The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The best Government is that which governs least > Comments

The best Government is that which governs least : Comments

By Peter Coulson, published 9/3/2011

Gillard is squandering her political capital on pet issues of a party that regularly struggles to attract the support of more than 10% of the popular vote.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Hail our Saviour upon his Great Big White Horsie, the hysterical, ultra conservative, right wing religious nut job embracing the People Skills of Tea Party Moonbats..Behold O Devoted Brethren..scene 10 act 45.. band ready..tra de dah..we present..wait for it..The Wabbott of Libya.
Posted by Wakatak, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 7:40:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“By weakening the focus and resolve of the government, over time, the Gillard Government will continue to drop the ball on the day-to-day economic management of the country's affairs.”

Credit where credit is due. Peter Coulson raises some good points. Gillard’s university activist past is starting to show, in my view. On the plus side, she's destroying brand Labor like they did in NSW.

B.P. Terpstra
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 8:42:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it boils down to the simple probability that Julia and co have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE DOING and just jump to whatever publicity stunt they can without planning for it.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 9:19:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we had a do nothing govt; there would not be anything to complain about.
Thats why toni is so popular.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 9:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the best Government is that which governs least, where 'least' is a concept much like darwin's misunderstood 'fittest.'

thank you for reminding us why the conservative interpretation of the classical theory is inadequate for dealing with complex environmental problems; or the unravelling of the 'knitting', to put it in your terms.
Posted by every name taken, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 9:41:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re; The Howard and Costello legacy
Between them they allowed the profligacy of the banking system which made it necessary for the quick thinking Labor Government to introduce the customer guarantees. Those guarantees and other government policies and programmes prevented the worst potential affects of the GFC in Australia. Too many people do not give the government credit for those policy which were not particularly wasteful and in a downturn even waste can be beneficial as Keynes pointed out. (See last few pages of Chapter 10 in The General Theory). Too often the lack of though by business leaders and mainly conservative politicians and commentators stands in the way of sensible solutions to economic problems.

I wrote to the then Government in 1998/9 warning that their policies would lead to an asset bubble and they did.

Their policies also attempted to reverse the decline in the influences of religion and they did that by substantially increasing Federal Government funding for so called independent schools, thus causing more divisions in society, and by introducing the diabolical system of chaplains in schools, rather than more competent counsellors or other potentially better solutions such as discussion of philosophical questions from an early age. I prefer Terry Lane's thought that,"..as long as religious delusion persists and flourishes just so long will we live in peril"
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 10:35:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That "quick thinking" bank garuntee of the Labor party also, in accordance with the law of unintended consequences, nearly destroyed the managed funds industry overnight and saw the big banks ingest their credit union competitors, spit out the bones and start raising interest rates above fed reserve rates whenever they felt like it.

Even in its greatest moment, the Rudd government was wrecking things.
Posted by Jai, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 10:54:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think even Whitlam might get off the scrap heap when history looks at the current deceit and incompetence.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 11:05:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wakatak,

Shouldn't there be an 'n' in your name?
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 2:12:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Point taken Keith. I think Wakatak wants big government (and Big Sister specifically) to control our lives. He seems emotionally invested in bowing to the state. Perhaps he would feel more at home in Red North Korea.

In any case, Peter’s point about Julia’s lack of focus is a central concern to many voters, as the polls indicate. She is losing touch with the common man. Labor’s carbon dioxide tax too looks like her undoing
Posted by BPT, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 3:23:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The other version of this philosophy is that it is the duty of government to ensure that the country is well run by the people most capable of doing so, and government should only intervene when this is not running well or equitably.

