The technical legality of abolishing the states or implementing a considerably modified version of states leaves me cold.

We should surely be carefully analysing the advantages and disadvantages, then deciding what to do, and undertaking the necessary legal reforms accordingly, or leaving it as it is.

My preference would be for a two-tiered government system, with the lower tier being a hybrid between current local and state entities. I reckon we should have about thirty states, based roughly on the population size of Tasmania (about half a million), with larger-population states for the big cities and perhaps smaller ones for the vast lowly-populated north and northwest.

But unless this was accompanied with a whole lot of political reforms, with the facilitation of the advantages and minimisation of the negatives, then it should not happen. That should go without saying. But the important point is that we need to strive for a healthy sustainable future and then do what we have to do to achieve it, notwithstanding any difficulties with the constitution or other points of law.

As for Bob Hawke’s main reason for abolishing the states; so that the Feds can implement things much more easily and not be blocked or filibustered by state governments, particularly of the opposite political persuasion, is a two-way street. It would be good if the Feds were always right in what they wanted to achieve. But we can’t rely on that, especially while we are still horribly entrenched in the continuous-growth antisustainability paradigm.

The same reasoning applies when it comes to the duplication of approvals for new developments.

Under the current future-destroying mindset, the abolition of states, or any reduction in state powers, would probably be a bad thing.

I don’t think Australians will ever get to vote on such changes to the constitution.

What I do think might get some traction would be an ultimatum to Tassie. They either make their economy self sustaining and end their parasitic eco-dependency on every other States’ GST, or we will move the entire ACT to Tassie and tow them all out to the Antarctic.

Eh voila, two problems solved.

Next?

Remeber the Australia Party? They had a platform of replacing States with Regional Councils. Sounded good and then Victoria got mega councils under Mr Kennett. Did people feel more connected to those who set their rates and spent their money? Not really.
Give all power to the Federal Government? Please NO. Who is going to keep those b@#%^$#s honest? We can't do it very well at the moment.
Give the States back some real taxes and let them get on with service delivery as they are supposed to. Let the Commonwealth get on with keeping the country safe from external threats and well connected with communications.

Russia, the USA, Canada, China, Brazil and India, all the countries near Australia in area, have at least three tiers of government, though this is not the same as federalism. Italy and France, larger in population but much smaller in area, have five tiers (including the European Union).

Every country in the world with more than 10 million people and every country of more than 500,000 square kilometres has at least three tiers of government.

Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils. New Zealand has both local councils and regional councils.

There are functions of government best performed with a certain population size. Some of these are too large to be taken on by local councils but do not need the whole nation to manage them. These functions would exist irrespective of the number of tiers of government and would cause divisions and subdivisions in a national bureaucracy to be created to manage them. Looking after parks and gardens and recreation centres is best done at the local level, but municipalities are too small to run a health system. Running hospitals is best done at the level of the states, but they are too small to have their own armies.

Each of the current states has a population concentration in one centre, which the rest of the state relates to. If we were starting again, we might have more states.

If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level. We would be less democratic.

The constitution and the federation were formed or founded in the horse and cart era; both of which could do with some updating, to make them relevant to today's Australia.
Besides, we will be rewriting the preamble to include and recognise Australia's first Australians!
Why not make some changes in other areas as well? I mean, state Govts and their often quite massive and endlessly duplicating bureaucracies, cost the Australian tax payer 70+ billions PA, before so much as a single service is rolled out.
There is nothing that state administrations do that can't be done as well or better by regional councils or the Fed!
Our hospitals and schools provided far better services, for far fewer dollars, when they were largely autonomous and answered to largely unpaid voluntary regional boards?
We also need to get back to councils composed of largely unpaid representatives! I mean, paid professional public servants do all the real work; and, the original Westminster system, was composed of entirely unpaid representatives.
Extremely modest stipends were only ever included; and just to cover actual expenses, when dirt poor Labour reps came to office, with the onset of the industrial revolution.
I see no advantage in an adversarial and seriously outdated parliamentary model. Or many trillions wasted on roadblocks in the path of genuine progress, since federation?
We could keep the states, but replace adversarial parliaments with elected governors, who then appoint their admin staff, a dozen or so, who basically only keep their jobs until their boss is re-elected or dumped at the next electoral contest. [We need far more Indians, and far fewer chiefs!]
Nor do I see any cogent argument for restoring state tax powers!
I mean they already carve up the ubiquitous GST between them.
Maybe what we need is some serious reform of, rather than an abolition of states!
I mean, who would we play in State of Origin or Sheffield shield cricket?
Rhrosty.

There is no better way to entrench metrocentric dominance of the political process, and exacerbate urban diseconomies of scale, than by abolishing states. We need more states, not less, because a seat of governance is an economic engine in its own right. It is no coincidence that we have five major states and five concentrations of wealth in their capitals.

And just one extra state would make our constitution workable because 4 out of 7 is a much easier majority than 4 out of 6. The economic viability of smaller states has been misreported by assuming that every new state will have the same cost burdens as those imposed by Bass Strait on Tasmania.

Burn this into your brain, the Tweed River is not Bass Strait. Does anyone seriously believe that Sydney delivers cheaper governance to "New North Wales" than a new parliament could deliver from Grafton?

It is interesting to note that Section 51 (xxxviii) fails in its fundamental intention to allow the Commonwealth to exercise powers previously exercised by the UK Parliament in respect of the formation of new colonies.

Sec 124 provides for the formation of new states but only with the consent of the existing state(s) from which it is formed. This operates to deny the right that was exercised by Queensland in breaking away from NSW in the 1860s. Qld successfully appealed to the crown to override the blatantly self serving objections of NSW in the interests of "peace, order and good governance".

But this fundamental right of self determination, which was also subsequently ratified by the Commonwealth under the UN Convention on Human, Social and Political Rights, has been further eroded by Sec 51 (xxxviii) which can only operate with the consent of the state concerned.

This outrageous deprivation of this most precious right of all was made at the behest of Brisbane interests just 40 years after they enjoyed the same privilege. And it was to the detriment of the then 2/3rds of Queensland voters who lived outside the SE Corner. And it was conceived and drafted by a public servant, the infamous Chief Justice Griffith, who had sworn an oath to "well and trully serve" all Queenslanders without favour.

And what we now have is the constitutional equivalent of granting a serial wife basher a veto over his spouses right to a just and equitable divorce. Both are absolute abominations that has no place in 21st century democracy.

As if that clown Beattie has not done enough damage to Queensland. Remember his wife ran for council, unsuccessfully luckily. If Queensland ceased to exist, would that mean we could stop paying him those huge super payments? Perhaps there is a reason to close the state after all.

That is so true Lance. The US has good spread of economic activity, & population, partly due to it's large number of small states. We on the other hand, live in one of five cities, none of which have any rational reason for their existence, other than perhaps Sydney, because of it's harbour.

I'll move to the Bowen Basin state capital, on the Whitsunday coast thanks. It would be interesting watching south east Queensland with out the coal income.

