The word “democracy” (demokratia) derives from “demos” (people) and “kratos” (power). Literally translated, it means “people power.” It is the best model of governance ever devised. So, it is a shame that no one alive on Earth lives in a democracy.
Sadly, most people don’t know what democracy is. As a result, they can be deceived into believing that so-called “representative democracy” is democracy. The electorate are told that representative democracy enables them to exercise “democratic oversight” and that this has something to do with democracy. What a deception—and perhaps a deliberate one.
Not only is representative democracy anti-democratic, its precepts are ignored by governments anyway. Indeed, there is no democracy to be found in any nation. Governments, based upon the idea that representatives are empowered to make laws, are not democracies.
In this article we will discuss the problems inherent in representative democracy and explore what could be the best possible remedy: real democracy.
The Death of Representative Democracy
Democracy has nothing to do with voting to elect representatives. The reason citizens do not need to be represented by politicians is that in a democracy the people make all political decisions themselves.
Many national governments pretend to value democratic principles. They often assert the right to defend democracy in their country or to promote democracy in other countries. None of the governments that make such claims are democratic. Their pretensions often result in war.
As mentioned above, no nation-state currently practices democracy, but many of them foist representative democracy on their citizens. In a democracy, the people are the government. They protect themselves from their own potential errors and excesses through the checks and balances built into the rule of law, which is determined solely by the people.
In a representative democracy, on the other hand, the government claims the authority to “govern” the people and forms an autocratic state for that purpose. So-called representative government “allows” the populace to select their political leaders once every four or five years.
In the years between elections, these “representatives,” few in number, exercise the executive power to rule over everyone else. This form of government is called an oligarchy, and it is the antithesis of a democracy.
Nonetheless, the people have been “educated” to believe that an oligarchy is a democracy and have become attached to this system. They believe the oligarchy, which they call their “representative government,” honours some foundational principles that are in and of themselves worthy. These principles are often referred to as democratic ideals.
Democratic ideals have been shaped over thousands of years by political leaders, reformists and philosophers. British sociologist T. H. Marshall described democratic ideals in his 1949 essay Citizenship and Social Class. He called them a functioning system of rights. Even though democratic ideals are far from an adequate substitute for democracy, Marshall recognized that they offer a representative democracy’s citizens at least some protection from the whims of the oligarchy whom they’re permitted to elect.
Democratic ideals embrace certain rights—the right to freedom of thought and expression, including speech and peaceful protest, and the right to equal justice and equal opportunity under the law. Apparently these rights are essential and inalienable, for without them representative democracy cannot function.
Oligarchs govern with the aim of protecting and promoting the interests of the establishment. They are put in high political positions to ensure that a nation-state is ruled, from behind the scenes, by the wealthiest individuals and families, the multinational corporations they own, the non-governmental organisations they fund and the banks they control.
Members of the establishment achieve their ends by using their wealth to lobby and corrupt politicians, political parties and the political processes that collectively constitute so-called government. They also form partnerships with this thing called “government.” Through government, public-private partnerships afford members of the establishment direct access to executive power while denying it to everyone else.
Although a representative democracy has supposedly even-handed judges and justices, their decisions often do not reflect good judgement or actual justice for the common man or woman. True, not all judges are corrupt, but a defendant generally needs a lot of money to win a case—proof that the primary purpose of the judicial system in a representative democracy is to protect the authority of the establishment.
Often the people are the victims of court rulings. Jury trials are permitted to a limited extent, but the judge controls and interferes in the process by “instructing” the jurors. Members of the establishment can “appoint” the right judge to the right case and use the courts to persecute citizens, thus warning others not to threaten their authority or interests.
Although a representative democracy has lawmakers, its “rule of law” does not apply to all equally. “Lex iniusta non est lex” (an unjust law is not a law) is supposedly a foundational principle of all of these “legal systems.” Therefore, the alleged rule of law operated by governments cannot be considered to be any law at all.
While some protests are allowed, even encouraged, by representative governments, other protests are not only considered unacceptable but are even attacked by the establishment’s media and suppressed by their “partners” in government. Moreover, representative governments use the venal courts to unlawfully imprison protestors. Procured politicians have also been known to make up powers in order to unlawfully seize protestors’ assets.
Representative governments couldn’t care less about freedom of speech. If a media outlet doesn’t report the authorised news, it is banned or censored in some other way, including having its broadcast license removed. Representative governments routinely work with their establishment partners to actively suppress free speech.
The UK Parliament notes that, for its system of representative democracy to exist, certain liberties have to be maintained:
Freedom of association and freedom of expression are fiercely protected rights. We rightly expect people to be able to say things which challenge or even shock, and to be able to organise, campaign and lobby. Democracy [read: representative democracy] would not function without these rights.
Such language presents advocates of representative democracies with a quandary, because the very oligarchs they have elected and are defending don’t actually respect any of these liberties or alleged rights. Thus, absent any attempt to maintain democratic ideals, representative democracy is, by its own definition, an impossibility.
We need a solution, and democracy offers one.
Inalienable Rights vs Human Rights
Democracy is based upon inalienable rights, not on the political construct of “human rights” which representative democracies claim to bestow upon their citizens. Inalienable rights are “qualified” by nothing other than Natural Law. They are not granted by government.
Inalienable rights are self-limiting, since they require every human being to observe, honour and protect—and never infringe—the inalienable rights of all other human beings. They precede genuine democracy instead of arising from it. Governance exists only by virtue of the people exercising their inalienable rights.
The UK oligarchy itself explains why the aberration of representative democracy doesn’t remotely resemble democracy:
Conversely, democracy [read: representative democracy], along with the rule of law, itself is a precondition for functioning human rights. Few rights are absolute; many are limited or qualified. Sometimes a given context will require different rights to be balanced against one another.
This description is an inversion of the true nature of rights. Inalienable rights are shared equally by all, without exception. No one can add rights or have more rights than another, neither can anyone subtract rights or have fewer rights than another.
No human being has the prerogative to define or to “qualify” the rights of another human being, even if they claim that their so-called “law” allows it. Defining and limiting rights is not a function of democratic governance. It is merely an unjustified claim of right made by authoritarian representative governments. In reality, additional rights do not exist. The belief that they do is a monstrous deceit.
By claiming the non-existent right to create or limit “functioning human rights,” representative oligarchies assume the authority to permit or deny said “rights.” One could say, then, that human rights are not rights but rather government permits.
Representative democracies like the UK parliament assert that they are “sovereign.” They want their constituents to believe that they possess yet another additional—albeit impossible—right to be the supreme legal authority. This is an anti-democratic power grab based upon yet another lie. No, the institutions of government are not sovereign in a democracy; the people are sovereign.
We don’t have to put up with the tyranny of representative democracies or the governments that operate them. There is a better political system called democracy. Let’s explore the latter in more depth.
What Is Democracy?
If Solon (c. 630–560 BCE) can be credited with creating the first republic then it is he who can be seen as the father of so-called representative democracy. Solon’s reforms enabled the people to influence their leaders and codified the system of law. However, this was not “democracy.”
Democracy is a political system first and formally established in ancient Greece by Cleisthenes (c. 570–500 BCE). Following the overthrow of the last tyrant of Athens (Hippias) in c. 508 BCE, Cleisthenes led the political and legal reforms that created the Hellenic Athenian Constitution.
Cleisthenes introduced “sortition,” which was the random selection of citizens whose names were drawn by lot. Under his reforms, the Boule proposed legislation (statute law), and the Ecclesia (assembly) would then debate the proposed laws and vote on their implementation. The citizen members of the Boule and the Ecclesia were selected by sortition.
Once their work was done, the Boule and the Ecclesia were disbanded. The people would return to their everyday lives. The next time the Boule and the Ecclesia were needed, sortition would again be used and a different group of people selected.
Sortition was also used to form the juries, whose citizen members sat in the Dikasteria (courts). The jury in the Dikasteria represented the highest law in the land. It could overturn the enactments of the Ecclesia. This political system enabled the people to create legislation (statute law) as well as law derived from precedent (case law).
Ancient Greece wasn’t an egalitarian society in the modern sense. For instance, full citizenship was restricted to non-slave male Athenian landowners. These citizens, selected through sortition, regularly attended the Ecclesia (assembly) on the mount at Phynx. This marketplace of ideas and other civil activities was called the Agora.
Proposed statute law (bills) would be presented to the Ecclesia by the Boule. The gathered assembly (Ecclesia) would then vote to either pass or reject proposed bills or suggest amendments. If an amendment were suggested, the bill would be passed back to the Boule for further deliberation.
Crucially, Cleisthenes empowered the Dikasteria (the law courts) to overrule (annul) any law that was found in a trial by jury to be unjust. There were no judges. Magistrates were merely administrators for the court. If the defendant was found guilty, both the judgement (ruling) and the nature of the punishment (sentence) were decided by the citizen jurors.
If the full application of the law (including legislation) did not serve justice, the jury could annul it. The defendant may have technically contravened the law but could still be found not guilty if the jury believed the defendant had acted honourably, without any intent to cause harm or loss (mens rea).
In such a circumstance, it was the law, not the accused, that would be found at fault. Any faulty legislation would be wiped from the statute scrolls, and the Boule would have to amend or abolish the law in light of the Dikasteria’s ruling.
Aristotle would later describe the Athenian Constitution. Unfortunately, when the partial record of Aristotle’s writings was discovered in 1870, his explanation of many of Cleisthenes’ most crucial reforms was missing.
Justice James Wilson, one of the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution, noted the true purpose of the Athenian Constitution:
In Athens the citizens were all equally admitted to vote in the public assembly, and in the courts of justice, whether civil or criminal. [. . .] It [the jury] was favourable to liberty because it could not be influenced by intrigues. In every particular cause the jurors were chosen and sworn anew [. . .] No one might mix with them, or corrupt them, or influence their decisions. [. . .] They were an important body of men, vested with great powers, patrons of liberty, enemies to tyranny.
Wilson added an account of how this system empowered the citizenry. Each citizen, he wrote, had an equal share of political power, for each was vested with . . .
[. . .] Judicial authority[,] as Jurors in Trial by Jury[,] in which laws and measures passed by legislatorial majorities in the assembly could be judged, overruled and annulled whenever this was deemed by the Jurors necessary to serve justice, liberty, and the interests of the people. [. . .] The Jury must do their duty and their whole duty: they must decide the law as well as the fact.
Cleisthenes created a system of governance in which the rule of law was created by a sortition of the people. A separate sortition of citizens would then apply the law through the mechanism of trial by jury.
The randomly selected jury of the people was the supreme law of the land. The people were sovereign. This political system, governance by trial by jury, was called demokratia (democracy).
The Implications of a Modern Democracy
What would our system of governance be like if we practised real democracy? Let’s consider the implications.
As democracy ensures that a governance is conducted by the citizenry, it naturally serves the will of all citizens. Through the system of sortition, citizens chosen at random are briefly given some legislative authority. Then they make way for the next round of sortition. All new legislation is tested in trials by jury. If found wanting, any law can be annulled by a sortition of the people.
