In 1973 the Australia Act was passed which created a new style and title of the Queen of Australia, the Australian Government rather than the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia and the creation of a new Parliament House.

The Australia Act: A task of reading and deciphering legal prose

Over the last few years, there has been a growing number of concerned Australians who believe (rightly or wrongly) that these changes were made outside of the law with unconventional signature schemes by both Whitlam and Queen Elizabeth II that appear to have violated the protocols in place for passing legislation under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

To ascertain the truth of this matter one needs to undertake a colossal task of reading and deciphering the legal prose of the legislation of both this Act and numerous prior Acts which created definitions for nationalisation and citizenship, royal styles and titles, national flags and various other pieces of legislation concerning the countries handling of debt and access to credit.

This is no small task.

The power of an immutable ledger

If such histories and delegations of authority were recorded on an immutable ledger that leverages the ontological properties of the directed acyclic graph (DAG) then the validity of such permissions could be ascertained within a matter of seconds.

As this record will persist in perpetuity, it becomes a source of truth that can be referenced and programmatically evaluated in any new legislation.

If, when legislation was passed, a digital signature was required that conformed to specific protocols which left an immutable attestation from the signatory whose authority was vested in them through connections from other nodes in the graph, then systems could be put in place which immediately rejects invalid or unconstitutional legislation.

Reestablishing trust through validity

Using a similar data structure, The College of Arms which concerns itself with the heraldry of the United Kingdom could track the subtle changes that have occurred to the various devices used by the Monarchs and government and what that means for the jurisdiction we are operating in.

Perhaps such a system could shed light on the significance of the Imperial Tudor Crown being switched out for the Vatican St Edwards Crown, or the change of the Angelic harp to the one that looks more like a Venus Fly Trap, or even why many are ignorant that the Authorised King James Bible 1611 and Bill of Rights 1688 is recognised as active law in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Being able to demonstrate such integrity (or lack thereof) in the processes of elections, referendums, and legislation passing through the houses of parliament, would go a long way toward rebuilding the trust of many thousands of Australians.

When bills are passed by the houses of parliament, funding could only be granted if conditions were met that stay true to the Constitution and other International Treaty or Conventions Australia has ratified.

If fines and liabilities by agencies (that have been set up under a line of authority contrary to that which the Commonwealth of Australia was founded under), were issued with notarization on the Bitcoin blockchain, then perhaps the immutable attestations by those agents under that foreign faith and crown, could be used as evidence to support cases for human rights violations and international war crimes.

Following the NSW Government’s recent refusal to admit United Nations internment facility inspectors into a detention centre in Queanbeyan despite being a signatory to various treaties and conventions, many countries outwardly criticised Australia for failing to honour these agreements.

These actions effectively made NSW a rogue state in international law. In doing so, its inhabitants can find some level of protection by citing conventions such as Hague IV, Geneva, and the Declaration of Human Rights.

Empowering people through blockchain

If people find themselves occupied by a foreign power in their lands, then using the blockchain to exercise their right to self-determination will empower them and give the international community more trust in the results of a ballot or referendum which is recorded on-chain.

Though these insinuations imply a somewhat anti-authoritarian stance, it’s more so the case that people have the right to only be subject to legitimate authority as defined through their Constitution, lawfully enacted legislation, and the founding faith.

If a technology can be employed that empowers a people so that they can prevent the erasure of themselves, or a jurisdiction, or a realm, then despite where the extrapolation of that empowerment takes us, it must be honoured nonetheless.

If that same technology can allow for easier dissemination, visualisation, and automation of assessing the validity of authority, legislation, of liability then it should be supported wholeheartedly by anyone who loves liberty, for that tooling will apply to all people around the world.

By being able to demonstrate the validity of a claim, or legitimacy of authority, everyone benefits.

Such a transparent and provably valid social contract will yield huge rewards as trust is restored within that jurisdiction and people can release themselves from operating out of that state of anxiety and insecurity and step into advancing their people instead.