Hi @rodkeh. Thanks for your most interesting contribution to the discussion. Although I'm not sure how I - someone who's main argument is to restore full Trial by Jury - the right of all commoners to be the final arbiter of law - is a demonstration that I wish to maintain the power of the 'ruling elite'. Best wishes :-) Will

@@clc-org That is NOT Direct Democracy! It is just a perpetuation of the same old, same old. You can put all the lipstick you want on the pig...

@@clc-org That is Not Direct Democracy! You can put all the lipstick you want on the pig...

@chrismulhearn7903 - thank you for your comment. Indeed it is, the most pressing issue of our time. Beautifully expressed. Keep pushing it out to all around us. Thank you for your enthusiasm! - - Will

Thank you Wendy! :-) Will

Decent question. Natural Law stands above everything - as it is merely how things operate in reality around us. It's all about the self-destructive patterns and dynamics that are in effect when we converse and interact with each other. So Natural Law is all about the observations we can make about how relationships work between intelligent sentient beings. The objective nature of it, therefore, sits higher than any belief system - self evidently. If we give higher credence to other ideologies that are in conflict with Natural Law, we will reap negative karmic consequence from that. The Universe won't hold back ;-) Will

Yes - fair point. But we have to understand that our society, the way it is structured and the scope of it is such that we are necessarily breaching others' free will routinely. Therefore policy from the centre in a large society is a big problem. Hence the reason why ultimately our society will need to unravel and structure itself (over time) differently. Specifically much more locally so that the collective decisions that have to be made occur close to us in our community and we can properly discuss and resolve any disagreements there might be. Remember that the larger the space you are trying to govern through policy and the more shared assets that are being managed, the more potential there is for disagreement. Will

Thank you for your enthusiasm :-) Will

Thanks @pperrinuk . Really interesting points. My take on 'the other side' is slightly different from many - hence why I get called a shill by the likes of people at the top ;-) My take is that the large majority of people we broadly think of as 'the enemy' are actually people that haven't got their ideological principles sorted out and are simply an extension of the population at large. They are (as with most in society) afflicted with a form of double-think which causes them to lie to themselves and gaslight themselves. Most, I would argue are simply in fear - fear of losing control if that control is not tightened evermore. A change of internal narrative and mindset in society would I think, lead incrementally to positive change. The idea of trying to set out what a society would look like before making those changes is not necessarily desirable or possible. And I don't think that refusing to put a stop to behaviour that sabotages ourselves just because we haven't yet got a clear picture of how things will function, is an option. The first step is engaging in these topics, discussing and caring about them - just as you guys are :-) Will

@@clc-org As far as 'setting out what a society should look like' goes - I am way past that. I am more interested in setting the bounds of any particular 'society'. A British person doesn't claim any rights over the behaviour/laws that apply in France... so why does someone in a different UK home-nation claim any rights over what happens in mine? ditto why does anyone in another county claim any rights over what happens in mine? Ditto city/village? Ditto Street? Ditto house?. I would be happy to find/establish my own 'society' with like minded people, with no need for any geographic proximity - and am happy for everyone else to do the same... How do you show displeasure with others? You impose 'sanctions' aka 'shunning'. Nothing new here...

Yes - absolutely about the nations. But I'm not claiming to be doing anything 'new'. But what I am doing is pointing out things that many will not wish to spot or face. Rights are objective - i.e. morality is objective. You don't get to make-up a version of morality. So unless others around you respect the rights of you as an individual, you're always going to have the potential of being 'invaded'. You have to encourage an alteration of the fundamental thinking and ideology of the people around you in order for you to be able to enjoy your life of liberty. The authority for justice must remain with the people themselves - through a natural law tribunal in which they exercise that reflectively - otherwise a collective of experts will always emerge as the ones who claim to have the moral authority to judge you. Have a look at the new channel over on LawAndAlchemy... www.youtube.com/@lawandalchemy Best wishes, Will