.
Rejection of what we’re leads to that.
''Rejection of what we’re leads to that.''
Are you suffering brain damage, or mind rot ?
What is this rubbish you type, what do you mean to say?🙄😂🤣😂
You act like utter mental fuk up person.
Are you bored, or malicious to inflict yourself into social arenas?
Portuguese code is espionage flag, 351.
You must UNDER-STAND due to allegiance,
I prefer over-standing.
Here it is obvious you are not healthy, & despise humanity due to some mutilation of spirit or body.
Your mirror is working perfectly...
Portuguese Code (aka language) is what it is...
VOZ <=> VOICE
a <=> at
0 <=> 0 (zero!!!!)
db <=> Decibel
Voice at zero bel
Try to figure out what that means... or not!
Ok, so I've read the whole thing now and I totally stand by my previous comment. You are egregiously misusing the word 'state' when you should be using the word 'establishment' (or 'oligarch-controlled establishment'.
Just because the specific version of 'state' which has been created and maintained by the oligarchs/establishment is bad, doesn't mean all states are bad. The answer lies in history, not political philosophy. The reason why the current 'state' is bad is because a small minority social group (in Britain, originally the Normans in 1066 - i.e. foreign) control it for their own benefit.
And you are wrong about 'statists'. You continually play down or forget the fact they have been deceived. Remove that deception and they no longer support the minority rule of the parasite class. Give them a proper education and there's no way they'd vote for the parasite class. They would only vote for genuinely decent people. Then you'd have a genuinely benevolent state.
There is, in other words, in this long essay no real reference to history or psychology. You're ignoring why the current state is the way it is - which is a feudalist history imposed on the people of Britannia by an invading and occupying force. This 'bad state' didn't happen pre-1066. Unless you can find me a heap of reference documents from pre-1066 talking about how disaffected the population was? Nope, didn't think so. Any peasants' revolt pre-1066? Nope. any oligarchs imposing their wicked ways on communities? Nope. And so on, and so on.
You have also not addressed the effect of 'ideologies' and 'propaganda' with regards to your voluntaryist system. You don't have a mechanism for protecting the people from that. If it's 'implied' in your potential education system, then logically you can have that education system in a state-organised society (which - ironically - would be benevolent).
From a certain point of view, then, you are doing what all reactionaries do and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are taking an example of an obviously malevolent state and projecting that example onto all possible state-systems. You can do this because you fundamentally ignore the (social) history of how the malevolent state came into being, and the (social group) psychological manipulation of how it continues. If the majority of British people were aware that they are being governed by a foreign, occupying force - i.e. a fundamentally different social group - the 'other') who have a racist attitude towards the British people (and a feudalist attitude because they're occupiers) then all these 'statists' as you describe them would no longer tolerate the Establishment. Sheer force of numbers would do the trick.
Then they would 'volunteer' to have a proper state system by the people and for the people. That would be a liberal socialist system for obvious reasons. Attacking 'any' state is also attacking liberal socialism - and that's disingenuous. I have come to the conclusion that a lot of so-called anarchists are in fact cognitive infiltrators, for precisely all these reasons - they are misdirecting people away from a true historical and psychological understanding of why things are the way they are.
Anyway - the other thing is this was such a long essay that one can only do a counterargument in an equally long dissertation, and that's not possible in these comments. Your version of 'money' for example is unworkable. And you don't seem to understand that 'inflation' is a decision made by people. Prices don't put themselves up, people put prices up! And why not have fixed interest rates and a fixed value of the currency? These are far more obvious, simple solutions.
And as for a totally unregulated 'free market' - sorry but that's called neoliberalism. I'm going to stop there because otherwise this will end up winning the record for longest ever comment.
No neoliberalism is about cronyism not free market. and No, "Prices don't put themselves up, people put prices up!" Price is determined by a perception of value without government interference a a free market.
And no again "'inflation' is a decision made by people'" it is a creation by colluding corrupted scammers of government and Banksters (Gangsters).
That's kind of what I was getting at. Ordinarily I would've enlarged on what I said but it was the end of a long comment and tbh I probably should've left it before the economics bit, as to really explain it requires an essay (which I shall do for my stack at some point).
Briefly, though - you say inflation is a 'creation by colluding corrupted scammers of government and banksters' - yes - this is precisely what I meant by 'prices don't put themselves up' - prices are increased by the supply side of the supply-demand equation - which, in a neoliberal oligarchy, is indeed the corrupt bankers and industrialists. i.e. it's them who put prices up, not prices themselves.
