New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Digital Control and Surveillance

These are simply neutral tools.

But in the wrong hands, they become tools of coercion. Fundamentally, they intrude on the right of privacy. They also are tools that can be used to put down dissent by minorities.

The argument always is: If you have nothing to hide, then why not be under surveillance 24/7, even when sleeping or having sex.

The human right is to be able to go about our business in privacy. If and when it surfaces that someone is acting in an anti-societal/illegal way, then the full weight of the system is marshalled to, first, prove the illegality, and then second, to impose appropriate consequences. We have a natural feeling of uncomfortableness when under surveillance 24/7........it wears down the Spirit of the person, and leaves them with the realization of their own powerlessness.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Digital Control and Surveillance


We have a natural feeling of uncomfortableness when under surveillance 24/7........it wears down the Spirit of the person, and leaves them with the realization of their own powerlessness.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

It seems you are saying that its 'problems' are all in the mind, while the crooks have used 'privacy' to evade justice, and the ones wronged have had to struggle to prove their case because of this so called 'right'...

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Governance


Libertarianism - An Investigation

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. But it has never been tested on the ground, to my knowledge. I am unaware of any level of government, in any country on the globe, that has been Libertarian........it has far from captured the imagination of the elector.

However, this does not mean that it is not useful........it may present ideas that are beneficial, and maybe should be adopted by elected governments.

Natural Law

As I understand it, Libertarianism sees no need for the plethora of laws passed by Governments around the globe. Only one law is needed: The Natural Law.

Civil order is maintained because if a member, or members, of society breach the Natural Law, then the government will investigate and bring the case to Court. The Judge will decide if there has been a breach, and if so, what the penalty should be. Part of the penalty can be what Libertarianism calls a "Compensation Payment". The judge will decide which people have been negatively affected by the breach, and who is to be compensated monetarily, and by how much.

This is the deterrent to citizens acting in anti-societal ways.

Please correct me if I am mis-stating this aspect of Libertarianism, and revise my statement above.

Question

Citizens must know the law in order to know what actions are permissible and what actions are not. To this end, every country keeps a public log of all the laws that citizens must follow, and citizens can consult it.

Where is the Natural Law codified, written down?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Generally Accepted Statement # 3

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

A Challenge was raised by Fred Henderson - Post # 109 - 23/7/15.

A Defence was made for the Statement by Bob Armstrong - Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Processing Protocol

For one week no CT'er has come forward to supplement Fred's challenge.

Conclusion

The Statement remains in the generally accepted list.

Note: A Revision Proposal has been made by Bob Armstrong - Post # 130 – 23/8/1. There has been no Challenge to date. The deadline is 23/8/8 at 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)

(Started: 22/12/5)




Overview & Update




1. Statistics


Week # 3 (23/7/31 – 23/8/6 - 7 days)

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(3wks.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (3 wks.).

…13.............................15........................12..........................1......................1........................2.........

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's Stats are in line with those of last week, and of the year to date.

The stats confirm that we have a small, core group of CT'ers following this thread......and it appears to be growing (The average to date per day has been 12 views).

Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human self-governance is one of the most important in our human future, especially if some covert group of influential people is trying to take control!

Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government (Even if “benevolent”)?

2. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

3. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

The Time Line

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order/Great Reset project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories”, such as QAnon.

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe, and incrementally implementing the pieces of an agenda for an eventual one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run. And it is not good, even if this group sees itself as a “Benevolent Dictatorship”.

4. A Proposal (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it.

5. The “Conversation Format” Protocol

In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on three main principles:

1. If there is no proposed revision of a Statement put forward as a "Commonly-Held" Statement, nor objection, within one week, then the Statement is considered "commonly-accepted" (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

2. If the Statement is challenged, with reasons, then the proposer of the Statement, and any others supporting the Statement must raise a defense, with reasons. Of course, it is also open to those supporting the Challenge to comment and “supplement” the Challenge.

3. The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-accepted".

6. Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (NWO/GR)

A. Statements

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Proposed Revision – Bob Armstrong – Post # 130 – 23/8/1

3. Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Reason

I have defended existing Statement # 3 from a recent Challenge.

However, the Challenge, on further thought, does point to the fact that the Statement # 3 is poorly worded.

Thus I am proposing a revised Statement # 3.

Processing

If the revised Statement # 3 is not challenged within one week (Deadline: 23/8/8), under our protocol it will join the other "generally accepted" Statements.

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

B. Processing Periods

1. If there are no challenges, then the motion is “generally accepted” after one week.

2. The deadline for discussion of a Challenge will normally be one week after there is the first Defense of the Challenge.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Human Self-Governance


Libertarianism - An Investigation


Question

Citizens must know the law in order to know what actions are permissible and what actions are not. To this end, every country keeps a public log of all the laws that citizens must follow, and citizens can consult it.

