shorbe,
Get real Governments are there to serve the society over which they are elected to represent. Governments have no power except what the people bestow upon them under a constitution. They are supposed to attend to the corporate needs of the society by providing services and security which we cannot individually provide. Though current governments are passing off these services etc to private investors and corporations. This will mean we the people will loose power to administer through our representatives our own affairs. We are returning to the old serf system of serving big business and landholders.

Shorbe, you sound like a nice young bloke who is lost in idealism - which is very normal for young people. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and no government is perfect but some are better than others. Fortunately we live in a country that has maintained freedom to a pretty high standard. Whilst you may think that there should be very few restrictions - believe me you will eventually come to realise how important the restrictions that we do have are. Have a little think about those countries where the only restrictions placed on anyone is in direct proportion to the amount of money one has to pay bribes - people in those countries are clammering to get out. If you really want to make a difference in this world don't be swayed by hedonism. True freedom lies in speaking up for that which is right and wisdom lies in recognising what is right and what is wrong.

Philo: Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Regardless, I think if a nation is going to truly have democracy it should be direct, not representative. That would probably mean fewer laws would be passed, but that's the point. You wouldn't need to ask permission just to scratch yourself.

Australian Representative democracy is especially flawed due to preferential voting where in most cases, you end up voting for the ALP or Liberal Party whether you like them or not. That's hardly a choice really.

As for the constitution, who interprets it? I don't remember electing any judges. I also don't remember electing any bureaucrats or other government employees.

You say governments are there to serve the people, yet they've been doing a pretty pathetic job for as long as anyone can remember. When they're not fighting their own people with taxes, arresting them or spying on them in the name of any open-ended "War" (eg. Terror, Drugs, Poverty, none of which have been particularly successful), or just outright killing them, they do so to foreigners either at home or abroad. Didn't 20th century history teach you anything about governments, including ours in the west?

Also, you say that people cannot provide for themselves on an individual basis. Non-profit NGOs operate in the marketplace (as opposed to government coercion) and are efficient and capable in charitable/humanitarian operations, why not in other areas? Then there are plenty of areas where people can do things for themselves. Framing the whole debate in terms of a "benevolent bloated government" vs "evil corporations/private investors" is extremely limiting, especially since the two have always been closely related.

Finally, regarding serfdom, look at how much total tax we pay. A feudal lord would have risked revolt, yet we don't even raise a whimper, we re-elect. Just who exactly does this tax benefit anyway? Likewise, the fact that we use fiat money means precisely that we've been serfs for a long time because we have no control over the money supply, yet it (or the people who control it) has control over us.

Redneck,

I just wanted to tell you I think your posts on these stream are absolutely spot on. I agree with all you say. And just to add one thought: even if you can, as a parent, stop your children from watching this rubbish you cannot protect them anymore once they leave your house and mix with other kids who might have not been so lucky to be protected as well.

Children don't live just in their parents' house, they live in society, so if society gets corrupted so will they to a degree, or at least, it will make it much harder for parents to protect them.

And of course you are absolutely right, we are responsible also towards all other kids, not just our own.

Big Red: The worst countries for human rights and corruption are the ones with the strongest and most invasive governments. Australia is so good because government has one of the least levels of power over our lives, not the most, and because generally, we refrain from letting government make moral decisions on how we live our private lives. Having said that, I don't think that means there isn't massive room for improvement. I don't think we're at a political endpoint.

I may be idealistic in some ways, but actually, I'm quite pessimistic about our political future. I can see, as just one example, a day in the not too distant future where we have a national ID card that comes about with almost bipartisan support of politicians and with the fearful support of the general populace under the auspices of fighting the War on Terror or illegal immigration or welfare fraud. If they didn't initially, such ID cards would very quickly include biometric information and the whole thing would become a very real invasion of our privacy.

"And just to add one thought: even if you can, as a parent, stop your children from watching this rubbish you cannot protect them anymore once they leave your house and mix with other kids who might have not been so lucky to be protected as well."

Schmuck: Yeah, but that's true of anything. Once anyone gets out into the general community he or she is likely to encounter all kinds of wild and wooly people. Maybe we should just build a big fence around whole suburbs so the white trash can't get out and adversely affect us. I would suggest it makes more sense to actually teach children how to deal with life and evaluate the merits of people and situations and react accordingly (with avoidance if necessary) rather than wrap them in cotton wool.

Furthermore, as regards the responsibility of parents for other people's children, who decides that? Unless you're suggesting minority rule, I'd suggest that the moralising right would come off distinctly second best if parenting were a "societal" responsibility.

I used to get enjoyment from heading down to the domain in Sydney on weekends. People would stand on milk crates and rant on a myriad of topics. It seems that they have found their way online...