Representative Government

[Anonymous]

#1222

Prior to the US Declaration of Independence, the thirteen American Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for over a year. Relations soured when the British Parliament enacted measures to raise revenue from the Colonies, by way of meeting the cost of having them part of the Empire. Americans thought the British constitution protected certain inalienable rights from Parliament, whereas the British believed that whatever Parliament did was to be considered constitutional. Since the Colonies had no representatives in the British Parliament, taxation became a thorny issue. The anti-British slogan before the war kicked off was “no taxation without representation,” or “taxation without representation is tyranny”.

Representation without taxation too, causes a descent into tyranny.

Taxation without representation is tyranny (Consent not given) [the EU/Brexit]
Representation without taxation is tyranny (Consent not earned) [Rhodesia/Zimbabwe]

Western countries are not pure democracies. They use democracy to produce constitutional representative governments – most especially in the US. In Britain and here in Australia, we have an element of monarchy, but we have constitutional representative governments first and foremost. In the US this is seen in the Electoral College, where Clinton won the popular vote by appealing purely to cosmopolitan types, but Trump won because he appealed to the mid-west, the south, the rust belt and more.

Similarly, a Prime Minister is the leader of the party who won a majority of seats in parliament. This requires the winning party to appeal to many different types of voters.

Pure democracy runs on Consensus, while representative governments run on Consent. This is what really separates the West from the rest.

Peter Schiff illustrates the difference between Consent and Consensus very well in a video. He goes to Walmart with a placard that reads 15 for 15. He then asked shoppers if they would support a minimum wage of $15 and most do – this is Consensus. He then asks if they’ll donate 15% of their bill to the Walmart employees, and none do – this is non-Consent.

Thus there is a huge difference between the two types of agreement. Consensus is a general agreement. Whereas Consent is granting permission, or agreement by contribution. Consensus is a collective value. In the West, the individual has say over the collective. Consent is an individual value that allows people to decide when to act together without being acted upon.

The most unfeasible ideas can gain Consensus, e.g. we should spend a trillion dollars to fight climate change. Whereas it is very difficult to gain Consent – think of Tony Abbott’s measly $7 co-payment that couldn’t get through Senate. That difficulty (requiring Consent) is written into our constitutions, and guarantees our liberty. People by their very nature dislike excessive taxation. If they have true representation they will have their representatives disagree to tax raises, thereby limiting the scope of government to it’s proper role.

Recently, I’ve been pondering how government spending caused a revolution in America, whilst Tony Abbott couldn’t get spending cuts or revenue measures through the Senate. What I believe has happened, is that taxation and representation have again become uncoupled due to the current state of the financial system. The government can spend more and tax less because it simply gets into greater debt to make up the difference.

The Australian Government has accumulated a debt of +$600B over the past 10 years. That would’ve been an extra tax burden of ~$3,000/citizen/year. Imagine the average amount borne by those who actually contribute to the ATO! Would we have arrived at the same place if that tax burden was borne by all those who voted for it? Would politicians be offering up the same policies they do now? I think not.

‘Libtard Dave the accountant’ wouldn’t be so hot on immigration if he’d contributed +$60K more in tax since the GFC to help fund it. In fact, I’m certain he too would vote for an immigration policy that requires new arrivals to be self-reliant. 

We no longer bear the responsibility of true representation. The responsibility of taxation is delayed in such a manner that current and future voters are being robbed of Consent. Representation nowadays is a mere facade.

This is the unwitting result of central banks, fractional reserve banking, the end of the gold standard, and the removal of scarcity as a property of currency. It was a gradual change that took place over +100 years. Laissez-faire economies have been replaced with mixed economies for largely imperceptible reasons.

It is one’s tax contribution that earns his right to representation. Such representation is the only kind that can justly grant Consent to the Government.

This tyranny of Consensus, or of representation without contribution has been seen before. Dates of Independence in Africa do not mark the arrival of Consent and individualism, they mark their departure. Rhodesia was Western, while Zimbabwe is the result of Consensus and collectivism. That there was a civil war between their successive regimes is no surprise.

