Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Global Regulation Denies Democracy: There Must Be Safe Havens

Much of the discussion of tax is concerned with how to extract it from the taxpayer. Reasonable. After all, once it is agreed that the state should exist and levy its citizens for its support, then evading obligations has to be confronted. Except:

Our state, the one we were born into and which we sustain by continuous acquiescence to its laws, has been suborned. A government elected under our pluralist democratic system has evolved into a junta attempting to identify itself with the state rather than our government on democratic lease, and using the wealth and resources of the state to make its power permanent.

Ideological choices and the means to their implementation are being defined as part of our consent to membership of a civil society. And accepted means to challenge all of this by peaceful protest have been criminalised, even while electoral challenge is denied.

The purpose of law is to be changed from meaning what it says to meaning what is intended, while intention remains undefined until actions are regulated retrospectively as illegal. The appointment of prosecutors and judges has been removed from civic and Parliamentary jurisdiction and taken by the Executive.

The answer to distaste and rejection of all this might be 'If you know of a better hole then go to it' And we did. And now the cry is 'global regulation, no safe haven'.

First they are coming for our wealth, later they will come for us.


patently said...

He has until 10 June 2010, the last date on which he is required to hold an election.

If there are any shenanigans, such as the Civil Contingencies Act or the like, then as of 11 June 2010 I will cease payment of all taxes on the grounds that there is no legitemate government to whom I can pay them.

hatfield girl said...

The 2005 election was held in bad faith, P. We voted for Blair and were repeatedly assured by him and by his Party that he would 'serve a full term'. This was understood to mean that should he step down for any reason that would be the full term and there would then be another general election. Or that Blair would serve for the length of an uninterrupted parliament.

Any other interpretation requires subscribing to an alien and undemocratic view that in mid term prearranged and specifically negated alterations of the terms on which a Party has been elected can be effected without reference to the electorate.

And those dishonest and aggressive men and women who pretend that anyone who voted for a Labour administration in 2005 'knew' that Brown was what they were really voting for are as dishonest and authoritarian as the regime that they support while pretending that theirs is somehow a realpolitik of higher moral purpose that justifies their dishonesty.

The new world order global no haven brigade, so deeply troughing they have forgotten what the Labour party once believed in and tried to obtain are even more despicable than the career corruption and its practioners that have taken over the Labour cadaver.