Honest Common Sense

(May 1^st, 2024)

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, also known as Lenin, is hardly a good role model for freedom lovers. Nevertheless, he had a habit of asking good questions. The one, with which I have titled this essay, was probably his best. And today, I’m going to try to put forward some possible answers to it, from the viewpoint of a denizen of the UK in late April 2024.

Two warnings: The essay is long. And some of the ideas are radical!

A brief summary on green and anti-car policies

It is now five years since Tory minister Michael Gove met with Extinction Rebellion on April 30^th, 2019. That day, Gove set in motion the flying circus of bad green policies, with which we have been oppressed ever since. The “net zero” scam, rising taxes, steepling energy bills, inflation, anti-car policies coming at us from all directions, and many more.

Over the last few weeks, I have been putting together the back-story behind the anti-car policies, that are causing so much pain to people in the UK. The summary paper is here: [[1]]. Now, I already knew that the “human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic climate change” meme was nothing but a scam, used by the political élites to rationalize harmful policies like net zero. But what I discovered only recently is that the idea that people must be forced out of our cars, or taxed out of existence, or both, for some nebulous “clean air” agenda, is no more supported by science and evidence than is the climate change idiocy. Indeed, I formed the view that, very probably, no air pollution problems with large-scale serious impacts on health have occurred in Western countries since the early 1970s. And certainly not in the UK since the introduction of ultra-low-sulphur diesel in 2000. So, the whole accusation is a complete fraud.

I identified that, out of the four main fronts on which drivers are being attacked, on three at least the ultimate source of the bad policies we are being subjected to is the United Nations. The net zero scam is being pushed from the highest levels of the UN. The clean air scam was started by the European Union, but is now also being driven by the UN’s World Health Organization. And the unattainable road safety targets are also being pushed by the WHO. However, UK governments and local councils, of all political parties, have also been active in promoting these scams.

I identified three cultural perversions, which those pushing these bad policies are using against us. They have perverted the precautionary principle, “Look before you leap,” into something close to “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” They have used this to impose ever-tightening, collective targets and limits on what people may do. Leading to a culture of “safety at any cost,” that subjects us to ever more and tighter restrictions, ever more harshly enforced, and without any concern at all for the harms and costs the policies impose on people.

Combine these with government having become gross, both in its size, and in the scope and reach of what it does. And far too many in government displaying psychopathic behaviours towards the people they are supposed to serve. The result is tyranny. A tyranny that is the logical outcome of the 16^th-century political system called the “Westphalian” state, under which we still suffer today. A tyranny that is not in any way restrained by the sham called democracy, because it is actively favoured by all four of the mainstream political parties.

Here are some words I used to describe what they are doing to us. Zealotry. Dishonest. Devious. Lies, misleading, ad hominems. Bad faith towards the people. Wanting to use “nudge” and “behaviour change” techniques on us. Kleptomania. Arrogant and uncaring. Reckless and remorseless. Psychopaths.

The background to this essay

I had intended this essay to form a post-script to my series on anti-car policies. In effect, part seven of six. But as I started trying to put forward some suggestions about how we might fix these problems, I came to the conclusion that I needed to write a completely different kind of essay. I decided that I was going to have to wheel out some of my philosophical artillery, in an effort to take a wider view of, and so make sense of, what is going on.

In reaching where I am now, I have had to make myself into something of a philosopher, particularly in the areas of ethics and politics. If not also a little bit of a historian. In the last essay of the anti-car set, I already linked to the paper that explains and justifies my view of human history, and the basic principles of my philosophy: [[2]].

In that paper, I went so far as to diagnose what is being done to us, and to sketch an outline of a new system of governance, intended to supersede the political state. I call that system “just governance.” In this essay, I shall need to re-iterate in the same or slightly different words, or to paraphrase, many of the ideas from that paper, or from the detailed papers of which it is itself a summary. I will try to make the results as brief and readable as I can.

What are we up against?

Now, I will try to give an idea of just what it is that we are up against, philosophically and institutionally. And how our situation has come about.

Bottom-up versus top-down

At the very root of all my thinking is the distinction between bottom-up and top-down ways of doing things. This can be applied, for example, to the means by which an individual builds his or her world-view. The bottom-up method builds new ideas upon earlier ideas, which have been found to work. The top-down approach takes particular ideas, and tries to impose them on everything and everyone.

This distinction can also be applied to forms of social organization. In a bottom-up social organization, every individual is important. The organization exists for each and every individual, not the other way round.

In a top-down organization, on the other hand, those at the bottom or periphery are commanded, or controlled, or both, by those at the top or centre. Moreover, all today’s political systems, even democracies, are built on top-down lines.

Human nature

A key idea of my philosophy is that right and wrong behaviours for members of a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of the species. I call this the “identity determines morality” principle. Thus, what is right and wrong for human beings to do is determined by our nature as human beings.

Here is my one-sentence summary of the nature of humanity. Our nature is to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take control of, and leave our mark on, our surroundings.

The wide sweep of history

I see human history, on the large scale, as a war between two tendencies. On the one side are we ordinary human beings, who favour bottom-up ways of doing things, and bottom-up kinds of social organization. On the other side are our top-downer enemies, favouring the opposites.

Since the Neanderthal extinction of about 40,000 years ago, I identified five periods of history, during which we human beings were in the ascendant. First, the Neolithic revolution of about 12,500 years ago. That was the point at which we differentiated from, and became superior to, mere animals. For the first time, we found our essential humanity.

Second, ancient Greece, where we began to make use of our ability to reason. This culture of reason survived well into Roman times.

Third, the Renaissance. The Renaissance was a period of discoveries. Of ideas both old and new, of new places, of ourselves. And it was a spiritual revolution; a rise of the human spirit.

Fourth, the Enlightenment, of which John Locke was the instigator in the late 17^th century. It brought new ideas, more friendly to individual freedom than before. They included the idea that government must always have the consent of, and must always act for the benefit of, the governed. That is the root of the idea that government must serve the people.

Fifth, the Industrial Revolution. Which enabled us to unleash our creativity, and to start taking control of our surroundings.

But each time we move forward, our enemies fight back. They countered our superiority over animals by trying to set themselves up as if they were superior to us. The result was the top-down political state, their means for ruling over us by force and threat of force.

They countered our faculties of reason by setting themselves up to rule over us mentally, through institutional religion and the church that embodied it.

They countered the Renaissance with a combination of church orthodoxy, state tyranny and dishonesty. Three of their major counter-movers were Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli needs no introduction. But I shall have more to say about Bodin and Hobbes soon.

They countered the Enlightenment by inventing a slew of collectivist political ideologies, like socialism, communism, nationalism, conservatism and fascism, which they have used to rule over large numbers of people. And, increasingly, to make wars.

Today, they are countering the Industrial Revolution by trying to suppress it. They are seeking to destroy the industrial civilization and the economic prosperity, which we have so laboriously built over 250 and more years. That is the period of history, that we are suffering through now.

Sovereignty and the state

I will repeat here what I said about sovereignty and the Westphalian political state in the final essay of the six on anti-car policies.

“…the political state, as it exists today, is based on an idea called ‘sovereignty.’ This idea was developed in the 1570s by French monarchist Jean Bodin. It has been implemented around the world since 1648 as the ‘Westphalian’ state.

