From; http://www.thenewearth.org/PrincipleofLiberty.

html

THE PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY
Michael Sartorius
[First Published in 1994 by Arton Publishers, Ringmer, Sussex, Britain]

PART ONE: POWER and PRINCIPLES Chapter 1: DEFINITIONS - Defining Politics - Political Conflict Conflict and Solutions Chapter 2: IMPOSITION - A predatory Society - Slaves and Serfs Industrial Poverty Chapter 3: REFORM - Centralized Rule - The Great Charter of 1215 Parliamentary Supremacy

Chapter 4: CONSTITUTION - Ideals of Constitutionalism - Constitution in the New World - Constitutional Government Chapter 5: DEMOCRACY - Parliamentary Representation - The Socialist Revolution - The Demise of Extremism PART TWO: PRINCIPLES and PRACTICE Chapter 6: LIBERTY and LAW - The Ideal of Right Law - The Principle of Liberty - Liberty and Government Intervention Chapter 7: PERSON and PROPERTY - Mind, Body and Property Extending the Protection of Law - Liberty and Enforcement Services Chapter 8: NATURAL RESOURCES - National Resources Plan - Urban Development - Landpricing Chapter 9: ECONOMICS and COMMERCE - Value - Quality Investment Chapter 10: GOVERNMENT and CONSTITUTION - Liberty in Constitution - The Legislative Process - Quality, Productivity, Service

PART ONE: POWER and PRINCIPLES Chapter 1: DEFINITIONS Defining Politics - Political Conflict - Conflict and Solutions Defining Politics There are three major areas of challenge in our lives. First is the provision of our physical needs such as food, clothing and shelter; second is the pursuit of our spiritual evolution; and third is the regulation of our contacts with one another. These three Areas of science and endeavor can be called Physical, Spiritual, and Political, three clearly definable categories each with its own specific problems and solutions. Before anything else we need bodily sustenance: we need food, clothing, shelter, and all the other products and services necessary for physical maintenance. This is the Physical Area of science and technology, where we are concerned with meeting the challenges of research, invention and production in order to provide our many

and varied physical needs as efficiently as possible. In the Spiritual Area we are in the individual's private space of mind, intellect and spirit. Here we are concerned with mental, intellectual and spiritual growth, self-understanding, and a view of the individual's place in evolution and the wider universe. It is possible for a hermit or an island castaway to pursue his or her Physical and Spiritual ventures entirely alone, producing physical needs through self-sufficiency and meditating in solitude. Politics would have no relevance in such circumstances. But where there is contact between people there is the possibility of conflict, which leads into a further dimension: politics. The Political Area is concerned with resolving potential or actual differences between people: matters of personal liberty, of trade and commerce, wages and prices, the apportionment and use of natural resources. Physical, Spiritual, and Political. These three Areas, while clearly definable as separate entities, inter-relate in a number of ways. For example, Spiritual development is dependent on the prior condition of physical bodily health. A story is told of the Buddha meditating in the forest. His meditation was not going well and he found difficulty in concentrating. A woman passed by carrying some food, and seeing the holy man in meditation, placed an offering of food before him and continued on her way. After he had eaten, the Buddha found that he was much better able to concentrate on his meditation. We can most certainly do exercises which discipline the body and the demands it makes upon us; the Japanese branch of Zen Buddhism particularly stresses this aspect of training. But the fact remains that we are in physical bodies which require sustenance, an amenable temperature, and shelter from the extremes of the elements. If the body is not properly protected and maintained it will not function, physically, mentally or spiritually. It is also necessary to have time and opportunity for the pursuit of spiritual matters, in surroundings of relative tranquility conducive to spiritual thought. This too may be difficult when work and commuting leave little time for other pursuits, or when the home is

located in a noisy city street. Spiritual Evolution is dependent on a prior condition of Physical Wellbeing. An inter-relationship can also be seen between Politics and the Physical Sciences. The most obvious inter-action between technology and politics exists in employment and trade. Technology invents the products and processes, the "new and improved" washing powder, the computers and the laser discs, the scanners at the supermarket checkouts. These are the products of science and scientists working in the field of the Physical Sciences. But then we move into the area of production and distribution in a complex division of labor. Employment and trade, wages and prices, safety and quality standards: these now become political matters, relationships between people. Technology is constantly striving to bring us new products and services. But good politics can also help. A just and fair political system will encourage industrial collaboration rather than confrontation, thus tending to produce greater prosperity. This is especially true in today's working conditions where intelligent and positive collaboration in industry can so greatly enhance productive efficiency. In this case, Good Politics can help to improve our productivity and thus Physical Prosperity. Historically there is also a relationship between Physical Prosperity and Politics in terms of social conduct. It has generally been the threat of starvation or insufficiency which promoted wars throughout history. Societies in which everyone is prosperous do not tend to make wars, and their citizens do not steal. Physical Sufficiency makes for better national and international Political relations. Spiritual Evolution can be affected by Political conditions, particularly if one's personal choice of religion, or if religion in general, is suppressed by Political decree and enforcement. Good Politics can also be seen as having certain features in common with the broad principles of Religion, and here too there is an inter-relationship. Most religions, while dealing mainly with personal conduct, self-awareness and evolution, will also advise on proper conduct towards others, as for example in counseling that

we should respect others as we would have others respect us. Mutual Respect, a feature of most leading religions, can also be seen as a basis of Good Politics. The basing of law upon religious principles was common throughout the middle ages, and though the connection was lost when politics became increasingly "technical" following the industrial revolution, it may nonetheless be said that a strong sense of morality in the religious or spiritual area can provide some guidance for correct social and political conduct. Politics too, at least in its ideal state, has its own form of morality in defining principles of justice, fair and honest trade, respect for one another and for the environment. So it might also be said that a political system which is based on high social principles of mutual respect and honesty towards others provides a good basis for individual spiritual evolution. The recognition of these three Areas and the ability to distinguish between them (despite the often complex inter-relationships) is important in that religious, technological and political problems have different solutions. When a man is starving because he is voluntarily undertaking a religious fast in the belief that it will purify his soul, that is a purely religious matter. Its harm or its benefits may be argued on purely religious grounds. When people are starving because their crops fail as a result of cumulative mis-use of the land, the problem is technological and its solution lies in developing techniques of improved land husbandry. But if those same people are starving because they have no land to cultivate, all the best land having been taken by a few influential families for the mass cultivation of export crops, that is a political matter. These people's need is not for technological advice on land use, but for a political solution in the form of fairer distribution of the nation's natural resources. This is a problem which can be seen in many developing countries today causing unrest, instability and frequently revolution. Physical problems require technological solutions.

Spiritual problems require meditation or spiritual guidance. Politics is concerned with relationships between people; political problems are caused to people by the actions of other people, and are addressed through political policies, laws and their enforcement. Physical, Spiritual, Political: three Areas of science and endeavor in human development. Closely inter-relating in many complex ways yet clearly identifiable as separate entities, each Area having its own specific problems and its own specific solutions. Where do we stand in each of these three Areas today? The provision of Physical needs has always been mankind's major preoccupation here on Earth. Our earliest ancestors began with the minimum technology, living primitively in caves, eating whatever was available from day to day. Throughout the greater part of human history insufficiency has generally been the rule. This very insufficiency provided the impetus for Physical and technological development. It also had a major influence on Politics: the insufficiency of Physical wealth has long provided an incentive to seek personal gain at the expense of others, leading to enslavement and war. But history moves on, and today we have in our present world a level of technology potentially capable of giving us all a relatively high standard of living and leisure. Our productive and distributive institutions do not always take advantage of the latest technology, but there is no doubt that technologically speaking we currently have in our world the knowledge and capability to provide for ourselves a comfortably high standard of living, and we can see a growing prosperity in the leading industrialized nations. Technology itself has already succeeded in giving us potential prosperity. If this prosperity has not spread throughout the world it is more likely the fault, not of technology, but of politics in the form of inappropriate political systems, mis-use of resources, ineptitude and corruption in government. In many of the politically less developed countries the quality of

government varies from arrogant ineptitude to corruption and brutality. Our western democracies give us stability and a veneer of prosperity. But while governments take an ever-increasing share of citizens' incomes, they remain incapable of ensuring for their citizens the basic necessities of employment, an affordable home, environmental protection, industrial and monetary stability, and a general social climate in which everyone can give of their best for a fair reward. As we review the condition of our world today, there can be little doubt that political research and reform is the area in which we should focus our attention. Political Conflict Politics is broadly concerned with contacts and relationships between people; more specifically it is concerned with conflicts between people. If we begin by considering a situation in which one person is living in near-isolation without any contacts or relationships with others (there are a few areas of our crowded planet in which this is still possible!), we can then observe the introduction of a second person "in slow motion" in order to examine the issues and conflicts which might arise. In a remote area of wilderness, high among the hills and green trees of America's Rocky Mountains, a hermit is living a quiet life in his log cabin, practicing the arts of self-sufficiency. The provision of his Physical needs such as food, clothing and shelter will doubtless occupy the major part of his time and energy. In surroundings of peace and natural beauty he will also take time to reflect upon Spiritual matters: his own evolution, his relationship with nature, his origins and purpose. Politics and social relationships need not concern him. He will have little need to consider the effects of his actions on others, since in his world there are no others... until one day he finds he has a new neighbor not so far away who is also, it appears, seeking solitude and self-sufficiency.

At first they both try to ignore one another, concentrating on the provision of their own individual needs, the enhancement of their own lives and wellbeing. But contact and conflict appear inevitable. The quiet meditation-time of one is disturbed by the other chopping wood. The boundary lines, unofficial demarcation of what is otherwise public land, cause friction as one of them attempts what the other considers to be unreasonable territorial expansion. An exchange of fruit causes further enmity when it transpires that good plums have been traded for rotten apples. What began as a peaceful corner of the woods, in which one or two individuals chose to live out their lives quietly providing for their physical and spiritual needs without affecting one another, is now threatened by social conflict. When we live together, share the environment with one another, interact with and relate to one another as neighbors, in commerce or industry, it is likely that some of our actions may be injurious, harmful, or simply a nuisance to others. Sometimes we cause harm or pain to others without even knowing it. Sometimes we know it but we go on doing it anyway. And frequently we do it on purpose for the benefit we gain from it; we steal other people's goods, we injure those whom we dislike, or we deceive customers in trade because there's a good profit in it. The potential differences and conflicts which can arise between people in a complex society may appear limitless as indeed they are. But we can be quite precise as to the fundamental cause of political or social conflict: it is that one person is doing something which is to his or her advantage, but which is to the disadvantage of another or others. If an action by one person has no effect on others there will be no conflict; indeed it would not be a political act at all. If one person's action affects others but is to the advantage of all concerned, there will be no conflict, and everyone is happy for it to continue. Similarly if one person's action is disadvantageous for everybody, the person committing the action included, there will be no

incentive to continue, so peace can quickly be restored and once again there is no conflict. Political conflict arises when an action by one person is to their own advantage or profit, but is harmful, detrimental or injurious to another or others. This results in gain to one at the expense of loss to others. Conflict exists because the person committing the action and benefiting from it naturally wishes it to continue; while those suffering injury or disadvantage from it would like it to stop. Actions or activities which improve the wellbeing of some at the expense of others, actions which give advantage to some by causing disadvantage to others: these are the fundamental causes of social conflict and lie at the very heart of politics. There have been many names for such actions through the ages. Slavery and feudalism were institutionalized forms of work- or wealth-transfer. Following the industrial revolution, socialists used the term exploitation to imply that the owners of mines and factories were profiting at the expense of their workers' poverty. Yet another term for harm or injury caused to others while seeking one's own benefit is infringement of liberty, which is caused when expansion of one person's liberty is brought about through the invasion or infringement of the liberty of others. We may also use the simple term imposition in the sense that one person is imposing his or her will upon another or others. Simpler yet is injury when he actions of one are injurious to another or others. Whatever we may call it, the essential, distinguishing element in political conflict is advantage/disadvantage. Political conflict arises when an action by one person or party is to their own advantage or profit, but is harmful, detrimental or injurious to another or others, resulting in gain to one at the expense of loss to others. Conflict and Solutions Social relationships, political policies and the machinations of government may appear infinitely complex; yet the fundamental

cause of political conflict is simple and there are only two possible solutions. Social or political conflict between people is caused by acts of injury which are initiated when an action which is advantageous or beneficial to one, is harmful or detrimental to others. The resolution of political conflict presents two alternatives: acts of injury or exploitation can either be continued, or avoided. The first alternative is for the individual to continue with the action, enjoying the benefit derived from another's loss, but risking the other's anger and retaliation. The second alternative is to avoid such actions. This requires the practice of self-discipline and self-restraint; but benefit is gained by everyone when we all respect one another and avoid harming one another. The path we take is a matter for individual choice at each moment. Societies and nations also make group choices which are reflected in the laws and governments they establish or tolerate. Individuals in a position to do so may pursue the path of injury in a society and under laws which permit it. Where society and its laws identify and prevent those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then such actions must of necessity be avoided. Injury versus non-injury. The implications, advantages and disadvantages on both sides are complex. The path of injury is immediately and clearly attractive. Because the action is beneficial to the person committing it, it is clearly in his own interests for the injury to continue. And throughout history mankind has sought to exploit and impose upon fellow man. But those who are wronged will not tolerate injustice indefinitely, and retaliation will surely come. It may be instantaneous, or it may be a long, slow process of class revolution. But revenge will come. And in the meantime social and economic progress will be retarded; injury and counter-injury, theft and counter-theft,

confrontation, civil strife and war... no civilization was ever built or flourished on foundations such as these. The path of non-injury is not immediately attractive. It requires the practice of considerable self-restraint and self-discipline. It requires that we monitor our actions in order to consider whether or not they are harmful or detrimental or simply a nuisance to others - our family and friends, our neighbors, our co-workers, our customers, those with whom we share the environment. And having monitored our actions and identified those which are harmful to others, we must then avoid such actions, and forgo the pleasures or advantages or convenience or financial profit they might bring us. But if we were all to observe the path of non-injury, we would all enjoy a condition of liberty and social stability, secure in the peace and prosperity that comes from life in a society where people respect the lives and liberty of one another. We would make rules which guide us towards personal conduct which is not detrimental to others; we would allocate resources fairly; in business we would collaborate rather than confront. And in so doing we would not only live in peace, we would also create a greater prosperity, for prosperity grows through cooperation. Indeed the flowering of civilization in all its aspects is dependent on a foundation of liberty deriving from mutual respect. The path of non-injury is not immediately attractive; but it is the path of long-term peace, stability, liberty, justice, prosperity, and the upward progress of civilization. For the two mountain wilderness residents considering their condition of political discord, the solution of non-injury would require the two parties to devise a set of fair rules whereby both can enhance their own wellbeing either individually or in productive collaboration, but without diminishing the wellbeing of one another. Both can use the natural resources, but they must share them equitably. The trading of surplus produce can help both to improve their wellbeing, but trades have to be fair. Life for each must go on, but each must be aware of and respect the property, privacy and

peace of the other. With rules such as these agreed and in place both could then live as neighbors in relative harmony, which would be an obvious advantage. The disadvantage is that this new lifestyle requires limitations and disciplines. If they are to live peaceably as neighbors they cannot live and act totally freely as they would if both were isolated. Many are unable or unwilling to accept this principle of social conduct. It requires a degree of personal restraint and selfdiscipline; and those who consider that they have the strength or the cunning to get the better of their fellow beings may be unwilling to renounce this opportunity and the potential wealth it might bring them. But it is a lesson which, in a civilized society, we all have to learn eventually; in our relationships with one another our freedom cannot be absolute and unlimited. Rather, it must be limited by rules of conduct which ensure that each of us respects the freedom of others. So political conflict presents us with a choice. Do we take the non-injury solution, opting for fair rules and a general peace, accepting a degree of social discipline, relinquishing the opportunity to gain at the expense of one another and thus living together in positive and productive collaboration? Or do we take the injury solution, relying on personal power and taking our chances in an unregulated world, perhaps becoming extremely wealthy at the expense of others, or perhaps being robbed some dark night and losing everything in a world of near rule-less conflict? The solution of non-injury is motivated by reason and ideals; its reward is the maximization of the general liberty. The solution of injury is motivated by the desire for selfaggrandizement untempered by concern or respect for others; its result is the continuing conflict and instability of gain and revenge, social and industrial strife, and wars between nations. Injury versus non-injury. This is the fundamental choice in politics.

It is a choice we must continually make in our daily personal relationships with one another. Do we respect the lives and choices of others, or do we attempt to impose our own decisions upon them? Do we deal honestly in business, or do we attempt to get the best we can out of customers or co-workers, whether honestly or dishonestly? These are individual choices which each can make for him- or herself. Individual choices are also reflected collectively in the form of government which people either tolerate or purposely create. Do we seek a government guided by policies which maximize liberty for all by identifying and preventing those actions which are harmful to others? Or do we support a government which furthers the interests of our own group or class at the expense of others? Politics has long been understood by idealists and political thinkers as the science whereby differences between people are resolved according to principles of universal justice, creating and maintaining a social environment in which all can enjoy the maximum liberty to pursue personal goals in collaboration with, but not to the detriment of, one another. Such at least is an ideal view of law and government, and it may well be that we are now approaching the time when principles of universal justice and the maximization of the general liberty might gain increasing acceptance. But this has not been the historical course of our political development. Mankind long ago rejected the ideals of universal liberty, choosing in what might be called the Original Sin of social and political conduct the path of injury, as each individual attempts to enhance his or her own wellbeing at the expense of others by the use of personal power or through manipulation of the legislative process. It was a course chosen at the dawn of political history; and though in the politically developed world at least we now conduct our affairs more elegantly, the fundamental direction of intent has not yet been reversed. Chapter 2: IMPOSITION

A Predatory Society - Slaves and Serfs - Industrial Poverty A Predatory Society As the sun sets in a blaze of orange giving way to the cool of evening, a mosquito appears from beneath some dark green leaves where she has been resting during the heat of the day. She flits around in her three-dimensional waltz movement, humming a highpitched tune to herself. She wants some blood to assist her reproductive functions. She finds some Humans sitting in a group on the lawn in front of the house. Fortunately they are all engaged in lively conversation so no one notices her. She makes her choice and at once inserts her needle-sharp, needle-strong proboscis deep into a tender patch of skin behind the ear. In a moment she is gone, her benefactor raising a hand unconsciously to scratch the irritation she has left behind. The mosquito is a predator. She is not alone. We live in a predatory society. The mosquito's lust for blood is reflected in man's age-old propensity to grow rich by drawing upon the work and wealth of fellow men. Look at the history of social and political institutions and what do we find? We find slavery, feudalism, and industrial low-wage exploitation. We have consistently ordered society in ways which permit those enjoying superior wealth, background and the political influence that goes with it, to live comfortably from the proceeds of other people's toil. This transfer of work and wealth from the poor to the powerful took place through three major phases: slavery, feudalism, and low-wage industrial employment. In early Greek and Roman times, a gentleman owned slaves; in the Middle Ages he owned land which was worked for him by peasants who were bound to him; in Victorian times he owned factories, paying workers barely enough to buy food and shelter. Then Karl Marx and friends invited the "poor masses" to throw off the yoke of oppression, turn the tables and plunder the riches of their old masters. And this, encouraged by the newly invented doctrines of Socialism and Communism, they did.

Today we have Democracy or Majority Rule, in which everyone tries to enlist the aid of Government to provide them with subsidies or welfare which someone else - anybody or everybody, this generation or the next or the next - will have to pay for. We all have our personal wish-lists of very worthy and highly justifiable needs; and if we can get others to pay for them, all the better. Whether autocratic monarchy or dictatorship, constitutional or democratic, government was not and is still not instituted by idealists to protect the general liberty. The history of politics and social relationships is a history of continuous imposition exercised by people over one another with government "turning a blind eye", or with government's active participation - a fact of political life which still holds true today, to a much greater extent than most of us realize or would care to admit. Slaves and Serfs There is no parallel in history to the achievement which Greek civilization attained in Athens. This single city produced great statesmen, poets, sculptors, historians, teachers. Here the very concept of philosophy was invented and expounded. Here were created the first popular governments, in which ordinary citizens were to practise another Greek "invention": Democracy. Yet in this enlightened city over a third of the population were slaves, many obtained as prisoners of war or as criminals purchased from non-Greek lands around the Mediterranean. In neighbouring Thrace the people sold their children for export. As the demand for slaves increased traders roamed further afield, gathering in Persians, Egyptians and Libyans. Slaves were used by households, landholders on large agricultural estates, in industry, and especially in the mines and quarries. At one time there were some 30,000 slaves in the silver mines and processing mills. In the large Laurion mine near Athens conditions were appalling. The underground galleries were dug only two feet square, and the miners had to crawl through them dragging their iron shackles. They worked a ten-hour day, and the mortality rate

was extremely high. Most Greek households had several slaves. Greeks spoke of the necessities of life as "cattle and slaves". Records show that when the philosopher Plato died he left five domestic slaves in his will. His pupil Aristotle left fourteen. The very rich would have as many as fifty slaves in their households. Many household slaves would have been treated relatively well; but as slaves they were the property of their masters who "owned" them and had the right to demand their work and its products. The wellbeing of the master was built in part upon the work and consequent diminishing of others. Slavery was also to become big business. Following the successful Punic Wars with Carthage, Rome rapidly grew to a position of preeminence in the Mediterranean and became the centre of its trade. Chief among the commodities traded was the human slave arriving on the market in enormous quantities, bringing profit and prosperity to Rome's merchants and bankers. Rome came to depend on large numbers of slaves to maintain its industries and agriculture. But its wealth and power rested upon untold suffering. Diodorus wrote of the conditions in Rome's gold and silver mines in Egypt: "There they throng, all in chains, all kept at work continuously day and night. There is no relaxation, no means of escape. No one could look upon the squalor of these wretches, having not even a rag to cover their loins, without feeling compassion for their plight. They may be sick, or maimed, or aged, or weakly women, but there is no indulgence, no respite. All alike are kept at their labor by the lash until, overcome by hardships, they die in their torments. Their misery is so great, the punishments are so severe, that death is welcomed as a thing more desirable than life." Large agricultural estates became common throughout the Roman lands, dependent upon the availability of slaves to work them. On many plantations the slaves worked in a chain-gang system. They laboured under overseers in the fields and were locked in the prison house at night. The Roman tradition of large estates and villas continued into the Middle Ages, evolving as the feudal system. As time passed, the slaves became feudal peasants regulated by the customs of the

manorial system, and no longer lived in the complete state of submission that typified true slavery. The peasants in the Middle Ages were called serfs, from the Roman word servus or slave. The serf was a "bound" tiller, who was compelled by the conditions of his existence as well as by law and custom to remain on the land, and to "donate" a major proportion of his time and labour to the cultivation of the owner's fields. This is still practised today, as can be seen for example in the share-cropping system in India. Later the peasants gained more freedom; they became responsible for supplying their own needs, they paid rent and could now control more of their own time. Though they often had less to eat they now had more personal freedom. Indeed, the feudal peasants might even have counted themselves fortunate; as the manorial estates grew ever larger during the Middle Ages, and independent holdings dwindled, so rural poverty among those outside the feudal system became widespread. But other influences were also at work, and as the 1700s drew to a close agriculture would now give way to industry as the engine of production and trade, and land would be replaced by machinery as the source of wealth. Industrial Poverty The new industrial era in Britain began in one of the oldest of all industries, the spinning and weaving of cloth. This had traditionally been a small-scale cottage industry. 1785 saw the invention of the power loom, which could weave automatically and much more cheaply. The hand weavers could no longer compete, and were forced by threat of starvation to move from their village homes to the crowded tenements of factory towns, where the over-supply of labour gave the factory owner the opportunity to employ them at minimal wages for long hours. As the factories increased their output, so their capital costs per unit fell; and with the ability to pay low wages, factory owners found their overall production costs steadily falling. They were also able to maintain high prices; thus the profits and the wealth of the factory owners could only increase. The wealthy became wealthier, the poor remained poor.

The political doctrine of laisser-faire prevalent in the 1700s and early 1800s, happily espoused by factory-owning members of Parliament, opposed any government intervention in industry. No attempt should be made to regulate the price or quality of goods, nor should government fix the hours of work, or try to remedy the often dangerous and unhealthy conditions in factories. The working classes were thus driven to embark upon a process of direct confrontation with their employers. This was facilitated by the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1824, which passed almost unnoticed through Parliament, legalizing the formation of and participation in Trade Unions. As a result there was a sudden growth in Trade Unions, not only at local level, but also several "Grand General Trades Unions". One of the largest of these was founded in 1833 by the great social pioneer, Robert Owen, called the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, which claimed at its peak up to a million members. Another "self-help" development of this period in Britain was the creation of Co-operative Societies to avoid the ruthless profiteering by shopkeepers whose low-wage customers were eternally bound to them in credit. To assist the many newly created co-operative societies Robert Owen promoted the idea of a Labour Exchange in which products were exchanged for Labour Notes representing so many hours' labour, and which were the only form of currency accepted. The poor were not without their Liberal humanitarian advocates in Parliament, working throughout the 1800s to help alleviate the sufferings of the working classes. In 1833 Britain was the first country to pass an Act of Parliament abolishing slavery. In the same year, the Factory Act was passed to prevent the employment of children under the age of nine as well as limiting the excessively long working hours of older children. This was to be the first of several subsequent Acts attempting to improve working conditions and safety. But such efforts provided small relief against the growing tide of migration from countryside to industrial cities throughout the second half of the 1800s; urban populations increased and living conditions for the poor deteriorated. The competition for work in

the factories made it possible for employers to continue paying minimal wages for long hours of work in abysmal and often dangerous working conditions, with corresponding increases in profits and dividends. While London's developers built ever more fine terraces of fashionable homes for the wealthy, the working people spent twelve hours a day in the factories, earning barely enough for minimal food and shelter, living in the expanding areas of urban squalor which the poor accepted as their lot, and which the wealthy knew little or nothing about. On the morning of September 24th, 1849 wealthy Londoners sat comfortably at their breakfast tables, with bacon and eggs, kippers and fish kedgeree awaiting their pleasure in heated chafing dishes, oven-fresh buns kept warm in covered baskets, freshly brewed tea or coffee steaming in delicate china cups. Passing the Seville orange marmalade and exchanging light conversation, many would also be scanning London's Morning Chronicle. Among the social tidbits, the Military Appointments, the Court Circular and who was wearing what and seen with whom, readers were to find an article contributed by one Henry Mayhew who had just returned with tales of horror from a land, not distant, but only a few miles away in their very own city of London. This was to be the first in a year-long series which became one of the most thorough surveys of labour and conditions in workingclass London during the mid 1800s and was to be influential in formulating the new ideas of Socialism. The first article described Jacob's Island, a section of south London already made notorious as the setting for Oliver Twist. "The striking peculiarity of Jacob's Island consists in the wooden galleries and sleeping rooms at the back of the houses which overhang the dark ditch that stagnates beside them. The houses are built upon piles flanking a sewer; little rickety bridges span the huge gutters and connect court with court. The water of the huge ditch in front of the houses is covered with a scum almost like a cobweb, and prismatic with grease. In it float large masses of green rotting weed, and against the posts of the bridges are swollen carcasses of dead animals, almost bursting with the gases of

putrefaction. As I gazed in horror at it, a bucket of night soil was poured down from the next gallery. "In a place called Joiner's Court, with four wooden houses in it, there had been as many as five cases of cholera. Here, I was taken up to a room so dark, that it was several minutes before I could perceive anything within it, and there was a smell of must and dry rot that told of damp and imperfect ventilation, while the unnatural size of the pupils of the wretched woman's eyes showed how much too long she had dwelt in this gloomy place." In an issue of Punch the following March the distinguished author of Vanity Fair, William Makepiece Thackeray, remarked about these articles on Labour and the Poor written by Mayhew for the Morning Chronicle: "Of such misery as this, do you confess you had no idea? How should you? You and I, we are of the upper classes; we have had hitherto no contact with the poor... until... some clear sighted energetic man like the writer of the Chronicle travels into the poor man's country for us, and comes back with this tale of terror." While the consciences of reformers both in and out of Parliament were stirred into further acts of charity and legislation, the Labour Unions continued to grow from strength to strength. One of the largest Union groupings, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers formed in 1851, initiated several major strikes in the 1860s, and successfully achieved a nine-hour working day in 1871 after a five months' strike. There followed a series of successful strikes, starting in 1888 with the unexpected strike of the overworked and poorly paid girls who made matches for Bryant and May. That same year also saw strikes by the Gas Workers and General Workers' Union for more pay and an eight-hour working day. In 1889 came the Great Dock Strike, lasting a month, which was so successful in drawing public attention to workers' demands that it encouraged a great many more Trade Unions to materialize. Reformers both in Unions and Parliament may have felt they were making progress; and indeed they were, relatively speaking. But research by Charles Booth in 1891 revealed that one-third of

London's population was still living on the verge of starvation. As the century drew to its close, Humanitarian Liberalism, Trade Union pressure, and perhaps a touch of idealism brought on by the approach of a new century, were to combine with the growth of workers' voting rights to produce a new political doctrine of Socialism. But Socialism would reveal itself as a doctrine of vengeance, taxing the rich, nationalizing industry, and in its more extreme form of Communism, subjecting its people to overregulation and oppression. More than half a century thereafter, Socialism too would be discredited. Yet despite this long history of self-interest, of man's exploitation of fellow man and its vengeance, idealists and reformers have constantly and consistently remained active, pressing not only for humanitarian reforms, but for the wider principles of universality and justice expressed in concepts of constitutional discipline over autocratic monarchies and governments. Chapter 3: REFORM Centralized Rule - The Great Charter of 1215 - Parliamentary Supremacy Centralized Rule When mankind chose the path of self-interest wherein people continuously attempt to impose their will on one another, rather than the universal ideal of maximized liberty for all, the initial natural development was a condition of anarchy in which differences are settled between individuals and power groups through a trial of physical strength without the formal intervention of society, law or government. The word anarchy is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "absence of government; disorder; confusion". It is derived from the Greek an arkhos meaning without leader. Left entirely to their own devices people can, and will, injure, steal from and cheat one another. Then follows revenge, and counter-revenge. And so it continues. Civilization cannot develop without reasonable safety of person and property, without the stability of some agreed and enforced rules of conduct. Life is at best difficult, at worst

intolerable. The condition of anarchy still persists in many parts of the world. In the younger, less developed nations we learn frequently of a breakdown in law and order, either as a semi-permanent condition resulting from the impotence or non-existence or corruption of a central government, or sometimes temporarily in times of revolution or tribal conflict, or in the chaos following an earthquake or hurricane. The first, fundamental step in political development is the movement from total lawlessness, or anarchy, to some kind of centralized law and order. The politically developed nations have long accepted the concept of a central authority or government, and the Rule of Law which sets restraints upon the scope of people's actions. When power, that is the ability to physically influence the behaviour of others, is centralized, the Rule of Law is thus imposed. Instead of individuals arguing and settling their differences in a continuing series of battles based on personal power, the authority to establish decisions on social conduct together with the power necessary to enforce them is vested in a centralized institution - a Monarch, Dictator, or Parliament. Society can benefit from the stability afforded by centralized Rule of Law. And if Government can formulate and enforce fair, just and universal rules of social conduct, citizens will be able to live at peace with one another in positive and productive collaboration. But the temptation to gain at the direct expense of others remains, and throughout history - up to and including the present day centralized power has been used by the rulers themselves, or by those influential in the exercise of power, to further enhance their own wealth at the expense of others by permitting and indeed institutionalizing social systems such as slavery and feudalism. Nonetheless, the ideals of universal justice in law have been kept alive and actively pursued by reformers throughout history, though their progress has necessarily been long and often painful. As Centralized Power takes over from Anarchy it generally takes the form of an autocratic, dictatorial rule by one strong man and his

supporters. In Britain's case the earliest form of central political rule was an Absolute Monarchy. Clearly the first step for reformers must be to try and impose some degree of discipline over the Monarch in order to render his rule less "absolute". Three major objectives of discipline over the Monarch were to be developed by reformers and pursued consistently over several centuries: the obligation to rule responsibly, to rule in consultation with his peers, and to conduct himself within the bounds of established law and custom. These three guiding principles would come to form the very essence of the Anglo tradition of Constitutional Rule. The Great Charter of 1215 A thousand years ago, in late Anglo-Saxon times, England was united into one Kingdom ruled by a King and his Council, and the institution of Kingship was already established as having limited powers. The King was bound by his Coronation Oath to defend the Church, to punish crime and violence, and to rule with clemency and mercy. He was also bound by customary rules of law, and to some extent his power was restricted by his Council. He was viewed as a religious and moral leader, a protector of the people in war and in peace. Following earlier tradition, the English King was not generally regarded as a source of law, although occasionally he might declare the law with the consent of his Council or issue written laws called "Dooms". The great body of Anglo-Saxon law was the unwritten folk law, handed down from one generation to the next, giving the common people rights and duties of what we would today call citizenship, and setting out procedures for determining fault or guilt and methods of punishing wrongdoers. While change was not impossible, arbitrary alteration of the rules was considered improper, and indeed, bordered on impiety. This tradition did not of course preclude the frequent occurrence of abuse by Monarchs keen to enhance their own powers, or simply reluctant to recognize any form of constraint over their conduct. In such cases it would be the powerful Barons and Clergy who would

bring the King to order in the name of Constitutional custom, reinforced by a growing body of written Constitutional documents agreed by the Kings either freely or under pressure. When Henry I acceded to the English throne in 1100 his first aim was to secure his claim more firmly by pacifying the people's and particularly the Barons' anger, which had been roused by the irresponsible and expensive conduct of his predecessor William Rufus. Henry therefore issued a Coronation Charter, also known as the Charter of Liberties, in which he promised to observe the Feudal Code and to correct the abuses of his predecessors against the Barons and the Church. He further commanded the Barons, his tenants-in-chief, to behave in like manner to their own tenants. Most significantly, he made the Charter applicable to all his subjects: "I henceforth remove all bad customs through which the Kingdom of England has been unjustly oppressed." While the Charter was no more than a proclamation of intentions and promises binding only insofar as Henry saw fit to observe them, its form - a written Royal Grant - gave it legality and lasting significance. Its chief importance was its admission by the King that even his royal powers were limited under the feudal contract. It also helped to strengthen the principle of defined and disciplined Constitutional Rule, and as such it was to be influential in the formulation of a later and much more famous constitutional document: the Great Charter sealed in 1215 by King John. The youngest child of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, John was born in Beaumont Palace, Oxford on December 24th, 1167. When his elder brother King Richard the Lionheart died, John succeeded to the throne on April 6th, 1199. He was crowned in Westminster Abbey on the 27th of May in that same year. Richard the Lionheart had been totally preoccupied with foreign wars, holy crusades and French conquests, and had given very little time or energy to the affairs of his own country. As a result the Barons, Knights and Free Men had to a large extent become the true governors of England, governing in Council, though all was still done in the King's name. At first John neither diminished those powers nor undermined the

authority of the Council, and for a while England enjoyed the twin advantages of both the old form of government and the new: a strong and active King, and a powerful Council within which the voice of the subjects could be heard and from which power was to pass to the Knights of the shires and to all free men. Shortly after John's accession however, the King of France had invaded Normandy, of which John was Duke, then pursuing his conquest throughout all the other provinces of the English Kings. John fought expensively but unsuccessfully to defend his lands and by 1204, five years after his accession, Normandy, Anjou and Maine were lost. All that remained were the Channel Islands and the province of Gascony. The Barons, now deprived of all but their English possessions, were angered by the King's defeat. They, as well as humbler men, were shocked and humiliated by the nation's losses. In derision they nicknamed the King "John Lackland". More seriously, the Nation now had to pay for his unsuccessful wars. In 1205 John rejected the Pope's nomination of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury. A Papal Interdict was laid over the whole country in 1208 and John was excommunicated. John was forced to submit at last by resigning his kingdom to the Pope and receiving it back as a fief of the Papacy before the Interdict and Excommunication were ended in May 1213, a humiliating experience for the whole nation. In 1214 John conducted another campaign in France and suffered a catastrophic defeat at Bouvines. During his absence the Barons banded together under the leadership of Stephen Langton to protest against the longstanding misgovernment of the realm. Gathered at Bury St. Edmunds in November 1214, the Barons agreed to petition the King to grant the liberties and laws set forth in the Coronation Charter of Henry I, swearing that if he refused they would renounce their allegiance to him and go to war. In January of 1215 a deputation of Barons placed a list of their demands before the King; dressed in full armour they would have left the King in no doubt as to their mood. King John asked for and was granted three months to consider these weighty matters. But his ultimate response was clear: "Why, among these unjust demands, did the Barons not ask for my Kingdom as well? Their

demands are vain, foolish, and utterly unreasonable." This was taken as a declaration of war. On May 17 the Barons' army marched on London; the city opened its gates to them and they were joined by many others who had hitherto stayed out of the conflict. The King took refuge in Windsor castle where he became a virtual prisoner. John sent emissaries to the Barons, this time with the message that he was willing to grant the Charter of Liberties they demanded. On June 10th the two parties met on neutral ground in a green meadow by the River Thames at Runnymede, midway between the King's castle at Windsor, and London which was now the Barons' stronghold. The name Runnymede suggests that this was not the first time councils had been held there; the first part is an old English word Runieg, meaning Council Island. After considerable negotiation a preliminary document was formulated, briefly listing forty-nine points upon which the King was willing to yield. To it King John attached his seal and upon the basis of that initial document a formal Charter was to be drawn up for signature by the King at a further meeting a few days later. The title of this preliminary document is significant. It read: These are the Articles which the Barons require and which the King concedes. King John had been compelled by force of arms to comply with the demands of the Barons who had risen in armed and successful rebellion against him, and the preliminary heads of agreement recorded that the King conceded the demands which the Barons required. Yet the final, formal version of the Great Charter which John sealed a few days later on June 15, the Charter we know today, begins with a greeting from the King to his Loyal Subjects, and records that he has acted with their advice. This change in wording clearly shows that the stability of the Monarchy was considered as important as its reformation, and nothing was done to diminish the apparent authority of the King even in the hour of his humiliation and defeat. With the formal signing of the Charter, the Monarch had confirmed

the essential principles of Constitutional discipline: the obligation to rule responsibly, to rule in consultation with his peers, and to conduct himself within the bounds of established law and custom. And this had been achieved without a reversion to anarchy. The Magna Carta was dependent for its observance largely on the Monarch's goodwill, which was not always forthcoming. But in one respect at least, the King's subjects had a degree of leverage; it was upon them that the King depended for money to carry on his government and foreign wars, not to mention maintaining his lavish royal lifestyle. Clause 12 of Magna Carta had already made the raising of taxes (aid or scutage) dependent on the general consent of the Kingdom, and Clause 14 laid down the method whereby the general consent "of the Realm for the assessment of an aid or scutage we will cause the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and Greater Barons to be summoned individually by letter... to come together on a fixed day and at a fixed place". The periodic convening of his influential men by the King continued during the 14th, 15th and 16th Centuries, developing gradually into an early form of Parliament which would later challenge and claim precedence over the power of the King. Parliamentary Supremacy By 1600 England had a recognizable Parliament; but its decisions, indeed its very existence, were subject to the King's will or whim. The focus of political and constitutional reform was now centered on the battle for supremacy between King and Parliament, in which the 1600s would prove to be a critical century. Beginning with absolute Monarchy and ending with Parliamentary Supremacy, it was punctuated almost midway, in 1649, by Parliament's highly symbolic trial, sentencing and execution of King Charles I. King Charles I was the central player in what was to mark the turning point in Parliament's fight for supremacy. By claiming Divine Right to autocratic rule, by scorning Parliament and frequently dismissing it he brought matters to a head, and when in 1625 he attempted to suppress Parliament by force, entering the House of Commons in person with a large body of armed men, a state of civil war might already be said to exist.

For a time however both sides attempted reconciliation - or at least the pretence of it. Yet the old tensions remained, and in December 1641 the House of Commons felt once again moved to summarize its frustrations and its aspirations in the "Grand Remonstrance". The Remonstrance was introduced with the words: "We, your most humble and obedient subjects, do with all faithfulness and humility beseech your Majesty…". But the demands themselves were uncompromising. The King was to deprive the Bishops of their votes in Parliament; to remove from his Council those men to whom Parliament objected, and "to employ such counsellors, ambassadors and other ministers, in managing his business at home and abroad, as the Parliament may have cause to confide in." There followed the lightly veiled threat that unless the King complied "we cannot give His Majesty supplies for support of his own estate..." The Remonstrance was passed by the House of Commons; but the majority of only eleven votes and a number of strongly proMonarchy speeches encouraged Charles to believe that all was not lost. In 1642 he felt sufficiently strong to attempt the arrest of five members of the House of Commons for treason. He personally entered the House leading a posse of armed men to effect the arrest, but the five members had already gone by boat down the Thames to the City of London which supported reform. Though now a matter of history in Britain, the attempted extinction of Democracy by Kings, Colonels and Presidents continues today. "For a short while Charles tried a policy of conciliation. He abolished the rights of Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, a right which went back over a thousand years, and appointed as Councillors two men pleasing to the Commons. "But this was in vain; and in 1642 the House of Commons went beyond the mere defence of ancient rights and sought new powers, setting their authority above the King's. They demanded not only that Parliament was to approve the appointment of all privy councillors, ministers and judges, but that it should also control the education and marriages of the King's children. War was

inevitable."
["Documents of Liberty" by Henry Marsh, David & Charles 1971]

Charles raised his standard at Nottingham and the long struggle between Royalists and Reformers began in earnest. Facing him were the Parliamentary forces which had been organized into the "New Model Army" under one Commander-inChief, Sir Thomas Fairfax. In overall command was Oliver Cromwell who had become increasingly important, both as a leading member of the Independent Party, and as one of Parliament's most successful commanders playing an active role in the organization and training of troops. The Royalist troops were finally overwhelmed by the New Model Army at Naseby in 1645. Charles surrendered to the Scots in 1646 and was promptly handed over to the English. After an imprisonment in Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight, he was brought to trial in Westminster Hall before a specially constituted Tribunal of Judges with as much pomp and ceremony as the King's opponents could muster. The contradictions which existed and became clear during the course of the King's trial were wholly predictable, reflecting as they did the contradictions inherent in the very concept of Constitution. The ideal that power should be used wisely and within defined limits need not be questioned; yet this can hardly be achieved by subjecting the Monarch to another Monarch, or to any form of personified superior power. The only superior power to which an autocrat can be subjected is the power of principles and ideals, given tangible form as a written document, or in England's case, the sum total, both written and unwritten, of ancient custom. But if the Autocrat fails to obey this code of ideals, who can try him, and by what authority? These contradictions were exploited by the King; they were also reflected in the differences and doubts within Parliament, and in the attempt by Parliament to stage a "special proceeding" resembling the not-yet-invented Supreme Court of the United States. The trial was fully recorded in contemporary accounts, and is

reconstructed by the Rt. Hon Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in his book "What next in the Law "[Butterworths, 1982]: "When Charles I was on trial for his life, the Lord President of the specially constituted High Court of Justice was John Bradshaw. With him were 150 Commissioners. He was a Serjeant-at-Law of some eminence. He was treated with all the forms of judicial state, decorated with a scarlet robe, a sword and mace were borne before him. If you should read the report in the State Trials you will see that John Bradshaw repeatedly quoted Bracton: "The King is under no man, but under God and the Law". Both Bracton, writing in the early 1200s, and Bradshaw four hundred years later were stressing the second part of this phrase, namely that the King was responsible to God (which placed upon him a duty to rule wisely) and the Law (requiring that he conduct himself within the laws and customs of the land). The King on the other hand, stressed the first part of the phrase. Claiming that he was "under no man" the King refused to plead, denying that the Court was competent to try him. "Refusing to recognize the legality of a Court which could try a King, Charles declined to plead and was found guilty by 68 votes to 67, a majority of only one. A sentence of death was passed and on January 30th, 1649, Charles walked from St James's Palace, where he was last confined, to Whitehall, where a scaffold had been erected outside Inigo Jones's elegantly proportioned Banqueting House. "Charles wore two shirts, for it was a cold day and he said if he were to tremble from cold people might mistake it for fear. He entered the Banqueting House and stepped onto the scaffold from a first floor window. He was attended by Bishop Juxon, to whom he spoke his last word, "Remember". When his head was severed from his body a great groan went up from the assembled crowd and people pressed forward to soak their handkerchiefs in the Royal blood. The cult of the Martyr King had begun."
["Kings & Queens of Britain" by David Williamson]

The execution of Charles I in 1649 was a dramatically symbolic turning point. It represented a final denial of the Divine Right of

autocratic Monarchs and the assertion of Parliamentary supremacy. But at the same time, the act of inherent violence both to the King and to all that he represented was a stark representation of that very constitutional disarray which the English had always tried to avoid. Had they been asked, the ordinary people would undoubtedly have voted overwhelmingly for some kind of compromise between King and Parliament. Given the personalities involved this would probably not have worked; but neither did the alternative, for the Republic which followed was not destined to be a success. Serious tensions soon began to develop between the Army and what was left of Parliament; and Cromwell, who had with the support of the Army set himself up as "Lord Protector", gave every impression of becoming himself an autocratic ruler. Reacting to mounting opposition and renewed Royalist plots Cromwell put the country under the regional military control of eleven Major-Generals. Soon becoming equally unpopular, the reign of the Major-Generals was replaced after two years by a new Parliament, though it was subject to continuing disputes with the Army over access to power. For ten years England suffered the uncertainties, instability and indignity of a Military Republic and near-dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell, and later under his ineffectual son Richard when Cromwell died in 1658. The country seemed to be sliding inevitably towards anarchy through a succession of military despotisms. Loss of confidence in the Republic became widespread. The achievement of ten years earlier, when Parliament had won supremacy over Absolute Monarchy, was now forgotten, buried in the debris of constitutional chaos. "Reform, but without disorder" would have summarized the sentiments of a now politically weary and disillusioned nation. Something had to be done to restore stability; in the words of contemporary diarist Samuel Pepys "either the fanatics must now be undone or the gentry and citizens throughout England will fall." In 1660 George Monck, who had been Cromwell's Commander in Chief in Scotland, restored Parliament and recalled from exile King

Charles' son who now became Charles II. Though King Charles II had the sense to acknowledge the new position of the Monarchy and acquiesce to the wishes of Parliament, he died in 1685 and his brother James II who succeeded him once again opposed Parliament. In 1688 Parliament invited James' daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange to land in England and save the country's liberties. This they did accompanied by a large army, immediately drawing wide popular support in England. James fled the country, and William and Mary were invited to accept a specially drawn up Declaration of Rights which stipulated in precise detail the new relationship between King and Parliament and the limitations on Royal power. The King could no longer suspend or dispense with laws by regal authority; the King could no longer levy taxes or maintain an army without the consent of Parliament; and the regular assembly of Parliament, without royal interference, was guaranteed. Similar conditions had indeed been heard before; but the difference on this occasion was that England and its Parliament were offering a Crown, and these were the conditions upon which they would accept the new Monarchs. William and Mary accepted Parliament's conditions, as the text of the 1689 Bill of Rights relates. "Their said Majesties did accept the Crown and Royal dignity of the Kingdoms of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons, contained in the said declaration. And thereupon Their Majesties were pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons being the two Houses of Parliament should continue to sit, and with Their Majesties' Royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this Kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted." As William III and Mary became joint Sovereigns the old partnership between Crown and Parliament was resumed. But whereas Parliament had previously given assent to the wishes of the Monarch, now it was the Monarch who formalized the

decisions of Parliament with the Royal Assent. The battle for consultation had been won by the fact of Parliamentary supremacy. But the exercise of power in consultation is only one aspect of the wider concept of Constitutionalism: the concept that power and its use should be strictly defined by clearly enunciated and accepted principles. Chapter 4: CONSTITUTION Ideals of Constitutionalism - Constitution in the New World Constitutional Government Ideals of Constitutionalism Though Constitutionalism, the spirit of Constitution, had already been alive and practised for many years, the Magna Carta, by general consent of history, is now widely accepted as the world's first major constitutional document. Indeed it is interesting to read the constitutions of the USA, both the Federal Constitution and those of individual States, as well as the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries, and to note how many passages from Magna Carta have simply been copied word for word. Magna Carta provided Britain's reformers with a firm foundation, a cornerstone upon which subsequent constitutional documents could be added to form the assemblage which, combined with unwritten custom, is commonly referred to as Britain's "Constitution" today. Constitution limits absolute power. This it achieves by placing conditions on the use of that power, by requiring the sharing of power with those subject to it through a process of debate, and by establishing boundaries beyond which the Law may not intrude. In its early days the Constitution may be weak, it may have little of practical value to say. But once the principle has been established that the Central Power, whatever form it may take, is itself subject to some superior framework of rules and procedures which define the use of that power to any extent whatsoever, the nation is on the right path, and it is only a matter of time before the rules defining the use of Centralized Power are strengthened. No Government, President or Monarch, no institution of Law or

Enforcement, should be created or be allowed to exist and to function without a Constitution. No one should have power over others, unless and until that power and the conditions of its use have been strictly defined. In the words of Thomas Paine: "Government without a Constitution is power without right". Today we understand clearly and accept fully the idea that Constitution limits absolute power. Yet for early reformers of autocratic Monarchies it was a contradiction in terms to talk of limiting absolute power. If the power is absolute, then how can it be limited except through a greater power, and what is the nature of that greater power? The "greater power" which sets limits on Autocrats and Parliaments is the power of reason and custom. Relying for support on the strength of public opinion, from the most influential to the broad mass of the people, the spirit of Constitutionalism was originated and developed by theorists and idealists, and based on a universally recognized, instinctive awareness of what is right and wrong in law and social conduct. "The idea of Constitutionalism is older than the existence of written Constitutions. Constitutionalism places limits upon Government, proscribing the means by which official power may be exercised. Constitutionalism establishes boundaries between the State and the individual, forbidding the State to trespass into certain areas reserved for private action. "Constitutionalism also has a deeper and older connotation, demanding adherence by Government to recognized customary procedures. The idea of a Constitution in this procedural sense can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, who in his Politics and the Constitution of Athens described all the known political arrangements of ancient Greece."
["Constitutions that have made History" Edited by Albert Blaustein and Jay Sigler, Paragon House Publishers, New York, 1988.]

The fundamental desire for disciplined and responsible use of Centralized Power was the catalyst which set in motion, then relentlessly pursued the gradual erosion of absolute power, subjecting it to the ideals of good government expressed in the essence of Constitutionalism, in successive specific constitutional

documents, and in the writings of constitutional reformers. One of the first major writers on the subject of English constitutional law and custom following Magna Carta was Henry Bracton. Bracton was born, lived and worked in Devon during the early 1200s (his birth date unknown, he died in Exeter, in 1268). He was both a Cleric and a Justice - as indeed was common at that time, for few but the Clergy could read. From 1245 he was an Itinerant Justice for King Henry III, and from 1247 to 1257 was a Judge of the Coram Rege which later became the King's or Queen's Bench. His (Latin language) document "On the Laws and Customs of England" is one of the oldest systematic treatises on English Common Law. It also deals in depth with the obligations of, and disciplines upon Royal power, concentrating on three major themes: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers, the "eminent men" of the land. The King must first of all be subject to, and act within the Law. In stressing the King's relationship with the law, Bracton identifies two aspects of law and the apparent contradiction between them. One aspect of law consists of orders and regulations, and in this sense the King is the source of law. The other aspect of law is the body of custom we would now call the Constitutional Framework; here the King must himself be subject to law, for the King and the very institution of Monarchy owe their existence to law in this Constitutional sense. So Bracton insists that "the King must be under God and under the Law, because the King's position owes its very existence to the wider framework of law. "Let him therefore in his Laws, observe the due process of law through which he himself exists. For the King is not fulfilling his legal obligations when he rules by personal will, rather than by due process of law under the ultimate will of God." Bracton also expects the King to obey his own laws, for the King, though the source of Law, is not outside the Law:

"What the King is bound by virtue of his office to forbid to others, he ought not to do himself. Let him, therefore, temper his power by the due process of law, which is the discipline upon power, that he may live according to the Laws, for the Law of mankind has decreed that the lawgiver should be bound by his own Laws. "Nothing is more fitting for a Sovereign than to live by and within the laws, nor is there any greater sovereignty than to govern according to the due process of Law, and the Sovereign ought properly to yield to the tradition and process of Law that makes him King." Bracton strengthens his argument with this forceful reference to Christian example: "That the King must bow to the process and formality of law is paralleled in the example of Jesus Christ. Though many ways were open to Him to fulfill His destiny in the redemption of the Human race, He chose to destroy the devil's work, not through the arbitrary use of His great powers, but by subjecting Himself to the existing laws of justice. In this way He willed Himself to be under the law that He might redeem all those who must live under it. He chose to use not force, but judgment." Monarchs of England and Europe have often claimed to rule by Divine Right. The Kings themselves interpreted the concept of Divine Right as placing them above and beyond the reach - or reproach - of the law, and of those they ruled. Bracton however voices an earlier understanding of Rule by Divine Right, namely that the King is God's Minister, and as such is under obligation to rule wisely and responsibly: "The King is Vicar and Minister of God on Earth, and from God comes the power of justice. Therefore the King's power is that of justice, not injustice. The power of injustice is from the Devil, not from God. "The King will be the Minister of him whose work he performs. Therefore as long as he does justice he is the Vicar of the Eternal King, but he is the Devil's Minister when he deviates into injustice or injury.

"The King is called King, not from reigning, but from ruling well, since he is a King as long as he rules well, but a tyrant when he oppresses by violent domination the people entrusted to his care." Bracton also stresses the requirement of participation in the formulation of laws: "The King should not propose or enact laws rashly by his own will or whim; the law should be properly decided with the counsel of his peers, the King giving it formal authority only after full joint deliberation and consultation." Bracton thus set out the three major ideals of Constitutional Monarchy: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers. The battle for consultation was won when Parliament gained supremacy over the Monarch, and Britain became a Constitutional Monarchy. But now a new constitutional challenge would appear: the challenge of subjecting Parliament to constitutional discipline. Subsequent political development would attempt to ensure that, while Parliament would remain and grow as the institution of legislation and of popular representation, the power of Parliament itself should not become absolute, and Parliament should be subject to the same rules of underlying constitutional precedent which had previously been formulated to discipline Monarchs. This was the background from which America's Founding Fathers drew both fear and inspiration: fear of re-creating a new autocratic monarchy or presidency, and inspiration for the creation of a new kind of government, a government representing its people, not dominating or oppressing them. Constitution in the New World Just as two thousand years ago the rulers of the Roman Empire dreamed of a world where all nations should share in citizenship of the Eternal City, and should have in their own lands assemblies and senates which typified Roman methods of government, likewise the British people during the 1700s felt their hard-won liberties and

rights to participate in government could be transplanted. As British people over a period of three or four centuries crossed the oceans of the world, establishing new communities in every continent, their form of government has been planted and has blossomed in many lands. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In so doing they were consciously echoing the words of the Great Charter which King John had sealed 561 years before, and wherein he had undertaken that no tax may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent. Similarly, the Federal Constitution which the newly independent States drew up in 1787 was to a large extent the formal statement of rights and liberties already won in Britain. "From the unwritten British Constitution came many ideas and principles". Such notions are common currency in American thinking; these words appear in The United States of America, a booklet published by the US Information Service. However, while England had for centuries been intent on limiting the power of the Absolute Monarchy, American constitutionwriters now focused on limiting the power and potential danger of the new "absolute ruler" - Congress, and the power of Federal Government institutions generally. This they sought to achieve not only through constitutional provisions and the Bill of Rights, but also through the celebrated "checks and balances" whereby two Houses, and the President as Executive, exercised discipline and restraint over one another. The Judiciary was also placed to act as a restrictive force; indeed the US Supreme Court has traditionally seen itself as the ultimate discipline upon Government power, and champion of the citizen against Government excesses. The supremacy of the Constitution over any and all branches of Government was seen by America's Founders as the essential assurance of orderly and disciplined Government. The disciplines set out by America's Founding Fathers are clearly

described by Mr Hugo LaFayette Black, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1937-1971 in his book "One Man's Stand For Freedom" - Mr. Justice Black and the Bill of Rights – [1963 Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.]. "The form of government which was ordained and established in 1789 contains certain unique features which reflected the Framers' fear of arbitrary government and which clearly indicate an intention absolutely to limit what Congress could do. "The first of these features is that our Constitution is written in a single document. Such constitutions are familiar today and it is not always remembered that our country was the first to have one. Certainly one purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. An allpowerful government that can act as it pleases wants no such constitution - unless to fool the people. England had no written constitution and this once proved a source of tyranny, as our ancestors well knew. Jefferson said about this departure from the English type of Government: Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. "A second unique feature of our Government is a Constitution supreme over the Legislature. In England, statutes, Magna Carta, and later declarations of rights had for centuries limited the power of the King, but they did not limit the power of Parliament. Although commonly referred to as a Constitution, they were never the supreme law of the land in the way in which our Constitution is, much to the regret of statesmen like Pitt the elder. Parliament could change this English constitution; Congress cannot change ours. Ours can only be changed by amendments ratified by three fourths of the States. "A third feature of our Government, expressly designed to limit its powers, was the division of authority into three co-ordinate branches, none of which was to have supremacy over the others. This separation of powers with the checks and balances which each branch was given over the others was designed to prevent any branch, including the Legislative, from infringing individual liberties safeguarded by the Constitution. "All of the unique features of our Constitution show an underlying

purpose: to create a new kind of limited government. "Central to all of the Framers of the Bill of Rights was the idea that since government, particularly the National Government newly created, is a powerful institution, its officials - all of them - must be compelled to exercise their powers within strictly defined boundaries. As Madison told Congress, the Bill of Rights' limitations point sometimes against the abuse of the Executive power, sometimes against the Legislative, and in some cases against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. "Madison also explained that his proposed amendments were intended to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. Mr. Madison made a clear explanation to Congress that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to grant greater protection than England afforded its citizens. He said: 'In the Declaration of Rights which [England] has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Carta does not contain any one provision for the security of those Rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British Constitution'. "It was the desire to give the people of America greater protection against the powerful Federal Government than the English had had against their Government that caused the Framers to put these freedoms of expression, again in the words of Madison, beyond the reach of this Government." Most of the original founder-States of the USA produced Constitutions, and as Territories were granted Statehood, they too felt the need to set forth the essential procedures, obligations and limitations controlling the function and laws of their governments. Right from her very birth, America would espouse the principles of Constitutional Supremacy and popular participation for which

England had fought so hard and so long. Constitutional tradition, as it developed in Britain and spread later to America and much of the Commonwealth, was indeed a slow and occasionally violent process. It is a thousand-year-old story, which may be said to begin in the year 1215 when the Great Charter sought to limit the powers of an Absolute Monarch. Yet despite the persistence of reformers and the progress made at the birth of the United States, the development of true constitutional security from autocratic rule is by no means complete today. Indeed, when one compares the modern Government, with its unlimited rights of taxation, its total lack of financial discipline, and the tenuous relationship between elected Members and their voters, one may reasonably wonder how far real and effective constitutional discipline over those wielding political power has progressed since the Great Charter of 1215. In 1215 Britain had an autocratic, costly and largely ineffectual Monarchy. Today throughout the developed world we have autocratic, costly and largely ineffectual Government. The need for constitutional discipline over Government today is every bit as great as was the need for constitutional discipline over the Monarchy in 1215. It is therefore worth exploring the theory of Constitutional Government in more detail. Constitutional Government The Constitution in its basic form is a framework of rules telling Government in all its departments and all its functions what it must do, what it must not do, and how it should do it. The detail of Constitutional provisions falls into three categories: the obligations which citizens may expect Government to fulfill; the limitations on the scope of Law; and the rules of procedure within which Government is required to operate. We turn first to those provisions which define the obligations of Government to meet certain reasonable needs of its citizens. One fundamental obligation of Government, that of "keeping the peace", is defined in many constitutions, as for example in the original 18th century manuscript of the Declaration of the Rights of

the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: - "Government is instituted for the Common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people...." - "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, Liberty and prosperity according to standing Laws..." - "Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy by having recourse to the Laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character." As with much of American constitution writing, this concept has its origins in English legal and constitutional tradition. Clause 12 of the Coronation Charter which King Henry signed in 1101 states: A firm peace in my whole Kingdom I establish and require to be kept from henceforth. "Clause 12 formally called into being the King's Peace, a conception that had been steadily growing during the Anglo-Saxon period. A disturbance of the peace was not only an offence against the personas aggrieved thereby but an affront to the King himself, and the Royal power would be deployed against the wrongdoer. The Crown was responsible for the maintenance of a peaceful environment within which men could go about their business undisturbed by violence. This conception remains to this day the basis of law and order within the Realm."
[Henry Marsh: "Documents of Liberty", David & Charles, 1971].

