The Australian Constitution unlike the USA, does not include a Bill of Rights.While many say that a Bill of rights will be a lawyers paradise for more litigation,this can be tempered with with a Bill of Responsibilities that clearly delineates Govt ,corporate and individual reponsibilities.We could limit Govt in running up huge deficits,and lawyers/individuals with their vexatious litigation claims.We also need the stop the powerful Corporate influence over our Govts.

So many people who come to Australia are over whelmed by the Govt intrusion into all our lives,particularily at a state level.It is far worse here than Europe and the USA.

I say we need a Libertarian movement like "Freedom Watch" begun by Judge Andew Napolatano in the USA. http://freedomwatchonfox.com/

The "nanny state" must cease to exist and we as individuals take control,since Govt cannot possibly replace the sum total of responsible individuals nurtured by survival and the urge for a better life. We need smaller Govt,lower taxes and more autonomy as individuals.

Can you give us some examples of govt intrusion, I am not sure at what level you are talking about.

Desmond ,where have you been for the last 20 yrs.It pervades our entire lives,from traffic control,cameras,variable speeds to catch us out for more fines,OH&S which no business can comply with,employment regulation,building regulations,water regulation,and now carbon taxes,possible taxes on cow flatulance.Drivers fined for smoking in their cars if there is a child on board.This is ludacris.The list goes on.

Look at the insanity of compulsory seatbelts.Motor cyclists don't wear them because it makes it even more dangerous than being in a car.Well using this logic,motor cycles should then be banned.Let the individual take reponsibility and then insurance companies can pay out less on accidents if you weren't wearing one.Problem solved.

I always wonder what people mean by libertarian because from what can be gauged from some reports is the right to the freedom to exploit others. Certainly at the corporate and business level anyway.

Surely commonsense has to prevail. A balance between private and public concerns without an overly-bureacratic government is the ideal isnt' it?

I don't see traffic cameras or RBT for example as great burdens on the public by the nanny state. The road death toll has been reduced since those measures were implemented.

What would be worse, a nanny state or a group of self-appointed liberation groups all with their own cause to push onto the rest of us.

The trick is to ensure the nanny state does not become too big brother, too bogged down in red-tape and regulation where it is not needed. Some regulation is obviously needed - we have the GFC to prove that.

There are many other ways to balance nanny state - afterall we elect the nannies, than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Arjay that is incredible that you can think that way.
We must have laws so people can be protected against themselves.
As far as speed cameras go, you know how to avoid fines.
If we didn't have building regs; the place would be a shambles.
Smoking in cars with kids on board, you have got be joking.
I don't think you will get to many to agree with you on this one.

Pelican

Great commonsense post from you, as always. :)

Arjay

I find a lot of your thinking contradictory. On the one hand, you rail against the corporate excesses that have lead to the global financial crisis. And yet on the other, you argue against all forms of government regulation.

It was the massive winding back of government regulatory frameworks in the 1980s under Thatcher and Reagan which directly lead to the recent banking collapse. The main reason Australia has fared better than the UK and the US is that we didn't dismantle our regulation to the same extent. If we'd had Howard in power during the eighties, he'd have followed their lead and Australia would be much worse off than it is. The more government regulation is stripped away the more power is handed to huge corporations and the greater the growth in wealth disparity.

As pointed out by Pelican, government does at times go too far and we can all point to examples of bureaucratic madness. But on balance I think we've got the mix fairly right in Australia. There are always improvements to be made, but stripping away all regulation, good and bad, is only going to exacerbate the problems we're already facing.

Australia for example has one of the lowest roadtolls in the world. That's no accident. It's because roads and drivers are well regulated and enforcement is relatively strong.

Regulations such as carbon taxes, water restrictions and sustainable building codes are needed if we're to avoid catastrophic climate disruption. We don't have time to wait for all the denialists, the procrastinators and the apathetic to voluntarily make the changes so urgently needed. Government has to step in and move the agenda forward.

Likewise, with the growing epidemic of ill health and the massive tax burden it's imposing on us all, government needs to take the lead and protect those who don't know, or don't care, from their own excesses - with restrictions on advertising, improved labelling codes and banning of dangerous substances.

Or better yet, we could introduce CIR so any nanny-state excesses can be stripped from the public life while those people feel necessary can remain;

traffic control- why is this bad? It's important that road-rules are observed as disregarding many of them may endanger other road users. However, certain rules and conditions the public has the right to change if considered unnecessary or dubious. Also, it's important that traffic control remains under a public-owned and accountable central authority that operates not-for-profit- to ensure maximum uniformity to road rules and minimize cost and corruption.

