Saturday, 22 October 2016

Non transferable, zero cost, life time lease on a free Englishman's acre of land - Citizens Income.

It cannot be that man has to be immoral. It must be that a (self) blameless life can be lived.

An average man needs an acre of reasonable land to live self-sufficiently by his own efforts of about 20 hours a week.

If a man is not to be born a slave to others, it must be expected that even with impoverished parents, when he comes off age he can live by his own efforts without the indulgence of others (even his impoverished parents who have nothing to spare for him).

Clearly he requires an acre of land to set his life account balance to zero - so he may (if he chooses) live his life without having call or being a burden on others, nor they on him.

With technology it is clear that one man farming an acre (or more realistically) an independent family of five farming five acres may not be the most efficient method of farming, it may be that the land could be more productive if farmed on a larger scale.

However, it is for the current owners to decide if they would allow this - and it would be stupid to allow someone else to farm their land unless they receive at least as much produce as had they farmed it themselves, and shelter. The price of a perpetual supply of food cannot be less than the supply of perpetual food. And if land ownership is transferable, the price must reflect that it is for ever, not just the life time of the current occupants.

Each free Englishman should receive a non transferable life time lease on one (notional) acre of English soil. Which, if circumstances permit he may choose, instead, to receive the rent from - assured that this will feed and house him. His land generating his citizens income - no favours asked our received.

Who will give him this acre? The free people of England shall. As pointed out right at the start to deprive someone of this is to enslave them, and to jealously guard the tools of an others slavery can have no moral foundation. 80,000,000 people, 80,000,000 (notional) acres - one is yours for life, more than that you must rent from others...

(Note the possibility of one acre per person is a fortunate outcome of the size and population of the UK - and while many acres are not farm-able, other revenues have not been included, nor the seas and their sticks of fish).

In practice each free Englishman receives an equal share of the gross national rent - this would be a citizens income, meaning no centralised benefits would be required.

Existing 'land owners' would need to consider whether they will pay the rent for what they currently control or relinquish that control to others who may want to rent it and are prepared to pay more to do so.

It may be that little changes in practice, other than a rational, practical and moral basis for the citizens income being established..

Banking - Interest Free Loans - The End of Usury.

I am surprised I haven't blogged about this before...

Interest free lending is often misunderstood - and it is assumed that there is no return to the lender, so it must be a waste of time, subsidised or bogus in some other way. However, this is not the case.

Interest free lending means the lender is rewarded in a way other than with interest.

The best set-up I have come across is Jak Bank - the principle is that you can borrow money for a period, but in return you must lend money for a period.

So you may deposit £100 for six months - and this will give you 600 borrowing credits (less a little for admin) which entitles you borrow anything from £1 for 600 months through to £600 for one month.

If you have established a good savings record, you may borrow beyond your earned credits - of course this is subject to some risk/trust etc but that is true of all life - however as loans should not be for speculating, it would be expected that they would mostly be secured on some asset in case of default.

This is effectively giving you a 'time shift' to manage your cash flow, and no one is taking profit, just covering costs. What is not to like?

Friday, 21 October 2016

#Shruggers - shrugging off the state one shrug at a time.

I am not a fan of political labels - man has a tendency to start with a useful label for something, then they get lazy, forget where they started and start trying to fit the label...

I'd broadly accept the labels Libertarian, Ancap (Anarcho Capitalist), Georgist, Anarchist, Conservative, Capitalist, Humanitarian - but only because there are elements associated with these tags that match some of what I believe -- looking into the roots of such labels an be useful as there may be more information relevant to your views.

However, I'd make no effort to fit a label - the "you aren't a real..." or "If you were a real..." don't wash. If you think I am not, you may well be right in your own mind in your own terms... but so what? I have my own beliefs/positions generally (eventually) formed from first principles - I am unique, I am me, I am not trying to fit anyone else's mould, I don't have to consult a book to find out what I should profess to believe (or pretend to know!).

It is almost certain that no individual has ever failed to contradict themselves at some point in time - whether based on new information, a change in circumstances or just the passage of time - so how stupid would it be to cling to one version of what they said and venerate that above what they may have said at another time.

A label is a map, it may or may not be accurate, it may or may not be detailed, it is almost certain not to entirely fulfil all of your requirements.


I am now creating a label - the Shruggers, I am a Shrugger. Linked to Ayn Rands 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Going Galt'. Shrugging off the dead hand of the state one shrug at a time. And going until the state has no hold on me at all and simply withers and dies.

All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

There are many shrugs to make, And I don't have them all planned, but bit by bit they will be made - and on the last day the state will have to make the choice as to whether to destroy me or die.

Areas to shrug that I have thought and blogged about include: Parliament, Media, Money, Banking, Healhtcare, Military, Land, Food, Shelter - my thoughts can no doubt be improved upon - but good enough is good enough to get started.


People can create, now we can mix into a station. is the seed of a model.

Gold backed? Nah! Use gold directly!

Zero interest lending.




I am setting up Real Brighton Anarchists - - a group to get together and discuss liberty, ancap stuff - and hopefully get input on my ideas above - maybe there will be some more shruggers soon...

Monday, 17 October 2016

Money - Real Money - Not the Governments Wothless tokens - Gold and Silver coins, it's time for a comeback...

Buying precious metals in small, precise units has an overhead compared to the raw metal price, and metals other than gold attract VAT, but that is payment for convenience.

Gold Bars

This represents about £1000 - 25, 1g gold bars.
Supplied in a sheet, they can be broken off individually (still wrapped) so about £40 each.

Silver Bars

1oz about £20 each.

Need less that £20 ? - there is always bitcoin or other electronic crypto-currency.

Worried about forgery? No need to try to bend it with your teeth, there are hand held units for checking now... 
Sell them as silver/gold for government currency? What would you want to do that for? Exchanging between crypto-currency and precious metals keeps your money away from the government... as it should be.

But what happens (say) down the pub when you get a round of drinks in?... Well just ran a tab and pay at the end, or go Japanese style izakaya - fixed price for a fixed time, drinks and/or food included. There are solutions to everything.

Why use a gold (or other) backed currency when you can use the raw material directly?

Gold and Silver coins - it's time for a comeback...

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Law, NAP, Socialism, Climate Change, No these aren't theories of everything, don't make them your god.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything .

G.K. Chesterton

Man is a problem solver - those that aren't have been naturally selected out of existence.

Man's thinking power is limited, to make the most of it man likes (find it useful) to reduce solutions to their smallest, most efficient, most widely applicable form.

Generic rules of thumb, generalised equations, ultimately 'theories of everything'.

While this is a useful (and successful) trait it does have flaws, in that man may tend to see pattern where there is none, or apply a rule beyond its applicable domain.

Applying a pattern beyond its applicable domain is a fault that can be very difficult to correct - as once the subject believes they are correct they will question pretty much every thing else first, leaving their simple belief or faith till the very last. This may take a very long time, or be impossible to complete in a life time.

Some examples jump straight to mind (I must have seen a pattern before I even knew it) religion, the non aggression principal, climate change, socialism and law.

Religion (towards a god) is such is clear example, it may be that all these things could actually be described as religions.

Law is probably the most damaging of my examples as it permeates all our lives, and is backed with huge force that is almost impossible to avoid. The acolyte of law is most easily identified by an unwillingness to accept that any right is above the law.

I consider the 'right life' to mean no self-blame can be attached to a man doing all in his power to preserve his own life - even if it means many others die as a result. So a man on death-row could not be blamed for killing all the staff in an attempt to escape.

I consider the right to 'free speech' to allow a man to share any thought that occurs to him and that he chooses to share. Literal speech (talking) live or in recordings, and written communications are included in this without reservation.

Where 'free speech' becomes 'freedom of expression' it is for others to define what they mean by 'expression'.

And while a man is free to offer his thoughts to be shared, no one is obliged to receive them (but equally should not be prevented from doing so should they so wish).

A legal acolyte will likely take issue with these two situations - while I believes the law (to be complete and consistent) should say rights are beyond its domain, they are not beyond its domain simply because they law says so, the law is reflecting this situation, not defining it.

Law is not a theory of everything, do not make it your god.

The Libertarians non aggression principle (NAP) has become a theory of everything to many, causing great harm by being so.

 The principle states that one should not initiate aggression - and by this alone liberty will prevail. However the problem then comes in defining aggression. Once linked to 'property rights' (the transferable right to exclusive control of an item) actions against ones property become aggression and so the theory of everything becomes that all libertarian human interaction is property/aggression based - so all negative human interaction must be a result of breaching the NAP, and we get the social justice warrior world where 'micro aggression' is seen in everything one does not like (words, deeds, colours, shapes everything is a candidate) and as an aggression is now on a par with physical assault and theft etc...

NAP/Property rights is not a theory of everything, don't make it your god.

Socialism is an imposition on others of a political and social system that denies individuals the right to determine their own lives - as any totalitarian system cannot tolerate competition it must stop progress and development - and if life is not about new experience then it is nothing.

Socialism not a theory of every thing do not make it your god.

Climate change... If you have read this far I hope I do not have to much expand on this. There cult of climate science - where it has been decided that man is destroying himself, and each must be micro managed throughout their existence. So evidence is gathered and it's quality assessed how closely it matches the conclusion already decided.

Climate change is not a theory of every thing, don't make it your god.

One of the highest achievements in showing your devotion to your god is to take what otherwise seems the most perverse, irrational, illogical action but which is apparently justified by your faith alone. Suicidal terrorism leaps to mind, none of these new religions have definitive books of rules, they are all works in progress, there is no limit to what they may lead, or what they may lead their acolytes to do.

It seems man needs faith and if God has been banned, will apply it elsewhere - I suggest God (at least the post Jesus Christian god)  was a far, far safer conductor with which to ground this human urge.

Friday, 14 October 2016

Step One to Liquid Democracy?

Step one to liquid democracy...

Let individual constituents cast their vote directly (or by proxy) in parliamentary divisions....

It might be that it could not be entirely anonymous - but a constituent, on any division, giving due notice should be enabled to indicate their vote directly.

For every (say) 60,000 individual votes cast, an additional 'MPs' vote maybe created and counted.

Without some thought it is hard to say if the voters MP's vote should be reduced in weight accordingly - this has merit and drawbacks, but given the arbitrary nature of support for MP's generally this may not be any issue whatsoever.

On the face of it individual votes may seem unwieldy - but in practice would probably resolve to a number of permanent non-geographic constituencies of like minded (but geographically separated) voters or resolve to MP's ensuring their constituents were well enough satisfied as to not bother to vote independently - or a combination of the two.

Worst case is the USA situation where representatives pander to stable majorities and energise them by beating up on the minorities - however with direct voting the minorities would not go unrepresented...

Looks good to me... comments/discussion welcome...

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Theresa May's #Bexit plans will sink the UK.

UK can fly outside the EU - but...

The EU Single Market exists to protect inefficient EU businesses from external competition - but it is not entirely the EU businesses who are at fault for their inefficiency.

Much of the inefficiency - and so over pricing - is due to EU red-tape and over-regulation. In decades when IT and tech should have been streamlining business 'business at the speed of thought' - the EU have been soaking up any such efficiency gains with evermore pointless regulation - much of which was then gold plated by the UK's own politicians/mandarins when being implemented here in the UK.

Leaving the EU gives us back control or our laws and trade and borders - but we will only benefit from this when the newly returned control is actually used to strip away the many, many layers or anti-competitive, bureaucratic red-tape, controls, directives, standards, that needlessly drag on EU companies.

Unfortunately, Theresa May has indicated that she is to do exactly the opposite of this - she has said that all EU law (over 200,000 pages of it) will be transferred wholesale into UK law, immediately added to - and then over many years is expected to be gradually reviewed.

This will kill the UK - we will have floundered and drowned before even a tiny fraction of the baggage has been removed, it will drag us down.

To get the benefit of Brexit, the UK must have a lean and agile economy - an economy as dynamic, flexible and imaginative as the people of the UK have always been when the state has got out of their way.

Theresa May must be made to change her mind - so by default all EU law should cease on Brexit. Only specific, new, necessary law, compatible with the UK's system of justice should be created - we have two years to specify this law, ready to come into force when Brexit is complete on the expiry of the Article 50 notice period. But this change of mind must be rapid, as time will run out if it is not started ASAP.