The Human Choice - 26


An important example of our failure to be morally responsible is shown by the delight we take in claiming and establishing rights for ourselves. We want rights without responsibilities or limitations, though it is obvious that one person's rights may well be at the expense of another. The result is that the arrogant grab the rights and the considerate get the lefts.

Rights we write into our laws are well proven to have no lasting value unless we exercise the responsibilities needed to maintain them. Examples are to be seen in the numerous 'rights' contained in the constitution of the recent USSR where (as with Yugoslavia) minorities were 'protected'; also in the existing "Bill of Rights" contained in the constitution of the USA and even the 'inalienable' rights inherent in our own British "common law" and Australian Constitution.

We, in Australia, should be proud of our possession of the most advanced form of democracy so far developed but we, in our great majority, know virtually nothing of its nature, its Christian background or its offered benefits. Even worse, there is no easy source of reference in the public domain that will allow us to find the facts for ourselves.

We do not need complicated detail here but some outline needs to be given to highlight the meaning of democracy.

Democracy is thought to have originated with the ancient Greeks but is likely to have been the earliest form of community government as it is the natural form of most small community organisations, i.e. sporting and social clubs. In its best Grecian form members of parliament were selected by ballot from among those counted as full citizens; the exception to this was that the highest positions of State were elected.

That system is inherently far superior to, and more truly democratic, than any government in any advanced nation today. Its weakness, though perhaps not so significant in its time, was that many people were not counted as citizens and the ruling class, as counted in the political ballot, did not include women. This was some 400 years BC.

A greater weakness of the Greek system, if reintroduced today, was lack of an authoritative common law to protect the rights of minorities and individuals. This does not mean common justice was then entirely lacking but to achieve a secure public justice requires a base of higher authority than mortal man.

Transfer of Grecian democracy to modern nations would mean that a ballot for parliamentary positions would include just about everyone. This would mean a parliament in which half would be of less than average ability and dedication.

In comparison to party system government this would still look good because, with the party system, we always have almost half the elected representatives working to frustrate government and almost half the electorates disenfranchised. How much better if that half of parliament now working to frustrate government were working for the same ideal and for the citizens paying the bill?

Another advantage of Grecian democracy over party system government is that, by ballot, the half of better than average ability and dedication would be greatly superior to those chosen to just fill party seats as party puppets.

A third advantage of the Greek system is that the community would be saved the huge cost of election campaigns for the purpose of electing the party of best, or most convincing, liars.

Other things equal, Grecian democracy would give superior democracy and better government. Unfortunately, given the lack of moral commitment in the modern world, many of those selected by ballot would see it as a lottery win whereby they could strut the public stage and have a long paid holiday at public expense. Perhaps too few would accept a discipline of study so as to understand the basic mechanics of practical finance and administration, there would also be problems of lack of public respect for a lottery-chosen parliament - we might even end as ill-served as with party-system government.

However, as it happens, we do not need worry about the defects of Greek democracy in a modern State because our own legal constitution and common law system has already advanced the system of true democracy. Our law already requires procedures that solve the major problems of Grecian democracy in today's world. Our present Australian Constitution provides for the superior system of selection needed to replace lottery selection while still providing the advantages of efficiency, deletion of campaign expenses and deletion of the irritations of bumptious election campaigning.

The reader might be surprised at how easily party-system government is vanquished on grounds of both efficiency and democracy. That is because defects in party-system government have been subject to very efficient cover-up. We may note that Roman historian Livy, about 2000 years ago, wrote:

"The struggle between parties is and will always remain a worse misfortune for the people than war, famine, plague or other manifestation of God's wrath."

In our own time Solzhenitsyn, in Rebuilding Russia, wrote:

"The struggle between parties is not even remotely concerned with the search for truth: what is at stake is party prestige and wresting away some executive power. The top echelons of political parties are inevitably transformed into an oligarchy." [Oligarchy: government by a small group.]

Even the Holy Bible: (Moffatt and New English: Galatians 5:19-21) and (Moffatt: Proverbs 29:8) warns against 'party spirit'. Party spirit is always a selfish intrigue plotting gain for the few against the common good.

We are told that Australia has no human rights protections in its constitution - this is not true. Australian citizens (also British and American) as members of an electorate, have the right and duty, in association with other members of the electorate, to choose their own representatives. If this duty is obeyed, each citizen thereby becomes a partner in government.

Citizens, operating a true democratic parliament, can exercise control of government for the common good. The citizens, within a universal common law, become, in effect, their own government.

Today, a democracy's citizens have the constitutional authority to control government, introduce laws and install rights or protections but, if we accept our responsibilities to the system we inherited and to which we are entitled, no further protections are needed. If, on the other hand, we do not accept our responsibilities, then no protections can save us.

The citizen of today's democracy has an over-riding right, within the bounds of a Christian common law, to self-government. If the citizens do not choose to exercise their responsibilities then, written or unwritten (as is now so well proven) they have no enforceable rights or protections.

Our rights only ever exist to the degree that we accept our responsibilities as citizens.

Argument in Australia in 1994, about the form of a proposed republican government, is about such things as whether the head of state should be appointed by the prime minister, or elected by a simple or two-thirds majority of parliament. It is not made public that the question is irrelevant because the parties always have key platforms in common, and that the most common of common platforms is the desire of the party system for more power over the people. A candidate for presidency, sympathetic to an increase of government power, would have no problem obtaining the required bipartisan support.

Nor is the situation improved if the head of state is chosen by public election. So long as control of the mass media remains in elitist hands, the people will be so selectively misinformed as will always cause public choice as the Satanic empire desires and all parties, given power, serve establishment plans.

The Christian Revelation reveals that the order of creation allows for no rights without responsibilities. It is only through our exercise of responsibilities that we accumulate rights and it is by the evasion of our responsibilities that we lose our rights and also our humanity.

We in Australia (in common with nations including the USA and Great Britain) have a Christian-based national constitution.

Christian-based constitutions DO NOT include provision for political parties. Party-system government is to the design of the antichrist and is anti-democratic; it was able to take over Christian democracies because the sloth of the people led them to sell their responsibilities for promises.

Can anyone seriously expect to have good government when every election results in the installation of best liars?

When we abandon our political responsibilities we act corruptly - and elect corruption. Can we expect good government when elected corruption is constantly leaking its corruption into every administration controlled by government?

Although the takeover of government was not entirely the fault of the people it is the fault of the people that they are too slothful to try to understand and take part in their own government - that they willingly hand this responsibility to any big brother offering something for nothing.

The people cry out for compassionate leadership! But the only such leader is Jesus of Nazareth and we already have the political structure to serve us in support of this leader. We do not need more self-serving leaders! What we need is to grow-up and take our share of responsibility for our own welfare.

For my yoke is good to bear, my load is light; sayeth the Lord. M't. 11:30. We are told: M't.16:20 what you allow on earth will be allowed in Heaven and so it will be when we are prepared to accept the true nature of life and the universe we live in and accept our responsibilities. Only free people can make effective decisions.

All people need do to achieve self-government is to have a simple, non-compulsory, pre-election ballot, to choose a representative for themselves rather than zombie-like elect the puppets of an alien and self-serving system based on lies and deceit.

As Jesus reminded us: Put not the Lord your God to the test. We cannot leave it to God to do for us what we can easily do for ourselves.

The honest constitutional democracy our ancestors set in place would elevate the entire standard of government and public outlook within one generation.

True democracy would see corruption and crime quickly reduced. The social benefits resulting from self-government and a socially responsible attitude are beyond the imagination of most people. choice26.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page