Turning Our World the Right Way Up

(August 19^th, 2023)

Foreword

I have been writing for the cause of human rights and liberty for more than two decades. In that process, I have laid an intellectual depth charge underneath those that are seeking to kill off freedom and prosperity among human beings. And I have set that charge, in particular, under the political state; the institution that for over five millennia has done more to damage human lives and to hold back human progress than any other.

Of course, it is possible that my – and our – enemies may be able to defuse my particular bomb. But I know that I am not alone. Others have been, and are, working along similar lines. If I don’t get through their defences, someone else will. Our enemies, I think, know deep down that, like the dinosaurs and the Neanderthals, they are slated for extinction. And good riddance.

To the purposes of this essay. Recently, I completed my three-year programme of diagnosing, and offering some solutions to, our political ills today. But I found that I had lost sight of at least one vital piece of the puzzle. I had not written, or even planned, an Introduction to give the interested, but as yet uninformed, reader an idea of what my ideas are all about.

Not only that, but I had become sadly accustomed to finding my essays growing all but out of control. My most recent major essay stretched to 29,000 words! However clearly and concisely I try to write, I find I need to say so much that it becomes hard to avoid writing long, rambling, professorial-style tomes. I therefore saw a need to produce a management summary, to pull together a complete outline of my idea system, in a package small enough to be read in one or two sittings. My target was 15,000 words. Missed; but not by too much.

Moreover, I felt a need to step back and look at what I’ve done. I wanted one more chance to take a detached view of the whole, and to put each piece into its proper order and context. This essay, therefore, is my attempt to plug these gaps.

I very much hope that this particular essay may reach further than my previous writings. Even to the extent that people may find themselves puzzling over it, who have never before heard of the world-wide movements for human rights and liberty, or even of John Locke or his Two Treatises of Government. If you are one such, I say to you: Welcome!

The timeline of my recent work

In 2014, I wrote and self-published a short book called “Honest Common Sense.” This described itself as “a brief philosophy for all honest, civil human beings.” In August 2020, I decided to re-visit and update those ideas. The result, which I titled “Honest Common Sense 2.0,” was a series of six essays, published on-line in June and July 2021.

The first of these essays identified the thinkers, past and present, who have most influenced my philosophy; and outlined some of the antecedents of my ideas. The second gave my viewpoint on human history in the large. The third essay outlined my philosophical system, and the fourth and fifth gave more detail on the individual building blocks within it. The sixth and last sought to offer some thoughts on how we might seek to move from where we are today towards a better world.

Having laid down my philosophical baseline, I then set about trying to apply my ideas in order to improve the parlous political situation we human beings find ourselves in today. The title of my series was: “Time to take back our civilization from the parasites and pests.” I initially planned a set of three essays: Indictments, Diagnosis and Cure. The first one was written in November 2021, during the Glasgow CoP climate conference. It dealt principally with environmental issues, and most of all with the vexed subject of climate change. But it also listed many other bad things the political establishment were doing to us at that time.

When I set out to write my Diagnosis of our ills, I found that the work I had to do was at least an order of magnitude bigger than I had anticipated. On top of that, during 2022 political events were happening so fast, that I felt as if I was chasing after a moving target. I eventually re-planned the series as a set of five essays rather than three.

The only visible product of my labours in the first 11 months of 2022 was a single essay on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. I found, to my horror, that these were “nothing less than a blueprint for the complete destruction of human civilization as we know it today, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being alive.” And those that think of themselves as our masters had signed us all up to these goals back in 2015, without ever giving us any chance to object, or even to have our views heard.

In early 2023, I took a slight détour, to write a set of somewhat shorter essays, collectively titled “Climate Crisis? What Climate Crisis?” The first covered the accusations which are being made against us and our human civilization on the score of causing catastrophic global warming. It also examined the objective evidence on the matter. I concluded as follows: “Whatever alarmists may say, I for one don’t see any evidence for a ‘climate crisis.’ Still less is there any hard evidence that emissions of CO₂ by human civilization are causing any climate problems at all. Nor is it at all certain that any amount of reduction in CO₂ emissions would achieve any improvement in the climate.” These simple facts are now slowly, ever so slowly, starting to etch their way into the minds of the general public.

Again, the second of the set proved far larger and more complex than I had expected. I therefore had to split it into four parts. The first part told the back-story of what has been done to us over this issue in the UK since 2019. A truly horrifying tale. The second delved further into the past, giving the back-story on the green agenda up to 1992. The third gave the rest of the back-story from 1992 to the present. This included the perversion of the precautionary principle, which lies at the heart of many of the problems we suffer today. This perversion, in effect, inverts the burden of proof, denies the presumption of innocence, and requires the accused – that’s us – to prove a negative. Combine that with suppressing the right of the accused, even our experts, to have our case heard, and you have gross injustice. The last in the set addressed the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way” (in John Locke’s words), which has prevented proper cost-benefit analysis ever being done on policies like “net zero,” that flow from the climate change agenda.

My détour over, I returned to my main set of essays, and was able to complete them during the unseasonably cold, wet, windy July of 2023. Who needs “net zero” or anything like it, if this is the kind of summer that we are likely to face in the future?

In the remainder of this missive, I will provide a broad-brush summary of the ideas and proposals contained in these latest five essays.

Bottom-up versus top-down

At the very root of all my thinking is the distinction between bottom-up and top-down ways of doing things. This can be applied, for example, to the means by which an individual builds his or her world-view. A bottom-up thinker assembles evidence and facts, then uses logic and rational reasoning (including, where appropriate, science) to build the evidence and facts into their large-scale picture of reality. A top-down thinker, on the other hand, takes a set of ideas from someone else – often some religion, political ideology, or popular fad – then tries to apply them to everyone and everything around them.

Another area where bottom-up contrasts with top-down is engineering. As computer scientist Arthur Norman has put it: “Building skyscrapers top down is kind of a delicate matter.”

This distinction between bottom-up and top-down can also be applied to forms of social organization. In a bottom-up social organization, every individual is important. Such structures tend to be de-centralized, more like a peer-to-peer network than a hierarchy. A truly free market is an example of a bottom-up social structure. In a top-down organization, on the other hand, those at the bottom or periphery are commanded, or controlled, or both, by those at the top or centre. All today’s political systems, even democracies, are built on top-down lines.

My bottom-up philosophy

The distinction can also be applied to systems of ideas, even to complete philosophies. My own philosophy, for example, is very much a bottom-up one. It starts from what we are; from our identity and our nature as human beings. Our nature is to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take control of, and leave our mark on, our surroundings.

At the next level up, we make sense of the world around us, by identifying and seeking to understand what is out there, and so assembling our store of knowledge. Next, we come to understand ourselves, our nature, and what is right and wrong for human beings to do.

Beyond this, we base our desired social organizations on bottom-up principles. We seek to create systems which provide maximum benefit to every individual in them. For example, by upholding human rights, and delivering objective, common-sense justice to everyone, while allowing maximum freedom consistent with living in a civilized community. This produces what I call Civilization, as opposed to the top-down politics under which we suffer today.

At the highest level, such bottom-up social structures provide the environment, in which each and every human being can do what is natural for us to do. That is, to be creative; to trade freely with others for the benefit of all parties; and to live our lives well, and fulfil our potential. And, in the process, to make ourselves prosperous and happy.

Today’s top-down politics

In complete contrast is the top-down system called politics, under which we suffer today. I call its underlying philosophy Downerism. (“Downer” is short for “top-downer.”) I noticed recently that in different essays I have tended to use different names for our enemies as a group. When considering their philosophy of life, I have tended to call them Downers. When considering their behaviour, I have usually dubbed them “politicals.” This is because they like to use politics, either to enrich themselves or their cronies, or to harm those they don’t like, or both. There is a close commonality between the two, Downers and politicals.

The Downer methodology begins with an agenda. Often, a more or less thinly disguised programme of hatred and destruction. Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Maurice Strong or Sadiq Khan.

Next, Downer agenda setters seek to use politics to force their vision on others against their wills. They pursue power and control over others. They seek political power, for themselves or for those who subscribe to similar visions. They build a political movement, in order (apparently) to legitimize their agenda and their ideology.

