david f: you wrote:<< I would like it to be that way, but that is not the way it is. If it were legislators should be able to ignore the wishes of the party room if they thought it was in conflict with the good of the state or of Australia. As long as the wishes of the party room prevail over conscience, the wishes of the constituency and the good of Australia the party will have priority.>>
You are correct, and this is why party politics is the death of democracy. Only a parliament of well-informed, genuine independents elected with a proportional system, who debate and discuss and arrive at consensus, can give us true democracy. There should never be an 'Opposition' whose function is to disagree with everything the government does no matter what. There is no need for a government. The parliament should elect ministers who act as chairperson when their topics are debated; the premier/chairperson should be a rotating office, and all business conducted with total transparency. The present system is so seriously flawed it is scarcely different to a dictatorship.

Dear Landrights4all,

<<However the laws of society are, at their best, like the teachings of a parent or the wisdom of the ages. Laws can help us be mindful. Like the good book/s, the law encourages us to stop & think.>>

At their best... At their best... but we don't have anything anywhere in the world close to that. Perhaps the closest in recent times was Bhutan, but even they are now slipping away and blending with the Western culture. Yes, if laws were made by sages directly inspired by God, that could be different, but that's not going to happen in our age - if I dared to suggest that, then the whole forum would be at me with knives.

Dear Banjo,

<<I think it is generally safe to say that Australia is a democracy.>>

In the technical sense of the word, yes, but not in its spirit.

Regardless, a "democracy" is but a fig-leaf for kratos, that sick idea as if it is moral for people to exert power and control over others who have done or threatened them no harm. In democracy, any 51% of the population (including the least intelligent, least caring, least affected and least moral 51%) may oppress the other 49% and rule out their way of life and all that's most dear to them.

<<which means that it is the people who have the power to fix the rules to which they accept to submit themselves.>>

Accept to submit? Under duress? try that in a rape court-case...

What we have is a number of powerful groups of people dividing the whole earth between them, not leaving a single spot free of their control, then demanding all people who live within their plots of land to submit to their will. It matters not whether the local controlling group is 1%, 10% or 51% of the population, because the end result for the rest is the same.

Who gave the state of Australia the right to hog a whole continent to itself, leaving no space for others? Was everyone present/affected in agreement?

.

Dear ybgirp,

.

"Only a parliament of well-informed, genuine independents elected with a proportional system, who debate and discuss and arrive at consensus, can give us true democracy ... There is no need for a government. The parliament should elect ministers who act as chairperson when their topics are debated; the premier/chairperson should be a rotating office, ..."
.

If that is so, I fear we shall never have "true democracy".

The model of democracy you suggests is a sort of rejuvenated, should I say modern version of the ecclesia developed by Solon in the ancient city state of Athens, in the 6th century BC.

There were no political parties then. Nor was there any such thing as a government as we know it today. Daily administration and judicial affairs were handled by the "boule" which had something like 400 to 500 members rotating annually, no member serving more than twice in his lifetime.

Total population of Athens and its region, Attica, was about 250 000, of which 30 000 to 40 000 male citizens had the right to vote.

Ancient Athenian democracy managed to survive, off and on, for a couple of centuries until it was finally suppressed by the Macedonians, in 322 BC.

That was over 2300 years ago. The scales are vastly different today. Ancient Athens was just a tiny dot on the map compared to the world's nations today. Life is far more complex, far more rapid, interconnected and interdependent.

Consider Bangladesh as a possibility of application for your model, with its 165 million population. Application should be facilitated by the fact that it is by far the most densely populated country in the world due to its small geographical size (1,142 people per sq.km.)

Personally, I am sorry to say that I just cannot imagine the type of organisation you have in mind working on even this exceptionally compact scale.

Otherwise I find your suggestion intellectually seductive in theory and would be delighted to be proven wrong.

.

That's most interesting, Banjo, thanks. You are no doubt correct regarding Bangladesh, where rampant corruption and religious hatreds would make a mockery of any attempt at fair government. However, with only about ten million voters, Australia has the possibility of arriving at something a great deal better than the present system in which compulsory preferences guarantee a two party hegemony.
The size of Australia is irrelevant. The "tyranny of distance" no longer exists with the internet, so it is time to abolish the states. Imagine how much more money would become available if we had fifteen or more fewer governments.
OK, it's pie in the sky. No political party will willingly legislate its own demise, and there will be no pressure to do so with an ill informed electorate such as we have.

landrights4all, interesting concept but I'm wondering how it plays out in practice.

I assume that you might want a bit more than just the room to set up a simple lean to but may want the ability to grow some crops, maybe keep some animals (or have some ability to manage foraging and hunting so that the area you lived in remained viable to keep yourself fed).

Australian Population - Almost 23 million
Australian Land mass - Almost 7.7 Million Sq Kms
Approx 1/3 Sq km per person if divided evenly and the population stayed static.

So if you have the right to access land for a shelter how much are you entitled to have some control over?
How long can you keep your shelter on that choice bit of land?
Can you decide you like the bit of land someone else has their shelter on and take it over while they are out gathering some food?
How do you cope if the family that's moved in next to you destroy your ability to feed yourself (and family)?
If you are allowed to keep that choice spot for as long as you want but decide that you would not mind swapping with someone else who has a different choice spot can you do that or when you leave that spot is it up for grabs?

R0bert

“Though some idealists may have a few reserves on the question, I think it is generally safe to say that Australia is a democracy.”
Tecknikly, Banjo, no.
Australia is not a Democracy, any more than the USA is a democracy and for pretty much the same reason, strangely.
The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The difference? In a true representative democracy, the representative would be nothing more than a mouthpiece, much like a court barrister. He/she would have no official opinions of their own, but merely the job of arguing the views and desires of their constituents at the national assembly.
Having no views or policies of their own, clearly political parties would be redundant.
In a representative republican model -such as we share with the USA- constituents are permitted to elect a representative who then has a mandate to make decisions on their behalf, --according to his/her own professed views and values--. This distinction can't be emphasised too much.
This obviously is where the party comes in. In the representative republican model, we have a right to know what sort of person our representative is, what he/she stands for, and how he/she will vote on matters of most concern to us.
In my father's day (say 50's to 70's) the choices were -apparently- a little more clear cut; if you were self -employed or on a salary you'd probably vote Liberal, if you worked for wages you voted Labour.
These days, it's a little messier. When Malcolm Fraser was PM he was considered very “right wing”. Ever since Hawke and Keating the Labor party have been stepping around him until these days he appears more left wing than many so called “Labor” politicians -at least on certain 'moral' issues.
Go figgur.
I would suggest the essential reason we have a hung parliament is simply 'cause Labor's right and Liberal's left overlap. As a result, we are left with the “cult of personality”; a quality both contenders seem to be lacking in.