29-04-2009, 04:04 PM
As a student of law, history and also political theory, I find myself wondering how the speaker (John Harris) would change things. He doesn't say what his concept of government is, just that he's against the existing one.
There is a long history of changing theories in political philosophy about how to run governments--that means, how to build infrastructure, protect property and people from other people, and to protect the governmental units from other "foreign" governments.
There was a republican government (meaning one created by the members of the entire society who elected representatives) back in ancient Athens. It gradually deteriorated and collapsed and was followed by an empire in Rome. During the "dark ages," government was strictly one of power. Whoever could garner the most property and control a network that would enforce his power in his name.
As working people over the centuries were able to accumulate enough property to contest this power, they began to create alternative theories to how government "should" work. John Locke in England and Montesquieu in France wrote about "natural law," a concept derived both from the ancient writings from Plato's Republic and from more modern principles of Christian principles from the New Testament.
I'm not sure where John Harris came up with his theories, but it seems to me to be quite deceptive. He ignores the long history of political theory and common law. What is his motive?
This seems very similar to what was going on in Texas in the early-1990's under the rubric of the "Republic of Texas." It was a fraudulent scheme seemingly devised to issue their own paper money to acquire goods and merchandise from others, as well as to avoid paying taxes assessed by existing "governments." See their wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas_(group)
I was working in land title work at the time, and it caused a terrible hiatus in title property law back then. Exactly the same arguments were being made to convince people to go along with them.
What I decided is that there are people who do not like the existing government and do not want to pay taxes to support it. But they have no alternative to how to get people to agree to another system of building infrastructure, etc. I believe government is necessary, but the older I get, the more I believe in the impossibility of forming consensus with others. If we can't even reach agreement over issues with members of our own families, how are we ever going to agree with other people?
We elect leaders to pass laws for our benefit, but then we don't want to pay taxes to finance the necessary activities, e.g. police, armies, firemen, hospitals...on and on. Over time, in my opinion, what has happened in the U.S. is that a secret bureaucracy has taken hold that will provide these necessary functions for us and that this group has also devised a secret financing system.
I think originally this group arose out of the British Fabians, and they financed socialism from opium profits derived from trade the government took over from the East India Company. That may be a total misconception on my part, but I have found some evidence that leads me to believe it. I'm sure it is not the entire truth, however, because there have been similar competitive groups using the same concepts.
It appears the group John Harris was speaking for is planning another protest in London in June:
https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/conference/
https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/declaration/
You can fill out a request for tickets or get your name and address on their list without being told ahead of time how much they are charging for tickets and where the money is going. That is what I find most laughable --no, pathetic--about all this. It's just another scam.
There is a long history of changing theories in political philosophy about how to run governments--that means, how to build infrastructure, protect property and people from other people, and to protect the governmental units from other "foreign" governments.
There was a republican government (meaning one created by the members of the entire society who elected representatives) back in ancient Athens. It gradually deteriorated and collapsed and was followed by an empire in Rome. During the "dark ages," government was strictly one of power. Whoever could garner the most property and control a network that would enforce his power in his name.
As working people over the centuries were able to accumulate enough property to contest this power, they began to create alternative theories to how government "should" work. John Locke in England and Montesquieu in France wrote about "natural law," a concept derived both from the ancient writings from Plato's Republic and from more modern principles of Christian principles from the New Testament.
I'm not sure where John Harris came up with his theories, but it seems to me to be quite deceptive. He ignores the long history of political theory and common law. What is his motive?
This seems very similar to what was going on in Texas in the early-1990's under the rubric of the "Republic of Texas." It was a fraudulent scheme seemingly devised to issue their own paper money to acquire goods and merchandise from others, as well as to avoid paying taxes assessed by existing "governments." See their wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas_(group)
I was working in land title work at the time, and it caused a terrible hiatus in title property law back then. Exactly the same arguments were being made to convince people to go along with them.
What I decided is that there are people who do not like the existing government and do not want to pay taxes to support it. But they have no alternative to how to get people to agree to another system of building infrastructure, etc. I believe government is necessary, but the older I get, the more I believe in the impossibility of forming consensus with others. If we can't even reach agreement over issues with members of our own families, how are we ever going to agree with other people?
We elect leaders to pass laws for our benefit, but then we don't want to pay taxes to finance the necessary activities, e.g. police, armies, firemen, hospitals...on and on. Over time, in my opinion, what has happened in the U.S. is that a secret bureaucracy has taken hold that will provide these necessary functions for us and that this group has also devised a secret financing system.
I think originally this group arose out of the British Fabians, and they financed socialism from opium profits derived from trade the government took over from the East India Company. That may be a total misconception on my part, but I have found some evidence that leads me to believe it. I'm sure it is not the entire truth, however, because there have been similar competitive groups using the same concepts.
It appears the group John Harris was speaking for is planning another protest in London in June:
https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/conference/
https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/declaration/
You can fill out a request for tickets or get your name and address on their list without being told ahead of time how much they are charging for tickets and where the money is going. That is what I find most laughable --no, pathetic--about all this. It's just another scam.
"History records that the Money Changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." --James Madison