Regarding the video that broke the camel's back, all their definitions of harm are met by their own claims and laws. But how can folks deploy their laws against them? Why are people told how and from whom they are allowed to choose representatives and leaders?

Human beings are sovereign. King Charles can't will your arm to move. Only the individual themselves can do that. If we want to choose a representative from a list at our leisure, why can the New Zealand government tell us we have to only choose from a list they provide, at a time they decide? King Charles has no authority to make such decisions for us.

We have that authority. We alone, exclusively, have the authority to choose who is on our list of leaders we are willing to delegate our authority to - or whether to delegate our authority at all. I can make my own decisions regarding proposals I choose to authorize be undertaken, for which my money pays, and which rules I need to follow or suffer legal sanction. King Charles does not have that authority any more than he has the authority to will my arm to move and slap me in the face.

I suggest that folks can unilaterally themselves decide to change how they determine the nature of their government. Just like we choose what content we consume on Hive, whether or note we upvote it, and determine the size of our upvote. I have pointed out many times that Hive is competent to be a form of government, including a means of paying for the things we choose to support. If the people of Auckland decided to all use a fork of Hive to debate, choose between officials to represent them, and fund such programs as result, what authority has the current Auckland government to tell them they can't do that?

None. Government are nothing but agreements between sovereign people by which they manage the region in which they live. The people of Burundi, or Davos, Switzerland, have no authority to tell the people of Auckland how they can govern Auckland. Klaus Schwab and Henry Kissinger only have any authority over us we delegate to them. That's how our rights actually work. That's real democracy, not the farcical elections we currently are told we have to abide by. Were we to actually be able to make posts that were selected between by the population of a region, I think we could make this happen.

Clearly we'd have to start small, and recruit our neighbors to use such a mechanism to run the neighborhood, have bake sales, block parties, paint the sidewalks, or whatever. In a neighborhood where we know all the people in it, can knock on their doors and talk to them face to face, we can actually do that, subject to limitations imposed our our neighborhood by it's presence in a larger region. But if all the neighborhoods in a given wider region do this, then those neighborhoods can also do the same thing on a regional basis, and etc.

I believe we can actually make such government happen, and should. There may be means of ensuring that the individuals of that region are only governed by persons and mechanisms they decide, and not have 49% of the population ruled by the choices 51% make. We can only find out by trying it. I think we should, and that we can succeed at it. That would be a form of government I could support, pay for, and even fight for.

Thanks!