5. The
growth of tyranny
I will now chart some stages in the development of the
tyranny by the state and its cronies against us human beings, which has grown
inexorably over the last five centuries or so.
Tyranny by sovereignty
During our enemies’ third counter-revolution, Jean Bodin, a
16th-century French monarchist, 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 – and debase that currency for its own gain, if it so desires. 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 sovereign immunity, or “the king can do no wrong.”) So, bad laws,
favouritism, wars, injustices, punitive taxation, arrogance, recklessness and
lack of accountability are all built into the system at its very roots.
Bodin’s system was rolled out across Europe, and later the
world, as the “Westphalian” nation state. Some might find this hard to believe,
but despite bags on the side like bills of rights and “democracy,” this
16th-century political system is what we still suffer under today. Add to that
Thomas Hobbes’ “social contract” fiction, making 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. And you may come to understand better why we
face such a mess today.
Tyranny by taxation
Taxation has, unfortunately, been with us since the rise of
the state more than 5,000 years ago. Tax records have been found from two of
the earliest states, in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The local kings levied taxes on
a range of goods and produce, and used the loot to support themselves and their
henchmen, as well as to finance their wars.
In China around 600 BC, there were levies on property, which
resulted in the emperors taking over a significant fraction of all the
cultivated land. And even in ancient Greece, there were commodity taxes
whenever there was a war or other emergency. Though in democracies, only
citizens entitled to vote were required to pay. The Roman emperors broadened
the range of taxation, for example through a wealth tax and tariffs on imports.
During the heyday of the feudal system, taxes were mostly
in-kind, for example military service. But there were also monetary levies,
which kicked in whenever there was a war, or the rulers felt they could get
away with it.
In the UK, income tax was introduced in 1799, as a temporary
measure to finance the Napoleonic Wars. Though abolished in 1816, it was
re-introduced in 1842, at a rate of about 3% of income. For the rest of the 19th
century, both the main political parties kept on promising to abolish it; but
neither of them ever did so. Typical behaviour for politicians.
Since then, the burden of taxation has hugely increased. In
the UK, the total tax take fluctuated from 2000 to 2021 between 30% and 35% of
gross domestic product (GDP). It rose above 35% in 2022, and is now headed
upwards at ever increasing speed.
Not only has the amount taken in tax risen by orders of
magnitude since the 19th century in virtually every country, but the
range of taxes has grown hugely, too. There are income taxes. Capital gains
taxes. Corporate taxes. Social security “contributions.” Payroll taxes. Wealth
taxes. Property taxes. Inheritance taxes. Stamp duties. Taxes on goods and
services, such as value added taxes and sales taxes. Excises. Tariffs. Poll
taxes. “Sin” taxes on products such as alcohol and fizzy drinks. Vehicle taxes.
Fines and penalties levied for minor “offences” such as speeding and parking
violations. And much more. Not to mention currency inflation, and other
financial policies, like low interest rates, that favour the state at the
expense of ordinary people.
Then there are policies, that are designed to coerce people
into behaving how the state wants, and to penalize those who want to go their
own way. Most environmental taxes, and taxes to “reduce inequality,” are of
this kind. IR35 is another example. On top of all this, there are compliance
costs, deadweight costs and perverse tax incentives, all of which contribute
negatively to prosperity.
To sum up: If it moves, the state taxes it. If it doesn’t
move, the state penalizes it for not moving. The state is then able to use the
proceeds of taxation to do what the ruling classes want, not what we human
beings want. So, either way, the result is tyranny.
Tyranny by sham democracy
After the Enlightenment, the idea grew up that ordinary
people ought to have a real say in the direction in which the country they live
in is going. The élites,
not surprisingly, were loath to give us any say at all. But gradually, oh so
gradually, they started to offer us a pretence of a say. This pretence goes
under the name of “democracy.”
But over the course of the fourth counter-revolution, and on
into the fifth, our enemies have perverted the idea, that ordinary people
should have a full and fair say in how they are governed, into an empty sham,
that delivers nothing of the kind. Each of us is granted a “vote,” which can
allow us to register our choice of which of a number of political factions we
would prefer to get power in a particular geographical area (national state,
local area, or in between the two). The votes are totted up in more or less
complicated ways, and as a result one or more candidates of one or more of the
factions become members of an organization, which makes decisions about what
the political élites
will do to us.
