All- has a legitimate complaint against all eight State and Territory Governments. Being fully integrated from cradle to grave, as lawyer republics, with all decisions made by Judges for lawyers, with Parliaments misappropriating public money without any responsibilities attached to such appropriations, it is no wonder the robber barons rule.

In Section 83 of the Australian Constitution appropriations from the public purse can be made in two places; in the Court of Parliament and in a court of law. Under the paradigm established by the Constitution a Ch III “court” was empowered to determine whether the appropriation and exaction to cover it was “just”; Section 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution. After 1949, lawyers set out to abolish that accountability, by making lawyers, instead of 12 electors the judges of justice. Judges with a capital J, are not mentioned in s 79 Constitution.

It is said we have the best legal system money can buy. The only legal system money cannot buy, is the one established under Ch III Constitution. With that system, lawyers had to be honest, they could not plunder the public purse, and had to answer to the people represented by twelve electors, for all their actions. If Kevin Rudd can be trusted then he is going to abolish lawyer rule, and give it back to the people who have had it stolen from them by the Liberal Party.

Business takes a risk, and loses, the public should not have to pay. If that business is a State or Territory Government, S 64 Judiciary Act 1903 makes them accountable to a Ch III “court”. To avoid accountability, except every three years, lawyers have made members of their monopoly State Judges and Magistrates. This allows the legal profession a monopoly to sell indulgences to big business, just like the Pope used to do, and build basilicas to enrich themselves in with public money.

The Rudd led Labor Government has made a start, and Chris Bowen will smash this monopoly before the next election. Even the majority lawyer members of the big business Liberals will not be able to stop this

Great article!
There is no doubt that Rudd has more in common with Howard than traditional Labor supporters would like. Alas, both our parties have molded themselves to the times and are following the path to victory: Glib non-intellectual sound bites and back-room deals with big business.
There is a hint that ideology is intact but well hidden...but traditional media makes it very hard to tell!
I remember having a laugh at Indonesia's "democracy" where only one party was allowed: Some democracy! Then I realised we have a "two party" democracy. Yay, the supplicants have to pay off two groups instead of one. I really think it is time for a new grassroots party to be formed: Secular (not pretend secular) and based around a balance of Goverment/Business/Environment: No ambit philosophy allowed. (Left/Right, Communist/Capitalist). This is a tricky thing as almost everyone has been given a "side" at birth by their parents so will tend to see, at least, one side as "the enemy" and one side as "the corrupted good". I don't think anyone but the odd loony approves of either side of politics unreservedly.
Get rid of all welfare that is not income and means tested, get rid of the "private" companies taking both profits and taxpayer handouts, then nationalise the industries that cannot survive as private companies. (OK corperatise them but keep transparency and profits)
The left and right are so intermingled for historical reasons, I don't think there is even a clear line anymore!

Marko- Labor has for decades now followed policies that seek to include the working class in as part of the capital class. Keatings super scheme made most of us in some small way at least 'capitalists',the perennial accent on home ownership and Lathams belief that every aussie child should be the recipient of funds invested at birth, collectible on maturity, for instance.

Hawke and Keating defanged the ACTU when they got access to running super funds etc and invited them inside the tent with the Accord.

Your right in saying that Rudd is a sell out in this area of traditional Labor/socialist ideas but he is pretty consistent with the modern party.

Tristan Ewins wants a bit of French style radical action. How many burned out cars would he like to see? How many shop front windows smashed?

Palimset,

When necessary general strikes or other political strike action are effective means of protest...But should not be undertaken lightly...

Mass mobilisations...maintaining picket lines...Even the kind of occupations we've seen recently with Melbourne University students...are reasonable means of protest and resistance...

And if people were being threatened with being thrown out onto the street - as occurred during the Great Depression - then I think it could be justified to resist eviction...

Burning cars haphazzardly - and directly hurting their innocent owners - as occurred in France - no I don't support that...

In an earlier article of mine - on 'liberal social contract' I make it clear, though, that I don't want to see 'escalation' taken too far...

The question, though, under such circumstances - is that of how far the apparatus of state will go to quash civil disobedience...and thus how far resistance must go in order to resist oppression...

Strong civil disobedience is not to be taken lightly...But liberal and social rights are just as important as democratic representation - and even when a democratic government violates social and liberal rights - resistance can be justified...

I would concede that Mark Latham had a lot going for him and he was treated appallingy by the Labor Caucus. Also, my disillusionment with the Rudd Government grows by the day,

However, the Rudd Government still has a long way to go before it manages to reach the depths stooped to by the former Howard Government and I consider the fact that Mark Latham effectively endorsed John Howard over Kevin Rudd during the 2007 elections to be inexcusable.

I wrote of this in "Mark Latham's political gift to John Howard" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2195