If the obligations of Government are set out clearly in the Constitution the citizen may have recourse to the Constitution in any cases where these obligations are not fulfilled. But to tell Government what it should do for us is not enough. We must also, perhaps more importantly, tell Government what it may not do by setting clearly defined limitations on the scope of Law. Popular and regularly recurring examples of Constitutional restrictions which protect citizens' liberties from encroachment by Government are provisions which protect freedom of religion, assembly and speech. Examples may be found in Article 2 of the

Constitution of the State of Montana, as revised June 6, 1972. - "Section 5. Freedom of Religion. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. - "Section 6. Freedom of Assembly. The People shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action. - "Section 7. Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression." These are rights which Government may not take away, areas which are effectively "off limits". If the Government over-steps the line, citizens may again seek remedy in the Constitution. We turn now to those provisions of the Constitution which define the procedures of Legislative debate: facilities for participation and representation, the method of selecting incumbents for various offices, and their length of tenure. Through such established procedures details may be decided, representatives and officers can come and go, all in an orderly manner following agreed and accepted rules. Rules guiding the conduct of Enforcement Agents in their dealings with citizens may also be laid down in the Constitution. Other rules of procedure may apply to the conduct of Government Administration, as for example in its finances. One of the most basic ideals of Constitutional principle is that Government should not be permitted to conduct its affairs in any way which would be unacceptable in the private citizen or business. That the Law-makers, either Monarch or Government, should be subject to their own laws is one of the fundamental principles of Constitutionalism. And yet if we apply this principle in the area of finance we can at once see the glaring disparity between the legally permitted conduct of private sector business and that of Government. Government can go into debt on its current account, then simply continue to go ever deeper into debt without any hindrance

whatsoever. Conduct which the Law would never tolerate in private citizens or business is, apparently, quite acceptable in government. This is a sure sign of a lack of Constitutional discipline. Many of the world's governments today are deeply in debt, with an increasingly burdensome proportion of the National Budget now required simply to service the interest on that debt. Few show any signs of bringing their debts down. Many observers, and to their credit many legislators, openly express regret that their constitutions do not prohibit prolonged government deficits. Though the Federal Constitution of the United States has no such provision, some individual States of the USA do preclude deficit financing in their State Constitutions. Section 9, Article VIII of Montana's State Constitution, for example, is very explicit: "Balanced budget. Appropriations by the Legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue." Many economists argue that government deficits should be allowed during economic downturns in order to encourage recovery. However the same result can be achieved through the policy adopted by the State of Oklahoma, where the Constitution requires that expenditure be limited to only 95% of revenue, the balance being set aside as a credit against times of economic downturn. The Constitutional approach to government operational and financial discipline is essential; the motivation to improve government efficiency and standards of business conduct is unlikely to come from inside government itself, and even if it does, the disciplines thus created are likely to be more cosmetic than real. Governments frequently pay lip-service to improving productivity and financial discipline, but seldom make any real changes. Self discipline is a noble ideal, but discipline is always more effective when it is imposed from outside, or more importantly, from above. This leads to a consideration of the status of Constitution in the totality of Government, Law and Enforcement. Since it sets the rules for government, the Constitution must by its nature and definition stand above Government as the supreme authority in the land. This position of supremacy can be assured in a Constitutional system by placing the Constitution at a critical

point in the governmental process. There are two basic elements inherent in the process of governing. The first is decision, the second is force. Government decides what laws are necessary for the proper conduct of society, then sees that they are enforced. Decision, and Force. The process of governing depends on fulfilling these two functions individually, then uniting them so that they are mutually supportive. This process of union is vital. There is no point in Government making laws if it cannot enforce them. Likewise there is no point in having Police, Judiciary, and Correctional institutions if they are given no orders, no laws to enforce. The process of Government involves two elements: making laws, and enforcing them. And since neither of these two elements works without the other, they must have continuing contact. Constitution exerts its supreme power in a Constitutional system by placing itself above and between the two processes of law-making and law-enforcement and thus controlling that vital link without which each process in itself is useless. The essence of Constitutional Government is the separation of decision and enforcement, so that each can empower the other only through the Constitution, and only on condition that both comply with constitutional requirements. We can thus visualize a theoretical Constitutional system of Government as three points of a triangle. At the top point of the triangle we have the Constitution. At lower left, we have the Legislative Process; at lower right the Enforcement Agencies. Legislation, at "bottom left", is formulated according to the appointed processes, but as yet has no "force of law". In the form of a proposal, each newly formulated Law is then passed up the left side of the triangle to the Constitution, where it is verified to ensure that its content and the procedures of its formulation are fully in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. If it passes this test, the Legislative proposal is then given "force of law" and is passed down the right side of the triangle to the

Enforcement Agencies. But once again there is Constitutional Verification. For the Enforcement Agencies are also subject to Constitutional provisions and are constantly monitored to ensure that they so comply. If they do not, they will not be empowered to enforce laws until such time as they do comply. The two points at the base of the triangle, representing the Legislature on the left, and the Enforcement Agencies on the right, are not directly joined. This is the very essence of Constitutional government. Decision and Force are allowed no direct contact; Legislative proposals cannot be passed directly to Enforcement. Only by moving upwards and passing successfully through Constitutional Verification can Legislative proposals gain the formal force of Law. And similarly, only through continuous compliance with the Constitutional provisions can the Enforcement Agencies qualify to receive Legislative instructions. Decision and Force. Each powerless without the other. Each empowered, and the two joined, only by and through the Constitution, only on condition that each and both fulfil the provisions of the Constitution. This represents an idealized, theoretical concept of Constitutional Government; in few if any cases today do Constitutions play such a key role. In Britain the Constitution (unwritten, but largely based on Common Law and precedent) exercises little practical control over the process and content of Law formulated in Parliament, and is quoted more often in academic debate than in the practical operation of government. Many of the institutions of government, from tax collection to the armed forces, as well as government itself, are preceded by the familiar initials "HM" for "His" or "Her Majesty" as Constitutional Head. But effective control remains in the hands of government under the Prime Minister. In the USA Congress makes the Laws which the President as Executive signs more or less automatically into formal legislation. He may send them back on the grounds of disagreement, but Constitutional Verification as such is not a part of the process.

Nor does the US Supreme Court verify Laws prior to execution; it only does so when requested by individuals or Lower Courts. In this sense, the US Supreme Court acts as a Court of Appeal (or last resort) at the apex of the Judicial process, rather than a Constitutional Executive at the apex of the Legislative process. The importance of Constitution, both in its content and its status, is little appreciated by the general public and is denigrated by politicians as being "undemocratic" since it limits the power of elected parliaments. Yet few are the voters in any country today who can claim that the political power to which they are subject is at all times exercised responsibly. There is no form of Government yet devised, or yet devisable, which can be trusted to function successfully and honestly without the discipline of clear Constitutional rules laying down the essential principles to which government can be held accountable. In the florid prose of the Constitution of the State of Vermont, adopted July 9, 1793: "That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore, to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of Officers and Representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact due and constant regard to them, from their Legislators and Magistrates, in making and executing such Laws as are necessary for the good State." Chapter 5: DEMOCRACY Parliamentary Representation - The Socialist Revolution - The Demise of Extremism Parliamentary Representation With the signing by William and Mary of the 1689 Bill of Rights Britain's autocratic monarchy had finally been brought under constitutional discipline and Parliament had won its position of supremacy. But Parliament at that time represented only a small

proportion of the population. Many there were, of course, who would be quite happy to keep it that way. The reformers however, both in and out of government, would now press for continuing expansion of the voting franchise. Conservatism, preservation of the status quo, versus Reform; this theme was to dominate Parliamentary proceedings for some two hundred years. Following a tradition of earlier times when the King's advisers sat on his right, likewise the Conservatives in Parliament loyal to the Crown and the maintenance of the status quo now sat on the Speaker's right, while the Radicals and Reformists sat on the left. So Britain's Parliament assumed the confrontational shape still maintained today, of Right and Left, Conservatism and Reform facing one another across an aisle, and the terms Right and Left assumed the significance now familiar throughout the world. When the Right-Left polarization first took shape, the Conservatives seated on the right supported the Monarchy and a degree of Royal prerogative provided the Nobility could share in it. They accepted the established order of Church and State, and furthered the interests of landowners, and later the big industrialists. At first known as Royalists, they have subsequently become known by an early nickname: the word Tory is derived from an Irish word meaning robber, doubtless reflecting their appearance in the eyes of many common people. On the other side were the Liberals, or "Whigs". Formerly Republicans, they now supported the Monarchy provided it was kept under constitutional constraints. They also supported reform generally, including a gradual widening of the franchise. The party of the Left later became more widely known simply as Liberals, until the 1900s when the Left position was taken by the Socialists. Thus the battle lines were drawn, as Parliament struggled with and within itself for 200-odd years, from 1700 to 1900, culminating in the condition of broad participatory government popularly known today as Democracy. Though now a matter of history in Britain, development of a broad

and honest electoral system is a story which is still being enacted in many countries today. Two areas particularly would be subject to continuing reform: Parliamentary Representation with its inequalities and corruption, and the physical process of casting votes. The rapid growth of industry and the accompanying flight from the countryside during the late 1700s had unbalanced the traditional representation patterns. Some country "boroughs" (the so-called "rotten boroughs") still sent members to Parliament though they were now totally uninhabited, while huge new industrial cities were without any form of Parliamentary Representation. Reform of Parliamentary Representation was very much a lively topic of debate; frequent meetings were held, and well attended, in coffee houses, public houses, and in the meeting rooms of Political Reform Societies, with proceedings carefully documented for posterity by the Society's "Hon. Sec." In May, 1809 a meeting of dedicated Reformers was held at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand; among the many items debated were calculations made by Grey in 1793, to the effect that 307 English Members of Parliament were appointed, through money and influence, by just 154 individuals. Throughout the 1800s the demand for electoral reform grew steadily, though not without opposition from vested interests. As early as 1819 cotton workers from all around the cotton mill areas gathered in Manchester to demonstrate for male suffrage; they were ruthlessly suppressed by mounted Yeomanry Cavalry in what was to be known as the "Peterloo Massacre". Yet the sheer pressure for electoral reform slowly gained momentum, and by 1830 the Liberal Party was able to defeat the Tories in a general election on this very issue. A Liberal committee was set up to compose a Reform Bill; this Bill was passed in the House of Commons and, after a protracted struggle in the House of Lords, became law in 1832. It established male suffrage for all those with property worth more than £10 in annual rent, and reformed the various Constituency anomalies, abolishing the "Rotten Boroughs" and enfranchising the new industrial cities.

But even after this great Reform Act of 1832 the vast majority of the working classes were still unable to vote. As to the process of election, "having the vote" certainly did not mean, as it does today, that one could in secret and without pressure vote for the Representative or the Party of one's choice. Voting at this time was conducted not through secret ballot, but by a public show of hands; this allowed landlords and employers to "supervise" the voting of their servants and employees. The Tories as landlords, and many Liberals as wealthy merchants and industrialists, influenced voting in a way that made a mockery of the concept of free elections. With the help of the new popular working-class newspapers, a major electoral reform movement developed, whose members were known as the Chartists. The movement centered around a "People's Charter", presented to Parliament with over a million signatures as a Petition of Right in 1839. The Charter contained the following six demands: 1. Universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21; 2. Vote by secret ballot to prevent the abuses of open ballot; 3. Payment of Members of Parliament so working men could afford to stand; 4. Abolition of the property-owning qualifications for membership of Parliament; 5. Equal electoral districts so that each Member of Parliament represented the same number of people; 6. Annual elections so that Members would keep constant note of their voters' requirements. Despite Parliament's awareness of the need for further electoral reform, the majority in Parliament felt that this Charter was going too far, and defeated the motion to consider it as a Bill of Reform. The Chartists later presented a second Petition, this time with three million signatures - a figure representing a quarter of the working population. But again it was rejected by the upper-class-dominated House of Commons. As a result there were riots and uprisings

throughout the country; further reform was inevitable. In 1867 the second Reform Act gave voting enfranchisement to all male rate-payers. This was followed in 1872 by the Ballot Act which brought in voting by secret ballot, thus at last giving the lowest classes real freedom to make their own choice of Parliamentary Representatives without pressure or influence. The working classes were now enfranchised; but their interests were not accurately represented in either the Tory or the Liberal ideologies. They needed a Party in Parliament which would represent their own interests and views, a Party which would fight against the intolerably long working hours, poor pay, overcrowded housing conditions, and all the other perceived manifestations of injustice and exploitation. Socialism had its origins in the writings of Karl Marx and Engels, but Marx's "Communist" theories were considered too radical and revolutionary for the taste of the British. The British Labour Party began as an alliance of Trade Unions and Co-operative Societies, its philosophy influenced by the Fabian Society, an intellectual group of Socialists founded in 1884, inspired by the playwright Bernard Shaw and husband-wife team Beatrice and Sidney Webb. The last few years of the Century saw the gradual formalization of the Socialist programme featuring a shorter working day, improved housing, higher wages, social security, and a minimum standard of education for all. The Labour Party would now become the Party of the Left, with Socialism as the "alternative" political doctrine. The Socialist Revolution Thus far in political history there had really been only one political dogma, known as Capitalism, Laisser-faire, Free Enterprise. Whatever it may be called, it is based on the principle of minimal Government intervention. And that made sense, at least to the ruling classes. They were doing very nicely in industry, commerce and social organization, and they had naturally instituted a form of government which would leave them quite free to get on with it. And of course, leaving people free to get on with it is quite literally what laisser-faire means. For many, everything looked rosy. But the Humanist visionaries

were concerned that the lax political climate permitted too much opportunity for some to exploit others, for some to accumulate huge fortunes through the impoverishment of others. Idealists saw this as a form of enslavement, enslavement being defined in simple terms as the involuntary transfer of work or wealth from one person or class to another. They resolved, as the new Twentieth Century dawned, that there would be no more enslavement of man by fellow man. A worthy aim indeed. And how was it to be achieved? It could have been achieved by requiring Government to do more than just leaving people free to get on with it. Freedom is fine, but perhaps people should not be so free that they are permitted so grossly, so blatantly, even so brutally to plunder the freedom of others. The solution would have been more Government involvement: specifically, sufficient to prevent people from exploiting one another. That would have been the ideal solution; with it the development of political ideals and institutions could have made a quantum leap from enslavement to liberty, from self-interest to universal-interest. But human nature does not work in such exalted ways. We do not see injustice and replace it with justice; we see injustice and react to the other extreme, replacing one kind of injustice with another. And the new political creed of Socialism was just such a reaction. Hailed by so many as the dawning of social justice, it was regrettably no such thing. Socialism did not abolish injustice but perpetuated it, merely reversing the roles. Instead of the Strong and powerful exploiting the Weak, now it would be the Weak, the poor, the working classes who would, with Government help, exact vengeance from their previous masters. Traditionally Governments had always served the interests of the powerful people who controlled them by doing as little as possible, thus allowing those with power to exploit those without it. Now taking the side of the previously impoverished majority, Socialism would adopt the opposite approach.

Instead of doing nothing, or the very minimum, a Socialist Government would throw itself wholeheartedly into the fray on the side of the working people. But it would be halfway through this century before Britain was to have its first real taste of Socialism. In 1900 the first joint meeting of the various representatives of the Labour Movement was held in London to found the Labour Representation Committee, which later became the Labour Party. The Committee adopted a resolution put forward by Keir Hardie, who would later become the first Labour MP in the House of Commons, to establish, not a Political Party in the first instance, but a Labour Group in Parliament which would co-operate with any existing Party promoting legislation in the direct interests of the Labour Movement. Support for the new Labour Movement increased rapidly, and when the election came in 1906, to the horror of the press and the governing class, Labour captured twenty-nine seats in Parliament, swelled subsequently to over forty seats when the Miners' Federation instructed its MPs to join the Labour Party. During the First World War of 1914-1918, many people lost confidence in the abilities of the Ruling Classes whose generals and politicians were perceived as being responsible for the War's immense and useless slaughter. By the end of the War much of the population had become politically cynical, even semirevolutionary. The election of 1924 gave Labour, through an Alliance with the Liberal Party, a majority over the Conservatives of 91 seats in the House of Commons. The Alliance with the Liberals, however, precluded a full Socialist programme of legislation, and after only a year in office, through an ineptly conducted attempt to restrict publication of a Pacifist article in a Communist paper, the first Labour Government was forced to resign. In 1925, the Conservative Government supported the Coal Owners' bid to reduce miners' wages, demanding that "all workers in this country have got to take reductions in wages". A general strike was threatened and the government backed down, conceding temporary

victory to the Left. When the subsidy which the government had given to the coal industry ran out in May 1926, the Government informed Labour leaders that wage cuts for the miners would be enforced. This precipitated the great National Strike of 1926. For nine days the country was paralysed. However, through economic hardship the workers were unable to outlast the Employers and Government and were forced to capitulate. The Employers subsequently took advantage of this by reducing wages generally, and the Government then brought in a Trades Disputes Act, which impeded subscriptions by Trade Unionists to the Labour Party, made picketing more difficult and forbade the Civil Service Unions from membership of the Trades Union Council. The Government also withheld social benefits from large numbers of unemployed on the pretext that they were "not genuinely seeking work" - an accusation not entirely sustainable within a context of large- scale unemployment. This last action was mainly responsible for the Labour Party victory in the election of 1929, when they won a margin of seats greater than in their previous term of office; yet they were still dependent on Liberal support. This second Labour Government in power was, however, overtaken by the great financial collapse of 1929, which started in the USA and later spread to Britain. The Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald was forced to form a new coalition "National Government" which was itself soon dominated by the Conservatives. Unemployment reached nearly three million in 1931 and had not fallen below a million-and-a-half in 1937. By the start of the Second World War in 1939, there were still up to a million unemployed, even though by then a degree of prosperity had returned to Britain. At the conclusion of World War II in 1945 there was once again a reaction to the Left and the third Labour Government was voted in, this time with a large overall majority. For the first time Labour was able to introduce some sweeping Socialist changes. Labour's main objectives were to extend public ownership in the economy, and to introduce a comprehensive "Welfare State".

By the second post-war election in 1950, when Labour was returned to power with a reduced majority, they had nationalised the Bank of England, Cable & Wireless, the major British airlines, coal, electricity, the railways, gas, and the iron and steel industries. Developing the "Welfare State", they had introduced a National Health Service and a National Insurance Scheme. In 1951 the Labour Government was split when the more radical members resigned over a budget reduction in social expenditure. An election was called, and the Conservatives returned to power for the next thirteen years. Labour's "finest hour" had come and gone. With the benefit of hindsight we can see the idealism which motivated the principles of Socialism in its formative years. But we can also see that the Socialist Reformers in their attempts to eliminate enslavement overshot the mark and ended up with excessive and heavy-handed government. This development was paralleled to an even greater extent in the USSR, where the Socialist/Communist regime created both heavyhanded government and considerable oppression. Claiming that land ownership was unfair the Soviet State took it all. No longer would a small minority of powerful landlords control 90% of the cultivable land, leaving millions with no means of livelihood or sustenance. But in practice of course, no one either rich or poor would have any direct or personal discretion in the use of land and other natural resources which would now be fully collectivized and centrally directed. Thus the State curtailed a substantial area of individual and economic liberty, depriving itself of the initiative, commonsense and pride of ownership of its agricultural workers. Many of them left for the New World, where their imported seeds and hard work would lay the foundations for the great American and Canadian grain belts which continue to feed a large part of the world's population today. Throughout production and industry the story was the same. Claiming that the country's men of enterprise were not to be

trusted, the Soviet State took over the total planning and operation of all industry and commerce. No longer would employer exploit employee by paying low wages and maintaining dangerous and unhealthy factory conditions: thus at least in theory. But in practice the substitution of centralized planning and direction with the consequent elimination of individual enterprise and initiative would lead to a steady decline in productive efficiency. This in turn meant that real wages in terms of purchasing power remained low, and that the economy could not afford to invest in new technological development or to effect improvements in environmental and factory working conditions. Wages and prices were fixed by the State on social grounds which bore no relationship to costs; this would ensure social justice of a kind, as well as monetary stability. But without the essential discipline of accounting to clarify income and expenditure, to control costs and measure efficiency, productive resources were mis-used and mis-allocated, contributing further to low productivity and low prosperity. Resources-use and industry had been brought under full State control; and personal liberty went the same way. To ensure that the people got what was best for them in their personal lives the State took upon itself to regulate the daily detail of personal, family and community life. Housing, health, education, transport, holidays, news, culture, entertainment... everything was government controlled. Certainly every Soviet citizen would now have free healthcare and education and cheap transport and subsidized ballet... all those dreams which neither the poor nor the reformers in London could ever have thought possible in the late 1800s. But the citizens of the Soviet Union would pay a price in terms of liberty; for they would no longer be able to choose how to spend the fruits of their labours nor exercise that discipline of choice upon producers so vital to maintain and continually raise standards of service and productivity. Thus the Socialist revolution would gradually reveal itself. People with ideas and enterprise were suppressed and even persecuted.

Hard work no longer had its own rewards. Freedom of speech, of the press, and access to information and knowledge of the outside world were denied to all ordinary people. The new elite would be the Party members, the government functionaries and the police. For the rest of the population class equality, of a kind, had been achieved. As they used to say in Poland: "Under capitalism there's rich and poor; under socialism, we're all poor." The old injustices of Capitalism were replaced with the new injustices of Socialism; and the world, having long experienced enslavement, had now experienced a new political phenomenon: oppression. Enslavement occurs when man is permitted to infringe the liberties of fellow man. Oppression is created when the State itself invades the liberties of those it governs. Have we learned the lesson? It might appear so. Few are the Westerners who speak Russian; but we are all familiar with the Russian word perestroika. Literally it means reorganization; in practice it has come to mean the discrediting and the collapse of Socialism/Communism. And yet as people in the West watch with an undeniable sense of superiority the continuing disintegration of the former Soviet Communist system, they are perhaps unaware that a part of every human soul yearns for the security of the Socialist regime. Under Socialism, the Great State Machine takes care of us all from cradle to grave, educating, entertaining, employing, feeding and housing us, doing what's best for us. We know that without the vital spark of human initiative a nation cannot grow economically; yet we cling to our Socialistic dreams of "free" healthcare and education, and subsidies for everything we can possibly imagine without even wanting to know where the money is to come from. But the same rules which have caused the downfall of Socialism in the former Soviet Union operate in the West too. All the northern European health systems are now coming under increasing pressure from waste and abuse; the State school systems

teach little or nothing at enormous expense; and the expansion of subsidies for anything and everything combined with a marked reluctance to pay for them has resulted in ever-increasing Government debt. Government continues to grow in size and in cost, not only in Britain and Europe, but equally so in that bastion of free enterprise, the United States of America. Do we blame Government, or do we blame ourselves? It is said that in a democracy people get the government they deserve; could it be that irresponsible government is the result and the wish of an irresponsible electorate? President Kennedy once suggested that America's citizens should ask not what America can do for them, but what they can do for America. It might be suggested that voters today should ask not what they can get out of Government, but who on earth is going to pay for it. Wherever it is practised, the nature and the problems of Socialism are the same and are simply stated. The distinctive feature of Socialism is that it takes funds and decisions from individuals and places them in the hands of Government; the services supplied by Government are costly and inefficient, choice is reduced, and liberty is eroded. Socialism has indeed reduced the opportunity for man to exploit fellow man which existed under right- wing, laisser-faire government; but the measure of liberty has not increased, for Socialist government creates its own exploitation through overorganization and oppression, in the name of social equality. As they used to joke in the old days behind the Iron Curtain: "Capitalism is the exploitation of man by fellow man. Under Socialism it's the other way round". Nations and their governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression and liberty. We have experienced enslavement, and oppression. Liberty, full and universal Liberty, continues to elude us.

The Demise of Extremism By 1900 the franchise, the ability to vote in secret according to conscience or self-interest, was widely held. And during the first half of this Century the Right-Left choice provided sufficient opportunity for the individual voter's interests to be reflected in Parliament. "Democracy" had arrived. Democracy today, especially in America, holds a place of nearsanctity in our political thinking, yet its voters are increasingly dissatisfied and disillusioned. Is Democracy at fault? Democracy's first and perhaps main attribute is that it is clearly an improvement over Autocracy or Dictatorship. The word Autocracy comes from the Greek word kratos meaning power, and self (autos), the sense being that one Leader holds power for himself solely and exclusively. This term can apply to the Absolute Monarchs of early England or to the more recent dictatorships of Africa and Latin America. Democracy gives power to the people, the word being derived from the Greek words power (kratos), and demos meaning people. In order to ascertain the Will of the People, the Democratic system provides for periodic elections. Democracy is essentially a process whereby the People, rather than an Autocratic Monarch or Dictator, can peaceably present and review options, then select the policy of their choice. The importance and stability of orderly electoral procedure should not be underrated. The alternative is a bullet in the President's head or a full-scale civil war. We should not forget that many countries, far too many, still change their Presidents and their Governments in this way. But Democracy has its imperfections, and its limitations. Democracy means power to the people. But this remains an ideal, and does not reflect the way Democracy works in practical reality. It is a matter of simple definition that we cannot have real and genuine power to the people unless all of the people are of one mind. And in practice, they never are.

Democracy, or power to the people, we do not have. What we practise today is Majocracy, or power to the majority of the people. In this sense we still give power to the Powerful; but now "the Powerful" are those in the numerical majority, or increasingly in the United States, those with the greatest financial support. And what of the laws and social conditions which result? The presumption of a Democratic system is that the Majority is "right". The rightness of a law exists precisely because it is a majority decision; it requires no other justification. This presumption is not, nor ever has been, convincing. The Law is not right simply because a majority of the citizenry supports it. Majorities can be financially irresponsible, oppressive of minorities, or simply wrong by the instinct of political morality which exists in every one of us - when we choose to consider "right" as opposed to self-interest. America is justly considered the world's major latter-day exponent of Democracy; yet their Founding Fathers recognized that the unrestricted exercise of Majority Rule could result in irresponsible Government, or worse still, tyranny of the Majority. It was for this reason that they added to their Constitution a Bill of Rights which set boundaries of individual rights and freedoms beyond which the Law was not permitted to exercise any control. But even when the powers of Law are thus limited, Government in a Democracy can only be as good as the policies which voters are offered, and the choice which voters make. Democracy is simply a system for making choices; as such it is not responsible for the range of options available, nor for the voters' choices, nor for the resultant social conditions. It is the Party Policy presented and publicly supported within the framework of Democracy which creates Laws and forms the social environment in which we live and work. If we are dissatisfied with our Government in a Democracy then we must look at Government policy, define and analyze our dissatisfaction, produce a new policy backed by a supporting Political Party, then vote it into office.

And there is every indication that the time for such a re-thinking of Government and Political Policy is now upon us. The demise of Right-Left extremism and the apparent vacuum it has left in British politics today is paralleled in the politically developed countries across the world. This situation may be viewed with dismay by the traditional political parties, and with disillusionment by the voting public. But when we take the broad theoretical and historical view it becomes clear that our present condition of becalmed neutrality may be the signal for a change, a very fundamental change in the way we view and conduct our political and social relationships. Where there is contact between people it is possible for one to profit by causing loss to others. Since the dawn of political history it has always been possible for man to injure, impose upon and otherwise infringe the liberty of fellow man; this has been permitted by Laisser-faire Government of the Right, or perpetrated by Socialism and Communism on the Left. The result is our present Democratic forum in which Right and Left battle out their perceived sectional interests, though now with everdecreasing conviction. Conservatives want high prices, high profits, low wages, and free unregulated markets. Socialists want high wages with low prices and low profits, and a full compliment of Government- operated welfare facilities paid for by taxing the wealthy and if necessary through deficit spending. Both policies are self-interest oriented, each attempting to further the welfare of its own group at the expense of the other. Neither Party has a universality of approach, a policy guiding its actions for the benefit of the whole nation. But the people should not be too quick to criticize governments or political parties; for the people as voters have always expressed that same basic motivation of self-interest. We support the Party which reflects our sectional interests, which promises to fulfil our

own personal or group or class desires. That there is no Party or Policy currently purporting to represent the Universal Interest is probably because no one is interested in the Universal Interest. However there are many indications to suggest that the Right-Left options of political Parties currently offered to voters no longer reflect contemporary needs and aspirations. As the 1993 edition of "The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World" frankly admits: "Public opinion polls show a greater disdain for Parties and Party politicians than ever before, while voters seem never to have been less willing to state a Party affiliation or, having stated one, to vote consistently." So where do we go from here? Political conflict between people is caused when actions beneficial to one are harmful or detrimental to others. The resolution of political conflict presents two alternatives: acts of imposition or exploitation can either be continued, or avoided. This is a matter for individual choice; it is also reflected in the form of Government which people either tolerate or purposely create. Do we seek a Government guided by policies which maximize liberty for all by identifying and preventing those actions which are harmful to others, the path of universal liberty? Or do we support a Government which furthers the interests of our own group or class at the expense of others, the path of selfinterest? Mankind long ago rejected the ideals of Universal Liberty, choosing instead the path of self-interest, through which each individual attempts to enhance his or her own wellbeing at the expense of others by the use of personal power or through manipulation of the legislative process. After two thousand years of conflict and confrontation, culminating in a Democracy which can only offer us a choice between classoriented ideologies, perhaps the time has come to face this Fundamental Political Choice once again, this time adopting a different solution, a solution in which our political institutions identify, and our laws forbid, any and all of those actions which are

harmful or injurious to others. This would indeed give us a new direction in politics. But it would be "new" only in its adoption. The ideals of "Right Law" and non-injury to others are not new. They are as old as human conscience, ideals which have been expressed since the earliest records of political thought. PART TWO: PRINCIPLES and PRACTICE Chapter 6: LIBERTY AND LAW The Ideal of Right Law - The Principle of Liberty - Liberty and Government Intervention The Ideal of Right Law Despite the preponderance of self-interest throughout our history to date, the pursuit of "Right Law" and the ideal of some ultimate universality has claimed the attention of political thinkers and writers since early Greek and Roman times. "I find that it has been the opinion of the wisest men that Law is not a product of Human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole Universe by its wisdom. Reason has always existed, derived from the Nature of the Universe, urging men to right conduct and diverting them from wrong-doing; and this Reason did not first become Law when it was written down, but when it first came into existence; and it came into existence simultaneously with the Divine Mind." These principles were expressed by the Roman philosopher Cicero in "The Republic". While such ideals can be traced yet further back to the early Greek political philosophers, it was the Romans and Cicero in particular who gave to the Greek doctrine of Natural Law a statement in which it was to become universally known throughout Western Europe down to the Nineteenth Century. Cicero continues: "There is in fact a true Law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands it summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them

from doing wrong. To invalidate this Law by Human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissible ever to restrict its operation; and to annul it wholly is impossible." Particularly important here is the assumed distinction between the fundamental laws of nature which are a product of the Divine Mind, and man-made laws. Man-made laws should ideally reflect Natural Law; if they do not, they are in Cicero's view, worthless. George H. Sabine ("A History Of Political Theory") comments: "None of the great Roman jurists doubted that there is a higher law than the enactments of any particular State. Like Cicero they conceived of the law as ultimately rational, universal, unchangeable, and divine, at least in respect to the main principles of right and justice. The Roman Law, like the English Common Law, was only in small part a product of legislation. Hence the presumption was never made that law expresses nothing but the will of a competent legislative body, which is an idea of quite recent origin. It was assumed that "nature" sets certain norms which [government's] law must live up to as best it can and that, as Cicero had believed, an "unlawful" statute simply is not law." The essence of Natural Law is that the Ruler, the State or the Legislator is always subject to the Law of God, or the Moral or Natural Law, the Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human interests and Human institutions. Thus the Ruler or Legislator becomes an interpreter of a Higher Law, rather than an instigator or originator of law reflecting perhaps the interests and profit of himself or the group he represents. This general principle of government - that authority is justified only on moral grounds - may appear somewhat alien today. But it achieved almost universal acceptance within a comparatively short time after Cicero and remained a commonplace of political philosophy throughout the Middle Ages, becoming a part of the common heritage of political ideas. The concept of Natural Law was fundamental to the political philosophy of Henry Bracton whose written comments after the Magna Carta have already been quoted. Bracton particularly stressed that the King must "be under God and the Law", by which may be understood the "Natural Law" or Right Reason.

Following this same tradition Sir Edward Coke attempted to impose the discipline of "Right Law" upon the Acts of Parliament in the early 1600s. Coke became Attorney General in 1594 and retained this Elizabethan appointment until 1606, when King James made him Chief Justice of Common Pleas and later, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a post he retained until 1616. Before beginning a new career as a Member of the House of Commons in 1620, Coke devoted himself to writing his Reports and Institutes which became the basis of legal education in England and America throughout the 1700s. As a student, Coke began to trace the medieval origins of Common Law, collecting ancient precedents that later filled the volumes appearing under the title "The Institutes of the Laws of England and the Reports of Sir Edward Coke Kt. in English in Thirteen Parts Compleat". While preserving the Common Law's continuity he reinterpreted it in his own way, reaffirming the "Natural Law" element and defending it against all encroachments. In his opinion given in Dr. Bonhams Case (1610), Coke declared: "when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void." The ideal of subjecting law-makers to procedures of conduct and to basic concepts of "common right or reason" persisted after Coke's death in the turbulent years of revolution. A political reform group active during the Civil War years of the 1640s later known as the Levellers, held that Parliament itself should be bound by certain "fundamental laws" assuring for example religious liberty and forbidding military conscription. This attempted triumph of "right" over Electoral or Parliamentary "might" was not destined to become a permanent feature of English legislative discipline or procedure. Perhaps this was because the "Common Right or Reason" had not been, and indeed still has not been clearly defined. But such concepts would later inspire in the new United States of America the idea of codifying the essential procedures, safeguards and liberties gradually assembled over the

centuries into one single written Constitution. The first written Constitutions were motivated by two then-current political theories: Social Contract and Natural Law. The "Social Contract" element reflected the principle that government is established as a result of a compact in which individuals promise to accept the judgements of a common arbiter. An important implication is that, having put their trust and political destiny in the hands of a Central Government, the People are thereby entitled to expect from that Government justice, honesty and competence. And since it is all of the people who are subject to law, not only those who have financed or voted for the specific Party for the time being in office, it follows that there is a presumed obligation upon any Party in power to act in the overall national interest, avoiding solutions favouring specific sectional interests. Though this ideal may be difficult to define, it has nonetheless been possible to limit Government from practising the grosser extremes of natural in-justice; this is achieved through the Constitution, the function of which is to set out the specific terms of this "social contract" including the procedures, obligations and limitations to which Government should be subject. This "Natural Law" element in Constitutions gave them the sanctity of a Higher Law. "The modern Constitutional State at the time of its origins was justified and to a large extent legitimatized in terms of Natural Law theory. While the ancient idea of a divinely inspired, immutable, eternal Natural Law had been secularized by the Seventeenth Century it still provided a source of permanence in an ever unstable world. "John Locke used Natural Law to support the natural rights of the individual, thus limiting the powers of Government. The written Constitutions which followed Locke's philosophy embodied such traditional natural rights in detailed provisions."
["Constitutions That Have Made History": Blaustein and Sigler, Paragon House, New York, 1988].

Despite their growing commitment to "rule by the people" - or

more accurately, the majority of the people - the Framers of the United States Constitution were under no delusions that Democracy of itself could be relied upon to guarantee good laws. In an attempt to preserve discipline and integrity in government the Framers provided a clear and concise Constitution creating a system in which several branches of Government share power, yet limit that power through a series of checks and balances. But even this was not enough. Many of the Framers felt that Liberty should be more specifically defined and protected. Among them was Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who argued that the Constitution as it stood directly after its adoption would "put Civil Liberty and happiness of the people at the mercy of Rulers who may possess the great unguarded powers given."; He demanded such amendments "as will give security to the just rights of Human nature, and better secure from injury the discordant interests of the different parts of this Union."; The result was the first ten Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights which set specific bounds on the range and extent of Law. The significance of the Bill of Rights, as with similar Constitutional limitations on Government activity, lies in the recognition of a Higher Law endowing mankind with certain fundamental rights and liberties to which even elected Parliaments must defer. Acceptance of a higher, Natural Law requires that "... the Legislator who formulates laws is a Priest of Justice, the practitioner of a true philosophy, not a pretender to an imitation. Natural Law meant interpretation in the light of such conceptions as equality before the Law, faithfulness to engagements, fair dealing or equity."
[George H. Sabine: "A History Of Political Theory"].

A latter-day exponent of "Just Law," Rudolf Stammler ["The Theory of Justice", 1925], regarded this belief in Natural Law as the crowning glory of Roman jurisprudence: "This, in my opinion, is the universal significance of the classical Roman jurists; this, their permanent worth. They had the courage to raise their glance from the ordinary questions of the day to the

whole. And in reflecting on the narrow status of the particular case, they directed their thoughts to the guiding star of all law, namely the realization of justice in life." Following the Industrial Revolution and the growing complexity of regulatory detail, legislators and political philosophers gradually abandoned any attempt to focus on "the guiding star of all Law", concentrating instead on "the ordinary questions of the day". But it was not, nor ever has been simply a matter of concentrating on detail at the expense of overall strategy; in fact the "opponent" of Natural Law was not and is not detail, but self-interest. The concept of Natural Law is essentially a reflection of that universal-interest which seeks benefit, peace and stability for all. This can be achieved when the Law identifies and prevents injury in all its manifestations, rather than perpetuating it. Throughout our history we have pursued the alternative path, that of self-interest, where individuals seek to improve their own lives at the expense of others, supporting Governments and Laws which promote that objective. This resulted in slavery and feudalism, revolution and civil war, the riches and poverty of the industrial revolution, and the revenge of Socialism, the whole continuing saga symbolized in the polarization of Right and Left, each side representing a particular class or sectional self-interest. But there are now clear signs that in the pursuance of self-interest we have reached the end of the road. The marked difference between Right and Left, and with it the whole concept of self-interest-motivated, confrontationary politics, was not destined to last, and its demise is already apparent. Both Party policies, of the Right and of the Left, were class-oriented, designed to further the interests of one class, if necessary at the expense of the other. The attraction of such policies was bound to fade as class differences disappeared, and as people have gradually come to the more civilized view that the Laws directing our social conduct should promote the liberty and wellbeing of all the people, not some at the expense of others. Perhaps the time has come when we should once again take up the

search for the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" expounded by early Greeks and Romans, the "Common Right or Reason" of Coke, that "Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human choice and Human institution" still sought by our latter-day exponents of Natural Law. The Principle of Liberty The traditional concept of a universal guiding principle, a "Right Law" to which Legislators and Legislation are subservient, is many centuries old. That we have not formally identified the essence of "Right" or Universal Law is most probably due to the fact that "we" both in and out of Government and Parliament have been more interested in seeking personal rather than universal benefit. Is it now time to reconsider this fundamental issue? In our everyday lives, in personal relationships, in our use of natural resources, in our business and commercial affairs, it is possible for some to gain benefit at the expense of others. This is the essential feature of political conflict. Our response to potential conflict is reflected in personal conduct, and in the Governments we choose or accept. Either we choose, and our Laws permit us, to continue injuring, exploiting and imposing on one another so that some may gain wealth through the impoverishment of others; or we attempt to avoid, and our Laws identify and prevent, those actions which are harmful or injurious to others so that we can all live in peace, harmony and maximum liberty. One is the path of imposition; the other is the path of nonimposition and cooperation. For two thousand years we have taken the path of imposition, during which time that path has been explored through the full range of slavery, feudalism, exploitation, civil wars, and the confrontation of sectional interests. Today with the demise of extremism we have been brought once again to the point of decision, but now with a more enlightened outlook born of hard and often cruel experience. As we confront this fundamental choice again, perhaps we may now choose a different path, that of non-imposition, cooperation

and the maximization of the general liberty. When we begin to seek fair rules by which we can live together and collaborate productively without exploiting one another, we will find that the true nature of "Right Law", of universal liberty, is and always has been clear and straightforward, awaiting only Human recognition and acceptance. It exists inside every one of us, for we all know what is right and wrong in social conduct - if we ever bother to ask ourselves. It exists as the fundamental basis of English Common Law; and it has been expressed by political thinkers, writers and philosophers for thousands of years. This is the Eternal Law of Right Social Conduct: that each should pursue his or her own advancement, but in ways which respect the right of others to do likewise; that each should seek his or her own growth, but in ways which do not diminish others. If we then seek to apply this principle of universal-interest in Government, we will find that the guiding policy is clear and simple: the purpose of Government and Law is the identification and prevention of exploitation, harm or injury between people. This guiding Principle has been expressed in many forms through the centuries; it is expressed clearly and concisely in the words of Thomas Jefferson: the purpose of Government is to prevent men from injuring one another. It is worth considering this proposition in detail, for it has implications far beyond its apparent simplicity. Clearly, Jefferson was not confining injury to grievous bodily harm, any more than he was confining the term men to the male gender. The purpose of Government in this view is to prevent people from injuring one another, and injury can take many forms which grow in number and complexity as the world develops. One can harm one's fellow citizens by making and selling a machine which is unsafe in use; or through incorrect labelling of a food product which results in a user consuming an additive to which he or she is strongly allergic. There are many ways in which we can injure one another, in our

personal activities, in commerce and industry, in our use (or misuse) of natural resources. In Jefferson's view it is Government's job to identify and define those actions leading to the injury of others, then to prevent them through appropriate Laws and Enforcement. Thomas Jefferson was not inventing a new idea. He was taking his place in a long line of political theorists and idealists from early Greeks, through Cicero, Bracton and Coke; he shared the same principles with his colleagues as Framers of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and he was handing on a continuing tradition of fundamental rightness with which we are all, in our consciences, familiar. Most people of the Anglo legal tradition (Britain, the United States and many Commonwealth countries) object in principle to any excess of regulation. We dislike meddlesome government; we find unnecessary regulation tiresome and annoying; we abhor oppressive government. Yet few would object to being told they may not do something, if it can be clearly shown that their action is in some way harmful or detrimental to others. And when a person is suffering injury at the hands of another, we would all accept that person's right to remedy and protection in law. The idea is well summarized by one of the 20th century's leading figures in British justice, Lord Denning, in his book "The Family Story": "Each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same." This view of Law as the prevention of injury between people reflects the fundamental limitation of social freedom. We cannot all have absolute freedom in our social relationships with one another. If one person is totally free to do whatever he likes, he is by definition free to limit or indeed eliminate the freedom of another, thereby reducing that second freedom possibly to zero. The best we can do is to maximize freedom, and this we achieve when we all accept certain limitations on our individual freedoms so that we do not infringe the freedom of others. To describe this concept of shared, limited freedom we use the

word of Latin-Roman origin: Liberty. A Land of Liberty is not a land in which we all have absolute freedom to do exactly as we please. That would be a land of anarchy, since everyone would be free to limit, or eliminate the freedom of anyone else. A Land of Liberty is a land in which we are all subject to some restraint in those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, so that we can all enjoy not absolute, but a measure of Liberty. In this way, the general Liberty can be maximized. Without the Rule of Law people would be free to injure one another in the widest possible sense, each attempting to enhance his or her own personal wealth and possessions through the dispossession of others. This is Anarchy. The remedy is the kind of Government visualized by Jefferson and Lord Denning, Government which exists specifically to prevent people from doing those things which are injurious, harmful or detrimental to one another. When Government as referee identifies those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then prevents such actions by Law and its enforcement, Government is limiting individual freedom; but in so doing it creates the conditions in which the general overall Liberty is maximized. The Principle of "freedom up to, but not beyond the point where freedom infringes another freedom" is the Eternal Law of social conduct, the fundamental Principle of Non-Injury instinctively familiar to us all. If this Principle were to be observed by citizens and applied by laws, Liberty would be maximized, and laws would enjoy the guidance of a Principle which fully reflects the age-old ideals of Natural Law, of non-injury, of respect, justice and fair dealings between people. The Principle of Liberty requires in our personal relationships, in business and commerce, and in our use of natural resources, that we respect others as if they were ourselves, that we respect others as we would have others respect us. It will be recognized at once

by anyone familiar with the Sermon on the Mount. The Principle of Liberty may also be seen as an accurate reflection of the age-old ideal of "Natural Law", the "Common Right or Reason". It is universal rather than sectional in its approach and objectives; when accurately, honestly and consistently applied it seeks to maximize the general liberty for all rather than enhancing the wellbeing of some at the expense of others. Only in Liberty will the flower of Civilization unfold. And Liberty, true and full liberty, will be achieved only when all of the people understand, accept, and support with full knowledge and conviction the Principle that in the enjoyment of Liberty each must respect, never infringe the liberty of others. But individuals need not wait for "all the people". The respect for others inherent in this Principle is something which all those wishing to do so can begin to adopt now or at any time in their daily personal lives and conduct. We can become more sensitive and appreciative of the feelings of others; we can become ever more aware of how our actions affect others; we can impose upon ourselves ever higher standards of fairness and honesty in our personal conduct, and insofar as we are able, in our commercial dealings with co-workers and customers. We can develop our growing respect for the environment as a living entity, and we can expand our attitude of mutual respect from the Human to the Animal Kingdom. One of the most fervent wishes expressed by our human race is for peace. We pray for it, as if it were a gift from God. But in truth, the gift of peace can only come from ourselves. Peace is the absence of aggression, and it is we ourselves who cause aggression. Only when we learn to respect one another, to treat one another, our environment, and all lifeforms with respect, only when we rigorously avoid any form of aggression, injury, or exploitation, only then will we have peace. It is no use praying to our gods for peace; only we ourselves can give this gift to the world. Respecting, not infringing the liberties of others in our own personal lives requires constant awareness, thought, and analysis simply to observe what we are doing and to consider how it affects

others. It requires the exercise of self discipline to put this knowledge to effect; and it demands self sacrifice if we are voluntarily to set aside the convenience and the profit which we can gain at others' expense. The reward lies in the knowledge of ultimate rightness, that what we are doing is right not only in personal conduct, but that it is the path which society must ultimately take as it advances in civilization. As awareness and appreciation of Liberty grow, and as we become increasingly disillusioned with traditional class-oriented confrontational policies, the time will inevitably come when we begin seriously to consider adoption of the Principle of Liberty as the political philosophy guiding our Laws. But we may then quite reasonably ask: can a Principle such as this be defined with sufficient precision to act as a guide for our laws? Is it capable of useful and practical application to the needs of our complex society? The answer in both cases is positive. Liberty and Government Intervention The Principle of Liberty is an ideal. It is an expression of Human social conscience, of our fundamental sense of right and wrong in our dealings with others. It reflects the ancient concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law. It is the path of universal-interest. But the Principle of Liberty can also be defined with considerable accuracy. We have observed that throughout most of our political history Government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their wellbeing by diminishing that of others. Insufficient Government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right Wing Conservatism. Under this Regime freedom is increased for some but decreased for others; hence the overall Liberty is not maximized. The Socialist reaction gave Government, or the State, considerably

greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth. But excessive Government initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime Liberty is increased by Government protection, but it is then decreased as Government goes further and creates oppression. Again, Liberty is not maximized. Liberty is maximized when Government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression. It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in Government policy, and the Liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention. The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent. Let us first establish the two "extremes" at each end of the scale. At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that Government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes nonexistent. The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader. In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Freedom can be absolute, or it can be nothing, depending on your strength, skill, cunning, or luck! Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime. At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total Government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of allowing Government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother. Fortunately most of us experience neither anarchy in the sense of zero Government, nor the total oppression of one hundred percent Government. But these two positions provide clear end-points as

reference positions. While there is little current example of zero Government, many of the ex-Socialist-bloc countries now have a degree of Government which in the confusion following perestroika may be considered seriously deficient, resulting in black markets, widespread corruption, and the control of production and commerce in the cities moving from the State into the hands of mafia-style gangs. It might well appear to the citizens of Russia's major cities that Government Intervention is almost at Zero. More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of, say, a nominal 25% Government Intervention. This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally "let people get on with it". The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, Physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom. The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work "The Wealth of Nations" (published in 1776) became the gospel of the "System of National Liberty" for the next century in European and American thought. Familiar with the works of Quesnay, Smith built a more solid basis for his attack on government, updated now to reflect the shift of emphasis from land to industry which was concurrently unfolding. Smith held that the source of a nation's wealth is labour. The increase in a nation's wealth therefore depends on making labour more efficient, which is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and materials in international trade. To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government. This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientificeconomic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of

society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to argue against it. But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for injury, for some to gain through others' loss. And as the Industrial Revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge and a modicum of social conscience. Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those in the weaker position: their employees, the ex-hand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meager wage for long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation. And the Law was predictably slow to act in their defence. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of Government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised. But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of Parliament that while accepting the basic doctrine of Liberty, an increase in Government Intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot. The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers. So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant

opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen. But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and educated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the other extreme: to Socialism and Communism which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized. Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of Government and the State is actively pursued. "Place everything in the hands of the State", the Socialists urged, "and the State will take good care of us all". Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition, coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, Socialism appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State Control. One such visionary was Herbert Spencer, who in 1884 wrote: "There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a de-creasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control. The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favour its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives. The people at large, led to look on benefits received through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more. "Thus influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action and decrease individual action. The numerous Socialistic changes already made by Act of Parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in State-socialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised." Spencer's words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the Soviet Union, but also of attitudes,

demands, high taxes and budget deficits in the West. Nations and their Governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression and liberty. Enslavement, exploitation and imposition result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention, or Laisser-faire, which permits infringement of liberty by citizens. Oppression, Government intrusion and State takeover of business results from a High Degree of Government Intervention, or Socialism-Communism, which creates infringement of liberty by Government. And where can we find Liberty? Certainly not at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent Intervention there is no protection of Liberty whatsoever. So we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale. As we do so a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress further up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection. How far should we continue to increase intervention? The Right-wing definition of Liberty as "minimum Government Intervention" has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet Socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the Anglo-American concept of Law recognize what may be called Presumption of Liberty, the concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom. And what constitutes a "very good reason" for the law to limit freedom? Another very old-established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful or injurious to others. So we continue to increase intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to

ensure full protection of each and every individual's liberty from infringement by others in any way. This point is the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention. Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention there would be no opportunity whatsoever for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others. At this point we have achieved one "side" of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens. But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression. We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of liberty between citizens. So if we increase intervention any further Government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and oppressive. As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of liberty immediately begins; its effects are painful, and lead ultimately to total oppression. Yet it is an easy road to take. The dream of "total care" by a benevolent Government, though impossible to attain, is nonetheless tempting. And the movement from 50% to higher and ever higher degrees of intervention in people's personal lives can begin all too easily with laws "for our own good". But secretive Government, oppressive laws, excessive industrial regulation and dictatorial land-use planning will soon begin to develop. Under a policy of 50% Intervention, Government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgements upon one another, but initiates no imposition through Government excess. 50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty. If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of

any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of intervention. Government is permitting a degree of enslavement. On the other hand, if Government issues any law, order or directive which is not clearly in defence of an identifiable liberty, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 51% or some higher degree of intervention. Government is initiating some degree of oppression. The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of anarchy, enslavement and oppression, of laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Right and Left on the single common scale of Government Intervention allows us to define Liberty very precisely. Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more. At 50% Intervention there is no infringement of liberty either by citizen or by the State; there is neither enslavement nor oppression; the general liberty is maximized. At 50% Intervention, the Principle of Liberty is fully and accurately reflected. The Degree of Government Intervention necessary to maximize liberty can thus be identified with a precision which any citizen can readily comprehend, and when necessary, defend. The Principle of Liberty can be defined accurately and precisely; but is it capable of useful and practical application? When the Principle is right, the laws resulting from it must also be right. Or so theory might suggest. But can the Principle of Liberty, consistently applied, satisfy the legislative demands of a complex modern society? Again the answer is positive. Legislative interpretation of the Principle of Liberty may provide some unusual solutions to our problems, but they are solutions which are visibly fair, and fundamentally effective.

The formulation of Legislation is the process through which a clear and simple guiding Principle is applied to the complex and everchanging parade of conditions and activities. In this profusion of events and activities we may identify three basic categories of conditions, three areas of social activity to which a political policy or principle may be applied: - Person and Property - Use of Natural Resources, and - Economics, Production and Commerce. It can clearly be shown that Legislation based accurately and consistently on the Principle of Liberty will be fair and just, promoting the Universal Interest and maximizing both the general Liberty and overall prosperity. Chapter 7: PERSON AND PROPERTY Mind, Body and Property - Extending the Protection of Law Liberty and Enforcement Services Mind, Body and Property There is a naturally definable Personal Area which inherently "belongs" to each individual: the mind, body and products of the individual's labour, that which is directly associated with, or attributable to the individual. Legislation applicable in this Personal Area deals with what is already by creation and by definition the individual's property. The Principle of Liberty requires protection without intrusion. This would be reflected first and foremost in the simple requirement that Government should "prevent men from injuring one another". Many may feel that Government should do much more; but few would dispute the proposition that personal protection must form the essential basis of Law. If a nation's good citizens cannot walk peacefully in the streets without fear of physical violence, or if they are not safe in their homes, then surely their Government is failing in its most fundamental duty and purpose, whether that failure be an insufficiency in Law or in the

enforcement of it. Security of body and mind from intrusion by others naturally includes legislation and protection against murder or physical injury. We must also include the more subtle forms of intrusion such as excessive noise, light trespass, and air pollution (which also affects the environment as a separate issue). Protection from excessive or unreasonable noise is now recognized as an important area of Personal Liberty, and light trespass already enjoys legal recognition, although this latter fact is not widely known. While smoking in private is a matter for personal discretion and is no concern of government, it is now widely recognized that smoking in shared and public places creates a form of air pollution which others may be allergic to or find offensive, and from which they should expect protection in law and through local bylaws. An example of a new development in personal privacy protection can be seen in the present need for clear regulation applicable to computer Data Bases containing information of a personal nature. The laws of Personal Liberty must also protect property: the direct manifestation of the individual's labour, such as ideas and services, or the equivalent in goods, services or money which the individual has obtained in legal and fair exchange for his products or labour. While the protection of person and property is currently recognized and thus a non-contentious issue, complications in the Personal Area are nonetheless potentially numerous. Freedom of speech, for example, is highly respected in the United States; its importance lies particularly in the protection of citizens from Government attempts to stifle opposition, and in the benefits of ensuring the free flow and development of ideas. But should the Law permit published lies and defamation of character? Clearly not, as there is injury here. Newspaper readers have a right to expect the truth insofar as it is reasonably obtainable; and individual citizens have a right to privacy, and to protection from publication of lies and character defamation. Freedom of speech, like freedom of action in general, cannot be absolute. What is important, as in all cases of interpretation of the Principle

of Liberty, is that each and every actual, potential or suspected injury be fully explored, then minimized or eliminated. The existence of injury places a clear obligation upon Legislators to identify and prevent it. But the existence of injury also exercises restraint over Legislators, who cannot act except in the protection of liberty from clear, definable and explicit injury. The Principle of Liberty is fully and accurately reflected, and liberty is maximized, when the citizen is fully protected from personal harm or injury or intrusion, theft or deprivation of property. This is represented by a degree of Intervention of 50%, no less, and no more. If this protective force is exerted by Law and Enforcement in all cases of infringement of Personal Liberty then the Law is applying a precise degree of 50% Intervention. If the Law then increases its degree of Intervention beyond 50%, to a nominal 51% or further, it is now exerting not a protective or defensive force, but an aggressive, intrusive force. At this point we start to lose connection with the Principle of Liberty, as the Law itself begins to create infringement of citizens' Liberties. One very simple test of Government force or intervention, by which we can define whether a particular Law is defensive or intrusive, is to ask whether or not the Law concerned is in defence of one identifiable Liberty against a clearly definable infringement by another. If it is, then it is protective. If it is not, then that Law is intrusive and exceeds 50% Intervention. Under a Policy of 50% Intervention there can be no Law and no crime without an Injury, without a clear infringement of the Liberty of one citizen by another. If Government issues any Law, order or directive which is not clearly in defence of an identifiable Liberty, then Government is exercising not 50%, but some higher degree of Intervention. It might easily be assumed that Government, especially in a "free" and democratic country, rarely if ever strays into oppression. The assumption would regrettably be quite erroneous. A high degree of Intervention in the Personal Area is quite common and increasing. Governments slip into the beginnings of oppression in two ways: by legislating "for the citizen's own good", and by claiming through the process of taxation-as-of-right an ever-increasing proportion of the citizen's earnings which are then disbursed at Government's

absolute discretion. Laws which intrude into personal, private lives "for our own good" represent the first step into 51% Intervention and beyond. The first step is the most significant; once that is taken by Government, and citizens have accepted with their compliance, the safe confines of the Principle of Liberty have been breached, and further steps will inevitably follow. Consider, for example, the Law requiring minimum-wear standards on the tyres of motor vehicles, and laws requiring seatbelt use. Worn tyres can cause an accident which may result in the injury of others; legislation laying down minimum specifications for tyre treads would therefore be in accordance with 50% Government Intervention. But a Law requiring the use of seat-belts is for the individual's personal safety only; failure to use a seat-belt can in no way infringe the Liberty of others. Such legislation thus represents an excess of 50% Intervention. It is often argued in countries with State-operated Health Services that accidents caused by lack of seatbelt use are an imposition on the National Health Service and thus on the community; this argument overlooks the fact that enforced contribution to a monopoly State-run Health Service is itself a gross infringement of individual Liberty. Another motive behind this type of "personal welfare" legislation is the presumption that Government has the right, or even the obligation, to impose directives on conduct relating exclusively to the individual's private welfare; this assumes, dangerously, Government superiority. "We think it's good for you, we know best, therefore you must be required to do it by law". Should we accept that others know better? Most certainly one should always be open to professional advice, and most certainly it is wise always to consider and practise prudent personal behaviour. But should we accept compulsory direction by Government of private lives and conduct, direction which has no bearing upon political liberty? If we do so, then we are humoring Government dangerously; we are acquiescing to the myth of Government superiority; and we are encouraging other similar intrusions into

private life and conduct. Today it is seatbelts and mass-medication through the water supply (fluoridation); tomorrow no doubt, as a simple logical extension of the same principle, it will be mass cold baths and early morning exercises under the auspices of the Ministry of Public Wellbeing. People might be healthier in body, but the health of political Liberty would take a severe turn for the worst. As we debate the pros and cons of various aspects of wise or unwise private personal conduct we frequently omit the most important question: should Government intervene to enforce the final decision? Having omitted to ask this question we all too frequently assume that if some aspect of private conduct is sensible and safe for the individual, Government enforcement of it is automatically appropriate and desirable. But we should realize that in so doing we are taking the first steps on the road to oppression. No persons either individually or through Government, should impose their will, their way of life, their judgements or their brand of wisdom on the private life of others no matter how correct they might think their own way of life to be and how wrong they think that of others. the Principle of Liberty and the Laws which reflect it respect the individual's right to do things which might be considered foolish or unwise, provided they do not harm others. It is important that we should remain ever watchful in regard to the expansionary activities and influences of Government in order to ensure that Intervention never exceeds the precise degree of 50%. When citizens infringe the Liberties of one another they fortunately have limited scope to do so, and those harmed can find remedy in law. But when the law slides into the path of oppression, remedy is more difficult to find, the effects are much more far-reaching, and the trend is difficult to halt or reverse. Just as Government under the Principle of Liberty may not intrude into the individual's personal life except to legislate for the protection of others, so also would Government no longer be permitted access to the individual's earnings, helping itself without limit to however much it chooses.