For Downers, legislation made by those in power trumps any notions of right and wrong, and any ideal of justice. Thus, they seek to get made bad and oppressive laws, with which to drain and to rule over people, and to impose their agenda and ideology on everyone. Thus, once Downers are in control, ethics goes out of the window, and so do human rights.

Downers require narratives and propaganda to sustain their agendas. So, they like to create a mental atmosphere of lies and deceit, hype, gloom and doom, and unreasoning fear. They season this atmosphere with fake or misleading news, smears and insults. And they seek to suppress dissenting views.

At the bottom of the pyramid, the foot soldiers of Downerism believe, with blind faith, in the Downer agendas and narratives. They promote, support or enforce bad, unjust laws. They think that those bad laws are right, just because some bunch of politicians made them. And that those who will not believe the faith, must be made to follow it by force.

For Downers, the agenda, the ideology, the collective, the state, the laws, the propaganda narratives, are everything. And the individual human being, rights and freedoms, truth and honesty, right and wrong, objective common-sense justice, and human prosperity in the free market, all count for nothing.

From the point of view of us human beings, Downers are a drain on us and a danger to us. They truly are a down on us. For we want to be free to build human Civilization. But they desire to preserve and to expand their politics, and the (direct or indirect) power it gives them. Power to rule over us, power to profit from us, power to impoverish us, power to oppress us.

My view of human history

I gave my view of human history in the second essay of the latest set. That essay also included a section entitled “My liberty journey.” The nearest you will ever get from me to an autobiography! The following is a brief summary of the remainder.

I see human history, on the large scale, as a running battle between us human beings and our Downer enemies. Following an outline put forward by an American thinker who calls himself Jason Alexander, I view history as a series of forward-moving revolutions, in each of which we human beings open up, and start to explore, new levels or dimensions of our humanity. And we re-explore, and develop further, those dimensions which we had previously opened up. But each of our revolutions is eventually followed by a regressive, anti-human counter-revolution from those that are hostile to us and to our progress. Downers, politicals, our enemies, call them whichever you will.

Since the Neanderthal extinction, I count five of these human revolutions to date, each followed by a Downer counter-revolution.

The Neolithic revolution and the first counter-revolution

I see the first of our revolutions as having been the Neolithic revolution of about 12,500 years ago. That was when we began to settle down in communities, to cultivate crops, and to domesticate animals. This turned us from mere predator animals into human beings, capable of building civilizations. It was the point at which we differentiated from, and became superior to, mere animals. It was a practical revolution, and its paradigm was Humanity.

In contrast, our enemies’ first counter-revolution, starting probably around 3,200 BC, was the rise of the political state. And the state itself – a top-down system that enables an élite forcibly to rule over a, potentially large, group of people – was its counter-paradigm.

Ancient Greece and the second counter-revolution

Our second revolution, a mental one, was seeded in ancient Greece, beginning around the late 7^th century BC. Its paradigm was Reason. It taught us to think rationally and abstractly; for example, to do mathematics and philosophy. And it enabled us to build new and better kinds of civilization, such as Athenian democracy.

Our enemies’ second counter-revolution began in the 4^th century AD, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. It produced a powerful church, to go with the state. Institutional religion enabled the unscrupulous to control people mentally, just as the state enabled them to control people physically. This led to the Dark and Middle Ages. The counter-paradigm, then, was institutional religion, and the church that embodied it.

The Renaissance and the third counter-revolution

Our third revolution began at the Renaissance. Its paradigm was Discovery. Of ideas both old and new, of new places, of ourselves. It was a spiritual revolution; a rise of the human spirit.

It helped us to emerge from the top-down tyranny of the church and the feudal political system. It brought a sense of renewed confidence in our own faculties. It brought a new sense of freedom for human beings, who had been for so long suppressed by orthodoxy. And it laid the groundwork for the later development of science.

Our enemies’ third counter-revolution had two components: religious and secular. The religious part produced wars, moral panics, Inquisitions and witch-hunts. Even so, the power of the papacy, at least, was greatly reduced.

But the secular part was more damaging to us. It contained three main strands. First, Niccolò Machiavelli prompted rulers to be sly, deceitful, and unscrupulous. As well as cruel, oppressive and heartless.

Second, Jean Bodin articulated a new theoretical basis for the political state, sovereignty. In Bodin’s scheme, the “sovereign” – the king or ruling élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of the population in its territory, the “subjects.” The sovereign has moral privileges. It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes. It can issue a currency. It can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt at will certain individuals or groups from payment. Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences to anyone of what it does (also known as “the king can do no wrong.”)

Bodin’s system was rolled out across Europe, and later the world, as the “Westphalian” nation state. We’re still suffering under it today. And whenever, as happens far too often, such a state is captured by those with Machiavellian tendencies, then bad laws, cronyism, wars, injustices and persecutions, corruption, inflation, heavy taxes (except on favourites), recklessness and lack of accountability become rife. They’re all built into the nature of the political state, and the nature of the Downers and politicals that like to use state power to impose their nefarious schemes on us human beings.

Third, Thomas Hobbes invented the fiction of a “social contract,” which makes out that each and every one of us has implicitly agreed to be subject to a political government. Even one that harasses, drains and oppresses us.

If I try to reduce the essence of the third counter-revolution to its major elements, I come up with four: Orthodoxy, tyranny, dishonesty, and ethical inequality.

The Enlightenment and the fourth counter-revolution

Our fourth revolution was the Enlightenment. Like the second, it was a mental revolution. Its paradigm was Freedom. From it have flowed all the (relative) freedoms we have enjoyed in the West over the last three centuries.

It brought new ideas, more friendly to the individual than before, that are commonly called “Enlightenment values.” These included: Greater religious tolerance. Freedom of thought and action. Natural rights, natural equality of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that society exists for the individual, not the individual for society. Constitutional government, with the consent of, for the benefit of, and serving rather than ruling over, the governed. The rule of law. A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.

But our enemies responded with a counter-revolution of many strands. At its root, their counter-paradigm was collectivism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed the social contract fiction into a collectivist nightmare. And Georg Hegel demoted the human individual to a status of total subordination to the state. Over time, a slew of political ideologies emerged, all of which were collectivist and hostile to the ordinary, individual human being. Socialism, nationalism, Toryism, communism and fascism, for example. Not to mention theocracy!

The Industrial Revolution and the fifth counter-revolution

Our fifth revolution was the Industrial Revolution. Which, like the first, was a practical revolution. Its paradigm was Creativity, and it was supported by the free market and free trade. It has enabled those countries, which have fully embraced it, greatly to increase the general standard of living of ordinary people. And so, greatly to increase their quality of life and their happiness.

Our enemies’ fifth counter-revolution, though, has been growing for the last 80 years or so. Its counter-paradigm is Suppression, with a strong sub-theme of corruption. Suppression of truth, suppression of rights, suppression of freedom, suppression of prosperity. Suppression of our humanity and our creativity. Suppression of us.

Like the third and fourth counter-revolutions, this one has included many different strands. The political classes in individual countries, even in democracies, have become more and more tyrannical towards the people they are supposed to serve. Governments and their cronies are coming to treat us like resources to be exploited, objects, or even mere numbers in a database; not with the dignity due to us as human beings.

On top of this, globalist and internationalist élites seek to shape political policies around the world to suit their own vested interests. Organizations like the United Nations and the European Union have risen, grown, and become more and more corrupt and tyrannical. The green leviathan, too, has grown, to the point where it now threatens to destroy the energy security and the economies of almost all Western countries, including the UK. And all for no reason but a pack of lies and unfounded scares!

“Non-governmental” and nominally private organizations have joined the bandwagon too. For example, associations of big corporations, such as the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are seeking to force their view of the future on us, whether we like it or not. Whole industries, like Big Pharma, will take any opportunity governments throw their way to make themselves richer and richer at our expense. And banks and other financial bodies are ready to “de-bank,” or otherwise to punish, anyone who dares to speak out against orthodoxy.

Meanwhile, advisors and influencers, technocrats and “experts,” green, religious or political-correctness maniacs, financial and big-business élites, academics and activists, and some that are several of the above, fall over each other to take as much as they can from us, and to do as much harm to us as they can. Life for ordinary people is becoming, more and more, an Orwellian nightmare.

So, where are we today?

Where are we today? In a nutshell: The current political system has failed.

