Them that can give up essential Liberty, to obtain a little safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Jean Jacques Rousseau once said, "Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains".
In the Soviet Union, people got free medication, free bread, free public transport...but were undeniably subordinated to the state and made to feel like worker ants, with no freedom of speech, of movement or of expression, and other basic liberties were also disturbingly absent. In the United States, people do have freedom of speech and expression, but again are subordinated to what is effectively a workers' state, for if they lose their jobs, through which most of them also have their medical, personal and property insurance, in many cases their homes, and almost all that insulates them from adversity at its worst, then very quickly they see the true extent of their liberty in an appalling fate; no welfare, and no help even with the most basic essentials which would have been extended to them in the Soviet Union.
In Britain, Democracy is barely present at all. The Head of State is unelected, unanswerable, holds executive power for life and hands it on to his children, can ignore the results of a general election and ask whoever he likes to be Prime Minister, can dismiss the people's elected leader, can declare war without the assent of the people, can raise taxes without the assent of the people, and can refuse to assent to the laws which the peoples elected representatives make. The Upper House in their legislature, called the House of Lords, is still almost completely unelected, and can also throw out the proposed laws made by the elected Lower House, and in the Lower House itself, called the House of Commons, an elected politician is not allowed to take his seat unless he first swears an Oath to the unelected Head of State to the effect that he is a Monarchist, true Republicans such as are found everywhere in the free world, and other free-expressing politicians being thereby excluded, despite having been elected by the people, unless they are prepared to lie upon their oath to gain entry to the House. But on a day-to-day basis, at least the British people believe that they are free, because the state has the good sense to leave them alone, let them choose their jobs, own things, run a business and travel freely. But that is all.
As Rousseau noticed, it all seems like just a six and two threes, with little to choose from what the world seems to present to us.
Now how on earth did such political systems ever develop? Are people evil? Or are they just plain incompetent?
On this page I would like to go back to the drawing board, and take a look once more at Liberty from first principles. I would also like to introduce you to something which I call The Golden Rule, by which for evermore you will be able to quickly judge whether any particular law made by the state is oppressive or good; and lastly I would like to cover the evils of party politics and introduce you to the Michael No-Party State.
Now let us imagine a planet which has a population of just one-- you. The planet is an absolute paradise: your every material requirement is catered for. And you can do anything you like. As well as build things, create art, and grow lush crops, you can also smash things, burn things, do as much damage as you like, if you are so minded. You can do anything you want. You are completely free.
You adopt yourself a motto to live by. It simply reads,
"You
can think, do, and say whatever you want".
One day, however, a spaceship lands and there disembarks another human being. At first, you continue to live as usual, doing this and that, but one day you are out painting a wonderful scene, when your friend lights a large bonfire which happens to be in the way, and the smoke from which obstructs your view. Then, you are herding some large domestic animals which you keep, and inadvertently they trample all over a fine floor mosaic which your friend is labouring to make.
You soon realise that the liberty which you have enjoyed is now compromised. You get your head together with your friend and for your mutual benefit you amend the motto:
"You
can think, do and say whatever you want -- providing you do not interfere with
the rights of others to do the same"
And, of course, you also realise at this point that you are no longer completely free.
I have called this amended motto "The Golden Rule", and in all modern societies it may serve as an absolutely invaluable yardstick to which we can compare the various laws which we make, in order to ascertain whether a particular law is made for good reasons or ill.
Ok..let's take some laws from around the world and test them against the Golden Rule. We shall assess each law as either "good", or "oppressive".
1) Law against murder/rape.......... Good. By doing such things against you, a person is clearly interfering with your right to happily go as you like. He clearly violates the Golden Rule.
2) Law against non- addictive drugs and prostitution..........Oppressive. The state is interfering with your right to do something which will not affect anyone else against their will. The State violates the Golden Rule.
3) Law against pimps ….. Good. The pimp turns the prostitute into his own slave, stripped of every human right, for his material gain. He violates the Golden rule.
