Forging a New Future

No matter where you situate yourself on the political spectrum, perhaps we can all agree that something about the present system of government, or the state of the society, is broken, or perhaps, at least, we can agree that it’s not working as it should.

Perhaps then it’s time to have a proper review; a review of a thoroughgoing nature; a review which looks at the whole system; the world of politics and the structure of society.

Perhaps by properly reviewing things and reflecting on them, we can determine not just what the problems are, but how to remedy them. For only when we know what the problems are, can we make changes that are considered necessary.

Perhaps we find some fundamental flaws in the system and it decide that it needs an entire overhaul. Or perhaps the problems are not so severe and so therefore more easily fixed. So perhaps there is a need to make only minor corrections to the existing system, or perhaps we need to create a new system, a new constitution altogether. Only by looking at things, will we know for sure either way what is required.

And although most people would perhaps find such matters tiresome or boring, or whatever, perhaps it is something we need to do. Given the recent turn of events, I would argue that it is something that requires our attention and perhaps we are, in some ways, beholden to do it. Perhaps we owe it to ourselves, do we not?

And yes it’s effortful … But perhaps afterwards, after doing the review, we find ourselves living in a better society. Would not the effort then have been worth it? Losing weight, or getting fit, is not an easy process, but perhaps it is worth it in the long run. I believe that the end result would be worth it.

I would just like to state that where there is crisis, there is also opportunity. We perhaps have an opportunity to forge a new future. This article has been written in part to counter the “Build Back Better” campaign and the vile agenda of our Overlords.

I believe that we can build a better society, but only if it is without them and their misrule. I certainly hope that we can build a new and truly fairer society.

This discussion is divided into two parts. And it’s further divided into various sections.

The first part enters the realm of political philosophy. It considers the more theoretical side of politics – notions of Equality, Freedom, the rights of the individual, the relationship an individual has to a community and state etc.

The second part considers the practicalities of politics. It is focused on the constitution in the UK – a critique of the present system and my proposal. But I think that it has relevance to other nations and could act as a blue print for other nations to consider.

All people are born equal.

This maxim should be entirely evident to everyone, but perhaps it is something that needs to be explicitly expressed right from the outset.

As already stated, equality for all should be regarded as a birthright – i.e. that this right come into being the moment the individual is born, the moment they themselves come into being. The issue of when this exactly is, can be debated at a later stage. Some religious groups would argue that it is from the moment of conception, while others might say it is from birth. That issue need not concern us for the time being.

I would go on to say that Equality is an inalienable right – something that should not be challenged, changed, or taken away from anyone. Indeed, it should be something that is regarded as utterly sacrosanct.

If you are of a religious bent, you might say that this right is God-given.

At this juncture, I should point out that “Equality” is just a notion, a mere belief, but it is such an important one, in my opinion, that it should be regarded as a belief of the highest order. It should be exalted to the highest level possible and thereby accorded the supreme status of an Absolute. And as such, it should be considered inviolable - not to be interfered with in any way, shape, or form. Not only should it be safeguarded, but it is something that should be defended at all costs.

To my mind, its importance can not be overstated. And we need only to consider the opposite to see how important the matter is. To have a situation where people are not regarded as equal, to have inequality established as an integral part of a system, inevitably leads to iniquity. When one section of society, or one class of people, rules over another, all manner of wrongs occur – wrongs that could even be considered evil.

I’m sure that the reader would agree that such a state of affairs is not just undesirable, but an anathema, something so objectionable, so odious and just plain wrong that most normal people would recoil from it. By the same token, I would hope that few people - except perhaps those who would benefit from an unequal system - would actually advocate such a stance.

So. if we are to live in a truly fair society, all should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law - with no single section of society, or class of people ever ruling over another section of society, or class of people.

I should also say that although the notion of “Equality for all” might be regarded as some kind of commonplace cliché, a much-repeated truism, we need to be wary of being complacent about it. It should not be regarded as just another platitude. Instead. we need to hold it in great esteem, treat it with the utmost respect, dare I say, even revere and glorify it. I think that we also need to protect and preserve it as best we can.

Why? Well, much flows from the acceptance of the notion of Equality being an Absolute. The truth is that Equality has important implications in the shaping of the w

Tied in with the notion of Equality, is the notion of Universal Suffrage - one person, one vote.

This notion is again something that needs to be explicitly expressed.

I would also like to assert that Universal Suffrage an inalienable right. And again, in this respect, it should not be challenged, or changed.

Furthermore, I believe that it is not just a privilege. It should not be a mere entitlement bestowed on us by some (oh so) beneficent ruler.