Government infringement of Personal Liberty in the demands which it makes upon our earnings is an issue increasingly claiming our attention; it is not just a matter of quantity, but fundamentally more important is the assumption on which such claims are based. Government takes taxes as of right, with no obligation to offer anything in return or to justify specific expenditures, and without any operational disciplines on the productive use of such taxes. Citizens traditionally expect any of three duties from Government: law, income transfer, and the operation of essential and infrastructure services. Each of these three functions must be considered separately, for each has a different bearing on taxation. As to provision of Law, this is the essential "core function" of Government. Under the Principle of Liberty Government confines itself to the provision of law and its enforcement, or more specifically, those Legislative, Protective and Constitutional Services essential to and directly related to the protection of Liberty. In the execution of these duties Government under the Principle of Liberty would be required to maximize its own productivity, offering the best possible service at the lowest possible cost. This aspect of Government will be further explored in a later Chapter. Essential and Infrastructure Services should be separate from Government, financially and managerially autonomous though subject to Government coordination and supervision. This issue is also examined in a later Chapter. The matter of income-transfer is more complex. Income-transfer between individuals, more specifically between rich and poor, is justified by the accepted fact that income does not fairly reflect labour or work contributed. This "guilt of wealth" has long been recognized by the wealthy themselves, as evidenced by the many fine buildings and foundations established and funded for public welfare by the great industrialists and traders of the 18th and 19th Centuries. It has also been used by Socialists as justification for the Welfare State, which is really a programme of income-transfer since it is

paid for by taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor. When we accept that work and reward are not related, and that there are indeed gross discrepancies between the work people do and the rewards they obtain, we accept the principle of incometransfer. But in so doing we are simply attempting to rectify one injustice by adding another. It will be noted in a later Chapter dealing with Economics and Commerce that through a system of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation the Principle of Liberty would ensure a fair relationship between work and reward, thus removing both the need and the justification for income-transfer. A further implication of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation is that it creates the basic conditions enabling expansion of the economy to full employment and full productive capacity. Much if not most of the welfare and social services expenditure required at present is necessary simply to compensate citizens for the unemployment, homelessness and poverty directly attributable to present Government policies. Income-transfer may also be advocated to subsidize services considered appropriate to a civilized society, such as Sport and the Arts. But we should be quite clear as to what is involved in subsidy. Subsidy occurs when those who claim to want or need a service are not willing to pay its viable cost. In this case, if the project or service is to continue, the cost must clearly be met by those who do not want, or use the service. Consider for example, Government subsidies for the "Arts". This demand results from the fact that those who claim to enjoy the Arts, in whatever form is under discussion, are not prepared, or do not rate the services sufficiently highly, to pay the full, viable cost. They therefore demand that others with no interest in the Arts, those who may prefer the delights of nature or devote their leisure budget to a creative hobby or travel, must be required to make a contribution to a service which is of no use to them. This is a form of enslavement, since one person is providing a service to another under compulsion and without reward. "Democracy" is often used to justify subsidy: a majority votes for a

service, therefore a minority of non-users must pay for it. But there is a better, truer form of Democracy we can employ here. The freedom to spend your money as you wish is a clear expression of Democracy: those who want a product or service "vote" for it by freely using it and by paying its viable cost; those who don't are left in peace to spend their money elsewhere. Another aspect of income-transfer takes place between Regions, as Governments use taxes to bolster the economies of Regions in difficulty or those which are on the Nation's economic periphery. Governments also make extensive use of taxes to subsidize favourite industries or "investment" projects in new industries or research projects. Ultimately however, industries must stand or fall on their intrinsic merits and investment must be judged on similar grounds. It will be observed in a later Chapter that the Principle applied in the area of Economics and Commerce provides for a degree of priority planning in the investment of the National Credit Base, allocating necessary investment to under-developed Regions, to productivity-enhancing projects and industries, as well as to essential and infra-structure services. In this case, however, investment is provided from the banking sector as loans, not from taxation as grants. Income-transfer by Governments is a dangerous practice; it distorts markets and encourages inefficient industries. More unfortunate is its effect on political conduct and morals, as evidenced in the USA where vast amounts of money are spent by Political Action Committees to influence the course of law and the flow of funds. And citizens tend increasingly to look upon Government as a source of unlimited wealth just waiting to be milked; they overlook the fact that Government can "give away" nothing it has not already taken - minus a substantial "handling fee"! More importantly under the Principle of Liberty, Government would simply not be empowered to tax citizens for any purposes except for those Legislative, Protective and Constitutional Services essential to and directly related to the protection of Liberty. Extending the Protection of Law

That the individual's mind, body and property should remain free from injury and interference by other individuals or by Government is hardly a contentious proposition. But who are the beneficiaries of the law's protection? When we come to consider extending the benefits of law beyond the Human race there is a wide gap between present actuality and reformers' ideals - leading to debate, friction and sometimes violence. At present we place a high priority on Personal Liberty; everyone has the right to protection, and equal protection, under the law. We find quite abhorrent any form of slavery, or of unequal rights for different classes of citizens. Yet there are still areas to which we do not consider it appropriate at present to extend our respect, and the protection of law. Thus while we may believe that Humans should respect one another, many accept that they may freely abuse animals, birds, and fishes, in addition to the un-born human foetus. If we examine our historical course of political progress, we can see that the rights of others, to live without pain or molestation and to follow their own paths of evolution, are continuously being expanded. Thus the time will doubtless come when we find it entirely natural to regard all forms of life as worthy of, and entitled to the same respect we show to one another. We will not kill animals for "pleasure", for sport, or through simple disregard. Reformers will, as they have done consistently in the past, seek to push forward the frontiers of legal protection. Just as slavery was abolished and the vote was extended, so the time will come when the protection of law will extend not only to all Humans both born and as yet only conceived, but to all lifeforms. At such time we will no doubt look back upon our current slaughter of other forms of life for food and fun with the same abhorrence with which today we view the slavery practised by our forefathers. It is a matter of general principle that if the law is too far in advance of current thinking and the morals of society, it will not be respected. But the law should nonetheless give the lead in reducing any and all infringements of liberty. Indeed the law today often lags considerably behind the popular views of right and wrong,

particularly with respect to animals and the environment. The Principle of Liberty would require legislation to remain in the forefront in offering protection to the Animal Kingdom, reflected for example in stronger protection from cruelty, banning laboratory testing on animals, and the rapid phasing-out of "factory" farming so that animals are kept in conditions as closely resembling the natural as possible. This is not only a matter of animal rights and welfare; much of the "factory-produced" meat currently consumed contains numerous chemicals and antibiotics, with highly dubious effects on the Human body. The Principle of Liberty is fully and accurately reflected, and Liberty is maximized, when not only every citizen, but every lifeform is fully protected from personal harm or injury. Liberty and Enforcement Services If any citizen suffers infringement of Liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, Government is obligated to provide the necessary Legislative protection. The administrative or physical force needed to empower this Protective Legislation is supplied by the Enforcement Services. The Enforcement Agencies collectively are responsible for enforcing the law in various ways, from administrative checks of weights and measures to the physical force of the Police; in cases of suspected lawbreaking the guilty party must be identified through the Judicial process; and where guilt is established, there must be restoration to the injured party. It is largely through these Enforcement Services that Government and the Law "interfaces" with the public, their customers. It is therefore important that conduct of the Enforcement Services should be clearly defined. The Enforcement Services must not be permitted to initiate infringement of Personal Liberty. Any interception of a citizen going about his or her lawful business is an Infringement of Liberty and can only be justified on specific grounds of suspicion of illegality which must be clearly stated at the time, and in cases of major interception (search of home or private property) justified

before, and authorized by, a representative of the Judiciary. The Judicial process of Identification attempts to establish the three components of an Infringement of Liberty: the injured party, the nature and extent of the act of infringement itself, and the perpetrator of the injury. The existence of an Injured Party is central to the Judicial process under the Principle of Liberty. Without an Injured Party specifically identified, either the Law must be in error, or the Law is not applicable in the particular circumstances in question. In such cases Judges could either dismiss the case, or request a Legislative Review, a process which will be examined in more detail in a later Chapter. Once an illegality has been established in a Court of Law, the Principle of Liberty allows the Court only to require that the Liberty infringed and the costs involved be restored; it allows no further intrusion into the lawbreaker's personal freedom. The concept of restoration is central to justice under the Principle of Liberty; vengeance and deterrence have no place. Law Enforcement and Justice are generally well conducted in the politically mature countries; this tradition must be preserved and enhanced, and every care must be taken to ensure that no Agent or Agency of the Enforcement Services is permitted conduct outside the bounds of Law and Constitutional Regulation. To this end, Constitutional supervision and enforcement should be provided, in the form of periodic and random visitation and inspection of detention and correction institutions. Chapter 8: NATURAL RESOURCES National Resources Plan - Urban Development - Landpricing National Resources Plan While a person may be considered to have an inherent right of ownership over him- or herself and the products of his or her own creation, the Natural Resources pose a different problem. The Natural Resources are natural. By their very definition they are not man-made, and are therefore not automatically associated

with or attributable to any individual. But people need to use natural resources for food, raw materials, habitation, commerce and recreation and must therefore make claims upon resources which are not inherently theirs. Thus it is clear that rights to the use of Natural Resources must be created or apportioned. Various solutions have been found and practised through the ages. The law may leave individuals to fight out claims amongst themselves, perhaps with a resulting tenure by a few influential families; the law may attempt a fair and productive apportionment; or the State (or dictator or monarch) may take total resources ownership into its own hands. In medieval Britain monarchs handed out land as rewards to their supporters, creating the great manorial estates. In the 1800s landuse patterns changed as agriculture became less important, giving way to industry and the great urban industrial centres. Thereafter it was largely the free market that determined land use, and many might believe that this continues to be the case. In reality land-use in most developed countries today is determined by local and national planning decisions based on complex landuse rules and local planning constraints which have grown up haphazardly over the centuries, decisions often made arbitrarily and secretively, largely as reactions to events of the moment without the benefit of long-range planning or of truly open consultation. The existing pressures on land-use can only increase, as the traditional claims we make upon land - for housing, industry and commerce, transport routes and harbours, agriculture and mining are now being extended by increased demands for greater leisure access to countryside, preservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and a greater respect for the environment. How would the Principle of Liberty apply to the apportionment and guidance of resources use? We begin with the Principle of Liberty itself, the essence of which is: liberty, until that liberty infringes the liberty of others. On a basis of presumed liberty, the duty of government is to identify and prevent through legislation those actions which are harmful or injurious to others.

Applied to land-use, we begin with the individual's freedom to use, according to his wishes and benefit, land to which he holds or may legally obtain title. The duty of government is to review individual uses of resources in order to identify and prevent those which are disproportionate or detrimental to other users or to the environment. In order to establish a basis for fair, equitable and responsible resources use, the Principle of Liberty would require three steps: First, as a working foundation, the formulation of an overall National Landplan based on a full inventory of natural resources; second, estimates of current and future demands; and third the institution of a Resources-use Forum in which availability can to the best extent possible be reconciled with actual and anticipated demands. Land has its own inherent potentialities. Certain areas may offer excellent agricultural soil while others conceal significant mineral deposits. Some areas are outstanding in natural beauty, while certain forest or river systems make their own demands for special treatment on ecological grounds. Clearly Government cannot fulfill its role as adjudicator unless and until it is fully informed as to the detailed nature of the nation's total natural resources. The inventory of availability would take the form of a national map on which every kind of resource is clearly indicated. The duty of those concerned with the provision of availability data must be to provide a detailed, continuously updated - and publicly accessible - inventory showing the location, extent and nature of all resources. The Inventory would show, for example: mineral deposits, water supplies, agricultural land graded as to quality and suitability for different crops, areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas suitable for urban settlement, as well as those areas or resources which should be handled with especial sensitivity as being appropriate for wildlife preserves or necessary for environmental wellbeing. The second stage requires the preparation of an ongoing assessment of demands upon the resources both current and anticipated, based on a thorough and fundamental analysis.

As a basis the analysis begins objectively by looking at populations and their broad, predictable needs for urban living, trade and cultural facilities, agriculture, minerals, recreation and retreat. Individuals and special-interest groups as "consumers" will then fill out the picture with additional needs and ideas such as wilderness homes or specific recreation facilities. The two banks of resources data: the Availability Inventory, and the assessment of actual and anticipated demands, can then be coordinated by a Natural Resources and Land-use Forum to produce an overall ongoing National Resources Plan. On this basis, clear guidelines can be established for such broad national uses as major agricultural needs, recreation, mining, transport and urban development. The Land-use Forum should have its purpose and procedures clearly set out in its own Articles of Constitution. Its members should represent every aspect of land and resources use; its deliberations, as well as the data on which they are based, must be open at all times to public scrutiny and input. Its object is an ongoing National Landplan, representing the continuing definition of zoning and planning guidelines and restrictions at national level, from which local level plans can then be made. But it is not only our Human requirements that we must consider. We need to use the Natural Resources, certainly. But we must do so within the limitations of environmental responsibility, and we must give back the equivalent of what we take through our stewardship and enhancement of our environment. This necessary approach to our relationship with our environment can be formalized and brought into the overall resources-use planning process by the simple expedient of according to the Environment the status of a legal entity having its own rights, defined in law, to respectful and responsible treatment and to good stewardship, rights which must stand as equals in law to our own competing Human claims. Just as minors are represented by Counsel in courts of law, so the environment should be permanently represented by an Environmental Protection Council

operating under Constitutional authority. Some environmental objectives might be listed as follows: zero land/water/air pollution; zero garbage, requiring a determined effort to eliminate garbage at source, for example through recycling and increased use of reusable containers; phase-out of factory farming and pesticides, promotion of organic farming; identification and protection of all significant natural ecosystems and major wildlife habitats. Under the Principle of Liberty broad planning guidelines would be based on objective data providing accurate information on availability and informed estimates of present and future needs, formulated with the widest possible input. It is our human challenge, particularly as population pressures increase, to use our resources wisely and responsibly, minimizing waste, providing for as many needs as possible, and reaching decisions in the common interest with the minimum of misinformation and acrimony. Interestingly, a similar policy of land-use is applied in the United States to the administration of that country's surprisingly vast area of Public Lands. It is little known outside the United States that some 270 million acres, about one-eighth of the USA, is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - in addition to land already set aside for National and State forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. The BLM has been mandated by Congress to manage Public Lands on a continuing basis for multiple use and sustained yield, taking into consideration the reconciliation of the varied demands made upon the land, as well as concepts of stewardship and husbandry. As the American public becomes more interested in outdoor leisure activities and aware of environmental issues, a broad national debate is taking place regarding the uses and protection of lands in public care. Indeed awareness of environmental needs and potential damage is increasing on a global scale. We are also becoming more aware of the need for economy in the use of land; its scarcity becomes more acute as populations and their needs expand. Urban Development By far the most important area for conflict-resolution and forward planning in resources-use lies in our towns, cities and built-up

areas. And here there is more at stake than simple land-use issues; for the town or city is a service in itself, a machine which must be properly designed and maintained if it is to function efficiently and fulfill the demands of its residents, its customers. Homes, jobs, shops, factories and offices, market gardening, leisure facilities, all of these and the many other needs of a civilized society are part of what may be called community. An efficiently functioning community offers a wide variety of facilities and opportunities in pleasant surroundings, with easy and convenient movement between them. Needless to say, a sprawling city served by traffic-clogged streets would not be described as functioning efficiently! If high standards are to be developed and maintained and if productive use is to be made of scarce land, the science of community design and management must be developed beyond the random reaction and counter-reaction on which we have relied in the past. An important aspect of National Resources-use planning is the identification of the major urban centres with their dependent surrounding regions, and the transport routes joining them. In Britain and Europe, the old market towns developed as centres for trade and culture serving their surrounding villages, farms and countryside. Movement was on a radial pattern linking the surroundings with the centre. Though movement patterns have now become confused by random development, the basic nature and purpose of the town or city centre remains: it exists to serve as a focal point for the surrounding communities, providing opportunities for work, trade, and culture, the centre linked like a web to its outlying, dependent area. Villages, each with its convenience store, church, kindergarten and recreational green, are linked to their nearest town which offers a wider choice of goods, services, employment and activities; towns and city suburbs are then linked to the central city, providing those highly specialized employment opportunities, goods, services and activities which can only be supported by the overall regional

market and population. The totality of city with dependent towns, villages and countryside is the County or Region, ideally of about three-quarters to a million people, self-sufficient in jobs, in choice of goods and services, cultural and intellectual amenities, with open land offering space for market-gardening, leisure and recreation. The importance of re-establishing and redefining Regional Centres lies in focalizing commercial development at the centre and providing coordinated transport links. On this basis, the limits of villages, towns and cities can be defined, waste land can be developed, and new commercial and residential developments can be coordinated with transportation. The fundamental definition of the Community, its nature and its purpose establishes that the Community or Region is not simply an assemblage of unrelated parts, but a working system in its own right which needs fundamental and coherent planning if it is to function efficiently whilst preserving character and a pleasant livable environment. It is particularly important that transport patterns and routes be clearly established. The Regional Centre must become the focal point for a radial public transport system serving the surrounding Region/County. These radial transport spokes would serve the dependent towns, with ongoing links to the smaller surrounding villages and communities. The question of transport mode is also important, and here we are faced with two choices: the private car versus shared public transport. Experience has now shown clearly that the road/car system alone is not capable of satisfying our needs for fast, safe, reliable transportation. Building more roads simply increases urban congestion and pollution, with commuting speeds reduced in many case to nearimmobility – the result of planning decisions which favoured private almost to the exclusion of public transport. The efficient functioning of livable communities, as well as the effective use of land and the minimization of pollution clearly indicate the need for an active revival of public transport services.

However, public transport can only serve efficiently when it is coordinated with urban development, returning once again to the need for informed long-range planning both at National, and Regional level. Our traditional residential planning concepts, based on wide roads for car access, combined with road widening and provision of more parking spaces in towns and cities, only perpetuate our dependence on the car, since spread and sprawl can only be served by individual vehicles. Thus the demise of public transport becomes inevitable. Only in compact residential and urban developments can public transport flourish viably. By concentrating rather than sprawling new urban and residential developments and by linking them with the Regional transport system we can provide both transport for the Community, and customers for the transport. In the case of existing towns ad cities, planning should seek to minimize waste land, either by infilling with residential development, or by creating parks ad green spaces. Where new developments are taking place, we need to seize the opportunity and the challenge to provide homes, places of work, and commercial facilities in ways which can set new standards in selfsustainability, and minimal environmental impact. Self-sustainability implies making zero demands on sewage and garbage disposal systems by recycling and using natural methods of sewage treatment on-site, and minimizing demands on power generation with designs which maximize the benefits of solar power and take account of local wind and other environmental factors. Minimizing environmental impact requires additionally the minimization of footprint through compact development and the visual integration of he development with the natural surroundings. We need to look at totally new concepts in urban development. An artificial hill, for example, with apartments sited on its sloping exterior and commercial facilities inside its core, would create a single, compact and unified residential/commercial development with a dramatic reduction in the use of land surface and the need for transportation. If the apartment terraces covering the “hill”

surface are generously planted with vegetation, this artificial hilltown can blend perfectly with the surrounding countryside. Access behind the apartments gives each apartment frontal privacy and an unobstructed view, while the slope ensures that each apartment terrace is vertically open to sun and sky. Access to internal shops, offices and production facilities inside the hill requires only a few minutes walk or elevator ride. The existence of an underlying National Plan based on a thorough analysis of available resources and Human requirements, together with improved urban planning and a policy of compact development would provide the foundation on which we can begin to rebuild an efficient, comprehensive, coordinated public transport network. With shared transportation playing a larger role, town scale can be humanized and centres pedestrianized with improved amenities. Commercial centres can be reinvigorated through environmental enhancement, pedestrianization, and full integration with public transport facilities. Effective use of scarce land, environmental improvement both rural and urban, as well as pollution reduction, all demand a firm and active policy commitment to the rapid improvement and expansion of public transport, and the coordination with public transport of all new residential and commercial development. In the present context we are only considering Government's role of planning and coordination of resources-use, urban and transport planning. The status, both financial and managerial, of public transport administration relative to Government will be discussed in a later Chapter, as also will be the provision of capital for infrastructure services from the National Credit base. Landpricing The issue of fair prices relating to goods and services will be discussed in the next Chapter dealing with Economics and Commerce. In the present context we must consider the question of land prices. It has always been assumed that land prices should be determined by the free market. But its results are not always beneficial. The

free market works at its best when there is multiple competition; when scarcity drives up prices, that is a signal to produce more. But when land is in short supply we simply cannot produce more, so prices are bound to rise. Rising land prices tend to favour sprawl, as homes, shopping malls and businesses naturally seek to move out to areas of less value. More seriously, rising land prices are economically regressive. Prosperity is created by productivity, by increasing value without increasing cost. Rising land prices do just the opposite: they increase the cost of land without increasing its inherent value, and this has a similarly inflationary effect on the services using land. This is particularly evident in major cities, as "value" in the sense of what buyers get for their money, decreases as land prices increase. There is little or nothing in the way of goods and services which is not affected by the price of land; rising real estate prices affect everything from offices to retail shops, cafés, and places of entertainment. The escalation of land prices is a major contributor to the high cost of urban living. It can also cause a deterioration in urban quality of life; many of Europe's old established city cafés which have for centuries been centres for meeting and socializing are now being forced to close as a direct result of escalating rents. If the city or town centre is to retain or regain and develop its function as a gathering place, it will be necessary to ensure that newly developed areas in city centres, particularly areas reclaimed from public or industrial use, should be subject to price stability so that rents are economic for those low-profit uses such as markets and cafés which provide vitality and enjoyment for users. This could be accomplished, for example, by vesting tenure in the hands of a locally administered Urban Trust, which would then ensure maintenance and management of the facility either itself or by a contracted agency. Of equal importance is affordable housing. A home is one of the very foundations of life itself. In many developed countries today house prices have already risen beyond the point where young people entering the market can hope to afford a decent home. In Britain much of the nation's housing stock was built to minimal standards in the 19th century and is no longer worthy of a civilized

society. The provision of new affordable housing requires a determined effort to study and to implement the latest and most cost-effective building techniques from around the world, especially the USA. Building-land costs must also be minimized; this can be achieved by utilizing redundant industrial land, and by locking-in present agricultural prices when agricultural land is given over to housing development. New homes built in the "affordable" category should be rented or leased rather than sold outright so that resale prices can also be stabilized. We should be looking not at subsidy, but at the maximization of productivity and the avoidance of inflated land costs. Whatever problems exist must be overcome: increasing cost without increasing inherent value is economically regressive, raises the cost of living, reduces prosperity, ties up increasing amounts of capital, and puts a home, that most basic of Human needs, progressively out of reach, particularly for young families seeking starter homes. It is the responsibility of Government, at national and local level, to ensure through informed, participatory and enlightened planning that the Nation's natural resources are used fairly, productively, and responsibly. Chapter 9: ECONOMICS AND COMMERCE Value - Quality - Investment Economics and Commerce The Principle of Liberty defines the duty of Government as: the formulation and enforcement of Legislation which will ensure that in the exercise of their liberties citizens do not harm or injure, or infringe the liberties of one another. The Principle of Liberty thus rests on a Presumption of Liberty, the presumption that the individual is free unless harming or injuring others. In business and industry this corresponds to a presumption of Free Enterprise as the basis of Government economic policy. While it is vital to allow citizens' enterprise and initiative to realize

its full potential in the creation of prosperity with minimal government interference, formalities and red-tape, it is equally important to ensure that citizens do not create prosperity at the expense of one another through unfair or dishonest practices. A high standard of living and prosperity is already technologically within our grasp, and we have Human talent in abundance which is constantly creating new ideas and new products; there is no need to obtain wealth through the disadvantagement of others. Government should intervene promptly when necessary to ensure that business is not carried out in ways which are detrimental to coworkers, customers, or the environment. But Government should be careful to intervene no further. Experience in the ex Soviet bloc has shown that the State cannot operate industry successfully. The role of the Private Sector is creative and productive; the role of Government is regulatory. If Government does its essential job of making sure that business and industry conducts itself in a socially responsible manner there is no need for nationalization. Indeed, Government ownership and operation of business invalidates Government's ability to legislate without bias; to whom does the citizen complain about industrial pollution when the Government owns the polluting industry? Even in self-styled capitalist, or free-market countries, business is becoming increasingly over-burdened by government regulation, much of which is not directly concerned with ensuring fair play in the market place. Excessive regulation places a heavy financial burden on business which must eventually be borne by its customers resulting in higher prices and a correspondingly lower standard of living. Law is brought into being to prevent those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others. But the law is limited to providing the protection of liberty from identifiable infringement, and should avoid oppressive or intrusive law which itself constitutes a prime erosion of liberty. This gives us a policy approach, not of unregulated Free Enterprise on the one hand, nor of Socialistic takeover by the State or overregulation on the other, but a policy falling between the two, a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise.

Under the guidance of this policy the role of Government in the area of the economy, business and commerce is clearly defined; its essential task is to identify those areas of potential commercial conflict in which the actions of some participants may be detrimental to others, then to prevent such actions through appropriate legislation. Value The major point of contact between the various participants in business and commerce - employees and employers, producers and consumers, as well as investors - is trade or exchange. And the main aspect of exchange is value, the value of an employee's work, the value of a product or service, as expressed in Pay, Profits and Prices. At present, Pay, Profits and Prices are determined by disputation. Employees dispute, often violently, with employers over pay, to the detriment of good industrial relations and productivity. Prices are determined by "what the market will bear" and by overall economic conditions; the price, in other words, is as much as the producer can get. There are no political rules by which we can determine a just remuneration, a reasonable profit or a fair price; disputation is the only way open to us. Its supporters call it the "Free Market". Another view is that it is conflict without rules, and as such represents an aspect of anarchy. Its damaging effects on the economy and prosperity are substantial and far-reaching. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise requires Government to replace anarchy, wherever it may exist, with fair rules. And if Government were to be charged with providing a foundation of fair rules for industry and commerce, a first priority would have to be the provision of a system of fair rules whereby pay, profits and prices are determined by measure and consensus rather than by disputation.

Fair rules for pay and salary determination would remove one of the major elements of contention in our industrial relations, paving the way for increased cooperation and productivity. A further significant effect would be on unemployment and the level of economic activity in the country as a whole. Our present method of pay, profit and price evaluation by disputation creates an inherent instability and a strong upward pressure which if uncontrolled leads to inflation. It is universally recognized in economic circles, though rarely spelled out, that the current economic wisdom requires the economy to be maintained at substantially below its productive capacity with permanent unemployment in order to control inflation. A National Standard System setting guidelines for Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation would create the monetary stability necessary to permit economic expansion to full employment without inflation. "Fair pay and prices" may sound like an ideal impossible to define or to attain; in fact experience and commonsense define it, we have already attained it, and practiced it on a wide scale. Pay is fair if it is an accurate reflection of work contributed. And it must also relate to the work and the pay of others: pay for one is fair if others doing similar jobs are paid the same. Fair pay is easily defined; but is it so easily attainable? If pay is to be related to work done, this would require a system of Job Evaluation for measuring and evaluating work. If we can measure work, then the work amount or work value of each job can be reflected in the pay received for doing that job. In fact, Job Evaluation is already a process well established in certain large companies and government agencies for defining, evaluating and measuring the different work characteristics demanded of a job, and expended in the fulfillment of that job. Though there are different approaches of detail, the basic principle is simple. It begins with work analysis. Work means many different things; each and every kind of work, or work component, must be identified and quantified. The list of work types or characteristics will include such basic

elements as previous training, skill, concentration, responsibility, physical exertion, working conditions, job satisfaction (or boredom!), health and safety hazards, and so on. The list need not, indeed should not at any time be conclusive. New characteristics must be added as they are identified, developed, or called into being by new techniques. Technology does not stand still; new jobs are constantly being created, with new demands made upon Human skills and effort. Once identified, each work type or characteristic is given its own scale of measurement. The common objective in any Job Evaluation system is that all jobs within a company using the system are evaluated fairly and consistently, giving each job a meaningful value in relation both to the work involved, and to other jobs within the company, through a common scale of definition and measurement. The job-value thus established can then be related directly to remuneration. Job Evaluation becomes Pay Evaluation. The application of a system of Job Evaluation throughout a company ensures that each individual's pay relates to work contributed, and to the pay which others in the organization receive for their work contributions. Job Evaluation has been widely used for many years to bring system and consistency to the pay structures of major organizations and companies in both the public and private sectors. At this stage we already have in existence a fair and stable measurement system for defining and evaluating pay. Indeed we have several competing systems. In one sense this is counterproductive, since it creates problems of inconsistency between companies using different systems. On the other hand it provides a wealth of experience and input which could form the basis for a single National Standard System. Indeed if the formulation of a National Standard Evaluation System were to be conducted through the widest possible debate, participation and consensus, the very process itself would clarify issues and build mutual understanding between different occupations and skills. And as we move imperceptibly but

inevitably towards discussion of principles rather than personal self-interest, the process would effectively lay the foundation for a new kind of industrial unity. Government would begin by establishing a fully representative Committee to formulate a National Standard Job Evaluation System (subject to ongoing revision by a permanent Council). The Standard Job Evaluation System would be published in popular papers as a Do-It-Yourself form together with full explanation and sample completed form. This would enable everyone to become familiar with it, and to bring out any additional comments or criticisms. The System must be comprehensive, simple to understand, and capable of application to all types of work at all levels, from boardroom through management to shopfloor. With a single guideline System of Job and Remuneration Evaluation agreed, tested and established as a National Standard, the ideal of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work could become a reality. But even if we include pay at all levels, pay is only a part of the solution; for pay has value only in terms of purchasing power, or prices. Fair pay has full and real meaning only in terms of fair prices. This leads to a parallel question: what is a fair price? A factory's, or a business's total costs consist of three elements: first, the cost of bought-in raw materials and components; second, the direct labour added in the factory; and third, the costs of capital write-off, overheads and finance. These are the costs of making a product, of supplying a service. From these costs a Unit Production Cost can be calculated for each product or service supplied. If this Unit Production Cost then becomes the Selling Price there would be a direct and fair relationship between cost and price, and therefore between pay and purchasing power. But the Unit Production Cost is not normally equated with the Selling Price. The difference between the two is commonly referred to as the profit and will remain a matter of potential contention thus threatening or even invalidating any progress made

in achieving pay stability. Completion of the social and monetary stabilization process begun with a standard system of job evaluation would require some kind of consensus on the disposal of profits, for this is the only way fair and stable prices can be achieved. There are several claims to a share in a company's profits. Investors must be given a return on their capital; and increasingly, employees are being given a share in the profit as a form of remunerative recognition for extra effort and cost-savings. Another major destination for the disposal of company profit is reinvestment, either in research and equipment or increased working capital, the advantage being that in-house or selfgenerated investment comes without future servicing cost or commitment to repay. There is one more claimant to a share in the profits, and that is the customer. Indeed with the growing recognition of Pay and Price Evaluation the profit would increasingly be perceived as a "tax" on the price over and above its production content, and should therefore belong to the consumer as much as to anyone. With this view a substantial claim on profits would come from the consumer in the form of lower prices. The objective should be the establishment of public policy for profit distribution. This could take the practical form, first, of an overall profit ceiling. Britain's National Health Service already assesses prices for new drugs and services before certification; the ideal of a fair price resulting from a fair profit is hardly revolutionary. Of the profit made, broad percentage bands could be established and gradually stabilized, distributing profit according to pre-set guidelines as between co-workers at all levels, investors, and the internal needs of capital for reserves and reinvestment. The dividend paid to those investment sources not negotiated in terms of fixed interest should be clearly and openly defined with average or upper limits. As it does today, Government would continue to require that

companies prepare in timely fashion properly audited annual accounts. But instead of assessing the total profit in order simply to "take a cut" for its own coffers, Government would be examining the profit in order to ensure that it is apportioned according to a consensus formula which respects the claims and contributions of consumers, investors, co-workers, and the future security of the business itself. Under the Principle of Liberty, fair pay, profits and prices achieved through system and consensus is an important aim in its own right. There are further significant implications affecting industrial relations and stability, economic growth, the level of national employment, productivity and prosperity. Governments, and many economists, tend to speak of unemployment rather like the weather - unfortunate perhaps, though clearly unavoidable. But unemployment is not an Act of God, it is an Act of Man. It begins with Governments which fail to provide fair rules for the evaluation of pay, profits and prices. In this situation of unspoken anarchy, people naturally look to their own interests. Employers seize the opportunity of making a gain at the expense of their employees or customers, while employees take every opportunity to squeeze more money out of their employers. The fact is that we settle pay and prices by doing battle. This produces a basic instability and continuing upward pressure which can only be held in check by maintaining a degree of permanent recession. When the economy is booming, producers can get away with raising prices, while employees take advantage of the tight labour market to push for higher wages and salaries. Cool the economy a bit by raising interest rates and introducing an element of deflation, and both wages and prices are held in check if not reduced. Thus full employment and a fully occupied economy remains a dream, together with the rise in overall prosperity it would have produced. A secure foundation of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation by measure and consensus would create a basis of fair reward for work and the real possibility of industrial peace and cooperation.

It would also establish a basis of monetary stability from which economic expansion could take place without inflation, leading steadily to sustainable full employment. And the degree of employment - or unemployment - in an economy has its own substantial effect on productivity and thus prosperity. The socially damaging effects of unemployment, the cost to working taxpayers of unemployment benefits and the loss to the economy of potential talents can readily be seen. A less obvious result of unemployment lies in its effect on productivity. It should be remembered, first and foremost, that prosperity comes from productivity. We do not become prosperous by working harder, for this can bring higher wages, but at the expense of free time, family or even health. We become prosperous by working not harder but more efficiently, by continuously developing improvements in design, production and management techniques which allow us to produce more and better goods and services with less work. Productivity, making better goods and offering better services tomorrow with less work than it took yesterday, is the motive power which drives economic development, produces prosperity, and advances civilization. But productivity, by its very nature, means less work; so where does that leave the redundant workers? In a properly organized economy operating at full capacity, workers made redundant in one department by improved productivity would normally be transferred to another within the same company, with additional training as required. Even if an entire sector of industry becomes outdated, workers can always re-train and take up employment elsewhere. But when the economy is under-utilized and there is substantial permanent unemployment, anyone who has a job is afraid of losing it. One simple and quite understandable result is that no-one will be looking very hard for productivity improvements; and when management proposes some productivity-enhancing modernization it will probably be opposed by workers fearful of redundancy. The moral is simple: substantial permanent unemployment causes opposition to productivity improvements. And since productivity is

the source of prosperity, we are effectively opposing prosperity. But the opposite also holds true. With the economic and industrial stability which would come with National guidelines on Pay, Profit and Price evaluation, the economy could be expanded steadily to sustainable full employment. With full employment, productivity could also be increased without opposition, adding its own contribution to increased prosperity. Quality The policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise begins with free enterprise. It identifies areas in which unregulated or insufficiently regulated economic activity can be detrimental to other participants, then acts to limit or eliminate such practices. A significant element in the concept of Fair Exchange is Quality and Productivity. The value of a product or service lies not only in the labour and materials it contains, but also in the quality and efficiency of its design, manufacture or presentation. Is less-than-maximum quality, efficiency and productivity in business and industry detrimental to other participants, to suppliers, co-workers, investors, community and consumers? A case can be clearly be made in the affirmative. The consumer is the ultimate recipient of the product or service; indeed, since we produce solely in order to consume, the consumer must be the most important element in the process. Good design, economical production, efficient and stable administration; all these factors have a direct bearing on the product or service as it is presented to the consumer. And it is the consumer who suffers when a product fails to perform as it should, when its quality and service fall below the standard of which current technology is capable, or when it is over-priced as a result of wasteful production methods. When products are poorly designed and inefficiently or wastefully manufactured, when services are careless and slipshod, when quality is poor, the consumer suffers. But so also do the investors if the firm concerned fails to gain its potential market share. And employees suffer both from inefficient

working conditions, and from the insecurity and potential job losses inevitably incurred in a poorly run company. The maintenance of high standards in any business is clearly in the interests of all its co-workers and investors, as well as the host community that depends on it for employment and prosperity. In the wider context, businesses and industries are highly dependent on one another, for the supply of materials and components, for subcontracted work, for marketing and distribution. So the quality and reliability of one business affects, and is affected by that of several others. This total integration and inter-dependence of co-workers at all levels and in all departments, together with investors, suppliers, distributors, host community and consumers, clearly reflects the reality that avoidable incompetence in any part of the chain affects others adversely if not disastrously. Suppliers and distributors, as well as co-workers at all levels and in all departments should have the right to expect from one another the highest standards of professional conduct. And consumers should have the right to expect that products and services reflect and embody the highest currently available techniques and capabilities in efficiency, quality and reliability. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise recognizes this interdependence, and the obligation which it places on all participants in economic activity to strive continuously for quality and productivity maximization. Quality and productive efficiency can never be absolute targets, for standards are always being improved. But maximization of quality and productive efficiency within currently available knowledge and techniques must become the norm if the overall objective of fair exchange and socially responsible production is to be achieved. Socially Responsible Free Enterprise would obligate every business to designate an individual or a department with the duty to be conversant at all times with the latest Standards and techniques of design, production and management relevant to its particular field, and would further require that such Standards and practices should be applied at the earliest practicable opportunity. In case of

persistent non-compliance, investors, consumers and co-workers at all levels should have ultimate recourse to law. A start can be made by introducing universal compliance with International Quality Standard Specifications which provide official certification and monitoring of individual company or industry-group Quality Assurance Programs. Maintaining the highest possible standards in management, quality and productivity will maximize job satisfaction and job security for suppliers and co-workers, while consumers will enjoy the use of products and services which reflect a continuous improvement in quality at progressively falling prices. And as a nation becomes more efficient and more productive, so its international competitiveness is enhanced. Investment The money which Banks lend, or more accurately, the credit facility which Banks extend to borrowers, comes from two distinct sources. One source is the money placed in term deposits with the Bank by its depositors. However, Banks do not confine themselves to lending out specific monies deposited with them and locked in for a guaranteed term. The major part of Bank lending consists of what may be called system-generated credit, credit created by the Banking system to satisfy the demands of the economy for trade purposes and for industrial and consumer loans. This system-generated credit is a continuous flow; money is lent, repaid, and further loans are made. The quantity of available credit flowing through the system at any given time is regulated by the Central Banking Agency in conjunction with Government economic policy. It is important that the quantity of credit available to the economy should at all times relate to the real needs of the economy in its actual, and potential productive capacity. Too little credit, and the wheels of production, trade and consumption will turn at less than the economy's capacity; potential employment and production capacity will be under-used, and consumer demand will fall short of goods currently or potentially available. Too much credit will

result in demand for goods and service in excess of actual and potential production capacity. Thus regulation of the quantity of credit flow is the first priority of the Banking system. It is equally important that selective criteria should be applied to the flow of credit: credit is a limited resource vital to economic growth and prosperity. At present however, the actual transfer of credit into industrial and consumer loans is left to the discretion of the Commercial Banks, and no broad selective criteria are applied. As a result, this systemgenerated credit is created and channelled by the Banking sector with little reference to productivity priorities and often with insufficient financial responsibility. Credit expansion wisely used can be channelled into productive, prosperity-creating investment. But without due care it can be quickly dissipated with no tangible benefit; indeed when used for purely speculative purposes it may even produce economically harmful results. Speculation in land and property does not create overall prosperity; indeed it does quite the opposite. There is very little we do which does not involve land, and as land prices go up so do the costs of everything, from industry and retailing to office space and homes. Property speculation actually reduces overall prosperity since it increases costs without increasing value. Industry needs investment for productivity and prosperity; and it needs committed, longterm investment. At present there is no mechanism for ensuring that system-generated credit is directed into productive industry. This is not so much the fault of the Banking sector, but rather of a society which has never formally recognized the significance of this system-created credit as a National Resource, with the corresponding opportunity, and the need, to use it wisely. The productive use of investment gains importance in times of economic expansion. The monetary stability resulting from Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation would remove the danger of inflation, thus providing the basis for steady and sustained economic expansion to full employment.

But economic expansion is a potential only: it is powered and facilitated by an expansion in the quantity of the National Credit Base. If the expansionary potential of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation is to produce usable results in the form of full employment, increased productivity and prosperity, we would need to ensure from the outset that the Nation's revolving credit base generated and expanded by the Banking system is productively invested in securely managed enterprises. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise would require the Commercial Banks to apply more strictly defined selective criteria in their use of credit, with the specific object of channelling new credit into securely managed, prosperity-enhancing investment. The fundamental justification for requiring the application of such selective criteria is that the flow of credit created by the Banking system is a National Resource, not a resource of any specific Bank or investment institution or individual saver. It is a Resource having a substantial potential for the enhancement of prosperity, and it is moreover a scarce and finite resource. It is therefore appropriate that this Resource should be directed purposefully and publicly into projects which will improve employment, productivity and thus prosperity. Government guidelines would require, for example, that investment be used to reinforce the move towards the maximization of product and management quality already discussed. This means that investment should be directed into companies complying with all appropriate Standards applicable to their specific products and services, s well as to the working enviroment. In reviewing investment options, the investing Bank would take into account an independent assessment of the design of the product, as well as the management, production and quality systems, industrial relations and other aspects of the companies concerned. The Investment Banking Sector would thus be selecting investment "partnerships" in companies reflecting the highest standards in design, management, quality and industrial relations.

A National Standard accounting and general Performance Audit format would facilitate a follow-up monitoring process through which investment-banking institutions are provided continuously with performance data from recipient companies, thus ensuring the safety both of the investment loan, and of the recipient company. In Bangladesh the introduction of micro-credit has permitted thousands of poor people to find gainful employment. A similar example can be found in the Mondragon cooperative in Basque Spain. Both cases share several essential features in common: the availability of credit, the assessed viability of the investment, the project itself becomes the collateral for the loan, assistance in setup, and on-going monitoring with timely reaction as required. Given the finite nature of investment credit, the Investment Banking Sector would also need to formulate a broad strategy and order of priorities - both geographically in terms of local/regional needs and across different industries - which would maximize its productive benefit. But how can this be achieved without invoking the heavy hand of Central Government Planning which has proved so disastrous for the Socialist-bloc countries? Beginning at local level, every city, town and village should be encouraged to develop channels for debate among business people, industrialists, chambers of commerce, educators, consumer groups and community development institutions, with assistance as needed from specialist professional planners, market researchers, industrial designers, and cost accountants, with a view to establishing as clearly as possible their own needs and priorities. This bottom-up planning and coordination process can be taken through to National level and there coordinated with major industry associations and groupings. Through regional and industry-wide coordination a National Strategy can thus be developed as a thorough, on-going, Nation-wide assessment of capabilities, projects, priorities and investment needs. The result is not a centrally imposed directive, but a guide to business, a reflection for business as to what business is doing and plans to do at Local and at National level, so that resources can be

dynamically coordinated for overall prosperity. The overall objective, as in other aspects of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise, is to try and ensure through debate and a modicum of intelligent forethought that the component factors of enterprise, investment, and market potentialities are drawn together to minimum mutual detriment and maximum possible advantage. Full employment is one of the basic essentials of a civilized society, but it will not come about by chance. There is a tremendous potential for creativity in the world; most people want to do a useful job of work, and to do it well. Unemployment is not our natural or preferred condition. Once the value of money has been stabilized with Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation, investmentdirected expansion of the National Credit Base can create full employment and prosperity, but only if it is channelled into efficient enterprises, and guided by overall priorities. With proper guidance, the expansion of the National Credit Base can act as a main source of economic motive power, providing finance and subsequent ongoing supervision for industrial development. Nor is industry the only area in which investment is vital to a Nation's total productivity and competitiveness; infrastructure and essential services must also be considered. The totality of a Nation's infrastructure, its roads and bridges, water and sewage, its power supplies, telecommunications and railways, serves not only the convenience of its citizens, it also serves commerce and industry, and a well organized state-of-the-art infrastructure can make its own substantial contribution to productivity. Here again, scarce investment must be carefully deployed and guided by openly established priorities. It should be noted that the managements of individual infrastructure services, National Strategy, and the Investment Banking Sector are all working together, without the direct interference of Government. Also significant is that full reliance on investment expansion through System-generated Credit provides a method of expanding

and regulating economic activity which is totally independent of Government and Government accounts, thereby removing the temptation to resort to deficit spending as an impetus to economic recovery. If the economy can be purposefully expanded to full capacity and full employment without risk of inflation, if expansion of the National Credit Base can be directed into safe and productive investments guided by nationally established priorities, and if standards of quality and productivity can be maximized and continuously improved throughout industry and services, the Nation's economy can become and remain among the world's most productive and rewarding, while at the same time satisfying the demands of Fair Exchange required under the Principle of Liberty. · Fair exchange value for value; · quality and honesty in goods and services; · and social priorities in the use of the Nation's Credit Base: these are three essential elements of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise. And Socially Responsible Free Enterprise, the freedom of individual enterprise limited only by the requirement of fair and honest trade, is the commercial expression of The Principle of Liberty. Chapter 10: GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION Liberty in Constitution - The Legislative Process - Quality, Productivity, Service Liberty in Constitution When in 1689 Britain's Autocratic Monarchy was finally replaced by Autocratic Parliament, Britons heaved a sigh of relief and have tried ever since to make the best of it. Americans busy founding a new nation a hundred years later looked with some suspicion on the potential power of Government in all its branches, then tried through a system of Constitutional checks and balances, and the Bill of Rights, to impose disciplines on the possible excesses of

Government - insofar as they could anticipate them at the time. In neither country today are citizens satisfied either with their Governments, or with the degree of Constitutional discipline to which their Governments are subject. Since it sets the rules for Government, the Constitution must itself stand above Government as the Supreme Law of the Land. In the United States it holds this position, though at the apex of the Judicial rather than the Legislative system. In Britain the authority of the Constitution is inherently weak, and there are several reasons for this. The British "Constitution" is unwritten; it is endowed with no personification or effective power save for the Monarch whose powers the Constitution itself has rendered a pure formality; and the Constitution, such as it is, rests in the hands of Parliament which can hardly be expected to promote discipline over its own activities. In the European Union, young and still trying to find its way through the minefield of nation-members and their conflicting interests and demands, a New Constitution for Europe was formulated, only to be rejected by voters already distrustful of institutions and bureaucracies which threatened their national identity through territorial expansion. Constitution or no Constitution, Government in Britain, Europe and in the United States, and indeed everywhere else in the world, remains as dictatorial as ever. In particular, governments still assume that strongest and most powerful of all rights over their citizens: the power to tax and to spend at will, with no qualification as to the quantity of tax taken, the uses to which it is applied, or the efficiency with which government operations are executed. Whatever the overall direction and the detail of individual Government policies, there are certain basic disciplines which should apply to the conduct of any government and it is just such disciplines which are laid down in Constitutions. Secrecy, the purveyance of mis-information, lack of productivity and the almost total absence of financial discipline are features of present Governments which should be remedied, and can only be remedied through the strengthening of the Constitution both in its provisions and its status within the total apparatus of Government and

Enforcement. Constitution exerts its supreme power in a Constitutional System by placing itself above and between the two processes of lawmaking and law-enforcement, thus controlling that vital link without which each process in itself is useless. The essence of Constitutional Government is the separation of Decision and Enforcement, so that each can empower the other only through the Constitution, and only on condition that both comply with the Constitutional requirements. If the Constitution is to stand in reality as the Supreme Law of the Land, it must also embody an Executive function; proposed Legislation must be channelled through a Constitutional Executive Council, becoming Law only after Constitutional Verification. Government Legislation would be formulated according to the appointed processes, but as yet would have no Force of Law. In the form of a proposal, reached through the full observance of the relevant Constitutional procedures, each newly formulated Law would then be passed to the Constitutional Executive Council, where it would be verified to ensure that its content and the procedures of its formulation are fully in accordance with the Provisions of the Constitution. Following Verification by the Constitutional Executive Council, Legislative Proposals would then be passed to the Enforcement Agencies, thus giving "Force" to "Law". But once again there must be Constitutional Verification, for the Enforcement Agencies must also be subject to Constitutional Provisions and must be constantly monitored to ensure that they so comply. It is important that Enforcement Agencies should not distort the Law in any way, and that Enforcement Personnel should conduct themselves correctly. It would be the duty of the Constitutional Executive Council to monitor the Enforcement Agencies continuously in order to ensure that their conduct complies at all times with the Provisions of the Constitution. If the Constitutional Executive Council is to be responsible for the verification of all Legislation in terms of content and procedure of formulation, as well as for the honesty and legality in all aspects of

Enforcement conduct, it may reasonably be suggested that the Constitutional Executive Council is the most important body in the process of Government. The membership of the Constitutional Executive Council is defined by its purpose: it must consist of persons having intellectual stability, legal training and a thorough understanding of the status and provisions of the Constitution which it is their duty to uphold. The US Supreme Court with its carefully selected nine Members drawn from the Judiciary provides a good basic example. Though the Constitutional Executive would naturally be drawn mainly from the country in which it serves, a case can be made for inviting some suitable candidates from other countries having broadly the same constitutional, legal and linguistic traditions. In this way the Constitutional Executive Council would reflect a broader, more objective view, and international cooperation and understanding would be encouraged. Also necessary to the proper function of Constitutional Government is the provision of an institution and procedure for the periodic consideration of Constitutional Revision. From time to time there will be details of the Constitution which must be amended or withdrawn. Similarly, new perceptions or conditions will arise which make it necessary for new Constitutional provisions to be added. Without adequate provision for amendment, inconsistencies are bound to develop as the customs and expectations of civilization change. The right of every American to "bear arms" was conceived in a context of 18th Century People's Militias which today we barely comprehend; the current exercise of this Constitutional "Right" has put over 200 million guns in private ownership - one for every adult American. The results, in terms of crime and violence, could not have been foreseen by the Founding Fathers, and would hardly be approved by them. This Constitutional Right is now a serious threat to public safety, yet it cannot be withdrawn or even seriously limited owing to the "democratic" gridlock of conflicting pressure groups.

An example of a current need for new Constitutional discipline over Government conduct can be seen in the present absence of fiscal constraints, without which Government can plunge itself and the nation into apparently limitless debt. All that is needed is that Government be required to conduct its finances according to the same rules of fiscal propriety which the Law demands of private citizens and corporations. A fundamental principle of Constitution since Magna Carta is that the Law-makers should themselves be subject to their own Laws. When Government can conduct itself and its business in ways which would never be tolerated in the private citizen or corporation, that is a sure indication of a significant lack of Constitutional discipline. The United States Supreme Court rules on points of Constitutional Interpretation. But America's Founding Fathers left no suitable provision for amendment of the Constitution. Since the purpose of Constitution is to discipline the Legislature, it is clearly not appropriate to ask the Legislature itself to amend it! A body of similar stature to the Supreme Court must be created to fulfill this function. The Constitution must take its true place as the Supreme Law of the Land, laying down the procedures of, and disciplines upon every branch of Government, and through its Executive Council position, subjecting every proposed Law to scrutiny. In current constitutional practice, as seen for example in the USA, legislation as formulated by Congress is passed for formal ratification to the President who, as Executive, "executes" the proposed legislation into law without any requirement for constitutional verification. Thus “unconstitutional” laws are free to leave the system and roam the land – until some watchful citizen initiates a tedious chain court action, up through the judicial system to the Supreme Court. If it is to fulfill its role effectively the status of the Constitution must be elevated to a higher position, at the apex, not of the judicial, but of the legislative process. In this way, laws are verified for constitutionality before being formally enacted.