I would like to hear your visions for a restructure.
However do not fall into the trap of the present economic environment still existing.
Make your visions fit these parameters;

1. Economic activity will be much more local.
2. Agricultural workers will be in much greater numbers.
3. Motor vehicles will be in much smaller numbers.
4. Rail will be the most used transport.
5. Federal government will have a much smaller portfolio.
6. State government will have no function.
7. Lower exports will be mainly food.
8. Regional bodies might administer hospitals & high level council functions.
9. Local councils will take on many state functions, ports etc.

It is going to be an entirely different and local life.

Personally, I support Federation and see a lot of benefits in decision-making closer to the people. But I recognise that that are good and valid arguments on both sides of this debate.

What annoys me intensely is that central governments of both parties have been dismantling the federation by stealth, through a combination of taxation and redistribution, spending conditions and mission creep in policy areas.

Let’s have an open and honest debate on this issue, and then require governments to abide by the outcome. Death by slow strangulation is the least democratic and more bureaucratically wasteful way to kill the federation.

At this stage in our history we should not be trusting the present elite oligarchs who rule us,change anything.Both the major parties are in the pockets of big business.

We need a real functioning constitution that protects the people from their Govts.Our Sedition Laws enacted by John Howard are heralding an Orwellian State.

Clause 3
"the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth"

The *people* will be united.
Not "states" or "colonies".
All you need to remove is the word "Federal".

Definitions
"'The States' shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia... shall be called a State."

Amend the definition: States are just "electoral districts", the borders of which correspond to the current boundaries.
Each "electoral district" therefore elects X senators, etc.
(even New Zealand can!)

Section 111
"The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth"

We surrender!

Many conventions of our political system aren't even mentioned in the constitution: parties, local government, cabinet, ballot papers.

Could we not just operate "as if" there were no states?
Referendums? Fugetabowtit!

In Qld the recent forced Council Amalgamations have already proven that this remote control kind of managing is a total disaster. Even so, I'd like to see an East, West, North & South Australia instead of the setup now. The constitution is more or less a waste of time nowadays unless of course it was actually implemented & followed properly in everyday life instead of just used in idealistic reports & forums. Perhaps we could have Justice then ?

I think no better argument exists for dismantling state govt admins, than the school hall roll-out. Up to 30% of this money was apparently absorbed by state administrations as "management fees"!
The second most convincing argument was and remains NSW, and the level of perceived corruption, sheer incompetence/mismanagement/waste, and serial crisis/political scandals!
By and large, state govts are little more than money grabbing middle men, taking and distributing federal money!
And charging the long suffering tax payer around 70 billions per, for that imposition.
Abolish the states and we can have rapid rail serving the entire East Coast this year!
Abolish the states and we can have a rail tunnel to Tasmania the year after.
Abolish the states and we can have all the black spot roads properly fixed up the year after that, with projects like the Toowoomba bypass an actual reality in around three years, rather than something that rears its head, as in prospect, at every federal election!
Abolish the states and redirect federal spending on long overdue decentralisation, rather than concentrate so much of it, on state power bases; and or, city centric politicians and bureaucrats; and their pet projects/ultra-costly "centralisation and correlation".
Instead of states bickering and or holding the rest of the country to ransom over federal funding!
Money should be allocated on a population pro rata basis formula, instead of party politics or preference; and then adjusted upwards by around ten dollars per person, for every one hundred kilometres of distance from existing state capitals.
State's rights can be more than adequately protected by the senate, or house of review; and or, ITS STATE APPOINTEES!
Rhrosty.

One could comfortably argue, most of those in favour of keeping the states, are predominantly state politicians and bureaucrats, and young members of various political parties, who see this; and or, state pollies/politics, as part of (a) currently existing possible career pathway(s).
I mean, many young folk get into young Labour/liberal/etc, with just one thing in mind? i.e., get a job as a party staffer, which then becomes a pathway to a political career! [And then we wonder, why places like NSW are virtual failed states?]
Manifest self interest, that really ought to be entirely discounted, as logical or cogent argument here.
Abolish our ultra expensive state parliaments and you abolish around 75-85% of those job prospects!
Hence the preponderance of posts in favour of the current status quo?
Besides, where else can self evidently failed/almost bankrupt doctors, [who faint at the sight of blood,] and lawyers then go, who'se only real gift, is the gift of the gab/ manifest mendacious verisimilitude?
Slimming tea/second hand car salesmen perhaps?
Rhrosty.

Just two points:

1. The 1900 British preamble means nothing: if we don't observe it, then we may break the British law - but so what? we are not British!

2. What should be abolished is the commonwealth, not the states, turning Australia into a confederation of independent countries.

The bigger a body, the more oppressive it can be. Hogging a whole continent, enforcing one regime over all the people who happen to live in such a vast area of land, controlling what they may and may not do, is obscene, totally sick. The smaller the sovereign states become, the more options people have, so if one finds the laws in their country unacceptably oppressive, then they have more options to move to a more acceptable country.

We will not have the money or the will to support the number of pollies
that we have now.
I believe the states will wither on the vine as they are starved for money.
My thought for a regional body is for it to be responsible for lending
to local councils expensive equipment such as earth moving machines.
It might have responsibility for environmental laws, hospitals etc.

One of the few responsibilities of the National government would be
taxation, defense, border protection and foreign affairs.
Immigration will have to cease totally, we simply will not have the
financial or physical resources.

The whole wind down of government may well be forced upon us by the
economy of the times.

If any thing Rhrosty, it would probably be better to abolish the commonwealth, rather than the states. Once we get Labor in Canberra we always have a disaster on the way.

Can you imagine if this bunch now got access to all the mining revenue. They would bag it all, take it to Canberra, & not a cent would ever get out of the place.

What we need is the states to take back their taxing power, & strip it from Canberra. The saving in public service costs would be immense. God wouldn't it be good to abolish their ABC.

Canberra going to the states, with it's cap in hand would stop billions of waste, & the states could afford some services. All we would have to do then, for a bit of equity, would be move each state capital to the geographic centre of it's state.

Why don't we do away with the Constitution altogether and start afresh.

The constitution is over 110 years old and it is not a reflection on modern Australia.

Why don't we have a new constitution like this one

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/australian-identity/republic/independent-australian-constitution/

I know it can be clean up a bit, but it is a start.

Those who want to abolish the states altogether must explain exactly where those current state powers are to go. If you want them all to go to Canberra then come out and say so. And we will condemn you as the dangerous centralist that you really are.

But if you want to shift all state powers to enlarged local government then you need to explain what the difference is between your enlarged local government and a new regional state formed out of one of the existing ones, as is already provided for under the constitution.

It should also be noted that one of our territories, The ACT, has chosen to abolish local government. That function is performed by their Department of Local Government. Our other territory, The NT, has opted to maintain three tiers of government, primarily in response to the remoteness of their communities and distance between them.

So to those who promote only two tiers of government one can only ask, "how dare you take it upon yourself to force a single solution on a diverse population in even more diverse circumstances"? Who the hell do you think you are?

We must keep the current constitution because those who would change it have shown us that they cannot be trusted. We should remove the impediments to the formation of new regional states. And it should remain a matter for each of those new and remnant states to decide how they deliver local governance themselves.

Lance, you & others have entered this discussion on the assumption that
nothing other than the government arrangements will change.
What everyone will have to consider is that any changes will in fact
be forced on us by major changes in the economy and the localisation of everything.

