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