everybody forgets about the "fourth estate" in our democracy & it is not media. the first three, administrative, legislative & judicial work together with appropriate separation, co-operation, checks & balances to become "the state".

Then the same rules apply to the two remaining powers, church & state which form a civilized society or culture. This is what was intended by our founding fathers, 100 to 300 years ago when all these powers were written into our constitution & those of all other anglosphere nations.

Trick questions to Rotarians (my narrowed minded, socialist, small business father was one of them, and I have opinions on Rotary) aside, I want small government. Government should be involved in defence, foreign affairs, regulation, supply of utilities (which it is now dodging), and little else. There is too much government meddling in things that it has no expertise in.

Good cartoon, OLO.

Ttbn Another abstract comment. Give us some more of what you are proposing. [ cartoons ]

Doog,

Apart from your obvious ignorance of the meaning of 'abstract', which in no way applies to my opinion and belief, in what I thought would be my last response to any of of your really, really stupid comments on everything and anything, a few days go, I asked why you persisted in demanding explanations from other posters when you took no notice of their responses.

Now, this is the last time I will be taking any notice of your garbage. It's one thing to argue with sane people who don't agree with me, but my patience with nitwits is exhusted.

Don you offer considerable praise of these authors, despite admitting their reasoning is very faulty.

It would seem that many such as them know what they want, but their understanding & reasoning is so faulty that their opinions are actually detrimental.

You quote them, "Economics is about ensuring that scarce resources are put to their socially best use, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that the capacity of our ecosystems to support human life is a crucial and over-exploited resource. We may not be able to predict the exact consequences of two or five degrees of warming, for example, but most rigorous projections show that it would be costly in the extreme", which shows they have no real understanding of their topic.

It is a fact that an infinitely small number of authors have enough math to understand these subjects. They write on emotion, not understanding.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that a similarly small numbers of mathematicians have enough writing ability, or interest in the written word, to inform others that really do need to be informed.

This is really unfortunate, when so many confidence tricksters have climbed onto the environmental band wagon, & are exploiting well meaning people quite ruthlessly. With so many authors & politicians unable to decipher fact from fiction, I'm afraid we are in for a very bumpy ride to the bottom of the pile, we once climbed so bravely.

Ttbn I would defy anyone to decipher what you had written, nothing made sense. You have opinions of Rotary. Was that your mind ticking over or did it just happen by itself.

The title said . Who wants small govt;

I am sorry if you don’t like my garbage, it’s a matter of who’s side you are on doesn’t it.

ttbn & doog, i understood what ttbn was saying perfectly well.

doog, why are you incapable of understanding plain, simple English?

I must admit this is an exciting thread to comment on. isn't it. Not a word of what the subject is about.

You are meant to give your opinion of the literature, so a discussion can take place.

I do not object to a public sector and to public services. On the contrary, I think that even more of it would be good - so long as "public" does not mean that it is run by the state or its government.

The coercive body which most of us entrust to defend ourselves, against both external and internal enemies, should do just that and have nothing to do with providing other services. That is because self-defence is the only valid excuse for imposing an involuntary body such as the state to encroach on our freedoms. Other functions can and should be performed by voluntary organisations, which I welcome.

For example, sale of hand-guns over the counter could be seen as a public risk, so it is reasonable for the state to be able to regulate it.

However, sale of babies over the counter is not a public risk hence none of the business of the state. Those who abhor this practice are then free to say: "we will form our own public bodies that will deal with economy, welfare, health, education, transportation, water, electricity, etc. etc. and one condition for membership in our bodies is that members commit themselves not to sell or buy babies. If you do still want to go ahead and sell your babies, OK, but then you are not one of us and you may not access our roads, or water or electricity, or health or education or welfare, in fact you then may not even use the money that we print, etc. - take it or leave it". That's only fair.

doog, i spoke about wanting smaller government & how to achieve it, just like ttbn did.

When you look at the likes of Victoria, and New south Wales, They no doubt could go alone on all decisions. Given their respective full amounts of GST. I can see those two states being hamstrung with welfare to other states. They are not growing at their full potential.

Victoria gained some 110 ,000 persons this year from other states. So yes you could take two states off of federal govt; funding by giving those two states their full GST. Those two are more than capable of govt; without any interference at all from federal govt;

So the federal govt; could be decreased considerably, after all it is a somewhat snoutish club isn’t it.

Trim the fat from the cats, and add more money for the states. The notion that federal govt is needed for infrastructure jobs is overrated altogether, it is no other than political funding for election purposes. And each capable state needs to take control of their own affairs.

