Let’s talk about that sacred cow, democracy. It’s difficult to imagine how something so lauded by the ‘west’ isn’t commonplace. If something is so good, as clearly democracy must be as it appears everywhere in defence of practically everything, then how come the whole of the Earth has yet to adopt it.
Whenever considering something that is being proposed, if something is truly good for you, then you really don’t need to ask, let alone use force, the natural position is that rational people adopt the good and discard the bad. True power rests after all in each of us individually and in our ability to persuade. And by persuasion, I do not employ the use of arms, merely intellect in combination with evidence and fact.
Now if Plato was concerned enough by what he perceived to be an inevitable march of democracy along the road to tyranny, then surely that alone is reason enough for us to consider democracy critically, absent the dog whistle of current western rhetoric.
So to critique democracy at its heart you only need to ask yourself one simple question.
“Can anyone tell me what to do?”
I would hope that that question brings forth a resounding “No” as until you can get a hold of God and get him in the room, then no one can produce any evidence to support a claim to being an authority over anyone else (parent/child relationship excepted).
And here’s the rub, for if you agree that I cannot tell you what to do then rationally how is it that 51 people are then able to tell 49 people what to do, or for that matter, 650 odd may tell 70 million odd. Simply put, they can’t.
It is simply not rational to accept the premise that no one person may tell another person what they may or may not do and then by numerical extension, agree that they now magically can. Is it not long past time to have this conversation, openly, frankly? Seriously, what is there to fear from openly debating the best way in which we should agree to govern ourselves? After all, no less a mind than Margaret Thatcher declared that there was no such thing as society, and I am inclined to agree with her if we, as a society, are unable to rationally determine how best to co-exist, or are we content to persist with mob-rule, is that seriously it! I mean, it’s really delivering benefit for us all now, isn’t it?
So let’s be done with it. It’s a failed experiment and no amount of hedging is going to fix it, band aids on bad ideas don’t solve a thing.
Ctrl-Alt-Delete.
And why should we not perform a re-boot, reset back to our factory settings, I mean it’s all there, waiting for us, the people, to re-assert our primary Operating System.
And our OS isn’t democratic! In fact, it isn’t anything, it doesn’t tell us the right way and it certainly doesn’t mention any democratic divinity to whom we should all supplicate. As if God, voted.
So what is the operating software of our society and how is it meant to work. Those of you who have consumed the prior articles should already know all about the great reset of 1688, when we took it upon ourselves to rip up the book. We then installed the OS that persists to this day and, by extension of being correct, forevermore. Equally, you likely already appreciate that the current manifestation of the OS is simply user error, the operators have almost perfectly mis-understood how it is supposed to work and made a bloody great mess in the process. So, let’s correct the mistakes.
First and foremost, we need to fix Law. And by that I don’t mean Law itself but our equal access to it, it’s our birth right after all and we’ve simply never managed to get this, the singularly most important aspect of the whole build, right. Without our having equal benefit of law, by which all the other much needed corrections, such that we operate in accordance with the constitution, are unlikely to ever occur.
That we are free to explore this universe in our allotted time, in any manner we choose save that which causes another harm is the purpose of life. Do what you want! However, much to the frustration of this perfectly reasonable position is the simple truth that there happen to be other people banging about doing exactly the same thing and two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time (with thanks to Lauryn Hill). And it is Law which we submit ourselves to in order to remedy our harmful interactions, after all, no man is an island and we simply want to go about our business, unimpeded. That there are so many barriers to the one thing that restores the peace is insane. When a harm is caused, we must be able to freely seek remedy. It is the self-correcting mechanism, if we know that we will always be held accountable for our actions, then we are naturally much more careful in ensuring that we are not causing a harm.
Now consider this position in light of government. Government is for our benefit, they may not cause harm, as any other arrangement is insane, and the people are their master. This is the clear constitutional position, the great reset, when we threw out the nonsense and established sensible governance. Now, in order to ensure that this is enforced then the people must have an unobstructed path to use law to remedy any and all injustice that comes about as a consequence of the actions of government or indeed anyone for that matter. The master has to be able to correct the servant and it is this that has never been correctly established and largely explains how it is that we’ve gotten in the mess that we have.
The rest is by the by. We just so happened to determine 300 plus years back that we would continue to have a monarch but one who was now equal to their subjects, we did away with the divine right. HM is Government, the devolved functions are performed by HM’s ministers, they administer. Government is solely instituted by us for our benefit and cannot cause harm to anyone. And we instituted parliament to oversee HM’s behaviour and we send our independent MPs to that place to see that HM serves purpose, to benefit us and nothing else. And when it all doesn’t work, exactly how it should, we the people, have equal benefit of Law. To remedy.
Now, it’s evidentially clear that our present arrangements are wholly unconstitutional and consequently, void. The question is, when having already constituted a perfectly rational system, are we the people going to demand, as its master, that it perfectly functions.