Print
THE TUN

 THE SYSTEM OF TENS AND HUNDREDS

How can someone - this author for instance - pretend to promote freedom and independence and restoration of republican government (which we have ever been prevented from having by the Constitution), and then tell everyone to support this or that political party? 

Dominance systems are incompatible with Freedom.  Any political party effort attempts to dominate its opposition.  This includes erstwhile parties like the Libertarians, or the Constitutionists, or any of some 150 "Third" parties that may be found participating in any national election.  Any system that maintains dominance from the top down is wrong.  Any system that promotes freedom from the bottom up is right.  This of course assumes that the participants actually want to promote freedom.  Politicians in general are hung up on their own ego trips and rarely see beyond their own imagined self-importance.

There was an ancient political structural system that did not aim at dominance.  Whether one wants to credit God, or Moses' father-in-law for its inspiration is unimportant.  What is important is that it was carried across Europe long ago by the Celts and served the cause of freedom for many centuries.  It worked!  It was still working in Saxon England when the Normans brought in the rival Roman system. 

Freedom is merely an absence of barriers created to keep one from being free.  There are physical barriers that one can see and possibly avoid.  There are also invisible barriers in the form of ideas, and these are the worst barriers to one's freedom.  One has to be able to exercise individual discrimination to avoid such barriers.  One has to be able to think.  Unfortunately the humanoid mentality is too involved with agreement.  Most feel that should they disagree with the group agreements about them they will be left outside the range of society's acceptance.  Individualism, the basis for freedom, is therefore commonly shunned.  The larger the group with which one feels one must agree, the more freedom one is abandoning.  Little groups like the Libertarians may feel they are supporting freedom, but by the time the group grows to something akin to the D or R parties, there can no longer be any individual thought.  There can only be rigidly controlled agreement.  There can be no Freedom!

Anyone involved in any freedom oriented political effort who is not familiar with the ancient political system of Exodus 18:21 is a fraud.  He or she has never really considered Freedom as a universal attribute.  He or she is just another would-be dominator.  The desire to be enslaved is just as important as the desire to be free.  Anyone who wants to live under a totalitarian system should be allowed to do so, within the limits guaranteed by Exodus 18:21.  If this seems outrageous, it is only because one has never been familiarized with the ancient political system of Exodus 18:21 which was universally accepted until supplanted by the subversion of democracy.  In other words anyone who thinks that freedom may be obtained via the democratic process is a political moron.  Voting is NOT permissible in an appointive republican (real public) system.

As it existed under the Saxons, the basic political unit was called a "Tun" consisting of ten families.  The Tun would handle any difficulties which might arise within its geographic area.  Above the Tun there existed Hundreds courts which would oversee conflict between ten Tuns.  Society was largely self-governing.  It needed no unlimited rule making from above, as we have today, to create infinite barriers to the people's freedoms.  Even with higher judges or kings sitting above, the people were basically much freer than those within any current society.

There can be found evidence of the understanding of the ancient system in Bouvier's or Black's law dictionaries.  Also in Coke's ON MAGNA CARTA, and in the writings of Blackstone.  There are also intimations of understanding Exodus 18:21 in the notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the best of which I've found being in John Lansing's un-edited notes published as THE DELEGATE FROM NEW YORK.  There are doubtless many more references known to students of history more accomplished than I.

The ancient system by the way also existed under the Iroquois Constitution (or Algonquin Confederation) which directly influenced the drafting of our 1777 Articles of Confederation.  I don't know if it came to North America along with very early emigrants from Europe, or if it just evolved out of the unregulated thinking of those who I consider to be our real Founding Fathers and Mothers and not the Founding Scoundrels of 1787.  In this system it was the women of the various clans who would appoint one man to sit in the first council.  From there one might be appointed to sit in any higher councils, up to the Algonquin Confederation itself.  Had we a similar system today, we could go from the Tun level to the Congress (again unicameral of course) in five or six steps, councils along the way serving as precinct, ward, city, county and state councils.  No voting needed or allowed, no politicians or their vote-buying lobbyists permitted, no political parties or conventions.  And no over-whelming accumulation of sovereignty at the top.  Ninety-five percent of the sovereignty would still reside back at the Tun and family levels.  We could go back to where the appointed US Presidents would be unknown entities once again.  For instance, who knows the name of the first US President?  Hint: Washington was #11.

Anyone writing or talking about political reorganization today who still thinks anything positive may come out of the democratic process is a traitor to the cause.  A vote is a direct surrendering of one's personal sovereignty.   Non-involvement in the democratic process is the only way out.  Back to Exodus 18:21 is the only way in.  There has never been another alternative to my knowledge.  It is not of my invention.  I am not promoting any personal ego trip.  I just want to see Freedom instituted for all.  We are about to lose even national sovereignty to an international government with all power at the top.  I would even favor a world government - maybe even as a prelude to an inter-planetary government - as long as it all started out at the bottom and sovereignty were kept there where it belongs.

Best regards,.
Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Upton, Wyoming
(307) 465-2206
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man
who reads nothing but newspapers." [Thomas Jefferson]
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=74897
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint
the great ones to public office." Aesop

___________________________________________