Like Abbott’s dodge tunnel between to freeways going in different directions. Was a political set up. Victoria does not need more and more roads, it needs public transport. Somehow that was not expensive enough for Abbott.

Govt ; can be downsized considerably.

doog, isn't slick willy shorten proposing more roads?
isn't the most unrepresentative swill of all local government?
if we abolish local government won't we save more money for useful purposes?
& yes slashing the size of some federal government departments would be a good idea.

I do not know what you are talking about but I was referring to Vic and NSW. We will always need more roads. Vic is in urgent need of more public transport.

isn't the most unrepresentative swill of all local government? I do not know what that says.

Local govt; You mean council I take it. Well that too can happen with the town run with an admistrator, But that is going to put a lot more on the state central govt; So I don’t think you would save anything.

The size of federal govt can be slashed by miles by having the 2 states run by their own state govt;

There would be a lot of different scenario’s that could be adopted. It’s a matter of getting the will power together to want to implement change.

Pm’s are notorious at becoming power drunk, and then you can have wont power instead of will power.

If anybody is up for change it will be Turnbull, he has nothing to prove, and not in need of sustenance

Without the foreign exchange earned by WA & Queensland mining, NSW & Victoria would not have most electrical or electronic gear or appliances. They would by now be reduced to pick & shovel for infrastructure development, dur to lack of export earnings to pay for equipment.

It is time to do some study on the facts of life doog.

Every body needs the facts of life exposed to them.
Has been Said .

Without the foreign exchange earned by WA & Queensland mining, NSW & Victoria would not have most electrical or electronic gear or appliances. They would by now be reduced to pick & shovel for infrastructure development, dur to lack of export earnings to pay for equipment.
It is time to do some study on the facts of life doog

Sorry hasbeen can you slow down a bit , and watch what you are writing. I do not understand what you are conveying.

Vic is not exactly short of export commodity. We have massive Brown Coal reserves. Power generation is not a problem, all grids are connected through 5 states and one territory.

Coal mining is all but stuffed in QLD isn’t it. What is the exchange rate between AU $ and Chinese money.

doog, comrades Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Gillard & Rudd have been closing down every PRODUCTIVE industry other than quarrying, farming & tourism ever since 1972.

Services industries are parasitical businesses that provide services to PRODUCTIVE industries & their employees. There are only 3 cows in the paddock now. How many ticks can 3 cows carry? How long before they all die of tick fever?

is borrowing money to create jobs, building public housing to put migrants on welfare in it, a good business model?

ICM

The mob that owns some QLD coal mining is 30 billion in debt, and scaling down. So it may have been a good idea if they had closed down earlier.

Cows and ticks. You can answer that one. We do not have ticks in Vic.
What we need is to create jobs desperately, if that means stimulating the economy to achieve that, well that would be good business sense.

Building Public housing is always going to be in need, no matter who you put in it. I would say that business model does stack up, infrastructure is always a positive and should be more of it.
By the way your comment is structured I would say it was politically loaded.
The only political faction that would have grounds to be selective at who goes into public housing is the far right Conservative faction of the Liberal party.

I am not selective at all, anyone that is in need of public housing should be randomly selected to occupy that dwelling. I do not have that sort of a problem.

I see people as equal human beings, I would not make a good racist. I rely on the law of the land to keep our nation in good lawful state. I would not believe in people taking issues into their own hands to resolve, any sort of law and order problems.

This is why we need excellent Government, to keep us safe, and enforce laws of the land. I say we are doing really well in that department. With PM Turnbull as our head Honcho we are in for the ride of a lifetime. Hopefully.

imacentristmoderate, what do you regard as PRODUCTIVE industries? How do you think our Labor PMs have been shutting them down? And do you think our Liberal PMs haven't?

Are you referring to the slashing of tariffs, which allowed the market to shut our low productivity industries down?

doog, the ONLY reason why we need to build public housing is because we keep bringing in migrants. Aboriginal & white Australians were being kept out of public housing by migrants because the tenants are not picked at random or by time waiting your turn. Priority was given to migrants.

we also don't need to create jobs. we need to stop importing migrants so that young Australians can have a job.

do you want rates of economic growth that are slower, but more stable or economically sustainable? or do want to inflate speculative bubbles that lead to another crash.

