12. A
governance perspective
Now, I will look at what we human beings need in terms of
governance. I deliberately use this word in preference to the more usual
“government,” because I wish to maintain a clear separation between the two.
Government is how things are organized today, under a political system run by a
political species for its own benefit. Whereas governance is how things should
be organized, for maximum benefit to all human beings worth the name.
Near the end of this chapter, I will compare the performance
of those in government, and of political government as a whole, against what we
ought to be able to expect from governance.
Why is governance needed?
Some form of governance is, regrettably, a necessity. John
Locke knew this. For he said: “Though the law of Nature be plain and
intelligible to all rational creatures, yet men, being biased by their
interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of
it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular
cases.”
To this, he proposes a solution: “a known and indifferent
judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established
law.” (In Locke’s time, “indifferent” meant what we would now call
“impartial.”)
Enlightenment values
I listed what I called “Enlightenment values” in the chapter
above on historical perspective. I will look at each of those values, which
affect the functions and tone of governance. And I will show how the natural
law of humanity, and the principles of ethical equality, voluntary society,
common-sense justice and maximum freedom, can be combined together to form the
philosophical foundation of a new system of governance to supplant the
political state.
Tolerance in religion. Governance must allow everyone
the right to full and free choice of religion. Provided only that they do not
attempt to browbeat, foist or force any particular religious beliefs or belief
system on to others.
Freedom of thought and action. Governance must be
founded on the maximum freedom principle: Except where countermanded by
common-sense justice, the Convivial Code or respect for rights, every
individual must be free to choose and act as he or she wishes. Provided only
that their actions do not unjustly cause harm to, or unjustly impose
unreasonable risks of harm on, others.
Natural rights, natural law of humanity, natural equality
of all human beings, and human dignity. Governance must be founded on the
ethical equality principle. That is, that among human beings, what is right for
one to do, is right for another to do in similar circumstances, and vice
versa. The law to be upheld, and at need enforced, by governance must be
the natural law of humanity. And governance must uphold the rights of all human
beings who respect the equal rights of others. This includes the right to
dignity; in other words, the right to be treated with the respect due to a
human being.
The idea that any society exists for the individuals in
it, not the individual for the society. Governance must be founded on the
voluntary society principle. That is: All societies must be voluntary.
Otherwise put: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” And if a
member of a society finds that he or she no longer feels aligned with the aims
and purposes of that society, governance must allow him or her to freely leave
the society.
Constitutional governance. Every governance must have
a clear and publicly available constitution, specifying the limits of what it
may or may not do.
Governance of the people, by the people. When Lincoln
uttered his famous words, his listeners would have thought of themselves as
part of a Lockean political society, into which they had voluntarily entered.
To say that the people should be governed by the people was to
say that only members of that society should be allowed to take part in the
deliberations of the society. Otherwise put, no external parties should be
allowed to influence the direction in which that society moves. This is
ultimately why those who, like me, respect the values of the Enlightenment, do
not accept that external parties (such as the UN, EU, WEF or WBCSD) should be
allowed any kind of political power over the inhabitants of any democracy.
It is interesting to note that the constitution of the
Reform UK party makes this idea explicit. “The Party believes that the United
Kingdom … should only be governed by her own citizens … and that the only laws
that should apply within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom are those
wholly made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.”
But I think Lincoln’s words need to be translated into a
form more compatible with my new system of governance, which I will put forward
in the next chapter. Rather than talking of the people, I would suggest
substituting human beings. Lincoln’s words then become: Governance of
human beings, by human beings. That is, only those whose behaviours measure
up to human standards – those who obey the natural law of humanity – may be
allowed to play any part at all in governance.
Governance for the benefit of the governed.
Everything governance does must be directed to the benefit of those it governs;
and to the benefit of every single individual among them, except only those
that violate the natural law of humanity. Another facet of this is that
everyone in governance is there to serve the governed, not to drain them or to
impose political agendas on them.