Industry will be downsizing to suit the available energy availability and costs.
Federal government will be reduced in its functions, state government
will also have less functions, and may not exist.
Regional councils, perhaps elected by the councilors of a group of
local councils, say perhaps 20 local councils would take over many of
the functions of state governments.

That is one model and perhaps not the best.
Perhaps another model would be to retain the state governments but
reduce their functions dramatically.

All in all I don't think it will matter much what we think, how we
will be governed will be imposed upon us by circumstances as the
economy changes to a zero growth steady state local economy.
Both Federal & State governments will become largely irrelevant.

Dear Bazz,

<<Both Federal & State governments will become largely irrelevant.>>

Amen, is all I can say, but meanwhile, talking about an energy crisis, why keep flying all those politicians in and out of Canberra?

Bazz I agree we need to revamp all public services, dramatically downward.

That does not require a change to the structure, just the size of the workforce. A 50% reduction in administrative staff throughout every area, & a very large reduction in underemployed "front line staff" like university lecturers should immediately follow. Probably require another similar exercise after a year or so, to get the numbers right.

If you are worried about unemployment, not that you could call what many bureaucrats do for their large salaries employment, we could bung them all in the army, on privates pay, privileges & authority.

That would do many of them much good, & should scare the pants off any potential enemy. A western nation, with a hundred or two thousand cannon fodder, what a thought.

Yes Hasbeen, your comment on downsizing the public service is really
the point, as it will not be optional but forced by lower government income.
Even the present Labour government is having to acknowledge that things
have changed. The next government if they remove the pollie blinkers
will find that the game has already changed.

We have been playing by the new rules for the last six years but the
governments are trying their best to ignore it until after the election.
Next year, if they are honest (sic), they will cut so savagely that
there will be an enormous uproar.
You might find this interesting. I had never heard of this organisation
previously, but I think they may well be the way of the future.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-24/the-outlook-for-steady-state-economics-in-2013

How about we scrap local government? It has no constitutional protection and is arguably acting illegally by taxing households with wealth based rating systems. Councils are the creation of state governments but have grown far beyond what they were initially established to do and now act as a government when constitutionally they don't have the authority to do so. The constitution does not give the states or the commonwealth the authority to create a third tier of government. Only we the people should allow that and the referendums (1974 and 1988) asking for that endorsement were soundly defeated. The people have spoken twice and been ignored twice. We don't want local government.

Baz, your apocalyptic vision of the future is hardly the basis for constitutional change. Supposedly intelligent people, including many academics, have been telling me the capitalist system is about to collapse or lapse into structural stasis for the past 35 years. Your previous demand for a response based on your nine vague assumptions didn't get a response because none of them came anywhere near to a confirmed parameter. I hear the Mayans might be interested in an entirely imaginary constraint on their future.

The rest of us are essentially optimistic with a healthy caution for what has yet to make its presence known. And in that real world, real results come from careful changes to existing functions rather than revolutions and drastic reform. Just give us one new state that is not dominated by a metropolitan centre and we'll give you a workable constitution and a viable alternative to urban malgovernance. Either North Queensland or New North Wales would do fine for a start.

Lance said;
Baz, your apocalyptic vision of the future is hardly the basis for
constitutional change.

We are six years into the change now, or haven't you noticed ?
Surely if we are to make it manageable, just one of the considerations
for coping would be political change.
It will be apocalyptical if we do not manage it.

Six years into the apocalypse? Good one, Bazz, you sure know how to shut down a conversation.

Goodness me Lance,
2005-2006 crude oil production stopped increasing.
2007 US sub prime mortgage crisis became obvious.
2008 The big Bank Crash
US debt $16T and still increasing.
Europe in financial crisis and still there.
Growth declining everywhere.

And you never noticed ?
We at lest should be studying whether constitution change will be
needed to cope with a declining economy.
Maybe what we have now is the best way to handle it, perhaps just
shuffling the responsibilities around may be all that is needed.
Who knows, I don't, but I would like to think that our politicians
are studying what is needed, after all that is why we pay them.

Dear Bazz,

<<after all that is why we pay them>>

Really? do we have a choice in this matter?

<<Growth declining everywhere.>>

You have the facts right, but it sounds like a promise, not an apocalypse, for a more stable, less crazy life, where progress is measured by spiritual introspection rather than by being at each others' throats for material gain and outward expansion.

Lance Boyle, why is centralism automatically “dangerous”?

Efficiency is dangerous?
Accountability is dangerous?
Affordability is dangerous?

“they cannot be trusted”

The only danger is the biased electoral system, which effectively keeps the show a two-actor scene.

Proportional representation (e.g. without “states” the Senate could be elected with an Australia-wide vote) and/or direct democracy (CIR) would put the brakes on any excessive tendencies of the Tweedles.

"how dare you take it upon yourself to force a single solution on a diverse population in even more diverse circumstances"? Who the hell do you think you are?”

The only real population “diversity” (or perhaps “divergence”) in Australia *is* the NT, due to the large concentration of Aborigines.
Everywhere else is pretty much the same.

This isn't the USA, a collection of past British, French and Spanish colonies.
We started unified, *then* divided.
All the other states were once part of NSW (except WA, glitch in original land claims).

Any change wouldn't be forced.
We'd have to endorse it democratically.

You think democracy means "everyone gets what they want all the time"?
No, democracy means "disappointing somebody every fifteen minutes".

Just imagine for a moment, Bazz, if the current constitution had been drafted within the straight jacket of the 1890s recession. The whole point of a constitution is to produce a set of principles that will remain relevant through good times and bad. And anyone who seriously believes that the current recession is the new norm has a very limited grasp of history.

And the suggestion that NT is the only centre of diversity in the Australian polity is a classic case of metrocentric ignorance. Urban punters like to believe that they are representative of regional values. But the fact that they do so simply highlights the extent of their arrogant presumption.

Regional Australians have consistently voted, by significant margins, for their own conservative party for decades. It is only out of frustration with their minority status that they have experimented with independents. When polled, they also consistently, and overwhelmingly, support independence from metropolitan mismanagement.

They loathe urban waste and dysfunctionality. They have deep contempt for urban law and order policies. They have equal contempt for the manifest ignorance and callous disregard for fundamental legal principles that has characterised urban imposed environmental policies. And they despair at the urban media's total abrogation of their duty as unbiased reporters of public record in respect of regional issues.

Yet we still have metrocentric punters telling us it is all just hunky dory and how regional folk are just tickled pink to have the benefit of all that urban wisdom in all decision that impact on them.

Well Yuyutsu, no one can definitively say what effects will be the most
significant as our economy is forced into a different mode by higher
energy costs. That there will be change is certain and in the longer
run it could mean a new definition of what is capitalism.
Credit requires that there is a surplus of cash to repay debts and
principle and that cash comes from increased productivity which is
another name for growth.

Certainly we will be living a much simpler life and many more people
will have vegie gardens in their back yards.
When will this all start, well it has already to some extent as you can
see from the difficulties all governments are having with debt and
income. I think that as soon as the shale oil production goes into
decline, about 2015, it will unveil the crude oil decline which will
in turn increase our current $117 a barrel price.

Lance, your comments reflect the commonly held understanding that we
are in a conventional economic cycle.
This has been true for the last 150 years or so and so most people
accept it as just the way things are.
Well for the last 150 plus years we have lived in a cheap energy world.
That no longer applies, the cheap oil era has ended, coal also has
increased in price and quality has fallen, ie btu per ton.

This changes everything. Growth is dependant on energy and the new
normal is low to zero growth and contraction.
We live in a complex society and complex systems are at risk of
sudden collapse.

Your beliefs have been true for the last 150 years or so but the era
of expensive and restricted energy supplies is permanent.

Sudden impacts may be avoidable by planning, but that requires an
educated political scene and public.

There are a number of economic cycles, Bazz, but all you have provided is a few anecdotes on the supply and demand for energy. Do you have any plans to return to the actual topic any time soon?

The greatest social and cultural variation to be found in Australia is the distinction between urban and regional Australians. Regional aborigines have more in common with their anglo/Aus neighbours than they do with urban aborigines. Regional Italians have more in common with their Anglo/Aus neighbours than they do with urban Italians. Folks in North Qld have more empathy with folks in Albany WA than they do with Brisbane residents. And vice versa.

Regional Australians number more than 4 million but none of them have the simple right to be governed by their own community and make their own laws. In every case they are subjected to one-size-fits-all rule from a disinterested urban majority.

And it is a telling indictment of the metrocentric majority that they are willing to grant local government powers to enlarged regional governments (gee thanks) but refuse to accept that we might actually need the State level powers that urban Australians take for granted.

Lance Boyle “metrocentric ignorance.”
“The greatest social and cultural variation to be found in Australia is the distinction between urban and regional Australians”

I spent my childhood in a medium-sized country town and my adulthood in Sydney (both outer and inner suburbs).

I haven't noticed any significant difference between most country and city Australians.
If you took someone blindfolded to the town I grew up in, they'd think it was just a Sydney suburb.

So are you suggesting we throw one-vote-one-value away, and give regional/country votes greater value than city votes?
So we'll have a new aristocracy, a ruralocracy, eh?
Oh, won't the metros be unhappy about the power bias then?
You can't create *any* democratic system that will make everyone happy!

“Regional Australians number more than 4 million but none of them have the simple right to be governed by their own community and make their own laws.”

Make their own laws? WTF!
Oh, so you'd be okay with country folk recriminalising sodomy (after all, only decadent city folk do that kind of thing)?
Why are you promoting such arbitrary division?

“one-size-fits-all rule”

Are we one country or not?
Government is *always* “one-size-fits-all”.
Name a type of government that isn't.

Don't you mean three-sizes-fits-all, and that's just the problem: their tiers, confusing and conflicting.

“the State level powers that urban Australians take for granted.”

We have no such powers.
Our local councils can't “make their own laws”.
Their choices are frequently hindered by state or federal government interference.

One could argue city residents get a worse deal, with their arbitrarily drawn council boundaries, making two sides of the same street ruled by two different councils, different state and federal MP districts.
You don't get that nonsense in country towns.
One council, one state MP, one federal MP for the *whole* town.

Got a bit of a retention deficit there Shonkadelic, have we?

Regional communities can make their own laws if they have their own state. And this is too much for you to grasp? We could return police powers that would stop them being treated as punching bags by street thugs. We could put school bullies who comit the crime of assault to weekend detention, but in solitary, so they cannot be further criminalised by other inmates and deprive them of the chance to big note themselves to their mates on weekends. In short, a smaller bureaucracy with fewer layers can respond faster, and consider more alternative solutions, than a large multilayered one.

Suburbs of country towns may look just like city ones but the consistent difference in voting patterns is absolute proof that we do not share your values and do not accept that you have a right to impose them on us. If you don't like our values then stay in your city state and we'll stay in our regional state. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

"Regional communities can make their own laws if they have their own state."

They shouldn't.
You're the one with comprehension difficulties.
I'm responding to your hypothesis. And rejecting it.

"police powers that would stop them being treated as punching bags by street thugs."

Really? Regional police can't arrest someone who punches them? Like hell!

"We could put school bullies who comit the crime of assault to weekend detention"

And....
If that's such a good idea, why would you only want it in this or that regional area?
Wouldn't you want that nationwide?

If something's such a brilliant idea, surely its proponents goal would be to introduce it *everywhere*.
A national government allows that.

With 37 regional governments, you have to convince 37 different populations and/or ruling parties to support it.

"a smaller bureaucracy"

37 governments is not a smaller bureaucracy at all.
A single national one would be.

(Don't have a spastic over the number 37. I just picked a random number, mmkay?)

"consistent difference in voting patterns is absolute proof"

That the Nationals have a long-standing agreement with the Liberals to not compete.

It is quite understood by voters that they are a coalition.

Where regional districts had a Liberal rather than National candidate, they still voted Liberal.
In QLD the parties have merged.

Australians in general consistently vote for one Tweedle or the other.
Does that mean all alternatives are irrelevant to Australians?

The Democrats, the Greens and One Nation have all received at least 10% of the national vote, but there's usually no regional concentration sufficient to win single-member districts.

Your regional governments would effectively eliminate political choice forever!
Here always Labor, there always National, over there always Liberal.
Forever after (but not "happily" if you're a political "dissident").

A national vote with proportional representation would mean *all* voices, everywhere, are reflected in the result.

Breathtaking mindset, Shonkadelic. By what perversion of logic does the existence of additional states equate to more bureaucracy for a person within a state. Would the residents of Sydney have anything to do with the government of a new state of New North Wales? NO.

And what on earth makes you think it is incumbent on anyone with a good idea to then seek to impose it on everyone else in the country. The very essence of freedom of choice is the freedom of different communities to choose the options that suit their own needs best.

And in any event, your ranting is totally fatuous. It is entirely the prerogative of regional communities to determine their own status. Nowhere, in either the pre-existing British law, nor the UN Conventions on human rights, is a community's right to self determination subject to the veto of people outside that community. The provisions of the Australian Constitution that allow for such a veto are an abrogation of this fundamental principle.

And for as long as it remains in place then metropolitan Australia is relying on the abhorent "wife basher's veto" to maintain their political dominance of a serially abused regional minority that wants nothing more radical than to simply go their own way. The fact that you are so threatened by such a notion merely highlights the squalour of your intent.

Lance Boyle “By what perversion of logic does the existence of additional states equate to more bureaucracy for a person within a state.”

More bureaucracy in total, genius.
Something you argue would result from a *singular* national government.
Talk about perversion of logic! Less is more!

“Would the residents of Sydney have anything to do with the government of a new state of New North Wales? NO. “

Yes, if they're visiting their relatives, going on holiday, driving to Brisbane.
And didn't know that something in their car, which is perfectly legal in Sydney, gets the *death penalty* in NNW.
Or one of the 13 other districts they passed through!

People will also live in *adjacent* districts.
Other side of the street: different laws.

How often are the boundaries redrawn, and on what basis?
What if people contest the chosen boundaries?
What of regions that don't want independence?
What of national issues like defence? We'll all chip in? What if one region doesn't?