History shows us that the notion of Universal Suffrage was considered repugnant by the ruling elites not so very long ago. Calls for Universal Suffrage were regarded as radical and subversive by our Overlords. And it was something that was strenuously opposed by them for many centuries. By dint of this, the war to achieve Universal Suffrage was hard won. And we all therefore owe a debt of gratitude to those brave men and women who acted in the best interests of the common people.

I would like to detail the principal events, noting the various struggles that took place, leading up to the momentous occasion when Universal Suffrage was passed into law, but that is perhaps beyond the remit of this discussion.* All those battles and all that warring is, moreover, part of our history. And we are obliged to accept that the past is past and nothing can be done about it. The truth is, we need only be concerned with forging a new future. That should be our primary focus here.

Perhaps then, all we need to ensure is that Universal Suffrage continues to be part of the constitution. We owe it to those fine folk that fought for us, do we not? I think that that is the very least we can do.

Enough for the time being of the scholarly study stuff … Let’s now briefly consider the more practical aspects of this.

In terms of voter eligibility, it would seem reasonable that the voter needs to be over eighteen – this might seem something of an arbitrary ruling, but seems to be the standard benchmark for determining the maturity of an individual.

And it would seem reasonable that the voter needs to be an established citizen of the state - the details of which can be considered at some later stage. No doubt this will prove somewhat of a more contentious issue than the ruling on the voting age.

A proper, secure voter record needs to be established – one that is both transparent and tamper proof. This shouldn’t be too difficult to do. Technology is there to aid us in this respect. The information can be recorded on the block chain for instance. The block chain is transparent and secure. Moreover, once the information has been inputted it can not be changed. Amendments can be made, of course, where needed – for instance in the case of a woman changing her name once she is married. But any attempts to alter the record it illegally will be entirely evident.

Along with a proper voting record, a sound method of voting needs to be put in place. Again, details can be worked out at a later stage and need not concern us now

From hereonin things seem to get somewhat complicated. While Equality and Universal Suffrage are things that are relatively easily achievable, I’m not sure other matters can be so easily stated.

I think we would all like to live in an ideal world, a Utopia. What right minded person would want otherwise? But I think we must recognize that this is probably not very realistic.

I’m not sure that it’s even possible to create an ideal world.

Perhaps we have to accept that everything we create will fall short of the ideal in some way. It will be less than perfect – deficient / inadequate in some way.

Be that as it may, this does not mean we should just give up, resigning ourselves to our deficiencies / inadequacies. An athlete competing in a high jump attempts to jump as high as they can, do they not? They don’t hold back, deciding not to jump, believing themselves inadequate, or incapable, or believing that jumping such a height is impossible to achieve. Indeed the top athlete will commit to many hours of training, believing themselves capable and believing the jump is possible. Rather than resigning themselves, they rise to the challenge.

We should do likewise in creating the state we wish for. We should train ourselves and try our utmost to achieve the best. And although we will not achieve an ideal, if we aim for an ideal, then we might achieve something decent and worthwhile.

All people are not only born equal, but born free.

This notion is again, something that needs to be explicitly expressed.

And, yet again, Freedom should be regarded as a birthright.

I would go on to assert that Freedom is, in essence, an inalienable right – something that should not be challenged, changed, or taken away from anyone.

However, while it should be something that is inviolable, unlike the notion of Equality, Freedom might need to come with certain conditions attached.

How so you might ask? Why should Freedom be conditional?

Well, in order to answer this, we need to consider the individual.

Let us start off by making some claims regarding the individual.

As we have already stated each individual, is, at all times, in essence, free.

In conjunction with this, each individual is an autonomous agent. This means that the individual is free to govern themselves. So being both free and autonomous, each and every one of us should be able to act howsoever we wish. We should be free to choose our own goals in life and act accordingly etc.

It should be obvious, but perhaps needs stating … that the individual is not a slave, nor a serf, nor an indentured servant. Therefore, the individual should be able to operate in the world in an unencumbered fashion – not subject to the rule of anyone else. No other person, or body, should rule over the individual.

To put it in the most simple of terms, the individual is sovereign - the individual reigns supreme.

So, to summarize the situation, the individual is free, autonomous and sovereign.

This would be an ideal position and it’s akin to the position of Classical Liberalism, or the modern day Libertarian.

Imagined Scenario 1
The very fact that the individual lives in a community has important implications regarding the freedoms of the individual. While we might all like to live however we wish, doing entirely as we desire, we need to be aware of the impact our actions have on others. All actions have consequences, do they not?

Let’s then take a look at an imagined scenario to get a better understanding of what problems could potentially arise.