Further, governance must never undertake any project for
which the costs to the governed, whether financial or otherwise, are greater
than the benefits which accrue to them from the project. This must apply to
costs incurred both at the level of groups of people and at the level of
individuals. Governance must also monitor the actual costs versus benefits of
its projects, and strike down any project that fails to provide a nett benefit
to the governed.
Governance with the consent of the governed. Every
project which governance undertakes must first be agreed to by all those among
the governed, who obey the natural law of humanity. In practice, this means
that governance will not be allowed to do anything that unjustly harms any
human being worth the name.
The rule of law. Any governance founded on the
ethical equality principle will automatically incorporate the rule of law. That
is, those in positions of power in governance, such as officials and judges,
should have to obey the same rules as everyone else.
The ideal of justice. Governance must be founded on
the common-sense justice principle. That is, that every individual deserves to
be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or
she treats others. With the natural law of humanity as the “universal law”
postulated by Kant, and combined with the ethical equality, voluntary society
and maximum freedom principles as above, this principle will enable that “the
freedom of the will of each can coexist together with the freedom of everyone.”
The free market, free trade and honest business
Key among the values we have inherited from, or developed
during, the Industrial Revolution are the free market and free trade. As I put
it earlier, the habitat we human beings need is one of peace, individual
justice, human rights and freedoms, and a free market in which we can all ply
our trades, and develop and make use of our skills. Another of our values is
honest business. That is, the honest provision of goods or services to others,
for which they are voluntarily willing to pay.
It follows that neither any governance, nor anyone else, may
unjustly put an obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or of anyone’s
access to it. Nor may anyone unjustly put any obstacle in the way of honest
business activity. And people should be able to trade with each other in
whatever ways they mutually agree. Unless, of course such trade violates human
rights or freedoms, or imposes unjust, objective harm on anyone (including
third parties), or unjustly imposes unreasonable risk of harm on anyone.
Governance must, therefore, uphold the free market,
discourage interference with honest business activity, and prevent obstacles
being placed in the way of anyone’s access to the market.
Governance of human beings, by human beings
It almost goes without saying that everyone in any
position of power in governance must behave in ways that are exemplary. If
anything, they ought to be judged by stricter standards than everyone else. And
if they do fail to measure up to the natural law of humanity, they must be
removed forthwith from any position in which they have any measure of power
over anyone. Moreover, they must be required to compensate anyone they harmed
through their wrongdoings. And take criminal punishment too, should it be appropriate.
I will repeat here John Locke’s formulation of the natural
law of humanity: “Being all equal and independent, no-one should harm another
in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Anyone in governance must keep strictly
to this in all dealings with human beings worth the name.
Further, they should treat the people they are supposed to
serve as their equals, and should never use double standards. They should show
respect for their dignity as human beings, and should never display arrogance.
They should show respect for the independence of others, and should never
interfere in others’ lives without a very good reason. They should not kill or
injure people, violate people’s rights or freedoms, or damage any of their
property, or take any of their property without providing in return a value
which is acceptable to them.
Looking again at my list of 24 obligations to outline the
Convivial Code, they must measure up to all seven of the positive obligations.
They must respect all human rights and freedoms. They must always seek the
truth. They must be truthful, honest, candid, straightforward and sincere in
all their dealings. They must be accountable: they must take responsibility for
the reasonably foreseeable effects of their voluntary actions on others. They
must compensate those to whom they unjustly cause damage through such voluntary
actions. They must ensure that, if they impose risks on others, they have
resources available to compensate the victims if something goes wrong. And they
must always practise what they preach. Hypocrisy, that is, acting in
contradiction to the individual’s stated ethical beliefs, or failing to
practise what the individual preaches, can never be acceptable.
The four positive expectations represent areas in which
anyone, who is worthy of any position of power over others, should be expected
to go further than merely striving, and should actually reach the full standard
whenever it is achievable. Thus, such people must be independent, rational
thinkers and actors. They must be reliable, always striving to do what they
have agreed to do. They must be tolerant of difference. And they must be
objective, fair and just towards everyone, and must always act with integrity
and in good faith. Bad faith is simply never acceptable from anyone in any
position of power!