Government, the very institution that is supposed to defend and uphold the rights of human beings against criminals and wrongdoers, has been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same criminals and wrongdoers. Moreover, an international élite, spearheaded by the United Nations, and including multi-national corporations, dishonest politicians, and activist fellow-travellers, seeks to “unite the world” into a single world-wide superstate, under the tyranny of a global ruling class, unelected and unaccountable.

Further, today’s governments tax us all but out of existence. They press ahead manically with tyrannical and destructive policies like “net zero” and ULEZ, based on nothing but lies and hype. And the system is rigged, so ordinary people cannot obtain redress, or even get our objections heard.

Governments, at all levels, have lost trust in, and respect for, the people they are supposed to serve. In return, very many ordinary people have lost trust in and respect for governments.

So-called democracy has failed. Most of our “representatives” today fail even to try to represent us. They fail to fight, on our behalf, our corner against all the vested interests that scrap for power and control over us. And many of them actively support pernicious policies like high taxes and “net zero.” Many of them are deeply dishonest, too, as shown by the scandals which crop up so regularly.

Further, in a supposed democracy, it should be the people (that is, persons eligible to vote) who dictate the direction in which a country moves politically. The people should be able to set the direction and tone of government, and every individual should have a full and fair say in what policies it will adopt; not merely a bunch of lying, thieving, scheming politicians and their cronies.

Still less should that direction be driven by unaccountable internationalist, globalist and corporate élites. Indeed, any democracy worth the name must be based, ultimately, on self-determination for the people. External parties such as the EU or UN, multi-national corporations, and groups such as the World Economic Forum should not be allowed any say at all in the direction in which a country moves. Only the people of that country should have that say.

Moreover, all the mainstream political parties today are bad. Albeit, each is worse in slightly different ways. What is the worth of a vote, if there is no-one worth voting for?

And further, as Mahatma Gandhi has told us: “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” The idea that ten people can vote to tell nine people what is to be “legal” or “illegal” for them to do, is a travesty of all conceptions of freedom and justice.

Democracy, as it exists today, is coming to be seen as the empty sham it is. Moreover, it ends up breaking apart the very sense of “we” that seemed to give it legitimacy in the first place. The victims of unjust policies feel harshly treated, and become disaffected. Those who have been harmed by the policies of particular parties come to hate those parties, and those that vote for them. As a victim of a bad tax law called IR35, which has all but destroyed my career and condemned me to poverty in my old age, I know that those who, like me, have been harmed by policies of successive governments of all parties, come to feel hatred and contempt for the whole political system, and for anyone that takes an active part in it. Thus, sham democracy destroys the cohesion, the “glue” which ought to keep a community of people together.

My ethical and political philosophy

To more constructive matters. When mapped on to the areas of conventional philosophy known as ethics and politics, my system of ideas can help to move people’s minds towards a future of freer, happier and more prosperous lives for all human beings.

The name I use for the layer of my bottom-up philosophy which corresponds to ethics (the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles) is Behave. This layer seeks to answer the question: What behaviours are right (or wrong) for a human being? My broad-brush answer is: Right behaviour for a human being is behaving according to human nature.

Further, as I said above, it is our nature to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take control of, and leave our mark on, our surroundings. When dealing with the interface between ethics and politics, it is the building-civilizations part of our nature which is most relevant. Put simply, right behaviour for a human being is civilized behaviour.

In the arena of politics and governance, the question I ask is: How should we human beings organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all? Thus, the name I give to the equivalent of politics in my system is Organize. The bottom-up nature of my system means that ethics must drive politics, not vice versa. So, the individuals, to whom governance must be of benefit, are exactly those individuals who behave, according to their human nature, in civilized ways.

A proper ethical code consistent with human nature, and a proper system of governance based on bottom-up principles, can combine to produce the habitat which we human beings need in order to flourish. That is, peace, human rights, objective justice, and maximum freedom for all, including the economic free market. Such a habitat will enable us to build a prosperous and durable economy, and so to fulfil ourselves.

I have distilled the Behave and Organize layers of my philosophical system down to a set of twelve key ideas. I will now state, and briefly discuss, each of them in turn. Those who would like a little more detail should look at the third essay in my latest set.

Identity determines morality principle

The first of my key ideas, I state as: Right and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of the species. Briefly put, identity determines morality.

Thus, any species of sentient beings has its own “natural law,” which determines what is right and wrong for a member of the species to do. Right and wrong for a giraffe, for example, are different from right and wrong for a lion. A giraffe naturally picks fruit and leaves off the tops of tall trees. Whereas a lion naturally chases, kills and eats animals like zebra. If they tried to swap behaviours, both would go hungry, and many lions would die through falling out of trees.

For humans, it follows that right and wrong behaviours are determined by human nature. And, as I indicated above, right behaviour for a human being is civilized behaviour.

Ethical equality principle

I state the second key idea as: What is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

The principle arises from the premise that all individuals of a species have the same nature. If they did not have the same nature, they would be different species. And therefore, what is right and wrong for each individual to do is the same for all individuals of the species.

This applies, in particular, to human beings. What is right and wrong for any human being to do is determined by the nature of humanity; what John Locke called the “law of Nature,” and many others have called natural law. Thus, what is naturally right (or wrong) for each human individual to do, is the same for all human individuals. And those that behave, habitually or grossly, outside the bounds of human nature, are not us. They are not human.

Honesty and integrity

The third key idea relates to honesty, integrity and the relationship between them.

The word “honesty” has many meanings. For example, seeking and telling truth, straightforwardness, trustworthiness. But my own definition is all of the above, and more: Honesty is being true to your nature. Honesty is behaving as is natural for a human being.

In my take, integrity is the product of honesty. Integrity constitutes the observable behaviours, which come from being true to your nature, and behaving as a human being.

The Convivial Code

The fourth key idea, I call the Convivial Code. It is an ethical code of conduct, encapsulating the behaviours which are right (and, implicitly or explicitly, the behaviours which are wrong) for human beings. People who follow it make themselves convivial, or otherwise put “fit to be lived with.”

The Convivial Code specifies (or more accurately, when it has been written, will specify) a minimum set of standards of behaviour for all human beings worth the name. It is, in essence, a touchstone for humanity. It is based on human nature, and it is independent of culture.

I will give you, at this point, John Locke’s simple and straightforward rendition of the Code. “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” So, no killing of human beings, no physical assaults, no infringing on others’ rights or freedoms, and no stealing or destruction of property. That’s a pretty good start.

My own best shot so far at an outline of the Code is as follows: Be peaceful. Seek the facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive always to behave with justice, integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those who are tolerant towards you. Respect the rights and freedoms of those who respect your equal rights and freedoms. Don’t interfere in other people’s business without a very good, objective reason. Take responsibility for the effects of your voluntary actions on others. And practise what you preach.

Note that these are basic minimum standards for human behaviour. Every human being worth the name ought to be able to meet them all for the very great majority of the time. Those that fail to meet them habitually, or in large matters, are not worthy of the name human being.

A problem with viewing ethics in terms of lists of obligations, such as my list above, is that it isn’t always practical to keep to the obligations with absolute strictness. For example, to include in the Code an absolute prohibition on physical violence would be impractical, because it would not allow those under attack to defend themselves. Each rule of the Code must, therefore, also specify the conditions under which individuals may reasonably break it, and at what level they may do so. Reasons for such exceptions might include, for example: Self-defence. Defence of others. To arrest and hold someone reasonably suspected of real wrongdoing for a short period prior to trial. And to force a wrongdoer to compensate the victims of the wrongdoing, and if appropriate to punish that wrongdoer proportionately, after conviction by an honest court of justice.

One way in which the Code will differ from systems of political laws, is that the Code will be essentially timeless. Once set up, it needs no legislative. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which have not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new knowledge becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare. Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable retrospectively.

Rights are earned principle

The first four key ideas were concerned with right and wrong behaviour in general. The next three address how a human individual should behave towards other human beings.

My fifth key idea is the first of a matched pair on the topic of human rights. I state it as: You earn your own rights, by respecting the equal rights of others around you. By “rights” here, I mean all the valid rights which have been documented in lists such as Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights, and much of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And quite a few more.

In my view, rights are not granted by some government, deity or other external party. Each individual earns his or her human rights, by respecting the equal rights of others. And this respect for rights is built into the nature of any human being worth the name.