A true socialist view on this would say that if the people own the supply then they do not put the prices up.
So here's where we get to the true free market - in a free market, prices are equal to 'costs of production' plus 'reasonable profit margin'. Competition drives prices down until you reach the equilibrium level - where the profit margin can't go any lower without putting the business in serious trouble. Once this initial equilibrium has been reached, innovation happens to reduce the price by lowering the cost of production. So that's 'technical' innovation mainly. Obviously in the neoliberal system, with no protection for workers, wages are the first part of 'costs of production' to be reduced. Again - a socialist system would fix a 'reasonable' minimum (starting) wage, and probably have automatic pay rises each year (plus bonuses for productivity and for being promoted/learning a new specialism/skill set/increased responsibility etc.).
Adam Smith himself warned about 'bad actors' interfering with the free market 250 years ago. He called it 'mercantilism' but today he'd recognise it as 'neoliberalism', which is a perversion of the free market. One of my all-time favourite quotes is this one from Smith: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment or diversion; but when they do, the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public". So very true and sums up today's economic problems in a nutshell.
In a system in which you haven't (yet) eliminated all these bad actors you need to have 'regulation' in order to prevent the bad actors from gaining unfair advantages and gaming the system. In a system devoid of bad actors (i.e. everyone acts in enlightened self-interest and is a mature individual) then that's the point where you don't really need regulation, although you would naturally fix the value of certain resources, including the currency itself.
So, furthermore you would have a fixed value for the currency, which would be determined according to a basket of necessities which are of 'unlimited availability' (defined as potential supply will always exceed potential demand' - thus circumventing the deceitful supply/demand-price curve - it's deceitful because it's a lie, as I've shown in terms of 'costs of production' plus 'reasonable profit margin'). It doesn't matter how many people need a chair to sit on, the price of the chair remains the same - neoliberalism achieves social control by playing musical chairs with the people.
Fixed currency values are also made possible by having a national/publicly owned bank & money supply. If the value of each currency unit is fixed you can create as much of it as you like (for free), plus you don't need a national debt (you don't lend yourself money, after all). Public ownership of the money supply is the most crucial aspect of a liberal socialist system because it's what enables every other aspect of the economy to function properly, whilst fundamentally preventing bad actors from fucking with the system. This is why it's also the policy which the cabal fear the most.
See - it needs a proper essay. Or series of essays. I'll put it on my new year's resolutions list.
Evelyn, this is very good. Over the course of many years I have dealt with these issues in depth and am equally somewhat irritated by Iain D. In particular, I argue that representative democracy would work, but you need to get rid of parties. I have explained how this is now possible, whereas it was not feasible last century, at www.fuzzydemocracy.eu All votes count, none go wasted, you never vote for a second-best candidate.
Electoral democracy is one check & balance among others.
In a proper market people vote with their money.
I have also tackled the issue of money, but this is more intricate.
Iain's three essays are very long, and I felt he was covering much that was obvious while hiding what was contentious. I have poor eyesight and cannot read a lot, or quickly.
I have another website which deals with the issue of character, which is key.
I had a look at your intro - I really like your idea of 'thematic devolution'. One might even say there's a certain genius in that.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that sounds a little like addressing the issue of 'separation of powers'. In which case it's a good point.
However - I would argue a simple point here, contained in the following observation - 'a democracy can only function if the people are fully informed and educated'.
In other words the problem with modern democracy is not one of 'system', but of psychology. Currently, the people are not informed or educated, and so they make bad democratic (voting) decisions. If they were informed and educated, they wouldn't vote for corrupted or corruptible people, they would only vote for decent intelligent people.
I was going to say in which case any system is fine, but now I find myself disagreeing with that. This is the point about the PR2 system - people can vote for more than one, with their second choice counting for half a vote. So everyone gets one and a half votes. Those halves do make a difference in the final count, especially for smaller parties. So no group-think. Most people use their first choice to continue the system, and their second to raise issues.
I think what I shall have to do is read all of your stuff and then maybe get inspired to write a part 3 to my Lizzy 2PR articles. The next one, which I have been meaning to do for ages, was simply about the (parallel world) electoral history, but you have raised some intriguing points.