4) Law against addictive drugs.......... Good. In selling you the first batch of addictive drugs, the drugs dealer is effectively making you buy the next lot whether you like it or not, because you'll be hooked. Therefore he violates the Golden Rule.
5) Law forcing you to wear a seat belt in a car...... Oppressive. Your life is your own personal property, to do with and dispose of as you wish. It is not the property of the State. The State violates the Golden Rule. (However a law making your children wear seat belts is another matter...you children may need protection from you, too!)
6) Law whereby you cannot be the Head of State in your own country.......Oppressive. It is a fundamental Right that all human beings are created equal. The State is denying that. The State violates the Golden Rule.
7) Law endorsing a State Religion........Oppressive. By stipulating a particular religion, the State is telling you what to think on that subject. The State violates the Golden Rule.
8) Law enforcing a speed limit (even where no driver ever knocks you down)....Good. Even if the driver never hits you, he is always interfering with your right to your life and safety because he could hit you. He violates the Golden Rule. The State is correct to outlaw him.
9) TV Licensing Laws (UK) …. Oppressive. The State does not allow you to watch any TV channel unless you pay for the state-owned, state-run BBC. The State violates the Golden Rule.
10) Law banning an extreme political party...........Oppressive. Again the State is defining areas where your thinking may not take you. The State violates the Golden Rule. (If you don't want the party...then just don't vote for it!)
11) Law compromising your right to remain silent (UK).... Oppressive. In every Western democracy you have the absolute human right to remain silent if accused of a crime. In the UK however, you have the right to remain silent..."but". Their law continues, "...however it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something which you later rely on in court." In other words, in the "game of poker" which you play with the authorities, they will not give you a fair game unless you show them your hand, and you are not allowed to play any card which you do not let them see beforehand. This allows the police to withdraw an action without being exposed, if say a camera catches them red handed planting drugs or beating someone up. You must divulge the footage before the trial, or they will not let you show it in court. This compromise to your right to remain silent enables the police to unfairly manipulate the game because they can see your cards, and makes it much more difficult to expose the framings for which they became notorious.
However, there will always be areas where matters are not so simple. For example if the only way to connect a hospital to the electricity power station is by laying an unwelcome cable across your land. Then, of course the path of least overall suffering is the one which must be taken. Perhaps with this in mind we should add to the Golden Rule a final codicil:
You
have the right to think, do and say whatever you want -- providing that you
don't interfere with the rights of others to do the same, and in cases of
conflicted interests, the path of least overall suffering must be assessed and
taken.
But without even considering these less clear-cut areas, have you noticed how many bad laws there are which clearly violate your basic rights as enshrined in the Golden Rule? This is really quite shocking. Britain is a particularly bad offender with the worst Human Rights record in Europe, together with an acquired notoriety for being the worst in Europe on a very long list of issues ranging from pollution to food health to education.
China is very bad, too. They don't even have Democracy at all; not even a compromised version like the British. And Chinese respect for Human Rights is even worse than their dreadful pollution levels.
China, of course, is a 1-party state. Britain and all the other western countries are multi-party states. But... why do we need parties at all? I could never see the logic involved in the party mentality. Suppose, for example, that you believe in welfare medicine, in common with party A, but also in a particular defence policy or Education package which is only offered by party B? Then, of course you have to weigh your overall preferences, before coming to a decision on how to vote.
But necessarily because you cannot really equate defence with medicine, and education with energy generation methods, etc, your weighing process is bound to be a cumbersome and inefficient affair to say the least. But there is even more than that which is wrong with party politics. We have all noticed how our local politician woos us so much to get elected -- only to then virtually ignore us once he's "in", and toe the party line every time. Whenever there is a vote in the Assembly, he will always vote according to either party policy, even on those issues where it doesn't agree with his constituents' wishes, or, in the case of a free vote, he will always vote according to his own conscience without referring back to his electorate. Either way, you the constituent no longer matter, and all the politician has actually done is climb up and over you to get into office.