Of course, when you were born, you had already “earned” these rights in principle, because you had not harmed, or tried to harm, any other individual. But you must continue to respect others’ rights, in order to retain and to expand your own rights.

Respect for rights principle

Here’s the sixth key idea. The flip side of rights being earned is that by acting as is natural for a human being, and respecting others’ rights, you acquire an expectation that others will respect your equal rights. If you respect others’ rights, your own rights ought to be sacrosanct.

I put these two principles together as: Human rights are for human beings, and human beings have human rights.

Judgement by behaviour principle

The seventh key idea I state as: It isn’t who someone is that matters, only what they do.

Judgement by behaviour represents a practice of judging individuals by examining how they behave. It means that you should not take too much account of things outside an individual’s control, such as race, birthplace, social class, received religion or disability. Instead, you should judge people by their actions. And, of course, their motivations for doing what they do, as far as you can work them out.

Another way to put this idea is: Human is as human does.

Community versus society

With my eighth key idea, I enter the realm of social organization, classically called politics.

I make an important distinction between a community and a society. A community is a group of people, bound together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A society, on the other hand, is a group of people who have agreed to join together in a common cause.

A society has what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called a “general will,” a will shared by the members as a whole. Provided, of course, that those, who cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the society, can freely leave the society.

A community, on the other hand, has no general will. Thus, it does not exist as a collective, only as a group of individuals. The people who reside in a particular geographical area, for example, are bound together into a community by their common place of residence. But they are not a society, because there is no common cause in which they have all agreed to join.

Voluntary society principle

The ninth key idea, I state as: All societies must be voluntary. This is the primary principle of organizing a Civilization, as opposed to a political government.

This principle is explicitly supported by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20(2): “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

A major consequence of this is that because those who live in a particular geographical area are only a community, not a society, they cannot be assumed to support or to accept any particular political ideology or set of policies. Therefore, they ought not to be subjected to any political government.

Falsity of the “social contract” fiction

The “social contract” fiction was, so it seems, invented in the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes. According to this narrative, at some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with each other, that they consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign. And that we, today, are still bound by their agreement.

My tenth key idea is that this fiction is false. Even if my ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I know, they didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any social contract! Where is my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the statements of the benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for me to get justice and redress if the government party fails to deliver?

The social contract fiction has led to an idea that there is something called “Society” in the singular, to which everyone in a particular area – such as the territory claimed by a state – belongs, whether they want to or not. According to this narrative, all of us have agreed to an implied contract, that makes us part of this “Society,” and thus subjects of a Hobbesian sovereign. This, in turn, makes us subject to a political government, and to the decrees of its leaders and officials for the time being.

The voluntary society principle leads me to reject this idea of “Society” in the singular. I also reject derived ideas like “social justice” and “social security.” And I oppose all political ideologies – like socialism, communism and fascism – that depend on the idea. I also reject any implication that I have ever agreed to be part of a political society (other than a political party I joined voluntarily). And, having not voted in a UK general or local election since 1987, I have never signed up to be governed by any cabal of politicians now in existence.

I state this tenth key idea as: There is no such thing as “society” in the singular. There are only societies.

Common-sense justice principle

The eleventh, and perhaps the most important, of my key ideas is the common-sense justice principle. I state it as follows: Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. Thus, common-sense justice is individual justice.

What this means, from the individual’s point of view, is that if you treat others well, you deserve to be treated correspondingly well by others. And if you treat others badly, you deserve to be treated correspondingly badly. What could be more common-sense than that?

Some may find this idea a bit scary. It is, indeed, close to the vision of the prophet Obadiah: “As thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” But the principle also implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do, harm to innocent people, you don’t deserve to suffer any harms being done to you. For good people, it’s not scary at all.

On the other side, if you do harm to others, or seek to do harm to others, or seek to impose on others unreasonable risks of harm, then you should be required to compensate those whose lives you damaged, and if appropriate to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did. Common-sense justice is a hard taskmaster; but it is a fair one.

Maximum freedom principle

The final key idea is the maximum freedom principle. It allows maximum freedom of choice and action for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.

I have expressed it as: Except where countermanded by justice, the Convivial Code or respect for rights, every individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes.

Why do we need governance?

Next, a basic question. Why do we need governance at all? Why can’t we simply get rid of governments altogether, and get on with living our lives? I can think of no better way to answer this question than through quoting from the Two Treatises of Government, written in the late 17^th century by John Locke, the father of the Enlightenment. The Second Treatise, in particular, is for me the greatest work of political philosophy yet written.

In his Second Treatise (§4), Locke started from a view of humans being naturally in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” Of this law of Nature, he says: “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” I have already used this final clause as a first cut at an outline of the Convivial Code.

Locke recognized that all human beings are bound together into a community by this law of Nature. In §128 of the Second Treatise he says: “By which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures.” But he also knew that, among those born human, some fail to keep to this law of Nature. For he continues: “And were it not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and associate into lesser combinations.”

I will add a brief note about the word “degenerate,” which Locke uses here. It comes from the Latin de- (away from) and genus (a race, or a kind). Through degener (meaning debased) and degeneratus (no longer of its kind), it evolved in the 15^th century into its present form.

To counter the dangers posed by these degenerate individuals, Locke posits (§95) that a group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do “by agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.” This is his version of the “social contract” idea, and his rationale for forming a government.

But he is very clear about the purposes of any such agreement. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government,” he says in §124, “is the preservation of their property.” And in §57: “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” Moreover, he says of governments in §135: “Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects.” And the “public good” he defines in the First Treatise, §92: “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.”

Locke also made it clear that any government, that departs from its remit of upholding the good of every single individual among the governed (real wrongdoers excepted), loses its legitimacy. He says in §201 of the Second Treatise: “Wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently becomes tyranny.”

Moreover, he cautions in §12 that “a great part of the municipal laws of countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.” Otherwise put, laws made by politicians, that go against the law natural to human beings, are not valid, and should not be obeyed by human beings.

In §149, he says of government power: “All power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it.” Further, the people always retain “a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.” And they are entitled (§222) “to resume their original liberty.” So, if any government goes rogue, we the people have a right to kick it out. And to replace it, or not, as we choose.

In §140, he addresses taxation. “It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it.” I read this as meaning that each individual should pay, for any period in which government defends his assets, in proportion to the benefit he receives from that protection. And I read “out of his estate his proportion” as saying that how much he is expected to pay should be in direct proportion to his total wealth. That means, there should be no taxes on incomes or on transactions, no taxes at all on the poorest, and very definitely no impositions on some kinds of people but not others!

And Locke is very clear and forthright, when he says in §225: “But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.” That’s exactly where we are right now, in the UK and virtually every other Western country.

Just governance

Next, I shall outline my proposal for a new, bottom-up system of governance, which could replace, and fix the problems with, the current, top-down, failed system of political states and political governments. This system can help us to “turn our world the right way up.”

I call my proposed system, to supersede the political state, “just governance.” I have used the word “governance” rather than the more usual “government,” because I wish to maintain a clear separation between the two systems. I discussed the new system in the third essay of my latest set. The following is a brief summary.

The functions of just governance

The new system will govern communities of individuals, in much the same way as a referee governs a football match. It will also adjudicate as needed on the relationships between those individuals, the voluntary societies to which they belong, and other individuals and societies they interact with.

The primary function of just governance will be provision of common-sense justice to all. Maintenance of peace and tranquillity, and the upholding of the human rights of all those who respect others’ equal rights, are also important functions. And just governance will allow maximum freedom for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.

Just governance will also include strong quality assurance on its own processes. For example, lying, or any kind of dishonesty, by officials of governance against the people they are supposed to be serving will be a very serious, even a dismissal, offence.

Just governance will also need some subsidiary functions, such as diplomacy with other just governances and, for a time, with legacy states.

Crucially, just governance will not have any permanent legislative. For its code of law, the Convivial Code, comes from human nature, not from edicts made by political élites.

The character of just governance

Just governance will be bottom-up and de-politicized. It will focus on the individual, and on small communities. And it will not allow any political or religious ideology or agenda to be imposed on any of the governed against their wills. Moreover, it will not seek to control or to meddle with economic activity in any way.