At nation-state level (in the UK, that means members of
parliament), the elected candidate in each of our areas is supposed to act as
“representative” of those who elected him or her. But our supposed
representatives, for the most part, fail to represent us in any way. They fail
to fight our corner on our behalf, as they should. My supposed
“representative,” a certain Jeremy Hunt, has certainly failed, many times over,
to stand up for my rights. And many of them – including Hunt – actively
support pernicious policies like high taxes, IR35, “nett zero” and tyrannical
“road safety” campaigns.
At lower levels, such as county or local councils, the
situation is just as bad. There is nothing to prevent such councils from “going
rogue,” ignoring the wishes of those they are supposed to be serving, and
implementing policies strongly opposed to our interests. This is particularly
bad where I live, as Surrey County Council has gone completely depraved. It is
imposing on us deep green and anti-car policies, that are being pushed on us by
the UN and its WHO, and that go against our needs and interests. And doing so
without any mandate. It has even gone so far as to join UK 100, “a network of
local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with
Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target.” And our
chance of a say has been taken away by the cancellation of the Surrey local
elections, which were due on May 1st.
Beyond this, all the mainstream political parties are merely
slightly different factions of the same criminal gang. A gang that, with its
fellow-travellers like bureaucrats, academics, churchmen and corporate vested
interests, simply wants to use the power of the state to rule over us, harass
us, impoverish us and violate our rights. It is not surprising that turn-out in
UK elections has been on a slow but inexorable downward trend for many decades.
Tyranny by over-precaution
I have identified what I think is the major means, by which
the political class in recent times have contrived to pervert our natural human
desire to control our surroundings into an inhuman urge for them to
control us. That is their steady perversion, over two decades between
1982 and 2002, of a philosophical notion called “the precautionary principle”
into something that is very nearly its opposite. Interestingly, the EU arrived,
perhaps even a little earlier, at a rather similar perversion; and the UN, and
particularly its WHO, use it too.
The precautionary principle, as I learned it long ago, says:
“Look before you leap.” In other words, don’t rush into any action until you
are pretty certain the action will have more positive consequences than
negative ones. It can even be seen as akin to the oath for doctors: “First, do
no harm.” And this applies doubly when it is other people who will face
the negative consequences.
The perversion of this idea into a tool for tyranny began
with the 1982 United Nations “World Charter for Nature.” This included an
extreme formulation of the precautionary principle: “Activities which might
have an impact on nature shall be controlled,” and “where potential adverse
effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed.” It is
hard not to think that Maurice Strong may have been involved with this
perversion from the outset.
It proceeded with the 1992 “Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development.” This said: “Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation.” Odd, that. For if you don’t have scientific certainty about a
claimed problem, how can you possibly work out whether or not a proposed
counter-measure is cost-effective? Strong was secretary-general of the Earth
Summit, so it is likely that this part of the perversion was initiated by him,
or at least actively supported by him at the time.
It intensified with the 1998 Wingspread Statement: “When an
activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the
proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of
proof.” This part of the perversion was done by a conference, at the
headquarters of S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. of Racine, Wisconsin, USA, of “treaty
negotiators, activists, scholars and scientists from the United States, Canada
and Europe.”
Notice, in particular, how they used “the public” in a sense
that, in effect, means “the government” or “the state.” A clever trick, that!
It emboldens governments to act, even in the absence of hard evidence.
The final round of the perversion, done by the UK
government’s “Inter-departmental Liaison Group on Risk Analysis” (ILGRA) in
2002, saw the purpose of the principle as “to create an impetus to take a
decision notwithstanding scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of
the risk.” They also wanted to invoke it “even if the likelihood of harm is
remote.”
They decided to re-write the precautionary principle to say,
in effect: “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” This
emboldens government to take action against any risk, actual or potential,
however small and however unproven the risk may be. And it mandates
“precautionary” action, regardless of how much pain it will cause. This is a
far, far cry from “Look before you leap!” It leads to a culture of
over-precaution, even of “safety at any cost.” And such a culture, which some
dub “safetyism,” is a recipe for tyranny.