Where is the Natural Law codified, written down?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

Hi Bob,
Libertarianism is not absence of rules, it is elimination of all unnecessary rules which unnecessarily impinge on our freedom which we all value very much.
While the Natural Law is very simple, and needs no elaborate codification, there are situations where acting in two opposing ways are possible, but as a society, we all have to agree to choose one for everybody's safety and smooth functioning; an example is driving on the right or driving on the left. Such instances are very few. However, if you critically look at the thousands (? millions) of laws promulgated over the centuries by each and every level of government, you will realize that many of them can often be broken without harming anyone or disrupting smooth functioning of society (and yet, in such instances, are routinely weaponized, like punishment for running a red light when there is no human or vehicular traffic whatsoever, against honest, helpful individuals), and society would function much better if instead everyone relied mainly on the Natural Law.
Remember, digital surveillance is not what impinges on our freedoms; it is just a means to capture instances of violation of the Natural Law, and such violation, by definition, is harmful to someone amongst us. It is the existence of 'victimless crime' laws which impinges on our freedoms.

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 141 - 23/8/7

"While the Natural Law is very simple, and needs no elaborate codification, there are situations where acting in two opposing ways are possible, but as a society, we all have to agree to choose one for everybody's safety and smooth functioning; an example is driving on the right or driving on the left. Such instances are very few. However, if you critically look at the thousands (? millions) of laws promulgated over the centuries by each and every level of government, you will realize that many of them can often be broken without harming anyone or disrupting smooth functioning of society (and yet, in such instances, are routinely weaponized, like punishment for running a red light when there is no human or vehicular traffic whatsoever, against honest, helpful individuals), and society would function much better if instead everyone relied mainly on the Natural Law."


I think some clarification is required.

Suppose the Libertarian Party of Toronto won the mayoralty and a majority on council. There are many traffic bylaws.

1. Would there be a "law" (One of the very few) that cars must drive on the right side of the road?

2. Would the city government rescind all other traffic by-laws, remove traffic signs (Like "Stop" - restricting freedom, according to Libertarianism, if no pedestrians or other traffic), and remove traffic signals?

3. Would the government position be that people will use common sense when driving and coming to an intersection, and instinctively follow the unwritten Natural Law?

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 141 - 23/8/7

Libertarianism is not absence of rules, it is elimination of all unnecessary rules which unnecessarily impinge on our freedom which we all value very much.
"While the Natural Law is very simple, and needs no elaborate codification, there are situations where acting in two opposing ways are possible, but as a society, we all have to agree to choose one for everybody's safety and smooth functioning; an example is driving on the right or driving on the left. Such instances are very few. However, if you critically look at the thousands (? millions) of laws promulgated over the centuries by each and every level of government, you will realize that many of them can often be broken without harming anyone or disrupting smooth functioning of society (and yet, in such instances, are routinely weaponized, like punishment for running a red light when there is no human or vehicular traffic whatsoever, against honest, helpful individuals), and society would function much better if instead everyone relied mainly on the Natural Law."
Remember, digital surveillance is not what impinges on our freedoms; it is just a means to capture instances of violation of the Natural Law, and such violation, by definition, is harmful to someone amongst us. It is the existence of 'victimless crime' laws which impinges on our freedoms.


I think some clarification is required.

Suppose the Libertarian Party of Toronto won the mayoralty and a majority on council. There are many traffic bylaws.

1. Would there be a "law" (One of the very few) that cars must drive on the right side of the road?

2. Would the city government rescind all other traffic by-laws, remove traffic signs (Like "Stop" - restricting freedom, according to Libertarianism, if no pedestrians or other traffic), and remove traffic signals?

3. Would the government position be that people will use common sense when driving and coming to an intersection, and instinctively follow the unwritten Natural Law?

Bob A

1. Of course. Driving on the wrong side is the most dangerous thing one could do on the road for oneself as well as for others, except in one or two circumstances one can think of, in which case the law will not be weaponized against the individual who is totally safe about it.
2. No, but answer to 3, the next point, applies here.
3. Yes, but the traffic lights and signs would still be there to guide.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip (Re Post # 143 (23/8/7):

So as I understand now, it is not the "laws" that are generally a problem for you (Though you feel some laws passed are really unnecessary).

It is the "absolute enforcement" of the law, without exception, when it seems illogical to enforce it..........so going through a stop sign at midnight when clearly there are no pedestrians or other cars around, would be OK.

In a sense, the Natural Law (You are allowed to do what is safe, regardless of legal restriction) allows an EXCEPTION to the particular law involved. In other words, where the Natural Law allows something, the relevant government law should not be "weaponized" (should not be enforced).... that is, should not be enforced when it makes no sense to enforce it in those particular set of circumstances.

