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.