“In Bodin’s scheme, the ‘sovereign’ – the king or ruling élite – is fundamentally different from, and superior to, the rest of the population in its territory, the ‘subjects.’ The sovereign has moral privileges. It can make laws to bind the subjects, and give privileges to those it chooses to. It can make war and peace. It appoints the top officials of the state. It is the final court of appeal. It can pardon guilty individuals if it so wishes. It can issue a currency. It can levy taxes and impositions, and exempt at will certain individuals or groups from payment.

“Furthermore, the sovereign isn’t bound by the laws it makes. And it isn’t responsible for the consequences to anyone of what it does (also known as ‘the king can do no wrong.’)”

In the UK today, this sovereignty is apparently exercised by something called “the crown in Parliament.” Both the name and its definition are somewhat confused, but this page may help (or not): [[3]].

The social contract

So, just what is it, that affords to a government today the right to tell everyone in a geographical area what they may or may not do? To tax them, to inflate their currency, and generally to rule over them?

There are, historically, two sets of answers to this question. The first was given by monarchist Thomas Hobbes in his “Leviathan,” first published in the aftermath of the English Civil War and the execution of Charles the First. This, I will dub the Hobbesian social contract.

According to this narrative, at some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with each other, that they consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign. And that we, today, are still bound by their agreement. They committed to each other, that they would authorize and approve whatever the sovereign chose to do. Moreover, once the system has been set up, there is no possibility of changing it, or of escape from it. The Hobbesian social contract idea says, in essence, that every one of us has committed ourselves to be ruled over by a sovereign, that has all the privileges that Bodin’s scheme grants to it. Whether we like it or not.

The second set of answers was put forward by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government, first published immediately after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The First Treatise, indeed, is a de-bunk of the whole idea of sovereignty, as it had been presented by Sir Robert Filmer, a monarchist of the period. But in the Second Treatise, Locke posits that a group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do “by agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.” This is Locke’s version of the social contract idea, and his rationale for forming a government.

But he is very clear about the purposes of any such agreement. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government,” he says, “is the preservation of their property.” And: “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” “Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects.” And the “public good” he defines in the First Treatise: “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.”

Which of these is closer to the ideal of how government ought to function? The top-down approach of Hobbes, or the bottom-up one of Locke? There are no prizes for guessing which side of this question I stand on!

By the way, you can find a PDF of the First and Second Treatises here: [[4]]. The Second Treatise ought to be mandatory reading for anyone holding, taking, or even contemplating any kind of job in government. Indeed, it ought to be the biggest “best-seller” in history. And since it is hundreds of years out of copyright, it’s free! The First isn’t a bad read, either.

The war we’re in

Now, I am going to try to apply some of my, and others’, philosophical ideas to the situation we find ourselves in today.

The war against car drivers

As I related in the earlier set of six essays, anti-car policies are being touted using a slew of different narratives: net zero, clean air, road safety, and so on. This suggests to me that the anti-car policies are not being pursued in order to solve any problems that are evident in the real world. But rather, the problems are being dreamed up or exaggerated for the sake of imposing anti-car policies. The desired political goal is to force ordinary people out of our cars. And the justificatory narratives are being constructed around that.

There is, of course, another motive too. Drivers have for many decades been treated as cash cows. Extortion is the name of the game. Even those who earn or have saved enough to be able to afford to keep on driving for now, will suffer having inexorably more and more of their money taken away for the privilege. Thereby filling the coffers of the state and its cronies, at the expense of ordinary people.

The war against independence

The war being waged today by governments and their cronies against car drivers is, I think, just one aspect of a wider war. That war, I think of as a war against independence. The people our enemies hate most of all, and want to persecute or even suppress completely, are those who want to be independent. And, in particular, independent of the state.

I myself was among the first to become a casualty in this war. That was 25 years ago, when my career as a one-man software consultant was ruined by a bad tax law called IR35. I will never forgive any of those responsible. But I and people like me are not the only victims. For example, who was hardest hit by overreaching COVID restrictions? Small business people, the life-blood of a free market economy. And the many “little people,” who work in industries such as hairdressing, hospitality and care homes, were also very hard hit.

So, why does forcing us out of our cars seem to have become so important to our enemies, that they are willing to do almost anything in order to bring it about? To lie and mislead, corrupt science, violate human rights, and much more? I think it is because the car, perhaps more than any other part of our lives, is a symbol of independence. They hate independence.

Welfare and dependency

On another front in the same war, welfare recipients have been suborned. The state élites have set out, over the decades, to make as many people dependent on the state as they can. Both the NHS and the wider welfare state, I think, were set up with this in mind. Those who find themselves dependent on the state, the logic seems to go, will feel grateful towards it. And when the state behaves beyond the bounds of reason, and arouses pushback from the people, they will recognize their dependence on it, so will not feel able to join the pushback.

I, however, see a problem with this logic. There are now many people, towards whom the state has conducted itself in the manner identified by Harry Browne: break their legs, then give them crutches. That was what they did to me: use IR35 to ruin my career, and force me to run down my savings. Now I must survive on a state pension and perilously little more.

But I am not alone by any means. For example, business owners, who had to claim compensation for their businesses being forcibly closed down during COVID, are in a similar situation to me. I don’t expect they will feel favourably disposed towards the state ever again.

Economic means versus political means

Next, I want to introduce a famous idea of the German Jewish sociologist, Franz Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer is known mainly for one book. He published Der Staat (The State) in German in 1908. An English translation was made in 1922. You can find it here: [[5]].

Oppenheimer’s legacy and genius, in my view, lies in one crucial distinction. He pits what he calls the economic means of getting needs satisfied – “the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others” – against the political means – “the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others.”

Oppenheimer also wrote: “All world history, from primitive times up to our own civilization, presents a single phase, a contest namely between the economic and the political means.” And: “The state is an organization of the political means.”

Economic species versus political species

I heartily agree with Franz Oppenheimer in what he says there. And he has led me to make a further distinction, between users of the economic means and users of the political means. This distinction, I dub Oppenheimer’s Razor.

Indeed, a key idea of my philosophy, which flows from the view of history I gave above, is that over the millennia, humans have separated into two different and incompatible species. One of which, by our nature, uses the economic means; the other, by its nature, uses the political means. Oppenheimer’s Razor is the dividing line between the two.

I call those, to whom the economic means is natural, human beings, or human beings worth the name. We are an economic species. Or, I could say, an economic animal. We flourish best in a habitat of peace, human rights, objective justice, and maximum freedom for all, including the economic free market.

On the other hand, I call those, to whom the political means is natural, politicals, statists, or simply our enemies. They are a political species, a political animal. Their preferred habitat is in positions of power and influence, direct or indirect, in a political state. Or in some other top-down organization, such as religious, military or big-company hierarchies, or organized criminal or terrorist gangs, or political activist groups.

John Locke already had an inkling, at least, of this separation. For he called the individuals, against whom we feel the need to form a government to defend us, “noxious creatures” and “degenerates.” The latter meaning, no longer of their kind. And he says that, if it were not for the “corruption and viciousness” of these degenerates, we wouldn’t need governments at all.

Natural law

I wrote above of my identity determines morality principle. What is right and wrong for a human being to do, is determined by human nature.