One of the ironies, though, to give you a little spoiler, is that after the liberal socialist party got into government (in 2003), and simply did benevolent stuff, despite introducing the PR system they still ended up with two-thirds of the vote! (in 2008) This is basic psychology of course - if you have a benevolent government, no one in their right mind votes for change. Eventually, however, you end up with a range of smaller parties (including, interestingly, devolution parties), each of which has something to say regarding the direction of progress, even if they all agree on the basic underlying liberal socialist system.
Anyway - as I say, I'll have a nice read of your stuff in due course and 'to be continued...' Thanks for the link!
I will definitely check out your link in due course. I've also written about this kind of thing quite a lot. Part of my Substack is about a parallel world which is somewhat liberal socialist, with a voting system which looks like this: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/the-lizzy-pr-2-voting-system?r=2s9hod
I need to complete that series of essays actually, which is on my new year's resolutions list.
The other series you might like starts here: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/circe-1-social-psychology-and-the?r=2s9hod
Which is essentially explaining the fact that to understand the globalist cabal you simply need to think of them as a specific social group, whose identity is governed by a racist ideology (racist against everyone who isn't a member of their group). This makes the whole thing so very easy to understand.
I note from a brief look (the texts you refer to are very long!) mention of PR and of random selection. From 2019: http://www.fuzzydemocracy.eu/fzyenglish/PR.html What is wrong with Proportional Representation. I toyed for a long time with the random selection idea and came to definitely reject it. First, with my vastly superior "Fuzzy Democracy" mechanism it is not necessary. Secondly it offends a fundamental principle of electoral democracy, namely that any citizen who wishes (it is not -- not -- an obligation because people are different) should be able to register a choice as precisely as possible without the process becoming onerous (i.e. complicated).
I read your thing about PR. Another irony here about the 2PR system (definitely read it!) is that it directly addresses two of your counter-arguments against PR.
First, in Lizzy 2PR there is no minimum threshold. Furthermore, for every party, once any votes which result in seats have been subtracted, for every .25% they gain a seat on the 'additional list'.
Second, there is a 'none of the above' option. Again, for every .25% of the vote NOTA gets one MP on the additional list, which is a random selection from the population (a bit like jury service - although a person does have the right to say no, in which case simply a new random selection happens). Note also the 'upper house' is one third random selection.
Third, you mentioned political parties and lists and suchlike. The rules for independent candidates go some way to solving that issue. The original PR2 said any indy candidate who gets 3.5% in their constituency gets a seat (again, additional list). This was later reduced to 2.5%. This makes voting for indies worth considering for voters. Especially with their second choice.
It is, in fact, the second choice which constitutes the genius of this system. Psychologically, people do use this second choice to vote for 'themes' (like your 'thematic devolution'). They don't have to compromise. So they will indeed vote for small parties (no min threshold remember, so every vote counts), or for NOTA, or for indies. So you really do end up with a rainbow parliament.
Hmm, I really must write my article on the electoral history of the parallel world. I think you'd love it (and understand it).
The answer to the test is love! Has another astonishing test been prepared for us⁉️ Our species is mocking the forefathers struggle to seek a merciful Heavenly Father/Creator claiming to move us! Better watch out for Jupitor a big challenge could be ready to pop out 🤗
Probably an excellent template for protection of the people from the elites who are only happy exercising arbitrary power and control to the detriment of 99% of people. Just look at the world and deny this.
"law-abiding statists feel comfortable amusing themselves to death while they watch the world burn."
🎯
"Voluntaryists reject political authority. They believe obedience is a failing, not a virtue. "
also 🎯
But all this would have to be regarded very sceptically from the perspective that some criminals like Bill Gates, who no doubt was very obedient and suffered a lot to get into Harvard, and who could bide his time looking like an angel, will be a very special challenge to such an open and forgiving system.
I think it’s possible that to be hinging your diatribe in large part around the definition/application of the word ‘state’ (and the use of certain other words) is to be looking at Iain’s work here egregiously superficially. You hail the pre 1066 life in these islands as being indicative of a good and nice better ‘state’- but now, since then (the Norman invasion), everything’s gone to pot. (And it surely has!)The pre 1066 jurisdiction in these islands (and Western Europe in general) was, as far as I can see, in no small part congruent with much that Iain suggests above. The law of the land - crucially - was upheld and protected by jury trials of peers conducting properly convened courts of conscience - and had been for centuries. The juries tried the facts, the law, as uniquely applicable in each individual case, and in the event of a guilty finding, decided on the sentence. That is the centre-piece of Iain’s basis for, one could say, a common law constitution. You seem perfectly capable of drawing a distinction between then, (pre 1066), and now but only in so far as - you imply - it was a better ‘state’ then without looking beneath the surface in an endeavour to understand WHY that may be the case. WHY that may be the case is because a lot of what Iain’s painstakingly written about here was actually functioning back then. To me that’s an important if not crucial point and far more important than the mis application, as far as you’re concerned, of a word.