The ALP is trying grandiose schemes of social engineering without the experience to do it well. The voters today are intolerance of waste and incompetence, even when the ideas are good.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 4:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree with almost every position espoused by this author, but agree with part of the conclusion. Labor seems to be addicted to self flagellation by taking on controversial issues and turning them into rods for their own backs by stuffing them up, if not in the policy, then definitely in the politics.
Some examples:
1) Taxing the miners is a sellable policy, but only if people know specifically why it's being done. Just giving more funds to the Treasury is not going to cut it. So far, the government has been very vague about what would be done with this money, leaving them open to 'No'-ny Abbott's criticism that they just like taxes.
2) It might have been possible to win the argument over 'boat people' if a clear and defensible policy had been consistently applied. So far, it's not clear what the policy is, other than to set up a highly unlikely facility in Timor. The obvious conclusion is that Labor simply doesn't have control of this area of policy.
3) Taxing carbon is probably the right thing to do, but that's only the first step. Again the government is very unclear about what will replace carbon, but seems to assume that everyone knows this, which is not the case. Again, unless Labor makes clear how the tax will lead to alternatives and at what cost, they will be painted as being enamoured of taxes for their own sakes (as No-ny is doing).
4) The climate change issue was a joke from the time Julia announced her citizens' council during the election campaign, as good an admission as could be imagined that she didn't know how to solve the problem, which subsequent actions and debates have confirmed.

In other words, Coulson's views on issues are antediluvian, but his comments on Labor's political incompetence are close to the mark.
Posted by Godo, Wednesday, 9 March 2011 6:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In some instances Peter Coulson happens to arrive at the correct policy, but I'm afraid that in essence, Peter is not much different than the governments (of both persuations) because he too bases his arguments on interests, such as efficiency and economic success and prosperity, instead of on basic and obvious morals.

The reason why governments should do the least is NOT because it would be more efficient that way, or because it would increase wealth (maybe it will, maybe it won't), but because it is wrong to interfere with somebody else's life without their consent. Interference is a form of violence, and that is not on!

The one obvious exception that allows interference is self-defence. The moral justification for governments to exist and operate is not because they have fantastic plans, not because they can improve the economic conditions, not even because they wish well for their people. The only moral justification is that a group of people (eg. nation), has agreed to join and share the burden of self-defence amongst them. This includes defence both against external enemies and against internal criminals. No other reason justifies coercion!

The least - and the most - that a government should do, is to protect its people from each other and from outside enemies (that of course includes all reasonable steps that are required to achieve this protection). Because the government is not a voluntary body, anything beyond that is immoral. Anything beyond that is an unjustified use of violence. Any projects beyond that should be left to voluntary bodies.

Efficiency, success, prosperity and the like may of course be considered next, but only once individual autonomy is assured, only once rule #1 of non-violence is observed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:16:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When we have some details of the carbon tax you will be able to talk about it. Until then there is nothing to say. A statement has been made there will be a carbon tax, and that is all we know. It will take months before the concept is in talkable fashion. Some people seem to think there should have been secret meetings to make the policy before the idea was released. Tax the polluter and not the consumer is the idea, a consumer could become a polluter if more than the necessary number of items are purchased. That is all we know at this stage.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 10 March 2011 8:10:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are certainly many spheres of life governments do not need to interfere. The worst impositions are expecting small business to do the work of governments by collecting taxes on their behalf.

However, the revival of the Tea Party mentality in the US which argues for reductions in government spending, strengthening of Constitutional Rights and civil liberties (usually only in response to gun control but little else to do with liberty in relation to reducing poverty). They tout free markets while at the same time lament the loss of US jobs.

These people seem to have no concern about access to health care in a country that purports to be First World. I'm alright Jack was never a good look and while some ride high on the lack of regulatory control, others get left on the scrap heap.

There is nothing evil in the idea that taxes be paid for the collective or greater good. Everyone contributes and essential services like health care are no longer a commodity just for the middle classes and the wealthy. A form of insurance that benefits the whole. Many poor people in the US take out dodgy insurance policies and find they are dead from cancer while fighting the companies for payment. Companies that benefit from poor regulatory regimes and a corrupt system of review which includes, CEOs, board members, doctors, politicians, government employees, major shareholders and even some sectors of the Conservative Right Wing media.

The problem is governments spend too much on vote buying middle class welfare, programs that only justifies the existence of some public servants and on window dressing that looks like something is being done to parade about at the next election campaign and/or to quell the fears or consciences of the voting public. Trouble is there is growing tensions and people are no longer buying it.

It is not necessarily about governing 'least' but governing better, working out what we all want governments to do and what can be left to others.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 10 March 2011 10:27:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy