We are faced with a constant battle to maintain freedom. Hillsong sings In your freedom I shall live. I join in because I believe that the greatest template for individual freedom is written in the New Testament Gospels. You don’t see a lot of lawyers in church.

The practical answer to maintaining freedom is the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law comes out of the New Testament, not the Pauline Scriptures, but the Gospels themselves, which the Sovereign in Australia has sworn to maintain. The actual words of the Coronation Oath 1688 are:

Will you to the utmost of your power maintaine the laws of God the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant reformed religion established by law?

With The Queen referenced forty times in the Australian Constitution and being the ultimate authority, all lawyers should accept that She is the guarantee of freedom, and republics without that guarantee fail. I was failed dismally by an atheist professor for proposing that freedom is guaranteed by jury trials.

Bankruptcy is a type of open imprisonment that severely curtails freedom. The freedom to borrow is removed. The freedom to run for parliament is removed. Today the freedom to earn money is also removed, and many would like to see it as total outlawry, and the freedom to go to court removed too.

The refusal of all Federal Court Judges to allow an appeal to Almighty God in their Courts, curtails freedom, in all cases. The fact that they also fail to maintain their allegiance to the Queen, and instead accept as gospel the words of S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 is sad.

S 39 ; In every suit unless the Court or a Judge otherwise orders, the trial shall be by a Judge without a jury. This denies the freedom to choose. So far the Rudd government has refused to repeal it; Deconstructed it means that the Federal Court cannot comply with S 80 Constitution, and exercise criminal jurisdiction. That it does not comply with S 79 Constitution has not yet been accepted by lawyers

Rowen
"proper regulation of the markets is the medium term challenge for governments, with the key being to not overreact and throw the baby out with the bath water.

If we think of the issue as being how much government: Currently government takes about 50 percent of what everyone produces every day. It spends it on trying to rig prices of everything so that they are different to what they would be in the absence of government intervention.

You are implying that the solution is for more government than we've got now, but less than 100 percent.

But the obvious question is, why less than 100 percent? If it's true that government presumptively knows how to manage the economy best, why not abolish private property altogether and have a more productive, fairer society?

But if it's not true for the whole, how do you know it's true for the part? Where does government get this special magical ability to be more economical than markets and prices? (Hint: it doesn't exist. The existing economic interventions are what's causing the problem. )

The fact is, if government controlled 100 percent of the economy, the result would be mass starvation, economic chaos and the collapse of government itself. We know because the dipsticks like Pelican tried it last century, and it cost over 100 million lives.

These are the people who have the gall to preach about exploitation - they dream of themselves in the role of dictator forcing everyone to obey them in their fantasy of the ideal society in which we can get something for nothing by simply passing laws. All economic problems are solved because the magic wand of government imposes a stasis on everything.

We already know that the reason central planning failed is because it generates surpluses and shortages in all the wrong places. What makes you think that's not what's causing the crisis?

The reason we have government intervention is not because it is necesary or desirable but because it is a stable equilibrium between parasite and host.

Rowan said "In many respects, it is this sort of capitalism that got us (primarily, the United States, and consequently the world) into this mess."

Personally, I think the ones who started a snow ball rolling are more guilty than the ones who let its mass exponentially increase; primarily due to obtuse US Democrats.

Youtube is full of videos showing the complete inanity of American Democrats when Republicans tried to take them to task over the crazy lending practises during Senate hearings.

The Clinton administration took Freddie Mac and Fannie May to Federal Court over discriminatory lending practises and won. (ie not approving loans to people who in all likely hood could not pay them back)

Clinton's mob won and the Fed Court ordered all relevant institutions to alter their lending practises.

The Democrats were in power two years before Obama was sworn in as President and yet he denies Democratic involvement so often it has become mantra.

The only Presidential Candidate who made an effort to avert the financial meltdown was John McCain.

The Senate oversight committee that exercised managerial control over the banks had Democrats as a majority. B Franks for one.

The following was written by Ron Paul.

Our years of living beyond our means, of buying everything on credit and on money printed out of thin air, are over. Sure, our government will carry on with its nonsensical policy of curing indebtedness with more indebtedness, inflation with more inflation, but the game is up. It's not going to work. The resources aren't there. The more we intervene and the more we prop up economic zombies, the worse off we'll be. But the sooner we understand what has happened, assess our economic situation honestly, and rebuild our economy on a sound foundation, the sooner our fortunes will be restored.

Ideas still matter, and sound economic education has rarely been as urgently necessary as it is today.

That's true, Cowboy Joe. The Democrats stupidly forced banks to alter their lending practices.

But what was the reaction of the investment bankers - the guys the Republicans would like to hand the world economy over to? Did they protest loudly at banks lending to borrowers who would certainly default? Did they refuse to handle the toxic loans?

Nope.

They packaged them up with ever more complex "instruments" and gleefully sold them on to boost their own portfolios, and the world economy be damned.

Blame the Democrats - they deserve it - but don't pretend the Republicans did anything to stand in the way.