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.

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.

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.