As a result, no “government” has authority over the people. There is no institution with the ability to rule unjustly. Governance is merely the apparatus through which the people administer their affairs and address any issues that may arise. Democracy is the rule of law without rulers.
Citizens who live in a democracy cannot devolve their responsibility for decision-making to someone else. Each citizen is equally responsible for every decision made and for the conduct of society as a whole. Democracy is truly governance of the people, by the people and for the people. It redefines what we mean by the word “government.”
Officers of the law, such as police, magistrates and other administrators, are employed by the people to implement and serve the will of the people. The will of the people is constantly tested and, where circumstances dictate, it adapts.
A democratic society requires the active and constant participation of each and every citizen. Any citizen can, at any moment, be called up to take his or her place in the Boule, in the Ecclesia or in a jury in the Dikasteria. Citizens are perpetually engaged in the process of governance, both at the national and the local level. All citizens in a democracy have a duty to remain informed and to actively pursue justice.
Consequently, in a democracy the primary objective of education is to develop critical thinking skills. Democracy demands that every adult citizen—today’s citizens include women and are not necessarily landowners—be ready to swear their solemn oath to protect and serve justice. All democratic people must prepare themselves to practice the rule of law.
Because democracy places a duty upon all citizens to be critical thinkers who are able to understand potentially complex issues, examine evidence and act judiciously, propaganda spun by the news media is largely non-existent. There simply isn’t a market for it.
Granted, some citizens in a democracy would still band together to form interest groups and attempt to influence public opinion through propaganda, but the majority of people, schooled in critical thinking, wouldn’t be easily fooled by such deceptions. Sortition greatly reduces the likelihood of propaganda swaying political decisions.
Delivering justice is the primary function of a democratic society. This requires an extensive court system (Dikasterias). The Dikasteria network must be funded in such a way that access to justice is free to all at their point of need. Otherwise, wealth would still dictate access to justice.
Purchased justice is not justice. As unequal justice cannot exist in a democracy, voluntary arrangements to fund the Dikesteria would need to afford justice to those who lacked the means. Perhaps some form of means test could be required to access funds provided through voluntary insurance coverage. Boules and Ecclesia could be funded in the same way.
Democracy decentralises power to the individual. It also necessitates that the institutions of governance (government) are decentralised. No one court (Dikasteria) has primacy. A ruling made in a county or town to annul national legislation carries the same authority as a decision made in the national capital.
In order to operate democracy on a large scale, enabling it to serve a population of many millions, a national Boule, Ecclesia and Dikasteria might be set up to enact primary legislation that shapes the rule of law. The decentralised authority of each local Boule, Ecclesia and Dikasteria would work within this nationwide legislative framework.
Each local Boule and Ecclesia would be free to create local laws that meet local needs, providing that their legislation doesn’t contravene the rule of law. Similarly, these local decisions would be constantly checked and verified by the local Dikasteria. A local decision to annul may affect only local legislation, compelling the local Boule to reconsider its proposal before presenting it anew to the local Ecclesia.
In such a system, the overarching rule of law must be just—fair and applied equally to all. Without justice, it would be virtually impossible for the national Boule or Ecclesia to function.
Primary legislation must be acceptable to all citizens, no matter their social status. Thus, the legislative framework at the national level would have to be confined to defining principles of law rather than creating specific acts that regulate the entire population. Both the scope and scale of legislation and regulation is necessarily limited in governance administered in a democracy compared to a “representative democracy” or any other form of “government.”
Through the Dikasteria, the question of guilt or innocence is the only determinant of justice. Guilt is found only if the crime violates the principles of Natural Law. Did the accused act with the intention of causing harm or loss? Or was the accused guilty of negligence, thus causing harm or loss? The ruling on a case must not contravene Natural Law. If it does, it will be subsequently annulled on appeal.
In a democracy all citizens possess immutable, inalienable rights from birth. They are free to exercise those inalienable rights in an honourable way—in harmony with Natural Law. Should they cause harm or loss, thereby infringing another citizen’s inalienable rights, they would be subject to judgement in the Dikasteria.
The use of sortition (the random selection of citizens) and the temporary nature of each citizen’s decision-making power ensure that no political factions can be formed. No alliance, no seeking to advance personal interests, can influence governance in a democracy.
In any event, there would be no point in trying to do so. Unjust legislation and legal precedent, subsequently judged to have failed to deliver justice, would be annulled through the supreme rule of law, exercised by juries in the Dikasterias across the land.
Politicians and political parties would serve no purpose in a democracy. No one person or party leads a truly democratic system of governance. Democratic decisions cannot be ordered or controlled by any power base.
A democracy doesn’t prohibit citizens from campaigning for change. On the contrary, people are free to petition their local or national Boule. A democratic society is shaped by new ideas and responds to crises as required.
Despite the absence of politicians, people in a democracy might still choose to follow leading campaigners, skilled orators or knowledgeable leaders. What they cannot do is exploit any collective power their association might afford them or succeed in any attempt to coerce or corrupt the legislative process. Sortition precludes the possibility.
Democracy eradicates political power. It would be practically incorruptible.
Democratic Regulation
Secondary legislation, meaning the delegation of political authority to individuals empowered by primary legislation, is an impossibility in a democracy. There is no such thing as democratic executive power.
All are equal under the rule of law, and no individual, group or organisation can be imbued with rights that do not exist. That includes any claimed right to make autocratic regulations.
This does not mean that regulations cannot operate in a democracy. The Ecclesia may, for example, pass regulation on food or drug safety standards. This protects the health of the citizens and is congruent with Natural Law. The democratic rule of law dictates that these regulations must not infringe anyone’s inalienable rights nor cause any harm or loss.
If any regulation unfairly disadvantages some producers and manufacturers while handing a market advantage to others, such a disparity could cause potential harm or loss. Those impacted would be free to bring a case to the Dikasteria, who would then rule on the justice of the regulation.
In any given democracy, it is up to the people to decide how to strike the proper balance. The commercial interests of farmers, retailers and pharmaceutical corporations, for instance, are judged against the need to uphold all peoples’ inalienable right to live healthy lives. Ultimately, this may disadvantage the commercial interests of some, but no one has the inalienable right make a profit by poisoning others.
In a democracy, market regulation can never unjustly cause harm or loss to some simply to protect the interests to others. Any such regulation would swiftly be dispatched in a Dikasteria.
Democracy lends itself well to the operation of a genuinely free market—something that, like democracy, does not currently exist. Free markets produce order without design.
This free market would extend to all aspects of society including the offices of the law. We might envisage security services competing for local policing markets, magistrate companies tendering to provide administration services to the Dikesteria market, and so on.
There is no inalienable right to prosper in a free market. Some will be more successful than others. For example, a policing service that engaged in corruption or racism would soon lose its contract and be replaced by a preferable service provider. Competition between security and other services would increase accountability and improve standards.
Democracy does not stop individuals from accruing wealth, nor does it remove the risk of falling into poverty. However, democracy excludes the possibility that wealth can influence justice or the decisions of a government.
The current imposition of representative oligarchy enables the wealthy and the powerful to influence legislation and regulations to protect their interests and limit the market access of others. In a democracy they would not be able to do this.
Regulations governing markets are minimal in a democracy. No groups can be formed to act as regulators and to potentially build cosy relationships with corporations. Instead, regulations in a democratic society would be made through one process only: the people administering the rule of law.
Democracy allows an authentic free market to blossom and enables innovation to flourish. In such a system, there is no centralised control of industries—healthcare, engineering, technology, agriculture—or of science or of academia. Orthodoxy would become a thing of the past, but the pursuit of knowledge would flourish.
Democracy wouldn’t necessarily prevent a corporation from being formed as a sole person in law. However, that is precisely how a corporation would be treated—as an individual entity, with no more or no fewer rights than any other individual human being.
Incorporation would not afford a company any additional inalienable rights. Thus, neither money nor connections could skew justice or influence a government. There would be no politician or regulator to connect to, so there would be no one to corrupt!
Indeed, corrupt legislation or regulation cannot survive in a democracy. For example, if the Ecclesia passed a law that effectively banned physicians or scientists from researching cancer treatments simply to protect the profits of pharmaceutical corporations, such a “law” would certainly be annulled in innumerable Dikasteria.
Providing equal access to justice is the core objective of a real “democratic system of governance.” It is antithetical to the corruption of “government.”
Consequently, there is no financial nor “legal” impediment for any individual citizen to bring a case against a corporate “person.” One human being, standing before the jury in the Dikasteria, would have exactly the same access to justice as any wealthy corporate “person.” Expensive lawyers could not win cases using technical aspects of “the law.” The sole concern of the jury would be to deliver justice based upon the principles of Natural Law.
Conclusion?
We are faced with a choice. It is clear that representative democracy does not serve the people. On the contrary, it is an oligarchical system that oppresses the people. Even by the tenets of their own authoritarian doctrine, so-called representative governments no longer practice what they preach, if they ever did. Representative democracy, as the majority of us understand it, is most assuredly dead.
So, what are we going to replace it with?
It is obvious what the globalist oligarchs wish to transition us into. They envisage a system of global governance operating as a technocracy, powered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a Great Reset, Central Bank Digital Currency, and other centralised, digital methods for controlling the masses. Put another way, the oligarchy of today is openly and swiftly moving towards extreme neo-feudalism with the express intention of enslaving humanity.
We must oppose this technocratic nightmare through mass noncompliance. Moreover, we must individually take action every day to move ourselves towards decentralisation and freedom and away from centralised tyranny. But there is little point in opposing one political system or another if we have nothing better to offer in its stead.
If we wish to resist feudalism and slavery, then, we have to stand for something that defeats feudalism and slavery. Why not Natural Law and the rule of law through trial by jury?
Why not democracy?
DEMOCRACY IS DEAD! LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Thanks Iain, this article is a breath of fresh air. It is a timely reminder that there is another way of organizing society but it requires our active participation. This subject needs to be at the forefront of public discourse.
Thanks Freecus. Yep, that was the point. I’m not pretending to have any “answers” but we do, as you say, at least need to start the conversation.
One curiosity of our “democracy” is that we keep hearing about a persecuted minority who must be heard – after which this minority is grotesquely OVER-represented. Which is handy since, when you consider it, the ruling class are precisely such a minority.
True. We are already seeing a conflation between alleged antisemitism and questioning the globalist so-called “elite.” The propaganda intention is clear. Should criticism of this social group continue, hate speech and other censorship laws will be used to silence any debate.
Good sound article. The answer is simple – you state it yourself – namely peaceable non-compliance by a critical mass. The solution not so simple since we all contain fear to a greater or lesser extent. For sure the critical mass has to be achieved through education and we can all do this on an everyday basis even one to one.
Thanks Mjhjava
Hey Ian,
Great article.
From my point of view, even the most ideal democracy still leaves a substantial attack surface for corruption and coercion. Every legislative body, even when selected by choice, will be susceptible to some type of coercion from the outside.
I think that there is no need to build any such institutions if you build your society based on natural law and private property. Private property laws are simple and do not require additional regulation. All cooperation is voluntary and bad actors are ostracized relatively quickly.
Anyhow. What do you think?
