I agree with the notion of smaller govt and a bill of rights to protect us from the absolutists, who seem to be attracted to power like moths to the flame!?
We with just one exception are the most over-governed people on the planet!
State Parliaments, cost the Australian taxpayer 70 billions plus per!
Simply reconciling our inordinately complex tax system, costs the tax payer more than 5 billions annually; and that just a drop in the bucket, in comparison to compliance costs ripping around 7% from the corporate bottom line.
Imagine how much better the budget bottom line would be, if we could collect the company taxes, of the 40% or so, of our transnational guests, who allegedly, pay no co tax to anyone?
If we were wise, we would finally reconcile State govt duties and services, and that which the fed provides.
We have to end the duplication and duopoly that creates much of it!
There ought to be just one funding entity, not the inordinately costly double handling, which occurs now and inevitably adds to the cost of govt service provision.
Were we to rationalize this buck passing dogs breakfast, we would provide all health, education and public transport funding as a direct model from the Fed.
This would eliminate at least 30% of the current cost structures, and allow that additional funding to be redirected to the coal face.
Funding by this means, could be based almost exclusively on a pro rata funding model, increased in direct inverse proportion, to the distance from the capital.
In which case, state govts could be reduced to a single governor, (elected), and he she could employ a very small very professional team, to take care of what would then remain of state govt responsibility?
This team would lose their tenure, with every change of state parliament!
This then would virtually eliminate incompetence and or corruption, which would be much more difficult to hide from the investigative media!
Rhrosty.

My take on this article is not that it is about general societal morality, but rather about the inherent moral direction of government decisions, policies and economic development - such as whether pursuing (and supporting) sustainable initiatives will be in the common long-term interest, or whether to limit gambling, or plain-paper packaging for tobacco, or an NDIS, or whether to proceed with CSG or mining of the Barrier Reef (or under what circumstances), or whether superannuation schemes should invest in tobacco, or if foreign investment in this or that will be in our interest.

It's not about rich vs poor, white collar vs blue, business vs workers, but rather about fairness in business and in employment, recourse to redress without having to mortgage the family home, quality healthcare for all, a fair and just legal system, good roads, good amenities, good education and good career (or job) prospects for all.
It is about confidence that general expectations will be met - but not at risk of poisoning the planet, of wiping out vital fish stocks, of smashing biodiversity, of generating acid rain or of making cities and towns unfit to live in.
It is about sustainable quality of life for ALL, and about ensuring all pull their reasonable weight, but are not overburdened.
It is about social cohesion and happiness that will withstand future shocks; about maintaining resilience and sense of purpose; and of focusing on 'the Big Picture', not just the next election.
And it's ultimately about obviating 'ill-gotten gains'.

That's a bit of a stretch, Saltpetre.

>>My take on this article is not that it is about general societal morality, but rather about the inherent moral direction of government decisions, policies and economic development<<

Are these really indicative of a government's "inherent moral direction", ?

>>...pursuing (and supporting) sustainable initiatives<<

>>...limit gambling, or plain-paper packaging for tobacco<<

>>...an NDIS<<

>>...proceed with CSG or mining of the Barrier Reef<<

>>...whether superannuation schemes should invest in tobacco<<

>>...if foreign investment in this or that will be in our interest<<

I am not convinced that any of the above genuinely represents a moral dimension. Sure, they are all policy stances that you can agree with or disagree with, depending upon your position on freedom of the individual, free trade, mining vs. conservation etc. But to endow them with some kind of spurious morality seems a bridge too far.

And this is just a laundry list of feelgoodery:

>>...fairness in business and in employment, recourse to redress without having to mortgage the family home, quality healthcare for all, a fair and just legal system, good roads, good amenities, good education and good career (or job) prospects for all. It is about confidence that general expectations will be met - but not at risk of poisoning the planet, of wiping out vital fish stocks, of smashing biodiversity, of generating acid rain or of making cities and towns unfit to live in. It is about sustainable quality of life for ALL, and about ensuring all pull their reasonable weight, but are not overburdened.<<

Are you sure you are not simply overlaying the article with your own utopian dreams?

Ludwig
You mentioned a point of balance. Do you know what that is, or not? If not, a simple 'no' will suffice. If yes, what is it?

Pericles
"Are you sure you are not simply overlaying the article with your own utopian dreams?"

LOL. Certainly seems that way. Saltpetre is merely doing what Ludwig is doing: alleging some unspecified moral principle which just happens to justify forcing everyone into obeying his own arbitrary opinions.

<< Ludwig you mentioned a point of balance. Do you know what that is, or not? If not, a simple 'no' will suffice. If yes, what is it? >>

Yes I know what my point of balance is for all manner of moral and social issues, but I respect other peoples’ differing views.

Pick an issue, and I’ll tell you my point of balance.

So what are you suggesting? – that if we can’t absolutely define, with a great deal of community support, just what the point of balance regarding a particular moral issue is, then our government should do nothing?

Or don’t you care that much? It seems that your heart is not really in this particular debate.

And please, stop asserting that other people hold views that you know they don’t.

Re: << Saltpetre is merely doing what Ludwig is doing: alleging some unspecified moral principle which just happens to justify forcing everyone into obeying his own arbitrary opinions. >>

This sort of thing totally undermines your credibility.

Dear Saltpetre,

<<It is about social cohesion and happiness... about maintaining resilience and sense of purpose;>>

So it is about enforcing social cohesion even over those who were never interested in being part of society, or perhaps are interested in being part of a society, but not necessarily that particular society called "nation". It is about attempting to make people "happy" for things that would make other people happy, rather than allowing them to seek their own happiness. It is about enforcing a particular sense of purpose over those who already have a different sense of purpose in life.

In one word, it's about oppression.

Dear Ludwig,

You were looking for a point-of-balance between too-much and not-enough government-control over our lives and over all of society, so here is where I believe it should rest:

The state should have authority to direct the lives of those who wish or freely consent to be part of it (hence called 'citizens'). As for all others, the state may only take such measures to control them as necessary to prevent them from harming (including statistical-harm = risking) the well-being of its citizens.

The state has no authority, for example, to "protect" those who have not sought its protection or to assume that someone has asked for its protection merely because that person happens to live in a territory that is controlled by that state.

People are more likely to consent to be part of a society/nation if they receive certain guarantees, such as a constitution and democratic elections; or a bill-of-rights, etc., but there may always be others who do not consent even then, and their dignity must be respected as well. While the state is not obliged to protect non-citizens or their property, it may not actively harm or limit them either, or expel them from its so-called territory so long as they do not disturb its citizens.

In summary, citizens must abide by their agreement, but those who do not wish to be part of a nation-state, should be treated at least as well as the wild animals roaming the country.