The Legislative Process The application of the Principle of Liberty to everyday Law would be precisely defined in terms of the twin confines of Obligation and Limitation. The Principle of Liberty would obligate Government to prevent any and all Infringement of Liberty by one citizen over another. Where there is an identifiable Infringement of the Liberty of one person by another there is an obligation for action at Law. The Principle of Liberty would limit Government from initiating any Law or Regulation which is not clearly and demonstrably in defence of an identifiable Liberty from Infringement by another. Without an identifiable Infringement of the Liberty of one person by another there is no Injury and there can therefore be no protective Law. The adoption of such a clearly defined Principle would affect the process of Legislation and Government, as well as the very status and function of Ministers and Legislators. The Principle itself would then become the ultimate criterion of "Right" and "Wrong" in social conduct. Legislators would become Interpreters of the Principle, the Legislative process would be directed not to satisfying the demands of sectional interests, but to the honest and consistent interpretation of the Principle based on a clear understanding of it. The Principle also would impose a clear discipline on the resultant Legislation itself, for the Principle of Liberty can be described with such a high degree of accuracy that anyone having a basic understanding or instinctive sense of liberty can comprehend it, monitor its progress, and defend it whenever necessary. Government secrecy and prevarication would no longer be possible; indeed, accurate interpretation of the Principle of Liberty would require a more open Legislative Process, which might be visualized along the following lines: The Legislative Process is initiated when a professional Legislator, a Parliamentary Representative, a single individual citizen, a group of citizens or a Special Interest Society brings to the attention of

the Legislature a suspected Injury or Infringement of Liberty, either caused by citizen and permitted by insufficient Legislation, or caused by the Political Administration through excessive or intrusive Legislation. The identification of an injured party either actual or potential is essential to initiate the process of Legislative Debate. The purpose of Law is to prevent injury; the need for Law is occasioned by an injury, either actual or immediately anticipated. The formulation of Legislation which will prevent that injury either totally or as nearly as practicably possible is the object of the Legislative Process, and its fulfilment will conclude the Process. In order to improve both productivity and opportunity for wider participation, greater use may be made of Specialist Committee Hearings in the early stages of initial filtration and opening debate. The initial debate in Committee must involve everyone who has an interest in the matter. Infringement of Liberty can be simple, or a very complex issue involving several conflicting Liberties, and it is vital that every aspect be taken into consideration. Similarly any remedy proposed for the avoidance of a specific Infringement may itself cause new infringements and involve other parties. It is only through the widest possible debate and participation that the ultimate objective can be reached: the minimization of Infringement of Liberty. Throughout the Middle Ages those few who could read and write and enjoyed a proficiency in basic mathematics effectively governed the country. At the time of his trial and execution in 1649, King Charles reiterated his belief that "the People are not fit to govern". During the 1800s the country was still ruled by the gentry, who alone were deemed to have the education and the intelligence necessary to comprehend the intricacies of budgets, economics and trade, and the intrigue of international treaties. Today ordinary people are as well informed as their Governments on those issues which affect them, their land, their businesses, their welfare and their prosperity; indeed there is much truth in the saying that "when the People lead, the Leaders will follow", particularly in these times when Governments seem to lack any sense of direction. And yet Governments, perhaps in a vain attempt to conceal that very emptiness of purpose, still appear to believe

that they "know best", a myth perpetuated by an increasing use of secrecy, mis-information and manipulated statistics. In Britain the Prime Minister has considerable scope for arbitrary decision; Cabinet meetings are not public, and much Legislative detail, though often of considerable significance, is committed by Administrators behind the scenes without reference to Parliament. In the United States, the President flaunts the Constitution by authorizing torture and illicit telephone-tapping with apparent disregard both for Congress and Constitution. Thus governments often do what is fundamentally unwise and fail to do what is necessary while contriving to obtain the uninformed support of their citizens. Under the Principle of Liberty there is little or no latitude for arbitrary action. The prime object of all Legislation is to maximize Liberty by minimizing Infringement of Liberty, a discipline to which all participants are subject and one which any alert citizen can monitor. It is therefore important in the process of Legislation that all pertinent facts should be assembled and publicly set out, and that all points of view should be heard and taken into account. It may also be observed that citizens more readily respect laws when they understand the need for them and have observed or participated in their formulation. There are three main groupings of participants who might be involved in the overall Legislative Process. Full-time professional Legislators would be constantly scanning events and activities in order to identify possible Infringements of Liberty. They would also continuously review existing laws on a scheduled basis to ensure that they remain relevant. It may also be necessary to reconsider or rephrase a particular Law resulting from a request by the Judiciary for Review. Elected Parliamentary Representatives would act as a bridge between citizen and Legislature, listening to people's concerns, explaining the Law, and bringing injustice to the attention of Legislature, Courts, or the Constitutional Executive Council as appropriate. Citizens perceiving themselves injured would therefore bring the matter initially to the attention of their

Parliamentary Representative. Citizens could also contribute to the process themselves directly, either as individuals, or perhaps more advantageously as members of Special Interest Groups and Societies. There are literally hundreds of Societies representing every shade of interest, opinion and expertise from civil liberties to environment, heritage preservation and transport. These Societies or Groups frequently represent an assemblage of considerable expertise, of informed users or consumers, retired professionals, and people devoted to their respective causes. The Societies are genuinely Democratic in that they are supported by the subscriptions of Members and are thus responsible to Members and responsive to their needs; if they fail in their purpose they simply die through lack of subscriptions and support. Conversely, as new issues and new concerns develop, new Societies are formed. Citizens can rely upon their Societies to monitor Legislative Proposals in their specific area of interest, and to draw Members' attention to any need for action. Recognition of such Societies and Special Interest Groups as participants in the Legislative Debating Process would improve participation and could contribute constructively by bringing information and expertise which might otherwise be excluded. Citizens may prefer to bring a Personal Legislative Proposal or complaint to the attention of the relevant Society for consideration and further action if appropriate. Say for example, one finds that some public footpaths are being altered or eliminated in the Resources Planning process, one can contact the local Ramblers' Association, a Society which is sympathetic to and understands the issues involved. Associations can then use their expertise to present a case to the Legislature and exert the necessary influence to get something done. A citizen could of course, as now, belong to as few or as many such Societies as he or she may wish, contributing directly to the upkeep of the Society which in turn is responsible solely to its Members. One can visualize Societies, as now, representing walkers, environmentalists, economists, employees, those interested in civil liberties and in disciplining the expenditure of the

Political Administration. It is particularly important that young people in their teens should have a much greater opportunity to participate in the Legislative Process, through parallel debates in schools, or through their own Societies participating in Legislative Debates. It is frequently said of young people by their elders that they are irresponsible; insofar as this may in some instances be true, the simple way to make people responsible is to give them responsibility. Young people should have the right to participate in the framing of tomorrow's world: it is after all, they who will have to live in it. One particular example of concern to younger generations is that of the growing National Debt; since this will have to be paid by future taxpayers there would seem to be a clear case of "taxation without representation"! A wider degree of participation in the Legislative-Interpretive Process, however, should not be confused with the activities and influence of the now-infamous "Political Action Committees" in the United States. Participation would not mean promoting self-interest at the expense of others; participation must be motivated by an honest desire to make all pertinent facts and points of view known, so that in the end a fair and just solution will be reached, a solution which will reflect the Principle as accurately as circumstances permit. The Legislative Process must also allow for "Review" of any Law at any time, either by the Legislature or by the Constitutional Executive Council. This may be occasioned when the practical application of a Law is found to be difficult or ambiguous or impractical during the Judicial process. The need for Judicial Review is stated among many others by the late Mr. Justice Black, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court: "The United States Constitution was the first to provide a really independent Judiciary. Moreover, as the Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison, correctly, I believe, this Judiciary has the power to hold Legislative Enactments void that are repugnant to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"The Judiciary [in the United States] was made independent because it has, I believe, the primary responsibility and duty of giving force and effect to Constitutional Liberties and Limitations upon the Executive and Legislative Branches. "Judges in England were not always independent and they could not hold Parliamentary Acts void. Consequently, English Courts could not be counted on to protect the Liberties of the People against invasion by the Parliament."
[Mr. Justice Black: "One Man's Stand for Freedom"]

In Britain Lord Denning has long been an eloquent supporter of the need for Judicial Review. When all Legislation is based on and committed to a clearly defined Principle, the Law must at all times be open to review. Its original validity may be questioned; it may have become outdated, or in some particular set of circumstances the Law may be inapplicable. Under the Principle of Liberty the Procedure for Judicial Review would provide for three distinct types of case. Should a Court find that in practice a particular Law is not well drafted, or is difficult to interpret, or should the Court suspect that the Infringement which the Law attempts to prevent has not been properly identified or addressed, then the Court proceedings would be suspended and a prompt re-consideration requested from the Legislature or if necessary the Constitutional Executive Council. A Law may also be "returned" to the Legislature where insufficient detail leaves it unclear in relation to the case in hand. In some circumstances the Court may rule on the matter, thus effectively "filling out" the existing provisions of the Law itself. However there may be cases where the personalities and emotive issues involved in Court make it preferable to seek guidance from the Legislature whose deliberations can be conducted in more objective conditions. In a case where the Law remains a valid reflection of the Principle of Liberty for all general purposes, but in the extra-ordinary, specific circumstances under the Court's consideration there is no actual Infringement of Liberty, then the Court would note the exception and dismiss the case, there being no Infringement of

Liberty to answer. The ultimate test of the fitness of any Law under the Principle of Liberty would be this: if I were to disregard this Law, would I cause injury to, or the Infringement of the Liberty of, another individual? If there is injury, the immediate and effective protection of Law is an obligation; but if there is no injured party, there can be no Law. When the sole object of the Legislative Process is the accurate reflection of the Principle of Liberty, its laws must always be open to Review, by the Judiciary or by any aware and observant citizen with an instinct for the preservation of Liberty. Under the Principle of Liberty, it is the Principle itself which would give authority, obligation, and limitation, to Law and to the Process of Government; the Principle becomes the source and focal point of Law, taking precedence over Government in all its aspects. This clear line of authority and responsibility extending from the Principle itself, down through all branches of Government contrasts with the current condition of near-autocratic Governmental powers. Government would become answerable not to itself, not to any "Leader", not to its Members or supporters, not to those who try to influence it with verbal pressure or money, not specifically to majority or minority; Government in all its departments, all its aspects and all its functions is answerable only to the Principle of Liberty, nothing and no one else. The ideal of Democracy is “power to the people”. The Principle of Liberty would give power to the people - the power of the Principle by which all Government action or inaction can be called to account. Quality, Productivity, Service Quality, Productivity, and Service - three words not normally associated with Government today! If these ideals are to be applied effectively, the function of Government must first be precisely defined; we cannot measure the productivity of a service without first defining its purpose. The current activities of Government fall into three broad

categories: Laws, Infrastructure, and Welfare. The provision of Law is the essential "core function" of Government. Under the Principle of Liberty, Government would confine itself to the formulation of Law and its Enforcement, or more specifically, those Legislative, Protective and Constitutional Services essential to and directly related to the protection of Liberty. If Government is to exercise its regulatory function without bias it cannot own or operate any non-political services or industries, including infrastructure and Essential Services. Infrastructure and Essential Services must be operated outside Government, but with Government's strict legal supervision. In order to make government more efficient and accountable, and to satisfy the requirements of the Principle, an important first step would be the separation of all non-political Services from government. Non-political Services include provision and maintenance of roads, schools, health, pension and welfare services, administration of railways and any other productive or commercial services. The non-political Services, when separated from Government, should be autonomous managerially and financially. These Services would then become responsible for their own management and finances, raising capital as required through the Investment Banking System. They would no longer be subject to the uncertainties of Government finance or to the managerial whims of politicians; but they would become subject to strict disciplines, reporting regularly and publicly through the medium of Total Performance Audits specifying details of quality and productivity. Government, now independent from these non-political Services, would be better placed to do its proper job: that of making sure that the Private Sector including all previously Government-run business conducts itself responsibly, efficiently, and productively. Government has the duty to ensure that business and commerce is conducted in a socially responsible manner in accordance with the Principle, and this must apply with particular relevance to the Nation's Essential Infrastructure Services.

But such Services must remain managerially and financially autonomous, both for their own good, and to ensure that Government treats them in the same way as any Private Sector business. The use and apportionment of land provides a special case where planning and coordination between residential and commercial developments and transportation services in essential. Nonetheless, in the case of public transportation services, National or Regional Management would operate under its own initiative, but subject to strict quality and productivity standards, as well as overall planning and coordination guidelines. Currently a major call on Government time and finances is the cost ad administration of what may broadly be referred to as Welfare. Under the Principle of Liberty however, the object of government should be to alleviate the conditions which make it necessary. The need for "Welfare" is universally recognized today, albeit grudgingly. One reason must be the general acceptance that widespread unemployment exists as an inevitable reality and that it is the result of the National Economic System rather than individual idleness. If a Nation could truly claim that there is a rewarding job available for anyone who wants it, that the job pays a fair wage, and that the essentials of life, particularly decent housing, are to be bought at a fair price... we would not be so sympathetic towards Welfare recipients. But then in those conditions, Welfare recipients would probably be few in number. Our present confrontationary political and economic systems demand a measure of continuing unemployment to hold down inflation. Under the Principle of Liberty, disputation over pay, profits and prices would be replaced with fair and consistent guidelines, thus providing monetary stability and removing the threat of inflation. The Nation's Credit Flow can then be directed into productive economic expansion to sustainable full employment. When Government confines itself to ensuring the correct and consistent application of the Principle of Liberty, the need for welfare will be diminished, and Essential Infrastructure Services

will have the advantages of autonomy while remaining subject to strict quality and productivity criteria. And with the purpose and function of Government clearly defined, it becomes much easier to apply strict financial and administrative disciplines to ensure that Government fulfils its own core functions as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible with continuously rising productivity. Once Government has been brought down to its core services, these too should be re-structured so that they are separately identifiable, and publicly accountable for their productivity and service. Many existing government departments and programs would inevitably be abandoned as being non-essential, while each of those remaining would be required to state clearly what it is doing, what it is costing, and the extent to which it is fulfilling its stated objectives productively. The Principle of Liberty, applied in Economics and Commerce as a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise would set high standards of management and customer satisfaction, quality and productivity, performance and accounting for the Private Sector. Governments today exempt themselves from Commercial Law. If the Principle of Liberty were to be consistently and correctly applied there could be no exceptions, not even for Government, which would itself be subject to constitutional scrutiny in terms of its quality and productivity. Government is a service to its consumers and as such should be subject to the strictest possible commercial disciplines; its performance should be at least as good as and preferably better than the Private Sector. Any Commercial Legislation relating to accounting, standards, productivity or quality of Private Sector business and commerce should immediately and automatically apply to any and all functions of Government. Government is not outside the Law; Government Legislation, conduct and operations would at all times be subject to the Principle of Liberty and to all its resultant Legislation. The process of auditing and applying the necessary disciplines to Government should be entrusted to a specially constituted

Committee under the Constitutional Executive Council; no institution, least of all Government, can be trusted to discipline itself. The aim of Government should be the same as that of any well-run Private Sector industry or service: to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price. The Principle of Liberty: that we should confine ourselves to those actions and activities which are not detrimental or disadvantageous to others, which do not harm or injure others, is as old as Human conscience. We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss. The parallel concept of Government, that it exists primarily to prevent such actions, has likewise existed in political philosophy as expounded by reformers throughout recorded history. And the ideal that Government, its function clearly defined and limited, should exercise its duties efficiently and at minimum cost to its customers, is a dream long cherished by reformers and taxpayers alike. Accurate and consistent application of the Principle of Liberty would maximize Liberty; and with its function clearly definable and subject to its own inherent discipline it would do so productively and without incurring an over-burdensome tax on our earnings. This ideal was summarized by Thomas Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address given on March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another yet leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government necessary to complete the circle of our felicities".

THE ECONOMICS OF PROSPERITY
Our present economic/financial system doesn’t work. It is open to, and frequently subjected to extreme abuse, and it fails to deliver the prosperity of which it is capable. We need to fix it. ___________________________________________________________ Poverty is not the natural order of things. We have resources, inventive minds and manual skills, all that is needed to produce prosperity on a world scale. To enhance this creative potential through collaboration and trade we have developed a complex web of employment, production, distribution, pay and prices. But this process is dependent entirely on the economic/financial infrastructure, and right now it’s a disaster – from developed-world crashes to third-world multi-million percent inflation. Why? Because we rely on an antiquated system outdated by a couple of hundred years, wide open to abuse and corruption. Economists like to shroud finance in complex formulas and unintelligible jargon. But economics is not rocket science, it’s common sense and human nature. It can be comprehended, and it can be made to work. Two major issues require review and revision: managing credit, and defining value. But let’s start with basics.

THE BASICS 1. The Division of Labour 2. Establishing Value 3. Money & Credit 4. What is Capitalism

CREDIT MANAGEMENT 1. Regulating Credit 2. Misuse & Waste 3. Credit for Growth 4. Development Banking

STABILIZING VALUE 1. The Anatomy of Inflation 2. Full Employment 3. Prosperity = Productivity 4. Property Values

1

THE BASICS 1. Trade and the Division of Labour
Let's begin at the beginning. And the beginning is the division of labour. Without the division of labour there'd be no need for pay, prices or money. And economics would be a simple matter of personal household management – which is precisely what the word means in its original Greek derivation. Imagine that you live alone in the wilderness; that you're totally self-sufficient, producing for yourself everything you need in life. You grow what you need to eat, your house is built of wood from the forest, the dead logs supply your fuel in winter, your own grain gives you flour for bread, you weave your own clothing materials from your own flax and cotton. In such circumstances you would have no need for trade or money, and the whole science of economics would be irrelevant. The division of labour is the process whereby each of us develops a particular trade or specialty. We produce more of a product or commodity than we personally need, then trade our surplus with others. Why bother? Specialization allows the amateur woodworker, for example, to become a full-time professional, buying or making special tools, developing skills, and thus being able to make better goods more cheaply. This is called productivity and it is very important. Increasing productivity is the art of making better goods tomorrow with less work than it took yesterday. This applies equally to jobs we do at home, or to complex factory production systems. The result is the same: more and/or better goods with less work. Increasing productivity is what makes an individual, a region or a nation prosperous. And specialization is the best way to increase productivity. So. What can I specialize in? I find that I have good soil and sunny conditions which produce really good tomatoes. I produce tomatoes in quantity, far more than I need for myself. Then I have to trade them with other people who are also producing a surplus of some different product or commodity. That means taking my tomatoes into town to trade them. Market places for this purpose can be found everywhere, in every economy from primitive to sophisticated. Now comes the fun of trading. Or is it fun? In fact it can be quite a problem. Or rather, two problems. The first is that we need to establish some kind of common value for the products we want to trade.

THE BASICS 2. Establishing VALUE for goods we want to trade
I have tomatoes, I want bread. Fine. And I happen to find a baker who bakes good bread and loves tomatoes. But how do I decide how many tomatoes he gets for his loaf of bread? At the next stall a potter with some fine plates to trade is talking to a woodworker – the potter wants a table. But how many of the potter's plates is a table worth?

2

How, in other words, do we establish value? How would you decide how many plates a table is worth? The answer comes in two parts: the Constituent Cost, and the Supply/Demand Modification. The Constituent Cost is the basic cost of labour, expertise, investment and materials. In this simple market-trading situation which we envisage at the moment, the crafts are still relatively simple, and anyone can turn his or her hand to almost anything if needed. Thus each person knows how much work and expertise is involved in the other's product, and it is on this estimation that a trade would be based. Six of these plates require the same amount of time and expertise as the table, and that is the basis of the trade. Labour, in other words, is the basis for evaluation. Labour in terms of time, experience, effort, expertise, and all its other facets. Though the evaluation process is more complex today, every factory manager must still be aware of his product's total unit constituent cost including bought-in materials, added labour, investment write-off, and general overhead expenses. The second factor involved in assessing value is Supply and Demand. Whatever the constituent cost may be, you will not sell your product if there is no demand for it. If demand is slack you may be forced to sell at a loss, or at least reward your own labour less handsomely. On the other hand, if there is a great demand for your product and no competition, you can afford to ask a bit extra over and above the constituent cost. Your reputation may suffer amongst your customers, with ominous rumblings of “taking advantage”... but your wallet will be well-filled. Scarcity in times of war can create pricerises on a monumental scale; this is generally declared illegal, and trading at inflated prices is known as a “black market”. In the days when trade involved simple crafts, value was based on labour-content which could readily be estimated by the buyer. But since the coming of the industrial revolution with its increasing complexities, the concept of “basic value” originally tied to labour has now been lost. True, every factory owner must still be aware of his product's total unit constituent cost including bought-in materials, added labour, investment write-off, and general overhead expenses. But it’s not that simple. The payment for labour is flexible, so also is the profit and the market price. Pay, profits and prices are totally baseless, a matter of how much you can get, or how much you can get away with. It’s all a matter of on-going dispute, free-floating with no basic definition or foundation. And since money has meaning only in terms of how much you get and what you can buy with it, that’s free-floating too, without any basic, defined value. Our goods and services, our work as employees, and our monetary unit have no defined value. That’s one of our problems. We'll return to it later.

3

THE BASICS 3. Money, or Medium of Exchange
The second problem in the trading process is that we haven't yet “invented” money, so we, the would-be traders, are dealing with one another in direct barter. Bartering means that you swap directly, product for product or service. I have tomatoes for sale. I need bread – no problem, there are plenty of bakers offering their selections. The major problem with bartering goods for goods is the need to find someone who exactly mirrors your own requirements. I have tomatoes and need bread. So I have to find a baker who has bread and wants tomatoes. A tedious process to say the least. So how do we get around it? We use money, or in broader terms, a Medium of Exchange. The earliest kind of money was a commodity used as a universal exchange medium. Gold and silver were always popular; rare seashells too. In war-torn Vienna of the late 1940s people used packets of coffee. Today we rely largely on the electronic transfer of credit and debit between computerized accounts. As long as we’re using a commodity, its essential features are: it must be portable, durable, useful, preferably not too common, and widely acceptable. With an exchange medium of this kind, trade suddenly becomes much easier. I bring my tomatoes to market, and sell a few for silver or shells or money or whatever it is we’re using. Then I can take my silver or shells or money and find a baker who has the bread I want – and no problem if he hates tomatoes! An Exchange Medium of whatever kind allows the trade to be broken as between buyer and seller. You don’t need to find someone who has what you want, and wants what you’ve got. You now have the ability to “break” the trade in terms of person or place. You can sell to one person in one place and buy from another somewhere else; you don't have to tie the buying and the selling into one transaction. You can also use the trading commodity to break the trade in terms of time. You can sell your goods today, then come back next week and buy what you need. That’s saving. Because the trading commodity is durable and portable, you can take it home and store it. People like to have a store of value, something saved “for a rainy day”. Many people in India and Africa store their wealth in ornaments made of precious metals which they will often wear every day, or display on special occasions. The problem here is that saving can unbalance the market. Suppose a lot of people decide to increase their savings. They bring their goods into market, sell them for money, but instead of buying other goods in exchange, they simply go home with their saved money. So the market will be left with a surplus of goods, because a lot of people have brought goods into town and sold them, but haven't taken anything away in exchange.

4

There is a way around this problem – it's called investment. Investment is the opposite of saving. When we save, we produce and sell goods now, then we buy and consume later. When we invest, we buy and consume now, then produce and sell later. If the market is to remain in balance, it is important that the investment potential created by saving should be put to good use. So let's see what we can do with it. We have here a young lad who is building a new machine of his own invention which will greatly simplify farm work. He needs construction materials, and food to sustain himself until his machine is ready for sale. He needs to borrow and invest. He wants to buy food and materials now, then bring his machine to market later. Actually he plans to have it ready for the coming harvest time. Or take the case of a farmer who has “green fingers” and great soil. He wants to buy seed. He knows that he will have some fine crops to sell... in six months' time. But not only does he need money for seed, he understandably doesn't want to wait six months for his next meal. He too wants to borrow and invest. He wants to buy and consume now, to produce and sell in six months. Saving represents a significant investment potential which should not go unused. It is important at all times to make good use of this valuable and limited commodity. It is also important that saving and investment should broadly balance one another. If everybody brings goods to market but doesn't want to buy because they prefer to save, the goods won't sell. On the other hand, if everybody wants to borrow but won't be producing anything for six months, a lot of people will be wanting goods which just aren't there. This is what happened in the Soviet Union during its socialist days. The government invested heavily in infrastructure like power generating, heavy machinery and so on, while ignoring the needs of agriculture and consumer goods. Anyone who toured the USSR in the socialist times will recall seeing supermarkets with long rows of empty shelves. Workers were coming home with pay packets – and nothing to spend their money on. And so we have two uses for money. We can use it for day-to-day trade. And it can also be used for saving and investment. Let’s look more closely at this process. Some people who have gold or money saved will invest it directly in what looks like a profitable enterprise. But many others through the ages have preferred to deposit their gold with a gold-store, for which they were given certificates of deposit.

5

These certificates, when issued by a reputable gold-store establishment, were tradable as money, and were to become what we would call Bank Notes. They could be loaned to potential investors with projects offering the prospect of a profit. The gold-storers, who later became the bankers, soon found that it would be extremely unlikely for all of their clients to demand all of their gold at any one time, and seeing an opportunity, they responded in a way which might well appear deceitful. They created Bank Notes over and above the amount of gold they had in store, and lent these Bank Notes to potential investors. Of course that meant that there were now more of the bank's “old receipts” in circulation than there was gold in the bank, and a “run on the bank”, with everybody wanting gold in exchange for their bank notes, would break the bank. Loss of faith in a bank, or indeed in the banking system generally, resulting in runs on the banks happened frequently in the early days of banking, an occurrence revisited with a vengeance in 2008. However the issuance of Bank Notes not fully backed by gold or other solid reserves was a useful, indeed an essential practice, if the availability of money for trade and investment was to keep pace with a rapidly industrializing world. Money is needed to finance investment in new or expanding industries, and for trade and commerce. We depend on money both for trade and for saving/investment. As production and trade increase, so must our supply of money. If we tie our money to a commodity like gold which is in limited supply, then money will also be in limited supply, and will soon become inadequate to finance growing national and global trade. Today we have what is known as “fractional reserve” banking, which allows banks to “create” credit up to an amount which is a multiple of their reserves. Indeed credit – a simple entry in an account book or in a computer record – is now taking over from physical money in the sense of pieces of paper and coinage. But our modern credit system has become almost too easy. Lacking discipline, banks indulge in risky speculation in complex financial instruments using their reserves and customers’ deposits, and frequent scandals have resulted. And banks lack both the incentive and the direction necessary to foster growth and prosperity in a modern economy. Investment credit has an enormous potential to maximize productivity and thus prosperity, yet it is currently under-used, even misused. We need a credit system. For day-to-day transactions, and for saving-investment. The system should be rock-solid and reliable, and should do its job of assisting growth potential. But the events of 2008 dramatically confirmed the doubts many observers have long expressed. And many who previously held the banking system in full confidence must now be asking: is our present banking system the best we can do – or even – is good enough? The near collapse of the world’s major financial systems, saved only by massive government intervention, would indicate that the answer is clearly “no”.

6

Banks are private companies, in business to make a profit. They are permitted by government and central bank regulation to create credit up to a specified proportion of their assets. But no qualitative conditions are specified, leaving banks free to gamble in search of profits – indeed they are encouraged to do so to satisfy their directors and shareholders. Nor are their gambling activities limited by their assets. Margin trading is commonplace – buy shares or currency futures or commodity futures today on the presumption (= in the hope) that they will be higher in two days’ time, using money you haven’t got because you are normally allowed two days to settle for the original purchase. The larger the banks, the larger and more complex the trades and the risks. And when major banking groups have several thousand employees, individuals or small departments can risk the bank’s assets in trades the complexity of which their executives don’t even know about and probably wouldn’t understand it they did. Individual crooks within the banking system aside, banks need profits to please the stock market. And how does the stock market reward them? By shaking the whole financial system with the wild trading fluctuations seen in 2008 the moment any degree of financial uncertainty appears. Yes, banks found themselves in trouble mainly of their own making through complex and irresponsible trading. But the “panic” and “turmoil” were in the stock markets. Why the wild gyrations? Stock market activities are to a large extent motivated by greed and fear. Sellers fear losses, the “bottom fishers” or bargain hunters come in when prices are low, then pull out quickly making a fast profit. Though some traders may wear faces of panic, many others are doing very nicely thank you. And this is our financial system. Do we need banks which are solely responsible to their shareholders? Do we need shareholders? Or is there a better way? Corporate institutions licensed to create credit within specified limits, with clearly defined and closely supervised guidelines, their profits, the pay of their staff and the prices charged to customers subject to overall guidelines, could better serve the day-to-day needs of customers and contribute constructively to the needs of business and industry. We need a credit system. And we need it to work.

THE BASICS 4. What is Capitalism?
For Karl Marx, Capitalism was the Devil’s Instrument Incarnate. But in fact neither Marx nor anyone else can do without it in its simplest sense. In fact Marx was more concerned with remuneration relativities – the sharing of profits between the owners of the capital equipment and the workers who operated it. The essence of capitalism lies in the fact that by pausing in the production of goods for immediate consumption and giving time to the production of simple tools or machinery, once completed those tools and machines can continue production with much greater

7

efficiency, yielding more and better consumable results faster than the previous manual production. As an example, look at the early pioneering days in the United States. A family might be engaged in farming their own food, and building or improving their family home. One young son of the family is beavering away in the barn on some new “invention” – to the slight disapproval of his family who would rather he joined them improving the home before winter. When the young lad has finished and unveils his new “device” feelings are still mixed. But come next harvest when his threshing machine is put to use, doing the work in far less time and with much less manual effort than before, he’s the family hero. His threshing machine is “capital”; he forfeited work on the house which could have been of immediate benefit, working on a machine which would give longterm benefit in terms of higher productivity. So if that’s “capital”, what was Karl Marx’s problem? Not the fact of capital equipment which could and can increase productivity thus in turn producing better goods at less cost. Marx’s problem lay in the relative shares of proceeds from sales as between capital owners and workers. This is still a bone of contention today. In autumn of 2008 for example, Boeing aircraft workers went on a prolonged strike. One major issue was that their pay was not keeping pace with inflation – while the bosses were getting handsome raises. It’s a familiar story! The development of capitalism has taken place, so far, in four stages: private, joint stock, casino, and whiz kid. When capitalism began, way back in the mists of history as primitive man created the stone axe, tools and machines were personally developed and owned, much like the example of the threshing machine described above. Capitalism really took off with the invention of the Joint Stock Company. The idea was to sell shares in a company so that many small savers could collectively provide investment in machinery, stocks and equipment, and thus share in the company’s hopedfor success. This worked well in its early stages simply because it was conducted properly and responsibly. Big companies were not that many, and investors tended to buy stocks in companies within their own national borders. One investigated the company, read its financial reports, and took shares in that company because it appeared to be sound and well-managed. The anticipation was that the company, and thus one’s shares in it, would prosper, enhancing the value of its capital equipment, and paying regular dividends to its investors from the company’s profits. Purchasing a company’s shares was based on research, and investment in the company was a token of longterm confidence.

8

But then things took a different turn as capitalism moved into its third “casino” phase. Government stocks and bank accounts were boring, paying steady but paltry dividends. People wanted something more spectacular in terms of reward for their savings. So the stock market gained rapidly in popularity as investors large and small piled in. And on what did they base their choices of companies and shares? Research, study of annual reports, recommendations of informed brokers? No. They saw particular stocks going up so they bought. Simple, and effective – for a time. But many popular stocks became vastly over-valued, which is to say very specifically, that they were valued more highly than their prospects and dividends warranted. But then who cared or even knew about company reports and prospects? They were boring boring boring, something the smart cocktail set, the flappers, the young men breezing into the Drones’ Club for billiards and champagne lunch could hardly be bothered with. This was the gay twenties, when those with money assumed a natural right to have it grow without any effort on their part. Aside from inflated stock prices, an unregulated market at that time was open to fraud and scurrilous dealers who began offering shares in non-existent mining operations in remote parts of the globe. But never mind what it was, if the price was going up, buy buy buy. Of course a crash was inevitable, and it came with a vengeance. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 with its disastrous after-effects is well documented. Did anybody learn any lessons? In the late 1980s Japanese stocks and property grew into one of the biggest bubbles the world has known. The Nikkei Stock Index just went up and up. You could walk along a street in Tokyo and see screens in shop windows – each one you passed showing the Nikkei higher than the last one. Japanese Warrants, a highly geared method of investing in stocks, were regularly yielding their fortunate purchasers 150% gain per year. Again, the crash was dramatic and well documented. Almost 20 years later Japan had still not recovered its economic equanimity. So much for the (very much on-going) “casino” phase of capitalism. The next and most recent phase of capitalism was to introduce further excitement into investing, with corresponding risks and opportunities for profit or loss on a previously unimagined scale. This is the “whiz kid” phase of shorts and longs, derivatives, leveraging, and more recently, mortgage-backed securities. This is a world in which bankers stand back in wonderment as their young fast-dealing employees perform complex monetary convolutions with the banks’ money of which the directors are hardly aware and which they wouldn’t understand even if they were. Let’s look briefly at some of these fancy devices. Leveraging means you don’t just invest money you have, you borrow 100 times its value, so when you clinch a successful deal your profits are 100 times greater. Of course if the deal doesn’t work you’re 100 times worse off.

9

Another more recent invention is mortgage-backed securities. Instead of your local bank giving you a mortgage and keeping the deeds of your house, the bank, or perhaps a shady mortgage salesman, fixes you up with a deal you probably can’t afford. But never mind. A whole raft of mortgages are then thrown together into one big package, which in turn is chopped up into tiny pieces and sold to investors and investment funds around the globe. The risk is spread so widely and so thinly, the current wisdom had itself believe, that if anything goes wrong and any mortgages should default, no one will feel any pain. In the event however, the bad mortgages were a collective virus, and when they turned sour through defaults, spread their disease around the globe, and commentators with an eye to a catchy turn of phrase coined the term “toxic” to describe infected investments. Or take derivatives. Derivatives are a way of investing, not in a real asset, but in assets which derive their value indirectly from something else – for example, investing, or rather speculating, in commodity futures, rather than commodities themselves. The commodity futures market is open and regulated. But as of 2008 the newer derivatives have not been traded on an exchange and there are no transparent records of who is trading what. More importantly, there is no clearing house holding collateral to guarantee trades and settle bad deals. This area, which traders refer to as “darker markets”, accounted for millions of private trades involving many of Wall Street’s top firms. It became a house of cards, requiring only a few bad and unsupported deals to set off a train of disaster. And it took time to discover who were the losers. The 2008 financial disaster was often referred to as a “banking crisis”, but the intensification of the crisis came not from the banks serving their customers through standard banking practices, but from their finance arms, their “off-balance-sheet vehicles” through which they gambled – with very high stakes involving highly geared derivatives. American investment guru Warren Buffet once remarked that derivatives were “financial weapons of mass destruction”. He was proved devastatingly right in 2008. The four phases of capitalism: private, joint stock, casino, and whiz kid. What next one wonders? Or perhaps it’s time to call a halt to the abuses of our financial system and limit ourselves to employing it carefully and conservatively for the purposes it originally served quite well: facilitating trade, and investment into profitable enterprises. Abuse of the system, something Marx could probably never have visualized, has become a major issue, so much so that unless stricter rules regarding the management of money in its various institutions are put into place fairly rapidly our whole financial system may become unworkable. And if you think that a well-maintained road system, a local fire service and efficient garbage disposal are important elements in a society’s infrastructure, they pale into insignificance beside the most vital infra-structural facility of all: our monetary system.

10

CREDIT MANAGEMENT 1. The Regulation of Credit
The most important element in any economy is finance, money or credit. Without what may broadly be called a monetary system, an economy is reduced to barter. It is vital to ensure, first and foremost, that the operation of the monetary system is honest and effective. In order to exchange goods and services without the tedium of direct barter, society needs an exchange medium. If there is no exchange medium trade becomes almost impossible. If there is a shortage of exchange medium trade is slow. It is therefore important that whatever medium is used, there should be sufficient available to satisfy the needs of trade and investment. The exchange medium used in earlier times was a real commodity such as seashells, gold or coffee. In today's near-cashless society the exchange medium is the credit facility. Simply stated, the Commercial, or Main Street banks themselves create credit by making loans to their customers; the loans are eventually repaid, and more loans are made. It is a continuous-flow process, as credit flows out and back, and is then recycled out again. It is this revolving flow of credit which finances the entire economy, buying and selling, earnings and savings, longterm investments and retirement pensions. The Commercial Banks are private corporations, whose sole objective in present circumstances is to make a profit for their shareholders. The Nation's Central Bank attempts to regulate the total quantity of credit in circulation so that it satisfies the needs of the economy in its current or potential level of activity. If there is insufficient credit available to finance the economy’s needs, the Central Bank lowers interest rates, thus encouraging business investment and personal credit-spending. Excessive liquidity can cause overheating and inflation, and to slow down the level of economic activity the Central Bank raises interest rates, thus slowing the pace of business investment and personal credit-spending. The Central Bank, in conjunction with government economic policy, regulates the quantity of credit flowing through the economy. But the actual translation of a potential credit facility into real industrial and consumer loans is left wholly to the discretion of the private Commercial Banks, whose motives are solely shareholder-profit oriented. Government regulatory involvement in the Monetary System, the revolving flow of credit which empowers investment and lubricates the entire industrial and commercial machinery of the nation, is concerned solely with the quantitive issue of how much credit is available in the system at any given time, and exhibits no interest in, nor exercises much influence over, the selective or qualitive issue of how the available credit is used.

11

CREDIT MANAGEMENT 2. Misuse and wasted potential
Just as governments still carry a residual aura of absolute monarchs ruling by divine right, bankers too like to maintain a residual mystique harking back to the days when their vaults were filled with gold, and major banking groups even printed their own banknotes. The reality today however is quite different. Today's Commercial Banks are creating credit within the overall framework of, and under the ultimate control of, the national monetary system. They are simply acting as agents handling a national resource. It is a resource of extensive proportions and of vital import to the economy both nationally and at local community level. And yet this resource of the nation, this Systemgenerated Credit is created and channeled by the commercial banking sector with little reference to the overall needs of the economy and frequently with insufficient financial responsibility. Bankers are, in reality, wholesalers and retailers, providing credit to consumers by drawing from a national infrastructural asset deriving its origin, authority and credibility from government. This national infrastructural asset of available credit is limited in quantity and carries enormous potential for production and productivity – and thus prosperity. Overall quantity is regulated by government and central banks. But there is no regulation over quality of use. How do banks handle this limited and valuable resource? Responsibly, realizing its maximum prosperity-creating potential? Absolutely not. Consider just a few examples of banking irresponsibility. Banks encourage home-owners to indulge in shopping sprees by taking out second and third mortgages “secured” by clearly inflated market values. Yes, advertisements on American radio have promoted just such offers. Credit Card departments of banking institutions advertise actively for business – “ no credit checks, instant acceptance guaranteed”. Why such rash promises? Surely there will be defaults. Yes of course there will be. But there will also be the “poor but honest” who maximize their card debt then have to pay interest at an annual 19%. In the pursuance of profits, major banks take substantial risks in financial speculation on a huge scale, or at local level, in unproductive ventures operated by relatives or thinly disguised associated companies. The history of banking provides numerous references to major banking scandals where banks have made substantial loans to dubious real estate companies, or, more recently, where banks have played the foreign currency markets

12

using complex high-risk gearing techniques. The situation remains unchanged, and a new major banking scandal can break at any time. The complete collapse in 2008 of major banking, investment and insurance institutions can leave no doubt in anyone’s mind: Clearly there is insufficient control over the commercial banks' investment activities. Traditional banking practice is founded on “reserves”, with loans based on and securitized by those reserves. The philosophy is that once you’ve got reserves, you can gamble, speculate, make dubious property loans… whatever you like. But experiences in 2008 have proved conclusively that banks’ “assets” as security are a fantasy, a foundation of sand on which they construct a house of cards. Reserves are in effect insurance, insurance against bad loans. But as any insurance assessor knows only too well, insurance must be weighed against risk, and bankers’ gambles and their investment “devices” have become so complex that risk is almost impossible to estimate. In the autumn 2008 global financial storm, UBS, Switzerland's biggest bank, got itself into serious trouble. Not only was the bank gambling wildly, it also grossly underestimated the risks it was taking. Before the beginning of the crisis, UBS calculated its credit risk at SFr800 million. In the event it had to write down SFr40 billion – that's 50 times more. The government had to step in and save the bank by putting in $5.3 billion to take a 9.3 percent ownership in the bank. The “reserve of last resort”, it turns out, is the unfortunate taxpayer. It goes without saying that the current banking practice of gambling its reserves for profit has to stop. Reserves which they consider their own are ultimately guaranteed by government and central bank, and should not be viewed as casino chips. But we need to go much farther, and completely revise – indeed reverse our banking philosophy, moving from asset-backed securitization to project-based securitization. In other words, the security of a loan must be based on the validity and on-going monitoring of the investment project itself. Banking philosophy needs to look forward to the investment project as security, not backwards to its reserves. Reserves are only as good as the project they are supposed to guarantee. Our entire financial system is based on System-generated Credit, a national resource and not the private property of the banks – a fact totally unacceptable to the banking community, yet brought home with devastating clarity in the autumn of 2008, when the worldwide financial crisis prompted first, guarantees of government and central bank support in Ireland then in the USA, followed by what amounted to partial nationalization of several major banks in Britain as the government took shares in the banks’ equity and imposed stricter standards and controls – an example subsequently copied by the USA and some European administrations. The fact is now clearly and transparently established: a nation’s credit flow is a national resource, and government is the banker of last resort.

13

Once this is recognized and accepted it becomes a matter of importance to consider how this vital – and limited – resource can be used safely, and to the greatest benefit of the overall economy.

CREDIT MANAGEMENT 3. Credit for growth and productivity
First, appropriate controls and guidelines must be established to ensure that banking resources are not misused for speculative purposes in property, stock markets, foreign currency transactions, and the complex web of margin deals and derivatives with which banks’ whiz kids currently gamble depositors’ and shareholders’ hard-won resources. The next step would be to ensure that the National Resource of System-generated Credit is used for the benefit of the economy as a whole. There is an ongoing need for investment in major infrastructure projects and environmental protection measures, as well as industrial development in backwater areas or areas experiencing major unemployment. However, there is no current mechanism for directing the flow of credit into economically depressed areas or regional infrastructure requirements. These investment demands are presently funded, either not at all, or by government as non-returnable grants out of taxes. This is an improper accounting practice which only serves to distort government accounts and increase government debt. In addition, companies and projects in economically depressed areas generally receive outright grants rather than repayable loans; this distorts their own costings and may cause unfair competition. Grants lack the financial discipline which applies to loans which must produce a repayment, and the use of taxpayers' funds for what should be investment only succeeds in further enlarging and obscuring government accounts. Regional Development Banks, centrally coordinated and having access to a proportion of overall credit availability, making open decisions based on nationally and locally debated priorities, could deploy their credit allocation to make repayable loans for infrastructure and local development on a more businesslike footing, with the object of maximizing the overall nation's and each region's productive and employment potential. The flow of credit created by the banking system is a national resource, not a resource of any specific bank or investment institution or individual saver. It is a resource having a substantial potential for the enhancement of prosperity, and it is moreover a scarce and finite resource. It is therefore entirely appropriate that this resource should be directed purposefully and publicly into projects which will improve employment, productivity and thus prosperity. Full employment is one of the basic essentials of a civilized society, but it will not come about by chance. There is a tremendous potential for creativity in the world; most people want to do a useful job of work, and to do it well. Unemployment is not for most people a

14

natural or preferred condition. System-generated Credit can be used to expand employment on a powerful scale, but only if it is guided by overall priorities. Without selective criteria, the nation’s System-generated Credit will not be used productively, and may well serve only to inflate property and stock market balloons which will eventually burst with the disastrous effects only too familiar in historical, recent, and indeed current banking experience. If on the other hand System-generated Credit is recognized and accepted as a national resource, both valuable in its potential and limited in its quantity, Economic Policy can begin to exercise, first protective disciplines, then certain directional criteria so that credit can be channeled into infrastructure projects, areas of high unemployment, and productive investment at regional and local level.

CREDIT MANAGEMENT 4. Development Banking
If System-generated Credit is clearly recognized as a national resource, and subject to proper disciplines, the banking system can deploy this resource so that it fulfils its potential function as a major contributor to growth, productivity and prosperity. The commercial banks however, must also deal with day-to-day matters such as current accounts, mortgages and loans for big-ticket consumer purchases, all of which are necessary functions. To take care of more specialized needs, Regional Development Banks can be established with the specific purpose of investing in regional business and industry on an ongoing partnership basis, their decisions based on a rigorous assessment of project viability and guided by an overall regional investment strategy. The cost of finance as charged by the Regional Development Banks would be limited to the Bank's administrative costs and the cost of loan insurance. There is of course an element of risk in any investment. The more useful approach however, is to minimize risk through proper pre-investment research and positive on-going monitoring of physical production, sales, and accounting – precisely the measures which a banking-industry partnership system is able to undertake. A Standard Audit Format for accounting and quality/productivity performance would facilitate a follow-up monitoring process through which the investing banks are provided continuously with performance data from recipient companies, thus ensuring the safety both of the investment loan, and of the recipient company. In the case of larger businesses, the investing bank may well appoint a Director to the Board, as already practiced in Germany. Careful monitoring will be to the advantage both of the investing bank and the recipient business, as well as to the regional economy: bankruptcy is not contributive to economic stability and prosperity.

15

The banking-industry partnership would therefore be in a position to offer investment at a relatively low cost, possibly 2-3%, backed by the on-going monitoring of the recipient business ensuring safeguards for the investing bank, the recipient business and all those involved with and dependent on it. The highly successful Mondragon cooperative group in Basque Spain illustrates this ongoing relationship between investment banking and recipient business. The Workers’ Bank serves three mutually inter-dependent functions: it provides investment as a local development bank, offers technical and financial advice for business startup, then monitors production, quality, and financial performance in a process of ongoing cooperation and partnership. To fulfill these objectives, the Bank's operation is formally divided into two sectors. One deals with finance. The other comprises specialist departments, providing skilled commercial, architectural and technical advice either to assist existing enterprises or to promote new ones. Once launched, the new enterprise manages itself but the Bank guarantees continuing support in return for a flow of data from which the new enterprise's progress can be monitored – production, sales, profits and so on. If anything begins to go wrong, the Bank can give timely help, with advice or further finance if appropriate. A similar and highly successful banking enterprise, the Grameen Bank, operates on the same basis, directed more towards the needs of poorer developing countries. Another feature of this system is that the total project, from design through production and management to sales, becomes the loan collateral, rather than the personal assets of individuals. This is important. Comedian Bob Hope once remarked that “banks are institutions which lend money to people who can prove they don’t need it.” The availability of investment credit has enormous potential for growth, and the Development Banks should actively be seeking to maximize the productive use of this resource. The partnership concept also assumes longterm commitment, resulting in the encouragement of secure long-range planning and productivity investment, as well as research and development into new-generation products and services in conjunction, perhaps, with more specialized venture capital funds. The RDB could also provide investment finance for regional infrastructure, such loans to be repaid in the normal way by the relevant local or regional government departments from their own revenues. Once proper disciplines and regulatory institutions are in place, creative use of the national credit base through System-generated Credit can act as a major source of economic motive power. The Regional Development Banks would, like all areas of the banking sector, be strictly regulated to ensure the responsible use of created credit and investment funds, and would in addition be confined in their activities to their own specific region.

16

Within these qualifications they would be endowed with a substantial degree of autonomy in tailoring to regional needs both the quantity and the recipients of investment. They would also be able to set their own charges based on administrative costs and loan insurance. Thus the RDB would prove a powerful catalyst at local level, providing finance and subsequent ongoing supervision for business and industrial development, together with investment capital for regional infrastructure. A report commissioned by Britain’s Core Cities Group demonstrates that investment in local infrastructure repaid through an uplift in business taxes can create increases of between 50% and 80% in housing, jobs and economic output. When the power of System-generated Credit is harnessed in order to bring out its full potential, any economy can be expanded to full employment. There are however problems in another area, namely the way we evaluate wages, prices, and indeed, our very currency unit.

STABILIZING VALUE 1. The Anatomy of Inflation
The ability to channel investment into areas of un- or under-employment offers the potential to expand the productive capacity of the economy to its maximum potential, that is to say, full employment. Full employment has a number of advantages. A job is fundamental to life itself. Without a job little else can be achieved. Without a foot on the ladder, there is no hope of mounting. Unemployment also puts demands on those who do have jobs, since they must pay taxes to finance welfare benefits for the unemployed. At the national level, unemployment represents a waste of productive potential. It is an immediate waste in that 5% unemployment is a 5% reduction in potential production. And it discourages labourshedding productivity improvements, since those with jobs are afraid of losing them. When the London Underground system decided to replace ticket sellers and collectors with automated ticketing and barriers, Trades Unions opposed and blocked this laboursaving move for several years, fearing unemployment of their members. At the same time, the tramway administration in Zurich, Switzerland, decided to replace conductors with automatic ticket machines. The changeover took place smoothly as planned with no opposition. On the last day of conductor operation, there were tables set up outside the tram depot by firms seeking employees. Switzerland at that time enjoyed not only full employment, but a shortage of labour. Some economists have suggested that a degree of unemployment is essential, since a tight labour market can hold back economic development; on the contrary, employers and

17

managers at a Japanese labour conference in 1991, when the Japanese economy was still buoyant, were unanimous that the shortage of labour at that time had forced them into increased labour-saving productivity and automation. A substantial degree of hardcore unemployment, on the other hand, causes employees to oppose labour-shedding productivity improvements for fear of losing their jobs and being unable to find alternative employment. This is much worse than it sounds. Prosperity is created and increased through advances in productivity, making better goods tomorrow with less labour than today. When workers in an economy oppose productivity, they are opposing prosperity. Despite the clear disadvantages of unemployment, and the desirability of full productive use of all economic resources, the ability to expand an economy to full capacity cannot presently be realized, for as the economy expands to near-full employment, the danger of inflation causes the Central Bank to put the brakes on. The problem is that our money has no defined value. Back in the simple craft market, all participants had a fair idea of what each product cost in terms of labour, skill and materials. But who today would know the constituent cost of a jacket or a kitchen mixer, a computer or high definition television set? The result is that we’re back to haggling, but on a national scale. We haggle over wages and prices. Money only has real meaning in terms of what you earn (wages), and what you can buy with what you earn (prices). But both wages and prices are open to continuing dispute and lack any form of definition or stability. None of our national currencies has any stable, clearly defined value, and all are subject to greed-motivated upward movement known as inflation. This in turn prevents economic expansion to full employment, sentencing the world’s economies to the waste and human distress of substantial and permanent unemployment. And the existence of inflation as a permanent feature of every world currency is a denial of one of the basic purposes of money known to every first-year economics student from the first day: money should act as a store of value. Yet a currency which loses – at the very best – 3% of its value every year is about as useful as a store of value, as a bucket with a hole in it could be used to store water. Inflation is not the complex esoteric phenomenon economists would have us believe. It is simply a matter of human greed – our natural desire to get more reward for the same work. Inflation is an increase in price without a corresponding increase in value. If the price goes up for a better product that costs more to make, that is not inflation. But if a producer asks more tomorrow for the same product he sold for less yesterday, that is inflation. Similarly with wages. More money for more or harder work is not inflation. Inflation is more money for doing exactly the same work.

18

In today’s economies, the level of economic activity directly affects inflation. When the economy is sluggish, producers and retailers find difficulty in moving their goods; they respond by introducing price reductions, incentives and special offers. But as the economy expands and consumer demand expands, prices can be increased without damaging sales. Similarly with wages. Employees are naturally reluctant to demand more money, or threaten strike action, in a time of high unemployment with a lineup of job applicants outside the door. But when the economy approaches near-full employment and staff are hard to find, now's the time to demand that raise you've been wanting! The price of goods and services on the market increases to match or exceed the value of credit available for their purchase. This is the dominant feature of a free market economy, and balancing the two highly desirable but conflicting goals of full employment and zero inflation or stable money is the key to national economic management today. The economy is slack and inflation is low. So the Government and/or the Central Bank expands the economy by lowering interest rates. But when near-capacity is reached in the more prosperous regions, inflation begins to rise, and the Central Bank attempts to control inflation by slowing down the economy with increased interest rates, thereby maintaining a level of permanent unemployment. Full employment and full productive use of resources in a free-market economy is an economic and financial impossibility. Thus getting a job becomes a game of musical chairs. For every hundred job-seekers, there are only at best ninety-five jobs. Similarly producers will be competing to sell their goods to a market which has insufficient credit to purchase them. Recession or inflation? Our economic managers have two choices. Expand the economy to full employment and we get inflation. Or reduce inflation, by slowing down economic activity, creating unemployment and recession. The art of economic management as currently practiced lies in attempting to compromise between the two. Apart from fiscal dishonesty and irresponsibility (printing money to gold-plate the presidential palace), inflation is not a monetary, but a social factor. In hard times people behave themselves. But when things get easier, producers put prices up for the same product or service, and employees demand more money for the same amount of work. That is not an economic factor, to be explained with complex formulas and obscure economic jargon. It’s simple human nature. Or to put it a little more plainly, it’s simple human greed. The underlying economic factor which makes this situation possible is that pay and prices are settled by a form of disputation. The price is as much as the producer can get, or as

19

little as the consumer is willing to pay. Similarly, the wage is as much as the employee can get, or as little as the employer can get away with. This process is commonly known as free collective bargaining. But it is inherently unstable and subject to continuous upward pressure fuelled by the simple human desire for more. While the desire for more wealth and prosperity both personally and nationally is a very reasonable one, an economy and its participants should seek to increase their personal and collective prosperity by becoming more productive, not by demanding more money for the same work or the same product. The process of establishing pay, profits and prices by disputation results in friction, industrial disputes, loss of productivity, inflation, and permanent under-employment. It represents a facet of anarchy, in that it is a process of settling differences by unregulated dispute rather than by a system of debated and agreed guidelines and regulation.

STABILIZING VALUE 2. Full Employment without Inflation
Free Collective Bargaining on the wage, or pay side combined with totally unregulated market pricing is the key factor which prevents expansion to full employment. What, if any, are the alternative options? A potential solution to this problem already exists, and needs only to be applied on a standardized national scale in order to bring stability – and justice, that essential precondition of stability – to the economy. For many years, a number of government agencies and corporations large and small, have been using a system of job evaluation to evaluate the work each employee contributes. Each job is analyzed, and its essential characteristics and demands, such as training, responsibility, working conditions and physical/mental effort involved, are measured on a series of common scales. The job "value" is then directly related to remuneration. In this way, pay is fair, both in relation to the work done, and in relation to the pay and the work of others. Currently there are several such systems in use, well tried and working successfully. It would not be difficult to analyze and compare their different features in order to establish a single standard. This would become in effect a national standard of value for measuring the work element contained in a product or service, so that pay becomes a true reflection of the work required of a job. Society already measures apples and gasoline; it could hardly get along otherwise. Yet of all the things traded every day, work is the most important, and work is the one commodity we do not measure. A national standard would provide a point of reference, of justice indeed. Everyone would know how much they should get for the work they do, without hassle or argument or strike.

20

Labour evaluation can ensure remuneration stabilization. This process can be carried through to price stabilization. A factory's, or a business's total costs consist of three elements. First, the cost of boughtin raw materials and components; second, the direct labour added in the factory; and third, the costs of capital write-off, overheads and finance. These are the costs of making a product, of supplying a service. From these costs a Unit Production Cost can be calculated for each product or service supplied. If this Unit Production Cost then becomes the Selling Price, there would be a direct and fair relationship between cost and price, and therefore between pay and purchasing power. But the Unit Production Cost is not normally equated with the Selling Price. The difference between the two is commonly referred to as the net profit. How is the net profit currently disposed of? The prior destination for profits has traditionally been the investors, or shareholders. But today this is changing, reflecting in turn a new perception of the need to create a greater sense of teamwork. Investment is vital, as also is the equipment it provides; but the machine is no longer the exclusive source of productivity and indeed its operation can be rendered useless without the intelligent participation of the workforce. The reality today, becoming ever more widely recognized, is that the people who work in an enterprise are equally vital: their inventiveness, their enterprise and initiative, their attention to the job in hand, their commitment to quality, their extra thought and effort... these are the factors which if encouraged and harnessed can turn investment into productivity and prosperity, and which can turn a company's fortunes. Thus an annual workforce bonus reflecting performance of the company may also be included. Apart from investor dividends and employee bonuses, the other major destination for the disposal of company profit is re-investment, either in research and equipment or increased working capital. The advantage is that in-house or self-generated investment comes without future servicing cost or commitment to repay. There is one more claimant to a share in the profits, and that is the customer. Profits have to come from somewhere – or someone. In fact it is the customer who pays the price and generates the profit; with this view a further claim on profits would come from the consumer, demanding lower prices. The stabilization of prices would require the establishment of public policy for profit distribution. This could take the practical form, first, of an overall profit ceiling.

21

Of the profit made, broad percentage bands could be established and gradually stabilized, distributing profit according to a pre-set formula as between co-workers at all levels, investors, and the internal needs of capital for reserves and re-investment. As they do today, government revenue departments would continue to require that companies prepare in timely fashion properly audited annual accounts. Company profits would be examined in order to ensure that they are apportioned according to a consensus formula which respects the claims and contributions of consumers, investors, co-workers, and the future security of the business itself. It should be noted that price stabilization effected in this way, through annual account regulation, would permit the same degree of latitude in pricing "deals" and special offers. But the profit ceiling would ensure an ultimate price stability. Pay and price evaluation and stabilization would provide guidelines ensuring fair exchange between employer and employee, as well as between producer and consumer, without the need to argue or strike. More importantly, stable pay and prices would permit economic expansion to full employment without inflation. Guidelines for remuneration/pay evaluation coupled with profit limitations would replace dispute with rules, and would move to stabilize pay and prices even in times of economic expansion. In such circumstances it would be possible to expand the economy steadily to full employment and hold it there indefinitely without fear of inflation. The results would be seen in full employment, monetary stability, and a high level of productive efficiency and thus prosperity. “A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” – a fine-sounding slogan but hardly a reality today. The vast majority of working people slog away in factories and offices for the best part of their lives with nothing but a meager pension at the end of it – and even that may be in doubt. At the other end of the scale, the “fat cats” walk away with millions for having done little but presiding over a company’s decline. While this is causing growing, and justifiable resentment, the problem is very much deeper and more fundamental. One major element of public contention during the crisis of 2008 was the fact that CEOs and executives who had presided over the near ruination of their banks and major finance houses were walking away with golden handshakes in the millions. Is that fair, people were asking? But how can one answer that, when we have no concept of relating pay to anything, and our monetary unit – if anyone bothers to think about it – has no concrete definition. Our monetary unit has no basis, no defined value. Powered by the fundamental human desire for more, it tends to float gently upwards, and can be controlled only by recession and unemployment, which in turn creates opposition to productivity and thus to prosperity.

22

Many economists and observers have long been aware that money has no defined value. A response has been the suggestion of returning to commodity-based money, like gold or silver. But the limitations of such rigid restrictions have already been experienced. Credit needs to be available, and to expand, in direct relation to the economic activity it has to support, lubricate and finance. In any case, precious metals themselves fluctuate in value, if for example a major new source of gold is discovered, its “value” relative to other commodities will necessarily fall. But in the search for monetary stability and “something solid” on which to base it, we have constantly overlooked the most basic commodity of all: human labour. Everything comes back to labour. It’s the only thing we’re trading. The price of gold is ultimately defined in terms of labour: the amount of labour involved in exploration, location, mining and processing. Labour is the one single commodity on which all else is based, in terms of which all else is measured and defined. It is the ultimate commodity on which to base our monetary unit. Apart from irresponsible banking practices, many of our ongoing financial and economic troubles arise out of our monetary unit’s basic lack of definition. From this we get not just an underlying instability, but in practical terms, the need for a permanent degree of unemployment which in turn discourages productivity through fears of job losses. And it cannot be said often enough: prosperity is created through productivity, and opposition to productivity is opposition to prosperity itself. Social Security in its widest possible sense is the goal of every well-governed society, and the only true "Social Security" is full employment, that utopian condition in which there is a rewarding job for everyone who wants one, with the guarantee of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

STABILIZING VALUE 3. Prosperity IS Productivity
Prosperity is created by production. We become prosperous, individually or collectively, by producing goods and services which people want and need, either for our own personal consumption, or for trade with others. But production is only half the story. If we want to enhance and increase prosperity, production needs to be productive, it needs to be efficient. You can't increase your prosperity simply by working harder or longer. More hard work may increase your financial wealth, but at the expense of leisure, family time, and possibly also your health. To increase prosperity we need to work not harder but smarter, producing more and better goods tomorrow with less work than it took yesterday.

