Col,

at the risk of being seen as having an answer to everything (which I don't) consider these points:

>>>>>>>the challenge is to preserve the rights of the individual from every quarter.

(To quote myself from http://www.peterforde.com/aquarius.htm)

"The concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inflexibly determined by that which is either beneficial (good) for or harmful (bad) for any given human group—society—NOT the individual. If it is good or bad for society then it is automatically good or bad for the individual within that society. If there is any conflict, then the society's wellness must be placed first, no matter what the cost to the individual—even if his/her life—for without the survival and well-being of the society, the individual cannot survive."

In other words, Col, the individual's rights are not the most important thing, even though they are currently seen as 'the big thing'. Perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville will better persuade you than a mere ozaware:

"Individualism, in the long-run, attacks and destroys all others, and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness." (end quote)

>>>>>Less government does not mean no government

And your point is....?

>>>>>>>>Fortunately we do have some institutions like ACCC just as USA has the FTC - which work as watchdogs to "curb the excesses (of the multi-nationals)".

Is that right? Hmmm. How about this (quote):

(Headline)
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (That's your "ACCC" Col) says its laws don’t stop big business.

On 20th June 2004, the Herald Sun newspaper reported that.........

Australia's consumer watchdog has said that its most powerful laws were virtually useless in its fight against big business' market power.

Mr. Graeme Samuel, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, speaking on Seven network's Sunday Sunrise said "To be honest, we've had a number of failures." (end quote)

Sorry Col, things just ain't what they may appear to be on the surface...

Ozaware ,I think you miss the point.The individual is being crushed between big business and big Govt.Which is the lesser of two evils?
Big business and big Govt make deals that disadvantage the hard working and productive.Govt spends it's largesse on paying people not to work and also expanding bureauracy,while big business pay shareholders who may also be non productive.There are parisites on both sides of the fence.If big business paid people in 3rd world countries enough to become consumers,they would be expanding their own markets and hence their profits.When we pay people enough money to buy time to be educated and motivated,we have economic take off.When we do the reverse ,we have recession and poverty. The trick is in keeping the balance.

ozaware "Mr. Graeme Samuel, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, speaking on Seven network's Sunday Sunrise said "To be honest, we've had a number of failures." (end quote)"

Such modesty in a public official was heartwarming - but the point is they have had successes and yes the reason they have had "failures" is because they are there - the way to avoid failure would be to disband the commission - and avoid the risk of their failure - the FTC likewise has had failures (Microsoft thus far) yet has had remarkable successes (Standard Oil, American Music, breaking the funeral homes monopoly etc)

Hello, where are Grace and Morgan?Have they surrendered so easily?I feel cheated because no one has proven me wrong!Gee I like a good debate.Don't do a Mark and take your bat and ball home.

I've been off line for a week. Back in the saddle now....

Arjay,

>>>"The trick is in keeping the balance"

True, Arjay. And how exactly do we do that?

Allow me to answer the question only because I doubt anyone has a better answer---if any at all.

Surprise! It's a li'l old thing called....morals. As in (Christian) morality.

When (Christian) morals go out the window, as has already happened, then greed in the form of abuse of power takes over. If we had a truly moral govt., then it would protect us little people from big bad business by clipping biz's wings when necessary. But we have neither a truly moral govt (whether Liberal or labour- se http://www.oz-aware.com/latham1.htm)and certainly not a moral big business (Hi, there, Rodney Adler...).

So we, as you say Arjay, get squeezed.

But wait! There's worse news. At present our (Liberal) government is 'somewhat' moral. Wait another ten/twenty years, when this generation of 'somewhat' moral pollies is replaced by the 'me first and f... everyone else' generation of pollies and this generation of 'ever-so-slightly-moral' big business moguls is replaced by a 'me first...ditto f...' generation of business powerbrokers.

Arjay, we the little people will not just be "squeezed", we will be stomped.

Remember, you heard it here first....

(This 350 word rule is idiotic, Graham, unless you only want frivolous frivolity. Serious subjects sometimes need more wordspace....)

Anyway, Arjay....

>>>>>(and) "which is the lesser of the two evils"?
It does not matter because either of them, given untrammelled power, would be the end of us. What we as a society have to do is create a situation in which the question simply does not arise. Meaning that we as a society should devise systems that prevent either from being either the lesser or the bigger of the two evils.

Ah-um......we can riot in the streets and guillotine them when they step out of line or we can develop social management systems which prevent the problem from arising in the first place.

A no-brainer choice, of course.

Which actually proves that we, as a society, almost literally are brainless because we are headed down a roads that will probably end with the former option.....

Unless we start seriously trying to stop the social degradation and re-instill morality and decency (same thing) back into our society.

Which ball, as you may know, I have just started rolling at http://www.decency.org.au

And Grace and Morgan, you too are welcome---as long as you are willing to learn old realities that will be very new to you.