Trawling through an old dialogue about the philosophy of healthcare I stumbled upon an observation that could hardly be more relevant:

‘Non-coercive action must involve some kind of voluntary agreement even when the action means giving up one’s freedom in certain respects. The problem is that government tends to accrue to itself ever increasing powers and the connection between government decisions and the will of the people they effect is at best extremely tenuous.

Then coercion (fines, imprisonment etc.) is certainly used on people who have had little or no say in government decisions.

In addition there is the scale of government wealth as indicated by the proportion (nearly half) spent by government and not by citizens. This is quite a different conception of government from that once envisioned by the pioneers of democracy, one that would essentially act as fair arbiter to eliminate various forms of tribal conflict.’ John Shand

https://www.academia.edu/183639/A_Dialogue_Concerning_the_Philosophy_of_Health_Care

At the time I disagreed with the author, John Shand, who told me that I wanted government to control society (in the interest of equality) to a greater degree than he did.

Incompetence, insolence, absence of trust and the failure of democracy

If I ever properly thought it through, I was less concerned about the role of government and more interested in fairness, which I naively assumed at least some politicians valued. To some extent I trusted the government to treat people fairly.

This trust has now been irretrievably broken, not so much by the rampant corruption of politicians (that seems always to have been a feature of contemporary 'democracy') but by their failure to think straight. They threw science. logic and ethics out of the window during the 'pandemic', causing untold and quite predictable avoidable damge to so many people.

If the democratic process no longer has any credibility, what are we left with? Two options I think: letting them and their lackeys carry on insolently making terrible, thoughtless decisons somehow on our behalf, or acting to change the system.

Nothing will change while 'representative democracy' ramains a charade. Is the only option to use the system to change the system?

Our Decision Too as a catalyst for change?

The extent of what is needed to change the status quo cannot be over estimated, yet change always happens. Can we use ODT as a vehicle for positive social improvement?

We and others have the (proven) technology necessary to include the public in both local and national decision-making, without the need for political parties or parliament. But just talking and protesting won't bring this about.

Were we to create a single issue political party, dedicated to bringing about direct, participatory democracy, would it have an impact?

(Note: the deposits required to field 600 candidates would be £300,000).