23

The old socialist economy in the Soviet Union offered guaranteed full employment, a job for everyone. But work was thoroughly unproductive. Some jobs were simply “makework” employment, while in many factories, malfunctioning, out-dated equipment and shortage of parts often brought production to a prolonged standstill. Everybody working, yes. But also… everybody working productively. Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation can permit economic expansion to full employment without inflation. And the productive, even aggressive use of System-Generated Credit can provide guided startup finance for new enterprises large and small, as well as credit for existing business seeking to update their equipment, expand, or generally raise productivity. But there is also a social element involved in maximizing productivity. First and foremost, the guarantee of “a rewarding job for everyone who wants one” and “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” would go a long way towards ensuring a disputefree industry and a more socially equitable society. It must also be recognized and accepted that it is in the interests of everyone concerned in a business that it should be productive – and stay in business. And "everyone concerned" includes: owners, investors, and employees of course, but also suppliers and distributors, and the host community which is dependent on the company's wage-earners for secondary services. The problem is that these different interests may often see their own point of view to the exclusion of the whole. If business is to survive and prosper without the waste and distress caused by failures and bankruptcies, then a holistic view of business in its totality must be maintained. The consumer is the ultimate recipient of the product or service; indeed, since we produce solely in order to consume, the consumer must be the most important element in the process. Good design, economical production, efficient and stable administration; all these factors have a direct bearing on the product or service as it is presented to the consumer. And it is the consumer who suffers when a product fails to perform as it should, when its quality and service fall below the standard of which current technology is capable, or when it is over-priced as a result of wasteful production methods. When products are poorly designed and inefficiently or wastefully manufactured, when services are careless and slipshod, when quality is poor, the consumer suffers. But so also do the investors if the firm concerned fails to gain its potential market share. And employees suffer both from inefficient working conditions, and from the insecurity and potential job losses inevitably incurred in a poorly run company. The maintenance of high standards in any business is clearly in the interests of all its co-workers and

24

investors, as well as the host community that depends on it for employment and prosperity. In the wider context, businesses and industries are highly dependent on one another, for the supply of materials and components, for subcontracted work, for marketing and distribution. So the quality and reliability of one business affects, and is affected by that of several others. This total integration and inter-dependence of co-workers at all levels and in all departments, together with investors, suppliers, distributors, host community and consumers, clearly reflects the reality that avoidable incompetence in any part of the chain affects others adversely if not disastrously. Suppliers and distributors, as well as co-workers at all levels and in all departments should have the right to expect from one another the highest standards of professional conduct. And consumers should have the right to expect that products and services reflect and embody the highest currently available techniques and capabilities in efficiency, quality and reliability. Maintaining the highest possible standards in management, quality and productivity will maximize job satisfaction and job security for suppliers and co-workers, while consumers will enjoy the use of products and services which reflect a continuous improvement in quality at progressively falling prices. Many of the industrial world's more forward-thinking executives have spoken out in favour of the need for a "stakeholder charter". John Dasburg, retired CEO Northwest Airlines: “My concern about the capitalist model is that while it seems to work and we're all involved in capitalism in an incredibly existential way, the fact of the matter is that there is, in my view, the need for some type of balance. Democracy didn't work without certain rights being guaranteed, what we call a Bill of Rights. And in my view there is somewhat of a bill of rights to capitalism. You just simply must take into consideration all of the various interests in society in the enterprise. And if you fail to do that, capitalism will fail. And we, as CEOs have a responsibility to see to it that we take into consideration all the stakeholders. And I just simply don't buy the view that maximizing shareholder value and disregarding other interests is a sensible way to run an organization. And certainly, in the long run, I think, it places in jeopardy the entire underlying economic system.” A key factor in the consistently high productivity of Japanese industry is teamwork, the involvement of all employees in continuous quality and productivity improvement. Another important factor ensuring high productivity is full employment. Experience in Japan, Switzerland and Germany has shown that full employment and a shortage of

25

labour has forced companies to seek other ways of maintaining production, specifically through increased use of existing labour and a greater degree of automation. Another source of productivity has been the move to redesign products for ease of moulding and assembly – “click not screw”! Full employment encourages productivity, while the risk of losing jobs in conditions of high unemployment causes opposition to productivityincreasing job losses. Prosperity, for a nation, its regions, and every person who is able and willing to work, will not come about when the potential of investment credit is misused or under-used, or when a section of the population is always unable to find employment. The key to universal prosperity is simply stated: everybody working, everybody working productively. But this principle is not confined to private sector industry and services. Far from it. Government expenditure in the developed economies claims anything between 40% and 50% of the nation’s total wealth, so it is vital to maximize productivity in government. Regrettably this is rarely if ever considered as high priority in government circles – if indeed it is ever considered at all. Private sector productivity is motivated not so much by a shining evangelism inspiring managements and workers to give their best to their customers, but rather it is goaded by the fear of being overtaken by the competition. Governments are spared the horrors of competition, and since their customers are compelled to use their services whether they like it or not, it is hardly surprising that governments around the world are unproductive, extravagant and complacent. The remedy lies in total openness of all government accounts down to the last detail, benchmark objectives for each department, and strict adherence to standard accounting practices including independent auditing. But no institution, least of all a monopoly government, can be expected to set disciplines upon itself. This is something which can only be set in place at constitutional level. If prosperity is to be maximized, government discipline and productivity is a key factor. The longterm effect of productivity maximization combined with a labour-based monetary system is negative inflation. As productivity increases, the labour-content decreases, and it becomes possible for goods and services to be produced and offered at lower prices, thus progressively lowering the cost of living. This has already happened in the field of computers and other electronics. Buy a computer today, and it is almost guaranteed that in three months’ time the price will be lower for a faster machine with more storage space on its hard drive. This in turn means that as we get older we can look forward to increased purchasing power for our savings. A wild dream? No. This is as it should be, the normal course of

26

events. We should be increasing productivity, producing more and better at less cost. And with a stable monetary unit, increased productivity involving less labour is reflected in lower prices. Currently we are forced to rely on pension schemes defined in terms of inflating currency, and government schemes which are already heading for deep deficit. So we console ourselves with inflating home prices, ignoring the warnings that bust can follow boom. Only with stable value, and the safe, productive, aggressive use of System-Generated Credit to ensure full employment and the maximization of productivity throughout the economy, will universal prosperity become a reality.

STABILIZING VALUE 4. Stabilizing Property Values
Late-night partying and the morning-after hangover. Have your fling then pay the price. It’s a fairly familiar sequence of events. The home-mortgage and subsequent property crisis which contributed to a full-blown financial and stock-market disaster in 2008 followed much the same pattern, though many would not see it that way. When house prices rise, there is general jubilation, especially among home-owners, many of whom will take out second mortgages, or additional commitments based on the increased “value” of their homes. That increased value however should not be confused with real “added value” representing improvements made to the property which enhance its sale potential and its inherent value. Every home, every commercial property has a “core value”, to a certain extent a notional value, yet still basically definable. The core value of a property begins with the cost of acquiring dead or agricultural land at non-inflated “development” prices, a share in the cost of providing services (water, gas, electricity, drainage etc), and the cost of building. This is the base price, the core value. Anything above that is hot air, froth on the coffee, not a real asset because while it is certainly capable of inflation, the inflation element over and above the core value is not real value, and it can disappear as fast as it grows. Rapid increases in valuations of real estate property such as housing continue until they reach unsustainable levels relative to incomes and other economic elements. Then they crash – which in fact means that they return to a value more nearly reflecting the true or core value. The greater the inflation, the greater the fall. In the five years following Japan’s property-bust in 1990, commercial property prices had more than halved. We must learn to look at house price inflation with suspicion, not jubilation. Already in 2005, The Economist magazine suggested that “the worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history”. When house prices crash, the difference between core value and hot-air become clear. A homeowner’s original mortgage may indeed reflect something near core value. But a recent or a second mortgage will contain a

27

“froth” element which will disappear, leaving the homeowner with a mortgage valued at more than the current price of the home. In this situation, a homeowner cannot sell, and the market slows down. Commercial property is also affected. In the United States during 2008, homeowners unable to meet their mortgage commitments simply walked away, leaving their homes to be taken over by the mortgagor and sold at auction. The situation in the United States was further complicated by the mortgage structure. In the “good old days” when you wanted a mortgage you went to the Bank Manager (capital B capital M). You would sit in fear and trembling behind the frosted glass of his private office while he thumbed through your account history and looked you up and down suspiciously. Finally, if the story has a happy ending, he would graciously, perhaps with an air of condescension and reluctance, inform you that he would grant your request, thus giving you a home, and his Bank a flow of interest earned by the simple act of marking “approved” on your application. If for any reason you could not manage your payments – temporary unemployment for example – you could plead for mercy at the Bank Manager’s feet, and since he had no wish to go into property management, he would probably accommodate you. But not today. Oh no. We’re far too sophisticated for that. The financial wizards’ latest creation is ABCP which stands for Asset Backed Commercial Paper. Basically, banks and mortgage institutions sell their mortgage commitments to a Mortgage Fund which then sells shares in itself to investors and investment funds around the globe who may in turn sell shares in themselves to others. So now I have not the slightest idea who holds my mortgage. The idea is to spread risk. But it did not spread risk, it spread infection. For when the bubble burst it affected not a few identifiable mortgage lenders and banks, it spread throughout the world financial system. Just as homeowners did not know who held their mortgages, so complex investment funds holding funds-of-funds had no precise idea as to how great was their exposure to what became known as “toxic” mortgage paper. This new miracle mortgage device effectively relieved the banks providing the mortgage of all responsibility, since the individual mortgage titles and their obligations now dissected were so widely and thinly spread as to be almost indiscernible. The easy credit also available fuelled a boom both in housing prices and consumer spending. Assuming that this is not a desirable situation, we might ask what can be done, not so much to alleviate the distress of a property market crash once it has happened, but more significantly what can be done to prevent it happening again. It is widely recognized in 2008 that better regulation is necessary, first to ensure that mortgage providers and advisors give full and accurate information to clients regarding mortgage rates both current and future, with a full and complete breakdown of current and future commitments in money terms. It is also important to define and to regulate the flow of new financial instruments and devices which the whiz kids are constantly dreaming up. Better to be cautious in giving regulatory approval to new creations of market wizardry than to leave the public unprotected and open to serious financial losses.

28

A contributive solution lies in the provision of an adequate stock of what is variously called “affordable”, “social” or in Britain “Council” housing. Subsidies should as far as possible be avoided, aiming rather for what can be called “at-cost” housing, housing which reflects the “core value” defined above. This can be achieved by using “grey” land, redundant industrial or government land, or marginal agricultural land purchased for housing at agricultural prices, then providing serviced homes at construction cost, the individual housing units, grouping and finishes designed to offer maximum quality and minimum cost. The aim should be the provision of quality housing in pleasant surroundings, as far as possible reflecting sustainable goals in recycling and integration with public transport services. Housing units could be wholly at-cost rental or leasehold accommodation or a mix of at-cost and market rates to ensure quality of upkeep. On-site management should ensure maintenance of high standards. Rising property prices may be seen as a hot air balloon, which rises when heat is applied, and is held down by sand bags. The restraining influence of the sandbags can be provided by a substantial pool of quality at-cost housing reflecting a foundation of “real”, noninflated prices as a base reference point. Additionally, the at-cost housing pool reduces the demand for market-rate housing thus reducing the upward pressure of inflation. Rising land prices also have an environmental impact, tending to favour sprawl, as homes, shopping malls and businesses naturally seek to move out to areas of less value. Sprawl in turn generates more traffic because people have farther to travel; and it is essentially private vehicle traffic, since sprawl by its nature cannot economically or satisfactorily be served by shared public transport. Private vehicular traffic requires yet more road space, which quickly becomes clogged; speeds gradually decline, journey times get longer, and automobile pollution increases. Yet more seriously, rising land prices are economically regressive, a fact which classical economists decline to recognize. Prosperity is created by productivity, by increasing value without increasing cost. Rising land prices do just the opposite: they increase the cost of land without increasing its inherent value. And this has a similarly inflationary effect on the services using land, which become more expensive not because they are offering increased value but simply because rents are going up. "Value" in the sense of what buyers get for their money, decreases as land prices increase. This is particularly evident in major cities. There is little or nothing in the way of goods and services which is not affected by the price of land; rising real estate prices in towns and cities affect everything from offices to retail shops, cafés, and places of entertainment. The escalation of land prices is a major contributor to the high cost of urban living. It can also cause a deterioration in urban quality of life; many of Europe's old established city cafés which have for centuries been centres for meeting and socializing are now being forced to close as a direct result of escalating rents. Likewise the demise of urban centres in the USA came about when steadily increasing rents finally reached the point where businesses could no longer afford them and moved out instead to cheaper green field sites thus creating new suburbs.

29

If the city or town centre is to retain or regain and develop its function as a gathering place, it will be necessary to ensure that newly developed areas in city centres, particularly areas reclaimed from public or industrial use, should be subject to price stability so that rents are economic for those low-profit uses such as public markets and cafés which provide vitality and enjoyment for users. This could be accomplished, for example, by vesting tenure in the hands of a locally administered Urban Trust, which would then ensure maintenance and management of the facility. A central objective of good governance must be to ensure as far as possible a civilized life for all. And a key foundation element of a civilized life must surely include a quality, affordable home in pleasant surroundings within convenient reach of recreational opportunities and commercial facilities. If mortgage credit is properly and responsibly managed, home-buyers will not be encouraged to over-step the limits of their incomes. And a pool of at-cost affordable housing creates stability and a roof for young buyers until they can achieve a more secure financial situation. Ultimately the prosperity of a nation and its citizens individually can best be guaranteed by full employment, fair remuneration, and increasing productivity in a stable economy. And this in turn requires that the nation’s credit flow, its most vital resource, be protected from abuse and directed specifically towards releasing full productive potential.

Michael Sartorius Latest update November 19, 2008 For further reading and links check ProsperityEconomics.org TheArtOfGoodGoverment.org
arton@prosperityeconomics.org

ECONOMICS HAS THE POWER TO MAKE OR BREAK A NATION

30

From; http://www.theartofgoodgovernment.org/

The Seeds of Self-Destruction Uncontrolled self-aggrandizement leads to injury, exploitation, anarchy and war. Governance should set restraints upon the scope of people's actions. The Principle of Non-Injury Good Governance assures every citizen protection from all forms of harm, exploitation and oppression by others. Protection without Oppression. Good Governance is limited to, and defined by its role of Protection. Extension of power beyond that role becomes Oppression. A Predatory Society: Slaves, Serfs, and Industrial Poverty The Evolution of Governance Monarchy to Minority - Left and Right - Government in Decline From Force to Reason Democracy, rule by majority, replaced by "Principocracy", rule by Principle. The Search for Right Law Liberty and the Principle of Non-Injury Protection, Oppression, and Liberty are a function of Government Intervention - How Much Government. The Legislative Process Representation - Legislative Review - Quality, Productivity, Service CONSTITUTION Ideals of Constitutionalism The Great Charter of 1215 - England after Magna Carta Constitution in the New World Constitutional Government - Constitution: the Supreme Law of the Land

The Economics of Prosperity Our present economic/financial system doesn't work. It is open to, and frequently subjected to extreme abuse, and it fails to deliver the prosperity of which it is capable. We need to fix it. The Principle of Non-Injury in Economics. Value - Quality - Investment Natural Resources and the Principle of Non-Injury National Resources Plan - Townscape - Landpricing Hillhome: Minimal Footprint, Minimal Energy A City for the Future Home on a Hillside - A Varied Hillscape - Parkland Life in the Atrium In from the Countryside - Entertainment - Support Services If any man, any woman, acquires or is granted power over any other or others, this will – not may, but most certainly and surely will – lead to abuse, misuse, corruption and oppression. The only Power that is competent and can be trusted to regulate the affairs of community and society is the Power of Principle, the Principle that in the pursuit of selfimprovement and the exercise of liberty, no-one should injure or exploit others. This Principle of Non-Injury is neutral and impersonal. It is a shield, protecting from injury, preventing injury. Legislators hold no arbitrary or discretionary power. They are simply Interpreters, applying the Principle in terms of everyday events and actions. The process of Interpretation is clearly delineated and circumscribed. If there is Injury, there must be Protection. If there is no Injury, then there is neither cause nor justification for the interference of law and the exercise of its power.

The Seeds of Self-Destruction
The seeds of self-preservation and self-improvement are, of necessity, born into every one of us. If we use this impetus to create, to invent, to improve on what has gone before, collaborating with those around us, then civilization will advance to the benefit of all. But if the desire for self-aggrandizement is exercised at the expense of others, if we seek to gain wealth, not through our own creative labours alone but by exploiting and dispossessing others, by expropriating the work and wealth of others, the more aggressive

will become richer while others grow poorer, and conflict, confrontation, violence and ultimately war will result. We need Laws. We need laws which fairly and justly apportion demands upon, and uses of natural resources while respecting the requirements of good husbandry. We need laws to ensure honesty and fair dealings in commerce and industry. And we need laws to protect individuals from murder, theft, exploitation and oppression. This, in theory, should give us peace and prosperity, as human talents are put to the collaborative advancement of civilization. It sounds simple enough. But so far it has never happened. Why? Because those who have already achieved positions of wealth and power either become, or exert a powerful influence over lawmakers, who in turn produce laws which suit their own personal or perceived class interests. Conflict and confrontation remain as the background to our political and social relationships.

The Art of Good Government
The search for the "ultimate rightness" in law has occupied the minds of political thinkers for centuries, yet the answer is not hard to find when the fundamental nature of political conflict is clearly and fully understood. In our everyday lives, in personal relationships, in our use of natural resources, in our business and commercial affairs, it is possible for some to gain benefit at the expense of others, to impose their own wishes and interests upon others, to enrich themselves by impoverishing others. As long as government permits imposition to continue, or as long as government itself creates it, we will not live in peace and justice, nor will our prosperity reach its full potential. Good Government is governance which prevents us from harming or exploiting or imposing upon one another. The idea is well summarized by one of the leading figures in British justice, Lord Denning, in his book The Family Story: "Each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same." Likewise clearly and concisely in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "the purpose of government is to prevent men from injuring one another". The Art of Good Government requires the acceptance and consistent application of one simple basic rule: Do No Harm. This is the Principle of Non-Injury. Governance based on the Principle of Non-Injury precludes people from robbing, killing, cheating, exploiting and oppressing one another, opening the way to collaboration, peace and prosperity.

Protection without Oppression

Good Government should protect people from exploitation and oppression; equally important is that government should not itself create oppression by intrusive laws, nor exploitation through government waste and inefficiency. The Principle of Non-Injury can be defined with a degree of precision which creates its own disciplines on government by restricting law between the twin confines of obligation and limitation. The purpose of law is to prevent injury, and the identification of an injury either actual or potential obligates government to initiate the legislative process. The formulation of legislation which will prevent that injury either totally or as nearly as practicably possible will conclude the process. That defines government obligation. The limitation upon law is that without a clearly identifiable injury caused by one person or party against another, there can be no law. Thus government-initiated intrusive or oppressive laws cannot pass. In the words of John Stuart Mill, "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." The adoption of such a clearly defined Principle affects the process of legislation and government, as well as the very status and function of legislators. Both obligated, and limited in their actions, Legislators become Interpreters of the Principle, the legislative process directed not to satisfying the demands of sectional interests, but to the honest and consistent interpretation of the Principle based on a clear understanding of it. Legislators become the servants of justice, not the manipulators of it.

A Predatory Society
God gives every bird its food, but He doesn't throw it into the nest.
Likewise with humans: in order to provide ourselves with the lifestyle to which we may aspire, we need to work, to invent, to add labour to the resources of nature. But throughout the ages, those who are stronger and more cunning have discovered that it can be a lot easier to expropriate the results of other people's labour, rather than labour oneself. Slavery, feudalism, and industrial low-wage exploitation were tolerated, indeed sanctified by law. Why? Because law and governance was traditionally in the hands of those enjoying superior power, wealth, background and the political influence that goes with it. And they consistently ordered society in ways which permitted them to live comfortably from the proceeds of other people's toil. In early Greek and Roman times, a gentleman owned slaves; in the Middle Ages he owned land which was worked for him by peasants who were bound to him; in Victorian times he owned factories, in which workers risked health and safety for barely enough to buy food and shelter.

But with the dawn of the 1900s, the tables were turned. Society had hitherto been ruled by the rich and powerful, who ordered society in ways which would protect and perpetuate their wealth at the expense of others. Then Karl Marx and friends invited the "poor masses" to throw off the yoke of oppression, turn the tables and plunder the riches of their old masters. And this, encouraged by the newly invented doctrines of Socialism and Communism, they did. Finally, the politically more advanced countries adopted Democracy or Majority Rule, in which Left and Right, Poor and Rich, take turns to exploit one another, and everyone tries to enlist the aid of Government to provide them with subsidies or welfare which someone else - anybody or everybody, this generation or the next or the next - will have to pay for. And since Victorian working conditions and cheap labour are no longer available at home, companies in the developed world shift their factories around the globe. Their goal: the cheapest source of labour they can find. And never mind the working conditions. The history of politics and social relationships is a history of continuous imposition exercised by people over one another with government "turning a blind eye", or with government's active participation. Yet despite this long history of self-interest, of man's exploitation of fellow man and its vengeance, idealists and reformers constantly and consistently remained active, pressing not only for humanitarian reforms, but for the wider principles of universality and justice expressed in concepts of mutual respect between people and our environment in our laws, combined with constitutional disciplines and guarantees of individual liberties.

The Evolution of Governance
Whether autocratic monarchy or dictatorship, constitutional or democratic, government was not and is not instituted by idealists to protect the general liberty, but rather to protect and enhance its own interests, and those of its class supporters. The historical evolution of governance can be seen as a three-way battle: first between Power and People, then between Left and Right, Poor and Rich. In medieval times there was little or no awareness of social class among the general populace. The rich were up, the poor were down. Thus it was ordained. There was however, a continuing movement among the more powerful elements of society, the barons and clergy, to limit and to share the powers of the monarchy. The monarchy was tolerated, indeed actively supported and openly respected, for its continuance ensured stability as opposed to civil war. But the monarch must be disciplined in his or her conduct, respectful of tradition, upholder of the common laws and customs, modest in conduct and expenditure, and must share power with the powerful men of the land. England's Great Charter of 1215, generally recognized as the world's first groundbreaking constitution, set major limits on the English monarchy and strengthened the concept of

power-sharing in decision making. Further reforms were added during the years and centuries which followed, culminating in the 1689 Bill of Rights which transferred all effective political power to Parliament. Power had moved to the People. But Parliament at that time represented only a small proportion of the population. These were the big landowning families, and later the new industrial barons who were, of course, quite happy to keep things that way. The reformers however, both in and out of government, would now press for continuing expansion of the voting franchise and consequently wider power-sharing. Following the tradition that the King's advisers sat on his right, the Conservatives supporting the status quo now sat on the Speaker's right, while the Radicals and Reformists sat on the left. So Britain's Parliament assumed the confrontational shape still maintained today, of Right and Left, Conservatism and Reform, Rich and Poor facing one another across an aisle, and the terms Right and Left assumed the significance now familiar throughout the world. By the end of the 1800s following numerous gradual reforms, the right to vote had spread across class interests. However, while the working classes were now enfranchised, they needed a “real” Left-Wing Party in Parliament which would represent their own interests and views, a Party which would fight against the intolerably long working hours, poor pay, overcrowded housing conditions, and all the other perceived manifestations of injustice and exploitation. Socialism had its origins in the writings of Karl Marx and Engels, and the last few years of the 1800s saw the gradual formalization of the Socialist programme featuring a shorter working day, improved housing, higher wages, social security, and a minimum standard of education for all. The new “Labour Party” would now become the Party of the Left, with Socialism as the "alternative" political doctrine.

Left and Right
Thus far in political history there had really been only one political dogma, known as Capitalism, Laisser-faire, Free Enterprise. Whatever it may be called, it is based on the principle of minimal Government intervention. And that made sense, at least to the ruling classes. They were doing very nicely in industry, commerce and social organization, and they had naturally instituted a form of government which would leave them quite free to get on with it – which is literally what laisser-faire means. Traditionally Governments had always served the interests of the powerful people who controlled them, simply by doing as little as possible, thus allowing those with power to exploit those without it. Taking the side of the previously impoverished majority, Socialism would adopt the opposite approach. Instead of doing nothing, or the very minimum, a Socialist Government would throw itself wholeheartedly into the fray on the side of the working people. With the benefit of hindsight we can see the idealism which motivated the principles of Socialism in its formative years. But we can also see that the Socialist Reformers in their

attempts to eliminate enslavement overshot the mark. In the Communist countries for fifty years following the Second World War, governments became heavy-handed and oppressive. Central control of economic activity eliminated enterprise and with it meaningful economic growth, resulting in the relative economic decline which would be their downfall. In a milder apporoach to Socialism, governments in the “capitalist” West came to be seen as providers of welfare, healthcare and education, promising ever more goodies to win elections and taking their countries ever deeper into debt in the process. Governance is no longer about law-making. Rather it has become a process of taking taxes, multiplying them with added debt, then handing out favours to their campaign supporters and as crowd-pleasers to the loudest shouters at election times.

Government in Decline
Democracy gives power to the people, the word being derived from the Greek words power (kratos), and demos meaning people. It is a process whereby the People can peaceably present and review options, then select the policy of their choice. But this remains an ideal. We cannot have power to the people unless all of the people are of one mind. And in practice, they never are. We still perceive ourselves as “Right” or “Left”, Rich or Poor, though in the West class differences have in practice been considerably eroded, leaving a large “floating vote” to be won over by political personalities and increasingly by campaign budgets and the financial support needed to provide them. With class issues no longer in the forefront, and any vestiges of idealism gone, Western governments have become increasingly opportunist and self-serving, vainly promising miraculous solutions for the problems and issues of the moment while attempting to secure their own comforts and their own future. Popular confidence in government as an institution and lawmakers as individuals has reached near rock bottom; indeed it would almost seem that in the relationship between Power and People we have returned to the year 1215. At that time, constitutional action was required to bring to heel a monarchy perceived as self-serving, expensive, and largely ineffective, a situation very similar to the government-people relationship today. If we are to move forward in politics we need a new idealism as a guide and a basis for law, reinforced by strong constitutional disciplines on the conduct of government and lawmakers.

From Force to Reason
Throughout the history of politics, up to and including this day, force has always taken precedence over reason in the settlement of human affairs. Autocracy and anarchy both rely on physical force to impose decisions. In a democracy force remains as the decisive factor, only now physical force is replaced by force of numbers, or increasingly, force of

money. A law is right because it has the support of the majority; it needs no other justification. But democracy has produced, and continues to produce bad laws, laws which are oppressive, prejudicial or financially irresponsible. If we choose to apply reason to our political and social differences rather than force of arms or of numbers, we are led to the question as to what is 'right' and 'wrong' in law. The central issue of politics, indeed the one single factor which makes the very science of politics necessary, is the predilection of humans to gain wealth and prominence, not through their own efforts alone, but by claiming a share of the works and invention of others. This we do by theft and murder, by claiming a disproportionate share of the natural resources, through dishonest trading, or through politics either legally or illegally. If we were able, either willingly or under the discipline of law, to live our lives without harming or exploiting one another, we would find ourselves living in harmony, peace, productivity and prosperity. Collaboration creates prosperity; dissension destroys it. Currently we prefer to live in a state of conflict, in which each tries to get the better of others. This is reflected in our democratic system through which we vacillate between Right and Left. The Right allows considerable freedom for powerful people to exploit the less powerful, while the Left supports those who see themselves as exploited and assists them to rectify the perceived injustices through equalizing taxation and welfare benefits. We have polarized ourselves into two camps, and we fight one another through the ballot box, each side or social group trying to get the better of the other. We have an alternative: the Principle that we should avoid any and all actions which are harmful or detrimental to others. The concept of living life without harming or exploiting others is not new. The principle is enshrined in the Ten Commandments of the Christian Faith; it forms the basis of English Common Law. Its derivation, namely that the purpose of government is to prevent people from injuring one another, was simply stated by Thomas Jefferson. It was repeated by one of Britain's most prominent jurists, Lord Denning: What matters is that each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same. This is the Principle of Non-Injury, a fundamental law of social conduct with which we are all instinctively familiar. We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss. With the guidance of this Principle we would share resources equitably and use them wisely, we would trade fairly, we would respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We would learn to live in liberty, respecting and not infringing the liberties of others. And we would prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely more creative, more powerful force than confrontation.

In this way we would move from the left-right confrontation enacted through democracy, to a new politics guided not by the force of arms or of numbers, but by a Principle. After democracy: principocracy? Moreover a Principle so clearly defined imposes its own internal constitutional disciplines. If an action inflicts harm or injury on another or others, lawmakers would be obligated to enact necessary protection and prevention. If there is no injury or harm, any government action would be unjustified and thus intrusive and oppressive. Governance would thus be confined between the twin disciplines of obligation and limitation.

The Ideal of Right Law
Despite the preponderance of self-interest throughout our history, the pursuit of "Right Law" and the ideal of some ultimate universality has claimed the attention of political thinkers and writers since early Greek and Roman times. "I find that it has been the opinion of the wisest men that Law is not a product of Human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole Universe by its wisdom. Reason has always existed, derived from the Nature of the Universe, urging men to right conduct and diverting them from wrong-doing; and this Reason did not first become Law when it was written down, but when it first came into existence; and it came into existence simultaneously with the Divine Mind." These principles were expressed by the Roman philosopher Cicero in The Republic. While such ideals can be traced yet further back to the early Greek political philosophers, it was the Romans and Cicero in particular who gave to the Greek doctrine of Natural Law a statement in which it was to become universally known throughout Western Europe down to the Nineteenth Century. Cicero continues: "There is in fact a true Law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands it summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. To invalidate this Law by Human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissable ever to restrict its operation; and to annul it wholly is impossible." Particularly important here is the assumed distinction between the fundamental laws of nature which are a product of the Divine Mind, and man-made laws. Man-made laws should ideally reflect Natural Law; if they do not, they are in Cicero's view, worthless. George H. Sabine (A History Of Political Theory) comments: "None of the great Roman jurists doubted that there is a higher law than the enactments of any particular State. Like Cicero they conceived of the law as ultimately rational, universal, unchangeable, and divine, at least in respect to the main principles of right and justice. The Roman Law, like the English Common Law, was only in small part a product of legislation. Hence the presumption was never made that law expresses nothing but the

will of a competent legislative body, which is an idea of quite recent origin. It was assumed that "nature" sets certain norms which [government's] law must live up to as best it can and that, as Cicero had believed, an "unlawful" statute simply is not law." The essence of Natural Law is that the Ruler, the State or the Legislator is always subject to the Law of God, or the Moral or Natural Law, the Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human interests and Human institutions. Thus the Ruler or Legislator becomes an interpreter of a Higher Law, rather than an instigator or originator of law reflecting perhaps the interests and profit of himself or the group he represents. This general principle of government - that authority is justified only on moral grounds may appear somewhat alien today. But it achieved almost universal acceptance within a comparatively short time after Cicero and remained a commonplace of political philosophy throughout the Middle Ages, becoming a part of the common heritage of political ideas. The concept of Natural Law was fundamental to the political philosophy of Henry Bracton whose written comments after the Magna Carta have already been quoted. Bracton particularly stressed that the King must "be under God and the Law", by which may be understood the "Natural Law" or Right Reason. Following this same tradition Sir Edward Coke attempted to impose the discipline of "Right Law" upon the Acts of Parliament in the early 1600s. Coke became Attorney General in 1594 and retained this Elizabethan appointment until 1606, when King James made him Chief Justice of Common Pleas and later, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a post he retained until 1616. Before beginning a new career as a Member of the House of Commons in 1620, Coke devoted himself to writing his Reports and Institutes which became the basis of legal education in England and America throughout the 1700s. As a student, Coke began to trace the medieval origins of Common Law, collecting ancient precedents that later filled the volumes appearing under the title The Institutes of the Laws of England and the Reports of Sir Edward Coke Kt. in English in Thirteen Parts Compleat. While preserving the Common Law's continuity he reinterpreted it in his own way, reaffirming the "Natural Law" element and defending it against all encroachments. In his opinion given in Dr. Bonhams Case (1610), Coke declared: "when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void." The ideal of subjecting law-makers to procedures of conduct and to basic concepts of "common right or reason" persisted after Coke's death in the turbulent years of revolution. A political reform group active during the Civil War years of the 1640s later known as the Levellers, held that Parliament itself should be bound by certain

"fundamental laws" assuring for example religious liberty and forbidding military conscription. This attempted triumph of "right" over Electoral or Parliamentary "might" was not destined to become a permanent feature of English legislative discipline or procedure. Perhaps this was because the "Common Right or Reason" had not been, and indeed still has not been clearly defined. But such concepts would later inspire in the new United States of America the idea of codifying the essential procedures, safeguards and liberties gradually assembled over the centuries into one single written Constitution. The first written Constitutions were motivated by two then-current political theories: Social Contract and Natural Law. The "Social Contract" element reflected the principle that government is established as a result of a compact in which individuals promise to accept the judgements of a common arbiter. An important implication is that, having put their trust and political destiny in the hands of a Central Government, the People are thereby entitled to expect from that Government justice, honesty and competence. And since it is all of the people who are subject to law, not only those who have voted for the specific Party for the time being in office, it follows that there is a presumed obligation upon any Party in power to act in the overall national interest, avoiding solutions favouring specific sectional interests. Though this ideal may be difficult to define, it has nonetheless been possible to limit Government from practising the grosser extremes of natural in-justice; this is achieved through the Constitution, the function of which is to set out the specific terms of this "social contract" including the procedures, obligations and limitations to which Government should be subject. The "Natural Law" element in Constitutions gave them the sanctity of a Higher Law. "The modern Constitutional State at the time of its origins was justified and to a large extent legitimatized in terms of Natural Law theory. While the ancient idea of a divinely inspired, immutable, eternal Natural Law had been secularized by the Seventeenth Century it still provided a source of permanence in an ever unstable world. "John Locke used Natural Law to support the natural rights of the individual, thus limiting the powers of Government. The written Constitutions which followed Locke's philosophy embodied such traditional natural rights in detailed provisions."
[Constitutions That Have Made History: Blaustein and Sigler, Paragon House, New York, 1988].

Despite their growing commitment to "rule by the people" - or more accurately, the majority of the people - the Framers of the United States Constitution were under no delusions that Democracy of itself could be relied upon to guarantee good laws.

In an attempt to preserve discipline and integrity in government the Framers provided a clear and concise Constitution creating a system in which several branches of Government share power, yet limit that power through a series of checks and balances. But even this was not enough. Many of the Framers felt that Liberty should be more specifically defined and protected. Among them was Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who argued that the Constitution as it stood directly after its adoption would "put Civil Liberty and happiness of the people at the mercy of Rulers who may possess the great unguarded powers given."; He demanded such amendments "as will give security to the just rights of Human nature, and better secure from injury the discordant interests of the different parts of this Union."; The result was the first ten Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights which set specific bounds on the range and extent of Law. The significance of the Bill of Rights, as with similar Constitutional limitations on Government activity, lies in the recognition of a Higher Law endowing mankind with certain fundamental rights and liberties to which even elected Parliaments must defer. Acceptance of a higher, Natural Law requires that "... the Legislator who formulates laws is a Priest of Justice, the practitioner of a true philosophy, not a pretender to an imitation. Natural Law meant interpretation in the light of such conceptions as equality before the Law, faithfulness to engagements, fair dealing or equity."
[George H. Sabine: A History Of Political Theory].

A modern exponent of "Just Law," Rudolf Stammler [The Theory of Justice, 1925], regarded this belief in Natural Law as the crowning glory of Roman jurisprudence: "This, in my opinion, is the universal significance of the classical Roman jurists; this, their permanent worth. They had the courage to raise their glance from the ordinary questions of the day to the whole. And in reflecting on the narrow status of the particular case, they directed their thoughts to the guiding star of all law, namely the realization of justice in life." Following the Industrial Revolution and the growing complexity of regulatory detail, legislators and political philosophers gradually abandoned any attempt to focus on "the guiding star of all Law", concentrating instead on "the ordinary questions of the day". But it was not, nor ever has been simply a matter of concentrating on detail at the expense of overall strategy; in fact the "opponent" of Natural Law was not and is not detail, but self-interest. The concept of Natural Law is essentially a reflection of that universal-interest which seeks benefit, peace and stability for all. This can be achieved when the Law identifies and prevents infringement of liberty, rather than perpetuating it.

Throughout our history we pursued the alternative path, that of self-interest, where individuals seek to improve their own lives at the expense of others, supporting Governments and Laws which promote that objective. This resulted in slavery and feudalism, revolution and civil war, the riches and poverty of the industrial revolution, and the revenge of Socialism, the whole continuing saga symbolized in the polarization of Right and Left, each side representing a particular class or sectional self-interest. The marked difference between Right and Left, and with it the whole concept of selfinterest-motivated, confrontational politics, was not destined to last. Both Party policies, of the Right and of the Left, were class-oriented, designed to further the interests of one class, if necessary at the expense of the other. The attraction of such policies was bound to fade as class differences disappeared, and as people gradually came to the more civilized view that the Laws directing our social conduct should promote the liberty and wellbeing of all the people, not some at the expense of others. Thus we return to the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" expounded by early Greeks and Romans, the "Common Right or Reason" of Coke, that "Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human choice and Human institution".

Liberty and the Principle of Non-Injury
The traditional concept of a universal guiding principle, a "Right Law" to which Legislators and Legislation are subservient, is many centuries old. That we did not formally identify the essence of "Right" or Universal Law was most probably due to the fact that "we" both in and out of Government and Parliament were more interested in seeking personal rather than universal benefit. The basis of New Age Governance returns to this fundamental issue. In our everyday lives, in personal relationships, in our use of natural resources, in our business and commercial affairs, it is possible for some to gain benefit at the expense of others. This is the essential feature of political conflict. Our response to potential conflict is reflected in personal conduct, and in the Governments we choose or accept. Either we choose, and our Laws permit us, to continue injuring, exploiting and imposing on one another so that some may gain wealth through the impoverishment of others; or we attempt to avoid, and our Laws identify and prevent, those actions which are harmful or injurious to others so that we can all live in peace, harmony and maximum liberty. One is the path of imposition; the other is the path of Non-Injury and cooperation. For two thousand years we have taken the path of imposition, during which time that path

has been explored through the full range of slavery, feudalism, exploitation, civil wars, and the confrontation of sectional interests. New Age Governance is founded on NonInjury, cooperation and the maximization of the general liberty. When we begin to seek fair rules by which we can live together and collaborate productively without exploiting one another, we will find that the true nature of "Right Law", of universal liberty, is and always has been clear and straightforward, awaiting only Human recognition and acceptance. It exists inside every one of us, for we all know what is right and wrong in social conduct - if we ever bother to ask ourselves. It exists as the fundamental basis of English Common Law; and it has been expressed by political thinkers, writers and philosophers for thousands of years. This is the Eternal Law of Right Social Conduct: that each should pursue his or her own advancement, but in ways which respect the right of others to do likewise; that each should seek his or her own growth, but in ways which do not diminish others. If we then seek to apply this principle of universal-interest in Government, we find that the guiding policy is clear and simple: the purpose of Government and Law is the identification and prevention of exploitation, harm or injury between people. This guiding Principle has already been expressed in many forms through the centuries; it is expressed clearly and concisely in the words of Thomas Jefferson: the purpose of Government is to prevent men from injuring one another. This proposition has implications far beyond its apparent simplicity. Clearly, Jefferson was not confining injury to grievous bodily harm, any more than he was confining the term men to the male gender. The purpose of Government in this view is to prevent people from injuring one another, and injury can take many forms which grow in number and complexity as the world develops. One can harm one's fellow citizens by making and selling a machine which is unsafe in use; or through incorrect labelling of a food product which results in a user consuming an additive to which he or she is strongly allergic. There are many ways in which we can injure one another, in our personal activities, in commerce and industry, in our use (or misuse) of natural resources. In Jefferson's view it is Government's job to identify and define those actions leading to the injury of others, then to prevent them through appropriate Laws and Enforcement. Thomas Jefferson was not inventing a new idea. He was taking his place in a long line of political theorists and idealists from early Greeks, through Cicero, Bracton and Coke; he shared the same principles with his

colleagues as Framers of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and he was handing on a continuing tradition of fundamental rightness with which we are all, in our consciences, familiar. Most people of the Anglo legal tradition (Britain, the United States and many Commonwealth countries) have always objected in principle to any excess of regulation. We dislike meddlesome government; we find unnecessary regulation tiresome and annoying; we abhor oppressive government. Yet few would object to being told they may not do something, if it can be clearly shown that their action is in some way harmful or detrimental to others. And when a person is suffering injury at the hands of another, we would all accept that person's right to remedy and protection in law. The idea is well summarized by one of the leading figures in British justice, Lord Denning, in his book The Family Story: "Each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same." This view of Law as the prevention of injury between people reflects the fundamental limitation of social freedom. We cannot all have absolute freedom in our social relationships with one another. If one person is totally free to do whatever he likes, he is by definition free to limit or indeed eliminate the freedom of another, thereby reducing that second freedom possibly to zero. The best we can do is to maximize freedom, and this we achieve when we all accept certain limitations on our individual freedoms so that we do not infringe the freedom of others. To describe this concept of shared, limited freedom we use the word of Latin-Roman origin: Liberty. A Land of Liberty is not a land in which we all have absolute freedom to do exactly as we please. That would be a land of anarchy, since everyone would be free to limit, or eliminate the freedom of anyone else. A Land of Liberty is a land in which we are all subject to some restraint in those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, so that we can all enjoy not absolute, but a measure of Liberty. In this way, the general Liberty can be maximized. Without the Rule of Law people would be free to injure one another in the widest possible sense, each attempting to enhance his or her own personal wealth and possessions through the dispossession of others. This is Anarchy. The remedy is the kind of Government visualized by Jefferson and Lord Denning, Government which exists specifically to prevent people from doing those things which are injurious, harmful or detrimental to one another.

When Government as referee identifies those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then prevents such actions by Law and its enforcement, Government is limiting individual freedom; but in so doing it creates the conditions in which the general overall Liberty is maximized. The Principle of "freedom up to, but not beyond the point where freedom infringes another freedom" is the Eternal Law of social conduct, the fundamental Principle of NonInjury instinctively familiar to us all. When this Principle is observed by citizens and applied by laws, Liberty is maximized, and laws enjoy the guidance of a Principle which fully reflects the age-old ideals of Natural Law, of non-injury, of respect, justice and fair dealings between people. The Principle of Non-Injury requires in our personal relationships, in business and commerce, and in our use of natural resources, that we respect others as if they were ourselves, that we respect others as we would have others respect us. It will be recognized at once by anyone familiar with the Sermon on the Mount. The Principle of Non-Injury may also be seen as an accurate reflection of the age-old ideal of "Natural Law", the "Common Right or Reason". It is universal rather than sectional in its approach and objectives; when accurately, honestly and consistently applied it seeks to maximize the general liberty for all rather than enhancing the wellbeing of some at the expense of others. Only in Liberty will the flower of Civilization unfold. And Liberty, true and full liberty, will be achieved only when all of the people understand, accept, and support with full knowledge and conviction the Principle that in the enjoyment of liberty each must respect, never infringe the liberty of others.

Protection, Oppression, and Liberty
Right and Left, Protection, Oppression, and Liberty are all directly interrelated, and are in turn a function of what can be termed Government Intervention, or more simply, How Much Government. The traditional Right-Wing government allows people - the rich and powerful - to impose upon others by providing insufficient protection through insufficient Intervention. Left-Wing government allows government to impose upon people beyond simple protection, thus creating a condition of oppression through excessive Intervention. The degree of Government Intervention also affects liberty. If protection and government intervention is insufficient, people are able to impose upon one another, so the overall liberty is not maximized. On the other hand, excessive government intervention results in oppression, thus once again, the overall liberty is not maximized.

The amount of government intervention required to maximize liberty and to provide full protection for all citizens from imposition without creating oppression can be defined with the utmost accuracy. Throughout most of our political history government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their well-being by diminishing that of others. Insufficient government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right Wing Conservatism. Under this regime freedom is increased for the stronger elements of society but decreased for the weaker members; hence the overall liberty is not maximized. The Socialist reaction gave government, or the State, considerably greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth. But excessive government initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime liberty is increased by government protection, but it is then decreased as government goes beyond the point of protection and creates interference, leading to oppression. Again, liberty is not maximized. Liberty is maximized when government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression. It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in government policy, and the liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention.

The "Government Intervention" Scale
The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent.

Let us first establish the two "extremes" at each end of the scale. At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes non-existent. The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader, (an arkhos in Greek). In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime. At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Huxley and Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of allowing government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother. Clearly, liberty does not thrive here either. Fortunately most of us experience neither anarchy in the sense of zero government, nor the total oppression of one hundred percent government. But these two positions provide clear end-points as reference positions. While there is little current example of zero government, many of the ex-socialist-bloc countries swung over to the opposite extreme in the confusion following perestroika, with a low degree of practical government resulting in black markets, widespread corruption, and the control of production and commerce in the cities moving from the State into the hands of Mafia-style gangs. It might still appear to the citizens of Russia's major cities that Government Intervention is almost at Zero, a condition which to many

may seem infinitely worse than the old Communist days, the memory softened now by time. More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of, say, a nominal 25% Government Intervention. This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally "let people get on with it".

Low Intervention, or Laisser-faire
The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom. The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) became the gospel of the "system of national liberty" for the next century in western political and economic thought. Familiar with the works of Quesnay, Smith built a more solid basis for his attack on government, updated now to reflect the shift of emphasis from land to industry which was concurrently unfolding. Smith held that the source of a nation's wealth is labor. The increase in a nation's wealth therefore depends on making labor more efficient, which in turn is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and materials in international trade. To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government. This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientific-economic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to argue against it. But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for some to gain through others' loss. And as the industrial revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge and a modicum of social conscience. Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the 19th century owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those in the weaker position: their employees, the exhand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meager wage for long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation.

And the law was predictably slow to act in their defense. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised. But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of government that while accepting the basic doctrine of liberty, an increase in government intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot. The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers. So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen. But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and motivated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the other extreme: to socialism and communism, which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized.

High Intervention, or Socialism/Communism
Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of government and the State is actively pursued. "Place everything in the hands of the State", the Socialists urged, "and the State will take good care of us all". Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition, coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, socialism appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State control. One such visionary was British author Herbert Spencer, who wrote, back in 1884: "There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a decreasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control. "The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favor its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives.

"The people at large, led to look on benefits received through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more. "Thus, influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action, and decrease individual action. The numerous socialistic changes already made by Act of parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in Statesocialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised." Spencer's words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the former Soviet Union and its satellite socialist countries, but also in the light of attitudes, demands for social programs, high taxes and budget deficits in the West. Nations and their governments have thus far succeeded in creating and experiencing two kinds of political environment: enslavement of man by man, and government oppression. Enslavement of man by man, resulting in slavery, feudalism and industrial poverty, gave way at the turn of the 20th century to socialism and communism, which tended to create government oppression. The two conditions or policies of laisser-faire and socialism, Right and Left, and their relationship with Government Intervention, may be simply summarized. Enslavement, exploitation and imposition exercised by citizens over fellow citizens result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention, or Laisser-faire, which permits Imposition by citizens upon one another. Oppression, government intrusion, State takeover of business, or Socialism-Communism, result from a High Degree of Government Intervention, which creates Imposition by Government.

Where do we find Maximum Liberty?
Liberty is certainly not maximized at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent Intervention there is no government or legal protection of liberty whatsoever. This is anarchy. Many examples of this can be seen at the present time in the countries of central Africa and even, to a lesser extent, in some of the ex-Soviet states. As we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale, a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress farther up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection. How far should we continue to increase Government Intervention? The Right-wing definition of Liberty as "minimum Government Intervention" has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty, or Presumption of Innocence, is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the AngloAmerican concept of law recognize what may be called the Presumption of Liberty, the

concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom. And what constitutes a "very good reason" for the law to limit freedom? Another very old-established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful to others. Bearing this principle in mind, we continue to increase Government Intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to ensure full protection of each and every individual's liberty from infringement by others in any way. We reach the point where Government Intervention is sufficient to ensure that there is no opportunity for any individual to impose upon, exploit, harm or in any way infringe the liberty of any others. We have in fact reached the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention. Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention there would be no opportunity whatsoever for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others. At this point we have achieved one "side" of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens. But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression. We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of liberty between citizens. So if we increase Intervention any further government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and ultimately oppressive. As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of Liberty immediately begins. Governments are frequently tempted to make laws regulating personal private conduct "for our own good". There may be evidence to show that seatbelts save lives; but when government legislates their use for our own personal protection it is taking the first step down the road to oppression. At 50% Intervention, government must protect employees and consumers from commercial irresponsibility. But when government takes upon itself all commerce and industry it is denying individuals the exercise of their natural enterprise and initiative. Apart from the reduction of commercial liberty, this also has disastrous effects on national prosperity, a fact which became the major cause of the collapse of Soviet socialism in 1990. The degree of Government Intervention which will produce Maximum Liberty can be clearly and precisely established:

Under a policy of 50% Intervention, government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgments upon one another, but initiates no further imposition. 50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty. If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of Intervention. Government is permitting a degree of injury and exploitation, of self-enhancement at the expense of others. On the other hand, if Government issues any law, order or directive which is not clearly and solely in defense of an identifiable liberty from imposition by others, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 51% or some higher degree of Intervention. Government is initiating some degree of State oppression. The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of Right and Left, Laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Protection and Oppression on the single common scale of Government Intervention allows us also to define the related degrees of Liberty. Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more. At 50% Intervention there is no Infringement of Liberty either by citizen, or by the State; there is neither Exploitation nor Oppression; the general Liberty is maximized. The Degree of Government Intervention necessary to maximize liberty can thus be identified with a precision which any citizen can readily comprehend, and when necessary, defend. A government basing its day-to-day legislation on such a clearly definable policy would lose the ability, presently enjoyed by governments of any shade of opinion to act arbitrarily. Government would be operating under such a precisely defined policy that it would become an interpreter of policy, rather than an originator of arbitrary law. This would radically alter the legislative process and the relationship between government and citizen. Government functionaries and departments become answerable to a Principle, their actions easily verifiable by any alert citizen. Citizens are governed, neither by dictator nor majority, but by a Principle which guarantees maximum protection, minimal or zero oppression, and maximum overall liberty. If any man, any woman, acquires or is granted power over any other or others, this will – not may, but will most surely and certainly – lead to abuse, misuse and corruption.

The only Power that is competent and can be trusted to regulate the affairs of community and society is the Power of Principle, the Principle that in the pursuit of selfimprovement and the exercise of liberty, no-one should injure or exploit others. This Principle of Non-Injury is neutral and impersonal. It is a shield, protecting from injury, preventing injury. Legislators hold no arbitrary or discretionary power. They are simply Interpreters, applying the Principle in terms of everyday events and actions. The process of Interpretation is clearly delineated and circumscribed. If there is Injury, there must be Protection. If there is no Injury, then there is neither cause nor justification for the interference of law.

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Representation - Legislative Review - Quality, Productivity, Service
Representation The application of the Principle of Non-Injury to everyday Law is precisely defined in terms of the twin confines of Obligation and Limitation. The Principle of Non-Injury obligates Government to prevent any and all injury, imposition or exploitation by one citizen over another. Where there is an identifiable Imposition caused to one person by another there is an obligation for action at Law. The Principle of Non-Injury limits Government from initiating any Law or Instruction which is not clearly and demonstrably in defence of an identifiable liberty from imposition by another. Without an identifiable imposition there can be no protective Law. The adoption of such a clearly defined Principle affects the process of Legislation and Government, as well as the very status and function of Ministers and Legislators. The Principle itself becomes the ultimate criterion of "Right" and "Wrong" in social conduct. Legislators become Interpreters of the Principle, the Legislative process is directed, not to satisfying the demands of sectional interests, but to the honest and consistent interpretation of the Principle based on a clear understanding of it. The Principle also imposes a clear discipline on the resultant Legislation itself, for the Principle of Non-Injury can be described with such a high degree of accuracy that anyone having a basic understanding or instinctive sense of liberty can comprehend it, monitor its progress, and defend it whenever necessary. The Legislative Process is initiated when a professional Legislator, a Parliamentary Representative, a single individual citizen, a group of citizens or a Special Interest Society brings to the attention of the Legislature a suspected Imposition, either caused by citizen and permitted by insufficient Legislation, or caused by the Political

Administration through excessive or intrusive Legislation. The identification of an injured party either actual or potential is essential to initiate the process of Legislative Debate. The purpose of Law is to prevent injury; the need for Law is occasioned by an injury, either actual or immediately anticipated. The formulation of Legislation which will prevent that injury either totally or as nearly as practicably possible is the object of the Legislative Process, and its fulfillment will conclude the Process. In order to improve both productivity and opportunity for wider participation, greater use may be made of Specialist Committee Hearings in the early stages of initial filtration and opening debate. The initial debate in Committee must involve everyone who has an interest in the matter. Imposition can be simple, or a very complex issue involving several conflicting Liberties, and it is vital that every aspect be taken into consideration. Similarly any remedy proposed for the avoidance of a specific Imposition may itself cause new imposition and involve other parties. It is only through the widest possible debate and participation that the minimization of Imposition can be assured. There are three main groupings of participants who may be involved in the overall Legislative Process. Full-time professional Legislators are constantly scanning events and activities in order to identify possible instances of Imposition. They continuously review existing laws on a scheduled basis to ensure that past laws remain relevant. It may also be necessary to reconsider or rephrase a particular Law resulting from a request by the Judiciary for Review. Elected Parliamentary Representatives act as a bridge between citizen and Legislature, listening to people's concerns, explaining the Law, and bringing injustice to the attention of Legislature, Courts, or the Constitutional Executive Council as appropriate. Citizens perceiving themselves injured can bring the matter initially to the attention of their Parliamentary Representative if they so wish. Citizens can also contribute to the process themselves directly, either as individuals, or perhaps more advantageously as members of Special Interest Groups and Societies. There are many such Societies representing every shade of interest, opinion and expertise from civil liberties to environment, heritage preservation and transport. These Societies or Groups frequently represent an assemblage of considerable expertise, of informed users or consumers, retired professionals, and people devoted to their respective causes. The Societies are supported by the subscriptions of Members and are thus responsible to Members and responsive to their needs; if they fail in their purpose they simply die through lack of subscriptions and support. Conversely, as new issues and new concerns develop, new Societies are formed.

Citizens can rely upon their Societies to monitor Legislative Proposals in their specific area of interest, and to draw Members' attention to any need for action. Recognition of such Societies and Special Interest Groups as participants in the Legislative Debating Process improves participation and contributes constructively by bringing information and expertise which might otherwise be excluded. Citizens may prefer to bring a Personal Legislative Proposal or complaint to the attention of the relevant Society for consideration and further action if appropriate. Say for example, one finds that some public footpaths are being altered or eliminated in the Resources Planning process, one can contact the local Ramblers' Association, a Society which is sympathetic to and understands the issues involved. Associations can then use their expertise to present a case to the Legislature and exert the necessary influence to get something done. A citizen can belong to as few or as many such Societies as he or she may wish, contributing directly to the upkeep of the Society which in turn is responsible solely to its Members. Typically, Societies represent walkers, environmentalists, economists, employees, those interested in civil liberties and in disciplining the expenditure of the Political Administration. In the New Age it is considered particularly important that young people in their teens should have full opportunity to participate in the Legislative Process, through parallel debates in schools, or through their own Societies participating in Legislative Debates. It has in the past been frequently said of young people by their elders that they are irresponsible; insofar as this may in some instances be true, the simple way to make people responsible is to give them responsibility. Young people now have the right and ample opportunity to participate in the framing of tomorrow's world: it is after all, they who will have to live in it. A wider degree of participation in the Legislative-Interpretive Process, however, does not mean promoting self-interest at the expense of others; participation must be motivated by an honest desire to make all pertinent facts and points of view known, so that in the end a fair and just solution will be reached, a solution which will reflect the Principle as accurately as circumstances permit.

Legislative Review The Legislative Process must also allow for "Review" of any Law at any time, either by the Legislature or by the Constitutional Executive Council. This may be occasioned when the practical application of a Law is found to be difficult or ambiguous or impractical during the Judicial process.

Under the Principle of Non-Injury the Procedure for Judicial Review would provide for three distinct types of case. Should a Court find that in practice a particular Law is not well drafted, or is difficult to interpret, or should the Court suspect that the Imposition which the Law attempts to prevent has not been properly identified or addressed, then the Court proceedings would be suspended and a prompt re-consideration requested from the Legislature or if necessary the Constitutional Executive Council. A Law may also be "returned" to the Legislature where insufficient detail leaves it unclear in relation to the case in hand. In a case where the Law remains a valid reflection of the Principle of Non-Injury for all general purposes, but in the extra-ordinary, specific circumstances under the Court's consideration there is no actual Imposition, then the Court would note the exception and dismiss the case, there being no Imposition to answer. The ultimate test of the fitness of any Law under the Principle of Non-Injury is plain and simple: if I were to disregard this Law, would I cause injury to another individual? If there is injury, the immediate and effective protection of Law is an obligation; but if there is no injured party, there can be no Law. When the sole object of the Legislative Process is the accurate reflection of the Principle of Non-Injury, its laws must always be open to Review, by the Judiciary or by any aware and observant citizen with an instinct for the preservation of Liberty. Under the Principle of Non-Injury, it is the Principle itself which gives authority, obligation, and limitation, to Law and to the Process of Government; the Principle becomes the source and focal point of Law, taking precedence over Government in all its aspects. The ideal of Democracy is power to the people. The Principle of Non-Injury gives power to the people - the power of the Principle by which all Government action or inaction can be called to account. It is clear and simple, a fundamental law of social conduct with which we are all instinctively familiar. We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss. With the guidance of this Principle we can share resources equitably and use them wisely, we can trade fairly, we respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We live in liberty, respecting and not infringing the liberties of others. And we prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely more creative, more powerful force than confrontation.

Quality, Productivity, Service “The purpose of Government is to prevent men from injuring one another”… When Thomas Jefferson spoke those words he could hardly have been aware that 150 years later the main preoccupation of government had become what can only be called “money-handling” – taking money with one hand then doling out with the other, minus a generous handling fee, not to mention the plain envelopes and under-the-table “commissions”. The provision of Law is the essential "core function" of Government. Under the Principle of Non-Injury, Government would confine itself to the formulation of Law and its Enforcement, or more specifically, those Legislative, Protective and Constitutional Services essential to and directly related to the protection of Liberty. If Government is to exercise its regulatory function without bias it cannot own or operate any non-political services or industries, including infrastructure and Essential Services. Infrastructure and Essential Services must be operated outside Government, but with Government's strict legal supervision. In order to make government more efficient and accountable, and to satisfy the requirements of the Principle, an important first step would be the separation of all nonpolitical Services from government. Non-political Services include provision and maintenance of roads, schools, health, pension and welfare services, administration of railways and any other productive or commercial services. The non-political Services, when separated from Government, should be autonomous managerially and financially. These Services would then become responsible for their own management and finances, raising capital as required through the Investment Banking System. They would no longer be subject to the uncertainties of Government finance or to the managerial whims of politicians; but they would become subject to strict disciplines, reporting regularly and publicly through the medium of Total Performance Audits specifying details of quality and productivity. Government, now independent from these non-political Services, would be better placed to do its proper job: that of making sure that the Private Sector including all previously Government-run business conducts itself responsibly, efficiently, and productively. And with the purpose and function of Government clearly defined, it becomes much easier to apply strict financial and administrative disciplines to ensure that Government fulfils its own core functions as efficiently and as cost-effectively as possible with continuously rising productivity. Once Government has been brought down to its core services, these too should be restructured so that they are separately identifiable, and publicly accountable for their productivity and service.

Many existing government departments and programs would inevitably be abandoned as being non-essential, while each of those remaining would be required to state clearly what it is doing, what it is costing, and the extent to which it is fulfilling its stated objectives productively. The Principle of Non-Injury, applied in Economics and Commerce as a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise sets high standards of management and customer satisfaction, quality and productivity, performance and accounting for the Private Sector. And Government is not exempt from Commercial Law. Government is a service to its consumers and as such is itself subject to the strictest possible commercial disciplines; its performance must be at least as good as and preferably better than the Private Sector. Any Commercial Legislation relating to accounting, standards, productivity or quality of Private Sector business and commerce is immediately and automatically applicable to any and all functions of Government. Government is not outside the Law; Government Legislation, conduct and operations are at all times subject to the Principle of Non-Injury and to all its resultant Legislation. The process of auditing and applying the necessary disciplines to Government is the responsibility of a specially constituted Committee under the Constitutional Executive Council; no institution, least of all Government, can be trusted to discipline itself. The aim of Government should be the same as that of any well-run Private Sector industry or service: to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price. The Principle of Non-Injury: that we should confine ourselves to those actions and activities which are not detrimental or disadvantageous to others, which do not harm or injure others, is as old as Human conscience. The parallel concept of Government, that it exists primarily to prevent such actions, has likewise existed in political philosophy as expounded by reformers throughout recorded history. And the ideal that Government, its function clearly defined and limited, should exercise its duties efficiently and at minimum cost to its customers, is a dream long cherished by reformers and tax-payers alike. Accurate and consistent application of the Principle of Non-Injury would maximize Liberty; and with its function clearly definable and subject to its own inherent discipline it would do so productively and without incurring an over-burdensome tax on our earnings. This ideal was summarized by Thomas Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address given on March 4th, 1801:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another yet leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government necessary to complete the circle of our felicities".

