Hi Jardine,
As you will see from my first post in response to this article I certainly do not think that rights are what the state decides. I think the UN declaration of Human Rights is a scam, designed primarily to protect "property" and to give the illusion of freedom.

The declaration is a governance tool to keep the masses “satisfied” with their illusions and profiting their masters. Thus the root of this servitude, exploitation and power is in property, specifically in the commodification of land. With the land commodified, we MUST do what masters say if we are to achieve secure access to land for shelter (& food). Until then we must serve the interests of others who profit from our servitude.

As for “democracy”, I also agree it is a sham, also designed for the same purposes. Once you have enough people in your pocket, dependent on you for shelter and food, addicted to consumerism of what you produce you have a voting majority who will never properly consider the minority, let alone the individual’s right of free access to air water sunlight and LAND. After all, most people now already have a fair bit invested in “property” of their own & would say “I had to work hard for it, why should you get land access by birthright”?

You rightly recognise that the idea of a president with a mandate for justice rather than law is unrealistic in light of this addiction to “democracy”, so such top-down reform is wrong headed.

However, I believe reform could evolve gradually from the bottom. Recognising the selfishness and injustice on which “democracy” depends, the question should be is there any way that giving “the poor” more concessions could also serve the interests of the majority – then if that proved “profitable” the evolution could begin. I believe there is a way which is consistent with the fundamental justice of recognising land as a birthright. See bit.ly/S4EjvG

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

.

Dear Grim,

.

"I think a stronger adversarial system could be achieved with independent executive; a popularly elected President (“chief”, “honcho”, “top a genuinely dog”, “boss”...) with a specific mandate."

One of the fundamental aspects of constitutional design is the choice between parliamentary government, presidential government, or a hybrid format that combines some aspects of these two.

Many have been tried but I doubt you would find any to be entirely satisfactory.

Much depends on the manner in which each of the actors conceives and exercises his or her role, particularly in relation to the political party to which he or she belongs.

Also, the exercise of political power by different personalities in the same democratic regime can give vastly different results.

Any democracy can be manipulated and subjugated, as was demonstrated by the rise to power of Adolph Hitler in Germany, who won the approval of the Reichstag, on 23 March 1933, by 441 votes to 84, despite his party's lack of parliamentary majority, to "temporarily" delegate, (and subsequently renew), its powers to him, under what became known as the "Enabling Act", granting him dictatorial rule, free from all legislative and constitutional constraints.

Indonesia is a major example of the type of political regime you have in mind. The US does not qualify because its president is elected by a college of electors.

I do not know if you consider the semi-presidential regime of France corresponds to your model. Its president is elected by universal suffrage as is its bi-cameral parliament. The president names the prime minister and government ministers (representing the parliamentary majority) and participates more or less actively in the day-to-day administration of the state, depending on whether his political party is part of the parliamentary majority or not. If it is not there is "cohabitation" between the president and the government.

Whatever the political regime, "true democracy", like quicksilver, seems incapable of resisting being squeezed out by whatever dominating force happens to be prevalent at the time: monarchy (benevolent, enlightened or otherwise), presidential authoritarianism or parliamentary ( i.e., party) oligarchy.

.

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

" I believe there is a way which is consistent with the fundamental justice of recognising land as a birthright."

It is estimated that there are approximately 40,000 annual births to parents in the United States as birth tourists. However, total births to temporary immigrants in the United States (e.g. tourists, students, guest workers) could be as high as 200,000 per year.

"Birth tourism" is a term for travelling to a country that practices birthright citizenship in order to give birth there, so that the child will be a citizen of the destination country.

In 2009, 36% of babies born in Hong Kong were born to parents originating from Mainland China. This has resulted in the backlash of increased tension on the territory's social welfare and education systems.

The situation came to a boiling point in early 2012 with Hong Kongers taking to the streets to protest the influx of birth tourism from mainland China.

Canada is experiencing a similar phenomenon.

In 2011, births in Australia by parents of Chinese extraction were the third most frequent after those of parents of UK extraction (Italian 4.6%, German 4.5% and Chinese 4.3%).

