Bankrupt RI City Loses All Pretense of Self Governance

“When the state stepped in to take over financially struggling Central Falls in 2010, Rhode Island’s smallest city lost something fundamental: its democratic government.

“Mayor Charles Moreau would be forced to give back his key to City Hall, and the City Council was relegated to advisory status — unsure for months whether it was even allowed to convene.

“They’re being governed without elected representation,” state Sen. Elizabeth Crowley said of Central Falls’ 19,000 residents. “That flies in the face of the democratic principle that our country is founded on, not only our little city. Maybe we should have a tea party and dump some tea in the Blackstone” River.”

http://news.yahoo.com/troubled-ri-city-receivership-loses-democracy-164854804.html

I say “pretense” because we’ve all lost our right to self-governance due to the labyrinth of interlocking public and private debt “obligations” we were lured into during the “federal reserve’s” bubbles, and in the name of protecting the rights of anonymous “investors” we’re all subject to the confiscation of our homes, businesses, libraries, highways and governments.  When “property rights” conflict with democracy, governance becomes a matter of arithmetic without even a token gesture at democracy or consent.  It’s as if debt was a law of physics rather than a legal construct whose legitimacy is derived from a presumption of fairness and the rule of law in a financial system which has now been exposed as fraudulent to the core, to the very basis of money itself.

When a family is foreclosed on and children are put into the street, it’s done in the name of protecting “our” rights as participants in the marketplace.  But this is where the terminology breaks down.  There are two “our”‘s here: individuals and the collective whole.  The larger system is assumed to be in some sense a fair reflection of the will of the masses of the individuals that comprise it.  But it shouldn’t be necessary to point out that historical experience proves this assumption is utterly false.  The larger system is not derivable from the wills of individuals because its internal dynamics create new entities like corporations and banks which themselves demand recognition as individuals with rights.  When we enter into contracts with these larger, immortal “individuals” we are inherently at a disadvantage, as demonstrated by their lawlessness and impunity in the present time.  It’s as if a sheep entered into a contract with a tiger, except in this case the “tiger” consists of groups of other sheep or the entire herd.  The contract is unenforcable by the weaker, therefore the contract itself is inherently fraudulent.  The rule of the jungle has always applied, but now it’s no longer hidden behind false promises, it’s out in the open.

This line of reasoning is based on common sense and history, but now we know that this type of collective “individuality” arises in complex systems in general, in a wide variety of domains ranging from biological cells to neural nets to economies.  The will of your body is not a simple average of the wills of its individual cells, even when it comes to physical survival, as evidenced by suicide.  This phenomenon is called “emergence”.  Applying this knowledge to human affairs holds great promise, if we can survive the coming systemic breakdown.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.