(Stillness in the Storm Editor) How do we as a people solve the problems of government corruption? This is a question that people have debated for likely all of human history. In the following article by Joe Martino, he suggests that a referendum would be a viable solution. And it is, from a lawful and spiritual perspective, as I will explain.
Martino also asserts that in order for this solution to work, we as a people have to address how we’ve bought into our own enslavement. Freedom, in this sense, was hidden behind a veil of ease—we believed that we could blindly outsource protection of our freedoms to experts and officials who can represent our interests.
But clearly, we can’t blindly trust the government or anyone. Trust can’t be blind. Instead, it requires vigilance on all fronts.
Realizing that corruption is seemingly a staple of modern-day governments, this raises the question, is a representative form of government possible?
In principle, yes it is.
In law, representation of any kind is a form of fiduciary trust.
An individual (called a grantor) gives another (a trustee) the power to manage their affairs in some capacity. The trustee pledges to honor the will of the grantor, to represent their interest as if the grantor were there themselves.
In order for the trust to be valid and real, both parties have to be on the same page and work to form agreements about all aspects of the trust. If done well, the foundation of trust between any two or more individuals enables them to accomplish almost anything.
Looking back in history, every noteworthy accomplishment you can think of emerged through a human association of some kind that was founded on some measure of trust. The more trust that exists in a group, the more they can work together to do things they value—that’s what a society or community is. The prosperity of any society can e measured by how well trust is maintained within it between all individuals and the whole.
Trust and representation are so fundamental to human life that it is arguably the most sacred institution.
The “problem” is that trust is delicate, it can be broken or violated by one who is untrustworthy.
This is where we find ourselves today.
The elected officials we give the power to represent our interest have breached our trust, as Martino makes clear below.
This leads to the question is it even possible to trust someone to represent our interests? Generally speaking, yes it is.
Trust and representation are tools. The fact that these tools have been poorly used doesn’t mean that the tool itself is the problem.
We use trust and representation all the time in our lives. If you have any kind of human relationship, you’re dealing with trust.
How are trust relationships maintained? With honesty, integrity, and proper maintenance.
Trust is maintained because each party holds the other to account. When one person in a trust agreement violates the trust, it is the right and duty of the others to confront them in an effort to diagnose what happened and determine if the trust can be repaired.
If someone violates your trust, you approach them with your grievance and try to work it out. The goal is to restore trust in the other person. But if that isn’t possible the trust has to be dissolved because the nature of the breach of trust is so severe.
Point of fact: a trust only exists where there is good faith, clean hands, full disclosure, and most importantly, a pledge made by all to honor the trust and maintain it.
The thing that makes a trust what it is, at consciousness and spiritual level, is a meeting of the minds.
When two people are “on the same page” about an issue, they each have the same information in mind. This ubiquity of information or knowledge held in each person’s mind across all parties is what allows each participant to work together to achieve some goal.
A trust, like any contract, has a purpose. It does something. But the thing it does can’t occur if trust isn’t really there.
This is a rather abstract way of saying that when someone in a trust agreement violates the trust, because they deceive the other parties (like our elected officials) then there is no real trust. As soon as a breach of trust occurs, no matter how minor, the lawfulness of the agreement evaporates. At that point, it isn’t an honorable, harmonious, mutually beneficial situation. It’s a situation where the deceiving party has taken advantage of the good faith of the other parties, turning it into a parasitic and destructive relationship.
This is true for the relationships between people or the relationship between a people and it’s government.
Again, it should be clear to most that this is precisely the situation we’re in. Elected officials gain our trust by making promises and then violate that trust by breaking those promises or by doing things that go against our interests.
The founding fathers and various other pioneers of representative government knew that maintaining trust in elected officials is an age old problem. Power corrupts, as the adage goes. Thus, they acknowledged, rightly so, that the people always have the right to overthrow and reform the government. And that should a government break the peoples trust, the people must take up this mantle of change, or live under the yoke of false governance—slavery.
An awake, aware, and lawfully responsible people are the best defense against corruption.
Here are five quotes that demonstrate this right of the people.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson
“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise the original rights of self defense – to fight the government.” – Alexander Hamilton
“The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.” – James Madison
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” – Abraham Lincoln
So how does a referendum solve anything?
It is a step toward an ultimate solution but isn’t a complete solution unto itself.
A referendum is itself a trust document. It draws upon the power of the people to organize, get on the same page, and decide how they want to do something. In this case, the referendum would address the breaches of trust of the government and put forth some solution to deal with that.
This is precisely what the founding fathers and other wise men and women of old intended for us to do. It is part of a lawful process of airing grievances as an attempt to restore trust in government.
The referendum is effectively an indictment made by the citizens directed to the government regarding crimes against the people. Having issued it, the correct lawful response on the governments part is to address the situation, to reform and remove the corruption.
It doesn’t overthrow the government it acknowledges its power and makes an appeal to people within it to clean up their act and get things back on track. In essence, it is one last attempt of the people to convince the powers that be to do the right thing.
We could completely overthrow the government using violent means. But this comes with a cost, of course. In an effort to avoid the hazards of open warfare, as well as giving those who’ve breached trust the opportunity to make amends, the referendum acts as an appeal to their senses.
From a spiritual perspective, this is the best course of action because it honors the free will of the powers that be. It also follows divine law insofar as it respects the lawful institution of trust. Should we overthrow the government before making this appeal, it would actually be a breach of trust on the people’s part because they didn’t give the government a chance to change. This is an offense against the law and by extension, the laws of the Creator.
If we employ this strategy, because it respects free will, and the powers that be do not, it puts us at a superior spiritual position. The universe and the systems of cosmic law that govern karma work with those who honor divine law. As a point of proof for that, the powers that be, despite appearances, developed a lawful system of voluntary enslavement to ensure they don’t incur the wrath of the spiritual hierarchy. (Although, as a side note, it’s arguable that various spiritual intervening forces have already taken steps to counter corrupt forces on earth.) Of course, the slavery system, despite how well it was designed is still that, a slavery system. The reason it works, from a lawful and spiritual perspective, is that we the people agree to it, which literally gives the powers that be lawful and spiritual power to be our masters.
But all that changes when we the people take up our spiritual duty and hold those we have trust relations with to account. This referendum is one way to invalidate the existing system of voluntary slavery while also placing the people in a spiritual position that actually compels the universe to intervene on our behalf.
I am deeply encouraged and inspired to know that someone like Joe Martino subscribes to this lawful and spiritual method of solving these global problems.
As one who has been searching for ultimate solutions for most of my life, the discovery of law was a major step forward in my understanding. As many are realizing, the law is a kind of ultimate guide for manifestation or life itself, particularly related to solving interpersonal and social problems, at small and large scales.
But of course, because the law has been used by the powers that be in nefarious ways, a great many people assume that anything to do with the law must be bad. But this isn’t true in the slightest.
Our ability to progress beyond these challenges is determined by how well we can make contact with—and claim the use of—real and valid solutions. If we throw the baby out with the bath water, we’ll hinder our ultimate goals.
Therefore, as I so often suggest on Stillness, learning the law, philosophy, and psychology are arguably the three best bodies of knowledge you can understand to become a fully competent player in the quest for lasting freedom and prosperity…..
>>>>>> Read on ……..