In structure, it will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It will have no central or commanding point, at which undue concentration of political power can collect. Except in clear emergency, it will be reactive rather than pro-active. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one interest group unjustly to override the interests of others.

The judicial function

The primary institutions of just governance will be judicial, including impartial arbitration of disputes and objective assessment of externalities and risks. The major institution will be courts of just governance.

Ultimately, the authority of just governance can only come from its impartiality, its objectivity, its honesty, and the common-sense nature of its principles.

As in today’s legal systems, I expect there will be a separation between two areas of justice. On the one hand, arbitration and restorative justice; that is, the resolution of disputes, and the calculation and ordering of restitution for wrongs. And on the other hand, criminal or retributive justice.

Another aspect of the judicial function will be to make objective assessments of actual or alleged externalities (side effects), such as pollution or noise, which cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause, damage to others. If appropriate, those that cause such externalities will be made to compensate the individuals and groups affected by the damage they caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer. The judicial function will also be able to analyze and assess actual or alleged risks, in much the same way as for externalities.

Secondary aims and functions

The secondary aims of just governance are upholding human rights, and allowing maximum freedom for everyone. That freedom, of course, must be tempered by individual responsibility for the effects of willed actions on others.

The function that upholds rights would correspond, in today’s terms, to a police force. Other aspects of the upholding rights function would be the emergency services which today are often required, with or without police, at or after incidents. Under the same heading, when required, would come dealing with disasters such as floods, and defence against invaders, military aggressors and violent gangs.

Local and emergency rules

There will, at times and in places, be a need to make what I call “local rules.” These are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for the benefit of all users of the public space (that is, space open to all) in the local area. But local rules must be kept to a minimum.

There may also be a need to make temporary rules in the event of a clear emergency, such as a flood or an epidemic. But the scope and period of such rules must be as limited as possible.

A possible structure for just governance

I sketched out some ideas on a possible structure for just governance in the third essay of the latest set. The following is a very brief summary. Of course, any new system on this kind of scale will have to be prototyped first; and the good ideas taken forward, and the less good modified. So, the system may end up looking significantly different from my proposals.

Just governance will, by design, be de-centralized. The communities, in which the governed live, will be small enough to produce diverse “flavours” of community for people of different tastes. I have in mind a town or small city, with a population range of a few thousands up to perhaps a hundred thousand. Economically, different communities will tend to specialize in different things. So, there will be much trade, both between neighbouring communities and between those further apart. Moreover, free movement will be the norm.

I envisage, first, local or neighbourhood organizations, on a scale of a few hundred people. And second, community organizations, on the scale of a town or small city. There will also be governance institutions, which can provide services on a wider basis than just a single community. Anything, which requires a larger scale of co-operation yet, will be handled through alliances.

The neighbourhood

I envisage that the neighbourhood of just governance (NJG) will be a voluntary society in a neighbourhood of a few hundred people, for those who take an interest in just governance locally. Its main functions will be to conserve the special characteristics of the local area, and to assess possible changes to it, including the suitability of potential incoming migrants. It will operate, in essence, by direct democracy.

The community

I envisage the community of just governance (CJG) to govern a unit large enough to be economically viable in the free market. I envisage that CJGs will probably be non-profit companies. I expect the remit of a CJG to be closer to that of a town council than anything else today.

I would expect the CJG to organize those functions of just governance which must be delivered at the local level. I expect the services to include: Police (except detectives), firemen, paramedics and other first responders. Maintaining a capability for military defence. Making and administering local (and, at need, emergency) rules as required. Providing premises and support staff for courts of just governance. And maintaining pre-existing infrastructure in the public space, such as roads and footpaths.

In addition to regular discussions on CJG-level matters among representatives from the NJGs, I expect there would be periodic (probably yearly) meetings open to all community residents, something like a New England open town meeting.

At the wider level

The institution, which I expect to deliver those services of just governance that can be managed and delivered from outside any particular CJG, I have dubbed the Society for Just Governance (SJG). An SJG will probably be a non-profit company. It will be the nearest equivalent in just governance to a government today.

It will be a project management and contracting organization, using externally sourced skills, such as detectives, judges and arbitrators, risk and cost-benefit assessors, diplomats and negotiators, and quality auditors, to do the work. It will compete with other SJGs in the free market.

How to pay for just governance

What an individual is expected to pay for just governance should be in proportion to the benefit he or she gets from it. I see the benefits provided by just governance – for example, protection of property – as being in direct proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Thus, periodic payments should be in proportion to the individual’s total wealth at the time.

Of the remaining current governmental functions, those services which are necessary, but not part of core governance – such as welfare, pensions, health care and education – need to be de-politicized, with control being passed to those who provide those services. And new, just and more flexible financial arrangements will have to be devised. Development of new infrastructure will also need to be reviewed. I would expect that, under just governance, most new infrastructure would be paid for by user fees, such as tolls.

As an important feature of the system of payment for just governance, there will be no taxes on incomes or on transactions. Nor will there be any re-distributory or confiscatory taxation.

In the best of all possible worlds, just governance might be funded, in an area with a common currency, without the need for any form of taxation resembling today’s. This could be done by allowing the currency to be inflated by a small percentage each month or year. About 1.5% a year (0.125% a month) was my back-of-an-envelope figure for what might be needed to support the core functions of just governance. This would affect all assets denominated in the currency, so should produce the desired distribution of payments according to wealth. But to work out how to make such a system practical goes beyond my pay grade in economics.

The root of our problems

In the fourth essay of my latest set, I unveiled my diagnosis of the root cause of our problems today. Simply put, the human species, over the course of several thousand years, has split into two. And the two branches have different, and incompatible, natures.

It is worth observing here that John Locke, when he described our enemies as “degenerates” (no longer of their kind), was already a long way towards understanding this!

Economic means versus political means

First, some philosophical background. The German Jewish sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, in his book The State (first published in German in 1908), made a very famous distinction between the economic means of getting needs satisfied and the political means. I quote from the English translation of his book:

“There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others… I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the economic means for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the political means.”

Oppenheimer also wrote: “All world history, from primitive times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely between the economic and the political means.” And: “The state is an organization of the political means.”

Now, compare Oppenheimer’s view of history, as summarized above, with my view of human history in the large, which I gave earlier. We are very much along the same lines!

And as to the state? Oppenheimer was right. The state uses the political means as its modus operandi. But, surprisingly to me, he did not observe in addition that the very resources, that have been taken away from us through the political means, can be used to make policies and take actions that go against our interests in more ways than just economic. What the state takes away from us, it can then use to violate our rights, or to oppress or tyrannize us. Or, as John Locke put it, to “impoverish, harass or subdue” us.

Us and Them

I shall now compare and contrast the characteristics of those on the two sides of the divide.

One side, which I call “we” or “us,” “human beings” or “human beings worth the name,” has remained faithful to human nature as I have outlined it above. Our natural way of thinking and doing is a bottom-up way. The preferred habitat of our species is one in which every human individual has the maximum chance to flourish, and to become happy and prosperous. That is, the economic free market, supported by honest systems that maintain peace, uphold human rights and freedoms, and deliver objective, individual justice for all.

The other side I call, variously, “they” or “them,” “Downers,” “politicals” or “our enemies.” John Locke called them “degenerates,” a most apt choice of word. For they have become estranged from us. Their nature is now different from ours. Their way of thinking and doing is top-down. Their preferred habitat is in positions of power and influence, direct or indirect, in a political state. Or in some other top-down organization, such as religious, military or big-company hierarchies, or organized criminal or terrorist gangs, or political activist groups.

The dividing line, the blade that divides “us” from “them,” I dub Oppenheimer’s Razor. We, by our nature, use the economic means in order to get our needs satisfied. They use the political means. The two species are physically very similar, even being able to mate with each other. But mentally, and in preferred habitat and means of obtaining sustenance, the two are very different.

Over the centuries, and in the last few decades in particular, the two species have diverged so far, that the politicals have now become actively parasitical on, and hostile and pestilent towards, us human beings. And we, in our turn, are starting to push back against the predations and provocations by our enemies.

The behaviours of the two species

Human beings are not perfect. But we at least strive to be peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human beings. We also strive to act in good faith. The great majority of human beings worth the name are also prepared to “live and let live” in their dealings with their fellows, and many actually manage to live up to this standard in practice. In summary, we do our best to live up to our human nature.