The Principle of Non-Injury in Economics.
Value - Quality - Investment
The Principle of Non-Injury defines the duty of Government as: the formulation and enforcement of Legislation which will ensure that in the exercise of their liberties citizens do not harm or infringe the liberties of one another. The Principle of Non-Injury thus rests on a Presumption of Liberty, the presumption that the individual is free unless harming or injuring others. In business and industry this corresponds to a presumption of Free Enterprise as the basis of Government economic policy. While it is vital to allow citizens' enterprise and initiative to realize its full potential in the creation of prosperity, it is equally important to ensure that citizens do not create prosperity at the expense of one another through unfair or dishonest practices. A high standard of living and prosperity is already technologically within our grasp, and we have human talent in abundance which is constantly creating new ideas and new products; there is no need to obtain wealth through the disadvantagement of others. Government should intervene promptly when necessary to ensure that business is not carried out in ways which are detrimental to co-workers, customers, or the environment. But Government should be careful to intervene no further. Experience in the ex-Soviet bloc has shown that the State cannot operate industry successfully. The role of the Private Sector is creative and productive; the role of Government is regulatory. If Government does its essential job of making sure that business and industry conducts itself in a socially responsible manner there is no need for nationalization. Indeed, Government ownership and operation of business invalidates Government's ability to legislate without bias; to whom does the citizen complain about industrial pollution when the Government owns the polluting industry? Law is brought into being to prevent those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others. But the law is limited to providing the protection of liberty from identifiable infringement, and should avoid oppressive or intrusive law which itself constitutes a prime erosion of liberty. This gives us a policy approach, not of unregulated Free Enterprise on the one hand, nor

of Socialistic takeover by the State or over-regulation on the other, but a policy falling between the two, a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise. Under the guidance of this policy the role of Government in the area of the economy, business and commerce is clearly defined; its essential task is to identify those areas of potential commercial conflict in which the actions of some participants may be detrimental to others, then to prevent such actions through appropriate legislation.

Value
The major point of contact between the various participants in business and commerce employees and employers, producers and consumers, as well as investors - is trade or exchange. And the main aspect of exchange is value, the value of an employee's work, the value of a product or service, as expressed in Pay, Profits and Prices. When Pay, Profits and Prices are determined by disputation, employees dispute, often violently, with employers over pay, to the detriment of good industrial relations and productivity. Prices are determined by "what the market will bear" and by overall economic conditions; the price, in other words, is as much as the producer can get. When there are no political rules by which we can determine a just remuneration, a reasonable profit or a fair price, disputation is the only way open to us. Its supporters call it the "Free Market". Another view is that it is conflict without rules, and as such represents an aspect of anarchy. Its damaging effects on the economy and prosperity are substantial and farreaching. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise requires Government to replace anarchy, wherever it may exist, with fair rules. And if Government were to be charged with providing a foundation of fair rules for industry and commerce, a first priority would have to be the provision of a system of fair rules whereby pay, profits and prices are determined by measure and consensus rather than by disputation. Fair rules for pay and salary determination would remove one of the major elements of contention in industrial relations, paving the way for increased cooperation and productivity. A further significant effect would be on unemployment and the level of overall economic activity. The current method of pay, profit and price evaluation by disputation creates an

inherent instability and a strong upward pressure which if uncontrolled leads to inflation. It is universally recognized in economic circles, though rarely spelled out, that the current economic wisdom requires the economy to be maintained at substantially below its productive capacity with permanent unemployment in order to control inflation, though inflation must always remain at a minimum 2 or 3%. A National Standard System setting guidelines for Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation would create the monetary stability necessary to permit economic expansion to full employment without inflation. "Fair pay and prices" may sound like an ideal impossible to define or to attain; in fact experience and commonsense define it, and we have already attained it. Pay is fair if it is an accurate reflection of work contributed. And it must also relate to the work and the pay of others: pay for one is fair if others doing similar jobs are paid the same. Fair pay is easily defined; but is it so easily attainable? If pay is to be related to work done, this would require a system of Job Evaluation for measuring and evaluating work. If we can measure work, then the work amount or work value of each job can be reflected in the pay received for doing that job. In fact, Job Evaluation is already a well established process in certain large companies and government agencies for defining, evaluating and measuring the different work characteristics demanded of a job, and expended in the fulfilment of that job. Though there are different approaches of detail, the basic principle is simple. It begins with work analysis. Work means many different things; each and every kind of work, or work component, must be identified and quantified. The list of work types or characteristics will include such basic elements as previous training, skill, concentration, responsibility, physical exertion, working conditions, job satisfaction (or boredom!), health and safety hazards, and so on. The list need not, indeed should not at any time be conclusive. New characteristics must be added as they are identified, developed, or called into being by new techniques. Technology does not stand still; new jobs are constantly being created, with new demands made upon human skills and effort. Once identified, each work type or characteristic is given its own scale of measurement. The common objective in any Job Evaluation system is that all jobs within a company using the system are evaluated fairly and consistently, giving each job a meaningful value in relation both to the work involved, and to other jobs within the company, through a common scale of definition and measurement. The job-value thus established can then be related directly to remuneration. Job

Evaluation becomes Pay Evaluation. The application of a system of Job Evaluation throughout a company ensures that each individual's pay relates to work contributed, and to the pay which others in the organization receive for their work contributions. Job Evaluation has been widely used for many years to bring system and consistency to the pay structures of major organizations and companies in both the public and private sectors. At this stage we already have in existence a fair and stable measurement system for defining and evaluating pay. Indeed we have several competing systems. In one sense this is counter-productive, since it creates problems of inconsistency between companies using different systems. On the other hand it provides a wealth of experience and input which could form the basis for a single Standard System. Indeed if the formulation of a Standard Evaluation System were to be conducted through the widest possible debate, participation and consensus, the very process itself would clarify issues and build mutual understanding between different occupations and skills. Government would begin by establishing a fully representative Committee to formulate a Standard Job Evaluation System (subject to ongoing revision by a permanent Council). The Standard Job Evaluation System would be published in popular papers as a Do-ItYourself form together with full explanation and sample completed form. This would enable everyone to become familiar with it, and to bring out any additional comments or criticisms. The System must be comprehensive, simple to understand, and capable of application to all types of work at all levels, from boardroom through management to shopfloor. With a single guideline System of Job and Remuneration Evaluation agreed, tested and established as a Universal Standard the ideal of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work could be achieved. But even if we include pay at all levels, pay is only a part of the solution; for pay has value only in terms of purchasing power, or prices. So fair pay has full and real meaning only in terms of fair prices. This leads to a parallel question: what is a fair price? A factory's, or a business's total costs consist of three elements: first, the cost of bought-in raw materials and components; second, the direct labour added in the factory; and third, the costs of capital write-off, overheads and finance. These are the costs of making a product, of supplying a service. From these costs a Unit Production Cost can be calculated for each product or service supplied.

If this Unit Production Cost then becomes the Selling Price there would be a direct and fair relationship between cost and price, and therefore between pay and purchasing power. But the Unit Production Cost is not normally equated with the Selling Price. The difference between the two is commonly referred to as the profit and will remain a matter of potential contention thus threatening or even invalidating any progress made in achieving pay stability. Completion of the social and monetary stabilization process begun with a standard system of job evaluation would require some kind of consensus on the disposal of profits, for this is the only way we can achieve fair and stable prices. There are several claims to a share in a company's profits. Investors must be given a return on their capital; and increasingly, employees are being given a share in the profit as a form of remunerative recognition for extra effort and costsavings. Another major destination for the disposal of company profit is reinvestment, either in research and equipment or increased working capital, the advantage being that in-house or self-generated investment comes without future servicing cost or commitment to repay. There is one more claimant to a share in the profits, and that is the customer. Indeed with the growing recognition of Pay and Price Evaluation the profit would increasingly be perceived as a "tax" on the price over and above its production content, and should therefore belong to the consumer as much as to anyone. With this view a substantial claim on profits would come from the consumer in the form of lower prices. The objective should be the establishment of public policy for profit distribution. This could take the practical form, first, of an overall profit ceiling. Britain's National Health Service already assesses prices for new drugs and services before certification; the ideal of a fair price resulting from a fair profit is hardly revolutionary. Of the profit made, broad percentage bands could be established and gradually stabilized, distributing profit according to pre-set guidelines as between co-workers at all levels, investors, and the internal needs of capital for reserves and reinvestment. The dividend paid to those investment sources not negotiated in terms of fixed interest should be clearly and openly defined with average or upper limits. As it does today, Government would continue to require that companies prepare in timely fashion properly audited annual accounts. But instead of assessing the total profit in order simply to "take a cut" for its own coffers, Government would be examining the profit in order to ensure that it is apportioned according to a consensus formula which respects the

claims and contributions of consumers, investors, co-workers, and the future security of the business itself. Under the Principle of Non-Injury, fair pay, profits and prices achieved through system and consensus is an important aim in its own right. There are further significant implications affecting industrial relations and stability, economic growth, the level of national employment, productivity and prosperity. Governments, and many economists, tend to speak of unemployment rather like the weather - unfortunate perhaps, though clearly unavoidable. But unemployment is not an Act of God, it is an Act of Man. It begins with Governments which fail to provide fair rules for the evaluation of pay, profits and prices. People react to this aspect of anarchy in different ways. Some see the possibility of advantage, of making a gain at the expense of employees, or employers, or customers; while others understand realistically though often reluctantly that the gains go to those who fight for them. Either way, the fact remains that we can only settle pay and prices by doing battle. This produces a basic instability and continuing upward pressure which can only be held in check by maintaining a degree of permanent recession. A secure foundation of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation by measure and consensus would create a basis of fair reward for work and the real possibility of industrial peace and cooperation. It would also establish a basis of monetary stability from which economic expansion could take place without inflation, leading steadily to sustainable full employment. And the degree of employment - or unemployment - in an economy has its own substantial effect on productivity and thus prosperity. The socially damaging effects of unemployment, the cost to taxpayers of unemployment benefits and the loss to the economy of potential talents can readily be seen. A less obvious result of unemployment lies in its effect on productivity. It should be remembered, first and foremost, that prosperity comes from productivity. We do not become prosperous by working harder, for this can bring higher wages, but at the expense of free time, family or even health. We become prosperous by working not harder but more efficiently, by continuously developing improvements in design, production and management techniques which allow us to produce more and better goods and services with less work. Productivity, making better goods and offering better services tomorrow with less work than it took yesterday, is the motive power which drives economic development, produces prosperity, and advances civilization. But productivity, by its very nature, means less work; so where does that leave the

redundant workers? In a properly organized economy operating at full capacity, workers made redundant in one department by improved productivity would normally be transferred to another within the same company, with additional training as required. Even if an entire sector of industry becomes outdated, workers can always retrain and take up employment elsewhere. But when the economy is under-utilized and there is substantial permanent unemployment, anyone who has a job is afraid of losing it. One simple and quite understandable result is that no-one will be looking very hard for productivity improvements; and when management proposes some productivity-enhancing modernization it will probably be opposed by workers fearful of redundancy. The moral is simple: substantial permanent unemployment causes opposition to productivity improvements. And since productivity is the source of prosperity, we are effectively opposing prosperity. But the opposite also holds true. With the economic and industrial stability which would come with universal guidelines on Pay, Profit and Price evaluation, the economy could be expanded steadily to sustainable full employment. With full employment, productivity could also be increased without opposition, adding its own contribution to increased prosperity.

Quality
The policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise begins with free enterprise. It identifies areas in which unregulated or insufficiently regulated economic activity can be detrimental to other participants, then acts to limit or eliminate such practices. A significant element in the concept of Fair Exchange is Quality and Productivity. The value of a product or service lies not only in the labour and materials it contains, but also in the quality and efficiency of its design, manufacture or presentation. Is less-than-maximum quality, efficiency and productivity in business and industry detrimental to other participants, to suppliers, co-workers, investors, community and consumers? A case can be clearly be made in the affirmative. The consumer is the ultimate recipient of the product or service; indeed, since we produce solely in order to consume, the consumer must be the most important element in the process. Good design, economical production, efficient and stable administration; all these factors have a direct bearing on the product or service as it is presented to the consumer. And it is the consumer who suffers when a product fails to perform as it should, when its quality and service fall below the standard of which current technology is capable, or when it is over-priced as a result of wasteful production methods.

When products are poorly designed and inefficiently or wastefully manufactured, when services are careless and slipshod, when quality is poor, the consumer suffers. But so also do the investors if the firm concerned fails to gain its potential market share. And employees suffer both from inefficient working conditions, and from the insecurity and potential job losses inevitably incurred in a poorly run company. The maintenance of high standards in any business is clearly in the interests of all its co-workers and investors, as well as the host community that depends on it for employment and prosperity. In the wider context, businesses and industries are highly dependent on one another, for the supply of materials and components, for subcontracted work, for marketing and distribution. So the quality and reliability of one business affects, and is affected by that of several others. This total integration and inter-dependence of co-workers at all levels and in all departments, together with investors, suppliers, distributors, host community and consumers, clearly reflects the reality that avoidable incompetence in any part of the chain affects others adversely if not disastrously. Suppliers and distributors, as well as co-workers at all levels and in all departments should have the right to expect from one another the highest standards of professional conduct. And consumers should have the right to expect that products and services reflect and embody the highest currently available techniques and capabilities in efficiency, quality and reliability. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise recognizes this interdependence, and the obligation which it places on all participants in economic activity to strive continuously for quality and productivity maximization. Quality and productive efficiency can never be absolute targets, for standards are always being improved. But maximization of quality and productive efficiency within currently available knowledge and techniques must become the norm if the overall objective of fair exchange and socially responsible production is to be achieved. Socially Responsible Free Enterprise obligates every business to designate an individual or a department with the duty to be conversant at all times with the latest Standards and techniques of design, production and management relevant to its particular field, and would further require that such Standards and practices should be applied at the earliest practicable opportunity. In case of persistent non-compliance, investors, consumers and co-workers at all levels should have ultimate recourse to law. Successful businesses today already recognize the value of quality, and voluntarily

adhere to standards such as ISO 9000 and promote Quality Assurance Programmes. Maintaining the highest possible standards in management, quality and productivity will maximize job satisfaction and job security for suppliers and co-workers, while consumers will enjoy the use of products and services which reflect a continuous improvement in quality at progressively falling prices. And as the whole country becomes more efficient and more productive, so its international competitiveness is enhanced.

Investment
The money which Banks lend, or more accurately, the credit facility which Banks extend to borrowers, comes from two distinct sources. One source is the money placed in term deposits with the Bank by its depositors. However, Banks do not confine themselves to lending out specific monies deposited with them and locked in for a guaranteed term. The major part of Bank lending consists of what may be called system-generated credit, credit created by the Banking system to satisfy the demands of the economy for trade purposes and for industrial and consumer loans. This system-generated credit is a continuous flow; money is lent, repaid, and further loans are made. The quantity of available credit flowing through the system at any given time is regulated by the Central Bank in conjunction with Government economic policy. It is important that the quantity of credit available to the economy should at all times relate to the real needs of the economy in its actual, and potential productive capacity. Too little credit, and the wheels of production, trade and consumption will turn at less than the economy's capacity; potential employment and production capacity will be under-used, and consumer demand will fall short of goods currently or potentially available. Too much credit will result in demand for goods and service in excess of actual and potential production capacity. Thus regulation of the quantity of credit flow is the first priority of the Banking system. It is equally important that selective criteria should be applied to the flow of credit: credit is a limited resource vital to economic growth and prosperity. At present however, the actual transfer of credit into industrial and consumer loans is left to the discretion of the Commercial Banks, and no broad selective criteria are applied. As a result, this system-generated credit is created and channelled by the Banking sector with little reference to productivity priorities and often with insufficient financial responsibility.

Credit expansion wisely used can be channelled into productive, prosperity-creating investment. But without due care it can be quickly dissipated with no tangible benefit; indeed when used for purely speculative purposes it may even produce economically harmful results. Speculation in land and property does not create overall prosperity; indeed it does quite the opposite. There is very little we do which does not involve land, and as land prices go up so do the costs of everything, from industry and retailing to office space and homes. Property speculation actually reduces overall prosperity since it increases costs without increasing value. Industry needs investment for productivity and prosperity; and it needs committed, longterm investment. At present there is no mechanism for ensuring that systemgenerated credit is directed into productive industry. This is not so much the fault of the Banking sector, but rather of a society which has never formally recognized the significance of this system-created credit as a National Resource, with the corresponding opportunity, the need, and indeed the obligation to use it wisely. The productive use of investment gains importance in times of economic expansion. The monetary stability resulting from Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation would remove the danger of inflation, thus providing the basis for steady and sustained economic expansion to full employment. But economic expansion is a potential only: it is powered and facilitated by an expansion in the quantity of the National Credit Base. If the expansionary potential of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation is to produce usable results in the form of full employment, increased productivity and prosperity, we would need to ensure from the outset that the nation's revolving credit base generated and expanded by the Banking system is productively invested in securely managed enterprises. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise would require the Commercial Banks to apply more strictly defined selective criteria in their use of credit, with the specific object of channelling new credit into securely managed, prosperity-enhancing investment. The fundamental justification for requiring the application of such selective criteria is that the flow of credit created by the Banking system is a National Resource, not a resource of any specific Bank or investment institution or individual saver. It is a Resource having a substantial potential for the enhancement of prosperity, and it is moreover a scarce and finite resource. It is therefore appropriate that this Resource should be directed purposefully and publicly into projects which will improve employment, productivity and thus prosperity. Government guidelines would require, for example, that investment be used to reinforce

the move towards the maximization of product and management quality already discussed. This means that investment should be directed into companies complying with all appropriate Standards, beginning with a basis of Quality Assessment. In reviewing investment options, the investing Bank would take into account an independent assessment of the design of the product, as well as the management, production and quality systems, industrial relations and other aspects of the companies concerned. The Investment Banking Sector would thus be selecting investment "partnerships" in companies reflecting the highest standards in design, management, quality and industrial relations. A National Standard accounting and general Performance Audit format would facilitate a follow-up monitoring process through which investment-banking institutions are provided continuously with performance data from recipient companies, thus ensuring the safety both of the investment loan, and of the recipient company. Given the finite nature of investment credit, the Investment Banking Sector would also need to formulate a broad strategy and order of priorities - both geographically in terms of local/regional needs and across different industries - which would maximize its productive benefit. But how can this be achieved without invoking the heavy hand of Central Government Planning which has proved so disastrous for the Socialist-bloc countries? Beginning at local level, every city, town and village should be encouraged to develop channels for debate among business people, industrialists, chambers of commerce, educators, consumer groups and community development institutions, with assistance as needed from specialist professional planners, market researchers, industrial designers, and cost accountants, with a view to establishing as clearly as possible their own needs and priorities. This bottom-up planning and coordination process can be taken through to National level and there coordinated with major industry associations and groupings. Through regional and industry-wide coordination a National Strategy can thus be developed as a thorough, on-going, Nation-wide assessment of capabilities, projects, priorities and investment needs. The result is not a centrally imposed directive, but a guide to business, a reflection for business as to what business is doing and plans to do at Local and at National level, so that resources can be dynamically coordinated for overall prosperity. The overall objective, as in other aspects of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise, is to try and ensure through debate and a modicum of intelligent forethought that the component factors of enterprise, investment, and market potentialities are drawn together to

minimum mutual detriment and maximum possible advantage. Full employment is one of the basic essentials of a civilized society, but it will not come about by chance. There is a tremendous potential for creativity in the world; most people want to do a useful job of work, and to do it well. Unemployment is not our natural or preferred condition. Once the value of money has been stabilized with Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation, investment-directed expansion of the National Credit Base can create full employment and prosperity, but only if it is channelled into efficient enterprises, and guided by overall priorities. With proper guidance, the expansion of the National Credit Base can act as a main source of economic motive power, providing finance and subsequent ongoing supervision for industrial development. Nor is industry the only area in which investment is vital to a Nation's total productivity and competitiveness; infrastructure and essential services must also be considered. The totality of a Nation's infrastructure, its roads and bridges, water and sewage, its power supplies, telecommunications and railways, serves not only the convenience of its citizens, it also serves commerce and industry, and a well organized state-of-the-art infrastructure can make its own substantial contribution to productivity. Here again, scarce investment must be carefully deployed and guided by openly established priorities. It should be noted that the managements of individual infrastructure services, National Strategy, and the Investment Banking Sector are all working together, without the direct interference of Government. Also significant is that full reliance on investment expansion through System-generated Credit provides a method of expanding and regulating economic activity which is totally independent of Government and Government accounts, thereby removing the temptation to resort to deficit spending as an impetus to economic recovery. If the economy can be purposefully expanded to full capacity and full employment without risk of inflation, if expansion of the National Credit Base can be directed into safe and productive investments guided by nationally established priorities, and if standards of quality and productivity can be maximized and continuously improved throughout industry and services, the Nation's economy can become and remain among the world's most productive and rewarding, while at the same time satisfying the demands of Fair Exchange required under the Principle of Non-Injury. Fair exchange value for value; quality and honesty in goods and services; and social priorities in the use of our National Credit Base:

these are three essential elements of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise. And Socially Responsible Free Enterprise, the freedom of individual enterprise limited only by the requirement of fair and honest trade, is the commercial expression of the Principle of Non-Injury.

Natural Resources and the Principle of Non-Injury
While a person may be considered to have an inherent right of ownership over him- or herself and the products of his or her own creation, the Natural Resources pose a different problem. The Natural Resources are natural. By their very definition they are not man-made, and are therefore not automatically associated with or attributable to any individual. But people need to use natural resources for food, shelter, raw materials and recreation and must therefore make claims upon resources which are not inherently theirs. Thus it is clear that rights to the use of Natural Resources must be created or apportioned. The existing pressures on land-use can only increase, as the traditional claims we make upon land - for housing, industry and commerce, transport routes and harbours, agriculture and mining - are now being extended by increased demands for greater leisure access to countryside, preservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and a greater respect for the environment. How does the Principle of Non-Injury apply to the apportionment and guidance of resources use? We begin with the Principle of Non-Injury itself, the essence of which is: liberty, until that liberty infringes the liberty of others. On a basis of presumed liberty, the duty of government is to identify and prevent through legislation those actions which are harmful or injurious to others. In order to establish a basis for fair, equitable and responsible resources use, the Principle of Non-Injury would require three steps: First, as a working foundation, the formulation of an overall Landplan based on a full inventory of natural resources; second, estimates of current and future demands; and third the institution of a Resources-use Forum in which availability can to the best extent possible be reconciled with actual and anticipated demands. Land has its own inherent potentialities. Certain areas may offer excellent agricultural soil while others conceal significant mineral deposits. Some areas are outstanding in natural beauty, while certain forest or river systems make their own demands for special treatment on ecological grounds. Clearly Government cannot fulfil its role as adjudicator unless and until it is fully informed as to the detailed nature of the nation's total natural

resources. The inventory of availability would take the form of a national map on which every kind of resource is clearly indicated. The duty of those concerned with the provision of availability data must be to provide a detailed, continuously updated - and publicly accessible - inventory showing the location, extent and nature of all resources. The Inventory would show, for example: mineral deposits, water supplies, agricultural land graded as to quality and suitability for different crops, areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas suitable for urban settlement, as well as those areas or resources which should be handled with especial sensitivity as being appropriate for wildlife preserves or necessary for environmental wellbeing. The second stage requires the preparation of an ongoing assessment of demands upon the resources both current and anticipated, based on a thorough and fundamental analysis. As a basis the analysis begins objectively by looking at populations and their broad, predictable needs for urban living, trade and cultural facilities, agriculture, minerals, recreation and retreat. Individuals and special-interest groups as "consumers" will then fill out the picture with additional needs and ideas such as wilderness homes or specific recreation facilities. The two banks of resources data: the Availability Inventory, and the assessment of actual and anticipated demands, can then be coordinated by a Natural Resources and Land-use Forum to produce an overall ongoing National Resources Plan. On this basis, clear guidelines can be established for such broad national uses as major agricultural needs, recreation, mining, transport and urban development. The Land-use Forum has its purpose and procedures clearly set out in its own Articles of Constitution. Its members represent every aspect of land and resources use; its deliberations, as well as the data on which they are based, must be open at all times to public scrutiny and input. Its object is an ongoing National Landplan, representing the continuing definition of zoning and planning guidelines and restrictions at national level, from which local level plans can then be made. But it is not only our human requirements that we must consider. We need to use the Natural Resources, certainly. But we must do so within the limitations of environmental responsibility, and we must give back the equivalent of what we take through our stewardship and enhancement of our environment.

This necessary approach to our relationship with our environment is formalized and brought into the overall resources-use planning process by the simple expedient of according to the Environment the status of a legal entity having its own rights, defined in law, to respectful and responsible treatment and to good stewardship, rights which must stand as equals in law to our own competing human claims. Just as minors are represented by Counsel in courts of law, so our environment is permanently represented by an Environmental Protection Council operating under Constitutional authority. Some environmental objectives might be listed as follows: zero land/water/air pollution; zero garbage, achieved by eliminating garbage at source through recycling and increased use of reusable containers; promotion of organic farming; identification and protection of all significant natural ecosystems and major wildlife habitats. Under the Principle of Non-Injury broad planning guidelines are based on objective data providing accurate information on availability and informed estimates of present and future needs, formulated with the widest possible input. It is a continuing challenge and responsibility challenge incumbent upon all, planners and users alike, to use our resources wisely and responsibly, minimizing waste, providing for as many needs as possible, and reaching decisions in the common interest with the minimum of misinformation and acrimony. A similar policy of land-use has historically been applied in the United States to the administration of that country's surprisingly vast area of Public Lands. It is little known outside the United States that some 270 million acres, about oneeighth of the USA, is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - in addition to land already set aside for National and State forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. The BLM has been mandated by Congress to manage Public Lands on a continuing basis for multiple use and sustained yield, taking into consideration the reconciliation of the varied demands made upon the land, as well as concepts of stewardship and husbandry. A significant area of forward planning in resources-use lies in the development of urban areas. And here there is more at stake than simple land-use issues; for the town or city is a service in itself, a machine which must be properly designed and maintained if it is to function efficiently and fulfil the demands of its residents, its customers. Homes, jobs, shops, market gardening, leisure facilities, all of these and the many other needs of a civilized society are part of what may be called community. An efficiently functioning community offers a wide variety of facilities and opportunities in pleasant surroundings, with easy and convenient movement between them. Needless to say, the kind of sprawling city served by traffic-clogged streets so familiar in the past would not be described as functioning efficiently. The ideal town or city plan requires minimum footprint, offers walking-distance convenience between home, work or shops, and facilitates the provision of fast, clean,

frequent and cost-effective shared transportation. An example of such an urban planning concept is described in the article Hillhome: Minimal Footprint, Minimal Energy.

Home on a Hillside: Minimal Footprint, Minimal Energy.
A home on the slope of a hill, a terrace-garden open to the sky, magnificent views stretching far into the distance, easy access to surrounding parkland and wilderness, fresh flowers, fruits and vegetables close by... could be a dream villa! Add to that magical formula, shops, cafés, restaurants, recreational and cultural facilities offices, professional services, healthcare, kindergarten in fact all the services of a sophisticated city, all within minutes' walk… no, it's too much to ask! And yet it's all possible. A hill, yes. With villas around its sloping sides, yes. But here's the secret: the hill is artificial, hollow, and the interior houses all its commercial facilities and support services. The homes themselves provide every resident with three valuable features: privacy, an uninterrupted view, and vertical airspace for a garden terrace, while also offering instant walking-distance access to the full range of urban facilities. Privacy and peace are assured by the basic layout of homes and access, which places street passageways behind, rather than in front of the individual hillside residences. There are indeed a few outside 'ring' walkways where people can take a stroll and enjoy the views, and some residents, many retired or living alone, choose to live facing these outer walkways. But the majority enjoy their own unobstructed, totally private terrace and view, with their indoor access 'street' behind them. Once inside their homes, residents have complete frontal privacy, with privacy between next-door neighbours on the gardenterraces assured by the planted sloping dividing walls on either side. The second feature of these homes, enjoyed by all hilltown residents, is the unobstructed view from their hillside garden terraces over miles of countryside, with its rolling hills and streams, clumps of woodland, and perhaps just the occasional glimpse of another green hilltown merging almost imperceptibly into the background scene. The third feature is vertical airspace. The slopes of the artificial hills provide for every home a terrace garden open to the sky – as opposed to a high-rise apartment balcony which is open only to the front and perhaps the sides, with vertigo-views to the ground below! The generously-sized terraces are warm and sheltered miniature gardens, ideal for relaxing or for summer meals. Since the terraces are sheltered, residents are able to grow plants and flowers that are even more exotic than those in the parks or public gardens. Terraces are generally paved in varied finishes and colours simulating natural stone, with ample space for seating and dining; large terracotta plant pots containing flowers or perhaps small fruiting trees will often be arranged on the paved surface, with more permanent flower beds built-in along the side walls. There are wide planters at the front of each terrace where people grow low bushes, flowers and trailing greenery. This planting at the front of the terrace provides

essential privacy for the levels below, and enhance the impression of a natural, green hillside when viewed from a distance. In a typical hilltown all of the main vertical dividing walls are set at least 40 feet apart, determining the width of the homes and their terraced gardens. There is nonetheless a choice of size in home and terrace; half the levels have single-floor homes with 30-foot deep terraces and the other half are two-story homes with larger terraces of 60-foot depth. The single-floor homes usually have a 20-foot wide living room with two 10-foot wide 'personal rooms' at the side looking onto the same garden terrace. The two-story homes generally feature a living room and dinning area with an adjacent den/workspace at terrace level, plus anywhere between two and four 'personal rooms' on the upper level. At the rear of the home, where there is no natural light other than that piped down through 'light-tubes' from the divider wall cavities, sound-insulated rooms offer ample workspace which can be used for storage or as work spaces. Since these areas are at the back of the apartment, some rsidents may choose to have windows looking onto the interior 'street', a facility appreciated by craftspeople like sculptors, artists, or musical instrument-makers. Passers-by can watch the work in progress or perhaps see a small display of the items crafted, and perhaps tempted to buy! On a more practical note, cable tv, radio and phone are ready-installed, and most of the numerous activities taking place in the hilltown's interior theatres and concert halls, performance and lecture rooms can also be accessed in the home through cable vision. Shutes for various categories of recycling are instlled in kitchens, and river water irrigation set into planters. Services running between apartments are easy of access with their own maintenance-accessible ducting, all weather-proof, easy and cheap to maintain. A Varied Hillscape While most residences offer a completely private home with rear access, there are those who like a little more social contact. Their choice might be a home facing onto one of the two or three Promenades which run around the outside of the Hilltown, so they can 'potter about' in their front gardens and exchange greetings with passers-by. Others might go for an area known locally as 'The Quarry'. Imagine that a section of the hillside has been cut away – just like a quarry in fact. This forms a little square, the 'quarry floor', which is flanked and overlooked by four or five vertical stories of single room apartments with balconies. The quarry apartments are popular with people living alone; some will be youngsters experiencing a new-found independence, others perhaps older people who no longer have a family around them. The Quarry's own little square is treated almost like a private club by its surrounding residents. They can peer over their balconies or call down to see if anyone wants a game of chess; the square's flower beds are tended by a couple of local residents; and the café with its outside tables serves most of the residents as a communal dining/living or clubroom.

Here they chat, check the news, have a meal or a snack. The wide variety of ages makes for lively conversation, and from time to time a 'stranger' happens upon this little neighborhood square and is always made welcome. Indeed it is surprising how many 'secret' corners and alleyways there can be in a creatively, imaginatevly planned hilltown, both inside and out. All hilltown homes would be leased or rented at low rates from the Community Corporation which oversaw the planning and construction of the hilltown and which has subsequent responsibility for its maintenance, though the work itself could be undertaken under competitive contract by specialized firms. The highest standards of cleanliness and general maintenance both inside the hilltown's public areas and in the surrounding parkland should always be expected. Rents and leases reflect the write-down investment and on-going maintenance and are thus stable, predictable, and affordable. Privacy, a view, and vertical airspace: these are the requirements of a perfect home, features offered by virtually every one of the hillside apartments. But in addition to the requirements for the home itself, humans also have a social side: we need contact with others for work, trade, culture, entertainment, and simple conversation. And if these facilities are to be of any practical use they must be closely and conveniently to hand: a few moments' walk or ride away, not half-an-hour's stop-go drive through polluted air on a crowded road with parking problems at the end of it! Here again the hilltown scores on pure convenience, with all its commercial, professional, and recreational facilities concentrated right there in the hillside's interior core. Indeed with such a wealth of attractive facilities so readily available, less time may well be spent in the home itself, mainly because there is so much going on around it. The numerous facilities inside the hilltown in and around the central atrium, the roof top promenade areas and the beckoning countryside provide plenty of incentive to be 'out and about'. Residents can enjoy going out into the surrounding countryside with its numerous market gardens and fruit and nut groves to pick their own fresh produce. Commercially picked produce is always fresh, and is processed in the large and well equipped kitchens looking out over parkland at the base of the hilltown where prepared dishes are made for home or restaurant use, delivered in returnable boxes along in-built ducts and automatically barcode sorted. Surrounding Parkland Equally important for residents are the facilities existing outside and around their Hilltown. Indeed as much attention should be given to the outdoor surroundings as to the design of the town itself, and the immediate countryside should provide a thoughtfully planned selection of facilities. Access to the 'great outdoors' could not be simpler for the Hilltown residents. Periodic breaks in the housing units allow for public top-to-bottom walkways winding through treed and landscapes slopes. Or for quicker access the internal sloping elevators terminate

at the base of the Hilltown permitting direct walk-out into the surrounding parkland. By its very nature and concept, this is a very compact town; there is no suburban sprawl gradually eating its way across those 'greenfield sites' so much beloved of developers! This town resembles the old fortified towns of medieval times: town on one side of the city wall, open country on the other! The extensive park area immediately surrounding the typical Hilltown is laid out semiformally for quiet relaxation, and people can be seen strolling along the paths enjoying the trees, the green grass and profusion of colourful scented flowers. The air is especially relaxing; for this the townsfolk can thank the many different species of pine trees which are known to give off beneficial emanations. In one area several rows of chairs are grouped in front of an old-style Victorian bandstand screened by trees at its rear. An announcement states that a local youth orchestra will perform 'for your pleasure' during the afternoon. Many small pavillions offer cafés, sport facilities or garden and plant centers. In sheltered areas, glass houses, some small, others several stories high, provide the ideal climate for exotic tropical fruits available almost all year-round. Intelligent use of sun-screens and solar panels ensure cost-free climate control, with fine-spray moisture as required. Most are open for public visit, purchases, and enjoyment. At its outer edges the semi-cultivated and formally planned Town Park gives way to wedges of informal parkland alternating with market-gardening agriculture or fruit and nut groves. Although the market gardens are supervised and tended by professional agriculturalists, much of the produce is self-picked by the town's residents themselves, who enjoy the experience of being amongst the plant life. The immediate availability of fresh produce, while minimizing enrgy-hungry transportation, encourages the healthy preparation of ultra-fresh ingredients. "Slow food" is the fashion, as opposed to "Fast Food"! Care in preparation of fresh ingredients is followed by more leisurely eating habits - after all, much commuting time is saved in this cmpact town. There is quite a choice of footpaths leading off into the 'real' countryside, each one having a small signpost showing its destination, distance and walking time; some of the paths are designed as circular routes, again with walking times given for the circuit. Walking is a favorite leisure activity, particularly as there is so much beautiful countryside to enjoy and ample leisure time to enjoy it. Finally the real wilderness begins. Here, trails are narrow and 'as you find them', human artificats and 'management' are kept to an absolute minimum.

LIFE IN THE ATRIUM
In from the Countryside - Entertainment - Support Services
In from the Countryside Our Hilltown is not sited in the middle of a spaghetti junction surrounded on all sides by motorways, its residents relaxing on their terraces amid swirling exhaust fumes. Residents must leave their cars in a secure multi-storey carpark situated in the nearest city

20 miles away, linked to the Hilltown by a transit line the cost of which is included in each apartment's maintenance charge. Fully automated, the line runs on overhead track supported on slim pillars so as not to intrude on the surrounding countryside. The track is located for minimal visual impact, frequently screened by trees. It glides, smoothly and speedily along its track, supported by magnetic levitation and propelled by linear induction. A softly spoken announcement signals the approach to the Hilltown. But where is the town, the rows of suburban houses, the edge-of-town shopping malls? Front-seat passengers see only a green, pyramid-shaped hill some 300 feet high. Only the glass pyramid glinting in the sun at its top dramatically signals habitation, rather like the tall cathedral spire of an old English market town. Despite its deceptive covering of greenery this gently sloping hill is not a creation of Nature but a complete, self-contained town with surrounding terraced garden homes, its hollow iterior containing shops, manufacturing and processing plants and a full range of cultural facilities within its structure. Nor is it a small construction. The 'hill' is half a mile wide at its base and inside the hollow centre is a huge atrium 1200 feet across, lit by natural light through the pyramid glass roof at its apex. The train dives underground so as not to intrude on the town's views and surrounding park amenities. The 'tunnel' is not dull or boring however, for the natural surface has been cut smooth from the natural rock, polished and treated with a varnish which enhances the beauty of the original natural veins and patterns. The tunnel is softly and evenly illuminated as the vehicle passes through, often with some special geological feature highlighted. After a few minutes the vehicle comes to rest below the Hilltown's base whence glass elevators bring arriving passengers up to the central atrium. The Atrium itself, with sunlight streaming in from its glass pyramid topping the Hilltown 300 feet above, is a huge piazza broken up by planters in which exotic tropical plants and trees enjoy the carefully monitored interior micro-climate. The odd monkey or colourful bird can often be seen peering through the foliage. This is the place to see and be seen, to enjoy the ever-changing parade of people, to make new friends or meet old ones, to read or relax, enjoy some light refreshment, work on a laptop computer, or play some table game with anyone who's interested One can take a leisurely stroll around the perimeter, pausing to watch the passing scene in one of the many sidewalk cafés or benches set in alcoves among flowering bushes. The beautifully tiled floors and surfaces, alcoves with small sitting areas surrounded by scented flowering bushes and the many small ornamental fountains recall some ancient Moorish palace. This is the hub of community life. The numerous small cafés and meeting areas are used as they were in the traditional coffee houses of central European capitals – places to sit for as long as you feel inclined, places to work, to read, to meet friends old and new, to play chess... the list is endless. Tropical greenery and flowers abound, apparently thriving in the warm and slightly humid climate which is carefully monitored and controlled to resemble as nearly as

possible what the technicians fancifully, though quite seriously refer to as “nature's own sweet breath”! Around the Atrium periphery are numerous attractive counters dispensing a great variety of pastry and baked goods, fruit, fresh fruit juices and hot drinks, which people collect on trays then take over to one of the eating areas where elegant white tables and chairs are set under palm, mango and other tropical trees, perhaps grouped around a turquoise-tiled pool with its own small fountain. Along the ground and second level galleries surrounding the concourse are the shopping areas, each area specializing in the sale of different categories of goods such as food, clothing and household articles. The shops are thoughtfully and attractively laid out as pleasing display areas, showing off demonstration items of the complete range of goods available in settings similar to those in which they will be used. Customers can test equipment and appliances, try on garments, and make their selections. Their chosen items are then ordered by programming a hand held computer note-pad and passing a personal credit card over its surface which enters their name, address and account code. The goods are then immediately dispatched to the customer's home from automated warehouses deep in the pyramid's internal industrial areas by automated goods delivery, the cost being directly debited from the customer's personal bank account. The warehouse computers are in direct contact with the computers of supplier factories, so the factories are continuously informed in realtime as to sales movements. Providing that there are no design changes and that the product remains current, re-orders can be scheduled automatically. There are supermarkets for basic bulk-food requirements. Considerable effort has been directed into minimizing wasteful packaging, and much use is made of bulk food dispensers and returnable containers; household needs from cleaning materials to dry or preserved food products such as nuts and grains are selected from rows of automated dispensers. A shopper wanting some flour for home-baking will select the bin containing the chosen grains, program an indicator panel, and the grain will be ground to individual requirements in the quantity desired. The finished product is then dispensed into a small returnable container which is automatically labeled and coded with contents, ingredients, weight and price. When all the desired goods have been selected the customer passes a credit card and the coded packages over a scanner, then places the purchases into a container which is coded for immediate, automated home delivery. Fresh fruit can be picked or collected personally in the surrounding market gardens; but for convenience many prefer to make a selection from the varied and colourful market stands gathered together along one side of the atrium concourse, where fresh produce is brought in from the town's agricultural areas several times each day for maximum freshness. Entertainment

In the higher galleries overlooking the central atrium are the cultural areas and facilities: concert halls, theatres, and many meeting rooms large and small. Performances in the various theatres and activity spaces vary considerably, from old style operas to contemporary works. Maintenance requirements are minimal and low, often zero rental charges encourage amateur performances and experimentation offering a rich and varied cultural life, both from performers' and audiences' viewpoint. Indeed the matter of rental cost is a significant factor influencing the use of urban space. In the traditional pattern of urban development, land is bought and sold as an 'investment'. When a town or city grows in attraction and population, property owners are able to ask higher and ever higher prices and rents, so the fate of the city is already sealed. As costs and rents have moved up in the old European cities, many of their familiar meeting places, the famous-name cafés where people had been congregating, chatting, and reading the papers for centuries gradually became more expensive and many were forced out of business. In America, escalating urban rents set in motion the infamous 'flight to the suburbs', to the cheaper greenfield sites, and thus many city centres gradually died while their outer growth sprawled. In the Hilltown the use of urban space is priced only to reflect the capital write-off and maintenance costs, remaining both reasonable and stable. Most productions are 'recordings' projected in multi-dimensional form. Others may feature live human performances by local amateurs which can be combined with multidimensional background scenes recorded anywhere in the world or in other worlds, the audience totally enveloped with realistic surround sound and vision. Some productions however, are entirely 'live', largely because people still enjoy 'acting' simply for the fun of it. This provides an outlet for local amateur talent, very popular with participants and audiences alike. Professionalism in performance is important, but equally important is that both performers and audience should enjoy the show. Many people prefer to enjoy music in their homes; but there is always a wide selection of musical concerts, some 'live', involving local amateurs or else some pre-recorded featuring full surround-sound accompanied by a visual display of instruments, natural scenes, or complex interplays of light. Again the musical offerings are numerous in their variety, from medieval to contemporary and New Age. While the music completely surrounds and envelops its listeners, it is never aggressive either in volume or in content. The act of musical performance is also enjoyed in its own right, and in the many smaller rooms and performance spaces music students can invite a few friends or the public to a short performance. Or perhaps someone will be reading poetry, others might be giving talks... there is always something going on and the variety is almost endless. Any event can be experienced either in the central theatres where they are taking place, or accessed live from people's homes relayed onto their video screens. An Art & Craft centre displays creative individual craftwork. There are working demonstrations of many types of crafts, together with their wonderfully individual products each so carefully made and finished, reflecting an enormous variety of creative artisan talent.

While the Hilltown has extensive educational and research facilities, students must commute to the city for higher and university-level education. Local apprenticeships are however offered, and 'libraries' consisting of multiple computers in private bays are available 24 hours a day. The wide selection and the merging of cultural and educational facilities encourages learning, exploration and experimentation, while their immediate proximity to every home makes for easy access. Opportunities are endless for mental expansion and the widening of knowledge. High above the Atrium Concourse where the glass pyramid-shaped roof-dome meets the main hill structure, the roof-top 'Sky Walk' runs right around the 600-foot baseline of the glass dome light, both on the inside and outside, offering magnificent views out across the surrounding countryside or down upon the lively scene of the Atrium below. These lofty heights are reached by several vertical elevators of totally transparent construction, their stately progress as they gently rise and fall giving an added dimension of movement in the interior concourse. At night the elevator cars are glitteringly illuminated, as also is the pyramid glass roof. Support Services The internal base areas beneath the Atrium which are devoid of daylight are occupied by the various support services: waste reprocessing, water heating, air pumping and extraction machinery. Many of the manufacturing processes are fully automated, the computer-controlled production machinery also occupies the non-daylighted areas. The operators who control and monitor the machines work remotely from stations overlooking the central Atrium, enjoying the natural daylight which filters down from the glass pyramid dome light, or from control rooms on the town's exterior north face. All service and production areas are open to public viewing. Where automated machinery is in operation special transparent viewing passages and galleries are provided. Most people like to understand and appreciate the 'behind-the-scenes' operations of their town, and throughout the production, processing and warehouse areas people of all ages can be found viewing everything from effluent purification to maintenance of the transit vehicles. Explanatory commentaries are always provided, with a personal chat for anyone who shows a particular interest. A totally segregated internal goods transport system known as the 'autodelivery' serves the entire hilltown through its own network of small-bore tunnels and lifts. The system uses 4-foot wide by 3-foot high containers propelled by linear-induction coils and supported by magnetic levitation. Destinations are bar-coded and containers are routed automatically through computer-controlled junctions for direct delivery to homes, shops, warehouses and production areas. The built environment here in this County Town has been carefully planned and constructed to be varied and exciting, while providing numerous formal and informal spaces for events and activities as well as occasions for the chance encounters which residents so much enjoy. There are small stone-paved squares surrounded by lush greenery and intimate corners hidden away, 'secret' courtyards at the end of narrow

passageways, and some special secluded areas with a sign of two hands placed palms together indicating that they are set aside for quiet meditation. In contrast, several wide, imposing avenues run around the outside of the sloping hillside at different heights for summer strolling. At the same time, everything has been designed from the start for low or automated maintenance, and routine cleaning is simplified. In this way, the highest standards can be maintained at the lowest possible cost to residents. On the second floor facing the windows of the north wall is the Hilltown Admin Office where a staff of six handle everything from maintenance to accounting. The Office is open to any passers-by through its plate-glass wall. First to be seen is a meeting area with a large table for group discussion. Opening off the meeting area are the individual workspaces, partitioned from one another yet open to the meeting area. Each individual 'office' has a window area, with controllable blinds and windows that open. In one office an engineer facing a battery of screens monitors the functioning of everything from water, sewage, electrical, and communication to internal atrium air quality. Another office handles all accounting functions, another communication with residents through the Hilltown's internal web pages, another looks after contracting for gardening and cleaning, while yet another officer is responsible for interior ad exterior plant care, health and maintenance. Considerable importance is attached to productivity, offering the best value to residents for the lowest cost compatible with the highest possible standards. This is one public service where long coffee breaks, guaranteed jobs for life, and the 'if you want it get it and put the taxes up' attitude have no place. The Hilltown's creators, designers, administrators and residents take a pride in the fact that such a convenient, pleasant and challenging place to live is also regarded internationally as a state-of-the-art example of minimal footprint, minimal energy usage and low maintenance. Comparisons are frequently drawn between the compact Hilltown and the usual urban sprawl, and while all services are accessible through man-sized ducting, the inevitable comparison is drawn between maintenance in the Hilltown and the costs and inconvenience caused when breaks in services involved digging up whole streets. No one would disagree that 'this is the way to go.' Back in the central atrium a cheerful, colorfully dressed gentleman behind a pastry counter set up outside one of the busy cafés tips his yellow top hat to the passers-by, offering free samples and an almost unending stream of humorous quips and stories. “This is the Hub of the Universe ladies and gentlemen” he announces. And no one in the smiling crowd would dream of disagreeing with him.

POWER
Our Magnificent Obsession

We love it, we hate it. We respect it, we reject it. Power serves, then abuses. It promises the impossible, so we nurture and applaud it. But it has little need of our support, for it is self propagating, bearing within itself the seeds of its own growth. With wisdom we would concern ourselves, not with power, but with the means of controlling it. For unbridled power knows no bounds, spreading and expanding secretly, creating, then slaying imaginary dragons, favouring us with gifts, the products of our own labours, smiling benevolently upon its unsuspecting victims. The growth of power is slow, stealthy, near-indiscernible. Only when it is too late do we begin to comprehend the extent of its influence, the stranglehold with which it binds us. We stand by and observe, dumb and impotent while it oppresses within its borders and creates wars with its neighbours, seeking more and ever more growth and influence. Centuries of history have proved repeatedly: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power destroys, and absolute power destroys absolutely. Power. We need to set controls, disciplines and limitations upon it. We need to observe it, study it, understand it, watch, monitor, analyze and make public its every move. For power can, and has destroyed nations and continents. It may yet destroy our world.

LAW AND GOVERNANCE IN THE NEW AGE
Historical Note
In previous times governance was based mainly on power and self-interest. When parliaments replaced monarchs as the main source of law, political parties immediately polarized according to perceived class interests, the Right representing the wealthy and powerful, the Left representing working classes, peasants and factory employees. Elected assemblies throughout the world became polarized in this way, the Left-Right confrontation always evident. Some individual legislators may have been motivated by idealism, but many were motivated by the opportunity for self-aggrandizement and prestige. In the democratic tradition, governance was based on the power of numbers. Majority will was law, even though it might be irresponsible or disadvantageous to minorities. As the expenditure of growing taxation took over from simple legislation as the main pre-occupation of government, the added influence accompanying the power to dispense money tended to corrupt legislators. The 'rewards' of office increased, as also did campaign expenditure, and those who financed the campaigns of legislature-hopefuls naturally expected to be rewarded if their candidate was successful. Governments became unresponsive and secretive, their powers and the taxation needed to support them steadily increased. Though attempts to establish basic human rights and to set limits on law have always been pursued, the concept of inherent rightness in law and social conduct was never considered. This would become the basis of law and governance in the New Age.

Preamble
The seeds of self-preservation and self-improvement are, of necessity, born into every one of us. If we use this impetus to create, to invent, to improve on what has gone before, collaborating with those around us, then civilization will advance to the benefit of all. But if the desire for self-aggrandizement is exercised at the expense of others, if we seek to gain wealth, not through our own creative labours alone but by exploiting and dispossessing others, by

expropriating the work and wealth of others, the more aggressive will become richer while others grow poorer, and resentment, acrimony, conflict, confrontation and ultimately war will result. This simple, fundamental truth provides the motivation of law and governance in the New Age. The foundation of law and social conduct in the New Age is the perception that none should have power or dominion over others; none should be permitted to exploit or steal from others; none should be able to gain at the expense of others, none should increase his or her wealth by diminishing that of others. Since none may hold dominion over others, governance is based on a presumption of liberty, everyone being free to do as they like, qualified only by one simple, supreme law: Do No Harm. The purpose of law and governance is to prevent people from injuring one another. Injury can take many forms, personal injury, unfair use of natural resources, dishonesty and inequity in trade and commerce. The duty of government is to identify injury then take steps to prevent it, while at the same time ensuring that government itself remains honest, open and productive, and that its laws remain within the strictly defined limitation of the prevention of injury.

The Structure of Government
The whole structure and purpose of government is guided by one Supreme Law: Do No Harm. This law is held in the custody of the EXECUTIVE, which has three duties: 1. It verifies all proposed legislation in order to ensure that it complies with the One Law. If there is an injured party, or if any injury is committed, the law must be seen to prevent that injury. But it is equally important to ensure that the law goes no further, thus intruding into personal liberty without justification. If there is no injured party, there can be no law. When verifying that proposed legislation is thus compliant, the process by which the law was debated and formulated is also verified to ensure that all the specified due processes were complied with. 2. The Executive maintains open-access to all, receiving complaints of insufficient or excessive law, and if justified ensuring timely and effective remedy. Agents of the Executive will also ensure through personal investigation that the processes of enforcement, justice and correction are also carried out in the manner prescribed by law.

3. The Executive is responsible for ensuring that every process and department of governance is executed to the highest standards at the lowest cost, that is to say, that productivity in all departments of governance is maximized. Accounts and productivity assessments are conducted on a regular basis, either by the Executive's own office, or by independent auditors. All accounts and proceedings of all aspects of government are public at all times. The operations of the Executive are likewise audited on a regular basis by not less than two independent auditors. The operations of the Executive are supervised by an Executive Committee, its members selected by the Legislative Representatives (see Legislature). Any individual may institute a Referendum proposing the censure or removal of any officer or officers of the Executive Committee. Beneath the Executive are three managerially and financially autonomous departments of governance: 1) Legislative Proceedings 2) Natural Resources Management 3) Economic Management Each of these three Departments is charged with specific duties and responsibilities, and is answerable to the Executive for its performance. 1) Legislative Proceedings Where there is injury, there must be protective law. The function of the Legislative Department falls into three stages. First, Injury is identified and registered. This can be initiated by any person, group, or society, either by direct application to the Legislative Administration, or to the local Legislative Representative. Legislative Representatives for each region are proposed and elected within the region on the basis of trust and confidence, also for preference, having a knowledge of law and liberty allowing them to explain laws to their constituents and to advise on the definition of possible injury enquiries. Second, debate is scheduled in which all interested parties, individuals, specialinterests groups and societies etc are invited to participate. Third, an injury having been confirmed and clearly identified, protective legislation must be formulated which can minimize or prevent the injury while not creating any side-effects or risking possible injury elsewhere. Legislation

must deal with the injury in question, without going further than is essential and thus risking unnecessary intrusion and limitation of liberty. Legislation thus formulated is then passed to the Executive, where it is checked to ensure (a) that the process of debate and formulation were carried out according to prescribed rules, (b) that the injury will thus be effectively prevented, and (c) that no further intrusion is created. Issues dealing specifically with Natural Resources apportionment or economics and commerce are dealt with by separate Departments. 2) Natural Resources Management The Department of Natural Resources functions in three stages. First it maintains an on-going inventory and assessment of all natural resources under its administration, above and below ground, inland and coastal. Categories include mineable assets, agricultural land of different soil types suitable for different crops, areas of outstanding natural beauty, wilderness areas preserved for environmental balance and protection. Second it maintains an on-going assessment of current and foreseeable requirements in terms of resource-extraction, agriculture, recreation, residential, commercial and transportation needs. Third, it attempts to balance availability with requirements in such a way as to fulfill as many needs, desires and requirements as possible while minimizing environmental impact and surface footprint, and within the disciplines of good stewardship. While land-use titles cannot be bought and sold and are granted on lease only, permanence of tenure is guaranteed wherever possible, contingent upon responsible usage. Where ownership of land-use titles are transferred between holders, any investment or improvement undertaken may be recompensed. The proceedings of the Department are open at all times to participation by any interested or affected individuals, special interest groups and societies, and local Legislative Representatives. 3) Economic Management Economic Management has three objectives to fulfill: Economic and Monetary Stability, Opportunity for everyone to participate to the fullest extent of their desires and capabilities, and assurance of maximum Productivity and Quality.

The Supreme Law requires that trade and commerce should be equitable, that is, commercial exchanges of goods and services should represent equal value in terms of price for product or service. In order to fulfill this requirement, a standard system of work measurement sets a work-value on every job. This ensures that each job is rewarded fairly in relation to others, thus avoiding any need to dispute remunerations and the associated acrimony. In addition, the basic work-unit becomes the monetary unit, thus the monetary unit has stability and definition in terms of work done. The Work and Remuneration Council regularly reviews job changes and new developments, and accepts submissions at any time from anyone who may consider a particular aspect of work is neglected or inappropriately rewarded. Total outgoings in terms of remunerations and capital repayments determine prices. Profits, that is, the surplus of income over costs, are strictly limited. Stability of remunerations and prices is thus ensured. As a result of monetary stability, economic activity can be expanded to full capacity without any problem of inflation. The universal division of labour renders it difficult for individuals to initiate self-employment unsupported and unaided; it is therefore considered essential that services be available to ensure that everyone is able to participate economically to the fullest extent of their desires and capabilities. Full employment is assured by 'empowerment economics' in which credit is used aggressively to promote new enterprises or improve productivity of existing enterprises. Availability of credit is reinforced by expert advice and assistance in the relevant field, together with financial supervision and monitoring. The project itself forms the credit collateral. Usury is not practiced, and interest is neither charged on loans, nor paid on bank credit balances. The monetary unit is based on work-content, which decreases as productivity increases since by definition, an increase in productivity means that the same or better product is being made with less work. Thus the cost of living both in real and monetary terms slowly falls as productivity rises. Though interest is not paid on savings, the value in terms of purchasing power of saved credit is constantly increasing. It is also considered vital for the advancement of civilization, that productivity and quality be continuously maximized, offering at all times the best products and services at the lowest possible cost. Credit and expert technical and financial advice and support are constantly available to this end; in addition, a universal register of product and operational standards, continuously updated, shares information on the latest products and production techniques. Managements are expected to keep themselves informed of developments, to

update where appropriate, and to contribute any new ideas they may themselves develop. Monitoring of productivity in essential, infrastructure, and monopoly services is particularly strict. Nor are departments of government exempt from productivity scrutiny. It is easy for government, as an enforced monopoly, to slip into the path of steadily increasing costs (taxes) in combination with decreasing productivity, a danger to which New Age Government is especially alert. Under New Age Governance, the sole purpose of law is to prevent injury, and the departments of governance are disciplined in their conduct and finances. Thomas Jefferson may have glimpsed the future in his first Inaugural Address given on March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another yet leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government necessary to complete the circle of our felicities".

End Note
The difference between government and people is that government holds power over people. This is necessary. If a society is to function in a peaceful, orderly and productive fashion, a degree of regulation is required, and this is the function of government. It is important that the people accept the regulation and laws of government; it is likewise important that the departments of governance are perceived as competent, just and honest. If government becomes self-indulgent and oppressive, revolution will inevitably result. The power of government must be conditional upon its fulfillment of specific duties, with limits on its power clearly set out. The people must have a course whereby they can peaceably criticize or remove any government department or official of government when misuse or abuse of power is perceived to exist. The quality of governance is dependent on the quality of the people not only inside, but outside government. Thus it is of prime importance to ensure, through education at the earliest stage, that any signs of aggression are discouraged through explanation and training. Collaboration rather than aggressive competition should accompany growth. Daily practice of tolerance, goodwill, seeing other points of view, and of course always the renunciation of aggression and the imposition of self upon others, such practice will help to ensure and preserve the dream of lasting peace on earth.

