The Libertarian concept of Liberty was best (to my mind) defined
in the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man" (1789), and
Libertarian as a system of government is closest to attainment in
Switzerland. Other countries have, after a revolution,
established a form of Libertarian government. They are (in
approximate order) US, UK, France, Australia.
IV Liberty consists in the
freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence
the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except
those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of
the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
Since then, (except in Switzerland) the Libertarian cause has mostly
gone downhill. This can be determined by signs like the
following: * Recreational drugs illegal. * Section 18C. *
Restrictions on Guns *.
Australia's founding fathers considered installing a form of "Citizen
Initiated Legislation" similar to that in Switzerland into our
constitution. It must be admitted, a few US states have
introduced a process whereby citizens could introduce and enact State
legislation, bypassing the elected government. A good example is
So what liberties are we losing and how?
If I explain the HOW you should see the WHAT. We are continually
saddled with corrupt politicians of both major parties who take money
to regulate or enact legislation. Downer. Obeid. Coal
mines. As examples:
- Retired politicians offered board positions
on corporations they previously regulated.
- Big corporations (e.g. Coles, Woolworths)
make big donations to politics. Is it a coincidence that over
regulation that disadvantages small traders results?
- And G*D alone (and possibly the CFMEU) know
- How come our taxi industry is so regulated,
and why are plates worth $400,000 in NSW? Uber demonstrates the
personal transport system of the future, hopefully with driverless cars.
- Why did Neumann PROMISE no CSG mines to
Allan Jones, only to break the promise weeks after he was elected with
Well, why do not our elected representatives fix it?
is a dirty business. If I were to start a political party, I doubt that
any credible (Public or Private) media organization would give me a
mention. And if it did, I expect it would most likely be disparaging.
As an aside, Tony Abbott is currently under fire. I
cannot see anything that personally distinguishes him. He mouths
the same platitudes as the rest. I can only suspect that he is
not amenable to secret deals.
And yes there is biased reporting by “Your ABC” and the Fairfax media
and even the Murdoch presses. Only the shock jocks can be accused
of a recent retreat to impartial reporting on Abbott.
As two complete non sequiturs to that aside, might I
mention (1) that in today's (14th March) "Australian" it is noted that "Turnbull
shake-up". that will "abolish
pre-internet media laws...trigger series of takeovers.." Or
(2) that the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is currently negotiating
(among other issues copyright) in utter secrecy, and that Fox and other
media owned by Murdoch has a huge investment in film and other
copyrights that need protection. My position on copyright is that
copyright protection has exceeded it's socially useful limit.
If I were to start a party, the centerpiece would be
an offer to install a citizen's legislative guidance system for my
electorate. Any citizen within the electorate could apply on my
website and have login account details snailmailed to their registered
address. That account would be a bit like a bank account. I
would post legislative options, and they could indicate how I should
vote. Any time up to the official (Senate or Representatives)
vote they could check up on and change their vote. A bit like the
Ivote system run by the NSW
I would develop some sort of statistical formula,
like if 10% of the electorate voted, I would need a 90% majority of
that 10% to feel obliged to follow their advice.
But then again, maybe the media would love such a
IG4 Inter Generational
I am indebted to Bernard Salt's
(demographer) article on IG4 in the Australian p26 of 19th March 2015
for the expose below.
The article is quite detailed. IG1, IG2 and IG3 used ABS
(Australian Bureau of Statistics) to determine NOM (Nett Overseas
Migration rate) until 2055. For IG4 they changed, and used a
215,000 where the ABS prediction was 240,000. This decrease by
25,000 of mostly young migrants (who can be expected to have taxpayer
children) will substantially affect the age structure of the
population, making the proportion of age pension recipients
Another variation from ABS figures is life expectancy, which IG4
extends by about 3 years. Again, this will make the proportion of
age pension recipients even higher.
And a third variation from ABS is birthrate, which IG4 pushes up from
1.8 to 1.9 per woman.
Possible explanation offered by Bernard Salt: "IG4 is
designed to prompt a conversation about the sustainability of tax and
budgets .. .. in the lead up to the May budget."
- Lower migrant intake = fewer workers and taxpayers."
(So taxes go up, or pensions get cut)
- Greater life expectancy = longer period of
dependence. (So taxes go up, or pensions
- More kids = more dependents. (So taxes go up, or
pensions get cut)
Yeah, well I suppose that is a possible narrative.