In complete contrast, politicals often behave very badly towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression, recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human rights and freedoms. Rather than trying to live up to human nature, they live down in the murky depths of their nature. They behave, for want of a better word, like psychopaths.

Other evidence

In that fourth essay, I gave some further evidence to support my case that human beings and politicals have diverged into two separate species. I looked at the virtues and values, which are favoured by those on the two sides of the divide. I looked at what those on the two sides tend to fear and to hate. I found that I had no doubt at all that the human species has now split into two sub-species, with two all but opposite sets of behaviours which are natural to them.

I concluded my case as follows: “Our enemies have been the beneficiaries of a bad political system, that instead of favouring honest, productive human beings, has favoured the most dishonest and corrupt. Today, they are doing everything in their power to keep this system going, at the expense of, and to the hurt of, all human beings worth the name. We must bring down the politicals, and the system that supports them, before they succeed in bringing us down to their level.”

Parasites and pests

I identified, among the politicals, two overlapping tendencies. Which I labelled parasites and pests.

Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich themselves and their cronies, or to rake in money in order to implement their pet schemes. They are bad enough. But pests go further. Pests (or, otherwise put, vermin) want power for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests want to control people, to persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. I gave an overview of the characteristics of parasites and pests near the end of the third essay of the last set.

Neither parasites nor pests are fit to be invited into any community of human beings worth the name. They are traitors to human civilization, and to the human species. They deserve to be kicked out of human civilization, and denied all its benefits.

The war we’re in

We find ourselves embroiled today in a war. It is a war between, on one side, human beings worth the name; and on the other, political parasites and pests. This war is an existential struggle for, if I may use a religious word, the soul of humanity.

Only one side can win this war. And I cannot conceive that our enemies can possibly win in the long term. For if they did manage to reduce us human beings to nothing more than serfs or slaves, their economy would quickly collapse, taking them with it.

Thus, we must fight, each of us in our own way. We must fight for humanity, for reality and rationality, for our rights and freedoms, for justice. We human beings must join together in resisting the parasites and pests. And when we have fought off their aggressions and forced them on the back foot, we must strike back at them with all the might we can muster. And we must bring them to justice.

The three mind-sets

At present, as I see things, there are three basic mind-sets on display among human beings. There is the Downer mind-set, shared by the political parasites and pests. There is a new mind-set, that is now starting to fight back against our enemies that seek to destroy our civilization. And there is a confused, angry, and yet fearful mind-set, which seems to be experienced today by many ordinary people.

Our enemies’ mind-set

Above, I listed some of the psychopathic ways in which our Downer enemies are behaving today. And earlier, when I discussed their top-down philosophy, I gave some pointers towards their mind-set. They are arrogant; they think they are superior to others. They are hypocritical; they think that what they tell others to do doesn’t apply to them. They have little or no concern for ethics, or for human rights. They lie and deceive, and avoid the truth. They routinely deal in bad faith. They favour hype and fear over rational analysis of the evidence. They want to smear, insult, and suppress the views of, those who disagree with them. They are reckless, irresponsible and intolerant, and they accept no accountability.

But I am coming to think that the lies, hype, fear and ad hominems our enemies spout may be more than just propaganda tools.  I think they may be genuinely afraid of something. Deep down inside, do they perhaps feel panic and fear for their own futures? Might they have divined, for example, that the political system, on which their entire privileged way of life depends, is not sustainable? That the state is, ethically, already bankrupt; and perilously close to financial bankruptcy, too? And that, on its present course, it will soon fail?

This might well explain why so much that political governments do today is directed towards getting in more, more, and more “revenue” for their state. Why our enemies rant so much about “safety” and “sustainability.” Why they think their scares are “existential” problems. Why everything is “worse than we thought!” And why, every time people lose interest in one set of scares, our enemies dream up new scares to replace them.

It could also explain why they refuse to acknowledge, or even to look at, the facts. They don’t want anyone (least of all themselves) to find out that their apocalyptic claims about climate change, or air pollution, or whatever is the latest scare du jour, are unfounded! It could explain why they brook no contrarian views, and why they so often seek to suppress those views. Could it be, perhaps, that they have so much invested in their scams, that they feel they can’t afford to let the truth come out?

It could also help to account for their mad, breathless rush to get their plans implemented right now. Oh, and why is extinction one of the things they are so worried about?

The Re-discovery mind-set

There is a new mind-set around today. It is starting to take root among many people who are dissatisfied with politics today, including myself. Already, two of its visible results are a new, and greatly strengthened, pushback by ordinary people against government overreach, and a new determination to fight hard for our human rights and freedoms. In the fifth essay of my latest set, I devoted several pages to some details of this new mind-set.

As I experience it, the new mind-set is moving in the same direction as the new attitudes and ways of thinking, which became common during the Renaissance. There is a sense of emergence, if not yet from the political tyranny to which we are subjected, then at least from the mental tyranny of thinking that the present system is natural, morally right and immutable. There is a new sense of confidence in ourselves and our capabilities. There is a prospect of better times ahead; albeit, that we still have a lot to do to get there.

The paradigm of the Renaissance was Discovery; of ideas both old and new, of new places, of ourselves. The paradigm which underlies the new mind-set, I think, is Re-discovery. We are starting to re-discover ourselves. And the process of re-discovery, as with the Renaissance, will be a spiritual revolution: a change for the better in the human spirit.

We will re-discover our Humanity, our nature as human beings. We will re-discover that we are naturally good. We will re-discover that this is our planet, and its resources are for us to use wisely, to build a home and garden fit for a civilized species. We will re-discover our Reason and our rationality. We will re-discover our “bullshit meters,” which enable us to reject lies, hype and unfounded scares.

We will re-discover our human spirit, and our confidence in ourselves. We will re-discover our consciences. We will re-discover the built-in weather-vane or barometer, that gives us a sense of what is right and wrong for us human beings to do. We will re-discover, and re-illuminate, the crucial idea of human rights.

We will re-discover the ideas and values of the Enlightenment. We will re-discover the ideal of governance for the benefit of, with the consent of, and serving rather than ruling over, every human being among the governed. We will re-discover our natural industry and productivity. We will re-discover our ability to solve problems. We will re-discover honest business and trade for what they are: the natural ways for human beings to relate to each other in the public sphere.

We will come to judge individuals by their behaviour, rather than by things outside their control. We will re-discover our membership in the “great and natural community,” made up of all human beings worth the name. We will come to care about all our fellow human beings; but only about our fellow human beings. We will feel no concern at all for promoters, supporters, makers or enforcers of bad laws that harm, or violate the rights of, innocent people. Nor for liars or deceivers, parasites or pests, the arrogant or hypocrites.

We will start to think outside the political paradigm. We will reject the political state and its “sovereignty.” We will reject the “social contract” falsehood. We will reject all the mainstream political parties. We will reject bad laws, that go against the law that is natural to human beings; and we will cease to obey them. We will reject political government, and we will withdraw all our consent to it. We will reject, too, all the supra-national political organizations, such as the UN and EU.

We will reject all those individuals in government, that fail to serve the people they are supposed to be a benefit to, or that act with dishonesty or in bad faith towards any of us. Or that harm us or violate our rights, or support or co-operate with any political program that harms us or violates our rights.

We will learn how to identify as individuals the parasites and pests, both inside and outside government, that are responsible for our troubles. We will re-discover that they are not us; they are not worthy of the name human beings. We will see them as the moral Neanderthals they are. We will understand that we have no reason to feel or to show any more compassion or concern towards them, than they have shown towards us.

We will re-discover just what it is that we want from our new world. We want human rights and dignity respected and upheld. We want self-determination and independence for everyone. We want an end to oppression, exploitation, war, bad laws, gross or persistent injustices, violations of rights and freedoms, the mental miasma of lies, deceit, hype, gloom and fear, and the culture of over-safety. We want an unrestricted free market economy. We want maximum freedom to choose and to act, and objective, common-sense justice for all.

The “pawn” mind-set

When I talk to people today, I often find they are both confused and angry about what the politicals are doing to them. But they don’t see any way that they, as individuals, can do anything about it. And as a result, they fear the future, because they can’t see any way forward out of the current mess.

I sympathize with them, of course. But I am coming to think that the reason it is so hard for people to work out what is best to do, is that we need an ethical and mind-set change to take place, before it becomes possible to create change in the political system. So, what I want to do is to help move people’s mind-sets, away from the confused and fearful state in which they are trapped, and towards the new mind-set I outlined above, and gave more detail on in the fifth essay of my latest set. Ultimately, this is the major reason why I have taken three years out of my life in order to write these screeds.

There is today a very numerous group of people, whom I call “pawns.” These people are not parasites or pests, because they use the economic means in most aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, they ally themselves with the parasites and pests, by supporting the current political set-up. They do this, primarily, by continuing to vote for mainstream political parties, and so underwriting the charade of sham “democracy.”

I call them pawns, because that is what they are; foot-soldiers, that allow themselves to be used by the political parasites and pests for their own ends. But they also buy, with far too little scrutiny if any at all, the narratives of the mainstream media. They do not have enough skepticism about what they are told, or enough desire to find out the facts. And they often let themselves be swayed by falsehoods or by emotional manipulation.

Yet what would be the effects, if we could move sufficiently many of these pawns towards our new mind-set of Re-discovering what we are? I think that would be a key step towards kicking the parasites and pests out of power, bringing them to the common-sense justice they deserve, and so changing our world for the better.

What we want from our allies

Here is a brief list of what we want from those, whom we seek to persuade to join our cause, and to help us set about building our new world.

We want people to stop behaving like pawns. We want them to stop voting for the “lesser of two evils” (or more than two). We want them to reject the mainstream political parties – all those parties. We want them to reject politics, as it is practiced today, altogether.

We want people to focus on the facts in any matter. We want them to reject lies, hype, unfounded scares, and narratives that are not grounded in reality. And those that purvey them.

We want people to judge others, not on the basis of who they are, but by how they behave. We want them to tune in to the part of their minds, that tells them what is right and what wrong for human beings to do. We want them to seek, with all their might, to become economically productive, and as self-sufficient as they can be.

We want people to reject arrogance, dishonesty, deceit, hypocrisy and the other psychopathic behaviours, that our enemies have displayed towards us. We need them to help us raise a tidal wave of anger, hatred and contempt against the parasites and pests that have robbed us, oppressed us and violated our human rights and freedoms. And we need them to help us get those parasites and pests off all our backs. And so, to turn our world the right way up.

How to build the new world?

In that fifth essay, I put forward some suggestions for how we might go about starting to build the new world. Partly tongue-in-cheek, I described what I could do if I were to be invested with the absolute monarchical power of a philosopher-king over the UK and all its people. Of course, the leaders of a new, anti-establishment political movement might well find it easier than I to reach a position from which they can kick-start the process. Or even, maybe, leaders of an ethical movement; picking as its target, perhaps, dishonesty, arrogance, hypocrisy, or any of the other inhuman behaviours our enemies so often display.

But whichever way, it seems that radical new ideas and actions will be required, in order to dismantle the political state and replace it by a new and better system, without a period of anarchy, suffering and gross injustice intervening. The key will be working out how, so to speak, to flush away the dirty bath-water of the state without damaging the baby of Civilization.

Objectives and focus

But some of the things which will need to happen are clear. I stated the objectives as follows: “To get rid of politics, bad policies and bad politicians. Hugely to reduce the size of government, and the scope of what it does. To withdraw from all international organizations and agreements, that go against the interests of the human beings in the territory. To repeal all bad laws, that are a drain on or a disbenefit to human beings. To end the practices that have enabled parasites and pests to make gains at the expense of human beings, and to hold those parasites and pests accountable for what they have done. To move the laws of the territory closer and closer to the natural law for human beings… And to move more and more towards a system of governance, whose functions are restricted, as far as possible, to delivering peace and justice. And in which everyone is treated, as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.”

From the outset, the focus must be to undo all bad political policies, and to hugely improve the honesty, impartiality, objectivity and justice of everything governance does. To get rid of all restrictions on the economy. To establish sane and sensible policies on energy and the environment. To get rid of re-distributory and confiscatory taxation. To move closer and closer to the ideal that what each individual pays for governance should be in direct proportion to the benefit that he or she gets from it. And to eliminate all dishonesty and corruption from governance, and to make the parasites and pests provide full compensation to the human beings they drained, or harmed, or both.

Cultural changes

I gave a list of some of the more detailed policies I might put in place, if I had the power. I would quickly set in motion several significant cultural and philosophical changes in the way governance works. I would make it plain that governance exists only for the benefit of those who pay for it. And of all those who pay for it, real wrongdoers excepted. I would require that everyone in governance must always be totally honest towards the people. And must always respect the human rights and dignity of those they are supposed to be serving.

More specifically, I would ditch the perverted form of the precautionary principle, returning it to “Look before you leap,” or even “First, do no harm.” I would mandate objective, quantitative and unbiased risk-benefit analysis and cost versus benefit analysis on all significant projects of governance. I would mandate that projects in progress must be regularly audited. And I would require that governance must always allow maximum freedom of choice for everyone, and must never mandate a loss of backwards compatibility.

Policies

(More detail is available in the fifth essay of my last set.)

I would withdraw from the United Nations and all its agencies, except for peacekeeping activities. I would withdraw from the Paris agreement, the Rio agreements, the IPCC, the WHO and all other environmental or health projects in which the UN is or has been involved. I would immediately suspend all green agenda policies for a period of 25 years, and end all government funding, levies and other taxes, and subsidies for them. I would suspend all these policies, together with air pollution “targets” and “limits,” pending thorough, honest and objective reviews of all aspects of the policies. I would ban green and “sustainability” activist organizations, including companies which are members of such organizations.

I would sever links with the EU, preferring to deal one-on-one with individual neighbour countries. But I would not, at least initially, withdraw from the Council of Europe or its European Court of Human Rights, or non-UN international organizations such as the World Trade Organization.

My foreign policies, broadly, would be to “live and let live” with other countries willing to do the same. I would institute thorough and objective reviews of military defence treaties, and in particular of the future of NATO.

My policies on migration would be moderate, and always based on respect for human rights and on the particular situation of each individual.

My environmental policies would aim to maximize the quality of the human environment. All issues concerning the physical environment would be dealt with by adapting to problems as and when they arise. All analyses of future risks would be objective and honest. The approach to any problem found in the physical environment would always be one of “polluter pays compensation.” And compensation payments would be routed to the victims of the nuisance, each in proportion to the harms they have suffered.

As to energy policies, I would immediately permit fracking for gas, in any place in the territory where it is justified by the expected nett benefits. And I would retain or restore permit schemes for new oil and gas projects in the North Sea where they are appropriate. I would retain coal power plants – with scrubbers – for as long as they are cost-effective. I would abolish all subsidies for “renewable” energy sources. And I would lay out plans to secure access for the people in the territory to abundant, affordable, fit-for-purpose, reliable energy for the medium and longer terms. Both from nuclear power, and from other sources.

I would move very quickly towards a low-tax, high-growth economy. I would end all predatory or confiscatory taxation, and all taxation that re-distributes wealth unjustly. I would repeal IR35 and all other laws that have put individuals and small businesses at an unjust disadvantage, and make those responsible for these policies compensate the victims. Looking to a future in which the “public sector” will be greatly down-sized and eventually abolished, I would create an economic climate friendly to new and small businesses.

I would not make any immediate changes to welfare policies. But in the longer term, I would seek to move welfare out of the remit of governance.

I would recognize that the NHS must eventually be dismantled, and its functions turned over outside governance to the people who provide the services. But as with welfare, the change needs careful planning.

I would set in motion a long-term process of de-politicizing education, with the eventual aim of transferring control over individual schools to educators outside governance.

I would close down the BBC.

I would repeal all laws that permit police, or other officials, legal privileges to do things that ordinary people may not. I would cancel all laws “in the pipeline,” and repeal any recently made, that have had or would have had an adverse effect on human rights or freedoms.

I would order post hoc cost-benefit reviews on all laws imposed as a result of EU directives, which were not already covered by the green policy reviews. I would repeal all collective limits and targets on anything. I also would repeal all “safety” laws made since 1992, that were based on the perverted form of the precautionary principle and the culture of over-caution it led to. Including smoking bans.