LAW and GOVERNANCE in the NEW AGE Historical development
IMPOSITION A Predatory Society - Slaves and Serfs - Industrial Poverty DEMOCRACY Autocracy to Oligarchy - The Socialist Revolution - Democracy or Majocracy CONSTITUTION Ideals of Constitutionalism - Constitution in the New World - Constitutional Government LIBERTY AND LAW The Ideal of Right Law - Liberty and the Principle of Non-Imposition - Liberty and Government Intervention

Policy Expansion
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Representation - Legislative Review - Quality, Productivity, Service ECONOMICS Value - Quality - Investment NATURAL RESOURCES National Resources Plan - Townscape - Landpricing HOME IN THE NEW AGE Home on a Hillside - A Varied Hillscape - Parkland LIFE IN THE ATRIUM In from the Countryside - Entertainment - Support Services

If any man, any woman, acquires or is granted power over any other or others, this will – not may, but will most surely and certainly – lead to abuse, misuse and corruption. The only Power that is competent and can be trusted to regulate the affairs of community and society is the Power of Principle, the Principle that in the pursuit of self-improvement and the exercise of liberty, no-one should injure or exploit others. This Principle of Non-Imposition is neutral and impersonal. It is a shield, preventing injury.

Legislators hold no arbitrary or discretionary power. They are simply Interpreters, applying the Principle in terms of everyday events and actions. The process of Interpretation is clearly delineated and circumscribed in terms of obligation and limitation. If there is Injury, there must be Prevention. If there is no Injury, then there is neither cause nor justification for the interference of law.

IMPOSITION
A Predatory Society - Slaves and Serfs - Industrial Poverty

NEW AGE GOVERNMENT is founded on one single Law or Principle: Do No Harm. It is a Principle of Non-Imposition, the Principle that none should impose upon, injure or exploit another or others. But humankind is born with more basic instincts than respect for others. Our primary concern is selfpreservation, the provision of food, clothing, shelter,and the enhancement of personal wealth and lifestyle. God gives every bird its food, but He doesn't throw it into the nest. Likewise with humans: in order to provide ourselves with the lifestyle to which we may aspire, we need to work, to invent, to add labour to the resources of nature. And throughout the ages, those who are stronger and more cunning have discovered that it can be a lot easier to expropriate the results of other people's labour, rather than labour oneself. A Predatory Society Throughout history, humans consistently ordered society in ways which permitted those enjoying superior wealth, background and the political influence that goes with it, to live comfortably from the proceeds of other people's toil. This transfer of work and wealth from the poor to the powerful took place through three major phases: slavery, feudalism, and low-wage industrial employment. In early Greek and Roman times, a gentleman owned slaves; in the Middle Ages he owned land which was worked for him by peasants who were bound to him; in Victorian times he owned factories, paying workers barely enough to buy food and shelter.

Then Karl Marx and friends invited the "poor masses" to throw off the yoke of oppression, turn the tables and plunder the riches of their old masters. And this, encouraged by the newly invented doctrines of Socialism and Communism, they did. Finally, the politically more advanced countries adopted Democracy or Majority Rule, in which everyone tries to enlist the aid of Government to provide them with subsidies or welfare which someone else - anybody or everybody, this generation or the next or the next - will have to pay for. Whether autocratic monarchy or dictatorship, constitutional or democratic, government was not instituted by idealists to protect the general liberty. The history of politics and social relationships is a history of continuous imposition exercised by people over one another with government "turning a blind eye", or with government's active participation.

Slaves and Serfs There is no parallel in history to the achievement which Greek civilization attained in Athens. This single city produced great statesmen, poets, sculptors, historians, teachers. Here the very concept of philosophy was invented and expounded. Here were created the first popular governments, in which ordinary citizens were to practise another Greek "invention": Democracy. Yet in this enlightened city over a third of the population were slaves, many obtained as prisoners of war or as criminals purchased from non-Greek lands around the Mediterranean. In neighbouring Thrace the people sold their children for export. As the demand for slaves increased traders roamed further afield, gathering in Persians, Egyptians and Libyans. Slaves were used by households, landholders on large agricultural estates, in industry, and especially in the mines and quarries. At one time there were some 30,000 slaves in the silver mines and processing mills. In the large Laurion mine near Athens conditions were appalling. The underground galleries were dug only two feet square, and the miners had to crawl through them dragging their iron shackles. They worked a ten-hour day, and the mortality rate was extremely high.

Most Greek households had several slaves. Greeks spoke of the necessities of life as "cattle and slaves". Records show that when the philosopher Plato died he left five domestic slaves in his will. His pupil Aristotle left fourteen. The very rich would have as many as fifty slaves in their households. Many household slaves would have been treated relatively well; but as slaves they were the property of their masters who "owned" them and had the right to demand their work and its products. The wellbeing of the master was built in part upon the work and consequent diminishing of others. Slavery was also to become big business. Following the successful Punic Wars with Carthage, Rome rapidly grew to a position of pre-eminence in the Mediterranean and became the centre of its trade. Chief among the commodities traded was the human slave arriving on the market in enormous quantities, bringing profit and prosperity to Rome's merchants and bankers. Rome came to depend on large numbers of slaves to maintain its industries and agriculture. But its wealth and power rested upon untold suffering. Diodorus wrote of the conditions in Rome's gold and silver mines in Egypt: "There they throng, all in chains, all kept at work continuously day and night. There is no relaxation, no means of escape. No one could look upon the squalor of these wretches, having not even a rag to cover their loins, without feeling compassion for their plight. They may be sick, or maimed, or aged, or weakly women, but there is no indulgence, no respite. All alike are kept at their labor by the lash until, overcome by hardships, they die in their torments. Their misery is so great, the punishments are so severe, that death is welcomed as a thing more desirable than life." Large agricultural estates became common throughout the Roman lands, dependent upon the availability of slaves to work them. On many plantations the slaves worked in a chain-gang system. They laboured under overseers in the fields and were locked in the prison house at night. The Roman tradition of large estates and villas continued into the Middle Ages, evolving as the feudal system. As time passed, the slaves became feudal peasants regulated by the customs of the manorial system, and no longer lived in the complete state of submission that typified true slavery. The peasants in the Middle Ages were called serfs, from the Roman word servus or slave. The serf was a "bound" tiller, who was compelled by the

conditions of his existence as well as by law and custom to remain on the land, and to "donate" a major proportion of his time and labour to the cultivation of the owner's fields. This is still practised today, as can be seen for example in the share-cropping system in India. Later the peasants gained more freedom; they became responsible for supplying their own needs, they paid rent and could now control more of their own time. Though they often had less to eat they now had more personal freedom. Indeed, the feudal peasants might even have counted themselves fortunate; as the manorial estates grew ever larger during the Middle Ages, and independent holdings dwindled, so rural poverty among those outside the feudal system became widespread. But other influences were also at work, and as the 1700s drew to a close agriculture would now give way to industry as the engine of production and trade, and land would be replaced by machinery as the source of wealth.

Industrial Poverty The new industrial era in Britain began in one of the oldest of all industries, the spinning and weaving of cloth. This had traditionally been a small-scale cottage industry. 1785 saw the invention of the power loom, which could weave automatically and much more cheaply. The hand weavers could no longer compete, and were forced by threat of starvation to move from their village homes to the crowded tenements of factory towns, where the over-supply of labour gave the factory owner the opportunity to employ them at minimal wages for long hours. As the factories increased their output, so their capital costs per unit fell; and with the ability to pay low wages, factory owners found their overall production costs steadily falling. They were also able to maintain high prices; thus the profits and the wealth of the factory owners could only increase. The wealthy became wealthier, the poor remained poor. The political doctrine of laisser-faire prevalent in the 1700s and early 1800s, happily espoused by factory-owning members of Parliament, opposed any government intervention in industry. No attempt should be made to regulate the price or quality of goods, nor should government fix the hours of work, or try to remedy the often dangerous and unhealthy conditions in factories.

The working classes were thus driven to embark upon a process of direct confrontation with their employers. This was facilitated by the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1824, which passed almost unnoticed through Parliament, legalizing the formation of and participation in Trade Unions. As a result there was a sudden growth in Trade Unions, not only at local level, but also several "Grand General Trades Unions". One of the largest of these was founded in 1833 by the great social pioneer, Robert Owen, called the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union, which claimed at its peak up to a million members. Another "self-help" development of this period in Britain was the creation of Co-operative Societies to avoid the ruthless profiteering by shopkeepers whose low-wage customers were eternally bound to them in credit. To assist the many newly created co-operative societies Robert Owen promoted the idea of a Labour Exchange in which products were exchanged for Labour Notes representing so many hours' labour, and which were the only form of currency accepted. The poor were not without their Liberal humanitarian advocates in Parliament, working throughout the 1800s to help alleviate the sufferings of the working classes. In 1833 Britain was the first country to pass an Act of Parliament abolishing slavery. In the same year, the Factory Act was passed to prevent the employment of children under the age of nine as well as limiting the excessively long working hours of older children. This was to be the first of several subsequent Acts attempting to improve working conditions and safety. But such efforts provided small relief against the growing tide of migration from countryside to industrial cities throughout the second half of the 1800s; urban populations increased and living conditions for the poor deteriorated. The competition for work in the factories made it possible for employers to continue paying minimal wages for long hours of work in abysmal and often dangerous working conditions, with corresponding increases in profits and dividends. While London's developers built ever more fine terraces of fashionable homes for the wealthy, the working people spent twelve hours a day in the factories, earning barely enough for minimal food and shelter, living in the expanding areas of urban squalor which the poor accepted as their lot, and which the wealthy knew little or nothing about.

On the morning of September 24th, 1849 wealthy Londoners sat comfortably at their breakfast tables, with bacon and eggs, kippers and fish kedgeree awaiting their pleasure in heated chafing dishes, oven-fresh buns kept warm in covered baskets, freshly brewed tea or coffee steaming in delicate china cups. Passing the seville orange marmalade and light conversation, many would also be scanning London's Morning Chronicle. Among the social tidbits, the Military Appointments, the Court Circular and who was wearing what and seen with whom, readers were to find an article contributed by one Henry Mayhew who had just returned with tales of horror from a land, not distant, but only a few miles away in their very own city of London. This was to be the first in a year-long series which became one of the most thorough surveys of labour and conditions in working-class London during the mid 1800s and was to be influential in formulating the new ideas of Socialism. The first article described Jacob's Island, a section of south London already made notorious as the setting for Oliver Twist. "The striking peculiarity of Jacob's Island consists in the wooden galleries and sleeping rooms at the back of the houses which overhang the dark ditch that stagnates beside them. The houses are built upon piles flanking a sewer; little rickety bridges span the huge gutters and connect court with court. "The water of the huge ditch in front of the houses is covered with a scum almost like a cobweb, and prismatic with grease. In it float large masses of green rotting weed, and against the posts of the bridges are swollen carcasses of dead animals, almost bursting with the gases of putrefaction. "As I gazed in horror at it, a bucket of night soil was poured down from the next gallery. "In a place called Joiner's Court, with four wooden houses in it, there had been as many as five cases of cholera. Here, I was taken up to a room so dark, that it was several minutes before I could perceive anything within it, and there was a smell of must and dry rot that told of damp and imperfect ventilation, while the unnatural size of the pupils of the wretched woman's eyes showed how much too long she had dwelt in this gloomy place."

In an issue of Punch the following March the distinguished author of Vanity Fair, William Makepiece Thackeray, remarked about these articles on Labour and the Poor written by Mayhew for the Morning Chronicle: "Of such misery as this, do you confess you had no idea? How should you? You and I, we are of the upper classes; we have had hitherto no contact with the poor... until... some clear sighted energetic man like the writer of the Chronicle travels into the poor man's country for us, and comes back with this tale of terror." While the consciences of reformers both in and out of parliament were stirred into further acts of charity and legislation, the Labour Unions continued to grow from strength to strength. One of the largest Union groupings, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers formed in 1851, initiated several major strikes in the 1860s, and successfully achieved a nine-hour working day in 1871 after a five months' strike. There followed a series of successful strikes, starting in 1888 with the unexpected strike of the overworked and poorly paid girls who made matches for Bryant and May. That same year also saw strikes by the Gas Workers and General Workers' Union for more pay and an eight-hour working day. In 1889 came the Great Dock Strike, lasting a month, which was so successful in drawing public attention to workers' demands that it encouraged a great many more Trade Unions to materialise. Reformers both in Unions and Parliament may have felt they were making progress; and indeed they were, relatively speaking. But research by Charles Booth in 1891 revealed that one-third of London's population was still living on the verge of starvation. As the century drew to its close, Humanitarian Liberalism, Trade Union pressure, and perhaps a touch of idealism brought on by the approach of a new century, were to combine with the growth of workers' voting rights to produce a new political doctrine of Socialism. But Socialism would reveal itself as a doctrine of vengeance, taxing the rich, nationalizing industry, and in its more extreme form of Communism, subjecting its people to over-regulation and oppression. More than half a century later Socialism too would be discredited. Yet despite this long history of self-interest, of man's exploitation of fellow

man and its vengeance, idealists and reformers constantly and consistently remained active, pressing not only for humanitarian reforms, but for the wider principles of universality and justice expressed in concepts of constitutional discipline over autocratic monarchies and governments, and ultimately the Supreme Law of Non-Imposition.

DEMOCRACY
Autocracy to Oligarchy - The Socialist Revolution - Democracy or Majocracy

Autocracy to Oligarchy With the signing by William and Mary of the 1689 Bill of Rights Britain's autocratic monarchy had finally been brought under constitutional discipline and Parliament had won its position of supremacy. But Parliament at that time was an Oligarchy, a word derived from the Greek meaning government by the few – a 'minorcary', representing only a small proportion of the population. Many there were, of course, who would be quite happy to keep it that way. The reformers however, both in and out of government, would now press for continuing expansion of the voting franchise. Nonetheless, Conservatism, preservation of the status quo, versus Reform; this theme was to dominate Parliamentary proceedings for some two hundred years. Following a tradition of earlier times when the King's advisers sat on his right, likewise the Conservatives in Parliament loyal to the Crown and the maintenance of the status quo now sat on the Speaker's right, while the Radicals and Reformists sat on the left. So Britain's Parliament assumed the confrontational shape still maintained today, of Right and Left, Conservatism and Reform facing one another across an aisle, and the terms Right and Left assumed the significance now familiar throughout the world. When the Right-Left polarization first took shape, the Conservatives seated on the right supported the Monarchy and a degree of Royal prerogative provided the Nobility could share in it. They accepted the established order of Church and State, and furthered the interests of landowners, and later the big industrialists. At first known as Royalists, they have subsequently become known by an early nickname: the word Tory is derived from an Irish word meaning robber, doubtless reflecting their appearance in the eyes of many common people.

On the other side were the Liberals, or "Whigs". Formerly Republicans, they now supported the Monarchy provided it was kept under constitutional constraints. They also supported reform generally, including a gradual widening of the franchise. The party of the Left later became more widely known simply as Liberals, until the 1900s when the Left position was taken by the Socialists. Thus the battle lines were drawn, as Parliament struggled with and within itself for 200-odd years, from 1700 to 1900, culminating in the condition of broad participatory government popularly known today as Democracy. Though now a matter of history in Britain, development of a broad and honest electoral system is a story which is still being enacted in many countries today. Two areas particularly would be subject to continuing reform: Parliamentary Representation with its inequalities and corruption, and the physical process of casting votes. The rapid growth of industry and the accompanying flight from the countryside during the late 1700s had unbalanced the traditional representation patterns. Some country "boroughs" (the so-called "rotten boroughs") still sent members to Parliament though they were now totally uninhabited, while huge new industrial cities were without any form of Parliamentary Representation. Reform of Parliamentary Representation was very much a lively topic of debate; frequent meetings were held, and well attended, in coffee houses, public houses, and in the meeting rooms of Political Reform Societies, with proceedings carefully documented for posterity by the Society's "Hon. Sec." In May, 1809 a meeting of dedicated Reformers was held at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand; among the many items debated were calculations made by Grey in 1793, to the effect that 307 English Members of Parliament were appointed, through money and influence, by just 154 individuals. Throughout the 1800s the demand for electoral reform grew steadily, though not without opposition from vested interests. As early as 1819 cotton workers from all around the cotton mill areas gathered in Manchester to demonstrate for male suffrage; they were ruthlessly suppressed by mounted Yeomanry Cavalry in what was to be known as the "Peterloo Massacre". Yet the sheer pressure for electoral reform slowly gained momentum, and by 1830 the Liberal Party was able to defeat the Tories in a general election on this very issue. A Liberal committee was set up to compose a Reform Bill; this Bill was passed in the House of Commons and, after a protracted struggle in the House of Lords, became law in 1832.

It established male suffrage for all those with property worth more than £10 in annual rent, and reformed the various Constituency anomalies, abolishing the "Rotten Boroughs" and enfranchising the new industrial cities. But even after this great Reform Act of 1832 the vast majority of the working classes were still unable to vote. As to the process of election, "having the vote" certainly did not mean, as it does today, that one could in secret and without pressure vote for the Representative or the Party of one's choice. Voting at this time was not conducted through secret ballot, but by a public show of hands; this allowed landlords and employers to "supervise" the voting of their servants and employees. The Tories as landlords, and many Liberals as wealthy merchants and industrialists, influenced voting in a way that made a mockery of the concept of free elections. With the help of the new popular working-class newspapers, a major electoral reform movement developed, whose members were known as the Chartists. The movement centered around a "People's Charter", presented to Parliament with over a million signatures as a Petition of Right in 1839. The Charter contained the following six demands: 1. Universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21; 2. Vote by secret ballot to prevent the abuses of open ballot; 3. Payment of Members of Parliament so working men could afford to stand; 4. Abolition of the property-owning qualifications for membership of Parliament; 5. Equal electoral districts so that each Member of Parliament represented the same number of people; 6. Annual elections so that Members would keep constant note of their voters' requirements. Despite Parliament's awareness of the need for further electoral reform, the majority in Parliament felt that this Charter was going too far, and defeated the motion to consider it as a Bill of Reform. The Chartists later presented a second Petition, this time with three million signatures - a figure representing a quarter of the working population. But again it was rejected by the upper-class-dominated House of Commons. As a result there were riots and uprisings throughout the country; further reform was inevitable.

In 1867 the second Reform Act gave voting enfranchisement to all male ratepayers. This was followed in 1872 by the Ballot Act which brought in voting by secret ballot, thus at last giving the lowest classes real freedom to make their own choice of Parliamentary Representatives without pressure or influence. The working classes were now enfranchised; but their interests were not accurately represented in either the Tory or the Liberal ideologies. They needed a Party in Parliament which would represent their own interests and views, a Party which would fight against the intolerably long working hours, poor pay, overcrowded housing conditions, and all the other perceived manifestations of injustice and exploitation. Socialism had its origins in the writings of Karl Marx and Engels, but Marx's "Communist" theories were considered too radical and revolutionary for the taste of the British. The British Labour Party began as an alliance of Trade Unions and Co-operative Societies, its philosophy influenced by the Fabian Society, an intellectual group of Socialists founded in 1884, inspired by the playwright Bernard Shaw and husband-wife team Beatrice and Sidney Webb. The last few years of the Century saw the gradual formalization of the Socialist programme featuring a shorter working day, improved housing, higher wages, social security, and a minimum standard of education for all. The Labour Party would now become the Party of the Left, with Socialism as the "alternative" political doctrine. The Socialist Revolution Thus far in political history there had really been only one political dogma, known as Capitalism, Laisser-faire, Free Enterprise. Whatever it may be called, it is based on the principle of minimal Government intervention. And that made sense, at least to the ruling classes. They were doing very nicely in industry, commerce and social organization, and they had naturally instituted a form of government which would leave them quite free to get on with it. And of course, leaving people free to get on with it is quite literally what laisser-faire means. For many, everything looked rosy. But the Humanist visionaries were concerned that the lax political climate permitted too much opportunity for some to exploit others, for some to accumulate huge fortunes through the impoverishment of others. Idealists saw this as a form of enslavement, enslavement being defined in simple terms as the involuntary transfer of work or wealth from one person or class to another.

They resolved, as the new Twentieth Century dawned, that there would be no more enslavement of man by fellow man. A worthy aim indeed. And how was it to be achieved? It could have been achieved by requiring Government to do more than just leaving people free to get on with it. Freedom is fine, but perhaps people should not be so free that they are permitted so grossly, so blatantly, even so brutally to plunder the freedom of others. The solution would have been more Government involvement: specifically, sufficient to prevent people from exploiting one another. That would have been the ideal solution; with it the development of political ideals and institutions could have made a quantum leap from enslavement to liberty, from selfinterest to universal-interest. But human nature does not work in such exalted ways. We do not see injustice and replace it with justice; we see injustice and react to the other extreme, replacing one kind of injustice with another. And the new political creed of Socialism was just such a reaction. Hailed by so many as the dawning of social justice, it was regrettably no such thing. Socialism did not abolish injustice but perpetuated it, merely reversing the roles. Instead of the Strong and powerful exploiting the Weak, now it would be the Weak, the poor, the working classes who would, with Government help, exact vengeance from their previous masters. Traditionally Governments had always served the interests of the powerful people who controlled them by doing as little as possible, thus allowing those with power to exploit those without it. Now taking the side of the previously impoverished majority, Socialism would adopt the opposite approach. Instead of doing nothing, or the very minimum, a Socialist Government would throw itself wholeheartedly into the fray on the side of the working people. But it would be halfway through this century before Britain was to have its first real taste of Socialism. In 1900 the first joint meeting of the various representatives of the Labour Movement was held in London to found the Labour Representation Committee, which later became the Labour Party.

The Committee adopted a resolution put forward by Keir Hardie, who would later become the first Labour MP in the House of Commons, to establish, not a Political Party in the first instance, but a Labour Group in Parliament which would co-operate with any existing Party promoting legislation in the direct interests of the Labour Movement. Support for the new Labour Movement increased rapidly, and when the election came in 1906, to the horror of the press and the governing class, Labour captured twenty-nine seats in Parliament, swelled subsequently to over forty seats when the Miners' Federation instructed its MPs to join the Labour Party. During the First World War of 1914-1918, many people lost confidence in the abilities of the Ruling Classes whose generals and politicians were perceived as being responsible for the War's immense and useless slaughter. By the end of the War much of the population had become politically cynical, even semirevolutionary. The election of 1924 gave Labour, through an Alliance with the Liberal Party, a majority over the Conservatives of 91 seats in the House of Commons. The Alliance with the Liberals, however, precluded a full Socialist programme of legislation, and after only a year in office, through an ineptly conducted attempt to restrict publication of a Pacifist article in a Communist paper, the first Labour Government was forced to resign. In 1925, the Conservative Government supported the Coal Owners' bid to reduce miners' wages, demanding that "all workers in this country have got to take reductions in wages". A general strike was threatened and the government backed down, conceding temporary victory to the Left. When the subsidy which the government had given to the coal industry ran out in May 1926, the Government informed Labour leaders that wage cuts for the miners would be enforced. This precipitated the great National Strike of 1926. For nine days the country was paralysed. However, through economic hardship the workers were unable to outlast the Employers and Government and were forced to capitulate. The Employers subsequently took advantage of this by reducing wages generally, and the Government then brought in a Trades Disputes Act, which impeded subscriptions by Trade Unionists to the Labour Party, made picketing more difficult and forbade the Civil Service Unions from membership of the Trades Union Council.

The Government also withheld social benefits from large numbers of unemployed on the pretext that they were "not genuinely seeking work" - an accusation not entirely sustainable within a context of large- scale unemployment. This last action was mainly responsible for the Labour Party victory in the election of 1929, when they won a margin of seats greater than in their previous term of office; yet they were still dependent on Liberal support. This second Labour Government in power was, however, overtaken by the great financial collapse of 1929, which started in the USA and later spread to Britain. The Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald was forced to form a new coalition "National Government" which was itself soon dominated by the Conservatives. Unemployment reached nearly three million in 1931 and had not fallen below a million-and-a-half in 1937. By the start of the Second World War in 1939, there were still up to a million unemployed, even though by then a degree of prosperity had returned to Britain. At the conclusion of World War II in 1945 there was once again a reaction to the Left and the third Labour Government was voted in, this time with a large overall majority. For the first time Labour was able to introduce some sweeping Socialist changes. Labour's main objectives were to extend public ownership in the economy, and to introduce a comprehensive "Welfare State". By the second post-war election in 1950, when Labour was returned to power with a reduced majority, they had nationalised the Bank of England, Cable & Wireless, the major British airlines, coal, electricity, the railways, gas, and the iron and steel industries. Developing the "Welfare State", they had introduced a National Health Service and a National Insurance Scheme. In 1951 the Labour Government was split when the more radical members resigned over a budget reduction in social expenditure. An election was called, and the Conservatives returned to power for the next thirteen years. Labour's "finest hour" had come and gone. With the benefit of hindsight we can see the idealism which motivated the principles of Socialism in its formative years. But we can also see that the Socialist Reformers in their attempts to eliminate enslavement overshot the mark and ended up with excessive and heavy-handed government.

This development was paralleled to an even greater extent in the USSR, where the Socialist/Communist regime created both heavy-handed government and considerable oppression. Claiming that land ownership was unfair the Soviet State took it all. No longer would a small minority of powerful landlords control 90% of the cultivable land, leaving millions with no means of livelihood or sustenance. But in practice of course, no one either rich or poor would have any direct or personal discretion in the use of land and other natural resources which would now be fully collectivized and centrally directed. Thus the State curtailed a substantial area of individual and economic liberty, depriving itself of the initiative, commonsense and pride of ownership of its agricultural workers. Many of them left for the New World, where their imported seeds and hard work would lay the foundations for the great American and Canadian grain belts which continue to feed a large part of the world's population today. Throughout production and industry the story was the same. Claiming that the country's men of enterprise were not to be trusted, the Soviet State took over the total planning and operation of all industry and commerce. No longer would employer exploit employee by paying low wages and maintaining dangerous and unhealthy factory conditions: thus at least in theory. But in practice the substitution of centralized planning and direction with the consequent elimination of individual enterprise and initiative would lead to a steady decline in productive efficiency. This in turn meant that real wages in terms of purchasing power remained low, and that the economy could not afford to invest in new technological development or to effect improvements in environmental and factory working conditions. Wages and prices were fixed by the State on social grounds which bore no relationship to costs; this would ensure social justice of a kind, as well as monetary stability. But without the essential discipline of accounting to clarify income and expenditure, to control costs and measure efficiency, productive resources were mis-used and mis-allocated, contributing further to low productivity and low prosperity. Resources-use and industry had been brought under full State control; and personal liberty went the same way. To ensure that the people got what was best for them in their personal lives the State took upon itself to regulate the daily detail of personal, family and

community life. Housing, health, education, transport, holidays, news, culture, entertainment... everything was government controlled. Certainly every Soviet citizen would now have free healthcare and education and cheap transport and subsidized ballet... all those dreams which neither the poor nor the reformers in London could ever have thought possible in the late 1800s. But the citizens of the Soviet Union would pay a price in terms of liberty; for they would no longer be able to choose how to spend the fruits of their labours nor exercise that discipline of choice upon producers so vital to maintain and continually raise standards of service and productivity. Thus the Socialist revolution would gradually reveal itself. People with ideas and enterprise were suppressed and even persecuted. Hard work no longer had its own rewards. Freedom of speech, of the press, and access to information and knowledge of the outside world were denied to all ordinary people. The new elite would be the Party members, the government functionaries and the police. For the rest of the population class equality, of a kind, had been achieved. As they used to say in Poland: "Under capitalism there's rich and poor; under socialism, we're all poor." The old injustices of Capitalism were replaced with the new injustices of Socialism; and the world, having long experienced varying degrees of enslavement, had now experienced a new political phenomenon: oppression. Enslavement occurs when man is permitted to infringe the liberties of fellow man. Oppression is created when the State itself invades the liberties of those it governs. Have we learned the lesson? It might appear so. Few are the Westerners who speak Russian; but we are all familiar with the Russian word perestroika. Literally it means reorganization; in practice it has come to mean the discrediting and the collapse of Socialism/Communism. And yet as people in the West watch with an undeniable sense of superiority the continuing disintegration of the former Soviet Communist system, they are perhaps unaware that a part of every human soul yearns for the security of the Socialist regime. Under Socialism, the Great State Machine takes care of us all from cradle to grave, educating, entertaining, employing, feeding and housing us, doing what's best for us. We know that without the vital spark of human initiative a nation

cannot grow economically; yet we cling to our Socialistic dreams of "free" healthcare and education, and subsidies for everything we can possibly imagine without even wanting to know where the money is to come from. But the same rules which have caused the downfall of Socialism in the former Soviet Union operate in the West too. All the northern European health systems are now coming under increasing pressure from waste and abuse; the State school systems teach little or nothing at enormous expense; and the expansion of subsidies for anything and everything combined with a marked reluctance to pay for them has resulted in ever-increasing Government debt. Government continues to grow in size and in cost, not only in Britain and Europe, but equally so in that bastion of free enterprise, the United States of America. Do we blame Government, or do we blame ourselves? It is said that in a democracy people get the government they deserve; could it be that irresponsible government is the result and the wish of an irresponsible electorate? President Kennedy once suggested that America's citizens should ask not what America can do for them, but what they can do for America. It might be suggested that voters today should ask not what they can get out of Government, but who on earth is going to pay for it. Wherever it is practised, the nature and the problems of Socialism are the same and are simply stated. The distinctive feature of Socialism is that it takes funds and decisions from individuals and places them in the hands of Government; the services supplied by Government are costly and inefficient, choice is reduced, and liberty is eroded. Socialism has indeed reduced the opportunity for man to exploit fellow man which existed under right- wing, laisser-faire government; but the measure of liberty has not increased, for Socialist government creates its own exploitation through over-organization and oppression, in the name of social equality. Democracy or Majocracy By 1900 the franchise, the ability to vote in secret according to conscience or self-interest, was widely held. And during the first half of this Century the Right-Left choice provided sufficient opportunity for the individual voter's

interests to be reflected in Parliament. "Democracy" had arrived. But what exactly is democracy? Democracy's first and perhaps main attribute is that it is clearly an improvement over Autocracy or Dictatorship. The word Autocracy comes from the Greek word kratos meaning power, and self (autos), the sense being that one Leader holds power for himself solely and exclusively. This term can apply to the Absolute Monarchs of early England or to the more recent dictatorships of Africa and Latin America. Democracy gives power to the people, the word being derived from the Greek words power (kratos), and demos meaning people. In order to ascertain the Will of the People, the Democratic system provides for periodic elections. Democracy is essentially a process whereby the People, rather than an Autocratic Monarch or Dictator, can peaceably present and review options, then select the policy of their choice. The importance and stability of orderly electoral procedure should not be underrated. The alternative is a bullet in the President's head or a full-scale civil war. We should not forget that many countries, far too many, still change their Presidents and their Governments in this way. But Democracy has its imperfections, and its limitations. Democracy means power to the people. But this remains an ideal, and does not reflect the way Democracy works in practical reality. It is a matter of simple definition that we cannot have real and genuine power to the people unless all of the people are of one mind. And in practice, they never are. Democracy, or power to the people, we do not have. What we practise today is Majocracy, or power to the majority of the people. In this sense we still give power to the Powerful; but now "the Powerful" are those in the numerical majority, or increasingly in the United States, those with the greatest financial support. And what of the laws and social conditions which result? The presumption of a Democratic system is that the Majority is "right". The rightness of a law exists precisely because it is a majority decision; it requires no other justification. This presumption is not, nor ever has been, convincing.

The Law is not right simply because a majority of the citizenry supports it. Majorities can be financially irresponsible, oppressive of minorities, or simply wrong by the instinct of political morality which exists in every one of us – when we choose to consider "right" as opposed to self-interest. Wrong, unjust and irresponsible laws are approved by majority-elected governments almost daily. A law is not right or wrong simply because the Majority says it is so. So what is right and wrong in law? What makes a law right or wrong? The fundamental principle on which New Age Governance is based, is that an action is wrong when it injures or exploits others, and that such actions should be prevented by law. Right Laws are laws which prevent people from injuring one another, and the law is at fault when it fails to offer such protection. Similarly, wrong laws are those which regulate personal lives beyond simple protection, and prevention of injury, for such laws are intrusive and oppressive. New Age Governance is based on one simple rule of conduct: Do No Harm. The ideals of "Right Law" and non-injury to others are not new. They are as old as human conscience, ideals which have been expressed since the earliest records of political thought.

CONSTITUTION
Ideals of Constitutionalism - Constitution in the New World - Constitutional Government

Ideals of Constitutionalism Though Constitutionalism, the spirit of Constitution, had already been alive and practised for many years, the Magna Carta, by general consent of history, is now widely accepted as the world's first major constitutional document. Indeed it is interesting to read the constitutions of the USA, both the Federal Constitution and those of individual States, as well as the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries, and to note how many passages from Magna Carta have simply been copied word for word. Magna Carta provided Britain's reformers with a firm foundation, a cornerstone on which subsequent constitutional documents could be added to form the assemblage which, combined with unwritten custom, is commonly referred to as Britain's "Constitution" today.

Constitution limits absolute power. This it achieves by placing conditions on the use of that power, by requiring the sharing of power with those subject to it through a process of debate, and by establishing boundaries beyond which the Law may not intrude. In its early days the Constitution may be weak, it may have little of practical value to say. But once the principle has been established that the Central Power, whatever form it may take, is itself subject to some superior framework of rules and procedures which define the use of that power to any extent whatsoever, the nation is on the right path, and it is only a matter of time before the rules defining the use of Centralized Power are strengthened. No Government, President or Monarch, no institution of Law or Enforcement, should be created or be allowed to exist and to function without a Constitution. No one should have power over others, unless and until that power and the conditions of its use have been strictly defined. In the words of Thomas Paine: "Government without a Constitution is power without right". Today we understand clearly and accept fully the idea that Constitution limits absolute power. Yet for early reformers of autocratic Monarchies it was a contradiction in terms to talk of limiting absolute power. If the power is absolute, then how can it be limited except through a greater power, and what is the nature of that greater power? The "greater power" which sets limits on Autocrats and Parliaments is the power of reason and custom. Relying for support on the strength of public opinion, from the most influential to the broad mass of the people, the spirit of Constitutionalism was originated and developed by theorists and idealists, and based on a universally recognized, instinctive awareness of what is right and wrong in law and social conduct. "The idea of Constitutionalism is older than the existence of written Constitutions. Constitutionalism places limits upon Government, proscribing the means by which official power may be exercised. Constitutionalism establishes boundaries between the State and the individual, forbidding the State to trespass into certain areas reserved for private action. "Constitutionalism also has a deeper and older connotation, demanding adherence by Government to recognized customary procedures. The idea of a Constitution in this procedural sense can be traced all the way back to Aristotle,

who in his Politics and the Constitution of Athens described all the known political arrangements of ancient Greece."
[Constitutions that have made History Edited by Albert Blaustein and Jay Sigler, Paragon House Publishers, New York, 1988.]

The fundamental desire for disciplined and responsible use of Centralized Power was the catalyst which set in motion, then relentlessly pursued the gradual erosion of absolute power, subjecting it to the ideals of good government expressed in the essence of Constitutionalism, in successive specific constitutional documents, and in the writings of constitutional reformers. One of the first major writers on the subject of English constitutional law and custom following Magna Carta was Henry Bracton. Bracton was born, lived and worked in Devon during the early 1200s (his birthdate unknown, he died in Exeter, in 1268). He was both a Cleric and a Justice - as indeed was common at that time, for few but the Clergy could read. From 1245 he was an Itinerant Justice for King Henry III, and from 1247 to 1257 was a Judge of the Coram Rege which later became the King's or Queen's Bench. His (Latin language) document On the Laws and Customs of England is one of the oldest systematic treatises on English Common Law. It also deals in depth with the obligations of, and disciplines upon Royal power, concentrating on three major themes: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers, the "eminent men" of the land. The King must first of all be subject to, and act within the Law. In stressing the King's relationship with the law, Bracton identifies two aspects of law and the apparent contradiction between them. One aspect of law consists of orders and regulations, and in this sense the King is the source of law. The other aspect of law is the body of custom we would now call the Constitutional Framework; here the King must himself be subject to law, for the King and the very institution of Monarchy owe their existence to law in this Constitutional sense. So Bracton insists that "the King must be under God and under the Law, because the King's position owes its very existence to the wider framework of

law. "Let him therefore in his Laws, observe the due process of law through which he himself exists. For the King is not fulfilling his legal obligations when he rules by personal will, rather than by due process of law under the ultimate will of God." Bracton also expects the King to obey his own laws, for the King, though the source of Law, is not outside the Law: "What the King is bound by virtue of his office to forbid to others, he ought not to do himself. Let him, therefore, temper his power by the due process of law, which is the discipline upon power, that he may live according to the Laws, for the Law of mankind has decreed that the lawgiver should be bound by his own Laws. "Nothing is more fitting for a Sovereign than to live by and within the laws, nor is there any greater sovereignty than to govern according to the due process of Law, and the Sovereign ought properly to yield to the tradition and process of Law that makes him King." Bracton strengthens his argument with this forceful reference to Christian example: "That the King must bow to the process and formality of law is parallelled in the example of Jesus Christ. Though many ways were open to Him to fulfil His destiny in the redemption of the Human race, He chose to destroy the devil's work, not through the arbitrary use of His great powers, but by subjecting Himself to the existing laws of justice. In this way He willed Himself to be under the law that He might redeem all those who must live under it. He chose to use not force, but judgement." Monarchs of England and Europe have often claimed to rule by Divine Right. The Kings themselves interpreted the concept of Divine Right as placing them above and beyond the reach - or reproach - of the law, and of those they ruled. Bracton however voices an earlier understanding of Rule by Divine Right, namely that the King is God's Minister, and as such is under obligation to rule wisely and responsibly: "The King is Vicar and Minister of God on Earth, and from God comes the

power of justice. Therefore the King's power is that of justice, not injustice. The power of injustice is from the Devil, not from God. "The King will be the Minister of him whose work he performs. Therefore as long as he does justice he is the Vicar of the Eternal King, but he is the Devil's Minister when he deviates into injustice or injury. "The King is called King, not from reigning, but from ruling well, since he is a King as long as he rules well, but a tyrant when he oppresses by violent domination the people entrusted to his care." Bracton also stresses the requirement of participation in the formulation of laws: "The King should not propose or enact laws rashly by his own will or whim; the law should be properly decided with the counsel of his peers, the King giving it formal authority only after full joint deliberation and consultation." Bracton thus set out the three major ideals of Constitutional Monarchy: that the King should himself be subject to and act within the Law, that he should rule wisely and justly, and that he should rule in consultation with his peers. The battle for consultation was won when Parliament gained supremacy over the Monarch, and Britain became a Constitutional Monarchy. But now a new constitutional challenge would appear: the challenge of subjecting Parliament to constitutional discipline. Subsequent political development would attempt to ensure that, while Parliament would remain and grow as the institution of legislation and of popular representation, the power of Parliament itself should not become absolute, and Parliament should be subject to the same rules of underlying constitutional precedent which had previously been formulated to discipline Monarchs. This was the background from which America's Founding Fathers drew both fear and inspiration: fear of re-creating a new autocratic monarchy or presidency, and inspiration for the creation of a new kind of government, a government representing its people not dominating or oppressing them.

Constitution in the New World

Just as two thousand years ago the rulers of the Roman Empire dreamed of a world where all nations should share in citizenship of the Eternal City, and should have in their own lands assemblies and senates which typified Roman methods of government, likewise the British people during the 1700s felt their hard-won liberties and rights to participate in government could be transplanted. As British people over a period of three or four centuries crossed the oceans of the world, establishing new communities in every continent, their form of government has been planted and has blossomed in many lands. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. In so doing they were consciously echoing the words of the Great Charter which King John had sealed 561 years before, and wherein he had undertaken that no tax may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent. Similarly, the Federal Constitution which the newly independent States drew up in 1787 was to a large extent the formal statement of rights and liberties already won in Britain. "From the unwritten British Constitution came many ideas and principles". Such notions are common currency in American thinking; these words appear in The United States of America, a booklet published by the US Information Service. However, while England had for centuries been intent on limiting the power of the Absolute Monarchy, American constitution-writers now focused on limiting the power and potential danger of the new "absolute ruler" - Congress, and the power of Federal Government institutions generally. This they sought to achieve not only through constitutional provisions and the Bill of Rights, but also through the celebrated "checks and balances" whereby two Houses, and the President as Executive, exercised discipline and restraint over one another. The Judiciary was also placed to act as a restrictive force; indeed the US Supreme Court has traditionally seen itself as the ultimate discipline upon Government power, and champion of the citizen against Government excesses. The supremacy of the Constitution over any and all branches of Government was seen by America's Founders as the essential assurance of orderly and disciplined Government, a view clearly described by Mr Hugo LaFayette Black, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1937-1971:

"The form of government which was ordained and established in 1789 contains certain unique features which reflected the Framers' fear of arbitrary government and which clearly indicate an intention absolutely to limit what Congress could do. "The first of these features is that our Constitution is written in a single document. Such constitutions are familiar today and it is not always remembered that our country was the first to have one. Certainly one purpose of a written constitution is to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers. An all-powerful government that can act as it pleases wants no such constitution - unless to fool the people. England had no written constitution and this once proved a source of tyranny, as our ancestors well knew. Jefferson said about this departure from the English type of Government: Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. "A second unique feature of our Government is a Constitution supreme over the Legislature. In England, statutes, Magna Carta, and later declarations of rights had for centuries limited the power of the King, but they did not limit the power of Parliament. Although commonly referred to as a Constitution, they were never the supreme law of the land in the way in which our Constitution is, much to the regret of statesmen like Pitt the elder. Parliament could change this English constitution; Congress cannot change ours. Ours can only be changed by amendments ratified by threefourths of the States. "A third feature of our Government, expressly designed to limit its powers, was the division of authority into three co-ordinate branches, none of which was to have supremacy over the others. This separation of powers with the checks and balances which each branch was given over the others was designed to prevent any branch, including the Legislative, from infringing individual liberties safeguarded by the Constitution. "All of the unique features of our Constitution show an underlying purpose to create a new kind of limited government." [Completion of the Constitution was followed shortly after by James Madison's proposed ten additions or Amendments, these first ten Amendments becoming collectively known as the Bill of Rights. Mr Justice Black continues:] "Central to all of the Framers of the Bill of Rights was the idea that since government, particularly the National Government newly created, is a powerful

institution, its officials - all of them - must be compelled to exercise their powers within strictly defined boundaries. As Madison told Congress, the Bill of Rights' limitations point sometimes against the abuse of the Executive power, sometimes against the Legislative, and in some cases against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority. "Madison also explained that his proposed amendments were intended to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. "Mr. Madison made a clear explanation to Congress that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to grant greater protection than England afforded its citizens. He said: In the Declaration of Rights which [England] has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Carta does not contain any one provision for the security of those Rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British Constitution. "It was the desire to give the people of America greater protection against the powerful Federal Government than the English had had against their Government that caused the Framers to put these freedoms of expression, again in the words of Madison, beyond the reach of this Government."
["One Man's Stand For Freedom" - Mr. Justice Black and the Bill of Rights - Hugo LaFayette Black: A collection of his Supreme Court opinions - Published 1963 by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.]

Most of the original founder-States of the USA produced Constitutions, and as Territories were granted Statehood, they too felt the need to set forth the essential procedures, obligations and limitations controlling the function and laws of their governments. Right from her very birth, America would espouse and never abandon the principles of Constitutional Supremacy and popular participation for which England had fought so hard and so long. Constitutional tradition as it developed in Britain and spread later to America and much of the Commonwealth was indeed a slow and occasionally violent

process. It is a thousand-year-old story, which may be said to begin in the year 1215 when the Great Charter sought to limit the powers of an Absolute Monarch. Yet despite the persistence of reformers and the progress made at the birth of the United States, the development of true constitutional security from autocratic rule is by no means complete today. Indeed, when one compares the modern Government, with its unlimited rights of taxation, its total lack of financial discipline, and the tenuous relationship between elected Members and their voters, one may reasonably wonder how far real and effective constitutional discipline over those wielding political power has progressed since the Great Charter of 1215. In 1215 Britain had an autocratic, costly and largely ineffectual Monarchy. Today throughout the developed world we have autocratic, costly and largely ineffectual Government. The need for constitutional discipline over Government today is every bit as great as was the need for constitutional discipline over the Monarchy in 1215. It is therefore worth exploring the theory of Constitutional Government in more detail.

Constitutional Government The Constitution in its basic form is a framework of rules telling Government in all its departments and all its functions what it must do, what it must not do, and how it should do it. The detail of Constitutional provisions falls into three categories: the obligations which citizens may expect Government to fulfil; the limitations on the scope of Law; and the rules of procedure within which Government is required to operate. We turn first to those provisions which define the obligations of Government to meet certain reasonable needs of its citizens. One fundamental obligation of Government, that of "keeping the peace", is defined in many constitutions, as for example in the original 18th century manuscript of the Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

- "Government is instituted for the Common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people...." - "Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, Liberty and prosperity according to standing Laws..." - "Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy by having recourse to the Laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character." As with much of American constitution writing, this concept has its origins in English legal and constitutional tradition. Clause 12 of the Coronation Charter which King Henry signed in 1101 states: A firm peace in my whole Kingdom I establish and require to be kept from henceforth. "Clause 12 formally called into being the King's Peace, a conception that had been steadily growing during the Anglo-Saxon period. A disturbance of the peace was not only an offence against the personas aggrieved thereby but an affront to the King himself, and the Royal power would be deployed against the wrongdoer. The Crown was responsible for the maintenance of a peaceful environment within which men could go about their business undisturbed by violence. This conception remains to this day the basis of law and order within the Realm."
[Henry Marsh: Documents of Liberty, David & Charles, 1971].

If the obligations of Government are set out clearly in the Constitution the citizen may have recourse to the Constitution in any cases where these obligations are not fulfilled. But to tell Government what it should do for us is not enough. We must also, perhaps more importantly, tell Government what it may not do by setting clearly defined limitations on the scope of Law. Popular and regularly recurring examples of Constitutional restrictions which protect citizens' liberties from encroachment by Government are provisions which protect freedom of religion, assembly and speech. Examples may be found in Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Montana, as revised June 6, 1972.

- "Section 5. Freedom of Religion. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. - "Section 6. Freedom of Assembly. The People shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action. - "Section 7. Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression." These are rights which Government may not take away, areas which are effectively "off limits". If the Government over-steps the line, citizens may again seek remedy in the Constitution. We turn now to those provisions of the Constitution which define the procedures of Legislative debate: facilities for participation and representation, the method of selecting incumbents for various offices, and their length of tenure. Through such established procedures details may be decided, representatives and officers can come and go, all in an orderly manner following agreed and accepted rules. Rules guiding the conduct of Enforcement Agents in their dealings with citizens may also be laid down in the Constitution. Other rules of procedure may apply to the conduct of Government Administration, as for example in its finances. One of the most basic rules of Constitutional principle is that Government should not be permitted to conduct its affairs in any way which would be unacceptable in the private citizen or business. That the Law-makers, either Monarch or Government, should be subject to their own laws is one of the fundamental principles of Constitutionalism. And yet if we apply this principle in the area of finance we can at once see the glaring disparity between the legally permitted conduct of private sector business and that of Government. Government can go into debt on its current account, then simply continue to go ever deeper into debt without any hindrance whatsoever. Conduct which the Law would never tolerate in private citizens or business is, apparently, quite acceptable in government. This is a sure sign of a lack of Constitutional discipline. Many of the world's governments today are deeply in debt, with an increasingly burdensome proportion of the National Budget now required simply to service

the interest on that debt. Few show any signs of bringing their debts down. Many observers, and to their credit many legislators, openly express regret that their constitutions do not prohibit prolonged government deficits. Though the Fderal Constitution of the United States has no such provision, some individual States of the USA do preclude deficit financing in their State Constitutions. Section 9, Article VIII of Montana's State Constitution, for example, is very explicit: "Balanced budget. Appropriations by the Legislature shall not exceed anticipated revenue." Many economists argue that government deficits should be allowed during economic downturns in order to encourage recovery; the same result can be achieved through the policy adopted by the State of Oklahoma, where the Constitution requires that expenditure be limited to only 95% of revenue, the balance being set aside as a credit against times of economic downturn. The Constitutional approach to government operational and financial discipline is essential; the motivation to improve government efficiency and standards of business conduct is unlikely to come from inside government itself, and even if it does, the disciplines thus created are likely to be more cosmetic than real. Governments frequently pay lip-service to improving productivity and financial discipline, but seldom make any real changes. Self discipline is a noble ideal, but discipline is always more effective when it is imposed from outside, or more importantly, from above. This leads to a consideration of the status of Constitution in the totality of Government, Law and Enforcement. Since it sets the rules for government, the Constitution must by its nature and definition stand above Government as the supreme authority in the land. This position of supremacy can be assured in a Constitutional system by placing the Constitution at the apex of the legislative process. The Constitution, as embodied in a Supreme Court or a Constitutional Executive, thus becomes the Executive, the element at the head of the governmental process which gives effect to each and every newly proposed law. Laws are thus proposed, debated and formulated by the Legislature, then put forward to the Executive where they are verified to ensure that they comply

with the provisions of the Constitution. If successful, only then are laws formally enacted. This represents an idealized, theoretical concept of Constitutional Government; in few if any cases today do Constitutions play such a key role. In Britain the Constitution (unwritten, but largely based on Common Law and precedent) exercises little practical control over the process and content of Law formulated in Parliament, and is quoted more often in academic debate than in the practical operation of government. Many of the institutions of government, from tax collection to the armed forces, as well as government itself, are preceded by the familiar initials "HM" for "His" or "Her Majesty" as Constitutional Head. But effective control remains in the hands of government under the Prime Minister. In the USA Congress makes the Laws which the President as Executive signs more or less automatically into formal legislation. He may send them back on the grounds of disagreement, but Constitutional Verification as such is not a part of the process. Nor does the US Supreme Court verify Laws prior to execution; it only does so when requested by individuals or Lower Courts. In this sense, the US Supreme Court acts as a Court of Appeal (or last resort) at the apex of the Judicial process, rather than a Constitutional Executive at the apex of the Legislative process. There is no form of Government yet devised, or yet devisable, which can be trusted to function successfully and honestly without the discipline of clear Constitutional rules laying down the essential principles to which government can be held accountable. In the florid prose of the Constitution of the State of Vermont, adopted July 9, 1793: "That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep government free; the people ought, therefore, to pay particular attention to these points, in the choice of Officers and Representatives, and have a right, in a legal way, to exact due and constant regard to them, from their Legislators and Magistrates, in making and executing such Laws as are necessary for the good State."

LIBERTY AND LAW
The Ideal of Right Law - Liberty and the Principle of Non-Imposition - Liberty and Government Intervention

The Ideal of Right Law Despite the preponderance of self-interest throughout our history, the pursuit of "Right Law" and the ideal of some ultimate universality has claimed the attention of political thinkers and writers since early Greek and Roman times. "I find that it has been the opinion of the wisest men that Law is not a product of Human thought, nor is it any enactment of peoples, but something eternal which rules the whole Universe by its wisdom. Reason has always existed, derived from the Nature of the Universe, urging men to right conduct and diverting them from wrong-doing; and this Reason did not first become Law when it was written down, but when it first came into existence; and it came into existence simultaneously with the Divine Mind." These principles were expressed by the Roman philosopher Cicero in The Republic. While such ideals can be traced yet further back to the early Greek political philosophers, it was the Romans and Cicero in particular who gave to the Greek doctrine of Natural Law a statement in which it was to become universally known throughout Western Europe down to the Nineteenth Century. Cicero continues: "There is in fact a true Law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal. By its commands it summons men to the performance of their duties; by its prohibitions it restrains them from doing wrong. To invalidate this Law by Human legislation is never morally right, nor is it permissable ever to restrict its operation; and to annul it wholly is impossible." Particularly important here is the assumed distinction between the fundamental laws of nature which are a product of the Divine Mind, and man-made laws. Man-made laws should ideally reflect Natural Law; if they do not, they are in Cicero's view, worthless. George H. Sabine (A History Of Political Theory) comments:

"None of the great Roman jurists doubted that there is a higher law than the enactments of any particular State. Like Cicero they conceived of the law as ultimately rational, universal, unchangeable, and divine, at least in respect to the main principles of right and justice. The Roman Law, like the English Common Law, was only in small part a product of legislation. Hence the presumption was never made that law expresses nothing but the will of a competent legislative body, which is an idea of quite recent origin. It was assumed that "nature" sets certain norms which [government's] law must live up to as best it can and that, as Cicero had believed, an "unlawful" statute simply is not law." The essence of Natural Law is that the Ruler, the State or the Legislator is always subject to the Law of God, or the Moral or Natural Law, the Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human interests and Human institutions. Thus the Ruler or Legislator becomes an interpreter of a Higher Law, rather than an instigator or originator of law reflecting perhaps the interests and profit of himself or the group he represents. This general principle of government - that authority is justified only on moral grounds - may appear somewhat alien today. But it achieved almost universal acceptance within a comparatively short time after Cicero and remained a commonplace of political philosophy throughout the Middle Ages, becoming a part of the common heritage of political ideas. The concept of Natural Law was fundamental to the political philosophy of Henry Bracton whose written comments after the Magna Carta have already been quoted. Bracton particularly stressed that the King must "be under God and the Law", by which may be understood the "Natural Law" or Right Reason. Following this same tradition Sir Edward Coke attempted to impose the discipline of "Right Law" upon the Acts of Parliament in the early 1600s. Coke became Attorney General in 1594 and retained this Elizabethan appointment until 1606, when King James made him Chief Justice of Common Pleas and later, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a post he retained until 1616. Before beginning a new career as a Member of the House of Commons in 1620, Coke devoted himself to writing his Reports and Institutes which became the basis of legal education in England and America throughout the 1700s. As a student, Coke began to trace the medieval origins of Common Law,

collecting ancient precedents that later filled the volumes appearing under the title The Institutes of the Laws of England and the Reports of Sir Edward Coke Kt. in English in Thirteen Parts Compleat. While preserving the Common Law's continuity he reinterpreted it in his own way, reaffirming the "Natural Law" element and defending it against all encroachments. In his opinion given in Dr. Bonhams Case (1610), Coke declared: "when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will control it, and adjudge such an Act to be void." The ideal of subjecting law-makers to procedures of conduct and to basic concepts of "common right or reason" persisted after Coke's death in the turbulent years of revolution. A political reform group active during the Civil War years of the 1640s later known as the Levellers, held that Parliament itself should be bound by certain "fundamental laws" assuring for example religious liberty and forbidding military conscription. This attempted triumph of "right" over Electoral or Parliamentary "might" was not destined to become a permanent feature of English legislative discipline or procedure. Perhaps this was because the "Common Right or Reason" had not been, and indeed still has not been clearly defined. But such concepts would later inspire in the new United States of America the idea of codifying the essential procedures, safeguards and liberties gradually assembled over the centuries into one single written Constitution. The first written Constitutions were motivated by two then-current political theories: Social Contract and Natural Law. The "Social Contract" element reflected the principle that government is established as a result of a compact in which individuals promise to accept the judgements of a common arbiter. An important implication is that, having put their trust and political destiny in the hands of a Central Government, the People are thereby entitled to expect from that Government justice, honesty and competence. And since it is all of the people who are subject to law, not only those who have voted for the specific Party for the time being in office, it follows that there is a presumed obligation upon any Party in power to act in the overall national interest, avoiding solutions favouring specific sectional interests.

Though this ideal may be difficult to define, it has nonetheless been possible to limit Government from practising the grosser extremes of natural in-justice; this is achieved through the Constitution, the function of which is to set out the specific terms of this "social contract" including the procedures, obligations and limitations to which Government should be subject. The "Natural Law" element in Constitutions gave them the sanctity of a Higher Law. "The modern Constitutional State at the time of its origins was justified and to a large extent legitimatized in terms of Natural Law theory. While the ancient idea of a divinely inspired, immutable, eternal Natural Law had been secularized by the Seventeenth Century it still provided a source of permanence in an ever unstable world. "John Locke used Natural Law to support the natural rights of the individual, thus limiting the powers of Government. The written Constitutions which followed Locke's philosophy embodied such traditional natural rights in detailed provisions."
[Constitutions That Have Made History: Blaustein and Sigler, Paragon House, New York, 1988].

Despite their growing commitment to "rule by the people" - or more accurately, the majority of the people - the Framers of the United States Constitution were under no delusions that Democracy of itself could be relied upon to guarantee good laws. In an attempt to preserve discipline and integrity in government the Framers provided a clear and concise Constitution creating a system in which several branches of Government share power, yet limit that power through a series of checks and balances. But even this was not enough. Many of the Framers felt that Liberty should be more specifically defined and protected. Among them was Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who argued that the Constitution as it stood directly after its adoption would "put Civil Liberty and happiness of the people at the mercy of Rulers who may possess the great unguarded powers given."; He demanded such amendments "as will give security to the just rights of Human nature, and better secure from injury the discordant interests of the different parts of this Union."; The result was the first ten Amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights which set specific bounds on the range

and extent of Law. The significance of the Bill of Rights, as with similar Constitutional limitations on Government activity, lies in the recognition of a Higher Law endowing mankind with certain fundamental rights and liberties to which even elected Parliaments must defer. Acceptance of a higher, Natural Law requires that "... the Legislator who formulates laws is a Priest of Justice, the practitioner of a true philosophy, not a pretender to an imitation. Natural Law meant interpretation in the light of such conceptions as equality before the Law, faithfulness to engagements, fair dealing or equity."
[George H. Sabine: A History Of Political Theory].

A modern exponent of "Just Law," Rudolf Stammler [The Theory of Justice, 1925], regarded this belief in Natural Law as the crowning glory of Roman jurisprudence: "This, in my opinion, is the universal significance of the classical Roman jurists; this, their permanent worth. They had the courage to raise their glance from the ordinary questions of the day to the whole. And in reflecting on the narrow status of the particular case, they directed their thoughts to the guiding star of all law, namely the realization of justice in life." Following the Industrial Revolution and the growing complexity of regulatory detail, legislators and political philosophers gradually abandoned any attempt to focus on "the guiding star of all Law", concentrating instead on "the ordinary questions of the day". But it was not, nor ever has been simply a matter of concentrating on detail at the expense of overall strategy; in fact the "opponent" of Natural Law was not and is not detail, but self-interest. The concept of Natural Law is essentially a reflection of that universal-interest which seeks benefit, peace and stability for all. This can be achieved when the Law identifies and prevents infringement of liberty, rather than perpetuating it. Throughout our history we pursued the alternative path, that of self-interest, where individuals seek to improve their own lives at the expense of others, supporting Governments and Laws which promote that objective. This resulted in slavery and feudalism, revolution and civil war, the riches and poverty of the

industrial revolution, and the revenge of Socialism, the whole continuing saga symbolized in the polarization of Right and Left, each side representing a particular class or sectional self-interest. The marked difference between Right and Left, and with it the whole concept of self-interest-motivated, confrontational politics, was not destined to last. Both Party policies, of the Right and of the Left, were class-oriented, designed to further the interests of one class, if necessary at the expense of the other. The attraction of such policies was bound to fade as class differences disappeared, and as people gradually came to the more civilized view that the Laws directing our social conduct should promote the liberty and wellbeing of all the people, not some at the expense of others. Thus we return to the fundamental principles of "Natural Law" expounded by early Greeks and Romans, the "Common Right or Reason" of Coke, that "Higher Rule of Right which transcends Human choice and Human institution".