As long as we do not restore Consent in the West, there will remain two incompatible consensuses, and the results of such. The Left, including the mildest elements, remains collectivistic. On the Right there exists collectivistic elements, however it is the individualistic element that determines it’s course and is all that can save the West proper.
If voters had to cough up to the ATO to fund their immigration related virtue signalling, there’d be far less of it. There’d be far less labelling of common sense as hate speech, we wouldn’t have 18C, etc. The Consensus reality would become bound by the possibilities of Consent.

This is greatest thing we can do in the fight for the West; to restore true representation. That means getting governments out of the business of selling bonds to central banks so that they can fund a Consensus reality. If it becomes a war over Consensuses, we’ll see more of what went on in Charlottesville – polarisation turning into political violence. However, if we can get each to put his money where his mouth is, such polarisation wouldn’t be feasible.
People are not equal in character. But people deserve equal access to the Rights that produce unequal achievement and general prosperity. If this freedom is applied via true representation, then Australia (and the West) will be safe from immigration and all other threats. Trump is proving this in the US.

We are living through a period of chaos. It is impossible to predict the future, but the possibilities seem limited. Some Western nations will defeat Consensus and restore Consent in time; some may enter civil war for the outcome; and others might lose their foundation upon Western values. I pray for the former in all instances. But who knows, maybe France will become the first Muslim country with a nuclear bomb.

[Anonymous]

#1246

Great post, I highly recommend turning this into an article.

We have built this country on-top of what we consider the battler. Protect the weak, give the downtrodden man a helping hand etc… Now these are good virtues when applied on a personal level. However, we have made a huge mistake of lumping those worthy of our efforts in with those who are just plain scamming us.

The mentality I see in society is that money solves all problems.
We need to protect the elderly….spend more on pensions
We need to invest in children….spend more on education
We need to help the sick….Spend more on health care

Who would disagree with those reasons. Yes we need to help the elderly, the infirm and our children. But the people who most likely to shout the loudest are probably the least likely to contribute… or want to contribute. They want the businesses and the ‘rich’ (richer than them) to suffer (i.e., socialism). If anyone dare state is the money being spent correctly you will be accused of hating that group. “How dare you take money from the poor/elderly/sick/children!”. For example, mental health is the biggest loophole rort around. Patients will seek out doctors to give them the ‘right’ diagnosis so they can collect a disability centrelink payment. In one instance, I know of one case where after all the welfare payments were added up was earning around $75k/annum (they also did cash in hand work). However if you say that some people don’t deserve these payments you will be labeled anti-mental health.

….Damn, I wish we got that $7 medicare co-payment.

[Anonymous]

#1247

Banjo, you seem very knowledgeable on this matter and it seems to be something you are passionate about. I agrees with A Petros, you should blog and champion this publicly inline. This could be a cornerstone of what we stand for.

[Anonymous]

#1347

Hey Banjo
You’ll have to explain this to me, I’m afraid I don’t get it. The distinction between consent and consensus.
You said “Pure democracy runs on Consensus, while representative governments run on Consent”

Doesn’t pure democracy also run on consent? I mean, I get it, that if the Yes vote is passed, all those No voters will have to comply with the majority Consensus. But aren’t they just consenting to the consensus in that case?

Also, I don’t get how the Walmart video shows the distinction. Those people who got interviewed, they were actually asked 2 different things. Just because they gave their consent or consensus to one question, doesn’t mean they consent or have consensus on the other. So I don’t get what it’s trying to illustrate.

[Anonymous]

#1399

As far as I am concerned, the American revolutionaries were a bunch of traitors who rejected the rightful rule of King George the III and deserved nothing less than to be strung up like the dogs that they were.

If not for some historical accidents then that should have been their fate. As far as I can see the tax burden on the American colonies was not especially onerous (compared to today) but simply the result of well healed trouble makers not wishing to be bound by the traditional authority. Something similar is demonstrated in today’s society.

Now we had to witness the ridiculous situation of a group of slave owners proclaiming “All men are created equal”. Obviously that has created a lot of problems down the road.

Now I don’t have a problem with slavery, an institution that is practically as old as mankind but I do have an issue with the hypocrisy of slave owners claiming all men are equal. The results of which can be seen in the american civil war and the current problems with rampant blacks in the US and Australia today.

[Author]

Posts