Malaysia has an election today – which inspired a rant on government in general

The Malaysian election takes place today. I have no idea what the result will be, but undoubtedly, some people will be happy with the result, and some not.  This blog is about about government in general in the world’s so-called democracies, and may be of interest or consolation to some.

To my mind, the main purpose of government is to protect my unalienable rights. The rights, and responsibilities bestowed upon us by natural law.  Which more or less means that we can do anything we like so long as we don’t harm others.

But this is not what governments do.

The government rules us. They demonstrate and tell us this, as do, among others, the media, the entertainment industry, the education system, the “justice” system and the police, with the latter enforcing their rule.

Of course, they are supposed to be our servants.

Democracy basically means mob rule, so that if a majority wants something, this can be forced on the minority, even if this may be 49% of the population. It doesn’t sound so great.

Of course, in reality, with the exception of referenda, people have no say. Parliament makes regulations they call laws. And parliament generally decides if there will be a referendum on any issue, not the people.

The general idea of parliament is that each electorate votes in a representative, who is supposed to represent the people of the electorate. But political parties were created to sabotage this idea, so that in fact the “representatives” represent the party and not the people, and they vote how the party demands; unless an independent candidate wins a seat.

Another trick is that the voters choose between candidates chosen for them.  They don’t choose the candidates themselves who stand for election. This is more effort, and no one encourages them to do this. So if all the candidates are not worthy of choice, a frequent occurence, then where are you?

And it is so much easier for a powerful group to simply control two or three parties, than many individuals. Individuals standing for parliament are discriminated against by the system, too.

A large percentage of politicians are lawyers, and the more laws they make, the more complicated living life in this system is, and thus the better for their profession.  An obvious conflict of interest. Being a lawyer should disqualify anyone from being a politician.

Internet banking is quite secure works quite well. Thus a direct democracy, with people Internet-voting for any issue they were interested in, and ignoring those of no interest to them, is easily technically possible, and could replace parliament. No parliament is in any hurry to implement this.

We all know how corrupt many of the politicians are. In some countries the corruption is more open than in others.  So, even if the system of representation was not totally flawed, still the system would not work.  Internet-voting would eliminate this corruption.

And we can see now how it is basically the large corporations that control parliament. Employees of corporations become government employees in charge of policy, then later return to corporations.  Another obvious conflict of interest. Corporations have interlocking ownership/directorship, so this is how a small group controls what it wishes.

Above all this, though, is an even greater level of corruption, that pretty well renders all I said above irrelevant.

If you check you will find that most governments are corporations. They are pretending to be governments.  They are registered with the SEC in the U.S. (http://www.sec.gov/index.htm) You can check easily enough.

Then, state governments may just be subsidiary corporations of the national government. You just have to check to find out.

Now, the implications are enormous.  These corporations have no lawful power over you. Just are just fooling you. The “laws” they make are just regulations that apply just to their corporation – not to you. If you are not an employee of Toyota, and Toyota makes a corporate rule, it doesn’t affect you at all.

The difference between the corporation pretending to be government and Toyota is, and the problem too is, that the “government” has an enforcement arm – the police. And the rest of the aforementioned propaganda apparatus – the media, the entertainment industry, the education system and the “justice” system.

One of the deceptions they use is to trick you into contracting with them.  Their “laws” don’t apply to you, but if you contract with them then you have to pay – and usually it is about them extracting money from you.

So, if you wish, you can continue following the orders of governments.

Or you can be free – but this involves quite a bit of work on your part sidestepping the efforts of the police and associated “justice” system who will be used to intimidate you or worse.  They want you to continue to be their slave, and hand over the vast majority of the fruits of your efforts.

But also remember, freedom involves responsibility. If you don’t want that, you may want to stay within the limited-liability corporate system.

But if you do want freedom, how do you get it? You’ll have to research. Which you can do on the Internet.

If you are happy to move around the world as a lifestyle, then the PT approach – which can mean “perpetual tourist” is one way.

For a more all-encompassing approach, find out about OPPT, freeman on the land movement, contract law etc.  Australia, Canada, UK and US all have people who publish information on the Internet on this matter, related to those countries, and most likely common law countries in general, or in the case of OPPT, the whole world.

http://deanclifford.info/ happens to be one site I am looking at at the moment. I’d rather not give a whole list, but have you search if you are interested.

I wouldn’t condemn anyone’s choice of any of those three approaches I have mentioned. It’s up to you. I would condemn forcing your choice on others.