Aidan, quarrying, farming, tourism & manufacturing are productive. Whitlam lowered tariffs, raised wages & raised the dollar going from full employment to double digit unemployment almost overnight. our liberal PMs have done nothing to close down industries as the policies were all labor. yes i was revering to tariffs among other anti-industry policies, but we shut down high productivity industries too. you cannot ever compete against convict labor

imacentristmoderate, considering public housing is a state issue, it seems unlikely that they'd give priority to migrants (as migration is a federal issue). Do you have any actual evidence that they are? And if you do, have you any idea why they do so?

We need to INCREASE DEMAND so that young Australians can have jobs. Stopping migration is not an effective way of doing so.

I don't want economic stability for its own sake. Economic cycles can be exploited by governments, and doing so would bring both high growth and more stability than we have at the moment.

Forcing Australians to pay higher prices for imports (and hence raising the cost of living) is bad for our productivity. And how is it productive to manufacture something here for more than it costs to make the same item overseas? If we're making things we're no good at making, we won't be able to export them. Most service industries are far more productive than that, as they contribute to the wealth of Australians (who wouldn't buy what they sell if they didn't think it worth the money).

It's better to let our dollar fall a bit; that will make all our industries more competitive; not just our uncompetitive ones.

It was the Abbott government that pulled the plug on the car industry, though it probably wouldn'tve lasted long under Labor either.

There are restrictions on importing products made with convict labour. The vast majority fo cheap imports aren't.

The purpose of small government is open slather for predators and tyranny for prey. That's why predators promote it.

Dear Julian,

So you think that a larger predator at the top of the food chain could help?

There aren't many predators left today, you know, so currently if the gates of the Canberra zoo were opened, nobody would even notice the missing politicians that finally had a good use - as breakfast. If however there is a small government, then the escaped lions and tigers will be able to consume them in a reasonable time - surely nobody will shed tears over them!

Yuyutsu’s caricature of the process of representative government is not a description of reality. Predators acquire wealth from prey for their own use and further empowerment. The smaller is the government the fewer are the enforced obligations for the disposal of that acquired wealth.

With strong representative government there is a system of laws and regulations governing how the wealth can be acquired and how it can be used. A truly representative government is not at the top of any food chain. Nor would predators ruling any jungle food chain ever be breakfast unless the jungle was taken over by stronger predators from outside.

A representative government is, however, wide open to be bought by predators. Those who buy it go to the top of the food chain, but their prey is it the government, it’s the public. A form of government not so easily suborned by purchase is democracy. That would require Binding Citizen-Initiated Referenda (BCIR). With BCIR we would never have copped a GST to offset a reduction in company tax, or have participated in the rape of Vietnam or Iraq, or have allowed predatory plunder through privatisation of public assets.

Correction line 2 last par

"but their prey is it the government," should be "but their prey is not the government,"

Dear Julian,

The term "representative government" is only introduced in your last post, so obviously I had no previous chance to relate to it.

Obviously no such thing exists or ever did, so it's all hypothetical. Democracy too is just a myth, a propaganda attempt to sweeten the bitter pill of being ruled by an uninvited gang who call themselves "state", who never actually sought permission to control the lives of ordinary people.

If that's not a predator, then what is?

No, it's not the type of predator that kills you and eats your flesh all at once, but more like parasites who suck your blood constantly year in and year out.

Nobody likes predators, but what's the point of stopping smaller predators if that requires the introduction of a bigger one? How more so when, as you mentioned yourself, those smaller predators are not stopped anyway as you would hope, even when government is big, but instead feast and share our blood with the government itself. So if they cannot be avoided anyway, then at least have a smaller government with less mouths to feed - better still, let the lions and tigers of the Canberra zoo consume them for breakfast so we have none at all!

BTW, per your specific complaints, had there been no government:
* nobody could introduce GST.
* nobody would make you participate in or support the fighting in Vietnam or Iraq.
* there would be no "public assets" (as we currently understand the term) to plunder.

Yuyutsu, we need government and we need it to belong collectively to us all. Without government there would be no law, no protection of personal autonomy, no science, no medical knowledge, no transport, no civilisation – just a decaying anarchistic Mad Max world in which human life would be brutish and short. It wouldn’t last long. Predators would quickly emerge, enslave the unprotected prey, and set up a brutal dictatorship. Mohammed is the poster boy for such a mega-predator to emerge from a world without dependable structure or hope.

My preference, and probably most other people’s, is civilisation, law, the Enlightenment, human rights, language, real countries with borders. My own preference (though probably not yet most other people’s but history is heading that way) would also include no religion.

Dear Julian,

Whatever your preference is, you have no right to enforce it on others with different preferences. Doing so is barbaric violence.