I agree. If we could rid ourselves of the concept of authority and live in harmony with Natural Law, including repect for property rights, there is no need for government at all. However, I have offered this article because I understand that is a leap too far for most statists. There are better “legislative” options (democracy) if they feel more comnfortable with that.
Great article superbly written. I’m not well learned on this subject, but you’ve put words and explanation of what I have been sensing since my youth. I have read a few years ago a book from Barbara max Hubbard where she exposed such a system with circle of citizens.
Thank you for the energy you’ve put in this article.
My pleasure Patricia. Many thanks
1 Adults critique self. Do we? ‘Blame culture’?
Fast-buck instant-gratification?
As ancient Greece had slaves and viewed women as possessions, democracy per se doesn’t resist slavery or abuse.
Were women and slaves then as defiant as I’m now, WEFetal the free men?
As seem more over-bearing, over-ruling parasitic ‘oligarchs’ on every ‘rung’ than otherwise, random selection might select more bossy, ‘little hitler’ types.
To find anyone who’ll be responsible for doing anything, have to trawl through “can’t because of a coronavirus, Ukraine, wrong sort of snow…”.
2 Being responsible requires ability to think over-and-above feelings.
For decades, over-indulged and under-disciplined children, promoted emotions and demoted out-thinking feelings; inhibiting development of ability to think.
Results: –
Ruled by emotion, dedicated followers-of-fashion led to enslavement and hero-worship.
Self does whatever self wants but woe betide any who do same to self.
If it feels right it’s right, if it doesn’t it’s wrong, if get what want that’s right, if don’t that’s wrong.
3 It’s all pre-historically programmed auto-pilot; no thought, therefore no self-control, self-restraint or self-discipline thus, unlimited greed, crime, murder.
Many comply with letter of Law while violating essence of Law by not considering specific situation. But essence should be prime consideration; cause no harm.
Unforeseen off-plan happens before Law or regulation for guidance; leaving ethical or natural law as guide. Any can do team-lead while on-plan, leadership ability tested moment things go off-plan; 99% fail – know no guide.
4 Perhaps solution is to grow-up but, how many now know how?
Need years learning and practising self-control; before that, brutality of anarchy or totalitarian brutality only capabilities.
Freedom from imposed control is lethal to self and others unless freedom is self-disciplined.
Responsibility safe-guards freedom but few are capable; parented and schooled for decades to not think.
American Founders Quotes On Democracy
Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.
Republic: A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.
“We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
~ John Adams
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
~ James Madison
“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
~ John Quincy Adams
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
“Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.” ~ James Madison
“That the desires of the majority of the people (in a democracy) are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.”
~ John Adams
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that through the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”
~ John Witherspoon
“We may define a republic to be – a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
~ James Madison
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
“Democracy is the road to socialism.”
~ John Marshall
~ Karl Marx
Thanks William. Very useful and though provoking quotes.
Use any internet search engine to lookup “American Founders Quotes on Democracy” and you will quickly see how misinformed you are on the merits of Democracy as the best model for government.
Recommend you retract this article ASAP and restore your website’s integrity as a place to be recommended for people to go to for educated, intelligent, and knowledgeable sources for info.
Thanks William. No. I won’t remove the article. I stand by the article and, from your comments, I am not sure you have read it.
Hi Iain, good article, I follow a lot of your writings (can’t read everything, there’s a LOT of good stuff out there!! I’m sure you realise) and agree with most of what you write. But I have one problem here, as I have with a number of other writers, libertarians generally (who I also agree with generally but have some problems) – the problem is the idea of ‘inalienable rights’ – I think that is just a non-started, clearly demonstrable by the fact that ‘rights’ of any kind are transgressed by any authority, or just any a**hole with a big stick and attitude any time they feel like it. It is, to quote the old saying, a jungle out there, and the only ‘inalienable’ right we have is the ‘right’ to fight to survive. We are free, of course, to gather together in societies of any kind and agree among ourselves we have certain ‘rights’ and, usually, obligations, and establish some ‘legal authority’ to try to defend those ‘rights’ – but again, as soon as some gang of a**holes with big sticks etc come along, they, if they win the ensuing battle, can just trash all those ‘rights’ and make them very alienable. I very much agree we should band together and establish ‘rights’ in our community, but thinking they are ‘inalienable’ is just childish wishful thinking, IMO. You get what you fight for, and keep it the same way. There’s no ‘higher power’ going to step in when some bigger force decides to alienate whatever you thought you had. (do a lot of writing on my own on the idea of ‘democracy’, which has been well alienated from those who thought they had it, you can have a read at the website in my ID below if you have time and/or interest – otherwise, keep up the very good work you are doing.)
Thanks Dave. Will do. Whether or not people trash others rights, that doesn’t remove them, it just ignores them. You are right, anyone with a big stick can crush anyone they are capable of crushing and that makes inalienable right a moot point in such circumstances. I am not religious but it is indisputable that Natural Law must logically precede any form of human “written” law or any concept of “human rights.” Without Natural Law we would have no concept of property and thus no concept of theft. What is mine and what is yours existed “in law” long before any “written law” existed. Of course, that did not stop the biggest caveman taking all the food for himself but, nonetheless, it conteravened Natural law and almost certainly wouldn’t have endeared the tyrant to the other cavemen and cavewomen. Natural Law defines the way that living creatures live together, within it individual acts that are “right” in Natural Law are “inalienable rights.” That is, we are born with the right to do all that is right precisely because those acts do not contravene Natural Law. All behaviour that is wrong is not a right. Hope that makes sense. Lysander Spooner is a good person to read on Natural Law.
This article is wrong in so many ways that I couldn’t respond in the limited space you have allocated for Replies.
First of all, your definitions are all incorrect.
“Representative Democracy” and “Representative Oligarchy” are both oxymorons.
When the Founders of the USA were debating what form of government to institute they all (except maybe Wilson?) were adamantly opposed to a DEMOCRACY!
Democracy has never ever succeeded and thrived anywhere at anytime throughout human history.
Democracy may have had a shot at arising in Athens, but that’s because Athens was a small low-population city-state, and yet Democracy still failed to succeed and thrive.
The Founders of the USA settled on the best form of government: a Constitutional Federal Republic with a Bill of Rights that protect the rights of “minority” factions from “majority” mob rule, and an appellate court system to protect the rights of citizens.
A Democracy requires that each and every citizen actively participate in ALL functions of government at ALL times.
In a nation of 300 million people spread out over thousands of miles, occupying diverse landscapes of mega-cities, suburbs, towns, country, farms, mountains, deserts, it would be impossible and impracticable for everyone to know everything required to make an intelligent and informed decision on all aspects of all legislative processes covering all citizens of the nation.
This is why a “representative” government is both necessary and desirable. Citizens need to perform their jobs, support their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. They cannot live their lives and participate full-time in administering the government. The citizens elect representatives to perform the time consuming act of researching and evaluating and debating proposed legislation (and Budgets!) and then voting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of citizens who elected them to office to represent them. The court system was created to ensure that legislation enacted on behalf of the majority of citizens does not infringe on the Constitutional rights of the minority not represented in government.
Something also to consider is staffing the Bureaucracy and all of the Rules & Regulations that each government department creates and imposes on the citizens. The Bureaucracy has become a shadow government buried within the Constitutional framework and acts independently as the Administrative State:
https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state
The unfortunate subjects of the UK live in a monarchy with a parliament. An oligarchy does not represent anyone not a member of the oligarchy.
Please familiarize yourself and audience with “Against Oligarchy” by Webster G. Tarpley.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
Although the US Constitutional Federal Republic is the best form of government, it needs improvement, and for just such a need the Founders included in the Constitution the amendment process.
After some 250 years of attacks by the Rothschild banksters, it is now imperative that the Constitution needs to be amended to eradicate the Federal Reserve System and give the Treasury Dept. sole authority over the nation’s monetary system and issuance of currency.
Another amendment is desperately needed to limit the length of service of all representatives. All representatives (Executive, Senate, Representative) shall be limited to serving for a single term in office for a period of six years. This means that a person can be elected to Representative for six years, to Senator for six years, to Vice President for six years, and to President for six years. The same constraints would apply to all levels of government at the State and local levels. Elections would be held every three years with half of the nation’s Senators and Representatives elected each election cycle. Each State has two Senators, so one Senator would be elected each election. Each State’s congressional districts would be numbered so that even numbered districts would be elected one election and odd numbered districts would be elected the following election.
A third amendment would restrict voters to citizens who have to present proof of US citizenship and current residency in their registered district to an election official. All ballots must be paper and serialized, and counted by human election officials. Electronic ballots and ballot counting would be strictly forbidden.
I could think of many other needed reforms, but these three would have a significant improvement on the functioning of government in the US.
Thanks William, another informative comment.
By “Representative democracy” I meant a system of government in which citizens elect representatives who propose and vote on legislation or policy initiatives on their behalf. There are many different versions that operate upon this basic premise.
In the UK we have a constitutional monarchy with an elected Parliament that claims sovereignty as the supreme law of the land. In the US there’s a federal republic in which these elected representatives “appoint” the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Article I of US Constitution grants the House of Representatives and the Senate the sole authority to enact legislation and right to declare war and so on. This type of “representative” governmnet allows, for example, the US government to incarcerate more of its population than any other nation on earth and start wars globally. This, you say, is the best form of government.
Perhaps you are right. Despite its failings perhaps it is the best form of government. In which case, as suggested in the article, we have a problem. That problem appears to be government.
You are right to say, as stressed in the article, that these “representative” democracies are not democracies. I agree with your observation that neither constitutional monarchies nor federal republics are democracies. So what is “democracy?” That is the question the article attempts to answer.
Democracy is government by trial by jury and it does not require that any citizen elects anyone because the people, not the government, are the supreme law of the land. The article proposes a form of governance which again, as you rightly point out, with the exception of the Athenian Constitution, “has never ever succeeded and thrived anywhere at anytime throughout human history.”
A you say, there is no such thing as a “democratic” government. Government is anti-democratic because it always invests power, by a variety of different national mechanisms, in a small group of citizens who claim the “authority” to rule everyone else. This is both the definintion of “oligarchy” and the nature of “government.” It is an emminently corruptable and autocratic from of rule which is divorced from the political concept of democracy.
It is to our (the peoples) eternal loss that we have been convinced to imagine that these oligarchy’s represent or serve us and that we collectively imagine that such “governments” operate democracies. They absolutely do not.
Democracy is something else entirely. It is the rule of law without rulers.
It is the absence of any kind of representative “law maker.” Constitutional monrchies and federal republics exist precisely because they are not democracies. They are governments designed to protect the power and authority of government and those who profit by its existence. Hence, I would suggest, their ubiquitous use.
Democracy, by contrast, does not afford any of these privileges. All are equal under the law, there are no law makers other than the people themselves. Such a political system, run in a population of 300M, would not require that the people are constantly involved in the business of government, but they would all need to be ready to do so. It would require a genuine paradigm shift.
As suggested in the article, this would necessitate a practical end to the extensive system of legislation, regulation and laws common to the “governments” we currently suffer. The only issue that the law would ever be required to redress would be the question of “guilt.” That would be judged solely upon the principles of Natural Law.