The free property hand-out bonanza you propose could not fail to increase Australia's attractiveness as a "birth tourism" destination.

Even well established Australian citizens, married or otherwise, might feel compelled to compete with the rabbits in order to stake a claim to as much of the territory as they are physically capable of procreating.

Sounds like an explosive combination of "baby boom" and "land rush" bound to cause a dramatic crash in the real estate market for land and a hell of a lot of hungry mouths to feed.

That's for sure.

.

Banjo
You can't get citizenship in Australia just by being born here.

landrights4all
I think you should write a separate forum post on what you propose and let's discuss its merits and demerits.

Grim
Problem with mandates is, it's rather a slippery term. It's not a contract because it's not enforceable by the hapless voter; plus the law against misleading or deceptive conduct isn't available. Voting is compulsory and anyone you vote for then takes that as a mandate to do anything they want and we have no remedy against them but more of the same from someone else. Dreadful system.

Increased power of the executive is hardly calculated to increase liberties. Throughout the centuries, it's been the classic problem that liberty has had to contend against.

All
The central problem in defending freedom is and has always been how to limit government power. The problem with giving power to government and saying, limit yourself, is that it doesn't work. You only have to read the US and Australian Constitutions to see that.

Most of our liberties come not from democracy per se, but from the courts stopping executive power based on ancient laws requiring some kind of process. But parliamentary supremacy and democracy are a recipe for the constant erosion of liberties.

Governments now more than ever extensively and intensively regulate every conceivable corner of life, including condom use, doormat thickness, and so on. In many ways, democracy is the perfect tyranny because the population are indoctrinated by the state into believing that "we" are the State, and if the State does something bad it means "we" are responsible. The absolute monarchs never dreamed of such docile people and absolute power.

Under democracy, if 9 year olds had the vote, all of a sudden free ice cream would become a "right". That's the level of discourse on rights in Australia today, and it's caused by democracy.

G'day Banjo,
The Indonesian system is nothing like the system I envisage.
My vision is of an adversarial relationship between parliament, with a mandate to represent the will of the majority and a contract to defend, protect and abide by the Constitution; and a fully independent...
Let's call him “Chief Defender” just for fun.
The CD would have a clearly defined mandate to defend minorities FROM the majority. His/her role could and should be fully apolitical, as he would have nothing to do with policy. His job would be to defend, protect and abide by the Bill of Rights, which would be a clear -and enforceable- contract between individual citizens and the Government, outlining the Rights, duties and responsibilities of each party. Currently something like a contract exists, but it's remarkably one sided. Citizens (and non-citizens are obliged to obey laws arbitrarily written by the Gov. Failure to abide by this -unsigned- contract can result in being fined, having one's possessions taken, or being locked in a cage for any period.
When the Gov. fails to live up to it's side of this “contract”? It may -or may not- offer some form of compensation, as it sees fit.
The Chief Defender's duties as outlined earlier would include Head of Ombudsmen investigating complaints against Government departments; nominal head of investigative commissions against corruption in the Public Service and the Parliaments, and perhaps most importantly chief of legal aid; justice can never be served by the depth of one's pockets.
Such a personage may or may not belong to a political party. In this day and age of instant and universal communication it is perfectly possible for full disclosure of an individual candidates' beliefs, opinions and character, without requiring a party policy outline -which is appearing more and more worthless every moment, these days.
The Chief Defender, having nothing to do with policy, should therefore not be judged so much by his beliefs or opinions, but by a demonstrated attitude of incorruptibility and unshakable belief in fair play and justice for all.

Greetings, Grim. I fear you are correct. The grim truth is that, as someone wrote a few posts ago, most people want a leader to shoulder the responsibility of running things, including their lives. Therefore, the only form of government that will guarantee the best results for everyone, regardless of colour gender etc... is a truly independent, benign dictator/ emperor/king... as you suggest
There have been a few, apparently, but very few and with the PR available today, as we've seen in the USA where billions of dollars are spent on presidential elections alone, it is usually the worst possible candidate who is elected.