“what on earth makes you think it is incumbent on anyone with a good idea to then seek to impose it”

Impose?
You don't impose with democracy (allegedly).

Education. Admonition. Advocacy.
Why keep your brilliant idea just for NNW?

“Nowhere, in either the pre-existing British law, nor the UN Conventions on human rights...”

So Sydney can't impose, but the *UN* has authority over us?
Shouldn't you also be telling those busybodies at the UN to take a hike?
Oh that's right, you're a hypocrite.

How far are you taking this?
There's already been SEVEN looney tunes declaring micronations in Australia.
Can everyone do this? A man's home is his castle, after all.
New nations for every family!
Only $19.99 plus postage.

Isn't “Australia” a community? Isn't that why the colonies united in the first place?

We started dividing *before*.
Then we stopped and united back together!

“wants nothing more radical than to simply go their own way.”

Really? And the vote count for the Rural Separatist Party at the last election?
Oh, no such party.

“the squalour of your intent.”

Ooh, Charles Dickens is jealous.

Dear Shockaholic,

I happen to agree with Lance, perhaps out of different reasons: smaller states are good because they can INCREASE freedom, not limit it, the smaller the better, so if people find laws in their state too oppressive (for example if they forbid some religious practices), then they can move to another.

<<And didn't know that something in their car, which is perfectly legal in Sydney, gets the *death penalty* in NNW.>>

Or vice-versa: won't it be refreshing to pass through a state where you don't have to wear a helmet and seat-belt?

A death-penalty for driving through a yellow light would make such a state so unpopular that it will have no "international" trade, so if its inhabitants want to have a modern economy, then they won't do it. If however they want to remain isolated, then you must respect their choice (otherwise you are a classical colonist).

Realistically, we should expect extensive international agreements on the free passage over linking roads and rail.

(but a bit of flogging for throwing thrash out of the car-window wouldn't be a bad idea...)

<<How often are the boundaries redrawn, and on what basis?>>

Whenever all the property-owners within the new boundaries consent to belong to a different state.

<<What if people contest the chosen boundaries?>>

You can contest where your own property lies.

<<What of regions that don't want independence?>>

Then they may join a commonwealth.

<<What of national issues like defence? We'll all chip in? What if one region doesn't?>>

Heard of NATO? if a state doesn't chip in, then others are not obliged to defend it.

<<You don't impose with democracy (allegedly).>>

Exactly, Allegedly, but it happens all around.

<<Shouldn't you also be telling those busybodies at the UN to take a hike?>>

Yes one should. They have no right to impose their ideas either on non-consenting people.

<<Isn't “Australia” a community?>>

No, it's a continent!

<<Isn't that why the colonies united in the first place?>>

I wasn't there when they did.

Shonkadelic has the kind of brain that is incapable of distinguishing between forming a new nation under the UN and the simple formation of a new state within the Australian Commonwealth, as is already provided for under the constitution of all states and the Commonwealth. They are all one and the same in his head, and all mixed with every possible extreme he can imagine.

And it is the very hyperfertility of his imagination that confirms why regional folk need their own states. He has shown that his understanding of regional community values is so limited and so perverse that he seriously believes there would be a majority vote in any new state for a death penalty for drug possession by Aussie tourists in transit.

The reality is that on the day a new state, of either North Qld or New North Wales, was formed, all the existing laws of the old Qld or NSW would still apply and remain intact until the new parliament decided that they needed ammendments.

The only change will be that the elected state MPs from the region will gather in their new capital just down the road to decide how their own fair share of GST funds will be spent on their own local priorities.

The Shonkadelics of this world would prefer that they all went to Canberra to explain to an endless number of constantly changing bureaucrats why their one-size-fits-all policy doesn't work in their region.

For the record, I live and work on both sides of the NSW/Qld border and more than a million Queenslanders visit northern NSW every year. And aside from the usual "clock molestation", and the fact that "P" platers from Qld have to either drive at 80km on the NSW side or take their plates off altogether, there is not the slightest impact of a change of state.

There is more evidence of a lack of their own state for that region than there is evidence of good governance from Sydney. The new state of New North Wales would already have reactivated the Murwillumbah rail line and extended it to the Gold Coast line. The list is endless.

Yuyutsu "smaller states are good because they can INCREASE freedom, not limit it, the smaller the better, so if people find laws in their state too oppressive"

Small could be even more prone to oppression, as it encourages people with extremist views to *accumulate* in those areas, making reform impossible.

A large population means any extremist tendencies can be countered by other more sensible people, especially under proportional representation.

"they can move to another."

Why should they have to move? This is supposedly a liberal democratic *nation*, not a collection of just-for-my-kind mini-tyrannies.

"won't it be refreshing....where you don't have to wear a helmet and seat-belt?"

Indeed. So promote your reform to the voters (not the bureaucrats, Lance).
Regional variants mean you have to (a) know what all their laws are and (b) keep taking your helmet/seatbelt on and off and on and off...

"so unpopular that it will have no "international" trade"

If there's only one state growing sugar cane, you buy its sugar, death penalty be damned.

"extensive international agreements on the free passage over linking roads and rail."

The existing states couldn't even create a universal rail gauge.
Good luck with 37 states agreeing on anything.

"Whenever all the property-owners consent.
You can contest where your own property lies."

Back to the propertied gentlemen franchise?
Party like it's 1899!

<<What of regions that don't want independence?>>

"Then they may join a commonwealth."

Been there, done that.

<<You don't impose with democracy (allegedly).>>

"Exactly, Allegedly, but it happens all around."

The problem there is the Tweedle-biased electoral system.
Solution: PR and CIR

"They [UN] have no right to impose..."

But won't "Australia" still be a member?
You are arguing for more *states*, right, not "nations"?

"No, it's a continent!"

Hilarious!
We're the *only* continent that's a nation.
There's a reason for that. One predominant ethnic population. A community.

Lance Boyle "incapable of distinguishing between forming a new nation under the UN and the simple formation of a new state within the Australian Commonwealth"

I know the difference (and you don't need UN consent, just guns).
What you ignore is that *seven* such nations have already been declared, and you would only be encouraging more.

Lots of mini-states encourages ghettos of alternate societies.
You think they'll be content to just be a "state" for long, when they don't identify with their neighbours?

Newsflash: there are separatist movements all over the world, calling for new *nations*, not just new subdivisions of nations (many of those separatists *already have* self-governing regional districts).

"he seriously believes there would be a majority vote in any new state for a death penalty for drug possession by Aussie tourists in transit."

Never mentioned drugs.
Actually, capital punishment is very popular with your oppressed-by-Sydney country people.
It's those limp-wristed city folk that don't like it.

Speaking of tourists, you're ignoring the impact of 37 different legal systems on foreign tourists (a major source of GDP).
They also need to know the laws.
A singular national legal system makes it a little easier, yes?

"all the existing laws of the old Qld or NSW would still apply and remain intact until.."

Duh! They would also remain intact until the new singular national government supersedes them. What's your point?

"their own fair share of GST"

Oh really. Tasmania is notorious for requiring financial support from the rest of us.
And you want to create 37 Tasmanias!