This is kind of true, sure. But as I hinted I could write an entire book about all this stuff - a comment alone can't address every aspect.
I'll just suggest the reason 'why' that you asked. The real 'why' is understood by reference to social group psychology. The Anglo-Saxons were united by membership of the same social group - as defined by their ethnicity and their customs and their 'identity'. The old adage 'you don't shit on your own doorstep' springs to mind here. Essentially, human psychology (and indeed any social animal psychology), as an adaptation to life within a homogenous social group (in terms of cultural identity) is such that it is an instinctive, hard-wired behavioural trait to treat other members of your own social group 'as you would be done by'.
This insight is what really explains the way the world is right now - the so-called 'cabal' are their own social group with their own, distinct identity - and, indeed, ideology. That ideology is obviously utterly racist (towards every other group) and feudalist/fascist in the sense of viewing every 'other' as inferior and only good for being slaves/serfs, which is why people are measured by the cabal as 'units of economic productivity' (hence 'useless eaters'). In other words, the malevolence of the modern state is a product of history, which has been largely written by this cabal - prior to the cabal gaining power, humanity lived in harmony with each other and nature. And that understanding of history is vital to understanding the world as it is today.
Britannia is a microcosm of this socio-historical fact. In 1066 we were invaded by a foreign - i.e. different - social group with a different ideology and identity. That identity is remarkably similar to that of the cabal of course. Since then, the native population of Britain has been treated like serfs by the 'other' occupying force, which is racist towards anyone not of their own group (and of course they trick the British people with 'nationalism' into thinking the Establishment are also 'British' and the same social group). Today, 'membership' of the ruling group isn't necessarily determined by ethnicity or genetic (Norman) origin - it's determined by 'identity'.
It is thus obvious that the 'state' system which a racist cabal would come up with would be feudalist, and the means to maintain it would be propaganda and lies and conditioning and so on. A state which however has solely been created by and for members of the same social group will be benevolent, precisely because of human psychology with regards to how you treat members of your own social group.
Interestingly, this is where the social cognition number (Dunbar's number) comes in, because it effectively sets a mathematical limit on the size of a social group, which is the square of the social cognition number (beyond which you have multiple degrees of separation and you can't know everyone, and all your 1st degree connections also can't know everyone, so you have 'strangers' and 'others'). For humans this is 22,500. Which I would say is the ideal size for a sophisticated human community. Beyond this, you need a 'state' simply in order to ensure harmony and peace between all these communities. You would also need some kind of mechanism to create and maintain a 'shared cultural identity'.
Also interestingly, I think we'd find that the vast majority of communities/towns in pre-1066 Britain were indeed fewer than 22,500.
Anyway, I've written a series about social psychology and the cabal. Part I is here: https://inadifferentplace.substack.com/p/circe-1-social-psychology-and-the?r=2s9hod
Evelyn, thanks so much for the time and effort you’ve put into your response. I’ll try and digest it fully and if I have anything that may deemed useful to say respond later. In the meantime I’ll read your linked article.
Take care.
Test
"Most statists blithely facilitate evil without once considering the horrors they are all individually responsible for."
In my opinion Iain, an example of this is surrendering their consent to the PTB, by playing the "Party Political Game" and the idea that they have the right to surrender others consent without giving a damn, and ignore the fact that they never had rights this consent ever anyway.
I point it out like this to these statists.
Firstly of, no one has the right to give anyone else, something they themselves don’t already own. Understand this. You cannot grant or bestow something, such as an academic degree or a right, onto or upon someone, that does not belong to you in the first place.
Therefore, we cannot bestow upon government that which we do not possess.
Do you have a special set of powers that gives you the right to control others?
"I contend, therefore, that statism is a mental disorder. Statism must be rejected. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by constructing a Voluntary Democracy."
So, I fully agree with you.
digital id next cristmas. to make things easy. but who can /cant get it. bio metric juraproject cbdc love to pay but covid bankruptrd me. weel my bank did