With computers, mobile phones, cars and other things we use on a daily basis, we have come to expect that they will improve every couple of years. We expect that things become easier to use, more efficient, faster, more intuitive. Yet when it comes to government, many people have the attitude that "It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got." Few people think about how government could be improved at a systemic level. They cheer for new presidential candidates, and if their candidate gets elected, they believe it's progress. However, that is something superficial when it comes to the structure of government. Real change in a system requires changing incentives, not just a change of figurehead.

One political system which is very different to most modern governments is the Swiss system of direct democracy. In Swiss direct democracy, anyone can start an initiative to change the federal constitution, get popular support of 100,000 citizens, and present it to parliament. The parliament can then recommend the initiative, reject it, or propose an alternative. No matter what they do, the citizens will decide by referendum, to accept the change, accept parliament's proposal, or to keep the constitution as it was.

The Swiss government holds frequent referendums - people voted on 13 propositions in 2016 alone. Referendums on constitutional changes are mandatory, and a referendum for a change on a law or budget is held if 50,000 citizens demand it.

In most modern democracies, there are only 2 major parties - 3 if you're lucky. Switzerland has 5 major parties, and it may be due to this system of referendums. If one of the five parties is defeated in parliament, they can call for a referendum to block the law. That means political parties have a greater incentive to be on the side of the people. It also means that citizens have an incentive to be politically informed, as they have more power to make a difference.

Cruelty-free government is the idea that you should have choice in government, and that governments should be free to experiment. If you believe that direct democracy is superior to representative democracy, you should be free to choose that type of governance, and combine with a community that shares your values. Through experimentation and choice of constituents, governments will learn to better serve your needs.

Watch and listen on Steemit: https://steemit.com/health/@paradise-paradox/homeopathy-just-water-podcast-video

For many educated people, the argument against homeopathy as a system of medicine is pretty straightforward: it's just water. That is to say, homeopathy involves diluting substances to a level that you can't reasonably expect any of the original substance to remain, and therefore any medicinal effect that it has can't be better than regular water, or a placebo. However, they're mistaken.

This is a fallacy of composition - it assumes that because water molecules are identical, anything made from a bunch of water molecules must also be identical. A simple analogy to demonstrate the error in this line of thinking would be to say, all Tetris squares are identical, and so any Tetris board formed with 20 squares has the same properties. Or, all oxygen atoms are equal, and therefore any combination of them must also be equal - which is not true, oxygen atoms can form in molecules of O2, O3, O4 and O8.

In fact, there are at least three studies suggesting that homeopathic solutions are not "just water", but something else - something with a measurable difference. Join me in finding out how in the next watered-down episode of The Paradise Paradox!

Our most palpable fears realised on the big screen...

There are two kinds of laws: “malum prohibitum” and “malum in se”.

“Malum in se” means it’s wrong of itself, something that any reasonable person would recognise as wrong or evil, without legislation needing to make it prohibited. Things that are unlawful under common law, that a court might punish even absent of legislation, crimes that have a victim - things like murder and assault are “mala in se”.

“Malum prohibitum” means “wrong because we say so” - something that is outlawed because of a legal declaration or statute. Things like the enforcement of patents, or a ban on the possession of weapons are “mala prohibita”.

Now remember, “mala in se” crimes must have a victim. “Mala prohibita” crimes do not need to have a victim. You might say that drink driving is a “malum in se” crime, because the drunk driver could potentially cause an accident and injure somebody. You might say that selling marijuana, or another drug, is a “malum in se” crime, because it might hurt the community. But “malum in se” doesn’t include *potential* victims, only actual victims. Drink driving (not including reckless driving) and possession of drugs are illegal by statute, not by common law. If they were obviously wrong, a statute wouldn’t be required to make it illegal.

Now you might believe that “mala prohibita” laws are fine, just and necessary for a society to function. Alright, a lot of people believe that. I do not. But be vigilant with your thoughts - do not delude yourself. When you call for “mala prohibita” laws, you are calling for punishment, under threat of violence, of somebody who has injured nobody, hurt nobody, done harm to nobody. Do you really want to advocate violence, or the threat of violence, against somebody who has injured no-one?

www.theparadiseparadox.com

Many people use the term "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" to justify taxation, and ignore the context in the scriptures. In this case, Jesus's enemies were trying to trick Jesus. They knew if Jesus said that Caesar's taxes were legitimate, his followers would disown him, and they knew if Jesus said that they were illegitimate, he would be arrested.

So, he gave them an entirely honest message, that was coded so the right people would understand. His enemies didn't know the scriptures, but his friends did - particularly this passage: Psalms 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's; everything and everyone in it belong to Him."

So, what should you rightly give to Caesar? Nothing.

Here's an essay which discusses the case in more detail: http://www.simpleliberty.org/giaa/render_unto_caesar.htm

Like and follow on Steemit here: https://steemit.com/pol…/@churdtzu/don-t-give-shit-to-caesar

The flames of liberty will always burn on, in our hearts and minds... and flags.