As to the negative obligations: (Some of these overlap with
John Locke’s list). Those in positions of power must never aggress against
anyone’s life, person or property. They must not interfere in other people’s
lives without a good, objectively justifiable reason. They must not unjustly do
to others what those others do not want done to them. They must not intentionally
do or aggravate injustice. They must not promote, support, co-operate with or
condone any unjust violation of human rights or freedoms, or any other
violation of the natural law of humanity. They must not seek to control others’
conduct through emotional manipulation. They must not put any obstacle in the
way of the economic free market, or unjustly deny anyone’s access to it. They
must not unjustly deny others the right to make their own decisions in thought
or action. They must not deny anyone the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty, or require them to prove a negative. They must not try to take more
from others than they are justly entitled to, or to impose costs on others that
bring no benefit to those others. They must not pick favourites, or operate
double standards with anyone. They must not recklessly impose harm, or
unreasonable risk of harm, on others. And they must never willingly allow
themselves to become a drain on others.
The behaviour of today’s governments as a whole
Next, I will look at government under the current
system, and some of the ways in which it acts today towards those it is
supposed to be serving.
If there is any point in having a system of government at
all, then ought it not most of all to defend the habitat, which we need in
order to flourish and to fulfil our nature as human beings? But today’s
political governments do no such thing. Instead, they seek to exploit us
through extortion, to progress their tyrannical agendas, and to rule over us
ever more and more harshly. Not to mention making wars in various parts of the
world.
Far from defending and preserving it, our enemies are
seeking to destroy the habitat of peace, rights, freedoms, justice and the free
market, which we need in order to fulfil ourselves. Far from securing for us a
habitat in which we can flourish, political government endangers peace, creates
injustices, violates our human rights, and suppresses our prosperity and our
progress. It lies to us, threatens us, seeks to manipulate our minds, harasses
us, impoverishes us, and suppresses our humanity.
An added dimension of tyranny is provided by the globalist,
internationalist and environmentalist élites. Organizations like the UN and the
EU have set themselves up rather as if they were states, yet above and beyond
the nation-state. They and their cronies and hangers-on, including corporate
and religious leaders, want to force their tyrannical agendas on to us, not
just within the confines of each nation-state, but world-wide.
Thus, the politicals pervert the idea of government from
something which ought to defend and protect the habitat which we human beings
need in order to fulfil ourselves, into a system of tyranny by them over
us. And they and their cronies are seeking to impose this tyranny on all
of us human beings world-wide.
Some ways in which political government fails us
Does political government respect our human rights and
freedoms? No. It stalks us with cameras, restricts our freedom of speech, seeks
to put tight controls on our behaviour, and takes away our earnings and our
property without offering us anything of value to us in return. It also denies
us the presumption of innocence, and requires us to prove negatives.
Does government always seek, and tell, the truth? No. It
routinely lies, misleads, obscures and obfuscates. And it goes so far as to
suppress those who seek to tell truths, when those truths go against the
establishment narratives.
Is government today always truthful, honest, candid and
straightforward? The only answer I can give to this is, “You must be joking!”
Bad faith by government towards the people they are supposed to serve has
become the norm, rather than an exception.
Does government always take responsibility for, and
compensate the victims of, the bad effects of its policies? No. We’re still
owed compensation for what we have unjustly lost through high taxes, “nett
zero,” the culture of over-safety, COVID lockdowns, anti-car policies, IR35,
and many more.
Does government always practise what it preaches? Again, you
must be joking. Partygate, and private jets to climate conferences, are just
two examples of the hypocrisy that is now rampant in government.
Does government always uphold the free market, discourage
interference with honest business activity, and prevent obstacles being placed
in the way of anyone’s access to the market? As a victim of IR35, I can only
answer this with an expletive.
