The state is not an institution that is made for being nice, or caring, or social justice, or principles. It's about power and, in the case of a democratic state, demagoguery. It is about nothing but expedience - the opposite of principles. All the politicians have to offer is different forms of anti-social grabbing and lying,.

Democracy is antithetical to the institution of private property since, if everyone has an equal say in whether they should be able to help themselves to other people's property, no-one's property is safe, and politics just becomes an unprincipled scramble for mutual plunder, which precisely describes the state of the modern democracies. Economic modernisation has happened in the democracies *despite*, not *because of* democracy.

Democracy is also inherently unstable because it keeps tending closer and closer to socialism which does not and cannot work.

The idea of checks on government, *by* government, is obviously laughable and unworkable. We have only to read the Constitution of the USA to see what a failure this idea has been in practice. (Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention the word 'democracy'. The founding father'sthought it anathema.)

The western democracies, and especially the USA, have a record of chronic aggressive war. Australia is involved in two at the present time; yet it is a non-issue in general.

The monetary policy of the western democracies has also been made an institution of the general confiscation of private property, to fund the instant-grat schemes of governments pandering to the infantile narcissistic sense of entitlement to something for nothing which democracy enables. These inflationary schemes have worked untold economic and social damage, and debauched the value system of the population in favour of consumerism, debt and entitlement to enslave others.

Events in the Middle East show people rejecting the thieving and corruption of the state. If they know what's good for them, they will agitate for less government, not more democracy.

Peter I don't suppose you have been paying attention to the content matter discussed so far have you?

And you do realize that the "nobody's property is safe" line falls apart embarrassingly when you realize that the voters would be aware that what they permit in legislation to 'private property' very much applies to their own?

The only danger to private interests is that they would have to answer to far higher regulation, unless everyone in the society were libertarian at heart.

Your dooms-day scenario would only occur, alternatively, if you have a direct-democracy stocked entirely full of staunch communal socialists- in which case the 'private property' circumstance would be highly unlikely to begin with in their situation.

Haz,

Probably the nearest thing we currently have to direct democracy would be at the local government level, municipal or shire or district or city etc. councils. I've never been to a council meeting, but I get the idea that the discussions there rarely touch on the communalising of property :)

Joe

>Peter I don't suppose you have been paying attention to the content matter discussed so far have you?

Hazza I don’t suppose you have?

>And you do realize that the "nobody's property is safe" line falls apart embarrassingly when you realize that the voters would be aware that what they permit in legislation to 'private property' very much applies to their own?

In case you haven’t noticed, the voters have no power to permit or not permit legislation (apart from referendums). We are compelled to vote, the laws against deceptive conduct do not apply to politicians or governments, and if they do not pass legislation the majority voted for, or do pass legislation the majority voted against, you have no remedy whatsoever. The same or a different party can do exactly the same next time around.

It is a complete furphy to identify the population with the electorate.

Income is taxed, capital gains are taxed, spending is taxed, buying land is taxed, buying cars is taxed multiple times, retirement income is taxed, fuel, tobacco, liquor are taxed, providing goods in kind is taxed, virtually all occupations are taxed - how can you deny that no-one's property is safe from the greed of the statists?.

Regulation of property rights is just forced redistribution by another name. To order the owner to do or not do something with his property is in substance to control it. We do in fact have thoroughgoing socialism now – what market is *not* regulated? - it’s just that the population, brainwashed into believing the lie that “we” are the state, and that forced redistributions are not socialism and are necessary and good, don’t notice.

Just as when local governments spend most of their time deciding whether property owners shall be permitted to use their property, Loudmouth doesn’t notice that this in effect to socialise their property.

Looks like you’re in favour of voluntary society, so long as you don’t have to give up ordering people to obey you?

Sorry, in my last post that should read:
"It is a complete furphy to identify the population with the legislature".

Peter I fully understand the truth in your some of your views, but I don't understand the point.

If we are too allow the free (so called) market economy to determine our destiny, won't stealth capitalists such as China continue to manipulate world economics through currency settings etc anyway, thereby undermining the validity of the Rand like theories you express.

Do you think there should be no free lunches for the underprivileged?. If so how is the good or even for the greater good served ?, unless your trying reduce human population this way,
or increase world conflict and hardship.

Forum posters have been bringing forward examples of business doing even catastrophic things in the name of profits alone, without Gov't (particularly our own) on both sides of politics paying much attention(on our behalf) at all.

No regulations preventing multinational gas giants from pumping 26 untested chemical carcinogens into our aquifers and the great artesian basin. People will have to stand independent candidates and get them elected to have any peoples, or immediate landowning victims individual voices heard. Who speaks for affected flora or fauna in your capitalist free for all model, or future generations in this example?.

Who started this business or Govt. Business of course with State Govt's acquiescing by changing laws suitable to the shareholders of these Companies, not the people of Australia it's ecology or future. Your right Peter Govt stinks, but big business reeks