Cameras, variable speed limits/fines:
I'd merely remove the cameras from non-accident prone areas, and increase the margin of error allowed by speeders so only people driving at definitely unsafe speeds would be caught, as opposed to exceeding the speed limit alone. Variable speed limits outside roadwork and other major changes of conditions should simply be overwritten. I'm sure many road users would agree.

OH&S,employment-building-water regulation-
-are all completely acceptable and arguably necessary- I don't see any honest need or motive to disregard these issues besides stinginess, laziness and greed. Unless there is an exception I'm overlooking that can be brought to my attention. Same deal with initiating a referendum/ starting a petition.

"and now carbon taxes,possible taxes on cow flatulance." I also oppose.

"Drivers fined for smoking in their cars if there is a child on board." Alsp important. Smoking is a health risk towards others and the driver may well be damaging the health of somebody else. And keep in mind that some of the kids in the car might not be his. This is why laws are so important, to restrict specific personally-entitled "rights" that harm others.

"Look at the insanity of compulsory seatbelts. Let the individual take reponsibility and then insurance companies can pay out less on accidents if you weren't wearing one.Problem solved."
Absolutely agree with this bit.

In short, some of this impositions are ridiculous- but most are perfectly acceptable to counter corruption or the creation of other detrimental circumstances to the harm of others- which is why I find Libertarianism unnecessary.

Definitely the intrusion of government in Australia is worse than in the rest of the western world, it is stupid and it definitely hurts. I could add some more examples and if there should be a libertarian party here I would certainly vote for it.

However, Arjay, a Bill of Rights? whom are you asking to give you this bill of rights? the nanny state itself? Your birth-rights are the most natural God-given, by virtue of who you are alone, you don't need anyone to bestow these or you - if you do, it seems that you have forgotten who you are!

You already have right to do as you please, hopefully doing your best to avoid hurting others on the way, then people in government, who are individuals like yourself, also have the right to make whatever laws they want, but then you still have the right to follow or not to follow what they say, then they can make the choice to use violence and put you in jail for not doing what they say (which will eventually backfire on them, but that is their choice), while you have the right to try to escape and/or topple them and replace them with better and more humble people.

At the end of the day, no bill can replace individual free choice. You gave the example of the USA, but think about that: in the USA, despite the official Bill or Rights, there is the highest percentage of imprisoned citizens in the whole world.

Now, specifically regarding fines and taxes: as the government prints money, why should they not be able to place conditions on its use? you have the perfect right to live your own life, ignoring them and their money, but it seems hypocrisy to me to be using their money yet complain about the conditions they impose on it.

Once again, you seem hell-bent on tying yourself in knots, Arjay.

And you are treading in some hitherto unexplored zones.

>>While many say that a Bill of rights will be a lawyers paradise for more litigation,this can be tempered with with a Bill of Responsibilities that clearly delineates Govt ,corporate and individual reponsibilities.<<

Reams and reams of stuff has been written on a Bill of Rights. Very little has been aired on the topic of a Bill of Responsibilities. It would help untangle a few of your thought processes if you would expand a little on the responsibilities that you would ask these various constituencies to sign up for.

For example, government. You cite, as an example of government intrusion:

"traffic control,cameras,variable speeds to catch us out for more fines"

If you were drafting a Bill of Responsibilities for the government, where would you draw the line on their ability to prevent motorists speeding, which has been known to cause fatal accidents?

Do you regard this as an entirely personal responsibility? That is, the state cannot tell you how fast you are allowed to drive your car, because that is an individual Responsibility?

So on the one hand you have the Arjay Bill of Rights, that says you have a right to non-interference in your life through the use of traffic cameras. And on the other, the Arjay Bill of Responsibilities that says... what?

I'm only using this as an example. I have no problem with the concept of balancing rights with responsibilities, just a little (read: completely) dubious of their practicality, once you try to codify them.

After all, one person's right (yours to drive like a lunatic) needs to be balanced against another's, to feel safe on the road.

But Arjay, we HAVE a libertarian movement here. What else would you call yourself and the other LaRouchians?

Just because it's a joke doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not so worried about some of the trivial examples of over-regulation that have been cited here, but I am very concerned about stuff like the current Bill before the WA parliament that seeks to give police the power to stop and search anybody, without even the pretence that a crime has been committed, or is about to be.

There was a good article about it in Saturday's Weekend Oz:

http://tiny.cc/7g1DI

If they get away with this extraordinary extension of police powers in WA, I have no doubt that Qld and other States will follow suit. Scary stuff indeed.

I don't think the ordinary joe has got any thing to worry about being searched. It's these young blokes getting around with knives and machetties.
Besides that you could search me any time they like, what are you worried about.

