as delivered by Angchuk to students from different parts of Ladakh who participated in a Winter Camp this past December. Angchuk will be participating in our upcoming Economics of Happiness conference in Bangalore, India.
If the aim of human society is happiness, freedom, and prosperity, there are indeed many alternative ways to achieve this without endangering the earth and ourselves, and without leaving behind half or more of humanity. THIS applies to INDIA as to any other country, though the specifics of the alternatives will vary greatly depending on ecological, cultural, economic, and political conditions.
Localisation, a trend diametrically opposed to globalisation, is based on the belief that those living closest to the resource to be managed (the forest, the sea, the coast, the farm, the urban facility…), would have the greatest stake and often the best knowledge, to manage it. Of course this is not always the case and in India many communities have lost the ability because of two centuries of government policies, which have effectively crippled their own institutional structures, customary rules, and other capacities. Nevertheless a move towards localisation of essential production, consumption, and trade, and of health, education, and other services, is eminently possible if communities are sensitively assisted by civil society organizations and the government.
…
TIME to consider the perspective of Professor Kevin Anderson's views on the subject which have
NOW being aired in an interview with Democracy Now! at the COP21 Conference in Paris this week.
Added by Michael Grove at 10:35 on December 10, 2015
plicit consent is theft. A criminal act in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God. So, it is timely to ask the question: to whom does the sovereignty of our parliament belong? Some would say it belongs to the monarchy. An absurd proposition for three reasons: such a claim is not written anywhere as we have no written consitution; the British monarchy lost supremacy when it was challenged and defeated in the Glorious Revolution and establishment of parliament, and thirdly, it is an untenable position to hold as one person, such as Hitler, may hold power in a fascist state but not in a democracy. The Queen may have the power to order a military coup and dissolve parliament but, frankly, I cannot see the people of this country, who stood firm against the Nazis, stand by and allow a German and her Greek husband to carry out a fascist coup of British democracy without resistance. I would also argue that sovereignty does not abide in the House of Lords as its members are appointed and not elected. Nor does sovereigny lie in the commons as members of parliament are mere tenants, allowed to temporarily occupy the commons with the permission of the voters of this country. MPs are leaseholders, not freeholders and therefore do not possess the sovereignty of parliament. Having dismissed the above charlatans, it follows that the sovereignty of parliament belongs to those who have the power to send and remove MPs from parliament and is irrevocably attached to the voting franchise and therefore belongs to every single voter in the country. And so it follows that if any politician wishes to give away the sovereignty that belongs to us, the voters, then they will have to seek our implicit permission to do so.
They have failed to seek that permission. The implications of this theft are far ranging. It means that Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Gordon Brown had no right or authority to enter into treaties and constitutions with third parties to give away the sovereignty which belongs to the voters of Great Britain.
It means that they fraudulently entered into those contracts and so, in turn, means that those treaties and constitutions are null and void and will remain illegal under British law until the permission of the owners of the sovereignty of our parliament, the voters, is sought and given. The consequence of that theft is that not only is a referndum on the EU a mandatory requirement but also that in the meantime any politician or civil servant who enforces EU regulations and fines is committing a criminal act as the imposition of such fines and regulations has no legal basis in British law. I hold these truths to be self evident."…