National funding doesn't need to be "apportioned" per capita/per square kilometre/etc.
It can be spent where it's *needed*, regardless of regional population or land size or wealth-generation.

"For the record, I live and work on both sides of the NSW/Qld border...there is not the slightest impact of a change of state."

Wait until you have *six* adjacent borders (at least one ruled by self-ghettoising extremists) and see the impact.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<A large population means any extremist tendencies can be countered by other more sensible people, especially under proportional representation.>>

Proportional representation is excellent in any case, but what if you ARE an extremist? even that won't help you then!

(extremists are those who wish to lead an extreme way of life, not necessary to impose it on others)

<<Why should they have to move?>>

One can and should struggle for a while against injustice, but there are many who don't select fighting-windmills as their vocation.

<<This is supposedly a liberal democratic *nation*, not a collection of just-for-my-kind mini-tyrannies.>>

*SUPPOSEDLY* is the keyword. *Nation* is what kindi-teachers tell their little subjects. By the age they understand that Santa doesn't exist, they understand the same about that "nation" business.

<<Indeed. So promote your reform to the voters>>

Is has been tried, not once, but when the system doesn't even allow you to bring about proportional representation...

Say my dream is to one day ride a bicycle (without a helmet of course), then I may wait that many years, but unless I have a politician's blood, there comes the day to leave for greener pastures.

<<If there's only one state growing sugar cane>>

Unlikely for small states. Just grow it elsewhere.

<<Solution: PR and CIR>>

Yes, but who will let you?

Moving such a big country is too heavy, especially if you have no patience to wait for your next reincarnation to ride a bicycle.

<<You are arguing for more *states*, right, not "nations"?>>

Either, but I was more thinking in line of a confederation of independent countries.

<<We're the *only* continent that's a nation.>>

The Soviet Union had a larger area and claimed the same.

<<A community>>

I am over the age of 6-7 to believe in fairy-tales, thanks.
http://www.mydfz.com/Paxton/lyrics/wdylis.htm

There appears to be very little of value to be gained from further discussion with Shonkadelic. On one hand he claims we are all just one big homogenous community while at the same time arguing that regional communities with their own state cannot be trusted to refrain from introducing the death penalty for minor breaches by passing tourists from existing states.

And he has also provided unambiguous evidence that he is just a squalid old metro tyrant who hasn't the faintest hesitation in imposing his will on anyone else with a callous disregard for whether it even works. We should thank him for giving regional Australians such a clear demonstration of why the urban majority is unfit to govern anyone but themselves.

And it is all so boorishly predictable. Some urban punter seriously believes he has the right to impose a particular mix of local and state level powers on every one else. As if there is some sort of critical intellectual capacity to be gained by spending the first hour of each working day with your nose up a buses muffler.

Readers should also note that what new staters have been talking about is a couple of new states within the commonwealth while this goon raves about the supposedly insurmountable problems caused by having 37 states. As if there was the slightest advantage or logic to busting up Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth into separate state level units of 500,000 people each?

Such an extrapolation to absurdity is evidence enough of a reluctance to discuss the issue in good faith. But he then goes on to imply that they would all rip up their existing rail systems and, contrary to their own obvious interest, perversely install incompatible track. Does he not realise that the existing rail differences are due to the fact that railways were in their infancy when those colonies were founded?

Enough with you now. You have babbled on for far longer than any good that you might have contributed. I have regional voters to talk with.

Fairytales? Santa?

What exactly is your philosophy, Yuyutsu? Nihilist individualism?
If so, you are the extremist, and will never achieve your aims in a million reincarnations.

If “community” and “nation” are just bedtime stories, what's with your proposed confederation?
On what basis do you divide the map? Arbitrary lines drawn while blindfolded?

“Proportional representation is excellent in any case, but what if you ARE an extremist? even that won't help you then!”

Good. But you still get your input.

Our society is liberal. You can be quite extreme in lifestyles, beliefs, opinions, provided you don't break the law.

You could ride without a helmet before.
The law changed because a *handful* of people's opinions changed.
It could change back again too.
Nobody lives forever or stays in power forever.
There's always new kids on the block.
Kids who hated wearing helmets growing up.

“Just grow [sugar cane] elsewhere.”

That's the problem. You don't have many options in Australia.
We have a handful of cities with any industrial infrastructure and a small strip of arable land for farming. Crops need the right climate.

“Moving such a big country is too heavy”

It's a big continent, but not a big population.
You only need to convince a certain percentage (not a majority) to get the issue moving.
Look at gays. A few drag queens on Oxford Street or Stonewall Inn, and Whammo! Everything changes almost overnight.

Also, court decisions can overturn laws or policies.
One case and everything changes. One.

Or in the case of 37 governments, 37 cases. Yikes!

“I was more thinking in line of a confederation of independent countries.”

Like the European Union? Everyone loves them.

“The Soviet Union had a larger area and claimed the same.”

Union of Soviet Socialist *Republics*, plural.

It was a continuation of the Russian Empire. Only the ideology changed.
Empires are not nations.

They could never be truly unified, that's why they had so many ethnically-based administrative districts.

Australia has one predominant ethnicity, virtually everywhere.

Only exception: Aborigines in and near NT.
And we've seen how well self-administration works there, eh?

“And it is all so boorishly predictable.”

Right back at ya!

“Some urban punter seriously believes he has the right to impose a particular mix of local and state level powers on every one else.”

Read my posts.
I propose a *singular* national government.
No local, no state.

“As if there is some sort of critical intellectual capacity to be gained by spending the first hour of each working day with your nose up a buses muffler.”

What on Earth are you going on about?

“As if there was the slightest advantage or logic to busting up Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth into separate state level units of 500,000 people each?”

Damn right. I'm the one *opposed* to that, genius.

Our major cities are already “busted up” into numerous local councils, state and federal electoral districts.
I want *one* authority, elected by proportional representation, with direct democracy (CIR)

“a reluctance to discuss the issue in good faith.”

And pretending I said things I didn't say or support positions I don't support? Not answering any questions or issues I raise?

You are classic Troll.
Oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing.
Distort, lie, avoid.
Tedious, pathetic, predictable.

“But he then goes on to imply that they would all rip up their existing rail systems and, contrary to their own obvious interest, perversely install incompatible track.”

No, I didn't (sigh).

“railways were in their infancy”
There were only *three* colonies at the time, and there was already an established norm in England, yet they couldn't agree on something as significant as a major transportation method!

Aren't there always new developments? New technologies or social trends?
Instead of one government dealing with them, you'll have dozens.

“Enough with you now. I have regional voters to talk with.”

Yes, be gone.
Shame you can't reveal your true identity, so the voters could see how ridiculous their candidate is.

Dear Shockaelic,

<<What exactly is your philosophy, Yuyutsu? Nihilist individualism?>>

Non-violence.

Bundling people as a "nation" without their consent, is violent and partaking/benefiting from membership in a violent group is a form of violence.

<<If “community” and “nation” are just bedtime stories, what's with your proposed confederation?>>

It's less than ideal, but less violent than a monolithic continent-state because it allows relatively more opportunities to escape and live under more acceptable laws.