Does government ensure it has the consent of the governed – all
the governed, real criminals excepted – before doing anything that might harm
an innocent person? Not a chance. Even if current “democracy” were a workable
system, 20% of eligible voters would not be nearly enough to provide any kind
of mandate to govern. And governments at various levels do things for which
they have no kind of mandate from the people at all. For example, Surrey County
Council joining the activist organization UK 100.
Does government always act for the benefit of the governed?
No. It routinely does things to us, whose effects on our lives are negative.
And it fails to do objective, honest risk analyses and cost-benefit analyses,
from the point of view of the people, on its projects. Worse, in some cases,
such as nett zero, it has specifically exempted itself from having to do such
analyses.
Does government act for the benefit of all the
governed, real criminals excepted? No. It picks on groups and individuals it
doesn’t like, and singles them out for unjust punishment. Small business
people, farmers, car drivers and pensioners are among the victim groups today.
Does government commit aggressions against innocent
people? Does it interfere? Does it violate human rights and freedoms? Does it
seek to manipulate or “nudge” people emotionally? Does it pick favourites, or
operate double standards? Does it act recklessly? To these, I answer: Of course
it does! For all these things are built into the political state at its roots.
The behaviour of those in power
In complete contrast to what we human beings want from those
in governance, our enemies the politicals are wired into the state, and its
ways of doing things. They arrogate to themselves the moral privileges, to
which they think their membership of the “sovereign” of the state entitles
them. And they evade accountability for, and think they should not be held
responsible for, what they do to the people they are supposed to be serving.
As to how well our enemies measure up to the obligations I
listed above, the answer is: Very badly. I will repeat my list from the
previous chapter, of behaviours they like to indulge in: Lies. Dishonesty. Deception.
Arrogance. Hypocrisy. Irresponsibility. Evasion of accountability. Aggression.
Recklessness towards others. Favouritism. Targeting of scapegoats. Intolerance.
Bad faith. And violations of human rights and freedoms. If you look at the list
of negative obligations I gave above, you will see that most of our enemies
violate several of those negative obligations, and some violate most of them.
The roots of all these bad behaviours are dishonesty and bad
faith. Here, then, are the main differences between governance as we human
beings need it, and the political governments we suffer under today. One,
governance must always be honest with the people it is there to serve. Meaning,
at least, truthful, candid, straightforward and sincere. Whereas political
governments, whenever those in power feel the need, will always be dishonest
towards the people. And two, governance must always act in the interests of,
and in good faith towards, the governed. Whereas political governments
routinely show bad faith towards, and act against the interests of, the
governed, both as a whole and as individuals.
Fraud or worse
Here is a brief list of some of the things that government
officials and their hangers-on routinely do to us today, that are dishonest and
incompatible with the natural law of humanity. From the point of view of any
human being worth the name, these activities constitute fraud or worse against
the people they are supposed to be serving:
1)
Violating, or aiding, abetting or condoning any
violation of, any of the human rights and freedoms of individuals who respect
the equal rights and freedoms of others.
2)
Acting against the interests of the people they
are supposed to serve, either as a whole, or by harassing or victimizing
individuals or groups who are innocent of any real wrongdoing.
3)
Promoting, supporting, making or enforcing any
political policy, that goes against the interests of the governed as a whole,
or of any non-criminal individual among the governed.
4)
Using money taken through taxation for purposes
which fail to bring a benefit to those who paid the taxes.
5)
Failing to strive to ensure that all government
activities financed through taxation bring a benefit, commensurate with what
each of them paid, to every individual who paid the taxes.
6)
Lying to, attempting to deceive, being dishonest
towards, or acting in bad faith towards, any of the people they are supposed to
serve.
Any of these bad behaviours ought to result in:
1)
Dismissal from any and all government positions.
2)
Cancellation of pension.
3)
Lifetime bans on working in future for, and on
being paid money by, governance.
4)
The full bill for compensation to the victims of
their bad behaviours.
5)
Ostracism, at least until that bill has been
paid, by all human beings worth the name.
6) If the behaviour is egregious enough, criminal punishment in addition.
No comments:
Post a Comment