Archive for June, 2006

Why do people vote in elections?

June 22, 2006

In my last diatribe I ended with asking why people still vote in elections where the voice of the people is ignored?

Over the years I have wondered about this, and the conclusion that I have come to is that it is habit.

At election time, we listen to all the platitudes and untruths that the politicians feed us and deep down we know we are all going to get shafted again, but we are the eternal optimists and hope that one of the politicians is strong enough to shake the complacency out of the establishment.

Sometimes, at the start of a new term of office for a Government there is some excitement as we see a newcomer (or several) start questioning what is going on, but it isn’t long before the system gets to them and they are forced to conform to the status quo. These elected members normally do not last more than one term before they leave the political stage with their dreams and aspirations of public service shattered forever. What does this leave? It leaves the “good old boys” who know how to manipulate the system for their own benefit and the benefit of their cronies and financial backers.

Even before the election results are announced, we all know that the group with the deeper pockets will win. They are the ones who are able to influence and change the results to suit themselves. How a leader of the western “free” world can lose an election twice and yet still be elected “President” amazes me. It pays to have a brother in the right place, eh!

Personally I believe that we need a “benevolent dictator” similar to Lee Yuan Yew of Singapore. The service factor in Public Service must be reinstated instead of it meaning “self service” at the trough of Public money.

The economies of the Western world are crashing as Governance is given away to the companies and interests who fund the elected politicians lifestyles. The continued repression of the common man for the benefit of the rich cannot continue for much longer.

The reality is that social revolution is coming as the social fabric frays and is now ripping apart. When we have nothing left to lose then heads will start to roll.

Change is coming and it is up to us, the man in the street, to determine whether it will be a calm or bloody transition. Personally, I think it will be bloody as we fight to take back what the companies have stolen from us over the last three or four generations. This is already happening around the world as the effects of the WTO are felt.

To be continued……


Fabric of society being ripped apart

June 20, 2006

When the British flag flew over most of the English speaking world, the English common law was enshrined in those countries legal system and became a significant part of the social fabric of that country. Most of those countries are now independent, such as USA, Canada, and all the commonwealth countries, but English common law still remains the cornerstone of those countries societies. Without that there would be anarchy.

What is common law? Common law is law that comes from the common people, versus legislation, which, comes from the “experts.”

Common law comes about at the root levels of society: it is not law that is imposed by some authority from on high. The development of common law was “essentially a private affair concerning millions of people throughout dozens of generations and stretching across several centuries.” It is a process that is self-adjusting and which goes on everyday unnoticed, without great expense to the state and without fractionalising society. This is to be compared to the legislative process, which is defined below.

Legislation is “A rule of conduct imposed by authority. … The body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects.” However, legislation is always subject to losing its authority as law by slipping out from under the definition; and this, on account of its despicable character. Legislation will lose its force as being law when a significant part of the community does not and will not recognize legislation (for whatever reason) as being binding upon itself.

1 – Common Law

The fact of the matter is that there exists all around us a great body of law that has not ever been (nor could it be) written down in one spot. In a way, its, its more of a process that has a single guiding rule, the “golden rule,” a negative rule: “Don’t do something to someone that you don’t want to have visited on yourself, either directly or through the agency of a government.” Though it has suffered much at the hands of legislators, common law is yet followed in all major English-speaking nations around the world. Common law to England was and is its very force. The greatness of England, certainly in the past, is attributable, I would say fully attributable, to the stabilizing and enriching institution that we have come to know as common law. This subject of the common law is a great and wonderful subject: its evolutionary development and its great benefits make it the most superior law system known in the world, as history will readily tell.

The common law is as a result of a natural sequence that hardened first into custom and then into law. It did not come about as an act of will, as an act of some group aware only of the instant moment, unaware of the nature and history of man. It comes about as a result of a seamless and continual development, through processes we can hardly begin to understand; it evolved along with man.

2 – The Object of Legislation

A person or group of persons, surprisingly easily, can make another or others do what is wanted. One way is by negotiation and accommodation, viz. by contract, that is to say, to trade with them. Another way is to command that which is desired to be done and back it up with the threat of brute physical force: that is to use coercion: that is what we call legislative law: that is the dark side of the law.

What, you might ask has this to do with the fabric of society? It is in the definitions – common law comes about by consensus and agreement whereas those who seek to operate their own agenda impose legislation on society.

At this point in time (2006) we stand at a crossroads or a fork in the road of human societies development. We can either remain on the path that has stood us in good stead for many millennia by retaining Common Law, or we can allow laws to be imposed upon society by the use of brute force to satisfy the whims of a faceless dictator. While you may regard the use of the word dictator as a bit extreme, this is what is happening. We have a faceless bureaucracy behind who are hiding the puppet masters. So many laws are being passed which the general public do not even know about. These laws are being enacted to benefit a small part of society to the detriment of the majority.

Overall, the majority of nations regard themselves as democratic, and yet those in power take no notice of the requirements of general society who they have sworn to serve. Instead those who determine what is best for you and I are regarded by the bulk of society as untrustworthy and corrupt. Most surveys find politicians well below car salespeople in this regard.