Therefore the people would be free to live their lives unburdened by the oppressive regulations and laws enforced by “governments.” The only crimes would be that they caused harm or loss to another, perhaps by acting dishonourably in a contract. In a democracy the rule of law would be exercised neither by the government nor the judiciary, but by the people themselves.
I see no reason why such a system could not work in a large population. Perhaps you would like to put forward your argument explaining why it would not.
You:
In the US there’s a federal republic in which these elected representatives “appoint” the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Article I of US Constitution grants the House of Representatives and the Senate the sole authority to enact legislation and right to declare war and so on. This type of “representative” governmnet allows, for example, the US government to incarcerate more of its population than any other nation on earth and start wars globally.
Me:
Justices to the Supreme Court are nominated by the elected President, but require the approval of a majority of elected Senators to be appointed.
In the US there exists federal laws, state laws, and local laws. When a person violates a law they have the right to a trial to be judged by their fellow citizens after having been defended by their own defense counsel or a court-appointed defense counselor. The US judicial process has nothing to do with the quantity of people who violate the law and subsequently get convicted by a jury of their peers. The psychological explanations for why so many people think they can violate the law, and get away with it, are beyond the scope of this debate.
In order for the US to go to war requires the elected President to first get approval from a majority of the elected Congress (Representatives and Senators).
How the War Powers Act Is Designed to Work
The War Powers Act says that a President has the latitude to commit troops to combat zones, but, within 48 hours of doing so he must formally notify Congress and provide his explanation for doing so.
If Congress does not agree with the troop commitment, the president must remove them from combat within 60 to 90 days.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-war-powers-act-of-1973-3310363
https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2022-01/war-powers-resolution-activist-guide
You:
Democracy is government by trial by jury and it does not require that any citizen elects anyone because the people, not the government, are the supreme law of the land.
Me:
What you are saying is that in a Democracy there is no government, which means that all rules of society must be approved by all citizens of society, and anyone who violates a rule must be judged by all citizens, and all citizens must agree on a verdict. This form of society will naturally devolve into mob rule where might-makes-right and groups of citizens will cluster into groups led by physically dominant leaders, and the result will be survival of the fittest, i.e. jungle law.
You:
Government is anti-democratic because it always invests power, by a variety of different national mechanisms, in a small group of citizens who claim the “authority” to rule everyone else. This is both the definintion of “oligarchy” and the nature of “government.” It is an emminently corruptable and autocratic from of rule which is divorced from the political concept of democracy.
Me:
Have you never heard the expression, “Government Of the People, By the People, and for the People.”
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Lincoln-s-Gettysburg-Address—-OF-THE-PEOPLE–BY-THE-PEOPLE–FOR-THE-PEOPLE-.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=lsFNjL-Br8o
In a Constitutional Federal Republic, there is no small group of citizens who claim the “authority” to rule over everyone else.
In a Constitutional Federal Republic, the nation is divided into States for the election of two Senators from each State, and each State is divided into Congressional Districts for the election of one Representative from each District to a Congressional House of Representatives. Each State then has its own government consisting of a Governor and a State Legislature, which consists of State Senators and an Assembly of representatives from State Assembly Districts. The federation can further be broken down into local Counties and Cities, each having their own local government of County Supervisors and City Mayors and Councils. Each elected representative only has such “authority” that is delegated to them as defined in the Constitution. Periodic elections are conducted to allow the citizens to evaluate a representative’s performance and judge whether or not that representative should be given another term in office to continue representing their constituent’s best wishes, desires, and goals. This is all part of the American Founders system of government called, “Checks & Balances.”
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/checks-and-balances
An oligarchy is rule by a dominant few elite families, who pass on their right to rule to their descendants.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/contents.htm
You:
Democracy is something else entirely. It is the rule of law without rulers.
It is the absence of any kind of representative “law maker.” Constitutional monrchies and federal republics exist precisely because they are not democracies. They are governments designed to protect the power and authority of government and those who profit by its existence. Hence, I would suggest, their ubiquitous use.
Me:
Where did you get this nonsense from?
A Constitutional Federal Republic with a Bill of Rights is “by design” a constraint on the “power” and “authority” of the representatives ELECTED to legislate the laws and manage the functions of government. It wasn’t until the advent of the Administrative State in the late 1800s and early 1900s that the Supreme Court judged that elected representatives could delegate some of their “power” and “authority” to the “Shadow Government” of “experts” in the Bureaucracy, contained within the Executive Branch.
https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state
You:
Democracy, by contrast, does not afford any of these privileges. All are equal under the law, there are no law makers other than the people themselves. Such a political system, run in a population of 300M, would not require that the people are constantly involved in the business of government, but they would all need to be ready to do so. It would require a genuine paradigm shift.
Me:
If in a Democracy All are equal and there are no law-makers, then All will have to have a thorough knowledge and understanding of everything that affects the survival, safety, and furtherance of the society, so that All can propose, evaluate, debate, and judge the rules necessary for All to get along with each other in harmony, and get along with All foreign nations. This includes the distribution of resources for All to consume, which puts Democracy on the slippery-slope to socialism and eventually the tyranny of Marxism/Communism.
You:
As suggested in the article, this would necessitate a practical end to the extensive system of legislation, regulation and laws common to the “governments” we currently suffer. The only issue that the law would ever be required to redress would be the question of “guilt.” That would be judged solely upon the principles of Natural Law.
Me:
Do you not understand what life would be like in a society with no laws? Ever heard of Hobbes?
Hobbes thought that at heart we all are, and that it is only the rule of law and the threat of punishment that keep us in check.
The consequence of this, he argued, was that if society broke down and you had to live in what he called ‘a state of nature’, without laws or anyone with the power to back them up, you, like everyone else, would steal and murder when necessary. At least, you’d have to do that if you wanted to carry on living. In a world of scarce resources, particularly if you were struggling to find food and water to survive, it could actually be rational to kill other people before they killed you. In Hobbes’ memorable description, life outside society would be ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’.’
https://yalebooksblog.co.uk/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-solitary-poor-nasty-brutish-and-short/
You:
Therefore the people would be free to live their lives unburdened by the oppressive regulations and laws enforced by “governments.” The only crimes would be that they caused harm or loss to another, perhaps by acting dishonourably in a contract. In a democracy the rule of law would be exercised neither by the government nor the judiciary, but by the people themselves.
I see no reason why such a system could not work in a large population.
Me:
You truly have no understanding of the nature of people. Please share with your audience what substance you imbibe that gives you rose-colored glasses through which to see the world around you and a kumbaya fairytale expectation of what life would be like without laws and law enforcement?
It would be law of the jungle where might makes right!
William P: – What you are saying is that in a Democracy there is no government…
Iain D: – Yes
William P: – ….which means that all rules of society must be approved by all citizens of society, and anyone who violates a rule must be judged by all citizens, and all citizens must agree on a verdict. This form of society will naturally devolve into mob rule where might-makes-right and groups of citizens will cluster into groups led by physically dominant leaders, and the result will be survival of the fittest, i.e. jungle law.
Iain D: – No. The only “law” would be Natural Law, which is to cause no harm or loss to others and to act honourably in all contracts (failure to do so would be to cause loss or harm to others). It is only necessary for the Jury in the courts to determine guilt as this determines justice. The whole population doesn’t have to deliberate on a single case anymore than they do today. Nor is legislation created by the whole of the population simultaneously. It is created by a random selection of the population via the legilsature created by a similar sortition of the people in the form of the Boule and the Ecclesia.
William P: – Have you never heard the expression, “Government Of the People, By the People, and for the People?”
Iain D: – Yes. How is your federal republic doing in terms of meeting that worthy ideal?
William P: – An oligarchy is rule by a dominant few elite families, who pass on their right to rule to their descendants.
Iain D: – Yes, that is a reasonable interpretation of an Oligarchy. However, that is not the definition of Oligarchy. The OED definition is:
“A small group of people having control of a country or organization.” OR “A country governed by an oligarchy.”
William P: – Do you not understand what life would be like in a society with no laws?
Iain D: – I am not suggesting life without law and am at a loss to understand why, having read the article, you believe that I am.
William P: – You truly have no understanding of the nature of people. Please share with your audience what substance you imbibe that gives you rose-colored glasses through which to see the world around you and a kumbaya fairytale expectation of what life would be like without laws and law enforcement?
Iain D: – Fair comment. I cannot honestly claim that I truly understand the nature of people. I don’t know, and have never read, anyone who does. I have read and heard the claim made many times, but have yet to find anyone who fully understands the nature of reality let alone consciousness. I have spoken about how “regulation” could function in a real democracy, about the role of the courts and the police. How have you deduced from that any advocacy for “no law” or no “law enforcement?”
William P: – Where did you get this nonsense from?
Iain D: – Here is a good source of nonsense to get you started: – http://www.lysanderspooner.org/works
William P: – Do you not understand what life would be like in a society with no laws? Ever heard of Hobbes?. . . The consequence of this, he argued, was that if society broke down and you had to live in what he called ‘a state of nature’, without laws or anyone with the power to back them up, you, like everyone else, would steal and murder when necessary.
Iain D: – Please re-read the article. Where have I suggested that people are free in a democracy to steal or commit murder? Natural Law is the foundation of inalienable rights and inalienable rights dictate that you do not cause harm or loss to another. Infringements of Natural Law include theft and murder (which is also theft btw.) Doing so in a democracy would result in arrest, charge and a trial and, if found guilty, punishment. Why do you continually insist that I am suggesting otherwise?
Comment: William, you appear to be suggesting that, via a consitution, elected representatives have no authority, do not exercise political power and that this system somehow constitutes government of the people, by the people and for the people. Further you suggest that this tiny clique of “elected” people, having no invested authority and with a separation of powers ensuring they cannot influence justice, are somehow both able and have delivered this government of the people you speak about.
Is that really your experience? I understand the intention of the US constitution, and the Magna Carta for that matter, but I suggest to you that these ideals have not manifested in reality. The people we “elect” have, for more than 200 years in the US and 800 in the UK, always sought to undermine those principles because the intention of the governments we elect is, contrary to your hopes, to exercise political authority. These “governments” are formed predominantly by people who desire the political authority we foolishly invest in them.
These political “systems” (call it a federal republic or constitutional monarchy) are undeoubtedly based upon “representative democracy.” That is what the “representatives” you frequently reference are allegedly practicing, as are the electorate that allows them to do it. Are you honestly suggesting that these “representatives” either at the local or the national level, are, as a body of people, “representing” the interests of their constituents? Perhaps a minority of these representatives do so, but I suggest to you that they are a minority.
This “representative” system is not corrupt, corruption is the system. That is why it is allowed to exist.
I am suggesting that a democratic rule of law would be a better “system” precisely because democratic sortition (Boule, Ecclesia and Dikasteria) excludes political authority and renders corruption a practical impossibility. This means no governmnet authority is possible. Instead of a “system of government” we could have “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” because neither elected representatives nor “appointed” judges, exercise the rule of law. That is done by the people through trial by jury.