If a continent-state (or even world-state) could be trusted to be non-violent, not to rob people of their freedoms or interfere in their lives without their consent (except in collective self-defence, when people harm others or place them in danger), then it could be better, but it's an unrealistic dream, hence the option to escape is so important.

<<On what basis do you divide the map?>>

People's consent to be part of a state.

<<You can be quite extreme in lifestyles, beliefs, opinions, provided you don't break the law.>>

And the law... was made without your consent, hence it is violent.

<<You could ride without a helmet before.>>

There's a time to fight and I 100% support your quest for PR and CIR, but one reaches an age when they can no longer learn again to ride a bike.

<<Crops need the right climate.>>

So that justifies England's occupation of India?

<<It's a big continent, but not a big population.>>

What then gives a "small" population the right to impose its way of life on a whole continent?

<<Or in the case of 37 governments, 37 cases. Yikes!>>

(assuming they all have governments)

Those states which want to prosper will competitively try to attract good people by not taking their freedoms away. Such states that retain bicycle helmet laws will attract more idiots and more car-pollution.

<<Australia has one predominant ethnicity, virtually everywhere.>>

1) There are many ethnic minorities (current government even encourages it).
2) Ethnicity is only one difference among many between people.

Shonkadelic employs blatant straw men, quotes out of context, extrapolates to extremes to conduct what he thinks is a debate, but only with himself. Regional Australians should bookmark this thread as an example of why metrocentrics are not fit to exercise majority power over the regional minority. The policy process has always strived to exclude the inputs and actions of unreasonable men. And that is why self governing regions is a just cause.

Yuyutsu “Bundling people as a "nation" without their consent, is violent”

Buy a new dictionary.
Did Australians "consent" to their “bundling” with a few million immigrants from 6000 cultures?
If *we* self-segregate ("consensually") we're evil Nazis!
If they do, it's adorable!

“If a continent-state (or even world-state)”

Big difference. The latter can never represent any real community.

Divide the map? “People's consent to be part of a state.”

Unanimous? Never.
What of blurry results, half a town Yes, the other half No, but their "properties" are all mixed together higgledy-piggledy?

A perfect system that pleases everyone all the time is impossible.

“I 100% support your quest for PR and CIR [Yippee!], but one reaches an age when they can no longer learn again to ride a bike.”

Riding's the same, helmet or not.
You only need to learn to feel the wind in your hair.

<<Crops need the right climate.>>

“So that justifies England's occupation of India?”

Whoa, mega-tangent!
There's only a few arable places with the needed climates in *this* continent.
Competition isn't very unlikely.

“What then gives a "small" population the right to impose its way of life on a whole continent?”

No Australian “way of life” is imposed.
Is anyone *imposing* 60s-punk revival music (Hoodoo Gurus, Stems, Lime Spiders) just because some don't like it?

<<Or in the case of 37 governments, 37 cases. Yikes!>>

“(assuming they all have governments)”

So now we're also advocating anarchism. Tell him he's dreamin'!

<<Australia has one predominant ethnicity, virtually everywhere.>>

“1) There are many ethnic minorities (current government even encourages it).”

You hate tyranny but you'd support a Lakembastan government?

“2) Ethnicity is only one difference among many between people.”

I think you are far overestimating the emphasis Australians (and I mean Australians, not Multarians) place on their differences (if anything they *downplay* them).
Any difference significant enough can be reflected in PR and CIR.

Lance Boyle “extrapolates to extremes”

Political advocates who fail to consider worst possible scenarios should keep their mouths shut.
Want rose-coloured visions? Take up gardening.
Leave the politics to those serious enough to know everything-can-go-wrong-and-often-does.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Did Australians "consent" to their “bundling” with a few million immigrants from 6000 cultures?>>

I was not referring to allowing people to live physically on the same land (that is off-topic), but to laying a trip on non-consenting people by naming them a "nation", or a "community" for that matter.

We are individuals who happen to live in the same region. Nothing unites us into a bigger whole unless we agree.

<<A perfect system that pleases everyone all the time is impossible.>>

In that case, don't have a system!

It is OK for group(s) of people to make a defence pact among them, delegating their self-defence capability to the group, which may then take action against members and non-members who harm or threaten members of the group - That's what a state legitimately is. It may not be perfect, but it is mutually agreed.

A group of people, however, including a state, may also pursue other common goals, so long as in doing so they do not harm others outside the group.

You see, a group of people may not exercise power over others beyond the sum of powers of its individual members: if a particular individual action by any single member of a group constitutes violence, then so does that action if done by that group on behalf of its members.

Specifically, a group of people may not include me on their member-list without my consent, then perform actions "on my behalf", lying as if I gave them consent to add my individual powers to theirs.

All the above is derived from one single principle: NON-VIOLENCE - I really said nothing besides. If you agree with it, then you can work it all out yourself
(and if you don't, if you consider violence legitimate, then it's a war and we have nothing further to discuss).

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<No Australian “way of life” is imposed.>>

You are so used to live in it, taking it all for granted, that you would need to view Australia from outside in order to notice the multitude of ways it is.

<<Riding's the same, helmet or not. You only need to learn to feel the wind in your hair.>>

I will never wear that thing, but you're right, I could legally learn again to ride a bicycle on some private property, round a farm or so, awaiting the day I could again ride in the street. However, if a new state did not deny me the freedom to ride unrestricted, I would seriously consider moving to that state.

<<There's only a few arable places with the needed climates in *this* continent. Competition isn't very unlikely.>>

So you consider it right to forcibly take other people's land and enforce your rules on them just because YOU are hungry?

<<You hate tyranny but you'd support a Lakembastan government?>>

Do I?

I would try to nicely convince people against such, but ultimately I have no right to stop them except in self-defence (of myself, my family or others with whom I have a defence-pact).

<<Any difference significant enough can be reflected in PR and CIR.>>

So a PR/CIR can prevent me from practising my religion? Or if my blood contains a rare substance that prevents cancer and make you live 1000 years, then a PR/CIR may decide to slay me and distribute my blood for the rest of the nation to drink?

Yuyutsu, your idealist utopia is the fairytale in this discussion.
Santa would be proud.

“allowing people to live physically on the same land (that is off-topic),”

No, that's part of the topic if living together *must* be mutually consensual.
Plenty of Australians object to the current immigration policy. They aren't consulted or consenting.

“We are individuals who happen to live in the same region.”

So you just popped into existence out of thin air?
No ancestors, no history explains your presence.
You just “happen to live here”.

Did you consent to be born? Then your parents were “violent” in “imposing” life on you.
Follow your own logic, and you'd have to kill yourself, since your entire existence isn't “consensual”.

“if you consider violence legitimate, then it's a war”

I don't agree with your definition of “violence”.
Living in a society built by your ancestors, because you were born there is not “violence”.
I find your philosophy the misanthropic one.

“So you consider it right to forcibly take other people's land”

Nobody is taking anyone's land by having one national government.
You still own your farm and can grow whatever you want.

“I would try to nicely convince people against such”

Yes, be nice to the Muslim separatists. Why am not shocked at the wimpiness?

“So a PR/CIR can prevent me from practising my religion? Or slay me and distribute my blood for the rest to drink?”