CJ,

You should come to NSW.

Did you miss APEC?

I still remember that guy being tackled to the ground and arrested in front of his 7yo child for crossing the street at the wrong place.

Or World Youth Day?

They wanted to pass a law where you could be fined $5500 for annoying pilgrims.

Anything that could possibly embarrass the government is grounds for deprivation of liberty of the populace. That, and the need to have an exclusive picnic with complete turf and cows on vital transport infrastructure.

Desmond,

When you get searched, how do you prove the officer didn't plant that bag of drugs they find in your top pocket?

Oooh how I love a 'nothing to hide'r.

I'll be round about 10 tonight to look through your wife's underwear drawer. Should be fun.

This is crazy.

Unless you can point to systemic human rights abuses in this country, why on earth would you want to introduce a whole new raft of laws?

For example, I know that there is dicussion in some quaters to define a fetus as human, which would outlaw abortions, etc.

Only the loony left and greens could benefit from the huge opportunity to block anything from happenning without their stamp of approval.

the American Bill of Rights didn't prevent the murder of thousands, sanctioned by Bush's puppet-masters (9/11 they call it) as a manufactured excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Turn the TV off permanently, occasionally read a foreign newspaper with opposite political views to your own, embrace the scientific advances in knowledge over the last generation, read lots of history, and get a job with less responsibility than the one you got!

Instant Liberty.

Just leave the sad-case politicians to do the unpleasant job of relating to other politicians, it's quite easy, the only cost is one worthless vote.

I'm impressed that there are now so many people beginning to think for themselves.We need freedom of thought,since without it,we become slaves of Govt and the Corporates.

Pericles it would indeed be difficult to codify rights and responsibilities,but it could be done in general terms with some clever wording.

Yuyutsu I agree.I don't have time to answer to all posts but implore all of you to see this movie."Fall of the Republic" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Arjay
I totally agree with you that we need a libertarian movement here. Australians have forgotten what it means to live in a free country. I have been to military dictatorships where the people enjoy more personal liberty than we do in Australia. We have become a nation of intolerant, risk-averse, fussy-pants, constantly crying to government to fix anything and everything: superstitious worshippers of the state.

Pelican
What people mean by libertarian is that you should be free to do what you want, so long as you are not aggressing against or defrauding others.

Most everyone agrees with that, it's just that they don't count government as aggressing against or defrauding others. They should. Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force and threats: if you don't pay, or obey, men armed with weapons will come around to your place, physically grab hold of you, and lock you in a cage. And if you don't submit, they will shoot you. That's how they get their money.

Similarly, while fraud is against the law for private persons, and so it should be, there is no law stopping politicians from promising something to get voted in, and then breaking their promise. You can't sue them for damages. So both force and fraud are legal for government.

'But' you might say 'It's for the greater good.' Well that's the issue, isn't it? The question is, where to draw the line? The problem is that people want to use the government, to call the police, to enforce anything that is a matter of opinion, whether or not people are harming others. So for example, they will get a bee in their bonnet about childhood obesity, and decide that tuckshops are something government should be policing.

All
Here's a libertarian test for you: what area of life do you think government is *not* justified in controlling?

Good question Peter Hume.
That will be interesting how well that can be answered.

"what area of life do you think government is *not* justified in controlling?"

A government is not there to control - it is to serve, so the answer is EVERYTHING.

The mandate of a government is to serve people, so a pre-condition for any government activity is that there are actual people involved who request the service. People who are not involved, don't count!

Services may include for example health; education; creating and backing-up an economy; external defence; and the most contentious one: internal defence.

Typically, the area of economy is where governments can make most rules and regulations, because (assuming) this serves the wishes of many people to create a complex mechanism to enhance trading. So long as there is a way for individuals to not take part in, or even to opt out of that economy, it is OK for laws about how-to-and-how-not-to-use the economy to be quite elaborate and limiting.

Now for the hard part, internal defence, where state needs to interfere with some people in order to protect others:
It is never right to defend a person against herself or a group-in-agreement against each other unless they ask for it (this obviously excludes the case where non-consenting other(s) are also hurt by the same acts).

However, certain common-sense assumptions need to be made, by default so long as there is no indication to the contrary, for example:

1. People generally want to be protected against violence by strangers.
2. Even people who do not seek protection against certain forms(s) of violence by particular other(s), are likely to seek protection had they knew that the grounds on which they accept the violence against them is fraudulent.
3. Minors don't yet have an understanding about what is violence and what it means to be protected, but if they had this understanding they would be likely to ask for protection.