I appreciate very much what you write and the work you put into it. Whilst reading John Ward’s blog, I came across a comment which was a link to a Russian. It made me think of you and your work, Iain. It may be of interest as it no doubt backs up what you have said, if my small brain cells understand it correctly. https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/english-translation.pdf
https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/DF9DB595-A602-0BF0-DF0D-24BD4E25F6DF#-402
Thanks Alison
You stated:
Article I of US Constitution grants the House of Representatives and the Senate the sole authority to enact legislation and right to declare war and so on. This type of “representative” governmnet allows, for example, the US government to incarcerate more of its population than any other nation on earth and start wars globally.
My Reply:
The US judicial process has nothing to do with the quantity of people who violate the law and subsequently get convicted by a jury of their peers. The psychological explanations for why so many people think they can violate the law, and get away with it, are beyond the scope of this debate.
My Addended Reply:
One of the leading causes for the high quantity of incarcerated people in the US is the result of the LBJ Welfare State that benefited single-mothers over two-parent families, which resulted in a tremendous number of boys growing-up without fathers and role-models. This led to many boys joining gangs and getting involved with the street drug business and gang turf warfare. In addition to the Welfare State is the liberal education system whose goal is to dumb-down America so it’s citizens will become more easily brainwashed into accepting the globalist agenda for a neo-feudal NWO.
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and
https://blackcommunitynews.com/how-welfare-state-destroys-families/
https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/05/the-link-between-single-mother-welfare-fatherlessness-poverty-and-crime-3/
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-collapse-marriage-and-the-rise-welfare-dependence
https://swweducation.org/?p=5396
http://www.goldismoney2.com/threads/rockefeller-and-carnegie-foundations-intentionally-altered-american-history-in-order-to-merge-americ.139608/
Thanks William. I think you are right to say that the breakdown of family values may well play a part in the high rate of incarceration. However, I suggest that poverty and unjust law play a far greater role. Three strikes and your out, for example.
William P: – What you are saying is that in a Democracy there is no government…
Iain D: – Yes
You:
Democracy is government by trial by jury and it does not require that any citizen elects anyone because the people, not the government, are the supreme law of the land.
Me:
If the people are the supreme law of the land, and new people are constantly being born replacing old people who die off, then the supreme law of the land is constantly changing with each new person. Therefore, in a Democracy there are no laws because laws are meant to be stable and not easily changed by the whims of each new person.
If the people are the supreme law of the land, then whatever one person’s definition and understanding of whatever Natural Law is, is irrelevant. Therefore, Natural Law is the law of the jungle, where might makes right, and only the fittest survive.
Iain D: – No. The only “law” would be Natural Law, which is to cause no harm or loss to others and to act honourably in all contracts (failure to do so would be to cause loss or harm to others).
Me:
Natural Law is Law of the Jungle where Might Makes Right, which results in Survival of the Fittest.
Who enforces Natural Law?
You:
Nor is legislation created by the whole of the population simultaneously. It is created by a random selection of the population via the legilsature created by a similar sortition of the people in the form of the Boule and the Ecclesia.
Me:
A random selection of the population is just another form of representative government, but the worst form because those selected may not have the intelligence and education to propose, research, debate the legislation needed to resolve the problem at hand.
William P: – Have you never heard the expression, “Government Of the People, By the People, and for the People?”
Iain D: – Yes. How is your federal republic doing in terms of meeting that worthy ideal?
Me:
We, in the US, still have periodic elections where we get to evaluate and judge our elected representatives, and decide whether or not they are worthy of re-election.
You:
These “governments” are formed predominantly by people who desire the political authority we foolishly invest in them.
Me:
What you are confessing is that the foundational problem with elected representatives is not the people who get elected, but the problem is the people doing the voting. Why do you foolishly invest in unworthy people to represent your interests? Do you not research the character, qualifications, and motives of the candidates running for office before voting for them? After you elect them the first time, why do you re-elect them if they have failed to satisfy your needs?
Fool me once, shame on thee.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
William P: – If the people are the supreme law of the land, and new people are constantly being born replacing old people who die off, then the supreme law of the land is constantly changing with each new person. Therefore, in a Democracy there are no laws because laws are meant to be stable and not easily changed by the whims of each new person.
Iain D: – I think you have misunderstood how sortition would work. Rather as we select a jury today, so the legilature would be selected using sortition (a random selection from the adult population.) They might deliberate on food safety standards, for example. Once they had chosen to legislate or not that legislative group (Boule and Ecclesia) would be disbanded. They would not reside in office or serve any “term.” In the Athenian Constitution they were expected to complete their deliberations in a day. I see no reason why they could not be given whatever time they need. But, once a decsision was made, they would simply go back to their regular lives as receptionists, hair dressers, engineers, doctors or whatever.
Why do you imagine that these people are unable to deliberate on important issues if selected in this way, while claiming that the same pool of people are able to operate a legislative process if they are elected? the only difference is the method of selection. One, election, gives these people permanent authority for ther “term of office” over nearly every aspect of your life. This electoral system can easily be and is corrupted. The other, sortition, affords no one any such authority and its random nature makes corruption next to impossible.
William P: – Natural Law is Law of the Jungle where Might Makes Right
Iain D: – No it is not. Natural Law is a system of law that can be studied and understood like any other. It is the opposite of “might is right.” Might is “wrong” under Natural Law because no one has the right to force anyone else to do anything against their will. The only legitimate use of force is in self defence including when society has to defend itself against criminals. Criminals, under Natural Law, are individuals or groups who cause harm or loss to others, perhaps through dishonesty in a contract.
Even the most complex of, for instance, corporate fraud cases can be judged using Natural Law. Were those accused dishonest? Did they intend to cause harm or loss to others (guilty mind – men rea)? What additional law do you think is necessary?
William P: – Who enforces Natural Law?
Iain D: – Juries in a Dikesteria (the courts)
William P: – A random selection of the population is just another form of representative government, but the worst form because those selected may not have the intelligence and education to propose, research, debate the legislation needed to resolve the problem at hand.
Iain D: – No it isn’t because sortition does not create a “government” in any sense that we are familiar with. There is no executive power in a democracy.
To claim that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves is simply elitism. Democracy, as stated in the article, would require access to education for all citizens which focuses upon critical thinking skills. Currently, unless you are privileged enough to receive a classical education, that is not the case.
Education for the masses focuses upon teaching people what to think not how to think. Yes, some people possess greater academic intelligence than others. They learn what to say to be approved by examiners who test their memories. But there are other forms of intelligence such as emotional, practical and intuitive. Something our “elected” leaders clearly lack on occasion.
In the UK we currently have a Foreign Secretary who doesn’t even know what country she is in. I see no “selection” for intelligence in the current electoral system. Many of our elected “representatives” don’t appear to be particularly intelligent to me.
Willam P: – We, in the US, still have periodic elections where we get to evaluate and judge our elected representatives, and decide whether or not they are worthy of re-election.
Iain D: – Yes you elected an orange TV personality who could barely construct a coherent sentence and then replaced him with a senile man who needs intructions to tie his shoelaces. You can effectively “elect” Red or Blue, neither of which will make any difference at all to the policy trajectory because the whole system is utterly corrupt.
The way you proselytize about Democracy can only mean that Democracy has become your religion, and a person’s faith and beliefs cannot be dissuaded by logic and rational argument. It would be like trying to convince a believer in one of the Abrahamic religions that there is no god, or a Christian that Jesus was just a man.
William, we disagree I am not proselytising. You favour the representative democracy and I have suggested an alternative political system called democracy. I’m not sure what you expect me to do when you raise perfectly legitimate questions about that suggestion. If, by answering them, you consider that I am proselytising then what is your defence of the system you favour? By all means you can suggest that your system is more “logical,” but I do not accept that it is. Democracy seems more logical to me.
You probably shouldn’t write anymore articles about the NWO and C3P until you first are able to see and understand the war that the globalist oligarchy cabal are waging against those who want to preserve sovereign nationalities, capitalism, and the rights of citizens. I write this because your attack on Donald Trump clearly shows that you can’t see and understand the current events occurring around you. Trump is the first US President to oppose and wage war against the globalist cabal since JFK, and JFK got his head blown off in broad daylight for all to see as a warning to others not to interfere with their globalist cabal’s agenda. They tried to kill Reagan in order to put their puppet G.H.W. Bush in the Oval Office, but Reagan survived. For four years the cabal waged war on Trump, but they failed to take him out. Trump won an overwhelming majority of votes in 2020, but the cabal, with the help of your Lord Mark Malloch Brown and his Queen, sabotaged the election with his rigged vote counting machines, and with the help of the rest of the cabal, including Mark Zuckerberg. So when you denigrate Trump, you are providing aid and comfort to the enemy globalist cabal, unless that is your intent???
https://aim4truth.org/2022/02/03/malloch-brown-post-fully-recovered-from-censorship/
https://aim4truth.org/2020/11/15/cat-report-602/
You make a good point William. I understand that one of the objectives of the G3P cartel is to undermine the authority of national governments and I accept that Trump’s presidency was hobbled from day one and that the 2020 election was rigged. That’s another example of the corrupt political system we suffer on both sides of the pond. I accept that you have defended the ideal representative democratic system, not its practice or its erosion by the corrupt.
I do not believe in electoral politics and I don’t vote for politicians because I consider it morally indefensible. However, I did vote in the Brexit referendum as I wanted to see a decentralisation of power away from the EU block and towards national sovereignty. That being said I am no fan of national political sovereignty either and oppose the Westphalian model. In this, I hold some common ground with the globalists.
Where I differ from them is that they intend to maintain the illusion of national sovereignty as they manage a system of global governance. I don’t believe in the concept of either the nation state or government and I certainly don’t wish to see centralised global governance.
Iain, now I’ve read comments here and on Off-Guardian, what’s your definition of ‘natural law’?
Also: –
1 Changing system mid-chaos risks ‘jumping out of frying-pan into fire’.
If defuse fire, frying-pan cools; then time to consider ‘system’.
As social creatures, we tend to copy behaviour.
One behaving in cool, calm, collected, pre-2020 way influences immediate vicinity. If others stay calm as go elsewhere, others copy them, increasing cool spots.
Cool spots deprive fire of its heat.
Achievement date (no extension available): before 2030.
2 Each person is genetically mostly same and also bit unique. Without all bits of uniqueness, variety in genetic make-up of species declines, becoming extinct.
Thus, survival of own genes needs survival of everyone else’s.
Hence: ‘cause no harm’.
3 No sub-division is self-sustainable.
Unique is above price; none more or less than priceless. All same level.
Thus, ‘hierarchy’ and ‘group’ are fallacies; no such thing as ‘class’ or any category including political.
4 No fault born fallible. Thus, no guilt or blame unless intent to do wrong i.e. break natural law.
Each and all; always priceless and never perfect.
Thus, can judge actions but judging others is ‘glass-house.’
5 Each born with unique attributes; neither merit nor fault.
But are responsible for what do with attributes born with.
6 Being born as a member of Homo sapiens entitles each to live as exactly that. To do so, need to use thinking part of brain. Doing so is not automatic; requires effort and practise.
