“They got their Government, why can’t we have ours?” – a working class couple look on as an upper class couple crack open the champagne in a cartoon published after another Conservative election victory in the 1980s.
Large numbers don’t vote. A part may be apathy and a part may be a belief that this system can’t deliver change.
The trouble with party democracy is that you rarely get what you vote for, or even who you vote for. You vote Boris Johnson because you want Brexit done. But you didn’t vote for him to suck more money out of your community in Sedgefield as he did within 6 weeks of being elected. You vote Labour all your life and the closest you get to that is… Tony Blair.
Is it impossible to imagine a better fit where we all get something closer to what we want? How is that possible when you have one Government governing so many differing aspirations? Is it hard to imagine that within that national boundary that there could be more than one Government?
Not so hard when you think Local Council. Not so hard when you think about different providers supplying your electricity from the same grid. You are allowed to change provider.
Not so hard to imagine now that there is a separate Government for Scotland. Now keep going. Imagine two Governments within England. Now imagine that those two Governments don’t necessarily need to operate in geographically separate areas.
Government is a Provider of Services and as such we should be able to choose. But unlike any other service provider, we are only free to choose one, generally red or blue.
We lurch backward and forward from one back to the other over the decades, always with more than 50% of the population unhappy with the result and with all the resultant waste as the constitution of our major services becomes a tug of war between polar ideologies.
So we remain like an eternally warring couple in a broken marriage where divorce has not been invented. The couple have proved over the decades that their differences are irreconcilable. And yet they are forced to continue co-habiting.
It is not the first time that the idea of a State separating into two separate geographical areas has been suggested. But what if a physical separation was unnecessary?
We can see as far as local and national Government operating within the same location. Let us look finally at the idea that people can all have the form of Government that they vote for.
With modern technology, it may be possible that everyone can live under the Government that they choose, or indeed no Government without any need for separation or borders.
We can take as an example, the basic divisions as have been expressed in the UK over the last century. Red and Blue.
A Citizen’s Card can be issued that shows no outward sign of voting preference. Anonymity is important to avoid discrimination. Differences are rendered invisible. Take someone as you find them.
If you voted Red, your Government has charged you higher taxes and your Card gets you cheap trains, water from a nationalised provider, free tuition fees etc.
If you voted Blue, then you present your card on the train and it charges you a higher rate as you’ve paid lower taxes. Generally, lower taxes but pay at the point of use. There may be Blue buses and Red buses, and you generally may be able to use either and will pay according to the hidden profile within your Citizen’s Card.
Defence is one of a few issues where common policy might appear to be required. But what if we have separate forces? A fundamental advantage in this case is that armed force cannot be deployed against the Citizenry because we are mixed together.
Regarding international military action, if there is a need to intervene abroad then each Government is free to make its own decision. If our shores are invaded and both Red and Blue Forces are engaged in genuine defence (for a change!) then any balance due from red to blue, or vice versa is paid up at the end. Of course, if Red has spent many years spending less on defence and more on economic growth, it may even be in a position to pay more for defence than Blue.
What if a Citizen wishes to switch sides? A Blue who finds themselves unemployed may fancy the more supportive benefit regime of Red. Or what if a successful Red entrepreneur fancies the lower tax regime of Blue?
Withdrawal Agreements are currently fashionable so here’s another. Red can say to the Entrepreneur that they pay an Exit Tax, similar to Inheritance Tax, of 40% above a threshold. After all, as far as the Red Government is concerned, the Entrepreneur no longer exists. And it is fair that the Entrepreneur leaves something behind to the Country that has made them wealthy.
Or what if a Blue wants to switch to Red? Red can say that they have to pay in the equivalent of say 3 years of taxes and once in, to pay tax at a higher rate so that contributions approach those of permanent residents. It is therefore not an option for a Blue to be able to switch simply because they lost their job. They need a bit more foresight than that!
Needless to say, a poor person in Red is unlikely to switch to the more punitive regime of Blue. But a wealthy person in Blue may wish to switch to Red. Again, Blue may apply an Exit Tax to that person who will then also have to pay advance taxes to Red.
We see that there are several good reasons for Citizens to make a careful choice before committing to one Government or the other. There is a little more foresight and responsibility required when casting your vote.
Companies pay taxes according to the numbers of Red and Blue workers within it. Similarly with Land ownership.
Similarly infrastructure where upkeep is as a proportion of use. If Red prefer a higher quality of infrastructure than Blue are prepared to pay from taxes then Red pay for the roads and Blue citizens pay a toll to the Red Government to use them. There is no need for barriers. Vehicles can have electronic Identities too.
Foreign embassies have relations with both countries and can pay taxes owing on a straight population split or at differential rates.
Immigration requires that the new Citizen arrives with permission from either the Red or the Blue Government and becomes a Citizen of that regime.
We can see that if there is the will to solve a problem, then a solution can be found. But the Establishment gives us the Monarch’s Government which enacts a Puppet Theatre in a very poor attempt to persuade us that this Institution governs in our interests. It will never on its volition give ground to the argument that an alternative to it exists.
But our re-formed Gentilic Society has the power to form it without permission and without violence. No overthrow of the existing system is required. We see a gradual replacement as each Citizen transfers their vote from the existing system over to the newly offered alternative.
Of course, should the State decide to use violence in an attempt to shut the alternative down, then proportionate force should be used in self defence. Gentilic societies have always had a military and policing capacity, but controlled by the Citizenry not the State.
It was John Locke who first coined the concept of the Consent of the Governed, but millions have thought it, before and since. “I have never been asked about the way in which I would like to be governed. I have never consented to this system”.
We are never asked, and never have been.
The American Declaration of Independence states “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Would the US dare to ask the population for their consent to their current system of governance?
We no longer need to hold our breath waiting for an answer to that question. We can proceed without them.