They said, too, that “the precautionary principle carries a
general presumption that the burden of proof shifts away from the regulator
having to demonstrate potential for harm towards the hazard creator having to
demonstrate an acceptable level of safety.” This not only inverts the burden of
proof on to the defendants, and denies us our right to the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty, but also requires us unjustly to have to prove a
negative. Combine that with suppressing the right of the accused, even our
experts, to have our case heard in matters like the “climate change” scam, and
you have both tyranny and gross injustice.
This perverted idea of precaution has allowed our enemies
the politicals to satisfy their inhuman urges: To take tyrannical control over
us human beings. To bully and persecute us, and screw up our lives. To take
away our fairly earned resources to enrich themselves and their cronies, or to
rake in money in order to implement their pet schemes. And to evade all
responsibility for what they have done to their victims. It is no wonder, then,
that we are now mired in a culture of persistent government over-reach and “safety
at any cost.”
This culture was initially forced on us in environmental
matters. As would be expected, if Maurice Strong was a major instigator behind
it. “Nett zero,” “clean air,” and restrictions on nitrogen emissions from
farming are three areas in which this culture is suffocating us and our
civilization. But it has spread into other areas, too. The over-reach in
“public health” matters, exemplified by smoking bans, heavy taxes on alcohol
and fizzy drinks, and the atrocious handling of the COVID epidemic, is rooted
in this culture too. As is the extremist “vision zero” road safety ideal, which
is being imposed on us without consideration of costs to us, and without any
opportunity to object. This is no more than extortion.
The “vision zero” project comes from the United Nations, and
in particular from its WHO. But it is supported by many within all the
mainstream political parties. For example, it is being pushed hard in my area
by the Lib Dem party. But it was also endorsed, at the recent general election,
by Tory Jeremy Hunt.
This culture leads inevitably to arbitrary, ever-tightening
limits on what we may do. Such as ever-reducing targets for CO2
emissions and air pollution, and creeping speed limits on the roads. It subjects
us to ever more, tighter and more costly restrictions on how we live our lives,
while spying on us to catch us out in the smallest violation. For breaches of
which, we are to be punished by having ever-increasing fines and penalties
taken from us by the state. Yet we get no demonstrated benefits in return. The
culture seems to lack all common sense, and all empathy for the people
government is supposed to serve.
This culture also gives our enemies excuses to set up
schemes like the London ULEZ, that both trace people wherever they go, and tax
us all but out of existence for merely going about our daily lives. It enables
government, at the same time, to watch what we are doing and to maximize its
revenue.
Moreover, this bad culture always grossly favours those
demanding government action over those who will be affected by that action. It subjects
us to ever more, tighter and more costly restrictions on how we live our lives.
It violates our rights, reduces or destroys our freedoms, and puts us more and
more under micro-management. And it never takes account of the costs, financial
or otherwise, that it imposes on us. For us, it is all pain and no gain.
For example, the “vision zero” scheme will surely bring a
combination of ever-tightening restrictions and ever-increasing enforcement. It
does not require much cynicism to sense a “Ker-ching!” as more and more fines
fill the coffers of the councils that operate the scheme. The police probably
find berating, bullying and fining drivers, who have done nothing that has
harmed anyone, much easier and more pleasant than doing their proper duties,
catching and prosecuting real wrongdoers like burglars and violent criminals.
So, instead of defending us against highwaymen as they should, police become
highwaymen.
Tyranny by suppressing truths and freedom of speech
The culture of over-safety, I think, has also been a major
force behind the ongoing assaults on our freedom of speech, and the “cancel
culture” that supports those assaults. These efforts include: The demonization
of opponents of the “climate change” meme. The draconian “on-line safety” bill.
The censorship, using Big Tech, of dissident voices who seek to reveal the
truth about things like COVID vaccine harms. The efforts to make any chance
remark into a potential “hate crime,” or at least a “non-crime hate incident.”
There are also more subtle ways to suppress truths that are
inconvenient to the narratives of the suppressors. Failing or ceasing to
publish statistical data that would show these inconvenient truths, and
changing the definitions of established metrics, are two of these.
All these, I surmise, are different heads of the same hydra.
That hydra is – a depraved political culture, that cannot survive the glare of
the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment