Page 2 of 2

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 3:51 pm
by Freeman Stephen
the skills required to become an mp are better put to use in diplomacy than running a country. being a slippery liar could be useful when faced with rival governments but to put such people at the helm of a country is to invite unaccountability. with modern technology there is no longer a need for representatives but if for some reason the middlemen were to continue we should apply game theory to find some system which best rewards representativeness and not slippyness.some system which best rewards representativeness and not slippyness.

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:14 am
by NoName
Guys, thanks for your comments. With a bit more discussion, hopefully we can break our mind-control conditioning and think 'outside the box' a bit more...

Note: Grand Juries (by my understanding) have full investigative powers and can investigate any subject whatsoever. They can coopt the peace force to help in criminal investigations, and can indict people for prosecution in court. Any group of citizens can form a Grand Jury, for any purpose, and they have the full weight of law behind them. I would argue that measures should be passed only by unanimous voting (100% in agreement) as anything else is collectivism, and is essentially fascism.

1) [A Marketplace: Break The Monopoly] - Why does everyone think we should only have ONE government in the British Isles?
Imagine we had a *marketplace* for governments - i.e. actual competition between them - so we could choose the one that suited us.

2) [What Exactly Should Govt(s) Do?] ArturoDekko - Fully agree with your assertion that there would "be very little for the government to do regarding domestic issues as everything would have been dealt with at a lower level within the society". Also - consider that they cannot spend their time 'legislating' due to point 3 below!

Would the govt. need to do anything? Once the systems are in place, they can run themselves:
- the basic legal framework, police, courts, prisons
- a currency
- what else???

I'd argue no. Any emergencies could be dealt with by Grand Juries.

3) [No By-Laws!] - The GPS device to 'tell you what you could do where' is frankly ridiculous (was it a joke?). The only law that applies is the Common-Law. By-laws (i.e. for smoking) are unenforceable under Common-Law - unless you sign a contract to uphold them. To be imagining a system where government tells anyone what to do would be rather missing the point of the discussion...

4) [No Permanent Government Staff] holy vehm - the 'council of say 13 persons of the highest moral fibre' you describe is an inferior version of a Grand Jury of 26 citizens. My position is that there should be *no permanent government staff* as a) there's actually very little for them to do, and b) power corrupts.

5) [Grand Juries For All!] - All community decisions can, and should, be made by adhoc Grand Juries of say 26 adults. This includes all the things that Parliament currently does that aren't included in point 2. I.e. education, transport, defence, health, social security etc... Anyone can be part of a Grand Jury. This is true community-based decision making, where you get to vote for *policies* instead of *personalities* ;^)

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:11 pm
by Mog
All the money for public spending can be created by the nationalised Bank of England, Inflation can be controlled by a top down taxation system, i.e. 90% tax on earnings over £150K, as and when required.

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:26 am
by NoName
Mog you're definitely thinking 'Inside The Box' dude...
A "90% tax on earnings over £150K"? :-/
Have you actually read any of the previous posts? In fact - do you even understand what this website is about?
Public spending, if any, should be funded by voluntary donation only - according to the *existing* Law of the Land!

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:12 am
by Mog
Hi NoName

You may be right that I'm thinking inside the box, that's because I live inside the box as do we all, like it or not.

To propose a viable alteranative I think we need to escape the relms of fantasy and step back into the real world.

A lot of people seem to see the freeman ideal as a way to avoid paying their bills so the expectation of voluntry contributions seems far fetched to say the least and thats an observation made on this forum leaving aside the genral public of whom any alternative governance would need majority support.

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:52 pm
by wanabfree
I had asked two very simple questions in relation to this subject and no one had wanted to answer.

The only reasons I can imagine them being is because it was viewed as antagonistic, or you can’t answer without contradicting yourselves.

It wasn’t meant to be a trick question as such, but it does highlight a fundamental flaw in any concept of government, espessially when trying to imagine ways and methods of an alternative and noncorrupt form of government.

The very definition of government is to govern/control.

The definition of represent is to do the exact opposite and be controlled as an agent, by a principle.

Point being you cannot have a government that represents it’s an oxymoron

The only solution to bring an end to government corruption is the total abolishment of government, and never to return to any such form of providing such services again.

The fact is government is not voluntarily supported, we are forced under threat of violence if we do not support it i.e. TAX.

Here’s inspirational writing by lysander spooner, were this subject is better explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJTWa5v24I

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:41 am
by NoName
Mog: You're seem to be here to close down any debate, rather than engage in one. You sound like a shill for the system. If you're not - prove it by contributing something worthwhile.

Wannabfree: I don't want to be controlled OR represented. I can control & represent myself thanks.

Re: An Alternative, Common-Law, Membership-Based Government...

PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:06 am
by Mog
Sorry if my "inside the box" ideas are not radical enough and therefore dismissed without debate, I shall say what I wish, whilst remaining as polite as possible and don’t feel the need to prove myself to anybody.

I don’t think I’m a “shill” presume it refers to being indecisive ? And have never been a fan of the system.

If we are looking for ideas for an alternative to the system that wants to wipe us out over the next few years then I suggest we should be looking for something achievable in the short term or it’s going to be too late.