The police (Charged with law enforcement) can decide on the spot, whether a charge should be laid ..... they have discretion to decide the Natural Law should exempt the driver from enforcement of the stop sign law.

So each individual has the "right" to decide if Natural Law over-rides the government law in any individual situation, at any time.

And we hope the individual is right. If they are not right, and cause damage of some kind to someone, other than themselves, then they can be taken to court by the government, and the judge will decide the penalty for the bad judgment by the driver........and this can include a "compensation payment" to those suffering loss because of the drivers misjudgment.

Do I now get it? It is important that CT'ers clearly understand your position, so when you apply it in various discussions, we all know where you are coming from.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip (Re Post # 143 (23/8/7):

So as I understand now, it is not the "laws" that are generally a problem for you (Though you feel some laws passed are really unnecessary).

It is the "absolute enforcement" of the law, without exception, when it seems illogical to enforce it..........so going through a stop sign at midnight when clearly there are no pedestrians or other cars around, would be OK.

In a sense, the Natural Law (You are allowed to do what is safe, regardless of legal restriction) allows an EXCEPTION to the particular law involved. In other words, where the Natural Law allows something, the relevant government law should not be "weaponized" (should not be enforced).... that is, should not be enforced when it makes no sense to enforce it in those particular set of circumstances.

The police (Charged with law enforcement) can decide on the spot, whether a charge should be laid ..... they have discretion to decide the Natural Law should exempt the driver from enforcement of the stop sign law.

So each individual has the "right" to decide if Natural Law over-rides the government law in any individual situation, at any time.

And we hope the individual is right. If they are not right, and cause damage of some kind to someone, other than themselves, then they can be taken to court by the government, and the judge will decide the penalty for the bad judgment by the driver........and this can include a "compensation payment" to those suffering loss because of the drivers misjudgment.

Do I now get it? It is important that CT'ers clearly understand your position, so when you apply it in various discussions, we all know where you are coming from.

Bob A

And traffic misjudgments have serious potential consequences, so the penalties are appropriately very stiff, which would definitely dissuade people from taking risks.
And remember what you were taught in elementary school: laws are meant to be followed in their spirit, not necessarily in their letter...

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Bob Armstrong
Hi Dilip (Re Post # 143 (23/8/7):

So as I understand now, it is not the "laws" that are generally a problem for you (Though you feel some laws passed are really unnecessary).

It is the "absolute enforcement" of the law, without exception, when it seems illogical to enforce it..........so going through a stop sign at midnight when clearly there are no pedestrians or other cars around, would be OK.

In a sense, the Natural Law (You are allowed to do what is safe, regardless of legal restriction) allows an EXCEPTION to the particular law involved. In other words, where the Natural Law allows something, the relevant government law should not be "weaponized" (should not be enforced).... that is, should not be enforced when it makes no sense to enforce it in those particular set of circumstances.

The police (Charged with law enforcement) can decide on the spot, whether a charge should be laid ..... they have discretion to decide the Natural Law should exempt the driver from enforcement of the stop sign law.

So each individual has the "right" to decide if Natural Law over-rides the government law in any individual situation, at any time.

And we hope the individual is right. If they are not right, and cause damage of some kind to someone, other than themselves, then they can be taken to court by the government, and the judge will decide the penalty for the bad judgment by the driver........and this can include a "compensation payment" to those suffering loss because of the drivers misjudgment.

Do I now get it? It is important that CT'ers clearly understand your position, so when you apply it in various discussions, we all know where you are coming from.

Bob A

And traffic misjudgments have serious potential consequences, so the penalties are appropriately very stiff, which would definitely dissuade people from taking risks.
And remember what you were taught in elementary school: laws are meant to be followed in their spirit, not necessarily in their letter...

Dilip, I remember asking you for an explanation of "Natural Law" here on CT probably more than a year ago, and you totally ignored it. You had provided some kind of technical jargon which left me and probably many others not knowing what the bleep you were talking about.

It has taken Bob A. to explain it in plain English. And you are good with his explanation. Why didn't you explain it yourself like this a long time ago?

Now that I see the explanation, I have a better understanding. Finally I have an inkling what this is all about. My thanks to Bob A. for his work in analyzing the technojargon you seen to prefer using, Dilip.


But ... I still believe that in the end, Libertarianism based on this Natural Law concept will turn into Lawyertarianism. Politicians creating and writing laws will be replaced by high-priced lawyers interpreting for the courts all kinds of scenarios that come up that may or may not violate Natural Law.