Pain or distress prevents person from using thinking part of their brain to their maximum ability.
Torture is a violation of ‘human rights’ because it blocks the in-born right to use thinking part of brain.
7 Our auto-pilot does not think; it automatically takes control of self away from us unless we out-think it.
Each is born with right to use thinking part of own brain to control self but realising that right involves endless battle against own auto-pilot.
Same in-born right (and battle) for each.
I reckon auto-pilot’s the ‘devil.’
8 Basics of life indicate: ‘cause no harm’ and ‘self and all, always priceless and never perfect’ i.e. ‘walk gently through life’, ‘live and let live’.
Thus, governing, bossing, ‘parenting’, ‘Managing’, tail-gating, theft, vandalism, violence, rape, murder, deceit, ‘fighting’, financial, emotional, moral black-mail, to name a few, out-of-bounds; insufficient self-control.
But thinking, not auto-pilot, differentiates Homo sapiens from other animals and, from ‘A.I.’
From my book Pseudopandemic:
The only justice is natural justice. It is the restoration of right when a wrong is committed. Natural justice is an expression of Natural Law (God’s Law) which is the universal balance between chaos and order. Natural Law is unforgiving, it does not care what we think or imagine to be true. It is balance, it is the truth and it is absolute.
And from my article on Inalienable Rights:
In 1882 Lysander Spooner wrote Natural Law; or The Science of Natural Justice. In it he explained why there is only one Universal Law that governs our relationships. Natural Law stands above all others.
Natural Law was not created by men and women and it cannot be altered, denied or evaded by any human being, claimed authority or State. It defines the nature of our interactions and even how we judge our own character.
As Natural Law is a phenomena that exists in nature it can be studied like any other. Understanding Natural Law is, as Spooner wrote, the science of natural justice.
How do we live in peace? What rules determine how we maintain peace between each other? It is “self evident” that we can and do live peacefully but do we only do so because some higher “authority” will punish us if we don’t. Or do we all innately understand the unwritten Law that binds us within our corner of society?
Is there a common set of principles which we all understand, regardless of the jurisdiction we live in? Is there a Universal Law which establishes the boundaries of our behaviour, enabling us to live in peace and harmony?
Of course there is, if there were not humanity would not have survived. This is Natural Law and Spooner described it:
“Each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.. each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.. So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.”
Natural Law is our foundational morality and natural justice are the ethics that emerge from it. It is in our nature to know this because it is discernible through reason, which is the defining character of our nature.
There are many attributes which we deem to be “good” or “bad.” The selfless and compassionate are considered to be “good,” the selfish and callous “bad.” Yet regardless of the value judgments we place on the actions of others, if they act in accordance with Natural Law we can still live in peace alongside them. It is not a matter of being good or bad, it is a matter of doing either that which is right or wrong, as determined by Natural Law.
If we harm or cause loss to another, or act dishonestly in contracts, then we have committed a wrong. Others around us will recognise that we had “no right” to perpetrate that act. However, whatever we do that is not wrong is a right. We may not like what someone said or did but, if they caused neither harm nor loss to anyone else, they had every “right” to act or speak freely.
This sense of natural justice, of understanding and differentiating between what is right and what is wrong, operates in every play ground. Children must grasp Natural Law quickly or they will fail to build the relationships they need in order to thrive. Children come to understand this Law even before they have the words to express themselves.
If children can live in peace, without any comprehension of man made law or legislation, adults certainly can. Yet we have seemingly forgotten this.
Instead we imagine that justice is handed down to us by governments or the judiciary. We wrongly assume that without their rules we would have no Law and would be incapable of peaceful coexistence.
Natural Law governs our relationships, it is the Law that enables us to cohabit, work together, achieve common goals and find value in each other. It exists regardless of the lesser laws prescribed by men and women.
We did not create Natural Law and have no ability to amend it. It endures in nature. It is a principle of nature which defines us as a species.
All living creatures are subject to Natural Law. It is the universal rules based system. It determines the conduct required for social complexity to function. Just as termites use Natural Law to cooperate to build their remarkable structures, so we use Natural Law to live peacefully in communities.
As we did not create Natural Law it leads many to call it God’s Law. Theological arguments aside, there is no reason to think that the processes which formed Natural Law differ from those which formed, for example, the planets or gravity.
Some will say that these could not exist without an interventionist god or some other supernatural guidance. The legal definition of Natural Law makes this claim. Others will point toward probability in an infinite universe of interacting forces. This is a matter for debate, but it does not alter the nature of the subject in question. Planets and a force we call gravity exist in reality, as does Natural Law.
Justice is real. We all know what it is and have even invented a word to describe it. It is the restoration of right when a wrong has been committed. The concepts of right and wrong also exist in reality. If they did not then the words we use to describe them would be meaningless.
Words like “mine” and “yours” or “fair” and “unfair” would have no context. You cannot possess something unless you have the right to claim it as your own, no act can be principled if there is no concept of justice or injustice by which to appraise it. In fact, none of the laws created by men and women, or positive law, could ever have been formed unless they were preceded by Natural Law.
How could theft ever have been considered a “wrongdoing” if natural justice didn’t already exist? If natural justice didn’t predate the laws of men and women then taking something that does not belong to you could never have been identified by anyone as either just or unjust.
We would have been incapable of perceiving an act like theft without innately understanding natural justice. We certainly wouldn’t have written positive laws to seek recourse from thieves. Without Natural Law “theft” would merely be the movement of something in a chaotic void of immaterial behaviours.
Natural Law is the universal law of everything and, just like anything that occurs in nature, we can study it, understand it and, because we are human beings with the ability to reason, formalise it into a compendium of determining principles. Those who transgress against Natural Law can be judged against it and, as Spooner noted, we have a duty to do so.
A society founded in Natural Law would be built around the maxim “to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.” In order to “live honestly” no one can pretend that they are disinterested in dishonesty, especially where it causes harm or loss. A disregard for wrongdoing would be negligent, effectively condoning harmful behaviour.
As Natural Law is universal, absolute and immutable, and all are afforded equal rights and responsibilities under it, to fail to lawfully prosecute wrongdoing would be to disregard Natural Law. This negligence is, in and of itself, a harmful act. The duty, to bring wrongdoers to natural justice, should best be discharged through jury led trials.
Many thanks. Is there a simpler, shorter way of expressing it?
I’ve read several descriptions but they don’t agree with each other.
If we had a couple of ‘rules of thumb’ each understood rationale of and agreed on, each could reason out the otherwise long lists of ‘do’ and ‘do not’ themselves.
If instinct did that, would there be the evident different descriptions?
If natural law applies to each and all, why the frequent: do as I say (not as I do)?
If understanding of, thus compliance with natural law is instinct, would that happen?
I tried to explain way I see it, but it seems different from every other description.
Problem is, I’ve tried to live by 2 or 3 things I understood it was and if that’s incorrect, I’d better change, but to exactly what?
Apologies but I think I need it spelling out.
1. The only justice is natural justice. It is the restoration of right when a wrong is committed. Natural justice is an expression of Natural Law.
2. Natural Law governs our relationships, it is the Law that enables us to cohabit, work together, achieve common goals and respect each other. It exists regardless of the lesser laws prescribed by men and women.
3. Natural Law is the foundation of morality and natural justice are the ethics that emerge from it. It is in our nature to understand Natural Law because it is discernible through reason, which is the defining character of our human nature.
Many thanks, but, my apologies, I’m struggling to explain my question.
If step one is nature gives us natural law to abide by, that law is universal.
If step 2 is we give instances of what natural law means we should do and not do and natural law’s implications, we come up with lists applicable to own era but don’t include things that become possible in future eras.
We lose the universality of it and open door to some bright-spark who comes up with a way of causing harm none ever thought of before, thus not listed anywhere.
e.g. Some have objected to Behavioural Insights Team they’ve been unethical. They’ve denied it. I cannot find it specified in any description of natural law, yet I’m firmly of the opinion it violates natural law.
If we add property rights to ‘cause no harm’, some get hold of property by causing harm, then claim property rights due to being in possession.
Current era’s focus on property means we tend to forget ‘cause no harm’ element of that situation. Would we really forget if it was instinct?
You’ve mentioned theft is included in ‘cause no harm.’ I agree. Why then do we need property ‘rights’ too?
Given that dishonesty causes harm, why do we need ‘live honestly’ in addition to ‘cause no harm’?
The more we add, the more complex it becomes and thus, the more loop-holes there are in it.
It’s step one I’m trying to unearth; the simple, clear-cut, universal, timeless law that nature gives, without any ‘whistles and bells.’
Children seem to do it instinctively in playgrounds in some places, but in others, ‘little terrors’ is more like it; suggesting that, rather than instinct, it’s picked up very early from body-language and behaviour of ‘grown-ups’ around them.
If natural law is instinct (auto-pilot), why war?
If it’s self-evident, why the difficulty in finding a simple statement of it all agree with and interpret in exactly the same way irrespective of location, era, religion etc?
Thanks Jane. It doesn’t matter what the method of causing harm is. It is the act of causing harm, whatever the method, that contravenes Natural Law. So if we take the example of behavioural change, there is nothing intrinsically “harmful” about it. It can be used to help people recover from addiction or manage psycho-effective disorders. But it can also be used to convince people to obey harmful laws or take harmful drugs. The question in Natural Law is “guilt.” What was the intention of the act?
Property rights define what is mine and what is yours. If we don’t understand this then we cannot possess anything, including rights. “My” right to life and “your” right to life become meaningless if we don’t understand “property.” The only real crime in Natural Law is theft. If “you” murder me “you” have stolen “my” rights to life. This would be an unfathomable and unknowable concept without property rights. My life is my property, your life is your property.
To live honestly or “honourably” is to be honest in all our dealings with others, especially in any contract we enter into. If we are dishonest in a contract then we intend to decieve for personal gain of some kind at the expense of someone else. This is not the same as making an “honest” profit. If the nature of the exchange (contract) implies that the seller is making a profit, and this is understood by both parties (buying food at a farmers market for example) there is no deceit and no harm caused in this voluntary exchange (contract).
Natural Law is not “instinct.” It is not “rationality” or “choice” or “knowledge” or any other human attribute. It is not “our nature,” it has nothing whatsoever to do with human beings. Natural Law would still exist if there were no human beings. However, we can use our rationality, instinct, knowledge (our nature) to understand Natural Law.
Children in a playground can be cruel. They might “instinctively” break Natural Law. For the children who feel guilt for any harm they have caused, Natural Law is self-evident. They are beginning to “understand” Natural Law simply by recognising that they have done something “wrong.” Of course, not all children will feel guilt or understand the possible wrong of their actions. Their parents need to teach them right from wrong.
However, whether their parents teach them right from wrong or not, as they become adults and take their place in society the repercussions of their actions may become more apparent to them. Perhaps they will come to understand right from wrong through this experience, but perhaps not. They might continue to regularly commit wrongdoings for the rest of their lives. Such people cause all manner of social disorder, including war.
In this regard, Natural Law is no different than any other system of law. If people choose to ignore it they will cause chaos like any other criminal. Therefore, like any other Law, justice can only be served if these people are subjected to it through some sort of social mechanism. Trial by jury being the most effective.
