I’ve spent years looking at pernicious laws which the Establishment seemed intent on ignoring and the public seemed to be inured to. The causes of much that is wrong with our society appear to be so deeply embedded that most people treat them as part of the natural world rather than recognising them as man-made features that can be re-made.
For a long time I felt that meaningful change could only happen through a revolution of some kind but I worried about how that could be reconciled with a commitment to law. Eventually I arrived at a definition of Lawful Rebellion which satisfied me – but that definition forced me to seek deeper explanations of our incoherent governance and that, in turn, has given me more understanding of the difficulties of government and the constraints of the legislative process.
I’m less cynical about politicians than I used to be and more hopeful that existing political processes might lead to the kind of reforms I wish to see, without the need for overt conflict. But I’m still conscious that the reforms I’m proposing are inimical to the interests of the most powerful classes and would overturn an order which has stood for centuries. So I am aware that my proposals might be strenuously opposed even if there is no rational case against them.
If my arguments are inadequate then I’ll continue to seek better ones. But if the reforms I’m proposing are rejected without good reason then I mean them to stand as justification for rejection of our existing system.