Parliament or its like was set up originally so that the voice of the people could be heard and a consensus arrived at for the benefit of those people. Now those institutions have been taken over by groups (they are called political parties) who have their own agenda that proves again and again to be at odds with the will of the people. The “democratic elections” are a farce as society as a whole knows that the political parties and the politicians lie through their eyeteeth just to retain power. They have no intention of keeping their word when they get elected. They want merely to retain power at all costs. Legislation has been enacted through the centuries since the Magna Carta that completely removes the requirement that politicians speak for the people they represent, but must mouth the words and ideas of the political party. So why do people still vote in these elections?

To be continued….

Japan and whaling

June 19, 2006

In the last few days and weeks there has been a plenty of news coverage of Japan bribing small countries to support their position of killing whales for “scientific purposes”.

This is national pride, ego and arrogance gone mad.

The fact that the Japanese government feels that it is entitled to kill as many whales as they want for no particular reason, and to hell with everyone else indicates a very disturbed national mind. The Japanese now have a very large store of whale meat (in excess of 5000 tonnes) that the Japanese public do not want to eat. It is now being used as pet food.

So now the Japanese want to kill more whales, not for “scientific research”, but to feed their pets. The idea of “scientific research’ is surely to either support or develop a hypothesis that will engender knowledge to the human race. How the killing of endangered species fulfils this aim completely escapes me.

Now that the Japanese government has admitted that it is using foreign aid as a means of controlling the votes of small nations who are members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to support their demand to kill sentient mammals, beggars the question of whether Japan is determined to become the persona non-gratia of the ocean. They are demanding the right to kill anything and everything that they come across in the open ocean. Isn’t this how the 2nd World war started – with controlling and subjugating smaller countries? Now though countries (except the USA) have learnt that military force is not necessary to conquer countries, money works much better.

The fact that Greenpeace is getting out there on the ocean doesn’t seem to have much affect on stopping the whaling. Perhaps now is the time to look at other options.

  • Try and get your Government to break off diplomatic relationships with the whaling nations – this includes Japan, Norway and Iceland. Realistically this isn’t going to happen.
  • Try and get your Government to out bribe the Japanese control of the smaller countries. This is unlikely to happen as there does not seem to be many Governments (apart from New Zealand and Australia) who really care about the raping and pillaging of the oceans.
  • Get the Japanese people to pressure their own Government to stop the whaling. Bearing in mind the hive like mentality that Japanese society appears to have, and the almost complete subservience they have to authority it is unlikely that this will happen.
  • Making the economic returns of hunting whales non-existent. This is the case now, evidenced by their use of the meat for pet food, because the Japanese people don’t buy it. The economics are likely to get worse instead of better.
  • Sinking the whaling ships – or at least the factory ships. Is this possible? Of course it is. The sinking would need to be in the deep ocean so that there is no possibility of salvage. Will this happen? It is difficult to tell, the attitude of the environmentalist would need to change from following the rules, and decide to work outside the box. This breed of activist already exists in the UK under the banner of the animal activist. All that needs to happen is that they move from land based to ocean based. This will take money and organisation, but it very possible. I understand that the factory ships of the whaling nations are old and cost a lot to maintain. If they were all lost at sea perhaps the whaling nations would think twice about replacing them. You never know!

World of greed

June 19, 2006

We live in a world of greed, where the rich get richer and everyone else is treated as a slave. Is this how we are meant to live and interact with each other? It is my view that this is not the case.

The human race initially consisted of family groups, moving to tribal and eventually a village society. Once the collection of people became too large for everyone to know each other, at least by sight, an opportunity arose for human predators to become active. In today’s society where neighbour does not know neighbour, these predators flourish at society’s expense.

Some of these predators are real people such as con men, tricksters and fraudsters. They operate by manipulating people’s trust and general greed and stupidity. It has been shown to be impossible to protect people against themselves. Continual moving from victim to victim is the hallmark of this type of predator.

The most common type of predator is the one that continually manipulates society to ensure that it can predate upon society without getting tarred and feathered and removed from society. We all know who these predators are, the Government, banks, big business and all the so-called quasi government organizations that virtually control society without any mandate from society even to exist.

Banks are a case in point. Originally set up as a safe repository of the nations cash, they are effectively trying to remove cash completely from our society. The increased reliance upon electronic financial transactions and the fact that you are actually charged for depositing or withdrawing the legal currency of the land must indicate that cash has a finite life within society. The question that must be asked is “Why should cash disappear?” The major reason appears to be the ability to maintain control over society as a whole. The IRD has maintained that the black untaxed economy has been growing enormously in the last ten years or so. This black economy survives by the use of untraceable cash. Therefore, the theory goes that if there is no cash, all financial transactions must take place through a bank, the black economy will disappear, and therefore the IRD will increase the overall tax take and personal tax rates will fall. This is a load of hogwash, as a report commissioned by the IRD found that reducing monetary control and tax rates increased the overall tax take.

The present tax laws are recognised as being extremely convoluted, ambiguous and draconian in their application. However, our elected government seems to have no will (or ability) to scrap all the present legislation and come up with a very simple system that applies to everyone equally. Such a system could be based on a 1% transaction tax for all amounts transferred into and out of a bank account. This would also include the banks and businesses that use the Reserve Bank and other facilities to balance their books on a daily basis. This amounts to multi-millions of dollars every day, and yet financial transactions such of these are exempt from any form of taxation. Individual accounts are already monitored to pay the taxman, so why not the corporate’s?