So this is a brief summary of what governments MAY do. What functions out of it they actually perform, when and where, should be subject to the wishes of the people who established the government, typically by majority voting.

Correct. But there are a lot of people who think a particular thing that happened to them, Who can't see why we have laws, dosen't relate to them.

Peter Hume,"What area of life is Govt not justified in controlling?"
An excellent question.As Govt takes over resopsibility of individual actions,so do individuals become more irresponsible.If there are no serious consequences for poor behaviour,individuals will not learn from their mistakes.There is an elitist attitude that only the educated know the true path of civilisation.They remove from the individual by way of Govt handouts,the trial of evolution and the ability to be truely autonomous.If there is no discipline in the schools,how can children learn about sacrificing present pleasures, for future gain?

Both we and the USA are on the verge of being a totalitarian state.Kevin Rudd is pushing through an ETS [Emissions Trading Scam]with no consultation with the electorate.This is not democracy!Why the urgency,when what we do now,will not affect so called AGW one iota? What about the Hadley Centre debacle that our corporate media cowardly refrain from mentioning?It is a lie and a scam!

Again,I urge you all to see "Fall of the Republic" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

If you want copies of this CD, contact Nick Sykes, nskyes@exemail.com.au

It puts together the whole economic,political,economic ,climate,war dilemmas we now all face.It is a must see,if you want your children to have a future based on liberty and true democracy.

Interesting post about the lack of autonomy in ordinary life.
It begins early in "school". The machine takes over and every life is swept along.
Almost from the time infants first embrace themselves as a separate individual, they are harnessed into the system. They are told what to learn and how to learn it..
Under our system of education, children quickly lose the ability to think for themselves, so accustomed are they to being directed in their tasks. Compare this to the first few years of life that if left unfettered are filled with self-directed learning.
No wonder we have a country filled with adults who, although they yearn for liberty, wait patiently to be directed by the powers that be.

As a libertarian,

An individual should be free to excercise his will and preferences and live his life as he deems fit. The only restriction is that what he/she does, does not negatively impact on others.

The purpose of government is to promote this for all its citizens by providing the infrastructure and regulatory background to maximise this.

For example council planning is to ensure that the building is safe, and does not negatively impact on the neighbourhood.

Where the government oversteps its bounds is when it regulates based on a particular group "being offended", if this does not negatively affect their ability to live their life, then the gov has no need to legislate.

Shadow Minister
"The only restriction is that what he/she does, does not negatively impact on others."

That definition is too broad. Everything we do may negatively impact on others. For example if I buy a kilo of butter for $1 instead of the same amount at the same quality from a different producer for $2, I am negatively impacting on the guy who is producing the more expensive butter. All human action consists of preferring A to B, so all human action may negatively impact on others. If that were the definition, no-one would be entitled to any freedom.

That only restriction should be that one may not *initiate force* against the person or property of others.

Yuyutsu
Whether or not governments should serve their constituents, they always do control them. Government is a legal monopoly on the use of force, and force is always behind all governmental action for several reasons:
- taxation is, by law, a compulsory impost. It is not a payment for a service. It is a forced confiscation of someone else's property without their consent. If people agreed to pay tax, then we could just abolish the whole tax system, couldn't we? The whole point of it is that you don't agree.
- the money thus taken is used to pay for armed men to physically force the people, or threaten to force them, to submit and obey.

So governments initiate force to take your property. (Since you got it by working, the effect is take from you that part of your life that was spent working.)

Then, with that money, they pay for further violations of your liberty and property.

The question is, what could justify this?

To suggest that government regulation 'enhances' trading, is to imply that one or more persons gains a benefit, at no-one else's expense. This is not true. All government benefits are always at the expense of someone else.

Also, as those who wish to opt out, cannot do so, such regulations are unjustifiable on that ground too.

Shadow Minister,

Obviously controlling and the inability to opt out is an evil, yet it is not accurately the case because anyone is still free to opt out at any time: yes, they can destroy our body if we do (which does not imply that I agree to them doing so), but nobody can control us.

Taxation is not compulsory: one only has to pay tax if they earn money. If you do not fall into the temptation of using the money which governments print, then nobody will ask you to pay tax.

Instead of just blaming the government for everything, why not introspect and also blame ourselves for being so rotten-spoiled?

I agree with Shadow- and the grounds for differentiating what constitutes an act of negatively effecting others are quite simple.

Not buying from someone isn't so much as an act that negatively affects others but neglecting or refusing to act to positively effect someone. That person is not making life WORSE for the other seller- merely refusing to help make his life (hypothetically) better. However, infringing road rules, or not observing building/planning regulations CAN negatively impact someone's lives as they may be obtrusive or unsafe.

