From the Summit of the Moral High Ground

Every journey must eventually return to its beginning. This series began with a simple proposition. Every power creates opportunities for abuse. That principle has guided every article that followed. We have examined the growth of government. The decline of the household. The marketisation of care. The changing relationship between citizens and the state. The quiet effects of inflation. The immense authority exercised by the justice system. And the gradual transfer of society's expectations towards government itself. The purpose has never been to argue that government is evil. It is not. Nor has the purpose been to suggest that government is unnecessary. It clearly is. Civilisation requires laws. It requires courts. It requires police. It requires national defence. It requires public institutions capable of performing tasks that individuals cannot accomplish alone. The question has never been whether government should exist. The question has always been where its limits should lie....

Every civilisation places its ultimate trust somewhere. Throughout history, many societies looked first to family. Others looked to tribe. Many looked to religion. In the Western world, Christianity taught that ultimate authority belonged to God. Kings possessed authority. Governments possessed authority. Judges possessed authority. Parents possessed authority. Yet every earthly authority remained limited. Each answered to something higher. This principle shaped the civilisation that emerged over many centuries. It reminded rulers that they were not supreme. It reminded citizens that obedience was not unlimited. It reminded society that no human institution should ever become absolute. Whether one accepts the religious belief itself is, in many respects, beside the point. The political consequence was profound. Government was never expected to become everything. Over time, however, something remarkable has happened. As many traditional institutions have weakened, government has steadil...

Most people understand taxation. Governments announce new tax rates. Parliament debates them. Citizens complain about them. They are visible. Inflation is different. Almost everyone notices rising prices. Far fewer stop to ask why their money buys less than it once did. A loaf of bread costs more. Electricity becomes more expensive. Fuel prices rise. A weekly shop costs noticeably more than it did only a few years earlier. The usual explanation is simple. Prices have gone up. Yet that is only half the story. The other half is that the purchasing power of money has gone down. A pound still bears the same name. It simply buys less. The result is subtle. No new tax bill arrives through the letterbox. No parliamentary vote announces that your savings have lost value. Yet the effect is real. Every pound you have earned over many years purchases slightly less than it once did. Those who have spent years building savings discover that the value of those savings quietly diminishes. Those livin...

Every society must decide how it cares for those who cannot care for themselves. Children. The elderly. The disabled. Those temporarily out of work. Those facing genuine hardship. No civilised society can ignore human suffering. The real question is not whether help should be given. It is who should provide it. For most of history, responsibility rested primarily with families, neighbours, religious organisations and voluntary charities. Government certainly existed, but it was rarely expected to become the principal source of support for everyday life. Over the past century that expectation has changed dramatically. Today, many people naturally turn first to government when confronted by difficulty. Healthcare. Education. Housing. Income support. Pensions. Childcare. Social care. Employment assistance. The list continues to grow. Some of these developments have undoubtedly improved lives. Many people have received assistance they desperately needed. Medical treatment has become more w...

Every society must answer one fundamental question. Who, or what, possesses ultimate authority? The answer shapes everything that follows. It determines where people look for justice. Where they seek moral guidance. Who educates their children. Who cares for the vulnerable. Who defines right and wrong. Throughout history the answer has rarely been government alone. Authority has been distributed among many institutions. Families. Churches. Local communities. Voluntary associations. Businesses. Guilds. Charities. Universities. Each exercised authority within its own sphere. Each limited the influence of the others. This distribution of authority acted as a safeguard against the concentration of power. No single institution possessed complete control over society. If government overreached, other institutions could resist. If a church became corrupt, families could challenge it. If families failed, communities could provide support. Liberty flourishes where authority is dispersed. It wea...

There was a time when caring for another human being rarely appeared in the national accounts. Parents raised children. Adult children cared for ageing parents. Neighbours looked after neighbours. Meals were cooked. Clothes were repaired. Homes were maintained. None of this counted towards Gross Domestic Product. It generated no invoices. It attracted no taxation. Yet society functioned. This raises an uncomfortable question. When politicians speak proudly of economic growth, are we always producing more wealth, or are we sometimes merely paying for activities that families once performed without charge? Suppose a mother stays at home to care for her own child. Economically, almost nothing happens. No wages are paid. No income tax is collected. No National Insurance contributions are made. No VAT is charged. The child receives care, but GDP barely notices. Now suppose that same mother returns to paid employment. The child enters professional childcare. The mother earns a salary. The ch...

When people discuss the institutions that shape society, they usually think of government. Some think of business. Others think of the courts. Few stop to consider the institution that, for thousands of years, formed the foundation of civilisation itself. The household. Today the word often means little more than the people who happen to live under the same roof. Historically it meant something far greater. The household was society's first government. It was the first school. It was the first welfare system. It was the first healthcare provider. It was the first pension scheme. It was the first childcare service. It was the first place where values, responsibilities and practical skills were passed from one generation to the next. Long before governments assumed these responsibilities, households performed them naturally. Children were educated by parents and extended family. The elderly were cared for by their relatives. Food was produced, preserved and prepared within the home. ...

If every government power creates opportunities for abuse, one might expect governments to exercise great restraint before assuming new responsibilities. History suggests the opposite. Modern governments have grown steadily in size, scope and influence. They regulate more activities than previous generations could have imagined. They collect more information, levy more taxes, administer more services and influence more aspects of daily life. Why? The obvious answer is that governments seek power for its own sake. Sometimes that may be true. More often, however, I believe government grows for a far simpler reason. Every problem creates a demand for action. When crime rises, people demand tougher laws. When businesses fail, people demand financial assistance. When housing becomes expensive, people demand regulation. When inflation rises, people demand intervention. When people lose their jobs, they demand support. When healthcare struggles, they demand additional funding. Politicians res...

Most political arguments begin by asking what government should do. I believe they begin with the wrong question. Before deciding what powers a government should possess, we must first ask a more fundamental question: What assumptions should we make about power itself? My answer is simple. Every power granted by government will create opportunities for abuse. Notice carefully what I am not saying. I am not claiming that every public servant is corrupt. I am not claiming that every government programme is harmful. Nor am I suggesting that every exercise of governmental authority results in injustice. Rather, I begin with an observation about human nature. Human beings are imperfect. Some are honest. Some are selfish. Some are compassionate. Some are malicious. Most are simply ordinary people responding to incentives, pressures and opportunities. Government does not change human nature. It merely places ordinary people in positions where they can exercise extraordinary authority over ot...

Challenging the Illusion: Why Society Must Be Questioned There is a quiet pressure in modern society to conform. We are encouraged to accept prevailing narratives, obey established systems, and remain within carefully defined cultural boundaries. Those who question the dominant consensus are often dismissed as disruptive, dangerous, or unreasonable. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that progress has always depended upon individuals willing to challenge the accepted order. The importance of questioning societal constructs is not merely political or philosophical — it is deeply personal. To challenge the assumptions of society is to begin the process of genuine self-discovery. The Path to Personal Growth From childhood, people are assigned labels, expectations, and roles. Society tells individuals who they should be, what success looks like, what beliefs are acceptable, and which ambitions are considered respectable. Many people spend their entire lives operating within frameworks the...

Understanding the Nine Veils 'Ninety percent of all humanity will live and die without having pierced the first veil.' ' D Harkins Nearly a decade ago, a dear friend and colleague of mine named Don Harkins authored a wonderfully thought-provoking piece entitled 'Slavery and the eight veils. Prior to Harkins' untimely death, we discussed this 'Eight-veils theory' for literally hours together ' and in the end, Don asked me to write a piece about this for his newspaper, 'The Idaho Observer.' He did this, because I had shared much of my research with Don, and we together came to the conclusion that in reality, there were actually NINE veils placed on the human soul (i.e. intelligence), and that spiritual progression and thus a full knowledge of TRUTH would require the piercing of these Nine Veils. ...

Based on the hypothesis that everything that happens in one's own existence is simply an outward reflection of one's internal soul, that everything happens for a reason and that everything is interconnected has proven over time to be a sound basis upon which to work. So what has the nine months since my last blog post taught me? Recently I have been conducting some experiments on the process, which is occurring either by design or organically as a result of the conscious actions of the bureaucracy, of controlling the community consciousness. Or just why do you think, what you think and how does the government try and perhaps succeed in affecting this. Where did the idea come from? I recently went to the Magic: The Gathering London Grand Prix, this is a game which developed as a result of some Dungeons & Dragons players wanting to have a better way to play out wizard battles which uses cards which represent spells, the aim being to kill your opponent before they kill you...

Philip Ozouf offered a mea culpa for his recent behaviour.  He promised to be a good boy if  the States let him stay on. CTV said he was just 'misunderstood' provoking a reaction in the Chamber. "The high contacting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature ." Extract from the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of expression of the opinion of the people is inconceivable without  the assistance of a plurality of parties (Yumak & Sadak v Turkey). Clearly the elections gave the public no clear choice in the composition of the legislature, there was no attempt to ask the public who should be in charge of each department, we get what we are given and we have to just lump it. If anyone ever takes a case under Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention to the Court then it is impossible to tell what they will do with our ...