I would end all anti-car policies. I would scrap the London ULEZ, and its equivalents in other cities. I would order removed all low traffic neighbourhoods, traffic filters, 15- and 20-minute cities, chicanes and speed bumps. I would return the procedures to be used to set speed limits to the rules in use prior to the Rio agreements of 1992. I would re-assess and re-set all speed limits, which had been reduced since 1992, using those rules. I would also progressively reduce subsidies for public transport, with an aim eventually to phase them out entirely.

Risk reviews, cost-benefit reviews and historical audits

I see three types of reviews that will be necessary in order to find out the full facts, and make the best decision as to how to proceed, on each of the bad policies that have been imposed on us against our wills. These include (at least) the suspended green policies, and the handling of COVID-19. The reviews needed are risk reviews, cost-benefit reviews, and historical audits.

The risk and cost-benefit reviews will be objective, unbiased and quantitative. And they will be based entirely on the risks, costs and benefits to the people whom governance serves, not on any political considerations. They will also be accurate, to a degree well beyond what has been normal for “government work.”

The historical audits will assess the full story of how, in a supposed democracy, policies came to be imposed on everyone against the wills of many. And with little or no hard evidence that the claimed problems were real, or that the measures taken would actually solve the problem, or both. These reviews will cover all aspects, including: Validity and honesty of the science. The conduct of government and its advisors over the matter, with particular regard to truthfulness, objectiveness and honesty. How the matters were presented to the public. Openness (or not) to non-establishment views. And the conduct (or not) of public debates over the matter.

On-going actions

My on-going reforms would be based around four main themes. First, relentlessly driving down the size of government, and the scope of what it does, at all levels, including territorial, devolved and local. Second, bringing the parasites and pests to justice for their crimes, and making them provide compensation to their victims. Third, laying the foundations for the new way of governance in the territory. And fourth, doing what I can to help move those elsewhere in the world towards better ways of governance.

Over a period of some years, every government department, employee, contract, project, and funding stream would be reviewed. These reviews would, in the first instance, be aimed at reducing or eliminating wasteful or toxic functions and individuals from government. Government as a whole, and in particular its most overpaid and most dishonest officials and bureaucrats, would be slimmed down by at least an order of magnitude. The “civil service” would be decimated, and far more. But the reviews would also collect information, on the basis of which to identify those individuals that have behaved as parasites or pests.

As to bringing the parasites and pests to justice, there would be three main prongs to my reforms. First, “politicker pays compensation.” That is, removal of parasites and pests from government positions, compensation to those they wronged, and punishment where appropriate. Those that have harmed or violated the rights of innocent people, or supported or co-operated with political programs that harmed them or violated their rights, would be dismissed, and their pensions cancelled.

Second, I would set up investigations into those organizations nominally independent of government, which have or may have violated human rights, or used politics for their own gain or for political goals. Again, the politickers would be made to pay.

Third, I would invite everyone in the territory to report any injustices or violations of rights, to which they have been subjected, either by government itself or by politically oriented third parties. This would obtain compensation for the victims of bad laws or policies like IR35 or ULEZ, as well as people who have been mis-treated by police, bureaucrats or other officials.

Through these three sets of programs, anyone that has used politics for personal gain or for the gain of their cronies, or to unjustly harm anyone or violate their rights, will be subjected to justice. That is, to common-sense justice; being treated as they have treated others.

The Great Restitution

The Great Restitution is the name I give to the program of reparations for political crimes. It will assess the compensation payments owed to each individual who has been harmed by political parasites or pests. It will apportion the payments owed by each perpetrator, whether parasite, pest or both. This process will also identify what, if any, criminal punishments are appropriate for each of the perpetrators. It will look well beyond politicians and government employees as potential perpetrators.

Parasites and pests, including warmongers, will be treated with the severity appropriate to their offences. I envisaged (partly, but not entirely, tongue-in-cheek) “parasite pens” and pest pits” as places of punishment for these offenders. Either way, just governance will have power to confiscate offenders’ assets, or to take most of their earnings, or both, to provide compensation to their victims. As I said earlier, common-sense justice is a hard taskmaster.

And pests and warmongers, in particular, will be subjected to punishments appropriate to their crimes. Warmongers may well be extradited for justice at the hands of those they ordered assaults on. And if anyone agitated for hurtful policies to be imposed on others, we’ll give them what they want – and we’ll give it to them good and hard. “Net zero” promoters, for example, will be made to live net zero. If a net zero lifestyle – as I strongly suspect – isn’t economically sustainable, then at least we will be rid of them.

Moving to the new way

I would set up a special commission, to review in detail ideas of human rights from the past and the present, and produce a new, comprehensive Bill of Human Rights for all human beings worth the name. This would be back-to-backed by a list of obligations, following which will bring about an environment in which all these human rights are properly respected. This would form the basis of a first draft of the Convivial Code. I would also encourage the construction of prototypes, in which groups of volunteers can try out aspects of the new way of governance.

In parallel with this, I would organize the core functions of governance – such as courts, police and military defence – into structures compatible with the distributed, networked system of just governance for which we will be aiming.

At some point, it will become plain that the new way of governance has been tried and tested enough, that we can dismantle the shell of the old. Then, all we have to do is formally close down the state, move entirely to the new way of governance, and we’ll be free at last. And once one state has been successfully dismantled and replaced by a new and better way of governance, there will be increasing pressure on other states to follow suit. Then shall humanity world-wide be free from war and oppression at last.

And, once states, and the parasites and pests they harbour, have been purged from every land, fixing poverty among human beings will become easy. Let’s use our natural creativity, and let’s trade freely with our fellows, to bring prosperity, happiness and fulfilment to every human being worth the name. Let’s take control of our planet, as is our nature. And let’s race away into a peaceful, free, dynamic, prosperous, truly sustainable future.

We will, indeed, have turned our world the right way up at last.

Appendix: References

Here are links to some of my writings over the years.

To my latest set of five philosophical essays, “Time to Take Back our Civilization from the Parasites and Pests.”

1.     Part One: Indictments. https://libertarianism.uk/2021/11/13/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests/

2.     Part Two: History, large and small. https://libertarianism.uk/2022/12/17/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-two/

3.     Part Three: My Liberty Philosophy. https://libertarianism.uk/2023/01/18/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-three-my-liberty-philosophy/

4.     Part Four: Diagnosis. https://libertarianism.uk/2023/06/21/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-four-diagnosis/

5.     Part Five: Cure. https://libertarianism.uk/2023/07/23/time-to-take-back-our-civilization-from-the-parasites-and-pests-part-five-cure/

You can find the choral music, which sets the verses at the end of Part Five, at https://libertarianism.uk/2023/07/26/peace-and-justice-for-ever/.

To the two stand-alone essays, which preceded the set of five on climate change:

1.     https://libertarianism.uk/2021/01/24/green-industrial-revolution-or-great-leap-backward/

2.     https://libertarianism.uk/2022/07/31/on-the-uns-sustainable-development-goals/

To the set of five essays on climate change, “Climate crisis? What climate crisis?”

1.     https://libertarianism.uk/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/ (also at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/)

2.     https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/ (also at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/12/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-two-where-we-are-in-the-uk-today/)

3.     https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/13/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-three-the-back-story-up-to-1992/

4.     https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/14/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-four-the-back-story-since-1992/

5.     https://libertarianism.uk/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/

To the six original essays, which describe my philosophical system as it was in 2021 (much in these has now been superseded):

1.         https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/19/six-thinkers/

2.         https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/24/the-rhythms-of-history/

3.         https://libertarianism.uk/2021/06/29/two-world-systems/

4.         https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/04/the-i-dimensions/

5.         https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/09/the-we-dimensions/

6.         https://libertarianism.uk/2021/07/19/us-and-them/

To some of my other essays which have been re-published at WattsUpWithThat.com, “the world’s most visited website on global warming and climate change.”

•           https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/20/our-common-future-revisited-how-did-the-roadmap-for-the-green-juggernaut-fare-over-30-years/

•           https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/

•           https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/11/on-science-and-nonscience/

•           https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/22/on-the-precautionary-principle/

•           https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/29/on-cambridge-university-post-modernism-climate-change-oppenheimers-razor-and-the-re-enlightenment/

•           https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/17/on-externalities-integrated-assessment-models-and-uk-climate-policies/