Let's just take Donald Trump as a prime example. He says he lost the 2020 election due to what could be interpreted as violations of Natural Law. He would argue he was hurt by these violations. So under such a Libertarian government, nothing would be changed, we would still see long court cases with many lawyers involved. And ultimately, judges who are human and subject to bias will decide. The Supreme Courts of various countries will all become even more political (conservative or liberal) than they are now.

Even when it comes to something as simple as Bob A.'s traffic examples, there will be dramatic increases in lawyers arguing cases before judges. Instead of a written law being enforced without prejudice, as we have now when people are caught in violation of such law, we will have an explosion of frivolous lawsuits to determine if Natural Law was violated or not. A case where a pedestrian is hit in the crosswalk at night, which will be prosecuted under existing traffic laws as a cut-and-dried violation on the part of the motorist, will become a new and special case because a lawyer hired by the motorist would argue that the pedestrian wasn't wearing enough reflective or bright material to be seen by the motorist. And then a judge have to be provided evidence and would have to make a judgment about the clothing material worn by the pedestrian.

In effect, written laws will be replaced by explosion of lawsuits. There will be shortages of judges, lawyers, stenographers, paralegals, and courthouse facilities. Probably the halls of Parliament will be taken over to be used as courthouses.

In effect, all political institutions will be merely replaced by rapid growth of increasingly-political-leaning judicial institutions.

In effect, nothing will really change. Greed will still guide human affairs just as it does now.

[Dilip Panjwani]

[I]


Libertarianism based on this Natural Law concept will turn into Lawyertarianism

On the contrary, lawyers will be out of business, as there is only one simple Law, instead of a thousand contradictory ones, and also because common sense is not at all uncommon in judges (that is why we respect them a lot). Any lawyer who tries to tell lies (and we all know that lawyers are liars, most of the time), will end up paying heavily for wasting everyone else's time. That does not happen today because lawyers are a big influence on what laws are made, and they have done their best to make the legal system a bloody complicated mess, as that provides them with more butter on their bread, and they have made sure that they cannot be sued for wasting everyone's time, all the time.
And, btw, nobody expects pedestrians to wear reflective clothing...it is common sense that it is up to the driver to keep his eyes open and drive safely, whatever the pedestrian is wearing (if anything at all!), as he is the one who ends up hurting the pedestrian.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Thanks for the compliment (Post # 146 - 23/8/8).

And I am going to try to go one step further when I get a few minutes.

Using my "Conversation Format Protocol", as Group Secretary, I am going to post a series of Statements that will be considered generally accepted BY LIBERTARIANS! They will be as simple as I can make them.

We will try to nail down this political ideology even further and more simply than we have so far. You are right that Dilip is a regular poster, and often argues from the Libertarian perspective. I hope by this that we all will now have a better grasp of his submissions.

As usual, these Statements can be challenged, initially, by Libertarians mainly, that they are inaccurate re Libertarianism. Others who understand Libertarianism better, though not an adherent, can also propose revisions/support, which Libertarians will accept.

Others can then defend that the Statement is an accurate rendition of a Libertarian position.

Finally, once we have the Statements accepted by the Libertarians, we will open the floor to "disagreement, with reasons", with a Libertarian Statement. Then the Libertarians can rush to "support, with reasons", their Statement.

I think this is a good use of our time, even if there are few Libertarians among the CT'ers here. It will likely lead to enlarged discussion of societal issues.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians (Proposed)

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement # 2

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Processing Protocol - Phase One

The first step is for Libertarians, and others who understand Libertarianism, even if not an adherent, to "Challenge" a Statement with which they disagree, with reasons (They believe it does not correctly set out the policies of Libertarianism). It is most helpful if the Challenge involves a revision of the Statement to what is thought to be correct.

Then others must "Defend" the statement, with reasons, as an accurate presentation of Libertarian policy.

If there is no Challenge to a Statement within one week, then it is considered acceptable to the Libertarians in this group. If there is a challenge, then the week for processing runs from the date of the Defence.

If there is an omission of some critical policy of Libertarianism (We are attempting here an Executive Summary only), then a CT'er can propose an additional Statement to add to the list in a new post.

Note: We are not yet dealing with those who fundamentally oppose a Libertarian position. This will come in Phase Two of the processing of these Statements.

Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government

Statement # 3.

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Proposed Revision – Bob Armstrong – Post # 130 – 23/8/1

3. Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Reason for Revision

I have previously successfully defended existing Statement # 3 from a recent Challenge.

However, the Challenge, on further thought, does point to the fact that the Statement # 3 is poorly worded.

Thus I am proposing a revised Statement # 3.

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the Statement is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Processing

No CT'er has come forward within one week from the date of the proposed revision to Challenge the proposed Statement # 3.

Conclusion

The revised Statement # 3 is generally accepted by this CT'er group and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)