I understand that a government is needed in order to achieve your goals, but then nothing prevents you from establishing a government of your kind of people alone, rather than a territorially-based one that forces itself on everyone who happens to live in some huge stretch of territory (such as this continent). You could then design such a government to belong collectively to all your people. Further, others who have varied goals (which could include a subset of yours) could establish their own governments over their own people, so that no-one who wants a government needs to stay without one.

Regarding predators, nothing prevents you from defending yourself and whatever group(s) or society(s) that you freely chose to belong to in accordance with your values. Nothing prevents you from making and enforcing your own rules and standards within your group(s); and from fighting against threats from those outside them. What is unacceptable, however, is to force your standards and values upon others that are not threatening you or your group(s), but only wish to live in peace side by side.

You mentioned that you value personal autonomy - then how can you live with the fact that your government constantly thwarts it?

Regarding religion, like a snake that sheds its old skin, people now seem to shed the shells of their old religions. It would be your misunderstanding to assume that they are disposing of religion altogether - they only discard some old casings that are no longer needed.

Back, back, back to pre-industrial, back to feudal, back to tribal, back to iron age, back to stone age, back to squabbling pockets of pithecanthropi, back to plankton. There are 23 million people in Australia and the number who want to embark on that path would fit in a phone booth. I'm satisafied to stay with the 23 million, bogans and all, rather than with isolated nut cases like the survivalists of Montana or "Prince Rupert" of Hutt River Province.

Meanwhile among the participants in society (society, which Margaret Thatcher and Yuyutsu would have wished to see dismantled) there will be conversations seeking working control of the state by the people for the people. We go back a long way (read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and trace the growth of democracy within it). That's the path of conscious civilisation and it will always have a place for participants. The payoff for participation is a legacy. The payoff for nihilist kookery is lonely angst.

Dear Julian,

Your reply indicates that you have not read my last post (or otherwise prefer to ignore it).

There is a wide gap between the Soviet Union and nihilist kookery, with lots between.

You can have not one, but many societies.
You can even have those societies partially cooperating on those matters they agree on.

What you want is to have just ONE society - which must be YOUR society that shares YOUR preferences, to swallow and dominate everyone else, or at least everyone else who lives in this whole continent and surrounding islands.

You are even "generous" to allow others to vote in your democracy due to your confidence of getting a majority. Had your preferences been in the minority, then you too would be crying fie.

Ah, you mean multiculturalism. With the quasi-democratic state giving way to the vilest, most predatory theocracy since the seventh century, stimulating in faux confrontation the imposition of an overarching secret political police and a mass surveillance worthy of the pen of George Orwell. With defence against both superstates threatening to crumble before political conformism and blind failure to notice the trap of openness to closedness.

Little circles of opt-out kooks offer no impediment to this twin juggernaut. The mutually co-operating superstates will have these opt-out individuals and circles, like the Falun-Gong in the Chinese Police Republic and the Bahais in the Islamic theocratic desert, for breakfast.

The key to building and defending a shared space in which the autonomous individual can thrive lies in the centuries-old struggle between the Enlightenment and the counter-Enlightenment, with those not committed to the values of the Enlightenment opting for irrelevance at best. This is the context in which to study civilised society and the role of the state.

Dear Julian,

The terms that you use indicate a narrow perspective, based on contemporary Western/Australian politics.

Once you and your friends all freely agree to have a state, then I leave it to you (plural) to define its role and decide how to run it, because it should then be none of my business and I don't wish to be drawn into your internal affairs, certainly not your petty politics.

If within your group you want to have a democracy, then fine, have a democracy. If you want to have a culture, or two cultures, or three, or none - that's entirely up to you. If you want to follow a particular philosophy and strive towards particular goals, then fine, go for it, but do keep me out.

That "enlightenment" which you keep mentioning has nothing to do with enlightenment (i.e. realisation of one's true nature as God), but is only a name given to a certain, very specific political movement within relatively-recent Western history, born of internal disputes within the Western culture, which is not my cup of tea anyway.

If what you try to do in this topic is to study civilised society and the role of the state, then why didn't you say so to begin with? I am not a student of those particular subjects!

Now you mention that you have a problem with some super-powers that threaten you, but that's a new topic that was not mentioned before, neither in this article nor in our conversation so far. One thing is clear: I do not represent a power or a super-power and I do not pose a threat to you, thus you have no right to impose your state and your values on me. How I and my friends cope with those super-powers is then up to us - perhaps our irrelevance can even become part of our solution...