There is a simple statement of Natural Law that people have consistently made throughout history. It is simply that to cause harm or loss or to act dishonourably in a contract (thus causing harm of loss) is wrong and not in keeping with Natural Law. This is the full extent of Natural Law.
The complexity occurs when people struggle to understand or accept the concept of right and wrong. It amazes me how often people seem unable to grasp this. In my opinion this is due to solipsism and the consequent concept of moral relativism. Some people seem averse to accepting that there is any such thing a right and wrong. Regardless of their opinion right and wrong (Natural Law) still exist.
It becomes almost impossible to explain the very simple concept of Natural Law to anyone who is incapable, for whatever reason, of distinguishing right from wrong. These people tie themselves up in all kinds of relativism knots. We have to write lists, religious texts, laws and so on in an effort to teach them right from wrong. What’s worse is that people who know right from wrong but choose to ignore it often write those lists, laws and texts for their own purposes.
In reality, which is where we will find Natural Law, it is not difficult to understand right from wrong. We can easily write a list of rights and wrongs if we have to.
Rights:
Compassion, honesty, peace, respect for others, due care an attention, freedom, liberty, responsibility, self-respect, etc.
Wrongs:
Theft, cruelty, deceit, violence, war, oppression, false imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishement, self-abuse, etc.
I hope the difference between these “rights” and “wrongs” are self-evident. “Rights” do not cause anyone harm or loss. “Wrongs” always cause others harm or loss. Therefore if we live in accordance with our “inalienable rights,” being the acts that we are born with a right to exercise, we will live in accordance with Natural Law. If we commit wrongs we are not exercising our inalienable rights but are instead in breach of others inalienable rights and are guilty under Natural Law.
Your fanciful dream of a global society governed by the man-made concept of Natural Law is a childish kumbaya fairytale. The fact that Natural Law is a myth is proved by the necessity for a penal code and prison system, and the necessity for law enforcement/police forces to protect citizen’s rights, safety, and domestic tranquillity, and the necessity for military forces to protect national sovereignty rights and international tranquility.
Natural Law Vs Positive Law:
Natural Law incorporates the idea that humans understand the difference between “right” and “wrong” inherently. Essentially, it concludes that human beings are not taught natural law; they initiate it by making good and right decisions. Therefore, it is said to be discoverable through the exercise of reason. It is important to underline that natural law is not to be confused with positive law as it does not involve any kind of judicial decisions or legislative enactments. Natural law highlights human behavior involving ethical standards and ways of being inherent.
On the other hand, Positive Law involves human-made law that incorporates rules that can be applied to specific actions at certain times or places. Furthermore, positive law is enacted and adopted for the appropriate government of society, to protect the rights of individuals, to resolve disputes, and to maintain order and safety of society overall.
The question then is what form/model of government best applies Positive Law for the benefit of the most people? Ever since Homo sapiens transitioned from a nomadic herd-following lifestyle to a stationary agricultural lifestyle of crop-growing and livestock domestication, humans have had to devise systems of social order for their safety and prosperity. Earliest forms of social order were based upon the Law of the Jungle, where might-makes-right, and only the fittest survived. Ever since then, social order has been a dichotomy between the powerful dominating the weaker, and social consensus protecting the needs of the group. Societies based upon the powerful dominating the weaker evolved into oligarchism in the form feudalism. Societies based upon consensus evolved into constitutional republics based upon representative legislatures.
The model of government that best protects and provides for the needs of its population is a Constitutional Federal Republic with a Bill of Rights.
Federalism is a critical requirement of this model in order to create the maximum number of little “laboratories of democracy,” where the smallest number of citizens can gather to solve their local problems, and establish peaceful relations with their neighboring groups. Groups then can learn from each other how best to solve their similar problems, or pursue unique solutions to problems that are unique to their group in their environment. In a federalist society, smaller groups will unite into larger groups based upon their needs, while still maintaining their local group sovereignty, until all of humanity is organized into sovereign nations with subordinate semi-sovereign states, with subordinate semi-sovereign counties, and finally subordinate semi-sovereign cities. As a republic, each subordinate semi-sovereign group will be managed by a government entity consisting of representatives elected by the citizens of each subordinate semi-sovereign group. Cities will be managed by a Council and Mayor elected by the citizens of the city. Counties will be managed by a Board of Supervisors elected by the citizens of the County. States will be managed by a Governor and State Legislature divided between a State Senate and a State Assembly, all elected by the citizens of that State, and each Nation will be managed by a President and National Congress divided between a Senate of two Senators from each State, and a House of Representatives with an apportioned quantity of Representatives from each State, all elected by the citizens of the Nation in their respective States and State Districts.
Today the world is in a war between two competing factions with diametrically opposed philosophies of how society should be organized. One faction consists of those who want to institute a global feudal society, where all land and resources are owned by a few wealthy elite families comprising an oligarchy that has ruled much of society since its first creation in Venice, and that feudal society would be managed by a technocracy of expert administrators obliged to carry out the will of their oligarchy masters. The opposing faction consists of those who want a society comprised of individual unique sovereign nations where the safety, rights, and prosperity of all citizens is guaranteed by a form of government that is ruled by a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, and not ruled by the whims and desires of a few oligarchical tyrants!
OK William. I accept that you disagree and I have heard and respect your opinion. I hope you can reciprocate.
Do you realize that by not exercising your right to vote that you have succumbed to the wishes of the globalist oligarchy? An oligarchy dictates, not represents. You have let the oligarchy beat you into submission, which is their goal for all of humanity. Have you also let them “chip” you like a pet dog? Soon you can enjoy your Digital ID and buy the products the oligarchy will permit you to buy with your Central Bank Digital Currency, and can start accumulating Social Credit points by achieving the UN Agenda 21/2030 Sustainable Development Goals.
Pathetic! Too many patriots have given their lives and sacrificed their fortunes to win for the rest of us our rights and freedom and opportunities to succeed and prosper for you not to show your gratitude for their sacrifices by exercising the one power they won for you, and that is the power to vote for the candidates who you want to represent you.
Maybe it is an American “thing” to feel such patriotism and gratitude for our rights and liberty.
Maybe it is a British “thing” to submit to the Venetian-Guelph-Black Nobility-Papacy oligarchy?
Oh dear William. No one, not a single patriot on this earth, has ever fought and died for my right to choose my slave-master. This is no “power,” it is capitulation to ruled, to be a subject and a slave. The system you venerate is run by the the Venetian-Guelph-Black Nobility-Papacy oligarchy for their benefit, and every time you vote you perpetuate it and give it legitimacy. You are literally electing to be a slave. You have been deceived.
Patriots fought and died for my liberty and I most certainly do honour their sacrifice by exercising the liberty they have afforded me. You are right to say that Central Bank Digital Currency, Digital ID, Social credit, UN Agenda 21/2030 Sustainable Development Goals are all coming. They are all being imposed upon us via the system you claim patriots fought and died to create.
I don’t think this is what they had in mind William, do you? And yet it is what we have.
I understand that you believe the system that created this mess can be fixed and I also except that the “representative” system patriots thought they were fighting for is not the system of oligarchy we currently endure. However, unlike you, I do not believe that the representative system can be fixed because it is fatally flawed in my view. I choose to exercise my liberty by never supporting it.
It is flawed because it is based upon “authority.” We are required, under the system you wish to support, to empower others to rule over us. It empowers them (the Venetian-Guelph-Black Nobility-Papacy oligarchy) not us. We literally give our own agency away and hand it to someone else by voting. We make oursleves their slaves through this “system.”
I accept that this is not the intention, from your perspective, but it is, whether you like it or not, the result. This system, of empowering a small clique of individuals to rule over us, is inherently corruptable. I suggest to you that is why the Black-knobs like it.
I am suggesting with this article, and in most of my work, what I consider to be a better system. I suggest that such a system would not give any power to the Venetian-Guelph-Black Nobility-Papacy oligarchy. The only power it would leave them with is naked violence. At which point it becomes a numbers game as a few thousand attempt to rule billions with nothing other than violence. I do not think, under such circumstances, that the Black-Knobs would stand much of a chance. Do you?
Hi Iain
Many thanks for your patience, I think I’ve finally spotted the problem.
Yes, same thing can be used to cause harm and to not cause harm; hence my stress on ‘intent’ in earlier comment and my concern about lists.
Given that a person’s brain is theirs, behavioural change methods and psycho-active drugs trespass into someone else’s brain; raising 2 questions:
Are we sure of own intent? Who are we, as fallible humans, to judge others?
Moment umbilical cord is cut, we’re separate entities. Thus, I contend that’s where ‘you’ and ‘me’ originate – the moment of birth; everything the new-born has at that moment in time is the new-born – separate; that’s life’s rule.
Nature does balanced-exchange, photosynthesis and respiration an example. Living according to nature’s law, ‘cause no harm’ excludes retaliation. However, ‘fair exchange’ reduces nature’s absolute exclusion of that.
My opinion is that natural law comes from nature. It’s for humans to fit in with that, it’s not human instinct to do so, our instinct seems our ‘Achilles’ heel.’
When we function on ‘instinct’ we break natural law’s ‘cause no harm.’ e.g. panic bulk-buying early 2020 left others to starve to death.
Very, very few rationalised over and above ‘instinct’ and stuck to ‘cause no harm.’
We have potential to rationalise, but realising that potential is a different matter. Thus, rationalising and ‘instinct’ are separate issues; we do not automatically rationalise. Comfortable to believe we do, but ‘comfort’ tends to deceive self.
I now think that that apparent difference of starting point caused the muddle.
Yes, those lists do seem written for own ends. As I mentioned earlier, the only addition to ‘cause no harm’ I concede is ‘self and all, always priceless AND never perfect.’ It allows self-respect, not excess, and immense admiration for all life.
I exclude nature from never perfect but no form of life can be repaired or replaced, no matter how much money we have, once we’ve mutilated or killed it.
I view those two laws as in practise: ‘walk gently through life’, ‘live and let live’.
I don’t disagree in general with your lists but I do question unqualified liberty and unlimited compassion as, in my view, we’re not at liberty to intentionally cause harm and over-indulgence causes harm.
Have we got it ‘sorted’ – different starting points but otherwise the same?
Yes I think we have. ‘Walk gently through life’, ‘live and let live’ are perfectly in keeping with Natural Law.
Iain, I agree with most of what you say in this article. The attack on England is a globalist (deep state) attack by the British elites to destroy the common law system and jury system. USA was (still is in some states) an extension of the English distributed system of governance, locally managed, decentralised.
The British system since its inception in 1706/7 has sought to destroy England and its common law, progressing heavily after the War for Independence 1776. Then the second war 1812, then things really started to heat up after 1825. The British system (oligarchy) is a deception, the only way to win back freedom and liberty is to bin the British system (the most recent deep state system) and return to a tweaked English system. The Americans tweaked the English system and constitution with an electoral college (if that system was deployed here in England, London would not be the dominating force that it currently is). But more tweaking is necessary, the Jury system is under attack. England is under attack.