In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke summarized what he called the “law of Nature,” which defines right conduct for human beings: “Being all equal and independent, no-one should harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” I interpret this as: No killing of human beings, no physical assaults, no infringing on others’ rights or freedoms, no stealing or destruction of property. A decent first cut at a code of civilized conduct, no?

I have made my own, more comprehensive, summary of the natural law for human beings, as follows. “Be peaceful. Seek the facts, and tell the truth. Be honest. Strive always to behave with justice, integrity and good faith. Be tolerant of those who are tolerant towards you. Respect the rights and freedoms of those who respect your equal rights and freedoms. Don’t interfere in other people’s business without a very good, objective reason. Take responsibility for the effects of your voluntary actions on others. And practise what you preach.”

Ethical equality and the rule of law

Directly from the identity determines morality principle there follows what I call the ethical equality principle. Among human beings, what is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa. Thus, what is naturally right (or wrong) for each human individual to do, is the same for all human individuals.

Moreover, what is right and wrong for human beings to do is independent of any particular culture. It is also independent of any laws that have been made, or may from time to time be made, by politicians. John Locke knew this. For he said that “a great part of the municipal laws of countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”

At the level of politics, the ethical equality principle is echoed by what we call “the rule of law.” The idea of the rule of law is that every individual under it must obey the same rules as everyone else.

The political state is ethically bankrupt

Now, the Westphalian political state, with its sovereign and subjects, directly contradicts the idea of ethical equality. For it affords the sovereign, whether an individual or a group, moral privileges over the subjects. And so, the state is also incompatible with the rule of law.

Moreover, the moral inversion that is built into Bodin’s system inspires state élites to tax the people heavily, to oppress them, to make wars, and to favour their own cronies. Thus, the political state is ethically bankrupt.

This was brought into sharp focus by the “Partygate” incident. Boris Johnson disobeyed a law he himself had been involved in making. Those who think politically, including the rest of the Tory party, saw nothing wrong with this. But those of us who think ethically, and for whom right and wrong must drive legal or illegal, not the other way around, were incensed by Johnson’s conduct. My reaction was, either it was a good law – in which case, he should not have broken it. Or it was a bad law – in which case, he should not have made it. Either of these, done by anyone in government at any level, deserved dismissal.

Government has been taken over by degenerates

I will quote now from the essay I linked at [²]. “Government, the very institution that is supposed to defend and uphold the rights of human beings against criminals and wrongdoers, has been taken over by, and is being run by, a cadre of those same criminals and wrongdoers.” That, in a nutshell, is what is happening to us.

Now, recall that part of our nature as human beings is to take control of our surroundings. Our enemies have perverted this into a raging, insatiable desire to control us. Those that John Locke identified as the degenerates have taken over the political state, and are using its powers against us human beings.

Parasites and pests

It’s actually even worse than that. For I identified, among our enemies the politicals, two overlapping propensities. Which I labelled parasites and pests.

Parasites use the resources they appropriate to enrich themselves and their cronies, or to rake in money in order to implement their pet schemes. They are bad enough. But pests go further. Pests (or, otherwise put, vermin) want power for the sake of what they can do with it. Pests want to control people, to persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. Hitler was a pest.

Which of these is pushing the anti-car policies? Both. The parasites want more and more money for their own pet projects. The pests want to make people’s lives unliveable.

The state is out of date

In the late 1990s, there was a meme going round that the state is out of date. Here is a book with that meme as sub-title: [[6]]. I for one caught that meme, big-time! Gregory Sams, the author, followed that up with a 2014 book actually titled “The state is out of date.” [[7]].

Another, more mainstream example was a 1999 book “The Sovereign Individual” by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg. This book had an almost cult status for a while, though I found it too turgid to read it more than once. Re-reading its Preface now, I find myself laughing hollowly. “By 2025 at the latest, it will be evident that you cannot make the superstate work – there may by then be no greater China, no European Union, no United States, and probably only a little Russia.” “By 2025, again at the latest, the welfare state will be dead. Hong Kong tax levels, taking 20 per cent of the national income and providing a safety network rather than cradle to the grave support, will be the norm.”

They did get a few things right, though. “…governments, even in traditionally civil countries, will turn nasty.” “Governments will violate human rights, censor the free flow of information, sabotage useful technologies, and worse.”

What Davidson and Rees-Mogg missed, I think, is, firstly, the way in which states and their governments have allied with globalist and internationalist élites – the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and so on. The result has been the all but complete suppression of anything even pretending to be democracy. And secondly, they missed the way in which the élites have co-opted on to their side all manner of fellow-travellers.

They have crossed their cronies’ palms with silver (and most of that silver is rightly ours, to boot). In doing so, they have corrupted the minds of the recipients. Billionaire plutocrats. “Non-governmental organizations” (NGOs), and nominally private ones too, that each have their own agendas. Corrupt media moguls, and those that spread their propaganda narratives. Corrupt advisors and influencers, technocrats and experts, green, religious and political-correctness maniacs, financial and big-business élites, academics and activists. All have joined in on the politicals’ side. All are enemies of us human beings.

What are our enemies so scared of?

But I am coming to think that the politicals, and many of their fellow-travellers too, are acting as if they are scared of something. Perhaps the meme that the state is out of date has re-surfaced inside our enemies’ minds, and is now eating away at them?

There is certainly evidence that the UK state is in big financial trouble. The “national debt” is around £180,000 per person! Moreover, I recall being told in the 2000s by a prominent free-market economist that the welfare state had no chance of surviving in anything like its then form, because the numbers simply didn’t add up. With an aging population, they couldn’t possibly rake in enough in taxes to keep the system, as it was, running for very long. I suspect this may well have been the reason why they deliberately encouraged so much immigration from places like Eastern Europe. They invited in a tax base for the future. The problem, of course, is that this doesn’t solve anything. All it does is kick the welfare state can down the road a few years. The reckoning will still come in the end.

This also helps to explain why the tax burden on people in the UK is now higher than at any time since the second world war. And why no possible excuses are missed for imposing new taxes, or raising the levels of old ones.

So, may perhaps the lies, hype, fear and ad hominems our enemies spout be more than just propaganda tools? I think they may be genuinely afraid of something. Deep down inside, do they perhaps feel panic and fear for their own futures? Might they have divined, for example, that the entire political system, on which their privileged, parasitic and pestilent way of life depends, is not sustainable? That the state is, ethically, already bankrupt; and perilously close to financial bankruptcy, too? And that, on its present course, it will soon fail?

All this might well explain why our enemies rant so much about “safety,” “security” and “sustainability.” Why everything is “worse than we thought!” And why, every time people lose interest in one set of scares, our enemies dream up new scares to replace them.

It could also explain why they refuse to acknowledge, or even to look at, the facts. They don’t want anyone (least of all themselves) to find out that their apocalyptic claims about climate change, or air pollution, or whatever is the latest scare du jour, are unfounded! It could explain why they brook no contrarian views, and why they so often seek to suppress those views. Could it be, perhaps, that they have so much invested in their scams, that they feel they can’t afford to let the truth come out? It could also help to account for their mad, breathless rush to get their plans implemented right now.

