Hi chaps. Haven't posted here for some time, but I'd like to introduce to you a new "strategy" which has potential ... well, I think so.
It's a pretty long post, but I'd ask you to persevere and tell me whether you think the logic of my argument is sound. And, is my proposal sound?
Let me precis ... I propose that we can demand, of government, the answer to an "impossible" question. That, if asked publicly, this question is sufficient to undermine the "assumed authority" of government.
A refutal of Government' authority
I've always been told that I am "governed and taxed by consent".
And, when you think about it, this must be true.
It stems, of course, from the Christian' idea that we are each born free and of equal worth. Now, if two people are equals, it follows that one may not direct the other, nor impose his will upon that other, except with the consent of both parties. When no such consent is present, it must be the case that one 'man' is imposing his will by force, or the threat of force. In effect, that would mean that one 'man' has enslaved the other to his bidding.
So, to avoid that accusation, Western governments have invented the idea of "consensual governance" ... wherein each of the governed agrees to abide by the rules, sanctions and taxes which are laid down by "Government".
There is little doubt that this relationship serves many people adequately. It's also true that few people ever question its validity; that's why we are known as "sheeple", I guess.
Logically, if I am "governed and taxed by my consent", there absolutely must be a mechanism by which that consent may be withdrawn. If no such mechanism exists, then the concept of "consensual governance" is clearly untrue; I would be governed without my consent and thus be a slave to the will of other men. There are parallels with the slave-owning society of the C18th, if you'll just ponder awhile.
My strategy has two prongs:
1 ... A concerted and public demand that the "Government" inform me of the mechanism by which I may withdraw my consent to its governance. If no such mechanism exists, then said "Government" should state that I am, in fact, its slave. I would, in effect, be challeinging the Government's "lawful authority" to govern.
2 ... An attempt to unify the disparate campaigning and lobbying groups, each of which is hindered by the same, fundamental, deficit. That is, each group is suffering a deficit in Liberty. If the members of the "stop-the-war" group can be shown that their cause is the SAME as that of the "I-want-to-smoke-weed" group, then the number of those who would live as Free people, will swell; and at some point, their mass will become critical.
OK, the first prong involves a direct challenge to government itself. Traditionally, those who would be Freemen, have sent off their affidavits and been thoroughly ignored ... am I right? Well, that's the treatment that I received, anyway.
This time, we must act in concert and very publicly. But, this will not involve travel or mass demonstrations, or confrontation. No, I suggest that we use the Royal Mail and the Internet (our best friend).
I propose that, en masse, we flood the PM and our MPs with demands (recorded delivery) that they tell us how we withdraw our consent to governance. Of course, they cannot truthfully reply, since their reply must either tell us that we are enslaved OR furnish us with the freedom to opt out of the State. I've thought about this for quite some time now, and I'm confident that any and all answers, which they might construct, ultimately lead to the same truths ... we are enslaved. The thing is, we have to force them to admit it or else retire embarrassed and blustering. The facts of this strategy should motivate thousands more people to question their status within the community. Now, I do expect that 90% of the public could not give a toss, but if just one percent sit up and take notice ... well, that's 650,000 people.
Running in tandem with this mass "interrogation", would be our internet campaign to promote the concept. This will be largely via the alternative media (we all know the value of the MSM, by now). I'm thinking of numerous campaigning websites, Zerohedge, Max Keiser, Adam vs the Man, Freedomain Radio, Alex Jones ... you get the idea. We have to put the PM and our MPs in a position such that a refusal to comply with our demands is simply untenable ... they will then be forced to bullshit. They've no other option, because they DARE NOT speak the truth of the matter. We, of course, anticipating the bullshit answers, will have raised and dismissed them, publicly, before the politicians have even uttered them.
As to the unification of campaigning groups. Let me give you an exemplar. I'm sure that it's obvious to you that a Free man of good conscience would not support an unjust war. But, that's exactly what we are forced to do, via taxation. And, "forced" is the right word to use.
It serves the ends of the peace campaigner to withdraw his consent to taxation, when the money is being used for evil ends.
So, too, with the campaigner who wants to smoke his weed (or whatever). As a Free man, it is clear that the State has no business in defining what substances he may ingest. And yet, the State assumes de facto ownership over his body by compelling him to ingest only that which the State deems acceptable.
Each of these two campaigners is suffering from a common deficit .. a Liberty deficit.
I don't know whether it's possible to make that case to them. I don't know whether their other concerns will over-ride my arguments. It could be that the peace campaigner also wants to have the State extort money from other people and give it to him in the form of benefits. If that's the case, then it's a clear example of "having your cake and eating it", since it is impossible to have your own Liberty whilst denying it to others ... except by the use of force. Well, that's a moral dilemma for them to ponder. I'd suggest that you've no business in labelling yourself "peace campaigner" whilst encouraging the State to extort money from others, on your behalf. But that's just me!
In passing, I feel that it's important to avoid confrontation with the executive arm of the State. Our campaign should be one of ideas. The State is well prepared to fight a campaign of riots and bottles, but woefully unable to challenge logic. How can it challenge the Truth?
Now, I don't know where this might lead. It could be another dead-end. But, I think that the logic is unassailable. What is your opinion?