The Requirements for Freedom
...But is it Freedom That You Really Want?
I don’t really know how I can say this more clearly. The logic is quite straight-forward…
The people are concerned about liberty and freedom. Why?
Because they feel that the state is increasingly draconian. How?
Because they are witnessing what they see as repressive legislation that precludes them from exercising their rights
This legislation is brought about and ‘justified’ through the supposed authority of our current belief in the sovereignty of Parliament. Why?
Because there is a pervading belief in society that what makes legitimate ‘law’ is whatever Parliament (with the backing of a majority) feels is right.
Law is what defines the edges of right behaviour—I.e. where you are stepping into ‘wrong-doing’
What might people claim is the definition of wrong-doing? Two things:
1. That which brings about justice through morality - sense of conscience and understanding of the Golden Rule
2. That which is defined as necessary compliance for the ‘safe’ or ‘efficient’ running of society - according to the prevailing political opinion
Defining law according to number (1) above, means you will bring about equity and alignment with Natural law
Defining law according to number (2) above, destroys equity and breaks Natural Law and is therefore illegitimate
The prevailing opinion and belief in society is that it is OK for politics (opinion about how everyone should live) to drive law (number 2 above)
That means that politics is re-writing the definition of right and wrong behaviour (a form of moral relativism). There’s your problem!
This means that in order for your freedoms to exist legitimately, you have to bring about genuine freedom for all—not just your preferred or more comfortable politics. Why?
Because your preferred landscape of ‘rights’ as defined by a government that you like, might remove the choices of others—and that’s illegitimate and inequitable
The only way to bring about true freedom and therefore legitimacy in governance is to have freedom for all
That requires no planning and policy enforcement from the centre. I.e. no legislation that has the automatic right to punish without the people testing it at every trial
That means the only framework of governance that supports true freedom and the choices of all is one in which the people govern themselves and all matters of justice—not through the predetermination of crime through legislation
That framework also denies the government the authority to re-write or alter the Constitution itself through its own legislative process thus placing all public servants (including the head of state) genuinely beneath the law
The only system that has ever existed that functions like this is one in which the people judge all justice through a tribunal of social equals—Trial by Jury (Judicium Parium)—in which any and all legislation that does exist is always tested at the point of enforcement by the consciences and discretion of peers—in every trial
That system is the only one that subjugates government such that no punishment can be given except by the say-so of the people and importantly denies the right of the government itself to determine what kind of justice you get through categorisation of offences
That renders the government toothless and the people sovereign
The original Common Law Constitution of 1215 (that had already existed earlier) provided this and outlined these principles perfectly
The later, distorted and illegitimate Constitution of the 1689 Bill of Rights did not and went against these principles because it precluded the head of state from acting responsibly, and laid the foundations for party politics and the removal of the accountability structure
If you want true freedom you have a choice:
Either learn and point out the legitimate underpinnings of English Law and demand a return to those principles loudly, passionately and incessantly, that were properly installed and framed within our original Constitution. OR…
Reinvent the wheel in which you will have to make arguments for a completely fresh system that all other people of your community would have to be happy with—because remember, you don’t have the right to impose something new on them unless its equitable
You decide which is easier, has greater legitimacy and is more practical. A restoration of what ‘they’ (the powers that be) know deep down to be right whilst calling-out the false notions of governance is easier to achieve. Anything else is likely to bring a painful and chaotic collapse of society—which would not be necessary with the first option.
Get a grip people, and get behind these causal principles if freedom is what you really want. As always it’s completely up to you. Your freedom is yours for the taking, but only by facing truth and reality.
Will
Further reading and viewing (please share widely):
Short Essay from Democracy Defined:
The Rule of Law and The Eternal Criterion of Justice..
https://www.democracydefined.org/essays/THE_RULE_OF_LAW_AND_THE_ETERNAL_CRITERION_OF_JUSTICE.pdf
and yours truly…
Greetings, Will. I enjoyed reading your current article, “The Requirements for Freedom.”
It is a profoundly worthwhile observation of yours that “there is a pervading belief in society that what makes legitimate ‘law’ is whatever Parliament (with the backing of a majority) feels is right.” As a consequence of this, we have a grotesque administration (‘government’) and parliamentary individuals and parties pursuing self-interested ambitions while they are not even remotely acquainted with, and subject to, truly civilised democratic Principles and aspirations.
It’s first class work, Will. We recommend folk peruse and forward it widely.
Kenn d’Oudney. Coordinator.
http://DemocracyDefined.org
Thank you will. Wouldn't it be an interesting and profoundly different world if every couple of months we had to take part in a independent jury? Meaning ALL trials no.matter how big or small were.brought before one. So many benefits would occur. Probably too.may to mention, but one that occurs to.me often is that we would really know what was happening in our country/community. We would have so much of a better idea the struggles and misdemenours of others. And be less reliant the media and politicians 'telling' us, we would have genuine insight.