Oh, and why do they think their scares are “existential” problems? Why is extinction one of the things they are so worried about? Could the political species, perhaps, have become aware that if they allow us to create a free, just world without states or politics, they will be doomed to go the same way as the Neanderthals?

The state and political government have failed

Looking at the evidence from the perspective of political philosophy, it is my view that the entire system of political government has failed. I don’t mean just one government, or one clique of agenda setters. What has failed is the entire political system, that underlies and supports the idea of government.

The Westphalian political state is now well past its last-use-by date. We need to ditch it, and replace it by something better.

What to replace political government with?

In a situation such as this, we have the right to put new people in charge, if we think that will work. As John Locke wrote: “But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.” That, I suppose, is what democracy is supposed to give us a chance to do.

But, given the way our enemies have behaved and are behaving, I think our chances of making progress by that route are slim. We need to ditch all the mainstream political parties, for a start. And then to make sure that no-one with any political agenda is allowed any kind of power at all. And we would need to stop our enemies neutralizing the leaders of our movement by means such as propaganda, misuse of the legal system, or physical violence.

But Locke also prepared a second level of solution. At need, we also have the right to dismantle the system. The people always retain “a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.” That means, the people have the right to try a new form of government; not just the same-old-same-old with different people at the top. If even this cannot be made to work, then they will be entitled to ditch the whole thing, and “to resume their original liberty.”

Today, I think, we are in a situation where we need to “remove or alter the legislative.” When the time comes – and, I expect, it will not be long now – we will need to dismantle the state and its politics. Completely. And replace it by a better system. I gave some suggestions as to how we might go about doing this in the essay I referenced at [²]. There is an earlier, but slightly more detailed, version here: [[8]].

What is government for?

I take a Lockean, Enlightenment view of what government is for. Everything it does must be for the public good. That is, the good of every individual among the governed, degenerates excepted. A government that fails to keep up to this standard forfeits all legitimacy. And those responsible for the failure have shown themselves up as what they are – criminals.

I see a proper government as much like the referee in a football match. It has to keep the game of life moving. It has to interpret the rules equably for all. It has to make sure that no-one gains from foul play. And it has to make sure that those that commit the most egregious fouls are suitably punished.

What should governance do?

I see the primary function of governance (I use this term to mean a proper system of government, as opposed to the perverted system we suffer under today) as the provision of what I call “common-sense justice.” This kind of justice, in my definition, is the condition in which each individual is treated, over the long run, in the round, and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. Thus, common-sense justice is individual justice.

What this means, from the individual’s point of view, is that if you treat others well, you deserve to be treated correspondingly well by others. And if you treat others badly, you deserve to be treated correspondingly badly. What could be more common-sense than that?

Other important functions of governance are: The maintenance of peace against enemies internal and external. The upholding of the human rights and freedoms of all those, who earn them by respecting the equal rights and freedoms of others. And affording to every individual maximum freedom, consistent with living in a civilized community.

Above all, governance must always serve the people it governs (real criminals excepted, of course). That means, what it does must be a nett benefit to them. It must never implement any policy which will have, overall, negative effects on the people who are expected to pay for it. And it must only do projects for which the governed have explicitly and freely given their consent. Moreover, it must always behave towards the governed with, in the recent words in parliament of Neale Hanvey MP, a “duty of honesty and candour.”

Governance should never do anything outside its remit. Such as: Making unequal, unjust or bad laws. (That is, laws inconsistent with ethical equality, with common-sense justice, or with the natural law for human beings). Pushing political policies that harm innocent people. Making aggressive war. Violating human rights or freedoms. Doing or tolerating any kind of psychopathic activity, including lying to or misleading the people. Making favourites of some, and victims of others.

Nor should governance ever: Interfere with activities that do not cause harm or unreasonable risk to anyone beyond the voluntary participants. Harm people who are not doing, or intending to do, any harm to others, and are not causing unreasonable risks to others. Impose on people costs or other burdens that are not justified by the factual evidence. Enrich itself or its favourites at the expense of the governed. Or provide goods or services, that could just as well be provided by private individuals and societies.

The war card

Since the beginning of 2024, there have been memes appearing in the UK media that war is on the way. This was one such: [[9]]. Now I hear that Sunak is committing to a big increase in defence spending over the next six years. Probably just sabre-rattling, but you never know. These pests would start World War Three, if they thought there was profit in it for them.

Another possibility is that perhaps the idea may be to seek to “unite” people with them against a common enemy, a perceived shared threat? A threat which also gives them yet more excuses for higher taxes? Sorry, we’ve already seen through that. We weren’t fooled by “climate change” or any of the other made-up scares, so why should we believe this one?

Now, here is what I said about military defence when I commented on the Reform party’s draft election manifesto recently.

“There is clearly a culture problem within the UK military. Procurement has been a laughing-stock for decades. More recently, there have been problems with housing, and insensitive rule changes, which appear to be causing valuable officers to leave. And there are serious problems with recruitment.

“This must also be considered in the light of changing UK culture as a whole. Today’s young people have seen through the skulduggery over Iraq, and the failures in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There is also rising sentiment against war in general, as shown by reported reactions to a general’s recent remarks about conscription. One pundit described the reaction as: ‘sod off, we’re not going to do anything for you!’

“The war in Yemen, in which the UK has little or no strategic interest, is attracting condemnation. And Boris Johnson’s seemingly deliberate destruction of the Ukrainian peace process has left a very sour taste in the mouths of many people. Why the hell are we being expected to pay for bloodshed and over-pay for energy, when the Ukrainian situation could – and should – have been defused almost two years ago?”

Now, a military defence capability is indeed a core function of governance, because it is necessary in order to deliver peace. But it must be defensive, or at need retaliatory; never aggressive. Moreover, money thrown at a military that has serious culture problems is likely to produce negative results rather than positive. The cultural problems must be fixed first.

Furthermore, a government that is prepared to provoke an attack on the UK, or to send UK troops into other people’s wars, is failing even to try to deliver the peace the people need it to provide. And a government, that is willing to play the war card, cannot credibly turn round and expect people to make sacrifices for the sake of trivia like road safety!

Political and protest action

All your ideas are fine, you may say to me. Yes, government, as it exists, has failed. And yes, it needs to be radically changed, or even completely dismantled and replaced. But I am only one individual. What can I do? And what can I do right now?

I will start with the easy stuff. I belong to two UK organizations, both of which have been founded in the last few years. The two have no formal relationship with each other, but there is a certain synergy between them. One is the Reform UK Party. The other is called Together.

Reform UK

The Reform UK party has been steadily gathering voter support, as more and more disgruntled former Tory voters decide that the Tories are unsalvageable. A recent article about its views on net zero is here: [[10]]. I have been a member of the party since it took over the mantle of the Brexit party in 2021. If you are interested, its “Contract with You” – in essence, a draft election manifesto – is here: [[11]].

Opponents dismiss Reform as “far right.” But I, for one, am hardly a right-winger. Indeed, I am a social liberal: I don’t care who people are, or where they come from. I only care about what they do. And I don’t care what people get up to, as long as it doesn’t harm or inconvenience anyone else against their wills. What I actually am, is an individualist. I’m an economic liberal and free marketeer, too. And in certain elements of my political philosophy, I am even close to being an anarchist.