People need to wake up to who the oligarchy is; The British deep state. You can’t win unless you remove them, remove British Judges, go back to real England. Common Law, Natural Law, Jury system and distributed governance.
There is much more. But in essence your article is good and correct.
Thanks Graham. The only question I have is what do you mean by “remove” the British deep state? I don’t think there is any need, or value in violent revolution. I believe we can remove their power and authority by constructing a better system that does not allow them to exercise any. Certainly the Magna Carta offers us a potential roadmap to do this. It could be the basis for such a new (or rather the return of a very old) political system.
“violent revolution” I 100% do not believe this would be a solution even if it was possible. They “British deep state” are the benefactors of this type of revolution.
The British deep state, means the current structure and current oligarchy, which includes the British not so civil servants, corporate system (including big pharma), taking England back to its roots. Return to Magna Carta and the English declaration of Rights/ English Bill of Rights and removal of the “Soviet British Model” which we are now in. I agree that the current political model is tyranny. Scotland has a system of law that is different to England’s. Distributed governance by the people, Counties not EU regions, English parliament, local county chambers, district, parish.
For that to happen without violence the people need to get round the MSM and communicate and VOTE for that system.
I understand why people have stopped voting, voting for any British party is voting for your enslavement (they are all a single party, British) but the English Constitution Party does not have a manifesto of lies, it has the Magna Carta at its core. Its’s Manifesto is the Constitutional Rule of Law. Common Law and Natural Law.
Not voting is what the marxists/communists/fascists want. People don’t need a new way, they need the old way. Prior to the British Supra National state of 1706/7.
Remember what the American Independence Warriors said to the British… “We want the same rights as an Englishman” … “The Laws of England are your Birthright” Act of Settlement 1701. [prior to british rule]
Thanks Graham. Please see my reply to William Pitting below.
I accept that we have our differences of opinion on what is the best model for government, and I’m not going to try to convince you to change your mind, but I am curious to know how you think your ideal model for government can be achieved? What mechanism, other than voting or revolution, will change the UK, or any other sovereign nation, into a Democracy governed by Natural Law? Meanwhile, the globalist oligarchy is buying up all of the land and natural resources, and also buying up all of the corrupt politicians to control how they legislate and who they nominate for judicial appointments in order to change how their enacted laws are interpreted to advance their NWO agenda, and not interpreted to protect the rights and liberty of the citizens.
Now that the oligarchy has the technology to change electronic votes to their candidates, it won’t be much longer before they will have all of the pieces and people in place to flip-the-switch and voilà, we are once again a feudal society. So, what is your mechanism to prevent this from happening, and preserving the rights and liberty of humanity?
I don’t think we can prevent it from happening. Referring to Graham Moore’s comment above, a vote for the British Constitution Party would be a worthy protest. Perhaps with more funding and popular support they could come to power in a generation or two, perhaps less. But that won’t stop what is already happening now. Neither will my efforts writing a blog and trying to highlight the dangers of where we are heading. Which you and I agree upon entirely William.
It seems to me that we don’t have the time to either to mend the broken system, as I you and Graham suggest, nor the current popular will to overthrow it via the ballot box. However each of us can start living our lives as independetly as possible. We can start constructing an alternative, parallel system in the hope that one day it will become dominant.
Of course the corrupt oligarchy won’t “allow” it and will try to stamp it out wherever it emerges, but if we stop buying into their system in sufficient numbers and instead create our own, we can use peaceable means to resist. If we do we will leave the oligarchy with nothing but violence and force with which to rule. I don’t think that will be sustainable for long.
So when you say we should all learn to live independently, what that means is we must learn to hunt & grow & gather our own food, make our own tools and utensils and weapons, make our own shelters, make our own clothes, and basically live like prehistoric Neanderthals, because the oligarchy will prevent us from having access to money and the ability to purchase the goods and services we need to survive. But the oligarchy will also deny us the use of “their” land and resources, so in reality, we can’t even live any kind of independent life.
Unless….we do exercise our right to vote and vote for candidates who will fight to preserve our nation’s sovereignty, our nation’s Constitutional Federal Republic, will fight to guarantee our rights and liberty and justice, will fight for our economic security and domestic labor force, and will fight for our life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. In other words, we need to vote for candidates just like Donald J. Trump! We also need to stock up on firearms and ammo. Remember….the Founders gave the US the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for when the government tries to infringe on our 1st Amendment right to free speech, assembly, etc.
We don’t have a gun culture in the UK nor anything like the murder rate of the US. I have always thought that the UK had a better approach but, as you rightly point out, this also means that no one can defend themselves against government violence. So I do appreciate the 2nd Amendement. Undoubtedly that is why so many of your elected officials have been trying to effectively remove it for so long.
When I said learn to live independently I meant of the government not of each other. Government oversight of our “capitalist” societies is nowhear near as extensive as people imagine or as government would like us to imagine. For example, apart from safety regulations and taxes, no one is compelled by law to engage in any commercial activity. We all freely engage in the global network of voluntary trade and exchange. Government is merely an impediment to 90% of the voluntary exchanges we make every day. So, to a great extent, we already are living independently. Yes, they are hoovering up land and resources (see Bill Gates’ farmland grab and Blackrocks property grab) which should tell us something I hope. Property rights really matter.
I don’t know about you but I will not accept the imposition of CBDC. Of course I will have to use it to a certain extent. Pay taxes and so forth, but I will make every effort to use alternative forms of exchange. Cash and cash alternatives, Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) alternative currency, perhaps crypto (though that is inherently flawed) and so on. In order to be able to do this obviously others also need to be engaged in a similar effort. The signs are encouraging. Many already are.
That is what I meant by constructing parallel systems. You are right, we can’t simply flick a switch and live in some agrarian idyll. There are too many of us for a start and most of us live in cities. While those with gardens can maximise their food independence the rest will still have to rely upon a food supply. However if, for example, we create a market outsuide of CBDC for purshasing food there will be producers ready and willing to meet that demand. They may even come to see it as advantageous. In which case, just as we see with black markets during times of war, it will thrive no matter what the State does to suppress it. The state is not “all powerful.” Instilling that belief is their key deception.
Again, I return to your hope for voting your way out of this mess. The people you elect, no matter who you choose as your master, are the same people who are buying up all the farmland and the property, imposing unjust taxation, destroying supply chains, selling propaganda, injecting people with poison and so on. I just don’t agree that you can vote harder and expect this system to change or become better. I do agree that, in its conception, it is supposed to be better but, like crypto, it is a flawed concept. It is the mechanism by which supreme autocratic power is enabled. I don’t think you can fix it and that is why I have decided that I will not support it.
So what this debate boils down to is that we the people can either fight against the encroaching neo-feudal society by exercising our right to vote for candidates who will represent us and fight for our rights and liberty in a Constitutional Federal Republic with a Bill of Rights, or we can pretend to live in an alternative reality of a Democracy where the delusional people think that everyone will play nice with one other in the global sandbox and at the end of each day we can all gather around the campfire and join hands and sing kumbaya.
Good luck with your Democracy and Natural Law.
I’ll be voting for Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis in 2024.
You could frame it that way if you like William. I am certainly not trying to stop you voting for any leader you like the sound of. Let’s hope that this time they deliver on the leadership promises they make in exchange for your fealty. Personally I don’t think they will.
I appreciate and have enjoyed the debate William. You have certainly given me food for thought. However, I am going to leave it now.
All the best.
Iain.
I’ve posted the following on all of the Facebook and MeWe groups that I follow. Hopefully, this will increase your audience and perhaps elicit some meaningful comments from new followers to your website: In-This-Together.com
The Great Debate:
What model of government is best to defeat globalism, feudalism, oligarchism?
Democracy based on Natural Law
– Versus –
Constitutional Federal Republic with a Bill of Rights
Read the debate in the Comments section.
Teachers: Share with your Students!
https://iaindavis.com/long-live-democracy/
Many thanks William.
Hi Iain, I have been looking through some of these comments and I am struck by a matter that has been forcing itself on me ever since this covid crap started: namely the increasing irrelevance of what I might call the old political discourse whereby there was a Left and a Right, capitalism and socialism etc.
The brutal fact is that from the beginning, all official channels of the Left jumped on the Covid parade and shilled for the restrictions even more aggressively than the mainstream – while ludicrously maintaining that the lockdowns and masks and distancing etc., even the vaccinations, were all somehow imposed on the rulers by us heroic workers.
The World Socialist Website even went so far as to assert that the original lockdowns were forced by “wildcat strikes” throughout Europe – a truly remarkable achievement since the UK miner’s strike of the 80s lasted a year and led to defeat. Yet over the space of, at most, a few weeks these wildcat strikes supposedly forced entire governments into shutting down their entire economies!
Consequently, the Left sites I used to frequent have proven themselves to be more than useless and actually lethal since all protest against the covid totalitarianism us branded “Right Wing”.
Now the Ukraine matter strikes me as a subterfuge through which, for the first time in two years, there is an oppositional position that can be expressed although, with supreme cunning, it is repressed just enough to make you think it’s valid i.e. the pro-Russian side. Now once again the Left can pose as an opposition and regain the cynicism it had towards the media which was abandoned the moment covid appeared. But once again, these Left sites remain silent about covid, not realising that the deserved deconstruction of the media over Ukraine is actually more relevant to the covid programme.
I now feel that the old comfortable Left/Right paradigm through which we can adopt our glamorous combat postures is obsolete and possibly always a con – as if we were doing little more than choosing between the Beatles or the Stones.
Many thanks for the outstanding comment George. I too once considered myself to be part of the left. I realised many years ago that I had essentially fallen foul of a diversionary tactic designed to pit me against the wrong people and keep me engaged in what I now consider to be a pointless exercise. I see no difference with the pro vs anti Russian debate. It is both pointless and a distraction in my view. This is something I am exploring in my series on the Ukraine War. – https://iaindavis.com/ukraine-war-part-1/
Iain – off track totally, sorry but could not find another contact address. Anyway, came across this, which could be your work but wasn’t sure. Just for completeness, so just in case it wasn’t, I decided to send it you.
CHARLES’ EMPIRE: THE ROYAL RESET RIDDLE = https://winteroak.org.uk/2022/04/15/charles-empire-the-royal-reset-riddle/
“When the Great Reset was officially launched in 2O2O, it was not done so by Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates, but by Charles, Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the British throne.”
Thanks Bob. I think Charles is challenging George III for the title of leading Royal lunatic – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/04/27/face-masks-cows-could-help-save-planet-one-burp-time/
Hi Iain
As i write this Australia just voted Labor into power. The bewildered herd just voted in technocratic communism and the end of life as we know it. We are completely fecked as the Irish say. God help them as well. Our re-education camps are ready for us so break open the midazolam and remdesiver.
SuDownunder
Thanks Sudownunder. My condolences. It’s everywhere. This is a global coup.
The main criticism of this was the problem of raising an army quickly, to defend the Democracy from an attack against an army with an organized plan, you must organize to properly calculate and act. Is this a potential or real problem?
Thanks IRUUR1, good question: – Governance by trial by jury – demokratia – wouldn’t preclude a military. What it may well preclude is government declaring war without justification.