Now, another issue is lack of differentiation from government as a service provider and government as an entity of control. Short answer is it entirely boils down to how much democracy the public actually GETS- our government has absolute control over our lives and virtually no public control over itself (and, I might add reneging on its public services)- but a public with high amount of governance can simply decide for itself what services it is willing to pay for itself through a central body or not.
Problem solved.
As far as I'm concerned, a goverment's ONLY purpose is to provide services to the public.

(also left out the role of police, judiciary, crime, military defense etc- unless you think these too can be despensed with a different proposition)

Peter,

The first paragraph was statement of principle. The application of which will required compromise and a balance between the negative impact or the restriction of freedom.

If you had continued on to the next paragraph, I said: "The purpose of government is to promote this for all its citizens by providing the infrastructure and regulatory background to maximise this."

My issue is that there are too many vocal "outraged" citizen groups that are intent on restricting everyone's actions based on real or imaginary threats.

A prime example is that I am no longer allowed to take photos of my children on the beach, in case there is amongst the thousands of parents one pervert that might use the photos for self gratification.

I could go on and on, but my case is clear. Any law that restricts the freedom of citizens, must address a clear and substantial threat, which has a demonstrable significant negative impact.

If individuals are given more responsibility,then they will know via life's experiences what is necessary for communial survival.

When Govt takes away these experiences via regulation and excessive taxes,the individual then becomes more irresponsible and thus has no incentive to be productive or efficient.

Thus today to counter act this decline in human behaviour,we see more draconian laws and regulation that diminish both our freedoms and economic prosperity.We are spiralling backwards.

We are living in the process of decay right now.When will we realise the truth?

First I have yet to see this famous Australian constitution. Perhaps someone as learned as Desmond might provide a link.
Second the USA has a bill of rights . Australia doesn’t have anything resembling such a bill. It’s not even a signatory to the human rights bill (international law) which China and Russia are. Fat lot of good that is for the Chinese who farm their population for body parts, but at least they’re capable of realizing what human rights are.
Next what is “the government not justified in controlling ‘what a load of codswallop “which I note sucked Desmond into thinking the article proves his asinine position is right.
As can be seen in the imperfect world we have today , no government has the perfect solution , but one that allow checks and balances to work (USA ) has got to be better than one that doesn’t e.g. Australia.
Thus all proponents of totalitarian governments would be getting alongside Desmond and his anti - rights Nazis that act without understanding that government is about democracy not rule.
It’s about freedom not domination.
And it about openness not this closed media controlled police state that supposedly calls itself a democracy e.g. Australia

thomasfromtacoma,the USA is currently living in the shadow of Bush opression.Much of the US constitution is presently being ignored under the Parriot Act and Bush's presidential orders.

Our media here are not portraying the real tensions existing in the US at the moment.It is on a knife edge.The US $ is on the verge of a sudden collapse,and this could easily see civil unrest.

Kevin Rudd has just tried to steam roller through an ETS tax,without any consultation on the detail.Why the urgency when we are miniscule in affecting the possibilities of so called AGW? Everyone else can wait till next year,but not the puppy dog Kevin,who will roll over on a whim,whenever the UN or Obama scratches his belly.

Kevin Rudd is the most pathetic Prime Minister we have had in decades.He will betray his own country for a UN posting.

Arjay,
Let’s take this point by point.
I believe Barack Obama is the new president in America.
The patriot act was no doubt take down from the Australian police, who reserve the right to imprison without trial, to deprive the right so readily available to Americans of free representation for any allegation.
So the Obama administration whilst understandably under the influence of the effect of Bush international policy is changing things as quickly as it can.
Now back to the original libertarianism discussion.
The bill of rights doesn’t exist in Australia or a signatory the human rights code of international law.
The police state exists in Australia because you don’t have a DA based legal system , but a Public Prosecution Police controlled system that is so full of abuse it’s a wonder anything is achieved, apart from politically motivated arrests.
When you realize that the checks and balances don’t exist in Australia, then you will become aware that any system that has these checks and balances is preferable to one that doesn’t. It is the checks and balance that allow political progress.
Next the political system in the USA works because it represents the people at the grass roots of society, not as in Australia where there is no responsibility till the state government level, obviously far too late to do anything.
The federal political scene is of course far worse with there being 26 prime ministerial elections since federation (1901), whiles the USA has had 44 since initiating the bill of rights.
Pro rata an efficiency of 80% for the USA, even though the requirement of term is 8 years maximum for any president!
It makes the argument of costly re- elections (put forward by the government) to be pathetically immoral, let alone the monarchical type of election whereby Howard and Hawke and Keating have dominated politics for decades.