Wouldn't
it be better if we got rid of these wretched, selfish parties altogether, and
divided the country up into areas (constituencies), each of which is represented
in the Assembly by an independent person who must go along with the wishes of
his electorate on an issue by issue basis.
Here’s how that would work:
The Michael No-Party State
Imagine the people all sitting at home in front of their computers. On their
screens they have a virtual parliament, with rooms they can enter, and in each
room a debate is going on (picture a socially interactive debating log running
down one side of the screen), one room for each issue being debated. Each person
has typed in his Social Insurance Number to enter the parliament, and each
debate has a time limit for all views to be aired. A vote then takes place among
the electorate (the program knows the voters Social Insurance Number and can
therefore permit only one vote per person) – and the real representative in
the real parliament must then
abide by the result of the vote of his people on each issue.
This
would truly be government of the people, for the people, by the people, straight
off the street. And better than that, we cannot do.
Naturally this would have to be done under a Constitution, to prevent naughty
laws being passed, such as laws against racial minorities and laws which violate
the Golden Rule.
Of course, executive decisions will always have to be taken, on behalf of the nation, by some presiding politician who represents the country abroad. But s/he could be elected straight off the street too, for a fixed term, and his/her Cabinet could be appointed advisers with no political bias at all, just a great expertise in their chosen field and a deep desire to serve the people as a whole without being selfish political animals who will put themselves first and you last.
In this way, the people could avail themselves not only of the best Education Secretary which the party can come up with, or the best Employment Secretary which the party can dredge up -- but the very best experts there are! Do you deserve anything less?
In days gone by it has not been possible to implement this no-party system, because it was not practical to hold mass public votes on every little issue. But these days, where computers and the internet are available to all, there is no longer any valid excuse for not introducing it. The only sticks in the mud would be the selfishness of the existing parties and their members, and of course the British propensity for fearing anything new.
Of course, politicians will have to find the greatness to act against their own selfish interests in order to introduce such a system, but we're not entirely without hope here. For example, in days gone by, every country in Europe had the old, archaic "First Past The Post" electoral system, whereby most people's votes, the only say which they have in the running of their own country, were cast aside as wasted. (For example, winning parties very rarely get as much as 50% of the vote in an election...which means that more people voted against them than for them..and therefore under the First Past The Post system more votes are trashed than not). Governments winning on such a system rule outright, and generally enjoy far greater power, and less answerability, than Governments elected on the fairer Proportional Representation system where power is often shared and the overall wishes of the people are better represented in the Assembly.
But in every country in Europe a government originally elected in this way has then been able to find the selflessness to act against its own interests and introduce Proportional Representation, whereby they can no longer govern outright in most cases, but at least in all cases every person's vote now counts (except Britain, whose politicians have not found themselves able to do this and consequently they are still on the old system.).
And so if politicians can find the greatness to introduce a fairer system like Proportional Representation, then surely, one day, they can go the extra mile and introduce the No-Party State?
Alternatively, a temporary party could be formed, perhaps with the rather self-contradictory name of "The No-Party-State Party", which upon winning an election would then vote for its own destruction and those of all the opposition parties in the Assembly, and introduce the new system.
As for the King, well frankly the very idea of having a Head of State who has power for life and hands it on to his kids, while the rest of us, despite our pride and our dignity, and the vote in our hands, have to sit down, shut up, and get what we're given, is an embarrassment to the Democratic ideal of the Free West and to the dignity of the people.
Why, even countries which are one-party states are better than this, in that anyone can join the party and then work their way up to the top. But in a monarchy you can’t even do that.
Just cut him off from the running of the State. We can still have these Royals, getting crowned in Westminster Abbey and going round with a pair of scissors, cutting tapes and opening new buildings. They can be the country's real-life soap opera (let's face it, they're that anyway), and to retain them in a traditional context might actually brighten the place up as well as raise some money from tourism. But they must no longer be in a political position to deny us the proper Democracy which is the birthright of dignified people everywhere.
--- Michael Alan Marshall