Liberty and the Principle of Non-Imposition The traditional concept of a universal guiding principle, a "Right Law" to which Legislators and Legislation are subservient, is many centuries old. That we did not formally identify the essence of "Right" or Universal Law was most probably due to the fact that "we" both in and out of Government and Parliament were more interested in seeking personal rather than universal benefit. The basis of New Age Governance returns to this fundamental issue. In our everyday lives, in personal relationships, in our use of natural resources, in our business and commercial affairs, it is possible for some to gain benefit at the expense of others. This is the essential feature of political conflict. Our response to potential conflict is reflected in personal conduct, and in the Governments we choose or accept. Either we choose, and our Laws permit us, to continue injuring, exploiting and imposing on one another so that some may gain wealth through the impoverishment of others; or we attempt to avoid, and our Laws identify and prevent, those actions which are harmful or injurious to others so that we can all live in peace, harmony and maximum liberty. One is the path of imposition; the other is the path of non-imposition and cooperation.

For two thousand years we have taken the path of imposition, during which time that path has been explored through the full range of slavery, feudalism, exploitation, civil wars, and the confrontation of sectional interests. New Age Governance is founded on non-imposition, cooperation and the maximization of the general liberty. When we begin to seek fair rules by which we can live together and collaborate productively without exploiting one another, we will find that the true nature of "Right Law", of universal liberty, is and always has been clear and straightforward, awaiting only Human recognition and acceptance. It exists inside every one of us, for we all know what is right and wrong in social conduct - if we ever bother to ask ourselves. It exists as the fundamental basis of English Common Law; and it has been expressed by political thinkers, writers and philosophers for thousands of years. This is the Eternal Law of Right Social Conduct: that each should pursue his or her own advancement, but in ways which respect the right of others to do likewise; that each should seek his or her own growth, but in ways which do not diminish others. If we then seek to apply this principle of universal-interest in Government, we find that the guiding policy is clear and simple: the purpose of Government and Law is the identification and prevention of exploitation, harm or injury between people. This guiding Principle has already been expressed in many forms through the centuries; it is expressed clearly and concisely in the words of Thomas Jefferson: the purpose of Government is to prevent men from injuring one another. This proposition has implications far beyond its apparent simplicity. Clearly, Jefferson was not confining injury to grievous bodily harm, any more than he was confining the term men to the male gender. The purpose of Government in this view is to prevent people from injuring one another, and injury can take many forms which grow in number and complexity as the world develops. One can harm one's fellow citizens by making and selling a machine which is

unsafe in use; or through incorrect labelling of a food product which results in a user consuming an additive to which he or she is strongly allergic. There are many ways in which we can injure one another, in our personal activities, in commerce and industry, in our use (or misuse) of natural resources. In Jefferson's view it is Government's job to identify and define those actions leading to the injury of others, then to prevent them through appropriate Laws and Enforcement. Thomas Jefferson was not inventing a new idea. He was taking his place in a long line of political theorists and idealists from early Greeks, through Cicero, Bracton and Coke; he shared the same principles with his colleagues as Framers of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and he was handing on a continuing tradition of fundamental rightness with which we are all, in our consciences, familiar. Most people of the Anglo legal tradition (Britain, the United States and many Commonwealth countries) have always objected in principle to any excess of regulation. We dislike meddlesome government; we find unnecessary regulation tiresome and annoying; we abhor oppressive government. Yet few would object to being told they may not do something, if it can be clearly shown that their action is in some way harmful or detrimental to others. And when a person is suffering injury at the hands of another, we would all accept that person's right to remedy and protection in law. The idea is well summarized by one of the leading figures in British justice, Lord Denning, in his book The Family Story: "Each man should be free to develop his own personality to the full; the only restrictions upon this freedom should be those which are necessary to enable everyone else to do the same." This view of Law as the prevention of injury between people reflects the fundamental limitation of social freedom. We cannot all have absolute freedom in our social relationships with one another. If one person is totally free to do whatever he likes, he is by definition free to limit or indeed eliminate the freedom of another, thereby reducing that second freedom possibly to zero. The best we can do is to maximize freedom, and this we achieve when we all accept certain limitations on our individual freedoms so that we do not infringe the freedom of others.

To describe this concept of shared, limited freedom we use the word of LatinRoman origin: Liberty. A Land of Liberty is not a land in which we all have absolute freedom to do exactly as we please. That would be a land of anarchy, since everyone would be free to limit, or eliminate the freedom of anyone else. A Land of Liberty is a land in which we are all subject to some restraint in those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, so that we can all enjoy not absolute, but a measure of Liberty. In this way, the general Liberty can be maximized. Without the Rule of Law people would be free to injure one another in the widest possible sense, each attempting to enhance his or her own personal wealth and possessions through the dispossession of others. This is Anarchy. The remedy is the kind of Government visualized by Jefferson and Lord Denning, Government which exists specifically to prevent people from doing those things which are injurious, harmful or detrimental to one another. When Government as referee identifies those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others, then prevents such actions by Law and its enforcement, Government is limiting individual freedom; but in so doing it creates the conditions in which the general overall Liberty is maximized. The Principle of "freedom up to, but not beyond the point where freedom infringes another freedom" is the Eternal Law of social conduct, the fundamental Principle of Non-Imposition instinctively familiar to us all. When this Principle is observed by citizens and applied by laws, Liberty is maximized, and laws enjoy the guidance of a Principle which fully reflects the age-old ideals of Natural Law, of non-injury, of respect, justice and fair dealings between people. The Principle of Non-Imposition requires in our personal relationships, in business and commerce, and in our use of natural resources, that we respect others as if they were ourselves, that we respect others as we would have others respect us. It will be recognized at once by anyone familiar with the Sermon on the Mount. The Principle of Non-Imposition may also be seen as an accurate reflection of

the age-old ideal of "Natural Law", the "Common Right or Reason". It is universal rather than sectional in its approach and objectives; when accurately, honestly and consistently applied it seeks to maximize the general liberty for all rather than enhancing the wellbeing of some at the expense of others. Only in Liberty will the flower of Civilization unfold. And Liberty, true and full liberty, will be achieved only when all of the people understand, accept, and support with full knowledge and conviction the Principle that in the enjoyment of liberty each must respect, never infringe the liberty of others. Liberty and Government Intervention The Principle of Non-Imposition is an ideal. It is an expression of Human social conscience, of our fundamental sense of right and wrong in our dealings with others. It reflects the ancient concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law. It is the path of universal-interest. But the Principle of Non-Imposition can also be defined with considerable accuracy. We have observed that throughout most of our political history Government has pursued a policy of laisser-faire or minimal intervention in the affairs of society, thus permitting those with superior forces of personality, intelligence and wealth to increase their wellbeing by diminishing that of others. Insufficient Government intervention permits citizens to harm and exploit one another. That is the essence of Right Wing Conservatism. Under this Regime freedom is increased for some but decreased for others; hence the overall Liberty is not maximized. The Socialist reaction gave Government, or the State, considerably greater powers of intervention designed to help the poor by preventing exploitation and readjusting the balance of wealth. But excessive Government initiates exploitation and oppression by the State. That is the essence of Left Wing Socialism. Under this regime Liberty is increased by Government protection, but it is then decreased as Government goes further and creates oppression. Again, Liberty is not maximized. Liberty is maximized when Government offers full protection, but without moving into oppression.

It thus becomes clear that the significant factor in Government policy, and the Liberty it produces, is the Degree of Government Intervention. The Degree of Government Intervention can be shown as a simple straight-line scale, calibrated from Zero to One Hundred Percent. Let us first establish the two "extremes" at each end of the scale. At one end of the Scale we have Zero Percent Government Intervention, which means that Government quite simply does nothing at all. Government is to all intents and purposes non-existent. The result is anarchy in its pure sense of being without leader. In this condition everyone is free to do whatever they like; but this also includes the freedom to limit or eliminate the freedom of others. Freedom can be absolute, or it can be nothing, depending on your strength, skill, cunning, or luck! Liberty, in the sense of a disciplined freedom resulting in a safe and ordered society, could not be said to exist under this regime. At the other end of the Scale we have One Hundred Percent Government Intervention. Here we find total Government control over every aspect of life. This is the kind of environment visualized by authors such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, who attempted to highlight the dangers of allowing Government to become oppressive. Here we find ourselves in the sinister world of Total Control, of citizens directed in their every move and every thought by an ever-watchful Big Brother. These two positions provide clear end-points as reference positions. While there is little current example of zero Government, many of the exSocialist-bloc countries now have a degree of Government which in the confusion following perestroika may be considered seriously deficient, resulting in black markets, widespread corruption, and the control of production and commerce in the cities moving from the State into the hands of mafia-style gangs. It might well appear to the citizens of Russia's major cities that Government Intervention is almost at Zero. More familiar to Western countries is the Low Degree of, say, a nominal 25% Government Intervention. This is represented by the term Laisser-faire, meaning literally "let people get on with it".

The first exponent of Laisser-faire was Francis Quesnay, Physician to Louis XV, who came to the conclusion that government was a necessary evil which should interfere as little as possible with individual freedom. The pioneering thought of Quesnay was developed into one of the most powerful doctrines in the history of ideas by Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, whose work The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) became the gospel of the "System of National Liberty" for the next century in European and American thought. Familiar with the works of Quesnay, Smith built a more solid basis for his attack on government, updated now to reflect the shift of emphasis from land to industry which was concurrently unfolding. Smith held that the source of a nation's wealth is labour. The increase in a nation's wealth therefore depends on making labour more efficient, which is achieved by enhancing the investment of capital, developing specialization and mass production, and promoting the free flow of goods and materials in international trade. To give full play to this complicated but natural and vital operation, the whole process must remain free from artificial restrictions of government. This thesis was undoubtedly proposed as a constructive scientific-economic blueprint for the general growth, welfare and benefit of society as a whole, and in theory at least it is difficult to argue against it. But in production and commerce, as in all aspects of inter-human relationships, there is always opportunity for infringement of liberty, for some to gain through others' loss. And as the Industrial Revolution unfolded it would become clear that infringement of liberty in industry could be taken to, and indeed well beyond, levels which were unacceptable to anyone with knowledge and a modicum of social conscience. Though Adam Smith saw benefit for all, in practice it would be the owners of capital, production equipment and factory premises who would benefit, to the detriment and impoverishment of those in the weaker position: their employees, the ex-hand-weavers now displaced by machines and clamoring for work at any price to ward off starvation. Women and children were paid a meagre wage for

long hours of concentrated work tending the machines which were dangerous, unguarded, and caused frequent accidents for which there was neither care nor compensation. And the Law was predictably slow to act in their defence. The bankers, investors and industrialists, being either in power or influential in the formulation of Government policy, naturally supported a system which gave them a free rein to take advantage of their superior position. Laisser-faire for them was every bit as rewarding as Adam Smith had promised. But at the same time it was becoming clear to reformers both in and out of Parliament that while accepting the basic doctrine of Liberty, an increase in Government Intervention was necessary to protect workers and improve their lot. The movement for reform by legislation in England began with the Factory Acts which between 1833 and 1845 succeeded in limiting the work of children under eleven years of age to nine hours a day and of women to twelve hours. These Acts prohibited the employment of children in mines, and for the first time provided general rules for the health and safety of all workers. So it was that Government Intervention began steadily to increase, with the justifiable aim of eliminating some of the more blatant opportunities for citizen to infringe the liberties of fellow citizen. But the pace of reform was too slow for the newly awakening, increasingly organized and educated working classes. And the pendulum of Government Intervention was to swing over to the other extreme: to Socialism and Communism which represented a much higher degree of Intervention than most reformers would ever have visualized. Under Socialism and Communism we enter the higher realms of Government Intervention, say a nominal 75%, where an increase in the power of Government and the State is actively pursued. "Place everything in the hands of the State", the Socialists urged, "and the State will take good care of us all". Set against the Victorian backdrop of widespread poverty, ignorance, ill-health and malnutrition, coupled with a concurrently growing sense of conscience and the need for reform, Socialism appeared to offer the answer. Only a few there

were who could foresee the implications of high and ever-increasing State Control. One such visionary was Herbert Spencer, who in 1884 wrote: "There is an increasing tendency for administrative compulsion and restraints. The increasing power of the State is accompanied by a de-creasing power of the rest of society to resist its further growth and control. "The multiplication of careers opened by a developing bureaucracy tempts members of the classes who regulate it to favour its extension, as adding to the chances of safe and respectable employment for their relatives. "The people at large, led to look on benefits received through public agencies as gratis benefits, have their hopes continually excited by the prospects of more. "Thus influences of various kinds conspire to increase State action and decrease individual action. The numerous Socialistic changes already made by Act of Parliament, joined with the numerous others about to be made, will soon be all merged in State-socialism, swallowed in the vast wave which they have little by little raised." Spencer's words have proved prophetically correct in the light, not only of State oppression in the Soviet Union, but also of attitudes, demands, high taxes and budget deficits in the West. Nations and their Governments create three kinds of political environment: enslavement, oppression and liberty. Enslavement, exploitation and imposition result from a Low Degree of Government Intervention, or Laisser-faire, which permits infringement of liberty by citizens. Oppression, Government intrusion and State takeover of business results from a High Degree of Government Intervention, or Socialism-Communism, which creates infringement of liberty by Government. And where can we find Liberty? Certainly not at Zero Percent Government Intervention. At Zero Percent

Intervention there is no protection of Liberty whatsoever. So we move away from this condition of lawlessness, proceeding up the Intervention Scale. As we do so a gradual increase in Government Intervention provides basic law, order and personal safety, followed as we progress further up the scale by more sophisticated forms of protection such as consumer, employee and environmental protection. How far should we continue to increase intervention? The Right-wing definition of Liberty as "minimum Government Intervention" has always been a powerful argument, enhanced today in the light of both the experience and the demise of Soviet Socialism. Just as innocence until proved guilty is a cornerstone of the English judicial tradition, so too does the AngloAmerican concept of Law recognize what may be called Presumption of Liberty, the concept that we should all be free unless there is a very good reason for the law to limit that freedom. And what constitutes a "very good reason" for the law to limit freedom? Another very old-established precept of English Common Law provides an answer: it is entirely reasonable for the law to limit or to forbid an action if that action is harmful to others. So we continue to increase intervention gradually until we reach the point at which there is sufficient Government Intervention to ensure full protection of each and every individual's liberty from infringement by others in any way. This point is the halfway mark on the Scale, represented by 50% Government Intervention. Under a regime of 50% Government Intervention there would be no opportunity whatsoever for one individual or class or group to harm or enslave or to infringe the liberty of any others. At this point we have achieved one "side" of liberty. As we make the final move from 49% to the 50% mark, we have succeeded in eliminating all infringement of liberty by defending the citizen against any and all forms of injury or imposition by other citizens. But now we must guard against going any further, which would lead us into oppression. We have already defined the 50% mark as being the precise degree of Government Intervention necessary to prevent any and all infringements of

liberty between citizens. So if we increase intervention any further Government can only begin producing laws which are not strictly in the protection of liberty, and are therefore intrusive and oppressive. As Government Intervention increases beyond 50% a progressive reduction of liberty immediately begins; its effects are painful, and lead ultimately to total oppression. Yet it is an easy road to take. The dream of "total care" by a benevolent Government, though impossible to attain, is nonetheless tempting. And the movement from 50% to higher and ever higher degrees of intervention in people's personal lives can begin all too easily with laws "for our own good". But secretive Government, oppressive laws, excessive industrial regulation and dictatorial land-use planning will soon begin to develop. Under a policy of 50% Intervention, Government prevents individuals from imposing their will and judgements upon one another, but initiates no imposition through Government excess. 50% Government Intervention neither permits nor creates Infringement of Liberty. Government intervenes promptly when, but only when the law is required to protect a clearly identifiable infringement of liberty. If there is any opportunity for any citizen to infringe the liberty of any other citizen, if any citizen suffers infringement of liberty to any degree or in any way at the hands of any other citizen, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 49% or some lower degree of intervention. Government is permitting a degree of enslavement. On the other hand, if Government issues any law, order or directive which is not clearly in defence of an identifiable liberty, then Government is exercising not 50%, but 51% or some higher degree of intervention. Government is initiating some degree of oppression. The ability to define the seemingly diverse elements and options of anarchy, enslavement and oppression, of laisser-faire and Socialism-Communism, of Right and Left on the single common scale of Government Intervention allows us to define Liberty very precisely.

Liberty is maximized when the degree of Government Intervention is 50%: no less, and no more. At 50% Intervention there is no infringement of liberty either by citizen or by the State; there is neither enslavement nor oppression; the general liberty is maximized. At 50% Intervention, the Principle of Non-Imposition is fully and accurately reflected. The Degree of Government Intervention necessary to maximize liberty can thus be identified with a precision which any citizen can readily comprehend, and when necessary, defend. If any man, any woman, acquires or is granted power over any other or others, this will – not may, but will most surely and certainly – lead to abuse, misuse and corruption. The only Power that is competent and can be trusted to regulate the affairs of community and society is the Power of Principle, the Principle that in the pursuit of self-improvement and the exercise of liberty, no-one should injure or exploit others. This Principle of Non-Imposition is neutral and impersonal. It is a shield, protecting from injury, preventing injury. Legislators hold no arbitrary or discretionary power. They are simply Interpreters, applying the Principle in terms of everyday events and actions. The process of Interpretation is clearly delineated and circumscribed. If there is Injury, there must be Protection. If there is no Injury, then there is neither cause nor justification for the interference of law.

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Representation - Legislative Review - Quality, Productivity, Service

Representation The application of the Principle of Non-Imposition to everyday Law is precisely defined in terms of the twin confines of Obligation and Limitation.

The Principle of Non-Imposition obligates Government to prevent any and all injury, imposition or exploitation by one citizen over another. Where there is an identifiable Imposition caused to one person by another there is an obligation for action at Law. The Principle of Non-Imposition limits Government from initiating any Law or Instruction which is not clearly and demonstrably in defence of an identifiable liberty from imposition by another. Without an identifiable imposition there can be no protective Law. The adoption of such a clearly defined Principle affects the process of Legislation and Government, as well as the very status and function of Ministers and Legislators. The Principle itself becomes the ultimate criterion of "Right" and "Wrong" in social conduct. Legislators become Interpreters of the Principle, the Legislative process is directed, not to satisfying the demands of sectional interests, but to the honest and consistent interpretation of the Principle based on a clear understanding of it. The Principle also imposes a clear discipline on the resultant Legislation itself, for the Principle of Non-Imposition can be described with such a high degree of accuracy that anyone having a basic understanding or instinctive sense of liberty can comprehend it, monitor its progress, and defend it whenever necessary. The Legislative Process is initiated when a professional Legislator, a Parliamentary Representative, a single individual citizen, a group of citizens or a Special Interest Society brings to the attention of the Legislature a suspected Imposition, either caused by citizen and permitted by insufficient Legislation, or caused by the Political Administration through excessive or intrusive Legislation. The identification of an injured party either actual or potential is essential to initiate the process of Legislative Debate. The purpose of Law is to prevent injury; the need for Law is occasioned by an injury, either actual or immediately anticipated. The formulation of Legislation which will prevent that injury either totally or as nearly as practicably possible is the object of the Legislative Process, and its fulfillment will conclude the Process.

In order to improve both productivity and opportunity for wider participation, greater use may be made of Specialist Committee Hearings in the early stages of initial filtration and opening debate. The initial debate in Committee must involve everyone who has an interest in the matter. Imposition can be simple, or a very complex issue involving several conflicting Liberties, and it is vital that every aspect be taken into consideration. Similarly any remedy proposed for the avoidance of a specific Imposition may itself cause new imposition and involve other parties. It is only through the widest possible debate and participation that the minimization of Imposition can be assured. There are three main groupings of participants who may be involved in the overall Legislative Process. Full-time professional Legislators are constantly scanning events and activities in order to identify possible instances of Imposition. They continuously review existing laws on a scheduled basis to ensure that past laws remain relevant. It may also be necessary to reconsider or rephrase a particular Law resulting from a request by the Judiciary for Review. Elected Parliamentary Representatives act as a bridge between citizen and Legislature, listening to people's concerns, explaining the Law, and bringing injustice to the attention of Legislature, Courts, or the Constitutional Executive Council as appropriate. Citizens perceiving themselves injured can bring the matter initially to the attention of their Parliamentary Representative if they so wish. Citizens can also contribute to the process themselves directly, either as individuals, or perhaps more advantageously as members of Special Interest Groups and Societies. There are many such Societies representing every shade of interest, opinion and expertise from civil liberties to environment, heritage preservation and transport. These Societies or Groups frequently represent an assemblage of considerable expertise, of informed users or consumers, retired professionals, and people devoted to their respective causes. The Societies are supported by the subscriptions of Members and are thus responsible to Members and responsive to their needs; if they fail in their purpose they simply die through lack of subscriptions and support. Conversely, as new issues and new concerns develop, new Societies are formed.

Citizens can rely upon their Societies to monitor Legislative Proposals in their specific area of interest, and to draw Members' attention to any need for action. Recognition of such Societies and Special Interest Groups as participants in the Legislative Debating Process improves participation and contributes constructively by bringing information and expertise which might otherwise be excluded. Citizens may prefer to bring a Personal Legislative Proposal or complaint to the attention of the relevant Society for consideration and further action if appropriate. Say for example, one finds that some public footpaths are being altered or eliminated in the Resources Planning process, one can contact the local Ramblers' Association, a Society which is sympathetic to and understands the issues involved. Associations can then use their expertise to present a case to the Legislature and exert the necessary influence to get something done. A citizen can belong to as few or as many such Societies as he or she may wish, contributing directly to the upkeep of the Society which in turn is responsible solely to its Members. Typically, Societies represent walkers, environmentalists, economists, employees, those interested in civil liberties and in disciplining the expenditure of the Political Administration. In the New Age it is considered particularly important that young people in their teens should have full opportunity to participate in the Legislative Process, through parallel debates in schools, or through their own Societies participating in Legislative Debates. It has in the past been frequently said of young people by their elders that they are irresponsible; insofar as this may in some instances be true, the simple way to make people responsible is to give them responsibility. Young people now have the right and ample opportunity to participate in the framing of tomorrow's world: it is after all, they who will have to live in it. A wider degree of participation in the Legislative-Interpretive Process, however, does not mean promoting self-interest at the expense of others; participation must be motivated by an honest desire to make all pertinent facts and points of view known, so that in the end a fair and just solution will be reached, a solution which will reflect the Principle as accurately as circumstances permit.

Legislative Review The Legislative Process must also allow for "Review" of any Law at any time, either by the Legislature or by the Constitutional Executive Council. This may be occasioned when the practical application of a Law is found to be difficult or ambiguous or impractical during the Judicial process. Under the Principle of Non-Imposition the Procedure for Judicial Review would provide for three distinct types of case. Should a Court find that in practice a particular Law is not well drafted, or is difficult to interpret, or should the Court suspect that the Imposition which the Law attempts to prevent has not been properly identified or addressed, then the Court proceedings would be suspended and a prompt re-consideration requested from the Legislature or if necessary the Constitutional Executive Council. A Law may also be "returned" to the Legislature where insufficient detail leaves it unclear in relation to the case in hand. In a case where the Law remains a valid reflection of the Principle of NonImposition for all general purposes, but in the extra-ordinary, specific circumstances under the Court's consideration there is no actual Imposition, then the Court would note the exception and dismiss the case, there being no Imposition to answer. The ultimate test of the fitness of any Law under the Principle of NonImposition is plain and simple: if I were to disregard this Law, would I cause injury to another individual? If there is injury, the immediate and effective protection of Law is an obligation; but if there is no injured party, there can be no Law. When the sole object of the Legislative Process is the accurate reflection of the Principle of Non-Imposition, its laws must always be open to Review, by the Judiciary or by any aware and observant citizen with an instinct for the preservation of Liberty. Under the Principle of Non-Imposition, it is the Principle itself which gives authority, obligation, and limitation, to Law and to the Process of Government;

the Principle becomes the source and focal point of Law, taking precedence over Government in all its aspects. The ideal of Democracy is power to the people. The Principle of NonImposition gives power to the people - the power of the Principle by which all Government action or inaction can be called to account. It is clear and simple, a fundamental law of social conduct with which we are all instinctively familiar. We should all have the freedom to enjoy life and improve ourselves as we choose and are able. But we should not do so in ways which are harmful or detrimental to others; we should not seek gain at the expense of others' loss. With the guidance of this Principle we can share resources equitably and use them wisely, we can trade fairly, we respect the property, privacy and peace of one another. We live in liberty, respecting and not infringing the liberties of others. And we prosper: for collaboration is an infinitely more creative, more powerful force than confrontation. Quality, Productivity, Service The Principle of Non-Imposition, applied in Economics and Commerce as a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise sets high standards of management and customer satisfaction, quality and productivity, performance and accounting for the Private Sector. And Government is not exempt from Commercial Law. Government is a service to its consumers and as such is itself subject to the strictest possible commercial disciplines; its performance must be at least as good as and preferably better than the Private Sector. Any Commercial Legislation relating to accounting, standards, productivity or quality of Private Sector business and commerce is immediately and automatically applicable to any and all functions of Government. Government is not outside the Law; Government Legislation, conduct and operations are at all times subject to the Principle of Non-Imposition and to all its resultant Legislation. The process of auditing and applying the necessary disciplines to Government is the responsibility of a specially constituted Committee under the Constitutional Executive Council; no institution, least of all Government, can

be trusted to discipline itself. The aim of Government should be the same as that of any well-run Private Sector industry or service: to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price. The Principle of Non-Imposition: that we should confine ourselves to those actions and activities which are not detrimental or disadvantageous to others, which do not harm or injure others, is as old as Human conscience. The parallel concept of Government, that it exists primarily to prevent such actions, has likewise existed in political philosophy as expounded by reformers throughout recorded history. And the ideal that Government, its function clearly defined and limited, should exercise its duties efficiently and at minimum cost to its customers, is a dream long cherished by reformers and tax-payers alike. Accurate and consistent application of the Principle of Non-Imposition would maximize Liberty; and with its function clearly definable and subject to its own inherent discipline it would do so productively and without incurring an overburdensome tax on our earnings. This ideal was summarized by Thomas Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address given on March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another yet leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned: this is the sum of good Government necessary to complete the circle of our felicities".

LAW and GOVERNANCE in the NEW AGE ECONOMICS AND COMMERCE
Value - Quality - Investment

Economics and Commerce

The Principle of Non-Imposition defines the duty of Government as: the formulation and enforcement of Legislation which will ensure that in the exercise of their liberties citizens do not harm or infringe the liberties of one another. The Principle of Non-Imposition thus rests on a Presumption of Liberty, the presumption that the individual is free unless harming or injuring others. In business and industry this corresponds to a presumption of Free Enterprise as the basis of Government economic policy. While it is vital to allow citizens' enterprise and initiative to realize its full potential in the creation of prosperity, it is equally important to ensure that citizens do not create prosperity at the expense of one another through unfair or dishonest practices. A high standard of living and prosperity is already technologically within our grasp, and we have Human talent in abundance which is constantly creating new ideas and new products; there is no need to obtain wealth through the disadvantagement of others. Government should intervene promptly when necessary to ensure that business is not carried out in ways which are detrimental to co-workers, customers, or the environment. But Government should be careful to intervene no further. Experience in the ex-Soviet bloc has shown that the State cannot operate industry successfully. The role of the Private Sector is creative and productive; the role of Government is regulatory. If Government does its essential job of making sure that business and industry conducts itself in a socially responsible manner there is no need for nationalization. Indeed, Government ownership and operation of business invalidates Government's ability to legislate without bias; to whom does the citizen complain about industrial pollution when the Government owns the polluting industry? Law is brought into being to prevent those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others. But the law is limited to providing the protection of liberty from identifiable infringement, and should avoid oppressive or intrusive law which itself constitutes a prime erosion of liberty. This gives us a policy approach, not of unregulated Free Enterprise on the one hand, nor of Socialistic takeover by the State or over-regulation on the other, but a policy falling between the two, a policy of Socially Responsible Free

Enterprise. Under the guidance of this policy the role of Government in the area of the economy, business and commerce is clearly defined; its essential task is to identify those areas of potential commercial conflict in which the actions of some participants may be detrimental to others, then to prevent such actions through appropriate legislation.

Value The major point of contact between the various participants in business and commerce - employees and employers, producers and consumers, as well as investors - is trade or exchange. And the main aspect of exchange is value, the value of an employee's work, the value of a product or service, as expressed in Pay, Profits and Prices. When Pay, Profits and Prices are determined by disputation, employees dispute, often violently, with employers over pay, to the detriment of good industrial relations and productivity. Prices are determined by "what the market will bear" and by overall economic conditions; the price, in other words, is as much as the producer can get. When there are no political rules by which we can determine a just remuneration, a reasonable profit or a fair price; disputation is the only way open to us. Its supporters call it the "Free Market". Another view is that it is conflict without rules, and as such represents an aspect of anarchy. Its damaging effects on the economy and prosperity are substantial and far-reaching. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise requires Government to replace anarchy, wherever it may exist, with fair rules. And if Government were to be charged with providing a foundation of fair rules for industry and commerce, a first priority would have to be the provision of a system of fair rules whereby pay, profits and prices are determined by measure and consensus rather than by disputation. Fair rules for pay and salary determination would remove one of the major

elements of contention in our industrial relations, paving the way for increased cooperation and productivity. A further significant effect would be on unemployment and the level of economic activity in the country as a whole. Our present method of pay, profit and price evaluation by disputation creates an inherent instability and a strong upward pressure which if uncontrolled leads to inflation. It is universally recognized in economic circles, though rarely spelled out, that the current economic wisdom requires the economy to be maintained at substantially below its productive capacity with permanent unemployment in order to control inflation. A National Standard System setting guidelines for Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation would create the monetary stability necessary to permit economic expansion to full employment without inflation. "Fair pay and prices" may sound like an ideal impossible to define or to attain; in fact experience and commonsense define it, and we have already attained it. Pay is fair if it is an accurate reflection of work contributed. And it must also relate to the work and the pay of others: pay for one is fair if others doing similar jobs are paid the same. Fair pay is easily defined; but is it so easily attainable? If pay is to be related to work done, this would require a system of Job Evaluation for measuring and evaluating work. If we can measure work, then the work amount or work value of each job can be reflected in the pay received for doing that job. In fact, Job Evaluation is already a well established process in certain large companies and government agencies for defining, evaluating and measuring the different work characteristics demanded of a job, and expended in the fulfilment of that job. Though there are different approaches of detail, the basic principle is simple. It begins with work analysis. Work means many different things; each and every kind of work, or work component, must be identified and quantified. The list of work types or characteristics will include such basic elements as previous training, skill, concentration, responsibility, physical exertion, working conditions, job satisfaction (or boredom!), health and safety hazards,

and so on. The list need not, indeed should not at any time be conclusive. New characteristics must be added as they are identified, developed, or called into being by new techniques. Technology does not stand still; new jobs are constantly being created, with new demands made upon Human skills and effort. Once identified, each work type or characteristic is given its own scale of measurement. The common objective in any Job Evaluation system is that all jobs within a company using the system are evaluated fairly and consistently, giving each job a meaningful value in relation both to the work involved, and to other jobs within the company, through a common scale of definition and measurement. The job-value thus established can then be related directly to remuneration. Job Evaluation becomes Pay Evaluation. The application of a system of Job Evaluation throughout a company ensures that each individual's pay relates to work contributed, and to the pay which others in the organization receive for their work contributions. Job Evaluation has been widely used for many years to bring system and consistency to the pay structures of major organizations and companies in both the public and private sectors. At this stage we already have in existence a fair and stable measurement system for defining and evaluating pay. Indeed we have several competing systems. In one sense this is counter-productive, since it creates problems of inconsistency between companies using different systems. On the other hand it provides a wealth of experience and input which could form the basis for a single National Standard System. Indeed if the formulation of a National Standard Evaluation System were to be conducted through the widest possible debate, participation and consensus, the very process itself would clarify issues and build mutual understanding between different occupations and skills. And as we move imperceptibly but inevitably towards discussion of principles rather than personal self-interest, the process would effectively lay the foundation for a new kind of National unity.

Government would begin by establishing a fully representative Committee under British Standards to formulate a National Standard Job Evaluation System (subject to ongoing revision by a permanent Council). The Standard Job Evaluation System would be published in popular papers as a Do-ItYourself form together with full explanation and sample completed form. This would enable everyone to become familiar with it, and to bring out any additional comments or criticisms. The System must be comprehensive, simple to understand, and capable of application to all types of work at all levels, from boardroom through management to shopfloor. With a single guideline System of Job and Remuneration Evaluation agreed, tested and established as a National Standard the ideal of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work could be achieved. But even if we include pay at all levels, pay is only a part of the solution; for pay has value only in terms of purchasing power, or prices. So fair pay has full and real meaning only in terms of fair prices. This leads to a parallel question: what is a fair price? A factory's, or a business's total costs consist of three elements: first, the cost of bought-in raw materials and components; second, the direct labour added in the factory; and third, the costs of capital write-off, overheads and finance. These are the costs of making a product, of supplying a service. From these costs a Unit Production Cost can be calculated for each product or service supplied. If this Unit Production Cost then becomes the Selling Price there would be a direct and fair relationship between cost and price, and therefore between pay and purchasing power. But the Unit Production Cost is not normally equated with the Selling Price. The difference between the two is commonly referred to as the profit and will remain a matter of potential contention thus threatening or even invalidating any progress made in achieving pay stability. Completion of the social and monetary stabilization process begun with a standard system of job evaluation would require some kind of consensus on the disposal of profits, for this is the only way we can achieve fair and stable

prices. There are several claims to a share in a company's profits. Investors must be given a return on their capital; and increasingly, employees are being given a share in the profit as a form of remunerative recognition for extra effort and cost-savings. Another major destination for the disposal of company profit is reinvestment, either in research and equipment or increased working capital, the advantage being that in-house or self-generated investment comes without future servicing cost or commitment to repay. There is one more claimant to a share in the profits, and that is the customer. Indeed with the growing recognition of Pay and Price Evaluation the profit would increasingly be perceived as a "tax" on the price over and above its production content, and should therefore belong to the consumer as much as to anyone. With this view a substantial claim on profits would come from the consumer in the form of lower prices. The objective should be the establishment of public policy for profit distribution. This could take the practical form, first, of an overall profit ceiling. The Health Service already assesses prices for new drugs and services before certification; the ideal of a fair price resulting from a fair profit is hardly revolutionary. Of the profit made, broad percentage bands could be established and gradually stabilized, distributing profit according to pre-set guidelines as between coworkers at all levels, investors, and the internal needs of capital for reserves and reinvestment. The dividend paid to those investment sources not negotiated in terms of fixed interest should be clearly and openly defined with average or upper limits. As it does today, Government would continue to require that companies prepare in timely fashion properly audited annual accounts. But instead of assessing the total profit in order simply to "take a cut" for its own coffers, Government would be examining the profit in order to ensure that it is apportioned according to a consensus formula which respects the claims and contributions of consumers, investors, co-workers, and the future security of the business itself.

Under the Principle of Liberty, fair pay, profits and prices achieved through system and consensus is an important aim in its own right. There are further significant implications affecting industrial relations and stability, economic growth, the level of national employment, productivity and prosperity. Governments, and many economists, tend to speak of unemployment rather like the weather - unfortunate perhaps, though clearly unavoidable. But unemployment is not an act of God, it is an act of Man. It begins with Governments which fail to provide fair rules for the evaluation of pay, profits and prices. People react to this aspect of anarchy in different ways. Some see the possibility of advantage, of making a gain at the expense of employees, or employers, or customers; while others understand realistically though often reluctantly that the gains go to those who fight for them. Either way, the fact remains that we can only settle pay and prices by doing battle. This produces a basic instability and continuing upward pressure which can only be held in check by maintaining a degree of permanent recession. A secure foundation of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation by measure and consensus would create a basis of fair reward for work and the real possibility of industrial peace and cooperation. It would also establish a basis of monetary stability from which economic expansion could take place without inflation, leading steadily to sustainable full employment. And the degree of employment - or unemployment - in an economy has its own substantial effect on productivity and thus prosperity. The socially damaging effects of unemployment, the cost to taxpayers of unemployment benefits and the loss to the economy of potential talents can readily be seen. A less obvious result of unemployment lies in its effect on productivity. It should be remembered, first and foremost, that prosperity comes from productivity. We do not become prosperous by working harder, for this can bring higher wages, but at the expense of free time, family or even health. We become prosperous by working not harder but more efficiently, by continuously developing improvements in design, production and management techniques which allow us to produce more and better goods and services with

less work. Productivity, making better goods and offering better services tomorrow with less work than it took yesterday, is the motive power which drives economic development, produces prosperity, and advances civilization. But productivity, by its very nature, means less work; so where does that leave the redundant workers? In a properly organized economy operating at full capacity, workers made redundant in one department by improved productivity would normally be transferred to another within the same company, with additional training as required. Even if an entire sector of industry becomes outdated, workers can always retrain and take up employment elsewhere. But when the economy is under-utilized and there is substantial permanent unemployment, anyone who has a job is afraid of losing it. One simple and quite understandable result is that no-one will be looking very hard for productivity improvements; and when management proposes some productivity-enhancing modernization it will probably be opposed by workers fearful of redundancy. The moral is simple: substantial permanent unemployment causes opposition to productivity improvements. And since productivity is the source of prosperity, we are effectively opposing prosperity. But the opposite also holds true. With the economic and industrial stability which would come with National guidelines on Pay, Profit and Price evaluation, the economy could be expanded steadily to sustainable full employment. With full employment, productivity could also be increased without opposition, adding its own contribution to increased prosperity.

Quality The policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise begins with free enterprise. It identifies areas in which unregulated or insufficiently regulated economic activity can be detrimental to other participants, then acts to limit or eliminate such practices. A significant element in the concept of Fair Exchange is Quality and

Productivity. The value of a product or service lies not only in the labour and materials it contains, but also in the quality and efficiency of its design, manufacture or presentation. Is less-than-maximum quality, efficiency and productivity in business and industry detrimental to other participants, to suppliers, co-workers, investors, community and consumers? A case can be clearly be made in the affirmative. The consumer is the ultimate recipient of the product or service; indeed, since we produce solely in order to consume, the consumer must be the most important element in the process. Good design, economical production, efficient and stable administration; all these factors have a direct bearing on the product or service as it is presented to the consumer. And it is the consumer who suffers when a product fails to perform as it should, when its quality and service fall below the standard of which current technology is capable, or when it is over-priced as a result of wasteful production methods. When products are poorly designed and inefficiently or wastefully manufactured, when services are careless and slipshod, when quality is poor, the consumer suffers. But so also do the investors if the firm concerned fails to gain its potential market share. And employees suffer both from inefficient working conditions, and from the insecurity and potential job losses inevitably incurred in a poorly run company. The maintenance of high standards in any business is clearly in the interests of all its co-workers and investors, as well as the host community that depends on it for employment and prosperity. In the wider context, businesses and industries are highly dependent on one another, for the supply of materials and components, for subcontracted work, for marketing and distribution. So the quality and reliability of one business affects, and is affected by that of several others. This total integration and inter-dependence of co-workers at all levels and in all departments, together with investors, suppliers, distributors, host community and consumers, clearly reflects the reality that avoidable incompetence in any part of the chain affects others adversely if not disastrously. Suppliers and distributors, as well as co-workers at all levels and in all departments should have the right to expect from one another the highest standards of professional conduct.

And consumers should have the right to expect that products and services reflect and embody the highest currently available techniques and capabilities in efficiency, quality and reliability. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise recognizes this interdependence, and the obligation which it places on all participants in economic activity to strive continuously for quality and productivity maximization. Quality and productive efficiency can never be absolute targets, for standards are always being improved. But maximization of quality and productive efficiency within currently available knowledge and techniques must become the norm if the overall objective of fair exchange and socially responsible production is to be achieved. Socially Responsible Free Enterprise would obligate every business to designate an individual or a department with the duty to be conversant at all times with the latest Standards and techniques of design, production and management relevant to its particular field, and would further require that such Standards and practices should be applied at the earliest practicable opportunity. In case of persistent non-compliance, investors, consumers and coworkers at all levels should have ultimate recourse to law. A start can be made by introducing universal compliance with BS 5750 (or the similar international standard ISO 9000) which provides official certification and monitoring by the British Standards Institute of individual company or industry-group Quality Assurance Programmes. Maintaining the highest possible standards in management, quality and productivity will maximize job satisfaction and job security for suppliers and co-workers, while consumers will enjoy the use of products and services which reflect a continuous improvement in quality at progressively falling prices. And as the whole country becomes more efficient and more productive, so its international competitiveness is enhanced.

Investment The money which Banks lend, or more accurately, the credit facility which Banks extend to borrowers, comes from two distinct sources.

One source is the money placed in term deposits with the Bank by its depositors. However, Banks do not confine themselves to lending out specific monies deposited with them and locked in for a guaranteed term. The major part of Bank lending consists of what may be called systemgenerated credit, credit created by the Banking system to satisfy the demands of the economy for trade purposes and for industrial and consumer loans. This system-generated credit is a continuous flow; money is lent, repaid, and further loans are made. The quantity of available credit flowing through the system at any given time is regulated by the Bank of England in conjunction with Government economic policy. It is important that the quantity of credit available to the economy should at all times relate to the real needs of the economy in its actual, and potential productive capacity. Too little credit, and the wheels of production, trade and consumption will turn at less than the economy's capacity; potential employment and production capacity will be under-used, and consumer demand will fall short of goods currently or potentially available. Too much credit will result in demand for goods and service in excess of actual and potential production capacity. Thus regulation of the quantity of credit flow is the first priority of the Banking system. It is equally important that selective criteria should be applied to the flow of credit: credit is a limited resource vital to economic growth and prosperity. At present however, the actual transfer of credit into industrial and consumer loans is left to the discretion of the Commercial Banks, and no broad selective criteria are applied. As a result, this system-generated credit is created and channelled by the Banking sector with little reference to productivity priorities and often with insufficient financial responsibility. Credit expansion wisely used can be channelled into productive, prosperitycreating investment. But without due care it can be quickly dissipated with no tangible benefit; indeed when used for purely speculative purposes it may even produce economically harmful results.

Speculation in land and property does not create overall prosperity; indeed it does quite the opposite. There is very little we do which does not involve land, and as land prices go up so do the costs of everything, from industry and retailing to office space and homes. Property speculation actually reduces overall prosperity since it increases costs without increasing value. Industry needs investment for productivity and prosperity; and it needs committed, longterm investment. At present there is no mechanism for ensuring that system-generated credit is directed into productive industry. This is not so much the fault of the Banking sector, but rather of a society which has never formally recognized the significance of this system-created credit as a National Resource, with the corresponding opportunity, and the need, to use it wisely. The productive use of investment gains importance in times of economic expansion. The monetary stability resulting from Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation would remove the danger of inflation, thus providing the basis for steady and sustained economic expansion to full employment. But economic expansion is a potential only: it is powered and facilitated by an expansion in the quantity of the National Credit Base. If the expansionary potential of Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation is to produce usable results in the form of full employment, increased productivity and prosperity, we would need to ensure from the outset that the Nation's revolving credit base generated and expanded by the Banking system is productively invested in securely managed enterprises. A policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise would require the Commercial Banks to apply more strictly defined selective criteria in their use of credit, with the specific object of channelling new credit into securely managed, prosperity-enhancing investment. The fundamental justification for requiring the application of such selective criteria is that the flow of credit created by the Banking system is a National Resource, not a resource of any specific Bank or investment institution or individual saver. It is a Resource having a substantial potential for the enhancement of prosperity, and it is moreover a scarce and finite resource. It is therefore appropriate that this Resource should be directed purposefully and publicly into projects which will improve employment, productivity and thus prosperity.

Government guidelines would require, for example, that investment be used to reinforce the move towards the maximization of product and management quality already discussed. This means that investment should be directed into companies complying with all appropriate Standards, beginning with a basis of Quality Assessment as defined for example in BS 5750 or ISO 9000. In reviewing investment options, the investing Bank would take into account an independent assessment of the design of the product, as well as the management, production and quality systems, industrial relations and other aspects of the companies concerned. The Investment Banking Sector would thus be selecting investment "partnerships" in companies reflecting the highest standards in design, management, quality and industrial relations. A National Standard accounting and general Performance Audit format would facilitate a follow-up monitoring process through which investment-banking institutions are provided continuously with performance data from recipient companies, thus ensuring the safety both of the investment loan, and of the recipient company. Given the finite nature of investment credit, the Investment Banking Sector would also need to formulate a broad strategy and order of priorities - both geographically in terms of local/regional needs and across different industries which would maximize its productive benefit. But how can this be achieved without invoking the heavy hand of Central Government Planning which has proved so disastrous for the Socialist-bloc countries? Beginning at local level, every city, town and village should be encouraged to develop channels for debate among business people, industrialists, chambers of commerce, educators, consumer groups and community development institutions, with assistance as needed from specialist professional planners, market researchers, industrial designers, and cost accountants, with a view to establishing as clearly as possible their own needs and priorities. This bottom-up planning and coordination process can be taken through to National level and there coordinated with major industry associations and groupings. Through regional and industry-wide coordination a National

Strategy can thus be developed as a thorough, on-going, Nation-wide assessment of capabilities, projects, priorities and investment needs. The result is not a centrally imposed directive, but a guide to business, a reflection for business as to what business is doing and plans to do at Local and at National level, so that resources can be dynamically coordinated for overall prosperity. The overall objective, as in other aspects of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise, is to try and ensure through debate and a modicum of intelligent forethought that the component factors of enterprise, investment, and market potentialities are drawn together to minimum mutual detriment and maximum possible advantage. Full employment is one of the basic essentials of a civilized society, but it will not come about by chance. There is a tremendous potential for creativity in the world; most people want to do a useful job of work, and to do it well. Unemployment is not our natural or preferred condition. Once the value of money has been stabilized with Pay, Profit and Price Evaluation, investmentdirected expansion of the National Credit Base can create full employment and prosperity, but only if it is channelled into efficient enterprises, and guided by overall priorities. With proper guidance, the expansion of the National Ccredit Base can act as a main source of economic motive power, providing finance and subsequent ongoing supervision for industrial development. Nor is industry the only area in which investment is vital to a Nation's total productivity and competitiveness; infrastructure and essential services must also be considered. The totality of a Nation's infrastructure, its roads and bridges, water and sewage, its power supplies, telecommunications and railways, serves not only the convenience of its citizens, it also serves commerce and industry, and a well organized state-of-the-art infrastructure can make its own substantial contribution to productivity. Here again, scarce investment must be carefully deployed and guided by openly established priorities. It should be noted that the managements of individual infrastructure services,

National Strategy, and the Investment Banking Sector are all working together, without the direct interference of Government. Also significant is that full reliance on investment expansion through Systemgenerated Credit provides a method of expanding and regulating economic activity which is totally independent of Government and Government accounts, thereby removing the temptation to resort to deficit spending as an impetus to economic recovery. If the economy can be purposefully expanded to full capacity and full employment without risk of inflation, if expansion of the National Credit Base can be directed into safe and productive investments guided by nationally established priorities, and if standards of quality and productivity can be maximized and continuously improved throughout industry and services, the Nation's economy can become and remain among the world's most productive and rewarding, while at the same time satisfying the demands of Fair Exchange required under the Principle of Liberty. Fair exchange value for value; quality and honesty in goods and services; and social priorities in the use of our National Credit Base: these are three essential elements of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise. And Socially Responsible Free Enterprise, the freedom of individual enterprise limited only by the requirement of fair and honest trade, is the commercial expression of the Principle of Non-Imposition.

LAW and GOVERNANCE in the NEW AGE NATURAL RESOURCES
National Resources Plan - Townscape - Landpricing

National Resources Plan While a person may be considered to have an inherent right of ownership over

him- or herself and the products of his or her own creation, the Natural Resources pose a different problem. The Natural Resources are natural. By their very definition they are not manmade, and are therefore not automatically associated with or attributable to any individual. But people need to use natural resources for food, shelter, raw materials and recreation and must therefore make claims upon resources which are not inherently theirs. Thus it is clear that rights to the use of Natural Resources must be created or apportioned. Various solutions have been found and practised through the ages. The law may leave individuals to fight out claims amongst themselves, perhaps with a resulting tenure by a few influential families; the law may attempt a fair and productive apportionment; or the State (or dictator or monarch) may take total resources ownership into its own hands. In medieval Britain monarchs handed out land as rewards for favours, creating the great manorial estates. In the 1800s land-use patterns changed as agriculture became less important, giving way to industry and the great urban industrial centres. Thereafter it was largely the free market that determined land use, and many might believe that this continues to be the case. In reality land-use in Britain's overcrowded island today is determined by local and national planning decisions based on complex land-use rules which have grown up haphazardly over the centuries, decisions often made arbitrarily and secretively, and largely as reactions to events of the moment without the benefit of long-range planning or of truly open consultation. The existing pressures on land-use can only increase, as the traditional claims we make upon land - for housing, industry and commerce, transport routes and harbours, agriculture and mining - are now being extended by increased demands for greater leisure access to countryside, preservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and a greater respect for the environment. How does the Principle of Non-Imposition apply to the apportionment and guidance of resources use? We begin with the Principle of Non-Imposition itself, the essence of which is: liberty, until that liberty infringes the liberty of others. On a basis of presumed liberty, the duty of government is to identify and prevent through legislation those actions which are harmful or injurious to others.

In order to establish a basis for fair, equitable and responsible resources use, the Principle of Non-Imposition would require three steps: First, as a working foundation, the formulation of an overall Landplan based on a full inventory of natural resources; second, estimates of current and future demands; and third the institution of a Resources-use Forum in which availability can to the best extent possible be reconciled with actual and anticipated demands. Land has its own inherent potentialities. Certain areas may offer excellent agricultural soil while others conceal significant mineral deposits. Some areas are outstanding in natural beauty, while certain forest or river systems make their own demands for special treatment on ecological grounds. Clearly Government cannot fulfil its role as adjudicator unless and until it is fully informed as to the detailed nature of the nation's total natural resources. The inventory of availability would take the form of a national map on which every kind of resource is clearly indicated. The duty of those concerned with the provision of availability data must be to provide a detailed, continuously updated - and publicly accessible - inventory showing the location, extent and nature of all resources. The Inventory would show, for example: mineral deposits, water supplies, agricultural land graded as to quality and suitability for different crops, areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas suitable for urban settlement, as well as those areas or resources which should be handled with especial sensitivity as being appropriate for wildlife preserves or necessary for environmental wellbeing. The second stage requires the preparation of an ongoing assessment of demands upon the resources both current and anticipated, based on a thorough and fundamental analysis. As a basis the analysis begins objectively by looking at populations and their broad, predictable needs for urban living, trade and cultural facilities, agriculture, minerals, recreation and retreat. Individuals and special-interest groups as "consumers" will then fill out the picture with additional needs and ideas such as wilderness homes or specific recreation facilities. The two banks of resources data: the Availability Inventory, and the assessment

of actual and anticipated demands, can then be coordinated by a Natural Resources and Land-use Forum to produce an overall ongoing National Resources Plan. On this basis, clear guidelines can be established for such broad national uses as major agricultural needs, recreation, mining, transport and urban development. The Land-use Forum has its purpose and procedures clearly set out in its own Articles of Constitution. Its members represent every aspect of land and resources use; its deliberations, as well as the data on which they are based, must be open at all times to public scrutiny and input. Its object is an ongoing National Landplan, representing the continuing definition of zoning and planning guidelines and restrictions at national level, from which local level plans can then be made. But it is not only our Human requirements that we must consider. We need to use the Natural Resources, certainly. But we must do so within the limitations of environmental responsibility, and we must give back the equivalent of what we take through our stewardship and enhancement of our environment. This necessary approach to our relationship with our environment is formalized and brought into the overall resources-use planning process by the simple expedient of according to the Environment the status of a legal entity having its own rights, defined in law, to respectful and responsible treatment and to good stewardship, rights which must stand as equals in law to our own competing Human claims. Just as minors are represented by Counsel in courts of law, so our environment is permanently represented by an Environmental Protection Council operating under Constitutional authority. Some environmental objectives might be listed as follows: zero land/water/air pollution; zero garbage, achieved by eliminating garbage at source through recycling and increased use of reusable containers; promotion of organic farming; identification and protection of all significant natural ecosystems and major wildlife habitats. Under the Principle of Non-Imposition broad planning guidelines are based on objective data providing accurate information on availability and informed

estimates of present and future needs, formulated with the widest possible input. It is a continuing challenge and responsibility challenge incumbent upon all, planners and users alike, to use our resources wisely and responsibly, minimizing waste, providing for as many needs as possible, and reaching decisions in the common interest with the minimum of misinformation and acrimony. A similar policy of land-use has historically been applied in the United States to the administration of that country's surprisingly vast area of Public Lands. It is little known outside the United States that some 270 million acres, about one-eighth of the USA, is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - in addition to land already set aside for National and State forests, parks, and wildlife refuges. The BLM has been mandated by Congress to manage Public Lands on a continuing basis for multiple use and sustained yield, taking into consideration the reconciliation of the varied demands made upon the land, as well as concepts of stewardship and husbandry. A significant area of forward planning in resources-use lies in the development of urban areas. And here there is more at stake than simple land-use issues; for the town or city is a service in itself, a machine which must be properly designed and maintained if it is to function efficiently and fulfil the demands of its residents, its customers. Homes, jobs, shops, market gardening, leisure facilities, all of these and the many other needs of a civilized society are part of what may be called community. An efficiently functioning community offers a wide variety of facilities and opportunities in pleasant surroundings, with easy and convenient movement between them. Needless to say, the kind of sprawling city served by trafficclogged streets so familiar in the past would not be described as functioning efficiently!

Urban Development The typical town or city in the New Age is somewhat different from those of earlier times, yet certain basic principles revert back to the Middle Ages.

Historically, market towns developed as centres for trade and culture serving their surrounding villages, farms and countryside. Movement was on a radial pattern linking the surroundings with the centre. Though movement patterns later became confused by random development, the basic nature and purpose of the town or city centre has always remained: it exists to serve as a focal point for the surrounding communities, providing opportunities for work, trade, and culture, linked like a web to its outlying, dependent area. Returning in the New Age to the basic, traditional living patterns, villages, each with its convenience store, church, kindergarten and recreational green, are linked to their nearest town which offers a wider choice of goods, services, employment and activities; towns are then linked to a central city, providing those highly specialized employment opportunities, goods, services and activities which can only be supported by the overall regional market. The totality of city with dependent towns, villages and countryside is the County or Region, ideally of about three-quarters to a million people, selfsufficient in jobs, in choice of goods and services, cultural and intellectual amenities, with open land offering space for market-gardening, leisure and recreation. The importance of establishing and defining Regional Centres lies in focalizing commercial development at the centre and providing coordinated transport links. On this basis, the limits of villages, towns and cities can be defined, surrounded by parkland giving way to wilderness areas. The fundamental definition of the Community, its nature and its purpose establishes that the Community or Region is not simply an assemblage of unrelated parts, but a working system in its own right which needs fundamental and coherent planning if it is to function efficiently whilst preserving character and a pleasant livable environment. It is particularly important that transport patterns and routes be clearly established. Movement within the County/Region is by its nature radial, reflecting the interdependence of the County's centre linking with its outlying towns and villages. But each County is a self-contained unit; thus the movement pattern between County Centres should represent their equal importance to each other by working on a grid basis, allowing travel from any County Centre to any other with equal convenience.

As to the question of transport mode, in the New Age the private car has given way to shared public transport. Past experience proved clearly that the road/car system was not capable of satisfying the multiple needs for fast, safe, reliable and non-polluting transportation. However, public transport can only serve efficiently when it is coordinated with urban development, returning once again to the need for informed long-range planning both at National, and Regional level. Our historical residential planning concepts, based on wide roads for car access, combined with road widening and provision of more parking spaces in towns and cities, only served to perpetuate dependence on the car, since spread and sprawl can only be served by individual vehicles. Thus the demise of public transport became inevitable. Only in compact residential and urban developments can public transport flourish viably. In the New Age, by concentrating rather than sprawling new urban and residential developments and by linking them with the Regional transport system we can provide both transport for the Community, and customers for the transport. The Regional Centre is the focal point for a radial public transport system serving the surrounding Region/County. These radial transport spokes serve the dependent towns, with ongoing links to the smaller surrounding villages and communities. In the New Age, compact residential and commercial developments require minimum footprint, offer walking-distance convenience between home, work or shops, and facilitate the provision of fast, clean, frequent ad cost-effective shared transportation.

Landpricing The issue of fair prices relating to goods and services is discussed under the heading 'Economics and Commerce'. In the present context we consider the question of land prices. In the past it was always assumed that land prices should be determined by the free market. But its results were not always beneficial. Land speculation drove up prices, and a simple planning decision to develop a field for commerce or

housing could make a farmer rich far beyond his agricultural income. Rising land prices tended to favour sprawl, as homes, shopping malls and businesses naturally moved out to areas of less value. More seriously, from a New Age viewpoint we can now see that rising land prices were economically regressive. Prosperity is created by productivity, by increasing value without increasing cost. Rising land prices do just the opposite: they increase the cost of land without increasing its inherent value, and this has a similarly inflationary effect on the services using land. This was particularly evident in major cities, since "value" in the sense of what buyers get for their money, decreases as land prices increase. There is little or nothing in the way of goods and services which is not affected by the price of land; rising real estate prices affect everything from offices to retail shops, cafés, and places of entertainment. The escalation of land prices became a major contributor to the high cost of urban living. It also caused a deterioration in urban quality of life; many of Europe's old established city cafés which had for centuries been centres for meeting and socializing were now being forced to close as a direct result of escalating rents. In the New Age the city or town centre retains its function as a gathering place since rents, now based simply on progressive capital write-off and maintenance charges, are economic for those low-profit uses such as markets and cafés which provide vitality and enjoyment for users. This is accomplished by vesting tenure in the hands of a locally administered Urban Trust, which ensures maintenance and management of the facility either itself or by a contracted agency. Of equal importance is affordable housing. A home is one of the very foundations of life itself. In the past, house prices escalated beyond the point where young people entering the market could hope to afford a decent home. It is the responsibility of Government, at national and local level, to ensure through informed, participatory and enlightened planning that the Natural Resources are used fairly, productively, and responsibly.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful