thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:58pm:


(1) Ah so - you are saying that in order to retain its hegemony, an established government - whatever its colour - must be handed sovereignty over all in the land?  Circular reasoning. A government has that power and therefore must not be challenged under any circumstances.** Kind of evading the point there, aren't we?  The POINT is what appears to be some refusing that concept and declaring personal individual secession.

(2) An individual declaration of secession is not an oxymororn - it is a reflection of the human unwillingness to accept and tolerate tyranny - as that individual sees it.  That person may well be wrong.... but always remember that one person being right constitutes a majority of one.... though I doubt anyone could argue that the way our country is going downhill in its application and use of law and its handling of equalities does not give cause for some action by concerned individuals and groups.

That is indeed the essence of the democratic way, and it is a RIGHT to oppose wrongful government.


**

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 1:13pm:


This….

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 3:06pm:


Error #1:

Sovereignty resides in the state, represesnted by the government; though  the sovereign power can be overthrown and replaced by another if a group of citizens can force a change to another sovereign power.   

Quote:


Error #2: Yes, that's what a sovereign power is, ie, the legitimate source of laws for all citizens in the state;  eg you  (correctly) object to the notion of aboriginal sovereignty in Oz...

You are free to leave Oz,  of course..

Quote:


Error #3:

Sovereign individuals - an oxymoron, as well as a Libertarian wet dream - can't secede from the sovereign law-making power - which would result in anarchy, but  they can leave.   

Quote:


Too many errors now:

1.  "An individual declaration of secession is not an oxymororn" - but it's illegal.

2.  Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder: some individual Israelis who are currently in government think OT law overrules international law....and they are  determined to see the state commit genocide (like Hamas).

3. One person who is right  - a majority of one according to you (another oxymoron) - is extremely rare, implying everyone else is wrong.

4. Concern about the "country going downhill" is indeed widespread; in my view it's the fault of the current neoclassical economic orthodoxy which pits taxpayer against taxpayer - which Albo doesn't want to confront at the present  'productivity' talk-fest.

"it's the economy, stupid".

Now - about sovereignty, you think individuals should possess it, but only the sovereign CAN possess it, otherwise anarchy beckons - as you and I disagree over why "the country is going downhill", and how to fix it...

Quote:


More  errors: the 'democratic way' is determined by a vote close to 50%+1, meaning the other 49% are in effect disenfranched until the next election, when  most of them are likely to remain disenfranchised (eg those  on Job Seeker); and "wrongful government" - and the remedy -  again is in the eye of the beholder.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:54pm:



In any conflict, who is on the side of right ?

Who is justified in his use of violence, to fight for his rights ?

Human history shows us, that all men seem to have the same opinion.......




- Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian

Yadda wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:17pm:

Jayzuz!!!!

The winner of any War gets to write its history.

FFS!

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:55pm:

Indeed.

But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks.

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:05pm:



#1  Only with the informed consent of the people through a fair electoral system.

#2  Any citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to break away from the rule of the established cartel  (sic) is entitled to do so.  Imposition of consequences proves what I argued with a professor of peace studies at UNE - that government itself is founded on exertion of control = violence.  He disagreed - but progress in the study of violence now disproves him. The DEGREE to which a government seeks to exert that control has no relevance to the principle.

#3  That rule still applies.

#4  So you now willingly accept that poor governance creates the environment in which individuals may seek to im pose their personal sovereignty separate from that of the state.  Since, in this country, we are not Communo-fascists JUST YET ....... any individual may choose that course.  The difficulty lies - as someone said earlier by saying that people choosing this route are generally trying to escape legal liabilities - in imposing that as a right in the face of the clear exercise of overwhelming power by the state = violence by the state to secure compliance.

#5 So you now totally accept that Labor with a primary vote of 34.7% has no right to hold government, and that 65.3% are disenfranchised.  There is hope for you yet.

The question now becomes Grappler Theorem # whatever from 30 years ago - Who should hold power in the democratic state (we can't speak for yours, little pink)?  The apparatus of the state or the people to whom the state owes service and obedience under OUR form of democracy?  The Eternal Civil War Between Government and People - Phase IV - the question of whether or not elected government holds any Divine Right to impose at whim or will.

Not a single mistake there, laddie.