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.