Nevertheless, I can agree with about 80 per cent of the Reform party’s policies. I am actively helping the party, not because its political ideology matches mine, but for its disruptive potential. I think that where I live, we may even have a fighting chance of bringing down chancellor Jeremy Hunt, even though the most likely consequence this time round would be a Lib Dem MP.

Stopping the war on motorists

One of Reform’s policies under “Critical reforms needed in the first 100 days” is: “Stop the War on Motorists. Legislate to ban all ULEZ and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. We will scrap bans on selling petrol and diesel cars and scrap legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars.”

Now, this is a start, but in my view an over-modest one. A lot more is needed. All anti-car policies need to be scrapped, at both national and local levels. Including all road safety schemes that are not cost-effective for the people overall.

There also needs to be an inquiry into clean air policies, and the science behind them. And into the culture of over-safety or “safety at any cost.” It needs to be an inquiry with teeth. More like the Post Office inquiry than the COVID one.

It is also worth suggesting that Brexit will, sooner or later, need to be supplemented by UNexit. Certainly, leaving the WHO would be a necessary step towards dismantling the culture of safety at any cost. And leaving the WHO is not an entirely off-the-wall idea: [[12]].

Together

Together, on the other hand, is an organization active in promoting and defending our human rights and civil liberties: [[13]]. It is far more radical than older established groups like Liberty.

We get together to defend human beings against the state. Together uses social media, letters and e-mails to MPs and councillors, judiciously chosen protests, and other strategies of engagement.

It also has local groups. Mine (I am deputy leader) meets about every six to eight weeks. Groups differ, but ours is mainly a social club. Importantly, it is a space where you can say what you think, without being censored or censured. We have our share of odd-bods and conspiracy theorists, of course. But we still tolerate them, even if on occasions we smile.

Together’s current major campaign is “No to Net Zero.” [[14]]. It is also fighting hard against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and other anti-motorist policies.

Together grew out of protests against violations of our rights in the name of “fighting” COVID. (A strange phrase: how do you punch a virus?) Righting the effects of bad policies that were enforced on us under the banner of COVID, and bringing justice to their perpetrators, are still a central part of its missive. I expect excess deaths and vaccine harms, to name but two, to continue to be areas of activity.

But Together has now expanded and diversified. Many of its members are active in protests against various bad policies. But myself, I prefer, and am more skilled at, the mental fight. And the pen, as the saying goes, is mightier than the sword. Or, at least, can be when it is allowed a fair chance.

Of course, if you are good at climbing poles and the like, you can join the ULEZ Blade Runners when they open a branch in your area. Which I suspect may come, for many of us, sooner rather than later.

Identify and reject bad political policies

One thing, which you can usefully do right now, is work out how to identify which political policies are bad, and why. Of course, it’s true that almost all political policies these days are bad. But they are bad for a number of different reasons. Here are some of those reasons.

A policy is bad, that fails on aggregate to be a nett benefit to the governed as a whole.

A policy is bad, that is unjustly a nett disbenefit to any individual among the governed. If anyone is unjustly worse off because of a policy, it is a bad policy.

A policy is bad, if it penalizes people who are merely going about their daily lives, without doing any proven actual harm, or having any intent to cause harm, to others.

A policy is bad, if it is to be applied differently to different individuals or groups. If it makes favourites, or if it makes some people into innocent victims, it is a bad policy. Such policies violate the rule of law.

A policy is bad, if it is being pushed by a third party, such as the UN, the EU, the WEF or big corporations. Such policies are a denial of any idea of democracy.

A policy is bad, if it puts the interests of the state ahead of the interests of the people, or enriches the state or its cronies at the expense of ordinary people.

A policy is bad, if it uses or threatens violence against innocent people. This includes aggressive wars.

A policy is bad, if it unjustly violates anyone’s human rights or freedoms in any way.

A policy is bad, if it is founded on a perverted version of the precautionary principle that encourages government to act. Or sets arbitrary or collective limits or targets. Or puts some faux ideal of safety or security above the needs and desires of the people.

A policy is bad, if those that promote, support, make or enforce it are not held accountable in the event that the policy turns out to have been a nett disbenefit to the people.

A policy is almost certainly bad, if no honest, unbiased risk and cost-benefit analysis, from the point of the view of the people affected by it, has been done on it.

A policy is almost certainly bad, if it needs to be “justified” by lies or propaganda, or by scary media narratives, or by some appeal to “the science.”

A policy is almost certainly bad, if consultation with the people is bypassed. Or responding to it in depth is made difficult. Or any responses are ignored. Or there is any dishonesty at all in the consultation process.

A policy is almost certainly bad, if it has a moniker including the word “zero.”

I am sure there are more. But that’s enough to be going on with.

This almost goes without saying, but whenever you find that a policy is bad for one or more of these reasons, you must reject it. And you must, at the very least, seriously question the motives of those that promote, support or make it.

Stop voting for mainstream parties

One important thing you must do, right now, is stop voting for any of the four UK mainstream parties. In any election at all. In reality, they are all one party: the Tyranny Party. There is no “lesser of two evils,” or even “least of several evils.” They are all evil tyrants.

Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have all, when in power nationally or locally or both, pushed on hard with the green and anti-car agenda, and the high taxes that go with it. To vote for any of them is to express approval of what they have done, and to ask for more of the same. In my view, anyone that votes for any of the three is either an idiot, or an enemy of humanity.

The Greens are even worse. They are anti-human. They think wildlife is more important than human beings. They think “we’re a blight on the planet.” (To which, my response is: Yes, you’re right. You are a blight on the planet.) They are out to kill off our industrial civilization.

If you really feel you must vote, or if you are so hacked off with the current political system that you want to start bringing it down, Reform or an Independent are your only real options. But in any case, it is vital to stop voting for any of the four mainstream parties. And to urge others to do the same.

Strengthen your moral mind-set

But there is another way, beyond political action and protests, in which each of us can take action to help get rid of anti-car policies, and other bad policies that are imposed on us, green and otherwise. That is, to play our part in the intellectual war.

Ultimately, this war is a moral and ethical one. For what is being done to us is, in reality, wrong at a most fundamental level. Indeed, I take the view that before we can mount effective political action against what is being done to us, we need first to engage in, fight and win this moral war.

Now, you don’t need to be an intellectual to contribute in a moral war. Even the child who saw that the emperor was naked, and said so, did his bit. To start to make our contribution, each of us must re-examine the attitudes in our minds. We must re-form, and strengthen, our views on the issues. Then, we must do what we can to communicate our thinking to others.

Personally, I find it easier and more effective to communicate my ideas in writing than by word of mouth. But many of you may find it easier to do simply by talking to people in the right ways. You never know, you may well find some new, unexpected friends. (And occasionally, you may discover that some of those you had thought to be friends are actually in league with your enemies).

So, I will give you a few tips on how, over the years, I have managed to put myself through a process of moral strengthening, and improve my own thinking processes. I hope you may find at least some of these tips useful.

Seek the evidence

I have made myself into what I call an evidence-based person. In any matter in dispute, I always look for the evidence. That is, facts which can be independently checked by anyone who is knowledgeable and motivated enough to do so. A wise man recently told me: “Don’t get mad, just stick to the facts.” The facts, all of the facts, and nothing but the facts.

