I am watching and reading with much interest as you continue to develop your arguments. And I am very admiring of the process you have defined in earlier pieces wherein in you found yourself in a system which is really not acceptable (as we all do) and resolved to put long and careful thought into how that happened and how it might eventually be changed. (Which very few do!)
I can't say yet that I follow all of your arguments perfectly. But it seems certainly clear that Parliament is effectively outside of the law. And not only in the UK. In Spain, where I live, the Supreme Court determined that the Parliament acted illegally in 'locking down' the country in 2020, but so far as I know, there were no 'repercussions' for that law-breaking. My understanding is also that the US authorities have often violated the Constitution (especially in going to war without Congressional approval) without repercussions. One could go on - clear violations of the Nuremberg Code during 'covid', etc.
Broadly, all of what you say, about what the state of affairs is, how it got that way, and what can be done about it, make sense to me.
I have two comments to make, both of which are 'additive', not 'contradictory'. I know they are both outside the scope of what you are examinaning and proposing too, but since I think they are complimentary, I shall offer them anyway.
The first is that when we look at the whole of society, not just the political/legal (the state), but the relation of that to 'the commercial' and the (almost non-existent at present) 'cultural', we should arrive at a situation where the the purview of the state is very much smaller than today - some of it's present activities having been devolved to the other functions.
The second is that that because of the present structural imbalances between 'culture, state and commerce', most of the power lies with the money. Which means that however correct the analysis of what is wrong, and what technically correct legal avenues might exist for changing it, they are not likely to happen while 'interests' don't want them to.
I'm really not trying to counter your suggestions at all here - I find them fascinating, knowledgeable and full of valuable potential. I also know that you, like me, work on the basis that in the end all is changeable, that the 'impossible' today is not impossible tomorrow and that one must start with clear principles which lead to incremental action.
I only offer these thoughts because in taking such long-term and principles-driven views, it is interesting to put alongside them other important factors which must follow a parellel and supporting trajectory. Breaking the money strangle-hold is a huge issue, but in the end, like everything else, not impossible. That long road is something I have touched upon in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-ecomomist-is-wearing-no-clothes, and michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy, and will continue to develop in my next piece 'The High Ground' (subtitled 'what does it really mean to be progressive')?, and a 'sometime in the future' piece which will be entitled something like 'More Thoughts on the Economist's Clothes'.
Until then I shall continue to read carefully your developing arguments, and attempt to digest and understand them more fully!
Thanks Michael. I entirely agree that, in a healthy society, the state would have a much smaller role than it does at present.
However, I'm less concerned than you about the power of money and vested interests (although I used to be more worried about it in the past). That's largely because I've concluded that the power of money is a product of the existing body of law, and rests on arbitrary or derelict rules that will be incompatible with a framework of principled law. That doesn't mean it will change quickly when a set of fundamental legal principles are incorporated into the constitution but it does mean that it will automatically come up for review and will change inevitably once more principled laws have been worked out.
As you know, I have thought quite a lot about the main drivers of inequality and have written, on my old sites, about how a healthy monetary system might work and how ownership of natural resources might be assigned in a fair society. But those are both intrinsically complex areas and, until the constitutional incoherence has been addressed, I don't think there'll be the political will to tackle them.
I feel inclined to acknowledge that Malcolm. One of the things that concerns me a lot at present is the way that legal structures have been created to favour 'the manipulators' - corporate personhood, hate crimes (to persecute dissenters) and a great many more. The inherent need of society to follow legal structures is something they have to stick to. So if there are elements within in that which can be used by those who would contest all that is so wrong, YES, we must use that, and maybe there is a chance. I don't doubt that there are still some good people within 'the establishment' willing to take up the challenge - and I'm encouraged to hear your comments about some of the thoughts and comments apparently moving within the community of the judiciary.
Hi Malcolm,
I am watching and reading with much interest as you continue to develop your arguments. And I am very admiring of the process you have defined in earlier pieces wherein in you found yourself in a system which is really not acceptable (as we all do) and resolved to put long and careful thought into how that happened and how it might eventually be changed. (Which very few do!)
I can't say yet that I follow all of your arguments perfectly. But it seems certainly clear that Parliament is effectively outside of the law. And not only in the UK. In Spain, where I live, the Supreme Court determined that the Parliament acted illegally in 'locking down' the country in 2020, but so far as I know, there were no 'repercussions' for that law-breaking. My understanding is also that the US authorities have often violated the Constitution (especially in going to war without Congressional approval) without repercussions. One could go on - clear violations of the Nuremberg Code during 'covid', etc.
Broadly, all of what you say, about what the state of affairs is, how it got that way, and what can be done about it, make sense to me.
I have two comments to make, both of which are 'additive', not 'contradictory'. I know they are both outside the scope of what you are examinaning and proposing too, but since I think they are complimentary, I shall offer them anyway.
The first is that when we look at the whole of society, not just the political/legal (the state), but the relation of that to 'the commercial' and the (almost non-existent at present) 'cultural', we should arrive at a situation where the the purview of the state is very much smaller than today - some of it's present activities having been devolved to the other functions.
The second is that that because of the present structural imbalances between 'culture, state and commerce', most of the power lies with the money. Which means that however correct the analysis of what is wrong, and what technically correct legal avenues might exist for changing it, they are not likely to happen while 'interests' don't want them to.
I'm really not trying to counter your suggestions at all here - I find them fascinating, knowledgeable and full of valuable potential. I also know that you, like me, work on the basis that in the end all is changeable, that the 'impossible' today is not impossible tomorrow and that one must start with clear principles which lead to incremental action.
I only offer these thoughts because in taking such long-term and principles-driven views, it is interesting to put alongside them other important factors which must follow a parellel and supporting trajectory. Breaking the money strangle-hold is a huge issue, but in the end, like everything else, not impossible. That long road is something I have touched upon in michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-ecomomist-is-wearing-no-clothes, and michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-circular-economy, and will continue to develop in my next piece 'The High Ground' (subtitled 'what does it really mean to be progressive')?, and a 'sometime in the future' piece which will be entitled something like 'More Thoughts on the Economist's Clothes'.
Until then I shall continue to read carefully your developing arguments, and attempt to digest and understand them more fully!
Thanks Michael. I entirely agree that, in a healthy society, the state would have a much smaller role than it does at present.
However, I'm less concerned than you about the power of money and vested interests (although I used to be more worried about it in the past). That's largely because I've concluded that the power of money is a product of the existing body of law, and rests on arbitrary or derelict rules that will be incompatible with a framework of principled law. That doesn't mean it will change quickly when a set of fundamental legal principles are incorporated into the constitution but it does mean that it will automatically come up for review and will change inevitably once more principled laws have been worked out.
As you know, I have thought quite a lot about the main drivers of inequality and have written, on my old sites, about how a healthy monetary system might work and how ownership of natural resources might be assigned in a fair society. But those are both intrinsically complex areas and, until the constitutional incoherence has been addressed, I don't think there'll be the political will to tackle them.
I feel inclined to acknowledge that Malcolm. One of the things that concerns me a lot at present is the way that legal structures have been created to favour 'the manipulators' - corporate personhood, hate crimes (to persecute dissenters) and a great many more. The inherent need of society to follow legal structures is something they have to stick to. So if there are elements within in that which can be used by those who would contest all that is so wrong, YES, we must use that, and maybe there is a chance. I don't doubt that there are still some good people within 'the establishment' willing to take up the challenge - and I'm encouraged to hear your comments about some of the thoughts and comments apparently moving within the community of the judiciary.
You are doing great work!