What do you think is the probability of a *national* vote supporting such extremes?
Now, in a self-segregated “non-community” of like-minded extremist individuals, that could happen.
But you've been “outside” too long if you think Australians-in-general would.

You'll get your “war” one day (niceness won't stop it, but it will stop us *preventing* it).
And nobody will care if you survive, since you're not part of any “community” or “nation”.

Here lies Individual. Happened to be here 1961-2018.

Dear Shockadelic,

Please allow me to skip the topic of immigration as I am not really interested in it at the moment, my time now is limited, nor is it directly related to this topic.

<<So you just popped into existence out of thin air? No ancestors, no history explains your presence. You just “happen to live here”.>>

The question "why are we here?" is again beyond the scope of this topic. Suffice that the reason why we are here, at least for some of us, is NOT in order to form communities and nations, that we have much more important missions to accomplish during our short stay in this world.

<<Living in a society built by your ancestors, because you were born there is not “violence”.>>

Children are excused because they don't know better, but once you grow up and understand how states operate and oppress others, yet still uphold the state, then you are an accomplice to violence.

<<You still own your farm and can grow whatever you want.>>

You mean Marijuana?!?

If you are not sovereign, if you are not allowed to live how you want on your land, then that land is not yours!

<<Yes, be nice to the Muslim separatists>>

Ah, so that's what's on your mind... you will need to decide whether they pose a physical threat to Australians: if so, then it's a matter of self-defence and the state has a legitimate right to fight them. Not so, however, if these Muslims only wish to have their own segregated life without harming anybody else.

<<What do you think is the probability of a *national* vote supporting such extremes?>>

You never know, see Nazi Germany.

<<Now, in a self-segregated “non-community” of like-minded extremist individuals, that could happen.>>

No problem if I freely chose to be part-thereof.

<<And nobody will care if you survive, since you're not part of any “community” or “nation”.>>

Correct. You don't owe me my survival.

I might even like to be part of your community/nation, but so long as it forces itself on non-consenting others, that would be morally wrong.

"skip the topic of immigration... nor is it directly related to this topic."

You argue for governments voluntarily formed, yet immigration is *changing* our demographics, and therefore the types of government created.

You claim existence as an individual only, but you do not and cannot actually live as one.
You *must* live in a community, reliant on others, and this one was *not* created by Zulus, Tibetans or Eskimos.

"the reason why we are here is NOT in order to form communities and nations"

So why have we done it forever?
You don't have to form what's already there.

"You never know, see Nazi Germany."

Where was the *democracy* there?

"No problem if I freely chose to be part-thereof."

And the "children who don't know better"?
They have to live under the extremist regional government too.

Are you okay with delusional indoctrination as "education", FGM, infanticide of sick/deformed children, sacrificing firstborns to the Thunder God?

"You don't owe me my survival."

You only survive at all thanks to the "community/nation" you deny exists.
You owe your survival to generations of people who made an effort because they felt part of something, not just for me-me-me.

So much of your life was never "consented" to, yet you do and must use these "imposed" norms.

Did you "choose" the Roman alphabet?
The English language?
The 24 hour clock, with 12 hour face and hands moving to the right?
The Gregorian calendar?
The Dewey library system?
Decimal numbers?
Kilometres?
Dollars and cents?
Driving on the left?
AC electricity?
Barcodes?
Days of the week named after ancient gods?

Are you "oppressed" by these "violent" impositions?
Or are these practical standards necessary because you don't live as an individual, you live *with* other people, and these are the standards in the community/nation Australia.

So many things in life are not "chosen" or "consented to", yet you must adapt to them.
Only dreams is anything possible.
When you wake up, there are limits.

"we have much more important missions to accomplish during our short stay in this world."

Mission impossible, in your case.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Mission impossible, in your case.>>

It isn't one's duty to succeed: while we may try our best to succeed, success is ultimately not in our hands, a supernova could come for example and wipe all life off earth in a fraction of a second, but it IS our duty to attempt living according to good principles such as non-violence, regardless of the results.

Cooperating with a state that forces itself upon people without their consent, aids-and-abets violence.

<<You claim existence as an individual only, but you do not and cannot actually live as one.>>

Since when is my survival your business?
(so long as my corpse won't upset your smell)

<<You *must* live in a community, reliant on others>>

Firstly, it's not a must: I may die otherwise, but that would be my own problem (or pleasure).

Secondly, even if I live and rely on a community, it need not be YOUR community. I'm entitled to choose the people I want to live with and mutually rely on.

<<Where was the *democracy* there?>>

Hitler was democratically elected!

<<They have to live under the extremist regional government too.>>

But hopefully the regional regime will be LESS oppressive than the current central one, not more. Most of us are not Muslim extremists, you know.

<<Are you okay with delusional indoctrination as "education", FGM, infanticide of sick/deformed children, sacrificing firstborns to the Thunder God?>>

I don't like it, but if I were to oppose it violently in others who never sought my protection, then I would become no better.

<<the Roman alphabet? The English language? The 24 hour clock...>>

Those who find these oppressive (and there are some), ought to be able to live in their own corner of the world where these do not apply.

My basic moral standard is non-violence - that's not to say that according to my morality YOU must be non-violent, my morality only applies to myself. You will eventually need to face God and your own conscience, but meanwhile, if you or your state are violent, then it is my moral imperative not to cooperate.

"Since when is my survival your business?"

Couldn't care less. Simply stating a fact.
You cannot exist in any sense but pure animalism (eat, sleep) without other people.

<<You *must* live in a community, reliant on others>>

"Firstly, it's not a must"

It is if you want any kind of life resembling "human".
You're just speaking in theoretical/hypothetical mumbo-jumbo.
I'm talking about the *real world*.

"Hitler was democratically elected!"

And then?
Did the German people know what the exact policy outcomes would be?
Before anything truly nasty happened, elections had ceased.

"Most of us are not Muslim extremists, you know."

No, but you're proposing that the ones who are (and any other form of extremism) can set up their own government, and we should just be "nice" about it.

<<Are you okay with delusional indoctrination as "education", FGM, infanticide of sick/deformed children, sacrificing firstborns to the Thunder God?>>

"I don't like it, but if I were to oppose it violently in others who never sought my protection, then I would become no better."

So the answer is Yes, you would accept a misopedist government.
But you would be "nice" enough to move out of that neighbourhood.

<<the Roman alphabet? The English language? The 24 hour clock...>>

"Those who find these oppressive (and there are some), ought to be able to live in their own corner of the world where these do not apply."

I believe the walls there are padded.

The point is that in *this* corner of the world (Australia) you can't.

We can't all just have our own calendars and clocks.
Nobody will understand anyone.

Be here at 2'Oclock Monday?
No, Sanjack moq 55 Reznot.
Straitjacket! Emergency!

"You will eventually need to face God and your own conscience"

Only, apparently, if I "consent".

"meanwhile, if you or your state are violent, then it is my moral imperative not to cooperate."

Off to your hermit shack then, Yuyutsu.
Finish that (non-violent) manifesto.

Dear Shockadelic,

I have no joy talking with you as your argument is based neither on principles nor on goodness, but on coercive power ("The point is that in *this* corner of the world (Australia) you can't.").

And yours on fantasy, goodbye.