For example, I devoted the first essay of the set on anti-car policies to the facts of the matter. What air pollution episodes have there been, that have had major harmful health effects? And what did they have in common with each other? And last year, I devoted the first essay of my de-bunk of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme to the facts of that matter.

Demand proof of accusations

Whenever I am accused of something – polluting the atmosphere, causing dangerous global warming, or whatever else – I always demand proof of the accusation. That proof must be founded on hard, objective evidence. And it must meet the same standard, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, that I would require if I were on the jury in a court of criminal law.

Reject false guilt

Without convincing evidence that I am guilty of something, I never let myself accept or feel any guilt. I resist all the clever techniques of those that want to manipulate my mind, and instil in me a false sense of guilt. I am an “un-nudgeable.”

Reject collective guilt

I do not accept any kind of collective guilt. I am, of course, responsible for the effects on others of my own willed actions. But, unless I have explicitly taken on responsibility for someone else’s behaviour (such as bringing up a child, or taking on a management job in business), I feel no responsibility for what anyone else does independently of me.

I am always wary of those that try to make out that some “we” (usually unspecified) are guilty of something, like causing dangerous air pollution. Even if I am convinced that some problem is real, I accept responsibility only for my own part in it as an individual.

Assess the scope and size of a problem

If a problem is brought up regarding some activity, and the problem appears to be – or may plausibly be – real, I will always try to assess the problem in quantitative terms. This is, perhaps, easier for me than for most people, because of my early training in mathematics.

I find it useful to take a social cost approach. That is, to work out from evidence how much damage the activity has caused, and infer how much damage it is likely to cause. Questions I then ask myself include: Who, specifically, is or will be harmed by the activity? How much are or will they be harmed? How necessary is the activity in order to go about our daily lives? Or is it so destructive, that it deserves to be banned altogether? If not, what arrangements should be made to ensure the perpetrators compensate the victims?

Identify psychopathic behaviours

In the 1980s, Canadian psychologist Robert Hare identified the behaviours which are now classed as psychopathic, and later provided check-lists of them. Psychopaths have a narcissistic personality disorder or an anti-social personality disorder, or both.

Items on his Psychopathy Check List include: Being superficial or glib; having a surface charm. Being arrogant; thinking they are superior human beings to others. Being deceitful, lying, insincere, selfish and manipulative, unscrupulous, dishonest. Having a lack of empathy and sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people. Denying responsibility; seeking to evade accountability for actions. Showing no empathy for others. Being remorseless, showing a cold and calculating attitude towards others. Seeming to feel no guilt, lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims. Being impulsive, foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, reckless. Showing irritability, annoyance or impatience. Living a parasitic lifestyle, or having no realistic, long-term goals. Being untrustworthy; repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments. Anti-social behaviour, either adolescent or adult.

Hare identified that a substantial proportion of criminals, most of all violent criminals, show psychopathic characteristics. The proportion of psychopaths among businessmen, and particularly CEOs, is also higher than in the general population.

What I see today suggests to me that the proportion of psychopaths among politicians, government officials and those that push political agendas is higher yet. Jobs with power, especially if the power is without accountability, form magnets for psychopaths.

And one sure indicator of psychopathic tendencies is hypocrisy. Or, simply put, failing to practise what you preach. Hypocrisy is often a by-product of arrogance. Imagine, for example, if someone went to Cambridge to give a lecture on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. And arrived in a CO₂-spewing helicopter: [[15]]. What a hypocrite.

Judge people by behaviour

When judging an individual, I try always to judge them by their behaviours, not by superficial traits, or by who they are. “It’s what they do that matters, not who they are.”

This can help you to avoid falling traps such as racism. It can also help you, when you see bad behaviours, to call them out for what they are, and to avoid using ad hominems that are not warranted. Criticize the behaviour, not the man. (Or woman).

And if the behaviour is wrong, and most of all if it causes unjust harm to others, the individuals that do it deserve to be brought to justice. That includes the individual involved in the incident I related in [¹⁵]. He could be the king of bloody England, for all I care. But he’s a hypocrite. And judging by his championing of the WEF’s “Great Reset,” he is also an enemy of humanity.

Identify bad laws

Too many people treat laws made by politicians as valid, because they have been made according to some procedure that is deemed to be “lawful.” But in reality, many of these are bad laws. They might be “legal,” but they are not lawful. I gave, earlier, a long list of reasons why laws made to impose particular policies might be bad.

I have developed, over the years, a strong ethical sense of what is right and what is wrong. And what is right, is what is natural for a civilized human being to do. I try to keep track of what is right and wrong in a situation, and compare with what is legal and illegal. If the two differ, that probably shows up a bad law.

John Locke said that the “municipal laws of countries… are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of Nature.” On this test, virtually all green laws are bad laws. And, as Edmund Burke told us almost 250 years ago: “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

In short, don’t assume that government is always right. Often, and today more and more often, what it does to us is morally wrong, and should be called out for what it is.

Reject the Hobbesian social contract

I have come to reject Thomas Hobbes’ fiction of the “social contract,” which claims to make me subject to rule by a political government. Even if my ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I know, they didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any such contract! Where is my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the statements of the benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for me to get justice and redress if the government party fails to deliver?

Further, if I did not vote in a particular election, or I voted for a party which has no real power to make policies, I have not given my consent either to the policies themselves, or to the legitimacy of the resulting government as a whole. In a first-past-the-post system of democracy, if you didn’t vote for the winner, you have no obligation to accept the result.

Identify your fellows

Human beings tend to be naturally peaceful, truthful, honest, straightforward and respectful of the rights of other human beings. We also strive to act in good faith. The great majority of human beings worth the name are also prepared to “live and let live” in their dealings with their fellows, and many actually manage to live up to this standard in practice.

I have come to feel a sense of fellowship with all those who strive to keep up to the natural ethical basis of humanity. That is, that they strive to behave according to the nature of human beings. I feel fellowship towards those who, like me, do everything they can to be scrupulously honest in all their dealings with others, and to respect the human rights of all those who respect their equal rights in return.

Identify your enemies

In complete contrast, politicals often behave very badly towards others. They indulge in lies, dishonesty, deception, arrogance, hypocrisy, irresponsibility, evasion of accountability, aggression, recklessness towards others, intolerance, bad faith, and violations of human rights and freedoms. Rather than trying to live up to human nature, they live down in the murky depths of their nature. They behave, for want of a better word, like psychopaths.

I have come to reject arrogance, dishonesty, deceit, hypocrisy and the other psychopathic behaviours, that our enemies have displayed towards us. And so, I have come to reject all individuals, that have behaved or are behaving in these ways. Whether towards us human beings in general, or towards me as an individual. And those in government, that have been dishonest at any time and in any way to the people they are supposed to serve, deserve dismissal and worse.

I have come to see our enemies the politicals as nothing less than traitors to humanity. Those that promote, actively support, help to make, or voluntarily co-operate with bad, unjust political policies, such as net zero or anti-car policies, are traitors to human civilization and prosperity. They deserve to be made to compensate all those they wronged, with all their assets being confiscated for this purpose if necessary. Moreover, they deserve to be kicked out of human civilization, and denied all its benefits.

Further, those that put some political ideology, or some particular brand of religion, or the planet, or “nature,” above the interests of human beings, are traitors to the human species. They are not fit to be accepted into any community of human beings worth the name.

And those that promote, support, carry out or condone violations of the human rights of innocent people, including re-distributory or confiscatory taxation, are traitors to humanity as a whole. We human beings have no more reason to feel, or to show, concern or compassion for them, than Jews would have had to show the same for nazis.

Where do human rights come from?

“Human rights” are a major talking point today. What are they? You probably have a decent idea of the answer, though you won’t be able to list them in detail. But I’m going to ask a different question: Where do human rights come from?

In my view, rights are not granted by some government, deity or other external party. Each individual earns his or her human rights, by respecting the equal rights of others. And this respect for rights is built into the nature of any human being worth the name.

Of course, when you were born, you had already earned these rights in principle, because you had not harmed, or tried to harm, any other individual. But you must continue to respect others’ rights, in order to retain and to expand your own rights.

Moreover, the flip side of rights being earned is that by acting as is natural for a human being, and respecting others’ rights, you acquire an expectation that others will respect your equal rights. As long as you respect the equal rights of others, your own rights ought to be sacrosanct.

A plea for human rights

At this point, I will enter a plea on behalf of human rights. The Tories want to ditch the European Convention on Human Rights. Even Reform UK seem to want to do so, supposedly to make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers. But in my view, that is a very wrong thing to do.

Now, to ditch the European Court of Human Rights is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; because no external court should have any influence at all over the people in a democracy. And recently, ditching the court has become a must, because of its ridiculous ruling on “duties under the European Convention concerning climate change.” [[16]].

But the Convention itself is another animal entirely. Its text is here: [[17]]. I don’t see any mention of climate! And there is a clause, Article 5.1(f), which seems to me to offer opportunities to detain both those arriving unlawfully in a country, and those being considered for deportation. Why isn’t that good enough to deal with failed asylum seekers?

The ECHR Convention, while it may not be very good, is certainly better than nothing. It would be folly to abandon it without at the very least replacing it with a UK bill of rights. Which, unlike the Tories’ tyrannical “bill of rights bill,” would need to strengthen our fundamental human rights and freedoms, not weaken or abolish them.

I foresee that, as the discontent which is simmering now among the UK population builds towards action, the crucial idea of human rights will come increasingly into focus. I mean, of course, real human rights like life, security of person, property, privacy, and freedoms of movement, association, opinion and speech. I do not at all mean pseudo rights such as being protected against some non-existent bogeyman of climate change. You might as well put forward a human right to be protected against Satan!

I think that, in time, it will come to be generally seen that any violation of the human rights of someone, who has not violated others’ equal rights, is a crime. It would therefore, I think, be very short-sighted of my friends at Reform to come out against the whole concept of human rights, just for the sake of enabling what they see as a “quick fix” to one particular problem.

I have it on my “to do list” to construct a reasonably comprehensive list of rights and obligations, which could be used as a basis for a fuller statement of the natural law for human beings. It is a task of truly monstrous size! Which is why I keep on putting it off.

The Re-discovery

I think it is also important to re-discover the most important ideas from our human past. We forget them all too easily. I call this process “The Re-discovery.”

Re-discover our nature and our reason

From the depths of our beings, we must re-discover our humanity, our nature as human beings. We must re-discover that we are naturally good. We must re-discover that this is our planet, and its resources are there for us to use wisely, to build a home and garden fit for a civilized species. In the words of Victorian scholar John Addington Symonds, each of us is “a rational, volitional and sentient being, born upon this earth with a right to use it and enjoy it.”

We must re-discover our reason and our rationality. We must re-discover our “bullshit meters,” which enable us to reject lies, hype and unfounded scares.

Re-discover our spirit

We must re-discover what we discovered at the Renaissance: our human spirit, and our confidence in ourselves. We must re-discover the spirit of cultural renewal, which drove Renaissance humanism. We must re-discover our consciences; the built-in weather-vane or barometer, that gives each of us a sense of what is right and wrong for us human beings to do.

We must re-discover that we are human beings. That we are what we are, and do not want or need to be “transformed” or “socially engineered” into something else.

Re-discover the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution

We must re-discover the ideas and values of the Enlightenment. Including, but not limited to: Freedom of thought and action. Natural rights, natural equality (in John Locke’s sense) of all human beings, and human dignity. The idea that any society exists for the individuals in it, not the individual for the society. Constitutional government, with the consent of, for the benefit of, and serving rather than ruling over, the governed. The rule of law. A desire for human progress, and a rational optimism for the future.

We must re-discover the values of the Industrial Revolution. We must re-discover our natural industry and productivity. We must re-discover our ability to solve problems. We must re-discover honest business and trade for what they are: the natural ways for human beings to relate to each other in the public sphere.

And last, but not least, we must re-discover, and re-illuminate, the crucial idea of human rights.

A few follow-on ideas

We must come to care about our fellow human beings. But only about our fellow human beings. Those that promote, support, make or enforce bad laws that harm, or violate the rights of, innocent people, are neither human beings nor our fellows. Nor are those that behave towards us like psychopaths, or have used political power to enrich themselves or their cronies at our expense. Those that do such things are enemies of humanity. And those that have done such things to you have made themselves into your enemies, not your fellows.

Furthermore, we must try to set out just what it is that we want from our new world. Here is my take: We want human rights and dignity respected and upheld. We want self-determination and independence for everyone. We want an end to oppression, exploitation, war, bad laws, gross or persistent injustices, violations of rights and freedoms, the mental miasma of lies, deceit, hype, gloom and fear, and the perverted culture of “safety at any cost.” We want an unrestricted free market economy. We want maximum freedom to choose and to act, and objective, common-sense justice for all.

Feel a change in identity – to human

“Man is by nature a political animal,” said Aristotle almost 2,500 years ago. He was wrong; though that was not really his fault, as the word he needed, “civilized,” did not yet exist.

Today, we are expected to identify ourselves politically, as “British” or some other political nationality. But I refuse to think of myself by any such moniker. To me, the word Britain means “an island in the western North Sea,” and nothing more. I am only British insofar as I was born on, and currently reside on, that island. Now, the Reform party claims to want to “save Britain.” But as far as I am concerned, Britain doesn’t need saving. It isn’t sinking!

I will make it clear that I see nothing wrong with celebrating your native culture. I celebrate the English breakfast, English cricket, the English language, and the English common law (before it got corrupted). Indeed, when I have to give a nationality, I have for decades identified myself as English. I feel I can do so, since England has today no political existence.

Nor is there anything wrong with feeling a love for the land and people of your area – for which I use the word “patriotism.” Having been born in Surrey and schooled in Hampshire and Wiltshire, I regard myself as a “man of Wessex.” And so, if I wanted to identify as a patriot, I would be a Wessex patriot. Again, Wessex does not exist as a political entity.

All this said, I have come in recent years to a mind-set where I completely reject politics, existing political institutions, and everything they stand for. The only political society I feel a part of is the Reform UK party. Its predecessor, the Brexit party, is the only political society I have ever voluntarily joined. And I have remained as a member of these two parties only because our paths are running very much parallel at the moment.

Instead of feeling a political identity, I have now come to think of myself, and identify myself, simply as a human being. One who strives for the behaviours natural to humanity. John Locke wrote of the “great and natural community” of all human beings who obey the natural law of humanity. I have re-discovered my membership in that community. And I want you to, as well.

Reject the state and those that use it

Already, many of us have identified the “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices,” which “make the design visible to the people,” and through which our enemies have brought us to where we are today. We have seen that the state is not “us.” The state is our enemy. The state is a cancer. Let’s eradicate it.

Our enemies have been the beneficiaries of a bad political system, that instead of favouring honest, productive human beings, has favoured the most dishonest and corrupt. Today, they are doing everything in their power to keep this system going, at the expense of, and to the hurt of, all us human beings worth the name. We must bring down the politicals, and the system that supports them, before they succeed in forcing us down to their level, or even exterminating us.

The tipping point towards rousing ourselves, I think, will come when enough people come to realize that states and political governments, as they are constituted today, are not their friends, but their enemies. I cannot be sure just what percentage of the population it will take. But, from what I see and hear, it may come sooner than most expect.

Our enemies have tried, and are trying, to destroy the natural habitat of peace, freedom and justice, which we human beings need in order to flourish. We should, therefore, have no qualms at all about destroying their preferred habitat, the state and its politics. They don’t care about our environment; so, we should neither feel nor show any concern for theirs.

We need to raise a tidal wave of anger, hatred and contempt against the political parasites and pests that have robbed us, oppressed us and violated our human rights and freedoms. And we need all our fellow human beings to help us get those parasites and pests off all our backs.

And when we bring down the state, we must bring down everything around it. Including the so-called national debt. The debt is not your debt, or my debt, or our debt. It is the state’s debt. The state is not only ethically bankrupt, but financially bankrupt too. When the time is ripe, we must wind it up, just like any other bankrupt organization.

The politicals like “zero.” So, let’s give them some zero, and let’s give it to them good and hard. We must dump the dishonest. We must dump the arrogant. We must dump the hypocrites. We must dump all the parasites and all the pests. We must give them zero quarter. They think they’re Neros; but we’ll make them into zeros.

Moreover, we must allow them no more concern or compassion than they have shown for us. We must not allow a second chance to those that didn’t allow us even one. We must not excuse. We must not forgive. We must not forget. We must do everything we can not to let even a single one of them get away with anything.

How to dismantle the state

I wrote about how we might go about dismantling the state in a substantial section, “How to build the new world?” in the essay I linked at [²].

I stated the objectives of this process as follows: “To get rid of politics, bad policies and bad politicians. Hugely to reduce the size of government, and the scope of what it does. To withdraw from all international organizations and agreements, that go against the interests of the human beings in the territory. To repeal all bad laws, that are a drain on or a disbenefit to human beings. To end the practices that have enabled parasites and pests to make gains at the expense of human beings, and to hold those parasites and pests accountable for what they have done. To move the laws of the territory closer and closer to the natural law for human beings… And to move more and more towards a system of governance, whose functions are restricted, as far as possible, to delivering peace and justice. And in which everyone is treated, as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.”

And I said: “From the outset, the focus must be to undo all bad political policies, and to hugely improve the honesty, impartiality, objectivity and justice of everything governance does. To get rid of all restrictions on the economy. To establish sane and sensible policies on energy and the environment. To get rid of re-distributory and confiscatory taxation. To move closer and closer to the ideal that what each individual pays for governance should be in direct proportion to the benefit that he or she gets from it. And to eliminate all dishonesty and corruption from governance, and to make the parasites and pests provide full compensation to the human beings they drained, or harmed, or both.”

I will conclude with a few thoughts on how we might go about resolving the political and cultural issues, which I identified in the final essay of the set on anti-car policies.

Prune government down to size

Once we manage to get into power a government that is on the side of us human beings and against the politicals, I think one of its first acts ought to be simply to abolish the “public sector.” Every government department, quango or other government-funded organization that does not perform a core function of government (military defence, courts and support services, police and not very much else) and is not providing benefits (such as pensions) to those who have already paid for them, should simply be closed down.

Anyone in the public sector, who has genuinely been working for the people who paid for them – such as good teachers, or the people who mend the roads – will be able to draw people’s attention to the value of what they do. And get their old jobs back, but now as part of the free market. The rest? If they can’t become honest and productive, just ostracize them. We don’t need them. We don’t want them.

Moreover, the things government is doing that are not in its remit, must be transferred to private hands. Not to corporate cronies of the political élites, as Thatcher and Major’s “privatizations” did. But to those who actually provide the goods or services.

Further, all individuals in government, that have failed or are failing to provide a nett benefit to the governed, must be sacked. All users of the political means must go. And we’ll take away their ill-gotten gains, and make them provide their share of the compensation to those they wronged. Sacked from their sinecures, and parted from their pensions, if they want to live, they must become honest and economically productive.

Clean up the cultural perversions

Two, the cultural perversions under which we suffer must be called out for what they are, then quickly removed. The perverted interpretation of the precautionary principle. The culture of safety at any cost. The culture of arbitrary targets and limits. All must go.

As individuals, we must learn to take risks when we need to. And to know the difference between good risks and bad risks.

All government projects in the future, before even being started, must undergo full, rigorous and unbiased cost-benefit analysis from the point of view of the people who will be expected to pay for them, or who are likely to be affected by them. And when dealing with risks which impact people beyond the risk-takers, we must always perform risk assessment that is objective, unbiased and honest.

Root out the psychopathic criminals

Three, all those in or associated with government, that have displayed psychopathic behaviours towards the people they were supposed to serve, must be removed from positions of power, and brought to justice as they deserve. That is, common-sense justice as per my definition above.

These include: Political zealots. The dishonest or devious. Liars and those that mislead. Those that have shown bad faith towards the people. The arrogant and the uncaring. The reckless and the remorseless.

And the punishments must fit the crimes. Those that wanted to force net zero on others, for example, must be made to live net zero, in an enclave away from us human beings. And those that wanted to take away others’ mobility, deserve to have their mobility taken away. A twelve-inch hobble is the kind of thing I have in mind.

The same must be applied to their corrupt cronies. Whether they are, as I listed earlier: “Billionaire plutocrats. ‘Non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs), and nominally private ones too, that each have their own agendas. Corrupt media moguls, and those that spread their propaganda narratives. Corrupt advisors and influencers, technocrats and ‘experts,’ green, religious and political-correctness maniacs, financial and big-business élites, academics and activists.” And any others I haven’t already called out and shamed.

All must go. Bye-bye, Neanderthals.

A vision of the future

I will close with a vision of the future, and a brief rhyme to bring it into focus. These words are taken verbatim from one of the 2021 essays, in which I first outlined my philosophy.

Picture, if you will, a rolling, grassy plain. And, standing on that plain, many human beings. A few hundred, or a thousand, should suffice. Imagine if each of those people, on that rolling plain, takes in light, and gives out light in return. If each of them gives out less light than he or she receives, the economy – the candle, if you like – sputters and dies. But if each individual gives out as much as he or she receives or more, the candle burns. And continues to burn, brighter and brighter. Just imagine, every one of those human beings on that rolling plain, happy, smiling and bathed in light!