Let’s imagine some individual living in a small town who likes to play their music loud and does so often and at all hours of the day and night. As can be expected, this might well cause annoyance to the next door neighbours and those living close by. Perhaps the person living in the house directly next door is someone who likes to live in peace and quiet.

Obviously, this situation could be cause for conflict.

This imagined scenario also throws up many important questions that require our consideration – some of which might be rather surprising to the reader.

I should say at this point that I don’t necessarily have answers to these questions, but I think that these questions need to be posed and the issue debated in order to find the answers – or at least to arrive at a position which can be considered somewhat satisfactory.

What should be done?
So, how should conflicts such as these, conflicts that always arise within a community, be resolved? Moreover, how should this particular conflict be resolved?

I guess the community could chose not to interfere and just let the two parties resolve it on their own. Who knows what might transpire in this event. Perhaps the issue between them might never be resolved and thus it might rumble on for a number of years. Or, perhaps it might escalate, resulting in some physical altercation with one party sustaining some kind of injury.

Or, perhaps the community could chose to get involved and try and act as intermediary. Both parties would then necessarily have to agree that the community would act as intermediary. And perhaps someone, or some representative body, will have to preside over proceedings and then make a determination. And again, both parties would necessarily have to agree to terms of that ruling.

Who is to be favoured?
Let’s assume for the time being that the community is going to preside over the proceedings and is able to make a determination in this case. Which individual should be favoured? Whose rights should be championed - the rights of the person playing their music loud, or the neighbor who has the right to live in peace and quite (and not to have to listen anyone else’s music blaring)?

If it is decided that the person playing their music loud is favoured, then the peace-loving neighbour will be forced to suffer the blaring music forevermore. If, however, it is decided that the neighbour who wants to live in peace and quiet is favoured, then music loving person will not be allowed to play their music loud anymore.

This is a follow on from the previous video where I talked about the Imagined Sceanrio 1

What constitutes harm?
Let’s take a short deviation to illustrate the complexities that arise in relation to the notion of “harm”.

Let’s overstate the case a little for purposes of demonstration by imagining that some actual harm is done by a decision having been made.

If the decision goes against the peace-loving person, they might suffer an undue amount of stress by being subject to continually blaring music. This heightened stress level might have an adverse effect on their general health and well-being – essentially causing them some degree of harm.

Alternatively, if the decision goes against the person who loves listening to music, might they not suffer also? Perhaps music for them was a way of reducing their levels of stress, but now they are denied that. And so their stress levels build up – essentially causing them some degree of harm.

What is to be done in this case?

Should we somehow try to take account of the “harm” that has been done? If the answer is “Yes”, how do we determine the harm done? How do we define it and how do we quantify it?

Should we legislate for this? How can we legislate for this?

I think it’s extremely difficult to determine what harm actually is. If harm can’t be defined adequately and if it can’t be properly measured, how on earth can it be then be appropriately legislated for?

The reader might be aware that this issue is analogous to something which we might be more familiar with in our current culture … the issues surrounding free speech.

In many Western cultures these days, there are concerns regarding “hate speech” and the offensive caused by it. There is even legislation on the statutes which supposedly aims at countering instances of hate speech.

But what constitutes offense? Is being offended not something that is purely subjective in nature? After all, what one individual might find offensive, another might think hardly anything of. One could even be inclined to say that the former is being overly sensitive. And again, should we legislate for this?

For me, the issue of “hate speech” is a form of censorship which offends my views regarding free speech. But I digress …

Who decides?
So, returning to the imagined scenario … then there is the issue regarding who decides? Who is going to preside over the proceedings and then make a determination? The question of who adjudicates in this dispute is an important one.

Does another person in the community make the decision about which individual to favour? Maybe it’s another individual living nearby who decides. Maybe that person doesn’t like music either. Or maybe the person who decides has some grudge against the peace-loving neighbour. There could be all sorts of possibilities that need to be assessed and accounted for.

It seems evident that all manner of personal biases could easily contaminate the decision-making process. Whether we care to admit it or not

I should perhaps have mentioned this earlier but … I can make available the transcripts of all the videos I have so far made to anyone who wishes to have a copy. I have put a lot in the descriptions sections below the videos but there is a word limit.

I should say that I’m not too concerned about copyright issues. I’m not in this to make money. I’m only interested in getting the information out there as widely as possible in order to put an end to the misrule of those people who are in charge at present.

I am alas, not brilliant when it comes to technology. So, if there is anyone who happens to be more tech savvy than me – this should include most of the people on the planet and even some orangutans - and they can suggest a way of my doing this, I would appreciate it. Just leave suggestions in the comments.

Wise up and rise up.